In Contention

Author: Brian Kinsley

  • PAGE TO SCREEN: “Che” by Peter Buchman

    Page to Screen at In Contention“To the people of Santa Clara, this is Commandant Che Guevara. The enemy would have us live in fear. But it is they who should be afraid. Because the power of the people is irresistible. Blockade the streets. Open your homes to rebel soldiers. And if you have a gun, pick it up. If there was ever a time to fight for your liberty, that time is now.”

    Consider myself a former believer in the church of Steven Soderbergh. When the director won his much deserved Oscar for “Traffic” I thought for sure we were seeing the emergence of one of the most important American directors in quite some time. And then what happened? The movies he was making — the “Ocean’s” trilogy, “Bubble,” “The Good German” and more — all sounded so interesting and promising on paper, and in the opinion of this writer, all ended up entirely soulless and lacking.

    So I have been cautiously anticipating the Che Guevera one-two punch of “The Argentine” and “Guerrilla.” You’ll have to forgive me (but I’m sure you’ll understand) if I certainly wasn’t in anticipating Peter Buchman’s scripts. He debuted with “Jurassic Park III” (how the hell do you get to start your career with a “Jurassic Park” movie?!) and followed it up with the excruciating “Eragon.” Not exactly the man I’d select for this task, to be certain.

    But thankfully, “The Argentine” and “Guerrilla” — collectively, “Che” — are far superior works than Buchman’s previous two scripts. What we have here are handsomely crafted pieces that are easily malleable for a director like Soderbergh to reconstruct the way he wants, which according to the reviews I’ve read, seems to be exactly what he’s done. Scenes from “Guerrilla” appear in the first half of the film (what I presume will be “The Argentine” section), predominately Guevera’s famous speech at the United Nations in New York City.

    (more…)

  • PAGE TO SCREEN: “The Road” by Joe Penhall

    Page to Screen at In Contention“You think I come from another world, don’t you? Filled with all these strange things you’ve never seen…Well I do, I guess.”

    Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” debuted last year to one of the biggest literary love fests in recent memory. From Oprah to Pulitzer, the author had one hell of a year, not to mention the Golden Globe- and Oscar-winning adaptation of “No Country for Old Men.” And so, after failed attempts like “All The Pretty Horses” (still one of my picks for director’s cut I want to see the most), McCarthy’s books are hitting the film world hard. Adaptations are coming from Todd Field and Andrew Dominik, and in just a few months, “The Road” hits screens from director Joe Hillcoat (he of the fantastic “The Proposition”) and screenwriter Joe Penhall.

    And rest assured, fans — from the looks of this script, you have very little to worry about.

    A quick catch-up for those who don’t know what “The Road” is about: It’s a post-apocalyptic world. Character names are omitted, leaving mere pronouns as items of identification. A man (to be played by Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) make their way toward the coast, hoping to find warmer weather in the desolate despair that surrounds them. The script is as sparse as the book; I honestly couldn’t tell you if there was a single scene added.

    Much has been made about the enlarged role of the man’s wife (Charlize Theron), but that really only adds up to a good cameo for Theron, each scene meatier than the last. Theses were the few sequences that seemed new to me, flashbacks of events before whatever terrible event took place, quite subtle and unassuming. No dialogue, no big moments, just a couple in love going through their routine lives, enjoying each other.

    These sequences, told from The Man’s perspective, add to the heroism of the character. However, the argument could be made that The Wife still comes across as difficult to like and even easier to hate, for reasons that would be spoilerific if you’ve not read the book. I’m sure Theron will bring her A-Game to the role (in a weak year, it’s a definite contender for a supporting actress nomination, based solely on the fact that every scene she has is a perfect contender for an Oscar clip), but I wished I could sympathize with her just a little on the page.

    Along the road our duo meets a variety of folks, including more good cameo time for Robert DuVall and Guy Pearce toward the film’s conclusion. While their parts are fine and good, I can’t help wondering if their casting will be more distracting than helpful (neither character has more than five-to-10 pages).

    The bigger encounters The Man and The Boy face are much more horrifying and emotionally wrenching, chief among them being an ungodly terrifying scene in which the two stumble upon a group of cannibals and the dying humans they eat alive in their basement. I was sweating just reading these pages (as I was in the book), and it has the potential to be one of the most nerve wracking sequences in film history. It’s moments like this that make me wonder about the film’s Oscar prospects. These scenes are pitch black and hopeless, and much more in the horror vein than any Oscar-bound movie that I can remember, including “The Silence of the Lambs.”

    The movie’s secret weapon, and the root of whatever failure and sucess it might face, is the casting of The Man and The Boy. I’ve never seen Kodi Smit-McPhee in anything, but needless to say if he pulls off the role, it’s impossible to imagine him not garnering an Academy Award nomination. It’s the type of role that is the only legitimate threat to Heath Ledger in my opinion.

    Whereas Ledger’s performance is one of showmanship and iconography, Smit-McPhee has the opportunity to pull heart strings and in a non-cloying or baity way to boot. Just like people were reduced to puddles reading the book, I imagine the film could play out in the same fashion, and that really rests squarely on this young man’s shoulders.

    Luckily for Smit-McPhee, one of our greatest actors shares every scene with him. Viggo Mortensen is perfectly cast. Was anyone even surprised when he was announced as The Man? It’s a challenging role for any actor, but one can’t help but see it as something as a culmination of the excellent work he’s been doing since appearing in that little fantasy film a few years ago.

    There’s real pain and bravery to The Man, a character whose sole existence is to take his son closer to a better life one step at a time. It’s a beautifully written role (again, like always, we have McCarthy to thank for that) and it’s hard seeing Mortensen not receive his second nomination in two years. It’s the type of role AMPAS dies to award, a family hero, deglamed, beloved actor, etc., and Mortensen has been quietly building up his reputation year after year. With three films this year to support his campaign, I’d have to say you’d be pretty ignorant to vote against his odds at this point.

    A potential downfall of “The Road” could simply be that it lacks the beautiful wordplay of McCarthy. Some of the great lines, “If he was not the word of God, then God had never spoke” or “There is no God and we are his prophets” are not present, and I’m sure that’s bound to disappoint the loyalists. Personally, I didn’t mind it so much. “The Road” is an incredibly faithful adaptation that is more than just a cut-and-paste rehash of the book. Joe Penhall has clearly taken the time and care to craft the story into as livid an adaptation as possible.

    As a big fan of the novel, I guess I can say that my fears have been laid to rest. While the success of the film on the screen lies in the work of the actors, at least we can rest assured that they’ll be working from a damn fine piece of writing.

  • PAGE TO SCREEN: “Valkyrie” by Christopher McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander

    Page to Screen at In Contention“God promised Abraham that he would not destroy Sodom if he could find just ten righteous men. I have a feeling that for Germany it may come down to one.”

    So what has Christopher McQuarrie, the man responsible for creating Keyser Soze, been up to since “The Usual Suspects” (and the oft-forgotten “The Way of the Gun”)? The answer is “Valkyrie,” an original screenplay of the true story about the men who set out to assassinate Hitler and end his regime.

    History tells us (so please, no spoiler whining) that they lose, but McQuarrie and co-writer Nathan Alexader’s script uses this to build tension and dread rather than render a yarn completely neutered. Spending time on plot seems redundant as the film is entirely plot and, naturally, there are dozens of previous films and PBS specials telling this very story.

    The script is thankfully a fairly tight one (thankfully so after the indulgence of “Superman Returns.”  It’s almost entirely dedicated to the German’s rebellious mission to kill Hitler. Only a handful of pages are focus on life outside of the plot and mission, and naturally those are given to the hero of the piece, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, to be played by Tom Cruise.

    Stauffenberg, a German war hero (with the scars to prove it) joins the plot to kill Hitler well after it’s begun, but it’s his influence and skills that bring it to it’s true potential. The scenes that aren’t dedicated to the mission follow Stauffenberg at home with his four children, and more importantly, his wife Nina (“Black Book” breakout Carice van Houten will take up the role).

    My favorite scene, an elegantly played out wordless “conversation” between Stauffenberg and Nina, almost fails simply because it’s a shooting star in the script. It’s so good, so connectable and tells so much about these two characters and their marriage that it frustrated me to not see more of this.

    (more…)

  • PAGE TO SCREEN: “The Brothers Bloom” by Rian Johnson

    Page to Screen at In Contention“As far as con man stories go, I think I’ve heard them all. Of grifters, ropers, faro fixers, tales drawn long and tall. But if one bears a bookmark in the confidence man’s tome, it would be that of Penelope, and of the brothers Bloom.”

    So begins Ricky Jay’s narration of Rian Johnson’s “The Brothers Bloom,” his follow-up to 2005’s “Brick.”

    I loved “Brick.”   it was arguably my favorite movie of 2005, but I couldn’t help but be nervous when I sat down to read this script. It seems that there are typically two things that happen to promising indie writer/directors.

    Sometimes, they just disappear (Phil Morrison of “Junebug” fame).  Sometimes, they get stuck basically making the same movie in the same genre over and over again (looking at you, Wes Anderson!). Sadly, it seems that we rarely get a newbie with a real vision, someone who really has the balls to change things up and do something different than what he’s already given us so early in his career.

    Against all odds, this is the case with Rian Johnson,and “Brothers Bloom” — and God bless him for it.

    (Note: To talk about any of the twists and turns at this early stage would really be punishable by any means you, dear readers, would suggest, so rest assured I will not be saying one single word about them.)

    “Brothers Bloom” is, as the opening narration says, the story of two con men. The elder, confident Stephen (to be played by Mark Ruffalo) and the younger, insecure Bloom (Adrien Brody). Bloom hates the con man life, despite the duo being particularly gifted at it. And, like we seen many times early on, he wants out.

    But Stephen is able to convince Bloom to participate in just one more con: Penelope (Rachel Weisz), a rich young lady desperate for adventure. “The perfect con is one where everyone involved gets the thing they wanted,” says Stephen tells his brother, who reluctantly agrees.

    (more…)

  • ‘Rachel Getting Married’ Trailer

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbv_DB-6TXk

    The return of Jonathan Demme? I’ll admit, this role looks like it fits Anne Hathaway perfectly. I’m not sold on her Oscar buzz yet (Globes, sure), but I’m not as skeptical as I was. 

  • What the hell is ‘Twilight?’

    TwilightSeriously. Cover of Entertainment Weekly? Apparently breaking records in terms of trailer hits? What?

    I pride myself in being in the know with pop culture, but I’ve been oblivious to this series and soon-to-be adaptation until a few weeks ago. Is it really going to be the monster hit the rags are making it sound like?

    For once, I’m totally in the dark, dear readers. I’ll be picking up a copy from the local Burbank library this evening to see what all the fuss is about (naturally, the children’s bookstore I work in is sold out).

    I mostly just want to know if I should expect a return to form for Catherine Hardwicke, who I thought made a very promising debut with “Thirteen,” a very interesting follow-up with “Lords of Dogtown,” and then one of the worst movies I’ve ever had to sit through: “The Nativity Story”. She seems keen on telling stories about teens and their trials and tribulations, I’ll give her that.

    Anyone care to illuminate me? Is this really the next “Harry Potter?” Is Catherine Hardwicke going to live up to the promising start she had or continue to fizzle out in boring work-for-hire productions? Are the books even worth my time?

  • Favreau returns

    Jon FavreauSo according to Deadline Hollywood Daily, Jon Favreau is officially directing “Iron Man 2.”

    While I may not have been as gung-ho for “Iron Man” as most, I’m more than glad to see him come back. The first film, to me, felt like a good movie begging for a great sequel, and I think the same could be said of Favreau as a director. He’s been improving from picture to picture and I think “Iron Man 2” could be the moment where he really comes into his own as a filmmaker.

    With “Iron Man” currently the highest grossing film of the year (probably just for a few more days until “Crystal Skull” finally overtakes it) and Robert Downey Jr. undeniably becoming the A-lister we all knew he could (and should) be, it was simply ignorant of Marvel to think they could get away with anyone but Favreau in the director’s chair.

    I’m wondering when Marvel will start moving the pieces more definitively in place for the rest of the inevitable “Avengers” flick. Edgar Wright is the only confirmed director (for “Ant-Man,” which he’ll go into post-“Scott Pilgrim,” and which I’d guess Marvel will want to throw into “The Avengers” just for gluttony’s sake).  But for anything beyond “Iron Man 2,” I think we’ll be hearing announcements in the coming months, specifically at Comic-Con.

    On a side note, it looks like “The Incredible Hulk” will narrowly sneak past “Hulk” at the box office some time this month. I’m guessing that’s probably not good enough for another sequel

  • Focus gets animated

    I caught an uber-early screening of Focus Feature’s “9” tonight, one of two animated films they have coming out in 2008 – the other being Henry Selick’s adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s “Coraline.”

    While it would be a disservice to comment much on the film (at least 10% of it was still storyboards — in fact, I highly doubt I saw a single frame of finished animation) giving that it’s still deep in production, I will say that one thing has become clear: Focus Features are certainly dedicated to making much darker animated films than anyone else in the market. I’ve heard “Coraline” is a PG-13, and I can’t imagine “9” getting a PG.

    It will be interesting to see if Focus can become an animation powerhouse.

    Regarding “9,” I will say this much: we all know what’s going to win Best Animated at the Oscars this year, and it’s not “9.”

  • Heartbroken.

    I truly believe Stan Winston was one of the greatest artists of all time. Ugh.

  • Cameron Crowe returns!

    After the disaster that was “Elizabethtown” — a script that was so much stronger than what wound up on screen — Cameron Crowe is finally coming back with a Ben Stiller-Reese Witherspoon adventure comedy for Sony.

    Even after “Elizabethtown,” Crowe is still a filmmaker who I will be first in line opening day for. 2009 just got a whole lot more exciting for me.

  • ‘Crystal Skull’ biggest Indy?

    Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I believe this weekend “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” passed “Raiders of the Lost Ark” to become the most successful of the Indy films. Granted, counting in inflation, “Raiders” might still be ahead, but probably not for long.

    One has to wonder how long it will take greedy ol’ Lucas to come up with a follow up plan. I can’t see Spielberg doing another Indy movie, but I can see everyone else involved wanting to badly. Will we be given a Mutt Ravenwood movie (something I’d probably be more in favor of than another Indy film. Get some exciting up and coming directors and writers with soul-power attached, and they could be great).

    At the end of the day, did anybody really want another Indy movie? I get the feeling that when “Crystal Skull” has run it’s course and has around $7-800 worldwide, Lucas won’t let it lie and we’ll get more.

    So what’s the best case scenario? Sound off.

  • Howdy-Ho

    Sorry for the delay in writing anything folks. After graduating college and driving cross country and setting up home in Los Angeles, I’ll hopefully be writing here as frequently as the rest of the guys. And they’ll probably all put me to shame.

    This Monday I’ll be attending a reading and Q+A of Eric Roth’s work. I’ll be sure to check back in with my thoughts afterwards. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is, in my opinion, his masterpiece, and I cannot wait to see what Fincher’s done with it.