In Contention

Tag: Zac Efron

  • Sweet smell of desperation

    Kristen Stewart at the 2009 BAFTA AwardsIt’s almost as if the ratings-hungry Oscarcast producers watched last night’s BAFTA sweep for “The Hurt Locker,” finally accepted they’re going to receive no assistance from the awards, and duly sprung into action.

    Right on cue comes today’s announcement that Miley Cyrus, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner and Zac Efron will all be presenting on March 7. Perhaps if they add Robert Pattinson, they can present the Best Supporting Actress category together, heartfelt individual tributes and all.

    Here’s hoping Stewart practises her smile over the next two weeks. Not even a BAFTA Rising Star award could cheer her up last night.

  • ‘Me and Orson Welles’ trailer

    Christian McKay in Me and Orson WellesIt seems we’ve been waiting forever for Richard Linklater’s “Me and Orson Welles,” probably because the film and, to a greater extent, Christian McKay’s supporting performance as the legendary filmmaker stirred Toronto so last year.  John (who will be covering the fest once again for us next month) was a big supporter of the film, calling McKays performance “miraculous” and that he had “never seen an actor portray this character with such confidence and authenticity.”

    The film, considered by Roger Ebert to be one of the best movies about the theater he’s ever seen, revolves around a teenager (played by Zac Efron) cast in the Mercury Theatre production of “Julius Caesar” that Welles directed in 1937.  You can check out the official site here.  It features a hilarious quote from Ain’t It Cool News’s Quint: “That guy playing Orson Welles was genius!”

    The film doesn’t have a US distributor yet (nearly a year since it went before audiences in Canada), but production company CinemaNX has put together a teaser trailer nevertheless.  Unfortunately it focuses more on the presumed star appealk of Efron than it does McKay’s reportedly brilliant portrayal.  Maybe a buyer will come a knockin’ before this year’s Oscar season gets too far gone.  Check it out after the jump.

    (more…)

  • Winslet, Cruz, Herzog crack 2009 TIME 100

    Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet at the 81st Annual Academy AwardsGiven the debate currently active on these pages over what does and does not merit the term “influential” in the film world, there couldn’t be a better time to link to Time magazine’s list of (supposedly) the world’s 100 most influential people.

    Time slightly sidesteps the inherent comparative silliness of such a list by breaking it down into spheres of influence — though you have to admit there’s something slightly confounding about a survey that places Michelle Obama and Rafael Nadal in the same category. (Apples or oranges? Discuss.)

    But even  by just taking a mini-survey of the film-related figures in their Artists & Entertainers division, one has to conclude that they are as uncertain about what “influential” actually means as so many others are. In many cases, the list could be more plainly described as “famous people who have had a very good year.”

    Take Kate Winslet, for example — an undeniably great actress, a constant media presence in the last few months, and duly rewarded for her pains. But “influential?” As accomplished a performer as Winslet is, I’m not convinced that she has significantly altered the craft in which she works, or given rise to any discernible popular or artistic trends. Going strictly by the book, I’m afraid I’d have to declare Zac Efron a worthier inclusion than Winslet.

    The same caveat goes for Penélope Cruz, also on the list — a very talented and likable figure who some feel scored a personal best in the past year, but success does not equal influence. (On the other end of the scale, while his industry power remains a constant, what has Tom Hanks done in the past 12 months to merit his inclusion? And what did any of these folks do so right that, say, Christopher Nolan did not?)

    (more…)

  • SUNDAY CENTS: Zac attack

    17 AgainFor the second weekend in a row, a product of the Disney Channel has headlined the top film at the box office. This week it’s Zac Efron in the Warner Bros. comedy “17 Again.” Sure, this plot has been done before multiple times (three in 1988 alone), but not with that distinct new millennium flavor. What’s that? “13 Going on 30?” Okay, so no movie this millennium has done it with a boy as the lead.

    And that’s why this film needed to be made. Conceptual gripes aside, I actually like Zac Efron and if the trailers are any indication, his timing and charm are the only things this film have going for it. A $24.1 million opening weekend is virtually identical to the aforementioned Jennifer Garner vehicle, which helped her establish an identity outside of “Alias.” Her next film was “Electra” so hopefully Efron is paying attention.

    “State of Play” investigates second place with $14.1 million and a handful of decent reviews. In previous years this kind of film would have done better (Affleck’s 2002 April thriller “Changing Lanes” debuted with $21.2 million), but in 2009, Universal will take that result. Direct competition comes from “The Soloist” next week but the word of mouth among adults should be strong enough that this sticks around until Memorial Day.

    After the demanding “Master and Commander” shoot, Russell Crowe said he wasn’t interested in doing movies where he was in every shot any more and that explains his last four films pitting him against an equally famous co-star. With the exception of “American Gangster,” all of them have debuted with $13-$14 million.

    (more…)

  • SUNDAY CENTS: Whoa, Montana!

    Hannah Montana: The MovieMiley Cyrus proved to be just as popular in two dimensions as she was in three as “Hannah Montana: The Movie” opened at the top of the Easter box office chart with $34 million.  Given that $17 million of that came from Friday alone, one could assume that this will be a one-week wonder.  However, most kids were out of school for Good Friday so you have to cut it a little bit of slack.

    The debut couldn’t quite match the $40 million of “High School Musical 3” but it far outpaces the $20.6 million debut of the last Disney Channel princess to get her own movie (anybody remember Lizzie McGuire?)

    Seth Rogen tested his appeal by appearing in a pitch black comedy from the creators of HBO’s “Eastbound & Down” and the result was a relatively soft $11.1 million for “Observe and Report.”  The women who make up more than 50% of the audience for films like “I Love You, Man” and “Knocked Up” just weren’t interested in a film that includes possible date rape in its trailers.  Go figure.  Warm reviews and a long life on DVD will have to be the rewards for making something unique and interesting.

    Way back in seventh place is Fox’s third disaster of the year, “Dragonball Evolution,” with a limp $4.7 million.  Missing the boat by a good 10 years in terms of this property’s appeal, the existence of the film in 2009 is completely baffling.  I’m gonna go out on a limb and declare its Oscar prospects to be minimal.  Maybe if Fox Searchlight had released it instead.

    Even with no school on Friday, “Fast & Furious” dropped a hefty 59% from last weekend.  Apparently the title refers to how the film will exit the theaters.  “Adventureland” had a better decline of 40%, but still too high for a film relying on word of mouth to get somewhere.  It’s partly my fault since I thought about seeing it this week but ultimately saw “Duplicity” instead.  Probably a mistake, since that film was mildly amusing at best.

    (more…)

  • Again, uh…

    Following yesterday’s thrilling/indifferent/perplexing (adjust according to age) revelation that Robert Pattinson is a likely presenter at Sunday’s Academy Awards, Sasha Stone has excavated some further hints as to who to expect on stage — and it seems Beyoncé Knowles, “High School Musical” tweens Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens, as well as young “Mamma Mia!” duo Amanda Seyfried and Dominic Cooper could all be in the mix.

    Beyoncé is a bona fide megastar and has been a regular fixture at the Oscars for some years now, so that at least makes sense. But what’s with the excessive pandering to the (pre)teen demographic? Do that many of them really watch the Oscars? Maybe they do — I’m just asking.

    But isn’t the inclusion of one pretty-but-sexually-unthreatening vampire a sufficient nod to the demographic? Efron on his own could be bearable, but let’s not kid ourselves into pretending that Hudgens, Seyfried and Cooper are movie stars just yet.

    With names like these, perhaps the whole “secret presenters” thing was just a ploy to avoid scaring us off.

  • TECH SUPPORT: Best Original Song

    Tech Support at In ContentionAs I said a few weeks ago, I would not analyze the last “tech” category until the eligible entries had been announced. Now that the Academy has named 49 finalists for Best Original Song, and with the BFCA and HFPA rattling off their list of nominees (though they are, admittedly, not great predictors), the time seems appropriate to have an in depth look into the category.

    It’s a good mantra to say “there are no locks” in this field. Since the rules were changed three years ago, forcing voters to watch the songs in the context of the movie, some surprises have certainly been in store.  Nonetheless, there are two titles this year I’d be very surprised to see miss the cut.

    The first is Bruce Springsteen’s title track for Darren Aronofsky’s “The Wrestler.” One of the most deserving winners ever in this category (for “Streets of Philadelphia”), his ends credits track seems poised to bring him his third Oscar nomination. In addition to the song perfectly fitting the film, it is also simply a great tune.

    I expect Springsteen to battle it out for the win with “Down to Earth,” the “WALL-E” tune from Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman.  Now here is a film whose performance in the precursors has absolutely shocked me (albeit in the best way possible). Gabriel has yet to have a hit with the Academy but he’s never written anything that was so Oscar friendly before either. And while Newman has yet to be nominated for a song, he’s never had a song in contention before and he’s also yet to win for his portfolio of classic scores.

    Admittedly, both these tunes only play at the end of the movie, over the credit roll. This seems to have become a disadvantage in recent years. But I still would be surprised if either title failed to make the cut when all is said and done.

    (more…)