понедельник, 28 февраля 2011 г.

Billy Crystal Remembers Bob Hope in Return to the Oscars


From PopEater: Eight-time Oscar host Billy Crystal returned to his most famous stage to a rousing standing ovation. Crystal, who hasn't hosted the show since 2004, came to introduce a segment featuring Bob Hope hosting the first televised Oscars.

"So where was I,"Crystal joked when hitting the stage."Some things never change. The producers have asked me to tell you we are running a little long, so here are the nominees for Best Picture."

"The first televised Oscars was in 1953. I was five years old so for those of you who stink in math I'm 47. The host that year was Bob Hope. He hosted it 18 times, I hosted it eight and I was popped after two. Bob was the Oscars. He was funny, he was classy and he was what I think the Oscar host must be: a sexy movie star."

Check out the video inside!



This article originally appeared on PopEater.Read the rest of the article here.

Original post byPopEater Staff
Complete Oscars 2011 Coverage


Source

воскресенье, 27 февраля 2011 г.

Oscars 2011 Time: What Time Do the Oscars Start?


It's Feb. 27, 2011 -- which means it's the day ofthe 83rd Academy Awards! And you're ready, with yourOscars ballot, yourOscars predictions, yourOscars party tipsand yourOscars drinking gamerules; and you've bookmarked theOscar winners list, which we at Moviefone will be updating in real time. Now you just have one question:What time do the 2011 Oscars start?

For some people, the real show is thered carpet-- which starts at 6PM ET / 5PM CT / 3PM PT, and is televised on various channels, though the most popular coverage is on E!. Ryan Seacrest and Giuliana Rancic will be greeting the stars, asking what they're wearing, and providing fascinating banter of the"What parties are you going to?"variety.

And then the telecast of the Oscars ceremony begins at 8PM ET / 7PM CT / 5PM PT on ABC, hosted by James Franco and Anne Hathaway, who will join the pantheon ofOscar hostsand attempt to rank in your affections somewhere between Billy Crystal and Whoopi Goldberg. (Want a peek at what the lineup of the show might be?Deadline Hollywood published some spoilers here.)Check your local TV listings

Of course, you can skip all the TV coverage and just keep it here on Moviefone, where our completeOscars 2011 coveragewill include red carpet coverage, best and worst dressed snark,real-time winners list updates, a live blog of the ceremony, a review of the hosts' performance and much more.


Complete Oscars 2011 Coverage


Source

суббота, 26 февраля 2011 г.

'The NeverEnding Story' Twenty Years Later


Imagine you're walking down the street with your friends. It's the 80s, you're cool and you might do a little bullying. Nothing too extreme. Maybe you'll throw a kid in a trash can, but you wouldn't seriously hurt him. You know, kid stuff.

Suddenly a monstrous flying dragon with the face of a dog appears out of nowhere and starts to hunt you down. You run, but your legs can't move fast enough. You're screaming. You're about to die. Suddenly, you see a garbage dumpster. Salvation! You jump inside and stay there for hours, quivering and crying with the shame of your fear.

This moment is going to haunt you for the rest of your life.

Sketch comedy group Rue Brutalia stepped into the shoes of the bullies from 'The NeverEnding Story' to give us an idea of how the kids fared in adulthood. Check it out after the jump.



Source

пятница, 25 февраля 2011 г.

Cinematical Seven: Prestige Actors in 'Lowly' Horror Films



The four-time Oscar nomineeJulianne Moorestars in a new horror movie, 'Shelter,' which was supposed to open this week, but -- not too surprisingly -- the Weinsteins are playing their usual chess game and have pulled it from release. Goodness knows we love horror movies, but let's face it: as far as prestige is concerned, they're just a step above the Three Stooges and a step below romantic comedies. Regardless, it got me thinking about all the times that high-profile and respectable actors have taken on jobs such as this. And I'm not talking about high-profile movies, either. Were they interested in the movie's themes? Did they need a paycheck? Who knows?

1. (tie)Bette Davisin 'Wicked Stepmother' (1989) andJoan Crawfordin 'Trog' (1970)
Bette Davis was a two-time Oscar winner and Joan Crawford was a one-time winner, and they both went down this sad track, winding up their respective careers with these two movies, the final theatrical film for each. The road to horror started when they made the huge hit 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?' (1962) together, and audiences presumably demanded more, but how much more was up for debate. 'Trog' is from Hammer alumnus Freddie Francis, and it's as bad as it sounds. 'Wicked Stepmother' (1989) is by Larry Cohen, one of the most prolific of"B"movie makers, and it's worse than it sounds.



2.Hilary Swankin 'The Reaping' (2007)
Hilary Swank was a two-time Oscar winner when she chose to make this, and it wasn't several decades after her most recent win: it was only 3 years. We can only hope that Hilary saw something interesting in some early version of the screenplay -- ostensibly about the ten deadly plagues -- or else she lost a bet.



3. 'The Wicker Man' (2006)
This incredibly wrong-headed remake of the great 1973 cult classic was helmed by the once-promisingNeil LaButeand somehow managed to attract two Oscar winners. AdmittedlyNicolas Cageimmediately embarked upon a bubble-gum career after winning his Oscar in 1996, but he had been nominated again as recently as 2002 and was clearly capable of choosing better.Ellen Burstynwon her Oscar in 1974, and has been nominated six times in all, but maybe -- at age 74 -- she was just happy to have a job at all. What's more, one of our current nominees,James Franco, also appears in a tiny role.



4. 'Gothika' (2003)
Oscar-nomineeRobert Downey Jr.could probably be forgiven for taking this; he was working on a comeback after dealing with drug addiction, various arrests, and attempts at rehab. LikewisePenelope Cruz, who hadn't yet received her first Oscar nomination (she has three now, plus one win); she was dealing with the then-held prejudice that she couldn't act in English. ButHalle Berryhad just collected her Oscar less than two years earlier, and was riding high from having been in the hit 'X-Men' movies as well as a Bond girl. She didn't have much of an excuse. Perhaps she only read the first 20 or 30 promising pages and thought that it was going to be a pretty good mystery, or perhaps she hadn't seen enough horror movies to know about all those clichés.



5.Jennifer Connellyin 'Dark Water' (2005)
Connelly is no stranger to horror and sci-fi, as many geeks out there already know. She was in a vintage Dario Argento chiller, 'Phenomena,' as well as things like 'Labyrinth,' 'The Rocketeer,' 'Dark City' and 'Hulk.' Even her debut, 'Once Upon a Time in America,' and 2000's 'Requiem for a Dream' have a certain clout with movie buffs. She won an Oscar for one of her worst films, the insipid 'A Beautiful Mind,' and so perhaps she was stuck for a while between prestige projects and genre projects. This J-horror remake had an Oscar-nominated director,Walter Salles('Central Station'), at the helm, so maybe it seemed like a good bet. Instead, it was dead in the 'water,' so to speak. (Note: this also starredthreeother Oscar nominees:Tim Roth,Pete PostlethwaiteandJohn C. Reilly.)



6.Renee Zellwegerin 'Case 39' (2010)
Has any former Oscar winner fallen so far? (OK, besidesCuba Gooding Jr.andRoberto Benigni.) Zellweger earned three nominations and one win and seven years later, she's in this terrible entry in the"killer kid"horror subgenre. It was such a stinker that it sat on the shelf for almost three years. By the time it hit theaters in the U.S., bootlegs of the British commercial DVD release were already available online. This actually did my heart good, though, since I loudly protested Zellweger's Oscar win for 'Cold Mountain.' I wrote in 2003:"Apparently no one told her that she wasn't doing 'Oklahoma!' -- she struts and stomps around with an outrageous farmer accent. You almost expect her to burst into song at any moment."Plus, why wasn'tScarlett Johanssonnominated in that category for 'Lost in Translation'?



7.Geoffrey Rushin 'House on Haunted Hill' (1999)
This one I can understand. Rush is a trained stage actor with experience in Shakespeare, and by 1999 he had received two Oscar nominations and one win. (He was nominated a third time in 2000 and he currently has his fourth.) But Rush is a huge ham, and a great scenery chewer. A remake of a cheesy 1958William Castlemovie did not bode well, but how could he resist a role that had been originated that other great ham,Vincent Price?



Are there any others I forgot? Please send in your favorite prestigious actors in bad horror films.


Source

четверг, 24 февраля 2011 г.

Oscar's Biggest Upsets: 16 Jaw-Dropping Moments in Academy Awards History


What would theOscarsbe without big surprises? It seems every Academy Awards show throughout history has had memorable upsets.

When an actor or a film seems like the frontrunner, any knowledgable viewer should know it ain't over 'til the gold statue is in his or her hand.

From Marisa Tomei winning to 'Citizen Kane' losing, we count down the biggest Oscar upsets of all time.

Three 6 MafiaOverDolly Parton
For:Best Original Song, 2006
Shock Value:The infectious music is half of what made'Hustle& Flow'so popular, but 'It's Hard Out For Here for a Pimp' besting Dolly's'Transamerica'ballad 'Travelin' Thru'? Never could we have imagined the Academy to be so sympathetic to pimps.


Gwyneth PaltrowOverCate Blanchett
For:Best Actress, 1999
Shock Value:Gwynnie was perfectly lovely in'Shakespeare in Love,'but Cate blew critics away with her bravura performance in'Elizabeth.'In the end, Shakespeare's (fictional) muse trumped his queen, proving once again that pretty girls have all the luck.


Roberto BenigniOverTom HanksandNick Nolte
For:Best Actor, 1999
Shock Value:After denying Hanks ('Saving Private Ryan') a third trophy and the favored Nolte ('Affliction') his first, the'Life Is Beautiful'star delivered that unforgettably ecstatic, broken English speech in which he wished he could be"making love to everybody."Yep, even Nolte.


'An American in Paris'Over'A Streetcar Named Desire'
For:Best Picture, 1952
Shock Value:Shocking in hindsight, but at the time it made perfect sense: a feel-good musical starring fan fave singer-dancerGene Kellyover a real downer of a drama with a broodingMarlon Brando. He scared the Academy back then.


Roman PolanskiOverMartin Scorsese
For:Best Director, 2003
Shock Value:Not so startling, really, considering Scorsese ('Gangs of New York') couldn't win for'Raging Bull'or'Goodfellas.'The real surprise was the crowning of'Pianist'director Polanski, a Hollywood pariah since his statutory rape conviction in 1977.


'Dances With Wolves'Over 'Goodfellas'
For:Best Picture, 1991
Shock Value:With the other noms being 'Awakenings,' 'Ghost' and 'Godfather: Part III,' it looked like a slam dunk for Martin Scorsese's mob masterpiece. Instead,Kevin Costner's drama -- less violent, more"epic,"less directed-by-Scorsese -- danced its way to Oscar gold.


Tommy Lee JonesOverRalph Fiennes
For:Best Supporting Actor, 1994
Shock Value:Oy vey. Jones' performance in 'The Fugitive' was good and all, but Fiennes really went out on a limb as a sadistic Nazi in'Schindler's List'(which won several awards -- including Best Picture -- but none for its actors).


'Rocky'Over'All the President's Men,''Network'and'Taxi Driver'
For:Best Picture, 1977
Shock Value:The Italian Stallion going the distance with Apollo Creed was nothing compared to this small flick, starring a then-unknownSly Stallone, upstaging the likes of Redford, Scorsese and Lumet. Yo, Adrian! He did it!


Adrien BrodyOverJack Nicholson,Michael Caine,Daniel Day-LewisandNicolas Cage
For:Best Actor, 2003
Shock Value:'The Pianist' star Brody was as shocked as anybody after he upset heavy favorite Nicholson ('About Schmidt'). He expressed his shock and delight by doing what any sane man would do in his position: He groped Oscar presenterHalle Berry.


'How Green Was My Valley'Over'Citizen Kane'
For:Best Picture, 1942
Shock Value:For the record, they weren't rioting in the streets after the"greatest motion picture of all time"fell to this drama about a Welsh mining town. That's because 'Kane' didn't yet hold that title: It takes years for the Earth's populace to agree on something like that.


Marisa TomeiOver Everyone
For:Best Supporting Actress, 1993
Shock Value:Always the wild card, this category has seen countless upsets over the years. But nothing compares to the'My Cousin Vinny'star's triumph overMiranda Richardson,Joan Plowright,Vanessa Redgrave,Judy Davisand human reason.


'Ordinary People'Over'Raging Bull'
For:Best Picture, 1981
Shock Value:Driven by a fiercely moving performance from newcomerTimothy Hutton, thisRobert Redford-directed drama came out of nowhere to K.O. Martin Scorsese's seemingly unbeatable boxing flick. 'Ordinary' our asses ...


'Chariots of Fire'Over'Reds'and'On Golden Pond'
For:Best Picture, 1982
Shock Value:'On Golden Pond' had won the acting awards; 'Reds' snagged Best Director. So when the Best Picture winner was announced, the crowd exploded in surprise. Cue the theme song.


'Crash'Over'Brokeback Mountain'
For:Best Picture, 2006
Shock Value:Google"Brokeback"and"biggest upset"and you'll find approximately 18 billion matches. But it should be noted that several pundits warned the masses that the race ensemble 'Crash' would land the top honor. Still, we were flabbergasted.


'Shakespeare in Love'Over'Saving Private Ryan'
For:Best Picture, 1999
Shock Value:Steven Spielbergdirects Tom Hanks in a WWII epic -- and it loses to a romantic dramedy about 'Romeo and Juliet'?! The power of Shakespeare ... (and by Shakespeare we mean super-campaignerHarvey Weinstein).


Juliette BinocheOverLauren Bacall
For:Best Supporting Actress, 1997
Shock Value:After 40-plus years in Hollywood, Lauren Bacall finally received her first Oscar nomination (for'The Mirror Has Two Faces') and was considered a lock to win after triumphing at the Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild Awards. But it was no stopping'The English Patient'that night, which went on to win nine Academy Awards, including a shock win for co-star Juliette Binoche. (In her speech, even Binoche said she thought Bacall deserved to win.)


Source

среда, 23 февраля 2011 г.

Top 10 Weird and Wonderful Oscar Statistics You May Have Missed



A lot ('The Social Network'!) of the experts ('The King's Speech'!) are obsessed ('The Fighter'!) with what will happen ('Inception'!) on Oscar night. ('Black Swan'!) Personally, I think it's much more interesting to look back and see what alreadyhashappened. And by using the magic of numbers, combined with the invaluable assistance of Wikipedia, I've come up with some rather amusing little tidbits. (Some of these you may have read before, but oh well. They're still cool.)

1a. 'The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King'(2003) won 11 Oscars out of 11 nominations. Statistically speaking, it's the king of the Oscar heap. Other 100% winners include 'Gigi' (1958) and 'The Last Emperor' (1987), both of which went 9 for 9, and 'It Happened One Night' (1934), which was 5 for 5.

1b.'The Matrix'(1999) won 4 out of 4, and the 3 for 3 club includes 'The Bourne Ultimatum' (2007), 'Grand Prix' (1966), and 'Jurassic Park' (1993). Several films have gone 2 for 2 and 1 for 1, but that's not all that interesting, plus it's too much research.

2.Only one film has ever won Best Picture and nothing else. It was'The Broadway Melody'(1929), and its other nominations were for Best Director (Harry Beaumont) and Best Actress (Bessie Love). (Correction!'Grand Hotel'(1932) also won Best Picture and nothing else ... because that was its only nomination!)

3. The 1956 short film'The Red Balloon'won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, despite having zero dialogue.



4.The late (great) character actorJohn Cazaleappeared in only five features -- but they were all nominated for Best Picture: 'The Godfather' (1972), 'The Conversation' (1974), 'The Godfather Part 2' (1974), 'Dog Day Afternoon' (1975), and 'The Deer Hunter' (1978). Both 'Godfathers' won, but 'The Conversation' was up against 'Part 2,' so it lost (obviously). 'Dog Day Afternoon' lost to 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,' but 'The Deer Hunter' also won Best Picture.

5.Unfortunately Mr. Cazale never earned an Oscar nomination for his work.

6.The record-holder for acting nominations is, of course,Ms. Meryl Streep,who's been up for the Oscar 16(!) times, and has won the prize only twice: for 'Kramer vs. Kramer' (1979, supporting) and 'Sophie's Choice' (1982, lead).



7.The biggest"losers,"statistically speaking would be 'Becket' (1964) and 'Johnny Belinda'(1948), both of which went 1 (win) for 12 (nominations). The former won its sole Oscar for Best Screenplay, and the latter went home with Best Actress (Jane Wyman). The 1 for 11 club includes 'Chinatown'(1974, screenplay), 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'(1939, original story), and 'The Pride of the Yankees'(1942, editing).

8.Composer John Williamshas been nominated 45 times. He has won 5 trophies. The latecostume designer Edith Headwas nominated 35 times, winning the gold 8 times.



9. Only three films have ever"swept"the five big awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay):'It Happened One Night'(1934),'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'(1975), and 'The Silence of the Lambs'(1991).

10.Despite winning 8 Oscars out of 10 nominations, 'Cabaret' (1972) failed to win Best Picture. It also didn't get Adapted Screenplay, because 'The Godfather' snagged both.



Honorable Mention:Poor Kevin O'Connell! He may be one of the world's finest sound mixers, but his Oscar record stands at a staggering ZERO wins out of 20 nominations. Someone givethis manan Oscar! (The interview below took place when O'Connell was battling 0-for-18. Since then he's been nominated another two times and lost both times. He is not nominated this year.)


Source

вторник, 22 февраля 2011 г.

Zack Snyder's 'Superman' Movie to Add Kevin Costner? (UPDATED)

UPDATE:Latino Reviewhas chimed in with word from an inside source and it looks like Costner is up for the role of Jonathan"Pa"Kent. Of all possible choices, it's definitely the most obvious, but hey, you've got to go with what works.

With shooting set to begin sooner rather than later, rumors concerning Zack Snyder's reboot of'Superman'continue to swirl in. First, Henry Cavilllanded the coveted roleof the Man of Steel himself. Then it wasall but confirmedthat one of the film's villains would be the Kryptonian superwoman, Ursa. Now,Deadlinebrings us a vague but interesting rumor regarding who may be joining the cast next: the one and onlyKevin Costner.

And that's it. The role is unspecified. Whether or not Costner has been approached or not is unspecified. Whether or not Costner is interested is unspecified. All we know is that he's a candidate for a"key role."

What could this"key role"be? What character in the Superman mythos could Costner pull off?

Once upon a time, Costner himself, with his good looks and manly jawline, could have played Superman, so maybe he could be Superman's father, Jor-El, in flashbacks? However, he's also one of the quintessential all-American actors of the past few decades, so a role like Jonathan Kent, Superman's adoptive Earth father, would fit him like a glove. Maybe they're going slightly left field with the casting and he's wanted for the role of Perry White, editor at the Daily Planet and boss to mild mannered reporter Clark Kent? He's certainly the right age to play a seasoned newspaper man.

Of course, maybe the rumors are false, the evil General Zodisin the film and Costner will be brushing off his old 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves' accent to play him? Um, on second thought, let's pretend that thought never arose.

With shooting set to begin in a few months, this is one rumor that doesn't have time to be dragged out for too long. 'Superman: Man of Steel' is set for a December 2012 release, an eternity for us fans, but a blink of an eye for the folks scrambling to get the film made.


Source

понедельник, 21 февраля 2011 г.

Robert Downey Jr. Circling P.T. Anderson's 'Inherent Vice'

WhenRobert Downey Jr.decided to drop out of'Oz, the Great and Powerful'last month, the popular actor found himself with an opening in his normally jam-packed schedule. According toTHR, he's planning to fill that void by possibly starring in P.T. Anderson's adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's novel'Inherent Vice.'

Anderson has been hard at work adapting the novel while he continues to attempt to get his religious-themed 'The Master' off the ground. Philp Seymour Hoffman is tied to that film, which is still looking for funding.

Should Downey Jr. take the role, he'll play a stoner detective (kinda like Sherlock Holmes!) who gets embroiled in a series of mysteries in Los Angeles. The novel takes place during 1969 and the Manson trial serves as part of the story's backdrop. Sources say the novel is more accessible than the standard Pynchon tale, which will hopefully make its transition to the screen a smooth one.

Hit the jump for more details.

Downey's schedule will once again be full if he eventually signs on for the part. The actor has recently finished'Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows'and will begin shooting'The Avengers'later this year. He also has 'Iron Man 3' on his docket and several other projects in development. 'Inherent Vice' could be the last piece of the scheduling puzzle that ensures the actor works continuously until sometime near 2013.

Anderson, meanwhile, hasn't directed since 2007's critical darling 'There Will Be Blood.' If he can secure financing for both 'Inherent Vice' and 'The Master,' it seems likely that he'd make both films in short order. No word on which would get priority if that were to happen, though.

It's either incredibly ironic or perfect casting to place Robert Downey Jr. in a film called 'Inherent Vice' given the talented actor's well-publicized struggles with addiction– and only time will tell which turns out to be the case if he takes the part. We like the idea of the affable actor playing a stoner detective, so we're hoping this news pans out. What do you guys think?


Source

воскресенье, 20 февраля 2011 г.

Where Everyone Has Gone Before #31: 'Mystery Train'

Welcome toWhere Everyone Has Gone Before, the weekly column where I continue my film education before your very eyes by seeking out and watching all of the movies I should have seen by now. I will first judge the movie before I've watched it, based entirely on its reputation (and my potentially misguided thoughts). Then I will give the movie a fair chance and actually watch it. You will laugh at me, you may condemn me, but you will never say I didn't try!

The Film:'Mystery Train'(1989), Dir. Jim Jarmusch

Starring:Youki Kudoh, Masatoshi Nagase, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Cinque Lee, Nicoletta Braschi, Elizabeth Bracco, Joe Strummer, Rick Aviles, Steve Buscemi, Tom Noonan and the raspy tones of the great Tom Waits.

Why I Haven't Seen It Until Now:My first exposure to director Jim Jarmusch was when Teenage Me (perhaps you remember his only slightly stupider earlier incarnation12 Year Old Me) plucked 'Dead Man' off a Blockbuster shelf expecting a traditional western and receiving a darkly comedic, surreal, acid trip of a western deconstruction. Man, Teenage Me decided that hehatedJarmusch based on that one film alone.

Pre-Viewing Assumptions:Looking back on how I learned to love movies, I see a map charting how I became the human being I am today.

It all had to start somewhere and for me, it was the James Bond series. Prior to discovering a battered copy of 'Licence to Kill' on VHS (yes,thatwas my first 007), movies were a fun distraction, something entertaining that you partook in here and there, but they existed on the same level as books. Or board games. Or my action figures. They held no sway over me. I didn't feel any magic in them.



But the massive history of the Bond series! The sheer number of films! So much to dive into! So much to explore! Not to mention, to an adolescent with the minimal possible understanding of sex (I only knew that it was apparently awesome) and no understanding at all of the consequences of violence (except that it was also apparently awesome), Bond was like the encapsulation of everything that my young self found important and amazing.

(Yes, we are here to talk about 'Mystery Train.' We'll get there soon enough, I promise.)

For the first time, movies spoke to me. Sure, it spoke to me in a childish, emotionally distant way (I still consider myself a minor Bond scholar and a huge fan, but let's not elevate themtoohigh, okay?), but that was the moment where I fell in love with cinema. That was the moment where I felt a true, genuine connection to the medium. I had a reason to care. I had a reason to invest. I had a reason to pay attention to what I was watching. To absorb it. To treasure it and not forget it.

By my early teens, my film world had widened to include horror movies and for about six months, I convinced myself that I was the world's reigning expert on the genre (over a decade and hundreds of horror movies later, there are countless people who walk serious circles around me when it comes to that genre). Bond was still great, but horror movies were mean. They were bloody. They were for grown-ups. By watching them, IknewI was growing up, too.



When my teens came around, I entered my pretentious phase. Film had been important to me for so long that I had finally graduated to the Hollywood classics. The came the three-hour, black and white Swedish movies about losing your faith. I walked around saying idiotic things like"What do you mean you haven't seen (INSERT SEVENTY-YEAR OLD MOVIE HERE)? What kind of moron are you? GOD!"Teenage Me was insufferable. This was when I saw Jim Jarmusch's 'Dead Man' and was immediately turned off by its strange blend of surreal visuals, oddball comedy and strange metaphor. It didn't have a reputation for being a great film and it didn't wear any importance on its sleeve. Of course I was going to hate it.

Four years of college, surrounded by people just like me, managed to beat this pretentiousness right out of my skull. Well, most of it. Half. Forty percent.

Having seen 'Dead Man' again recently, I think it's a good film. I like to think that Current Me is a fairly well-balanced movie watcher who appreciates glorious trash just as much as he loves the standard classics. I like to think that Current Me knows that a film doesn't have to be"important"to be legitimately great. I like to think that Current Me can finally appreciate a filmmaker who makes intensely personal personal movies that are derived from a unique place, that feel completely out-of-touch with the standard plain of reality and portray a point of view that no other movie has depicted. I like to think that Current Me is finally ready to appreciate Jim Jarmusch.

Bring on 'Mystery Train.' It's about Elvis or something, right? I wrote all of that because I really don't have a clue.



Post-Viewing Reaction:Younger versions of myself would have hated 'Mystery Train' with a blinding passion. It doesn't follow a traditional structure. None of the characters have a Hollywood arc. There is a lot of dialogue and very little action. It takes its time, meandering about, never in a hurry, asking you to soak up little details, to consider the characters and their environment rather than wait for anything resembling a plot to arise.

I cannot begrudge anyone who dislikes 'Mystery Train,' much like how I cannot begrudge myself for having such an averse early reaction to Jim Jarmusch. However, I'd be curious to see the"movie histories"of the people who find his work dull or insufferable. Looking back on my personal relationship with the movies, I see a series of events preparing me to embrace this kind of filmmaking, contorting my tastes to fit in the admittedly narrow niche that Jarmusch is working within. Jarmsuch has always operated under the radar and he surely will continue in that fashion, but it's hard to imagine him having it any other way. Any other way would involve compromise.

'Mystery Train' is three overlapping stories taking place over one day and one night in Memphis Tennessee, told one right after the other. The first is about a young Japanese couple (Youki Kudoh and Masatoshi Nagase), who have traveled across on the world on a pilgrimage to see where rock 'n and roll was born. She's an Elvis fan, bubbly and excited, ecstatic at the thought of visiting Graceland. He's a man of few words, hiding behind a manufactured toughness and his rocker's hairdo. He thinks Elvis is overrated. Carl Perkins is much better. They wander the city. They tour a tiny record studio. They find a hotel. They talk.



The second story tracks an Italian woman (Nicoletta Braschi), recently widowed, who finds herself stranded in town for day after her connecting flight to Rome is delayed. She finds herself manipulated by a magazine salesman, cornered in a diner by a sleazy con man (the great character actor Tom Noonan), who tells her a story about encountering the ghost of Elvis. She shares a hotel room with the talkative Dee Dee (Elizabeth Bracco). They talk. The ghost of Elvis also appears to them, but mostly they just talk.

The final story is probably the most action-packed of the three, but that's not saying much. After losing his job, Johnny (Joe Strummer) goes on a bender and is"rescued"by a friend (Rick Aviles) and his brother-in-law (Steve Buscemi, looking impossibly young). Much alcohol is consumed. A gun is fried twice. They drive. They talk. They drive. They find a hotel room and they talk some more.

Because the film isn't about plot, it's impossible to spoil anything. The joys of 'Mystery Train' come not from wondering what's going to happen next, but rather from sympathizing and empathizing with these characters as they interact with one another, often passing other key characters, unaware that their story is not the only one of interest occurring at that very moment. The overlapping time frame is not a gimmick -- the film never acts like a mystery that needs to be solved. When characters in one story here a gunshot, weknowa later story will tell us where it came from, but there's no pressing desire to find out. It's just Jarmusch telling us that while the story of your life is happening in this room, the story of someone else's life is happening right next door.



Your life may be sweet romantic drama about visiting Memphis to see the origins or Elvis and the life down the hall may be a dark comedy about what happens when a man with a loaded gun has too much alcohol, but one is not more important than the other. And that may be the meaning of 'Mystery Train' (if it actually has one -- it certainly doesn'thaveto have one): every life is a story worth telling. Even the boring ones.

Watching 'Mystery Train,' I'm reminded of that old adage"acting is reacting."Not in connection with the films performances (although they really are stellar across the board, masterclasses of understated naturalism), but in what Jarmusch is obviously fascinated by. This is a movie that's entirely about reactions. How do the Japanese tourists react to the city of Memphis and its inhabitants? How does the young Italian woman react to her chatty roommate and the con man with the ghost story? How do the three friends react when a night of angry debauchery takes a violent left turn? Three completely different stories about completely different people, but all of them united by the town they're in and how it has influenced their decisions and choices. 'Mystery Train' is a meditation on the beauty of the human reaction ... we can only imagine the the thousands of other noteworthy stories occurring in Memphis on this night.

Although an ensemble piece, the true lead character at the heart of 'Mystery Train' is Memphis itself. Although not always a flattering portrayal, Jarmusch finds beauty in a city that looks like it's entirely composed of seedy bars, dirty hotels and condemned theaters. I kept waiting for the moment when the Japanese couple would feel let down -- they came thousands of miles forthis dump?

But that never happens. After all, Elvis recorded here. So did Carl Perkins.



Next Week's Column:It looks like I'll finally be giving the John Waters' seminal gross-out flick'Pink Flamingos'a watch next week, but what should I watch after that? There are only two options remaining before we go into a whole new batch of films, so vote in the comments below (or byTwitter)!

'La Dolce Vita'
'High Plains Drifter'/'Pale Rider'/'The Outlaw Josey Wales' (Triple Feature)


Previous Entries:

'Return to Oz'

'Altered States'
'On the Waterfront'
'Sex, Lies and Videotape'
'Ferris Bueller's Day Off'
'Death Wish'
'Cannibal Holocaust'

'The 39 Steps'
'Bicycle Thieves'
'Moulin Rouge'
'The Sound of Music'
'Rebel Without a Cause'
'A Matter of Life and Death'
'Julia'
'Bride of Frankenstein'
'The Monster Squad'
'Solaris (2002)'
'Solaris (1972)'

'Soylent Green'

'Silent Running'

'Colossus: The Forbin Project'
'Cocoon'
'Enemy Mine'
'A Boy and His Dog'

'The Thing From Another World'
'Forbidden Planet'
'Logan's Run'
'Starman'
'Strange Days'
'Tron'


Source

суббота, 19 февраля 2011 г.

Actors We Miss: Lee Marvin



"I bet you're a bigLee Marvinfan!"taunts one reservoir dog to another in Quentin Tarantino's 1992 movie, thereby bestowing an aura of cool on the famous white-haired, rock-jawed, gravel-voiced actor, who had died five years earlier. Not that he needed it. Lee Marvin was one of the great cinema badasses, and barely needed to lift a finger to exude cool, or at least become the one in the room that everyone looks at, or looks out for. It didn't even matter about his prematurely white hair; he never looked like he was ready for a rocking chair.

Actors today spend a great deal of time thinking about their images before they take on good guy or bad guy roles. Or, if they somehow transition from one to the other, it can feel like a sellout. Marvin played bad guys for a number of years before his star rose and he began to get hero roles, but he brought the same kind of swagger to both types, and the transition felt right. He was a tough guy, but he was a tough guy that could handle a wide range of roles. He was not just an action star for his fans; the critics loved him too. He could handle drama, action, comedy and even (arguably) a musical. He could handle 'The Iceman Cometh' as well as he could handle 'The Dirty Dozen.'
Marvin was born in 1924 in New York City (where else?). He was thrown out of many schools for"incorrigibility,"which is justsocool. Apparently, he studied violin and liked to hunt. He served as a Marine in WWII and was medically discharged after being shot in the butt. He returned to New York and began working as a plumber. While doing a job in a local theater, he was asked to take over for a sick actor. The rest is history.

After some theater and television, he moved to Los Angeles and won his first big role in Don Siegel's terrific"B"Western 'The Duel at Silver Creek' (1952). His steely gaze and unfaltering presence quickly typecast him as a bad guy, sometimes a psychotic sidekick, but other times the leader of a band of outlaws. He made cinema history in Fritz Lang's 'The Big Heat' (1953) as a gangster who pitches a pot of hot coffee in Gloria Grahame's face; it's a moment that still shocks today.





In 'The Wild One' (1953), he played a motorcycle thug who goes up against Marlon Brando, no less, and provides a genuine threat. He attracted the attention of several top action directors and subsequently appeared in Andre de Toth's 'The Stranger Wore a Gun' (1953), Raoul Walsh's 'Gun Fury' (1953), John Sturges' 'Bad Day at Black Rock' (1955), Robert Aldrich's 'Attack' (1956), and Budd Boetticher's 'Seven Men from Now' (1956), among others. He received a big break playing another bad guy, the title character, in John Ford's masterpiece 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance' (1962). Imagine playing opposite both John Wayne and James Stewart and somehow managing to seem dangerous and worthy of attention.

Ford cast Marvin again in his next film, the bawdy, light-hearted 'Donovan's Reef' (1963), but this time as an old buddy of John Wayne's. The two men spend a lot of screen time brawling, and appear mostly as equals, with neither stealing any thunder from the other. Though the film isn't anything major, it did mark a shift in the Marvin persona, showing how he could be tough, but fun-loving and good-hearted at the same time.



Siegel cast him again as a mysterious and stoic hitman in a remake of 'The Killers' (1964) that was originally produced for television, but was found to be too violent and was released in theaters. It's also notable as Ronald Reagan's last acting role; he plays a crazy gangster, very over-the-top and evil compared to Marvin's brand of unflappable cool. (Marvin was never evil, just threatening.) Marvin won a BAFTA award for his performance. For Marvin's next film, the comedy-Western 'Cat Ballou' (1965), he received his first and only Oscar nomination, and won.

That was the turning point, and Marvin entered into full-fledged, leading-man stardom. He was cast in a Stanley Kramer drama, 'Ship of Fools' (1965), but thankfully that kind of serious, stodgy thing did not stick. Next up was Richard Brooks' 'The Professionals' (1966), a terrific action-Western-thriller about a band of vigilantes hired to rescue a millionaire's wife from Mexican bandit. It was a big production, but still cool. Marvin, of course, plays the leader of the gang.

Starting in 1967, Marvin became one of the top ten box office stars of the year, and stayed there for five years, through 1971. Two of his best and most memorable movies came out that year, John Boorman's 'Point Blank' and Aldrich's 'The Dirty Dozen.' The latter was the year's #1 hit film, a violent action epic set at the end of WWII. The awesome cast also included Charles Bronson, Ernest Borgnine, Jim Brown, John Cassavetes, and even Donald Sutherland.



But 'Point Blank' was something different. It was a psychedelic-era crime film, based on a pulp novel called 'The Hunter,' by Richard Stark, really Donald E. Westlake. (Mel Gibson remade it, poorly, as 'Payback' in 1999.) English director Boorman took an outsider's perspective to San Francisco, California, surrounding Marvin with a giant Cinemascope frame, gobs of primary colors and slanted angles. But Marvin himself is like a concrete pillar, with his trim gray suit and his short-cropped gray hair, that holds up the film. It's a dazzling display of juxtaposition, of the imperturbable outsider trying to navigate a mean and strange world, and it may be Marvin's best film.

Boorman cast Marvin again the next year, alongside the legendary Toshiro Mifune, in 'Hell in the Pacific' (1968). Then came the ill-fated 'Paint Your Wagon' (1969), which seems to balance a notorious reputation for an overblown, over-budget white elephant -- starring two guys (Marvin and Clint Eastwood) who were not exactly the strongest of singers -- as well as a reputation as a hit and a cheerful, fun movie. Co-star Jean Seberg described Marvin's singing as"like rain gurgling down a rusty pipe."Marvin received a Golden Globe nomination.

By now Marvin was drinking heavily.Roger Ebertwrote a terrific 1970 interview in which he visited Marvin at his home for several hours, observing all kinds of astonishing, and hilarious, behavior. There was another Western, 'Monte Walsh' (1970), based on a book by Jack Schaefer, who had also written 'Shane.' There was a crime film, 'Prime Cut' (1972), and another movie with director Aldrich, 'Emperor of the North' (1973). After that, he took a surprising lead role in a four-hour movie version of 'The Iceman Cometh' (1973), directed by John Frankenheimer; he proved once again that he could actually act.



Then came some lean years, with some unmemorable movies. Marvin had worked with most of Hollywood's tough guy directors, but in 1980 it was his time to team up with Samuel Fuller, who was finally getting a chance to make his dream film, 'The Big Red One' (1980). Marvin was cast as the grizzled, all-knowing sarge, leading a team of young, fresh dogfaces (including Mark Hamill) through the various landscapes of WWII (based mostly on Fuller's own experiences). The movie was heavily edited before its release and did not make much of a splash that year, but in 2004, film critic Richard Schickel helped restore it to a version close to Fuller's original intent, and it has been reclaimed as a masterpiece.

Marvin was only in his 50s at this point, but he seemed older. He teamed up with Charles Bronson once again for 'Death Hunt' (1981), a fun, second-gear action movie set in snowy Canada. 'Gorky Park' (1983) was a fairly high-profile production, but did not bring Marvin much new recognition. His final film was a"B"-grade Chuck Norris action film, 'The Delta Force' (1986). He died of a heart attack not long after.

Today's action stars are more like pro wrestlers, each trying to perfect the best defiant glare. Above all, Marvin was not a man to be so easily predicted or pinned down. He lived his life as a liberal, apparently supporting John F. Kennedy and gay rights and opposing the Vietnam War. He was married twice and had four children. It felt like he found the secret to all of it. He was terrifying but funny, strong but warm, stoic but maybe with a bit of a wink. There's nobody quite like Marvin. He was just... cool.


Source

пятница, 18 февраля 2011 г.

Real Animal Deaths on Film: Is It Ever OK?

Sometimes it's difficult to reconcile being an animal lover and a film fan. How many movies kill off the hero's horse in the midst of battle? Quite a few. How many manage to find comedy in dogs being crushed by pianos? Not quite as many, but more than you'd think. As someone who sat through 'Dogtooth' with a cat on his lap, I'll admit to laughing maniacally at a hilarious but truly horrifying sequence involving a harmless cat and a pair of garden shears, but I can guarantee that I felt really bad for a good while afterward.

For those of us who count the furry, the feathered and the scaled among our closest companions, some movies can instantly rub us the wrong way (and Cinematical's own Scott Weinberg thinks thatthe MPAA should take notice). However, we can usually take solace in knowing that these scenes are staged -- that thanks to good ol' fashioned movie magic, no animal was actually killed. This has not always been the case, though.

What about movies that featureactualanimal deaths? No makeup, no animatronics, no dummies -- but the actual killing of an animal for dramatic purposes. Most of the time, actual animal deaths are associated with a certain breed of trashy horror movies (oh, Italy), but sometimes more famous and respected films can feature the real on-screen death of an animal.

This begs the question(s): If the film is"art"as opposed to"junk,"is the death justified? Why would it qualify as exploitation in some cases and not in others? Is thiseverOK?

This debate arose here on Cinematical a few weeks back
when I wrote about the horror film'Cannibal Holocaust', which features multiple instances of live animal deaths captured on film. Berating a film so infamously controversial may have been akin to beating a dead horse (man, if there was ever a relevant metaphor), but it remains a tough watch. In addition to the elaborately staged -- and to the film's credit, incredibly effective -- human-on-human violence, the film features a pig being shot, a turtle being torn to pieces, and a monkey being beheaded -- and the camera lingers grotesquely on each shot, in order to achieve maximum shock value.

These days, movie sets are tightly monitored for any all kind of animal cruelty (you can't even swat a real fly when a a camera is rolling), so to see non-documentary footage of animals being slaughtered on camera in service of a debauched horror movie is just plain upsetting.

Few films have truly managed to capture what death truly looks and feels like. There's always that invisible wall between fiction and reality, the thing that allows an audience to remind itself that"it's only a movie."'Cannibal Holocaust' removes that wall. This is sick stuff, the very definition of an exploitation film (a term that's taken on oddly cuddly overtones in recent years) and the choice to kill animals -- unwilling participants who are killed just to get a reaction from the audience -- feels despicable (although the crew did supposedly eat the animals afterward, so it could be argued that they weren't completely senseless killings).

It's easy to wag your finger and cry about murder and moral bankruptcy when the film in the crosshairs is trash (and even if you like it, the film is undeniably trash in its very construct), but what about when the film is a internationally recognized masterpiece from one of cinema's most respected directors?

The film is 'Andrei Rublev' and the director is the great Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky. A vividly realistic look at life in medieval Russia, the film is long, difficult, often confounding, occasionally boring but above all, somehow, still entrancing. It also features the horrifying death of a horse during an extended raid sequence: the horse stumbles down a set of stairs, lands hard and is stabbed through the neck with a spear. Although the film features other instances of staged animal deaths (a cow being set on fire was safely accomplished by coating the cow in asbestos, which, quite frankly, still sounds pretty horrible), but the horse was purchased from a slaughterhouse, killed for the film, and then returned to be processed.

The scene, shot in a single wide shot, is undeniably effective: a tragic, emotionally horrifying movie moment if one ever existed. Horses and their inherent beauty are a recurring theme throughout the story, and it's a sequence that feels vital to the texture of the film.

Therein lies the conundrum: does that make it okay? Does the fact that the horse died while creating"art"allow us to forgive Tarkovsky and his crew of the same thing that we instantly condemn the crew of 'Cannibal Holocaust' for? Both films are killing an animal to evoke a reaction, one going for sadness, the other going for shock, but at the end of the day, they've both taken a life. The ability of many film fans to look past Tarkovsky while admonishing 'Cannibal Holocaust' reveals a weird, potentially troubling double standard.

And there are many other layers to this. What can be said about'Apocalypse Now', which features the death of an ox in a native ritual? Francis Ford Coppola didn't orchestrate the killing, but when his local jungle extras had a celebration unrelated to the filming, he turned on his camera, captured it documentary style and inserted it into the climax of the film. Is that evil? Is that-immoral?

On the other end of the spectrum, how many of you knew that the lovable talking animal film'The Adventures of Milo and Otis' was originally a Japanese film called 'Koneko Monogetari: The Adventures of Chatran' that allegedly killed dozens of puppies and kittens during production? Devin Faraci wrotean article about this that will break your heartif you, like me, watched this film multiple times in your blissfully clueless youth. The film remains widely available on just about every $5 video rack around the country.

If we refuse to watch 'Cannibal Holocaust' on sheer principle, shouldn't we also refuse to watch 'Apocalypse Now'? If we're disgusted by the secret background of 'Milo and Otis,' should we treat 'Andrei Rublev' with equal disdain? Should it be judged on a case-by-case basis or is this a case of blanket moral wrongness?

It's a tough question that doesn't feel like it has an easy answer (unless you hate animals and/or you're the person who will post the inevitable"thousands of animals are slaughtered everyday, why do you care?!"comment). Animal lovers can only take solace in knowing that this is a debate that belongs firmly in the past ... the very fact that animals are protected on modern movie sets proves that we, as a species, have grown up a little.


Source

четверг, 17 февраля 2011 г.

Criterion Corner: The Sweet Smell Of February Reviews



Criterion Corner is a Cinematical column dedicated to the wide and wonderful world of the Criterion Collection, and it will make you poor. Criterion Corner runs on the 2nd (or 3rd) and final Wednesday of each month. The first installment features reviews of Criterion's new releases, and the second includes an essay, a video countdown, and other fun stuff pertaining to Criterion culture. Follow@CriterionCorner& visit theCriterion Corner Tumblrfor daily updates.

Welcome to another installment of the Criterion Corner, where the movies love you back. This is something of a curious month for Criterion, as the brand known for restoring and releasing classic films is making a bold grab for both contemporary movies and contemporary movie-lovers. Not only has Criterion announced aheartily requited romance with Hulu Plus, but their distribution deal with IFC Films has continued to pay off some rather outrageous dividends, as two of the best films of the last decade come to the Collection in style. But the pick of the month is reserved for a somewhat unsung American classic -- a stone cold masterpiece for which Criterion has put together one of their finest releases yet.

As theTerran Federation of Earthmight ask:"Would you like to know more?"


NEW CRITERION RELEASES:


#553'Fish Tank'(Andrea Arnold) 2009

THE FILM:Things begin all stark and subdued, with a respite from some unknown chaos. 15 year-old Mia (Katie Jarvis) breathes heavily, her head swaying mere inches away from the camera's lens. She surveys her small and sterile Essex fiefdom from the balcony, and then tears onto the quad of her low-rent apartment complex like a locomotive steaming off the tracks, dishing out head-butts and shrill curses to anyone who crosses her path. Mia is not a happy girl, her propulsive anger enough to power half of Britain, let alone the boney frame of one small pissed off teenager. She harbors ambitions of becoming a dancer, but her talents don't seem to match her desperation. She shares an apartment with her pre-sexualized kid sister and her apathetic mother (who feels absent even though she never seems to go outside), but they're less of a family than they are living reminders of Mia's likely trajectory. She needs to get out, and her mother's new boyfriend (a brilliant and believably ominous Michael Fassbender) might just be her best chance for escape...

It's a sliver of a story, made rich and full-bodied by a small mess of arresting performances. Jarvis is a diamond in the rough, a Bruno S. for the rambunctious teenage set. Andrea Arnold, here making only her second feature, implicitly recognizes that"Realism"is a dirty word, and so she infuses her film with a fair measure of furtive poetry -- if the metaphors fall a bit clunky, the drama is sly and strong, buttoning things up with the most narratively satisfying dance sequence this side of 'Dogtooth.'

'Fish Tank' is the kind of film that makes Criterion's deal with IFC Films seem like charity, not business. It's swift kick in the ass that's every bit as uncouth and kinetic as it is poignant and enduring, an electric modern marvel that'll leave you breathless.



THE TECHNICAL STUFF:One of the most crisp transfers the still-nascent world of Blu-ray has ever known. The picture is rich and vibrant, and despite the film's restless movement it never surrenders to ghosting effects. The sound is equally clear, but subs are definitely recommended for American ears.

THE EXTRAS:Criterion's IFC releases tend to be on the skimpier side, and 'Fish Tank' is no exception. The video interviews are barely above the stuff of an ordinary E.P.K. and the"Audition footage"-- too brief to feel substantial -- instead feels tacked on.

THE BEST BIT:You mean besides seeing the words of Cinematical's very own Todd Gilchrist pop up in the film's trailer? A trio of Arnold's short films are included, and they more than compensate for the thin supplements. 'Milk' is an arresting early work that gets extraordinary mileage from a single image, 'Dog' is a brutally wayward mess, and 'Wasp' is a haunting Oscar-nominated portrait of a desperate single mother that paved the way for 'Fish Tank's' strikingly confident stride. As a bonus, it provides an unforgettable episode of"When Good Directors Meet Terrible C.G."

THE ARTWORK:I might have gone with the image at the top of this post, but Criterion's choice is frank and appropriately captures Mia in suspended animation.

THE VERDICT:Criterion provides a glorious home for one of the best films in recent years. Arnold is a major talent, and this dazzlingly electric film is the perfect way to get acquainted.

PAIRS NICELY WITH:'Ratcatcher' (#162)


#554'Still Walking'(Hirokazu Kore-eda) 2008

THE FILM:I hope they somehow live forever, but if Masahiro Shinoda and Nagisa Oshima ever die at least I'll finally be able to proclaim sans caveats that Hirokazu Kore-eda is Japan's greatest living filmmaker. That might seem like a morbid intro, but death and finality have always haunted Kore-eda's films, including his startling debut 'Maboroshi' and his seminal 'After Life,' which some consider to be one of the best films of the 1990s (and by"Some"I mean"Me"). The aughts found the burgeoning master refining his idee fixee, most notably with Cannes sensation 'Nobody Knows' and the transcendent contemporary fable'Air Doll,'which chronicles the adventures of an inflatable sex doll who springs to sudden, wide-eyed life. 'Still Walking' is ostensibly a tribute to the filmmaker's recently deceased mother, but the specter that most obviously looms above this searing film -- an invaluable addition to the genre of family gathering dramas -- is that of exalted Japanese auteur Yasujiro Ozu.

Every summer, the Yokoyama family ritualistically reconvenes in their quiet country home to take stock of their lives and mourn the death of the the clan's eldest son. The thick drone of chirping cicadas casts a static pall over the reunion, as if the insects are determined to help muffle the inevitable symphony of inter-generational discord. The surviving son wants to leave as soon as possible, the daughter (played by the inimitably voicedpop star YOU) wants to move in, and the aging parents are just trying to stay busy and distant. Kore-eda adopts Ozu's trademark pillow shots and unhurried pace, but eventually -- and unforgettably -- concedes an emotional aggression and volatility in which Ozu never dared to indulge. Both a poignant take on the circle of domestic life and also something of a deceptively lethal revenge picture, 'Still Walking' is ultimately a wistful reminder that you have to take that next step, even if you know full well what's waiting for you around the corner.



THE TECHNICAL STUFF:The Blu-ray transfer is grainy and lived in, as it should be. The picture almost repudiates the film's modernity, achieving instead a soft, timeless tone that does right by Yutaka Yamazaki's richly organic cinematography.

THE EXTRAS:Another comparatively sparse release, what few extras Criterion did slip through are all solid. Kore-eda is refreshingly candid in a lengthy video interview, and the"Making of"doc is 30 minutes of candid behind-the-scenes footage that begins with Kore-eda vanishing from the set and only gets more fun from there.

THE BEST BIT:'Still Walking' will make you hungry, and not like"Hey, I could eat"hungry, but like,"I'm about to blend aVermonsterand chug it home"hungry. Understanding as much, Criterion kindly included recipes for some of the drool-inducing dishes served in the film. I'll be trying my hand at them later this week, so hit up the blog in a few days for results and tips (assuming this doesn't somehow result in me poisoning myself to death and / or burning down my apartment in the process, which it surely will).

THE ARTWORK:It's growing on me. The watercolor approach sets an appropriately wistful tone, and the film doesn't offer all that many striking images from which to choose. Also, 'Still Walking' offers another example of how Criterion is starting to have some real fun with their menus -- the main menu here is a snippy and touching little short film unto itself.

THE VERDICT:A devastating film from a modern master at the top of his game. It'll welcome you in and make you feel at home, buttering you up to eat your heart.

PAIRS NICELY WITH:'Tokyo Story' (#217)


#555'Sweet Smell of Success'(Alexander Mackendrick) 1957

THE FILM:'Sweet Smell of Success' is among American cinema's prickliest masterpieces, and groping for the film's soft underbelly is like sticking your hand into a pit of vipers and hoping you'll pull up daisies. There's no kindness here, and over almost every one of the conversations crammed into Alexander Mackendrick's hyper-literate film hangs a soul on the edge. But the saga of the irrepressible Sidney Falco is ultimately more than just a jazzy re-telling of Faust, because 'Sweet Smell of Success' isn't about a man at odds with the devil so much as it's about a man waiting for his time to wield the pitchfork himself.

Falco (Tony Curtis, shirking his heartthrob image in favor of looking like a Twilight Zone Ray Liotta), is a press agent on the prowl, kicking around the New York City nights like the neighborhood mutt that sticks its nose into your business until you cough up scraps. Falco knows the name of every columnist, club owner, and cigarette girl in town -- he's a man with hundreds of acquaintances, few friends, and one master: J.J. Hunsecker. Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster, here a tower of ill-temperment) is both a thinly veiled attack on Walter Winchell as well as one of the cinema's great unsung psychopaths, an odious and implacable man whose column can make careers and ruin lives (and does both on a nightly basis). He's the kind of guy who abandoned his scruples along with his childhood toys, and achieved his current position in life as a direct result. Hunsecker's relationship with Falco is ultimately symbiotic, but the press agent is so hungry for success that he's willing to downshift from village vulture to Satan's stooge if it will earn him a seat at the table.

The film is every bit the distasteful acidic powerhouse it was when it first hit, its indelible characters, venomous one-liners, and immaculate attention to detail helping this stiff drink go down easy. A 'Citizen Kane' for the gossip set and the cornerstone of Mackendrick's legacy, 'Sweet Smell of Success' will remain a seething mad classic for as long as people want a sniff for themselves.



THE TECHNICAL STUFF:Unfortunately I was only able to check out this release on DVD, but even in 480p the transfer was rock-solid. The folks over atDVD Beavercall the Blu-ray image"Magnificent."Good news, because legendary cinematographer James Wong Howe makes stiff sets and b-actors into dreamworlds and icons in this one.

THE EXTRAS:A hugely loaded release. James Mangold (director of '3:10 to Yuma') chats about his time as Mackendrick's student at CalArts, which is pretty nifty, and Winchell biographer Neal Gabler pops up to praise and flay the notorious journalist in equal measure. One of the neatest extras finds James Wong Howe telling some old war stories and then giving a brief lesson on film lighting. There's also a 44-minute doc about Mackendrick and his rather elusive legacy.

THE BEST BIT:James Naremore's audio commentary has gotta be one of the best that Criterion has ever commissioned. The dude knows his stuff (he quite literally wrote the book on the subject), and his comments are both illuminating and engaging (he might be reading, but his enthusiasm shines through). He's also refreshingly critical of the film, even though I found myself disagreeing with his assertion that the goodliness of Hunsecker's doe-eyed sister detracts from the grit of the story (methinks it encourages the film to succeed as a parable).

THE ARTWORK:Stunning. A garish rendering of the film's opening scene -- Falco haunting the mid-town streets under the ever-watchful eyes of J.J. Hunsecker -- this is one of Criterion's most beautiful releases. The epic booklet contained within is a black& white wonder, dense with enriching essays in the guise of an old-time gossip rag.

THE VERDICT:Criterion went all out with this one. Sure to be one of the finest home video releases of the year, this is a landmark release.

PAIRS NICELY WITH:'Ace in the Hole' (#396)


#556 'Senso' (Luchino Visconti) 1954

THE FILM:'Senso' is like watching Jeff Gordon hop in a Maserati on the open road, only to make the world's slowest three-point turn. Wait, let's roll that back a second. 1954 found Luchino Visconti on the precipice of greatness, switching gears from his neo-realist origins to the lavish yet brutal melodramas for which he's best remembered. It was an awkward and frustrated limbo between the starkly seriocomic 'Obsession' and the sumptuous sweep of 'The Leopard,' and 'Senso' suffers enormously from its stilted identity. Visconti's genius is allowed to come out and play from time to time, but it's hindered by a dawdling screenplay that can't recover from a dreary second act.

Visconti once said that he liked melodrama because it"Is situated just at the meeting point between life and theater,"and 'Senso' is built upon his determination to negotiate that territory. The film opens rather ravishingly during an opera interrupted by political strife. Amidst the spectacular Technicolor pissing contest, the seeds are sown for an illicit affair between an Italian (Alida Valli as Livia) and an Austrian officer (Farley Granger as Franz). Their relationship -- to put it mildly -- is not mutually beneficial. The broad, theatrical strains of their courtship are darkly enchanting, even if Livia's naivete too quickly unseats her convictions. It's all a bit hazy and politically facile, until the narrative is forcibly relocated beyond the bounds of Venice and the film surrenders to a chatty mode that almost seems to anticipate the extended bedroom dialogue that bisects 'Breathless.' The sudden tonal shift makes it seem as if Visconti isn't trying to balance life and theater so much as alternate between them -- while the film is steadfastly stuffed with beautiful objects, not even Tennessee Williams' punchy contributions help this story find a pulse.



THE TECHNICAL STUFF:'Senso's' original 3-strip negatives had"Suffered extreme shrinkage,"and you can tell right off the bat that this new transfer must have been a total nightmare for everyone involved. Criterion details the process in the booklet included with the disc, noting the assistance of D.P. Giuseppe Rotunno and Martin Scorsese. The first and final shots of the film are noticeably damaged beyond all apparent repair, but the brunt of the film is satisfyingly sharp, and overlaid with a dreamy sheen befitting the story. A minor miracle of film restoration.

THE EXTRAS:Meaty half-hour features like 'Viva Verde' and 'The Making of Senso' make convincing cases for the film's enduring value and resonant self-reflexivity. Peter Cowie narrates a visual essay which provides even further background, but to my mind can't help save the film from its inherent doldrums. A 50-minute episode of the BBC program 'Sunday Night' dedicated to Visconti confirms that this set is ultimately is a more valuable tribute to a filmmaker than it is to one of his weakest films.

THE BEST BIT:'The Wanton Countess,' the abridged English-language cut of 'Senso' that aired on American television. It's about 25 minutes shorter, and -- while this may be heresy -- it definitely flows better in spots. It's also neat to hear Granger and Valli speak their lines in English. Tennessee Williams' dialogue is evident but insignificant, proving that not too much was lost in translation.

THE ARTWORK:Another painterly cover, this one simple and true (even though it kinda looks like Elvis is cruising for chicks during a Christmas parade. Are there Christmas parades? Is that a thing?)

THE VERDICT:It's tempting to call this release a rare Criterion misfire, as the film is certainly below the standard the brand has achieved, but this package provides such valuable insight to Visconti's latent sensual genius that it simply refuses to be written off. It's as needless for non-fans as it is mandatory for his many acolytes.

PAIRS NICELY WITH:'All That Heaven Allows' (#93)




BLU-RAY UPGRADES AND RE-ISSUES:

#4 'Amarcord' (Federico Fellini) 1973

THE FILM:To be reductive about it, Fellini's work can be distilled into two distinct modes: Measured reality and wild fantasy, and somewhere 'twixt the two lies genius. There's the stark and cold Fellini of 'I Vitelloni,' the nostalgically gaudy grand guignol of 'Amarcord,' and 'La Dolce Vita' jutting up from where they meet. By turns ribald, haggard, and almost unbearably poignant, 'Amarcord' is an eye-popping pastiche of the filmmaker's world -- it plays to me like '8 1/2' as grinded through 'The Wizard of Oz,' a climbable scaffold to Fellini's brain that replaces his anxieties with cardboard ships and enormous breasts.

THE HD UPGRADE:No complaints with the transfer, which gracefully toes the line between feeling both real and yet also profoundly strange. The colors are strong, lively, and mercifully free of the HD gloss that plagues the Blu-ray editions of so many classic films.

THE VERDICT:Even fans who purchased the Collection's two-disc set won't regret the upgrade to this definitive version.

#359'The Double Life of Veronique'(Krzysztof Kieslowski) 1991

THE FILM:'The Double Life of Veronique' has been one of my very favorite films since I first encountered it a few years back, although I feel as if it's political allusions dawn on me only now. Criterion describes Kieslowski's masterpiece as a"Symphony of feeling,"and that's as apt a way as any to describe the film's unique sorcery. The gorgeous Irene Jacob is two women (one Polish, one French) who meet for a moment on a metaphysical plane that lies just beyond the fringes of their understanding. It's Kieslowski's most gloriously sensual work (eclipsing even 'Blue' in that regard), an inexplicable ode to the unknown for which a political solution -- the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Poland's role in the Allied victory of WWII, what have you -- feels crude and provincial.

THE HD UPGRADE:Criterion once again airs on the side of grain, and the unusually textured image doesn't always suit the unique aesthetic of Kieslowski's films. But the colors and deiberately fractured light are rendered with great attention and detail.

THE VERDICT:A potentially life-changing blind-buy for those unfamiliar with Kieslowski, and with all due respect to 'The Decalogue' this might be the ideal place to start. For those who already own Criterion's lavish DVD, I almost feel the lo-fi look of standard-def plays into Kieslowski's approach, but then stuff like the famous glass ball sequences just sing in HD. Not a mandatory upgrade, but a gift you should never dream of returning.


Source