Tuesday, October 23, 2007

30 Second Film Review: 30 Days of Night (David Slade)



I’m way behind so I’m now in all glib soundbytes all the time mode.

Pretty but dead inside: and you wondered why they cast Josh Hartnet. Slade can compose a gorgeous shot, but as with Hard Candy (aka Hostel’s more arty cousin) it’s yet to be seen whether he can place any two of them in successive order to generate legitimate tension or momentum. The film fails to exploit its on clever premise instead stealing style and story tropes from (insert your favorite genre film of the last 10 years here), forgoing a white-knuckle war of attrition in favor of quick cut action and colorful gore. What’s the point of making a film about a siege with a finite team period if there’s no real sense of how your characters are surviving day by day or how much longer they’ve got? Raimi’s just having an awful year, isn’t he? C-

Sunday, October 21, 2007

WORLD SERIES BABY!




More tomorrow after I sober up. A quick note though: you'd think this would be old hat after '04. You'd be dead fucking wrong.

I guess I’ll be going to AFI after all

So money’s been getting a little bit tight lately (and very well could be for a while as I decide whether to move on from the company I’ve spent the past four years with to little financial gain) which means the annual laboring over whether to drop almost $250 on an AFI badge came a lot easier this year. Having become something of an expert on film festivals in the past few years, I’ve really come to appreciate just how convenient and unique AFI is, specifically its one-stop-shop approach to exhibition, infrastructure and networking. The biggest deterrent to seeing films at a festival is simply the energy exerted in getting from one theater to another in time. By setting up shop at the Arclight in Hollywood and setting up the filmmaker’s lounge on the parking structure’s rooftop, they’ve removed all barriers to sampling as many films as you desire and making the rounds at the after parties.

The problem though is that AFI’s a bastard step-child as far as festivals go. Located at the ass end of the calendar year, the festival is a dead zone between the unveiling of year-end Oscar contenders at Toronto and breaking indie films at Sundance a couple months later. The premieres they do get are those that have either been screened elsewhere (as is the case with Juno) or reek of misfires no one else wanted (hello Lions for Lambs). Most depressing of all is the fest’s slate of American independent films which, in my four years of attendance, have been without exception horrendous. In the interest of keeping up with other festivals, AFI added a “Dark Horizons” category to attract genre fans but they seem surprisingly uncommitted this year (Stuart Gordon’s Stuck and Dario Argento’s Mother of Tears both screened at Toronto to much acclaim yet neither chose to make their US LA premieres at AFI).

The one niche the festival has carved out for itself is as a forum for the world’s best foreign cinema, specializing both in films that premiered at Cannes as well as representing the year’s foreign language Oscar contenders. But over two hundred bucks is an awful lot to shell out just to see Cannes winner 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days and Southland Tales a week early. Thankfully, and through the graciousness of others, a badge has been dropped into my lap. This of course changes everything, as a dozen borderline titles I might never have given a second’s thought to all of a sudden sound promising (including a lot of stuff I didn’t get to see at Austin due to the aforementioned logistics).

I usually have such a hard time enjoying myself at AFI because I’m always aware of how I’m barely getting my money’s worth. This year, there should be no such issue. Once again I find myself engaged and excited. Stay tuned for updates throughout the first 2 weeks of November.

AFF Double Feature: Juno and Lars & the Real Girl

Same usual lack of depth as my mini-reviews only longer and less focused. Bonus!





Festival hype is an especially tricky barometer to gage as it’s based in a genuinely decent place; a want to promote something small and as yet unchampioned, usually with little regard for the backlash that’s sure to come once people are paying $11 to see a film at the mall. Being first out of the gate is always tricky and being first isolated from the rest of the world only clouds things further. After playing Toronto and Telluride last month, Juno, emerged as the year’s darling “indie” comedy, trumpeting the arrival of blogger cum stripper cum screenwriter Diablo Cody and a star-making performance from Ellen Page who's mostly known in the geek world for pretending to castrate Patrick Wilson in Hard Candy and running from the Juggernaut (bitch!) in X-Men 3. Even more telling, the film has been called this year’s Little Miss Sunshine, which personally carried as much excitement as something being hailed as this year’s Big Mac.

What a relief then that the hype is wrong. Or wait, does that make it right? Aside from sharing a distributor, Juno has nothing in common with Little Miss Sitcom. It’s a bold, honest, bracingly original film that balances acerbic wit and unfussy emotion better than any film since the heyday of James L. Brooks. The film actually works best as a companion piece (and I would argue, corrective) to this summer’s surprise hit Knocked Up, telling a similar story but from the point of view of the person who can’t walk away from their responsibility. What differentiates Juno, and ultimately makes it the far better film, is its willingness to explore the entire spectrum of anxiety found in being an unwed parent, even embracing the idea that simply creating life isn’t some biological gateway to becoming an inherently better person. The film refuses to engage in squishy sentimentality about the sanctity of life (if there’s an award for most abortion/miscarriage jokes in a film, Juno is the runaway winner), presenting an intelligent, clear-eyed and scathingly funny depiction of its main character’s predicament and the decisions she arrives at.

Of course the film isn’t all Planned Parenthood jokes. If there’s a central goal to Juno it’s to tear down the notion of what exactly constitutes family and how little the functional, nuclear gathering has to do with anything in the 21st Century. Page is beautifully paired opposite the great JK Simmons and Allison Janney as her father and step-mother respectively, in a dynamic is as refreshingly nurturing, yet unencumbered by bullshit as I’ve seen in ages. Simmons is gloriously oblivious yet true of heart even in his off moments while Janney is given an (admittedly by design) “you go girl/go fuck yourself” scene that would not only put Erin Brockovich to shame but could very well become a rally call for mothers and daughters everywhere.

Juno
is truly egalitarian in spirit, embracing those it initially targets as disingenuous, slyly shifting our perceptions of its characters, specifically those played by Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner. The film makes early, easy swipes at the class divide and Garner in particular comes across as a pinched yuppie gargoyle at the picture’s onset, yet once the film places these two characters in their respective boxes it proceeds to chip away revealing uncomfortably human places and fears and ultimately redemption. The film is so subtle in shifting the audience’s allegiances, the cumulative emotional impact, once it kicks in, is all the more unexpected and appreciated.

Juno was directed by Jason Reitman whose Thank You For Smoking was liked by many and loved by me. Juno is an even better film, building around the young director’s snickering sense of humor and gift for the visual non sequitur. The film’s direction doesn’t especially call attention to itself, yet it represents an important step in Reitman’s evolution as a filmmaker, striking a balance between sardonic and heart-tugging with the greatest of ease.

But in the end, the film’s success is credited to two women (appropriately): its star Page and its writer, Cody who, as the film progresses, become inseparable. Page cuts through Cody’s Chayefsky by way of the blogosphere dialogue with a buzz saw, never allowing the verbal dexterity of the character come across as overly amused with itself or posturing. Page plays the title character as wise beyond her years yet vulnerable with a sense of where she’s going but no idea how to get there. Cody meanwhile deserves all the credit in the world for not taking the easy path with this story, never wavering from its ideals or losing its spirit or voice. And what a voice. It’s too early to tell whether Ms. Cody will ever follow through on the promise of this film, but after only one feature the young writer (who for those who are interested, is a total sex-kitten knock-out in addition to being insanely talented) announces herself as one of the most unique talents currently working in film. And should she fail to ever match this level of success, we can all take comfort in knowing she’s created at least one gem. A



Lars and the Real Girl may forever be irrevocably linked to Juno as I watched them in immediate succession (a problem most people won’t have) which certainly does this film no service even if it does create an informative case of contrasts. While Juno is hyper-stylized—perhaps bordering on precious—in its telling, its emotions are grounded in an earthy, unmistakably genuine bedrock; its very irony protects it from growing treacly and when it does get genuinely heartfelt (and it does) it has the effect of a baby bird pecking through its hard outer shell. Lars and the Real Girl, by comparison, is firmly grounded in a plain-spoken, aesthetically sparse setting where people keep their emotions close to their vest and seem to be as impenetrable and still as the winter landscape that surrounds them (at times the film feels like a geographical cousin to Steel City). But emotionally the film’s a fraud, predicated on that fabled, affable Midwest temperament which in this instance, to quote Richard Roper (probably the first and last time I’ll ever do so), involves an entire small town “sublimating itself” to the whims of Ryan Gosling’s mumbling introvert. For a film that no doubt sees itself as generous and nurturing, I found it remarkably self-involved.

The film swaths itself in the protective blanket of being a fairy tale, a defense that’s rather en vogue at the moment (see TV’s “Pushing Daisies” which practically induces diabetic comas), yet the genre it most closely adheres to is the “therapy film” where we patiently (no pun) wait on a character to come to the emotional epiphany we’ve quietly been anticipating for about ninety minutes. The film is distressingly more Dr. Phil than Adam Rifkin, leaving aside any of the more provocative or obtuse kinks for what amounts to the story of a boy learning to say goodbye to his imaginary friend. The “character” of Bianca (which for those who can’t tell from the ads is one of those anatomically correct sex dolls that Stern used to have propped up in his studio) is not only accepted by the community in total and without exception, but actually becomes in demand and rather preoccupied with civic duties, inspiring jealousy in Lars (really this is the only interesting idea in the entire film). I’m probably in a real small minority in wanting to see the exploration of love between a man and an inanimate object, but it’s got to be a heck of a lot more engaging than treating the doll as a walking (er, sitting) metaphor for the character’s emotional paralysis to be cured away by the end of act three.

Part of the problem here may be Gosling himself who is suffocated by an impossible part, a predicament he surmounted in Half Nelson that only fueled his legend. It’s a mannered, mumbling Geoffrey Rush-like performance which doesn’t even begin to fill in the rather glaring character holes in the script. The film treats Lars as if he were Rain Man, a cuddly sick person to be protected, when in fact his behavior is flat out creepy and occasionally cruel.

Which is a shame as Gosling’s supporting cast is without exception pretty phenomenal. Collectively keyed into their surroundings and the speed of life where church and Sunday dinners are the most important part of the week, the cast is unshowy and quietly devastating. As the impetus behind the town’s Capra-esque level of self-delusion Emily Mortimer clings to the hope that through sheer and unwavering altruism she can liberate a man who’s too damaged to venture outside his front door. Also desperate to save Lars is Kelli Garner’s Margo, a mousy bundle of nerves and dashed hopes. I’ve never been much of a fan of Garner’s work in the past but her work here is devastating in only a handful of scenes, presenting someone every bit as damaged as Lars without the support system catering to her.

But the performer who walks away from Lars and the Real Girl demanding our attention is Paul Schneider, last seen in some of the more tiresome scenes of The Assassination of Jesse James, as Lars’ older brother and reluctant caretaker to Bianca. Putting on a master class of understatement and quiet desperation, Schneider plays a man who’s only recently come to believe he’s to blame for his brother’s dysfunction, a byproduct of his own youthful rebellion. Mortified by Lars’ behavior yet racked with the guilt that he may have created it, Schneider truly is his brother’s keeper. Only when he dances to the film’s incredulous tune does it ring true. B-

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Back from Texas

Had a great time in Austin but it’s a relief to be back in LA. Met a lot of incredible, generous people and reconnected with some old friends, didn’t embarrass myself in my panels (although I heard some horror stories about my inebriated behavior after hours) and saw some great films. I’m trying to get caught up on my blogging but there’s been more distractions waiting for me at home than I thought. The office is especially populated these days, so less time for on-hours goofing around. I’ve also got about 20 hours of TV clogging up my dvr that I’m supposed to be going through so my housemates will stop giving me the evil eye (the sad part is, over half of it is poker… I really do have a problem). The good news is the Sox are in the process of pissing away a glorious season because the bottom of our lineup is abysmal and none of our starters can make it to the fifth inning (save for Beckett, who’s tomorrow’s last hope), so at least I should have some free time now. Oh and more good news: my X-Box is doing that three blinking red lights which I guess is the new “Blue Screen of Death” so that will be out of commission for the next month or so while the criminals at Microsoft fix the problem they were aware of when they sold the damn thing. I’ve got a screening of 30 Days of Night tonight, so once you factor that in to everything I saw at AFF as well as a couple films I saw immediately beforehand and I’m quickly becoming swamped. Too much good stuff.

And in the interest of staying positive: Go Pats, Go!

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

The 3 AM Hustle

My flight for Austin leaves at 7:30 AM, which means I’ll be pulling an all-nighter just so I know I’ll be up in time to be at the airport by 6. I really hate waking at 4 something in the morning and I fucking despise forcing myself to crawl into bed at 10 at night to try and get a semblance of a full night’s sleep (I blame my mom passing along her night owl genetics). So this is the silly dance I perform every time I travel early in the morning. Yes, it’s probably crazy, although not a whole lot more than tossing and turning in bed for a few long hours as I try and trick my body into aping the sleep habits of a two year old.

And it’s not like I’ll be want for activity to keep me awake and alert. I’m planning on putting in my second workout in a span of twelve hours. I’ve been skipping a few lately and it’s not like the binge of booze and BBQ over the course of the next week will help keep me in fighting weight. Plus, I’m quickly trying to get caught up on the first season of “Friday Night Lights” so I can weigh in on the supposedly awful second season premiere and when I’m on the elliptical seems to be the only time I get to watch.

I’m also trying to cram in as much research as possible for my Austin panels which don’t technically start until Saturday but I don’t see myself having access to the net between now and then. I know I found myself watching the film Over the Hedge TWICE today (once with less illuminating than I’d hoped commentary track on) to get ready and even still I feel woefully under prepared. Right now I don’t even want to think about my Sunday panel where I’m sitting with two entertainment lawyers and a venture capitalist to talk about the nuances of contracts (yeesh).

Of course Austin won’t be all drunkenness and trying not to embarrass myself in front of thousands of people (those two things really are at odds though, no?). I have a lot of activities (read: parties) planned for the week but my passion first and foremost is film, something that’s usually forgotten or overlooked when talking about film festivals. In fact I’m already bemoaning the films I *won’t* be able to see either because of conflicts or that they’ll be screening after I leave including Before the Devil Knows Your Dead (thankfully opening in LA shortly), Grace is Gone (ditto), The Savages (will have to wait for AFI) and Paul Schrader’s new film, The Walker.

What will I be seeing? A couple definites on a few strong maybes. I’ll be at the opening night Gala of Chicago 10, the divisive animated documentary which opened Sundance earlier in the year as well as at the Centerpiece Premiere, Juno which is Jason Reitman’s follow-up to Thank You For Smoking (yes!) that was hailed at Toronto as this year’s Little Miss Sunshine (uh oh). I also hope to see Lars and the Real Girl and Control, both of which are opening in LA soon but I care not as well as a few films that played Sundance earlier in the year but aren’t scheduled to open for several months. I’ll try and keep my ear to the ground, but so much of these things are dictated by scheduling, energy, and distance from where you’re standing at any given moment.

Oh as if that weren’t enough, the Sox are also in the ALCS.

Game 1 is on Friday, Game 2 is Sunday. As if I didn’t have enough to worry about I now need to sneak away and find an unguarded tv to watch the Sox play the Indians. The irony is last year I gave Brian, our director, endless shit for blowing off the festivities to go watch the Cardinals in the World Series. I’ve also pretty much given up any hope of catching the Pats/Cowboys game (in Texas no less!) because it runs right into my Sunday panels and the Juno screening.

Because I’m a luddite without iPhone or laptop, this will be my last entry till I get back next week. Hopefully by the time I return the Pats will still be undefeated, the Sox will be in strong position against the Tribe and I won’t have imploded due to my lousy public speaking skills.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

90 Second Film Review: We Own the Night (James Gray)




Those looking for depth, as always, are advised to search elsewhere.

We Own the Night is essentially three to four stunning sequences floating in a sea of mediocrity and cop clichés that were moldy when Sidney Lumet stopped using them back in the early nineties. Gray returns to filmmaking seven years after making his last gritty, method-infused drama of torn loyalties and families at odds, The Yards, and essentially remakes it here, only this time switching locals from the train yards to Russian-owned night clubs.

As Mike D’Angelo pointed out, this is basically the mirror image of The Godfather, with the younger sibling with criminal affiliations being drawn into the clean-cut world of law enforcement in response to a family tragedy with Joaquin Phoenix in the Michael Corleone role of the black sheep. The problem is it’s a mighty short ascent as the film goes out of its way to paint the character as acting just within the confines of the law (outside of the occasional belt of cocaine) so we see him turning his back on superficial trinkets and hanger-on friends as opposed to a moral code or even a highly evolved criminal lifestyle. The film sets its gears in motion too quickly to place Pheonix into the fold of the police force, negating much of the familial angst of brother versus brother, while setting up perhaps the dumbest plot development of recent memory (I won’t ruin it here but rest assured you’ll know when to scoff). Mark Wahlberg and Robert Duvall essentially share a character, and not an especially well developed one at that, while Eva Mendes looks really, really good in a corset and fishnet stockings.

There is, however, a good twenty minutes buried at strategic points where it gives hints of the potentially great film entombed underneath the dreck. Gray’s use of music is straight from the Scorsese play book, but there’s a reason such a thing even exists and the film employs it masterfully. The film opens to Blondie’s “Heart of Glass” over a scene that’s indescribably erotic (although mostly implicit) that leads one to believe they’re about to watch a less technically accomplished version of Boogie Nights. There are also two set pieces during the film’s second act where you can feel We Own the Night threatening to become a film that actually calls attention to itself. The cutting becomes more acute, the sound design more attuned, the level of verisimilitude in the performances (which are usually terror) becomes more pronounced. The trailer sadly gives away most of this stuff as there’s really little to sell the film on without them. Two hours after I saw the film I could barely remember it. Ten days removed and it’s even less tangible. That says more than anything else I suppose. C

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

2 Minute Film Review: Elizabeth: The Golden Age (Shekhar Kapur)




Those looking for depth, as always, are advised to search elsewhere.

Important caveat: I haven’t seen the original Elizabeth since it played theaters back in the fall of ’98 and I wasn’t a fan. In general I found it overblown, over-directed and under conceived. The shorthand at the time was “The Godfather for women” which, while both an unfair knock against both that film and that gender, also gets at the fundamentally cartoonish nature of the entire franchise. Filmed amidst impenetrable dark shadows where an assassin can spring forth at any time and a duplicitous climate of intrigue where even your closest advisers conspire against you, Kapur’s hyper-indifferent storytelling actually allowed the birth of England’s most prominent monarchy to become overshadowed by the moon-eyed pining of an adolescent who couldn’t love whom she wanted. In that same vein I found Cate Blanchett’s much championed performance to consist of two notes: simpering and Elmer Gantry. Seven Oscar nominations and the outright devotion of almost every woman I’ve ever met tell me I’m squarely in the minority with these opinions.

So now we have Elizabeth: The Golden Age which not only matches the first film fault for fault but seems to be rehashing the same conflicts (internal as well as external) thirty years farther along in QEI’s life. And yet I’d be a complete liar if I didn’t confess that in its own trashy sort of way the film is actually quite fun at times. I think the secret is—and perhaps I was too young to grasp this the first time out—that you have to toss out everything you’ve ever read in a history book as well as any pre-conceived notion of what a period piece should be and just appreciate the film as a live-action comic book. The realities of, as an example, a 50-something Elizabeth donning a full suit of honor and delivering a ra-ra, Braveheart-esque speech to rally the troops (which strikes me as absurd as the idea of honest Abe fighting at the front lines of the Civil War) are secondary to the grandeur of the imagery and the swell in your chest one is no doubt supposed to feel. Likewise, the threat from all-sides approach to conflict has the effect of turning even the most effete of diplomats into snarling threats to kingdom and crown. It's all quite lurid and baroque and laughable, but never dull.

Also on the plus side of the ledger is Kapur’s toned-down visual scheme which employs less drastic contrasts between light and dark as well as less spastic camera movement (although his predilection for extreme camera angels and 360-spins are still disappointingly the norm) which certainly allows for a great appreciation for the film’s production design and the great weathered faces of its cast. And of course, you have the intended upside of Kapur’s post-modern techniques which is the film cooks, never allowing itself to get bogged down in musty expository pieces or staid chamber-room drama (quite the opposite, the film is so propulsive at times it’s difficult to tell that we’ve actually moved from a different country and even a different year than we were just in a few seconds earlier).

So, clearly this one played well above expectations, but I can’t overstate that this might be the most redundant film in history. Blanchett gives the exact same performance here that she did nine years ago, which will no doubt please those who found the first film a “you-go-girrrrrl” empowerment piece in corsets, but doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense when viewing the character’s dramatic arc over the course of a lifetime. Frankly it’s a bit disheartening to watch a middle-aged woman sulk that in spite of being the most powerful woman in the world still can’t get the guy. Speaking of which, Clive Owen has been slotted into the Joseph Fiennes role, which I’ve got to believe is an improvement across the board (right ladies?), but some last act Errol Flynn heroics aside isn’t given much to do beyond serve as eye candy. But that pretty much sums up the film as a whole. B-