In Contention

Blog

  • SHORT TAKE: “Rachel Getting Married” (***)

    (from left) Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie Dewitt, Bill Irwin and Debra Winger in Rachel Getting MarriedJonathan Demme and Jenny Lumet’s menagerie of characterization, “Rachel Getting Married,” will have a diversity of followers.

    Some will be drawn to the angst and closeted guilt of Anne Hathaway’s Kym, a portrayal with layers that announces new talent in the starlet.  Others will be delighted and taken by Bill Irwin’s equal doses of authenticity and questionable mugging.

    Others still might side with the conflicted and forcefully honest sparkplug of the film’s title, conveyed splendidly by Rosemarie Dewitt; or the five or ten minutes Debra Winger gets to step in as an absentee mother before flying off the rails in one of the most painfully unrealistic scenes of the year.

    Perhaps the calming presence of Tunde Adebimpe’s groom-to-be Sidney will sooth the soul, however bizarre his coupling seems to be, or the overall zen of Anna Deveare Smith’s alpha female Carol.

    Whatever your attraction to the film’s ensemble, the point that should be taken away is how vibrantly Demme has wrought its diversity and thematic purpose throughout.  Comparison’s to Noah Baumbach’s “Margot at the Wedding” may be in store, but unlike Baumbach, Demme understand the impact of true realism over a reaching attempt at stylizing it.

    Jenny Lumet’s script isn’t as hackneyed as it might be, though it certainly isn’t as complete as it thinks it is.  But perhaps that is another important (if tired) artistic point: the episodic nature of family, the ups and downs and how they seem to fade into a cluster of events impossible to distinguish.  No grand insightful gestures are made, no sweeping epiphanies of characterization, but Demme brings the appropriate edge and guidance to make it pass for unique.

    Top honors go to Ms. Dewitt, who harnesses her character’s hypocrisies while maintaining an even keel within Lumet’s most complex creation.  She approaches the warmth of sisterly familiarity and the sizzle of bridezilla conceit with equal aplomb, making for the film’s most fully realized performance.

    Despite valiant stands in front of and behind the camera, however, “Rachel” suffers from a screenplay that seems trite when boiled to its essence and leaves no real room for creative expansion.

  • Two-Face is dead afterall…

    It’s official…and totally fucking stupid.  Way to go, Nolie.  Way to neuter the second most important Bat-villain there is.

  • Critics fall hard for ‘Rachel’

    Since I saw that smart, snappy trailer, I suspected that “Rachel Getting Married” would find a following. Even so, I wouldn’t have guessed that it would turn out to be the critical darling of the Venice Film Festival at the halfway mark.

    Yet that — aided by the general perception that, the Miyazaki aside, the competition films have been lacklustre — is exactly what has happened. Hours after its Lido screening this evening, raves for the film as a whole are pouring in, while that Oscar buzz for Anne Hathaway is getting louder.

    Screen International gushes:

    Hand-held, free-wheeling and at times joyously spontaneous, the dogme-like “Rachel Getting Married” sees Jonathan Demme paying tribute to Robert Altman (in particular “A Wedding”) but there’s such a large dose of music in here it almost forms a genre of its own … Packed with superb performances, in particular from Anne Hathaway in the lead role and Debra Winger in a small supporting turn she makes memorable, Rachel Getting Married will undoubtedly be up for awards consideration in the major categories.

    Variety’s breathless review, meanwhile, sums up Hathaway’s performance as “fragile, angry and superb,” while comparing the film to my own favourite Demme work:

    Brimming with energy, elan and the unpredictability of his “Something Wild,” Jonathan Demme’s triumphant “Rachel Getting Married” may just lay the wedding film to rest, being such a hard act to follow … Riding emotional rollercoasters to the ever-changing rhythms of the wonderfully eclectic in-house bands whose music never ceases, Demme’s self-styled stunner should appeal to arthouse auds.

    (more…)

  • ‘Slumdog’ to close London fest

    The full lineup for October’s London Film Festival will be revealed in a week’s time, but we do now know what its bookends will be.

    “Frost/Nixon” was confirmed months ago as the festival opener. Now comes the announcement that Danny Boyle’s surprise package “Slumdog Millionaire,” coming off sensational buzz at Telluride, will have its European premiere as the closing film of the festival. Guess which one I’m more excited about.

    Festival director Sandra Hebron faces a tough task trying to top last year’s amazing slate, which included “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” “No Country for Old Men,” “4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days,” “I’m Not There,”  “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” and “The Savages,” to name but a few of the highlights.

    But this bodes very well indeed … and it’s a nice touch to round out this very British festival with a hot film from a homegrown talent. I can’t wait.

  • “Never blend in.”

    Never Blend InThe new tagline for “Milk” is better than the “Join Him” line that was on that prospective poster we saw yesterday, I’d say. Beyond the obvious issue of individualistic pride (gay or otherwise) being conveyed, it digs in to the zeitgeist, reflects the importance of going your own way, particularly noteworthy this year, I’d say.

    The “Milk” buzz page has been updated with the trailer and official site, by the way.

  • Fantastic ‘Milk’ trailer debuts!

    As promised. And it looks absolutely amazing.

    Focus Features has just released the trailer for Gus Van Sant’s “Milk,” along with what looks to be the key art work for the film (as opposed to the concept poster that was revealed yesterday).

    I’ve been hearing some wonderful things about Sean Penn’s work in the film, and if this two-and-a-half minute glimpse is any indication, he’ll be a busy man this Oscar season.

    Click here to view the trailer or on the image below.

    Focus Features\' Milk

    And on YouTube:

  • ‘Appaloosa’ art work continues to impress

    I really dug the one-sheet for Ed Harris’s “Appaloosa” that debuted a few weeks ago. There’s something about the monochrome grit of it all. And now it seems that New Line has released some banner art work for each of the four principle characters in the film. I stumbled onto them at Awards Daily (and cropped the set into the badass character quartet below).

    I’ll be reviewing “Appaloosa,” which I saw last week, in a few days once Toronto kicks into high gear. Feast your eyes for the time being:

    New Line Cinema\'s Appaloosa

  • 9/3 Oscarweb Round-up

    I\'ve Loved You So Long• Mark Olsen counts down Toronto’s must sees. It’s an indie dominated list (and fest, really) with more than a few surprises. [The Envelope]

    • Pete Hammond talks to Tom O’Neil about the Telluride success of “Slumdog Millionaire” and “I’ve Loved You So Long,” as well as the whole “Button” footage dust-up from yesterday. [Gold Derby]

    • Regarding the dust-up, Jeffrey Wells defends himself. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

    • Then he slams Anne Thompson’s cinematographical skills. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

    • But Brad Brevet, in nicely rounding up the whole mess for your reading pleasure, wonders whether the damage has already been done. [Rope of Silicon]

    • Which, digging through all of that, is there more to the Paramount/Fincher friction than we might know? [The Playlist]

    • In happier news, Nancy Kriparos introduces herself as Sasha Stone’s Toronto correspondent this year. [Awards Daily]

    • Michael Cieply previews Toronto from the angle of ’70s New York nostalgia dominating a number of films playing the fest. [New York Times]

  • Hollywood Awards get the craft races rolling

    I’ve never quite got a handle on what purpose the Hollywood Awards serve, since they frequently seem to honour achievements in still-unseen films. Their picks can be quite prescient (last year’s honorees included Marion Cotillard and Dante Ferretti), but they can frequently baffle too. (Based on “Charlie Wilson’s War,” did anyone really think that Stephen Goldblatt was the cinematographer of 2007?)

    However, following the announcement of this year’s craft honorees, I am pretty confident that we will see a couple of these names in the awards derby.

    A couple of months ago, I discussed the awards prospects of “Australia” DP Mandy Walker, so it’s nice to see she’s been named Cinematographer of the Year. The one thing that’s not in doubt about “Australia” is that it’s going to be a visual feast, so things are looking good for Walker to become the first female Best Cinematography nominee in Oscar history.

    Also on this site, Kris recently mused on the surprisingly poor Oscar record of Danny Elfman, one of the most distinctive composers in the business. He in turn has been named Composer of the Year. Elfman’s had a busy 2008, scoring “Wanted,” “Hellboy II: The Golden Army,” and Errol Morris doc “Standard Operating Procedure,” but it’s the heavily-buzzed “Milk” that could reverse his Academy fortunes.

    (more…)

  • ‘Milk’ poster (NOT REAL), new pics

    UPDATE (5:38 p.m.): It turns out the “Milk” one-sheet we posted earlier is not the final version Focus Features and Groundswell Films had decided upon, but merely one of a few images that were up for consideration.

    I’ve decided to go ahead and take the pic down, looks like ROS did as well.

    EARLIER: Bryan Carter over at Rope of Silicon has stumbled across some new pics from Gus Van Sant’s “Milk,” including a spiffy poster image (see update…though I hope they keep the “Join Him” bit).

    There are also new shots of Emile Hirsch and Josh Brolin (who plays Harvey Milk’s assassin, Dan White). Check it all out here.

    I’m lovin’ the hair, Josh:

    Josh Brolin in Milk

  • Let’s hear it for the ladies!

    Meryl Streep in DoubtWow, what a damn fine year for lead actress performances.  When was the last time you heard anyone say that?

    I caught some flack recently when I took Meryl Streep off my predicted five nominees in the category.  “How can the Goddess miss?”  Well, she can, and she has, but regardless, the point is that there is some really stiff competition this year for the leading ladies, and man, that’s exciting (and unique)!

    Sally Hawkins (“Happy-Go-Lucky”), Charlize Theron (“The Burning Plain”), Kristin Scott-Thomas (“I’ve Loved You So Long”), Angelina Jolie (“Changeling”), Penélope Cruz (“Elegy”), Melissa Leo (“Frozen River”) and Michelle Williams (“Wendy and Lucy”) represent the seen and raved performances.  Anne Hathaway’s work has also been viewed, but we’ll get to that at the end of the week.  Rest assured, she’ll have her fans as well.

    On the horizon we’ll have Nicole Kidman (“Australia”) and the aforementioned Streep (“Doubt) in big Oscar hopefuls, not to mention Kate Winslet’s double dip in “The Reader” and “Revolutionary Road” (which ought to make home life interesting for the five-time nominee around campaign time).

    There are still fringe possibilities for Keira Knightley in “The Duchess” or Emily Blunt in “The Young Victoria,” while Laura Linney could add an Oscar nod to her Emmy success if “The Other Man” finds a distributor in Toronto.

    There’s always Julianne Moore lurking with her work in “Blindness” should the mixed reaction from Cannes prove to be a different story in Toronto, and Kate Beckinsale, by the way, is fantastic in Rod Lurie’s “Nothing But the Truth,” so who knows?

    So let’s not get our panties in a twist over shifting and sliding in this category over the next few months.  I don’t need consistent emails asking “Why did you take so and so out of your Best Actress chart,” because the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of horses in this particular race.

    Which is what we want, right?

  • Pete Hammond can’t resist sticking it to the blog-o-sphere

    You know, I kind of, sort of let it pass when Anne Thompson decided to take a mini-stab at bloggers (written as a pejorative, no doubt) who didn’t really like the 20 minutes of footage from “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” shown at Telluride last week. But I can’t help but be irritated at the gall of Pete Hammond offering:

    Voracious movie bloggers, with a need to be first rather than right, took shots at the film over the weekend on the basis of the modest Telluride peek. They would be advised to hold their reviews a few months until the other 2 hours and 25 minutes can be seen.

    “Right?” What the fuck does that mean? There is a right and wrong opinion to be taken from watching a few clips? One guy’s “They didn’t wow me” is not another guy’s “It could be good?” Give me a break.

    No doubt this is all a result of publicity teams circling their wagons, prodding other writers to get something up that is positive and FAST. But there is no need to shit all over the opinion of a few folks who didn’t react as the suits would have preferred.

    The buzz is the buzz, and if a couple of guys didn’t dig it, their opinion is valid. We linked to the dissenters here. Jeff Wells did too (though Thompson mistakenly thought he was reviewing the clips without having seen them…he was simply passing along an opinion).

    This stuff really gets on my nerves. Writers burned by the quickness of the net (indeed, those who are a valid part of the net) can’t help but douse the flames of opinion that go up before theirs. Sad.

    Personally, if I’ve taken anything from the mixed reaction to the clips it is that this could be a tougher Academy sell than I originally thought. And indeed, I expected as much all along. And with a truly Oscar-bait effort like “The Soloist” in the pipeline at the same studio…

    But that script…man, that script is a work of art.

  • PAGE TO SCREEN: “The Road” by Joe Penhall

    Page to Screen at In Contention“You think I come from another world, don’t you? Filled with all these strange things you’ve never seen…Well I do, I guess.”

    Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” debuted last year to one of the biggest literary love fests in recent memory. From Oprah to Pulitzer, the author had one hell of a year, not to mention the Golden Globe- and Oscar-winning adaptation of “No Country for Old Men.” And so, after failed attempts like “All The Pretty Horses” (still one of my picks for director’s cut I want to see the most), McCarthy’s books are hitting the film world hard. Adaptations are coming from Todd Field and Andrew Dominik, and in just a few months, “The Road” hits screens from director Joe Hillcoat (he of the fantastic “The Proposition”) and screenwriter Joe Penhall.

    And rest assured, fans — from the looks of this script, you have very little to worry about.

    A quick catch-up for those who don’t know what “The Road” is about: It’s a post-apocalyptic world. Character names are omitted, leaving mere pronouns as items of identification. A man (to be played by Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) make their way toward the coast, hoping to find warmer weather in the desolate despair that surrounds them. The script is as sparse as the book; I honestly couldn’t tell you if there was a single scene added.

    Much has been made about the enlarged role of the man’s wife (Charlize Theron), but that really only adds up to a good cameo for Theron, each scene meatier than the last. Theses were the few sequences that seemed new to me, flashbacks of events before whatever terrible event took place, quite subtle and unassuming. No dialogue, no big moments, just a couple in love going through their routine lives, enjoying each other.

    These sequences, told from The Man’s perspective, add to the heroism of the character. However, the argument could be made that The Wife still comes across as difficult to like and even easier to hate, for reasons that would be spoilerific if you’ve not read the book. I’m sure Theron will bring her A-Game to the role (in a weak year, it’s a definite contender for a supporting actress nomination, based solely on the fact that every scene she has is a perfect contender for an Oscar clip), but I wished I could sympathize with her just a little on the page.

    Along the road our duo meets a variety of folks, including more good cameo time for Robert DuVall and Guy Pearce toward the film’s conclusion. While their parts are fine and good, I can’t help wondering if their casting will be more distracting than helpful (neither character has more than five-to-10 pages).

    The bigger encounters The Man and The Boy face are much more horrifying and emotionally wrenching, chief among them being an ungodly terrifying scene in which the two stumble upon a group of cannibals and the dying humans they eat alive in their basement. I was sweating just reading these pages (as I was in the book), and it has the potential to be one of the most nerve wracking sequences in film history. It’s moments like this that make me wonder about the film’s Oscar prospects. These scenes are pitch black and hopeless, and much more in the horror vein than any Oscar-bound movie that I can remember, including “The Silence of the Lambs.”

    The movie’s secret weapon, and the root of whatever failure and sucess it might face, is the casting of The Man and The Boy. I’ve never seen Kodi Smit-McPhee in anything, but needless to say if he pulls off the role, it’s impossible to imagine him not garnering an Academy Award nomination. It’s the type of role that is the only legitimate threat to Heath Ledger in my opinion.

    Whereas Ledger’s performance is one of showmanship and iconography, Smit-McPhee has the opportunity to pull heart strings and in a non-cloying or baity way to boot. Just like people were reduced to puddles reading the book, I imagine the film could play out in the same fashion, and that really rests squarely on this young man’s shoulders.

    Luckily for Smit-McPhee, one of our greatest actors shares every scene with him. Viggo Mortensen is perfectly cast. Was anyone even surprised when he was announced as The Man? It’s a challenging role for any actor, but one can’t help but see it as something as a culmination of the excellent work he’s been doing since appearing in that little fantasy film a few years ago.

    There’s real pain and bravery to The Man, a character whose sole existence is to take his son closer to a better life one step at a time. It’s a beautifully written role (again, like always, we have McCarthy to thank for that) and it’s hard seeing Mortensen not receive his second nomination in two years. It’s the type of role AMPAS dies to award, a family hero, deglamed, beloved actor, etc., and Mortensen has been quietly building up his reputation year after year. With three films this year to support his campaign, I’d have to say you’d be pretty ignorant to vote against his odds at this point.

    A potential downfall of “The Road” could simply be that it lacks the beautiful wordplay of McCarthy. Some of the great lines, “If he was not the word of God, then God had never spoke” or “There is no God and we are his prophets” are not present, and I’m sure that’s bound to disappoint the loyalists. Personally, I didn’t mind it so much. “The Road” is an incredibly faithful adaptation that is more than just a cut-and-paste rehash of the book. Joe Penhall has clearly taken the time and care to craft the story into as livid an adaptation as possible.

    As a big fan of the novel, I guess I can say that my fears have been laid to rest. While the success of the film on the screen lies in the work of the actors, at least we can rest assured that they’ll be working from a damn fine piece of writing.

  • A note on IC’s festival season coverage

    We’re in the midst of the Telluride and Venice film festivals at the moment, and though we don’t have correspondents on the ground, we’ll be bringing you updates as we can suss them out.  But a quick reminder of what we will be offering over the next couple of months.

    John will start his Toronto coverage on Thursday.  He’ll be updating daily with quick thoughts on the goings on.  I’ve been catching some Toronto films here in L.A. so I’ll be reviewing in tandem.

    Guy Lodge, meanwhile, will be covering the London Film Festival for us, which begins October 15.  The full schedule for the fest hasn’t been revealed yet (coming on September 10), but we do know that Ron Howard’s “Frost/Nixon” will have its world debut there.

    Finally, I’ll be overing the AFI Fest here in Los Angeles.  The festivities begin on October 30 and will take us into November.  Again, no schedule yet, though I do know one major Oscar contender expected to bow at the fest…stay tuned.

  • Can Ron Howard give ‘Frost/Nixon’ the edge it needs?

    Ron HowardIn 2000 I remember reading a post on Ain’t It Cool News by Harry Knowles.  Having seen an unfinished cut of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” the Ron Howard film based on the beloved Dr. Suess story and animated program, Knowles believed that the film would redefine Howard as a filmmkaer, elevate him to a higher level and be the film he would be remembered for.

    Knowles felt it was a greater achievement than “Apollo 13” and pretty much anything else the director had done, that Howard had given us the fantasy film we had been waiting for. Admittedly the effects were incomplete, but Knowles was confident what he saw was a masterpiece.

    Granted it was Harry Knowles, but then, of course, the film was released, critically crucified, reasonably successful before hitting DVD where it is not even regarded as a Christmas classic. You know why? Because it was not very good.

    Whatever Knowles saw, and I am sure he saw something he felt was exciting, did not transfer to the final cut. Instead we had a busy film with a massively over-the-top performance from Jim Carrey and these bizarre little creatures with odd makeup called “Whos.” Christine Baranski was in heat for the green misanthrope, though she had not seen him since he was a wee Grinch, and the town’s mayor was still the pompous windbag he had been in school when he had humiliated our hero and sent him off to the mountain where he now resides.

    They searched the continent of North America to find the right little girl to play Cindy Lou Who, and I suppose Howard thought they had found her.  Wrong.

    One year later Howard won the Academy Award for ” A Beautiful Mind,” one of those wildly over-praised films that somehow win Oscars over better efforts like “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” or “In the Bedroom,” or the un-nominated “A.I. : Artificial Intelligence.”

    For my money, Ron Howard has struck gold just once, with the brilliant “Apollo 13,” a superb piece of filmmaking. The Academy awarded the film with nine nominations, but stunningly, despite having won the Directors Guild Award for Best Director, Howard was not among Oscar’s list of helmers. What a terrible slap in the face that must have been!

    In the years since “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” Howard has matured as a director, giving us a superb western that nobody saw called “The Missing,” with outstanding performances from Cate Blanchett and Tommy Lee Jones, and the extraordinary “Cinderella Man,” for which he and Russell Crowe should have earned Oscar nominations.

    If this generation of directors has a filmmaker that resembles Frank Capra, I suppose Howard is the closest we have, though I am not suggesting he is in the same league. Howard is a good director, not a great one.

    Which brings me to my point: I wonder if he can bring the edge needed to make a film like “Frost/Nixon” work?

    (more…)