In Contention

Author: Guy Lodge

  • Karger narrows it to eight

    For this week’s edition of Entertainment Weekly, Dave Karger has boiled down the Best Picture race to a mere eight horses. The no-surprises list reads as follows:

    1. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
    2. “Slumdog Millionaire”
    3. “Frost/Nixon”
    4. “Revolutionary Road”
    5. “Doubt”
    6. “Milk”
    7. “The Dark Knight”
    8. “Australia”

    Nothing much to comment on, really. Karger remarks that, in the wake of “Milk”‘s rapturous critical reception, he would now move it further up the chart. Meanwhile, he considers dropping “Australia,” presumably in favour of one of his runners-up, “The Reader” or “Gran Torino.”

    However you shake it, though, it still makes for a pretty yawnsome list of the usual suspects. He’s probably right, of course. But is it too late to jazz up the competition with a fresh contender? “The Wrestler?” “Happy-Go-Lucky?” Hell, I’ll settle for “WALL-E” at this point. Go on, Academy, surprise us. Please.

  • ‘The International’ to kick off Berlin

    Screen International reports that Tom Tykwer’s latest, “The International,” has been named the opening film of next year’s Berlin Film Festival. The thriller, starring Clive Owen and Naomi Watts (now there’s a good pairing), will have its word premiere at the fest, screening out of competition on February 5.

    The trailer’s been out for some time, but if it passed you by, check it out below. Looks smart, slick and star-propelled, if hardly a reinvention of the wheel. I’d love to see Tykwer return to the heady formal ambition of “Run Lola Run” or the criminally underrated “Heaven” (Cate Blanchett’s best performance right there, folks), but after the disappointingly overcooked “Perfume,” I can’t blame him for playing it safe here.

    Meanwhile, with this and the recently previewed “Duplicity” marking back-to-back corporate thrillers for Owen, I wouldn’t mind seeing this fine actor take on something a bit more challenging. Solid-looking stuff nonetheless.

  • “Is this your last, best chance? Are you gonna take it? Or are you going to the grave with unlived lives in your veins?”

  • Early winner predictions, part 2: Yours and mine

    Well, Kris was brave enough to stick his neck out and venture some winner predictions, so I thought I’d follow up on that — with the strict caveat that, while nobody knows anything, I frequently know even less.

    So my own predictions are after the cut. I don’t think them informed enough to place on a main page, but in the interests of diversity (and maximum egg-on-face potential), there they are. I was interested to see that, judging from the impressive response to Kris’ initial post, you readers and I are of a like mind in several areas. I specifically waited until after I’d drawn up my own foolhardy picks before looking at yours, and was surprised by some of the parallels that emerged.

    So let’s take a look at how you voted, shall we? I see some enterprising commenter on Kris’ post has already collated the data and drawn up percentages, and short of drawings up bar graphs and pie charts, I wouldn’t want to compete with that kind of specificity. (Seriously, I wouldn’t.) But even without getting mathematical, some trends are clear.

    In the top category, I expected to be in a significant minority picking “Milk,” but you have it breathing hotly down “Benjamin Button’s” neck as the frontrunner, with 11 and 13 votes respectively. A mere two of you side with Kris in picking “Slumdog Millionaire,” which, obtuse creature that I am, makes it the smarter choice in my mind. And yet, thrilled as I would be to see Team Boyle onstage come Oscar night, I can’t quite go there. Right now, “Milk” ticks too many boxes: dazzling reviews, emotionally charged, politically relevant, a more accessible effort from a long-revered filmmaker. It makes almost too much sense to me.

    Things are less tight in Best Director, where David Fincher enjoys over half your votes, with Danny Boyle and Gus van Sant (my choice) neck-and-neck for second place.

    (more…)

  • Goldstein singles out ‘Gran Torino’ scribe

    After being kept under wraps for so long, word is finally starting to emerge on Clint Eastwood’s presumed awards contender, “Gran Torino.” Dave Karger already expressed his approval of Eastwood’s performance a few days ago, and now Patrick Goldstein also gives the film a firm thumbs-up.

    Calling it “a heartfelt portrait of human redemption,” Goldstein also suggests that it “couldn’t (be) a nicer swan song” for Eastwood’s acting career, as has widely been reported. What he seems most impressed by, however, is the film’s screenplay — and he’s shocked to discover it’s a fledgling feature effort by unknown writer Nick Schenk:

    The script was so well crafted and understated (and the credits went by so fast) that after seeing the picture, I immediately called Bill Gerber, one of the film’s producers, to find out which one of the many A-list screenwriters who must always be knocking down Eastwood’s door had penned the story. “Are you sitting down?” Gerber asked. He had quite a surprise. The writer, Nick Schenk, who lives in Minnesota, had never sold a feature script in his life. In fact, the only writing work Schenk had done was for “BoDog Fight,” a mixed martial arts TV show, a game show called “Let’s Bowl” and some comedy sketches collected in a DVD called “Factory Accident Sex.” (“That title doesn’t exactly help my career, does it?” Schenk jokes.)

    (more…)

  • 11/28 Oscarweb Round-up

    • David Poland is still in two minds about “Benjamin Button,” but agrees with Kris that “Slumdog” is the one to beat. [The Hot Blog]

    • Kim Voynar, meanwhile, surveys the Best Picture contenders, and is as confused as the rest of us. Interesting point about the potential impact of current events on “Slumdog,” though.  [Movie City News]

    • One Richard on another: with the adaptation of “Revolutionary Road” looming large, Richard Price offers his impressions of Yates. [The Guardian]

    • William Friedkin on the shifting makeup of the movie cop. [The Guardian]

    • Under the threat of the actors’ strike, Screen International calls for a meeting of minds. [Screen Daily]

    • Amid the mixed reactions to “Australia,” Susan King concludes that we still need the epic. [Los Angeles Times]

    • Al Pacino pips Dakota Fanning for the top gong in Lou Lumenick’s holiday-appropriate Turkey of the Year awards. [New York Post]

    • And, keeping it seasonal, a selection of notable DVD releases, in time for your Christmas wishlist. [New York Times]

  • Word

    Roger Ebert has written an eloquent and impassioned response to what he sees as the demise of film criticism as an artform, prompted by the depressing news that the Associated Press has posed a 500-word limit on all entertainment-related articles, including all reviews and think pieces:

    Why do we need critics? A good friend of mine in a very big city was once told by his editor that the critic should “reflect the taste of the readers.” My friend said, “Does that mean the food critic should love McDonald’s?” The editor: “Absolutely.” I don’t believe readers buy a newspaper to read variations on the Ed McMahon line, “You are correct, sir!” A newspaper film critic should encourage critical thinking, introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged.

    Exactly, sir. And 500 words just doesn’t cut it. Hell, the reviews I write here are twice that, more often than not. 500 words is an exam question answer. 500 words is an eight-grade book report. 500 words is not usually an adequate space in which to stimulatingly engage with, dissect, and reassimilate a work of art. Chances are anyone who finds longer pieces too challenging doesn’t read reviews anyway.

    I don’t need critics to tell me whether to see a film or not. I have my own instincts for that. I need critics (good ones, at any rate) to test and expand my understanding of the film after the fact. A great critic, be it Pauline Kael, David Denby or Ryan Gilbey, offers an interpretation that, whether it contradicts or consolidates my own, reveals alternative possibilities within the work at hand. If you limit their imaginations to a paltry word limit, you limit those of their readers too.

    Of course, if all you want from a film review is a star rating, you’re probably not reading this. If you are, I encourage you to read Ebert’s full piece here.

  • Under the radar: ‘What Doesn’t Kill You’

    Quite why the Yari Group has chosen the mid-December maelstrom to unload “What Doesn’t Kill You” is something that escapes me. Brian Goodman’s debut film was warmly received at Toronto and then seemingly disappeared from people’s memories altogether, only to resurface now with this rather enticing trailer. But with such a late arrival, it seems to me that a small-scale endeavour like this risks getting lost in the crush.

    All the more frustrating, then, that from where I’m standing, it looks really rather good, in a lean, no-nonsense kind of way. It’s yet another entry in the ever-growing subgenre of Boston crime stories, but appears to have some genuine grit and conviction. It’s inspired by Goodman’s own experiences, and is co-written by Donnie Wahlberg. (Who knew?)

    I’m excited to see such an evidently expansive role for the wonderful Mark Ruffalo, while Ethan Hawke apparently continues his interesting career trajectory from baby-faced heart-throb to scuzzy character actor. Reviews are on the mark so far: Variety calls it “a fine example of traditional American storytelling,” while the Hollywood Reporter believes it to be a career high for both Ruffalo and Hawke. No mean feat, that. Count me in.

  • Kate Winslet: going for broke?

    I’m getting so many mixed messages about “The Reader,” I don’t know what to make of it anymore. Some concrete reviews would help, but the embargo is obviously still in place. I admit I’m unfamiliar with the intricacies of the business, but I’m not sure how beneficial it is to withhold word on a late arrival with see-sawing buzz. (I think Nat Rogers summed it up well by giving the film a citation for “Weirdest Foreplay of 2008.”)

    As we know, Kris wasn’t entirely persuaded by the film, dropping it from a couple of key categories on his chart, and declaring Kate Winslet an “outside shot” for Best Supporting Actress. Winslet, of course, is the film’s most-discussed contender, with many anticipating dual nominations for her come January.

    Tom O’Neil was hearing opposing voices yesterday, and now Dave Karger has weighed in. Humming quite a different tune from Kris, he calls the film “a definite top-10 Best Picture contender,” and Winslet’s performance “amazing.” (Can anyone remember the last time Karger really disliked a contender? I’m just asking.)

    He does, however, smell blatant category fraud, an issue Kris didn’t really have a problem with. But with the Weinsteins dodging lead categories entirely — campaigning both Winslet and co-star Lena Olin for Best Supporting Actress, and both and David Kross and Ralph Fiennes for Best Supporting Actor — Karger smells a rat:

    Now, other movies, like Crash and Babel, have tried this tactic before with some success. But those two were indisputably ensemble films, whereas The Reader, which spans five decades, clearly has two main characters: one shared by Kross and Fiennes and the other played entirely by Winslet. Obviously, the all-supporting decision is meant to keep Winslet from competing against herself (she’s up for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road), but now that I’ve seen in print, it does seem a little disingenuous.

    If the Weinstein Co. had placed Kross in the Best Actor category (he has much more screen time than Fiennes), there would have been at least one official lead to speak of. Still, if the Academy follows the campaign directives, it’ll turn out to be a smart move, since Winslet’s amazing performance in The Reader should be a sure thing for a supporting nomination.

    (more…)

  • Grace

    A little something to get you in the spirit. (Remember Christina Ricci’s cool days? I miss those.)

    No holiday for me, of course — lousy unthankful non-American that I am. So I’ll be holding fort around here for the next few days, while Kris takes a well-deserved breather. It’ll be quieter than usual, but feel free to keep me company.

  • 11/27 Oscarweb Round-up — THANKSGIVING EDITION

    • EW rounds up eight memorable Thanksgivings at the movies. “The Ice Storm” wins for me. No contest. [Entertainment Weekly]

    • Anne Thompson on the indies hoping to score in the acting races. [Variety]

    • Dave Karger lays out the Oscar prospects for “Milk” and “Australia.” [Entertainment Weekly]

    • Todd Martens reports on some alternative Best Original Song contenders. Yay for Jenny Lewis. Boo for Mariah Carey. [Los Angeles Times]

    • Miyazaki’s “Ponyo on the Cliff” has an English-language voice cast. Step up Cate Blanchett, Matt Damon and Tina Fey. [The Guardian]

    • Some Oscar predictions from the ever-perspicacious pen of Nick Davis. [Nick’s Flick Picks]

    • And Brad Brevet weighs in with some updated picks of his own. [Rope of Silicon]

    • A.O. Scott calls “Milk” a “marvel.” I’m starting to think we might have our winner here. [New York Times]

    • Uh, so apparently TomKat are remaking “Last Tango in Paris.” April Fools’ Day was, like, eight months ago, but whatever. [SpoutBlog]

    • Finally, just to cheer you up on your day of gratitude, Hollywood is doomed. [Forbes]

    Sorry, I made it as festive as I could. Happy Thanksgiving, y’all.

  • Sigh

    Screen Daily delivers the bewildering news:

    Day one sales of “Mamma Mia! – The Movie” have beaten “Titanic”‘s record, to become the fastest selling DVD of all time in the UK. Sales reached 1.669 million units, following its launch on November 24.

    The previous record for day one DVD sales was held for 10 years by James Cameron’s Titanic. It sold 1.1 million units on its first day of release in 1998 in the UK.

    This is just the latest milestone in a truly staggering journey for the film that has already seen it become the second-highest grosser of all time in the UK, again breathing down the neck of “Titanic.” Meanwhile, with a worldwide cume of other $560 million, it is handily the highest-grossing musical of all time. Words fail me.

    I sense at this point that BAFTA will be unable to ignore the homegrown phenomenon. (Hell, people are making similar demands on AMPAS regarding “The Dark Knight.” Better film, but try telling that to the 1.6 million Brits who rushed out to the DVD store this week.)

    So I’m officially predicting right here that “Mamma Mia!” will be nominated for Best British Film come January. I’m also banking on a Best Actress nom for Meryl Streep, whether in place of or alongside “Doubt.” (BAFTA permits actors to be nominated twice in a category.) Julie Walters, as I mentioned earlier, looks like an inevitable Best Supporting Actress candidate.

    Finally, I’d count on a scattering of craft nods — sound, costume design and music. (Again, BAFTA’s curious rules make it eligible in this category — “Chicago,” “Walk the Line” and “Dreamgirls” all made it.) And hell, why not throw Amanda Seyfried into the mix for their Rising Star Award?

    So, that makes seven BAFTA nominations. I’m just saying. Forewarned is forearmed.

  • Something for spring

    Ever get taken completely unawares by a film’s existence?

    It’s no doubt my own oversight, but before happening upon this trailer, I had never heard of “Duplicity.” (In my defence, who would remember that title?) Kind of surprising considering it reteams “Closer” co-stars Clive Owen and Julia Roberts, and comes from the hand of recent Oscar nominee Tony Gilroy.

    It’s a pleasant surprise, though: from where I’m standing, it looks like a crisp, stylish divertissement in the “Charade” mold, which is good enough for me. (Owen’s presence is always a plus in my book. And bonus points for the Goldfrapp cue.)

    Am I the only one thinking this looks a lot more fun than “Michael Clayton?” Here’s hoping. (Apple version here.)

  • Well, it sure sounds pretty

    If, like me, you’re writhing in frustration at not having seen “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” yet, here’s some minor compensation — you can listen to it instead. The score, that is.

    As you’re surely aware, it’s by Alexandre Desplat, who happens to be my favourite modern composer. That his only Oscar nomination thus far has come for his comparatively unadventurous work on “The Queen” is a shamefully inadequate testament to the creative breadth of his oeuvre.

    His balancing of romanticism and minimalism in “Birth” made for the greatest score of the decade, in my opinion, while the snubbing of his lush, culturally expansive score for “Lust, Caution” was just one of numerous ways in which the Academy’s music branch proved themselves unfit for purpose last year. I could go into his equally gorgeous work on “The Beat That My Heart Skipped,” or “Girl With a Pearl Earring,” or “A Self-Made Hero,” or several other titles, but time is of the essence.

    Anyway, suffice to say that his “Button” score sounds as layered, intelligent and seductive as you’d expect from Desplat — I can’t imagine the music branch turning a blind eye (or ear) to him this time. I only listened to a little, as I want to experience it in its entirety for the first time in the context of the film… I’m pedantic that way. But if you’re so inclined, check it out on the film’s BAFTA For Your Consideration site.

  • Is Vera Farmiga about to go big?

    I love Vera Farmiga.

    I realize that means nothing to you, and I should remain more analytical and level-headed on this site. But we all have our favorites, and Ms. Farmiga is one of mine. Whether cheekily stealing scenes in “Breaking and Entering” or fearlessly carrying the searing “Down to the Bone,” she has an unusual onscreen empathy and intelligence that has long reminded me of pre-stardom Cate Blanchett, which is about the highest compliment I can pay.

    Since surprising virtually everyone by taking the 2005 LA Critics’ Best Actress award for “Down to the Bone,” she has seemed on the cusp of big things, but things haven’t quite clicked into place. She should have been an Oscar contender the next year for her precise, sexually calibrated turn in “The Departed,” but she somehow slipped by unnoticed amid the testosterone-charged ensemble. Oscar rumblings have been heard again this year for “Nothing But the Truth,” but the film doesn’t seem to be generating much heat.

    So I was excited to learn today that she’s landed her most mainstream lead role to date: a romantic comedy opposite George Clooney, no less. “Up in the Air” will be the third feature from this year’s surprise Best Director nominee, Jason Reitman, which makes for an intriguing match-up of talent all round. Variety reports as follows:

    Story centers on a human resources exec whose only joy in life comes from the prospect of notching his millionth frequent-flyer mile, a goal he pursues with zeal as the rest of his life falls apart because he is constantly on the road.

    Farmiga will play a businesswoman who develops a romantic relationship with Clooney’s character through meetings in airports and hotels around the country. Reitman adapted the screenplay from Walter Kirn’s novel of the same name.

    (more…)

  • ‘Notorious’ poster

    Not to be confused with the one by Hitchcock. (Just in case you thought that was Cary Grant in the poster.)

    Anyway, a little over two months since the trailer appeared for George Tillman Jr’s biopic of the Notorious B.I.G., comes this rather uninspired poster. It’s set for release in the January wasteland (in time for Martin Luther King Jr. Day, if I’m not mistaken), which isn’t the best omen. Still, it’s a great subject for a film, and that cast is promising. We’ll see.

  • Ledger: is it written?

    When running through the list of contenders of next year’s Academy Awards, most will agree that there are no safer bets than Heath Ledger picking up a Best Supporting Actor nomination for “The Dark Knight.” He’s been locked in for the best part of the year… no argument, no dissent, no negotiations.

    Many people seem to believe that a win is equally inevitable. He’s certainly the one to beat, with a mighty combination of factors in his favour — the sentimental appeal of honouring a sorely-missed star (whom many feel should have won for earlier work), a universally-praised performance well on its way to iconic status, and a clear chance to acknowledge the highest-grossing film of the decade thus far. It helps that the category isn’t exactly teeming with strong contenders this year.

    But is he actually unbeatable? Jeff Wells doesn’t think so:

    Almost every New York journalist I’ve spoken to over the past week or so seems to believe that “Dark Knight”‘s Heath Ledger is more or less a lock to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He’s favored, of course, but my Ray Walston antennae tells me it’s no done deal. I’m not feeling a blitzkreig momentum, and I’m sensing that “Revolutionary Road”‘s Michael Shannon, who appears in only three scenes but delivers a wham-bam effect like no other supporting performance in any other film this year, may have a shot at stealing it away.

    Wells isn’t the only one exercising caution. In a slightly curious (to me, at least) take on the frontrunners in the acting categories, Awards Daily’s Sasha Stone runs down the category as follows:

    Heath Ledger seems to be the frontrunner but I have my doubts on a posthumous Oscar win, followed by Michael Shannon for “Revolutionary Road,” Ralph Fiennes for “The Reader” or “Duchess,” Robert Downey, Jr. for “Iron Man” (could win), John Malkovich for “Burn After Reading” or “Changeling.”  James Franco or Emile Hirsch or Josh Brolin for “Milk,” can’t decide – this is the year’s most wide open category at the moment.

    (more…)

  • ‘Button’ reviews run hot and, well, cold

    UPDATED: Slow on the uptake again, the Hollywood Reporter finally offers the unqualified rave we’ve been awaiting. Gushing praise in all departments, including a big thumbs-up for Pitt (“his most impressive outing to date”). Blanchett, meanwhile, “illuminates the screen.” No issues with digital or emotional aloofness to be found.

    EARLIER: A couple of days ago, in the midst of his generally positive take on “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” Kris mentioned that the work felt “strangely cold.” It was an observation rather than a criticism, and Kris suspected he may be in a minority.

    Well, reading the first few reviews, it would appear that he isn’t. Todd McCarthy’s near-rave for Variety describes the film as “richly satisfying” but also “emotionally cool,” blaming the film’s extensive CG work for a slightly distancing effect:

    Fincher spends 13 minutes short of three hours telling this unique man’s life story, and the time goes by easily, with no sense of dawdling, waste or indulgence. The film evinces a sure hand that maintains narrative confidence, steadiness of tone and a mature awareness of the temporal nature of life’s opportunities and the fleeting quality of happiness.

    Still, for what is designed as a rich tapestry, the picture maintains a slightly remote feel. No matter the power of the image of an old but young-looking Benjamin, slumped over a piano and depressed about his fading memory and life; it is possible that the picture might have been warmer and more emotionally accessible had it been shot on film.

    McCarthy also appears to share Kris’ view that Cate Blanchett is the more dominant presence in the film:

    In all his physical manifestations, Benjamin is a reactor, not a perpetrator, and Pitt inhabits the role genially, gently and sympathetically. Blanchett’s Daisy is the more volatile and moody one and, after bluntly revealing the selfish impetuousness of Daisy’s youthful self, the thesp fully registers both the passion and insecurity of the mature woman.

    (more…)