Logo

Cool News

Annette Kellerman hangs with ME & ORSON WELLES... really!!!

Published at:  Mar 18, 2009 3:00:13 AM CDT

Hello again! It's Annette Kellerman here with another short review from the South by Southwest Film Festival. Yesterday I managed to drag myself out of bed following the magnificent late-night screening of Drag Me To Hell in order to attend the early-ish "Super Secret Screening" at the Paramount Theater. I had heard a few rumors as to what we might be viewing and was very pleased to find out we were indeed getting to see an early screening of Richard Linklater's ME AND ORSON WELLES.

ME AND ORSON WELLES

The film follows young Richard Samuels, a high school student who has aspirations to make it as an actor in 1937 New York City. On one fateful day while playing hooky from school, Richard happens upon the newly minted Mercury Theater as its cast and crew are celebrating the erection of the establishment's new sign on the front of the building. As luck would have it, this theater troupe are the denizens of Orson Welles, brought together for the notorious actor/director's latest Broadway effort- a reenvisioned version of the classic Julius Caesar in modern dress. With some ingenuity and a bit of exaggeration, young Richard catches the eye of the formidable Welles and is cast on the spot as Lucius. Throughout the rest of the film, the audience is taken on Richard's journey as he makes his stage debut and experiences first-hand the great talent and sometimes not very noble actions of the legendary Orson Welles.

I really liked the film. The whole aesthetic of late 30's NYC is perfectly captured in every scene. While director Richard Linklater adequately demonstrated he could do a period piece with The Newton Boys, that film unfortunately failed to fully connect with its audience. In Me and Orson Welles, Linklater again completely nails the look and feel of this beautiful era, but moreover, the perfectly captured time period serves as the beautiful canvas on which the director tells his compelling story.

Christian McKay as Orson Welles is almost scary good as the infamous impresario. He somehow manages to embody Welles without seeming like he's doing an impression. His performance conveys the erratic delight Welles found in his work, but also the seriousness in which he approached all of his projects.

Claire Danes as the theater manager Sonja Jones delivers some of her best work I've seen in a long time. She is luminescent and charming as the gal who shows young Richard the ropes in more ways than one. Though her character will clearly do whatever it takes to further her career in the entertainment industry, Danes manages to imbue some heart in a role that may have otherwise just been relegated to the heartless bitch category.

As the rookie Richard, Zack Efron really surprised me. Though you'd have to live under a rock to not be familiar with the heartthrob, I haven't been in his demographic for quite a while and haven't really seen much of his work. In this film, he gives a thoughtful, understated performance that really captures the character's naivety without making him seem like a total doofus. While he still gets to display some of the musical talents that landed him on the map in the first place, I was pleasantly surprised to discover Efron's more serious side, and admit that I don't have to be a 13 year old to see this kid's potential anymore.

I think Me and Orson Welles will be released in October, so most of you will have the opportunity to check it out then. It is a really beautiful period piece with a unique story told in the context of the early success of one of the great auteurs.

I hope to check in later with more from SXSW. Until then,

Annette Kellerman










    + Expand All

    Readers Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 3:07:36 AM CDT

    hmmm

    by criticalbliss

    check, 1, 2, 3...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 3:08:35 AM CDT

    I won't say it.

    by criticalbliss

    I may be the only one who posts here. Effron, though, is a talentless bitch. He looks plastic.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 3:10:23 AM CDT

    She only liked it because of Zack Efron....women...

    by mike_d

    she probably liked "Twilight" as well.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 3:11:07 AM CDT

    The Efron praise sound like early Lohan praise. Tepid & unmerite

    by industrykiller!

    since when is merely competant grounds for such future potential. It's bullshit like that that is the cause of our ridiculous lack of great young actors.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 3:11:23 AM CDT

    I agree.

    by criticalbliss

  • Mar 18, 2009 3:12:28 AM CDT

    I'm disappointed

    by criticalbliss

    Orson Welles interests me. Effron does not. Goddamnit.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 5:00:17 AM CDT

    Hollywood Hated Welles when he was alive

    by professor_monster

    People like Speilberg and Lucas used to shit on him when he would ask them for work. They wouldn't hire him because they felt he was competition, using the money he would make to try and get a film made. his true friends talk about how badly he was treated all the time - check out some real docs on Welles.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 6:40:56 AM CDT

    No one has mentioned

    by inactionman

    That caricature/avatar has some serious camel toe.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 6:59:49 AM CDT

    FIRST

    by weapon m

    FIRST!!!!!!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 7:25:12 AM CDT

    the book

    by mithrandir16

    I stumbled across the novel in a used book store a couple years ago, and the title caught my eye. I was unpleasantly surprised to find it was a "young adult" book, but pleasantly surprised to find it was pretty good. It's about the young Welles, pre-Citizen Kane.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 8:30:56 AM CDT

    Efron looks like he belongs in that era

    by terry1978

    Honestly, the 1930s had their share of tough guys and pretty boys, if you look at some of the old movies and photos of the time, and he definitely suits the latter.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 9:15:17 AM CDT

    Natasha Richardson

    by zeegloo

    Not news?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 9:26:43 AM CDT

    Mork calling

    by groothewarrior

  • Mar 18, 2009 9:27:04 AM CDT

    Orson

    by groothewarrior

  • Mar 18, 2009 9:27:17 AM CDT

    come in

    by groothewarrior

  • Mar 18, 2009 9:27:34 AM CDT

    Orson!

    by groothewarrior

  • Mar 18, 2009 9:36:01 AM CDT

    This one does sound interesting.

    by lonegun

    I hadn't even heard of this movie till this review. Of course, Orson Welles was such an eccentric man and a brilliant artist. The fact that Richard Linklater directed this film makes it of keen interest to me. I'm adding it to my "must see" list.

    Reply to Talkback

  • I suppose he is too old to play 1937 Orson Welles though.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 10:08:57 AM CDT

    this movie = pinky and the brain

    by somashine

  • Mar 18, 2009 10:46:59 AM CDT

    Saw it at Toronto

    by frozenhamster

    I enjoyed it. It wasn't amazing, but it was a fun movie. McKay really is incredible in it.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 11:26:45 AM CDT

    Professor_Monster

    by tin snoman

    Not to defend Spielberg or Lucas, but why would they feel threatened by Welles the director? It's not like high concept was Welles' thing. Maybe he didn't get much work later in life because he was difficult to work with. I mean, I love the guy as an actor and director but have you seen the outtakes from those wine commercials? Check YouTube. Also, hunt for the audio of him recording the ad for peas where he gives the director all kinds of trouble. Hilarious!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 12:51:47 PM CDT

    "this theater troupe are the denizens of Orson Welles"

    by soylentmean

    So these people live inside Orson Welles? What is this, Meet Dave 2?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 1:16:33 PM CDT

    D'Onofrio

    by phimseto

    Trust me...once you see Christian McKay's work, you won't be thinking of anyone else. He embodies the spirit of Welles quite nicely.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 1:24:26 PM CDT

    They weren't threatened by Welles so much as they were

    by mattyboy122

    Money hungry cocksuckers. Only one Welles film was a hit at the box office (The Stranger), so Spielberg probably didn't want to throw his money away on a film by arguably the greatest director who ever lived. What a cock.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 2:05:18 PM CDT

    Orson Welles

    by outlaw

    became difficult and a drunk (Tin Snoman got it right). The reason he was refused work so late in his life was because he had gained notoriety as being unreliable. He squandered so much good will since "his" golden era of Hollywood.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 2:34:44 PM CDT

    Orson was broken by the system of suits

    by professor_monster

    The guy was brilliant - but as what with happened on Andersons, Touch of Evil, It's All True and Lady from Shanghi - he was reedited and robbed of money promised during production by the very studios who hired him to make the films. Sure he was difficult - he didn't want to do things that would not last, or even be considered the work of a storyteller. Welles wasn't a director - he was a STORYTELLER and there is a big difference. He was considered competition because during the late sixties - Welles was interested in getting into more commercial films - things like Forbidden Planet and Twilight Zone . Welles was making the rounds trying to get work to make new types of films -

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 4:22:21 PM CDT

    Professor_Monster Read this. I call your lie

    by proman1984

    First of all, just because Spielberg didn't produce one of Welles's projects during 80s doesn't mean he shat on him. In truth, he probably had serious reasons not to considering that Welles did not have true directorial success in a while.

    You have absolutely no right to critisize him because you don't know what really happened and you make it sound like Welles was entitled to get blank checks from Hollywood. You claim that they were afraid of competition is especially ridiculous considering that first, Welles was nowhere near the figure he was during the time and second, both Spielberg and Lucas routinely produced many up-and-coming and succesfful directors. I really value Welles understand your frustration but please stop being so subjective.

    I would also like to remind you about what happened to Welles' Citizen Kane screenwriting Oscar.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 7:07:12 PM CDT

    (getting back on track) So Danes: Best Supp. Act. Nom?

    by logan_1973

    She's long overdue. Maybe she could be the sleeper this year; it is, after all, being released just outside of "oscar season".

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 7:39:14 PM CDT

    Proman1984 (were you born that year)

    by professor_monster

    Because it reads like you were. I DO KNOW that is how things went. And I know how things go now. Hollywood is full of best friend back stabbers and coat tail wanna bees - I didn't mean to point solely at Speilberg and Lucas - but their names were in the doc I saw as people who now praise Welles, but in truth treated him like shit. Bogdanovich, who is and was a true friend to Orson called these people out in his book as being two faced liars.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 18, 2009 8:16:46 PM CDT

    Terrible plot description...

    by charlie_allnut

    So this movie is just a hack job on Welles? Sounds interesting though... Love Welles - Lady from Shanghai is just insanely brilliant filmmaking!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 19, 2009 5:23:18 PM CDT

    Professor...

    by josejones

    I know I am late to the party but to understand Welles you must go beyond Bogdonavich. though he was a good friend it is precisely that reason why you can not take everything he says as gospel. Welles was a hero to Bogdonavich and Bogdonavich refused to see the tremendous faults within him. Orson was a brilliant but terribly erratic genius. Horrible with money and when he did have absolute control over a film (Kane) it lost money. He was frivolous with money that wasn't his, notoriously working on several projects at once when he should have been finishing one thing. He was an unreliable man, as brilliant as he was. Still my favorite Hollywood icon, but only a complete jackass would fail to see Orson's hand in his own downfall. The man is a Greek tragedy. Read some well rounded research that is unbiased like the massive 2 volume bio by Simon Callow, not just the rantings of his best friend and wannabe disciple.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 07, 2010 2:19:47 AM CST

    yrgFkbdE

    by dkhdku

    LKVtpLqc yrgFkbdE

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 07, 2010 2:20:08 AM CST

    WmAGEfoH

    by dkhdku

    pJwEmQ WmAGEfoH

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 07, 2010 3:53:25 PM CST

    ????

    by orcus

  • Feb 10, 2010 5:21:48 PM CST

    Cialis

    by dkhdku

  • Feb 10, 2010 8:56:41 PM CST

    SPAMMER!

    by orcus

  • Feb 11, 2010 4:54:05 AM CST

    Alprazolam

    by dkhdku

  • Feb 11, 2010 8:28:23 PM CST

    Viagra

    by dkhdku

  • Feb 13, 2010 8:47:09 AM CST

    Marlboro Lights

    by dkhdku

  • Feb 13, 2010 9:09:38 AM CST

    Orcus senses a theme

    by orcus

  • Feb 14, 2010 4:51:38 PM CST

    Buy Viagra online

    by dkhdku

  • Feb 15, 2010 2:02:43 PM CST

    Buy Ambien

    by dkhdku

User Login

Forgot password? Retrieve it here

or register as new user

Quick Talkback Form

Please login to post talkback