Posts Tagged ‘Clint Eastwood’

TIFF Review: Hereafter

Friday, October 15th, 2010

After a pretty spectacular opening scene, I was hopeful that Clint Eastwood‘s highly anticipated film, Hereafter, with a script by Peter Morgan, was going to be something special. Then it became evident that the setup is a triptych, which is really hard to weave together into a coherant story without it feeling enormously contrived.

Unfortunately, the conceit of the film just never pays off in a satisfying way.

Our trio of tales kicks off with Marie (Cécile De France), a French television personality on vacation with her boyfriend when she’s caught in a devastating tsunami, nearly dies, and is brought back to life. Marie’s near-death experience has a profound effect on her, and when she returns home she finds she can’t focus on anything but researching and writing about her experience; her obsession with death and the afterlife quickly isolates her from her friends and colleagues and threatens her career.

The second parallel tale concerns George (Matt Damon), a blue-collar warehouse worker who’s hiding out from a gift — an ability to touch a person and connect with their dead family members. After previously making money off his talent at the encouragement of his brother, who seeks to profit from his talent, George has retreated from the world, a lonely, isolated man whose gift has become a curse that keeps him from having relationships with others.

He signs up for a cooking class, desperate for companionship, and there meets a charming woman (Bryce Dallas Howard) with whom he feels he might be able to connect for the first time in his adult life. But when she learns of his gift, it threatens the tentative connection they’re building.

The third of our three stories concerns Marcus (Frankie McLaren) and Jason (George McLaren), twin brothers in England whose mum is addicted to heroin. When tragedy strikes, Jason seeks desperately to find answers about what happens after death, a path that ultimately leads him to George’s old website, which was never taken down.

The thing is, each of these stories on their own — or even George’s story in sync with just one of the others, would probably have made for a much tighter story. Individually as meditations on both the affect on the living when they lose someone they love, and the questions raised when a person is technically dead (or at least, very near death), and then brought back to life, are certainly something many of us ponder when we’re not too busy running around in our lives to pause and consider that every day we run full speed ahead is just bringing us another day closer to the end.

George’s part of the story, in particular, is quite well-written and Damon, as a man gifted with a rare talent that nonetheless serves to isolate him from the world around him, turns in a strong performance. Howard, in the brief time she’s a part of his story, is a powerful and emotional force. De France is also very good, and her journey fairly engaging.

The trouble is that after being fairly interesting for its first 2/3 or so as we catch up with the individual tales, the necessity to bring everything together causes a serious nosedive into the realm of unwieldy contrivance that forces the characters to converge for the inevitable sappy ending. I stayed with it for quite a while … until a moment that smacks you upside the head with exactly where the film is going. Then I hoped against hope that Eastwood and Morgan really weren’t going to be as obvious as all that – surely they weren’t! But they were.

The thing is, I don’t have an issue with Eastwood exploring ideas of what happens after death; as a spiritual person I find those kinds of meditations interesting, and after all, most religion is built around the need for humans to derive some sense of comfort in thinking we have an answer to what happens to us once we depart this life. The need to believe we don’t just cease to exist, like the flame of a candle blown out, is very strong, and with a bit less contrivance this could have been a better meditation on the subject.

Unfortunately, while there are interesting ideas here, and some solid performances in the film, the sum of the parts just never adds up to a deeply satisfying whole. Bummer.

Oscars, Already?

Monday, October 11th, 2010

We have the new Gurus O’ Gold chart up, and in taking a look at the consensus votes du jour, I had a couple thoughts. I missed The King’s Speech at Toronto, so I’ll have to wait until screeners come in/Seattle screenings get set to weigh in on it. Could be the Oscar-bee’s knees like I heard from a lot of folks at Toronto, could be Colin Firth‘s year to win a statue. Or not. Time will tell.

Of the Best Pic-contending movies I have seen, I wouldn’t rank The Social Network as highly as it’s sitting right now. It’s very early for that film to be peaking, I think, and I still just don’t see its subject matter and cynicism as broadly appealing to the Academy voters. But we’ll see. Hereafter? Not so much. I wouldn’t even have that one on my Oscar radar at all except that it’s directed by Eastwood — but I personally found it to be maybe on par with Invictus, which wasn’t great, and maybe a tad below Million Dollar Baby (NOT my favorite movie) in terms of emotional manipulation.

Right now, I think my personal top Best Picture pics would be True Grit (haven’t seen that one yet either, but it’s the Coens and the trailer looks great), Black Swan, 127 Hours, Another Year, The King’s Speech (based on the buzz alone at this point) and Winter’s Bone OR The Kids Are All Right as strong outsiders.

I’m more interested at this point in the Adapted Screenplay race, where we have 127 Hours, True Grit and The Social Network as probably leaders of the pack. To this I would add Never Let Me Go, which I think, after reading the book, is a really solid adaptation — more on that one later. Unfortunately, I missed seeing Rabbit Hole (darn that weighty Toronto slate and its surprises), and I’ve heard so many things on that one (mostly positive) that I’m hoping to get to check it out soon.

Right now I’m also interested in the Best Actor and Actress races as well. For Best Actor, everyone (ah yes, the ever-mysterious, yet oddly influential “they”) came out of Toronto saying James Franco is a “lock” for a nomination, and Firth virtually a “lock” for a nom and probable win. I’ve seen Duvall in Get Low and it’s a good performance, no doubt, and one that may appeal to the Academy. Not my personal top o’ the actor heap, but I have no idea what the Academy’s temperature reading is on that film, and no one’s counting my votes anyhow.

Bridges in True Grit may (will probably be) Oscar worthy, but he’s coming off a win last year for Crazy Heart. Personally (and again, not having seen True Grit or King’s Speech yet) my sentimental favorite is Javier Bardem for Biutiful, which I think is the best performance in a career of great performances. But the artfulness of Biutiful may not be enough to lift it up above the rather bleak subject matter to put it up there in the hearts of voters.

As for Best Actress, maybe it’s just me but this feels like a slightly less competitive field this year. After barely missing out on a Best Actress nom for Happy-Go-Lucky a couple years ago, this may be Sally Hawkins year with Made in Dagenham, the kind of uplifting Brit-flick that may be appealing to the Academy. I would probably put Lesley Manville‘s really solid turn in Another Year right up there with Hawkins. and if it were me, Jennifer Lawrence would be right in the mix for Winter’s Bone. I heard really amazing things about Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole out of Toronto, too, and I am a fan of Black Swan and Portman’s performance in it. I wouldn’t count her out completely yet.

The Oscar race will start to take shape more as screeners get sent out and buzz starts to bubble up for this film and peter out for that one. This is a fall with a lot of exciting movies to look forward to and it should be an interesting awards season to watch as well. Much as we all get sick of reading and writing about Oscars, our collective obsession with it drives this business to one extent or another.

I don’t plan to write as much about Oscars as the “Oscar pundits,” more to focus narrowly on specific bits and pieces — screenplay adaptations, docs, maybe foreigns depending on what’s nominated there. After years of having my kids do their Oscar picks randomly using everything from Magic 8-Ball to Twister to Pin the Tail on the Donkey (usually with surprising accuracy) I’ve come to believe that it’s really a crap shoot anyhow.

Fun to talk about and argue about and make charts about, but at the end of the day, I don’t know that any one person’s guesses are actually more accurate or better than the randomness of the Magic 8-Ball. So it goes, let the speculating begin.

A Poster Hereafter

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

Trailering Hereafter

Monday, September 13th, 2010

Confessions of a Film Festival Junkie

Sunday, September 12th, 2010

In the early days of the Toronto International Film Festival (then known as the Festival of Festivals) its chief nemesis was the World Film Festival in Montreal that immediately preceded it on the calendar. About a decade back the WFF imploded following government investigations and rival local events that nonetheless failed to put a stake through its heart. It still exists but at a considerably diminished level from its heyday.

Despite overlapping schedules, Toronto has never really viewed Venice as competition. The two events do share a significant number of films, particularly those from high profile filmmakers. Venice concluded yesterday with the announcement of its jury prize winners and all, with the exception of Somewhere by Sofia Coppola which took the top prize, are on the Toronto schedule.

One anticipated film that Toronto received the very first look see is Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter. It screened yesterday for press including the army of junket scribes that attend about 20 interview roundtables during TIFF’s opening weekend. They were grumbling about the filmmaker only doing two interviews during his stay and having to go to New York in October for the official press junket.

The film itself can glibly be described as Eastwood does Lelouch. The story, like many by the French writer-director, has multiple story lines involving people whose lives and tales are unconnected at least until the third act. At that point luck and coincidence take hold and, in the case of Hereafter, converge somewhat sentimentally as the principles deal with death and beyond. It’s a pretty good Lelouch and a pretty good Eastwood … but not great stuff.

Three days into the festival I’m feeling a little ambivalent about the paucity of press/industry screenings after 5 p.m. It appears that (at least during the weekend) the Scotia Bank multiplex is reluctant to give up evening screen time and the festival doesn’t quite have its home Lightbox in full operation enough to pick up the slack.

I say ambivalent because I’m using the night time to write and work and the routine of watching and writing seems significantly more grueling than in the past.

There also appears to be fewer regulars attending this year and I don’t feel like I’m getting the tom tom messages about interesting films. It may simply be the physical move this year that’s yet to establish a new buzz central or it might just be me. Grrrrrr.

TIFF Dispatch Day Three: The Best Laid Plans

Saturday, September 11th, 2010

I’ve finally gotten myself to the point of feeling more or less fully immersed in my Toronto routine (read: catching my sleep in four hour power sessions, fueling on coffee and Balance bars all day when there’s no time to eat between back-to-back screenings and Starbucks runs out of paninis, spending so much time in dark screening rooms that the sunlight, when you do come out, hurts your eyes) and have mastered the subway. I’ve seen 11 films in three days, and it’s getting to be kind of a blur (thank you, publicists who hand out press notes for us weary film crickets).
(more…)

“It’s not about films. Axing the UK Film Council is a brilliant move: a big coloured handkerchief to draw our eyes away from schools, hospitals, pensions and benefits.” Ianucci Sez “It’s Folly To Sweep Away 10 Years Of Success”

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

“It’s not about films. Axing the UK Film Council is a brilliant move: a big coloured handkerchief to draw our eyes away from schools, hospitals, pensions and benefits.”
AndIanucci Sez “It’s Folly To Sweep Away 10 Years Of Success”

It's Time for Anastasia to Put Up or Shut Up

Friday, November 21st, 1997

All the whining about Disney means nothing. This weekend is wide open without another truly major release in it’s way. Next week, Alien Ressurection and Flubber blow, bite and bounce into theaters. So, this is it! That said, I think that Fox’s animated Meg Ryan will do about what last year’s real Meg release, Courage Under Fire did: $14 million for first place. Last week, the big dropper was Starship Troopers with a 55 percent plunge. This week, The Jackal should combine bad word-of-mouth with an R-rating to lose 40 percent and fall to a $9.1 million second place finish. And despite all better judgment, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation should open in third with about $9 million.
My Butt-Biter-Of-The-Week could be The Rainmaker, which I’m projecting at $7 million in fourth, even though it could do much worse. I love Coppola and even I’m not that anxious to see it. The second and last week of The Little Mermaid should survive Anastasia to the tune of a 30 percent drop into fifth with $6.9 million. The fall of Starship Troopers should slow to about 35 percent with $6.5 million for sixth.
The last of our newbies is Clint Eastwood‘s Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, which may suffer the same box office fate as L.A. Confidential, though the buzz isn’t as good. Warner Bros. choice to start with 800 screens should limit the box office to a seventh place finish with about $5.6 million or worse. Bean isn’t exactly the cultural phenomena here that it’s been overseas, but it should pass the $40 million mark with another $5.3 million for eighth. And in ninth and tenth, the evil twins of fall, The Devil’s Advocate and I Know What You Did Last Summer, should both hover around the $2.5 million mark.
Master Wok has already sent in his box office take. He likes Anastasia, Mortal Kombat and The Jackal to lead things. E-mail me your predictions now!

Sondra Locke Finally Settles Lawsuit

Thursday, October 23rd, 1997

Sondra Locke‘s finally settled her lawsuit against Warner Bros. that claimed the studio bilked her out of a three-picture deal because of former beau, Clint Eastwood‘s influence rather than because of the uniquely worthless Ratboy, the first film in the deal. So what does she do? A nasty tell-all book! Oooooh! Just check out these amazing morsels! Eastwood didn’t know who Barbara Walters was! Oooh! Aaah! Clint liked the much-younger Locke to call him Daddy! Oooh! Aaah! Eastwood started whispering after noticing that it worked for Marilyn Monroe! Who the hell is she kidding?! O.J. spent two years on trial for murder, Chrisitian Slater‘s biting the women that Marv Albert is missing, Robert Downey Jr. is waking up in Baby Bear’s bed and the President of The United States is releasing information about his penis in press conferences! If Clint didn’t have sex with Burt Reynolds and that stupid orangutan while holding up a 7-11 with a bazooka, who’s going to notice?!
Starship Troopers‘ star-on-the-rise, Casper Van Dien, is about to go native as Tarzan for Warner Bros. Tarzan Jungle Warrior. Van Dien follows superstars Christopher Lambert and Miles O’Keefe in the role. Did I say superstars? I meant guys who clean bars.
Jon Peters, who has produced a grand total of zero hits since Batman and he and his partner Peter Guber teamed up to lose billions for Sony, has decided repetition is the most likely formula for hitmaking. First, he set up the feature version of The Wild Wild West starring Will Smith. Then there’s Superman Reborn, except with a wild-eyed lunatic (Nicolas Cage) as the Man Of Steel. Now he’s ready to move on from old TV shows and comic books to classic films with The Trail, a remake of the 1956 John Ford classic, The Searchers, except it’s set in space! What’s next? A remake of Peters’ Bonfire of the Vanities with funny jokes and a comprehensible plot?
Do you have any bad ideas for worse remakes? Email me.