So yeah, ever since I got the PS3 for Blu-ray reasons, I’ve been diving back into the video game world like a true geek. My girlfriend rolls her eyes at me constantly. It’s like I’m in 6th grade again.
Anyway, in addition to the summer’s release of “Ghostbusters” (which should be awesome), I am, of course, totally looking forward to “Batman: Arkham Asylum.” Here’s a recently released trailer for the game:
It slipped my mind to do this yesterday, but here’s the week that was:
• “Slumdog Millionaire” steamrolled through the week’s precursors, taking the Producers Guild Award…
• … before landing top honours at the SAG Awards, which we live-blogged for your pleasure.
• Still on “Slumdog,” a potential smear campaign against the film was duly foiled.
• No surprise, then, that this week’s Off the Carpet column declared the race pretty much over.
• The Academy settled “The Reader” producers’ dilemma by breaking its ludicrous “three-nominee” rule.
• Meanwhile, some are wondering whether Harvey Weinstein’s tactics could harm the film’s chances, particularly in the Best Actress race.
• Away from the Oscar race, gritty urban drama “Push” cleaned up at Sundance.
• The Santa Barbara fest carried on, with an interesting screenwriters’ forum among the highlights.
• Still at Santa Barbara, Danny Boyle, Kate Winslet and this year’s six Virtuoso stars were among those celebrated.
• Could “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” really go 0-for-13 on Oscar night?
• Finally, rounding off a very “Slumdog”-flavoured week, be sure to check out our interview with the film’s brilliant craftsmen.
Thanks to The Film Experience for pointing out this tease of a still from Stephen Frears’ Berlin-bound period romance “Chéri,” which promises something of a return to form for star Michelle Pfeiffer. (IMDB tells me she’s 50. You kidding me?)
More stills can be found at this fansite, showcasing what looks to be predictably lavish production design and costuming by Oscar nominee Consolata Boyle (“The Queen”). Do we have a 2009 craft-category contender already?
I’m not sure where I stand on David Thomson these days. He is surely one of the greatest film writers still at work today; few of his rivals manage such a fine balance of personal appreciation and critical insight, particularly in the area of performance. (As a prose stylist, Thomson at his best leaves Ebert for dust, in my opinion.) His “Biographical Dictionary of Film” is as essential as it is idiosyncratic, while last year’s “Have You Seen … ?” is a bedside-book delight, ideal for dipping in and out of at leisure.
But in recent years, his work has grown increasingly sloppy and, in some cases, frankly unhinged. His further “Biographical Dictionary” entries for the Guardian have been spotty and back-handed of late, but the clincher was his factually malnourished and unavoidably creepy 2006 “biography” of his long-time cinematic crush, Nicole Kidman, which paid stomach-churning tribute to the Australian’s “commas of breast” and “gingery pubic hair.” An embarrassment for all concerned, it truly has to be read to be believed.
It’s difficult to say, then, whether it’s good or bad news for Kate Winslet that Thomson appears to have set his sights on her instead, writing an extraordinarily generous tribute to her in today’s Guardian, calling the actress “the finest performer of her generation,” and waxing lyrical about her performance in “The Reader” (“easily the best and most disturbing film of the year”). It is, in fairness, a civil and intelligent appreciation for the most part, after an eccentric opening that focuses on her, er, feet:
Near the end of The Reader there is a large close-up of two bare feet … The feet are less than lovely – mottled, calloused, the toenails out of shape, everything well-worn. My wife opined, “They can’t be Kate Winslet’s feet – must be a stand-in, a foot-in. Perhaps they are Sam Mendes’s feet, and he did the shot so she could have a lie-in.”
Not to disparage the consideration and fondness between Mendes and Winslet, husband and wife, director and actor, I preferred to think that Winslet is too much the perfectionist to let false feet into her picture. “She’d have been up at four in the morning,” I said, “getting the make-up people to give her the opposite of a pedicure” … I assume that Winslet would take any trouble, from the tips of her broken toes to the proper split ends in her elderly German hair. “Would Meryl Streep entertain anyone else’s feet?” I asked my wife. She agreed not. And that is the standard here: Kate Winslet is the heir to Meryl Streep.
Tell us in the sidebar! Thanks for chiming in on these guys. They’ll come fast and furious over the next week or so, one per day.
Wow. “Kung Fu Panda” pretty much cleaned the floor with all comers. Did anyone see that coming?
Today’s Telegraph carries an interview with Brad Pitt that somehow manages to be simultaneously personal, honest and thoroughly unilluminating. There’s plenty of contented musing on fatherhood and Angelina Jolie if that’s your cup of tea, but I couldn’t help being somewhat disappointed by the banality of his take on “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”:
“I walked away realising that time is short,” he says, talking on a sound stage at the Warner Bros studios in Burbank, California. “I don’t know if I have a day or 10 days or 10 years or 40 years. Am I halfway or am I close to the end? I don’t know, so I have to make sure I don’t waste those moments in any kind of pettiness or bitterness or laziness, and that I surround myself with the people who are most important to me.”
Further on, he lets loose with the stunning insight that the film is “about looking back on the significant moments in your life.” Well, I’ll be. I could have sworn Eric Roth had more than that in mind when he adapted F. Scott Fitzgerald’s story, but what do I know?
I’ve always liked Brad Pitt. A lot. He’s a strong actor — even if “Button” is a million miles from his best work on screen — and a smart, funny, charismatic celebrity. Or he used to be, at least. Why then, throughout the whole “Button” publicity run, has he restricted himself to such bland, humour-starved soundbites, both in print and on camera?
It’s clear he’s in a happy place personally right now, and that’s great for him. But am I the only one tiring of the relentless earnestness, and longing for a bit of movie-star dash from the man? Some are apparently counting on Pitt’s presence to “save” the Oscar telecast, but as long as he keeps following this script, I’d look elsewhere.
I’m heading back down the 101 for Los Angeles and tonight’s USC Scripter Awards gala. As reported, this will be the first year the winner will be announced at the show. I think we’re all expecting Simon Beaufoy to reign supreme as “Slumdog Millionaire” continues its dominant streak, but this is one area that presents a case for a “Button” upset more than most, so who knows?
I’ll post the winner from the show as soon as the announcement comes. The dinner starts at 7:30 so I’d figure on, oh, an announcement around 9-ish (PST)? Not sure. Nothing from me until then, though, so talk amongst yourselves.
I am actually a big fan of the “Chronicles of Narnia” franchise that Disney and Walden Media have been responsible for over the past few years. So when the news came a few weeks ago that the brand had effectively been rubbed out because of a dispute between the two companies, I was a little bummed.
Patrick Goldstein did a nice job at the time of summing the fallout up:
According to multiple sources, the once-close relationship between Disney and Walden began to unravel when, after the first “Narnia” film cleaned up at the box office, Anschutz essentially put a gun to Disney’s head and demanded that the studio renegotiate its deal with Walden. Anschutz insisted that Disney either gave back a sizable chunk of the studio’s lucrative distribution fee or Anschutz would distribute the “Narnia” series on his own. Believing the franchise was too good to give up, Disney reluctantly changed the terms of its Walden deal, but the renegotiation poisoned relations between the two behemoths. When the second film faltered, there was so little good will left over that Disney had far less qualms about cutting its ties with the franchise.
Well news came earlier this week (I somehow missed it) that 20th Century Fox has taken up the reigns of distributor for the franchise, breathing wind into the sails of the third installment: “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.”
Here’s a bit from Michael Fleming and Tatiana Siegel’s Variety story:
Fox, which was entitled to first crack at “The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader” after Disney dropped out because of the shared Fox Walden marketing and distribution label, has made a commitment to develop the project. The two sides are still working out budget and script issues, but the hope is to shoot the film at the end of summer for a holiday 2010 release through the Fox Walden label.
This graph also caught my eye:
After budget and script concerns are settled, Fox and Walden are expected to greenlight the film. The intention is to move the production away from Mexico, where, ironically, it was going to be shot at the Fox-owned Baja facility called Rosarito used for “Titanic” and “Master and Commander.” “Dawn Treader” will instead likely shoot in Australia because of concerns for the drug violence and kidnappings that are taking place near Baja.
Interesting. Anyway, here’s to the continued creative success of the franchise (and a better choice for release date next time around).
Really, is there any reason to “jump off a cliff” and predict a DGA victory for David Fincher tomorrow night? Other than the usual hopes of perceived (but fluke-ish) brilliance, I mean.
Garnering 10 nominations last week confirmed “Slumdog Millionaire”’s established status as the frontrunner for this year’s Best Picture Oscar. Unusually for a Best Picture winner, the film failed to nab any acting nominations. Its high tally counts comes from seven nominations in the crafts fields.
I recently had the chance to speak to three of those below-the-line nominees: composer and songwriter A.R. Rahman, cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle and film editor Chris Dickens. All are first-time nominees and all must be considered in genuine contention for statuettes, if not favored to win.
Rahman, a self-proclaimed introvert, has already won Golden Globe and BFCA awards for his score, which has become massively popular. Though very humble, it is clear he is relishing the opportunity to have his music exposed to such a wide audience.
“I was attracted to the film right away,” he says. “It is about modern India, young people and optimism. There’s a kind of urge to it. It’s not a laid-back score. It needed something edgy and experimental to create interest in the whole thing.”
Dickens also was attracted to the film right away, not only because of the story but because of the unique way it was to be told. “Basically, the film was designed that way in the script,” he says. “Though there was always a doubt in my mind as to how it would work when you saw it. There are lots of different scenes that the audience had to understand to get to know where they were with the story. The intention was always to shoot in different formats and different styles. I found that fascinating.”
I haven’t really dug into the stinging Bruce Springsteen snub from eight days ago properly yet, but really, how off-the-mark could the Academy possibly be? Not that the membership considers itself in the business of appearing relevant, but The Boss just played in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. He’s got a new album out as of Tuesday (though admittedly one of his weakest to date). He’ll be performing in front of one of the largest audiences in the country tomorrow.
Oh yeah, and his song was clearly the best “original song” from a movie this year. One that combines the ethos of the central character and the performer in such a way that its existence over a credit roll simply shouldn’t have been a factor.
Way to miss the boat.
Of course, I thought this was going to be his second Oscar. And maybe I’m biased, since I worship at Springsteen’s altar. I’ve seen him play four times, once in London, and the guy simply puts on the best show in rock and roll.
This would have been a fine way to prove yourself in the groove of what’s now, fresh, tangible. I love the nomination of “O…Saya,” mind you. I think it’s a much, MUCH better choice than “Jai Ho” (which never spoke to me), and of the nominees, the M.I.A./A.R. Rahman track is, I feel, the best of the lot. And it’s hard to argue with “Down to Earth,” the likely winner (I’d imagine), but good lord.
Am I alone here?
Here is a movie from a director who had gotten typed into being a success only in x-treme cinema, set in another country, often in another language, with three sets of young, inexperienced actors playing the same kids from single-digits to 20-ish, delving into the internationalism of both human aspiration and the medium of television (which might as well be movies), unafraid to deliver some of the harshest moments in mainstream cinema this year, yet emotionally kind and compelling to its core… all of this, made for a studio Dependent that has been put out of business, sold off, in part, by the parent studio to another studio’s Dependent that passed on its first opportunity to make it, sold brilliantly, surrounded by talent that is both charming and unusually generous and kind of spirit, and now in line to win The Oscar and all that comes with that honor.
From David Poland’s recent “20 Weeks to Oscar” column at Movie City News. Of course, he later chalks “Ordinary People” up as superior to a modern masterwork like “Revolutionary Road,” but you take what you can get (while wondering why the comparison was made int he first place).
That’s the line that grabbed me in this Susan Wloszczyna feature on Oscar producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark. If there’s anything that drives me up the wall, it’s the musical interjection of a speech, no matter how rambling. This is a person’s moment and ignorant, cue-happy conductors (and presumably the producers chattering into their ears) have to crank up the orchestra to send them on their way. Meanwhile, the Academy offers up the most rank stretch of montages (however pointless) and any other number of dubious production choices.
We’re all pretty well assured that kind of hogwash isn’t going to fly this year, but it’s nice to see Condon and Mark taking a stand for the speech thing. Then again, he pulls his punch later in the story, so who knows?
Here’s a bit from the piece:
When it comes to entertaining the masses, it doesn’t really matter what is on the ballot, Mark insists. His and Condon’s primary objective is “to celebrate all the movies of 2008.” Blockbusters, sleepers, art-house fare, you name it. Attention will be paid to movie history, too, “but no clips of Gone With the Wind.”
In other words, these fellows aren’t losing sleep over how the voters went for the low-profile Holocaust-themed drama The Reader over superhero sensation The Dark Knight in the top contest.
“We have enough great material to attract a crowd,” Condon says. “It’s the academy’s job to honor the best movies, not what will provide the highest ratings. We both feel they show great integrity in what they do.”
Even though I choked on Condon’s — let’s say — diplomatic quote at the end there.
The rest is the same old, same old you’ve read on the dup elsewhere, though I remain excited by nuggets like this:
I’ll be doubling up on these to make sure we get them all in, so be sure to vote quickly!
• Good riddance. [Crain’s New York]
• Bob Thompson talks to “Gran Torino” star Ahney Her. [National Post]
• Pete Hammond digs into the hounding of “Slumdog.” [Notes on a Season]
• Amy Adams makes a splash across the pond. [The Independent]
• Jeff Wells is suspicious of the “Milk” come-from-behind talk. [Hollywood Elsewhere]
• David Poland is suspicious about something…not really sure what. [The Hot Blog]
• Helen Pidd spends some quality time with Penelope Cruz. Envy her. [The Guardian]
