Wednesday, January 7, 2009

What Comes In The Future

What shall come in the future of this blog....I know you're dying to find out.

I'll feature some reviews of movies of the past year, good and bad (and the last great one), a look back at all the Pixar films (sans WALL-E, which I just looked at) in anticipation of May's Up, and some looks at returning TV, such as 24 and Lost, which will come first with a look at the episode and the characters (two separate things here) that changed the series' trajectory.

Up first, tomorrow...Lost. See you on the flip side.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Read Me

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11234

Well...you heard what the title told ya. Read it, folks!

Monday, January 5, 2009

Why So Serious?

Copyright 2008, Warner Bros. Pictures

The Producers' Guild announced their nominations for film today, and the usual suspects arrived: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire and....The Dark Knight. I'm not particularly surprised about this, as the five have been relatively solid for a while. Still, I wouldn't cry if both of my favorite films of 2008 ended up as Best Picture nominees. It's been a bland year for film, so the possibility of movies I genuinely love in both critical and commerical ways landing up for 40% of the nominees is a big fingers-crossed idea.

Some Oscar-inclined folk, I guess, took this as a surprise today, but Batman showing up is about as big a surprise as the sun rising in the East tomorrow. I'll have more on the best film of 2008 later on this week, but for now, I'm hoping this week brings good news for Bruce Wayne and the Joker.


Sunday, January 4, 2009

2008: The Year of the Good Film

Let's start this one off by clarifying that in terms of 2008 film, I am ashamed to say I have not seen Synecdoche, New York, Happy-Go-Lucky, or Let The Right One In. Also, The Wrestler, and Waltz with Bashir have yet to open in my area, and hopefully one or both will end up on some kind of best-of list I'll make soon.

Having said that, I still feel I've got at least one leg to stand on by saying 2008, while not a bad year for film, isn't nearly as landmark as 2007 was. For the most part, whatever treasures were found in 2007's movies can't be found here, to the point where a 2007 release has made its way onto many a best-of-2008 list: 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (a film I have seen and would consider had it not been worthy of an Oscar nod last year; that it was snubbed is disturbing). Also, thanks to the release date of some 2007 films, some people may consider them as 2008 movies; I'm specifically thinking here of There Will Be Blood, a fantastic movie that some people (myself included) didn't see until February.

So, what does it say that this is the year of the good movie? It means that there was nothing so revelatory as Daniel Plainview, Anton Chigurh, the duo from Once, the daring of Cate Blanchett to be Bob Dylan, and so forth. 2008 gave us the Joker incarnated, Robert Downey, Jr.'s comeback, Jason Segel in the nude, a robot named WALL-E, and Colin Farrell being good in a film. It's hard to compare "I drink your milkshake" with "I am Iron Man."

I suppose the writers' strike didn't help movies that came out this year, nor did the amount of talent used up in 2007. If anything, I'm envious of those who were touched by The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or Slumdog Millionaire, but I am not on those trains. The former film is strangely cold (not because David Fincher directed, but because even the script doesn't feature strong emotional grounding) and the latter film is too contrived to stand on its feet. These are the two films that have struck a chord with some movie folk, such as Rex Reed, who called Button one of the best films ever made. Will people say that 20 years from now? Perhaps. I doubt it.

2009, I hope, will be better. Because of the economic downturn, there's been speculation that the lack of money will up creativity among filmmakers. Call me a cynic, but I see the opposite happening. If Charlie Kaufman comes to you with a relatively cheap but...Kaufmanesque idea, and the guys who "made" Disaster Movie come up with a new style of movie to lampoon, which will be chosen? I get the feeling that creativity will not win out. Hollywood's executives can be a bit obtuse when gauging what people want, and people can do a very poor job of indicating exactly what that is. If Disaster Movie makes money and Synecdoche, New York does not, we all know what will occur next.

It's nice to be hopeful, and some part of me does share that hope, but 2009 may be as barren a wasteland for film until the fall as this past year was. I would, however, love to be proven wrong. Part of me will still hope.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

The Kate Winslet Double Feature Extravaganza!

Copyright 2008, DreamWorks SKG and The Weinstein Company

Five nominations for 25 films. Getting one nomination for every five movies you're in is not a bad batting average in Hollywood; ironically enough, knowing that Kate Winslet has only been nominated five times is a bit shocking. Hasn't she gotten more noms yet?

Well, she's probably going to have two more under her belt in a few weeks' time. Like Cate Blanchett last year, Ms. Winslet is in two top-line movies at the end of the year, The Reader and Revolutionary Road. This review will deal with both films, in that order. Enjoy.

The Reader

Actors like challenges. Good actors do, at least. Heath Ledger chooses to play a gay American cowboy, and then portrays a scarred, insane criminal. Sean Penn plays an autistic man, a repentant murderer on Death Row, and an openly gay political candidate. Cate Blanchett plays Katherine Hepburn and Bob Dylan (not in the same movie, but wouldn't that be even more interesting?). It's fair to say, though, that Kate Winslet's beaten them all in The Reader. In the film, she plays an ex-SS guard at Auschwitz. That, in itself, is a challenge, but even more challenging is that her character is meant to be sympathetic. Sympathetic Nazis at Christmastime....how can you lose?

Based on the novel by Bernhard Schlink, The Reader is about crucial moments in the life of Michael Berg, played by David Kross as a young man and Ralph Fiennes as an adult. Michael, living in West Germany in 1958, falls ill on a trolley and is helped home by Hanna Schmitz (Winslet), a coin collector on the trolley. After recovering from scarlet fever, Michael visits Hanna at her apartment to thank her for helping him. One thing leads to another and Michael ends up becoming attracted to the older woman; the wrinkle here is that the feeling is mutual. Michael and Hanna begin an illicit relationship over the summer, mostly involving bathing, lovemaking, and Michael reading books to Hanna. The summer ends, and Hanna, having received a promotion at her job, leaves her apartment, abandoning her young lover.

Eight years later, Michael's a law student attending the trial of six female SS guards being brought to trial for their actions, which lead to the murder of 300 Jews in a church outside Auschwitz. To Michael's shock, one of the accused is Hanna. Even more devastating is Michael's realization of something Hanna's kept secret even to him; this secret could help Hanna be acquitted. Should Michael help his lover, even if she's an ex-Nazi?

Ethical conundrums are obviously the driving force behind this film, although director Stephen Daldry and screenwriter David Hare (both of whom worked on the 2002 film The Hours) are equally intrigued in the passage of time, and how Michael's one summer with an older woman emotionally scars him for his life. Fiennes is solid and understated here, but his older Michael is more interested in suppressing emotions of the past. Whatever Kross emotes is not equaled in Fiennes' performance, not necessarily a bad thing.

A few months back, there was some controversy about The Reader, in that The Weinstein Company (the film's distributor) wanted the movie to be ready for the 2008 Oscar season, while original producer Scott Rudin wanted Daldry to work on making his vision complete for as long as he needed to. The Weinsteins overruled, got their way, and Rudin took his name off the project. This is, fortunately, not a film that feels rushed; unfortunately, it's not a film that feels truly complete. Much of Hanna's character feels a bit empty, even if that's due to Michael's perception of her. Hanna, while not always a kind-hearted person, also doesn't seem to be capable of mass murder (or allowing it to happen); although Winslet's performance here is the best thing, the characterization is incomplete. If the emptiness was always intentional, it's a mistake. We are meant to have some emotional catharsis at this film's climax, a scene between Fiennes and Lena Olin as a Holocaust survivor, and yet nothing jumps off the screen there.

Daldry's direction here is, again, solid, as is most of the movie, but without something to truly grab the viewer, to hold them, what we are left with is a film whose book may be more interesting and worth experiencing than the adaptation.

Two and a half stars out of four

Revolutionary Road

Revolutionary Road is the funniest film of the year! You'll split your sides in laughter! Leo and Kate have never been more hilarious! No, you haven't walked into the Twilight Zone, but if you're like me and walked into a certain Phoenix-area theatre, you would have been surprised to hear gales of laughter as Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, in their first film since Titanic, fight and yell viciously, cutting each other down to a shell of themselves.

No, this is not a funny film, and if you laugh, well....how uncomfortable are you? That's what Sam Mendes' latest film is, uncomfortable, as it should be. Based on the classic 1961 novel by Richard Yates, the story focuses on Frank and April Wheeler, a beautiful married couple with two kids, a nice house in the suburbs, and the rest of the 1950s cliche. The difference is that Frank and April are both incredibly unhappy in their lives, in their relationships, and in themselves. Their decision to move to Paris, leave suburbia behind, and reinvent themselves is what sends their relationship to the slaughterhouse, as complications arise and tempers flare.

It's been 11 years since Leo and Kate were onscreen together, and even then, Winslet was the acting victor. Nothing has changed and everything has. DiCaprio in 1997 was boyish, young, and brash, but not a great actor. Today, DiCaprio is boyish and young-looking (though he's a year older than his female counterpart, he doesn't look it), but has evolved into a very good actor. Unfortunately, Kate Winslet is a great actress, and in whatever acting battles take place in Revolutionary Road, she wins hands-down. Granted, the screenplay by Justin Haythe does DiCaprio no favors. Though he's in about as much as Winslet, DiCaprio's Frank is a cipher of a character. Much is made about the fact that once Frank and April move to Paris, he'll figure out what he wants to do with himself. Frank has already turned 30, but has no idea what he wants to do with himself, and is unwilling to admit that he'll never find the answer. That's some type of characterization, but it's only hinted at in the performance.

April, on the other hand, a failed actress, is a severely depressed woman who wants very much to move away, so much so that she will do horrible things to her husband and herself to get it. Whatever flaws are in the film are forgotten when she's onscreen, searing and emotional. Though Winslet will likely end up with two Oscar nominations, this is the role she should win for.

The other great performance in the film, the one that garners laughter in the theater (only once is it funny), is from Michael Shannon, the slightly goggle-eyed actor from Bug. He plays John, the manic-depressive son of Helen (Kathy Bates, another Titanic survivor), the realtor who sold Frank and April their house. John, recently released from a psychiatric ward, is an ex-mathematics professor who is the only truth-teller in the film. Shannon's in 10 minutes of the film, but his cruel and surprising performance is so memorable that you desperately want him to come back.

Whether or not Leonardo DiCaprio is good in this film (and he is, but only that), it's impressive to see how much he wants to be better at what he's doing. Most actors couldn't pull off the many arguments in the film, and though he's not fully successful, that he wants to try and doesn't do that badly is worth some applause. In fact, the only truly disappointing part of this film is Sam Mendes' direction. Like the characters' inner lives, the look and feel of this film is purposely bland. Still, Mendes was able to spice up the look of his debut, American Beauty; he chooses to keep his style as far away from this film as possible, despite having Roger Deakins as his cinematographer. The movie looks fine, though it could be argued that the AMC TV show Mad Men is not only emulating the look but content of Revolutionary Road week in and week out.

See Revolutionary Road for Kate Winslet and Michael Shannon. But, expect to feel uncomfortable and keep your laughter to yourself.

Three and a half stars out of four


Friday, January 2, 2009

Frost/Nixon

Copyright 2008, Universal Pictures

I was recently talking with someone about a theory I'd heard and absolutely agree with: Ron Howard is not a director who has any kind of style or recognizable stamp. If you found someone who had no knowledge of Howard as a filmmaker, and had never seen Backdraft, or Apollo 13, or even A Beautiful Mind, would they know they were watching films directed by the same person? Ron Howard may be the best example of the journeyman director, except he's more famous (and has better taste in comedy; see Arrested Development). Aside from using his brother Clint in his movies, what is there of note in Howard's directing style?

Frost/Nixon, his newest film, is no different, though the movie certainly moves quicker and has more life in it than his last film, the execrable The Da Vinci Code. To be even fairer, aside from Apollo 13, this is probably Howard's best work as a director, or at least the best film involving him at all.

It does help that the film, based on the popular stage play by Peter Morgan (screenwriter of The Queen and The Last King of Scotland), has two powerful performances at the fore, that of Michael Sheen and Frank Langella, as David Frost and Richard Nixon. The basic story of the film is the dramatization of legendary interviews between Frost and Nixon in 1977, an attempt to get Nixon to admit wrongdoing for Watergate and other mistakes made during his somewhat shortened presidency. At the time of the interviews, though, David Frost was about as respected a political journalist as is Ryan Seacrest, and Richard Nixon, while being a crook, was also incredibly smart. So, for the majority of the interviews, Nixon runs circles around his questioner, until the final session on Watergate.

Unlike a similar year-end contender based on a play, Doubt, this film works by opening things up. This is not a hugely expansive film, but obviously it covers more ground than its stage version. Howard, at the very least, succeeds at not making things feel too stagy. Whatever issues the script has are mostly ignored thanks to those lead performances, and supporting turns by Kevin Bacon (as Nixon's right-hand man), Oliver Platt, Sam Rockwell, and Matthew Macfadyen (all playing Frost's researchers).

And, really, there's only one glaring problem with this movie, that holds it back from being a little more powerful: talking heads. I say this without knowing for sure if the same technique is employed in the play (though I do know that video screens are used on stage, at least for the interviews), but throughout the film, we see talking heads from the characters played by Bacon, Platt, Rockwell, and Macfadyen explaining things we are either about to see or have already seen. None of them add anything to the proceedings, aside from a sneaking suspicion that someone thinks we deserve to be condescended to.

Aside from that, why complain about a slickly made, entertaining production? Langella is certainly the memorable one here, with his outsize Nixon, especially in the final 30 minutes. It's Sheen, though, who's being incorrectly forgotten. Frost, for the most part, is the main character of this film, but Sheen is so subtle in his agony of presuming his career will end because of these interviews that it's hard not to notice him here.

Frost/Nixon is one of Ron Howard's best, and may end up as a Best Picture nominee, but don't be surprised if he's once again the victim of the famous Oscar slight, of having a Best Picture nominee without a nominated director. And, honestly, the only person he can blame is himself.

Three and a half stars out of four


Thursday, January 1, 2009

The TV Set

Copyright 2006, ThinkFilm

For some reason, I can remember specifically some movies I see on New Years' Eve, as a way to cap off that year. In 2003, the last film I saw before the ball dropped was S.W.A.T., just another film Colin Farrell will likely want to never hear mention of again. In 2008, the last film I saw, thanks to my Netflix-streaming Blu-ray player, was The TV Set, a somewhat incisive look at the development of a television pilot from many points of view, written and directed by Jake Kasdan.

David Duchovny is the star here, playing Mike Klein, a bearded and paunchy writer whose latest show, a dramedy about a man who falls in love after attending his brother's funeral, is being made into a pilot for the upcoming tv season for one of the big networks. Mike is a neurotic, worrying about each aspect of the show and having so much back pain he has to go to the hospital at one point in the film. Take your knowledge of recent Hollywood dealings, and Kasdan's connections; Duchovny is most likely playing some version of Judd Apatow, the bearded and somewhat paunchy writer who went through hellish network sessions to get his brilliant-but-cancelled shows Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared onto NBC and Fox, respectively. It's no surprise that Apatow's also an executive producer here, even if many of the cast members aren't Apatow regulars.

The movie begins as final auditions for the lead roles in Mike's pilot are going on in front of some network execs, specifically Lenny (Sigourney Weaver, trying to channel a sillier version of Faye Dunaway in Network) and Richard (Ioan Gruffudd, doing his best here, much better than as Mr. Fantastic), a recent transplant from the BBC. The lead male role is given to Zach (Fran Kranz), who plays the understated character-within-a-character as over-the-top as possible, horrifying Mike. To make the show, however, Mike has to bite the bullet and accept the self-absorbed Zach as his lead. Meanwhile, Richard's having trouble getting used to his new job, as his wife (Lucy Davis from the BBC version of The Office) becomes less and less enchanted with his determination and dedication to prove himself.

I haven't even gotten to the machinations during the filming of the pilot, from lighting to camerawork to the director's decision to film almost all dialogue offscreen to be cinematic. What's most shocking is that this movie is, with credits, under 90 minutes. Though almost all the threads are interesting, and Kasdan deserves credit for wanting to give at least one of the executives a human face, not nearly enough time is spent on everyone. That, in itself, is the biggest problem of The TV Set. I'd like to be interested in Zach's relationship with his female counterpart, but Zach is a character who's so strangely defined (one sequence in the film involves him doing three completely different versions of a post-funeral scene in the pilot without any explanation of why he's so off-the-wall).

The only other major issue is the final scene, where the pilot, which has been completely reworked to lose all realism, is shown to advertisers at the upfront presentation and, despite its over-the-top nature and obvious ridiculousness, they eat it up. I'm not saying people aren't idiots (the movie's central theme), but I do have some faith in my fellow Americans. Unlike Jake Kasdan and Judd Apatow, though, I wasn't burned by the schmucks who took Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared off the air, so fair play to them. In essence, this film isn't bad, but just too slight to be remembered...unless it's the last film you saw in a year.

Two and a half stars out of four