TIFF Capsules: Passion Play, Black Swan, 127 Hours and The Conspirator

My friend txt critic is completing his Toronto journey soon but he sent another batch of thoughts for your perusal. He starts by taking an against consensus stand.

PASSION PLAY
By far the most loathed and eviscerated film of the festival, Mitch Glazer's brazenly out there, 20-years-in-the-works labor of love is extremely slow paced, unafraid to be laughed at for its sincerity and ridiculousness, and -- though I seem to be alone on this -- perpetually interesting. The plot basically boils down to "Mickey Rourke falls in love with circus-freak-with-giant-wings Megan Fox, and has to fight to protect her from violent gangster Bill Murray," so yes, it's silly, but I admired its audacity. Rourke is very very strong, Murray is always fun to watch, and... dare I say it? I thought Megan Fox was *gasp* pretty good (though, again, alone on this). Based on the response, though, who knows if this will ever see the light of day outside of the festival circuit. (B)

That is the sad thing about festivals, even if you're wise enough to mostly see films without release dates (I've never understood why people see things that will be out within in a few weeks) some of them will remain things that only you have ever seen.

SUPER
Basically a rougher, sloppier, darker version of "Kick-Ass," James Gunn's homemade super 'heroes' flick has some moments of madcap dark humor, and a surprisingly solid central performance from Rainn Wilson, but it suffers from a severe imbalance of tone, bizarre flourishes that don't add up to much, and a perpetual mean-spiritedness that left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Ellen Page steals the movie with her childlike ADD energy and karate moves, but Liv Tyler and Kevin Bacon are squandered and seem like they wandered in from another movie. (C-)


127 HOURS
Danny Boyle's true story of survival has been received raputurously on the festival circuit so far, but while I liked it overall, I can't really jump on the bandwagon of fervor. Boyle's energetic directorial style and a bravura physical performance from the normally boring James Franco go a long way towards keeping us involved; But at the end of the day, a guy with his arm pinned under a rock just isn't an inherently cinematic or compelling story, and the jittery editing and flashbacks and hallucinations -- while understandable on a conceptual level -- almost seem like a betrayal of the realities of the situation. Also, as good as Franco is, we never (or at least I never) feel like we know anything about this guy, or why we should have vested interest in his fate. That said, Boyle and Franco do keep us wrapped up in the goings-on, and there are about a half-dozen sequences (including the insanely intense climax) that are pretty remarkable... at least until the epilogue steps on the "uplifting" pedal a little too hard/disingenuously to try to push this into Slumdog territory. It's a solid effort, and will likely go over big with audiences, but I was only intermittently feeling it. (B / B-)

Interesting take. Especially in regards to the betrayal of a gut wrenching terrifying monotony of the experience as it must have been to live. I'm nervous about this one primarily because I thought Slumdog was only OK and it actively started annoying me when people wouldn't shut up about it. Will we see a repeat of that mass hysteria? And if so does that mean Boyle will get to do anything he wants from now on?

And finally txtcritic disputes the positive notices for Robert Redford's Oscar bait and joins many in loving Darren Aronofsky's latest.

THE CONSPIRATOR
Robert Redford's dull as dishwater History Channel re-enactment depicts the true but little known story of Mary Surratt, the mother of the accused collaborator of John Wilkes Booth in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. While it's admirable that Redford would like to teach us all about a oft-overlooked footnote in history, he sure as hell doesn't do much to make it engaging, even with a pretty fantastic cast including Robin Wright, James McAvoy, Tom Wilkinson (sporting ridiculous old-timey mutton chops) and Kevin Kline. History nuts may be enraptured, but as an actual movie, it never breaks out of its dry, dusty courtroom procedural paramaters. All I could think of during the film (especially with the presence of Tom Wilkinson) was "John Adams" and the comparison is certainly not flattering. Blech. (C-)


BLACK SWAN
I hate to pile on more advance hype, but Aronofsky's much-anticipated psychological ballet thriller is truly staggering. A tightly-wound examination of the obsessive quest for artistic perfection, the film packs in one staggering sequence after another, and never allows us to breathe easy or get comfortable. Simultaneously beautiful and grotesque, it'll likely offput as many as it seduces, but this is a movie that will still be held on a pedestal a decade or two down the line. The comparisons being made to "The Red Shoes" and "The Wrestler" are apt, but there are strong traces of "There Will Be Blood" in here as well, in regards to the extremes to which it burrows into its central character. Portman does easily her best work here, carrying the entire film on her shoulders, and Winona Ryder and Barbara Hershey are terrifying perfection. (A)

So... that's the first I'm hearing of someone really mentioning Noni. Could this be a comeback of sorts (I had assumed it was a teensy-tiny cameo since I'm purposefully not reading reviews I don't know one way or the other)? Since this film is not playing the New York Film Festival I will have to wait along with the rest of you until December 1st.

Come again?!? I can't have heard the release date correctly. I'm dying here.

Noni, Aronofsky, Natalie, and Barbara Hershey

Just for fun, here's what the Black Swan team wore to their big Canadian premiere. Mila Kunis did not attend.
*

TIFF Capsules: Let Me In, Tamara Drewe, The Illusionist and Stone.

Normally my friend txtcritic who must remain anonymous just, well, texts me. Usually in the form of pithy sentence long reviews or moviegoing observations. But this time he sent capsules of his Toronto experience thus far. Enjoy.

"The Illusionist" shifts downgear from the infectious exuberance of "Triplets of Bellevile" to a more melancholy, low-key thing. It's largely lovely and endearing, but leaves one with a lot more to admire than to get caught up or involved in (though many others seem to be ringing the "masterpiece" bells). The film's incremental snowballing cynicism will ultimately leave you either profoundly sad or oddly cold/disengaged. I'm somewhat between the two, but I'd like another viewing. B

Leigh, Manville, Ruth Sheen & Jim Broadbent @ TIFF

"Another Year" belongs in Leigh's upper-tier. Lesley Manville gets the showy role. At first, I was ready to cry 'overhyped' but her character subtly shifts and slowly grows more downtrodden in such a realistic way that it will make some uncomfortable with recognition. As a whole, the movie's consistently absorbing and lovely in character detail, but Manville's performance is what makes it a heartbreaker. A-

Consensus definitely places Lesley Manville as an Oscar nominee. We already know that Oscar voters respond to the women in Mike Leigh pictures. But will it be a lead or supporting campaign? That probably depends on how the studio feels about her winning chances in either category. I'll be seeing this picture in a couple of weeks. I loved Manville & Broadbent's chemistry together in Topsy Turvy (1999) and though they're not a couple this time I hope they have plentiful scenes together.

Dominic Cooper and Gemma Arterton at the Tamara Drewe premiere to your left. About Stephen Frears latest....

Based on the graphic novel by Posy Simmonds, "Tamara Drewe" constantly alternates between amusing and irritating. It's devoid of substance and aggressively quirky, while never being less than watchable. Certainly a change of pace for Stephen Frears, but makes you wonder why he decided to make this movie. Tamara (Gemma Arterton) is an empty vessel who barely registers as a character and the only one who gives a performance of any depth or complexity is Tamsin Greig as a cuckolded wife. B-/C+

Though it's to be commended for reaching for something beyond the conventional movie the trailers are selling, "Stone" only barely falls just short of Trainwreck designation. It has enough batshit moments to never lose your interest, but it's ultimately the very definition of a "mess"; there's nary a coherent thought in its head. No one seems to have been given much direction, and we're as dumbfounded as how we should feel about their characters as they seem to be. De Niro shows early signs that this will be his first inspired performance in years but then loses his way, and I never could quite get a handle on what Edward Norton or Milla Jovovich were doing. D+

Finally, the early buzz on Let Me In is good dashing our hopes that critics would crucify it. Now normally we don't root against pictures we haven't seen but why was it remade in the first place? Read on...

While "Let Me In" remains an 'unnecessary' remake throughout, Matt Reeves has crafted a surprisingly successful, respectful 'cover' version of the beloved "Let the Right One In." Aside from one or two (superb) sequences, and some amped-up suspense and gore, not much new has been added here. What most impresses is how the film avoids pretty much every possible expected "remake" decision where it could have pandered or "broadened" appeal or caved to general American sensibilities. Reeves absolutely nails the tone of the original film, imposes largely the same look (often even paying homage to the original shot compositions), and the perfectly cast chief actors -- Chloe Grace Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Richard Jenkins, Elias Koteas -- feel just right in their roles. Skeptics, put away your knives. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. A-

I'm not sure I'll be pleasantly surprised. So far I've read a couple of reviews proclaiming that it's better than the original and several going to lengths to describe how meticulously director Matt Reeves has transferred the visual aesthetics, mood and even the shots of the original. How is a carefully detailed copy ever better than an original? Or at least how does whatever praise it garners seem like more than an interception? Please to explain. Whatever we love about it, must be credited to the original, if what we love was originated there. It's like when some people wanted to give Zach Snyder credit for the visual aesthetics of Watchmen when what he was essentially doing was following the storyboard and character designs provided by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons in graphic novel form.

Kodi Smit-McPhee gets bullied in Let Me In

Sorry, sorry. I know I'm off consensus on this topic. But faithful remakes they make-a me crazeeeeeeeeeee. This is why, ironically, I respected Gus Van Sant's Psycho (1998) so much. See, that widely hated film purposefully billed itself as a recreation... it was, therefore, an honest aesthetic experiment and cinematic exercize rather than a movie made to replace another movie for people who can't bring themselves to read subtitles or watch older films.

Maybe I'll calm down once I've seen it if it's good. Maybe I just don't relish having to watch Chloe Moretz every time a film needs a teenager this coming decade. They're casting her in everything (8-10 projects already on the way) and even if I loved her more, I always enjoy a variety of faces in my moviegoing.
*

Randomness: Sorcerers, Pesci, Garfield

Three things that amused me in the past 48 hours.

1. Message received from my friend txtcritic whilst under the influence of Love Ranch

Man, this Joe Pesci has RANGE.

2. E-mail received from reader Yonatan.

It may surprise you but after seeing the movie, I can safely predict that The Sorcerer's Apprentice won't be nominated for an Oscar.

Ah, sweet sarcasm. Times two.

3. Various comments /articles about the "pennies" Andrew Garfield is making for that Untitled Spider-Man Reboot (2012). The hyperbole/perspective distortion amuses in a gallows humor sort of way in this era of double digit unemployment. I understand that it's not Nicolas Cage millions but from the vantage point of this perpetually poor writer $500,000 seems like a very nice paycheck for six/seven months work and a leap frog move up several rungs on Hollywood's lucrative latter. What is it they always say about your first hit in Hollywood, 'You'll make it on the next picture.'? If I ran Hollywood, I'd almost always opt for unknowns for superhero pictures. I've never understood why they pay huge star salaries when the suit and not the face is the draw (for this genre I mean, Iron Man being the exception that proves the rule). Both big screen supermans Christopher Reeve in Superman (1978) and Brandon Routh in Superman Returns (2006) had less acting experience than Garfield has now. I wonder how much they were paid?

Andrew Garfield with his BAFTA trophy for Boy A (2007) --->

[pet peeve tangent alert] One thing that did not amuse me in the past 72 hours... the various online comments/articles hating on Garfield because he's "obscure." Nothing sets me on edge quite as much as pride in ignorance and the shameless act of demanding that that ignorance be seen as a valid opinion. All opinions are not created equally. Why do so many people hate anything unfamiliar on principle or refuse to look anything up or do any research? It's so f***ing lazy. Just because you've never heard of someone does not mean they aren't talented. It just means that you've never heard of them. Simple as that. No shame in not knowing something or someone. It happens to all of us. The only shame is to demand that you should never have to know it and that the world should cater to your limitations of experience or imagination. [/pet peeve rant]

P.S. I have no idea why I continue to talk about this Spider-Man picture when I think it's a bad idea in the first place. I blame my affection for the webslinger, deeply rooted since childhood.

Txt Critic At Leap Year

received on my phone at 12:13 this afternoon

Someone in my theater just vomited 5 minutes into "Leap Year". Shall we call it a sign?

heh. Did you keep your food down, reader?

Michael Haneke, Supreme Confounder

A mssg received from my friend 'txt critic' today.

Lincoln Plaza is the WORST! Half of my audience was literally snoring through "The White Ribbon" -- in unison! -- and one half-deaf woman bellowed an hour in, 'I THOUGHT THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE HOLOCAUST.'

I swear UWS seniors ruin more movies than anyone.

I wasn't there but I can attest to this phenomenon. You will always get a perturbed earful when you see a Haneke picture on the Upper West Side. Should we presume the AMPAS members on the foreign film nominating committee will feel just as impatient with its mysteries and its implicitly projected "25 years later..." horror? AO Scott certainly didn't boost this Cannes Winner's Oscar cause with his recent review either.

But then I'm not currently speaking to AO anyway. He disses Haneke's always provocative direction just two weeks after raving about Clint Eastwood's work on Invictus??? What a world... what a world... [argh] don't make me talk about Invictus, AO. don't make me. I can't. I can't. It's just so ham-fistedly unworthy of discussion... [argh!]
*

De Niro to the 7th? (Oscar's Male Hierarchy)

Have you been buying the minor huzz (hype+buzz) 'Robert De Niro's 7th Oscar nomination' for the holiday film Everybody's Fine? My friend txt critic saw it last night and sent the following note by phone...

it's, well, fine. most definitely a drama (despite the trailer) and conceptually a cross between About Schmidt and Four Christmases. nice, sweet and somewhat forgettable.

might, MIGHT be a nomination for DeNiro, but i wouldn't bet on it.

I dunno. I wasn't betting on it either but Best Actor sure seems vacant this year with only Colin Firth (A Single Man) and George Clooney (Up in the Air) catching any sort of real fire. As I've been saying for months, Fox Searchlight shouldn't have even hesitated to position Crazy Heart for a 2009 release. Jeff Bridges would have a clear shot at the career trophy given the field (if -- and it's always a big if since distributors routinely call upcoming performances "the performance of a lifetime" -- the star turn is as good as they say). I'm glad to hear that release is still a possibility... though the hour is getting late. UPDATE: Fox finally came through. It'll be released on December 16th. Why must everyone wait until December? Good smaller movies routinely get crushed when they're released at the same time, the heavyweight big budget contenders sucking the air out of the room as they do.

Aside from Firth and Clooney, the rest of the men are all still assumed rather than proven contenders. Anything might happen in that category.

Incidentally, if De Niro miraculously manages a seventh nod this year, it doesn't disrupt Oscar's actor hierarchy so much, it just switches who De Niro is tied with. The 22 Most-Favored list currently goes like so [please note: this is for competitive acting statistics only... some actors moonlight as producers, writers, directors, what have you]

1. Jack Nicholson (12 noms, 3 wins)
2. Laurence Olivier (10 noms, 1 win)
   
3. Spencer Tracy (9 noms, 2 wins)
4. Paul Newman (9 noms, 1 win)
   
5. (tie) Marlon Brando and Jack Lemmon (8 noms, 2 wins)
6. Al Pacino (8 noms, 1 win)
   
7. Peter O'Toole (8 noms, zero wins)
   
8. Dustin Hoffman (7 noms, 2 wins)
9. Richard Burton (7 noms, zero wins)
   
10. (tie) Robert De Niro and Michael Caine (6 noms, 2 wins)
11. (tie) Robert Duvall and Paul Muni* (6 noms, 1 win)
    
12. (6 way tie) Tom Hanks, Fredric March, Gary Cooper, Gene Hackman, Denzel Washington and Sean Penn (all of them with 5 noms, 2 wins)
13. (tie) James Stewart and Gregory Peck (5 noms, 1 win)

There are three obvious living threats to this list that come to mind: Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio (3 noms, massive stardom, gainfully employed well into the next decade) and Morgan Freeman (4 noms, 1 win and still working regularly at 72 years of age). But cross your fingers that Jeff Bridges and Albert Finney (with 4 and 5 noms respectively) get another shot at the competitive gold soon.

*depending on how you count those "unofficial" deals in the early years. If I made any mistakes in the chart -- i'm only human -- I assume you'll let me know in the comments.

Have You Had An Education ?

You'll remember that when I first saw An Education, I could basically utter multi-syllabic words. Carey Mulligan is it. So for this week's column at Towleroad I reviewed the Lone Scherfig delight and it went something like this.

Have you ever seen a star being born? It’s a particularly thrilling film experience and contrary to popular conceptions of celebrity – from Warhol’s 15 minutes meme to the enduring reality TV craze -- true star breakthroughs don’t happen every year. They’re rare like comets or maybe even eclipses. You have a chance to see one this month as An Education begins its platforming release and Carey Mulligan deservedly rises to the top of Hollywood’s “must cast” list. In the fall’s first obvious Oscar contender (expect a Best Picture nod) Mulligan plays Jenny, a 16 year old girl who is wise beyond her years… though not quite as wise as she thinks she is.

Jenny takes up with a much older man David (Peter Sarsgaard) who gives her, you guessed it, an education… but not only a sexual one. Then there’s the not so small matter of Jenny’s schooling...

You can read the rest for more huzzahs for Mulligan and a nod to the generally terrif cast. It's not that the film is perfect, mind. Far from it. I get where some of its less vituperative naysayers are coming from. It's just the kind of film that's hard to bitch about. Too loveable, see.

But even one of my own friends is a non-believer.

the divine Emma Thompson has had it with this girl-not-yet-a-woman

Got this text from txt critic last night which says

It's kind of inexplicable to me how much people have been fliping their shit over An Education (and Carey Mulligan for that matter). It's a nice, throwback-y familiar coming-of-age movie that grandmothers will love. The movie's pleasant enough, and she's pretty charming, but I genuinely don't get it

"that grandmothers will love"eh? (Oscar bullseye!?) I'm eager to see where you, the reader, land on this one. Maybe the hype was too long and forceful for the frothy charms of a picture that admittedly should cut a little deeper. On the other hand maybe more and more people will continue to flip their...
*

TIFF 09 Coverage Concludes: Whip It, Mother and Child, Up in the Air

As promised here's the final installment of this year's Toronto Film Festival coverage. My anonymous friend (txt critic) saw 26 movies in half a week (I know!) and agreed to rank them all upon his return.

Here's his last few capsules and rankings

1. A Serious Man A+ (previous post)
2. Precious A (previous post)

3. Up in the Air A
The recipient of the most ejaculatory pre festival hype, I think Jason Reitman’s film’s low-key aspirations, and the small-scale story it tells, will perhaps not benefit from being oversold by everyone and their mother (most random Torontonians I waited on line with over the course of the week told me they thought it was “very good, not great”). So, while adding to the hype is to the movie’s detriment, I have to report that I completely swooned for the movie. I can already see the backlash coming, as the movie’s conventional story arc (man-as-an-island bachelor starts to see the value in having other people in his life) will be easy to bemoan. What really sells it all is that it avoids sentimentality and seems to come from a sincere place of honest emotion. It's also extremely funny, never losing its designation as a comedy, even as the resonance starts to approach around the midway point. What’s perhaps most impressive about Reitman’s direction is the handling of this shift and balance of tone: there aren’t “serious” beats, and the film doesn’t jarringly turn into a drama halfway through. It grows subtly more weighty as it goes along, until you're misty-eyed. George Clooney gives one of his best performances, while still staying in his comfort zone. There will be much bigger, showier performances than this, but the film wouldn’t work without his deft handling of the character’s arc. This isn’t a blow you away emotional movie or Juno-esque crowd-pleaser -- the two prevalent adjectives in my mind are “quiet” and “bittersweet” -- but it’s the sort of thing that’s going to entertain and touch a lot of people, and for once, actually earn the feelings it arouses. Oscar nominations for picture, director, actor and adapted screenplay all seem assured.

4. Mother and Child A
Following up Nine Lives and Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her with yet another female-driven ensemble film that happens to be his best yet, Rodrigo García’s latest is an openly emotional, fascinating, complex tale of three different women whose lives may or may not cross but, at the least, run parallel. All three (played by Annette Bening, Naomi Watts and Kerry Washington), have had their lives impacted by adoption -- Bening gave birth at 14 and put the girl up for adoption, Watts is her grown-up daughter who’s never met her mother, and Washington is infertile, trying to adopt with her husband. While you emerge from the theater extremely satisfied, no easy answers are found and the film acknowledges the messiness of the emotions / situations entailed in such situations.

Rodrigo García directs The Bening

Watts, Washington and Samuel L. Jackson (in a very small, understated role) are terrific, but the powerhouse performance here belongs to Bening. Starting the film out as an (seemingly) impenetrable bitch, Bening slowly makes us understand the character, and the decisions and emotions that have informed her life. By the time the film ends, you understand why this character ends up in the emotional place that she does. It never feels unrealistic or like a cheat. I don’t know if the film will get distribution before the end of the year but if it does, Bening will unquestionably be one of the five nominees for Best Actress.

5. Micmacs A-
6. The Road A-
7. The Informant! A- (previous post)
8. Harry Brown B+

9. The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans B+
One of the best midnight movies I’ve ever seen (a cult following is already assured), this Nicolas Cage vehicle from Werner Herzog -- using the title and pretty much nothing else from the Abel Ferrara-Harvey Keitel film -- has a warped, nutso energy running through it that had me frazzled when I wasn’t busy laughing. Cage’s off-the-wall performance as a cop addicted to pussy, coke, and back-pain pills is a live-wire tour de force, that for once, utilizes the actor’s over the top inclinations for a character they actually work for. The film’s truly a blast. You alternately gasp and laugh in disbelief, waiting to see what Cage (and Herzog) will do next. My personal favorite moment is a TWO-MINUTE-LONG shot of iguanas Cage is looking at, made all the more brilliant when it’s revealed by another character that said iguanas aren’t even there. This won’t play with Cage’s National Treasure fans, but this is an audience movie if there ever was one.

10. Antichrist B+ (previous post)

11. Whip It B+
Drew Barrymore’s roller-derby directorial debut is perhaps most surprising for the fact that it’s more than “fun,” it’s actually “good.” Showing an assured hand on her first go-round, Barrymore more than capably handles every aspect of the story without short-shrifting any of them: the sports elements work (the derby scenes, violence and all, are insanely fun and well-shot), the coming of age story and love story never feel like bullshit, and the family relationship drama actually proves touching.


Whip It never lets Marcia Gay Harden’s overbearing mother become a caricature or a shrill harridan and allows Daniel Stern, of all people, to be the film’s warm, fuzzy heart. Ellen Page is strong in the central role that can't have been well defined on the page, and the supporting cast is aces, most notably Kristin Wiig in her first screen role (besides, maybe, Ghost Town) that allows her to be as funny as she can be.

12. Perrier’s Bounty B+ (previous post)
13. The Trotsky B (previous post)
14. Daybreakers B
15. Chloe B (previous post)
16. Jennifer’s Body B (previous post)
17. Ondine B-
18. Leaves of Grass B- (previous post)
19. Good Hair B-

20. The Hole C+ (previous post)
21. Solitary Man C
22. George A. Romero’s Survival of the Dead C (previous post)
23. The Joneses C (previous post)
24. Creation C- (previous post)
25. Get Low C-
26. Capitalism: A Love Story D+ (previous post)

Would you all join me in a rousing chorus of "Release Mother and Child!" I need The Bening back in my life. It's torture that festivals dangle these goodies and the distributors look around like "who, me?"

I hope you've enjoyed this year's TIFF coverage and please join me in thanking txt critic, MattCanada and Lev for sharing their thoughts! Maybe next year I'll even make it there myself.

4 More From TIFF: Chloe, Precious, Capitalism and Leaves of Grass

As promised, we're wrapping up the TIFF coverage with two more roundups from my friend txt critic. Here's four more capsules and late tonight, he'll be back with the ranking of everything he saw there, with eyes gleefully propped open for days on end.


On Precious

Deserving of the hype that’s been building since Sundance, Lee Daniels’ overwhelming emotional powerhouse was the one film I saw at the festival that earned a standing ovation (all the more notable when you take into consideration it was a public screening, not a gala). All you’ve been hearing is how “tough” and disturbing this movie is, and it is, but none of these descriptions quite prepare you for how humanistic and absorbing it is. The proceedings never turn into a film that needs to be “endured” or unbearable to watch. In other words, it’s rough going emotionally, but it’s not “good for you” cinema; it draws you in at every turn, and somewhat amazingly, there’s never an emotional moment that feels false, or a bridge too far. That said, there’s no chance of this turning into another Slumdog Millionaire populist sensation, as the material is just TOO dark and upsetting, and there’s no redemptive dance number to send people out of the theater smiling. I emerged from Precious drained, but oddly energized by what I’d just seen. I’d put money on nominations for Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Actress, Supporting Actress, Editing, Original Song. (A)

He'd put money on the nominations. Well, that won't have a great ROI right now, gambling wise since everyone is betting on this film in the Oscar race now. I wish it were opening tomorrow since I don't want the hype to overwhelm me more than the film.

On Leaves of Grass

Tim Blake Nelson’s first directorial effort since his unconscionably depressing Holocaust drama The Grey Zone is the sort of film that makes you marvel at the fact that it got made and scratch your head at what was going through the filmmaker’s head at the time he was writing it. It's daffy enough that you generally enjoy the ride. The story of two diametrically opposed twin brothers (one a redneck pot grower, one a philosophy professor at an Ivy League university), both played by Edward Norton, reunited against one of their wills, is largely a hit-or-miss affair. It's problems are the sort of thing that could easily be fixed if an eventual buyer forces Nelson back into the editing room. The dark comedy has some very funny moments, some carefully observed character touches, as well as comedy moments that go way too broad, occasional dead spots, and violence that’s way too piercing, jarring (and out-of-nowhere) for what’s surrounding it. What keeps it all worth watching throughout is Norton’s utterly transfixing and fun performance(s), among the actor’s best ever. (B-)

On Chloe

A genuinely good movie that devolves into merely a fun one in its last third, Atom Egoyan’s remake of the French film Nathalie about a woman (Julianne Moore) who suspects her husband (Liam Neeson) of cheating, then tempts him with a young prostitute (Amanda Seyfried), strives for actual resonance for about a good solid hour. It makes substantive points about faithfulness, and the complex emotions that long-term relationships breed, and Moore delivers terrific work. In the final half hour, though, Egoyan is content to let the movie turn into a soap opera-y guilty pleasure that revels in over-the-top revelations and pulpy plot twists. It’s still an entertaining guilty pleasure, and remains utterly compelling, but by the time it ends, you wonder what happened to that serious movie you started watched. (B)

I'm glad to hear positive things about Edward Norton and Julianne Moore movies since both have had rough patches but are two of our most talented players. This description of Chloe really make me want to see the movie. I tend to like shape-shifting movies... as long as they are purposefully shifting their shape.

On Capitalism: A Love Story

It never ceases to amaze me the slapdash, manipulative bullshit Michael Moore is able to get away with in the name of populism, and his latest film is the worst offender (as well as his first film I haven’t liked). Moore’s been getting a pass from the critics so far, and I can’t really understand why, as the crap he pulls here would earn endless amount of scorn were any other filmmaker’s name attached. Just to be clear, I’m a flaming liberal, and even I grew tired with the rotund documentarian’s perpetual going back to the well of blaming everything on the Republicans, and resorting to cheapshot Bush bashing that has little to no relevancy to the material.

Moore (seemingly) entered into this latest project without much of a thesis statement, and damned if you don’t walk away from the movie with much more than a shrug. He drifts from scene to scene without ever offering much in the way of coherency; he sits down with his friend actor Wallace Shawn to discuss the economy because... Shawn got a degree in economics years ago. Okay...? Why is this a scene in the movie? Moore resorts to his shameless, manipulative, exploitative tactics that don’t serve much of a purpose (a widower is filmed reading a letter to his dead wife, as the camera lingers on the face of the man’s crying child) but if it makes the audience cry, it must have resonance, right? And, frankly, endless scenes of Moore with a bullhorn in front of big buildings and/or trying to get into them are just boring by this point. Perhaps worst of all, after concluding the film with the message that capitalism is evil and must be destroyed, I realized the movie barely scratched the surface at explaining why (or what its title means). Because there are some jobs where people make money at the misfortune than others? I want to be on your side, Michael, but I need more. (D+)

Ouch. I hope I like this one more than this since I've felt for too long that we've worshipped the free market into places untenable.

Next up: four more capsules and txt critics rankings of all 26 pictures he took in at the Toronto International Film Festival. For now... are you intrigued by Chloe? Willing to give Michael Moore another shot?

5 More From TIFF: Perrier's Bounty, The Joneses, The Hole, Survival of the Dead and A Serious Man

Faithful readers! You may have noticed my absence from the blog of late as I let friends fill in from the Toronto International Film Festival. The Canadian fest wraps today but we've got a few more TIFF related reports to get through. I hope you're enjoying (comment!). After the TIFF wrap, I'll be back. Things have been crazy for me. Apologies! (I can't wait to tell you about my star studded 'Oprah Day'). Here's five more capsules from Txt Critic who I like to argue with in real life (he sees everything) despite his anonymity here.

on The Joneses

This satire of consumerism starring Demi Moore (at TIFF with her man, left) and David Duchovny as parents of a fake family "cell" placed into suburbia to sell their neighbors on various products is about as stale and 'blah' as that plot description sounds. The screenplay leaves both leads grasping at straws to fill in the holes of their characters and it's awkwardly indecisive on a tone; the softball-satire "jokes" clash with the stabs at relevancy and pathos (including a "what have we learned here" climax), and none of the actors ever finds a consistent pitch. I'd be surprised if it gets theatrical distribution. (C)

on The Hole

While I didn't get to see the entire film (the fire alarm was pulled twenty minutes before the film was over!), I feel like I got the gist of this 3-D Poltergeist throwback from Joe Dante. The movie, which intends to be a horror film for family audiences (PG-13?), alternates between groan-inducing dialogue, family drama backstory and jumpy B-movie scares (e.g. a creepy clown doll that keeps reappearing in inconvenient locations). It’s not up to snuff with Dante’s Gremlins but what is? If you have any 8-to-12-year-old kids who like being scared, take them along. That said, you’d still probably be better off with a DVD of Coraline. (C+)

On Perrier's Bounty

Derivative of films like In Bruges (without the emotional heft) and Snatch (without the emphasis on style), this Irish crime comedy flew under the radar of most festival-goers, despite starring well-liked mick stars Cillian Murphy, Brendan Gleeson and Jim Broadbent. Though it doesn’t bring a ton new to the well-worn genre, it boasts clever dialogue, fun performances (particularly Gleeson as the crime boss) and surprisingly off-kilter sources of humor, such as violence in the name of one’s affinity for dogs and dislike for homophobes. Seems a sure bet for small-time US distribution. (B+)

On A Serious Man

I can’t really be trusted when asked for my opinion on a Coen Brothers film. I’m more than a bit biased: for well over a decade, I’ve espoused the belief that they’re the best filmmakers working and I think even their worst movie (yes, The Ladykillers) is still pretty great. That said, even I was surprised at the level to which I was knocked out by their latest, which is supposedly their most personal film. It's about a much put-upon Minnesota university professor (Tony-nominated Michael Stuhlbarg) and how he attempts to grapple with the innumerable trials and tribulations in his life, most prominently via advice from the rabbis in his life.


Man recalls Barton Fink but definitively possesses its own unique identity. The film is consistently very, very funny but proves surprisingly weighty, too. A Serious Man depicts life as basically, ‘one fucking thing after the other,’ and espouses a supremely bleak worldview in an entirely original, oddly moving manner. While it possesses the Coens’ trademark immaculate filmmaking and shot composition, this is probably one of their most esoteric and least commercial films. It’s also, in my opinion, one of their three or four best films and in serious contention for my ‘best movie of the year’ title. (A+)

on George A Romero's Survival of the Dead

I appreciate the effort, but the guy should really give it a rest. I seemed to be one of the few in attendance who thought this was (mildly) more watchable than his last effort, Diary of the Dead. At least it featured a handful of fun, gory moments, and characters I didn’t want to instinctively murder. Overall, I think my reaction can best be summed up by my sold-out midnight audience’s behavior: they gave Romero a standing ovation when he showed up to introduce the film, and shuffled out of the theater as the credits rolled with their heads hung low -- not even bothering to stay for the Q&A with their hero. (C)

Whoa. High praise for the Coen Bros. After No Country For Old Men (my #2 of 2007) and Burn After Reading (#11 of 2008), both top-notch efforts, it's clear that they've jumped whatever hurdle they were struggling to clear in that weird mid-Aughts patch (The Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty). Well done.
*

5 From 'Txt Critic' at TIFF: Antichrist, Jennifer's Body, Creation, The Trotsky and The Informant!

My texting friend who you've heard from a few times, exiting screenings with sudden opinions flying from his fingertips, just got back from Toronto. Yes, everyone was there but you and I. Txt Critic was only there half the time but saw as many films as I did last time and I stayed for the whole damn thing. They must have kept his eyes open with toothpicks like something out of A Clockwork Orange, only more voluntary-like. Here's part 1 of his capsule takes...

on Antichrist

This is the rare case where I think having the entire film spoiled for me prior to seeing it was actually a good thing. Ever since Cannes, I’d heard explicit reports -- ad nauseam -- of all the “shocking” content, and aghast reactions, on behalf of Lars Von Trier’s latest. It's about a couple’s ... let’s say ‘unconventional’... response to the death of their toddler. While it’s not generally a good thing to have prominent sequences described to you before you see a film, here, having heard all the descriptions of [semi spoilers ahead] scenes involving self-inflicted mutilation, scissors, talking animals, etc. [/end spoilers] allowed me to look beyond the artifice and see the film for its emotional content, and Von Trier’s warped, fascinating ideas. Whether you’ve been spoiled or not, it’s a film that only gets richer upon repeat viewings, and gets more and more interesting the more you discuss it. (B+)

on Jennifer's Body

Okay, so clearly I’m alone on this one. I thought this Diablo Cody scripted horror comedy was a lot of fun. It’s not scary in the least but there’s an awful lot of funny dialogue, knowing silliness, good gore (for those who like that stuff) and a soullessness from Megan Fox that's actually appropriate for once. To top it off, the proceedings are imbued with a playfulness that toys with (and subverts) teen movie conventions (including some startlingly upfront sexuality), and is clearly made by someone with a passion for horror films.


It’s not a great movie but it’s also not a retread. I wish people would back off a bit in regards to attacking Ms. Cody; I get that when an (arguably) not-great screenplay wins an Oscar it’s an affront to film aficionados, but shouldn’t she get some credit purely on the basis of following up an Oscar win with a horror flick, let alone a fairly smart, entertaining one? (B)

on Creation

There were times during this 100 minute ordeal that I actually started to wish that Charles Darwin (played here by Paul Bettany) had never been born so I wouldn’t have had to sit through this movie inspired by his life. I exaggerate but this is really one slog of a film, more dull and interminable than even a straightforward biopic might have been. Focused almost entirely on (a) Darwin’s decision to publish "The Origin of Species" in the face of his wife’s (Jennifer Connelly) religiosity, and (b) the Darwin's reaction to the death of their child, Creation offers almost nothing of substance about Darwin’s actual ideas, nor the complexities of his character or emotions. It’s mostly just the renowned central figure weeping over his dead daughter and going on numerous doctors’ visits for his long list of ailments. The title is misleading as it seems to imply too much focus on his originally controversial ideas. While this is the kind of tedious, inert historical drama that used to be catnip for the Academy, I can’t see many staying awake all the way through to see anything worth rewarding. (C-)

on The Trotsky

At long last, a star vehicle for the gawky Jay Baruchel best known for headlining “Undeclared” and bit parts in Tropic Thunder and Knocked Up. Writer-director Jacob Tierney casts the Canadian native in the role of the Leon, a high school senior who considers himself the reincarnation of the titular figure. Leon seems deadset on fighting every supposed authority figure he can (he stages a hunger strike at his father’s factory in the opening sequence). Mixing Trotsky/Stalin/etcetera in-jokes with broad sweeping Napoleon Dynamite quirk and power to the disenfranchised story beats, the film may have a limited audience (the plethora of Montreal jokes makes it unclear how it would be received outside of Canada). But it’s frequently funny and manages to not drag even though it’s too long (nearly two hours) for its somewhat thin premise. Schneider shows legitimate directorial finesse. (B)

on The Informant!

Despite the starring presence of Matt Damon and a heavily-marketed nationwide release by Warner Bros., this supremely entertaining 'based on a true story' project -- the latest from Steven Soderbergh -- is a much odder (and also more delightful) film than I was a expecting, and not simply for playing what is essentially a thriller premise as a jaunty comedy. While it’s more strangely amusing and witty than laugh-out-loud funny, Soderbergh makes a boatload of strange decisions (such as shooting this 90s-set story in a style of a 70s throwback, and utilizing a Marvin Hamlisch score that seems better suited for a Doris Day vehicle) that, almost inexplicably, work perfectly. They all contribute towards creating an experience that may throw some people, but is sure to engender itself as a DVD favorite for those who like their eccentric quirk at a lower volume. The story itself only gets more compelling as it unravels, slowly eking out details that reveal why the filmmaker felt comedy was the more suitable genre for the material. It's all sold by an utterly fantastic performance , at once broad and understated, by Matt Damon. He appears in every scene and he certainly deserves -- and in this weak year, just might get -- an Oscar nomination. (A-)

So there you have it. A lot to consider. And that's only about a day's worth of screenings. When he closes his eyes, he's probably still seeing shadows of flickering images.
*

'Txt Critic' Takes Aim at Public Enemies (Negative)

'Txt Critic', my frequent anonymous review donor, has apparently become drunk on his power to reach millions of Film Experience readers (shut up! Let me dream). He has abandoned his habit of one or two sentence text reviews of future releases. Now I'm getting full paragraphs by e-mail. I'll have to change his handle. Here he is on Michael Mann's summer drama Public Enemies.

Warning: He doesn't like it and doesn't mince words

Glossy, somewhat stylish, good production value and all that, but almost completely inert. I wasn't "bored," and it's not a complete and utter failure, but it's probably the least interesting movie Michael Mann's ever made. There is zero character definition. No one has an arc of any sort -- we learn NOTHING about any of the three central characters -- and the "action" isn't particularly compelling, at least not enough to compensate for the complete dearth of emotion or thematic complexity. It's the height of "this happened, and then this happened..." storytelling, without ever giving us a reason to care. There's a couple well-shot shootouts/carchases, but the movie's never EXCITING, and Johnny Depp, Marion Cotillard and Christian Bale are playing completely flat, undefined, static characters. Dillinger (Depp) robs banks. What do we learn about him over the course of the movie? He's nice and won't take civilians' money. That's all we get. Purvis (Bale) wants to catch Dillinger. Why is he so driven? We don't know. He's told right at the beginning of the movie by J. Edgar Hoover "catch Dillinger" and that's about it. He never grows "obsessive" or shows us what's lurking behind the curtain (i.e. making the character interesting) -- he just wants to catch Dillinger. There's no parallels between the two, they have no real back-and-forth, we aren't shown comparisons and contrasts.

We don't get a clue why Billie (Cotillard) and Dillinger care about each other, we just see them kiss occasionally. Depp gets one quick scene of humanity, Cotillard gets two, and boring Bale gets none -- there's a lot of hollow brooding and flat delivery here. I read some interview where Mann said he had Depp lay himself "bare emotionally" for this part or some such remark -- horseshit. This might be the laziest performance Depp's given in the last decade

Um, Ouch. And so hot on the heels of his birthday, too. Have you no heart?

Without the occasional cool music track and the clear, crisp, digital look of the film, we'd get almost no stamps of Mann. There might be some Mann apologists on this one, but I think response is going to be overwhelmingly muted, if not outright dismayed.

I asked him where he falls on the Mann-Fann spectrum and he claims he's generally a devotee. "I even like Ali and Miami Vice" he assures. Another confirmed Mann junkie, In Contention's Kris Tapley has already expressed a (very) positive reaction. Perhaps it'll be a divisive picture? I had thought we were looking at our earliest real Oscar contender but then Up happened. If Enemies does disappoint, we might not see any of the Oscar players that will pop Up's balloon (prepare yourself kids. If even WALL•E couldn't do it...) until October or November.

Public Enemies opens on Wednesday, July 1st.

A Private Peek at Brüno

My text-happy friend, who you know has 'txt critic', still wishes to remain anonymous. He's now managed to see Brüno early. Er liebte es. Here's his brief take:

predictably hilarious. even more shocking and envelope pushing than "Borat" and just as funny. but at the same time it's no longer new, so it feels somewhat "safer" as in you know what to expect. Still awesome, though. Gay stuff will keep it from doing Borat $.

And I have no idea how they got an R rating.

Interesting to hear that he thinks it's still in the dread NC-17 range. In a rare bit of multi-platforming (seriously, it's always texts with that one) he sent a follow up email to elaborate... which gets a bit more spoilery.

My crowd was largely filled with gay tastemakers and "VIPs" (Ivanka Trump and her loudly-talking douche date were sitting near me), so perhaps the cringeing and revulsion weren't as pronounced/discomfiting as they would have been in a multiplex, but I couldn't believe the sort of things Cohen got away with. Lots of penis and explicit (comic, obviously) gay sexuality. There's an extended sequence early on that is so wildly over-the-top (the capper for me involved a bottle of champagne), that I almost think Sacha Baron Cohen included it as a warning/button-pusher (i.e. if this part doesn't make people walk out of the theater, they should be fine for the rest of the movie).

Like Borat, I know there's been a bunch of talk about whether the satire of homophobia/homosexuality could be misconstrued as mocking of gays (thus validating homophobes in the audience), but it's difficult to imagine too many audience members proud to see themselves in Cohen’s targets. The one who you start to feel bad for is Ron Paul (he looks like a senile grandpa being taunted/seduced)… until he’s filmed angrily calling Bruno “a queer.”

Lots of funny/broad/silly set-pieces, with intermittent bits that resonate/provoke – a short encounter Brüno has with the ‘God Hates Fags’ folks was a highlight for me.

I personally can't wait to see this. Borat hurt me i.e. offended my delicate sensibility -- a remnant of that pesky Mormon upbringing -- but also made me laugh my ass off. Where are you at with Brüno: want to see, must to avoid, will decide later?

just visiting? Try the front page for new posts including Patty Clarkson on gay marriage, a "Streep at 60" Retrospective and my brief encounter with Michelle Pfeiffer. You can also chase the labels below for more on these topics

Txt Critic on Julie & Julia

My insatiable moviegoing friend was back to his old tricks, texting me last night with a message regarding the new Amy Adams / Meryl Streep film Julie & Julia. Here he is...

in spite of its ghastly trailer, it was quite good, solid. in typical ephron/meyers/etc fashion, it's a bit too long for a film without much plot (exactly 2 hours), but it was pretty well paced, while rarely-to-never wading into unnecessary sentiment or cheap stupid humor

meryl's great (duh), but it's really more of a "fun" performance than anything substantive -- they throw her an extremely short "oscar clip" dramatic scene where she responds to her sister being pregnant, but almost everything else she has is fun/light/funny/enjoyable. that said, i'm sure she'll still get a nomination. i have no idea how they're going to campaign her when the time comes, but it's unquestionably a co-lead. Streep and Adams both evenly split the screen time, and if anything, Streep gets a bit more. Also the movie opens and closes with her, so it feels a bit more like "her" story

Well, technically her famed Miranda Priestley performance in The Devil Wears Prada only had one traditional "clip" scene also and were it not for Helen Mirren's awards steamroll in 2006, I'm guessing Streep would have actually taken the statue. Exactly how many times has Meryl been in the runner up position on Hollywood's High Holy Night? Four times, I think. Though it's highly debatable.

Oscar vote totals are never released but wasn't she probably runner up for:
French Lieutenant's Woman (81), Adaptation (02), Prada (06) and Doubt
(08)? Maybe even Out of Africa (85) and Bridges... (95)

But back to my point: "fun/light" isn't really an Oscar detriment for Streep in the way it is for other performers. The campaign issues on the other hand might be. The current studio plan is a supporting campaign for Julia (presumably to avoid competiting with her lead role in the Untitled Nancy Meyers Project) but there is a very slim possibility that the drawn out Kate Winslet Rev Rd/Reader situation from last year may signal that the Academy is a little less willing than in years past to honor forced categorizations... even when the precursor voting blocks urge them to do so. Another possibility is that the studio will go for double leads or switch Adams to supporting once they have a better idea of their competition. We'll know when we know.

Oscar predictions updates on the way (working on them right now)
*

Fantastic Mr. Fox Sneak

It's a test screening exclusive. My pal "txt critic" strikes again. He managed to get into a test screening of Wes Anderson's animated film Fantastic Mr. Fox. It happened yesterday here in New York. Here's what he had to say about the movie which is based on the Roald Dahl book. Keep in mind that the movie is still a work in progress.

terrific! like a beautiful union of filmmaker and material. you could sense the love and reverence for the dahl story but he absolutely put his stylistic stamp as a filmmaker all over it, without one overwhelming the other. it FELT like what a wes anderson movie would be if animated. same title/caption font, hip soundtrack (though the only song i specifically remember is "i get around" by the beach boys), slo-mo dance sequence

very dry humor. i dont know if it's really for kids

only about 60-70% of the animation was completed, but i loved the look of it -- i'd describe it as akin to James and the Giant Peach meets a diorama

He also informs me that despite early reports and the information on the IMDB page, Cate Blanchett's voice is nowhere to be heard. It's Meryl Streep supplying the pipes for "Mrs. Fox". George Clooney, as you already know, voices the title character. My friend thought the voicework was excellent -- none of the dip in quality you sometimes get when filmmakers feel the need to have all celebrity voices [*cough* every studio but Pixar]. Sadly, Anjelica Huston has but a voice cameo (the other bit voice players are Brian Cox and Owen Wilson). Come on, Wes ... she's earned a front and center role by now. Next time, maybe?


txt critic ,who isn't even a quarter-century old, also tried to convince me that he was the oldest person there. Apparently the invites were asking for 18-32 and the crowd was heavily NYU students in Wes Anderson appropriate garb: tweet jackets, black rimmed glasses, pork pie hats, etc... "preaching to the choir so to speak" he says.

Fox Searchlight title cards are on the movie though previous reports have suggested it's a big Fox (as in 20th Century) releasing it. Whichever, it's FOX. Appropriate, no? The current release date is in November but if it's only 70% finished.... ???
*