Kelsey Ford Interview

If you have gone to see Adventureland this weekend you might be
shocked to see a familiar face. Originally from Medina, Kelsey Ford
stars as Arlene, the heart-breaker who provides the catalyst that
pushes the rest of the film. Not only is she a great young actress,
she is gorgeous, brilliant, and witty, and luckily for me, she gave me
the chance to ask her a few questions.

Q. What was appealing about taking on the role in Adventureland?

A. When the opportunity presented itself what I was most taken by was
the amazing cast involved in the film. It was my first major work and
I felt so lucky to be involved with a great group.

Q. How would you sum up your role?

A. Arlene is a genuinely great girl who is simply feeling suffocated
by her situation.

Q. What was your parent’s response to the film?

A. They were very loving and supportive. They have encouraged me
through the entire process and I can’t thank them enough for that.

Q. Who was the best person you got a chance to work with?

A. Greg Mottola. He has a great vision for everything and knows
exactly what he wants. He knew exactly what he wanted from me and that
made my job easier.

Q. What has been your biggest influence and or inspiration in your life?

A. I would have to say my family. Like I said before they have been
extremely supportive and loving throughout the entire process. They
always gave me the freedom to do what I wanted to do without passing
judgment knowing it would make me a better person in the future.

Q. What do you consider to be your perfect role?

A. That is a hard question to answer because sometimes the things you
like the most are the things that are the hardest to portray, but they
are also the most rewarding. However I do have a lot of interest in
playing a 1940’s journalist, in the vein of His Girl Friday or The
Hudsucker Proxy.

Q. Who is your favorite Actor or Actress?

A. Natalie Wood. No questions asked. I love how versatile and
vulnerable she can be.

Q. What is your favorite movie of all time?

A. Well right now it is Adventureland of course, but I really like The
Hudsucker Proxy a lot.

Q. If you could work with any director in the future who would it be?

A. I really like Gus Van Sant and Spike Jones, and it would be really
cool to work with the Coen Brothers.

Q. If you had one piece of advice to give what would it be?

A. Support people and their dreams. It is never your place or anyone
else’s to belittle others or deny them a chance at their dreams.

Q. What is on the horizon for Kelsey Ford?

A. I have a great Indie film in production called Broken Dreams
directed by David Crabtree, a webseries that you will be able to find
on www.hulu.com called Waxing Platonic, a short film called Acting
Class, and a webseries you can currently find on www.funnyordie.com
and www.vimeo.com called Overshare.

Whatever it is that Kelsey does in the future I’m sure there will be
many rooting for her to succeed. It is very hard not to root for
someone as well grounded and hard working as her. I look for her to be
the next great American Indie actress. The world is in front of her
and hopefully she will be seen as the great talent that she is. I look
forward to seeing more from her in the future.

Adventureland

For fans of John Hughes, yearning to relive the days of The Breakfast Club, Pretty In Pink, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and all the awkwardness that went along with it, fear not because Greg Mottola is fitting into that niche nicely.

James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg), thought his life was in order. He was graduating college, going to travel Europe, and then return to an Ivy League grad school. When his parents run low on funds and inform James that things aren’t working out as well as originally planned, he is forced to take a job at a rundown amusement park.

James is a virgin and an all around nice guy who has recently had his heartbroken (which I will come back to later), and he has a hard time controlling his feelings towards Em (Kristen Stewart) but it also doesn’t prevent him from giving everyone’s favorite, Lisa P. a try.

Although the park seems like the summer job from hell it isn’t without its charms. The owners are quirky and hell bent on making and conserving money at all cost, they rig games, give away crappy prizes, and refuse to throw out the spoiled corn dogs. His friends are socially awkward and obsessed with Rush, pipe smoking, and fists to the groin. It’s the women who make the summer bearable however and it is the constant pursuit of sex that seemingly makes life worth living.

Unlike Mattola’s earlier work in Superbad, which was quite good, this isn’t a sexual romp fest, but more of a journey of self-realization. For all the sexual overtones, the drugs, extra-marital affairs, and overall perversion, this is truly a story about none of those things. It is about overcoming and becoming. There isn’t a character in the film without a demon and it is all the other things that are simply bandages to hide the wounds they kept within. Overall this one is a winner 3 1/2 out of 4.

On a side note: In the first scene of the film James has his heartbroken by a familiar face. Kelsey Ford (Arlene), originally from Medina, proves to be the distant and heartless ex-girlfriend who provides the spark to the sexual angst that carries James’ desires throughout the film. Although her performance is small it provides a great look at a career that is destined for bigger things.

I Love You Man

I Love You Man is a love story, well sort of. Peter (Paul Rudd) a real estate salesman and Sydney (Jason Segel) a savvy investor, are in love. The problem is they are both straight men and Peter is on the verge of getting married to his fiancee Zooey (Rashida Jones).

While preparing for their wedding it becomes very apparent to Zooey that Peter isn’t exactly Mr. Popularity when it comes to the friend department. Peter feels that she might be disappointed by the lack on his side of the wedding party and with advice from his homosexual brother Robbie (Andy Samberg) and his mother (Jane Curtin), Peter begins a series of “man dates”.

After failing to find any meaningful connections Peter is ready to give up hope until he meets the eccentric Sydney at a showing for the home of Lou Ferrigno. Peter and Sydney hit it off immediately and start frequenting bars and spending a great deal of time in Sydney’s “man cave” rocking out to Rush and talking about their respective sex lives.

As Zooey starts to feel left out, Peter is forced to reconsider his relationship with Sydney and decides that Sydney refuses to grow up and if he wishes to move on with his life with Zooey he needs to refrain from the childish behavior that Sydney involved him in.

Not unlike most of the comedies that star actors whose careers were created by Judd Apatow, the arc of this story is quite similar. SPOILER ALERT: Cheesy guys doing cheesy guy things, conflict with women, everything ends happy. This one however has a much more interesting story and conflict and many of the plot twists defy what has become cannon in modern day comedies.

Rudd and Segel work extremely well together and although the comedy isn’t always laugh out loud hysterical, it is plenty to keep you entertained and wanting more over the roughly two hours the film runs. Overall 3 stars out of 4

Knowing

The end of the world is coming and John Koestler (Nicholas Cage) knows when it’s going to happen he just doesn’t know what to do about it.

50 years ago an elementary school class buried a time capsule filled with pictures of what they thought the world would look like in 2009. Most of the children drew pictures of spaceships and flying cars, however one little girl who has a seemingly Nostradamus-like ability wrote a sequence of numbers.

When the time capsule was dug up Koestler and his son became privy to the information written by the little girl and become obsessed with the numbers and their sequences.

It isn’t long before Koestler cracks the code and finds that the numbers coincide with the dates, number of deaths, and geographic location of all the major tragedies in the world from 1959 up until a date believed to be the end of life as we know it.

John’s obsession turns into his futile attempts at stopping future disasters and finding a way to prevent the end of the world. As he researches the life of the young elementary school girl he begins a relationship with her daughter and granddaughter.

Like John’s son the granddaughter can hear the whispers of a group of secretive entities asking them to join them. Without spoiling anything the movie takes a handful of twists and turns before culminating in a sensory overdrive experience.

For a modern day Sci-Fi flick, this one doesn’t disappoint. Nicholas Cage is boring and monotone as always and his character is a mirror image to the one he plays in the National Treasure movies and well everything else he has ever been in, but as a geeky astronomy professor in this one it is fitting.

Director and writer Alex Proyas has a clear religious agenda he is pushing in this one but it was an interesting spin on the end of the world stories that have been made hundreds of times before.

In the end Knowing is a well constructed film, with a familiar yet unfamiliar plot line proving to create one of the better science fiction films in recent memory. Overall 3 stars out of 4

The Watchmen

With the world on the verge of nuclear holocaust and Richard Nixon still at the helm of the United States, a group of vigilante heroes is left with the decision of whether or not humanity is worth saving.

It is with this that director Zack Snyder (“300″) brings one of the most beloved graphic novels of all time to life in his film adaptation of “Watchmen.” The film had been talked about for a couple of decades — the graphic novel from writer Alan Moore and illustrator Dave Gibbsons was released in the 1980s — and many believed it to be “unmakeable” as several previous attempts faltered.

The setting is the 1980s. Richard Nixon is in the White House after being elected to his fifth term in office. The U.S. had a big victory in Vietnam thanks mainly to a super being known as Dr. Manhattan and now the Russians are threatening nuclear annihilation.

The world is looking for a hero to save them but the heroes of Vietnam are beginning to realize that no matter what they do, humankind is destined to destroy itself and every time they intervene it is just delaying the inevitable.
The members of the misfit group called The Watchmen are divided between their feeling of duty to help those in need and their resentment for the treatment they receive for being different. They know they are the only ones who could change the outcome but feel it would simply be a bandaid that would suffice until it fell off or was removed. It turns into the age old argument of, why help those who refuse to help themselves?

At the same time, these heroes are looking to find out what happened to one of their own: the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a right-wing military mercenary has been thrown out the window of his high-rise aparatment.

Dr. Manhattan (a very blue and often nude Billy Crudup), the only Watchmen who really has superpowers, is the most interesting and significant of all the characters. He has become devoid of human emotion and wants nothing to do with any kind of intervention. He is almost God-like in the fact that he can be anywhere and everywhere all at once and that he leaves the world up to the humans to either live or destroy.

The film itself runs close to three hours, however, very little feels unnecessary.

A few scenes may drag a little too long and others seem to be left unexplained. Still, there is little to be disappointed about. Overall 3 and 1/2 stars out of 4.

Waltz With Bashir

The Oscar-nominated animated documentary Waltz With Bashir puts a new spin on the typical conventions that we have come to know and believe about war especially involving the Israel and its Middle East counterparts.

Director and writer Ari Folman is suddenly struck with memories from his time in the Israeli-Lebanese conflict of the early-1980s when a friend of his describes an upsetting — and recurring — nightmare. The friend relates that he is being chased by 26 vicious dogs. The two men conclude the dream is a connection to their Israeli Army mission from the first Lebanon War.

After this meeting, Ari starts to have nightmares of his own. He starts remembering things he had previously suppressed and forgotten. Ari then makes it his goal to find out exactly what happened during his service in battle, and find out what his role in the conflict was.

Ari follows up this conversation with a journey in an attempt to collect the pieces of the puzzle to re-establish old memories. As Ari meets fellow soldiers, war correspondents and others with knowledge on the subject, he starts to better understand and remember his role and the role of the people around him. As the film progresses the memories he recreates as he collects more pieces, become more vivid than the ones that preceded them.

*
Ari starts to view the conflict not with the view of an Israeli soldier, but with the view of a human being looking back at horrific events and almost feeling ashamed and guilty for being involved in them.

The film becomes less of a commentary on war, and more of a commentary on how war affects the human psyche, and what the lasting effects are on all that were previously involved.

The film culminates in a visceral experience of images and sounds that hit you in the stomach and brings you to the same realization that Ari has come to: There is no such thing as good war, and that it has long lasting affects on all involved.

What is most interesting about the film is not only that it is a documentary but that it is an animated documentary. Folman uses animation in the way that many other films use dream sequences. The film becomes more vivid and detailed as it progresses by using the animation to add more detail to each segment that follows. In a way the audience goes on the journey with Ari because as he gets a better picture in his own head we get a better picture of the war itself.

As we see images of an animated war, in which two sides we have come to view as natural enemies, we think little of it as it builds on the sentiments we already hold. But as the vividness of the film increases it helps to create a foundation to help breakdown our conventions and convictions and humanize the conflict as something between people, not between military machines. Overall 3 1/2 stars out of 4.

Last House on the Left

It is simple, if you smoke pot, you will get beaten, raped, and have your home invaded. This sounds like the synopsis of a bad anti-drug speech you would get in high school, however it is also the plot of Last House on the Left.

Last House on the Left originated as an exploitation film of the 70’s created by the master of modern horror Wes Craven. In the updated version directed by Dennis Iliadis, the plot for the most part stays the same, however the style gets a face lift.

Mari and her parents head to their summer home in the hopes of a fun and relaxing vacation however they have no idea what they are in store for when Mari leaves the care of her parents to visit her childhood friend Paige.

Paige the ever curious teenage rebel chases after some marijuana from a strange boy who is passing through town. As it turns out the boy and his family are on the run from the police after a string of murders and they are none too happy that he has brought these girls back for a little party.

Mari and Paige are dragged through the woods where they are raped and tortured and left for dead. Unlucky for the killers they didn’t finish the job.

Although there are many homages to the exploitation genre that spawned the original, this film however is in many ways toned down made to fit more with today’s Hollywood.

That doesn’t mean that the film is easy to watch. The rape scene is brutal and disgusting and nearly unwatchable, luckily most of the act takes place off screen and much of the violence would probably be considered tame in the Saw and Hostel infested world we live in, however as someone who hasn’t become completely desensatized to violence, many of the scenes are cringe worthy.

This film attempts to blend exploitation genre with the look and feel of foreign films with similar plot construction. The result is a semi-tasteful horror film that makes you feel disgusting for thinking the film itself looks refined when the plot is glorified blood bath. Overall 2 and 1/2 stars out of 4.

My Oscar Picks

Best Picture

Nominees: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader, Slumdog Millionaire

 

Projected Winner: Slumdog Millionaire            Should Win: Slumdog Millionaire

 

            I have a sneaking suspicion that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button could steal this one. The Golden Globes and the Academy haven’t picked the same film for best picture in four years. The Academy likes to proof its worth, that it isn’t a rubber stamp for the Golden Globes, and that they have more sophisticated opinions. With that said the Golden Globes got this one exactly right. Slumdog Millionaire is the best film in the lot by a long shot. It is also the perfect film for the time. The film is relatively low budget especially in comparison to its competitors, and it is the true underdog story of defying the odds and becoming something from nothing. With bad ratings over the past few years for the awards show, with the best picture going to “less mainstream films” it is very likely they could choose to go with the big budget and the big names in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

 

Best Actor

Nominees: Richard Jenkins (The Visitor), Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon), Sean Penn (Milk), Brad Pitt (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler)

 

Projected Winner: Mickey Rourke            Should Win: Mickey Rourke

 

            This will be a well-deserved win for Rourke. His performance in The Wrestler is one that most actors can only dream of. He not only acts the part of Randy “The Ram” Robinson, he embodies him. I think to give this award to anyone else would be a crime, however it is highly unlikely the Academy will get this one wrong.

 

Best Supporting Actor

Nominees: Josh Brolin (Milk), Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt), Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight), Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road)

 

Projected Winner: Heath Ledger            Should Win: Heath Ledger

 

            After getting snubbed in most of the major categories this one has almost become a no-brainer. I had originally said there was no way that one of the major awards would go to a comic book movie, but after realizing that most of the supporting roles this year were less than formidable, the late Ledger’s disturbing yet enthralling portrayal of the Joker will definitely get him a trophy.

 

Best Actress

Nominees: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married), Angelina Jolie (Changeling), Melissa Leo (Frozen River), Meryl Streep (Doubt), Kate Winslet (The Reader)

 

Projected Winner: Kate Winslet            Should Win: Meryl Streep

 

            After winning best supporting actress for The Reader at the Golden Globes, the Academy threw us a curveball, nominating Winslet for best actress in the film. Winslet’s performance shouldn’t simply be dismissed as it was very good, however Streep is outrageous, and witty, and everything everyone has come to know or think about nuns embodied.

 

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees: Amy Adams (Doubt), Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona), Viola Davis (Doubt), Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler

 

Projected Winner: Amy Adams            Should Win: Marisa Tomei

 

            This one is a true toss up. I feel like both the actresses from Doubt are deserving but will be fighting with each other for votes, Henson’s performance in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was good, but really she was the choice from that film? Vicky Cristina Barcelona, just isn’t the type of film that best supporting actresses come from, leaving me with one true option, Marisa Tomei as the perfect counterpart to Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler.

 

Best Animated Film

Nominees: Bolt, Kung Fu Panda, Wall-E

 

Projected Winner: Wall-E            Should Win: Wall-E

 

            There is no question about the answer to this one. Wall-E was even in early consideration for best picture. The other two films aren’t even close to being in the same category as Wall-E, there is no chance that Bolt or Kung Fu Panda leave the victor.

 

 

10 Biggest Best Picture Travesties

With the Oscars only weeks away, and the glitz and glamour coming together in honor of some of the years best films, I would like to reflect on the times that the Academy has gotten it wrong. This is my list of the ten biggest mistakes in the selection of best picture. These selections are not in order of the size of the travesty, because arguments could be made for and against each, but in order of the year the award was given.

 

1939- Winner: Gone With the Wind (other nominees: Dark Victory, Goodbye, Mr. Chips, Love Affair, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka, Of Mice and Men, Stagecoach, The Wizard of Oz, Wuthering Heights)

 

Should Have Won: The Wizard of Oz

 

Sure some of you are probably scratching your head and saying that is this a stretch, and admittedly it is. Gone With the Wind is a great film, but as far as I’m concerned this award should have gone to The Wizard of Oz. When you consider what the movies are all about and truly think of why we love the movies so much, The Wizard of Oz encapsulates all of that. The movies are an escape for reality, two hours in a dark room with people you don’t know, and every one of you thinks your somewhere else for those two hours. When I think about a movie that truly portrays what the movies are about, the first film I think of is The Wizard of Oz. All in all it was a great year for film. Five films out of the ten nominees made it on the list of The American Film Institutes Top 100 Films of All Time.

 

1941- Winner: How Green Was My Valley (other nominees: Blossoms in the Dust, Citizen Kane, Here Comes Mr. Jordan, Hold Back the Dawn, The Little Foxes, The Maltese Falcon, Sergeant York, Suspicion)

 

Should Have Won: Citizen Kane

 

            This is a year that I feel very strongly about. This was the year that the Academy proved that it was all politics. The greatest film of all time was robbed of a well-deserved victory. Citizen Kane lost out because at the time Orson Wells wasn’t exactly the most popular kid on the block, and had created a few enemies. If that wasn’t enough the award didn’t even go to the second best film in this lot, The Maltese Falcon. In the end it is only these two films that were recognized in the conversation of the greatest films of all time.

 

1967- Winner: In the Heat of the Night (other nominees: Bonnie and Clyde, Dr. Dolittle, The Graduate, Guess Whose Coming to Dinner)

 

Should Have Won: The Graduate

 

            This was yet another great year for film. Four out of the five nominees made it in the top one hundred list, but yet again the academy bypassed the top two films in the lot. Both The Graduate, and Bonnie and Clyde, prove to be superior films that have passed the test of time, to a much greater extent than In the Heat of the Night. The Graduate is the quintessential self-discovery film, while Bonnie and Clyde pioneered many of the film techniques used today.

 

1976- Winner: Rocky (other nominees: All the President’s Men, Bound for Glory, Network, Taxi Driver)

 

Should Have Won: Taxi Driver

 

            This is one of the best lots in Oscar history, however in this case they passed over the top three films in the bunch. This one truly makes me “mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore”. It was this selection that made me want to write this entire article. This was the first in a long line of the Academy passing over Martin Scorsese for a lesser film. This was a very hard one for me to select who should have won but it wasn’t a debate over Rocky. Taxi Driver, Network and All The President’s Men, should have all came ahead of Rocky in that order. It is unbelievable to think that almost the worst film in the group could come home with the gold, but in this case it did.

 

1980- Winner: Ordinary People (other nominees: Coal Miner’s Daughter, The Elephant Man, Raging Bull, Tess)

 

Should Have Won: Raging Bull

 

            This one should have been easy, but I guess the Academy felt that it again a good idea to pass over Scorsese. When talking about the greatest film of all time, number one, the tops, nothing better, I think there are really only a few films in the conversation and Raging Bull is definitely one of them. Only four years early Scorsese and Robert DeNiro got beat out by a boxing film, so they came back with a much better boxing film, and still didn’t get the recognition they deserved, what did this guy have to do to get a break?

 

1989- Winner: Driving Miss Daisy (other nominees: Born on the Fourth of July, Dead Poet’s Society, Field of Dreams, My Left Foot)

 

Should Have Won: My Left Foot

 

            This was a week year anyways, leaving the Academy without a clear-cut winner, however Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance in My Left Foot, should have been enough to put it over the top. He was incredible and moving in a film that was based on the true story of Christy Brown, an artist with cerebral palsy. Day-Lewis won best actor for his performance but the film itself was robbed.

 

1994- Winner: Forrest Gump (other nominees: Four Weddings and a Funeral, Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show, The Shawshank Redemption)

 

Should Have Won: Pulp Fiction

 

            Now people that know me will say that this is a slanted pick. I will tell you right now that I am a huge Quentin Tarantino fan, however it was this film that made me into such a huge fan. It was revolutionary for its time; it intertwined three stories in an un-chronological order and was made from one of the best screenplays of all time. This was yet another year in which I think the third best film in the group won. Don’t get me wrong Forrest Gump was a brilliant film with a brilliant performance from Tom Hanks, but both Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption were better.

 

1997- Winner: Titanic (other nominees: As Good as It Gets, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, L.A. Confidential)

 

Should Have Won: Good Will Hunting

 

            This was a simple case of a larger than life film, with a huge budget, big names, and extremely well known story taking the award on name recognition. Good Will Hunting was spawned from probably one of the greatest original screenplays of all time and it made the careers of both Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. It might be a theme but this was another year in which I think the third best film was selected, I would have also picked L.A. Confidential over Titanic. I guess I might have to give this one some time, and it might be the biggest stretch of all them, but being inundated with Titanic-mania as a child could be influencing my disdain for the film.

 

2003- Winner: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (other nominees: Lost in Translation, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Mystic River, Seabiscuit)

 

Should Have Won: Mystic River

 

            The third installment of the Lord of the Rings saga wasn’t even the best of the three, it seems as if this was a “we’re sorry” Oscar for over looking the first two parts to the trilogy. Clint Eastwood won best director for Mystic River, and should have taken home best picture as well. Lost in Translation would have also been a better selection here, the debut of Sofia Coppola proved that she was more than just the daughter of her famous father Francis Ford Coppola.

 

2005- Winner: Crash (other nominees: Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich)

 

Should Have Won: Brokeback Mountain

 

            Had it not been for the homosexual overtones, Brokeback Mountain would have been considered one of the greatest love stories of all time, and still should be. The more times I few Crash the more I dislike it. The film itself uses cheap, almost startling, scare tactics, reminiscent of a gore less version of Saw, to provide its message. It is a bad attempt at trying to do what Spike Lee has been doing for a long time, giving a commentary on race relations. Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, and even possibly Munich were better films. I think this award went to a message, albeit a noble one, rather than the actual film itself.

 

 

            That’s my list and I know that many of you will be screaming about how I got it wrong, how there are much larger travesties, how some of the awards that I listed were more than warranted, and how I have no idea what I’m talking about. With the Oscars just around the corner, I wanted to comment on how the Academy hasn’t always got it right, just like they didn’t in many cases this year. I’m putting it out there now that I am rooting for Slumdog Millionaire to take home the award for best picture, however I think the glitz of Brad Pitt, and the far more well known, less foreign allure of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button might rob the world from the best film of the year taking home the trophy yet again.

Frost/Nixon

David Frost, a British television personality, was lucky enough to get an interview with the greatest political criminal in United States History, Richard M. Nixon. Unfortunately for viewers the dramatization of their meeting, won’t make moviegoers that lucky. Critics and film festivals around the world have heralded the film, however I felt it left much to be desired.

 

The film itself starts out much to slow. Simple introductions are given to the audience of both Mr. Frost and Mr. Nixon, and then it slides into a game of cat and mouse, bidding on the services of the Ex-President. Nixon’s people try to get as much out of everyone who would like an interview from him as possible, while Frost, hoping to reinvigorate his career, bids wildly, having to pay mostly from his own pocket, for a crack at doing what American citizen had longed to get from Nixon, a confession.

 

The series of interviews between the two commences. This is where the film gets quite dull. Frost proves that he wasn’t quite prepared to handle a politician of this magnitude, and Nixon proves that he is a seasoned veteran able to deflect any and all questions to play right into his hands. It isn’t until the end of the film where things really heat up and the relationship becomes tense, but by this point it is to late to redeem itself.

 

The direction and cinematography are quite good. Some of the shots are brilliant, but the script of the film moves these shots poorly and allows them to be overlooked. The acting is handled well. Frank Langella did an exceptional and quite stunning job at portraying the Ex-President. His Oscar nomination, while not a stretch, certainly didn’t beat out other performances that should have been in contention, but the blame for that I would give to what he had to work with.

 

It is disappointing that we don’t get much in the way of the back-story on Frost. In many ways we are given much more information on Nixon, information that at least myself, and the others I was with already knew, which made it drag into a boring and unnecessary history lesson. It would have been advantageous to spend more time with Frost, since he is a character that people know far less about. Instead by the end of the film it felt like a futile attempt at making you feel sorry, or at least sympathetic, with one of the greatest monsters in American political history.

 

In the end I think one thing can be learned. If you have a high profile story that is well known to many, and have Ron Howard as a director, you will be able to steal a best picture nomination when there was others probably more deserving. Overall 2 stars out of 4.