In lieu of a decent talking point surrounding this year’s somewhat underwhelming Cannes fest, I thought I’d keep it simple this week and grab an assessment on this weekend’s blockbuster. Tell us where you stand in the new poll.
Author: Kristopher Tapley
-
Rob Lowe commercial
I keep seeing this Rob Lowe advertisement for Orange cellular service in the previews segment of films here in London, and I end up laughing my ass off each and every time. I had to share:
httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=FsBDUe4UPd0
-
10 things I hate about ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’
1) Mac McHale
In a long line of wonderful secondary characters — Sallah, Marcus Brody, Henry Jones Sr., Short Round — screenwriter David Koepp, and whoever might have made their mark on the screenplay prior, manages to crank out a pointless, unbelievably benign individual who sits in the stomach of the film like a glass of out-dated milk. It’s all the more painful that director Steven Spielberg chose Ray Winstone to portray McHale, forcing the audience to watch a truly great actor suffer under the burden of an under-written throwaway.2) The set pieces
Spielberg is a natural with creating exciting, edge-of-your-seat action numbers, yet he lends a bloated effect to the film in his desire to take everything to 11. They appear to have been filmed at a theme park — and with terrible, seam-revealing CGI to boot! Speaking of which…3) The CGI
A shame throughout, making the already clumsy action scenes all the more sore on the eyes. This is a breach of religion, if you ask me, especially when one considers Spielberg’s view on these tools throughout the series. Thank God for saviors like Christopher Nolan, who believe in the practicality of filmMAKING. -
Which film will take the Palme d’Or?
Wells is already speculating and Foote is ready to move on, but let’s think it out here. In a festival that has been a bit underwhelming to most, both artistically for the critics and fiscally for the buyers, someone’s still gotta win best in show.Matteo Garrone’s “Gomorra” and Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s “Three Monkeys” might be the safe guesses, as both were quite well-received. But the Palme has made a habit of being elusive to the films one would expect to claim it.
Clint Eastwood’s “Changeling” enjoyed a pleasant love-fest for a time, before the director was roughed up by a colleague and then hit a wall of sorts with The New York Times.
Then there are the fringe possibilities of Steven Soderbergh’s “Che” — mixed on receipt, but that hasn’t stopped efforts in the past — and “Synecdoche, New York” from Charlie Kaufman, which has the benefit of being the last film out of the gate.
What’s it going to be?
If I had to bet, I’d say “Three Monkeys.” If I ventured a guess in the midst of rampant unpredictability (which is Cannes in a nutshell), I’d say “Synecdoche, New York.”
We’ll see how it pans out over the weekend.
-
A.O. Scott on ‘Che’ and ‘Synecdoche’
Thankfully SOMEONE took some time to properly respond to Steven Soderbergh’s one-two punch of “The Argentine” and “Guerrilla” — “Che,” for the Cannes world premiere. I respect as much as anyone the need to get the reaction out there fast, but more than a few critics were a bit hasty in rounding up extended thoughts hours after the 6:30 screening Wednesday night.After all, the film’s first reaction came from Jeffrey Wells, who has paced himself yet and refrained from offering a full-blown review until the dust has at least settled somewhat.
A.O. Scott’s piece in The New York Times is part-review, part-Cannes immersion study, and he ties his thoughts to a partial reaction to Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York.” He doesn’t venture solid opinions on either effort, though he does note that the filmmakers have perhaps raised the bar too high with their previous work to judge these films as anything other than a little disappointing.
It is regardless an intriguing think piece presenting his American perspective on the global cinema 7-11 that is Cannes:
This is one of the frustrations of Cannes, for American critics at least. We see lots of fascinating movies — not all good, but very few completely worthless — and then wonder if we, or our readers, will ever see them again. I’m not in the movie business (a mutually beneficial arrangement, believe me), and not inclined to speculate with someone else’s money. I do hope, however, that sometime in the near future I can take part in the long and contentious conversation that “Che” deserves, and also see how my own initial ambivalence about the film resolves itself.
(Pull-quotes on “Che” and “Synecdoche, New York” after the jump.)
-
Festival-goers file out of ‘Synecdoche’
UPDATE (5:38 a.m.): Allan Hunter of Screen International has written the first full review out of the fest I’ve come across. He raves the effort as follows:Synecdoche is about one man’s lifelong struggle to understand the meaning of his existence. Unadventurous audiences may feel the film is a two hour struggle to understand the meaning of its intentions but as the story appears to move in ever decreasing circles, it remains incredibly engaging and ultimately very moving. Hoffman gives a bravura performance that provides the film with all the focus it requires, capturing everything about Caden that makes him immensely sympathetic and instantly recognizable as a symbol of everyone on planet earth who is…struggling with the challenges of being human.
EARLIER: We should be hearing word in the next few hours on Charlie Kaufman’s directorial debut, “Synecdoche, New York,” starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and Samantha Morton — and one my most anticipated flicks of the Cannes fest this year.
Here is Jeff Wells’ one-off, on his way to the post-screening goings-on:
I’ve just emerged from the semi-nourishing, semi-tortured Fellini-esque Chinese box mindfuck-dreamscape that is Charlie Kaufman’s Synecdoche, New York…and the press conference is just starting. [Ten minutes later] Kaufman has just explained the title’s pronunciation: Syn-ECK-duh-kee. At least that’s settled.
Mike Jones at Variety, meanwhile, had some fun yesterday with Croisette-goers about said pronunciation.
More to come, I’m sure.
-
Soderbergh puts himself in the company of Salles
I stumbled across this zinger today at Anne Thompson’s blog. Obviously I haven’t seen “Che” yet, and want to love it when I do, but this?
Walter’s movie is really an Act One. With these, now it’s a trilogy.
Strong words.
-
First ‘Che’ reactions land
UPDATED (4:15 PM): Not so fast, there. It seems Anne Thompson has chimed in and sort of doused the flames of passion a bit with a sobering perspective on these two efforts. The next few hours ought to be interesting as more opinions trickle in.Here’s what Anne had to say:
“A folly.” “A mess.” “Great.” These words came from some of the critics coming out of Steven Soderbergh’s four-hour 18 minute Spanish-language Che Wednesday night. At the end there was slight applause; no boos. My own description: noble failure.
EARLIER: Jeff Wells is on the ball with quick (probably too quick) reactions to Steven Soderbergh’s “Che” twofer of “The Argentine” and “Guerrilla.” If you ask me, this is the center piece of this year’s Cannes fest and the one I’ve been waiting with bated breath to hear about.
On “The Argentine” (is it still called this?) Wells had the following to say:
I know I predicted this based on a reading of Peter Buchman’s script, buy the first half of Steven Soderbergh’s 268-minute Che Guevara epic is, for me, incandescent — a piece of full-on realism about the making of the Cuban revolution that I found utterly believable and politically vibrant and searing.
It’s what I’d hoped for and more. The tale is the tale, and it’s told straight and true. Benicio Del Toro’s Guevara portrayal is, as expected, a flat-immersion that can’t be a “performance” as much as…I don’t know, some kind of knock-down ass-kick inhabiting. Being, not “acting.”
And on “Guerrilla,” what will likely be the less awards-ish of the flicks:
The second half of Che, also known as Guerilla, just got out about a half-hour ago, and equally delighted although it’s a different kind of film — tighter, darker (naturally, given the story). But I’ve been arguing with some colleagues who don’t like either film at all, or don’t think it’s commercial.
Wells mentions Variety’s Anne Thompson, Cinematical’s Kim Voyner and Glenn Kenny, formerly of Premiere. Each of them attended the screening, so keep an eye on their respective outlets to gauge further reaction.
-
Not that you haven’t seen it yet…
…but the “Tropic Thunder” red band trailer has arrived:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VdDoy3LC_4
-
More Indy reviews hit
First, this item from Jeff Wells is a long, drawn out way of saying the film is just, well — okay. I wonder if this is going to be the norm, a lot of passable opinions but nothing really in the way of a rave.
Next up, Todd McCarthy offers insight, I’d say a little too quickly after the screening for a publication of Variety’s stature. And Eric Kohn (Corrected — Apologies to Eugene Hernandez.) of indieWIRE actually live blogged the screening, which is quite silly and unfortunate, I’d say.
By the way, having not seen one frame and likely irritated by that fact, David Poland takes a piss out of both publications, in addition to badgering the Times of London for its uber-early review. Just so I’m covering all the bases here.
-
First review of ‘Crystal Skull’ lands in the Sunday Times
It seems John Harlow of the Times of London has managed a screening of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” at some point in the last week, sure to rub a number of self-perceived entitled journalists the wrong way. What’s more, he’s gone ahead with a full review, a totally positive assessment of the flick.Here’s a look:
The good news for Ford fans is that Indy may be older and greyer, but there’s still a spark to his repartee, and he still gets the girl in the end (the girl in question being Marion Ravenwood, played by Karen Allen, who was the love interest in the first Indiana movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark).
Whether Ford’s charm will be enough to earn the film the $400m it is estimated to need to recoup Paramount Pictures’ investment remains to be seen. However, a preview attended by The Sunday Times last week suggested that the internet gossips who have doubted the film’s drawing power may be proved wrong.
And about “it” boy Shia LaBeouf:
Much has been made in internet chatrooms about LaBeouf’s potential impact on the film, and fears that he is merely a sop to lure teen viewers. Yet LaBeouf, who made a striking impact against computerised villains in Transformers, matches Ford quip for quip and leather jacket for leather jacket.
Rounding it out:
The real pleasure for series fans may lie not so much in the madcap action, the carnivorous bugs and the familiar perils of quicksand, but the restored romance between Ford and Allen, and the fatherly relationship that develops between Ford and LaBeouf, who is clearly the new pretender to his whip.
Indy treats Mutt with the same sarcastic disdain that his own father, played by Sean Connery, lavished on him during the Last Crusade. You can probably guess how it all works out.
-
Oscarweb Round-up (Week of 5/12)
Reintroducing the Oscarweb Round-ups you probably caught at Red Carpet District last season, I thought it might be worth it to try it on a weekly basis here at In Contention — until the daily onslaught hits us again in a few months.–Peter Debruge writes up the Student Academy Award winners. [Thompson on Hollywood]
–BAFTA/LA spotlights British comedy with new awards ceremony. [Variety]
–Sasha Stone wonders about the apparently randy nature of Woody Allen’s upcoming “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.” [Awards Daily]
–Pete Hammond writes up an Oscar preview via this year’s Cannes International Film Festival. [The Envelope]
–Guy Lodge responds. [In Contention]
–Blake Rutherford previews the Little Rock Film Festival and takes the opportunity to ponder what the festival circuit means to films looking for traction. [In Contention]
–Noah Forrest thinks Oliver Stone’s upcoming “W” is a “bad idea.” Meeee tooooo. [Movie City News]
