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.