Let’s have a little thought experiment, shall we? Think of an action movie in the last decade or so that you enjoyed. Say, “The Bourne Ultimatum” or “The Lord of the Rings” franchise. How would you like to see that movie … but medieval?!
That’s pretty much the gambit on which Guy Ritchie stakes his entire film “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.” Observers of the director know to expect a certain cheekiness and self-awareness from the rebellious Brit. But here, Ritchie crosses a line. He’s self-aware to an almost Seth MacFarlane-esque self-referential point.
His “Game of Thrones” fan fiction film doubles down on all the worst qualities of his “Sherlock Holmes” films and discards most of the team chemistry that made them great. Ritchie has always been one to show the strings, making you aware of his stylistic baubles every time he brandishes them. Given his post-modern, ironic sensibilities, the aesthetic butts heads with anything set before the mid-20th century. The effect is always one of removal from the film itself, reminding us of the dissonance between the subject and its presentation.
His take on the Camelot myth, pitting a paranoid King Herod-like Vortigern (Jude Law) against a messianic sword-wielding Arthur (Charlie Hunnam), brings little to the round table other than zippy editing and flashy VFX. Hunnam does little to liven up “King Arthur” as well; he looks more likely to be headed to a rugged Scotland-themed GQ shoot than into serious battle. But I don’t mean to reduce the film to mere appearances in order to dismiss it. Let me put it simply: this is the same superhero origin story of dead parents and internal power struggles we’ve been forced to endure for about 15 years now. But medieval. C /
Lily Tomlin won the Presidential Medal of Freedom last year, yet she somehow still feels underappreciated. Or maybe that’s just because she kept a low profile after the peak of her stardom in the 1970s and was known mostly to members of my generation as the voice of Ms. Frizzle on “The Magic School Bus.” But thanks to perfectly tailored roles in Netflix’s “Grace & Frankie” and the new film “Grandma,” Tomlin definitely seems poised for a major moment once again.
But Tomlin’s career is not necessarily being “rescued.” In fact, some of her best work has come from the slow and steady decades between her peaks of public interest. Case in point: “I Heart Huckabees,” the film that landed David O. Russell in director jail after he went for Tomlin’s jugular on set. In spite of that tension, the movie still turned out alright – even if I did not immediately recognize it on first viewing five years ago.
Russell has gained a reputation for stylish, quirky films with his so-called “reinvention” trilogy that began with 2010’s “The Fighter.” But that idiosyncratic spirit certainly existed before then, and “I Heart Huckabees” might mark its most vibrant display. Working with co-writer Jeff Baena, Russell crafts a so-called “existential comedy” that mines philosophy and ontology for laughs that might make Woody Allen green with envy. As such, it merits my pick for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week.”
Beneath all the hilarious intellectual banter lies a very simple story about a man, Jason Schwartzman’s Albert Markovski, an environmental activist who just wants to know what it’s all about. “It,” of course, is the very meaning of life itself. After a series of odd coincidences, he turns to a pair of existential detectives, Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin’s husband and wife team Bernard and Vivian Jaffe. This duo claims that they can – with enough field research – determine how everything in Albert’s life connects. They set out to find his place in the grand plan of the universe, optimistically sure that such a thing exists.
But after a while, Albert falls prey to the Jaffe’s nemesis and ideological counterpart, Isabelle Huppert’s Caterine Vauban. She offers similar services but with the nihilistic assertion that nothing relates to anything. The longer Bernard and Vivian take to complete their assessment of Albert’s life, the more appealing Caterine’s services look.
Albert’s quest for self-knowledge gets complicated by others who seek out the detectives’ services, such as Mark Wahlberg’s Tommy Corn, a firefighter who can chew anyone’s ear off with his views on the harmfulness of petroleum. Russell has utilized Wahlberg in three films now, and this is certainly his most ingenious performance among the trio. While the actor is notorious for his authentic off-screen anger and street cred, Russell funnels those traits into a hilariously exaggerated character professing a hyper-verbal righteous indignation. For Wahlberg, often more likely to rely on the swagger of his body than the power of his words, the performance feels revelatory (and perhaps indicative of even more untapped potential).
The quirky crew does not end there, with Jude Law also in the mix as Brad Stand, a corporate executive at the company Huckabees determined to take Albert down by figuring out the meaning of his own life. Naomi Watts’ Dawn Campbell, Brad’s girlfriend and the star of Huckabees’ ad campaign, gets thrown in for good measure too. Both are slightly minor players but still players nonetheless.
Russell throws some really dense, cerebral concepts out there in “I Heart Huckabees” – and at the lightning-fast speed of his dialogue, no less. But so long as you can keep up, the film proves a rewarding, stimulating experience with something to say about the equilibrium between pragmatism and pessimism that we need to get through the day.
Prior to “Spy,” Melissa McCarthy was one lumbering burlesque of a physical performance away from entering Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell territory. This land, beyond typecasting, is a dump of sneering self-parody churned out at breakneck speed. After breakout success in “Bridesmaids,” roles in “Identity Thief” and “Tammy” reduced her to little more than a one-dimensional punchline (not to mention a bit of a punching bag as well).
Thankfully, maestro Paul Feig arrives with Susan Cooper, a part that provides a well-timed reminder of McCarthy’s remarkable comic agility and versatility. As an unlikely secret agent tracking down a rogue nuclear weapon on the black market, Susan often has to shift gears into new – and often unflattering – identities on the fly. While playing a character who goes from shy and sheepish to brash and outspoken within a matter of minutes, McCarthy never appears anything less than completely confident.
Unfortunately, Feig’s script for “Spy” reserves all the surprises and range for its star. In his past collaborations with Melissa McCarthy, Feig worked with screenplays from other comediennes: Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo (“Bridesmaids”) as well as Katie Dippold (“The Heat“). When tasked with creating the humor he has to orchestrate, Feig falls into rather predictable patterns that often feel one-note.
Just so we’re clear: I have no problems with auteurism. For those of you who just saw a French word and panicked, I’m referring to a school of film criticism that looks for recurring patterns throughout the work of an artist (usually the director). It can often be a very interesting lens through which to analyze a set of films, and auteurism has the ability to shine a light on filmmakers outside of the general circles of critical acclaim.
Like anything in life, the theory has a dark underbelly, and to me, “The Grand Budapest Hotel” represents the perils of auteurism run rampant. The film is Wes Anderson’s “Django Unchained,” in the sense that it represents a moment of stasis in the progression of a great director. Anderson is now more than a director; essentially, he’s a brand, expected by customers to deliver a certain consistency of product.
Put into the position of becoming a cinematic McDonald’s, Anderson takes the easy way out by providing an assembly-line reproduction of what he has already created to great admiration. “The Grand Budapest Hotel” feels like a less vibrant remake of a film he’s already made – or, perhaps more accurately, it feels like all of them at once. Despite being set in a semi-fictionalized interwar Central Europe, the world Anderson portrays seems reassembled from pieces of “Moonrise Kingdom,” “The Darjeeling Limited,” and even “Fantastic Mr. Fox.”
Even more than Anderson’s last feature-length cinematic outing in 2012, “The Grand Budapest Hotel” takes his telltale stylistic flourishes and puts them to an exponential degree. Every other take in the film had to be a tracking shot, so it seemed. The cameos and other miscellaneous odd appearances by acclaimed thespians is now less of an amusing diversion and more of a distracting parade. The off-beat characters feel less like quirky people and more like paper dolls traipsing around in the elegant house Anderson created for their frolicking delight.
Steven Soderbergh may have saved the best for last with his supposed final theatrical release, the chillingly cerebral “Side Effects.” A successful re-teaming with “Contagion” scribe Scott Z. Burns, the film recreates all the unnerving hysteria of the 2011 apocalyptic thriller on a much more micro scale. Soderbergh, acting as his own editor and cinematographer (under false names), creates a cooly fluorescent-bulb lit environment in which a crazy tale of criminal insanity can realistically unfold.
In this setting, Burns’ cat-and-mouse tale takes on an eerie and haunting dimension. His script is full of unexpected twists and turns, rife with crossed alliances and false appearances, and topped off with plenty of intrigue from the fields of psychiatry and pharmaceuticals. His “Side Effects” starts off thoroughly convincing us it’s one kind of movie … and then pulls the rug out from underneath us, ultimately leaving us with a surprisingly different end result.
The suspense is amplified by a finely-tuned cast of performers, led by a viciously versatile turn from Rooney Mara. Her character, the moody Emily Taylor, is a character playing multiple games simultaneously. She’s mad, moody, depressed, longing, conniving, and manipulative – often all at once. Mara commands the screen with the same force as she did in her Oscar-nominated role in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” although it’s a more quietly resolute performance that adds another layer of tension to an already taut film.
Joe Wright’s “Anna Karenina” is a cinematic version of Tolstoy’s treasure meant for people who love “Anna Karenina.” In other words, if you haven’t read it or spent time with other film adaptations, this film will be as lost on you as it was on me. It’s a stylized take on the classic that leaves those watching the film trying to decipher the plot in the dust. (Recommendation: read a plot summary beforehand.)
Wright is trying to do a master class on “Anna Karenina” by doing something unconventional with the staging: that is, to literally set it on a stage. The setting works well as a clever metaphor for Russian high society and breathes some new life into the dusty tale. And kudos to Wright for trying to break out of his doldrums of conventionality that have led to a string of mediocre films that have fallen ever so short of success.
However, the extended metaphor is quickly revealed to be incredibly quixotic; that is, idealistic but not practical. If you’ve ever seen a copy of Tolstoy’s book in print, you would certainly notice it’s a hefty volume that is sure to have quite a sprawling narrative. The story of “Anna Karenina” takes us to all sorts of locales, many of which simply don’t work inside of a theatre or stage setting.
So rather than try to make it work, Wright hits us over the head with it in the first act … and then essentially discards it when no longer expedient. With a little more thought, it could have yielded all sorts of revelations about the story. But as it appears on screen in his final version, the metaphor is unfulfilled.
It’s slightly disingenuous to make a film all about the magic of the movies and then have little to offer itself in the way of enchantment, but that’s what Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” is – take it or leave it. His ode to the pioneering days of cinema, when trailblazers like the Lumière Brothers began making movies and Georges Méliès invented special effects, is definitely heartfelt and powerful enough to awaken plenty of latent nostalgia. However, his movie serves as a better tribute to their genius than it does as an equally majestic film deserving to stand alongside them in the annals of history.
What I left the theater being nostalgic for was “Goodfellas” and “The Departed” and “Gangs of New York.” While I certainly admire Scorsese for taking on a radically different project, and good for Paramount to give him $150 million to realize this passion of his, I missed the bullet-riddled, F-bomb filled director that I’ve come to love. It’s a very finely crafted movie, clearly the work of an expert like Scorsese. All of the below-the-line elements are as good as ever with his usual suspects – editor Thelma Schoonmaker, costume designer Sandy Powell, production designer Dante Ferretti, and cinematographer Robert Richardson – returning to whisk us away to a train station in 1930s Paris with astounding precision.
I was largely against popular opinion with my disappointed ambivalence towards Guy Ritchie’s first “Sherlock Holmes” film, writing two years ago that “it fails to captivate and engross like detective stories are supposed to do.” I then went on to make a statement that is now quite ironic: “I do look forward to seeing the sequel which was clearly set up in the ending, hoping in the meantime that Ritchie and his team can figure out a way to get me more engaged.”
Well, here we are, two years later, and I’ve seen “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” Ritchie’s follow-up. As I sat in the theater and each interminable minute passing felt like five times as long, I wished I could have been sitting in the first movie. Everything wrong about the 2009 reimagining of Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic detective series was multiplied and magnified, and most of what was done right was gone entirely. Robert Downey Jr. is now skating on thin ice with me as I’m now almost totally averse to his pompous smugness. It was awesome in “Iron Man,” amusing in “Sherlock Holmes,” annoying in “Iron Man 2,” and it’s just acrid in “A Game of Shadows.”
He’s suffering from what I’ve dubbed “Johnny Depp syndrome” – a performance and a persona dubbed iconic will eventually become an imitation and a mere shadow of its former self if repeated multiple times. And with a movie this poorly plotted, Ritchie needed Downey at his A-game … and wound up getting probably about a C or a C minus-game. His Holmes, this time around, feels jaded and bored, which makes me wonder if it’s the character or the actor who we are really seeing reflected on the screen.
While talking to a friend who was on the fence about seeing “Contagion,” I threw out the following selling point without really even thinking: “It’s a Steven Soderbergh movie.” Then I recoiled for a second and actually thought about what that meant. Granted, I haven’t seen his watershed indie “Sex, Lies & Videotape,” but when I look back at his filmography, I wouldn’t label many of them directorial triumphs. “The Informant!” succeeds mostly because of Matt Damon, “Erin Brockovich” is 100% Julia Roberts, and the slickness of the “Ocean’s” series is what made them popular. “Traffic” is, I suppose, although I don’t think I would recommend that.
So a Soderbergh movie with a cast of eight Oscar nominees (so many that two didn’t even make the poster) had no shot at being a director’s movie … or so I thought. Surprisingly, this is a movie where Steven Soderbergh is the biggest and most brightly shining of all the stars. He’s in total control of this vehicle, setting the mood from the first frame and then keeping it an even-keeled movie even when Scott Z. Burns’ script goes a little haywire.
In a time where hyperlink cinema has become a hackneyed plot device, Soderbergh, one of the pioneers of the style with “Traffic,” reminds us why it’s even around in the first place. These stories can be linked across countries because technology and globalization has made us linked into a common destiny. Yet in the decade since “Traffic,” several events have linked us as well: 9/11 and various disease threats, such as SARS and the swine flu scare. A thin thread of paranoia connects us all, and Soderbergh gently reveals to us that this link exists in the opening stages of the film. And then he proceeds to vibrate that thread at pulse-pounding frequencies with his unflinching realism to then make sure we feel that uncomfortable pit in our stomach every single second of the film.
With the sense of wonder of a child and the intelligence of an adult, “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” is a truly dazzling film. From the mind of Terry Gilliam, this Faustian fairy tale indulges our imaginations, often growing dusty from years without activity and becoming more seldomly used with each technological advance and each passing year. I feel like I saw in this movie what the multitudes saw in “Pan’s Labyrinth,” but I found the bubbly exuberance on display here was ultimately much more winning.
The titular Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is traveling England doing an antiquated theater and magic show in a horse-and-buggy. He has sold his soul to Mr. Nick (Tom Waits), an incarnation of the Devil, to counteract the immortality he won from the big red guy down below in a bet several hundred years before. Parnassus soon has to give back his 16-year-old daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole), to Nick, and he’s especially dreary given those circumstances. It doesn’t help that his “imaginarium” has become somewhat of a laughing stock.
But everything changes when they rescue a hanging man (Heath Ledger), later discovered to be a philanthropist named Tony. Parnassus’ crew discovers first, though, that Tony has a true knack for the theatrical, and he revolutionizes their marketing approach. Soon enough, all sorts of high-class mall shoppers are entering their mysterious mirror into a world of untapped imagination. But soon enough, they find out that Tony was involved some shady dealings, and the troupe is subsequently brought into this world of danger along with their newest member.
The movie has the unfortunate distinction of being Heath Ledger’s final role. As it was widely publicized, he was still in the middle of filming this movie when he passed. While his performance as the anarchical The Joker will forever make him an icon and legend in cinematic history, it was a role that certainly did not represent Ledger’s off-screen personality. As the mysterious Tony, all the charm and artistry that made him one of the movies’ golden boys is on display. It’s really comforting to know that Ledger’s final movie shows us the Ledger we want to remember.
I was worried that the movie would be too much of a memorial to Ledger and that Gilliam couldn’t figure out a way to downplay his death. His solution is executed with poise, having Ledger play Tony in the real world and three capable actors (Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell) play different incarnations of him inside the mirror. Depp, Law, and Farrell are all great, bringing their distinctive acting skills to the role while also keeping in line with Ledger’s version of the character. It’s also nice to know that their dedication extends beyond the screen as they all donated their salaries for the movie to Ledger’s daughter, Matilda.
But let’s not dwell on the past too much because this movie gives us a great opportunity to look forward to the future. “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” is one of the first roles for Andrew Garfield, recently cast in the reboot of the Spider-Man series. Audiences will probably look back and see “Never Let Me Go” and “The Social Network” as the movies in which they discovered him, but here we get a very nice introduction to the actor who is poised to make a big splash in Hollywood. With charisma, nobility, and sensibility, not so unlike Ledger, Garfield should be a welcome addition to Hollywood’s A-list. A- /
These are words we all associate together, right? Usually one affects the other or one leads to the other. But if you are willing to challenge your views on the connectivity of these emotions, then you will love my pick for “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” Mike Nichols’ “Closer.” If the director alone isn’t enough to make you see this movie, just look at the poster and see all the stars. Each and every one of them gives a fantastic performance, but one in particular really deserved an Academy Award.
The movie follows four people in London over the course of several years, particularly noting their struggles and their romances. Alice (Natalie Portman) is an American trying to get away from stripping for a living who falls for Dan (Jude Law) after he helps her recover from getting hit by a taxi. But Dan also has feelings for Anna (Julia Roberts), a photographer taking his picture for the book he has written many years after meeting Alice. When she kindly refuses to be with him, Dan plays a mean-spirited practical joke on her and brings Larry (Clive Owen), a dermatologist, into the mix. As the story unfolds, the four mix and clash in unexpected ways, all seeking some sort of truth through love.
Part of what makes “Closer” so fascinating is the plot and the dialogue. Patrick Marber adapts his own Tony Award-nominated play for the movie, and he stays relatively close to the spirit of the stage. The movie has a very stripped-down, bare essentials minimalism that makes us feel like we are watching actual lives unfold. Marber has thematic depth in his screenplay and probes issues that usually only playwrights dare to do. His dialogue is raw and unsparing, a perfect complement to the story.
However, what really makes “Closer” such an intensely satisfying watch are the actors. Julia Roberts is scary good at being quiet and unassuming, but when that layer fades away, she is just plain scary. Jude Law probably has the most screen time, and he makes the most of it with his compelling work. Clive Owen is the most brutal of the bunch, rough and willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants. Owen plays the role with such a ferocious intensity that we never doubt his character for a second.
But the best performance of all is delivered by Natalie Portman. It’s so much more mature than her 23 years (at the time of the release). Alice is completely realized thanks to Portman, who really gets inside her enigmatic character to shocking success. Whether it is anguished, upset, wanting, or hurting, Portman nails the emotion. The role is a dramatic change of pace from her usual “good girl,” and it certainly is strange as she becomes completely absorbed in being mysterious and seductive. She never lets us doubt it, though, as she keeps us astonished and spellbound by Alice and her quest for love.
There’s more to March than just the Oscars. Finally, March arrives and we can stop dwelling on 2009. In my opinion, March is usually a pretty decent movie month. This year’s crop looks especially promising with new movies from Tim Burton, Paul Greengrass (“The Bourne Ultimatum”), and Noah Baumbach (“The Squid and the Whale”).
March 5
After almost 3 months, “Avatar” will have to cede those illustrious 3-D and IMAX screens to Tim Burton’s twist on “Alice in Wonderland.” The titular character is played by relative newcomer Mia Wasikowsa, who will look quite a bit older than the Alice you remember from Disney’s 1951 animated classic. If that’s not a big enough draw for you, surely Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter (who will hopefully channel more of his glorious Jack Sparrow than his Jacko-esque Willy Wonka) will suffice. No? How about Helena Bonham Carter as the Queen of Hearts? Or Anne Hathaway as the White Queen? Perhaps Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar? No doubt about it, this is one exciting cast, and I’m sure Tim Burton won’t have any problem distinguishing himself from the numerous “Alice in Wonderland” rip-offs that have sprouted over the past few years.
“Brooklyn’s Finest” is directed by Antoine Fuqua, helmer of “Training Day,” which was enough to get me interested. However, it really looks to be little more than a mash-up of every cop movie ever made. But hey, that may be your thing, which would make this your potpourri.
March 12
I’m excited for “Green Zone,” which looks to be a smart political thriller. See my previous post at the release of the trailer for more info.
On the indie side of things, Noah Baumbach looks to return to Oscar form after “Margot at the Wedding” underwhelmed with “Greenberg.” The movie stars Ben Stiller as Greenberg, the grouchy misanthrope who finds a reason to be pessimistic about everything. However, a special woman comes along and begins to melt his heart. I’m looking forward to a double-edged performance from Stiller, one that can show off his dramatic chops but also give us plenty of hearty laughs.
Seth Rogen’s four roommates in “Knocked Up” were equally as funny as he was. Each of them have slowly gotten their “moment”: Jonah Hill in “Superbad,” Jason Segel in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” Now, it could be Jay Baruchel’s turn. “She’s Out of My League” pits him similar situation: the uncomely guy getting the smoking hot babe. Hopefully Paramount gives this the push it deserves, maybe making Baruchel a breakout comedic star of 2010.
Could “Remember Me” get Robert Pattinson the Razzie for Worst Actor? After narrowly missing the cut for his two performances as Edward Cullen, this could finally be the one to get him the kind of awards attention he deserves.
Forest Whitaker is an Academy Award winning actor. What on earth is he doing in “Our Family Wedding?” For that matter, America Ferrera has won SAG and Golden Globe awards, and Carlos Mencia was once actually funny! This looks not only insufferable but almost racist. Plus, didn’t I see this movie in 2005 when it was called “Guess Who?”
Robert Downey, Jr. is one lucky guy. His brilliantly dry wit has earned him the privilege to play two iconic smug heroes: Tony Stark (aka Iron Man) and the titular sleuth of “Sherlock Holmes.” He brings plenty of his trademark enthusiasm to the role, yet it still feels a few notches down from Stark and “Iron Man.” He doesn’t get any help from director Guy Ritchie, whose excessively stylized contemporary approach clashes with the intricate Victorian sets, costumes, and jargon. His “Sherlock Holmes” is not bad, but it fails to captivate and engross like detective stories are supposed to do.
Downey Jr. is not bad either. It was particularly amusing to watch he and Jude Law, who plays the famous sidekick Dr. Watson, get into their bickering and bantering. They feel like an old married couple, which they practically are given the amount of time that Watson spends tending to Holmes’ needs. On the opposite side of things, Rachel McAdams’ Irene falls victim to some atrocious writing. Her character pops up without explanation and no real motivation is ever given to her. McAdams does her best to make up for it with some passion, but even that is not enough.
As for the story, I wasn’t expecting a connect-the-dots mystery. I have read one of Arthur Conan Doyle’s original Holmes tales, “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” and it was somewhat frustrating to feel so helpless to piece things together. However, this screenplay doesn’t even grant us the privilege of seeing that there are any dots at all. As Holmes probes London to find the seemingly resurrected occult leader Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), he stumbles upon many clues and red herrings. But the filmmakers refuse to assign any sort of significance to any of these, and we are completely unaware that these mean anything. In essence, we are traveling this road with Holmes. He, however, has a clue where it might be leading; we don’t.
All in all, “Sherlock Holmes” is a pretty fair piece of entertainment. I wouldn’t describe anything about the movie as being spectacular or rememberable, but I do look forward to seeing the sequel which was clearly set up in the ending, hoping in the meantime that Ritchie and his team can figure out a way to get me more engaged. B- /
What is in my mind the finest month for the movies is almost here! Let Marshall guide you through the best and steer you away from the worst, but most of all enjoy! The studios have been holding back their best movies all year to dump them all here, where they can get serious awards consideration.
December 4
A major Oscars wild-card is “Brothers.” No one really knows what to make of it. If the movie hits big, it could completely change the game. But it could just fly under the radar like most expect it to now. However, the trailer makes it look as if it the movie could be absolutely mind-blowing. Directed by Jim Sheridan, who has received six Academy Award nominations, “Brothers” follows Grace Cahill (Natalie Portman) as she and her daughters deal with the loss of her husband, Sam (Tobey Maguire), in war. Sam’s brother, Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) comes to live with Grace to lend a helping hand. But romantic sparks fly between the two at precisely the wrong time: the discovery that Sam is alive and coming home. With the two brothers both tugging Grace’s heart for their share, a different type of sparks fly.
You have heard me say plenty about “Up in the Air.” If you haven’t read my Oscar Moment on the movie or heard my bliss at the release of the trailer, let me give you one more chance to hope on the bandwagon.
But the movies don’t stop there. “Armored,” an action-drama that is tooting its own moral horn, starring Matt Dillon and Laurence Fishburne. “Everybody’s Fine” appears to be a holiday movie, so that might be worth checking out if you’re in the spirit. The movie, a remake of a 1990 Italian film by the same name, stars Robert DeNiro as a widower who reconnects with his estrange children. And “Transylmania” looks to cash in on the vampire craze sweeping the nation by satirizing it, but I doubt it will be financially viable because it is being released by a no-name studio and without any big names.
December 11
The highlight of the weekend for many will be “The Princess and the Frog,” Disney’s return to the traditional animation by hand musical. The movie looks to capitalize on what we know and love Disney musicals for, adding some catchy tunes to a fairy tale we have known since childhood. Anika Noni Rose, best known for her role as Lorrell in the film adaptation of “Dreamgirls,” lends her talented voice to the princess Tiana. As a huge fan of “Dreamgirls” during the winter of 2006, I couldn’t think of someone better equipped to handle the sweet, soft Disney music (which isn’t designed for belters like Beyoncé or Jennifer Hudson). That being said, the music won’t sound like anything you’ve ever heard from a Disney fairy tale. It is being scored by Randy Newman, not Alan Menken (“Beauty and the Beast,” etc.), and will have a jazzy feel much like its setting, New Orleans.
This week also boasts the opening of three major Oscar players. Two have been featured in Oscar Moments, “Invictus” and “A Single Man.” The former opens nationwide this Friday, the latter only in limited release. I’ll repost the trailers below because they are worth watching. But read the Oscar Moment if you want to know more about the movies.
According to the people that matter, “The Lovely Bones” has all the pieces to make a great movie. But for summer reading two years ago, I read the source material, Alice Sebold’s acclaimed novel. I found it dreadfully melodramatic and very depressing without any sort of emotional payoff to reward the reader for making it through. But maybe Hollywood will mess up the novel in a good way. If any movie could, it would be this one. With a director like Peter Jackson and a cast including Saiorse Ronan (“Atonement”), Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, and Susan Sarandon, it could very well happen. It opens in limited release on this date and slowly expands until its nationwide release on Martin Luther King Day weekend in 2010.
Love. Sex. Desire. Lust. Need.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments