In Contention

Category: Daily

  • Peter Finch and the posthumous Oscar

    Peter Finch in NetworkPeter Finch’es wide-eyed, frantic performance as newsman Howard Beale in Sidney Lumet’s “Network” became a touchstone for North America in 1976 because we too were “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”

    Vietnam was over, though the vets were struggling with their various personal horrors.  Nixon had resigned, leaving a mistrustful America in his wake.  And up here in Canada, we were dealing with a Prime Minister who was often more playboy than politician.  Lumet’s searing film, from an original screenplay by Paddy Chayevsky, was timely indeed.

    Whispers of a posthumous Oscar have circulated Heath Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight” for weeks now, bringing Finch’s seizure of the Best Actor trophy back to the forefront of discussion.  But was Finch’s win a recognition of the performance or was it fueled by his unfortunate dead in January of 1977?

    (more…)

  • Andrew Klavan, bastion of subtext, calls ‘Knight’ pro-Bush

    Warner Bros. Pictures' The Dark KnightThe first I heard of this Andrew Klavan op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal was over at Awards Daily. I blew off the pathetic stretch for a parallel between Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” and the disastrous administration of George W. Bush as just that, pathetic. This is, after all, the author of such seminally vacant thrillers as “True Crime” and “Don’t Say a Word” we’re talking about.

    Then I noticed Rupert Murdoch pop up on Keith Olbermann’s list of the “worst people in the world” in response to the mogul’s paper publishing the piece this week, and I figured I would give it a closer look.

    Good GOD what moronic copy. A taste of the absurdity:

    …like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

    “The Dark Knight,” then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,” “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

    That’s right, he brings up the old (and equally stupid) “‘300’ is an allegory for the Bush administration” stand-by from over a year ago.

    Oh, you want some more? By all means:

    The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?

    The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of “The Dark Knight” itself: Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

    Alright, dear readers. Shake it off. I know the sheer ignorance is both deafening and infuriating. The sad thing is, Klavan has a thesis worth exploring in there somewhere. That it is buried in this partisan hogwash and sublimely inadequate reasoning within such a staunchly pro-conservative view point ironically reflects the very direct approach of liberal-minded filmmaking he’s apparently railing against. But you already knew that. You’re smarter than this…guy.

    Oh, but don’t blink, or you’ll miss Klaven stumble right past the entire point of “The Dark Knight” on the way to missing it completely, and manipulating it to his own ends:

    As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away — because we have to chase him.” That’s real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values…then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

    Wow, right? Then there’s this blurb at the bottom of the page:

    Mr. Klavan has won two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America. His new novel, “Empire of Lies” (An Otto Penzler Book, Harcourt), is about an ordinary man confronting the war on terror.

    Can’t wait to see how morally complex that piece of shit will be. Now, I need to go to out to the driveway and grab my sun-faded copy of the Journal so that I can burn it properly.

    (Mr. Nolan — if you happen to be reading this — I implore you to rebut this nonsense in your own op-ed.)

  • Wolverine meets his maker

    I came across this photo from Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood and just had to pass it on.  As a comic geek, it’s so cool to see Hugh Jackman shaking hands with the creator of Wolverine, writer Len Wein.  Check out the look of appreciation in Jackman’s eyes.  Indeed, without Wein, Jackman would probably still be on a stage somewhere belting out the tunes of “Oklahoma!”  I’m sure he’d be just as happy, though.  The guy seems glum-proof.

    (from left) Wolverine star Hugh Jackman and Wolverine creator Len Wein

  • Zack Snyder at odds with WB over ‘Watchmen’ running time

    Billy Crudup in WatchmenVariety’s Anne Thompson is hitting the turf as always, this time down in San Diego for the annual Comic-Con International.

    She snagged “Watchmen” director Zack Snyder for some quick dishing prior to today’s Warner Bros. panel in Hall H (probably the most anticipated panel of the weekend).  She pressed Snyder about running time concerns, content issues and what seems to be an ambivalence on the part of the studio to give this prestige product the breathing space it deserves.

    Here’s the bit about running time:

    Zack Snyder is currently battling with Warners over the ultimate running time of the movie, which is three hours. He’s trying to cut it down, but doesn’t want to lose a character like Hollis, [SPOILER OMITTED]. “”I’m not ready for that yet. If Dark Knight got two and a half hours, Watchmen should get fifteen minutes more,” he pleads. “I’m trying to be reasonable.”

    And on content concerns:

    But the studio still thinks Watchmen is too “too long, too sexy, and too violent,” says Snyder. For him, “that’s a reason to go. That’s the why. If you take that out you take out the why.” Otherwise it’ll just be another “watered down version of Watchmen, and then you might as well make another superhero movie. There’s a million characters out there you could do instead.”

    I think it has been rather clear from the start that Snyder has been aware of the importance of a project like this in the eyes of the fans.  I first crossed paths with him at last year’s Con, and the guy has a solid head on his shoulders.  He understands both the burden and the potential of the adaptation and, what’s more, he keeps a light skip in his step about it all.  He knows…he just seems to be saying, “Look, get out of my way and I’ll do this thing justice.”

    Anyway, it’s a really solid interview from Thompson.  There’s plenty to chew on, from costume designs on the film to the maturation of comic books.  Give it a read here.

  • More hope…

    I don’t want to post “The Dark Knight” producer Emma Thomas’s quote in this space. Spoilers and all. But suffice it to say, this IGN story gives us all hope.

  • What’s the worst Best Actor choice of all time?

    Roberto Benigni at the Academy Awards in 1999With the Bat frenzy settling down, and the Toronto Fest looming just ahead, I thought I’d get back to, well, complaining about the Academy’s more lame-brained calls over the years!

    What has been the group’s single worst choice for Best Actor in its 80 year history?  My choice: Roberto Benigni for “Life is Beautiful” in 1998.

    I remember sitting stunned when his name was called out at the Screen Actors Guild awards for his incessant, mugging in the film, possibly the most over-praised endeavor of 1998. What this meant of course was that he now had the inside track to win the Academy Award for Best Actor for this ridiculous performance.

    And he did just that, clowning around, jumping up on the seats of those around him, massacring the English language (which he speaks perfectly fine) with his acceptance speech, trying his best to be endearing and beloved.

    How and why did this performance — and this film — become so beloved by the AMPAS?

    Among the performances Benigni defeated that year were Edward Norton’s seething work in “American History X,” Tom Hanks’s superb turn in “Saving Private Ryan” and Nick Nolte’s raging performance in “Affliction.” Each performance was vastly superior to Begnini’s, and as always, some of those not nominated could have easily taken his place.  Jim Carrey in “The Truman Show” comes to mind.

    Hollywood, however, fell in love with Mr. Begnini as he cruised through cocktail party after cocktail party, dinner at Barbara Streisand’s house, the entire town entranced by a brown-eyed clown.

    His performance was little more than over the top shameless mugging for the camera — “acting” at its worst. For that he gets an Oscar, along with nominations for Best Director and a win for Best Foreign Language Film??

    There have been terrible Oscar wins in the past, of course: “The Greatest Show on Earth,” Elizabeth Taylor for “Butterfield 8,” Al Pacino in “Scent of a Woman.  But has the Academy ever been so incredibly bamboozled by a film and a performer as they were in 1998?

    What about you?  What do you think is the Academy’s all time worst choice for Best Actor?  Or Best Foreign Language Film for that matter?

  • More records for ‘Dark’ dollars

    Warner Bros. Pictures' The Dark Knight“The Dark Knight” raked in $20 million on Tuesday, breezing past “Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man’s Chest” to claim the record for fastest to $200 million.  By the way, it destroyed the previous number by three days.

    Sitting at $203 million at the end of Tuesday, the film also seized the 5-day opening record.  The 6- and 7-day records already fell with that number, while 8, 9 and 10 will assuredly follow.

    The fastest to $300 million title will also fall over the weekend, probably on Saturday, and by a margin of nearly half the previous holder.  $400 million (and the record for fastest to that mark) is obviously within grasp by the time the summer rolls to a close, and after that, who knows?  $500 million?  Probably.

    And by the end of its run, “The Dark Knight” will likely be the #2 domestic grossing film of all time.

    Wow.

  • Jeff Wells says it’s Downey Jr. vs. Ledger

    Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic ThunderIn a review of Ben Stiller’s “Tropic Thunder” this afternoon, Jeffrey Wells has brought the “O” word into the conversation, specifically for Robert Downey Jr.’s performance as an actor who undergoes a pigmentation makeover to play an African American in the Vietnam film-within-the-film.

    Here’s what he has to say:

    It also feels to me like an Oscar-level thing for Downey. I know — who gives a hoot about Oscar nominations when a film is this funny? But Downey is amazing in this. This plus Iron Man — what a year for the guy. The Best Supporting Actor race is already down to Downey vs. Ledger.

    Obviously he forgets that Downey still has a role as Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez in Joe Wright’s “The Soloist,” due out later this year, which, judging by the subject matter and the fact that you’ve got the same studio pushing that film for awards fodder, may turn out to be his best shot at Academy recognition.

    Of course, we’ve been calling it the year of Downey Jr. around these parts for a few months now.  Not that it isn’t the most obvious aspect of the season.  And indeed, it is the story of the year.  Such a rise from the depths and into the spotlight as a star with impact yet again.

    I’m really looking forward to “Tropic Thunder,” as well as “The Soloist,” for that matter.  And I’d be lying if I didn’t say it had a lot to do with Downey Jr.

  • It’s WENN, I know…

    But…

    Aaron Eckhart would reprise his role from The Dark Knight – because working with Christian Bale is “phenomenal”.

    Eckhart, who plays District Attorney Harvey Dent in the sequel, confesses he “absolutely” would star in a third Batman film.

    He tells WENN, “To work with Christian (Bale) all over again, and the cast, would be phenomenal. I think this movie is a movie of a lifetime.”

    Link (Props to Casey)

  • This I like…

    San Diego Comic-ConIf you anticipate any sort of Comic-Con coverage fatigue in the next few days, I’d like to point you to our friends John Campea and Doug Nagy over at The Movie Blog.

    The boys say they’re going to be covering the festivities from an on-the-ground perspective, rather than flooding the readership with “boring Round Table interviews and that sort of stuff that every other website on the planet is going to be covering the exact same thing on.” Video journals, audio podcasts, plenty of images and video from the Con, etc.

    It’ll definitely be the first place I’ll be checking every day for news a views out of the festivities.

  • Jim Carrey’s ‘Yes Man’ gets a trailer

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfsa20F9bI8

  • Coming attractions

    OscarWith the massive summer tent poles behind us and the last gasps of the season right around the corner, it’s becoming apparent that the contentious months of Oscar are just across the horizon. Here’s a look at our upcoming preparations for the season:

    Monday, August 4: “Off the Carpet” Oscar Season Preview
    Tuesday, August 5: Brian’s first “Page to Screen” column of the season (“Brothers Bloom”)
    Monday September 1: “Off the Carpet” weekly Oscar column launches
    Thursday, September 4: Gerard’s first “Tech Support” column of the season

    Keep in mind that Brian and I will be hammering out the “Page to Screen” pieces every Tuesday throughout the month of August. This weekly screenplay review column will serve as a primer as we march into the season. Scripts we’ll be looking at include “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Burn After Reading,” “Changeling,” “Body of Lies” and, of course, the infamous “W.”

    I can’t believ eit’s almost here. Can you?

  • Siskel and Ebert review Tim Burton’s ‘Batman’

    In pouring through loads of old “Siskel & Ebert” review clips for this morning’s “At the Movies” post, I came across this dispute over Tim Burton’s “Batman,” and I just had to post it here. Obviously it goes hand in hand with the Bat hype of the last five days, but it also provides a quintessential example of how these two worked off of one another.

    As one my expect, Siskel is the one who liked the film. He was always more likely to find room for praise when it came to the blockbuster efforts, in fact, but he was no pushover. He offers sound reasoning for why he was so caught up in the world Burton and company created.

    Ebert, meanwhile, found a lot of the film to be hackneyed and disputable, and being the over-powering personality, his negative feelings on a film could always seem to outweigh the positive sentiments of another. But he offered some balance, indicated with accessible clarity his appreciation for the film’s design elements, and Siskel held his own.

    Just a classic example of what you haven’t seen on this show for years, and what you will likely never see again.

    Have a look:

    httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=XZzfc_xAJEY

  • The balcony is closed

    (from left) Gene Siskel and Roger EbertI’ve stayed away from the news of Disney-ABC canceling “At the Movies” throughout the week because I wanted to collect my thoughts in a post-Batman environment. As you know, it’s been very difficult to get around to discussing much beyond “The Dark Knight” for two weeks now.

    By now I’m sure you’ve read the initial AP story, quoting Roger Ebert as saying he “won’t be a part” of the “new direction” company brass are taking the daily film review show. You can also read perspective on the matter in any number of places, from Anne Thompson (who has taken a stab at filling in for Ebert across from Richard Roeper during the show’s string of guest critics) to David Poland (roots in Chicago, worked on the show eight or nine years ago, vocal about the show’s decline over the years).

    Thompson also reported on the duo’s replacement by the two Bens, Lyons and Mankiewicz. Poland, who posted a statement from Ebert on Monday, was livid at the news.

    With all the behind-the-scenes train-wrecking going on, I can’t help think back to the mid-to-late 1980s when I first discovered and really grew to enjoy Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert’s tussling over the cinema. It wasn’t until maybe 10 years later that I felt I could really stake an opinion on the proceedings, but those early years were an interesting sort of primer for the cinematic passion that would grab me later in life.

    I think Poland may have said it best:

    If you want to engage people who love movies enough to watch a show like this, you need people on the show who REALLY care. We all remember the fighting between Roger & Gene. But in retrospect, it was more than fighting…it was real arguing over different ideas of what made a good or bad movie. And we, as an audience, were invited to take sides…if, someday, the Ebert & Siskel chemistry is found again, it will be a real pleasure.

    He’s referring to a potential Roeper/Michael Phillips (of the Chicago Tribune) rival show in the last line. Roeper left “At the Movies” the day before the cancellation announcement.

    I don’t know if that old feeling will ever be felt again. And I don’t know if, in this Internet-driven age of egos and knee-jerk reactions, real chemistry and true discussions about films can take place between two “in the business” talking heads. It is a very different world, an opinion-based, personality-driven Web era of singular assessments.

    But I’d like to be wrong. In the meantime, it is relaxing to look back and remember…at the very least.

    Here’s one of my favorite vintage clips, Siskel and Ebert’s review of Stanley Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket,” which sparked one of the duo’s many disputes. Ebert thought it was cliched, Siskel thought it was a near masterpiece:

    httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=BFiQ1YVJ9js

    There are, of course, dozens of clips available on YouTube. Just a handful of the highlights:

    “Schindler’s List”
    “Pulp Fiction” (Ebert’s #2 film of the 90s)
    “Goodfellas”
    “Full Metal Jacket” (big split of opinion here)
    “Die Hard 2: Die Harder” (one of Siskel’s top 10 films of 1990)

  • LaBute’s ‘Lakeview Terrace’ poster

    Cinematical has an exclusive on the first poster for Neil LaBute’s upcoming “Lakeview Terrace.” We’ve had our eye on this film on the contenders pages for some time. It could go either way as an awards contender, with seemingly attractive roles for Samuel L. Jackson, Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington.

    LaBute has been off the mark to say the least for a few years now. Maybe this can get him back on track. Screen Gems will be releasing on September 19. Here’s the poster (click for larger image):

    Screen Gems' Lakeview Terrace

    (Every time I think of this film I think of rent checks. My landlord lives in Lakeview Terrace. Hopefully flashbacks to paying monthly bills won’t color my reaction!)

  • More on Harvey…

    I’ve been going around and around in circles on this issue, and I’ve frankly become dizzy at the ambiguity.

    But one of our readers, Gareth, sent a note recently regarding the fate of Harvey Dent in “The Dark Knight,” offering up a line from the shooting draft of the screenplay (available for purchase) that sort of turns the stomach.

    I don’t want to spoil anything here, so check it out after the jump…

    (more…)

  • Comic-Con…here we go

    San Diego Comic-ConTomorrow night, the entertainment press will descend upon San Diego for preview night at this year’s annual Comic-Con International. My feelings on this glut-fest are well documented, but even with that in mind, there is simply little to pique my interest as a comic fan.

    Friday’s Warner Bros. panel may have some interesting additives for “Watchmen” (which already launched a trailer last week) and “Terminator: Salvation” (ditto).

    Lionsgate’s “Spirit” presentation can’t possibly offer much more than we’ve already seen in a blanket advertising campaign. And Frank Miller doesn’t exactly dig the festivities in any case.

    Fox’s Thursday presentation offers nothing worth a second glance (though I have an odd interest in “Max Payne”), while Saturday’s offering of a “Pineapple Express” panel is evidence of the Con’s loss of perspective. Not that I’m not interested in the film, mind you, but the studios sank their fangs into the demographic by pushing anything passably Con-worthy on the event years ago, increasingly sucking it dry of life. It all makes me sad.

    But there’s nothing wrong with a giant room full of comics and action figures, not to mention Lou Ferrigno peddling photos for $20 a pop!

    There will be a “Tropic Thunder” screening tomorrow night, while the aforementioned “Pineapple Express” will go before a few critics and journos as well. Be on the look-out for knee-jerk reactions.

    For me, the parties have become the only reason to bother with the convention in recent years. With that in mind, I’ll be heading down Saturday for the Wrath of Con shin-dig — the party of the week. Maybe I’ll corner David Goyer and settle this Two-Face thing once and for all.

  • “Boo-yaaaa”

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbaA68jYYek