United93 Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Longevity, much less watchability, seems to be the last priority of filmmakers these days, thanks in no small part to the importance of opening-weekend grosses, the increased prominence of DVD and Blu-ray bonus materials, and the fact that more movies than ever seem to occupy space in our collective consciousness. But when a movie is really, truly good, none of that should matter, right? We should be able to watch and revisit and indulge and enjoy just as much every time we see it, from here until the end of time - or at least that's the thinking.

Unfortunately, that simply doesn't seem to be the case, whether it's because the movie is too weighted with importance to make it casual viewing, its effectiveness is directly linked to our discomfort or unease watching it, or maybe we just appreciated all there was to enjoy the first time and don't need to see it again to "get it." As such, we've put together a list of personal favorite films that we really don't want to see again, those titles that you go, yeah, it's great alright, but you don't need to subject yourself to repeat viewings to know or remind yourself. In order of ascending importance:

One might chalk up a reluctance to cry at the movies to having sat through roughly four hundred of them a year and grown numb to the more melodramatic efforts. And yet I can't say that I've ever been given much cause to shed tears in the theater or at home, even from the earliest years of my moviegoing. I'd be willing to admit it -- heck, I believe that I'm just about to -- but I've just never been one to end up wiping at my cheeks when the lights come up, and yet more and more often, I find myself wondering: Why not?

Are the filmmakers to blame for failing in other respects to elicit tears for these characters and the fates they face? Sometimes. Am I to blame for coming in on guard, waiting for a film to get at me and maybe throwing up some hurdles along the way if there's no lack of trying? Perhaps. Isn't it acceptable to feel something without showing it, and to do so without being labeled a callous bastard? You better believe it.

The Onion AV Club is unquestionably my favorite entertainment-focused website (other than Cinematical, of course!). Their outstanding coverage of all things pop culture suggests an indie-leaning Entertainment Weekly, and I consider that a very good thing. They always do a great weekly list, and one of their recent offerings is no exception. Check out "Not Again: 24 Great Films Too Painful to Watch Twice." The first movie I thought of when I saw that title was Requiem for a Dream, so it's fitting that they put it in the #1 spot (not sure if these are in order of "most painful" or not). I saw Requiem for a Dream in college -- on a double date! So imagine not only suffering through one of the toughest movies of all time in a theater, but suffering through it with a hyperventilating girl you're trying to get to first base with! Needless to say, it didn't work out.

Though I don't think it's a "great film" by any stretch of the imagination, I can certainly see why Irreversible (#13 on the list) was included. I don't know if I physically could stomach that one a second time. I remember convincing my friends to come see it with me by telling them "It's supposed to be just like Memento!" It was not just like Memento. I still shudder when I walk past a fire extinguisher. I must be a masochist, because I either would watch or have watched several of the movies on their list more than once -- United 93, Million Dollar Baby, Audition, Leaving Las Vegas, etc. There's a lot of good rental ideas for those with a taste for challenging fare, so fire up your Netflix queue and head on over to the link. Just don't plan any parties around these flicks! How about you guys, what is a great film you could never sit through a second time?

In a summer laden with big-budget, CGI-heavy action movies, there is only one film whose protagonist can say, "I beat the crap out of a man using a rolled-up magazine." As you may have guessed, that man is Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), the impossible-to-kill hero of this August's The Bourne Ultimatum. We have an exclusive first look at the brand-new poster below (click on the image for a larger version).

Directed by Paul Greengrass (United 93, The Bourne Supremacy), this is likely to be the last chapter in the already legendary Bourne saga. This time around, expect another kickass car chase (the franchise is known for them) and a whole lot more of the visceral, gritty, realistic action that sets the Bourne movies apart from so many other films in the genre. As the poster's tag line suggests, Ultimatum will also see everyone's favorite amnesiac spy experience a little something known as "total recall." And from the looks of the trailer, that is not going to be a good thing for the bad guys.

Now that Paul Greengrass has won the hearts of American audiences and critics with United 93, he could easily keep hidden his political criticisms of the U.S. and hope for a prolific career in Hollywood. But he doesn't seem to want the easy life. Once the director finishes post-production on The Bourne Ultimatum, he is set to begin work on a film about the aftermath of the Iraq War. He will write a script based on Rajiv Chandrasekaran's non-fiction book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone, and then direct the film for Universal.

Greengrass is no stranger to Iraq. Ten years ago he made a movie for British television called The One That Got Away, about an operation during Desert Storm. His hand-held documentary style is perfectly suited for the discord of the region and its post-invasion events, though he will probably bring something original to the project that hasn't yet been seen in the actual documentaries coming out of the Iraq War.

Despite his putting out mostly apolitical work since arriving in Hollywood, he is typically a political filmmaker and we can probably expect a very critical position from him here. Chandrasekaran's book apparently reveals the failures of the U.S. occupation and presents the whole thing as a major historical disaster. The Washington Post journalist does depict some involved individuals in a good light, though. If Greengrass can keep it as honest and balanced, he might be able to keep some of his patriotic audience.

Even if you consider Borat (full title not necessary) to be primarily a scripted work, it is still a film that works best in its unscripted sequences. This is debatable, sure, but I would like someone at the Writers Guild to tell me what was so great about the actual screenplay used. Personally, I think the scripted parts, as well as the adherence to the plot, are the weakest elements.

Nonetheless, Sacha Baron Cohen and his five collaborators are nominated for a Writers Guild Award for Adapted Screenplay. And despite my questioning of this recognition, I don't really prefer any of its competition. The other titles in the adapted category are Little Children, The Departed, The Devil Wears Prada and Thank You for Smoking. If I had to choose, I'd go with the last of these, but I think the prize will go to the overrated Little Children.

I also don't think the Original Screenplay category is that great, either. The nominees for that award are Little Miss Sunshine, Babel, United 93, Stranger Than Fiction and The Queen. Again, I'd have to go with the last of these, but predict the overrated first.

Hopefully, unlike with other guild awards, the WGA's honors will not reflect the Oscar nominations, which may recognize foreign films Volver and Pan's Labyrinth, which were ineligible here.

The Online Film Critics Society (of which Cinematical's own Scott Weinberg is a member) have spoken, and named their picks for the best films, performances and more of 2006. A recent arrival to the critic's boards awards season, the OFCS has been known for slightly off-center picks that often speak to very different sensibility than print and broadcast critics. As if to demonstrate this very point, a brief persual of the nominees and winners (designated in bold) after the jump will reveal that the OFCS has recognized a broad and fascinating slate of films in 2006 -- including Best Picture honors for United 93, plus individual wins for Oscar dark-horses like Borat, The Fountain, A Scanner Darkly and Children of Men. ...

According to John Horn of the L.A. Times, the film critics of Dallas/Ft. Worth are the best at predicting the Oscars. Yes, the DFA Film Critics Association frequently chooses as its own pick for best picture the same film that goes on to win best picture at the Academy Awards. And when I say frequently, I mean that the group has done this in four of the past five years. Last year they didn't pick Crash (not that anybody saw that coming save for Chicago, right?). Horn doesn't mention that they also didn't match in 2000.

This year, the DFAFCA has picked United 93 as their favorite film of 2006, so as long as Crash was just a fluke, it probably should get the Oscar. Horn doesn't analyze any of the other categories nor how Dallas/Ft. Worth correlates with the Oscars in them, so I took a look myself. In the major categories the group is as scattered with the hits and misses as any group. The actress has matched only twice in six years; the actor three times.

But it is a good bet this time the group's picks for actor and actress will be honored in February. Like nearly every other group in the country, it went with Mirren and Whitaker. Supporting actor and actress were a bit more interesting, going to Jackie Earle Haley and Cate Blanchett (for Notes on a Scandal), respectively. Though the comeback kid Haley did well with NY and SF critics, I'm pretty sure that this is Blanchett's first critic group mention (she is nominated for the Satellite and the Golden Globe). As far as how the DFWFCA rates compared to the supporting Oscars, it has matched only one actor and one actress in six years.

The group does fairly well with best director, picking four of the last six Oscar-winners. Their pick this year is Martin Scorsese (as it was in '04).

The rest of the awards, which are more or less with the majority, can be read here.

In case you haven't been paying attention, today is filled with Critics Circle Awards news. There are still a few major cities, Chicago for example, who haven't yet announced their picks, but so far, with the New York Film Critics Circle picks added in, it looks like a complete sweep for the King (Forest Whitaker of The Last King of Scotland) and the Queen (Helen Mirren of The Queen) in the lead acting categories. It isn't quite, though, if you take into account that Whitaker tied with Sacha Baron Cohen (for Borat) for the Los Angeles best actor spot. Otherwise, can we assume that these will be our Oscar winners? Hey, you never know -- Philip Seymour Hoffman almost swept last year's critics awards (NY and SF went with Heath Ledger) and he was a lock.

The rest of the NYFCC awards were like a snatch and grab of the rest we've seen so far. United 93, Half Nelson, Martin Scorsese and Jennifer Hudson were represented yet again. The group had a few surprises, however. Best supporting actor went to former child actor Jackie Earle Haley for Little Children and the foreign language pick was Army of Shadows, which Jean-Pierre Melville made more than 35 years ago.

The Screengrab has an interesting inside story on the voting process Monday morning (held at a conference room at Star Magazine). Some of the juiciest revelations are that the best picture category was nearly a tie (it was 12-10, United 93 over The Queen); that technically A Scanner Darkly might have won best animated film had Andrew Sarris not been in the bathroom during the category's vote; that Army of Shadows won only because of a tight battle between The Death of Mr. Lazarescu and Volver. This really goes to show how a group's awards don't necessarily reflect the choices of all of its critics.

Anyway, to keep up with all the Awards season winners, check out the Movie City News scoreboard.

Check out the full list of NYFCC winners after the jump.

Last year, AFI dove eagerly into a sea of drama and politics. They cuddled with Brokeback Mountain and got whiplash with Crash. With only an old virgin to keep them afloat, it seems that the AFI powers-that-be started to sink into the drama, and were happy to be rescued by the smiling lifesaver of 2006. Unlike the heaviness of the groups previous choices, this year's choices are ... different to say the least.

First comes the familiar -- the films that aren't surprising. There's some overseas drama with Letters from Iwo Jima and Babel. For home flavor, there's the indie teacher drama, Half Nelson, Spike Lee's Inside Man, United 93, and some music with Dreamgirls. So far, so not surprising. It's a decent range of dramatic choices, although by no means complete.

Then comes the smiling life saver. There's a penguin with Happy Feet, for starters. Top that off with two huge indie hits -- Borat: Cultural Learnings Of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan and Little Miss Sunshine, and you hit some mainstream, some satire, and one hell of a Miss Sunshine performance. But then -- and this is where I get really confused -- there is The Devil Wears Prada. When I wiped away the eye-rolling feelings of superiority from her friends, the fat comments (which may be accurate, but are still scary), and a few other too-cheery moments, I liked the film. I wasn't sad to have seen it, or to have even spent the extra coin to see it in a cushy theatre with seat service. However, that being said, is AFI so desperate for relief from last year that they went a little too far in the other direction?