Archive for the ‘Cinematical’ Category
Shelf Life: Fight Club
Shelf Life: Fight Club
By all accounts, 1999 was one of the best years in film history, featuring an amazing glut of debuts and career-defining follow-ups from a rich and varied roster of directors who are steadily working some ten years later. For example American Beauty, which was also released in ’99, was one of the first films revisited in our “Shelf Life” series, and it seemed most likely to lose its luster, especially given its Oscar win and almost universal critical acclaim, but thankfully the film sustained most of its initial appeal and impact.
Fight Club, meanwhile, faced markedly more polarizing reactions from audiences and critics, although like Alan Ball’s film it captured a moment in the zeitgeist that made it important almost regardless of how good it was. Ten years later, Fox Home Entertainment just released the film on Blu-ray in a gorgeous new set, and after a decade of conspicuous consumption and ironic detachment, it’s time to see whether the weight of its message or meaning still holds relevance.
The Facts: Released on October 15, 1999, David Fincher‘s Fight Club is an adaptation of the Chuck Palahniuk novel of the same name, adapted by screenwriter Jim Uhls. Its incendiary deconstruction of contemporary culture and the narcotizing effects of consumerism, particularly on men, was met with mixed reactions: some hailed it as a brilliant social commentary, while others condemned it as empty provocation, or worse, irresponsible.
Regardless, the film eventually earned $100 million domestically against its $63 million budget (reportedly $17.5 million of which went to star Brad Pitt), and enjoys an 80 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was nominated for only one Academy Award, for Sound Effects Editing, but it was also nominated for several awards by different critics groups including the Online Film Critics Society, and subsequently netted several awards for its DVD release, which featured several commentaries and featurettes exploring the world within the film.
What Still Works: While during its original release the film was deliberately, perhaps even conventionally reactionary (“f*ck Martha Stewart!”), it really serves as a powerful reminder that contemporary consumer culture is still designed to satisfy us in superficial ways and ultimately distract us from the human connections and more visceral accomplishments that prove more meaningful. Particularly with the benefit of hindsight, the film’s analysis of overmodulated consumption, broken down to the details and objects in our life that supposedly define us, is especially potent, and deserves to be revisited as a reminder to remain vigilant against that kind of complacency.
fight2
Meanwhile, I think especially now the film escapes being mere provocation or dangerous advocacy because it ultimately acknowledges that these characters are trading one oppressive structure for another, and that even the intentional absence of order eventually creates its own organized sense of routine, if not full-fledged cultural mores (hence Project Mayhem, the “space monkeys”‘ blind devotion to their anarchic causes, etc).
In terms of the performances, Pitt and Edward Norton are both really terrific as, essentially, the same guy, albeit in different iterations of his self-confidence, much less self-awareness. Fincher, coming off of the menacing polish of The Game, finds a gorgeously gritty aesthetic that really brings the narrator’s oblivious self-examination to life, and creates a truly subversive and valuable portrait of what is essential schizophrenia, filtered through both movie-star sheen and the thematically-reinforced, exacting opposite of stardom’s supposed “importance” – namely, that all of that beauty and truth is as illusory as anything else.
What Doesn’t Work: Surprisingly little, although the unwieldy structure, oddball rhythms of the storytelling and its eventual descent into (self-) destruction seem more shocking in the context of real-life events like 9/11, not to mention our culture’s subsequent escape even further into conventional, comfortable forms of entertainment. There’s lingering resonance to the destruction of the banks at the end of the film, both in terms of domestic and international terrorism and the current state of our economic system, but it’s subjective whether that’s a virtue or a shortcoming for film, since it certainly isn’t the film’s fault.
Otherwise, there is a degree to which the idea of white guys bemoaning their pampered, IKEA-sustained existence feels, well, so 1999, and that their reaction feels like a more than slightly self-indulgent rebellion that people with constructive minds wouldn’t act out. But as a parable and a perhaps necessary reminder of the complacency and boring blandness that can come from a life lived within the lines – and in light of the fact it’s meant not to be taken literally - Fight Club still transcends such criticisms.
What’s The Verdict: Fight Club is a really terrific movie and I am genuinely relieved to say that it holds up beautifully for the most part. Not only was it the first movie that I bought on DVD, but it was an important one in my adult, intellectual maturation, particularly in discovering that as conceptually appealing as such reckless behavior might be, it ultimately serves as mush as a prison as any other philosophy or paradigm. I think I still prefer Fincher’s previous film, The Game, if only because it was just so shocking and cathartic when I first saw it, but Fight Club is a wake-up call and a punch in the gut that needs to still be felt.
Watch This: The Muppets’ ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’
Watch This: The Muppets' 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
There are times in this busy world when I forget just how cool The Muppets are. Randomly mention the beastly little guys and gals, and I’ll smile politely, vaguely remembering the good old days. Put them in front of me, however, and it’s a challenge to not let out a real world, ear-breaking shriek of squee. I don’t care how long they’ve been around — The Muppets are cool, and they are no cooler than when they’re delighting in the epic grandeur of rhapsody … Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” that is.
We all know the song. It was pretty epic in its own right, and then soared to new levels in Wayne’s World, where it grabbed the #2 spot on the Billboard charts almost two decades after its release. Now the MuppetsStudio on YouTube have released the ultra-awesome clip you can see after the jump — an arseload of Muppets singing the classic Queen song just like the old-school music video. And it’s convinced me that Beaker is a lost member of the band.
The bad thing about all of this is that it’s making me wish for a whole different sort of Muppet movie. Sure, Jason Segel is planning The Greatest Muppet Movie of All Time, and the project will involve the gang reuniting to save the studio. But considering this video, and the utter awesomeness that is Segel’s rock opera inForgetting Sarah Marshall, couldn’t they halt things, change scope, and make thisThe Greatest Muppet Rock Opera of All Time? The possibilities are wonderfully epic and so utterly perfect. Who’s with me?
Interview: Judd Apatow (Part Two)
Interview: Judd Apatow (Part Two)
Read Part One of this interview right here
When Judd Apatow‘s latest film, Funny People, was announced, many critics and audiences hailed it – even before they saw it – not only as an evolution of the filmmaker’s style, but a return to the kind of drama-laced comedy that flourished in the 1980s and early ’90s thanks to folks like Cameron Crowe and James L. Brooks. When it was released, the film more than satisfied those expectations, offering an unflinching but frequently hilarious portrait of an A-list comedian rediscovering himself, but there seemed to be a sense that audiences knew themselves less well than they felt like they knew the film’s main character, resulting in a less enthusiastic response than perhaps even they expected.
The film arrives on Blu-ray this week, offering what is indisputably the most complete and comprehensive look behind the scenes at a comedy ever produced, and offers audiences a second chance to check out Apatow’s most meaningful and resonant work to date. Cinematical got a chance to catch up with the writer-director via telephone to discuss the contents of the expansive, 2-Disc Collector’s Edition; in the second part of our chat, Apatow talks about precisely what made the movie so personal for him, and offers a few insights about its place in his growing body of work, and its potential influence on his future films (including a Harry Pottermovie, maybe?).
Cinematical: With or without talking to you at the time of the film’s release, people seemed to assume that this was a very personal film, I think because it was more serious than your previous work. Was it really personal, and if so in what way or why?
Judd Apatow: Well, I find that things can be very personal without pointing out to people what is taken directly from your life. If I do it right, it shouldn’t feel like I’m just talking about personal experiences that happened to me or people in my world. So it’s good that it doesn’t seem – that you can’t track it (laughs). But the ideas are very intimate and they relate to a lot that’s happened to me over the decades, but it’s all thrown into a blender to make it more amusing or dramatic. But yes, it does feel very personal, to the point of being embarrassing, but it’s because it’s how you feel about the world that’s out there. It’s kind of showing one’s pleasant side and one’s crazy voices; I’m just better at hiding them in a character that can act them out. You make a movie and think, ah, this is about other people, but slowly you realize it’s all about you. It’s also about everyone who’s involved in the collaboration, but it surprises you when it’s done how much is based on things that you’re struggling with.
Cinematical: Given the sort of line-o-rama process by which you work when shooting scenes, how do you decide what ends up in a film or works best for it?
Apatow: Every joke is meant to illuminate something, whether it’s how funny someone is or a piece of their back story or how they’re feeling on that particular night. So there’s literally no punchline that wasn’t in there that wasn’t debated for hours and hours, but how I like to shoot it is to shoot Adam or Seth doing half an hour of material, not obsessing about what I will use when we’re shooting, and then decide what fits best after. But when you keep it loose and the comedians are really in character, other things happen on stage that are surprising and they do fit into what you need. People do subconsciously start living the story, so Adam one day said, “hey, tonight I’m going to improvise something on the piano,” and he just sits down and sings this mad song. The audience doesn’t know that he’s sick, but in a way it’s a strange goodbye to his audience, and it’s really sad and filthy. I never could have written that in a million years, and Adam did it off the top of his head; and because it’s improvised, it’s sloppy and emotionally raw in a way that’s very truthful. He just went there, and that’s why I try to create some extra space for those moments to happen.
fun15
Cinematical: How much is there a degree of sort of self-satirization in this film, whether you’re taking direct jabs at your or Adam’s movies? Or, even if it’s not in the movie, how much do you guys sort of rib one another about the movies you make?
Apatow: Every time you make a movie, it’s a risk. It’s easy to take for granted the work of comedians, but it’s insanely hard to make people laugh out loud and be really happy for an hour and a half straight. And sometimes you do it with the silliest thing in the world and sometimes you do it in a more thoughtful way or emotional way, but it’s hard as hell (laughs). How I looked at that aspect of the movie was that this character valued being on top more than the quality of his movies, so he tried to make decent movies, but his ego made him try to hit a home run every time out. That being said, while we were making the movie, we kept saying, “we’d make Mer-Man right now!” There’s a funny version of Mer-Man, there’s a funny version of Redo. And it genuinely made us laugh; even though we knew we were goofing on movies like that, we also thought, we could probably do a good one of these!
But one thing I appreciated from Adam was that he never said, “oh don’t do that – people will think you’re goofing on me.” The truth is, I’m not goofing on Adam because Adam has a ridiculously wide range of movies he’s made. He’s just covered so much ground. Some are incredibly silly, some are truly experimental art films, and his level of success is so high he’s just been amazing for a very long time, and I don’t think George Simmons would have tried most of what Adam has tried to do. Again, there’s a subtle difference there, so it’s easy for people to say, “oh, you’re goofing on your own movies,” but I really thought what was more interesting to me was what happens when a shallow person gets sick? He doesn’t want to be thoughtful, so his movies can’t be thoughtful; he’s not making introspective comedies. When he gets sick, he doesn’t tell anybody, he doesn’t know how to talk about it – he’s not that kind of person. He’s more like a Rodney Dangerfield kind of person; he’s telling jokes and being silly.
Cinematical: What I think is one of the things he and the film communicates is that comedy is a way for someone to conceal their true feelings, and ultimately a prison that keeps them from being able to express them.
Apatow: Sometimes it’s easier to hide when you’re that famous. It was strange when Michael Jackson died and there were so many similarities to how we were presenting this fictionalized comedy star in our movie and what was coming out about Michael Jackson. The opening conversation about our movie is Adam having a conversation with his doctor about sleep medication. And all of these images of this rich guy alone in this giant house, never feeling satisfied with the amount of affection he’s getting from the world – which is an enormous amount of affection. A lot of times people want to make you laugh not because they want to make you happy but because they want to know if you like them. Your laugh signals “you’re okay” – and that’s a tough way to live. I think a lot of us as we get older think, is there a healthy way to do what we’re doing? We didn’t start this [for our] mental health, but can we spin it at some point and be creative for normal positive reasons?
Cinematical: Having done this movie which was so much more personal and serious than your other films, do you feel inclined to continue going in that direction?
Apatow: I try to be very passionate about the movies I’m making. I can get passionate about something that’s ridiculous and absurd and silly in the same way I can be passionate about something that’s more intimate and thoughtful, but I just have to care about it. So I don’t know; as of right now, I’m trying not to think too much about what I’ll do next and see what strikes me, but every once and a while I think it would be great to do something really dumb next, really goofy, and just make people happy. Create a joy machine. But most of the time I think let’s do another really dark, melancholy movie about a different subject, and then I think, you know what? Maybe I need a longer rest (laughs). So I don’t know; I’ll just wait until someone needs a director for the 14th Harry Potter movie and hopefully I’ll be at the top of the list somewhere.
Cinematical: Do you have any idea what the next thing is going to be for you?
Apatow: I really don’t. I’ve never had two ideas in my head. I mean, my brain is completely blank. I covered a lot of ground with these last two movies, so I may need something to happen to me in life before I can write again. But I don’t know – then something hits you out of the blue and it could happen in an eighth of a second; oh, it’s that! And then you’re off to the races.
Cinematical: Whether they’re conscious or not, do you see ongoing or repeated themes emerging in or from your growing body of work?
Apatow: I don’t think about it consciously, but there are certain ideas that recur and then you start thinking to yourself, well, should I make sure that never happens in Cinematical: How much is there a degree of sort of self-satirization in this film, whether you’re taking direct jabs at your or Adam’s movies? Or, even if it’s not in the movie, how much do you guys sort of rib one another about the movies you make?
Apatow: Every time you make a movie, it’s a risk. It’s easy to take for granted the work of comedians, but it’s insanely hard to make people laugh out loud and be really happy for an hour and a half straight. And sometimes you do it with the silliest thing in the world and sometimes you do it in a more thoughtful way or emotional way, but it’s hard as hell (laughs). How I looked at that aspect of the movie was that this character valued being on top more than the quality of his movies, so he tried to make decent movies, but his ego made him try to hit a home run every time out. That being said, while we were making the movie, we kept saying, “we’d make Mer-Man right now!” There’s a funny version of Mer-Man, there’s a funny version of Redo. And it genuinely made us laugh; even though we knew we were goofing on movies like that, we also thought, we could probably do a good one of these!
But one thing I appreciated from Adam was that he never said, “oh don’t do that – people will think you’re goofing on me.” The truth is, I’m not goofing on Adam because Adam has a ridiculously wide range of movies he’s made. He’s just covered so much ground. Some are incredibly silly, some are truly experimental art films, and his level of success is so high he’s just been amazing for a very long time, and I don’t think George Simmons would have tried most of what Adam has tried to do. Again, there’s a subtle difference there, so it’s easy for people to say, “oh, you’re goofing on your own movies,” but I really thought what was more interesting to me was what happens when a shallow person gets sick? He doesn’t want to be thoughtful, so his movies can’t be thoughtful; he’s not making introspective comedies. When he gets sick, he doesn’t tell anybody, he doesn’t know how to talk about it – he’s not that kind of person. He’s more like a Rodney Dangerfield kind of person; he’s telling jokes and being silly.
Cinematical: What I think is one of the things he and the film communicates is that comedy is a way for someone to conceal their true feelings, and ultimately a prison that keeps them from being able to express them.
Apatow: Sometimes it’s easier to hide when you’re that famous. It was strange when Michael Jackson died and there were so many similarities to how we were presenting this fictionalized comedy star in our movie and what was coming out about Michael Jackson. The opening conversation about our movie is Adam having a conversation with his doctor about sleep medication. And all of these images of this rich guy alone in this giant house, never feeling satisfied with the amount of affection he’s getting from the world – which is an enormous amount of affection. A lot of times people want to make you laugh not because they want to make you happy but because they want to know if you like them. Your laugh signals “you’re okay” – and that’s a tough way to live. I think a lot of us as we get older think, is there a healthy way to do what we’re doing? We didn’t start this [for our] mental health, but can we spin it at some point and be creative for normal positive reasons?
Cinematical: Having done this movie which was so much more personal and serious than your other films, do you feel inclined to continue going in that direction?
Apatow: I try to be very passionate about the movies I’m making. I can get passionate about something that’s ridiculous and absurd and silly in the same way I can be passionate about something that’s more intimate and thoughtful, but I just have to care about it. So I don’t know; as of right now, I’m trying not to think too much about what I’ll do next and see what strikes me, but every once and a while I think it would be great to do something really dumb next, really goofy, and just make people happy. Create a joy machine. But most of the time I think let’s do another really dark, melancholy movie about a different subject, and then I think, you know what? Maybe I need a longer rest (laughs). So I don’t know; I’ll just wait until someone needs a director for the 14th Harry Potter movie and hopefully I’ll be at the top of the list somewhere.
Cinematical: Do you have any idea what the next thing is going to be for you?
Apatow: I really don’t. I’ve never had two ideas in my head. I mean, my brain is completely blank. I covered a lot of ground with these last two movies, so I may need something to happen to me in life before I can write again. But I don’t know – then something hits you out of the blue and it could happen in an eighth of a second; oh, it’s that! And then you’re off to the races.
Cinematical: Whether they’re conscious or not, do you see ongoing or repeated themes emerging in or from your growing body of work?
Apatow: I don’t think about it consciously, but there are certain ideas that recur and then you start thinking to yourself, well, should I make sure that never happens in one of my movies again? For instance, I like when sad people find a way to get happy, even if it’s only for a moment; should I avoid that now that I’ve noticed that in a bunch of my
fun14
movies? That’s an interesting question for me as I walk around the house. I can see the stitching on the ball now more than anybody, and then you start thinking about new terrain, but you also don’t want to suddenly make a movie about Icelandic people just because no one expects you to do that. I would like always to write about things that matter to me and I understand, but I was reading this graduation speech that Larry Gelbart delivered at UCLA a few years ago and a big hunk of it was about writing about things you don’t know anything about and how ultimately it will still become a personal story. I usually go against that, but I thought, well, if Mr. Gelbart says that then maybe my philosophy is wrong.
Cinematical: What was the thing that you took away from this experience that was maybe different than your other movies?
Apatow: Well, it’s much more challenging to make a movie that’s meant to be more than just fantasy fulfillment. It is hopefully a big, funny, enjoyable experience but it’s also kind of an independent movie, you know; it’s a character study, and it is a different world when you’re trying to have that relationship with the audience. A lot of people got to the movies just to numb themselves out from whatever other difficult things life is presenting to them, and I’m exactly like that; when a girl broke up with me, the first thing I did was run to see What About Bob? But this is the first time for me where I tried to share a more complicated experience with people. And you get a larger array of reactions to it – some people, it completely knocks them out, other people, you can tell that they emotionally shut down from thinking about any of this, and the movie is hard for them to tolerate. And that’s the point of it: it’s supposed to stick with you for a while. That’s all I thought about when we were ending it, and I hope people talk about this for a while. I hope it’s something that stays on people’s minds.
Trailer Park: Of Snakey Hair and Moody Teens
Trailer Park: Of Snakey Hair and Moody Teens
Percy Jackson & the Olylmpians: The Lightning Thief
You go years without seeing Medusa and then all of a sudden we get two in one week. Percy Jackson is a descendant of both mortals and greek gods, and apparently his lineage comes with some way cool powers and some fearsome villains who want to do him in (among which is Uma Thurman as the aforementioned Medusa). Based on a series of books and directed by Chris Columbus, who helmed the first two Harry Potter films, this looks like it could be some good escapist teen fun, though not quite on the same level as Harry Potter. Watch for this on February 12.
Clash of the Titans
As for Medusa number two, she is just one of the monstrosities in this remake of the 1981 film about the adventures of Perseus from Greek mythology. Most of the original film’s charm comes from the stop-motion effects by Ray Harryhausen, so it will be interesting to see how well the ideas translate to modern effects technology. The clash begins on March 26.
Remember Me
Robert Pattinson plays the tortured emo kid card once more in this drama about a young man trying to find his way. He’s really got the angry young man thing down and Lost‘s Emile de Ravin makes for an appealing romantic interest. This will be out on March 12.
Letters to Juliet
A young woman played by Amanda Seyried visits the city of Verona and helps an older woman played by Vanessa Redgrave track down the love of her life. Definite chick flick appeal here, and it starts on May 7.
The Last Song
Miley Cyrus plays a teenage girl who along with her younger brother spends a summer reconnecting with her father years after her parents split up. Based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks, this could be Cyrus’s chance to break away from movies that are strictly for kids. This will be out on April 2.
New this week on AOL Moviefone:
- The White Ribbon – German language drama set in a small German town just prior to World War I.
- Why Did I Get Married Too – Tyler Perry strikes again with this drama about four couples who meet for an annual get together and explore their relationships.
- The Yellow Handkerchief – Indie drama about a recently released convict hitching a ride with a pair of teens to get back to the woman he loves.
- Kenny Chesney 3D – 3D concert film featuring country superstar Kenny Chesney.
Making The (Up) Grade: Rocky
Making The (Up) Grade: Rocky
While new Blu-rays of old movies are sometimes dubious replacements for prior editions (hence the need for this column), box sets released in the high-definition format have thus far been fairly helpful, at least in terms of shelf space: many or most of them forego a lot of the frills and flourishes of their standard-definition iterations in favor of more streamlined packaging. Unfortunately, that’s also sometimes extended to their extras, thanks in no small part to the legal entanglements of transferring commentaries and bonus content from one format to another.
Both Warner Brothers and Fox have faced this challenge a couple of times thanks to their ownership/ adoption of the libraries of MGM and United Artists, which until a few years ago issued their own releases. Rocky, which is one of United Artists’ premier franchises, was recently released on Blu-ray in The Undisputed Collection, a set that contains all six of the films in the series, but it remains to be seen whether complete also means comprehensive in this particular case.
What’s Already Available:
Rocky was previously released several times on DVD both as a standalone title and in Rocky-themed box sets. 2006′s Rocky Anthology featured remastered versions of the first five films (it was released prior to Rocky Balboa) and no extra content. Meanwhile, a Special Edition of the first film was released in December of that same year and featured three commentaries, a three-part making of documentary called “In The Ring,” seven featurettes, TV spots and trailers, deleted scenes and a collectible booklet.
What’s In The New Set: The Undisputed Collection features all of the films as well as a bonus that has more than three hours of extras and special features. Additionally, all of the films are presented in high definition with 5.1 DTS-HD audio tracks, or in Rocky Balboa‘s case, English PCM 5.1 uncompressed audio.
What’s The Difference In The Movie Itself: Like many Blu-ray reissues of films more recently released or updated on DVD, the films basically feature the same transfers as their standard-definition version, albeit now presented in uncompressed high definition. Much like the DVD transfer for the ’06 edition, Rockyshows its age (and its initial price tag) with picture presentation that has a lot of grain and soft detail, but with the exception of the new film, which was transferred to HD when it was originally put on DVD, it by far looks the best of the series.
According to online information the ’06 Anthology set boasted remastered presentation of the other films as well, but here they’re all grainy and muted, with soft colors and a focus that quite frankly should be sharper in high definition. Meanwhile, in terms of the content of the films, they’re all the same as in previous sets, with no edits or changes implemented.
What’s The Difference In Everything Else: This set unfortunately is a victim, at least in part, of the same rules that kept the bonus materials for Robocop off of its Blu-ray release. None of the films have commentaries, which means that the first film lost all three of the existing ones, and the new ones, well, they never received (and one might argue, they never deserved) one. Further, almost all of the special features on Disc Seven are the same as the ones on the ’06 Rocky Special Edition, which begs the question why the commentaries couldn’t also carry over in addition to the featurettes and other stuff.
That said, the material is all genuinely interesting – a featurette about Steadicam inventor Garrett Brown explores a footnote in filmmaking history that is virtually unknown to anyone outside the industry – but again it would have been interesting to see something new among these existing extras, or in lieu of that a sort of one-stop set that collected everything together.
What’s The Final Grade: C. The appeal of the Rocky series is mostly predicated on personal experience – all of the films aren’t great – so if you saw certain ones at important times in your life (at least cinematically speaking), then this set is a must own. But for folks on the fence, the transfers are definitely not terrific, and the slate of extras is incomplete, especially if you’ve already spent some money on making this palooka a winner.
Anne Hathaway Up for ‘Spider-Man 4′ Role?
And the list of women who may or may not appear in Spider-Man 4 continues to grow. Now Nikki Finke over
Anne Hathaway Up for 'Spider-Man 4' Role?
at Deadline Hollywood reports through her sources (who, when it comes to Marvel, seem to be pretty reliable) that producers have “approached” Anne Hathaway regarding a starring role in Spider-Man 4. It doesn’t say she’s been offered the role, or that she’s in negotiations to take on the role, only that she’s been approached.
Finke also wasn’t sure which role it would be, though all signs point to it being that of Black Cat — who, in the past couple weeks — has seen everyone from Julia Stiles to Rachel McAdams vying for a piece of that pus … Spidey pie. Hathaway definitely showed off her acrobatic side in last summer’s Get Smart, and certainly has enough of that hottie-yet-down-to-earth sex appeal to draw Mr. Parker into a web of problematic romantic entanglements. Personally, I still like Stiles for the role, but that’s me. The studio, however, probably figures they’ll get more butts in the seats with Hathaway. So we’ll see. Regardless, we’re getting close to an official announcement. Who do you want?
Robert Pattinson to Star With Uma Thurman in ‘Bel Ami’
Robert Pattinson to Star With Uma Thurman in 'Bel Ami'
The rumor mill was buzzing earlier this month with news that Nicole Kidman was going to, once again, go for the younger guy and star opposite Robert Pattinson in the adaptation of Guy De Maupassant’s Bel Ami. While it turns out that Kidman isnot taking the project on, another famous blonde is. The Hollywood Reporter posts that Uma Thurman will star opposite Pattinson, and Kristin Scott Thomas has also joined the roster.
The film will star Pattinson as George Duroy, an aspiring journalist who finds his success by bedding many of Paris’ rich and powerful women. Thurman will play Mme Forestier, the married woman who sparks his ascension and later marries him, while Thomas comes into the picture as “a socialite who falls for Duroy, becoming clingy in the process.”
Now, much has been said, or argued, about Pattinson’s talents as an actor, and I’d say this will be the ultimate test — whether he can hold his own against Thurman and Thomas. Pattinson won’t be able to hide behind sparkles or quirky, mustachioed mannerisms this time around! Both have considerable talents, although Thurman in particular is long overdue for some meaty and buzz-worthy dramatic fare (it’s also about time she got into some retro wordy romance as well, a la Henry and June). The drama will shoot next year in Paris.
Review: The Blind Side
Review: The Blind Side
The trailers for The Blind Side triggered my “oh geez, another sports-related Triumph of the Human Spirit” cynicism, and I might not have seen the film at all if I hadn’t been assigned to review it. That would have been my loss, and I experienced the lovely surprise of having a movie turn out far more enjoyable than I expected. The Blind Side has no twists or gimmicks other than being a very good example of a sports-related family film, with quality performances and writing.
The movie’s title is a football reference, which the voiceover of Leigh Anne Touhy (Sandra Bullock) explains at the beginning. Michael Oher (Quenton Aaron) is sweating out a tough but unspecified situation in an office, when we flash back a few years and meet him as Big Mike. An African-American staff member at a mostly white Christian private school is trying to get his athletic son into the school, and the school’s coach also spots some athletic potential in Big Mike, granting him a scholarship. Big Mike has terrible trouble keeping up in school, and when his friend’s family stops helping him out, he is virtually homeless — sleeping in the school gym, eating popcorn left there after events, wearing the same thin clothes daily.
Although Big Mike is an oddity at the private school, he gets along well with smaller children like S.J. (Jae Head), and thus attracts the attention of S.J.’s parents, Leigh Anne and Sean Touhy (Tim McGraw). The upper-class family takes him in and encourages him — they’re very much into sports both as former participants and current fans, so they encourage him in football and in schoolwork so he can possibly win a football scholarship to college. Will he be able to succeed, or will he return to his neglectful, drug-addicted mother?
The Blind Side is based on the nonfiction account of Michael Oher by Michael Lewis, which was adapted by the film’s director, John Lee Hancock. If you’ve read the book or know about Oher, the outcome of the movie won’t surprise you. But that’s not the point — this is a movie about characters and relationships, and the effects of great acts of kindness. Bullock, Aaron and Head are the highlights of the film; other characters tend to border on stereotypes, but these three have depth and warmth and fit together beautifully. Kathy Bates has a small but amusing role as a tutor.
The real-life basis for the film may explain some of the difficulties with the story. It’s hard to get past the seeming visual message that the African-American community can’t or won’t care for their own, and that the saviors here are rich white conservatives. The movie is more complicated and personal than that, for the most part. However, I couldn’t believe the scene in which the family that knew about Michael’s situation, and offered him a warm place to sleep, suddenly kicked him out and neglected him. It may reflect real life — I can’t tell without reading the book or asking Oher himself — and real life often makes no sense, but it doesn’t work in the context of the film.
And if this were a purely fictional story, I’d wonder why Longview, Texas native John Lee Hancock and current Texan Sandra Bullock had set a film about intense football fans in Memphis and not in Texas. The rhythms of the dialogue often sound more Texas than Tennessee, although the Touhy adults are actually Ole Miss alumni. Hancock does have some fun casting the college football coaches inThe Blind Side — they all play themselves. Some of the coaches are not quite comfortable speaking lines someone else wrote, but then-LSU coach Nick Saban may have missed a calling as a character actor.
If you can get your head past the dicey racial issues — nearly all African-American characters in this film live in the projects, and I know Memphis is far more diverse than that – The Blind Side is a very entertaining family film that avoids the maudlin cliches of “inspirational” films, or at least pads them out with some depth or humor. I’m not fond of football myself, or intense football fans, but the characters appealed to me and I didn’t even mind the long running time (128 minutes). This is a movie I’d love to take my mom to see — she wouldn’t find anything offensive, and we’d both be entertained. Sandra Bullock fans who may have tolerated some stinkers in order to watch their favorite actress will be rewarded with one of her better performances and one of her better movies.
OMG! Rob Pattinson In the ‘Remember Me’ Trailer!
OMG! Rob Pattinson In the 'Remember Me' Trailer!
Ladies, I have important news: we’ve got another Robert Pattinson movie to “squeee” over. The New Moon heartthrob stars in Summit’s romantic drama Remember Me, in which RPattz apparently gets to — dare I say it? — act his little butt off. By which I mean, throwing punches and yelling at James Bond and being sensitive and making out with Emilie de Ravin, all while rocking an American accent! Sigh. I can’t wait.
Ok, so Remember Me is a gimme – of course every Twilight fan is going to run to buy tickets to watch Edward Cullen Rob Pattinson be romantic and emo and, most importantly, have a sex scene or two or three. (I’m extrapolating from the one shot of Pattinson and de Ravin with an L sheet covering them in bed in the trailer.) And your boyfriends and husbands probably won’t want to be dragged to see it any more than they did the Twilight films. But judging from the very first trailer, Remember Me might just offer Pattinson his first big chance to prove his acting chops in a widely seen release, following dramatic but quirky turns in indies like Little Ashes and How to Be.
Watch the trailer debut for Remember Me after the jump, stat!
Remember Me in HD
Remember Me is directed by Allen Coulter, who made his feature debut with Hollywoodland after directing episodes of “Sex and the City” and “The Sopranos.” Take from that what you will. Joining its pretty pair onscreen are Pierce Brosnan as Pattinson’s father and Chris Cooper as de Ravin’s cop dad, which means three of four lead characters are played by foreign actors masking their accents, always a gamble. But I kinda think Pattinson’s got his American talk on lockdown. And did I mention the being sensitive and making out? I’m so there.
Here’s the first official synopsis and photos from Remember Me, which comes out March 12, 2010:
“In the romantic drama Remember Me, Robert Pattinson plays Tyler, a rebellious young man in New York City who has a strained relationship with his father (Pierce Brosnan) ever since tragedy separated their family. Tyler didn’t think anyone could possibly understand what he was going through until the day he met Ally (Emilie de Ravin) through an unusual twist of fate. Love was the last thing on his mind, but as her spirit unexpectedly heals and inspires him, he begins to fall for her. Through their love, he begins to find happiness and meaning in his life. But soon, hidden secrets are revealed, and the circumstances that brought them together slowly threaten to tear them apart. Remember Me is an unforgettable story about the power of love, the strength of family, and the importance of living passionately and treasuring every day of one’s life.”
by Jen Yamato
Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Even the most egocentric or self-important film critic realizes that his opinions and insights aren’t going to be agreed with or respected by everyone, but movies like New Moon offer a special challenge in both honesty and humility. Like with any other beloved literary franchise brought to the silver screen, there’s already an impassioned fan base eager to see it realized regardless of its quality, and there’s also an inherent distrust among them of nonfans who will eventually be analyzing the object of their affection. In which case, a critic must not only manage his own response to the film, perhaps filtering it through some designated demographic or specific audience that’s potentially different than him, but gauge the reaction he’ll get when he puts pen to paper, if only to be aware of the relevance of his reaction to what the filmmakers were trying to achieve and what those fans really want. Even if he’s also got to be completely honest and unmerciful, too.
By virtually all technical measures, The Twilight Saga: New Moon is a superior effort to its predecessor – well-shot, efficiently told, and by all accounts faithful in tone and execution to its source material. But what filmmaker Chris Weitz makes up for in directorial proficiency he lacks in conveying emotional authenticity, which is why it fulfills the expectations of fans and followers of the franchise but nevertheless still falls short of forming something transcendent and meaningful to everyone else.
Following the events of the first film, Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson) have settled into a comfortable groove as a couple, regularly discussing their differences before school, in the lunchroom, and any time they have a second to share with one another. At Bella’s birthday party, however, she is accidentally injured, and Edward is forced to intervene when Cullen newbie Jasper (Jackson Rathbone) attacks her. Seeing no other way to protect her, Edward breaks up with Bella, sending her into a deep depression that only begins to dissipate after she starts hanging out with Jacob (Taylor Lautner), who has matured into enough of a hunk to qualify as a rival for her affections.
The two soon grow close, even though Bella acknowledges that Jacob is in many ways little more than a stand-in for her absentee fella. But when Bella discovers that Edward is set to expose himself to other humans, thereby securing his fate at the hands of the vampire council, called the Volturi, she races to Italy after Edward, setting in motion a series of events that may risk both of their lives – even if she arrives in time to save him.
While Catherine Hardwicke beautifully captured and conveyed the emotional weight of Bella’s obsession with Edward in Twilight, it doesn’t seem like she would have been able to handle the expanded effects work and overall logistical complexity that this film’s mythology-heavy narrative demanded. As such, Weitz was a suitable choice for a replacement, having previously directed The Golden Compass, whose scuffles between polar bears were no doubt a terrific primer for the CGI werewolves that he brings to life in New Moon. Unfortunately, while the producers found a person in Weitz who could balance out Hardwicke’s weaknesses as a filmmaker, they didn’t find one who could also match her strengths, which is why Bella’s story in this film feels proficiently told but not particularly evocative.
After a decade of directing, and even having liked many of his movies, it nevertheless seems clear that Weitz is only ever as good as his material, and working from Melissa Rosenberg‘s delicate, often poetic blueprint of Stephenie Meyer’s sand-castle foundation (in terms both of complexity and fortitude), he fails to do more than fulfill the rote expectations of fans awaiting a film about a girl being depressed about a boy. His sense of visual flourish is frequently the best thing about the movie, creating compelling visual representations of iconic passages from the book like the blank months after Edward breaks up with her, but he neither conveys why she cares about him so much, or why she’s completely incapable of getting over him, especially when there’s a readily available and really charming guy (whom she obviously likes) waiting in the wings.
Meanwhile, the book itself seems like an unfriendly collaborator, filled with so much mythology and back story and exposition that one still can’t help but admire the fact that Weitz didn’t reduce the film to an extended monologue. That said, there is a neverending series of thresholds that get crossed, each of them predicated on some piece of information or access that someone can’t reveal, and then they get broken or explained or crossed anyway. While her complete and total revision of vampire iconography is evidence enough that Meyer doesn’t know or care about protecting the legacies of the creatures she examines, her stories (at least in this case) lend themselves poorly to three-dimensional adaptation, partially given the wealth of ham-fisted, poorly-introduced and clumsily-revealed plot points that had to be brought to life more or less literally and exactingly on film, but mostly because she wrote a so-called vampire story that spends the majority of its time ruminating on how sucky it is to be dumped by somebody.
Admittedly, however, the bigger problem is Bella herself, and the way that she was originally conceived in Meyer’s books. While vulnerability is an integral part of a complete portrait of any character (much less person), male or female, Bella is weak, undefined and too dependent on Edward – a deeply unflattering and fairly irresponsible role model for young women to relate to, especially since she takes full advantage of another friendship (and moreover, justifies it) in order to fill the gap left by Edward’s absence, and further, never seems interested in becoming her own person. It doesn’t take a lot of empathy to understand the idea of heartbreak or loss, and how that feeling can become debilitating, but Bella is almost exclusively defined by her relationship with Edward, and that’s something she never overcomes even after the two part ways.
What’s most disappointing is that I actually liked Twilight when I first saw it, and was really hoping that the characterizations in New Moon would at least quiet critics who made empty, oblivious generalizations about the franchise while celebrating equally frivolous, dubiously responsible male-oriented ones, of which there are many, many more. But the performances, particularly by Stewart and Pattinson, do nothing to engender sympathy or interest in their characters, or their first-world problems: I’ve defended Stewart and think she has the potential to be a really terrific actress, but here she’s completely guilty of indulging all of the trembling and hair-tousling that people castigated her for in the first film; and Pattinson’s ongoing problem with making eye contact, not to mention failing to provide suitably energetic reactions when, say, discovering that your true love is not only alive, but has saved your life, gives audiences no reason to love Edward as much as Bella does (dreamily elusive though he may be).
Only Lautner manages to show some spark as Jacob, giving Bella’s choice between him and Edward genuine weight, but the movie is so front-loaded with Edward love that even his absence feels like a reverse-engineered way to make him more desirable. In which case, to an outsider checking out this film, New Moon feels like an unwanted follow-up to a 1980s teen movie where the girl loses her dream guy at the beginning of the sequel, and goes back to her guy friend who’s been pining for her the whole time; not only is it an unwelcome step backwards in the characters’ lives, it’s more than a little bit pathetic. But then again, the many girls and women who relate to Bella will no doubt swoon in recognition at the sight of her struggling to get over this gorgeous guy, which is probably why my observations – even as open-minded as I mean for them to be presented – probably won’t matter to them.
Ultimately, to yours truly, The Twilight Saga: New Moon is a mediocre film, but for Twilight fans it should qualify as a triumph. That said, I am genuinely happy to see that females have finally got themselves a franchise that inspires such fervent passion, don’t think less of lovers of Twilight, and welcome and respect differences of opinion. But my sincere hope is that the success of this series spawns other female-driven franchises, because like the ones that guys so much more often get to enjoy, women occasionally come around to see our side of things, and some day soon I’d very much like to say the same about them.
Shelf Life: The Professional
Shelf Life: The Professional
This week, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment released Leon: The Professional on Blu-ray, and because I have the best job in the world, I got to watch it for this column. The truth is that this was a formative movie for me, not only augmenting my budding cinephilia in terms of attention to and interest in strongly visual filmmakers, but in understanding the technical and artistic value of widescreen cinema. Before the film was released on widescreen VHS and later, DVD, I watched the pan-and-scan version when it was first released on video and almost got sick from the cropping and scanning of director Luc Besson‘s balletic camerawork.
Thankfully, I never have to watch it via that sort of butchered presentation again, and even if you don’t think the movie is a masterpiece, at the very least, SPHE’s new Blu-ray offers a gorgeously rich transfer that fully celebrates Besson’s cinematography. But even though this is a film I’ve revisited several times since its original release in 1994, I was curious to see how well The Professional would hold up some 15 years later – which brings us to this week’s “Shelf Life.”
The Facts: Released on November 18, 1994, The Professional (as it was called in the U.S.) was Luc Besson’s Hollywood real Hollywood breakthrough after helming La Femme Nikita and the French films Subway and The Big Blue. Although it received zero nominations from stateside critics groups, the film was nominated for seven Cesars (the French Academy Awards), including best music, best actor for Jean Reno, best director for Besson, and best picture. Ultimately the film only grossed about $20 million domestically, but it still maintains a respectable 74% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes. And of course, it introduced the world to Natalie Portman, whose performance as Mathilda is still one of the best in her entire career.
What Still Works: The relationship between Reno’s Leon and Portman’s Mathilda cements the film’s more visceral elements and truly elevates what could have been standard-fare (or even superlative) action to something more substantial. Besson has always been more of an intuitive and emotional filmmaker than an intellectual one – the them of his follow-up, The Fifth Element, is unapologetically “love conquers evil” – but here he perfectly balances the sentimentality of their budding bond with the harsh and inescapable realities of what Leon does for a living.
Remarkably, however, Besson creates one really fascinating scenario after the next, not only as a set piece to thrill the pulse, but one after another that focuses and utilizes the little character details that are introduced throughout the film. For example, Leon’s ongoing fitness regimen comes into play when he’s suspended over the doorway in a hotel room where he’s being attacked; or although Leon develops a great sense of humanity through his interactions with Mathilda, he also gains literacy, which helps him deal with Tony (Danny Aiello), much to Tony’s chagrin. At the same time, these little details aren’t overstated, nor are the backgrounds and back stories of the characters, so that when Tony mentions Leon’s troubled history with women, it conveys his emotional immaturity without needing to provide a concrete description of how and why he ended up in the states as a hitman for an Italian bookie.
What Doesn’t Work: Surprisingly little, although anyone who was already troubled by the film’s vaguely romantic coupling of Leon and Mathilda will be no more reassured 15 years later. Some of this is emphasized in the extended cut (which with the release of this Blu-ray is for the first time available on the same disc as the theatrical version), but in both, Besson doesn’t skirt the idea that Mathilda has been forced to grow up faster than she might be ready for, which is why she seems to be exploring her budding womanhood when she talks to Leon – which produces appropriately outrageous results.
But the subtle examination of this mentor/ parent-child/ romantic relationship is just one part of the film, and the movie is fairly clear in suggesting that such a coupling would be inappropriate – not the least of which because she often seems more mature than he does – and rescues the film from turning into something other than a redemption story for these two characters.
What’s The Verdict: As Leon or The Professional, Besson’s film holds up beautifully, not only from a thematic and emotional standpoint but technically: in every frame of film, you can see that Besson is a born filmmaker, creating a fluidity and a beauty in his set pieces that emphasizes both the energy of the sequence and its emotional foundations. Personally I think that the two versions are equally good, if only because as interesting as the sequences are of Mathilda and Leon actually doing jobs together, the extended cut runs a little bit long and seems unnecessary in telling the core story of Leon and Mathilda’s relationship with one another; but as a quasi-irresponsible tale of a little girl who becomes a hitman or a hitman who regains his humanity with the help of a little girl, The Professional is a truly fantastic film, and still one of my all-time favorites.
