Author Archive

Back-seat cricketing

Sunday, September 12th, 2010

I have a feeling of ennui and loneliness around this time of year because all of my compatriots are in places like Telluride, Toronto, and Venice, seeing films that most of us won’t see for many more months.  Oh sure, there’s jealousy involved too – I want to see these films, damn it! – but more than that, I feel deeply saddened because the critics walk out of these films and judge them (via Twitter or blog) immediately.  Part of me is anxious to hear how the film is playing and I dutifully check the Twitter feeds of all the folks that are doing the dirty work of actually seeing the movies; the majority of me, however, is almost always disappointed by the quickness with which my fellow movie writers dismiss movies or applaud them.  That is not to say that these movies do not deserve dismissal or applause, but the narrative is just shaped too quickly for my liking.

Take a film like Never Let Me Go, for example.  In a matter of days, the narrative has turned into this: the film is not for everyone and it will be fairly polarizing.  Okay, that seems reasonable enough; after all, the same can be said for the deluge of reviews that accompany a film’s opening.  However, writing a full review gives the viewer time to pore over their prose, which gives the writer a chance to re-think their stance.  I’m not saying someone who writes that review will have a drastically different opinion, but it’s possible that they will either soften their stance slightly (from “I hated it” to “I didn’t enjoy it”).

It always goes back to my long-standing argument: most films are neither masterpieces or disasters, they are somewhere in between.  I’m really getting sick and tired of every critic declaring films as one or the other just because they had a strong reaction to it; both declarations do the films themselves a disservice because they set up unreasonable expectations.  But more than the expectations, it shapes a narrative (if you have a loud and respected voice, especially).  It’s quite possible that Never Let Me Go is a masterpiece or a disaster and I’ll find out next week, but I’ve got a hunch that it’s neither.  Know why I have that hunch?  Because I’m right about that 99% of the time.  (But, oh that other 1% of the time…)

Up All Night with BEAUTIFUL GIRLS

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

I have trouble falling asleep.  I’m usually up until four or five in the morning.  I write, listen to music, read books, but mostly I lay in bed and watch movies in cable.  Despite an extensive DVD collection, it’s always more fun to scroll through the channel guide and see what happens to be on rather than getting up out of bed to sift through the DVDs.  The great thing about cable TV is that you find out which movies are the most re-watchable.  That doesn’t always make them the “best” (for instance, Schindler’s List is a masterpiece but I don’t want to watch it again) but they provide a certain kind of pleasure.

The best “cable” movies are ones that involve lots of characters, interesting interplay between those characters and witty dialogue.  For instance, a film like Rounders is in the pantheon of great re-watchable movies.  Dazed and Confused is another one.  These are films that are addictive, that if you happen to catch a part of one on cable, you’ll wind up sticking around for a few scenes – but most likely, you’ll watch the whole thing.

So last night, I couldn’t sleep as usual.  At around 3AM, I contemplated trying to force myself to sleep a bit, but then I saw that Beautiful Girls, the 1996 Ted Demme flick, was just starting.  I knew at that moment that I wasn’t going to be able to fall asleep until 5am at the earliest.

Beautiful Girls is a rich film that is like a modern-day Diner (in the Hall of Fame of Rewatchable Movies), about a young man who comes home to a snowy town in Massachusetts for his ten-year high school reunion and winds up bonding with his old friends.  Timothy Hutton plays the returning lad, a piano player who earns money playing boozy gigs in Manhattan, and his friends are mostly in a state of arrested development.  There’s Matt Dillon as the high school stud who is now stuck plowing snow and doing construction in the summer and sleeping with his married ex (much to his current girlfriend’s chagrin) and living with co-worker Michael Rappaport who has an obsession with supermodels and is trying desperately to win back his girlfriend who has taken up with “Victor the meat cutter.”  There’s Noah Emmerich as the one grown-up who is content with his life, Pruitt Tayor Vince as the owner of the local bar, and Max Perlich as the quiet guy.

Then there are the women: Lauren Holly, Uma Thurman, Rosie O’Donnell (in a role that was tailor-made for her and reminds us of how funny/filthy she can be), Martha Plimpton, Annabeth Gish, and young Natalie Portman.

There is no doubt that Portman’s presence in the film and the interplay between her and Hutton is the film’s highlight.  The film moves briskly and we are drawn into the problems and emotions of all the characters, but it is the relationship between Hutton’s 28 year-old piano player and Portman’s 13 year-old, precocious next-door neighbor that really makes the film come alive and sing.

Portman is Marty – not short for Martha! – and she and Hutton have a playful friendship that slowly begins to emerge as something else.  This being a mostly light-hearted film (with lots of poignancy, to be sure), there is no question of them having some kind of illicit affair.  But instead, different questions enter our minds – and indeed, the minds of the characters.  These two seem so well-suite for one another that we begin to root for some possible way that they can be together.  It’s illogical and impossible and Hutton expresses it best when he tells her that he’s “fully formed” and she has yet to go through all the changes that she will inevitably endure as she grows up.  That, despite Marty’s offer to wait five years until she’s legal, he has to grow up now and get on with his life.  So Hutton’s character, through his relationship with Marty, finally realizes that he can’t come up with another reason to stall moving forward with his life and his beautiful girlfriend.  It sounds more cliche that it actually is.

I would love if the film was a massive success and we could see what would happen if the two of them met now.  Would they still feel the same way?  It could be like a bizarre version of Before Sunrise and Before Sunset.

Screenwriter Scott Rosenberg and director Ted Demme (RIP) really got to the heart of something tender and they evoke emotion and humor out of the most interesting situations.  The dialogue, while certainly contrived, feels real in the mouths of these characters and these actors.  There is a bond between them that feels accurate.

So, thanks to Beautiful Girls, I was up pretty late.  I kept flipping channels for a little bit and just when I was about to pass out, I saw that The People Vs Larry Flynt was just starting.

“Hmm,” I thought, “haven’t seen that one in a while…”

Frenzy on the Wall: Who’s the Biggest Star in the World (Right Now)?

Monday, September 6th, 2010

William Goldman is one of the greatest screenwriters of all-time, but he was also a fantastic essayist and one of the most insightful minds when it came to writing about films. His collection of essays, The Big Picture, has been read so many times by me that the pages are starting to break free from the binding. But one of the questions he came back to was: who is the biggest star in the world right now? Almost every year during the ’90s, he tried his best to answer that very question.

For whatever reason, Goldman’s not writing (or at least not publishing) his essays about film and I decided that I would try to answer the question as we wind down the year 2010.  Just like Goldman, I won’t use a ton of numbers or charts and graphs, but I’ll present my evidence as best as I can.

Last year, I think the answer would have been a bit easier.  James Cameron was clearly the biggest star in the world in 2009 and it wasn’t even close. The man released his first film in twelve years and just happened to make a movie that broke every box office record imaginable. It is now clear that any year in which Cameron releases a film, he will be the biggest star in that year. One could make a case that he’s the biggest star of this current year since Avatar raked in most of its dough after the calendar flipped to 2010, but by the time this year ends, I don’t think he’ll still be on anyone’s mind.

As for those in front of the camera, it would be easy to name folks like George Clooney or Brad Pitt. Up in the Air and Inglourious Basterds were hits both critically and commercially and it’s reasonable to expect every film to which one of these handsome men is attached will at least make its money back.  People will go to the movies specifically because they hear the names “Clooney” or “Pitt” and that’s becoming increasingly rarer.

If you need evidence of this, check out this weekend’s grosses for The American.  It was the number one film of the weekend, despite the fact that Clooney was the only actor anybody heard of and despite the fact that it’s a deliberately-paced film that most American audiences would usually find dull.  I doubt it’ll have strong legs next weekend, when word of mouth spreads, but the bottom line is that Clooney put butts in seats this weekend. Audiences in this country feel comfortable with Pitt and Clooney, that they will deliver the goods in projects that are worthy of their time and money.
Johnny Depp might want in on this conversation.

I personally think he’s fading as an actor I trust, but Alice in Wonderland still made a ton of money. Although, I don’t know how much if it is Depp and how much of it is Burton and how much of it is the recognizable brand.  Depp certainly didn’t help Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus get  seen by very many people, and while Public Enemies did okay, it didn’t do as well as expected in a cushy Independence Day slot.  The Tourist will be a good test for him, where he’s paired with one of the top female stars out there.

Speaking of Angelina Jolie, could she be the biggest star in the world? She’s certainly one of the most recognizable faces, gracing the covers of magazines on newsstands around the globe. She was the only major draw in Salt and that film has grossed over a hundred million dollars at the box office. Jolie and action is a formula for success, as she had already proved with Wanted. Unfortunately, put her in a serious drama – even one she’s excellent in, like Changeling – and audiences turn away.

Speaking of Clint Eastwood, I must make mention of him because I think he was on William Goldman’s list every single year he made it. And the weird thing is that you could probably still put him somewhere on the list. The guy has been a commodity for about forty years already and has shown no signs of slowing, releasing a film every single year. When he actually gets in front of the camera, (a rare sight these days) people tend to show up, even if it’s something as dumb as Gran Torino.

Box office gross of the aforementioned film: nearly 150 million bucks and Eastwood was the only draw. Dude is nearly eighty and he still gets audiences to come out. His next film, Hereafter, reunites him with Invictus star Matt Damon and comes out in the fall.

Matt Damon, you say? Why yes, I did. I’d love to put him somewhere on this list, but the truth of the matter is that while he’s a recognizable face and name and he gives any film he stars in the air of respectability…he’s not quite in the running for biggest movie star status. The Bourne films were cash-cows, of course, but the truth of the matter is that he’s too much of a damned artist to be a movie star.

He’s the kind of guy who gains forty pounds to star in a Soderbergh film, the kind of guy who brings subtlety to his pitch-perfect performance in The Good Shepherd (one of my favorite performances of the last twenty years). He’s the kind of guy who will take time out of his schedule to film cameos in Soderbergh’s Che or Coppola’s Youth Without Youth. He doesn’t seem especially motivated by money or fame; instead it seems his one big desire is to work with as many great directors as possible.

The guy has worked with Scorsese, Coppola, Soderbergh, Minghella, Van Sant, Gilliam, Redford, Eastwood, and has a film coming up with the Coen Brothers. He might be one of the finest popular actors of his generation, but he’s not one of its biggest movie stars.

Damon also worked with Steven Spielberg on Saving Private Ryan and Spielberg used to be a staple on this list. You could always put him on it because he’s easily the most famous film director in the history of motion pictures. If you ask any bozo off the street to name a film director, they’ll definitely be able to mention Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately the man hasn’t released a film since Munich (What Indiana Jones film? I keep telling you, it doesn’t exist!).

He’s got a couple of projects on the horizon, including War Horse and Tintin, but I can’t put him anywhere near the top until he finally makes that damned Abraham Lincoln movie. Or, you know, if War Horse is brilliant and makes a ton of money. But he deserves a place on this list, even as just a producer.  Hell, every Transformers movie is a gigantic hit and he’s one of the men responsible for it.

How about the star of that hit franchise? No, not Michael Bay or Optimus Prime, but Shia LaBeouf. He’s only 24 years old and he’s the lead actor in a franchise that has grossed a kajillion dollars (he was also in that Spielberg movie that doesn’t exist and grossed a lot of money). But, come on, we know people weren’t going to the theater for a chance to see LaBeouf. And while Disturbia was a decent-sized hit, Eagle Eye was a disappointment. We’ll see how he does with the Wall Street sequel, but even if it’s a huge success, it probably won’t be due to him. He might be the biggest star in the world in five to ten years, but he’s not there yet.

There’s no natural transition to this one, so I’m going to try not to snap my neck with this segue: Will Smith! What about Big Willie? He’s still getting jiggy with audiences, whether it’s in the atrocious Hancock or the even more atrocious Seven Pounds. It’s actually an amazing testament to his star power that the latter film managed to gross seventy million dollars, despite its subject matter.

I mean, that’s not an easy film to sell and basically they marketed it as “Will Smith…in a movie!” Nobody had any clue what it was about, but the promise of Will Smith drew people in. That’s pretty impressive. But he’s been absent from screens for two years now and Men in Black III isn’t coming out until 2012, so he’s taking a break from his throne.

No, Jaden Smith isn’t where I’m going next.

I don’t know who to blame or  praise for the success of Twilight, so I can’t really put any of those kids or filmmakers on here. I’ll chalk that one up to “phenomenon” and move on.   Same goes for the much better Harry Potter films.

Leonardo DiCaprio? He’s the star of one of the most talked-about movies of the year, Inception, which will end up with around 300 million bucks in the bank. Not too shabby. He’s also Scorsese’s favorite actor and DiCaprio has helped turn Scorsese into a legitimate box office favorite. Or maybe it was the other way around? Unfortunately, he couldn’t help turn Revolutionary Road or Body of Lies into hits.

In the right project, DiCaprio is gold. And Inception might have been more about Christopher Nolan than DiCaprio. I think his turn as the title character in Eastwood’s J. Edgar Hoover biopic will probably garner some awards buzz, but we’ll see if he can take it to the top of the box office.

Adam Sandler was the answer to this question for a while. But that was back when his movies cost nothing to make and grossed insane sums of money. Now the movies cost more, he costs more and he can’t even guarantee a hit when he’s working with Judd Apatow. Grown Ups grossed about $160 million, but it definitely cost quite a bit to make and market. He’s near the top of the list, but it seems he’s veering closer towards modern-day Eddie Murphy family-movie territory. And that’s a hit or miss world to live in.

Okay, enough beating around the bush, the answer to the biggest movie star in the world? Well, who could it be other than Sandra Bullock? She’s gracing the cover of Entertainment Weekly this week despite the fact that she’s got nothing to promote and she wasn’t even interviewed. She starred in two massive hits last year, got an Oscar and could get anything greenlit immediately. She was the star of 2009 and is the biggest movie star to grace a cinema screen right now.

But that’s not the answer. She might be the biggest actor in the world, but the biggest movie star right now (and I would argue, for the last decade) is very simple…

PIXAR.

Name me another company, actor, director, etc. in the history of cinema that has never made a film that bombed either critically or commercially. You can’t do it. (Okay, maybe John Cazale?) Every year, Pixar releases a film that grosses a ton of money and tops critics lists. This year, they put out Toy Story 3 and it grossed over 400 million dollars. I don’t think any movie star on the planet can guarantee you half that. Well, except for Pixar.  I’m putting the over/under on the next five Pixar releases at 250 million and I’ll take the over.  I’ll win every time.

Without a doubt, the biggest movie star in the world is Pixar. And it’s not even close.

Quiet Cool

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

My favorite songs are ones that slowly build to a crescendo – David Bowie’s “Rock N’ Roll Suicide” for example – and I’ve often felt that way about movies.  I have always enjoyed the slow build, tightening the screws ever so delicately until the tension is unbearable.  Sure, there are great movies that come out firing on all cylinders right from the start, but my preference is to let things slowly sink in.  The movies of Antonioni, Rohmer, Malick, Truffaut, and Kubrick have always appealed to me because they were confident enough in their abilities to let things quietly unfold rather than explode.  The modern day filmmaker that I think employs this technique most effectively is probably Gus Van Sant; films like Paranoid Park and Elephant unfurl their narratives in an almost maddeningly oblique way.  But I find those films to be rewarding because of the work I put into trying to understand them.

This is all to say that it makes me downright giddy that there seem to be a couple films on the horizon that employ this technique.  Anton Cobijn’s The American is, according to everyone who has seen it, an Antonioni-esque exercise in languidness.  And today, I read a bunch of reviews of Sofia Coppola’s Somewhere that apparently takes place in the same dreamy state as Lost in Translation.  And to me, this is the equivalent of most audiences seeing that giant wave in the trailer for The Perfect Storm.  When I hear that a movie has a deliberate pace and is compared to a director like Antonioni or Malick, that’s when I get excited.

What are some of the other great “slow-build” movies I’m missing?

Television Goldmine

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

I’ve written about this subject several times over the past few years, but now it seems like it’s gaining steam more and more: television is a much more interesting landscape than film these days. That is not to say that I think all TV shows are better than all movies, but that I think television is an inherently more fascinating medium for character-based narratives. In a film, we get maybe three hours to see a character develop and grow and change; in television, we could have upwards of a hundred hours. Great film actors like Daniel Day-Lewis are able craft a persona and give us an idea of the depth of a character in something like There Will Be Blood, but how do I compare that greatness to, say, Jon Hamm’s creation of Don Draper on Mad Men.  It’s almost impossible to compare the two, but when all is said and done, I will probably feel like I know Don Draper and his motivations better than Daniel Plainview.

I was realizing just that point when I was watching Mad Men this past Sunday.  I’ve gotten to know Don Draper so well at this point that I feel like I can guess what he may or may not to do in any given situation.  That might make it sound really boring, like it would take the fun and excitement out of it, but instead it made me feel comfortable with the fact that I’ve spent almost four seasons getting to know this person (upwards of 40 hours) and now I know his tics.  And that’s a testament to the acting of Jon Hamm, that he’s able to convey the feelings that I know Don is having, but without having to state it as such.  Every furrow of the brow, every hesitation of an inhalation of cigarette, every faux-tender kiss on a woman’s mouth…we know what Don is feeling as he lies to the world.

It’s not just on Mad Men either.  All across the television landscape, there are shows and characters that are just starting to scratch the surface of what can be done with the medium.  No longer do we have stand-alone episodes of every show where we follow one character as they solve a mystery.  No, now we have mysteries and narratives that last for the entire length of a show’s run and characters that fall believably in and out of love.

Look, I will always love movies with all my heart – it’s my primary passion.  But even I can’t deny that television is kicking some serious ass right now.  It’s starting to feel more and more like film is the equivalent of a short story while TV shows are novels.  That’s not a knock on films at all, as some of the best stories are short ones.  But, I’ve got it on pretty good authority that Boardwalk Empire is going to kick all of our asses when it debuts on HBO in a couple weeks.  And, you know, it’s gotta say something when even Scorsese is noticing what television can offer these days.

Frenzy on the Wall: 10 Movies to See This Fall/Winter

Monday, August 30th, 2010

I write this column every year. In fact, I write this column three times a year, with the changing of the movie seasons. The interesting thing about writing this particular column at this particular time in this particular year is: 1) this has been such an unfathomably terrible year at the movies that the fall has never been more important and 2) never has a fall/winter movie season looked so appetizing from afar.

What’s most astounding to me about this year’s fall crop is that there are movies that I couldn’t fit on this list that I’m still dying to see; movies like Woody Allen’s You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Ben Affleck’s The Town, Casey Affleck’s I’m Still Here, the documentary Catfish, Stone, Red, Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter, Todd PhillipsDue Date, Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours, Doug Liman’s Fair Game, the new Harry Potter movie, Love and Other Drugs, Julie Taymor’s The Tempest, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s The Tourist, Julian Schnabel’s Miral, and Blue Valentine.

These are all movies I cannot wait to go see, yet none of them cracked the top ten list of the movies I most want to see before the year is over.

So without further ado, these are the ten movies that I am most excited to see this fall:

Never Let Me Go (Dir. Mark Romanek) – September 17th

Considering that Romanek has only directed one feature previously – the underrated One Hour Photo – it might be somewhat surprising for me to include his sophomore feature on this list. But when one looks at the music videos he’s directed, it’s clear that this is a man who has a distinct vision and a unique way of bringing that vision to life. I’ll always remember the scene in One Hour Photo when Robin Williams is running through a parking structure and the way the camera follows him, creating a sense of uneasiness in the viewer just by the way the camera tracks him down the parking garage as he runs in circles.

Here, Romanek is working with a peculiar storyline that follows three young people (played by Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, and Keira Knightley) as they grow up in a very different kind of school. Based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro and adapted for the screen by Alex Garland, this promises to be something like a Michael Bay film (like The Island) as filtered through the lens of a Merchant-Ivory sensibility. I don’t know about you guys, but that definitely has my interest piqued.

The Social Network (Dir. David Fincher) – October 1st

I’ve made no secret of my love for David Fincher throughout my years writing this column. I put him on a pedestal with a handful of other directors across the world as one of the visionaries of cinema. I just find that Fincher never takes the easy approach and has a very particular vision that never ceases to amaze me. The way that Fincher handles the mise-en-scene of his films is always just a little bit off-kilter, just like his camera and the lighting; he is one of the best in the business at creating a certain mood and sustaining it throughout the running time of the film.

Here, Fincher works from a script by the Aaron Sorkin, who has such a great sense of dramatic tension and who writes dialogue better than almost anyone. To have Fincher’s visuals matched up to Sorkin’s dialogue sounds like a such a treat that I can barely contain myself. And that was before watching one of the best trailers that has ever been cut before. If you haven’t watched the preview for The Social Network, do yourself a favor and watch it now.

Anybody who refers to this film as “the Facebook movie” is someone who clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in film. For us geeks, we call it “the Fincher film.” He’s reached that echelon for me where it really doesn’t matter what the subject matter of his film is, I know he will elevate it to something of merit artistically. I also think that Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield are going to smash it out of the park playing the Facebook founders. And being a fan of Justin Timberlake’s work on SNL, I’m excited to see what he can do in the hands of a master filmmaker. This is my number 1 must-see film of the year.

Jackass 3-D (Dir. Jeff Tremaine) – October 15th

Lest you think I’m some kind of film snob, this is the comedy I’m most excited to see this year. I don’t know what to tell you; you either love this stuff or you hate it. All I know is that the first two installments in this franchise had me crying with laughter. Comedy is such an instinctual thing and I will never be able to explain to you logically why I find it hilarious to watch a man get hit in the face by a giant hand. What these sick bastards do just entertains me to no end, but I understand completely why someone would be off-put by their antics.

But I’m going to be there opening night and I imagine I’ll laugh til’ I cry once again.

Black Swan (Dir. Darren Aronofsky) – December 1st

I wasn’t the biggest fan of The Wrestler. I mean, I thought it was fine and I enjoyed it for the most part, but I thought it was a bit of a let-down from what I had come to expect from Darren Aronofsky. The three features he had directed previous to that film were complicated and implored the viewer to open their minds and think long and hard about the narratives presented. I felt like The Wrestler was Aronofsky recharging his batteries after the difficult – and beautiful – The Fountain. He was trying to go back to telling a story that had a very clearly defined beginning, middle and end. While I enjoyed seeing Aronofsky tell a more conventional story, I longed to see him tell a story that engaged my brain a bit more.

Well, it seems like that’s exactly what Aronofsky has in store for us with Black Swan, a thrilling tale of ballet and horror starring Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis. Portman is one of the most talented young actresses of her generation, but it seems like she’s been a bit stuck as of late. I admire that she’s taken risks in films like Brothers and The Other Boleyn Girl, but it seems like she’s been trying a bit too hard to break away form a certain kind of mold and has been miscast in films where she’s been forced to be a too…adult. Despite the fact that she’s now 29, she still looks so young that it’s hard to take her seriously as the mother of two young children (as she was in Brothers).

But as a young ballet dancer who’s beset by psychological turmoil when a rival joins the company, I think she could potentially hit that out of the park. Portman was never better than she was in Closer, playing up a mixture of vulnerability and sexual empowerment, and it seems like Black Swan might present her with a role that straddles that same line. I’m excited to see what kind of magic Aronofsky and Portman can bring to the table.

The Fighter (Dir. David O. Russell) – December 10th

I just re-watched I Heart Huckabees later and I still feel, six years later, that it is one of the most underrated films that has been released in the past decade. Never before (or since) in my lifetime have I felt like the critical community so missed the mark when it came to reviewing a film. I hate to be one of those assholes who says, “well, they just didn’t get it!” but when it came to that particular film and the critical community…well, they just didn’t get it!

It is such a funny film in a deadpan way, yet it speaks to a lot of the existential issues we all face on a day to day basis. Namely, it deals with a specific feeling that a lot of youth faces today: how do we make a difference and can we make that difference without sacrificing our ideals? More than that, it’s about how we navigate the murky waters of today and how people that seem to be our polar opposite are, in the end, exactly the same as us.

If you haven’t guessed by now, I’m a pretty big David O. Russell fan (and I haven’t even gotten into the brilliance of Three Kings!) and I think Mark Wahlberg has done a lot of his best work while being directed by Russell. Here, Wahlberg plays a real-life boxer named Mickey Ward and Christian Bale plays his trainer and half-brother Dickie Eklund, who was an addict. Bale playing an addict, Wahlberg playing a boxer, directed by the great David O. Russell? I mean, who isn’t excited about this project?

How Do You Know (Dir. James L. Brooks) – December 17th

Spanglish was awful (except for the scene where Adam Sandler makes that delicious looking sandwich) and the trailer for this film looks absolutely terrible. But this is James L. Brooks we’re talking about. The man makes a movie every six years if we’re lucky and more often than not, he’s hit the mark.

Brooks tries to make a very specific kind of film each time out: films that defy conventional plot descriptions and deal with adult themes that are tonally difficult to figure out. In other words, he makes films that are neither comedies nor dramas, but contain elements of both. Some weirdos call these films “dramadies” but I don’t think Brooks’ films can be labeled so easily.

This latest film involves a love triangle between Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, and Owen Wilson. Jack Nicholson plays Rudd’s father. There’s some kind of accounting scandal and at least one of the leads is a professional baseball player. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what the film is “about” because James L. Brooks films are all about the how rather than the why.

Sure, if you boil down most of his films to the bare essentials, they are about a boy and a girl and falling in love and yadda yadda yadda. But, the emotions and themes are never that shallow and even when he stumbles, he always makes something that is worth considering.

Somewhere (Dir. Sofia Coppola) – December 24th

I think Sofia Coppola is capable of being one of the best filmmakers alive. I think her first two films (Virgin Suicides, Lost in Translation) are about as close to perfect as two films can be. I also think that her last film (Marie Antoinette) was one of the most disappointing that I’ve ever seen – beautiful to look at, to be sure, but interminable and without a plot. I think Coppola made a mistake in trying to make a film that was outside her comfort zone before she had truly mastered her particular milieu. In other words, I think she tried to stretch before she was ready. Perhaps she’ll never be ready, but I do know that he first two films had a wisdom to them that cannot be learned.

With this film, it seems like Coppola is returning to Lost in Translation territory in that we have a movie star – this time played by Stephen Dorff – lounging around a hotel and trying to find himself. The catalyst for his potential change comes in the form of his daughter (played by Elle Fanning).

The few clips I’ve seen have made the film feel very familiar and a bit derivative of Coppola’s own work. But I have more faith in her than that and I’m hoping that this film is as good as I expect all of her work to be. It won’t be a comeback film if it’s as excellent as it should be because Coppola has never been anything less than brilliant. But even brilliant artists make mistakes. Here’s hoping this isn’t one of them.

True Grit (Dir. The Coen Brothers) – December 25th

I have no feeling one way or another for the original film version of True Grit, starring John Wayne. I thought it was fine enough, but not exactly a scared cow of cinema. So it doesn’t bother me that much that someone decided it might be a good film to revisit and remake. And it certainly doesn’t bother me that the Coen Brothers are the ones who decided to remake it. And it CERTAINLY doesn’t bother me that Matt Damon, Jeff Bridges, Josh Brolin, and Barry Pepper decided to join the cast.

The crucial role in the film will be played by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, as the young girl who enlists the aid of a US Marshall to track down her father’s murderer. That man is, of course, Rooster Cogburn – originally played by Wayne and now played by The Dude himself, Jeff Bridges.

Honestly, if you’re a film fan at all and you’re reading this column, do I really have to give you reasons to see the newest Coen Brothers flick?

The Way Back (Dir. Peter Weir) – December

This one doesn’t have a firm release date yet, but when I hear the name “Peter Weir,” I instinctively know that it’s going to be an expertly made film, from the hands of a true craftsman. What I find most fascinating about Weir is that I don’t know that I’d call him an “auteur” because each of his films feel so different. I can’t say that there’s a definitive “Weir style” or that he’s explored a specific theme and returning to it many times over the course of his career.

Instead, Weir has been a bit of a chameleon. He doesn’t work that often, but when he does, he makes films that cause me to say, “wow, I need more Peter Weir in my life!” Whether he’s making Fearless, Green Card, Witness, The Mosquito Coast, Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Truman Show, or Master and Commander, he’s always delivering something astounding.

With his latest film, The Way Back, he’s making a film that has perhaps one of the most fascinating premises of the year: it’s the true story of a group of soldiers who escaped a Siberian gulag in the 1940s and walked 4000 miles to freedom in India. It stars Colin Farrell, Ed Harris, Jim Sturgess, Mark Strong, and Saoirse Ronan. It’s the first script written entirely by Weir since Green Card, so we know it must be an important story for him to tell.

Whenever it winds up being released, I’m sure we can count on it being gorgeous to look at and thoroughly engaging at the very least.

Tree of Life (Dir. Terrence Malick) – ?Who Knows?

I’ve put this on every damned list for the last two years. It’s the latest Terrence Malick film, it’s got Brad Pitt and Sean Penn and potentially dinosaurs. It’s shrouded in secrecy despite the fact that it stopped shooting two years ago. It’s about a family in Texas as well as the creation of the world we live in and somehow, those things will merge or run parallel to one another or something. It will be the most beautiful film we’ll see all year and it’ll most likely blow our minds…

…if Malick stops cutting it and lets it get released.

This used to be the one film I was most excited to see. After having waited for it for so long, it seems even further away. It doesn’t even seem realistic that I’ll see it anymore, like it’s a specter or a mirage. It’s somewhere in the distant at all times, taunting me with its beauty and brilliance. Please, Terry Malick, stop playing games with my heart and let me see this damned thing already!

Welcome to Frenzy on the Blog

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Now that the site has been officially re-launched, my wonderful editor David Poland has given me this space to play around in. It will be an informal affair here, talking mostly about movies and sometimes about television and music. I hope that you will all hang out for a little bit, long enough to speak up and become a part of the discussion.

For me, my favorite thing about devouring every movie I can find is that I know I can discuss it with someone after and argue passionately about why the other person is silly for not understanding. It’s funny, we’re all stubborn when it comes to our opinions and we very rarely admit defeat to our opponent’s face. But sometimes, a point will sink in a day later or a week later and I’ll realize that I was wrong and it’ll subtly shift my opinion. Because the truth of the matter is that anyone who says they’ve never been wrong about a movie on the initial viewing or who have the same opinions about every film they see three seconds or three years later is lying to you. Unless they’re Pauline Kael.

The point is that arguing comes with the territory and it’s part of the fun. I can’t wait to argue with you over the next several years.

Is Angelina Jolie the First Female Action Hero?

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

I finally caught up with Salt this weekend and I’m surprised it’s gotten a pass from most of the critical community (61% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). It’s not that it’s an awful movie, but it’s certainly not a very good one. In fact, it’s a ridiculous and outlandish film that feels twenty minutes too long despite the fact that it’s got a 90 minute running time. You’ve seen this movie before and everyone in it seems kind of bored, going through the motions, except for a nearly mute Angelina Jolie.

But the one thing I was certain of while I was watching the twists and turns of a narrative that made little sense was this: Angelina Jolie is an action star.

I want that to sink in a little bit because it’s a much bigger deal than you might think. I can think of other female movie stars that have been in an action movie or two, but I honestly can’t think of one prior to Jolie who could legitimately be called an action hero on the level of someone like Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis. What I mean by that is that those guys were brands and you simply took an action property and placed one of them in it and it guaranteed a greenlight and often box office success. There is a long history of female branding, but almost solely in the realm of romantic comedies or “chick flick” vehicles. We found America’s newest sweethearts by looking to see who was making the most money in a romantic comedy, with the crown held by actresses like Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock. Can’t really picture either of those two in a film like Wanted or Salt.

What’s so interesting to me about Angelina Jolie’s career is that she isn’t interested in being America’s sweetheart. She does her share of serious work (her performance in A Mighty Heart is one of the finest female performances in the last decade), but instead of alternating that work with a light, frothy romance, instead she picks action films. Rather than filming montages where she’s frolicking with her would-be suitor in parks, she’s kicking and punching and shooting bad guys and scaling tall buildings. More than that, we believe her in these roles.

Let’s face it, action movies have long been a boy’s club. If there are female parts that require some ass-kicking, it’s usually beside a stronger male part. This summer we’ve seen two takes on a similar theme with Knight and Day and Killers, both of which are films that require most of the action to be done by Tom Cruise and Ashton Kutcher, respectively, while Cameron Diaz and Katherine Heigl shriek a lot and cower. Both of them are thrown a bone and they’re allowed to shoot a gun, but it’s clear that they are not the action heroes of those films.

Jolie, meanwhile, is doing most of the dirty work in her action films. I really didn’t enjoy Wanted, but I admired the fact that James McAvoy was playing the ingénue part and shrieking while Jolie played the calm and cool veteran of the game.

But the most important word in discussing Jolie’s action films is the word “films” as in multiple, more than one or two. Before Jolie, the only woman I could conceivably call an action hero is Sigourney Weaver due to her work in one series of films (the Alien movies) and I really think of her more as Bill Murray’s girlfriend in Ghostbusters. Every other female star since – and I mean movie stars here – has gotten where they are because they starred in romantic comedies, romantic dramas, family dramas, etc. Jolie is famous mostly due to her work as an action hero in films like Tomb Raider 1 and 2, Gone in Sixty Seconds, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Wanted, Mr. And Mrs. Smith. More should be made of this.

As for Salt itself, as I said earlier, it’s not good. I give the film credit for having a twist that was fairly interesting, but most of the film doesn’t make any sense. We’re supposed to believe Evelyn Salt is so in love with her husband that it has fundamentally changed her, yet we barely get to see any of her husband at all. We have to take the film’s word for it that they are in love because we see almost no evidence of it. It’s hard to be affected by a film just because it’s telling you to be affected by it.

The relationship with her husband is supposed to ground Evelyn Salt as a character and make the action scenes sizzle more because she has something on the line that is greater than national security. Except the movie has no interest in actually building that relationship outside of one major act of heroism on the husband’s part in the beginning of the film.
But speaking of the beginning of the film, the movie lost me pretty much from the get-go.

You see, Salt has been detained in North Korea and is being tortured by her captors and they’ve decided to waterboard her in her underwear. You see, the part that’s wrong with that is that she’s in her underwear. I’m not a pervert – and lord knows I could easily find films where Jolie disrobes completely – but I find it hard to believe that while torturing a CIA agent, they would allow her to keep her clothes. If you’ve read anything about Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, you’re aware of the fact that prisoners who are tortured are not often allowed to keep their clothes on. I understand that the film needs to keep Jolie clothed in order to gain a PG-13 rating, but it doesn’t jibe with the reality of the situation, or at least what I perceive the reality to be. It all comes down to my favorite word: verisimilitude. It doesn’t have to be real, it just needs to feel real and this film often feels false.

But Jolie being clothed in a torture scene is hardly my biggest issue. That happens to be the scene where Jolie has escaped from her apartment building and then jumps onto a moving truck. Okay, I can buy that; it’s probably not the easiest thing to do, but in the reality of the film, I accept that it’s possible. However, her pursuers are fellow CIA agents who then decide to fire upon her while she is on top of the moving truck. My problems are thus: 1) CIA agents would risk the lives of innocent people driving down the freeway by firing their guns at moving cars? 2) Upon hearing shots fired from an overpass or perhaps actually hitting the windshield or hood of your car, you wouldn’t slam on the brakes and duck for cover? 3) None of these trained CIA agents can hit Jolie while she’s on the car? I have to believe that the CIA agents would promptly be fired for causing a fifty car pile-up and hundreds of deaths and lots of damage.

What killed me the most was the climax of the film that takes place in a bunker below the White House where apparently the President can punch numbers into a computer that will cause a nuclear war to start. Has nothing changed in national security since WarGames? Anyway, the hero of the film tries to get into this impenetrable room (remember, it’s there for the President to stay safe) by breaking bulletproof glass, which of course doesn’t work. But, aha! There’s a side door! And the side door, of course, is made of easily breakable cinder and an electronic door that is easy enough to override. Really? A side door? That’s how easy it would be for someone to kill the President? I don’t know, maybe this all 100% accurate, but the bottom line is that it felt false.

Then, the film tries to end about five times in the next ten minutes before finally ending with the least interesting of the possible ways to end it. That way, the audience can go outside disappointed. Look, it’s not the worst movie ever and Philip Noyce is certainly a capable and decent filmmaker, but it feels like it has suffered from too many cooks and studio interference. I can’t say with any confidence that those things actually happened, but that would be my guess. It just seems like there was a kernel of a good idea in there (which is what attracted Tom Cruise to the role before Jolie signed on), but it got lost somewhere. It’s always strange when a film like this is under 90 minutes and it feels like a lot has been cut out to focus on the action scenes. The problem is that when you cut a lot out of a film, it has the effect of making it seem longer than it is.

Angelina Jolie is fine in the movie, although she’s capable of much more. She’s doing the Matt Damon, Jason Bourne thing here. She doesn’t talk very much (except with her fists!) and spends most of the movie running and shooting and kicking. But like Damon, she’s such a good actress that we feel like there’s more going on under the surface. Ultimately, however, what she does best is seem believable while killing bad guys and jumping out of helicopters. She is an action hero, possibly the biggest action hero we have right now, able to headline in $100 million grossing films where she kicks ass. This is definitely not something we would have expected in the ’80s and it’s a welcome change. Now we just need her to find a better vehicle.

Making a List, Checking it Twice

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

I’m making my preliminary list for my annual “Top Ten Films to See This Fall” column and it’s going to be awfully hard to whittle it down to ten.  It’s also going to be hard to figure out which movies are actually going to be released this year.  Films like Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life and Peter Weir’s The Way Back are currently scheduled to be released sometime this year, but they are both without a firm date.  In the case of the Malick film, it’s unclear whether the film is even finished yet and it’s been on the last few of my “Top Ten Films to See” lists.  But even if one takes those two out of the running, we’re talking about filmmakers like David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, David O. Russell, James L. Brooks, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, Anton Corbijn, Oliver Stone, Ben Affleck, Julian Schnabel, Robert Rodriguez, Clint Eastwood, Danny Boyle, Julie Taymor, The Coen Brothers, Mike Leigh, and many others I’m forgetting.  All of them releasing films this fall.  And that’s not counting films like Jackass 3-D, Due Date, the new Harry Potter flick, and Love and Other Drugs, which I’m looking forward to seeing as well.  Here’s hoping this is a fine fall, because we all know it’s been a miserable summer.

How the Mighty Have Fallen…

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

Two times in the past week, I’ve gone to the movie theater and seen the preview for Devil.  Both times,  I thought the trailer was well-cut, moody, and effective.  And both times, the audience started giggling as soon as they saw M. Night Shyamalan’s name on the screen.  By no means am I a fan of the man’s recent output – in fact, I’d go so far as to say that the films he’s made since Signs have all been somewhat embarrassing travesties – but I don’t root for anyone’s failure.  I think Shyamalan is clearly a talented individual who has made at least one excellent film (Unbreakable) and one very good one (The Sixth Sense), but I don’t think anything has really changed in him.  I don’t think he’s a different kind of storyteller now, I just think he hasn’t evolved as a filmmaker.  Some chalk it up to an out-sized ego – and certainly there’s proof of that – but I’m not going to play amateur psychologist and assume that’s the case.  I think he is very comfortable making films the way he makes them and doesn’t see that much of a need to listen to outside opinions.

Having said all that, Universal should be more aware of what has happened to the M. Night Shyamalan over the last few years.  I don’t think it’s right that people are laughing at Shyamalan’s producer credit on Devil, but I also don’t think it’s smart for the marketing folks to prominently display the name of a man who has tarnished his brand in the eyes of most moviegoers.  One could point to the $130 million that The Last Airbender grossed, but that film had a built-in audience and still couldn’t make its budget back.

Devil is a smaller film that needs word of mouth and positive buzz.  It seems to be set almost entirely in an elevator with an outlandish premise, but the trailer is cut so well that it intrigued me and I don’t know why the studio would risk putting Shyamalan’s name in lights.  Let’s all hope the film is good and that it is step one in Shyamalan getting back into our good graces.  Step two is letting someone else write his scripts.

Don’t Quit Your Day Job

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

I’m curious to see Casey Affleck’s documentary about Joaquin Phoenix’s “rap” career, I’m Still Here.  It seems more obvious every day that Phoenix’s “retirement” from acting to focus on rapping was a complete put-on.  I think it hit home from me when I saw that Phoenix is listed as a producer on the film.  I find it hard to believe that someone who does the crazy things that purportedly happen in the documentary would allow the film to be released.  More than that, Affleck is Phoenix’s brother-in-law and I’m fairly sure that no family member would exploit someone’s downward spiral unless they were in on some kind of joke.

But the sad part for me is that this seems like such a waste of time for two incredibly talented actors.  Casey Affleck finally acted again after a three year layoff and gave us another masterful performance in The Killer Inside Me; the last performance Phoenix gave was the devastating, heartbreaking, and altogether fantastic portrayal of Leonard in Two Lovers.  I understand that these two buddies wanted to just hang out and make a documentary where Phoenix plays an elaborate prank on unsuspecting audiences.  It seems like a fun idea and all that, but it’s also a waste of talent.  These two guys are two of the finest actors we have and no matter how good I’m Still Here turns out, I can’t imagine I won’t be disappointed that these two didn’t spend that time giving us a few more great performances.

I think the issue is that Phoenix and Affleck are the kind of actors, like Daniel Day-Lewis, who don’t “enjoy” acting.  They see it as a job because they are so committed to what they do, actually believing in the craft of creating a performance.  So, the two of them just didn’t feel like doing all that hard work yet wanted to produce something because they are artists, after all.  And I’m Still Here is the result of that.  I understand where they’re coming from, but I hope and pray that they get back in front of the camera ASAP.

Three amigos

“Straight A’s!”

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

Dazed and Confused is a perfect film, one that I watched upwards of fifty times during my adolescence and I could talk about it for hours.  Sometimes I do, like last night when a friend and I discussed the film in such minute detail that it would probably scare the average Dazed and Confused fan.

But during the conversation, I explained a theory about the film that I conjured up somewhere around the 45th viewing.  There is a scene in the film where Slater and Pink go to Pickford’s house to smoke some pot.  As Slater and Pink walk into the house, they run into Pickford’s mother who asked what grades they got and Slater immediately says, “Straight A’s!” which seems pretty laughable since Slater is portrayed as a pothead idiot.  Except, what if he’s telling the truth?  My theory is that Slater is, in fact, a genius.

Genius?

Bear with me, I know that sounds ridiculous.  But remember the scene where Slater says, “Catch ya later,” and Don makes fun of him?  Well, Slater says in that same scene, “Wait til I get to college, I can’t wait til I get to college.”  And my first thought when I hear that is, “Slater’s going to college?”  Is Slater lying?  Is he lying about getting straight A’s?  Is it possible that he’s just playing up the stoner aspect of his personality?  He talks about George Washington being in a cult and that the cult was into aliens, but does he mean what he’s saying or is he just trying to have a laugh at the expense of the stoners who are listening to him?

Look, it’s a far-fetched theory and these are the kinds of things that come up when you re-watch a movie all throughout your childhood.  But, just think about Slater’s potential MENSA status the next time you watch the movie and I think you might start to see the movie in a slightly different way.

Damon Was Robbed

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

I was surfing through the channels earlier and I saw that Steven Soderbergh’s The Informant! was on, so I decided to watch a few minutes.  I wound up watching about an hour of the movie because I got so wrapped up in Matt Damon’s lead performance.  I’ve long felt that Damon was one of the best young actors we have, but he just keeps getting better.  What he does in The Informant! has such a high degree of difficulty.  The tone of the performance is so perfectly calculated and one wrong note could throw the whole thing off.

But the point is that Damon was nominated for an Oscar last year…for Invictus.  I mean, Damon is fine in that movie and does a convincing South African accent, but I don’t understand how 1) that was only his second acting nomination and the first since Good Will Hunting and 2) that he was shut out for The Informant!.  It is astounding to me that Damon’s work in The Talented Mr. Ripley, Rounders, The Departed, and The Good Shepherd all went unrecognized by the Academy.

One of our best

This year, though, I just don’t see how Colin Firth (A Single Man) and Morgan Freeman (Invictus) got nominated ahead of Damon’s masterful performance.  Damon is objectively better than those two and he’s better than George Clooney in Up in the Air (although I don’t begrudge that nomination).  It almost seems to me that either there is a conspiracy against nominating Matt Damon in the acting categories or the majority of the Academy is stupid (the more likely explanation).

Damon should have three films coming out before the end of the year: True Grit, Hereafter, and The Adjustment Bureau.  That’s three chances for the Academy to screw up.

“Did that go the way you thought it was gonna go? Nope.”

Saturday, August 21st, 2010

The Other Guys is way better than I thought it would be.  It’s not that I haven’t admired and enjoyed the films that Will Ferrell and Adam McKay have made together, it’s that I have lost my faith in Ferrell as a consistent comedic presence.  For every Step Brothers (one of the more underrated comedies in recent years), there’s a handful of films like Land of the Lost, Semi-Pro, and Blades of Glory.  And as much as I enjoy the show Eastbound & Down, I didn’t find Ferrell’s slimy car salesman particularly funny or original.  Basically, I was starting to tire of the standard Will Ferrell shtick.

So color me surprised that The Other Guys turned out to be a fairly interesting send-up of cop flicks.  Ferrell is at his best here because he’s not as loud; he’s often been at his funniest when he’s subtle and quiet.  Here, it’s Mark Wahlberg that plays the more temperamental role and it’s much funnier to see Wahlberg lose it.  Of course, because Ferrell is reserved for much of the film, when he does blow up, it’s delightful.

Unlikely heroes

A rehashing of the plot is completely unnecessary because it’s all just a vehicle for Ferrell and Wahlberg to play off each other and they have great chemistry that nearly rivals what Ferrell shares with John C. Reilly or Paul Rudd.  I thought this film succeeded where Edgar Wright’s Hot Fuzz failed because Adam McKay doesn’t seem to have the same reverence for action films that Wright clearly did.  So, rather than lovingly mocking the outlandishness of these types of films as Wright did, this is a film that knows the plot should come secondary.

The one part of the film that really threw me off, however, was the end credit animated sequence that explains what a Ponzi scheme is and how it works.  It goes to some pretty heavy places, which is not how I wanted to leave a film that I just had a good time with.  It seems pretentious and heavy-handed, which is not what I expect to find when I sign up for a Will Ferrell comedy.

However, I fully enjoyed my time with The Other Guys.  It’s not high art and it’s not the funniest film ever, but it’s a good time and should offer everyone at least a few chuckles.

Scott Pilgrim Vs the World: Less Than Perfect, But That’s Okay

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

I hate to repeat the beginning of my Inception column, but Scott Pilgrim Vs the World is neither the best nor the worst movie ever.

What is it about us as a culture these days? It seems like every film, album, painting, ballet, etc. has to be categorized as either “amazing” or “terrible.” Art runs along a spectrum and I’m really sick of the Rotten Tomatoesization of the American moviegoer.

Everywhere I looked, I found people claiming that Scott Pilgrim was either going to change the way movies are made or that it was a blight on the cinematic landscape. Of course, it’s neither.
(more…)

On Kevin Kline, Todd Solondz, and the Sad Decline of Indie Film

Monday, August 9th, 2010

I was thirteen years old in 1996, which I think is the year “indie” film became more of an adjective than a movement. It was the year that “indie” replaced the word “arthouse” — which was odd because many of the successful indie films that followed weren’t independently financed at all. But that year had a big effect on me, in terms of how I viewed the film world. (more…)

The Trouble with Defining the Chick Flick as “Stupid”

Monday, August 2nd, 2010

Are most Hollywood movies made for women “stupid,” or do Hollywood studios in general tend to make movies for both men and women that aren’t aiming for a high intellectual watermark?

I was perusing Entertainment Weekly, reading about the upcoming film Eat, Pray, Love when I came across a sub-story about how movies made for or about women are maligned.  The theme of the story, entitled “If Women Like It, It Must Be Stupid,” is that 1) there aren’t a lot of films made for women and 2) when there is a film made for women, it is derided by men as something frivolous and dumb.

I don’t often get riled up by a story I read in Entertainment Weekly, but I was really perturbed by this one and I had to take a few minutes – and a few re-reads – to figure out exactly what I found so bothersome.

I guess I could start with the title of the piece — which is in quotes but not attributed to anyone. I assume the quote must be something the editor figured was a general statement about what men think about movies geared for women.  But, what’s annoying about that title is that I could very easy replace the word “Women” with “Men.”  Don’t most women – and most men, I hope – find the loud spectacles that litter the megaplexes every summer, um, you know, stupid?

Writing an article like this, with a title like that, suggests several dichotomies and because there is a bias — the author, Karen Valby, is a woman — then it sets up the author’s point that one is better than the other.  In other words, by saying that most men find the films that women enjoy stupid, it’s suggesting that men are stupid.  I find that a tricky stance to argue from.

Here’s the thing: most films in general are stupid.  Films that are geared towards men or women are just as stupid as the rest of them.  There are good films geared towards each gender, but mostly they’re bad.  That’s just the way it goes.  So, yes, if a lot of women like a particular film, I’ll probably think that film is stupid.  Just like Transformers is still a dumb movie despite the fact that millions upon millions of men love that particular flick.  It doesn’t matter which gender buys more tickets, most people don’t like films that are incisive and contemplative because they just want to be entertained and turn their brains off for a few hours.

Eat, Pray, Love director Ryan Murphy is quoted at one point in the article as saying, “There are so many rites-of-passage movies for men.  Not a lot for women.”  Then Valby follows this up with, “Not unless you count a kiss, or a ring, or a baby as the only possible rites.”  Well, if we’re talking about men’s rite of passage movies, wouldn’t we be primarily talking about losing your virginity and, uh, yeah that’s what they’re about 90% of the time.  Again, it goes back to all movies being unoriginal, not just ones targeted at a certain gender.  There are formulas that work in terms of getting women into the theater, just as there are formulas that get men into theaters.

For men, explosions and sexy young girls seem to do the trick and for women, it seems to be clothes and shirtless hunks.  I wish I could argue that filmgoers as a whole are smarter than that, that it really is story that matters most, but the evidence (box office figures) would show that the executives are correct in their assessments.

Now, is it possible that a lot of women could like something that is actually good?  Of course it is.  I’m actually excited to see Eat, Pray, Love because it looks like more than the average cookie-cutter chick flick.  I happen to love globe-trotting films that shoot on location in beautiful locales and I like the idea that this is a film about a woman in a spiritual and emotional crisis.  It’s not just rare for films about women to engage audiences on that level; I’m struggling to come up with very many films about men that explore such terrain.

I’m not really sure what Karen Valby is arguing for in her article. Is she arguing that there should be more movies made specifically for women?  Because, it seems to me that there are plenty of those.  Look at the calendar for any year and there will be at a large number of films made specifically for women.  Sure, maybe there aren’t as many movies aimed at women as there are aimed at men, but I don’t think the numbers would be that far off.  And I think the largest portion of films made at all are trying to, you know, appeal to both genders.

The men get the big, dumb The Expendables on the same day Eat, Pray, Love opens and then the geeky men and women get Scott Pilgrim.  Perhaps Valby is arguing that movies about women should be better?  I would agree with that, but I would argue that movies in general should aim higher than they do.

At one point Valby says, “There are countless stories about men on quests.”  She doesn’t name specific films, but I would say that almost every movie ever made is about a person on a quest.  Sometimes the quest involves driving a motorcycle around South America and sometimes it’s to have the perfect Greek wedding, so I don’t really understand that line of thinking.  Being on a quest is not gender-specific and there are probably less films titled “Groom Wars” because there are less men who would pay to see a film like that.  But, now that I mention it, I kind of want to see that movie.

But then that brings me to another problem I have with the article.  So much of the press surrounding Eat, Pray, Love has to do with the gender issue, making it seems like a film that only women will understand or enjoy.  Well, out of the three films opening on August 13th, I’m not ashamed to admit that I want to see Eat, Pray, Love.  However, every article about the film keeps trying to tell me that I, as a man, shouldn’t waste my time, that I somehow won’t get it.  Maybe I want to see Julia Roberts eat food in Italy and fall in love in Bali, is that okay?  Am I allowed to do that?

If a woman wants to go see The A-Team, nobody will accuse her afterwards of not understanding the film specifically because she’s a woman.  But, if I don’t enjoy Eat, Pray, Love, I’m fairly confident that I will be told by every woman I know that I couldn’t possibly understand.

There definitely is an inequity between men and women, especially when it comes to movies.  And you know where it lies?  Behind the camera.  Not withstanding Kathryn Bigelow’s win at the Oscars this year, there is a paucity of female filmmakers.  More than that, there’s a dearth of female filmmakers that studios would hand the reins of a tentpole movie to.  I’m much more concerned by the fact that there are very few women filmmakers who are entrusted with big-budget films than I am with the fact that women tend to favor certain types of films.

If you look at the box office charts from this year listing the top twenty highest-grossing films, you’ll notice that not a single one of them was directed by a woman.  I would think that if films like Salt, Toy Story 3, or The Karate Kid were directed by women, they’d still be successful because they were given high shooting budgets and even higher advertising budgets.

One of those films with a high budget was The Twilight Saga: Eclipse.  You’ll remember that the first Twilight film – the one with the tiny budget – was directed by a woman, Catherine Hardwicke. That film makes a surprising amount of money and then the rest of the films get higher budgets and male directors.  So, there are plenty of films aimed at women, but not a whole lot of them are directed by women.  And just because Bigelow won an Oscar doesn’t right that injustice, just as Obama being President doesn’t eliminate racism.

I’m not saying that studios should just fork over millions of dollars to the nearest woman and ask her to direct a film, but there are lots of talented female filmmakers out there — Rebecca Miller, Allison Anders, Susanne Bier, Sarah Polley, Miranda July – who are worthy of their money and effort.  How long can we hold Ishtar against Elaine May and the rest of her gender?

The point is that a majority of the working women directors are seldom given the chance to direct a film that spans the globe or requires working with a major movie star or costs more than fifty million dollars.  You know, a movie like Eat, Pray, Love.

Note: Karen Valby has a book out now that I’m planning to pick up this week, entitled Welcome to Utopia.  It sounds pretty interesting … to men and women alike.

Noah Forrest is a 26-year-old aspiring writer/filmmaker in New York City.

Burning Questions

Monday, July 12th, 2010

We’re in the middle of the summer movie season and so far everything has been exactly what we would have expected it to be. No movie has been any better or worse than I would have assumed before summer started and I’ve yet to see something that has truly wowed me. There are still about seven weeks left of the season, though and there are projects on the horizon that might prove worthwhile. We’ll find out what’s good and what’s not in the coming weeks, but until then these are the questions I’m curious to find the answers to before the summer is over (more…)

Mid-Year Report Card

Monday, July 5th, 2010

The first half of any given year is not a good time to reflect on what movies have been released. This is where I give my usual speech about how ridiculous it is that all the “smart” and “prestigious” films are reserved for after the summer is over; I mean, honestly, what kind of studies have been done to show that during the summer months all audiences want is loud and dumb?

Regardless, I have to say that this year has been atrocious so far. In looking at my list of sixty-five new releases I’ve seen so far this year, I would watch maybe four of them again and recommend eight.
When Knight and Day is in my top ten list at the end of June, you know this just isn’t a very good year for movies.

I’m hopeful that Inception will be the white horse that everyone is claiming it to be, but even still, it’s been depressing to walk
out of a movie theater these days. Depressing because I know that what I’ve just seen
was the work of a lot of people and will leave zero impression on me and my fellow
moviegoers. Disposable, mindless entertainment has its place, but there is definitely an
abundance of it these days.

Nevertheless, I’m going to give you my summer report card where I’ll give grades
to various directors and stars because I’m drunk with power! Also, I want to shine a light
on some of the decent work that’s been done.

Pixar: B-plus. As an entity in general, I would give Pixar an easy A, as they are the
most consistent supplier of good movies out there. Every single year, Pixar puts out a
noteworthy film. This year is no different. Toy Story 3 is very good. I don’t think it’s
as great as the first two installments, nor do I think it’s on the level of something like
Wall-E, but it’s definitely a must-see in this year.

Michael Shannon: A-minus for his role in The Runaways. I would give him an A for being the best thing about that film, but I have to deduct points for agreeing to be in perhaps the most boring movie ever made about a rock band (except for The Doors documentary When You’re Strange). I wouldn’t recommend the film, but I would highly recommend that if you have to see the film, just fast forward to the parts with Michael Shannon. The movie comes alive when he’s onscreen.

Paul Greengrass: D for Green Zone. The more I think about this movie, the more it
upsets me. I don’t have a problem with political films that take a side on an issue, but
I don’t like it when movies sermonize. Films should be persuasive with aggrandizing
speeches. Greengrass certainly has a style that is recognizable and it might even make
him an auteur, but that doesn’t make him a filmmaker that I’m terribly interested in. I
think the Bourne films were all good, but the one he didn’t direct was my favorite and I
thought his United 93 was overrated and exploitative.

I just want to see him direct a film that doesn’t rely on either a hot-button issue or shaky handheld camera work with quick edits. For those who will say, “but that’s his style,” well it’s one that doesn’t appeal to Noah Baumbach:

A for Greenberg. I am a huge Baumbach fan and I think he’s on a hell of a run right now. The Squid and the Whale is one of the best films of the last decade and Margot at the Wedding was in my top ten in 2007. Greenberg is the best film I’ve seen so far this year and I’ll write more about it as the year goes on, but I just want to say that Baumbach is such a master of misdirection. His last two films have not been about their titular characters. The hero of Margot at the Wedding is clearly not the Margot, but her son Claude. And the real hero of Greenberg is not Ben Stiller’s character, it’s Greta Gerwig’s. It’s her journey and she’s the one that undergoes changes throughout the film. And she’s so fantastic in the film that she had better snag a nomination in the fall.

Atom Egoyan: F for Chloe. I really don’t understand what has happened to Egoyan. Exoticawas an excellent picture and The Sweet Hereafter might be one of the few perfect films I’ve seen, and is probably in my top ten films of the ’90s. But since then? It’s been fairly underwhelming. Felicia’s Journey was fine, but Where the Truth Lies and Ararat were both disappointing and Adoration was pretty close to being a disaster. But nothing could have prepared me for Chloe. Adapted from the Anne Fontaine’s enjoyable Nathalie … starring the wonderful Fanny Ardant and Emmanuelle Beart, it seemed like Egoyan had at least lined up a decent cast with Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore and Amanda Seyfried. He diverted from the original quite a bit, but mostly it just seemed like he was going for something sleazier than the original.

None of the characters in the new film feel real and the ending is laughably bad. I never
would have predicted that Egoyan would make a “Hollywood” version of a much better story.

Bob Richardson: A for Shutter Island’s photography. I had a lot of issues with Shutter Island, but ultimately I would recommend it. The biggest reason I think the film is worth seeing is that it’s the most beautiful looking film I’ve seen so far this year. Bob Richardson’s work here is phenomenal, especially in the dream sequences and flashbacks, where the colors pop so brightly. Each shot is composed perfectly.

Michael Bay: D-Minus for A Nightmare on Elm Street. I don’t know who else to blame for this horrible remake, but I have to blame someone and Michael Bay is an easy target. He’s also probably most to blame since it was his production company that has decided to make terrible remakes of horror films from the ’70s and ’80s that still hold up. There are a couple ideas in the remake that are intriguing, but there’s one problem: it’s not scary. The original was intense and surprising and went in unexpected directions. The remake is completely useless and predictable.

Sofia Coppola: A for the Somewhere preview. I think The Virgin Suicides and Lost
in Translation are two of the most brilliant films of the last fifteen years. I thought Marie Antoinette was probably the single most disappointing film for me, personally, in that same time span. So nothing could make me happier than to see Coppola return to subject matter that she excels at. I’m skeptical that Stephen Dorff is capable of being Hollywood’s latest reclamation project, but I’m interested to find out after seeing the preview. Truth be told, I was sold the second I heard the first few bars of one of my favorite Strokes song.

Benicio Del Toro: C-minus for The Wolf Man. I was really stoked to see this movie when Mark Romanek was attached. When he left the project, I think Del Toro would have been better off leaving too. But The Wolf Man was Del Toro’s baby and he wanted to see it all the way through to the birthing process. I would have loved to have seen what Romanek would have done with this material, but with Joe Johnston, it is uninvolving and uninspired. I don’t begrudge Del Toro for being attracted to the material, but he had to have known that he wouldn’t ever really pass for being Anthony Hopkins’ son. And that’s not even the worst of the film’s problems. I’m sure Del Toro will bounce back and he’ll be incredible in something again soon, but I was surprised by how flat his performance was in The Wolf Man. Romanek’sNever Let Me Go, incidentally, looks like a must-see film.

Liam Neeson: D for The A-Team, Clash of the Titans, Chloe, After.Life. What’s
amazing about Neeson is that he’s not bad in any of these movies. My problem is just
that he chose to star in four terrible movies all in a row. He’s such a solid actor and
always seems to give it his best shot, but he’s giving it his best shot in movies that are
beneath an actor of his talents. But really, I blame Steven Spielberg. If he would just
make his damn Abraham Lincoln movie already, then Neeson would have a great role to
sink his teeth into. Come on Spielberg, help your buddy Liam out.

Sarah Polley: B-plus for her work in Splice. I love Sarah Polley. Loved her since I
saw her in The Sweet Hereafter and have loved all the work she’s done since then, both
in front of and behind the camera (Away From Her is a special film). I think she’s just a
compelling figure. She does excellent work in Vincenzo Natali’s Splice, which is a good
picture for most of its running time before falling apart in the last reel.

But Polley is the biggest reason why the film works as well as it does, making us believe in the reality of her character. She undergoes some pretty radical shifts through the course of the film and it’s her responsibility to make us believe them. And mostly we do. Polley hasn’t really done a whole lot of acting work in the last few years, which is a shame. She’s a talented filmmaker, but I just hope she remembers to get in front of the camera once in a while.

Tony Grisoni: A-minus for writing Red Riding. Grisoni had a hell of a task trying to
condense a long and complicated story into one coherent narrative that runs about five
hours. What’s most fascinating to me is how Grisoni was able to handle the change in
tones. The three different directors clearly bring something different to all the chapters,
but it starts with the script Grisoni wrote. It’s twisty and dense, but Grisoni makes it
compelling for us while keeping us in the dark for long stretches. It’s hard to tell a story
that makes the audience ask more and more questions as the narrative moves forward and
keep the viewer engaged, but Grisoni pulls it off. He simplifies the things that need to be
simplified and he helps us keep track of all the characters (and there are lots). For me,
Tony Grisoni is the screenwriter of the year.

Noah Forrest is a 26-year-old aspiring writer/filmmaker in New York City.

The opinions expressed in these columns are the writer’s and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Movie City News or any of its editors or other contributors.

Still Cruising After All These Years

Monday, June 28th, 2010

I haven’t seen Knight and Day yet and the word on the street has been mixed, but even if it’s terrible I’ll still believe that Tom Cruise is a fantastic and underrated actor.

It’s not often that one of the biggest movie stars in the world can be classified as “underrated” because clearly most audiences enjoy his work, but Cruise hasn’t really been given the proper due by the critical community. Sure, he’s gotten a handful of Oscar nominations, but he’s not considered a “serious” actor by cineastes, which is a real shame.

I think Cruise gets a bad rap because 1) he’s a popular actor and 2) he’s handsome. Brad Pitt and George Clooney suffered the same fate for a while; because they’re so unbelievably good looking, they can’t possibly be good actors.  People point to less conventionally attractive actors likeSean Penn or Philip Seymour Hoffman as being elite actors – and indeed they are – while completely ignoring actors like Tom Cruise and belitting their accomplishments as if just anybody could carry a movie like Jerry Maguire or A Few Good Men.

It takes a special blend of not only good looks, but charisma and ability, to carry films as varied as Risky Business and Eyes Wide Shut.  If Clooney is the Cary Grant of our time then Cruise must be the Montgomery Clift: so attractive that people forget how stunningly good of an actor he was.

Whenever I have this conversation with friends, I always point to Cruise in Jerry Maguire as one of the better performances of the past fifteen years.  Usually when I say that, people scoff at me because Cruise is a movie star and everyone knows movie stars don’t give good performances and the movie was a feel-good hit and everyone knows that there are no good performances in movies that bathe themselves in depression.  But if you watch that movie, it’s fascinating the choices that Cruise makes and the risks he takes.

Jerry Maguire is not a likable person.  He is selfish, needy and annoyingly idealistic.  Throughout the course of the film, however, he changes believably.  As I’ve written in this column many times, the most difficult challenge for an actor to take on is to play a part that requires them to change in 120 minutes and to make that change plausible to the audience.  In Jerry Maguire, Cruise makes us believe in that change.

People point to roles that require an actor to play a mentally disabled person, a drunk, or someone with some kind of oddity and they say, “wow, what a performance, I really believe they were retarded!”  Well, the truth of the matter is that playing a role like Jerry Maguire has a much higher degree of difficulty because Cruise has to play an actual human being with flaws and scars. When Cruise comes to Renee Zellweger’s house at the end of the film and does his whole “you complete me” routine, it could easily seem like a cheesy way to win back his girl, like a typical romantic comedy. But Cruise has made us believe that this character is grandiose enough to say something along those lines and to make a speech like this.

Of course, credit must be given to Cameron Crowe for building the character, but to bring it to life in a believable way is quite an achievement. Cruise was rewarded for his work with an Oscar nomination, but the award that year went to the less handsome Geoffrey Rush as the mentally impaired pianist in Shine.

Of course, there’s Cruise’s deservedly lauded role as Frank T.J. Mackey in P.T. Anderson’s brilliant Magnolia, which earned Cruise a nomination.  But, that same year, he did compelling work in Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut which was not only shrugged off, but considered something of a weak performance.  I was mesmerized by him in that role because he is not only our hero on this strange journey, but because he’s a wimp.  That was the most interesting thing to me about the way Cruise plays the character; the biggest movie star on the planet was okay with not just being emasculated, but playing a weak-willed, easily intimidated and frightened character who tries to buy himself out of every problem he encounters.

I feel like this is worth reiterating: the biggest movie star on the planet, a man who we are used to watching thwart all enemies with his fists or guns or with big theatrical speeches, decides to play a part where he is bullied, called a fag, told by his wife that he’s not satisfying her sexually, and can’t even bring himself to have sex with a hooker.  It’s not just the bravery of deciding to play a role like that, it’s that he doesn’t shy away from these aspects of the character.  Cruise plays Dr. Bill Harford as a frightened and shaken man and I don’t know that many other movie stars would have had the nerve to do that.

The other thing that makes Cruise such an interesting movie star is that he’s quite willing to play a villain, as he does so well in Interview with the Vampire and Collateral.  Even whenTom Hanks – the other biggest movie star of the ’90s – decided to play a hitman in Road to Perdition, he decided to play him as the most moral and good-hearted hitman in the history of the world.  Hanks doesn’t have the ability to play menacing whereas it seems to come to Cruise quite easily.  In both Interview with the Vampire and Collateral, he not only brings a fear factor to the roles, but he’s so adept at playing a scene for black humor in the midst of murderous shenanigans.  To be able to mix terror and humor is a tricky balance, but Cruise does it with panache.

What makes Cruise so fascinating is that he’s so willing to play parts that aren’t traditional “star” parts. Dustin Hoffman won the Oscar for playing the autistic Raymond in Rain Man, but Cruise has the more difficult role as the selfish brother Charlie. Or look at Cruise in Magnolia or Born on the Fourth of July, a movie star willing to stretch outside of the genres that he knows will generate profit.  Even when Cruise made Mission: Impossible, he enlisted Brian De Palma to help him make one of the most dense and narratively twisting blockbuster movies ever.  And I think that movie best encapsulates Cruise in a lot of ways; he never plays down to his audience; he expects them to be smart enough to follow him as he makes difficult choices.

He’s got his franchise and not all of the movies he picks are winners, but you can always expect him to try his hardest and to challenge not just himself but his audience. He picks interesting projects and talented directors and gives it his all and that’s pretty much all you can hope for from a movie star.  When Cruise was picking his “comeback” movie after a small lull, he decided to enlsit Bryan Singer to make a film about a Nazis trying to kill Hitler.  This is supposedly the film that will make or break the rest of his career and he picks Valkyrie, not exactly a project that screams “mega hit” on paper.

One of the films I find most fascinating on Cruise’s resume is Cameron Crowe’s Vanilla Sky, the remake of Alejandro Amenabar’s Abre Lost Ojos.  Vanilla Sky is not a perfect film by any means, but it’s always fascinating and it’s complicated and dense and you know what?  Cruise makes that film work because he’s not just a believable playboy, but he’s so effective in the scenes when his face is torn apart.  I imagine Cruise relished playing those scenes, acting behind a mask (shades of Eyes Wide Shut) or with heavy make-up scarring the face that made him a star, because in those scenes he could rely on his natural ability.

So, I’m going to see Knight and Day and maybe it’s awful, but I will always respect Tom Cruise, one of the most underrated actors today.  He might not be Daniel Day-Lewis or evenCasey Affleck, but he’s been consistently good in everything he’s done and sometimes he’s been a lot better than that.  Knight and Day also stars the criminally underrated Cameron Diaz, but that’s a column for another day.

Noah Forrest is a 26-year-old aspiring writer/filmmaker in New York City.

The opinions expressed in these columns are the writer’s and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Movie City News or any of its editors or other contributors.