Archive for March, 2009

Rachael Leigh Cook… Take Two?

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

The 2001 run of Anti-Trust, Blow Dry, Josie & The Pussycats, and Texas Rangers kind of ended the sense of inevitability that many had pegged this young actress with when she was a darling of the indie circuit. The run went from from The House of Yes in 1997 (at 18 years old) until She’s All That and an arc on Dawson’s Creek killed her street cred at 20.
I don’t know this woman. I don’t know what she wanted. I don’t know how she saw her work or how she behaved on sets or in meetings. All I do know is that it kinda ended with that studio run in 2001.
So when I put an indie from Anchor Bay called Bob Funk, due for a brief theatrical release before DVD, into the DVD player… and her name, not a male name, was on top… I wondered what that was all about. And indeed, she is not the star of the film, but with Amy Ryan in a small role, she was the closest thing to a commodity they had.
And then I wondered… when is she going to turn up in the movie? And then I realized… she had. She’s blond (obviously a pliable condition), but more so, she is no longer a waif. She is a woman (30 in October) and she now has the curves of a woman. He face has filled out into a somewhat less pixie-ish shape, but she is still quite beautiful (if not terribly well photographed in this film). And she has a personality! One could see this there in Josie & The Pussycats, but that, it seems, is not what people wanted to hire her to do in films.
She really struck me – and the movie is indie okay… really a highlight reel for the star and the writer/director… feels like a stage play full of hard talk converted on a whim – as someone ready for the next round of their career to begin. It is very easy, now, to imagine her carrying a sitcom, taking a strong role on a good hour-long, or even crafting a career as a chick flick star. She is beautiful, but accessible… she is funny, but not showy… she seems daring, but not precious… really interesting.
It is easy to imagine her going into meetings and the execs or producers being surprised by who walked into their office. She doesn’t read as that girl we once saw in those movies. But if they can get over their youthful excitement about who she was, I think there is a real chance that she could have a better career as who she might be. Really interesting…
(CORRECTIONS Thurs, 12:55p – Apparently, Magnolia is distributing the film, Bob Funk, and Anchor Bay has another film I watched very late last night, The Education of Charlie Banks (with shockingly solid directorial work by Fred Durst) with their name is all over the screener. And Ms. Cook’s name was short an “a,” which I have now corrected.)

Bat-Pricing

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

Interesting spin on pricing on the new Batman Anthology, which is the post-TV/pre-Nolan Batman features… now in Blu-Ray.
For one thing, only Batman itself is available as a standalone DVD so far. But more interesting is that WB is offering the package at $79.96 (down from list price of $99.95) on its WBshop.com site. And Amazon, which usually has as low a price as anyone, is at $88.99, down from what they say is $129.95 list.
This is the first time that I have seen Blu-ray prices on the WB site that are cheaper than Amazon… which suggests, again, a real effort to make the studio home sales page the site you want to buy from.

In Which We Discuss the Need for Nicolas Cage to Stop Making Bad Movies

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

I like Nicolas Cage, but he needs a new agent.

Whatever happened to the Cage who started out making films like Racing with the MoonPeggy Sue Got MarriedRaising Arizona and Moonstruck? Or the later Cage, who intrigued with potent, evocative performances in Wild at Heart and Leaving Las Vegas? Or even the Cage who carried solid, action-packed films like The Rock (one of the few Michael Bay films that are worth watching) or Face/Off? There was a time when I looked forward to seeing a new Nic Cage film, when his talent on screen, combined with an ability to discern which scripts were worth making, made a new Nic Cage film something to at least be interested in, if not excited about. But these days, his choices tend more toward the explosion-packed and banal than the engaging and brilliant. And I miss the other Nic Cage.

There have been a few good Cage films in the last few years — I loved him in 2002′s Adaptation, which was some of the best work of his entire career, and even quite liked both The Family Man and The Weather Man, which divided critics. But over the past several years, you’re more likely to have seen Cage in a truly bad film; his recent resume is littered with crap like the National Treasure films (banal Indiana Jones rip-offs), The Wicker Man (badly executed and just plain stupid), Ghost Rider (don’t even get me started on that one), Bangkok Dangerous (he does get points on that one for at least making an indie effort with some interesting filmmakers, but did that one even make it into theaters at all?) …and, most recently, the abysmally bad Knowing.

In relatively mediocre films like The Family Man, Cage’s performance has elevated the material far beyond the promise of the script, and even in dreck like National Treasure or Knowing, Cage himself isn’t usually bad, although he tends more toward one-note emoting and a singular facial expression in films that aren’t intellectually challenging. He needs a strong script and sure-handed director to perform at the top of his game. But the scripts he’s chosen lately have been largely wretched, so bad that you have to wonder if he’s even reading these scripts himself, or just relying on his agent to guide him to projects that might have some box office potential or a decent payday rather than those that are worth making to begin with. Did he really read the scripts for some of these films and think to himself, “Yeah, those films are going to boost my rep as a serious actor?” At least with Knowing, for all that the final product is pretty dreadful, you could argue there was a seed of a better idea in there somewhere that just didn’t make it to the screen, but still.

I’m tired of seeing Cage in an endless parade of action films packed with special effects and explosions. There are plenty of guys out there who can take a mediocre film and keep it at that level to satisfy the mainstream box office crowd; I want to see Cage challenging himself and upping his game again.

In reviews of his films, Cage is sometimes referred to as a one-note actor, an allegation I think is somewhat unfair, given the overall body of his work. He’s capable of deeper, more nuanced acting than a film likeKnowing or Ghost Rider or The Wicker Man allows. In both The Family Man and The Weather Man, for instance, he portrayed quite evocatively men who were struggling with aspects of real-life: the values by which one lives, the choices one makes around how to live the life one is given. The Family Man, while a bit of an emotionally manipulative heartstring-tugger, at least had an interesting idea of exploring a path in life not taken, which is interesting from a philosophical standpoint. And The Weather Man (which Roger Ebert featured in his Overlooked Film Festival, aka Ebertfest) gave Cage room to explore the heart and soul of a man who’d lost his moral barometer and struggled with where to go from there.

In a lot of ways, The Weather Man evokes where Cage himself is in his career right now. Is he going to be the serious, talented, interesting actor he’s capable of being? Or will he continue to follow the money trail of mediocrity for the rest of his career? Perhaps Cage should take a long, hard look at some of the script choices he’s made and spend some time pondering how he wants his film career to be remembered thirty or forty years from now. Will he go down in cinematic history as the once-promising young actor who lost his touch and sunk into the murky realms of bad movies for his entire later career? Or will he, at some point, make a serious comeback for the acting he’s capable of giving?

By choosing to continue making films like Knowing, Cage acts to the detriment of both his fans and himself. He’s capable of better, so much better, and I want to see that Nic Cage again. I want to see that passion, that raw energy, that sense of wisdom gleaned from a life of good and bad choices, that powerful emotional range that we’ve seen from him in the past. I want to see him reach inside himself and show us something real, something honest, something better than what we’ve seen of late.

I don’t want to see anymore of Cage in crappy action films. Enough is enough. When people see your name in a trailer and think, “Oy, another Nic Cage action film? Pass.” instead of, “Wow, that new Nic Cage film looks really intriguing,” it’s time to consider reassessing the career choices you’re making as an actor. If he wants (or needs) to make the occasional bad film to pay the bills, fine, but toss those of us who once loved the Nic Cage of old a critical bone now and again by taking on some dramatically challenging, artistic work that exercises the acting chops. Give us reason to hope that a Nic Cage movie might offer something more than standard effects-heavy mainstream box office fodder.

The only thing promising on the Cage horizon right now is the Werner Herzog remake of Bad Lieutenant, which I at least feel hopeful about because of Herzog’s presence. But I want to see Cage push himself to the next level; I want to see him collaborate again with the Coens or Spike Jonze or Charlie Kaufman or David Lynch. Or I want Darren Aronofsky or David Fincher to find or write a great script tailor-made to bring back the Cage I once loved to watch on screen. I want him to make a film that blows away critics at Cannes or Toronto, something that really knocks our socks off. I know that he’s capable of it … the question is, will the next 20 or so years of his career ever get back on a track to better and stronger films? Or will he continue further down the action-film chute and go out as that guy who had great promise, once, and wasted it all? I hope it’s not the latter.

- by Kim Voynar

Snippets From Around The Globe

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

One of the pleasures of traveling is reading the actual newspapers.
There was this remarkable image of the fence against Mexico in the NY Times today…
mexico490.jpg
And there was this kind of wonderful odd obit page report from The Times of London… though it had this poorly reproduced, but much more dramatic picture with it in the actual paper.
scofield490.jpg
A service of thanksgiving

And Just Outside Your Window

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

Literally outside my window as I woke up this morning in Bermuda…
princess490.jpg
And in front of the City Hall here… by way of Harvard…
pudding490.jpg

Cinema Eye Awards

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

The Cinema Eye Awards ceremony is this Sunday in New York City. I will be at AFI Dallas, so can’t make it myself, but if you’re in NYC and love documentary film, you might want to check it out.
The ceremony starts at 8PM at the TimesCenter Stage, tix are available through the Cinema Eye website, and your $75 ticket gets you into the ceremony and the afterparty.
Here’s the description of the ceremony from the Cinema Eye Awards website:

Documentary makers gather to celebrate excellence and innovation in the nonfiction films of 2008. Awards presenters include Laurie Anderson, Albert Maysles, D.A. Pennebaker and Morgan Spurlock. The diverse array of nominated films include MAN ON WIRE, WALTZ WITH BASHIR, and MY WINNIPEG. More than a typical awards show, the night will feature music DJ-ed by composer and musician Ion Furjanic (composer of MANDA BALA and JESUS CAMP) and other surprises.
The ticket price includes a post-ceremony reception with hors d’oevres and an open bar at the nearby venue, ARENA (135 West 41st St).

You can check out the list of nominees right here.

Sex and the Movies

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

So I’m participating in this panel at AFI Dallas on sex in the movies. No demonstrations/re-enactments, so far as I know, so don’t get too excited about that bit.
Here’s the description:
MEN AND WOMEN ONSCREEN: ARE THE MOVIES SCARED OF SEX?
Women in Film – Wednesday 4/1 5:30PM
Last year saw a blockbuster smash in TWILIGHT that featured a romance between a teenage girl and a young male vampire that was a chastity parable by a practicing Mormon. THE READER featured an affair that traumatizes one of the characters for years to come. Meanwhile, THE READER and TOWELHEAD held May/December romances as story lynchpins with typical negative reaction to the appropriateness of the older male/younger female version (TOWELHEAD), as opposed to the relative acceptance of the older female/younger male version (THE READER). So, have we progressed at all in the way we view these relationships? Traditionally, older man/younger girl = creepy and against the law, while older woman/younger guy = lucky young guy. Have things changed at all with how we view the boundaries of portraying romance and relationships on screen or are we dealing with age-old preconceptions and prejudices? And bottom line: Why are the movies so afraid of sex in the first place?

…If you were listening to this panel, what would you want to hear discussed? Toss me any ideas you have, or questions you’d be interested in hearing addressed, and I’ll try to work them in. And if you’re in Dallas for the fest, feel free to drop by for the discussion.

For The Sake Of Free Speech

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

This seems to be the footage that the Chinese government has shut down access to YouTube in the country in order to quash… as presented by Reuters.

Why Does…

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

Anne Hathaway as Judy Garland both creep me out and make me think it could be spectacular… both at the same time?
It’s just so… God… so close to being satire on the face of it.
Marion Cotillard really lost herself in Piaf, another way-over-the-top drama queen, for La Vie en Rose. But Cotillard was pretty much an American unknown and Piaf, as a person beyond a couple of records, as well. Ben Kingsley as Gandhi.
Even Johnny Depp as Dillinger in Public Enemies isn’t fighting an icon that we have a strong visual and aural take on already.
But Hathaway is a well-known person herself. And the fact that she actually does have some of the same skin tone and slightly exaggerated, but beautiful, but odd kind of looks as Garland… I don’t know… is that good or bad?
Judy Davis went there in 2001, for TV, to great acclaim. But again, not an icon (though I am a huge Judy Davis fan) playing the icon. And not young enough to even attempt to play her “young.” (Tammy Blanchard did that.)
I don’t know… truly in the category of truly great or truly disastrous, it seems to me. I hope it’s the former.

Bermuda ’09 – Garbage Dreams

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

BYOB – Humpday

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

Wilmington on DVDs: A Secret, Dodes’ka-den, L’Innocente and more … plus, this week’s box set

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW

A Secret (Un Secret) (Three-and-a-Half Stars)
France; Claude Miller, 2007 (Strand Releasing)

The young French film critic Francois Truffaut used to snipe at the obvious craftsmanship and overt (more…)

Trailering Robert Byington's Harmony and Me

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009



A teaser for Harmony and Me, the new film from Robert Byington, who made the startling, often hilarious RSO (Registered Sex Offender), debuting at New Directors/New Films. The cast: Justin Rice, Kevin Corrigan, Pat Healy, Alex Karpovsky and Kristen Tucker.

Nicole Mitchell's Zoologist, Student Academy Award winner

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009



Charming.

The Dirty Garage

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

:13:23

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

I’m going to bed, so I will keep this missive as short as I can.
Nikki Finke decided to slap back at Variety today. And as Kim Masters noted earlier… she’s got a fairly easy target.
The simple reality remains, Nikki counts on fear to keep studio executives who are not using her to spin stories they way they want them spun from telling the truth about her tactics and lack of interest in the facts… truths that, if those who think she is a straight player knew, they would turn away from her, even though they still might LOVE reading her Perez Hilton act.
From this side, the side of a working journalist, to tell the truths is to expose the tellers of the true tales… stories that are embarrassing enough to the tellers that there is little motive to lie.
Nikki’s reign of terror over other journalists started early. The first time I ever heard from the woman was when she was screaming about a story that she still doesn’t understand was dead wrong on the facts and which got her fired from one of her jobs. She has managed to intimidate outlets much too big to be intimidated… but much too uninterested in listening to her screaming to bother keeping up their journalistic standards.
I would love for Reed to buy Nikki, because it would be the end of her. There would be a major lawsuit within six months and that would be the end of that.
No major journalism entity, doing due diligence, will ever buy or hire Nikki… because the exposure is just too great. If she had an editor, very little would ever run. If she worked for a company that actually worked as journalists, she would be forced to follow up gossip with reporting before posting and scoop even less than she actually does now.
And the moment of truth – actual truth – is coming. Some think I am jealous – always a lame excuse, as there are many others who have things in this world, unlike Nikki, that I actually covet… and you never see me attacking them. The truth is that lying, double dealing, failing to source her stories past the person who gave them to her, ignoring the responses she often gets from the subjects of her stories, failing to edit honestly and changing stories to fit new information she previously had wrong, trading gossip she hears for future favors, harassing studio executives, threatening studio executives, etc, etc, etc, is the way Nikki does business every single day… even while preparing for her father’s funeral.
If all that and more is okay by you, then you should love Nikki and embrace all she does. If not, you should not.
The fight for “first” or in this case, eventual “toldjas,” is the worst of what has happened to the media in the internet age. Nikki, in this industry, has been the first to have no editor AND no shame. She makes Jeffrey Wells look like a pre-teen still learning how to be harsh to people. People – including some very smart people – mistake this for hard-charging reporting. But it is not. It is gossip of the lowest order.
And again, if that’s good by you… so be it. It makes me want to vomit every time I get an eyeful of it. If that’s the future, please count me out. But I don’t think it is the future. I don’t think it’s what people really want. And when the industry stops using her and/or being afraid of her – in equal measures – then it will end and end quickly.
All I know is… I speak out so I can look in the mirror each day. I know what Nikki is. And I know what I am. And, for that matter, I know what Peter Bart and Patrick Goldstein and Anne Thompson and Kim Masters are. They are all scared to death. And they all smirked as Nikki smacked around people who deserved smacking… until she started smacking them… and making it less viable to hold standards in this business… and made them all wonder whether they would have to do all the things that Nikki does to keep earning a living. And in that group… I don’t think any of them really know just how ugly it is. But they looked the other way… just as Sharon Waxman did, thinking that Nikki was ready to play nice and to share the turf… because Nikki told her she would… and then the Nikki carpet bombing started when they were put in competition with each other by a journalist… and then it was the truth coming out.
Nikki only cares about Nikki and feeding her emotional Grand Canyon.
People need to stand up.
I know many readers or bored to death with this conversation. But until others stand with me, I will keep giving it voice. Because it is the truth. And the truth must be the first standard, in the shadow only of honor to those who help you see that truth.
Good night.

The Brilliance of Hunger

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

Hunger shed light on something of which I, being an American who was born two years after the events depicted in the film, was unaware. While I can’t say that I walked out of the film with a greater understanding of the political reason why IRA prisoners would deliberately starve themselves to achieve their goals, I don’t think that was the point of the film either. Instead, I left with a pit in my stomach, having experienced something so visceral and harrowing that I was moved physically.

I understand that for a lot of folks across the Atlantic that there are sensitive politics at play in this film and I appreciate that; but truthfully, this is not a film that is overtly concerned with reasoning, but with action. When someone is willing to forego eating in order to starve themselves to make a political point, it doesn’t matter whether or not you agree with their message; what matters is that they are willing to hurt themselves for a cause. While you might oppose the politics and the method, you can’t deny that the person willing to give their life painfully – without harming others – cares a great deal about provoking change.

Set in Belfast’s Maze prison in 1981, the main thrust of the film is obfuscated for the first half of the film while we are immersed into the world of this prison and these prisoners. The first ten minutes show a guard at the prison putting on his uniform forlornly, leaving for his house in the morning and checking underneath the car before tentatively putting his key in the ignition, worried that it might explode because he works at a prison. What this opening does is engender sympathy in this guard, showing that he clearly is a human being that isn’t just a force of evil like most prison guards in movies; he is a person, capable of compassion – as shown when he visits his mother with flowers at a rest home later in the film – and repression. When we see him soak his bloody hand in a sink full of water, we wonder how his knuckles got so banged up, but we’re expecting that he will a central and potentially heroic character in what follows.

But the film pulled the rug out from under me by showing that same guard, who I had developed some affection for, brutally beating a prisoner and cutting his long hair so violently that he cuts some bits of skin with it. What this does, essentially, is show that this wasn’t some mere brute who gets his jollies from beating someone up; instead, this was a human being with a family and a heart, that somehow found it in himself to muster up the ability to inflict such violence and pain on another human being. The implication is clear from this – and other instances in the film – that prison is, for all parties, an inhuman and inhumane place.

The first half of the film focuses on this prison guard and a new prisoner, who finds himself brought to a room smeared with feces and a new cellmate with long hair and a bear. It seems, then, that this would be our protagonist, but once again I was mistaken. But this new prisoner also starts to smear his feces and eventually both of these men have covered the entire room in their fecal matter while also pouring their urine into the hallway. Yet, the new prisoner is also hesitant to masturbate while his cellmate is sleeping; somehow he is able to defecate and smear that excrement on the walls in front of his cellmate, but masturbation is too intimate. The new prisoner is trying desperately to hold on to some part of normal etiquette and humanity even as he lies in a room covered in excrement and bugs.

The entire first half of the film is almost silent apart from a few innocuous sentences involving the prisoners wanting to wear their own clothes instead of prison-issued coveralls; instead, they wear nothing for the most part. The opening forty minutes of the film reminded me of the wordless opening of There Will Be Blood and it’s a brilliant technique by filmmaker Steve McQueen (a conceptual artist making his first feature and not to be confused with the deceased star of Papillon); without words to give us context, the audience is instead forced to look deeper and focus harder on the small gestures and glances.

Then, halfway through the film, we are introduced to our main character – kind of how Frances McDormand is introduced a third of the way into Fargo – Bobby Sands, played by Michael Fassbender in a revelatory performance. He is something of a leader amongst his fellow IRA prisoners and in the middle of the film, there is a nearly twenty-minute scene without a single edit, where he talks with a priest about his plans to go on a hunger strike. In a film that was nearly bereft of dialogue, we are suddenly given a scene that is essentially nothing but dialogue and the non-movement of the camera makes us focus on the words that are being spoken.

What is said in that scene provides the context and the argument for the entire film. Bobby Sands is willing to die for his cause and he is willing to die painfully and the priest understands this and is sympathetic to a point, but he it’s clear that he is wary of giving Sands absolution for what he’s going to do. The priest makes it clear that he believes the hunger strike is not the right course of action, that he believes that Sands should talk things out, ironic in a film where talking hasn’t been necessary.

The fascinating part of this scene is that it makes it plain that Sands is fully aware of what he is about to do, that he is going to give up one of the most basic necessities of humanity: food. He is shown to be a rational, intelligent human being that has consciously come to this decision to basically not be human any longer. The fact that he is deliberately giving up his own humanity in a place that has beaten so much of it out of him already speaks to his passion about the cause. And that is something that, despite what you think about his political stance, demands a kind of respect.

What follows is something similar to watching The Passion of the Christ, but the wounds are all self-inflicted. We watch a man who was full of life and vigor become reduced to, quite literally, nothing but a heap of skin and bones. All vitality drains out of him, he develops sores all over his body and the bones protrude sharply through his skin. Clearly, this is extraordinarily difficult to watch in the same way that Mel Gibson’s film was and it has a similarly religious undercurrent. In the scene with the priest, Sands talks not about Jesus, but about the thief next to him and how it wasn’t difficult for Christ to hang on the cross knowing that he would be sitting beside his father in heaven when it was all over; but for that thief, not knowing that anything but pain was coming, that’s the difficult part. And when Sands refuses food, he is basically nailing himself to the cross, not knowing what will come except the pain of starvation.

Hunger is one of the best films of the year and if I had managed to see it during its limited release in December, it would have been high up on my top ten list. Steve McQueen is clearly an auteur, an artist, that demands to be watched. He is able to show the reflection of light in a flood of piss and make it seem almost beautiful; or the concentric circles on a wall full of shit being washed away by the strength of a hose and it is one of the most gorgeous images I’ve seen this year. There are so many contrivances in the “prison” genre that are completely absent from McQueen’s film, which focuses on the faces of characters and their surroundings. The theme is not pushed forward by plot or by character but by feeling and emotion, which is enormously difficult in such a visual and aural medium. Now that he’s been able to show the beauty in detritus, I can’t wait to see what else he shines his light on.

There are a couple of good films in the cinema right now that will make you feel like you’ve spent your money well and been entertained. But there is nothing in a movie theater at this moment that is more important from the standpoint of cinematic history than Hunger. McQueen is destined to be one of the great directors and important voices and trust me when I say that you will want to be on the bandwagon early.

- Noah Forrest
March 23, 2009

Noah Forrest is a 25 year old aspiring writer/filmmaker in New York City.

The opinions expressed in these columns are the writers and do not neccessarily reflect the opinions of Movie City News or any of its editors or other contributors.

BYOB For A New Week

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

Why Does The NYT Keep Missing The Story?

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

Over the weekend, a Brooks Barnes story

Tribeca ’09: Fixer dir Ian Olds

Monday, March 23rd, 2009