The pure bliss of simply seeing Tina Fey and Amy Poehler reunited on screen for something other than an awards ceremony makes “Sisters” worth the price of admission. These two comediennes feed off each other in a way that no other pair can match, and there is never a dull moment since their live wire energy can always produce sparks.
Whether the material they work with is as good as they are, however, is another matter. “Sisters” piles on the raunch and the craziness, which is slightly out of their usual wheelhouse of safe for network TV antics. Paula Pell’s script is a hard R, and those laughs come somewhat at the expense of genuine characters.
The duo’s last big screen outing, 2008’s “Baby Mama,” found that sweet spot of believable exaggeration for both women, stretching responsibility and irresponsibility to rational extremes. “Sisters” casts Poehler as the good egg of the siblings, the youngest child who strove to overachieve out of genuine compassion for others, and it’s almost like getting to watch her play Leslie Knope again.
Fey, on the other hand, throws everyone for a loop by playing the callous, selfish older sister. It proves surprising, even jarring, to watch scenes where she is not the smartest person in the room. Heck, sometimes it even seems like it throws her for a loop. Tossing out insults and profanities – rather than receiving such barbs from the “30 Rock” cast – is something she gradually grows into over the course of “Sisters.”
Imagine the script for “Birdman” fell into the hands of Woody Allen and then got made by a lesser director, and you essentially have what plays out in “The Humbling.” Al Pacino, seemingly on a preemptive farewell tour, stars as Simon Axler, a self-absorbed chatterbox of a thespian who starts seeing his craft and the world a little too honestly. Naturally, he cracks up.
But don’t worry, in the most Allenesque twist, the neurotic protagonist gets a salvo in the form of a friend’s younger daughter, Greta Gerwig’s Pegeen Mike Stapleford. She reenters Simon’s frazzled life post-breakdown as a self-identified lesbian, but that does not last long as she finds herself seduced and destroyed by the sexual prowess of an older man that can “educate” her.
No matter what you think about Woody Allen’s off-screen relations with women of a certain age, he’s often able to present it as fairly normal in his films. (Or at the very least, it seems like a non-issue.) In “The Humbling,” writers Buck Henry and Michal Zebede make the Pegeen and Simon relationship feel condescending, cocky, and perhaps even a little insensitive.
The film boasts any number of colorful characters parading across the screen, including Pegeen’s mother Carol, played with justified scorn by Dianne Wiest. But director Barry Levinson never seems to orchestrate this circus well, leaving the brunt of our attention directed towards Pegeen and Simon’s core story. Normally, drawing attention towards the centerpiece of the film would be a good thing, but it only compounds the problems for “The Humbling.” C /
In 2006, I only knew Channing Tatum from playing man-candy roles in teen films like “She’s The Man” and “Step Up.” But had I been paying attention, I would have noticed that he was also in a smaller indie film called “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.” Tatum showed such skill and promise as a dramatically compelling and emotionally potent actor; it is such a shame that it has taken eight years for someone like Bennett Miller to convert that potential in “Foxcatcher.”
In a cast that includes Shia LaBeouf, Dianne Wiest, Chazz Palminteri, Rosario Dawson, and Robert Downey, Jr., Tatum is easily the standout. “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” is my pick for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” not solely for his performance, however. Dito Montiel, adapting his own memoir for his screenwriting/directing debut, creates a deeply personal film out of his experiences that shakes up stuffy literature-on-screen conventions.
The action is split between the 1980s and the 2000s as the character Dito (played by LaBeouf and Downey, Jr.) comes to terms with his upbringing in Queens. As a teen, he begins with a vague sense of yearning to move away from the gritty environment of Astoria, and the events of the film further solidify his need for escape. “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” does not pass extreme judgment on the other characters, though; Montiel operates from behind the scenes out of respect for the figures of his past and refuses to let them become violent, delinquent archetypes of teen gang members.
Tatum’s character, Dito’s violent but admirably loyal companion Antonio, is defined less by what he does than who he is. This makes him arguably more fascinating than Dito himself, who clearly achieves his aims of getting out since he narrates from decades later; Tatum captures this unpredictability to gripping effect. Montiel’s direction matches this mercuriality, playing with form and self-awareness and discovering some intriguing (if not always extremely successful) results. His “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” finds fresh variation on familiar themes and stories – not to mention one talent who is only now receiving appropriate roles.
Losing a child is painful in the real world, but in the sphere of cinema, it’s hardly breaking new ground. In order to communicate the emotional trauma of such an event, movies have to take the material in different and unexpected directions. “Rabbit Hole” is a success story, presenting the story of husband and wife affected by the preventable death of their four-year-old son in entirely different ways. John Cameron Mitchell takes the great theatrical aspects of David Lindsey-Abaire’s Pulitizer Prize-winning play and reminds us the power that great dialogue can have while also using the great resources of film to supplement the already incredibly powerful film.
Nearing the one-year anniversary of their son Danny’s passing, Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) are still reeling. Caught in the unenviable conundrum of choosing to mourn or move on, each find a different way to cope with the void in their lives. Becca tries to find life by acting like the hole isn’t there, removing the traces of Danny that remind her that he is gone. She finds solace, strangely, through talking with the teenager that hit her son. Becca also has to deal with the pregnancy of her irresponsible sister (Tammy Blanchard), which only complicates her volatile emotional state, and the intervention of her mother (Dianne Wiest), eager to offer advice after going through the loss of a son in her own right.
Howie, on the other hand, tries to hang on to the fading memories of his son, particularly by watching a video of Danny on his phone. Rather than try to adjust to life without his son, he advocates starting a new life altogether. He pitches selling their house and having another child, neither of which are received well by his wife. Howie has faith in the traditional methods of dealing with grief, holding onto the belief that the group therapy sessions can work long after Becca gives up on them. When those who look to religion to solve their problems finally drive her away from the group for good, he strikes up a friendship with an eight-year veteran (Sandra Oh) still looking to make peace with the loss of her child.
We didn’t really enter 2010 with a huge frontrunner, but when “Rabbit Hole” was cast back in spring 2009, it sure looked like one. With Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart tackling an intensely dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning play, how could it not be an instant contender?
The movie flew under the radar for quite some time until it reemerged with a bang on the festival circuit, making a premiere in Toronto that got critics talking and buzzing. In mere minutes, Nicole Kidman was sure-fire Best Actress nominee, and the trailer let everyone else know that this is a performance to make the Oscar voters giddy. (For a hilarious take on Kidman and the trailer, see Stuart Heritage’s post for The Guardian.)
Kidman hasn’t exactly fared too well since her 2002 Best Actress win for The Hours, suffering unfortunate role after unfortunate role in the typical post-winner fashion. Over the past fifteen years, only two winners in this category have been nominated again (Charlize Theron and Frances McDormand) and one has won again (Hilary Swank). I think the Academy would love to recognize her again and show that an actress can maintain poise after winning their prize. It also helps that the role won a Tony for Cynthia Nixon. However, unless she gets serious traction from critics groups, I doubt she could be a real threat to win given the deserving factor of Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, and potentially even Natalie Portman.
But beyond Kidman, what are the movie’s chances? Her spouse is played by Aaron Eckhart, a fantastic actor deserving of some Academy recognition. He has been getting good marks for his role as a grieving father from people in high places. Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly writes:
“[Eckhart] shines in the film’s comedic and dramatic moments, showing range I’ve never seen before. And he gets to rant and rave a bit more than Kidman does, which doesn’t hurt with the Academy. He’s delivered sturdy work for years (“In the Company of Men,” “Nurse Betty,” “Thank You for Smoking”), and I’d love to see him score his first career nomination. And fortunately, the supporting actor field isn’t nearly as dense.”
I’m a huge Eckhart fan, particularly of his underrated and overshadowed work in “The Dark Knight” and especially his fast-talking tobacco lobbyist in “Thank You For Smoking,” which I thought was the best leading performance for any male in 2006. He could easily find a place in the Best Supporting actor category, which has some pack leaders but no top dog yet. He would be fighting out competitive players like Geoffrey Rush, Andrew Garfield, and Mark Ruffalo, but he has enough prestige to do it. Plus film adaptations of plays usually score acting nominations with a fair amount of ease – just look at “Doubt,” which collected four in 2008.
I have also heard lots of love for Dianne Wiest, who plays Kidman’s mother. She’s a two-time winner of Best Supporting Actress, and something tells me that the Academy isn’t quite ready to put her in the same category as Jack Nicholson in the parthenon of actors great enough to win three Oscars. Nonetheless, in this complete ragtag band of actress in the supporting category this year, we have to consider any possibility. She’s clearly a favorite, 62 years old, and apparently turns in quite a performance. According to Katey Rich of Cinema Blend, “Dianne Wiest delivers a monologue about grief that is all the more stunning for how simply and succinctly she presents it.”
Although the movie may become more of an acting showcase, let’s not forget that this play won a Pulitzer Prize, so it has to be considered in Best Adapted Screenplay. “Doubt,” written for the screen by the same man who brought it to the stage, managed to score a nomination in 2008 for being a nearly carbon copy. According to the film’s director, David Lindsey-Abaire, who will be adapting the movie from his play, will be staging a “complete cinematic reimagining of the material.” If it manages to enchant on a different level, the movie could easily net a nomination.
What about Best Director? John Cameron Mitchell has never taken on a directorial venture anything like this. “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” and “Shortbus” were both for indie, off the beaten path niche audiences; “Rabbit Hole” is a venture into serious Academy territory. It would take a lot to get him onto a list that is bound to include names like David Fincher, The Coen Brothers, and Danny Boyle. Mitchell wouldn’t be the first outsider to make the cut, but it seems like a longshot at best.
And I’d say if Kidman keeps up the strong buzz throughout the season, “Rabbit Hole” is a serious Best Picture contender. According to Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere, “A few people applauded at the end of [the] press screening. I haven’t heard any clapping at all at any TIFF press screenings so far, so this probably means something.” It will clearly have support from the actors, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it get a SAG Ensemble nod (along with I’ll assume “The Social Network,” “True Grit,” “The Fighter,” and “The Kids Are All Right”). The critics seem to really like it, and their support always helps.
The deciding factor could be the audience. Are they going to fall head-over-heels for a depressing adult drama about a couple grieving the loss of their young son? Not exactly light and uplifting, eh? But “Precious” got a nomination, as have many movies considered too dark for the average moviegoer. “Rabbit Hole” is definitely in the hunt, but it’s no sure bet at the present time.
BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actress (Kidman), Best Supporting Actor (Eckhart), Best Supporting Actress (Wiest), Best Adapted Screenplay
OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director
Imagine the script for “
We didn’t really enter 2010 with a huge frontrunner, but when “Rabbit Hole” was cast back in spring 2009, it sure looked like one. With Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart tackling an intensely dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning play, how could it not be an instant contender?
But beyond Kidman, what are the movie’s chances? Her spouse is played by Aaron Eckhart, a fantastic actor deserving of some Academy recognition. He has been getting good marks for his role as a grieving father from people in high places. 
I have also heard lots of love for Dianne Wiest, who plays Kidman’s mother. She’s a two-time winner of Best Supporting Actress, and something tells me that the Academy isn’t quite ready to put her in the same category as Jack Nicholson in the parthenon of actors great enough to win three Oscars. Nonetheless, in this complete ragtag band of actress in the supporting category this year, we have to consider any possibility. She’s clearly a favorite, 62 years old, and apparently turns in quite a performance. According to 
And I’d say if Kidman keeps up the strong buzz throughout the season, “Rabbit Hole” is a serious Best Picture contender. According to 
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments