AICN-DOWNUNDER: Blade Runner Final Cut, Death Proof, Gravediggers, Zoe Bell in Game
Published at: Nov. 6, 2007, 8:07 a.m. CST by quint
The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep. Did you hear me, Butterfly? Miles to go before you sleep.
AICN-DOWNUNDER
Hey kids! It's my one hundred and fiftieth AICN-Downunder. Pretty exciting, huh? No? Then I humbly apologise.
Even cooler than that is the new ad for LIONS FOR LAMBS. Not just because Redford's take on the Iraq war and the current administration should be, at very least, something to talk about, but because of the thoroughly unsubtle way that one of the TV spots has been constructed. I'm paraphrasing, but I believe the end of the ad has movie voice going "Academy Award Winner Robert Redford!" followed by Redford saying something important. Then, movie voice says "Academy Award Winner Meryl Streep", followed by Streep also saying something important. Then, "Academy Award Nominee Tom Cruise", followed by Cruise emphatically saying "We gotta have a win!". I'm sure, in context, he's talking about the war, but thanks to some marketing genius who thinks they know what the word "subliminal" means, it's sure to remind Academy voters that despite the perceived craziness, he's due for a small gold man.
And in case Xenu's brother was small and gold, I should point out that I'm talking about the Oscars.
NEWS
For the sake of completionism, Adelaide girl Teresa Palmer is up for the role of Wonder Woman in George Miller's JUSTICE LEAGUE movie. She's only 21, but given the Amazonian is supposed to never age, this might actually work in her favour over the course of a film series. People with memories may remember her from 2:37, DECEMBER BOYS and THE GRUDGE 2.
Sam Worthington, currently starring in Greg McLean's ROGUE and James Cameron's AVATAR, has apparently scored one of the lead roles in the GI JOE adaptation. Based on a small piece of painted plastic, the film will hopefully use the tagline that Ross once used in an episode of "Friends": "GI Joe, fighting to protect US oil interests overseas!" That would be awsome.
Just as I finished writing the DEATH PROOF review (below), an email came through informing us that New Zealand stunt woman/star of DEATH PROOF Zoe Bell is going to be acting opposite Gerard Butler in GAME. If you haven't seen DEATH PROOF, Bell's one of the best parts about it. I don't know anything about GAME, but it's now suddenly very worth seeing.
Alex Frayne's MODERN LOVE has just scored a theatrical run in Wellington NZ, and is likely to be seen on London screens as well. The film will screen this January; check back here closer to the date for more info.
AWARDS, FESTIVALS AND SCREENINGS
AUSTRALIAN FILM INSTITUTE AWARDS 2007
The AFI nominations were announced, and it looked like we had a pretty good year. Notable nominations included: Best Film (THE HOME SONG STORIES, LUCKY MILES, NOISE, ROMULUS MY FATHER) and Best Director (CLUBLAND, THE HOME SONG STORIES, NOISE, ROMULUS MY FATHER). The complete list of nominations can be found at the AFI website.
BLADE RUNNER: THE FINAL CUT
Pissed that cool events like a new cut of BLADE RUNNER on the big screen doesn't happen in your home town? Then have I got news for you: you overreact and nobody likes you. But even better news is that, at very least, Sydney and Melbourne will both be able to enjoy the film (I couldn't find any info for other Aus cities or anywhere in NZ). Check out the details at the Popcorn Taxi website.
BOX OFFICE
I don't want to sound like I'm not pleased for the success of the Melbourne boys behind the franchise, but exactly what was is it about the SAW films that has tapped into the consciousness of these kids who year after year put it at the top of the box office list? I almost want it to continue out of pure curiousity: exactly how many severed roman numerals can we get to before these films stop being viable?
Julie Taymor is he as you are she as she is he and we are all together, Roadshow releases The Assassination of Robert Ford by the Director Andrew Dominik, Anton Corbjin gets his joy divided, Tarantino gets his film divided, Tom DiCillo makes a film that's not about Eddie Murphy, Cronenberg makes his best film since A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, this film looks really bad, George Clooney plays the spiffiest janitor ever, Angelina's anatomy is again the focus of discussion, Milla appears in a sequel to a sequel nobody wanted, Jet Li promises to retire after this film, and Nathan Fillion should be in everything.
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD CONTROL
DEATH PROOF
DELIRIOUS EASTERN PROMISES
GOOD LUCK CHUCK MICHAEL CLAYTON
A MIGHTY HEART
RESIDENT EVIL: EXTINCTION
ROGUE ASSASSIN
WAITRESS
REVIEWS
THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD
Earlier this year, I decided that Darren Aronofsky was the closest thing our generation had to Stanley Kubrick: someone who would change genres with every film, and make each film as perfectly as it could possibly be made. If Aronofsky is Kubrick, then Andrew Dominik is our Terrence Malick. And yes, I know Malick is still making films, but I'm trying to be generational with this analogy, stick with me. Dominik's Malick influences are possibly a bit too worn on his sleeve, but it doesn't detract at all from his direction. In fact, as much as I love CHOPPER, Dominik's clearly spent the intervening years taking special directing pills, because this is perfect work.
From word go, we know we're in for something special. The prologue -- a narration telling us a bit about Jesse James and what sort of idiosyncrasies he has -- is about a hundred times more captivating than I make it sound. It sets the tone for the film; long, lingering shots and a gentle approach to a genre that, up until now, has been all kinds of violent.
The running time is close to three hours, and it's one of those films that will put you in one of two camps: the "that should have been much shorter and pacier" camp, or the "every one of those shots could have gone for another ten minutes and I would have been happy" camp. I'm in the latter. So in love was I with the atmosphere of the piece, I just wanted to be, well, bathed in it for as long as possible. I think I said in the last AICN-D that CONTROL was the best shot film of the year. CONTROL is now in second place. I've always loved Roger Deakins, but his cinematography in JESSE JAMES leaves his previous work for dust. It's closer to painting than photography, with some shots so intensely beautiful that your jaw will be floor-bound for most of the film.
The narrative itself feels like less like a story and more like a series of events told in their own time. For a film about one central character killing the other central character, it's surprisingly free of conflict. As it's a character piece, this isn't much of a problem. The film's relevance is obvious: it's a story of celebrity obsession before there were celebrities. Jesse James is the celebrity and Robert Ford is his biggest fan, with numerous facts about James committed to memory and recited frequently. In this sense, Brad Pitt is perfect casting. He's an enigmatic force, and his personal life is frequent front page material (though not on the front pages of anything that matters). This brings an extra weight to his performance that couldn't have been brought by, say, a Steve Buscemi or a Martin Henderson. And don't ask me why I picked those two. Pitt's always one of my favourite actors, and he plays the unpredictable James as a legend, even as James tries to downplay his own celebrity.
Meanwhile, Casey Affleck gives the performance of a lifetime. It's hard to see anyone else playing this role; he mixes creepy with earnest so well, in a way that cannot be clearly defined. He never falters once, which helps given we see the story through his eyes more than anyone else's, and we need to identify with him... to an extent.
The score is provided by Nick Cave -- who also cameos towards the end -- and it's glorious. For some reason, Cave is now a staple of these new-age, left-field, Australian-directed Westerns, writing the script and score for THE PROPOSITION, and now the music for JESSE JAMES. Like everyone else in the film, Cave brings his A game; the score could not suit the images more perfectly, raising the quality of the whole endeavor several notches.
I'm obviously smitten by the film, and can't recommend it highly enough.
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
A common criticism I give films that aren't particularly good is that they're not particularly bad, either. To explain: SUPERMAN RETURNS bugged me because they didn't aim high enough. They aimed to make another Donner film, and that's what they made, and it wasn't that good. I'd have been happier if they'd aimed to make the biggest, bestest Superman film ever and gone down in flames. At least it would have looked like they tried.
But whenever I make this criticism, it makes me wonder how a filmmaker would react, if they read it. I mean, would Singer read the above and say, "Sure, but if I aimed for the stars and made a catastrophe, would you really give me credit for that?". (Assuming, of course, that he agreed with my initial premise that he hadn't aimed for the stars.) And he's have a point. Without the context of the middle-of-the-road end product, would I be able to recognise and subsequently praise a film that did just this? Would I trumpet such a film, or does this argument only work in theory?
We have the answer: ACROSS THE UNIVERSE is a massively glorious disaster, a complete train wreck of a film that tries so hard to be the best thing ever made, and falls in a giant puddle of absolute awfulness. It's a sight to behold, and even though I didn't like the film, I respect it an awful lot for really, honestly, truly aiming for impossibly unreachable heights.
Okay, the basic idea is that it's a musical. It's set in the 60s, and it follows a group of characters living through the tumultuous times of Vietnam, equal rights marches, and psychedelia. The twist? All the songs are Beatles songs.
Our main character, Jude, falls in love with a girl named Lucy. At this point, you get the idea that everyone you meet is going to be named either Sergeant Pepper or Mr Kite or Walrus P. Eggman. As each song is dubiously woven into the film, you start to wonder when the plot is going to begin. We're introduced to a girl whose boyfriend is going off to Vietnam, a Liverpudlian who's setting sail for America, and, for some reason, a lesbian cheerleader who's decided to run away to New York. The character introductions keep coming, and pretty much dominate the first hour of the film, which comes to a thudding halt whenever an opportunity for a new song appears.
Don't get be wrong, there's a ton of talent on display here. There's no questioning the directorial or visual talents of Julie Taymor -- who should seriously consider a career in music video directing; the visuals during the songs are really quite stunning and have some powerful ideas behind them -- and the motivation to make such a film as this is clear, but it's never more than the sum of its parts, and does not a good film make.
I don't usually like to refer to gossip, but it's hard to ignore the public feuding over this film between Taymor and Joe Roth. I don't know whose cut we ended up seeing; I don't know if this is truly Taymor's vision and studio was right to fret, or whether the studio ruined what would have been a masterpiece. Without two cuts side by side, it's impossible to judge; all I can do is -- and if I'm honest, it's what reviewers should do in every instance -- avoid assigning blame to one particular person, and just focus on the film in the broadest sense...
...and the film is awful. It's got some brilliant moments, but it's an absolute mess, and I honestly, truly applaud everyone involved for making this mess with as much energy as they could muster, for diving head first into the brick wall and not looking back. It's really quite impressive.
ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE
There's some speculation amongst the masses as to whether Elizabeth, who has not produced an heir, is sterile. The irony seems to have been lost on Shekur Kapur, who has made a fairly sterile film about passionate people.
It's the exact same problem that plagued the first film. Whenever we feel like we may get close to a character, or whenever anyone begins to express an emotion, we suddenly cut to the highest, widest shot possible. This is presumably to make us realise just how awesome these locations are. And they are pretty damn good, but these perpetual distractions serve only to distract us from the film itself.
The thing is, there's some worth to it. I was not a big fan of the first film, but I didn't mind it, and the same can be said of this film. The thing that's impressed me about it is how they seem to be telling the entire life story of Elizabeth I, but on a scale we'd never seen before. Nothing against the miniseries format, but it doesn't have the operating budget that these films do, and on that level I kinda want to see the story continue to a third film. (Maybe when Cate hits 70, we'll get the final chapter of Lizzie's life. In fact, I'm almost certain this will happen.)
The film is rendered watchable by Cate Blanchett, possibly the most magnetic actress working at the moment. Geoffrey Rush, Clive Owen, Samantha Morton and Abbie Cornish are all superb; if Kapur wants to give up the directing business, he should probably go into casting. It's clearly the best part of the film.
If this review feels a bit uninspired, it's because the film inspired such uninspiration. (Although that sentence was a little fun to write.) It was pretty stock standard, almost exactly what you'd expect; not horrible by any means, but not as great as it should be. One for the history buffs, the acting buffs, and the location scout buffs.
DEATH PROOF
This is going to have to be not so much a review, but an explanation of why I don't want to review this film. I'm not trying to be clever; I just really don't think I can honestly write my valid opinion of DEATH PROOF, 'cos I don't know what it is.
Depending on when you catch me, it's either a massive misstep that has practically no worth, or it's a kickin', enjoyable, fun diversion that Tarantino fans should get something out of.
I don't think I've quite hit either of those extremes, but I've come close to both. I haven't liked it because the film is uneven and poorly-paced. The dialogue drags unlike anything Tarantino's written in the past. Parallels between the two halves of the movie seem lazily accidental, even though they can't possibly be. The characters are not engaging. QT's cameo is annoying. It goes for too long.
On the other hand, there are elements of discordance that feel like a deliberate throwback to B movies. There are moments of dialogue that are sublime and as great as anything he's written in the past. The last ten minutes of the film seem to justify everything that came before it. Kurt Russell is perfect. Zoe Bell is perfect. The car chase is perfect and more thrilling than any recent action film that comes to mind.
But it's not like I can blend these feelings into one strong opinion of the film, a five-out-of-ten that is sometimes-great and sometimes-not, because I don't feel that way. I either love it or hate it. It's oil and water, and I keep switching between the two. Perhaps I'm being soft on QT; I've loved every one of his films so far, and I really wanted to meet him halfway on this. That said, there's stuff I genuinely loved in this film, and pretending it's not there seems disingenuous to me.
The stuff that was cut out for GRINDHOUSE makes a minor difference, but the flaws remain in both cuts. If I had to put money on it, I'd wager my opinions on the film softening over time; I may actually end up liking it in the end without the negative stuff bothering me much, but I don't know. It's not as tight as his other stuff, and therefore feels like he wasn't trying as hard. I'm still jumping up and down in anticipation of INGLORIOUS BASTARDS, because I still think he has it in him to make a film as tight as PULP FICTION or KILL BILL. DEATH PROOF seems almost like an exercise in film theory than a film itself; take a look at it if you love Tarantino's films, but don't expect to fall in love.
LIONS FOR LAMBS
I'm really not earning my stripes today. I've just written a non-review of DEATH PROOF, and I'm about to write on for LIONS FOR LAMBS. This time, however, I feel I can't quite review this film because it doesn't quite feel like a film. It feels more like something that was shot over a weekend after somebody typed out a few script pages on the previous Wednesday.
That's not to say I didn't enjoy it. As a disciple of Aaron Sorkin, the concept of brilliant actors sitting around discussing the state of the world appeals to me as much as it won't appeal to mass audiences. I could watch Streep and Cruise for another few hours. I could watch Redford play the politically-wise professory for weeks on end. It's all great stuff, but ultimately it doesn't amass to a complete movie. The biggest fault seems to lie with the flag-waving story of the two soldiers stranded in Afghanistan. This plotline seems there purely to make the whole exercise feel cinematic, but all it does is show how uncinematic the rest of the piece is! Remove this thread, make the whole thing one single conversation, and then you've got yourself a movie.
The film's fault is that it's trying to be too many things at once. Its attempt to cover so many bases at once thins any one of the valid arguments that the film puts forward, and it consequently feels half-baked.
The dialogue itself is quite good, even if the first four seasons of "West Wing" covered similar ground with more depth, but fans of talking heads shouldn't be too disappointed. And hey, it's a Redford film, so even if it was bad, it'd still be good.
GRAVEDIGGERS
Finally, we have an Australian short film that was just finished a month or two back. It's an old school kids' adventure. Think Enid Blyton writing a mix of STAND BY ME and THE GOONIES. Only it's not. That's certainly how it starts out, and I was watching it thinking it was nice to see a classic story like this told with some pretty decent production values, but it has more up its sleeve than that.
Despite some corny moments and some conventional dialogue, the film defies the expectations you'd have of a "four boys on a quest". In the last ten minutes (the total running time is thirty), the film takes a brilliant left turn and has some real balls on it in terms of what happens to the boys. The final moments are nicely poignant, helped by a combination of a high-class orchestral score and well-chosen 50s songs.
Produced in Melbourne, it's my hope that this short will serve as a pilot for a feature film of similar ilk. I'd like to see these guys (Ben Esler and Joel Kohn) tackle this sort of genre piece with these production values on an even bigger scale. Forget your introspective tales of self-discovery in the outback; this is the sort of film we should be making.
NEXT WEEK
- JUSTICE LEAGUE casting news: Jaden Smith signs on to play the Green Lantern
- STAR TREK casting news: Jeremy Piven signs on to play Harry Mudd
- CHAD SCHMIDT casting news: Brad Pitt pulls out, title changed to CHEONARDO DI SCHAMPRIO
