Monthly Archives: March 2012

Opening in Chicago, 03/30

Standard

The Deep Blue Sea (trailer)
Director: Terence Davies (Distant Voices, Still Lives, The Long Day Closes, The Neon Bible, The House of Mirth)
Personal Interest Factor: N/A
I saw this a couple weeks ago as part of the Gene Siskel Film Center’s European Union Film Festival, and I thought it was OK but a little frustrating (see my short review here). It stars Rachel Weisz and Tom Hiddleston as doomed lovers in 1950s England, but I thought they both kind of struggled with their roles, for which I blame the writing as much as anything. The highlight of the screening was actually the Q&A with Davies, who I remember irritating me with his narration for Of Time and the City, but who struck me as witty in person and very generous in talking about his work, though also kind of a cranky old man.
Metacritic: 83

Goon (trailer)
Director: Michael Dowse (It’s All Gone Pete Tong, Take Me Home Tonight)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
Since moving to Chicago, I’ve become a big hockey fan. I’ve always rooted for the Blackhawks, but growing up in Florida there was almost no hockey on TV, and ESPN has rarely been much help when it came to hockey. And of course in those pre-internet days it was awfully tough to follow a team from across long distances without some kind of TV supplementation. Now though, it’s probably become my second-favorite sport, after baseball. Anyway, this is a hockey movie that plays up the violent, thuggish element of the game, which as it happens is the facet of the game I like the least.
Metacritic: 63

Mirror Mirror (trailer)
Director: Tarsem Singh Dhandwar (The Cell, The Fall, Immortals)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
I kinda-sorta meant to go see Immortals, just because Tarsem’s first two films were so terrific visually, but it was only playing in 3D so I blew it off. Now this comes along, and it just doesn’t look very good or even all that interesting visually. So I’m thinking it probably won’t happen.
Metacritic: 51

Wrath of the Titans (trailer)
Director: Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, Battle Los Angeles)
Personal Interest Factor: 4
This seems like a sequel that no one asked for. Clash wasn’t actually all that terrible, but it wasn’t all that great, either, and I have little desire to see a follow-up made by a guy who’s even more of a studio hack than Louis Leterrier, who directed Clash.
Metacritic: 38

Also this week:
In Search of Haydn – doc about some composer guy
Let the Bullets Fly (trailer) – Chinese western
Mulberry Child – doc about a Chinese family in the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution
Musical Chairs (trailer) – about wheelchair ballroom dancing
The Salt of Life (trailer) – Italian comedy of middle-aged manners

Two Lists From Film Comment

Standard

Picked up the new issue of Film Comment yesterday, and they have two lists I thought might spur discussion. First is the Readers’ Poll of Best Films of 2011. I’ve starred those films that did not appear on the critics’ list. Understandably, the readers were more welcoming of mainstream fare:

1. The Tree of Life
2. Melancholia
3. Drive*
4. Hugo
5. Midnight in Paris
6. The Artist*
7. Certified Copy
8. The Descendants
9. Meek’s Cutoff
10. A Separation
11. A Dangerous Method
12. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy*
13. Shame
14. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
15. Take Shelter
16. Moneyball*
17. Le Havre
18. Martha Marcy May Marlene*
19. The Skin I Live In
20. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo*

I’ve seen 15 of these (not seen: Certified Copy, Uncle Boonmee, Shame, Le Havre, The Skin I Live In).

Secondly, and more controversially, is their list of the “Worst Winners of Best Picture Oscars”

1. Crash
2. Slumdog Millionaire
3. Chicago
4. Forrest Gump
5. A Beautiful Mind
6. Gladiator
7. American Beauty
8. Shakespeare in Love
9. Braveheart
10. Titanic
11. Driving Miss Daisy
12. Dances With Wolves
13. The Greatest Show on Earth
14. The King’s Speech
15. The English Patient
16. Amadeus
17. Around the World in 80 Days
18. Chariots of Fire
19. Gandhi
20. Mrs. Miniver

I have seen all but one of the Best Picture Oscar winners (except for Tom Jones). I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the compiler(s) of this list have not. The top 12 are all post-1990, and 17(!) of the 20 are post-1980, which means of the past 31 winners, more than half are on the top of the suckitude scale.

The section this list appears in is “Film Comment’s Trivial Top 20,” so I suspect there’s some kind of joke going on here (as with them leaving off Schindler’s List from the 20 Best Black and White films since 1970). That, plus snobbishness, as these are films that beat out the precious films that they thought deserved to win. To anyone who has seen all of the films, to suggest that Cimarron, Cavalcade, Broadway Melody, and The Great Ziegfeld are better than any of the 20 films above (except for The Greatest Show on Earth, which is indeed the worst) is ludicrous.

This is a case where the most recent has shoved out the old. It happens all the time in lists of great sporting events where the recent take precedence over the old, if only because those voting weren’t alive to witness the old ones. (Gabby Hartnett’s 1938  “Homer in the Gloamin’” never gets the respect it deserves).

When I finally catch up with Tom Jones, I’ll compile my own list of Best Picture winners.

Review: The Hunger Games

Standard
Coincidentally, I have been reading a lot about the gladiator games of ancient Rome. This gave me some additional insight into the film version of The Hunger Games that I was not completely aware of when reading the book. For instance, the name of the nation that has formed out of the ashes of the United States is Panem, which is Latin for bread, recalling the term Juvenal coined, “panem et circenses,” (bread and circuses), the strategy of the Roman Empire to keep the people soft and at bay by providing them food and entertainment. The Hunger Games reinforces this by littering Roman names throughout, such as Caesar, Seneca, and Cato.

Following a rebellion, the government of Panem has created the annual hunger games as a means of both punishment and reward. From each of the 12 districts of the nation come two “tributes,” aged 12 to 18, selected by lottery, one male, one female. In a large arena they will be pitted against each other until only one is left alive. This will be televised, complete with expert commentary, to the masses. The winner will be feted with riches. Perhaps the best reason for the existence of the games is spoken by the president, (Donald Sutherland): “A little hope can be effective. A lot of hope can be dangerous.”

We only see two of the districts. District 12 is in what was Appalachia, full of coal mines and poverty (apparently, Panem forgot about the bread part). Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), the daughter of a deceased miner, supplements her meager table by being an expert hunter. Her younger sister is in her first year of eligibility for the games, but her odds are low (like the NBA draft lottery, the system is weighted by certain factors). But indeed the younger sister is chosen, and Lawrence immediately volunteers to take her place.

Also chosen is Peeta Millark (Josh Hutcherson), the baker’s son. He has long had an unspoken crush on Katniss, and the two had a moment when he took pity on her and threw her an old piece of bread. As the games go on, they will fall in love, although, intriguingly, they pretend to at first just to make their stories more interesting, which gets them sponsors to provide them extras for the games.

The other place we see is the Capitol, which is in stark contrast. It is kind of an Emerald City, full of wonder where the people wear flamboyantly colorful apparel and wigs. Lawrence and Hutcherson are wined and dined as they are prepared for the games, where they will have a 23 out of 24 chance of dying.

The book, one of a trilogy and a publishing sensation, is for young adults but contains some grown-up ideas, especially about totalitarian governments and the human craving for violence. The author, Suzanne Collins, says she got the idea while flipping channels and seeing, in short order, a reality game show (presumably Survivor) and footage of the Iraq War (one might cynically suggest she had seen the Japanese film Battle Royale, which is in many ways similar).

The film version, directed by Gary Ross, is a disappointment. Like many films based on beloved books, it is reverent to the point of being suffocated by its source material. As with the book, one waits impatiently for the games to begin, as we get a lot of preparation, including exposition on the rules, etc. The film is a bit long at 142 minutes, and could have used some trimming.

Mostly, though, Ross is a bad choice for the material. His milieu is bland, middlebrow entertainment like Seabiscuit, and I suppose the producers of this film simply wanted to make sure no mistakes were made as they reap the whirlwind. The box office and “A” Cinemascore indicates they have done that. But for those of us who expected to be more challenged by the material, Ross is like a musician who hits all the right notes but doesn’t get the passion of the piece.

As it is, The Hunger Games is acceptable as a megaplex blockbuster. I’m not sure how those who haven’t read the book will respond. For those who have, almost everything is here. Lawrence and Hutcherson are given handlers, including a sort of publicist (Elizabeth Banks), a stylist (Lenny Kravitz), and a mentor (Woody Harrelson), who won the games previously. In his first scene, Harrelson is drunk and expresses no interest in helping the kids, but later will be a kind of comic relief as he exhorts Lawrence to victory. Harrelson is fun to watch, but there’s no reason given for his transformation.

I’ve loved Sutherland since he appeared in MASH, and he does a fine job here of a twinkly yet murderous president, but it’s hard to hear his voice anymore without thinking of his ads for airlines and oranges. Stanley Tucci is appropriately over the top as the Ryan Seacrest of the games, adorned in a purple suit and blue wig. As for the leads, Lawrence and Hutcherson are bland. Lawrence physically embodies the role, convincing us that she really could survive in the woods by eating squirrels (one can’t help but think back to her in a similar situation in Winter’s Bone), but the character is so taciturn that there isn’t much call for emotion. In the book she narrates, so there’s a lot of internalizing that can’t be expressed. Late in the film, though, when Katniss begins to rebel in her own way (such as by adorning one of the fallen children with flowers) we can begin to see Lawrence breaking through a bit.

As for the violence, as in the book, much of it is off-screen. Most of the bloodshed happens in montage. I wasn’t particularly impressed with the editing of this scene, nor of the entire film for that matter. Maybe my own blood lust demanded more. But many of the deaths are perpetrated through out-thinking opponents, such as the clever use of a hive of wasps.

I’m sorry that The Hunger Games team didn’t take a more daring approach to presenting the material. This will satisfy many, and that’s fine, but I would have liked to see more creativity.

My grade for The Hunger Games: C+.

Opening in Chicago, 03/23

Standard

The Hunger Games (trailer)
Director: Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
In a revelation that will surprise no one, I haven’t read the books and don’t have much of an idea of what all the fuss is. I’m told by my reliable GE colleague/wife that they’re a big step up from the Twilight series, though. I see that the ever more cartoonish Jeff Wells has taken up jihad against it, which makes me think that it might actually be halfway decent.
Metacritic: 68

The Kid with a Bike (trailer)
Directors: Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne (Rosetta, The Son, L’enfant, Lorna’s Silence)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
I’ve only seen two of the Dardennes’ films – the last two – so I suppose this one will go a long way to determining how I feel about them. I liked L’enfant but Lorna’s Silence really rubbed me the wrong way. This one is about a kid “obsessively trying to find his bike,” so naturally I expect it to be similar in tone to Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure. If it’s not, I’ll be disappointed. Fair warning, Dardennes!
Metacritic: 86

The Raid: Redemption (trailer)
Director: Gareth Evans
Personal Interest Factor: 5
Hadn’t really heard of this before this week, but I’m amused by Ebert’s one-star review and have little reason to believe that I’ll think differently about the film.
Metacritic: 70

Also this week:
Delicacy (trailer) – French comedy/romance starring Audrey Tautou
Love (trailer) – seems like a Chinese version of Garry Marshall’s Valentine’s Day

The Godfather

Standard

Forty years ago this month The Godfather was released. It had been delayed from a 1971 release, accounting for the unusual opening date (but back then there was less strategy in releasing films for optimal box office). Based on a best-selling book by Mario Puzo, the film quickly became a sensation. I remember a Bob Hope joke at the time: “I was in line for The Godfather and turned to the guy next to me and said, “This is a very long line,” and the guy said, “I know, and I’m Marlon Brando.”

The film became the highest-grossing film of all time up to that time, but, as the lore suggests, this was not a foregone conclusion. There is considerable material to read and see about how Francis Ford Coppola, the Young Turk hired to translate the material into a film, was almost fired. Coppola had directed four features before this massive one, the most prominent the musical Finian’s Rainbow.

The resulting film has been, rightly so, in my opinion, been acclaimed one of the greatest films of all time. It scores a 100 on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, and is rated number 2 on IMDB (inexplicably behind The Shawshank Redemption). To prove, though, that the IMDB rating is meaningless, over 26,000 voters gave The Godfather a 1. The film won the Academy Award for Best Picture for 1972 (although Coppola did not win Best Director–Bob Fosse did for Cabaret). Marlon Brando won his second Best Actor Oscar, but, in a classic bit of Oscar history, sent a young actress named Maria Cruz, going by the name Sacheen Littlefeather and dressed like the Indian maiden from the Land O’ Lakes butter box, to refuse the Oscar, in protest of the treatment of American Indians in Hollywood films.

I don’t proclaim that I can have anything to say about The Godfather that hasn’t been said before, other than what it means to me. I classify it as my second all-time favorite movie, though I don’t believe I ever saw it in a theater. I did read the book in about seventh grade, and my father, who would go see movies I wasn’t old enough for and then tell me the stories, regaled me with its greatness. Eventually I saw the film when it premiered on NBC in the fall of 1974 over two nights. I was transfixed, and have been ever since.

As a teenager, I was fascinated by the structure of the film and the kind of revenge drama that is contained therein. In many ways, the film follows the template of many genre types, from the gangster film to the Western to the Shakespearean tragedy to the Hatfields vs. the McCoys. It is elemental to see two or more opposing forces going to battle, in this case in a shadow world that is both above and below the law. There is also the internecine battles; the sense that no one can be trusted except family. Outsiders are treated with suspicion, and when the chips are down only your family can be relied on (of course, that will be stretched in The Godfather, Part II).

But Coppola’s greatest achievement is taking the pulp novel and making it a commentary on the American dream. The opening line is “I believe in America,” spoken by the aggrieved undertaker Bonasera, who, unable to find justice from the law in the assault on his daughter, seeks a different authority in Vito Corleone (Brando) to find satisfaction. The very success of Corleone, who we learn in the sequel came to America with nothing, but built an empire, is a twisted version of the American success story. As he says late in the film, “I work my whole life, I don’t apologize, to take care of my family, and I refused to be a fool dancing on a string held by all those big shots.”

But Vito is behind the times. The hinge of the plot is when Solozzo (Al Lettieri) comes to Corleone to finance his drug racket. Vito doesn’t like the idea of narcotics. He believes that his criminal organization does just fine in the union and gambling rackets, providing those things for the common man that the Catholic church denies. But it’s 1945, and his hot-headed son Sonny (James Caan) and level-headed adopted son and consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) realize that they must make the transition. But when Vito refuses Solozzo, the drug dealer strikes back, nearly having the Don assassinated and igniting a war.

It is here that the main character of The Godfather, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) emerges. Vito had hoped he would not get involved in the family business. He is a war hero and a straight arrow. But when he sees his father in danger, and since Solozzo sees him as a civilian, Michael realizes he can be the only one to exact vengeance. By the end of the film, he will have transformed into someone even more ruthless than his father.

Pacino was Coppola’s choice, though the studio fought hard against it. And though Brando won Best Actor, it is really Pacino’s show. Brando, giving a cagey performance, full of tics like stuffing cotton in his cheeks and playing with a stray cat that happened to be on the set in the opening scene, is a pleasure to watch, but Pacino gives the performance of a lifetime. I’ll never forget the mixture of indignity and rage on his face after he is frisked by Captain McCluskey (Sterling Hayden). Pacino knows that he will kill McCluskey shortly. Or the chilling scene at the end of the picture, when he confronts his brother-in-law, Carlo, who had set up Sonny for murder. Carlo lies to save his skin, but Pacino, in a blood-curdling tone, says, “Only, don’t tell me you’re innocent. Because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.” He says this very calmly, but his intent is clear. It is unfortunate that the later Pacino would have probably shouted these lines, spittle flying.

Pacino, along with Caan and Duvall, were nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Not nominated were composer Nino Rota, as it was discovered that his score, famous today for it’s haunting love theme, was not completely original. Also not nominated, in an absolute crime, was cinematographer Gordon Willis. The Cinematographer’s branch always had it in for Willis, who was tabbed “The Prince of Darkness” for shooting many scenes in very low light. Justice later prevailed when he was awarded an honorary Oscar.

I, along with many other people, have a habit of stumbling upon the film while channel surfing (usually on AMC) and settling in to watch, even though we may own the film on DVD. We know the film so well that we can tell what’s coming up, and like a favorite music album we wait for the good parts. There are so many scenes that are like this, as Coppola structured the movie like an opera, with elaborate set pieces springing up like arias. Many of the scenes begin with moments of calm or quiet–the tranquil dawn outside Woltz’s mansion before he finds the horse’s head in his bed; the sound of the baseball game on the radio before Sonny beats up Carlo; the moments before Sonny is gunned down at the tollbooth (also with a baseball game on the radio in the background); and, most famously, the baptism scene while simultaneously the heads of the five families are being assassinated (for my money, this scene is the greatest ever put on film).

If there’s anything negative to be said about Coppola’s direction in The Godfather is that his symbolism can approach heavy-handedness. Michael, as godfather to his sister Connie’s baby (Sofia Coppola is the infant used in that scene) renouncing Satan and his works while at the same time eliminating his enemies could be seen as obvious. But instead of being heavy-handed, I find it to be viscerally exciting. For instance, using an orange as a symbol of death: When Vito is shot early in  the film, he is buying oranges, and when he dies, he has used an orange to make himself into a literal monster while playing with his grandson. While watching this time I noticed that Tessio, who will come to a bad end, handles an orange during the opening wedding scene. And has everybody noticed that when Luca Brasi meets with Tattaglia in the hotel bar, there are fish engraved on the door? Luca’s end will be, of course, that he “sleeps with the fishes.”

Except perhaps The Wizard of Oz and Casablanca, The Godfather has provided more lines of dialogue that have ingrained in popular culture than any other film. From “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse,” to “It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business,” and “Leave the gun, take the cannoli,” The Godfather is like a cinematic dictionary of famous quotes. The phrase “Ba-da-bing” is said to have originated there, when Sonny describes to Michael how it is to shoot somebody in the head. There’s even a recipe for tomato sauce, courtesy of Clemenza (Richard Castellano). One of my favorite lines is when Solozzo, thinking the Don is dead, is informed otherwise. “He’s still alive! We put five bullets in him and he’s still alive!” The most heartbreaking may be when Tessio (Abe Vigoda), discovered as a betrayer, realizes he’s doomed. “Can you get me off the hook, Tom, for old time’s sake?”

I’ve seen The Godfather probably 20 times, and in bits and pieces a lot more than that. It’s one of the primary reasons the 1970s are seen by many as America’s greatest decade of filmmaking, when box office wasn’t yet a statistic kept in the daily papers and studios believed that making great films was the key to success. For a while, they were right.

Review: 21 Jump Street

Standard

They’ve just about reached the bottom of the barrel for making film franchises out of old TV shows, at least until we get Cop Rock: The Movie. I never watched a single episode of 21 Jump Street, and nobody I know has, except for my friend’s sixteen-year-old daughter, who has a thing for Johnny Depp. So, the makers of this film, directors Chris Miller and Phil Lord, and screenwriters Michael Bacall and Jonah Hill, did the smart thing–they goofed on the show, instead of revered it.

We get a wink from the writers early on, when the police official who assigns two hapless rookies into an undercover program at a high school says that the police department has no good ideas, so they just keep recycling old ones. So 21 Jump Street, the movie version, is completely aware that it’s a studio-bred cash grab, and satirizes it.

Our heroes are played by Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. They were high school classmates, though Hill was the nerd and Tatum the popular jock. For different reasons, they do not attend the prom, and there’s a funny scene in which both of them sit on the school steps, crying.

A few years later they are both in the police academy, and form a friendship. But they are idiots, and it’s not as glamorous as they’d hoped, as they draw bicycle duty at a park. They try to bust some bikers doing drugs, but Hill is manhandled by his perp (skinning his elbow), and Tatum forgets to read his suspect his Miranda warnings, a particular bugaboo for him.

Because they are youthful looking (this too is played as a joke, as Tatum doesn’t look that young and everyone he meets thinks he looks way too old for high school), they are sent undercover to find the dealer and supplier of a dangerous new drug. They end up getting their assignments mixed up, so Hill ends up the popular kid and Tatum runs with the science nerds. Hill falls for a girl (Brie Larson), who is the girlfriend of the pusher (played by Dave Franco, who looks a lot like his brother James). But the case ultimately plays second fiddle to the dynamics of the deep cover, as each relives his high school experience from the other side of the fence.

I laughed a lot at 21 Jump Street, and that means something, as I am stingy with laughter in movies. Much of the humor comes from the attitude, as nothing about this film is meant to be realistic. Ice Cube appears as the stereotypical “angry black captain,” and he addresses this by saying, “I’m a captain, I’m black, and sometimes I’m angry.” The situations the officers go through are also amusing, such as when Hill has to audition for Peter Pan and Tatum has to do an oral report dressed as his favorite molecule. The Peter Pan bit leads to my favorite scene in the movie, when the boys chase the bad guys in a double-steering-wheeled driver’s ed car while Hill is dressed as Peter Pan. The levels of absurdity are vast.

Though I enjoyed 21 Jump Street, I don’t want to suggest this is some kind of classic. There are way too many dick jokes, which indicates laziness to me, and the ending, a routine shootout and chase (albeit involving stretch limos) is a let down after the zaniness of what has come before. But Hill is a pleasure to watch, and even Tatum, who after a disastrous turn on Saturday Night Live left me thinking he had zero comic timing, is used effectively.

I was also very glad to see that the tradition of actors who appeared on the original TV show grace the film with a cameo. Say no more.

My grade for 21 Jump Street: B.

Opening in Chicago, 03/16

Standard

Casa de mi Padre (trailer)
Director: Matt Piedmont
Personal Interest Factor: 6
I have to admit, this looks funnier to me than 21 Jump Street, although at the same time it looks like a really funny SNL skit drawn out to feature length. One has to question the decision to open it across from 21 Jump Street, because the idea of Will Ferrell doing a Spanish-language western is certainly high-concept if nothing else. This should have been out a month ago.
Metacritic: 51

Footnote (trailer)
Director: Joseph Cedar (Beaufort)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
The fourth of the five Oscar Foreign Film nominees to open here, although I skipped In Darkness and Bullhead. I’ll probably see this, although I didn’t have a reaction to the trailer one way or the other. It’s an Israeli film about a father and son who are rival professors.
Metacritic: 82

Jeff, Who Lives at Home (trailer)
Directors: Jay Duplass & Mark Duplass (The Puffy Chair, Baghead, Cyrus)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
The poster advertises this as “from the directors of Cyrus” which seems more like a warning than an appeal. Here the idiot manchild played by John C. Reilly has been replaced by Jason Segal, and the other idiot manchild played by Jonah Hill has been replaced by Ed Helms. The woman linking the two is now played by Susan Sarandon instead of Marisa Tomei, only this time she’s the manchildren’s mom, which I guess is an attempt to add some kind of Oedipal/Freudian overtone. Can’t say I’m excited.
Metacritic: 59

Seeking Justice (trailer)
Director: Roger Donaldson (Thirteen Days, The Recruit, The World’s Fastest Indian, The Bank Job)
Personal Interest Factor: 3
On-again, off-again director (and auteur behind the original Species film) Donaldson is apparently off again with whatever this is, no doubt a strictly contractual theatrical release starring Nic Cage, January Jones and Guy Pearce.
Metacritic: 33

21 Jump Street (trailer)
Directors: Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Normally I’d be thinking “pass” but word so far has actually been pretty good. And there’s been such a dearth of good stuff to see that I’m thinking about checking it out. Trailers aren’t really all that funny, though.
Metacritic: 70

Also this week:
Kill List (trailer) – indie horror/thriller
The Snowtown Murders (trailer) – another indie horror/thriller

Like begging for sex

Standard

Begging you to like me

Very confident marketing!  Maybe if you released more than three stills and, say, a trailer for one of your big summer tentpoles PRIOR to release that might help publicize things a little better.

Incidentally, I’ve heard through the grapevine that the film is shaping up to be surprisingly decent.   It just seems like the studio might be trying to get a handle on the campaign, which is understandable (as it’s a bit of a tough sell).

Source: Total Recall Facebook Page

Review: Kissing Jessica Stein (2001)

Standard

(warning: review contains spoilers)

With Jennifer Westfeldt’s new movie ‘Friends with Kids’ opening last weekend, I thought it would be a good time to look back at her breakthrough 2001 independent film ‘Kissing Jessica Stein’ which she co-wrote (from her own co-written play) and starred in.

Westfeldt plays the title character, an uptight, repressed hetrosexual woman in her late 20s, who has abandoned her artistic talent for the safety of an office job. She’s also had little romantic success, mainly because her standards are always impossibly high. All that changes when – despite having no history of lesbianism – she responds to a personal ad from a woman, Helen (Heather Juergensen, who co-wrote the script with Westfeldt). Helen  is everything Jessica isn’t  – confident, comfortable in her sexuality (she’s bisexual) with a career she’s passionate about.

Despite their opposite characteristics (or perhaps because of), they hit it off and their relationship has inevitably major ramifications for not only them, but friends and family.

On the surface, KJS doesn’t feel particularly promising as its indy status hides some rather corny and contrived elements. An early montage of failed dates Jessica goes through is dispiritingly sitcomish as the men are all the depicted as one-note dolts. This is misguided, lazy writing not only because it isn’t witty but it doesn’t allow a demonstration of what we’re constantly told in the film is one of Jessica’s key persona traits – that she’s too fussy and uptight when it comes to finding the right partner.

While the feeling of contrivance never quite leaves the film, KJS is overall a charming and likable film. When it settles down to treating the array of central characters and various plights seriously, it does so with depth and humour.

Most significant is how the film treats the relationship between Jessica and Helen – if the concept that these two could become romantically involved isn’t convincing than the film would sink. But there’s such charisma and chemistry between the two that it never becomes an issue.

There are also strong supporting characters. Particularly notable is Jessica’s boss and ex-boyfriend Josh (excellently played by Scott Cohen), probably the most interesting character in the film. He regularly delivers acidic comments towards Jessica (although usually quite astute) but the more we see of him the more we realise this contempt is driven by a despair that his relationship with Jessica ended and the faint hope that he can reunite with her. Thanks to Cohen’s fine performance, this character rings particularly true.

Then there is Jessica’s mother Judy (Tovah Feldshuh). Initially she seems a stereotypical overbearing Jewish mother but the further the film progresses the more substance and interest she provides. This helps make a scene late in the movie where Judy has a heart-to-heart with her daughther genuinely emotionally moving and the high point of the film.

KJS has attracted criticism for its finale where – after overcoming enormous obstacles to become a couple – Jessica and Helen break-up and become just good friends. While many saw this as a copout I thought it was actually quite truthful because despite their chemistry, there were significant issues between the two (especially in terms of sexuality and desire) that made it rather unlikely they would prosper long-term. Quite cunningly, despite the breakup the film ends on a fairly upbeat note so that it’s both honest and crowd-pleasing.

While there is much good work on display in KJS, one shouldn’t overpraise it (as often can occur when a small film like this gains surprising popularity) as it always has an element of superficiality to it. To use one example, when we see Jessica expressing bemused negativity towards yoga, meditation and chanting early on in the film, one just knows that by the end we’ll see an obligatory scene where she meditates to demonstrate her liberated self. And that her liberating romance with Helen triggers her going back to her true talent of painting is rather simplistically portrayed.

KJS is by no standards groundbreaking cinema and  despite its independent status, is basically a conventional, light romantic comedy with a twist. But in a genre full of bland and dreary efforts, KJS stands out as pleasing, amusing and entertaining and one should be thankful for that.

Rating: B

Review: Friends With Kids

Standard

Out of boredom as much as anything else (I hadn’t been to the cinema in almost three weeks) I decided to take a chance on Friends With Kids. I remember Jennifer Westfeldt’s first feature, Kissing Jessica Stein, with mostly positive memories, though I couldn’t tell you much about it now. I kind of feel the same way about Friends With Kids–mostly funny, occasionally annoying.

Westfeldt, who wrote and directed, also stars as a single woman whose best relationship is a platonic one with her college friend, Adam Scott. These relationships do exist–I have very good platonic friendships with women–but somehow in movies they seem to be inauthentic, as if the writer is bending over backwards to convince us of their possibility. Scott and Westfeldt have never been intimate, frequently citing they aren’t sexually attracted to each other; Scott is too short, Westfeldt is too flat-chested.

Their best friends, two married couples (Maya Rudolph and Chris O’Dowd, Kristen Wiig and Jon Hamm), are parents of small children. This is portayed as some sort of ring of Dante’s Inferno, as the kids’ misbehavior makes their parents snap at each other like alligators. Scott and Westfeldt realize they want children, but don’t want to end up hating each other like their friends. They have the bright idea to have a child together, but not live together as a couple.

This premise, sit-commish as it is, makes for some good scenes. The general disorder of a house with small children is handled well, especially with Rudolph and O’Dowd, who bicker as it if were sport. Hamm and Wiig are presented much darker, with Hamm, in a well-written and acted scene at a vacation ski cabin, drunkenly telling Scott what a foolish idea the whole thing is.

A few things could have made this film better. One is to have jettisoned the smarmy tone–the word “vagina,” which has a newly found charm on network sit-coms, is thrown around so much here you could make a drinking game out of it. Do we really need that many jokes about a woman’s postpartum, stretched-out vagina? Scott, a good actor, is a bit too piggish for Westfeldt’s character to be that tolerant of him. In the climactic scene, he tells someone he’s going to “fuck the shit” out of them. I’m dubious that a woman of any character would swoon at hearing that.

I also found Westfeldt to be a competent but bland actress. It might have been more a lively film if Rudolph or Wiig had played the central character. Taking the lead, while she also directs, seems like hubris.

The ending is predictable to anyone who has seen a movie. Our couple date other seemingly perfect people (she hooks up with Edward Burns, he with Megan Fox) but does anyone doubt they will be made jealous by these relationships? If this is predictable, at least it’s generally pleasurable on the way there.

My grade for Friends With Kids: B-.

Opening in Chicago, 03/09

Standard

Being Flynn (trailer)
Director: Paul Weitz (In Good Company, American Dreamz, Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant, Little Fockers)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
I rather liked In Good Company but Weitz’s career (he’s not to be confused with his brother, Chris) has been … uninspiring since then. The trailer for this looks pretty good, though, and it looks at least like an attempt at quality by Robert De Niro.
Metacritic: 52

The Forgiveness of Blood (trailer)
Director: Joshua Marston (Maria Full of Grace)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
Maria Full of Grace was very good, and now Marston returns 7 years later with this film set in Albania. I’m guessing this would be the first movie I’ve ever seen in Albanian. Which is good, because all I really know about Albania is that it’s hard to rhyme.
Metacritic: 73

Friends with Kids (trailer)
Director: Jessica Westfeldt
Personal Interest Factor: 5
Problem with the trailer is that there’s nothing all that funny about it, although on the other hand there’s nothing flagrantly stupid about it, either. I guess I’d say that the movie looks not all that painful but still easy to skip.
Metacritic: 55

John Carter (trailer)
Director: Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, WALL-E)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
Can’t say that this looks terribly promising, but Stanton’s first two movies were both so good that I’m eager to see what he does with live action. If it’s no good, oh well.
Metacritic: 52

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
Director: Nuri Bilge Ceylan (Distant, Climates, Three Monkeys)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
I’ve yet to see one of Turkish filmmaker Ceylan’s films, although they each arrive with acclaim. This one looks beautiful if nothing else, although I’m not sure I’m going to get around to it this week. We’ll see.
Metacritic: 79

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (trailer)
Director: Lasse Hallström (An Unfinished Life, casanova, The Hoax, Dear John)
Personal Interest Factor: 4
Finally. I’ve seen this trailer constantly for the last couple months, and the movie just looks so banal and stupid. Actually, with this, Being Flynn, and Friends with Kids all opening the same week, I have no idea what trailers I’ll be seeing now. There’s The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, I guess, but other than that? I have no idea. Oh shit, that’s right, Jeff Who Lives at Home. But that actually comes out next week, so yay.
Metacritic: 60

A Thousand Words (trailer)
Director: Brian Robbins (The Perfect Score, The Shaggy Dog, Norbit, Meet Dave)
Personal Interest Factor: 2
Seems like I read an interview with Eddie Murphy not long ago, about the time when Tower Heist came out in fact, where he said he was done with all the family crap he’d been doing. Remember how that was his big comeback to classic Eddie Murphy roles? And now his next movie finds him back with Brian Robbins, whose last four movies (including two with Murphy!) have an average IMDb score of about 4.5. Stay classy, Eddie. EDIT: See comments, this isn’t really fair to Murphy.
Metacritic: 26

Also this week:
Silent House (trailer) – real-time horror movie with Elizabeth Olsen

The Worst Films of 2011

Standard

We’ve discussed the best of 2011, so I thought it would be a good time to talk about the opposite end of the spectrum. I haven’t seen as many 2011 releases as others here have but I’ve seen enough duds and disappointments to come up with the following list:

Most Overrated film (1) – The Descendants. Being a huge fan of Alexander Payne’s work, this film above all else was the film I was most looking forward to in 2011. But, despite all the critical praise it received, I found this to be a huge disappointment and easily his weakest film. The trend I sense in Payne’s work is that he’s moved away from the acute social satire and analysis that he was so good at and more blander Oscar bait type films. On that basis he’s been successful with two consecutive screenwriting Oscars but it’s made him a far less interesting filmmaker.

Most Overrated (2) & Boring Film – Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I don’t think I was out of step with critical and public opinion more in 2011 than this film. Lauded as being a blockbuster finally done with skill and intelligence, I saw virtually nothing in it that I liked. Having about 0.0001% of the intellectual interest of the original POTA, I found this perfunctory and uninteresting from the word go, with an incredibly dull ‘romantic’ angle. It’s far from the worst film I’ve seen at the cinema, but would be close to the most boring.

Most Overrated (3) – The Trip. This film had plenty of admirers. And I can’t deny that bits of this film are very funny and when Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon’s segment when they’re doing duelling Michael Caine impersonations is great. But as a whole film I found it rather hard to take. That’s perhaps in part because it wasn’t really a film, but just an edited down version of a TV series. It’s almost an anti-film in many ways, with no real plot to speak of and Brydon and Coogan playing themselves, but not really. More palatable if you watch the funny bits (like the Caine impersonations) on YouTube.

Most Overrated (4) – Bridesmaids. This one ticked off all the negative boxes of the modern mainstream Hollywood comedy – relies on ‘outrageous’ behaviour instead of wit for laughs, raucous elements cover up how conventional it all is, has no sense of comic timing, overlong by 20-25 minutes, has a lame ending, etc… It did have some laughs early, although the biggest laugh of all was that it got a Best Screenplay Oscar nomination.

Worst ending – Crazy, Stupid, Love. While the first half of this film was fairly entertaining, there was always a feeling of telegraphed phoniness about this film. But it really went downhill towards the end with increasingly hard-to-take sentiment and plot contrivances piling on top of each other. But it really fell apart with the school hall finale which managed to be implausiable, cringeworthy, sitcomish, sappy and unfunny all at once.

Worst Film – I Don’t Know How She Does It. Basically a slogan (aren’t corporate working mothers great!) that somehow became a movie. Virtually no narrative or plot to speak of with the only entertainment being wondering how such a good cast managed to be attached to this non-event. Earns extra demerits for employing the irritating device of having segments where characters talk to the camera in a pseudo-documentary style.

Diner

Standard

Thirty years ago this week Diner opened, to little fanfare. It would go on to earn only 14 million dollars (against a cost of 5 million), and earn one Oscar nomination, for Best Original Screenplay. However, it has gone on to be an important part of the cinematic culture. It launched or furthered the careers of a number of performers, and was the directorial debut of Barry Levinson.

An article in a recent issue of Vanity Fair (not available online, sorry) proclaims Diner as the most influential film of the 1980s, primarily because of its free use of dialogue. The author cites the novels of Nick Hornby, the TV show Seinfeld, and the films of Quentin Tarantino and Judd Apatow as being influenced by Diner (Hornby and Apatow freely admit it). I’m not sure about most influential; all I can say is that I was entranced the first time I saw Diner (at the Waverly Theater in Greenwich Village, which is today the IFC Center) and have been the dozen or so times I’ve seen it since.

Ostensibly inspired by Fellini’s I Vitelloni, a film about young Italian men who can’t quite grasp maturity, Diner focuses on the longtime friendship of five men, now in their twenties and almost completely unmoored. One of them, Shrevie (Daniel Stern), is married to Beth (Ellen Barkin),  but in a couple of devastating scenes we learn how doomed this marriage is. He tells Eddie (Steve Guttenberg), who is about to get married, that he and Beth have nothing to talk about: before the wedding they talked about sex, and then talked about the wedding, but now, though he can bullshit for hours with the guys at the diner, he can’t have a five-minute conversation with Beth. Later, Shrevie will erupt at Beth for misfiling his records, and daring to put James Brown in the rock and roll section instead of the R&B section. He then shows, callously, that his records mean more to him than she does.

Eddie, who still lives at home (we are unsure of his employment) and drives his mother crazy, is even more immature. He is “technically” still a virgin, but has decided to get married to the (never-seen) Elyse because it would make her happy and seems like the thing to do. But he has made the wedding about him–in a plot twist that seems unthinkable, he has elbowed aside her color scheme and chosen the colors of the Baltimore Colts, his primary passion. Further, he has decreed that Elyse must pass a football quiz in order to get married.

Boogie (Mickey Rourke, looking like a newborn compared to the weathered wreck he now is) is a hair stylist and law student who has a penchant for putting down bets. He’s got a $2,000 bet down with a local bookie, but when he loses, he must scramble to get the money. He does by betting the guys he can get his date, the otherwise untouchable Carol Heathrow, to touch his pecker on their first date. Thus comes perhaps the most famous scene of Diner, when Rourke uses the “popcorn” trick. This film is based on Levinson’s youth in Baltimore, but I’m not sure this could have ever happened. It’s funny to think it might have, though.

Fenwick (Kevin Bacon) is the darkest of the boys. He is self-loathing and alcoholic, a trust-fund kid who does stupid things, like punching out the windows in the school basement or taking the place of the baby Jesus in a nativity scene, because they are “smiles.” When he and Boogie are out in the Maryland countryside, they come upon a rich girl riding a horse. Boogie has to stop and talk to her, and asks her her name. “Jane Chisholm, like the Chisholm Trail,” she says, riding off. Boogie asks Fenwick, “What fucking Chisholm Trail?” Fenwick responds, “Did you ever wonder if there’s something going on that we know nothing about?” This line turns out to be ironic, though, as Fenwick’s secret shame is that he knows quite a bit, as we learn when he watches G.E. College Bowl on TV and knows all the answers. When he later goes to see his hated brother to get money for Boogie, the brother condescendingly asks Fenwick if he’s ever read a book.

The least effective plot thread is that of Billy (Timothy Daly), who is, to all reports, the stand-in for Levinson. He’s gone off to New York, and comes back for the wedding. He is reunited with a friend, Barbara, whom he learns is pregnant from their one night of passion after six years of friendship. Daly is tightly-wound through the whole film, punching out a guy from a long-ago slight on the baseball field, to jumping in with the house band at a strip club to play uptempo music.

Besides the five guys, there’s Paul Reiser as Modell, kind of a hanger-on who serves as something of a Greek chorus. Reiser, who has become less and less tolerable since Diner, is hilarious here, as he riffs on absurd matters such as how “nuance” is not a good word, but “gesture” is. Levinson encouraged improvisation, and filmed the scenes in the diner, which are the heart of the movie, last, so the cast knew each other well. A scene in which Guttenberg debates Reiser about who is better, Sinatra or Mathis, is brilliantly done. When Boogie arrives and he is asked, he responds “Presley,” which prompts Guttenberg to say, “You’ve just gone down…in my book,” an improvised line that causes Stern to do a spit-take.

There are so many good lines in this film, many of them becoming shorthand between me and my friend Paula, who is another Diner fanatic. Upon seeing The Seventh Seal, Guttenberg tells Daly, “I’ve been to Atlantic City 100 times and I’ve never seen Death on the beach,” or when an old man shopping for TV sets tells salesman Stern, “I don’t like color television…I watched Bonanza and the Ponderosa looked fake. I could hardly recognize Little Joe.” Or when Reiser, making comments at the wedding, tells everyone about Elyse’s test, and then says, “We all know how the foundation of any good marriage is a firm grasp of football trivia.”

But beyond the one-liners, Diner is so rich in its tapestry of a time, Baltimore in 1959. The little touches, such as when Rourke takes a mouthful of sugar and washes it down with Coke, or the ketchup bottles stacked on each, spout to spout, or the chrome diner and the white-tiled hamburger joint, all are sharply nostalgic (of course, more time has passed from now and when Diner opened then between then and when the action takes place)

The film is also a brilliant character study. My heart still breaks when Barkin goes to Rourke, an ex-beau, and asks if she’s still pretty, and when he says she is, she replies “Did you really care for me? Not just because you could do stuff to me?” Or when a local businessman (Michael Tucker) pays off Rourke’s bet, on the condition he comes to work for him in his home improvement business (Tucker will be a larger character in the sort of sequel to Diner, Tin Men. There would follow two more films in Levinson’s Baltimore series: Avalon and Liberty Heights). Rourke, saying he goes to law school just to impress girls, figures he could just lie about it. But he tells Tucker he still has plans. “Always a dreamer, eh Boog?” Tucker asks, and Rourke tells him, “If you don’t have dreams, you have nightmares.”

And then there’s the music. The soundtrack is full of golden oldies, from “A Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On” to “Run, Run, Rudolph.” The opening scene is pure genius, as Reiser walks into the local high school at the Christmas dance. In the distance we hear a band playing “Shout,” and it gets louder and louder as he strides toward the gym, until he’s in midst of dancing teenagers.

The Best Films of 2011

Standard

The unusually weak awards season and disappointing Oscar slate overshadow the fact that it was really a pretty good year overall. The big prestige year-end films were almost all disappointing, but there was a period earlier in the fall when it seemed like there were great films being released every week. The top 7 all got 10/10 ratings from me, with the 8th being really really close, and I actually had to leave several 9/10-rated films off the list.

As usual, some of these are technically 2010 films, having premiered in festivals or overseas. But as far as I can tell, they were all commercially released in the US for the first time in 2011.

1. Certified Copy (Abbas Kiarostami)
Iranian director Kiarostami makes his first European film, set in Tuscany and starring William Shimell and Juliette Binoche as a writer and one of his fans, respectively. The movie seemed to get a reputation as a stuffy art film over the summer, but what struck me the most was how playful it is, with an unsolvable mystery at its core. The relationship between the two leads gets more elusive and unsettling as the film progresses, but I rather enjoyed Kiarostami’s gamesmanship and the thoughtfully oblique way that he approaches the film’s themes. Plus, it’s beautifully shot and wonderfully acted.

2. A Separation (Asghar Farhadi) (review by Jackrabbit Slim)
It’s interesting that my two favorite films this year were both by Iranian directors, although A Separation is actually set in Iran. It’s about an affluent middle-class couple in the process of divorce when the husband finds himself in legal trouble. This is an impeccably written and acted film, and I especially admired how the alliances between the characters in the film are constantly in flux as new facts and dimensions of the case are revealed. This challenges the audience, preventing their sympathies from settling too easily and allowing us to see the case in a much more complex way than we probably would in a more conventional film. It very deservedly won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film, probably the highlight of this year’s ceremony as far as I was concerned.

3. The Mill and the Cross (Lech Majewski)
Probably the most visually unique film I saw this year. Polish director Lech Majewski uses digital effects to bring Pieter Bruegel’s painting The Procession to Calvary to life. Rutger Hauer plays Bruegel, who discusses his design of the painting, while the film imagines the lives of some of the people in the film. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a movie quite like this, and I found it brilliantly imaginative, both in an artistic and humanistic sense.

4. Bellflower (Evan Glodell)
Evan Glodell’s Bellflower is one of the most fully-realized American debut films in years, set in a modern Los Angeles that’s been given a stifling, post-apocalyptic atmosphere. Glodell and Tyler Dawson star as two twentysomethings mostly preoccupied with building their own flamethrower, so that their gang can dominate after the apocalypse. Glodell is a rare first-time director who has full control of tone, especially impressive because the film ranges from a sweet, slightly dopey romance to full-on doom and violence. What also struck me is how well Glodell knows his characters and sees their narcissistic self-loathing. It’ll be interesting to see where Glodell’s career goes from here, since there’s a definite Richard Kelly vibe being given off here and the risk of getting stuck repeating himself seems very real. But this is a masterpiece, right out of the gate.

5. 3 (Tom Tykwer)
Tykwer is a director that I’ve always admired, but I’ve also often found myself frustrated at his lack of narrative development and cohesion. Here he adopts a different strategy than I’ve seen from him, in this story about a fortyish couple who are both having an affair with the same man. I deeply appreciated how Tykver disregards the usual melodramatic hysterics of the situation, sparing us the jealous arguments and childish recriminations that would be typical of a story like this. I also especially admired the performance by Sophie Ross, although all three lead actors are very good. Most interestingly, Tykwer turns the movie’s narrative into a sort of stream-of-consciousness musing on any number of subjects, including disease, genetics, medical ethics, art, and even current world events and politics. It’s actually a very radical film, not just in its adult approach to relationships and infidelity, but in the way it integrates profound political and cultural debates into everyday life.

6. Take Shelter (Jeff Nichols) (review by Jackrabbit Slim)
I’ve been touting Michael Shannon for years, and he’s phenomenal here as Curtis, a man experiencing terrifying apocalyptic dreams. One of the more thoughful aspects of the film is that Curtis is only too aware of his family’s history of mental illness, so he knows that whether the dreams are actual prophecies or not, they’re harbingers of ill fortune for him one way or the other. Writer-director Nichols is able to integrate the dreams into the narrative in a clever and sensitive way; it’s easy to imagine a lesser film where the dreams are played for exploitation purposes, but here they’re a useful window into Curtis’s mental anguish, as he worries about his friends and family abandoning him in the face of his illness. Nichols also made a terrific film several years ago called Shotgun Stories, also starring Shannon, and with this film he solidifies his status as one of America’s best new filmmakers.

7. Martha Marcy May Marlene (Sean Durkin) (review by Jackrabbit Slim)
Like Take Shelter, this film is built around a dominating lead performance, this time by Elizabeth Olsen as Martha, a young woman just escaped from a secretive cult. And like Bellflower, it’s an extremely impressive debut film. Writer-director Durkin structures the film as a series of flashbacks between Martha’s time with the cult and her current stay with her sister and the sister’s fiance. He ingeniously linkes the stimuli at the sister’s house with Martha’s memories with the cult, producing a disorienting effect that emphasizes her confusion as she readjusts to societal norms and her struggle to maintain her identify after years of it being systematically stripped away. This is a terrific psychological thriller and character study.

8. Incendies (Denis Villaneuve)
When their mother dies, two siblings learn to their surprise that not only is their father still alive, they have a brother that they never knew about. That’s the premise of this family drama and political thriller from Canada, which received an Oscar nomination in 2010 for Best Foreign Film. Their journey takes them to the Middle East, where they learn about their mother’s ordeals during a civil war decades ago. This is a genuinely unpredictable film, and structured so that the audience sometimes knows more than the characters do and at other times are in the dark as much as they are. My only complaint is that director Villaneuve occasionally loses sight of his characters in favor of the action, short-changing one minor character especially in a way that I found peculiarly thoughtless. Overall, though, this is a very gripping story and profound statement on the nature of civil war.

9. Beginners (Mike Mills) (review by Jackrabbit Slim)
I admit that this movie looked like potential trouble from its trailer, which showed two emotionally withdrawn characters engaging in a tentative romance and a dog with subtitled thoughts. It ended up being a wonderful surprise, though, and won Christopher Plummer an expected but deserved Best Supporting Actor Oscar. The film nicely balances two story threads, the first being the aforementioned emotionally tentative romance between Ewan McGregor and Mélanie Laurent, and the second being Plummer’s revealing himself as gay after living his whole life in the closet. Without calling much attention to itself, the movie is an incisive critique of the way that society’s stigma against gays fractures families and inflicts emotional scars on children that last even into adulthood. At the same time, though, Plummer’s character is able to find happiness and is able to provide an example of a positive relationship for his son late in life. It’s not a didactic film, but it is a quietly and righteously angry one.

10. Another Earth (Mike Cahill)
The third debut feature film on this list, this film also marks the breakout performance by Brit Marling, who also co-wrote the film. It’s about a high-school senior who drinks too much at a graduation party and causes a deadly car wreck; on the same night, a new planet, later discovered to be a parallel version of Earth, appears in the sky. This is primarily a drama about loss, guilt and redemption, given a very poignant and delicate touch by Marling’s sensitive portrayal of Rhoda and William Mapother’s fine performance as the victim of her drunken driving. The shots of the second Earth in the sky appear throughout and are quite striking, and they invite the viewer to wonder along with Rhoda about what’s going on up there and if people are any happier than down here. Despite its sci-fi minimalism, this is a very ambitious film, and one that I felt was unfortunately ill-served by its mid-summer release.