In Contention

Category: Featured

  • Small screen query

    Taylor Kitsch in Friday Night LightsOff topic, of course, but I wonder if everyone else is as disappointed with some of the fall’s mid-season series as I am.

    My DVR is generally packed with “Friday Night Lights,” “The Office,” “Heroes,” “The Shield” and yeah, “The Big Bang Theory” (I love it — it’s harmless).  But at least three of those are a total drag this season.  “Lights” hasn’t learned the soap opera lessons of its second season and is settling into another melodramatic groove, while “Heroes” is just too convuluted (as usual).  I honestly just watch it out of habit at this point, but I derive no enjoyment out of it.

    “The Shield” is properly building the tension for a Shane/Vic stand-off, but I can’t shake the feeling that it’ll be a soft landing.  “The Office” is hilarious as always, and “Big Bang” is my guilty pleasure.  Thank God for small miracles.

    I latched onto the first two episodes of “My Own Worst Enemy, glued to the set and eating it all up, only to feel a weird lull during the third episode.  Boredom set in and suddenly I got the feeling that the show doesn’t have much space to grow.  Maybe it’s just me.  And I also picked up “Supernatural” on a friend’s recommendation this season.  Very cool show.

    Mainly, I just can’t wait for “Lost” to come back.  Blew my mind last season.

    Anyway, you guys?  Thoughts on the fall TV season?  Agreements?  Disagreements?

  • LONDON: A note on ‘Che’

    Since its contentious debut at Cannes in May, Steven Soderbergh’s “Che” has attained a  reputation in certain quarters as some kind of intimidating four-hour monolith, even a grand folly. The 252-minute running time is invariably the first detail given about the film, a figure that seems to awe and repel people in equal measure.

    So it was interesting, at the London Film Festival, to watch “Che” in the format Soderbergh originally intended, and as it will eventually be distributed in wide release: as two separate films screened, in this instance, two days apart.

    I think it’s the right way to go, not from a commercial perspective (though probably that too), but an artistic one. For “Che” is no simple, single sprawl that has been bisected, miniseries-style. We’re talking about two individual, self-standing movies here, each one distinct in rhythm, tone and texture. Watching “Guerrilla” (Part Two) this afternoon, after “The Argentine” (Part One) had been knocking around in my head for 48 hours, gave me the appropriate distance to reflect on the changes that occurred in the man in the gap between the two narratives; I got the sense I was watching a life in progress.

    Both films are fine, muscular feats of storytelling, utterly compelling through their accumulation of military and domestic detail. There’s also a preoccupation with landscape here that recalls the earthy stateliness of 1970’s European art cinema — the Taviani brothers kept coming to mind for some reason, though they never made anything remotely similar. Despite the running time, barely a scene in either film feels wasted — if anyone’s life bears such intense scrutiny, after all, it’s Guevara’s.

    (more…)

  • SHORT TAKE: “The Baader Meinhof Complex” (***)

    The Baader Meinhof ComplexGermany has hit something of a sweet spot with the Academy of late, having won Best Foreign Language Film twice in seven years, and scoring two additional nominations — all with somber, rock-solid takes on aspects of the country’s fascinating 20th-century history. (Last year’s winner, “The Counterfeiters,” may have been from Germany’s neighbor Austria, but it was a clear continuation of the trend.)

    So I’m not at all surprised to hear whispers that this year’s German entry, “The Baader Meinhof Complex,” is going down well at Academy screenings. A weighty, expansive and absorbing study of the war of terror waged against the state by the radical Red Army Faction in 1970s Germany, as well as the personal conflicts raging between its three leaders, it ticks any number of Academy boxes: it feels ‘important’ yet accessible, exotic in subject but familiar in form. Intelligently structured and immaculately crafted, its initially daunting 150-minute running time fairly zips by.

    Yet it isn’t quite a great film. Where Florian Henckel von Donnersmarcks’s stunning “The Lives of Others” managed to filter volumes of political context through a finely wrought personal narrative, “The Baader Meinhof Complex” — admittedly working within the bounds of non-fiction — occasionally struggles to locate the human complexity within the history.

    The three protagonists speechify to rousing effect, but their psychological motivations and vulnerabilities remain frustratingly opaque to the end. Fine actors like Martina Gedeck and Moritz Bleibtreu consequently can’t find enough notes to play in the portrayals of the title characters; more compelling is Johanna Wokalek, who, as Baader’s wife Gudrun, colors her political passions with a fierce sexuality.

    Uli Edel directs with a sure, selfless hand, placing story before style, which makes sense with story material this rich. While his approach borders on the prosaic at points (I could do without such literal music cues as “Blowin’ in the Wind”), this is still robust meat-and-potatoes filmmaking: not as innovative or as challenging as other fare on offer, but nutritious nonetheless. The density of incident and detail crammed into the film’s frame is impressive, but it’s hard not to come away wishing one knew the people at its centre a little better.

  • My back, my aching back…thoughts on ‘Milk’ and ‘Frost’

    Sean Penn in MilkThis is why I don’t do the festival thing.  Multiple screenings back-to-back always plagues the faculties.

    Anyway, David Poland was eager to iPhone in his “First!” response on “Milk,” and while I agree with his assessment of Sean Penn’s phenomenal portrayal, I can’t share his overall enthusiasm for the film itself.

    On the whole, it’s a shame Gus Van Sant was working from such a by-the-book, greatest hits screenplay, but his creativity as a director allows the film to steer clear of some anticipated pitfalls.  I was more impressed by Josh Brolin’s work than I expected, stepping into what could have been a flat villain role and really bringing some subtlety and layers.  However brief the performance, I think it might be his best work to date.

    Additionally Emile Hirsch, who generally irritates me to know end, added a spark to the film that was pleasantly surprising.  And Harris Savides’s work on the camera, combined with the expected artistry of the editing, elevates Dustin Lance Black’s work to greater heights than it might have deserved.

    More in the way of a review later on.

    Following “Milk” up with “Frost/Nixon” was interesting to say the least.  It’s liberal rah-rahing of a different sort, and I confess I liked the film more than our own Guy Lodge did.  It lags in the first two and a half acts, struggling to find an element that could bring something more to Peter Morgan’s stage play.  When it finds the respect for Nixon that it needs, the film finally understands its own potential.

    (more…)

  • THE LISTS: In Contention’s top 20 horror films of all time

    228 Days LaterYes, how trite.  Another list of the “best” horror films of all time.  But this really is the most subjective of genres, is it not?  What is scary to us all has slipped out of the realm of the universal and become much more of a personal thing.

    Certain films are inarguable, as our list certainly reflects here and there.  But across the landscape of horror filmmaking, you find perhaps the broadest range of creativity in the medium.  So it goes without saying that a list such as this ought to be varied.

    Unlike the other lists we’ve featured here at In Contention, our rundown of the 20 best horror films of all time did not spring from the mind of this writer or that, but is instead representative of the collective.  We’ve polled each of our six contributors to ascertain their high marks in the genre and, through a complicated process of tabulation that involved thorough computation, lots of late nights and perhaps an abacus as well, the list was whittled down to the 20 films you see here.

    There are mainstays aplenty, but we think you’ll be surprised by a few of the entries.  Each of us hold very different opinions, as should be expected when you get a southerner L.A. transplant, an Arkansas law professor, two Toronto natives 20 years apart in age, a north easterner who recently made the trek out west and a humble Brit.

    We hope you enjoy the list.

    (more…)

  • New original song contenders from ‘Madagascar,’ ‘Truth’

    Madagascar: Escape 2 AfricaIt looks like that rather flimsy Best Original Song category is finding a few more contenders to hopefully erase the embarrassment of last year’s nominees (three for “Enchanted,” nothing for “Into the Wild” — at least “Once” took the gold).

    First up, will.i.am and Hans Zimmer have cranked out four new tracks for “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa” which, if the competition falls apart, could find a place at the table.

    It also looks like Rod Lurie’s “Nothing But the Truth” will sport a new tune over the closing credits, a soulful little number by Coby Jones called, well, “Nothing But the Truth.”

    Lurie supplied us with the track (which he co-wrote with Jones) over the weekend.  Have a listen:

    [display_podcast]

    I like it.  Jones and Lurie might find some trouble going up against another low-key number from Bruce Springsteen of all people, but there isn’t much in the way of quality competing for a spot in this category so maybe it could squeeze in alongside The Boss and Peter Gabriel.

    Fox Searchlight is also high on the Bollywood-inspired “Jai Ho” from “Slumdog Millionaire,” and with “High School Musical 3” dominating the box office over the weekend…who knows?  Meanwhile Jon Brion’s “Little Person” from “Synecdoche, New York” has its fans (none of which are likely to be Academy members), while one of my favorite tunes of the year is — yes — Huey Lewis’s “Pineapple Express.”  Sue me.

    More on the Best Original Song predictions chart.

  • REVIEW: “Wendy and Lucy” (***1/2)

    Wendy and Lucy(BFI London Film Festival)

    Quietly, steadily and with markedly little vanity, Michelle Williams is blossoming into a truly remarkable actress. This is not exactly a revelation: even before her Oscar-nominated turn in “Brokeback Mountain” brought her to wider attention, her work in films like “Dick” and “Me Without You,” not to mention as the most interesting member of the “Dawson’s Creek” ensemble, made it clear she was going places.

    2008 looks to be something of a watershed year for Williams, in which she has made clear strides towards identifying the independently-oriented performer she wants to be (the awkward paycheck job of “Deception” notwithstanding). Not content with holding her own in the dazzling “Synecdoche, New York” ensemble, she has, for the first time, taken on front-and-center roles in two very challenging projects.

    In “Incendiary” (reviewed here), Williams impresses by remaining focused when the film falls apart around her; happily, in Kelly Reichardt’s sad, spare and altogether beguiling “Wendy and Lucy,” she has found a project with the discipline and intelligence to match her own.

    I wouldn’t normally begin a review by foregrounding the star to such an extent, but the truth is that Williams’s performance is both integral to, and responsible for, the film’s success; without the silently expressed complexities, the shadows of days past, that she brings to the character of Wendy Carroll, the film would amount to little more than a sketch, a landscape as unmoored as its protagonist.

    (more…)

  • LONDON: Surprise… it’s ‘The Wrestler’

    It’s a rainy Sunday night in London, and darkness fell a whole hour earlier thanks to the start of daylight savings. All of which only made me happier to be seated inside the warm cavern of the Leicester Square Odeon for my favorite event of the London Film Festival — the annual Surprise Film.

    Usually a hot title secured too late for inclusion in the main festival lineup, and not revealed until the title shows up on screen, the Surprise Film has a mixed track record. Festival director Sandra Hebron scored last year by getting “No Country for Old Men,” but I’ll never forget the groans of disappointment that greeted the opening credits of “Mrs Henderson Presents” in 2005.

    In the foyer before the screening, whispers were spreading that this year’s choice was either “Changeling” or “The Wrestler.” So as the lights went down and the logo of the Venice Golden Lion prize flashed onto screen, announcing Darren Aronofsky’s much-lauded new film, the murmur of approval around the theater was palpable. (Incidentally, I called this pick a few weeks back — mainly because I was so surprised not to see it in the lineup.)

    But Hebron had more than one surprise up her sleeve tonight — unusually for the surprise slot, both Darren Aronofsky and Mickey Rourke showed up for a post-film Q&A. Nobody was expecting that, and it made for my most entertaining festival experience so far, though I’m now kicking myself for bringing neither camera nor notepad (d’oh!) to the screening. A terrific coup for the festival — kudos to Sandra.

    As for the film itself, I’m still too shaken by it to offer much in the way of coherent thought, but count me among the yea-sayers. Deceptively simple in form but deeply probing as character study, it strikes me as exactly the right film for Aronofsky to have made at this point in his career. As someone who actively dislikes everything to do with the wrestling circuit, I had concerns about how much I could personally connect with the film, but it proved revelatory — sport aside, this is a story of the body as a war zone.

    (more…)

  • On Eastwood: for the haters

    Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino18 months ago I began researching my book “Clint Eastwood: Evolution of a Filmmaker” after signing a three book deal with Greenwood Press in the United States. This was it, my life-long goal, writing books on film and getting paid to do it. Eastwood was my choice, a director I greatly admire, but who I found along the way is not exactly admired by all. In fact there are some who are openly hostile towards Eastwood and his films, as we have found in recent days.

    What I admire, beyond the sheer artistry and the deceptive simplicity of his films, is the manner in which he forged his directing career, using his stardom to get the films he wanted to make into production. Yes he would agree to a fourth Dirty Harry IF the studio agreed to fund “White Hunter Black Heart,” his thinly disguised study of John Huston and the shooting of “The African Queen.”  Et cetera.

    Studying Eastwood’s films, I watched an artist growing, always taking new chances, fearless of a challenge, and with each new film, learning.  Even when the film tanked, there was a lesson to be learned. Eastwood himself says the lesson of the terrible “The Rookie” was simply, “Never make a film because you are bored and have nothing to do…ever.” As far back as his first film, “Play Misty for Me,” the talent was most evident as was the courage. Imagine Eastwood, the world’s biggest box office star, known for kicking ass as Harry Callahan, pitching to the Universal brass his love story “Breezy” with William Holden and Kay Lenz.

    Even I remember the shock of seeing “Bird” knowing it was directed by Eastwood and being stunned by the style of the film, the brilliance of the lead performance and the powerful story being told.

    But moving beyond his past accomplishments, which I’ve covered at length in this space before, I have to say I have been looking forward to both of Eastwood’s films this year, and have little doubt he will find himself in the Oscar race again.

    (more…)

  • Revealing ‘Coraline’

    Focus Features unveiled 30 minutes of Henry Selick’s “Coraline” today in Beverly Hills in two separate press events, and the material was as stunning as you would expect.

    Based on Neil Gaiman’s graphic novel of the same name, “Coraline” is Selick’s first fully stop-motion feature effort since “The Nightmare before Christmas” 14 years ago.  All of the puppets are hand-crafted, many of them on display during the reception that followed the footage, including this miniature set, featured in one of the scenes revealed today (forgive the crude iPhone shot — I wasn’t expecting such goodies):

    Minature set from Coraline

    Based on these fleeting moments, I’d say the film will be a creative dazzler.  The 3-D really pops without drawing attention to itself, and that’s a breath of fresh air after “Beowulf” failed to capitalize on the by now decades old technology in a similar fashion last year.  (How many “look, it’s in 3-D!!” moments did we really need in that thing anyway?).

    What’s more, the film seems to be carrying Gaiman’s eerie tale across properly, without a lot of fuss and with an eye toward preserving the author’s atmospheric intentions.

    Selick spoke brielfy beforehand and mingled afterward, but I had to leave before getting any face time with him myself.  The film is set to bow in February and will be part of an interesting duo of animated endeavors for Focus next year (along with “9”).  Can’t wait to see the rest.

  • Who should host the Oscars?

    Kevin SpaceyThis morning I linked to our friend John Campea at The Movie Blog who offered up a list of 15 possibilities for host of this year’s Oscar festivities.  Producers Bill Condon and Larry Mark are hard at work putting the show’s particulars together (when Condon has a few moments away from that Richard Pryor biopic he’s been writing), and sooner or later, an announcement will be made.

    I agree with a few of Campea’s suggestions.  George Clooney, for instance, is an inspired pick, the charmer of Hollywood without an enmy in the world — well, except for McCain supporters, I guess.  I also like the choice of Robert Downey Jr., though in 2008, it’s almost TOO on the nose.  Rounding out the big names that make sense, I’d be on board for Tom Hanks as well, always adept at working a crowd.  But Steve Carrell seems to lack the right prestigious “umph,” while Denzel Washington would prove to be too cardboard-stiff, I’d wager.

    We’ve been there and done that with Steve Martin, Ellen Degeneres and Jon Stewart — new blood would be preferable.  And Steven Colbert would be a false echo of Stewart’s attempts.  Will Ferrell and Ben Stiller — too silly.  Tina Fey — too one-note.  Jerry Seinfeld — too snooty.  And Ricky Gervais was a manifested pipe-dream from the start.  But I’d absolutely be on board if Condon and Mark want to hand over emcee duties to Uwe Boll.  Who wouldn’t??  But you might as well toss in Kelsey Grammer in full-blown Beast make-up as a co-host at that point.

    So the question remains: Who should be the host?  Who has the right amount of showmanship to off-set his dramatic faculties and keep the even keel a show like this needs?  Who has the right comedic reserve to tap into when necessary and who would absolutely light up the stage with his consistent determination to perform?

    (more…)

  • Is Clint Eastwood going to win his first acting Oscar?

    Clint Eastwood in Gran TorinoI’ve been mulling this over for a few weeks now, and though we all know it’s foolish to sit back and predict Oscar winners when the race is still developing a clear slate of nominees, I keep coming back to the amount of sense it makes for Clint Eastwood to take the gold this year for his upcoming leading performance in “Gran Torino.”

    Let’s look at the obvious factors first: competition. There is no agreed upon, media-charming performance going into the season that either has forged, or is expected to forge the kind of undeniable mass appeal that Jamie Foxx did in 2004, the last time Eastwood had a shot at an acting prize.

    Of the contenders most anticipate to be in play, only Sean Penn’s portrayal of Harvey Milk has the on-paper swagger, while Leonardo DiCaprio (despite generating considerable heat — I’ve heard one person say “it’s one of the best performances I’ve ever seen”) could spoil the party if he can push past the pretty boy image that fellow hopeful Brad Pitt will face.

    Mickey Rourke is the odds-on favorite heading into November for a nomination, but despite the brilliance of the performance and the film, there is the sense that the nod will be the reward. An Indie Spirit Award is probably in the cards, and if so, promises to be the usual kiss of death.

    Frank Langella, to round out my own predicted five, faces an uphill battle in gaining an Oscar to go along with his Tony for the same performance. Even with plenty of positive assessments, the potential to underwhelm is out there, in the open, and waiting to keep “Frost/Nixon” an also ran in multiple areas.

    Benicio Del Toro could be a real threat if the film finds the traction necessary to move into serious play, but it probably won’t be the event that Eastwood’s efforts will be. And the only other performance that really shouts for attention is Josh Brolin’s work in “W,” a film that could be yesterday’s news sooner than later.

    Then there is the chatter flying around that “Gran Torino” will be our last opportunity to see Eastwood perform on the screen, a swan song to his career as an actor. If so, what better way to cap off a hell of an autumn run than with a statue for his nearly six decades of achievements in front of the camera?

    The film will be emotional, and given the particulars of the script, the portrayal is sure to prove heartbreaking. It could be the stiff upper lip of an awards season that finds itself competing with the election year, a note of hope and even a demand for sacrifice.

    So I’ll just put it out there now: Clint Eastwood is going to win the Oscar for Best Actor come February. From where we sit right now, it just makes sense. But that’s the thing about “right now.” It changes.

    We’ll see…

    Have your say. Who do you predict to win the Oscar for Best Actor this year?

  • ‘Doubt’ replaces ‘Soloist’ as AFI Fest’s opening night gala

    Meryl Streep in DoubtThe press release, in part:

    The festival will screen an unfinished version of DOUBT when it opens AFI FEST on Thursday, October 30, 2008, at ArcLight Hollywood’s Cinerama Dome Theatre. The Opening Night Gala is the film’s World Premiere and is presented by Audi of America…

    “The movie is still being finished, but we were so excited to show DOUBT and help our friends at AFI FEST and the American Film Institute at the same time. We couldn’t possibly pass up the opportunity,” said Miramax president Daniel Battsek.

    “We are grateful to Miramax Films and producers Scott Rudin and Mark Roybal for providing AFI the honor of premiering this highly anticipated, unfinished version of DOUBT.  There is no doubt that bringing together Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams in concert with the extraordinary talents of writer/director John Patrick Shanley promises an evening that will celebrate the finest in American film,” said Rose Kuo, AFI FEST Artistic Director.

    Truthfully, we should have seen this coming.  Of the major films that are basically completed and ready to go, it was the only possibility (though the “unfinished version” bit is made clear at throughout — hedging their bets).  “Milk” has its fancy San Francisco debut on Tuesday, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is too comfortable in its position as the year’s last minute wower.  “Revolutionary Road” is completed, but only just, while “Australia” is still in the editing lab.

    The New York screening of “Doubt” tonight is for friends and family with the original cast of the play in attendance and the film will be screening for trade press on Wednesday, just before AFI’s opening night the next day.  Perfect timing.

  • TECH SUPPORT: Best Art Direction — Volume One

    Tech Support at In ContentionThe Academy Award for Best Art Direction is somewhat of an odd category in that the art director does not actually receive a nomination or statuette.  Rather, the award is given to two individuals with unique roles in the crafting of a film’s sets.  The production designer heads up the entire art department, specifically in charge of set creation and design. The award also recognizes the set decorator, responsible for filling in the sets with details and dressing to bring them to life.

    Much like he costume designers, this branch tends to favor period and fantasy work, surely because such sets naturally draw attention to themselves.  It does tend, however, to be more kind to fantasy than the branch’s costume designing colleagues. It also usually prefers grandiose work and large-scale set pieces.

    Just as I believe is the case in Best Costume Design, Catherine Martin might be leading the way for “Australia” here this year. Martin, who won this category for “Moulin Rouge!” in 2001 and was also nominated for “William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet” five years earlier, will have the opportunity to create the interiors – and exteriors – of a rugged Australian outback filled with hubby Baz Lurhmann’s distinct vision.

    Donald Graham Burt has fashioned numerous contemporary films, or films set in the relatively recent past, in his career to date. With “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” he has the opportunity to visually wow us through eight decades of 20th century. The film, at the least, should be visually spectacular so I suspect Burt is looking extremely good for a nomination.

    (more…)

  • ‘Gran Torino’ poster

    Bad…ass.

    Warner Bros. Pictures\' Gran Torino

    (Courtesy: USA Today)

  • ‘Soloist’ AFI bow cancelled after release date delay

    Paramount Pictures' The SoloistWhen the news came down last week that the release Paramount’s “The Soloist” would be delayed until March 2009, the initial indication was that the film would go on to bow at this year’s AFI Fest as scheduled.  Well, in a just-issued press release (which landed after business hours), the festival has announced that the debut has been scrapped.

    The release, in part:

    In a joint statement from Paramount Pictures, Dreamworks Pictures and Participant Media: “Due to the change in THE SOLOIST release date, we unfortunately had to withdraw from the AFI FEST Film Festival. It was an honor to be invited as the Opening Night film and we are very grateful to the festival for their support and understanding. THE SOLOIST filmmakers, DreamWorks, Universal, Participant and Paramount are very proud of this film and we are excited and committed to bring it to the world in March.”

    “While we are greatly disappointed that AFI FEST will not have the opportunity to offer the World Premiere of THE SOLOIST, AFI’s priority is to honor the artists. We wish to be supportive in any endeavor that will help a film of this quality reach a greater audience,” said AFI FEST Artistic Director Rose Kuo.

    It’s a shame, personally speaking, because I was looking forward to this film and being able to give it a look sooner rather than later, as I’ll be covering AFI here next month.  But it might be the wisest move all around for the studio to just remove all aspects from the 2008 landscape.

  • How the hell did ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ get an ‘R’ rating from the MPAA?

    The Hollywood Reporter revealed today that “Slumdog Millionaire” has received an “R” rating from the MPAA, and I’m frankly stunned.  Considering the stuff that passes for PG-13 nowadays, and despite the violence in the film (which is tense but rarely frightening or graphic), I thought for sure the film had an easy road to a more accessible rating.

    Shocked.  More later, when I have time to be properly pissed about this.

  • SHORT TAKE: “Two Lovers” (***)

    London Film Festival

    Bar the odd appearance of a text message or Ecstasy tablet, James Gray’s “Two Lovers,” a disarmingly modest tale of misdirected passion, could just as easily be set in 1958 as in the present day. This is both one of its charms and one of its failings.

    The premise is unfussy and somewhat familiar. Devastated after being left by his fiancee, shy Brooklynite Leonard (Joaquin Phoenix) moves back in with his concerned parents, who set him up with Sandra (Vinessa Shaw), the sweet, plain daughter of family friends. Leonard, however, is more attracted to his neighbor Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), a glamorous but deeply troubled young woman, hopelessly entangled with a married man. She initially adopts Leonard as a confidante, but with time, the relationship grows closer and more complicated.

    As has been noted by other critics, this is very much early Paddy Chayefsky territory, recalling works like “Marty” and “The Bachelor Party” in its low-fi drama and shabby middle-class milieu. This is still a New York where neighbors converse window-to-window across apartment block courtyards. The old-fashioned structure of this love triangle (boy finds himself caught between the homely good girl and the beautiful bad one) and the gentleness with which the relationships unfold are unusual in today’s cinematic landscape, where urban adult romance usually has to come packaged in the tropes of higher-concept romcom.

    However, amid the throwback trappings and finely etched sense of melancholy, the film doesn’t have all that much to say about contemporary relationships. Modern notions of gender and sexuality never really come into play; Michelle, in particular, seems remarkably limited in her outlook for a 21st century woman. The story is clearly intended to have a timeless quality — heartbreak never goes out of style, after all — but the downside of that is a complete inability to surprise, especially in the final act. (The tartly unhappy “happy ending,” however, is beautifully executed.)

    What “Two Lovers” does provide is a strong showcase for Phoenix in a rare everyman role. Paltrow’s Michelle, meanwhile, is equal parts goofy vulnerability and chilly allure. She hasn’t been this alert and unaffected on screen in quite some time.  But above all, the film represents a welcome change of pace for Gray. Despite its occasional obviousness, his storytelling here has more immediacy and conviction. Thanks in no small part to his actors, this is the first James Gray film that could be ascribed the adjective “moving,” even if you always know where it’s moving to.