The World According to Cameron

Let me get a few things off my chest before I start talking about "Avatar". First of all, it's practically the only film I didn't get in the mail this year and of course it's like almost three hours long. Fine. I suppose I should see it on a big screen anyway. Next James Cameron has a rep as a megalomaniac and a bit of a tool. Okay, I don't know the man so I don't judge. He probably gives to charity and is nice to puppies. And finally, no film, absolutely no film should cost 400 mill to produce. Every fiber of my being screams that this is just wrong. I will address this issue later.
Okay I saw it, all two hours and forty minutes of it and it is, quite frankly, a sight to behold. This is a world that looked like it took a decade to realize. The money is on the screen in every way except perhaps in the screenplay, which is a little lazy. It ranks with the great fantasy worlds that are created so rarely in film or literature. The Lord of the Rings (both literature and film), Dune, Star Wars, The Wizard of Oz, Pern. Cameron borrows liberally and obviously from all of these, especially Dune and Pern.
The great thing about the world is not just the look (which is spectacular) but how both the humans and the indigenous people, the Navi, exist in it. There is a sense that the Navi actually live on Pandora. They move through it as if they are a part of the whole, which is the whole point. People and their environment are part of the same life. It's a philosophy held in our own world by native Americans and those parallels are played up. It is of course not held by the white Americans of European ancestry who seek to destroy their environment rather than live in harmony with it. Jesus, white men just suck. Anyway, the world and people of Pandora are fully realized and just amazing to watch. The beauty of the production design is just jaw dropping. This is not CGI for its own sake, but used as it should be used, to enhance instead of overpower the imagination. There are things that it seems no one but James Cameron can do well, like sinking the Titanic and creating Pandora.
Boats and blue people he owns.
Regular people, not so much. It's like Cameron is way more comfortable when he doesn't have to deal with real people. "Avatar" is no exception. His human characters have none of the subtlety and nuance of the Navi. The results of this shortcoming are cardboard antagonists, bad guys that are cartoony in their villainy. It ALMOST screws up the movie. The last forty minutes of this film we've seen a million times before. The first two hours we have never, ever seen. Now the last forty minutes are okay in a shoot-em up, bang-bang sort of way. Cameron knows his way around an action sequence. But it's like putting that crappy over-sweet icing on the world's most delicious cake. It spoils the effect, but not the flavor.
In the end, Pandora and the Navi, by way of James Cameron's imagination, are one of the coolest places to visit (on-screen) this year, or any other year for that matter. Too bad he has to shoot everything up in the end. White guys really suck.

Me and Orson Wells

Backstage with the Mercury Theater is a place I'd want to be, so I was excited that I got a screener of "Me and Orson Wells". Turns out that according to writer director Richard Linklater ("Dazed and Confused") hanging with Orson and company isn't such a great place to be after all. Zack Efron is the "Me" in question here, a young actor who stumbles into a small role with the hottest players in New York and their cutting edge staging of "Julius Ceasar". I mean hot both in the forties sense (upcoming and popular) and the modern sense (sizzlin'sexy). The girls are smokin' and available and of course Zack is Zack (cue screaming teen girl).
All the buzz here centers around Christian McKay, a young stage actor out of London, a breeding ground for the best in character acting. What a debut. He channels the young Wells--voice, manner, temperament. He's a wonder to watch, but I really wasn't crazy about watching him. That's because he's written as such a manipulative, megalomaniac, horses ass that his genius seems to be a gift poorly given. Was Wells really like that? Maybe, but jeeze I hope not. Not really fun to watch.
But the problem here is old Zack Efron, the real lead. He's been charming in films before but here he's flat and not in the least bit engaging. "Me and Orson Wells" is worth seeing for McKay and the staging of the "Julius Ceasar" stuff and for some of the backstage shenanigans, but overall I was disappointed.

My List/Their List

Here are the actors and films I put up for nominations for The 16th Annual SAG Awards:

Best Actor:.......................... Best Actress:
George Clooney-Up In the Air..........Meryl Streep-Julie and Julia
Colin Firth-A Single Man..............Gabby Sidibe-Precious
Ben Foster-The Messenger..............Abby Cornish-Bright Star
Jeremy Renner-The Hurt Locker.........Sandra Bullock-The Blind Side
Jeff Bridges-Crazy Heart..............Emily Blunt-The Young Victoria

Supporting Actor:.....................Supporting Actress:
Stanley Tucci-The Lovely Bones........Mo'Nique-Precious
Woody Harrelson-The Messenger.........Paula Patton-Precious
Christopher Plummer-The Last Station..Anna Kendrick-Up In The Air
Alfred Molina-An Education............Vera Farmiga-Up In the Air
Robert Duvall-The Road................Samantha Morton-The Messenger

Ensemble:
Star Trek
Up In the Air
The Hurt Locker
An Education
Precious

Here's who actually got nominated:
Actor:.........................Actress
Jeremy Renner-The Hurt Locker..Meryl Streep-Julie and Julia
George Clooney-Up In The Air...Gabby Sidibe-Precious
Colin Firth-A Single Man.......Sandra Bullock-The Blind Side
Jeff Bridges-Crazy Heart.......Carey Mulligan-An Education
Morgan Freeman-Invictus........Helen Mirren-The Last Station

Sup. Actor............................Sup.Actress
Christopher Plummer-The Last Station..Mo'Nique-Precious
Woody Harrelson-The Messenger.........Vera Farmiga-Up in the Air
Stanley Tucci-The Lovely Bones........Anna Kendrick-Up In The Air
Matt Damon-Invictus...................Diane Kruger-Iglourious Basterds
Christoph Waltz-Inglourious Basterds..Penelope Cruz-Nine

Ensemble
The Hurt Locker
Precious
An Education
Inglourious Basterds
Nine

You'll notice that most of the ones I missed were from films I couldn't stand and wouldn't vote for if my life depended on it like Inglourious Basterds (still a piece of trash) and Invictus.

The Young Victoria

The last weekend before my final vote on SAG nominations, I had pretty much finalized my list. Had it all set. The only performance I had left to see was Emily Blunt in "The Young Victoria". I hadn't seen reviews; the film wasn't out yet. Well, what are the chances, right? No way I'd have to rethink or revamp. I popped in the DVD late Saturday night and couldn't stop watching. Damn. Back to the drawing board.
For a film about a notoriously stodgy and inflexible monarch, this film is anything but stodgy. This is the YOUNG Victoria, a spitfire trapped in convention but with an iron will. The story-telling is clear and forthright, full of political and personal intrigue, and downright interesting for one of those English royal family in distress, drawing room dramas. Emily Blunt forgoes the stiff and formal Victoria often seen in her post-Albert characterizations, for a more spirited and far more entertaining Queen. No stick-up-the-royal-arse Victoria this. Her performance is terrific, even if it did force me to redo my list.
Produced by the former Dutchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, maybe we've actually found an outlet for ex-princesses, making movies about life behind the palace walls. Oh, and I'm glad to see that all those drunken foreign journalists over at the Golden Globes agreed with me. They so rarely get it right. Maybe the Oscar voters will too.

The War, At home and Abroad

1979 was the middle of the first wave of cinematic interpretations of the Vietnam War. "The Deer Hunter" was out (technically 1978)and it was the year of "Apocalypse Now" and "Coming Home". There was some heated debate about which of those two films was a more accurate and honest depiction of the War in Vietnam, or the effects thereof. The Oscar race that year was a hotbed for post-war political analysis. We have the same situation this year with three Iraq War films-two on the homefront ("The Messenger", "Brothers") and one based in country ("The Hurt Locker"). This blog entry focuses on "Brothers".
"Brothers" is a movie full of half measures. It confronts situations then backs off. Toby MacGuire is a good soldier and a loyal son to Sam Shepherd, Jake Gyllenhaal is the black sheep brother, just out of jail. Natalee Portman is MacGuire's wife (the character is underwritten to the point of blandness). The film is really divided into two stories, one belonging to Gyllenhaal and Portman, the other to Toby MacGuire upon his return from the war. The divided plot doesn't give an audience time to really get under any characters skin and the resulting big resolution doesn't seem earned. You're left wondering which character you should have been rooting for all along. MacGuire is fine in a role that requires him to go from mild-mannered to bonkers. It's an awful lot of histrionics, maybe too much. Gylenhaal steals the film with an uneasy understatement. It's the best work I've seen from him but it's really not his movie. In this genre "Coming Home" is still the gold standard. Of the three major Iraq war films from this year, "The Hurt Locker" has the most impact, followed in close order by "The Messenger". "Brothers" pulls up the rear but is certainly worth the watch. All in all, it's a banner year for the War film.

For Oscars, Go Country

Sometimes a film can be powered to greatness (or respectability) by a performance. Case in point, "Training Day". Such a film is "Crazy Heart", whose central performance by Jeff Bridges makes this film work well beyond its modest ambition. Other performances compliment Bridges turn as Bad Blake but they are window dressing. Maggie Gylenhaal is fine but decidedly miscast as Bridges love interest. She is simply to young and pretty to be truthful within the context of the story. But, again the performance is fine. Colin Farrell is way too, well, Colin Farrell to buy as a young country singer, but if that's actually him singing he really has a pretty good country/pop voice. Those are quibbles because it's all about Bridges. Tough and truthful, he manifests the character in subtle strokes, saturating Bad Blake in honesty and booze. You can hear the miles in his voice. He should win the Oscar. He has my vote in the SAG awards.
A word about the music. If you make a movie about a country singer/song writer, you better make sure the song score doesn't sink your movie (see post of "Nine"). They hired T-Bone Burnett. Oscar number two. (with a stipulation, since the music branch of the Academy is almost as looney as the documentarians) "Crazy Heart" is one of the best of the year.

Not a 10

"Nine" is a strange film. Directed with an assured balance that cuts deftly between real life, fantasy and flashback, it's a romanticized portrait of an artistic philanderer who is based on film director Federico Fellini. The film is at its best when Daniel Day Lewis (Guido-the fictionalized Fellini) is struggling with his mistress or wife while battling artistic constipation. It's intriguing when director Rob Marshal faithfully recreates or at least echoes scenes from Fellini's best films. That stuff is kind of cool.
It's the fantasy sequences (basically the musical sequences) that sink this film. They are not extensions of the story but rather interrupt its flow. Marshal doesn't have what he had in "Chicago", namely a quality song score. The songs aren't even close to engaging. It makes for a mixed bag that leaves us as an audience cold and distanced. But if you're a real Fellini fan, you might find enough here to make the film going experience worthwhile. Fellini's "8 1/2" (the source material for the musical) is a great film, but some stories just don't lend themselves to musical adaptation. I felt this way about the Broadway show as well.

Un-Complicated

"It's Complicated" is a fifty-something romantic comedy that's about as interesting as warm milk. Sure, the acting is nice, a good cast led by Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin try to lift this film out of the doldrums but they fail miserably.
This movie doesn't know whether to takes itself seriously or go for schtick so it tries to have it both ways. Sometimes it goes for insight with stodgy heart-string tugging dialogue. Sometimes it gets all Keystone Cops with Alec Baldwin stumbling off of rock walls while peeking through a window or Steve Martin doing his "happy feet" dance that hasn't been funny since 1978.
What's at stake anyway? If Meryl goes back to her husband, she'll have a nice life with her million dollar home and million dollar business. If she doesn't go back to Alec Baldwin I guess she'll have to fill her life with her great kids and soon-to-be-grandkids and luxury and a fulfilling job and maybe travel or adventure. Poor Meryl.
In the end Nancy Meyers wrote a white bread script and directed it with white bread predictability. Blah. When Meryl Streep can't save your movie....

The Road

This is the film that I most looked forward to this entire year, actually two years because it was due out last year and was delayed. I am an unabashed fan of the Cormack McCarthy novel. I think it's great modern literature even though I do not consider myself an expert in the field of modern literature. It did of course win the Pulitzer so maybe that corroborates my view. Anyway I couldn't wait. Do I sound like one of those Twilight teenyboppers?
Expectation is a bitch. Your favorite book very seldom becomes your favorite movie. In the case of "The Road" this holds true for me. It doesn't have the impact of the extraordinary novel. But it ain't bad.
This is a post-apocalypse road picture. A father and son, two "good guys", travel south searching for scarce food and scarcer security and trying to avoid the "bad guys" along the way. Sound trite? Not a bit. Those bad guys are lawless scavengers who survive by cannibalism. They'd just as soon eat you as look at you. It's a vicious, unforgiving and bleak world. But believe it or not, it isn't bleak enough. Had director John Hillcoat been more ruthless in his vision this might have been a masterpiece. A masterpiece that no one would watch. He's taken the edge off and provided a bit more audience accessibility. The result is that he has sacrificed the sharpness of the allegory for watchability. The novel is mankind's journey through darkness toward the light of salvation (religious or not). This movie, as it is, is more about humans than humanity.
Still, this is a damn fine film if you can take it.

A Single Man

You know when you meet someone at a party and they seem to expect to be the center of attention, like they want you to hang on every condescending syllable they utter? "A Single Man" is an entire movie like that. Every lingering look, every slow motion shot, every enigmatic line of dialogue is filled with self importance.
Colin Firth is a college professor circa 1962 who's long time lover, Jim, has died in a car crash. He's not even allowed at the funeral. His neighbor and ex-lover Charlie (Julianne Moore)tries to comfort him but really has her own heterosexual agenda. It's a slow march to suicide for Mr. Firth until the prettiest boy in the whole school gives him the time of day. (And I mean pretty in a Woddy Allen-esque, wish fulfillment sort of way) A lot of conversation dripping with subtext ensues. My neighbor Justin hit the nail on the head. He said the trailer looked like a Saturday Night Live send up of this kind of film. Julianne Moore's character is a forerunner of the that English redhead from "Absolutely Fabulous" without the satire. Colin Firth is excellent in the role but it can't save the film. This one you can skip.

Don't Shoot The Messenger

Somewhere in this blog I mentioned that the great thing about Independent Film is that it tells stories that aren't made for mass consumption and goes places that aren't always easy to see, places and stories that might otherwise be ignored. "The Messenger" is a classic example.
Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson play two soldiers on the Army's Casualty Notification Team. Their job is to inform the loved ones of fallen soldiers of their demise. The reactions are powerful, unpredictable and always break your heart. But it's the relationship between Foster and Harrelson that brings the story its sense of humanity. This film, when looked at with other powerful independent films from this year like "Precious" and "The Hurt Locker", make for a stellar year for the Independent Film Movement. Think 1939 in the Studio System era.
Ben Foster's performance should be recognized as one of the best of the year and Woody Harrelson finally puts forth some effort in a film that matches his talent. The result may be an Oscar nod.
Just a quick word about another co-star of "The Messenger", Samantha Morton. She is truly the most underused actress in film today. She's a major talent, clearly one of the best of her generation. In "The Messenger" she turns what might have been a wishy washy character into one you'll remember, honest and full of emotional complexity. See this film. It's one of the best of the year.

The Romantics

You know those English drawing room dramas that get all the attention around Oscar time? Sometimes they can be quite beautiful if you give them a chance. Other times they cure insomnia quicker than Ambien. I have to be in the mood for one these flicks. "Bright Star" put me in the mood.
This passionate yet chaste story tells of the romantic love and tragic end of poet John Keats who died at 25. That's not a spoiler if you where paying attention in your High School English class like you should have been. The lyrical love poems he wrote to his beautiful neighbor are the basis for his reputation as one of the greatest of the Romantic Poets.
But here the real artist is director Jane Campion. This is a story that needs a sure hand and Campion provides it, against her instincts, I think. She is usually a director with a rougher, almost gritty edge. "Bright Star" is told with much gentler brush strokes. It's the romantics after all. There is a stillness to her camera that allows for the boldness of her characters without adding to it.
And her characters are bold. Abby Cornish plays Keats' muse Fanny Brawne with restrained power. Ben Wishaw's Keats is ethereal and poetic without being, well, a wussy. These two don't really match physically but there is no doubt about the chemistry. 19th century sizzle. Next time love is messin' with your head, gather the kleenex and a pint of Haagen-Daaz and have at it with "Bright Star".
Oh and Abby Cornish is under serious consideration for my Best Actress list.

The Last Station

Russian landscapes. Trains. Lovers torn by political philosophy. English stage actors. It's the perfect recipe for any Chekhov play in the canon. Really, all that's missing from "The Last Station" is a seagull or a copse of Cherry trees. This story of the last days of Russian literary icon Leo Tolstoy is written and presented in the style of another Russian Icon, Anton Chekhov. The result is that the fascinating story of the battle between Tolstoy's long time wife (Helen Mirren) and the cultists who want to turn Tolstoy into the figurehead of a political movement (if not a religion), is offered up in such a way as to keep an audience at a far distance. The Chekhovian dialogue is peppered with heartfelt exclamations of passion and political philosophy. It all makes for some over-the-top melodrama. It's really hard to get involved with this film. But if you really dig Chekhov......
I mentioned those English actors with the great theatrical skill set. Well, they're good. Helen Mirren and James McAvoy give it their all. It amazes me how English actors can look so sincere while chomping on the furniture. The lone American star, Paul Giamatti gives an unusually stiff and uninvolving performance. Christopher Plummer is by far the best reason to see "The Last Station" he manages to breath life into Tolstoy in spite of the formality of the writing. Plummer is worthy of a nomination. Not sure if he'll make my cut though.

The Lovely Bones

This story of a young girl murdered by a serial killer in 1973 Pennsylvania is really flawed and I've been sitting here trying to figure out why. I've come up with three reasons. But first let me assure you that if you liked the book, you'll probably like the film. This is one of those novels that developed a loyal fan base. I'm just guessing here (haven't read it myself) but it seems like director Peter Jackson remained true to the book, a policy that worked pretty well for him while doing "The Lord of the Rings". But a film has to stand on its own, so here are three problems that torpedoed this film for me.
1) Casting- I think Stanley Tucci is a brilliant and underrated actor and he does not disappoint here. He does excellent work as the creepy neighbor serial killer and he's on the list for a nomination. Saoirse Ronan also does beautiful work as a teen victim of a monster. At least while here character is on earth. In the afterlife, Jackson has chosen to let Susie Salmon wallow in a primary color limbo between heaven and earth. And wallow she does. Susan Sarandon, playing the boozy grandmother is so over the top that she seems like she's in "The Lovely Bones-The Musical". Rachel Weiss and Michael Imperioli don't have that much to do so they don't do much. (Someone should tell Imperioli that "The Sopranos" is over). But the real problem here is Mark Wahlberg. In the pivotal role of the distraught Dad who drives the investigation and won't let go, Wahlberg plucks one note, and not a great note at that. This character needs range and Wahlberg simply doesn't have the chops, not even close. It hamstrings the film.
2)Serial Killers and The Modern Audience- It's 1973, no DNA, the guys from CSI are nowhere to be found, and America doesn't know the first thing about Serial Killer M.O. The movie seems like one big anachronism and it's frustrating for an audience or maybe for just me, to watch the serial killer win, time after time. Again, this might be me but I was cryin' for just one cop to fingerprint something.
3)Sentimentality- This movie is sap. It's often good sap, but make no mistake, its industrial strength sap. By the time we get to Susie's post-mortum monologues we are in full day-time drama, lady-tears territory. Heaven is all light and the strange limbo that Susie exists in after her murder is a curious combination of candyland bliss and boogieman nightmare. It is awash in grievous sentimentality and really quite creepy.

I have a theory. If you believe that heaven is a place, filled with light and things familiar, a place close to earth, with a benevolent God and endless happiness, this might be your film. If you ever had a doubt or even a smidge of cynicism, you will probably despise this movie. Me? I'm in limbo.

Clooney, Grounded

There are two stand-outs in Jason Reitman's new film "Up In The Air". One is George Clooney, the other is the script. Let's take the easy one first.
George Clooney proves once again that a leading man in the old fashioned Hollywood sense of the term is a rare commodity. He is so good at it that I'm beginning to think that Hinduism may have something with this reincarnation thing. Ya see, Cary Grant lives in Clooney. The comic sensibility, the crooked smile, the sex appeal, all right out of Grant's playbook. In "Up in the Air", Clooney plays a corporate downsizer, a man who does the dirty work of firing employees that companies don't have the cojones to fire themselves. And he's good at it. He sells hope in the face of desperation. He also prides himself on the complete lack of a personal life beyond airports and hotel rooms. No ties, lots of frequent flier miles. Then, a young trainee becomes the harbinger of his own personal downsizing and Clooney must face the consequences of a life devoid of commitment. He has no fallback position from his personal philosophy and he plays the crisis with incredible on-screen aplomb. He deserves an Oscar nomination.
Now for the script. Seldom are we treated to this kind of tight, intelligent screen writing. Not a wasted scene. Not a wasted line of dialogue. What a rare pleasure. And all played without a false moment by an outstanding cast, guided by Jason Reitman. "Up In The Air" is one of the best of the year.

Serious Filmmakers

The Coen Brothers enjoy the status that only very few filmmakers have. They get to make a constant stream of films without the stress of having to worry (much) about the success of the last film released. As recognized talent they pretty much are assured that the next film that pops into their head will make its way to a screen near you. Woody Allen also enjoys this status,not always to great success.
Recently "No Country For Old Men" bought The Coens lots of cinematic good will. It allowed them to make a couple of really off-the-beaten-track films. "A Serious Man" is the latest.
It's pretty unusual for the Coen Brothers to make a film this personal, seemingly auto-biographical, and I think this put them at a slight disadvantage. It almost seems to have limited them, like they needed in some way to be truer to their own history. Because of this, "A Serious Man" didn't resonate quite as much for me as their other recent films.
Not that this film is bad filmmaking. To the contrary. This story of a suburban Jewish man leading a suburban Jewish life, deeply tied to his religion and his family, even as everything falls apart around him, is skilled in it's execution and told with the Coen's traditional off-beat comic flare. There are moments of genius. Their heart was really in this film, but mine wasn't.
Still it's great to see the Coen Brothers stretch the limits of their own storytelling ability. They should make more films that feel this deeply personal. See "A Serious Man" if you get the chance. It might resonate more for you.

The Informant!

Matt Damon is excellent in the role of a high level executive at the Archer Daniels Midland company (ADM) who is in charge of a new corn product. Fitting, since his character is a bit on the corny side, wrapped in a husk of mid-America naivety that hides deeper and darker personality traits. What makes this such a fun role for Damon is ultimately the downfall of the film. You see, as the movie unfolds Damon's character turns from hero to villain. He's an uncompromising and uncontrollable liar and by the third act there is no one to root for. But along the way the tongue-in-cheek ineptness, the comic tone, the excellent acting and the exposure of heartland corporate greed and ethical lapses makes for an entertaining if unsatisfying film. Damon is the revelation here.

Chill pill on "The Blind Side"

Critics have been unusually harsh on Sandra Bullock's "The Blind Side". This is one of those times when critics are idiots. If you are going to see a Sandra Bullock movie directed by the guy who brought you "The Rookie" and you're expecting a "Precious" experience you're just stupid. This is a sweet movie. Nothing earth-shaking and a bit on the predictable side, but enjoyable---funny and heartfelt. Sort of middle-America nice. That not your thing? Stay away. 'Nuff said.
I'm considering Sandra Bullock for a Best Actress slot. That should piss off my friends. She may be in my top three favorite actresses. She is likable, honest, with great comic timing and on-screen intelligence. That all adds up to charisma. In "The Blind Side" she does pretty authentic and charming character work. An excellent performance. She is on my radar screen for being genuine. She is only under consideration because here her range is limited. I'll think about it. I wish she'd be more daring in her choice of material.

Weekend Boxoffice Nov. 20-22

Here are this weekend's numbers:

Positions 1 thru 10 "New Moon"- 8 trillion dollars.

Actually "New Moon" broke records with 142.8 million opening weekend.
(third best of all time behind "The Dark Knight" and "Spiderman 3")

Sandra Bullock had a good opening with "The Blind Side" at 34.5 mil.

Not So Invincible

Ahh... to be a SAG nominator. It's so cool, getting to see much anticipated films in advance, even if you have to go through a strip search to do it.
Last night, oh I have been looking forward to it, I got to see Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood team up for a story of Mandela in South Africa. It's called "Invictus" and it's got all kinds of Oscar buzz. I mean after all, we're talking Eastwood and Freeman. Screeeeeeeeeeeeech! That's the sound of the Oscar express slamming to a halt. "Invictus" is Latin for invincible. Turns out this movie is very vincible.
It's a cliched sports movie for God's sake! This? This is the Nelson Mandela movie they chose to make?!? A film about Rugby players trying to play for a championship in order to give South Africans something to cheer about? A film that barely touches on the racial tensions facing a duly elected African in a post-aparthied atmosphere?
Anything new? No. Anything raw? No. This is TV movie-of-the-week land. Well, maybe the sports stuff will be good. I like sports movies. YAWN!!!! Cliche piled upon cliche. One more slow-mo shot of Matt Damon pushing in a scrum and I'd have puked. Someday I hope we get to see a great movie about Mandela. This ain't it. Too bad. Nothing nominatable here. Want to see a good sports movie from this year? Try "The Damned United".

Whatever

SAG sent me a screener of Woody Allen's latest, "Whatever Works". I have been a Woody Allen fan since the days of over-sized bananas and orgasmatrons so this is tough to say. Woody should stop making films until he has something new to say or at least a new way to say it. "Whatever Works" is lazy film making. Allen has sacrificed any attempt to explore character or story in favor of banal morality tales with artificial dialogue and fortune cookie messages about life and love. And of course there is the annual wish-fulfillment plot about a May/December romance. Seen it Woody, over and over.
In this film, Larry David plays an arrogant, narcissistic, curmudgeon who keeps telling everyone he's a genius. Get it? At least Woody recognizes his own arrogance. He doesn't even bother to find a decent actor to recreate his mirror image. I guess it should be enough for his fans to hear him pontificate from the mountain top. Larry David is truly awful in this film. Not that he had much to work with.
Maybe next years carbon copy will explore a new side of Allen's persona, like humility.

An Education

"Precious" (See previous post), is set in 1987 New York City. "An Education" is set in 1961 England. Very different worlds, basically the same story. These are coming of age stories and their structure is almost identical. Both young women struggle with home lives that stifle personal growth. In Precious' case, violently physical and emotional abuse. In the case of "An Education", it's far more subtle. The abuse takes the form of social constrictions, both in class and gender. All very English. Of course Precious is virtually incapable of self-expression. This is not the problem with "An Education"'s protagonist Jenny (played admirably by Carey Mulligan). Jenny is hyper-verbal.
It is so interesting to me how films so different in style and setting can tell so similar a tale. A story well told finds universality in its message when it allows an audience to discover truth despite the window dressing of time or place or circumstance. Jenny and Precious both struggle to overcome the oppressive weight of their home life and both know in their heart that the path to redemption runs through education. Both of these actresses (Sidibe and Mulligan) are asked to do the heavy lifting in their respective stories and both manage the task so admirably that they are in contention for Oscar nods. They both deserve it.
Peter Sarsgaard does (in the English vernacular) a bang-up job as the deceptive older lover of Jenny. When I say he has everyone fooled, it includes Jenny, her parents and even the audience. And when he's revealed in the third act for what he really is, the revelation is both obvious and surprising, a credit to both writer and actor.
"An Education" provides the audience with an enjoyable ride through pre-Beatles England. The English have a way with stories about teenage girls and this one fits in nicely with the likes of "The Prime of Miss Jeanne Brodie" and "To Sir, With Love".

Precious

There is a great myth that directing is 90% casting. The implication is that simply by casting a great actor, you get a great movie. Really. This, I guarantee you, was a lie first told by an actor. So let's try this one on for size. Great roles are written. Great performances are directed. Great actors serve the story.
Here's the line up for "Precious":
Gabourey Sidibe- Novice actor in pivotal lead role
Mo'Nique- goofy comedienne in pivotal supporting role
Paula Patton- handful of credits in pivotal supporting role
Lenny Kravitz-rock star
Mariah Carey- rock star Diva and unrecognizable in this role
Sherri Sheppard- Talk show host, sit-com star and oh yeah she can act with the best of 'em.

This is the cast of the years most powerful and affecting drama. So much for the 90% rule. How do you pull it off? Two words-Lee Daniels. Daniels takes this raw material and guides it with such a sure hand that it is hard to think of this film as a work of fiction. His direction is bold and nearly flawless. This is a film that presents a director with real challenges. How do you portray Precious, a character who is so emotionally stunted that she can barely express herself, and still offer an audience a chance to empathize? How do you do this with an actress who has never acted before? This is skillful direction.
Add to this the fact that "Precious" is a period piece, set in 1987, a very different world from today. The welfare state that provides the films backdrop doesn't even exist today. Doesn't matter. The context is just window dressing. "Precious" is really a story of personal struggle. It is as disturbing a film as it is uplifting.
Finally, a word about Mo'Nique. I've been hearing about this performance since, oh January. I'm really skeptical about hype. Especially when it involves a comedienne without a track record. This performance surpasses hype. It is every bit as powerful and nuanced as has been reported. Provide an actor with a well written character, give that actor clear guidance and stand back. Mo'Nique should be proud. She should also buy a glass case for all the hardware coming her way soon. Deservedly so.
See this film.

Who's Worthy?

So I'm on the SAG Awards Nominating Committee this year. Very cool. I take it seriously and try to nominate those who are really worthy. I've seen a lot already and there is much more coming up ('tis the season). Does anyone have an opinion on who to nominate? A performance in a little film I might have missed? A worthy ensemble cast? Post your comment here.
Oh, and check out MY opinion on current film on the rest of the blog.

Box Office-Weekend Numbers, Nov. 6,7,8

Here's a look at the numbers from this weekend:

Film/Weekend Gross/Total Gross/Weeks in Release

1. Disney's A Christmas Carol/$31,000,000/$31,000,000/1
2. Michael Jackson's This Is It/$14,000,000/$57,855,342/2
3. The Men Who Stare at Goats/$13,309,000/$13,309,000/1
4. The Fourth Kind/$12,521,285/$12,521,285/1
5. Paranormal Activity/$8,600,000/$97,430,000/7
6. The Box/$7,855,000/$7,855,000/1
7. Couples Retreat/$6,428,250/$95,979,760/5
8. Law Abiding Citizen/$6,172,000/$60,872,598/4
9. Where the Wild Things Are/$4,225,000/$69,268,000/4
10. Astro Boy/$2,588,000/$15,072,701/3

October Films

Go back to the October posts to read about:

Red Cliff (John Woo)
Where the Wild Things Are
The Proposal
500 Days of Summer
Up

A Real Kick

When is a sports movie not a sports movie? When the English produce it. So if you're looking for slow-mo shots of sweaty footballers or last second miracle shots on goal, look elsewhere. Want to see good filmmaking? Check out "The Damned United". How do the English do it?. Hardly a shot of anybody kicking the ball. Practically nothing on the pitch at all. No strategy, no explanation of the finer points of football. Maybe because the story is about more important things. Ambition. Envy. Loyalty. Like they say at Wembly, well played.
I am going to disagree with my critical hero (A.O. Scot-NY Times) and say that "The Damned United" is nearly Shakespearean in its scope and tenor. Our tragic hero is Soccer head coach, or in proper English, football manager, Brian Clough as played by Michael Sheen (The Queen, Frost/Nixon). Clough's ambition is driven by jealousy. The manager of the powerful Football club, Leeds United is Don Revie (Colm Meaney) a smart,tough and slightly unethical coach who snubs an impressionable Clough at an early match. The rest of Clough's career is spent looking for a measure of sweet revenge. Ambition. Jealousy. Revenge. They sound like tragic flaws to me. The Scottish King maybe?
The real strength of British filmmaking has got to be a never-ending pool of the best character actors in the business and "The Damned United" is no exception.
Colm Meaney as Revie and Jim Broadbent as a club owner are both magnificent, but Timothy Spall is the biggest news for me. I knew him as Ron's rat Scabbers in the Harry Potter series, but he's much more than an evil rodent here. He plays Sheen's loyal foil and the real brains of this footballing dynamic duo. Clough and Spall become the footballers version of an old married couple, both sick of each other and in desperate need of each other, so much so that both their wives disappear as characters by the end of the film. "The Damned United" is far away from that tired genre the "sports movie" (as executed in the classic American style), and it's much the better film-going experience because of it.

Best Supporting Goat

George Clooney gets into a staring contest with a goat and the goat loses. This is by far the most interesting thing that happens in "The Men Who Stare at Goats". A staring contest. With a goat. Everything else in this film is a mish-mosh of plot and character that may or may not have actually happened in the 80's and 90's. There may have been programs run by the CIA involving the paranormal. Our tax dollars at work. But we never really find out much about these programs nor do we know what's fiction and fact. Everybody is too busy running around being quirky. Sometimes Clooney and Jeff Bridges almost pull it off. Kevin Spacey not so much. But nothing strings the quirk together because "Goats" is a little light on plot. Boy is that an understatement. There is supposed to be a mission I think. Couldn't really tell you what the mission is. There are a lot of characters that pop up late in the film that don't really have much to do with the whole pot of soup (an Iraqi kidnap victim that for some reason falls in with our boys). Oh, and there is a lot of voice over trying to explain things. Red Flag.
Maybe the worst problem is that amongst all that quirk and talent there is a real lack of funny. There is a little bit that's funny-ish but really that's not good enough. Too bad. Grant Heslov (the director and Oscar-nominated writer of "Good Night and Good Luck") is an old college acquaintance and a hell of a nice guy.
I'm willing to bet his next feature will be much better. Loved the goats though.

Warlords

I told you earlier that the trailer for John Woo's "Red Cliff" brings out the man in you. Well now you can get it on pay-per-view advanced screening (a little pricey at 9.99).
I was feeling a bit testosterone-y yesterday and I rented it. I'm now feeling a little punch drunk at the sheer number of dead Chinese Warriors all bleeding profusely from the pixels of my new flatscreen. The battle sequences are "Gladiator" to the 3rd power. Woo was always been a great action director and while this film doesn't break much new ground there's enough whirling, flying, slicing and spinning martial arts moves to give a fan of the genre a fix that will last a good long while.
But this is also a film about the strategy of warfare as much as it is about the actual fighting. It's about wind and women and spying and germ warfare and ancient battle formations. Fun. Fun. Fun. Now I'm not myself an expert in the field of Chinese Battle epics (my man with his thumb on the pulse of Asian cinema has yet to see it) so I may be off base but this seems to me to be about as good as a Chinese Feudal War Epic gets. You should see it.
"Red Cliff" is not in theatrical release yet so pay-per-view is currently your only option, but I'm told that it will soon be coming to an Art House near you. If you're a huge fan of the genre, you may want to wait for the big screen option. That would be an awesome sight.

For Wild Things, With Love

If you read the post about Pixar you know that my thesis there was that those folks know how to tell a story for and to a modern child. I have an addendum to the thesis. They know how to tell a story to a well adjusted modern child. Spike Jonze and screenwriter Dave Eggers know how to tell a story to an angst-filled and lonely child with anger issues. And boy do they have it down.
Lonely and angry, that's Max, the protagonist of "Where the Wild Things Are". You see him trapped in a house with two females who I'm sure love him but who have their own troubles. So Max chooses isolation and imagination. Problem is, isolation only breeds more loneliness. And imagination, well, it gets him into trouble. Max is not a kid who is reachable by those Pixar puppies with funny voices or neat life lessons. Like many kids, Max is angry and Max lashes out.

That brings up the central problem to "Where the Wild Things Are". This imaginatively told tale, with rich characterization and subtle technique (at least when dealing with the adult portion of the program) has an audience problem. Who is this story meant for?
You see when Max retreats to a faraway island of imagination, it's a dark place with over-sized monsters that are given to eating strangers. They consider throwing clumps of hard dirt at your head to be the height of entertainment. There are threats in this world. Real threats. On screen, the threats are externalized by big scary monster-like puppets who aren't exactly soft and cuddly. They're just as angry as Max. But as adults we know that these monsters are internal, demons that threaten Max's safety just as much as if they were external, say some dark stranger with candy.
So let me try to answer my own question by telling you who this movie is not for. It's not for most young children. It is violent and disturbing and a parent needs to exercise caution. True most parents underestimate their kids but in this case, there is really a thin line between understanding and nightmarishness. Most kids, I think don't need this kind of storytelling. But the ones who do, may find "Where the Wild Things Are" to be a life-changing experience.
As for adults, I found myself sitting through this movie admiringly, thinking why am I here? This wonderful tale is not really a story meant for me. A parent or Grandparent with a kid age oh, seven to twelve, now they have a reason to see this. I have never seen any movie that so gently but thoroughly explains a child's point of view, especially an angry child. I wonder what a child psychologist might say about this film? My guess is that they'd say it's about time.
The reason for a guy like me to see this film is more esoteric. It's easy to see why this film is the darling of critics like A.O. Scott or Mahnola Dargis. It is rare for ANY movie to get these kind of emotional complexities right. For me, I can watch this movie as a cinephile, a lover of film. Nuance, complexity, allegory, an academic's dream. Rare indeed to see oversize puppets illuminate the human condition.
In Max are the seeds of cinematic teen rebellion that manifest itself in James Dean and Sal Mineo in "Rebel Without a Cause" or later in Jake LaMotta in "Raging Bull".
But here Max is young. We can hope that he escapes the celluloid fate of those characters.
"Where the Wild Things Are" is a great film but I am not the audience that will find it most resonant. For those young people with whom it does strike a chord, it will be a film they cherish for a lifetime.

Parents don't be lazy on this one. See it first, before you dump the kids off for a matinee.

Girding The Loins-Asian Style

I only saw the trailer, and I may be behind the times on this, but John Woo (THE Asian action director) has a film coming to American screens soon. It's called "Red Cliff" and let me tell you guys, this one will make your man parts all tingly. A huge sweeping battle epic with millions of CGI'd Chinese warriors set in 3rd century China, oh and did I mention it's John Woo? The trailer looks fantastic. It was released in Asia in 2008 and already has a zillion Asian awards (Best Foriegn film-Japan, Art direction, costume design, special FX, even an acting award from the Hong Kong equivalent of the Oscars) I hope it lives up to my already-sky-high expectations. Men--eat sausage, drink beer and see this movie. Charles are you listening?

Midnight madness

I have GOT to buy a video camera. With a marketing plan that out hexes "The Blair Witch Project", the latest late night sensation is "Paranormal Activity". One house, one camera,a few unknown actors and a million jump scares later, this $15,000 fright fest has scared up 11.5 million in Box Office. Let me repeat the numbers. 15 thousand.
11.5 million. Sigh. Screw it. I'm ready to sell my integrity on Craig's List. Okay, not really.

Box Office Oct.9-10-11

Here are the numbers:

Film/weekend Gross/Total Gross/Weeks in Release
1. Couples Retreat/$35,340,000/$35,340,000/1
2. Zombieland/$15,000,000/$47,801,000/2
3. Cloudy with a
Chance of Meatballs/$12,000,000/$96,251,000/4
4. Toy Story/ Toy Story 2/$7,674,000/$22,676,000/2
5. Surrogates/$4,115,000/$32,573,000/3
6. The Invention of Lying/$3,370,000/$12,327,000/2
7. Whip It/$2,800,000/$8,766,058/2
8. Fame/$2,556,000/$20,041,739/3
9. The Informant!/$2,210,000/$29,853,000/4
10. Tyler Perry's I Can
Do Bad All By Myself/$1,540,000/$50,410,000/5
11. Love Happens/$1,439,440/$21,224,855/4
12. Pandorum/$846,000/$9,541,386/3

Modern Love

The Romantic Comedy, capital R, capital C. Is there any film genre more bogged down in the formulaic and familiar than the Romantic Comedy? That's rhetorical-the answer is no. But even with my low tolerance for cinematic regurgitation I'm always game for a half-way decent rom-com. What they lack in unpredictability they often make up for in charm. All you have to do to is go with it. Sure woman like Meg Ryan (he said, dating himself) or Sandra Bullock or Katherine Heigle have trouble finding dates. That's right, Michelle Pfeiffer looks like a frumpy waitress and would be lucky to get the short-order cook (again, the age thing). Yeah, whatever.
This year, however, brought us some interesting twists in the straight and narrow rom-com freeway. "Away We Go" had merit. (See the September post) But the two I want to focus on in this post are "The Proposal" and "500 Days of Summer".

"The Proposal"-
This is a romantic comedy that does it the old-fashioned way. It is as formulaic and predictable a movie as they come. I liked it. Why? I'm sitting here hoping the reasons come to me before my typing fingers catch up to my brain. Well here are three reasons- Sandra Bullock, Ryan Reynolds, Betty White. What is it about Sandra Bullock that makes her so damned watchable on screen? She's attractive yes, funny, yep. She can act when required (though in most of the material she chooses it's not really necessary), I'm left with that thing that people say about actors when they know they really should be harsher but can't seem to muster enough bile. Sandra Bullock is likable. So shoot me, she is. It's charm. It's delivery. It's cute. It's groin appeal. It's a big white-toothed smile. Alright, it's a cop out, but it's also true. Then match her with a likable guy who can also deliver a punch line and you can forgive a lot of plot contrivance. It's really difficult to quantify on-screen chemistry, but what ever it is and however you measure it Reynolds and Bullock seem to have it. Now for Betty White. She has forgotten more about comedy than all those idiotic Saturday Night Live clowns will ever know and at eighty something she can still deliver the goods. She is funny and not just in a cutesy Granny kind of way. She's funny in a skilled comic timing sort of way. That's why I asked everyone to comment on whether or not she deserves awards consideration. Whatever your opinion, she's a National Comic Treasure. That's why "The Proposal" found success. Audiences tell all the snobby cinematic pundits what works. It's made like 160 mill. I'd say that's a definitive decision.

"500 Days of Summer"-
Likability will not be discussed in the conversation about "500 Days of Summer". Oh, it's likable, the leads are likable, supporting cast for the most part very likable.
It's just that I don't have to rely on that stuff here. Here I can talk script because this film can take it. The script is that good. The film is that good. It is rare that a romantic comedy can be talked about as a great film, especially lately. This one can indeed. One of the best films of the year? Easy. Changing the genre? A case can be made.
In "Shakespeare in Love" Judi Dench (in the guise of Queen Elizabeth One) poses a question. "Can the true nature of love be revealed in a play?" Of course that was Romeo and Juliet. Few films about love are actually that ambitious(maybe "Love Actually"). I think "500 Days of Summer" makes the effort.
Okay I'm going to talk about a structural devise in this film but don't get scared off. This film is a blast to watch. Here goes. Each segment of the film let's you know which day in the relationship your about to see. The numbers roll to say Day 1 or Day 278 or Day 450. It tells you exactly how far along this 500 day relationship is, which allows the filmmakers to play with the time line. The tentative early days, the passionate and silly beginnings, the decline. They juxtapose the stages of modern love against one another and reveal the early hints of attraction, and the early hints of trouble. The result dissects the relationship and pins it out like a frog in biology class. It lets us see the guts. It exposes the inner workings. It's brilliant. It's easily my favorite script of the year. A rom-com that reveals the true nature of the modern relationship? Good God. It's alive! The genre is ALIVE!.
A final note about "500 Days". It has a kick-ass song song score. Not just any film can pair up "The Smiths" with a karaoke version of Nancy Sinatra's "Sugar Town". Oh, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are fantastic too. Recommendation enough?

September redux

It's October! According to my Walgreen's it's Christmas time! Oh wait. Anyway, here's a list of the films I blogged about in September. Go back and check them out.

Away We Go
Inglourious Basterds.
Adventureland
The Hangover
Sin Nombre
Star Trek
Watchmen
Pandorum
Every Little Step
Julie and Julia
Sunshine Cleaning
Thirst
Life During Wartime (Upcoming)
The Hurt Locker
Precious (Upcoming)

Betty White

It looks like there's going to be a big campaign for Betty White in "The Proposal" this coming award season.(Supporting Actress category) I'm a SAG nominator this year. What do you think? Worthy of a nomination? She's a wonderful comedienne, granted. Is the performance one of the five best of the year? Should her career (mostly TV) factor in? Feed back requested.

The Pixar Principle

Pixar is on an incredible run. Its last three films, Ratatouille, Wall-e and Up, are going to be classics of the animated genre (Ratatouille is still my favorite-the greatest Rat movie of all time, and there's been more than you think).
So why does Pixar get this so right? I think it's because it totally and completely understands the MODERN child. (Some have said that it's because nobody in the entire Pixar outfit has entirely grown up themselves-I can't really bear witness to that but it sounds like a pretty good theory) The Disney model, you know, the Princess is in peril but hark! her Prince is near to save her and then marry her, seems pretty irrelevant to today's kid who is much more sophisticated in their story comprehension capability. No more "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" for this generation.
This gives Pixar a much broader palate to work with. In "Up", the much talked about montage of a young Carl and Ellie meeting, falling in love, losing a baby and just living a life is the perfect example of speaking to children without speaking down to them. Children get that there has been a family tragedy even if miscariage isn't part of their vocabulary. Something bad has happened, we see it. But we see it in long shot. We don't intrude on the Fredrickson's privacy. Children don't need the harsh emotion but they do know what's happening. It is elegant in it's simplicity,
beautiful for both children and adults and the essence of Pixar's genius.
The young scout in "Up" has a life filled with modern complications as well. He's lonely, looking for someone or something to connect with. That role traditionally went to a Dad. But Dad's not there. That's a modern dilemma. "Up" is a film that understands the problems that children need worked out on a screen today, in this generation. It's a company that knows great storytelling. Dust off another spot for an Oscar, Pixar.

Box Office Snapshot

Here are the current numbers:

Film/total gross/ weeks in release

1. Surrogates/$17,247,690/1
2. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs/$63,800,538/2
3. The Informant!/$21,798,471/2
4. Fame/$11,113077/1
5. Pandorum/ $408,279/1
6. Love Happens/$15,449,370/2
7. Tyler Perry's I
Can Do Bad All
By Myself /$45,185,425/3
8. Jennifer's Body/$13,043,423/2
9. Inglourious Basterds/$114,966,326/6
10. 9/$27,683,021
11. All About Steve/$30,278,413/4
12. Julie and Julia/$90,878,860/8

Pandorum opened

This isn't coming from me because as you may have figured out, horror is not my thing. I've outsourced this post to my horror/sci fi go to power couple, Charlie and Theresa. What they tell me is "Pandorum" is worth hiring the babysitter and plunking down the 12 bucks. This is a deep space horror story, perhaps in the "Alien"/"Aliens" and "Outland" vein. Two astronauts wake from a suspended state but don't know where they are or what there mission is. Much deep space pandemonium ensues, or so I'm told. I can tell you that the director, a young German filmmaker named Christian Alvart is considered to be one of the five most promising faces of the new German Cinema. I guess the old faces of German Cinema are all dry and wrinkly now. Anyway, my horror guys on the street give it a thumbs way up.

More Advetures in Cinema 2009

So it's May 2009 and Mom is in the hospital (she's fine). This as always provides me with an unusual opportunity to be out of the house. I can now get caught up on my film going and do it in actual theaters the way God intended man to see films, God in this case being either an all-powerful and omniscient being or one of the early studio heads like Louis B. Mayer or a Warner brother.
But what to see? It's May after all, before the start of the summer blockbuster season but well post awards season, a kind of cinematic no man's land. Except not so much in 2009. In 2009 I have some options. Toward the end of this five day late- night popcorn frenzy I find myself at The Westside Pavillion's new (at least to me) cinema complex for an 11pm showing of "Adventureland". My expectations are not all that high but sometimes, just occasionally, that makes for a pleasant surprise. This, happily, is one of those cases.
Maybe I was expecting silly comedy. After all director Greg Mattola directed "Superbad" a giant silly hit of the type I usually hate (See the post on "The Hangover"). Here's what I got-- a dark, touching and earnestly amusing look at growing up in the eighties. A character driven coming of age story with wisdom and heart. That's what I got. Hmmm....nice surprise.
This movie has much more to do with "American Graffiti" and "Dazed and Confused" than it does with "Superbad". And thank God for that. At the center of this story are two noteworthy performances by young actors who I hope to see more often. Jesse Eisenberg, who did such a great job as the snide older sibling in "The Squid and the Whale". Here he's a book smart (but not street smart) recent college grad who gets stuck in the summer job from hell at an amusement park. Turns out it's not so bad. He kind of finds his tribe. And there's a beautiful and slightly odd girl (naturally). Romance ensues. The girl is Kristen Stewart who I call a newcomer much to the outrage of most tween girls. Turns out Kristen is also cast as Bella, the lead in the "Twilight" series. Who new? My days as a teenage girl (kidding) are way behind me. Stewart is extraordinary in this complicated role as a complicated young woman. The awkward and honest relationship between Eisenberg and Stewart is what makes this film so effective. And the choice to place it in the eighties, (when Mattola grew up I'm guessing) makes it more so. Ahhh, the eighties. You really have to go a long way to make growing up in the seventies look good. This film is a sleeper for my top ten of 2009. It was a nice surprise. I love surprises.

Weekend Box Office Sept.18, 19, 20

Here are the numbers:
Film/Weekend Gross/Total Gross/# of weeks

1. Cloudy with a
Chance of Meatballs/$30,304,648/$30,304,648/1
2. The Informant!/$10,464,314/$10,464,314/1
3. I Can Do Bad All
By Myself/$9,877,436/$37,749,545/2
4. Love Happens/$8,057,010/$8,057,010/1
5. Jennifer's Body/$6,868,397/$6,868,397/1
6. 9/$5,563,134/$22,918,077/2
7. Inglourious Basterds/$3,818,142/$110,116,807/5
8. All About Steve/$3,373,212/$26,651,633/3
9. Sorority Row/$2,499,758/$8,880,742/2
10.The Final Destination/$2,388,473/$62,405,20/4

Of Interest:
Harry Potter is just about to cross the $300 million mark (domestic)
Julie and Julia is just about to cross the $90 million mark (domestic)

The Hangover

Middle age men acting like juveniles for the sake of silly gross-out comedy. Except for slasher films this is my least favorite genre of film. These exercises in the ridiculous, most often perpetrated by a Saturday Night Live alum, are cheap and lazy attempts at filmmaking. They substitute caricature for character and almost never rise above the humor level of a High School freshman. I despise them. Zucker Brothers, hate 'em. Will Farrell movies, yuck. Adam Sandler flicks, stupid. "Wayne's World", "Something About Mary", "Kingpin"? I'd rather get my eyebrows waxed. Even "Tropic Thunder" lost me with the blood sucking of a severed head. Can't stand these types of movies. They're are silly and pointless and wastes of talent. (Except for Rob Schneider movies-he has no talent to waste) Okay, you get my point.
So why did I see "The Hangover"? Well, I got sucked in by the revues and there was a midnight showing. And guess what? Laughed my ass off. This is a sure sign that the apocalypse is on the way.
Here I think is the difference. Plausibility. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the behavior in this film is PROBABLE. Certainly not. But it MIGHT have happened. The possibility that these characters exist in the world somewhere is there. Unlike Will Farrell's tights-wearing skater or Sandler's idiotic Little Nicky or even Robert Downey Jr.'s (much acclaimed)skin-dyed Australian, who exist only in the sketch comedy-tainted minds of SNL graduates, the entire far-fetched scenario of "The Hangover" belongs to this world. I know it isn't a likely or even likable world (neither is Vegas)but at least it's a world I could buy into. And even better, there's a mystery to solve here. Where the hell is the groom? That's the hook. That's what draws you in. And even the answer to that riddle is plausible. You almost want to smack your forehead with your palm. Of course that's where he is! It all make sense now.
Why did I like "The Hangover"? Because silly is easy but story is hard. Besides, who doesn't love a movie where someone dry humps a tiger?

Another "Precious" win

TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival) is in full swing, and "Precious" is again an audience choice award winner. This is the second major film festival to bestow it with an audience favorite award. Sundance was the first. Of course Sundance and Toronto get a lot of the same audience so it may not be that surprising. Still, I'm tellin' ya, this is one to look out for this year.

Emigration train - Sin Nombre

Issue movies can be preachy and one sided, hot button issue movies usually double down on preachy and one sided. But the immigration debate, which has come under a lot of cinematic scrutiny lately, has found its clearest voice in two films that have absolutely no interest in preaching. They make their point by examining the individual life caught in the net of politics, policy and poverty. One is last years gentle story of friendship called "The Visitor" (An Oscar nominee for Best Actor and it deserved more nominations, especially in the acting categories). Since that film got a fair amount of attention (you should see it if you havn't) I'll move on to the 2009 entry into the immigration debate.
"Sin Nombre" is anything but a gentle story, although friendship does come into play. This immigration (actually emigration) story details the lives of the people who are driven to come here, and more importantly, what they go through to get here. Two people meet on a train (and I mean ON a train) both moving north for different reasons, one for opportunity and one for survival.
This isn't a story about America. That's just the destination. This story takes you into a world of gang warfare, murder, rape and lethal loyalty. It's not pretty but you've never seen anything like this before, I guarantee it. And by the end, you'll know why leaving is such an imperative.
The most effective scenes follow an entire immigrant population as they travel on the tops of rail cars toward a better life. Let me repeat that- ON TOP of rail cars.
I live in a city where half the population is latino and had no inkling of what it takes to cross a border for real.
This story has an interesting angle for me. It ties to my own life. My maternal Grandmother walked hundreds of miles to get to the port where the ship that took her to America was docked. Not easy. The characters in "Sin Nombre" go through a similar if not more dangerous journey. Those who make it are fire hardened, determined and driven. Those are the essential qualities of the American character. It's why this country is a great place to live.
You can see this movie on pay-per-view and I understand Netflix has it. It's one of the best films of the year so far. Don't miss it.

More catching up 2009

Star Trek:
Today I want to catch up on some 2009 films I saw earlier this year (before blogging).Star Trek is everything everyone said it was back in what, June? Lots of fun and a great cast (and by extension great casting). Here's what makes me happy as an old guy who as a kid watched Shatner and Nimoy run from one side of the bridge to the other to simulate a Romulan attack. The restart of the series isn't about a new set of characters. It isn't about Piccard or that female captain or Klingons on the bridge as good guys or a robot science officer. It isn't the next generation, it's MY generation. Those characters felt as comfortable as a warm glove. You can totally buy these actors as the originals, less worn, more energetic but the same people. It was Roddenberry's Star Trek with production design. Fans who used to watch the original series (he wrote deftly avoiding the trekker/trekkie controversy) rejoice! They're making more episodes of the original. The Oscar for casting goes to.......

Watchmen:
I was a sci-fi/fantasy geek. From Tolkien's trilogy and the Sand Worms of Dune, Asimov's Foundation series, Heinlein, Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison. I stood on the banks of Riverworld and sat at The Left Hand of Darkness. Today, I'm so not that guy. Those authors and stories belong to my youth. I look at those old books like I'm standing in the well-lit halls of a futuristic museum. I did not keep up with my brother geeks and was subsequently kicked out of the fraternity. Therefore, the graphic novel is not my milieu. This hybrid of the sci-fi novels and comic books with a bit of X-Box and Play Station thrown in for flavor, belongs to the next generation of Sci-fi fan, and I have some advise for them. Don't hold so tightly to the material. Take a page from fans of Jane Austen or Henry Miller. Let the book be the book (or in this case comic book) and let the film be the film.
Watchmen is too long, it meanders, loses focus and exposes way too much blue penis. But when it's good, man is it good. It places you squarely in a world that never existed and makes you believe it could have or should have existed. Or that it will exist if we're not careful. That's the definition of good Science Fiction. The beginning of "Watchmen", the set up, is particularly fascinating. It shows us an alternate history with flare and efficiency. The rest of the movie, not so efficient. When the film heads backward to that alternate history (see Vietnam sequence) you can see why this next generation of geek holds so tightly to the novel. It's really good. It just needs a ruthless edit. Either that or you go the Peter Jackson route and make three long-ass movies. "Watchmen" just needs shortening. But no one can tell me that Rorschach's constant-motion mask isn't the coolest thing ever. I know. I used to be a geek.

Inglorious Arguement

Okay,I've avoided writing about "Inglourious Basterds" because I've argued enough about this film on the phone for the past 3 weeks. Oh, look. my spell check is going crazy. It must not like the petulant irrelevance of Tarantino's title miscues either.
That might have been a hint at exactly how much I disliked the film. Alright, let the games begin.
The opening scene, a cat and mouse game between the Nazi Jew hunter and the French farmer is everything a scene should be. Tarantino writes great scenes. I was with him-and then things started to go awry. The great Jew hunting Nazi has the teenage Jewish girl in his sights and a squad of Jew hunting bad guys at his disposal in rural France. And----he lets her go. Bye-bye, go, be free and repay me by owning a cinema in Paris because I've got this great idea......
Tarantino writes script like a teenage boy, interested not in the logic of the story or consistent characterization, but in indulging the petty sex and gore fantasies of an odd adolescent who's brain hasn't quite reached the level of sophistication of say...Beavis and Butthead.The story doesn't matter nor do the consequences of the story (which in this case is particularly heinous-turning Jews into the same kind of bloodlusting animals that the Nazi's were. And make no mistake- the scalping and head bashing of captured prisoners of war is indisputably immoral, unless your Dick Cheney) Tarantino's adolescent fantasies about bashing Nazi heads is immoral and disgusting and if you found yourself cheering, try a little soul searching.And there's more-a squad of Jewish killers that have no history but truck loads of hate, a lead character from the American south that we don't know a damn thing about, especially about what turned him into this blood lusting murderer (it isn't the Jewish thing because we know he's not Jewish and by the way southern g.i.'s in WWII were notorious for hating Jews). There's an interracial romance that makes about as much sense as a Jewish teenager growing up to inherit a French Cinema. And all of it tacked on because over margarita's one night Tarantino got the idea "Wouldn't it be cool if we burned Hitler while he was watching a movie?"
Which brings me to the title. Those of you who went to the USC Theater Dept. might remember Louis Fantasia talking about the very first clue to unlocking a story's meaning-"it's in the title, stupid". Or in this case in the stupid title. On Charlie Rose, Tarantino himself confirmed it when asked about the intentional misspellings. "Ehh," he said, "it's just an artistic flourish". Exactly. Signifying nothing. Much like the rest of this film. Aldo Rain? Really? Nice inside joke you self indulgent, petulant child. As for me, I'd rather watch the great film Quentin Tarantino will make when he grows up.
I want this blog to be civil, but on this film I'll take all comers.

Weekend Box Office Sept. 11,12 13

Here are the numbers:

Film/Weekend Gross/Total Gross/Weeks in Release
1. Tyler Perry's
I Can Do Bad All
By Myself/$23,446,785/$23,446,785/1
2. 9 /$10,740,446/$15,160,926/1
3. Inglourious Basterds/$6,140,617/$103,903,468/4
4. All About Steve/$5,638,243/$21,650,628/2
5. The Final Destination/$5,522,377/$58,280,235/3
6. Sorority Row/$5,059,802/$5,059,802/1
7. Whiteout/$4,915,104/$4,915,104/1
8. District 9/$3,538,769/$108,456,233/5
9. Gamer/$3,293,055/$16,261,653/2
10. Julie & Julia/3,156,316/85,216,398/6

Limited Release
1. (500) Days of Summer/$1,174,165/$30,001,366/9
2. G-Force/$1,015,865/$116,715,916/8
3. Harry Potter/$908,482/$298,844,700/9
4. The Hangover/$709,225/$273,136,280/15
5. The September Issue/$693,862/$1,266,000/3

The Golden Lion

The Golden Lion, the top prize at the Venice Film Festival went to an Israeli film called "Lebenon". Sam Maoz's film is a soldier's eye view of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebenon, in which he participated. Colin Firth took the Best Actor award for fashion designer Tom Ford's directorial debut, "A Single Man". Italian actress Ksenia Rappoport won the Best Actress award for "La Doppia Ora"

Desert Story-The Hurt Locker

Unless you've been in one, it's probably impossible to know what it's like to fight in a war. Acknowledged. Doesn't mean we shouldn't make the effort to try and understand. When I directed the Vietnam play "Tracers", the writer John Di Fusco told me that most people didn't understand that except for the kill or be killed part, you could actually have a good time fighting a war, or to be more accurate, when you're not fighting it. Young guys, most of whom have never been outside their own back yard, exotic lands, lots of beer, kick-ass dope, good buddies around you,adrenalin, sex. War was a stew of experiences, some good, some bad, some horrific. And all of it punctuated by long stretches of boredom. I never thought the war genre ever captured the experience of the grunt. I may never know for sure but I think "The Hurt Locker" comes close.

Jeremy Renner is a bomb disposal specialist in a war where the weapon of choice is the bomb. The film is structured around a series of bomb removals, a simple progression of incidents that require this unit to risk being blown into unrecognizable fragments, each one a personal time bomb for the members of the squad. In between comes the banality of conversation, therapy, drinking, buying movies from street vendors, until, ooops, time to go out and risk your ass again. And the adrenaline becomes addictive, both for the characters and the audience. Director Katheryn Bigelow gives us a cleaner, less streaky window into the lives of the soldiers who fight our wars and why that fight leaves nasty marks for the rest of their lives. Not a lot of story arc here but a truckload of insight for those of us who may never quite understand.

In a movie where performance is everything, lots of terrific actors deliver, not the least of which is Jeremy Renner. The list also includes Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty (both nominatable) and David Morse (remember Duval in Apocalypse Now? just as good) Writer Mark Boal and director Bigelow could both take home Gold Statues-no exageration. It's that good. This would be a Best Picture nominee even if the world was sane again and there were just five picks.

Language Barrier

Taiwan's entry into the Oscar race for Foreign Film this year is called "No Puedo Vivar Sin Ti". Anyone else confused by this?

Asian Cinema visits Transylvania

For my favorite expert on Asian film:
"Thirst" is the 2009 entry from Korean director Chan-wook Park (Old School) A Korean priest turns into a Korean vampire when a medical expiriment goes wrong. Trying to find reviews but it's apparently an interesting twist on the Vampiric vs. Christian view of eternal life. Sounds interesting and Charlie was the first guy to spot last years Vampire masterpiece "Let the Right One In" (which really is a great vampire flick).

Amy Adams in 2009

In 2009 Amy Adams has solidified her position as the go to actress for female characters trying to find their place in a cutthroat world. I have friends who suggest that she doesn't show a lot of range but I don't really look for her to tackle roles like the raging alcholic or affect an accent. The gradations of character she exhibits are much more subtle. And part of this range problem is that her last 2 major releases have been in films in which Meryl Streep has shown buckets full of range. Compare anyone to Meryl in the range category and they take a loss. Amy has in 2009 carried or co-carried two outstanding films:

Sunshine Cleaning-Indies are great because they tackle subjects that mainstream studios shun like the plague or they offer you glimpses into characters that studio films don't have the time or inclination to explore. Sunshine Cleaning is a gem of the second category. Adam's Rose Lorkowski doesn't really know how to define herself so she relies on others to do it, especially her high school sweetheart. He's married now but knows Rose can provide a little on the side. As played by Steve Zahn he's a lovable user but he inadvertently throws her a life line by suggesting she go into business cleaning up crime scenes (or the newly departed and rotted) Adams uses the business to find the spine of her own life. It's charming and worth the time invested to take the journey. Two performances of note- Emily Blount is the best she has ever been as Rose's shleprock of a sister and Clifton Collins Jr., who is so good as the one armed cleaning supplies salesman that you'll think they just hired the one armed cleaning supplies salesman from down the block to play the role.

Julie and Julia-okay if your under thirty-five and have never asked yourself the question"How did so much of my life just slip away?", then this is probably not your movie. Oh, and if you don't like to cook or think that the latest Terminator installment had it's moments, then I'd give this one a pass. Otherwise this is a wonderful film. Won't talk about Streep here. She's brilliant blah, blah, blah. She is but enough already. The interesting thing about this film is how Nora Ephron told so compelling a story with almost no conflict. Yes Amy Adams' husband almost leaves but we know he's not really going to leave. He's too nice. The answer probably lies in how much you root for these two women to find fulfilment. Streep and Adams pull it off masterfully. It's becoming a habit with these two ("Doubt" pun--sorry)Loved every minute. And if anyone thinks it's easy to do what the blogging Julie did, I challenge you to make even one recipe from that cookbook. I have that book and I'm telling you, it was an almost impossible task.

Films of 2009

Okay I'm going to get caught up on films I've seen so far this year. These are my thoughts on big studio fare, indies, documentaries, what ever I see. Please comment.

AWAY WE GO--- This film was really interesting to me and a little hard to pin down genre wise. Romantic comedy doesn't seem right. Maybe just a relationship film. Directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) This is his follow up to "Revolutionary Road" which I hated. I don't blame Sam as much for Rev. Road because it was his wife (Kate Winslett) that really pushed that project to be made- to stultifyingly boring and melodramatic affect. So I'll give ol' Sam a pass on that one. "Away We Go" works because of the central relationship in the film. Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski are a newly expecting slacker couple looking for their place in the world--literally. Their search, their questioning of their own existance, their easy facility with one another are at the core of this film and it totally works. Strangely it's the supporting characters that hold this film back. While the lead characters are grounded the character actors in the film play everything over the top. And they're good actors too, usually reliable character people like Allison Janney, Jim Gaffigan and Maggie Gyllenhaal make these road pic side trips seem bizzare and out of place like Mendes directed the leads and Fellini directed the supporting cast. Anyway, the relationship at the core of this film makes it completely worth seeing and Maya Rudolph is still on my list as one of the best lead performances of the year.

EVERY LITTLE STEP----Attention theater people (my tribe). There is a fantastic documentary out there detailing the audition process for the Broadway remake of "A Chorus Line" and providing backstory about the creative process that spawned the original. Actually it provides some backstory on the creative process period. Even if Musicals aren't your milieu (lord knows it ain't mine) you will recognize yourself in the process. Not earth-shattering but interesting and fun.

Venice Film Festival 2009

Venice Flm Festival has two Ameican films in official competition this year. Check them out:

Bad Lieutenant:Port of Call New Orleans- This is a remake of the original Bad Lieutenant with Harvey Keitel though it doesn't seem to be a literal remake- new city and a plot involving the murder of African immigrants. There is a nun getting raped like in the original. Nicholas Cage plays the Keitel role with Eva Mendes and Val Kilmer in the cast. Cage's character has lots of addictions-perscription drugs, cocaine, sex. Right up Cage's alley. Can he be as creepy as Keitel? Werner Herzog directs. If anybody can make it creepy it's Herzog.

A Single Man- directed by Tom Ford in his debut effort. Based on Christopher Isherwood novel set in 1962 Los Angeles about a man who has to face a new future after the death of his longtime lover. Colin Firth and Julianne Moore star.

Out of competion films:
The Hole directed by Joe Dante- Believe it or not it's a 3D supernatural flick
Brooklyn's Finest by Antoine Fuqua-w/ Richard Gere, Don Cheadle. Ethan Hawke, Wesley Snipes
The Men Who Stare at Goats by Grant Heslov (writer of Good Night and Good Luck) w/ George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey. Grant is a guy I went to USC Theater School with back in the day. Eichh! I'm old.

Weekend Box Office Sept.5-6-7

Here's what's makin' money.

Wide Release:
Film Weekend Gross/ Total Gross/ Wks
1. The Final Destination $12,435,000/ 47,566,000/ 2
2. All About Steve $11,200,000/ 11,200,000/ 1
3. Inglourious Basterds $10,847,000/ 91,042,000/ 3
4. Gamer $9,000,000/ 9,000,000/ 1
5. District 9 $7,000,000/ 101,274,000/ 4
6. Halloween 2 $5,608,000/ 25,664,000/ 2
7. Julie&Julia $5,200,000/ 78,840,000/ 5
8. G.I. Joe $5,100,000/ 139,416,000/ 5
9. The Time Traveler's Wife $4,215,000/ 54,557,000/ 4
10. Extract $4,187,000/ 4,187,000/ 1

Limited Release:
1. 500 Days of Summer $1,800,000/ 27,868,000/ 8
2. Ponyo $1,288,000/ 12,937,000/ 4
3.The Hangover $1,160,000/ 271,857,000/ 14
4. The Ugly Truth $875,000/ 87,319,000/ 7
5. Transformers $805,000/ 400,437,000/ 11

Of Note:
Harry Potter/ 296,919,000
Star Trek/ 257,070,000

up and coming

Here are a couple of interesting independents to keep an eye out for.

"Life During Wartime" Todd Solanz has a new film with familliar themes coming up. The director of "Happiness" revisits the land of twisted sexuality for a look at the repercussions of pedophilia . He ressurects and updates the lives of the central characters from "Happiness" but cast different actors to play them. Sounds like you might want to rent "Happiness' before you see this one. Then again, that's a lot of pedophilia for one sitting. Interesting cast though-Allison Janey, Ciaran Hinds, Ally Sheedy, Paul Reubens, Charlotte Rampling. Reviews have been pretty good.

"Precious" Gritty and urban, this is based on the Novel Push by Saphhire. Must have been a hell of a book because the film's full title is "Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire". No kidding. Anyway this story of a black overweight teenage girl with two kids caught in a cycle of abuse and poverty was an audience award winner at Sundance and that means a big indie push at Oscar time. In fact, Mo'Nique may be the odds on favorite to win an Oscar (you heard me) according to those early Oscar blogs. You may hear a lot about this one. Also starring Gabby Sadibe as "Precious" (on a bunch of blogs as a possibility for "Best Actress"), Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz and Sherri Shepherd. Directed by Lee Daniels.

Fade In:

The purpose of the blog is two-fold. First it will help me to organize and catalogue my thoughts on the year in film. Already my reactions and thoughts on last years crop of films is slipping away. It's actually vital that I do this in 2009. I'm on the Screen Actor's Guild Nominating Committee, a task that I take very seriously (some of my friends say too seriously). And secondly, I would like to gather and compile from friends and readers as many Top Ten film lists as I can. I'll be asking you to submit a list of your ten favorite films and maybe the top ten for any given year (beginning with 2009). I'll be posting the criteria for the top ten lists on this blog soon, that is as soon as I come up with said criteria. There may be other purposes that I can explore as I go, things to keep you informed on the art and business of film (current boxoffice numbers, award show picks, film festival updates etc.) And since I expect to hear from friends first, I'm sure that my arch nemesis, The Great Sage of Azuza, will be chiming in periodically with his ludicris comments and observations. Well, everybody needs an arch nemesis. That's it for the first post. -----Rich's Cine-File.