I saw an advanced screening of I Love You, Man about a month ago. I probably should have written this review back then and saved it until now. But no, I gotta work off memory; the problem is that it's kind of cute, but forgettable. I remember thinking that its greatest strength is also its weakness: it coasts, perhaps too heavily, on the charm of actor Paul Rudd.
In the 1995 movie Clueless, his character was described as "kind of a Baldwin," back when the Baldwin acting brothers were still popular, thin, and attractive. Those days are gone, but in a way, Paul Rudd is a lot like the Alec Baldwin of today: a zany comic actor unafraid to make a buffoon of himself. Prime example: the recent Vanity Fair funnyman photo shoot, where he nails Tom Ford.
As for the movie, the premise is nice. Rudd plays a character who's recently engaged, and that creates an unusual problem: he needs a best man, and he has no male friends. For whatever reason, he's never made it a priority. So he follows the advice of his family and puts himself out there on the market for a hetero buddy. It's harder than he realizes, until he meets one guy (Jason Segel) for which the friendship forms organically. Complications arise as he ends up wanting to spend more time with his new guy friend than with his fiancée (Rashida Jones).
Rudd and Segel are asked to improvise a bit too much. At first, this is fine, but after a while it gets a little grating. For example, the guys bond in part over their love of the band Rush (a common symptom of men that age), having jam sessions that last all afternoon. When Rudd's character tries to explain it later, he says he was just "slapping the bass," referring to his guitar. He says it a few more times, gesturing like a goofy air musician, and you laugh a little. Then he repeats it in later scenes, maybe 60 times, and it becomes awkward, testy humor. How much more can we endure?
As the trailer suggests, the movie makes good use of Lou Ferrigno as himself, and has a stunning array of comedic supporting actors. You'll recognize almost everybody. And there are some interesting twists and turns. But you may come to the conclusion that it's a bit underwritten.
What do I need to tell you to avoid seeing Watchmen?
Part of me wants you -- all 34 of you who read this -- to suffer as I have suffered, but there's a time when one has to sacrifice himself for the greater good. I can do this.
A few stats about this 163-minute movie.
1 hr 27 min: first black character appears.
1 hr 44 min: first heroic impulse sighted.
2 hr 04 min: first antagonist introduced.
What the hell was it doing until then? I wish I knew. The plot meanders, setting up a backstory for what needs to be the greatest story ever told in order to make it worthwhile. It isn't. Spanning generations, multiple perspectives, and alternate histories, we learn that there are costumed fighters (many obscured by masks) who control the course of the American way, for better or for worse. From what I can tell, it's mostly about the main characters standing around and looking iconic, rather than heroic. We don't know how or why they form, what each individual brings to the table, or what they have in common. More importantly, we're not really told why they aren't so active anymore.
It seems that director Zack Snyder can't decide whether he's being deep or dark, but mostly I got a strong vibe of pretentiousness. Artfully done, emotionally empty. Maybe this is by design, but you have to try to get the audience to care, even if the characters don't. We were silent, and not necessarily rapt with attention. "Repulsed with attention" might be a better description, considering all the senseless violence, some of it against women. This is a movie that separates the fanboys from everyone else; you'd have an uphill battle convincing me that there's much of anything here that's of general interest.
Eventually, I gathered the semblance of a point, but I was too defeated by then to think much of it. As the film was winding down, I didn't really care how it ended, just as long as it ended.
(Author's Note: there's so many embarrassingly bad things about this movie that I chose to leave out of my review, in an attempt to keep it short. I can elaborate in the comments section, should anyone have questions.)
For the third straight year I'm aiming my wildly erratic predicting power at the Academy Awards, which are announced Sunday. As I did in 2007 and 2008, I rank the frontrunners in all categories by likelihood of winning. (Well, all feature-length categories; I'm ignoring the short films.) All frontrunners determined by Dave Karger (former classmate namecheck!) of Entertainment Weekly.
I would have seen all 5 Best Picture contenders had The Reader not been nominated. I've had a month to convince myself to go, but the story of a mostly naked, teen-humping, illiterate Nazi concentration camp guard just doesn't interest me, even if she's being played by Kate Winslet.
Update: with the ceremony over, how did the frontrunners do?
1. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
WINNER!
Seems like more of a sure thing than Javier Bardem was in this category last year. I was tempted not to place it atop on the list because the Academy hasn't voted for a dead actor in a really long time. Then again, I wonder if his chances would be that much worse were he still alive; the competition is noteworthy but not exactly Earth-shattering. There will be karmic retribution against fellow nominee Philip Seymour Hoffman, who beat Ledger as Best Actor 3 years ago.
2. Best Documentary Feature: Man on Wire
WINNER!
In a way, this category pits the two greatest American tragedies of the decade against one another: 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. But while Trouble the Water deals directly with the immediate fallout and aftermath in New Orleans, Man on Wire is set at the World Trade Center... in 1974. Recalling better days would seem to be a winning approach.
3. Best Editing: Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!
Ticked that The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for Best Picture, but The Reader was? Pay close attention to this lineup instead; it's the one you wanted. Many of the year's big films relied heavily on flashbacks, but few worked as seamlessly as Slumdog did. Kudos to the incredible mix of fictional and real footage that went into Milk, and the anatomy of a leg injury sequence of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
4. Best Makeup: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
WINNER!
Up against The Dark Knight and Hellboy II: The Golden Army, this is the only nominee also in the running for Best Picture. Which gives it a huge advantage. I don't know the techniques involved in transforming Benjamin and Daisy: how much is latex, and how much is CGI? I hope the voters know the difference.
5. Best Costume Design: The Duchess
WINNER!
This category is usually not so predictable, but The Duchess is the only nominee with a corset advantage. Its competition (Australia, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, Revolutionary Road) is surprisingly modern and not out of place in a fashion catalog today. In the event that voters tire of 18th century winners, look for Revolutionary Road to upset.
6. Best Animated Film: WALL-E
WINNER!
I was prepared to rank this frontrunner as high as #1 on this list, but then Kung Fu Panda conquered the Annie Awards last month. That film has a lot of fans who are thrilled with its old-fashioned qualities: hand-drawn animation, movie star voices, lots of dialogue and action. WALL-E rebels against many animation conventions in that regard, but it's also very much a breakthrough for Pixar. It won't go home empty handed.
7. Best Director: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!
I have a feeling that many people, including Academy voters, have no idea what a director does, or know how best to judge direction. I equate directors with general managers in baseball: they don't necessarily instruct the players, or handle the budget, or micromanage every decision. Instead a director controls everything from a distance, letting the cast and crew make many of their own decisions, and making their output adhere to a general vision of how things should go. In that regard, you can guess why Danny Boyle has been winning most of the precursor awards, bringing order to what must have been a chaotic filming process, which crossed barriers of economics, culture, and language.
8. Best Supporting Actress: Penélope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
WINNER!
This seemed like much more of a gimme a few months ago. Watching the film, you're convinced that one of Woody Allen's motivations was to showcase Cruz's role. She doesn't have a whole lot of screen time, but she dominates all of her scenes, and is the main subject of conversation among the other characters before she even appears. So her presence is felt throughout. Cruz has since been overshadowed by a bunch of December nominees, but is still the likely winner. According to others, Viola Davis of Doubt has an outside shot.
9. Best Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black, Milk
WINNER!
Two forces are at work here. Milk is very much a triumph of acting, editing, and directing. Not so much writing. But Black is becoming that rarest of birds, a screenwriter celebrity, for being a young, talented, and good-looking winner in the awards circuit. He, not Gus Van Sant or Sean Penn, has become the person most associated with this movie, a public face on a political hot button issue that remains relevant, especially in California. And Milk is the only Best Picture nominee in this category. (Despite all that, In Bruges would make a better winner.)
10. Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!
Bottom line: it doesn't lead the field in nominations. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button did, and Milk has a better balance/ratio of nominees in the major and technical categories. So it's a favorite, but a very beatable one. Fox Searchlight's non-campaign for this movie (it's been using the same commercial since the film's release in November) is an unusual strategy, but I suppose all the previous awards the film has garnered speak loudly enough. If it does win, it's not without precedent: orphans (Oliver!), Indians (Gandhi), American-free casts (The Last Emperor), and very British productions (Chariots of Fire) could be considered the film's Best Picture spiritual forefathers.
A note about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I really believe this film was about 75 percent of the way toward being one of the greatest films ever made. But ultimately it fails from a sense of cinematic excess and director David Fincher's unwise choice to indulge screenwriter Eric Roth's preference for magical realism. So many brilliant moments gone to eventual waste. Had they tightened up the film, dropped the hummingbird, not added the Hurricane Katrina element, and focused more on Benjamin than Daisy at critical moments...
11. Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
WINNER!
Despite its problems, the film remains a remarkable visual achievement. You can understand why it took decades to get the basic concept properly made. In the grand intermixing of effects and makeup (see Best Makeup above), Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are depicted as flawlessly young and believably old. I would have liked to see the title character's reverse aging take more advantage of the actor's earlier career. We see a little bit that reminds us of Seven Years in Tibet -- why not go all the way and depict him in his Seven, Legends of the Fall, and Thelma & Louise periods? A missed opportunity.
12. Best Sound Editing: The Dark Knight
WINNER!
See next category.
13. Best Sound Mixing: The Dark Knight
LOSER! The Oscar goes to... Slumdog Millionaire.
See previous category. (Kidding. I'll never know the difference.) Some movie experts are paying close attention to these categories to see if Slumdog Millionaire will lose any awards. Others wonder if WALL-E (particularly Ben Burtt, sound technician and voice actor) can make some noise against the year's biggest movie.
14. Best Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!
As I mentioned in my review, this is a remarkable adaptation in that it improves upon its source material in every possible way. Compare to nominees Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon) and John Patrick Shanley (Doubt), who adapted their own stage plays. Beaufoy is a previous nominee (original screenplay for The Full Monty) but has never won. He'll face some competition from the previously mentioned Eric Roth, but the darkhorse is probably David Hare for The Reader.
15. Best Actress: Kate Winslet, The Reader
WINNER!
Speaking of The Reader, I have mixed feelings about one of my favorite actresses finally winning an Oscar for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. If you pay attention to the angry world of movie award prognosticating, this role exemplifies the worst things about the process: Holocaust bait, category fraud, last minute release, production problems, Harvey Weinstein. I plead ignorance in this category: I've seen none of the nominees, and am not seeking them out.
16. Best Score: A.R. Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!
If you've seen this movie, what do you remember? Probably not the acting or the dialogue. The visuals and the music come to mind. Rahman gives the film its pulse and energy, both in his songs (two of which are nominated) and his score. But this is a category with more traditional winners, and there are some other good choices. Look for a win by Alexandre Desplat (Benjamin Button) or Thomas Newman (WALL-E, which is even less reliant on dialogue).
17. Best Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
WINNER!
It's like a sampler of great looks from different regions and periods. There's Paris, that train station, postwar New Orleans, that hotel, the sea. Possibly the most accomplished of the nominees. The Dark Knight also covers a number of sets, but they're not as memorable.
18. Best Cinematography: Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!
Handheld camera work is a vital part of this movie, but I don't know if Academy members are in love with that type of filmmaking. The down and dirty approach gets nominations, not wins (see also Children of Men and City of God). The probable winner is Claudio Miranda for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, or possibly Wally Pfister for The Dark Knight.
19. Best Actor: Sean Penn, Milk
WINNER!
I've actually seen all 5 nominees. Richard Jenkins is solid in The Visitor, but its one Oscar bait scene in the detention center almost rings false. (The restaurant scene would make a much better Oscar clip.) Brad Pitt and Frank Langella are the oddball anchors, more concerned with holding their films together than standing out. This leaves the long-hyped two-man race between two wunderkind actors of the early 1980s, Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. Penn has the more prestigious film, the biopic role, and current political relevance. Rourke has the comeback factor, no prior wins, and far more charm. Advantage goes to The Wrestler.
20. Best Song: "Jai Ho," Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!
Some recent winners in this category suggest a trend against the biggest names in performing and songwriting. So this is a reasonable pick. If it does win, it will be the first winner in Hindi. Also, as a historical bookend to Three 6 Mafia's win a few years ago, the message is clear: songs with "Pimp" or "Ho" in the title win Oscars. But there is some in-film competition from "O Saya" (not in Hindi) and Peter Gabriel's "Down to Earth" from WALL-E, which I think will win.
21. Best Foreign Language Film: The Class
LOSER! The Oscar goes to... Departures.
I wish I could be more informed about this race, but from what I can tell, any of three films can win: The Class (France), Waltz with Bashir (Israel), and Departures (Japan). If I had to guess, I'll go for the Israeli animated film. I'm enjoying this new trend of films that cross categories: documentary, animation, foreign language film. It's only a matter of time before the major categories become a true free-for-all.
So if anyone complains that The Pink Panther 2 is the latest nail in the coffin of the original Inspector Clouseau, you can correct them.
I was not looking forward to screening this sequel. I remember very little of Steve Martin's first outing in this series, aside from the accent coach/"hamburger" scene -- which was horrible, then strangely funny and compulsively rewatchable. Then there's the title: films in the Pink Panther series have reached double digits, and many have interesting names. Are MGM and Columbia really so lazy as to slap a "2" on it? Color me disappointed.
But I'll admit that the new film delivers on some levels. The inspector still can't pronounce American food and is detested by his superiors, but the plot allows for some bloated (but welcome) casting. It's debatable whether Andy Garcia, Lily Tomlin, Jeremy Irons, Alfred Molina, and TMBWITW Aishwarya Rai Bachchan are actually slumming, considering the likely international box office.
A long-retired thief named The Tornado has resurfaced to steal priceless artifacts in multiple countries, and Clouseau is assigned to a crime-solving dream team. Mishaps ensue, Clouseau is discredited, Clouseau rebounds. The story is nothing special, but it does give Andy Garcia the opportunity to play a light role as Clouseau's professional and romantic rival. I also liked the development of Jean Reno's character, the fully capable officer who's still respectful and deferent to Clouseau.
I am less enthusiastic about Steve Martin, who was similarly uninspiring in last weekend's Saturday Night Live. As a comedy actor, he's not really trying anymore. Wanting to believe the best about him, I think his best work ahead is probably away from the camera, maybe in writing or music. This movie and any future installments are strictly about getting paid. Judging from the positive response of the parents and kids in the audience -- and the good money a PG-rated movie can bring in these days -- it's going to be a big paycheck.
I watched the Oscar nominations this morning on CNN's online video feed, without volume, and noticed something was awry when the picture of Kate Winslet was not from Revolutionary Road. Soon we discovered that The Reader took the place many felt belonged to The Dark Knight, and the Internet... broke. Popular prediction sites like Awards Daily and In Contention were overloaded. News sites (even CNN) weren't putting up a story. Most embarrassingly, the Academy's own site did not post a full list of nominees for nearly 45 minutes. For movie fans who treat this like their Christmas morning -- or, say, the people in technical categories who might like to know if they were nominated -- it was a shocking display of failure.
And I'm not even talking about Oscar's choices. (Yet.) I managed to avoid the swarm of Bat-fans who crashed message boards in useless venting or protest, likely shouting expletives at an awards body who refused to budge. Why so serious, indeed. I haven't seen The Reader, and may only do so if I submit to completist tendencies and try to see all five nominees. So I won't join the chorus of naysayers who criticize what they do not know. I'm an abstainer, not a complainer.
I screened Revolutionary Road this week, somewhat reluctantly after being spoiled Monday by one of those vanity cards from TV showrunner Chuck Lorre. (He sums up 10 films currently in the mix as Oscar bait. If you want to go fresh-of-mind into this movie, Gran Torino, or Rachel Getting Married, then DON'T click here.)
I expected a slow and methodical deterioration of a marriage, but the actual pace is a bit more brisk. The opening scenes juxtapose an optimistic past with a pessimistic present (1955), where both Frank Wheeler (Leo!) and wife April (Kate!) have soured on the reality of their sedate surroundings. But that's about all they have in common. Even in their most blissful moments, one spouse is only buying into the argument or vision of the other, so they're never at harmony. Then, when disagreement sets in, things get ugly. And depressing.
As a straightforward depiction of marital strife in the Eisenhower era, the film does not work. It looks like it should, but it just doesn't. So I decided to view it instead as a two-character psychological drama, where everyone else is a figment of their imagination, and it started to make more sense to me. The couple have children who are rarely present. Frank's coworkers (including Dylan Baker and Jay O. Sanders) seem to be whispering in his ear, reinforcing his attachment to socioeconomic conventions. Their realtor (Kathy Bates) is a less a character than a silly reminder of suburban propriety. To the film's credit, it has just enough of these oddities to make me wonder if that approach is intended.
I should mention the most unusual element of Revolutionary Road: the once-institutionalized academic son of the realtor, who pops up in two scenes as pure id, a verbal force of nature. As played by Michael Shannon, it's easy to say that he steals the movie. He's free to speak his (frayed) mind, and does so with more bluntness than possibly any character in the recent history of cinema. His perspective is so far removed as to seem anachronistic. He serves as the centerpiece of a film that veers away from the strange and into the positively mental.
Given this time of year, with all the movie awards shows, I would expect to see a lot more TV, online, and print ads touting the various high-profile examples of Oscar bait. I've noticed less such marketing now than in previous years -- not a complaint -- and what I AM seeing is a lot different. For example...
1. Where is the war film? Short answer: there is none. Long answer: do you like war films told from a European perspective? Because then there's Valkyrie, The Reader, and Defiance. None are really breaking through right now. I find it interesting that the nearly 3-hour The Curious Case of Benjamin Button depicts maybe two war-oriented scenes, and both are used in the trailer. Ladies and gentlemen, here is your war film.
2. Where is the All-American film? Maybe Revolutionary Road will make some noise -- 1960s suburbia sounds pretty American -- but until then, what are our choices? Slumdog Millionaire is set abroad, with no stateside actors. Benjamin Button mostly takes place in New Orleans, but advertises more global themes. Frost/Nixon addresses the Presidency, but (as I understand it) from an antagonistic perspective. Over in Gotham, homegrown Harvey Dent is being overshadowed by a Brit as Batman and an Aussie as Joker. This leaves the red, white, and blue iconography of Milk, which seems to wave the Stars and Stripes alongside the rainbow flag. In the age of Obama, what could be more American than a tribute to another community organizer?
3. Where is The Dark Knight? Ever since its DVD release in December, the publicity has kind of halted. Part of the problem is that the face of the film (and most of its precursor awards) belongs to an actor who is no longer alive. But it's more than that. Aside from a brief glimpse of Gary Oldman in ads for the recently released The Unborn, you're not seeing much of the rest of the cast. Strange that Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Aaron Eckhart, and Maggie Gyllenhaal have nothing new to promote. Really, the only cast member getting any TV exposure these days is this guy from the Wendy's ads. (Pictured, left.)
I expect this all to change in a few weekends, after the Oscar nominations are announced, but for now it's an interesting lull.
With general scheduling/interest/economy issues, any free time was a little harder to come by in 2008, as you can tell from my movie viewing habits. (Compare to last year, when I saw 56 films ahead of time. This year I could create an equally sizable section for advanced screenings that I skipped or lacked time to see.)
Free advanced screenings (18): Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins, The Other Boleyn Girl, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, 88 Minutes, Baby Mama, Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, Deal, Iron Man, Young@Heart, Son of Rambow, Wanted, Space Chimps, Pineapple Express, Tropic Thunder, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Valkyrie, Slumdog Millionaire, Revolutionary Road
Saw in theater upon release (15): 21, Sex and the City, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Wall-E, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, The Dark Knight, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, W., Get Smart, Australia, Quantum of Solace, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Wrestler, Frost/Nixon, Milk
Waited until DVD/Cable (32): 27 Dresses, Untraceable, Rambo, Jumper, My Blueberry Nights, Cassandra's Dream, Vantage Point, Fool's Gold, In Bruges, The Spiderwick Chronicles, Charlie Bartlett, Be Kind Rewind, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, Semi-Pro, The Bank Job, College Road Trip, Tyler Perry's Meet the Browns, Smart People, Leatherheads, Speed Racer, Mad Money, Hancock, Kung Fu Panda, First Sunday, Mamma Mia!, The Incredible Hulk, The Longshots, Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father, Burn After Reading, Righteous Kill, The Visitor, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
I haven't yet succumbed to paying for Movies on Demand from my cable provider, but by December I could not ignore the ubiquity of Redbox. The local library system is still my (free) DVD source of choice, but those $1 nightly rentals filled in a few blanks.
And now my annual list of irreverent superlatives.
Best Example of My Alienation from Younger Audiences
I don't think I saw a violent, allegedly edgy film this year that was geared toward physical and mental teenagers. Must have been one of the screenings I skipped.* So I'll say Jumper, which was neither bloody nor nihilistic, but was nonetheless incredibly stupid. Those who were suspicious of Hayden Christensen from the Star Wars series may confirm their doubts confirmed here; he's very wooden and shows neither range nor appeal. There's an elaborate mythology and franchise potential -- both are ultimately squandered, but I wonder if a good film could have been made at all. Another poor paycheck choice by Samuel L. Jackson.
*Edited to add: Oh wait. Totally forgot about Wanted. Both violent and allegedly edgy. Maybe the first poor paycheck choice for Morgan Freeman.
Style Over Substance Award
The easy answer is Speed Racer. Despite its likely massive FX budget, the most interesting visual element was putting the four eyes of Christina Ricci and Susan Sarandon in the same movie. Wasn't all bad, though: it didn't pretend to be about anything, and has a select group of understanding fans.
Substance Over Style Award
I don't think I saw a film this year that was otherwise strong but felt underproduced, like it could have have benefited from a bigger budget. In Bruges, Young@Heart, and Son of Rambow look as they should in their respective charming ways. I do think that Be Kind Rewind tried a little too hard to look authentically cheap, so there you go.
Best Eye Candy, Female
Vicky Cristina Barcelona is all about the eye candy, with its cast and sumptuous setting; who knew Woody Allen had such an affinity for the pretty? Fans of Scarlett Johansson and Penélope Cruz won't be disappointed, but my preferences and fond memories of the film gravitate toward Rebecca Hall (previously mentioned here). She was stunning to watch, in both senses of that word, as the sensible girl who can't help but be drawn in to that tangled web of multiparty relationship drama.
Best Eye Candy, Male
I never understood the cult of Colin Farrell, but I'll mention him here because his work in Cassandra's Dream and In Bruges finally makes the hype worthwhile. He can be an appealing leading man when he plays troubled, vulnerable, and moral characters -- like a next-gen Mel Gibson, back when we liked Mel Gibson. I don't know if he'll find that in mainstream movies, but as long as he picks projects that stretch his acting muscles, I'll remain interested.
Strangest Credit
"Directed by Fred Durst." From The Longshots, which was fine.
Unfortunate Trend of the Year
Studios are crazier than ever about developing, expanding, or reviving film franchises. On its face, nothing is wrong with that, but a lamentable by-product has emerged: the unnecessary film. Familiar (if not beloved) characters get dusted off and returned to the marketplace with stories that never needed to be told. What's worse is that the approach has succeeded: The Incredible Hulk, Indiana Jones 4, and Sex and the City all did well in the box office, inviting talk of even more unnecessary continuations. Not faring as well were second installments of The X-Files and Harold & Kumar, and a fourth Rambo.
Not all these films are bad -- I enjoyed some elements of Hulk, and I think history will treat The X-Files more kindly -- but they did not exist out of any need to satisfy audience demand. You can even see something similar among Oscar contenders, where Frost/Nixon re-enacts a recorded time in history, Doubt tries to expand a good stage idea beyond the stage, and Milk gives dramatic treatment to a subject covered definitively in a documentary.
Love Story of the Year
WALL-E by a mile. Either watch it or take my word for it. The film is flawed in some other respects -- it's probably the 4th best Pixar creation, by my estimation -- but the central relationship is pitch perfect, requiring neither analysis nor further commentary.
Buddy Comedy of the Year
This one's also easy: Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day. (There's no rule stating a buddy comedy has to be about guys.) Strange that a period film has such a "you go, girl" attitude, but you buy into it quickly with such nimble comedic performances from Frances McDormand and Amy Adams. The latter seems to be channeling (mocking?) Nicole Kidman in her Moulin Rouge! days, and opposite Lee Pace's own variation of Ewan McGregor, the similarities are amusing. Strong supporting turns from Shirley Henderson and Ciarán Hinds and an effective prewar European backdrop make it quite an experience.
Honorary Brevity Award
A lot of press was devoted to comeback king Robert Downey, Jr. and his remarkable year of output: Iron Man, a cameo in The Incredible Hulk, Tropic Thunder, and delayed Oscar bait The Soloist. He's worthy, especially given his checkered past, but I find it odd that people leave out a movie that was released in February 2008: Charlie Bartlett. It's listed in the IMDb as a 2007 film -- another delay, I'd imagine -- but it deserves to be mentioned among the actor's recent accomplishments. Because it was among the more enjoyable films I saw this year, and it clocks in at a speedy 97 minutes, I'm giving it some much needed attention now.
Downey plays a supporting role here; he's the well-meaning but flawed principal of a high school that's been taken over by the title character (Anton Yelchin), a clique-defying intelligent rebel. I understand the Ferris Bueller comparisons in retrospect, but this movie is less of a broad comedy and more of an indie curiosity with some mild mainstream aspirations. It's offbeat, well written, and ultimately the kind of film you're glad wasn't all that popular.
I recommend it as a pleasant DVD discovery: if you have the means, watch it as a double feature with 1999's Mumford. Go in chronological order. Both tackle similar themes, and both feature the always welcome actress Hope Davis.
(For those curious, 88 Minutes was both an awful movie and a misnomer. It was 108 minutes.)
I hadn't heard of Slumdog Millionaire until a few months ago, when it garnered attention in the Toronto Film Festival. A heavily hyped film set in India? About an unlikely game show contestant who can answer tough trivia questions because of the tougher experiences in his life? This sounded familiar.
About three years ago I came across a novel entitled Q & A on the new release shelf in the local library. As is the fate of so many impulse selections, I started reading it but didn't get very far. Great premise, bad execution. At the time I failed to notice this statement on the book jacket: Q & A "is being translated into eighteen languages and is due to be made into a film."
After seeing an advanced screening of the movie, I forced myself to try the book again. The results are clear: Slumdog Millionaire improves upon its source material in almost every possible way. Better and clearer protagonist (Dev Patel), a better interrogating character (Irrfan Khan), more meaningful stakes, and flashback vignettes that are much more plausible. Credit screenwriter Simon Beaufoy (The Full Monty) for preserving the premise but creating a stronger, more unifying vision -- and, though I hate to admit this, a much needed Western touch.
Not that native influences aren't present. For example, I liked how the game show host (Anil Kapoor) talked in the Hindi equivalent of Spanglish, a language hybrid where English sentences were infused with homegrown slang and suffixes. That's totally realistic. I may have been the only one in the audience who fully understood him, but no one else was complaining. I also appreciated the music, a mix of pulsing instrumentation and Bollywood pop; there's a train sequence that finally made me understand what M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes" was all about.
Director Danny Boyle also made Trainspotting, and I bring this up because he manages to top his worst-toilet-in-Scotland scene, with appalling but humorous results here. His film is uncompromising and at times not easy to watch. There's violence depicted, some of it against children, and other dark themes that only seem surprising when you're a safe distance away from the setting.
If you haven't heard too much about this movie, you must be wondering what the big deal is, and why reactions have been so divisive. I found it rewarding, and liked it tremendously, but I think you should be prepared. Yes, it's a crowd-pleaser, but it's not for every crowd.
My schedule hasn't given me time to catch advanced screenings lately, so in the past couple of months I've missed the likes of Choke, Brideshead Revisited, Flash of Genius, The Duchess, and The Secret Life of Bees. Well, did I really MISS them? Only time (and DVD) will tell.
I hesitate to call Zack and Miri Make a Porno my triumphant return to reviewing, but I will say that it is NOT Kevin Smith's triumphant return to filmmaking. It worked for many in the audience, judging from their laughter, but I just wasn't buying it.
The platonic roommates in the title -- saying "titular" just sounds wrong in this context -- struggle to make ends meet, sharing a crappy car and a crappy life in a frozen Pittsburgh suburb. (To this Southwest-based viewer, their harsh winter lives felt completely foreign.) After an unusual encounter at their high school reunion -- the dreamy jock now lives in Los Angeles with an adult film actor -- Zack (Seth Rogen) decides that amateur movies are just the ticket that he and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) need to have a better life.
So they round up a cast and crew, and Miri gradually becomes impressed with Zack's previously unseen talent for leading and entertaining others. By the very nature of their endeavor, their relationship is forced into a less than platonic direction, and we're left to wonder what this will do to them. Put in the best possible terms, it's like a voyeuristic When Harry Met Sally...: can a man and a woman remain friends once on-camera sex gets in the way?
You can already draw some obvious parallels between Rogen's character and Kevin Smith, aside from the beards, heavyset builds, and the shared hockey love. After all, what is Clerks but an amateur movie that became a ticket to a better life? And what isn't appealing about a slacker who finds his calling as a humorous commentator on life? Semi-autobiographical situations are not new ground for the writer/director -- Chasing Amy was probably about fellow indie star Guinevere Turner -- so you'd think that in Rogen he's found a new Mewes muse for his continued moviemaking success.
One problem: whatever charm I saw in previous Smith films is not to be found here. Those movies folded cleverness and wit into positively filthy dialogue that had the potential to definitively alter the viewer. (For me, the number 37 has forever lost its innocence.) In contrast, this movie has him operating out of his comfort zone: the filth here is visual, not verbal. Yes, there is nudity: certainly not as much as you'd think, considering the subject matter, but enough for the writing to take a back seat.
I realize that raucous film comedy has changed a bit in the past few years, where the sight gag of the full frontal male is now the unfortunate norm. And maybe Smith is just trying to fit in. But he (and exec producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein) should have tried a little harder to remind us of their 1990s Miramax glory days.
We here at Brevity don't usually feel the need to comment on what everyone else is talking about. So no Michael Phelps, no Sarah Palin. (Nor any Michael Palin or Sarah Phelps.)
Another unmentioned subject here from the past few months: The Dark Knight. I have seen it (once), and it had already been out three weeks by then. There was really no point in finding a new take on such an exhaustively discussed movie. It has its strengths (the Keyser Soze opening; the pencil trick; Aaron Eckhart) and its weaknesses (the Cillian Murphy cameo; pretending to kill off one of the 3 characters you CAN'T kill off). Is it the greatest superhero movie of all time, or is that label too limiting? Will it break the box office of Titanic? Will it be nominated for Best Picture? I don't know, and don't yet care.
But one Batman-related item got me interested over a month ago: with the inevitable sequel talk, people were bringing up Catwoman a lot, and jumped right into casting the role. Names bandied about included Angelina Jolie, Marion Cotillard, and Emily Blunt. Their logic was simple: find a brunette you wouldn't mind seeing in skintight black leather. (Understandable. That's exactly how I approach my weekends.)
But I see two problems with introducing Catwoman. First, women don't really figure into director Christopher Nolan's vision of Batman. We know Bruce Wayne had a mother, but she isn't discussed at all; Batman Begins is mostly about Thomas Wayne's life and legacy to Gotham. And having two actresses play Rachel Dawes gives us separate insights into how irrelevant she is as an individual (though certainly of symbolic value to the men).
Second, this version of Batman seems the least interested in a work challenge like Catwoman because he's not married to his job. Christian Bale is sort of the anti-Adam West in that he's not a monk in a costume, but just a guy with exceptional means to get things done. He's like the DC Comics incarnation of John McClane: there because he's needed, not because he's volunteering. I don't see how any previous embodiment of Catwoman will attract his attention.
There is a way to do Catwoman right, however, and it has nothing to do with getting an ingenue to give us her best purr. Just as the Joker was re-interpreted to be more anarchist and less jokey, so should Catwoman lose the playfulness and just give off a scent of desperation and danger. So why not cast the actress who was once so desperate for the role: Sean Young?
Apparently, I'm no longer the only one who thinks so. (Dang blog procrastination.) Last month this fan placed Young at the top of his list of choices, going so far as brand her breed of cat a cougar. Also open to the Freudian approach: the studio, if you believe the rumors that we call movie news. Last week In Contention quoted an insider with an even more bizarre suggestion... Cher.
While she's not my first choice (or even second choice among the Witches of Eastwick), the very idea tells me that a darker, less conventional depiction of Catwoman is at least in the discussion. In this Gotham City, Catwoman shouldn't get by on just her allure. She needs to be the intelligent and resourceful one who, by virtue of her gender, messes with Bruce's mind in a way that a man can't.
Last week it was Pineapple Express. This week it's Tropic Thunder. Hope this is a trend; Hollywood should have more movie titles that sound like flavors of juice smoothies.
Speaking of Hollywood, it's always risky business to make a satire that skewers the movie industry. Most prior attempts are pretty bad, and even some of the better ones (like The Player) are a mixed bag. Add to that a difficult genre (war movies) and a hit-or-miss director (Ben Stiller) and you get Tropic Thunder.
While not a complete disaster -- it is genuinely interesting and laugh-out-loud funny in places -- it fails to fire on all cylinders. The one part of the movie that works extremely well is the Kirk Lazarus character, played to near-perfection by Robert Downey, Jr. All of his lines are hysterical and/or insightful, like a mini-manifesto on the rules of Hollywood acting.
If only the rest of the movie were as well-written. The premise is fine: a grizzled veteran (Nick Nolte) tells the titular story of a daring Vietnam rescue, and Hollywood wants to adapt it into a movie. The newbie director (Steve Coogan) is unable to coax convincing performances out of his pampered cast, so the two conspire to stick the actors in an isolated jungle area and shoot the film guerilla style, with cameras in the trees. Soon the actors find themselves without resources or direction, and try to re-enact the story as they find themselves in real-life peril.
But the execution is problematic. A surprisingly muscular Ben Stiller plays the lead, an action hero with a recently spotty filmography. I suppose it was a bit of an in-joke for Stiller to play a Tom Cruise-like character and then cast the real deal against type as a bald, obnoxious Hollywood producer, but in the end I don't think either casting choice was that successful. I sort of wonder what might have happened if the two actors switched roles. Could be a lot better, could be a lot worse. I don't know.
But my quibbles there pale in comparison to the movie's biggest liability: Jack Black, who stretches to play a flatulent comedy actor trying something serious for a change. Usually I tolerate his manic shtick in other movies because there's a calming element (like Mos Def in Be Kind Rewind, or the students in School of Rock) that helps restore the equilibrium. But there's none of that here, so he's a major suck of time and patience. I sympathized with the actors (Brandon T. Jackson and Jay Baruchel) who share scenes with him, and hoped his character would just die.
One of the film's unintentional strengths was its ability to make me think a lot about what I would have done differently. Black has to go, obviously. Stiller might work in Black's place. I'm not sure the big-name actor who plays Stiller's agent (I won't spoil) should be in more than one scene, much less be the film's moral center. Maybe a better director needs to be at the helm. There are a lot of pieces to move around; it might make a nice industry parlor game.
If you do plan to go, pay attention as the real previews wind down, because the best stuff starts long before the opening credits.
Speaking generally, Pineapple Express is one of those movies that can't compare to its excellent trailer. Not that the rest of the movie is any sort of disappointment -- on the whole, it's pretty good -- but you've probably already seen the funniest parts.
But within the genre of stoner movies, I'm guessing (guessing!) it's one of the best. Select members of the audience laughed harder at certain points than the rest of us. Laughter from knowledge, maybe? Which made me think: could this movie be used as some sort of sting operation? Before the lights went down, I looked around for anybody who didn't quite fit and could have been a narc; I quickly discovered that the most likely candidate was me.
Aside from a 1939 opening sequence that explains America's domestic policy on marijuana, the film takes place over roughly a 48-hour period. A process server (Seth Rogen) and his dealer (James Franco, once discussed here) get caught in the middle of a turf war between two drug empires, going on the run and trying not to get killed in the process. The film is more violent than you'd expect -- there is a significant body count -- which reminded me a bit of last year's buddy action comedy Hot Fuzz, only with weed.
The movie is silly enough to not take the plot seriously, but also a product of deliberate design. The dialogue is witty and intricate, multiple characters are developed, and the friendships are believable. (I especially liked the amorphous jealousy between the hitmen played by Craig Robinson and Kevin Corrigan.) The movie has a kind of timeless quality to it, with no technologies or cars that might make it look dated. I think the filmmakers knew that stoner movies tend to have longer shelf lives, and made Pineapple Express to look just as appealing 20 years from now.
Or, as the person next to me said, "That was sobering."
In one corner: The Dark Knight. In the other: Mamma Mia!
Leave it to Persepolis to put things into perspective. Thank you, Marjane Satrapi; Batman it is.
On occasion, we get advanced screening passes for a Saturday morning matinee. Usually the movie is rated G or a mild PG, and the kids are everywhere. Attendance is always less than full capacity, so there's no guilt about taking away the seat of some crying child. But if that were to happen... well, they should learn about disappointment at an early age.
So this weekend we saw Space Chimps, and it's pretty much what you'd expect for a film that doesn't enjoy the animation or production capabilities of Disney, Pixar, Fox, DreamWorks, or Warner Bros. It's from Starz Media, which is trying to branch out some into TV and film projects the way HBO and Showtime did. So consider this movie an early attempt to launch their creative endeavors out there; a test pilot, if you will.
The movie is about the slacker grandson of a real space chimp who's slumming as a cannonball stunt attraction in a circus. Then, when a space probe is lost in a wormhole, a financially struggling space agency (not NASA, apparently) needs non-human astronauts to see what's going on, and decides to hire him for the celebrity factor. We follow the chimps into alien territory, with its fluorescent CGI jungles and generic-looking lifeforms. (They're the type of characters you would have a hard time marketing, but then, Beanie Babies were successful.) All in all, it looks like a video game, which makes sense, because it is a video game.
The small ones really enjoyed it; this is a film they'll understand more than Kung Fu Panda or Wall-E. You know, for kids. As for me, I laughed exactly three times. It helps that the space agency included a trio of mildly amusing scientists, one of whom was Indian and another who looked like an egghead Diablo Cody.
First, check out Part 1 and Part 2 of the quiz trilogy.
This is the final installment of loglines that creatively and intentionally do a lousy job of describing movies. Can you still identify the movie for each? Enter your guesses in the comments, or avoid the comments if you'd like to remain unspoiled and solve them all yourself.
21. A feisty but well-rounded competitor enters a contest that ends, quite literally, in a split decision.
Solved by: Julie
22. Despite the iron will of his coach and a teammate's sacrifice, a golden boy loses a tournament title to the unproven rookie who also stole his girlfriend.
Solved by: Scurry
23. A woman who is seen but never named is apprehensive about replacing her predecessor, a woman who was named but never seen.
Solved by: Julie
24. With his race locked in a battle against a mortal enemy and its resilient leader, a laconic representative undertakes an unusual mission to destroy the natural source behind that leader's very existence.
Solved by: Quinn the Brain
25. A military man begins to question his marital intentions to a wealthy woman when he starts to fancy the virginal babysitter.
Solved by: Julie
26. Before he can devote his attention to more charitable pursuits, a consummate professional must first unleash a secret weapon in the fight against his corrupt industry.
Solved by: Quinn the Brain
27. A hardcore executive reconsiders his priorities after he witnesses his brother cut himself and a neighboring girl attempt suicide.
Solved by: Ceresina
28. Suddenly aware of the meaningless life he leads, a young man starts to beat himself up over the choices he's made.
Solved by: Jeremy
29. A salesperson praises the abilities of an actor he had initially dismissed as "like a Streisand." (The performer who portrays the salesperson was labeled as "kind of a Baldwin" in a previous but unrelated movie.)
Solved by: Quinn the Brain
30. Secrets unfold among of group of people and the natural order of things is disrupted. A wealthy but temperamental man (who can look a lot like Dumbledore) gets his final comeuppance in mysterious fashion. The proceedings are overseen by an intelligent woman (who can look a lot like Queen Elizabeth II).
(Two movies)
Movie #1 solved by: Julie
Movie #2 solved by: Quinn the Brain
I originally published these loglines when I started this forum thread. Feel free to read through it and find some very excellent contributions made by other writers.
And so the quiz trilogy concludes. As with movie trilogies, I could be convinced to create an unnecessary fourth installment... if the money were right.
For an introduction to loglines, read Part 1 of this quiz trilogy.
Each logline below describes a movie in misleading, vague, or roundabout fashion. Identify the movie (or for the last one, the TWO movies) in the comments. Skip the comments if you want to remain unspoiled and solve them yourself.
11. A family enjoys the accommodations of a resort lodge during the off-peak, tourist-free months.
Solved by: Andy
12. While facing his recent misfortunes, a doctor continues to assign blame to a disabled stranger.
Solved by: Jeremy
13. An old man is forgiven the balance of his travel expenses when his intended destination is found completely destroyed.
Solved by: Jeremy
14. Lovers on opposite sides of the law scheme to acquire part of the recently released collection of one of the state's wealthiest men.
Solved by: Jeremy
15. A young, mild-mannered driver helps thwart a high-tech heist with the only weapon available: an automobile.
Solved by: Sue
16. On the one hand, he spreads the word of the good Lord. On the other hand, he’s come to realize that he has certain financial needs.
Solved by: Jeremy
17. After advising a young talent on the road to stardom, a veteran achieves a dubious honor with minimal fanfare.
Solved by: Mainline Mom
18. Determined by society to be a criminal, a man decides to commit his first felonious acts in the hopes of self-preservation and personal freedom.
Solved by: Mainline Mom
19. A mysterious stranger sells a jaded businessman on what’s really important in the world, and then eagerly awaits to hear the next great jingle.
Solved by: Jeremy
20. A knight plays a monumental game of chess with a greater power, and the stakes are high. The knight's acts prove sacrificial in nature, as the game allows another to emerge unscathed.
(Two movies)
Movie #1 solved by: Quinn the Brain
Movie #2 solved by: Jeremy
Look for the last installment of loglines when the trilogy concludes next week.
To my knowledge, there are three times in the life cycle of any movie where someone is pressed to describe it in 1-2 sentences:
1. The pitch. In the beginning, the writer sells the idea of the movie to the producer or studio exec. Depending on the patience of the listener, the writer may have the liberty to provide a longer synopsis or even a storyboard, but in the end it comes down to the quick summary of the premise, which can often reference other movies. "It's Die Hard on a bus!" (Speed) might work. "It's Die Hard in an office building!" (Die Hard) probably won't.
2. The tagline. Once the movie is made and ready to market, this is the sentence that appears in the trailer and poster. Take Alien: "In space, no one can hear you scream." Bam! You already know the setting and the genre(s). In an interesting twist, it seems as though the most creative taglines go to popcorn movies, while the bland taglines are reserved for the otherwise literate film fare.
3. The logline. Long after the movie is made and has had its theatrical run, it will appear on television, and someone (usually the person who fills in the TV grids in newspapers or cable guides) has to write a sentence that sums up the movie. For example: "Two divorce mediators spend a wild weekend partying with a politician and his eccentric family." That's a fairly straightforward description of Wedding Crashers.
As you can tell from the title of this post, I want to have a little fun with the third item on this list, the logline. What if the logline were true but entirely misleading? What if it were completely vague, focused on the wrong character, or missing the tone or point of the movie it describes? Can you still identify the movie? I wish I could say I invented this concept, but I didn't. Here are a couple of famous examples.
"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets, then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again."
-- The Wizard of Oz (from Richard Polito of the Marin Independent Journal, according to Wikipedia)
"A boy and his sled are separated. Problems ensue."
-- Citizen Kane (from Movieline's list of the 100 Best Movies Ever Made)
Clearly, this is a job for Brevity, and I've already written about 30 of these. Here is my first installment; identify the movie (or for the last one, the TWO movies) in the comments. Skip the comments if you want to remain unspoiled and solve them yourself.
1. With the help of two friends, a hypochondriac converts his sick day into a vacation and a growth experience.
Solved by: Catherine
2. An even-tempered man refuses to leave a room until he can get a gruff colleague to do away with his past biases.
Solved by: Catherine
3. With hospitals refusing to perform his elective surgery, a troubled man forces others into his template so that he may fashion himself a new appearance.
Solved by: Quinn the Brain
4. A killer proves a man of his word when a thief reneges on his end of a deal. There is collateral damage.
Solved by: Ceresina
5. Misbehaving teenagers fulfill the unreasonable demands of an educator using a fraction of the requested manpower.
Solved by: Quinn the Brain
6. An accomplished son finds the object of his father’s obsession but learns its value is confined to a small radius.
Solved by: Jeremy
7. An intra-family vehicle swap has disastrous consequences for each side.
Solved by: Jeremy
8. During the Great Depression, a single parent takes on an uphill legal battle, puts forth the best possible case, and loses.
Solved by: Catherine
9. A local law enforcement officer works fiercely and outside the lines to save a visiting world leader from being killed by an unknown assassin in broad daylight.
Solved by: Jeremy
10. In a card game, a man wins himself a form of transportation. He soon finds adventure, and love with a woman who is otherwise attached. The affair is soon dead in the water.
(Two movies)
Movie #1 solved by: Catherine
Movie #2 solved by: Jeremy
For more fun with loglines, try the Random Logline Generator. And look for future installments here. (They get weirder.)
Thought I was going to give you little snippets of information that add up to a blog entry? Guess again.
After a lengthy respite -- from Brevity and from advanced movie screenings -- I saw Wanted Thursday night. I'm usually a good judge of movies, knowing ahead what I'm willing to see and willing to avoid, but I couldn't get a handle on this one. I knew it was going to be all kinds of stupid, but would it still be fun?
My answer is no. (Though much of the packed audience -- and many critics -- vote yes.) Generally, I keep an open mind, but this movie turned me off in the first 30 minutes: An Indian woman is the first to die. James McAvoy drops his appealing Scottish accent to play American. And the same song is used twice as background music. (Despite Martin Scorsese being guilty of that last one on two counts in The Departed and still winning Best Director, I say all of these examples are strikes against the filmmakers.)
There is a car chase that walks a fine line of being long but not too long, and an assassin training sequence that manages to be brutal yet interesting. But the rest is a loud, obnoxious mess. McAvoy's been on a roll lately as an actor, so this big-budget U.S. debut comes as a bit of a disappointment, even though it's not his fault. I will give him credit for bulking up and bringing more to the table, physique wise, than the rapidly disintegrating Angelina Jolie.
Speaking of Angelina, she does a remarkable job of phoning in her performance even when she's on-screen. She's like a CGI Jolie, inserted into scenes where appropriate. I'm not sure how else to describe it; she's just not there. Morgan Freeman can bring class and substance to anything, even this embarrassing movie. It's his duty to explain the film's ridiculous premise (which I won't go into) and its inevitable twist (that I felt was coming but couldn't quite justify given what I'd already seen). But I'll give Freeman a pass here; many lesser actors have done worse for a paycheck.
The summer movie season is upon us, and you can break down the cinematic offerings into four categories:
1. Big-budget successes (often called "blockbusters")
2. Big-budget failures ("bombs" or "international blockbusters")
3. Low-budget successes (also known as "sleepers")
4. Low-budget nonstarters (maybe "future DVD sleepers")
Earlier this week I saw an advanced screening of Son of Rambow, a British film that may or may not become a sleeper. It's low on budget but high on concept: in the year 1982, schoolboy Will Proudfoot has grown up without a father and with the strict guidelines of the Plymouth Brethren movement. Even without exposure to television, music, and other forms of entertainment, he manages to hide an overactive and illustrative imagination. A chance meeting with Lee Carter, a school thief and bully whose own parents are absent, leads to a viewing of a pirated copy of First Blood (then in theaters).
With his first worldly exposure being the original adventures of Rambo, the boy's mind is warped and in visual overdrive. He concocts a story about being the son of "Rambow" -- the spelling isn't explained, but I have a feeling that the filmmakers didn't want to get sued* -- who has to rescue his imprisoned father from evil forces. Lee, interested in entering a youth filmmaking competition sponsored by the BBC, borrows his brother's videocamera and makes Will both protagonist and stuntman.
As the stunts get more outlandish, they catch the attention of a bizarre French exchange student and his local disciples. As the moviemaking crew expands, the sets and story get more elaborate but the boys' friendship gets more strained. And all the while Will tries to hide his secret life from his deeply religious community.
I'm not sure why the audience was full of families, because I suspect the younger children were bored. The film doesn't try to be accessible to American audiences, which I suppose is part of its charm, but it's really a movie designed for critics to love. It's cute and clever in places, and there's enough of a payoff to call it a crowd-pleaser eventually, but many viewers will have lost their patience before then. Go see it only if you're in the mood for something offbeat.
* The filmmakers later received Sylvester Stallone's blessing.
In the 1995 movie Clueless, his character was described as "kind of a Baldwin," back when the Baldwin acting brothers were still popular, thin, and attractive. Those days are gone, but in a way, Paul Rudd is a lot like the Alec Baldwin of today: a zany comic actor unafraid to make a buffoon of himself. Prime example: the recent Vanity Fair funnyman photo shoot, where he nails Tom Ford.
