• Bill Desowitz calls “The Lion King 3D,” which hits theaters Friday, “a noteworthy achievement for post-converting hand-drawn animation.” Agreed. He also talks to those responsible for it. [Thompson on Hollywood]
• Clooney: Clooney vs. Cooney just hype. [Variety]
• Shailene Woodley, meanwhile, is ready for her close-up in Toronto. [The Guardian]
The warning signs were there for “360.” An umpteenth reworking of “La Ronde” didn’t seem an obvious fit for either Fernando Meirelles or Peter Morgan — a pretty dispassionate writer even on his best form, he came badly unstuck last year when he veered from his fact-based template with “Hereafter.”
Meirelles, too, is seeking to bounce back from a flop (2008’s “Blindness,” in case you’ve forgotten), and ensemble members Anthony Hopkins and Jude Law have of late been unreliable indicators of quality.
Interest in the film seemed to hover mainly in how it might serve Rachel Weisz, whose multiple lead roles this year — including an acclaimed turn in “The Whistleblower” and a buzzy one in “The Deep Blue Sea” — have many wondering if a second Oscar nod could be on the cards. It might be, but tepid reviews following the film’s premiere suggest it won’t be for “360.”
One of the more anticipated Toronto bows, for me, is Oren Moverman’s “The Messenger” follow-up, “Rampart.” I was a big fan of his last effort and have been intrigued by the possibility of Woody Harrelson bubbling up in the Best Actor race (assuming a studio bites on the film).
But things aren’t looking stellar for the film just yet, as most of what I’m reading is negative, with a few positive bursts here and there. (Just judging by the cross-section, though, I expect to be on board.) More reactions will come throughout the fest, so this early glance isn’t necessarily meant to establish the overall perception.
Starting with the trades, Variety’s Justin Chang calls the film “well-wrought,” singling out Harrelson by offering that the actor “is excellent as a cynical, trigger-happy officer oblivious to the fresh winds of change and accountability sweeping through his embattled department.” He nevertheless found the film on the whole to be a “not entirely satisfying character study.”
I stand by my (out of context) excitement for Francis Ford Coppola probing the outer reaches of what we expect of cinema, but it appears “Twixt” nevertheless came and underwhelmed (to say the least) in Toronto, failing to fully reach its aspirations.
Tweets Motion/Captured’s Drew McWeeney:
It is appropriate that they screened Coppola’s “Twixt” today, because it is a freakin’ disaster.
The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt:
The pity is that the narration has got it all too right: His writer’s story is indeed third-rate.
To judge from the press reaction to yesterday’s Venice Film Festival awards, you could be forgiven for thinking that Michael Fassbender won every single one of them, plus an extra certificate for full attendance.
That’d hardly be surprising in any circumstances, given Fassbender’s growing celebrity and the media’s reliable aversion to world cinema. Best Actor was the only major prize handed to an English-language film, after all — prompting cries of “Boring!” in many a comment board, for what in cinema is more boring than subtitles and faces you don’t immediately recognize?
But I’m being unfair. Surely one reason for Fassbender hogging last night’s Lido headlines — with Golden Lion winner “Faust” generally relegated to a grudging postscript — is that his was one choice made by the jury that nearly everyone could agree upon, and had indeed agreed upon since “Shame”‘s first screening a week before. I’d have been equally happy with an award for quick-witted “Carnage” savior Christoph Waltz, but I’m pleased the more exciting film got indirectly honored.
I don’t want to really dig in here or anything. It’s just a mark of time. There was an open sore in lower Manhattan tied up by bureaucracy, partisan nonsense and greed that became embarrassing, a symbol for a country so gridlocked by internal machinations that perhaps the truly poignant thing would have been to leave things undone. Because so much is still undone and unaccomplished and halted that a formerly proud beacon of progress is being lapped.
I hear the aircraft flying in formation above my house. I know as soon as I flip on the TV it will be wall-to-wall coverage, lazy and disingenuous in its stance of looking back, remembering and reflecting. But the only reflection I can muster is on a country that thinks it’s special for the tragedy of 2001. Welcome to the world, America, where terrible things happen every day.
That’s more negative than I really want it to be. But I’ve already mourned. I’ve already reflected. And I’m just bracing myself for a day that is used as an excuse to fill broadcast time and empty column inches (like these). We cover the world of filmed entertainment here, and even in that frame, I find it fascinating that it’s been nearly nine years since a truly impactful piece built on the specter of that day has landed. Paul Greengrass’s “United 93” was brave but clinical. Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” was moving but rote. Mike Binder’s “Reign Over Me” was thoughtful but contained.
In the midst of early-season festival madness (and sometimes lost in the clutter) is the Deauville Film Festival, which concluded this weekend. Top honors went to Jeff Nichols’s “Take Shelter,” a film of which I’m a big proponent.
To start the festival, though, one of the film’s stars, Jessica Chastain, shared the “New Hollywood” award with Ryan Gosling. It’s notable as the second festival notice for the actress, following the Gucci Award for Women in Film at the Venice fest.
I know Sony Classics will be positioning films like “Midnight in Paris,” “Carnage” and “A Dangerous Method” for awards attention, not to mention another healthy slate of foreign film hopefuls. But I hope this gem isn’t lost in that fray this year. It’s clearly a film people are responding to (having already taken the Grand Prix at Cannes earlier in the summer.) My fingers crossed for it. More reactions will land out of Toronto as it screens throughout the week. Check out the trailer after the jump.
Actor Cliff Robertson passed away this evening. Most younger audiences will instantly recognize him from Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” franchise. A Columbia Pictures scandal in the late-1970s saw him blacklisted for sheer honesty. He won an Oscar over 40 years ago for his work in “Charly.” I’ll always remember him as one of the many faces of “Midway,” one of Dad’s favorites growing up. He will be missed.
I’ve been hearing for a little while about “Barrymore,” Erik Canuel’s adaptation of a one-man show featuring Christopher Plummer as the great actor John Barrymore. Assuming a distributor gambles on the film in Toronto (it’s tough to sell a one-man show, no doubt), it’s entirely likely Plummer will be thrust into the Best Actor field (depending on who picks it up, naturally).
Jeff Wells is singing the film’s (and Plummer’s) praises (with another big helping of definitives):
[A]fter seeing Plummer charm and electrify and ham it up and speechify in gloriously boozy Shakespearean fashion in Barrymore, which I saw a couple of hours ago at the Bell Lightbox, I’m all but convinced he has the Oscar in the bag…As long as the Academy sees this low-budgeted Canadian film, that is. Once they all see it, the game will be pretty much over.
I’ve had a sharp eye on thoughts on and reviews of Roland Emmerich’s “Anonymous” out of the Toronto film fest. I had expected to be alone in my appreciation for the film (having heard of quite a few detractors), but I must say I was relieved to see that some are reacting in the positive.
The Guardian’s Damon Wise, for instance, gave it mostly high marks (which is noteworthy given that it comes from across the pond where I imagine scrutiny would be harsher). “Roland Emmerich’s meticulously crafted and often well-acted exposé of the ‘real’ William Shakespeare is shocking only in that it is rather good,” he writes. “[B]eneath the CG and bombast there is a very enjoyable film. Emmerich vividly portrays Elizabethan audiences and their visceral appreciation of the plays put before them.”
In the theatre section, though, Wise’s colleague Paul Edmonson took extreme aim at the authorship question in advance of the film’s festival bow.
Guy is currently in transit from Venice (where, once again, he offered some bang-up coverage throughout — much appreciated). I’ll let him address the bulk of this when he touches down, but for now, a big win out of the festival for “Shame” in Michael Fassbender’s Volpi Cup victory. In accepting the award, Fassbender tipped his hat to actor Gary Oldman (whose “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” was at the fest), remarking, “I’ve followed him since I was 14 years old.”
Festival jury head Darren Aronofsky called this year’s crop of Venice selections “exhilarating and maddening” for the very same reason: it was a quality bunch, and whittling things down for today’s festivities was, naturally, a chore. “We have so many worthy films and so few prizes to give,” he said, before adding, “International cinema is alive and well.” And indeed, Venice’s line-up seems to get more and more impressive each year. As it should for the world’s oldest film festival.
“Oh, Christ, that means it’s going to be shit,” wailed a friend of mine, an ardent devotee of long-dormant American auteur Whit Stillman, when the director’s new film, “Damsels in Distress,” was announced as the Closing Night film of this year’s Venice Film Festival.
I consoled him that it needn’t be the case, but only half-heartedly. It’s an unwritten rule of major festival programming that the closing film should be, if not shit, at least aggressively mediocre — particularly at Venice, so as not to antagonize the hordes of journalists who have already departed for Toronto. God forbid they should be given a reason to stay.
Last year’s selection was certainly the kind that benefited from being seen by as few eyeballs as possible: Julie Taymor’s ghastly adaptation of “The Tempest” was both the nadir and epitome of festival closers, its ill fortunes seemingly cast in stone even before the critics stuck the boot in. The unfailingly literate, stylish Stillman couldn’t have made a film that bad, could he? Surely not. And yet why was Venice director Marco Mueller burying it at the end? And why was the first film in 13 years from this critics’ darling not in Competition?
I would say “Toldja!,” but I think that’s trademarked elsewhere. Nevertheless, as indicated here a few times, Fox Searchlight Pictures was pretty serious about “Shame” after the film bowed at Venice and Telluride on the same day over the weekend. It’s set to screen Sunday in Toronto, but ahead of that, the dependent has bravely swooped in and picked the title up. The press release, in part:
Fox Searchlight Pictures Presidents Nancy Utley and Stephen Gilula announced today that the company has acquired U. S. rights to the intimate and provocative drama SHAME…
“Fox Searchlight contacted us immediately after the screening in Telluride to tell us how much they loved the film. Their approach to marketing and distributing the film this year was incredibly detailed and impressive. We are excited to be working with them on a film that is sparking debate and a strong emotional reaction from audiences,” said Canning and Sherman.
“This is a brave statement and an important move by Fox Searchlight. I am very happy they came on board to release Shame in the U.S. It’s great to be working with a team that is so passionate about cinema,” said McQueen.
This year’s Competition strand of the Venice Film comprised 23 films — a large-ish number by major festival standards, and yet it still feels remarkably thin.
Admittedly, I’m viewing the field with a slight eyepatch on, having only seen 17 of the 23 films. Yet compared to last year’s lineup — where the successes ranged from higher-profile American auteur works like “Black Swan” and “Meek’s Cutoff” to more rarefied critical hits like “Silent Souls” and “Post Mortem,” with several heavily discussed possibilities in between — it feels this year like the Lido conversation has centered on the same small handful of titles for the past week.
Last year, Sofia Coppola’s “Somewhere” was something of a shock Golden Lion winner; this year, anything that extensively discussed would be in the thick of consideration. As I wrote earlier, the extreme front-loading of the schedule, combined with the lack of breakout critical sleepers in the festival’s quiet second week, has made for a rather static buzz wave.
(Thoughts on this year’s contenders, and my own list of predictions and preferences, after the jump.)
I have to say, quite unexpectedly, I really liked Roland Emmerich’s “Anonymous.” I think it’s his best work yet. Having busied himself with matters of the apocalypse for the better part of two decades in films like “Independence Day,” “The Day After Tomorrow” and “2012,” it’s fair to say few would expect him to have something toned-down in him. So perhaps on one hand, lowered expectations play a hand here (despite the fact that, quite frankly, I very much enjoy Emmerich’s singular brand of entertainment).
Regardless, the film is an elaborate piece of work (from an engaging screenplay by John Orloff), dense but rewarding, smart but entertaining, and Emmerich pulls it off without a hitch. In fact, while the effort is surely stylized, Emmerich gets out of his own way here, leaving no real trace of his typical leanings — anonymous, you might call the work. That’s impressive for a guy who has made his living basically just destroying the world on celluloid.
Also opening today is Gavin O’Connor’s “Warrior.” I’ve already given my thoughts in print and in the podcast, with high marks for Nick Nolte and particularly Tom Hardy. But I’ll be really interested to see if others feel similarly that the film is a bit of a wash, or if you all side with the overwhelming positivity building in its favor. Come on back and let us know once you see it.
…even if it is the unfortunate, ultimately necessary nature of the beast. But it’s not like the festivals aren’t courting this by getting top tier, highly anticipated films and muscling for their exclusivity. It breeds on-site competition. Ouroboros, etc. Anyway, from Roger Ebert’s Toronto dispatch:
More than in previous years, I’m noticing the laptops in the audiences here at the Toronto Film Festival. Some of the bloggers seem to be beginning their reviews as the end credits still play. Then you see them outside, sitting on a corridor floor, their computers tethered to an electric umbilical, as they type urgently. Of course many of them share their opinions in quick conversational bursts, and a consensus develops. Most films good enough for an important festival, I think, require a little more marinating.
Jason Reitman will be off to New York once again shortly to start production on “Labor Day,” after spending months out that way filming this fall’s “Young Adult.” And it looks like both he and Paramount are happy with the relationship so far. The press release, in part:
Paramount Pictures and Indian Paintbrush jointly announced today they will co-produce, and Paramount will distribute, Academy Award®-nominated writer / director Jason Reitman’s LABOR DAY starring Academy Award®-winner Kate Winslet and Academy Award® nominee Josh Brolin. Indian Paintbrush will co-finance the project, with the company’s Steven Rales and Mark Roybal executive producing.
The movie will be produced by Academy Award®-nominated producers Lianne Halfon and Russell Smith of Mr. Mudd Productions, along with Reitman and Helen Estabrook of Right of Way Films.
Adapted by Reitman and based on the novel by Joyce Maynard, LABOR DAY tells the story of an escaped convict (Brolin) who seeks shelter with a single mom (Winslet) and her young son over a long Labor Day weekend.
[Photo: Paramount Pictures]