Monthly Archives: August 2009

The LAST AGEBOC 09 – September 4-6

Standard

agebocfinalcorrected

Predict the #1 film for the weekend of September 4-6, 2009.

The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points.

Notice! In this, our last installment of the summer AGEBOC 09, predictions will be sent over email. I’ve checked, and all except Juan and Rhymerguy should know my address. If any of those two wish to email me, I’ll send a mail to them over the email address they’ve put in their comments accounts. Participants predictions will be shown on Thursday after deadline.

Otherwise it’s business as usual. You know the deadline, you know how many points are given out. Three people are competing for the win here: James, Brian and Rob. They’ve done good over the past few months and I’m not going to throw in some lame 5 point questions just so someone can swoop in and win over other people’s, eh, hard work.

If other people wish to join in so they can take points instead of them, then they are of course still welcome to do so. That’s only fair.

There will be prizes, of a sort, though the specifics are still being worked on. Prizes will be given out next Monday the 7th of September.

I’ve enjoyed doing this. For a short while it was one of the few structured things I was doing in my life (weird as that may sound). As other things came into the forefront, I’ve been sorta slipping, as people have been correct to point out. I’m not a very disciplined and organized guy, though I try to be.

I’m looking forward to when James takes over this thing for the fall/winter.

Bonus questions:

1) Will Extract make more or less than 11 million this weekend?

2) What will be the #3 film of the weekend?

Deadline is Wednesday September 2 at 11:59 pm (blog time).

To find out the rules of the game, go to the main thread for AGEBOC 09.

AGEBOC 09 score

cartoon_crown1_9cs9 James: 34

Brian: 31
Rob: 30
Joe Webb: 22
Jackrabbit Slim: 19
Nick: 17
Filmman: 13
Marco Trevisiol: 9
Jeanine: 9
Juan: 7.5
Rhymerguy: 4

Opening in Chicago, 08/28

Standard

Well, my last day at work was today, which means that Openings will return to its previous Friday morning schedule starting next week. On one hand, I’m a little bit relieved, as I’ve had very little to do at work lately, and while it’s good to get paid I don’t think anyone really likes feeling useless. On the other hand, I’m back to looking at an uncertain future. On the third hand, we’re going to Mexico next week and that will be fun. On the fourth hand, though, this means I might have more time to get back to writing the odd review here and there, plus the mysterious new feature that I’m planning and just haven’t gotten around to initiating. On the fifth hand, it’s impossible to ponder the vastness of space.

Le combat dans l’île
Director: Alain Cavalier
Personal Interest Factor: 10
Re-issued French conspiracy thriller from 1962 playing at the Gene Siskel Film Center this week. Never really heard of it, and I’m not familiar with Cavalier at all, but I love stuff like this more than just about anything.
Metacritic: Not listed

The Final Destination (trailer)
Director: David R. Ellis (Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco, Final Destination 2, Cellular, Snakes on a Plane)
Personal Interest Factor: 1
Way back in the day, I remember people saying that the first Final Destination was pretty decent, but I never saw it. Obviously, I then skipped the next two sequels, as well. This one looks unbelievably stupid, even by the standards of the genre. Killer escalators? Deadly car washes?
Metacritic: 38

Halloween II (trailer)
Director: Rob Zombie (House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil’s Rejects, Halloween)
Personal Interest Factor: 1.01
Again, very little interest in sequels of movies that I didn’t see in the first place. I guess if I had to choose, though, I’d take this over The Final Destination.
Metacritic: 50

It Might Get Loud (trailer)
Director: Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth, Gracie)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
This seems like a decent idea for a documentary, and as it turns out it’s about three guys who actually seem like interesting people to hear talk about playing guitar.
Metacritic: 71

Taking Woodstock (trailer)
Director: Ang Lee (The Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Brockeback Mountain, Lust, Caution)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
It’s always worth going to an Ang Lee movie, but this one looks highly suspect in my view as I’ve never understood why Woodstock was such a big flippin’ deal. Reviewed here already by Marco Trevisiol, who says, “Overall, the film has significant deficiencies and isn’t the substantial, insightful work it could’ve been … [b]ut it is entertaining and occasionally captivating.”
Metacritic: 55

Youssou Ndour: I Bring What I Love (trailer)
Director: Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi
Personal Interest Factor: 5
Documentary about Senegalese singer Youssou Ndour.
Metacritic: 58

Review: Taking Woodstock

Standard

TakingWoodstock

Ang Lee’s latest film ‘Taking Woodstock’ is – as the title implies – centred around the 1969 music festival held in New York, one of the iconic pop culture events of the 1960s. It attempts to be both a character study and convey the experience of what it was like to be at the event. While it doesn’t really work as a character study it’s much more successful on the latter theme.

The character study is focussed on Elliot Teichberg, a Jewish closeted homosexual who has moved back from Greenwich Village to help out his parents on their dismal and dilapidated motel in the Catskills. Out of this dreary existence, he seizes an opportunity to bring a music festival to the area to create some activity for the family business and the town, not realising that it will be much, much bigger than he ever anticipated… and inevitably have a major impact on him and his future.

One reason it struggles as a character study is that Elliot isn’t a particularly compelling character. We don’t get many revealing insights into his persona or even know that much about his background. Despite him playing a pivotal role in the creation of the festival, he’s actually quite passive and seems to function at times purely as our eyes and ears of the event.

Another reason it struggles on this front is that the pivotal character of Elliot’s mother is the weakest aspect of the film. Very broadly played by Imelda Staunton, she may not be the biggest stereotype of an overbearing Jewish mother I’ve seen in a film, but she’d be close. She does have one or two amusing scenes but she’s such an obnoxious caricature that it was impossible to care or emphasise with her (which the film tries to do towards the end) and as a result the dramatic interaction with Elliot is severely weakened.

Plotwise the film isn’t particularly well structured. Some interesting subplots – the negative reaction of the locals to Elliot’s role in bringing the festival there, the enormous technical difficulties in organising such an event , anti-Semitic attacks on Elliot’s family – are either not followed through or forgotten in the latter stages of the film.

But in a funny way, the fragmented structure of the film probably works to its advantage in recreating the experience of what it was like to be there at Woodstock, which itself was messy and disjointed.  The film’s great strength is that it feels genuinely authentic as a recreation of what it was like to be a spectator there. This is in part because the film’s perspective is from that of the locals so we see from the very beginning how it’s transformed from a sleepy, small town to a buzzing mini-metropolis. The film portrays this well by making the pre-concert scenes quite languid in pace, in contrast to the lively and effervescent scenes once the concert and youth in their hundreds of thousands come to town.

The film captures the concert atmosphere superbly. There’s a marvellous scene where we follow Elliot as he’s riding on a motorcycle to get to the concert site and we pass by numerous amounts of people, congregations, gatherings and various types of transportation; it perfectly illustrates what a once-in-a-lifetime experience it would’ve been.  Split-screen style footage (imitating the famous 1970 documentary of the event) is also used at regular intervals to demonstrate the vibrancy and chaos of the event.

The fact that the concert and musicians itself aren’t shown (whether in recreations or in actual archive footage) has been criticised but I think this works to the film’s advantage. The film isn’t about the musicians themselves but about the spectators who went there and what it was like for them.

With the exception of Staunton, the performances are fine. Demetri Martin is quite good as Elliot considering the limitations of his role although I got quite a shock learning after seeing the film he was 34 in real life in 1969; the way the film portrays him and how he acts in the role, you’d think he was in his early 20’s. Henry Goodman delivers a nicely nuanced performance as Elliot’s father and Eugene Levy and Jonathan Groff are standouts in support roles.

Ang Lee’s direction on individual scenes is mixed. There’s one very subtle, well done scene early on when Elliot is on the telephone which perfectly captures how trapped and dissatisfied he feels with his life. In contrast there’s another early scene when Elliot goes into a diner and the locals (all unhappy at him bringing the event to the town) in unison become silent and turn towards him menacingly; it’s a trite effect straight out of a lousy sitcom.

Overall, the film has significant deficiencies and isn’t the substantial, insightful work it could’ve been. But it is entertaining and occasionally captivating and is one of the more enjoyable films I’ve seen in 2009. If nothing else, it sure makes you envious of those who went to Woodstock.

AGEBOC 09 – August 28-30

Standard

NOTICE! This was supposed to be the last of the AGEBOC 09′s, but due to management failure the challenge will be extended one more week, where there will be special rules and prizes.

The new deadline is

    Thursday 9pm

(because there are midnight showings for the two horror movies released this weekend).

agebocfinalcorrected

Predict the #1 film for the weekend of August 28-30, 2009.

The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points.

Bonus questions:

1) Yes or no: Will Halloween 2 earn more in its opening weekend than the previous installment ($26,362,367)?

2) Yes or no: Will The Final Destination earn more in its opening weekend than the previous installment ($19,173,094)?

Deadline is Thursday August 26 at 9:00 pm (blog time).

To find out the rules of the game, go to the main thread for AGEBOC 09.

AGEBOC 09 score

cartoon_crown1_9cs9 James: 33

Rob: 29
Brian: 26.5
Joe Webb: 22
Jackrabbit Slim: 18
Nick: [disqualified for reasons of distraction, formerly 14]
Filmman: 13
Marco Trevisiol: 9
Jeanine: 9
Juan: 7.5
Rhymerguy: 4

Opening in Chicago, 08/21

Standard

Better Late Than Never Edition. This week, I’m trying something a little different. I’m going to assign each movie a Personal Interest Factor, a number between 1 and 10 that serves as a gauge to how much I want to see any given movie. Obviously, the higher the number, the more I want to see it.

To be clear, this does not measure how likely I am to see a movie; I go to see stuff I’m not excited about all the time. It’s just a measure of how excited I am.

Art & Copy (trailer)
Director: Doug Pray (Surfwise)
Personal Interest Factor: 2
Documentary about advertising, looking at some famous marketing campaigns from the past few decades. I mostly resent marketing mindsets and truly hate most advertising so this isn’t exactly in my wheelhouse.
Metacritic: 53

Cold Souls (trailer)
Director: Sophie Barthes
Personal Interest Factor: 4
Quite simply, this looks incredibly tedious. I’ve always thought that Paul Giamatti was an incredibly overrated actor, an opinion that’s only gotten stronger as Giamatti has gotten more repetitive and untethered with each passing role. You watch – eventually the world will come around to my way of thinking on this, just as it has (more or less) with Kevin Spacey.
Metacritic: 69

Fifty Dead Men Walking (trailer)
Director: Kari Skogland
Personal Interest Factor: 4
Story about an IRA turncoat starring Jim Sturgess, Ben Kingsley, and Rose McGowan(?). Yikes. Sounds intense, but director Skogland’s previous movie work looks like it exists entirely in the direct-to-video realm.
Metacritic: 58

Flame & Citron (trailer)
Director: Ole Christian Madsen
Personal Interest Factor: 7
Danish film about that country’s WWII-era resistance that Nick reviewed for this site fourteen whole months ago. He says, “It’s a good, sometimes very good, film, but it’s not the great film it aspires to be.” I’m just happy that it’s being released here; didn’t look like it was going to happen. If nothing else, if the trailer is any indication it’s beautifully shot.
Metacritic: 74

Inglourious Basterds (trailer)
Director: Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
I’m frankly surprised that a new Tarantino arrives this weekend, and it’s all I can do to even care. Where did this apathy come from? Possibly, it was Grindhouse, which at the time was a questionable idea and in retrospect seems like an attempt at career suicide. If nothing else, it signaled loud and clear that QT had devoted his career to esoterica that I only vaguely understand and which I have a hard time getting excited for. Says Jackrabbit Slim in Gone Elsewhere review: “It’s a lot of fun, but there are plenty of places you can get up to go to the bathroom.”
Metacritic: 69

The Marc Pease Experience
Director: Todd Louiso (Love Liza)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
Had not actually heard about this until earlier in the week, as it appears to be a straight dump by soon-to-be-defunct Paramount Vantage. Starring Ben Stiller and Jason Schwartmann in a story about … something, presumably. Who knows.
Metacritic: 31

Post Grad (trailer)
Director: Vicky Jenson
Personal Interest Factor: 2
Looks like an ABC Family sitcom given feature treatment. Harmless enough.
Metacritic: 35

Shorts (trailer)
Director: Robert Rodriguez (Desperado, Spy Kids, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
Fitting, I suppose, that Tarantino and Rodriguez have movies opening the same day. They should, like, show this and Inglourious Basterds as a double feature, with, like, a bunch of fake trailers and stuff. I’m telling you, box office gold!
Metacritic: 53

Weather Girl (trailer)
Director: Blayne Weaver
Personal Interest Factor: 1
A TV weather girl loses it on the air after learning her boyfriend is a cad. That right there is about all it takes for me to want to avoid it.
Metacritic: 47

X Games 3D: The Movie (trailer)
Director: Steve Lawrence
Personal Interest Factor: 1
I don’t even watch the X Games in 2D at home. I don’t know anyone who does. Does anyone? It seems very odd that a movie gets made out of it.
Metacritic: 44

You, the Living
Director: Roy Andersson
Personal Interest Factor: 8
Swedish film that’s gained some notoriety lately as a film that Armond White actually likes. I think it’s supposed to be good, but I’ll be darned if I know what it’s about, even after reading the lengthy synopsis on the Facets website.
Metacritic: not listed

Review: Inglourious Basterds

Standard

Inglourious_Basterds_poster

As with all of his films, Inglourious Basterds doesn’t take place in any world we would recognize, but in the head of Quentin Tarantino, where a fevered imagination dreams of countless films, from the highbrow to the lowest of the low. In a sense, he doesn’t create new works but mash-ups, regurgitations of everything he has seen in altered ways. In some cases, such as Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, he took the memes and tropes of crime noir and reinvented them, making him the most audacious American filmmaker in action.

I stand behind no one in my admiration for Pulp Fiction (it’s where I get my nom de blog), but like many, I’ve found his post-PF work–Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, and Death Proof, to be a squandering of his talent. Instead of continuing the exciting work of his first two pictures, he’s become hermetically sealed in his own world of hack cinema, reproducing what he loved as a child, like Miss Havisham preserving her wedding cake. To be sure, each of these pictures had a lot to admire, particularly Kill Bill, but it was akin to Picasso spray-painting a subway car.

I regret to say that Inglourious Basterds is another film in this decline. I did like it overall, and if this were a film made by someone completely unknown I’d say “the kid’s got something,” but nothing exists in a vacuum and there’s no mistaking that it was made by Tarantino. I give it a thumbs up on its amusement park thrills, but a thumbs down when considering what it could have been.

Of course Tarantino can’t make a straight World War II film. Instead he has crafted a spaghetti Western as war film, with a touch of the grindhouse he so loves. We know that right away with the Ennio Morricone music and a title card reading “Once upon a time…” a sure allusion to Sergio Leone. The prologue takes us to the French countryside, which if you squint could double for Nebraska, and a family who happens to be hiding a family of Jews. A contingent of German soldiers arrive, led by Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz, a sure Best Supporting Actor nominee), who is known as the “Jew Hunter.” It is here that Tarantino, somewhat ham-fistedly, begins his tale of revenge of Jews against Nazis.

The film is told in chapters, which make abrupt leaps in the story. We go from that French countryside, where one Jew escapes, to the Basterds themselves, a guerilla unit of Jewish-American soldiers, led by Lt. Aldo Raine, played amusingly by Brad Pitt. The character’s name is a reference to 1950′s character actor Aldo Ray, and Tarantino gives Pitt a scar around his neck (Eastwood in Hang ‘em High?) and a Li’l Abner accent. That the character comes from Tennessee, Tarantino’s birthplace, is certainly no accident, as Raine is a foxy fellow who never fails to spin a clever aphorism or get the better of his enemy. Pitt certainly seems to enjoy himself, taking special delight in pronouncing Nazi as if it rhymes with “patsy.”

The Basterds are a gang of vicious thugs, including a psychopathic German and a Red Sox fan with the moniker of “the Bear Jew” (played by Eli Roth, who should stick to making vile horror films–he’s no actor). Roth’s method of execution is to use a baseball bat to the melon of his victim (Robert DeNiro’s Al Capone in The Untouchables?). Pitt has charged his Semitic squad with collecting as many Nazi scalps as they can (Raine is part “injun,” and the Germans know him as “Aldo the Apache”). I’m not Jewish, so I have no cultural response to seeing Jews portrayed as sadistic brutes, but I suppose if Spielberg could do it in Munich Tarantino has a right to.

All too soon we leave the Basterds (the film seems to flag whenever Pitt is away) to meet the girl who escaped in the first scene, her identity changed and running a cinema in occupied Paris. Played by the excellent Melanie Laurent, she’s reminiscent of a Hitchcock blonde–icily sexy. A young German war hero (Daniel Brühl) takes a shine to her, and since he’s the star of a new propaganda film (he’s the German Sgt. York) he arranges for her theater to host the premiere of the film. Revenge immediately pops into her head.

But, as the commercials says, that’s still not all! We then meet some British (including a heavily made up Rod Taylor as Winston Churchill and a what-the-fuck? cameo by Mike Myers) planning to blow up the theater the night of the premiere. They enlist a suave film critic, Martin Fassbender, (Tarantino sucking up to the scribblers who will pass judgment on him?) to join up with the Basterds and a German movie star (Diane Kruger, another Hitchcock blonde) to infiltrate the German high command. So we essentially have Tarantino laying plot upon plot, an extreme case of overkill that bloats the film to two-and-a-half hours.

And it is a long film. There are several times during the film I got the fidgets. Tarantino has a difficult time with all the languages being spoken. There’s a restaurant scene that has German being translated into French with English subtitles. Aside from being a cinematic Rosetta Stone for future linguists, this was stultifyingly inept. When Kruger and Fassbinder meet up in a tavern, a scene that must last half an hour, he has the characters playing twenty questions far longer than anyone can tolerate. Tarantino has never been one to follow the rules set down by Robert McKee–the scene in Pulp Fiction where Travolta and Jackson actually stop the plot to debate whether a foot massage is cheating is famous for this–but in Pulp Fiction it was funny and entertaining, not so in Inglourious Basterds.

But toward the last third of the film I got into it, and enjoyed the ending, which rewrites history and has Pitt delivering a coup de grace that will rank among the great ending scenes in film history. All of the classic Tarantino quirks are on display: foot fetishism, the Mexican standoff (including two characters debating just what exactly constitutes a Mexican standoff), the idiosynchratic score (this will be the first and presumably last World War II film to contain a David Bowie song), brief voice roles by Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel, and winking at the audience stuff like identifying the Nazi bigwigs with a kind of telestrator. Tarantino, like the blowhard at the bar who knows everything, also makes sure to include as many film references as he can, whether it’s dropping names like G.W. Pabst and Emil Jannings or having his British character refer to “Jerry” like they were right out of some forties war flick.

I’ve been kind of long-winded, so let me sum up by saying Inglorious Basterds gets a solid grade of B from me. It’s a lot of fun, but there are plenty of places you can get up to go to the bathroom. I’m still waiting for Tarantino to fulfill his early promise, but perhaps he’s not interested in doing that, and instead is satisfied in these well-wrought doodles.

Teaser Trailer for James Cameron’s remake of ‘Delgo’ online, in fancy-pants French

Standard

delgo1_largeThe month-long, ultra- dramatic countdown on Quicktime’s website for the teaser of James Cameron’s Avatar has hit zero.  In keeping with FOX’s new strategy of fucking up everything they touch, the trailer has still not gone live nearly one hour later.

The good news is that it IS available via MSN’s website, in French, right here.

Initial thoughts:

The stuff with the space marines looks awesome…like an unofficial, mega-budget sequel to Aliens.  Unfortunately, things rapidly head south once we linger on Eric Bana 2.0 staring at some stupid looking Nightcrawler-wannabe in a tank.  Then, it goes full-Delgo and I lost interest completely.

AGEBOC 09 – August 21-23

Standard

agebocfinalcorrected

Predict the #1 film for the weekend of August 21-23, 2009.

The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points.

Bonus questions:

1) What will be the #2 film of the weekend?

2) What will be the #3 film of the weekend?

Deadline is Wednesday August 19 at 11:59 pm (blog time).

To find out the rules of the game, go to the main thread for AGEBOC 09.

AGEBOC 09 score

cartoon_crown1_9cs9 James: 30.5

Brian: 26.5
Rob: 24.5
Joe Webb: 22
Jackrabbit Slim: 18
Nick: 14
Filmman: 13
Marco Trevisiol: 9
Jeanine: 9
Juan: 7.5
Rhymerguy: 4

Oscar Preview: The Power of Ten

Standard

3174627589_010964abd0

I just got my issue of Twilight Entertainment Weekly, and it’s their fall preview issue, so that can only mean one thing—it’s time to start thinking about what movies will be up for the Oscar. This year there is a new wrinkle that will change the landscape of prognostication: there will be ten Best Picture nominations, doubling the field. Oscar hasn’t done this since 1943, too long ago to be relevant to how it will affect this year’s nominations. As Grace Slick said forty years ago this weekend at Woodstock, “It’s a new dawn, people.”

There is two ways this could go. Sid Ganis, president of the Academy, opined that it might mean that more different kinds of pictures would be nominated: comedies, foreign films, documentaries. Fat chance.  I think it may allow more boffo box office adventure films in (surely a ten-picture field last year would have  included The Dark Knight), but I don’t envision voters creating in their minds a comedy slot, a documentary slot, a foreign film slot. Instead, I’m guessing what we’ll get is more of the same—instead of five films of a certain prestige released late in the year, we’ll get ten.

So on to my annual wild-ass guesses. In past years I came up with ten possibilities for five nominations. I’m going to stick with ten guesses, but of course I’ll probably only hit about five on the head. If I do more than that I’ll be pleased with myself. In alphabetical order:

Avatar (Dec. 18, James Cameron) The Academy has given a cold-shoulder to sci-fi/fantasy, but opening it up to ten may help here. If this film is as visually dazzling as everyone thinks it is, that could be the ticket into the top category. It certainly should earn lots of tech nominations.

An Education (Oct. 9, Lone Scherfig) Lots of good buzz about this one, about a British teenager in the early 1960s who is courted by an older man.  Certainly a lock for a Best Actress nomination for newcomer Carey Mulligan. Could be the critical sleeper of the year.

The Hurt Locker (July, Kathryn Bigelow) This may be wishful thinking on my part, since the film has been disappointing at the box office and will be hurt by a summer release. But damn it’s a good movie.

Invictus (Dec. 11, Clint Eastwood) A no-brainer: Clint Eastwood directs Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. Don’t know if it’s any good, but it certainly will give the Academy a huge boner. The only downfall will be that it’s too earnest (see Cry Freedom).

The Lovely Bones (Dec. 11, Peter Jackson) Got pushed back specifically to be awards bait, this could be dreadful but Jackson is certainly an Academy favorite. Adapted from a novel by Alice Sebold, it’s about a girl who is murdered and then watches over her family from a heaven-like place. If the movie takes the weird sexual turn the novel does, it could be too disquieting for Oscar.

Nine (Nov. 25, Rob Marshall) Ever since Chicago won Best Picture every year another musical comes along and it’s touted as the presumptive Oscar favorite. But more and more it’s looking as if Chicago was an aberration, not the start of a trend. Phantom of the Opera, The Producers, Rent, Dreamgirls, Sweeney Todd—zero Best Picture nominations among them. Nine, based on a Broadway musical that was in turn based on Fellini’s 8 ½, certainly has a good pedigree—there are six Oscar-winners in the cast.  I’m putting it on the list, but wouldn’t be shocked if it underwhelms. And what’s with all the movies with that particular numeral in the title? We’ve got Nine, 9, and District 9.

Shutter Island (Oct. 2, Martin Scorsese) Scorsese’s been on an Oscar roll—he’s had three Best Picture nominations in the seven years. This one is a genre picture, reminiscent of Cape Fear, but you can’t count Marty out.

The Tree of Life (Dec. 25, Terrence Malick) Sean Penn and Brad Pitt bring the star power, and the mystical Malick directs. Don’t know much about it, but it must be remembered that the difficult Thin Red Line got a Best Pic nod (of course The New World was ignored).

Up (May 28, Pete Docter) This is problematic. No way Up is nominated if there are only five nominees, and it may still get overlooked because animated films are ghettoized in their own category.  What could happen is that if it does get nominated, and the Academy sticks with ten nominees, it may be the end of the Best Animated Film category, as it may be deemed unnecessary.

Up in the Air (Dec., Jason Reitman) George Clooney as a businessman who practically lives in the air. Clooney has a knack for picking good projects, and Reitman comes off the big success of Juno. Smells like a hit and Oscar-friendly to me.

There are a lot of films that I’ve left off that are ripe for nomination, including films by Steven Soderbergh, the Coen Brothers, Jane Campion, Pedro Almodovar, and Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu. There’s even one, The Road, which I had on my list last year that got bumped to this year. I guess the thing I’m most hoping for is that many of these films are good.

Review: Julie & Julia

Standard

Julie_and_juliaI’m joining the consensus of critical opinion about Nora Ephron’s Julie & Julia by stating that it is half a good movie. The half about Julia Child discovering her talent for cooking and co-writing a cookbook that changed the ways Americans thought about food is well done, with yet another smashing performance by Meryl Streep. The other half, about a plucky office drone who decides to make all 524 recipes in Child’s book, is a warmed over Lifetime film and a drag on the whole enterprise.

Child was the wife of a career diplomat who, as the film begins, takes a post in Paris in 1949. She is looking for something to do (she was always a woman who worked, the couple met while they worked for the O.S.S., which has led to rumors that she was a spy) and finally lands on taking cooking classes at the Cordon Bleu. Despite some sexist reaction, she flourishes, and eventually meets two French women who are trying to write a French cookbook in English (which apparently didn’t exist at the time). With her husband’s support, Child works for years to get the book published.

Julie Powell (Amy Adams) has a thankless job fielding the sometimes heartbreaking problems of those affected by the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center. She wants to be a writer, but has a problem sticking with things. She too has a patient husband (Chris Messina) and eventually comes with the idea to write a blog about making all the recipes in Child’s book.

This sounds like a good concept, but I’m afraid Ephron isn’t a talented enough writer or director to make it work. The sequences involving Powell seem to have been written with a chisel, they are so unsubtle. For example there’s a very poorly written scene with Powell having lunch with her much more successful friends (they’re always on their cell phones!) and then the obligatory scene in which Adams and Messina have a bad fight and he stalks off. I have no idea how true this is, but even if it were it’s too tidy and seems jerry-built.

The Child scenes, though, are much more palatable, but it’s not so much for the writing and directing as it is because it’s just a better story, and it has the incredible talent of Meryl Streep going for it. I feel bad for Amy Adams, who in review after review is being found wanting when it comes to Streep, which is kind of like being the second-best golfer to Tiger Woods. I will say this, though, Adams is definitely in danger of being typecast as a chirpy, perky woman. In some of her scenes she seems to still be playing the fairy princess in Enchanted. Even when she’s having an emotional breakdown she comes across as absurdly adorable. This woman needs to play Lady MacBeth, stat.

Now for Streep. How many more superlatives can be tossed her way? It’s only August, but I have a gut feeling this performance will be the one to beat for Best Actress come Oscar time, as the Academy is about due to award her a third Oscar (I think they wanted to last year for Doubt, but had to give one to Kate Winslet first). Only four other actors have won three or more Oscars (not counting honorary awards): Katharine Hepburn with four, and Walter Brennan, Ingrid Bergman, and Jack Nicholson with three. Streep is an actor who works from the outside in, as she starts with Child’s distinctive fluty voice but moves beyond impersonation into transformation. She even acts tall (Child was six-two). Other actors have done this (Laurence Olivier started by figuring out his character’s walk) but Streep, who has played women from all sorts of places, has made a name as the greatest chameleon in film history.

Credit is also due to Stanley Tucci, who plays Paul Child. Julia Child was not what anyone would consider sexy, but the relationship between Streep and Tucci is a pleasure to watch (and they even get a little frisky in the sheets). There’s also a great moment when Child makes a vulgar simile that brings the house down.

I’d like to add that I saw this in a matinee on a beautiful summer day and the theater was more than half full, which is unusual (I almost always see matinees with only a handful of other patrons), and there wasn’t a face under twenty-five. It’s nice to see adults at the movies, even if they should have gotten a better movie. They all seemed to enjoy it.

Opening in Chicago, 08/14

Standard

American Casino
Director: Leslie Cockburn
Documentary about financial institution hijinks in the subprime lending industry. Spoiler alert: they screwed everything up.
Metacritic: not listed

Bandslam (trailer)
Director: Todd Graff
Looks harmless enough.
Metacritic: 65

The Beaches of Agnes
Director: Agnès Varda (Cleo from 5 to 7, Vagabond, The Gleaners and I)
One of my priorities for the week, it appears to be one of the increasingly rare films that qualify as documentaries but play around with the form and offer something different. Varda, of course, has been making movies for decades, but Cleo from 5 to 7 is the only one I’ve seen (I enjoyed it).
Metacritic: 85

District 9 (trailer)
Director: Neill Blomkamp
Already reviewed at Gone Elsewhere by filmman, who calls it “a distinct and wholly original take on the alien sci-fi genre” before letting the superlatives fly. Myself? Eh, I’ll see it sooner or later. I’ve fallen for fanboy hype one too many times to get too excited now, although I acknowledge that this one seems a cut above the usual.
Metacritic: 81

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard (trailer)
Director: Neal Brennan
I’ve never really thought of Jeremy Piven as someone who I’d go out of my way to see in a movie.
Metacritic: 40

Lorna’s Silence (trailer)
Director: Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne (The Promise, Rosetta, The Son, L’enfant)
New film from Belgian filmmakers Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, about an Albanian woman struggling to survive in Belgium. I saw L’enfant a few years ago, and it was something of an experience. I’d love to see this one, also, but there’s so much playing these days that I find myself not quite able to keep up.
Metacritic: 84

Ponyo (trailer)
Director: Hayao Miyazaki (Kiki’s Delivery Service, Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, Howl’s Moving Castle)
And here we have a real-life, honest-to-goodness dilemma. I would love to see this, but I have little interest in seeing the American-dubbed version, which as far as I know is the only version in theatres. Ebert has an easy way around this: “You dummy! All animated films are dubbed! Little Nemo can’t really speak!” Of course, that’s true, but it doesn’t really get me anywhere. For one thing, it sounds downright Turner-esque – it’s easy to imagine the Ted saying, “You dummy! It was always in color! Chaplin wasn’t really monochromatic!” For another, as Ebert must know, almost all foreign films of a certain age are dubbed – would he want to watch a version of Bicycle Thieves (for example) with Tom Hanks doing the voice of Antonio? I would think such a thing would be a travesty. Why would an animated film be any different? To me, that it is a Japanese film is part of the appeal, not something to be worked around. So I don’t know what I’m going to do.
Metacritic: 89

Spread (trailer)
Director: David Mackenzie (Young Adam, Asylum, Mister Foe)
I’m perfectly good with not seeing another movie about the Den of Sin That Is Los Angeles again. I guess the most surprising thing about this is that it’s not based on a novel by Bret Easton Ellis.
Metacritic: 40

Thirst
Director: Park Chan-Wook (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy, Lady Vengeance)
I hope I have the time to see this, too, as I fear a one-week-and-out scenario is developing. For whatever reason, it seems like only a very small percentage of Korean films get a meaningful U.S. release – it must be the most active film industry in the world to be relegated to such a niche role here. In this case, the film has a decent distributor (Focus), who hasn’t even bothered to put a trailer on Apple. Unfathomable.
Metacritic: 71

The Time Traveler’s Wife (trailer)
Director: Robert Schwentke (Flightplan)
I honestly don’t understand, from watching the trailer, what this movie is even about. Girl meets time traveler, girl grows up, gets married to time traveler, and … is upset because he’s always out time traveling. What? This sounds like a hackneyed setup for a conflict, or is it just me?
Metacritic: 47

Triangle
Director: Tsui Hark, Ringo Lam, Johnnie To
The idea here is that you have three directors, but only one narrative. So instead of an anthology, as such, you end up with a sort of tag-team arrangement. That sounds interesting, I guess. Anyone have anything to add? I would think that such a project would be something that would get more press, and maybe it did – it’s been over two years since the film premiered at Cannes.
Metacritic: not listed

Throw Down Your Heart
Director: Sascha Paladino
Documentary about banjo player Bela Fleck traveling to Africa.
Metacritic: 65

Review: District 9

Standard

District 9 is a distinct and wholly original take on the alien sci-fi genre. A relentless action film that moves at full-speed right from the beginning, it’s a deftly-handled, tightly-written and furiously-paced parable about humans and aliens struggling to co-exist.

District 9 Directed by Neill Blomkamp

District 9 Directed by Neill Blomkamp

The idea that one can mix the tenets of a fully-formed parable within the genre framework of a kick-ass action picture is quite staggering to watch unfold. As with Sleep Dealer before it, District 9 (albeit on a much slicker and far better effects budget) proffers remarkably deep ideas about humans and what it means to exert control over another race. The fact that the race in question is from another planet holds absolutely no bearing in our belief in or our ability to surrender to this supremely talented filmmaker, a young man who has created a living society of creatures through amazing special effects for the budget and incredibly seamless direction and camerawork and placed them in a world that we feel exists completely.

It is a testament, also, to the digital camera that will, quite easily, supplant the Genesis and even the Filmstream as the go-to digital cameras for “New Hollywood”. The striking resolution of the images blew away anything in Zodiac or Superman Returns. (Shot on Filmstream and Genesis, respectively.) The film-like images and lack of digital-flash in the movement was a wonder to behold. Unlike other major action films shot on digital, this movie moved and moved and moved and jumped and jiggled and never stood still, but not once did it feel as though we were watching a video image (except when it was supposed to feel that way), and never once did we say ‘hold still’. The format worked for what the movie was and the camera is nothing short of a sensation and mark my words, it will be used for many years to come on many more major movies. It’s nothing less than a complete game-changer.

The movie itself relies more on the framework of its ideas than anything substantially deep in the plot department as it sets up a situation that involves a worker for a major arms dealer/everything-else-controlling-corporation going into the slum to clear all the aliens into a de-facto concentration camp with the thought of making the aliens’ lives better. What everyone knows but fails to acknowledge (except an extremely perceptive talking head) is that this corporation wants to control alien weapons, and they will do genetic tests to achieve just that goal.

When the main character ignorantly infects himself with alien DNA, the corporation finds out and wants to take his tissues for experimentation. The rest of the movie is a race against time to find a way to ‘cure’ the lead character’s transformation. What really solidifies the amazing structure of the movie is its absolutely pitch-perfect and satisfying ending, the first ending in a long time that left it wide-open for a sequel while being insanely satisfying in itself. (A lot like the final episode of The Shield. A lot.)

But what struck me the most, and what no review I’ve read has yet touched on, is just how…completely ‘modern’ the director’s and writers’ handling of the material comes across.

At times, this is as close to watching a first-person shooter as you’re going to find. That is in no way a knock on the film, quite the contrary, it gives such a visceral feel to the film while at the same time triggering something within the viewer that says: “I know this conceit…and I really, really like it.”

The allusions to popular video games are sometimes so strong, one in particular involving a pig and a “Blackwater” Agent, that I wondered why more of the young men in the crowd didn’t yell “BFG!” or “Half-Life” when many of them so obviously knew what had happened. And honestly, I had to take a second and say: “Please, please give this man the Halo movie.”

For me, it was incredible to see this, the first director actually using the video game conceits, sometimes to the letter, for an action film that you may as well, at times, have been playing with a joystick in your hand. The way people died, even…I just…unless you’re an avid gamer, which many in the audience obviously were, I’m not sure you’ll understand. This was the first movie in a long time where the crowd was audibly gasping in fear and anticipation and then cheering at situations on the screen. In so many aspects, this movie represents the ushering in of a new era. Its implications will be felt for many years to come.

We have only just begun to touch the surface of modern filmmaking and like OK Computer in ’96, District 9 will be seen as the movie that correctly ushered in a new way to treat an old art form.

Major Directors’ Early Works, Vol. 4: Tim Burton

Standard

And these shorts just keep getting better.

Just when I think I’ve found my favorite early works, another comes along to take its rightful place at the top of the food chain.

First, is Burton’s stop-motion masterpiece, VINCENT.

This is a strikingly-shot and handsomely-written film spoken in a verse-style that appears to be an autobiographical script of what one would surmise Mr. Burton grew up wanting to be.

The young man involved describes how he grew up wanting to be Vincent Price and how he has different ideas of things he wants to do compared, I assume, to what the status quo says to do.

Enough from me. Enjoy this, the first Tim Burton film. A true masterpiece of lighting, animation and writing.

“You’re not Vincent Price, you’re Vincent Malloy. You’re not tormented or insane, you’re just a young boy.”

Why this has not become a legendary children’s story, I don’t know.

**Interesting fact: Burton’s girlfriend, an executive at Disney, produced this.

The next I could only find in three parts:

His first major foray into directing, with big names and production values, but still an early film, was FRANKENWEENIE.

Filled again, with stark blacks and whites and harsh shafts of light in a world that, rather than seemingly shot on a backlot, seems to exist perfectly in that Leave It To Beaver world where if you visited the backlot, you would think you were intruding on a neighborhood you shouldn’t be disturbing.

This is, once again, a masterpiece of the psychological underpinning of what it takes to be a child in a world that shows how random terrible things can happen…and what some children think they may be able to do to reverse the awful fates that befall some things.

No doubt, Burton just wondered what it would be like to bring back a dead dog, but he added so much more depth to that simple idea.

Dare I say, I feel, after viewing these two films, Burton has fallen far off his initial brilliance as he made his way through the studio system. What types of movies could this man have made had he stayed independent?

My love of Batman aside, that movie now seems like a large wart of a blemish on his career, a steam-rolled contract hit fostered by those two wunderkind of the Sony system who, it seems, fooled everyone in a town where what you can say and get means more than what you can do. But who am I to question men who make so much money in a very profitable business.

And please don’t get angry, but after these films, Burton strikes me as the dark version of Steven Spielberg, making pitch-prefect representations of the dark side of suburbia, what kids think of when they think about what they wouldn’t want to tell anyone.

All of that aside, this is a great movie, a sign of a brilliant talent, and a very enjoyable watch, with an ending that brings child and adult together in the implication of Burton saying that no one is immune to child’s impulses.