207 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/13/09 6:01pm)
I enjoyed Clint Eastwood’s Nelson Mandela biopic that is really about rugby, not Mandela, in the same way I might’ve still enjoyed “Slumdog” if it was actually about “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.”“Invictus” is a highly inspirational story and is easily the most winning of the year. But it’s a sports movie; simple as that. Of all the Nelson Mandela films that could have gotten made, I’m disappointed this is the one that did, and that Eastwood, who can accomplish so much more, was the one to make it. Bothered by the fact that only Afrikaners support the nearly all white rugby team the Springboks, the newly elected President Mandela reaches out to team captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) with the hopes of inspiring him to win the World Cup. If they become great and become the face of the community in the process, they have the potential to unite the country and eliminate the oppression the springbok symbol and the team's colors represent. And yes, “Invictus” is victorious in conveying that warm, rousing mood that goes with a massive cultural shift. Amid some loaded, metaphorical dialogue are moments of poetic sincerity and sentimentality. One moment I admired was when the rugby team teaches a group of poor black kids to play the game, and although at first they only like Chester, the only black player on the team, the kids eventually open up to the Springboks. Call “Million Dollar Baby” cliche or not, “Invictus” has no more than a political overtone to a very sports heavy screenplay. Eastwood’s entire third act is the World Cup match between South Africa and New Zealand, and although I didn’t ask for a training or educational montage, these scenes are provided with very little context. Such moments are mostly responsible for the film running half an hour long. Unfortunately, the time spent off the field is not all spent with Mandela either. I learned much more about Mandela’s bodyguards than I cared to, and “Invictus” even thought it necessary to include a pompous, South African sports journalist, bracketology and all.So what saves this film? Much of the anticipation preparing for each match is in good fun, and the performances of Freeman and Damon truly elevate the screenplay. Freeman’s name has been attached to Mandela’s part for years now, and he is a natural at carrying Mandela’s strong, flowing tone, although his English is weak and his accent is thick. There is much conviction in this performance. Damon’s equally moving dialogue and delivery is rich with meaning without being overbearing. So the Springboks won the cup, and the country grew a lot closer that day. Had they not won, would there still be a story here? Of course there would; it’s Nelson Mandela.
(12/10/09 1:27am)
In the latest episode of the podcast host Cory Barker is joined by Adam Lukach, Brian Welk, Brad Sanders, Brent Williamson and Doug Evans for a discussion about the decade's best films. Part two of two.
(12/10/09 1:25am)
In this episode of the podcast host Cory Barker is joined by Adam Lukach, Brian Welk, Brent Williamson, Brad Sanders and Doug Evans for a discussion about the decade's top films. Part one of two.
(12/10/09 12:02am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Animation has come a long way in the aughts. While Pixar turned its late-’90s success to all-’00s domination, a few other studios and filmmakers were able to deliver us intriguing and compelling animated journeys. Here is the (Pixar-heavy) list of 15 best animated films of the decade, in no particular order.“WALL-E” (2008) – The finest of Pixar’s recent masterpieces, the charming love story of a binocular-eyed trash robot hit home with so many people because of its emotional depth and statements on big business, the environment and technology. For the adults turned off by “WALL-E’s” silent start, take a page from your kids and rediscover what makes this film so great. “Spirited Away” (2003) – Hayao Miyazaki is perhaps the only singular auteur of animation today, and the 2002 gem “Spirited Away” is both a dark and whimsical film with an inherent mood and symbolism that arguably surpasses any of his other films. The film’s message about both nature and human desires too is timeless. “Finding Nemo” (2003) – “Finding Nemo” is a precious, adorable movie that can be watched time and time again. The jokes, the goofiness and the mood grow on you every time you see it. But Pixar’s charming mark and Ellen Degeneres’s added hilarity are almost superseded by the film’s attention to detail in how fish look, swim and act. “Up” (2009) – Yet another Pixar and the most recent of the bunch, “Up” is Pixar’s tenth film and the first in 3D. It is a lovely story of adventure and fatherly bonding told through the eyes of such an unconventional character in mainstream animated films, an old man. “Shrek” (2001) – “Shrek” is simply a hilarious animated adventure funnier than some mainstream comedies. It is now iconic because of its voice work by Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy and because the film is accessible to all audiences simply looking for a good time at the movies. “Coraline” (2009) – “Coraline” is the best film to incorporate 3D ever. Created by Henry Selick of “The Nightmare Before Christmas” fame, the stop motion animation used throughout the film is remarkable and unmatched visually. Although lacking a strong narrative, the meticulous creations of Selick become individual works of art. “Howl’s Moving Castle” (2004) – When all films are going digital nowadays, “Howl’s Moving Castle” stands out as a masterpiece of classically hand-drawn animation. Miyazaki’s moving adventure and epic is a visual wonder. “Monster’s Inc.” (2001) – A highly underrated Pixar classic, “Monster’s Inc.” is charming and intelligent without sacrificing familiar comedy from the likes of Billy Crystal, John Goodman and Steve Buscemi. “Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit” (2005) – Perhaps too eccentric for mainstream moviegoers or children, this claymation is still touching and full of heart. And who doesn’t love a story about a guy and his dog?“Persepolis” (2007) – Emotionally powerful and stunning with its black and white images, this autobiographical tale about growing up amid the Iranian revolution is a stellar adaptation of the graphic novel. “Ratatouille” (2007) – This one is perhaps the most inaccessible Pixar film ever and might not be as memorable as the others on this list, but being a damn solid Pixar film says a lot more than being a really great non-Pixar film. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” (2009) – It might have only been released last month, but Wes Anderson’s adaptation of the old-school Roald Dahl classic story is quirky, imaginative and appealing to everyone from ages three to 93 – and that counts for a lot. “Happy Feet” (2006) – Some parents were turned off by Robin Williams’ sexual euphemisms that were frequent in “Happy Feet,” but most were enchanted by the joy of watching a penguin tap dance. What could be cuter?“The Incredibles” (2004) – Not to flood the list with Pixar products or anything, but this is flick is not only one of the animation superpower’s best films, it’s also one of the better superhero movies of the decade. It’s an exciting little thrill-ride from start to finish, with solid voice performances all around. “Waltz With Bashir” (2008) – Like “Persepolis,” this one is an autobiographical look at life in the Middle East, only this time the country is Israel. The compelling story is backed up by really different-looking animation.
(12/09/09 4:18am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Oh, action movies. You’ve had a rough decade. Things looked so good coming into 2000 thanks to “The Matrix”’s success in 1999. Well, we know how that turned out. Now 10 years later, we are sitting here wondering why these days movies with no discernible plot or likable characters or practical effects pass for “great” action. Screw you, Michael Bay (even if you do appear on this list). However, there were some good action flicks in the aughts. Here are great ones and others that we all probably love but refuse to admit it. The Real Deal:“The Bourne Trilogy” (2002, 2005, 2007) – We were even fans before Paul Greengrass took the helm in “Supremacy” and “Ultimatum,” so as a whole, The Bourne Trilogy is a no brainer. They are brilliantly shot, choreographed and acted with a riveting narrative stringing it together. Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne is the single iconic action hero of our generation, unless of course you count Jack Bauer. “The Dark Knight” (2008) – The best of the superhero movies is held in such high esteem for its depth and performances, we forget “The Dark Knight” is a thrilling action movie with some of the best stunts and non-special-effect work done in a long time. “Casino Royale” (2006) – Daniel Craig made James Bond cool again in this gritty addition to the franchise that is not so much a return to form as a new entity altogether. Craig is easily the best Bond since Sean Connery, and his rich background brought a realm of depth and emotion to the ultimate action hero that we forgot the man’s actually blonde. “The Hurt Locker” (2009) – “The Hurt Locker” is an absolute thrill ride. But instead of huge explosions, we tense up waiting to find out if something will explode. Instead of large-scale shoot outs, we get a riveting look as these Iraqi Marines patiently stake out a building housing an enemy sniper. “Black Hawk Down” (2001) – Ridley Scott’s two-and-a-half hour war epic has very few slow moments. Bullets are whizzing through the air constantly and explosions are frequent. The editing is rapid and so with so many characters and names, it’s difficult to keep track of everyone. But amidst the bloodshed is some remarkable human emotion. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) –“Crouching Tiger” is the best kung-fu movie of the decade with vivid and fight scenes and acrobatics that are remarkably real. It’s got few stuntmen, no special effects or green screen trickery, and there’s a charming narrative to boot. This is the film you would get if Gene Kelly made an action movie. “300” (2007) – So the characters are nothing more than one-dimensional, testosterone fueled meatheads, but “300” is awesome, and a lot of fun. I had a hard time rationalizing these excessively brutal murders as artistic, so a guilty pleasure will have to do. “Kill Bill” (2003, 2004) – “Inglourious Basterds” was too much talking! “Kill Bill” lets us get right to the violence and revenge. What’s better than killing 99 guys with a samurai sword? Having a woman in tight yellow spandex kill 99 guys with a samurai sword. “Spider-Man 2” (2004) – The focus on Peter Parker over Spiderman is what made this sequel great, but no can forget Alfred Molina’s absolutely awesome Dr. Octopus. “Spider-Man 2” had better action, better acting and better suspense than the original. It’s the perfect superhero movie. It’s only fault: getting us excited for “Spiderman 3.” “Minority Report” (2002) – Steven Spielberg’s underrated sci-fi thriller is jam-packed with action of all sorts, be it jumping from futuristic cars, conducting a giant touch screen computer, hiding from miniature spider robots or fighting with one of those cool rotating pulse guns.Guilty Pleasures:“The Fast and The Furious” (2001) – Yeah, it’s self-important and features a “who can top who” in the horrible acting department, but for whatever reason, it seems pretty difficult to not enjoy this movie. Well, maybe only if you’re a person who lives their life a quarter-mile at time – but we do. “The Italian Job” (2003) – Another goofy movie feature cars, “Italian Job” is also an unnecessary remake – but it’s damn fun to watch. Mark Wahlberg is probably at his best when having to deliver cheesy lines with a straight face and when he’s punching people – thankfully this one has both.“Bad Boys II” (2003) – Call it excessive, stupidly violent and generally nutty, but this is still one hell of a fun thrill ride, if only for two great chase sequences and Martin Lawrence’s last above-terrible performance. “Mission: Impossible III” (2006) – JJ Abrams’ film directorial debut breathed new life into a series that was always popular but never really that good. Even amid Tom Cruise’s public image meltdown, this movie finally gave his Ethan Hunt some much needed humility and depth. “National Treasure” (2004)/”National Treasure: Book of Secrets” (2007) – Two fun, light and absolutely entertaining movies featuring a goofy role Nic Cage encompassed well. Better than the decade's "Indiana Jones" installment.
(12/08/09 7:33pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s so easy to neglect the many great performances of the last ten years in this time of list making. We’re asking which movies will stand the test of time and which directors will become the new auteur of our generation; for many actors, their moment in the spotlight has already come and gone. I however have taken the time to recognize a few of the more memorable performances that have graced us in the last ten years of film. The Top 10 (in alphabetical order) Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh (“No Country for Old Men”) – In Cormac McCarthy’s novel, Anton Chigurh is a guarded, yet almost overtly poetic figure. Yet in the Coen brothers’ masterpiece, Bardem donned his iconic wig and became a dark, mysterious and fearsome demon, truly embodying the film’s theme of principles. His baritone succinctness made for the most terrifying character of 2007. Nicolas Cage as Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman (“Adaptation.”) – Charlie Kaufman is a real person, but Donald Kaufman is not, even though he received an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay. Nic Cage is also a real person, but you’d think he’d have to be part of Kaufman’s imagination to perfectly craft duel personalities for such an odd person. Marion Cotillard as Edith Piaf (“La vie en Rose”) – It might sound like less of a compliment to learn that Cotillard lip-synced to original Piaf recordings, but this is not Jamie Foxx trying to sing like Ray Charles, this is one of the great French actresses becoming the greatest French singer. The skill it takes to be convincing in a role such as this is a whole new level of mastery. Heath Ledger as The Joker (“The Dark Knight”) – Name one film character that has become more iconic in the last ten years than the posthumous Heath Ledger’s turn as the Joker that surpassed even that of Jack Nicholson. In his death, Ledger will already be remembered, but even in life, he would have been hard pressed to find a better role. Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview (“There Will Be Blood”) – Day-Lewis has been working his entire life to reach the level of greatness he attains in “There Will Be Blood.” Daniel Plainview is insane with a predetermined mindset of wealth and power that stretches far beyond the film, and we get the idea Day-Lewis inserted the same amount of insanity into his unprecedented method acting. Helen Mirren as The Queen (“The Queen”) – How can anyone match the level of royalty and poise HRM Elizabeth II possesses? She’s the bloody Queen! But Helen Mirren does it. She reveals to us the power as well as the inner humanity of England’s greatest public figure, and it’s not just the resemblance that allowed her to do so. Mickey Rourke as Randy the Ram (“The Wrestler”) – The pain Mickey Rourke instills in Randy the Ram is nearly autobiographical. He puts himself through an unimaginable amount of both physical and emotional turmoil for the role. But what’s more, Rourke puts a true human face on Darren Aronofsky’s true masterpiece. Hilary Swank as Maggie Fitzgerald (“Million Dollar Baby”) – In the right roles, Hilary Swank is a phenomenal actress, and no performance of hers is better than the one in Clint Eastwood’s heart wrenching drama. Swank gives Maggie directness and an unwavering pluck, charm and ferocity completely deserving of her Oscar. Charlize Theron as Aileen Wuornos (“Monster”) – Roger Ebert called Theron’s performance in “Monster” one of the greatest in all of cinema. No actor this decade has proven himself or herself as focused and as ingrained into a role as Theron. Her portrayal of Aileen Wuornos, a true monster, reveals such an amazing realm of human emotion and depth that is incomparable. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Landa (“Inglourious Basterds”) – Talk about intense! Christoph Waltz traverses a line of comic grotesquerie and harsh ferocity throughout “Inglourious Basterds”, and he does it all in four different languages. His scene with Melanie Laurent transcends writing and dialogue to the extent that it rewrites history. This is an actor worth keeping an eye on. And a few more worth mentioningMathieu Amalric as Jean-Dominique Bauby (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”) – Amalric is my favorite French actor, and although here he can’t do more than blink, he expresses more emotion in one bat of the eyelid than some actors can with their whole body. Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb (“Requiem for a Dream”) – This is one of the most demanding, cerebral performances in cinema, and Ellen Burstyn pulls it off. Russell Crowe as John Nash (“A Beautiful Mind”) – Crowe’s turn as a schizophrenic math whiz in Ron Howard’s inherently entertaining film is unlike any other role he has ever done, and he elevates an otherwise cliché tearjerker to that of a great film. Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow (“Pirates of the Caribbean”) – “Pirates” would have been a train wreck were it not for Johnny Depp’s iconic character. Savvy? Andy Serkis as Gollum (“The Lord of the Rings”) – Gollum is by far the best CGI character to date, and this absolutely terrifying portrayal of such a classic character of literature is the definition of perfection.
(12/07/09 11:57pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I think of all the people that have come and gone over the years. As in any decade or year, we’ve had deaths, breakthroughs and controversies. But who amongst our A-list celebrities, our auteur directors and our powerhouse corporations have really ruled Hollywood in the 2000’s? And who will continue to do the same? 15 people or groups come to mindClint Eastwood – No other person now or perhaps ever is as active and as significant in old age as Clint Eastwood is, that 79-year-old battle-ax. Who else his age can star in and direct not one, but two films (“Million Dollar Baby,” “Gran Torino”)? Who else in the last ten years became a seven time Oscar nominee (“Baby,” “Letters From Iwo Jima,” “Mystic River”) and winner of four? Whether you’re Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, Ken Watanabe, Sean Penn, Ryan Phillippe or Matt Damon, it is an honor to work with this living legend. Philip Seymour Hoffman – After two phenomenal years in 2007 (“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead,” “Charlie Wilson’s War,” “The Savages”) and 2008 (“Synecdoche, New York,” “Doubt”), and not to mention his Oscar winning turn as Truman Capote, Philip Seymour Hoffman seems like an A-lister here to stay. Aside from being one of our better actors, he may surprise us in 2011 when he takes a stab at directing. Peter Jackson – Peter Jackson will always be known as the guy that successfully filmed “The Lord of the Rings,” but his reputation precedes him. Not only is he a director, he is also an equally formidable writer and producer, responsible for all the “Rings” screenplays and the ones for “King Kong” and the upcoming “The Lovely Bones.” Furthermore, he has launched Neill Blomkamp’s career (“District 9”), a director with great potential, and he will have a hand in the new “Hobbit” saga and the “Halo” movie. Spike Jonze – Spike Jonze is a director to keep an eye on. With his indie-cred, he can attract great talent to his projects. He has proven time and again that he can take a difficult screenplay and run with it because despite his inexperience, he has the confidence to do so. “Being John Malkovich” and “Adaptation” are inherently fun films because he got his hands in them, and I would wager only a handful of other directors could do well adapting a nine sentence children’s book. Charlie Kaufman – With Jonze is Charlie Kaufman, two powerhouses I’m sure will work together again. Since “Adaptation,” Kaufman penned the excellent “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and tried his luck at directing with the difficult and sobering film “Synecdoche, New York.” No one else this decade has defined themselves as an auteur out of writing screenplays alone. Christopher Nolan – I would argue there are directors with better resumes than Christopher Nolan, but there are many that would not, and this is why he is so influential. “The Dark Knight” aside, Nolan has a legion of cult followers and fanboys stacked behind him after films such as “Memento” and “The Prestige.” Before he wows us with the next Batman installment, his “Inception” with Leonardo Dicaprio is primed to be the next cult smash. Pixar – This is a no-brainer. They’ve had 10 not just good, but great films, a monopoly on the Oscar’s Best Animated Film category and a box-office track record to boot. Pixar can become legendary again if the upcoming “Toy Story” sequel proves to be the greatest film with a 3 on the end of it, and with directors like Andrew Stanton moving away from animation for the first time, Pixar may soon be dominating in all departments of cinema. Jason Reitman – Here’s yet another young director I have a lot of faith in. Jason Reitman wowed me with “Juno,” he made me think with “Thank You for Smoking” and he’s already charmed thousands more with “Up in the Air.” With his connections through the indie and A-list channels, he can get just about any project he wants, and it won’t be long until he has a real masterpiece under his belt. Martin Scorsese – I think of all the legendary directors with movies in this decade and who actually still matters. David Lynch had nothing more than “Mulholland Dr.” Steven Spielberg had a few duds. Robert Altman is dead. That leaves Scorsese. “Gangs of New York,” “The Aviator” and “The Departed” were all nominated for big Oscars, and he finally got the recognition he deserved with the latter. With his boy Leo at his side, Marty is the last living legend. Meryl Streep – I’ve actually hated a lot that Meryl Streep has done over the last 10 years (“The Devil Wears Prada,” “Mamma Mia!”), but after three more Oscar nods (“Prada,” “Adaptation.,” “Doubt”) and a position as the queen of the box office, there is no denying that Meryl Streep is the greatest living actress and will be for a long time. It’s unlikely that she will surpass Katherine Hepburn’s record of four Oscars, but let’s hope in the next 10 years Streep gets a definitive classic under her belt.Michael Bay – Not all influential figures are beneficial to the industry. But Michael Bay has the biggest ego in Hollywood, and all the bile critics spew at him don’t make a difference. There will be nothing stopping him from making “Transformers 3,” making it more bloated, offensive and nauseating, and he loves to do so.Paul Greengrass – Not only did Paul Greengrass direct “United 93,” my pick for the best movie of the decade, he is undeniably the best at using the experimental shaky cam, and his use of it in the last two Bourne films is one of the few mainstream incorporations of the innovative cinematography. It will be a thrill to see his 2010 slated project, “The Green Zone,” starring Matt Damon, and anything else he has up his sleeve.Spanish-language Cinema (Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo Del Toro, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Pedro Almodovar) – In 2006, each of the directors I’ve listed above made one of the best films of the year (“Pan’s Labyrinth,” “Children of Men,” “Babel,” “Volver”). Although there is no Mexican auteur from the past, what nationality can claim as many recognizable names as Mexico has today, and can they name any at all? But these directors’ achievements don’t stop at those titles. Cuaron directed the third Harry Potter film. Del Toro did the Hellboy movies and is working on “The Hobbit.” Inarritu is famous for his story structure in “Babel,” “21 Grams” and “Amores Perros.” Almodovar has made an A-list star out of Penelope Cruz. What a group.Quentin Tarantino – Tarantino is the biggest love him/hate him director in the business today, right ahead of Michael Moore. His style, his love of cinema, his excessively verbose screenplays and his satirical jabs that scream pretentiousness are definitive qualities unmatched by anyone today, and perhaps ever. What’s more, it’s not unlikely that his “Kill Bill” saga and the recent “Inglourious Basterds” will show up on some best of the decade lists.Tru3D Advocates (Robert Zemeckis, Jeffrey Katzenberg, James Cameron) – I don’t know how to feel about 3D, but these guys think it’s the best thing since sliced bread, or more accurately, surround sound and widescreen. Their lobbying that it is no longer a gimmick has many conservatives in a frenzy waiting to see what will develop. One of the earliest directors to incorporate the new technology, Zemeckis has three films under his belt in 3D, each pushing the concept of visual depth within the screen to its limits. Katzenberg, the head of Dreamworks, is working on the business side, trying to get 3D in every theater nationwide, and he came close with “Monsters vs. Aliens.” And Cameron and his epic “Avatar” is the first live action attempt using 3D to be taken seriously. If his film makes money and is actually good, if not Oscar-bait, films may change drastically as we know them.
(12/07/09 11:42pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>WEEKEND loves Jason Reitman. Two of Jason Reitman’s films, “Juno” and “Thank You For Smoking” find themselves on the WEEKEND top 50 of the decade and Brian Welk names him as one of the 15 most influential people in film of the decade. So in a great example of coincidence, Welk and Chad Quandt were lucky enough to be part of a conference call with the Reitman last month in prep for his latest film, “Up In The Air.” During the call, Reitman spoke about why he likes to adapt other people’s work and his life in the air. On spending seven years writing “Up in the Air”:You know when I first started writing this, I was a guy living in an apartment in my 20s, I was single, and by the time I finished, I’d met my wife, become a father, had a mortgage. The story changed and simply as I grew up, so did Ryan Bingham and what I found in life, he began to look for. What started out as a movie about a guy who just fired people for a living became about a man who was trying to figure out who and what he wanted in life.Also, I had to make some changes because of the economy. Most notably, I cast real people as the people who lose their jobs in this movie. So when you see someone get fired in this movie, except for a few actors that you’re going to recognize like Zach Galifianakis and J.K. Simmons, these are real people in St. Louis and Detroit who actually just lost their jobs in real life.On what drew him to the book, “Up in the Air”:You know I think it was a combination of things me. I mean, one, it was a book about a guy who fired people for a living and I thought that was fascinating that this job existed and I wanted to humanize a tricky character like that. It reminded me of (Nick) Naylor from “Thank You for Smoking.” And I suppose I enjoyed the fact that Walter (Kim) had humanized the existence of travel. It was nice to see someone who has written kind of a love letter to travel. On how the movie industry has been affected by the economy:It is a tough time in the movie business and certainly, independent film divisions have shut down, and there are less, (thoughtful) movies for adults being made because they’re more risky, and there’s more kind of popcorn movies getting made. I have a few friends that have lost their jobs, more than a few. It’s a tricky time but you know the film business has gone through tricky times before and it’s usually when filmmakers feel pressure that they often come out with their most creative material. I hope that whatever pressures we’re feeling will actually lead to more interesting films.On making movies about family ties:You know it’s funny because I never intended to be a guy who made movies about the importance of family. As a director, you just kind of instinctually come to material that interests you and really follow your gut in the process. It’s only once you’ve made a few movies that you look back and go, “Huh.” For whatever reason, I continue to be drawn to similar themes, and obviously, I think there is something inherently valuable about having family connections and building up that kind of interconnectivity between the people that you love most.On what draws him to certain character personalities:I’m obviously attracted, whether I know it or not, to characters who live in kind of a polarized world. Usually, why I like these characters is that they usually have a very open-minded point of view on something that is traditionally polarizing. They give me an opportunity to take a fresh look at a subject that is usually kind of talked out in one way.On “loss of innocence” as a theme:Certainly, that is at the core of what “Juno” is about. “Juno” is really not about teenage pregnancy, “Juno” is about the moment that we decide to grow up, our teenage girls growing up too fast and a 30-year-old man refusing to grow up. And, certainly, in approaching “Thank You for Smoking,” there is this kind of crux as to how informed you want the next generation to be and how you still also want to have a childhood? In “Up in the Air,” (Anna) Kendrick’s character looks at Vera (Farmiga)’s character wondering “you know, is this just going to be me 15 years from now? Should I just kind of face the fact of how hard it is going to be a career woman?” On directing his own script versus someone else’s:I guess it’s a little bit intimidating to return to the keyboard after working with a writer who I admire so much. But, thankfully, I’ve been writing this the whole time so, it wasn’t as much of a, “All right, now I could figure out how to write again.” When I’m directing my own words, I’m less (precious) about them and I’m much more apt to allow the actors to change stuff. When I’m directing someone else’s screenplay, like Diablo (Cody)’s, I’m much more apt to be rigid about the dialogue on the page. But by the time I get to the set, I need to personalize the movie and make it mine. And I felt just as much ownership over “Juno” when I started directing it as I did over my two films that I’ve written.On blending comedy with drama: I think comedy and drama are techniques not genres. And, I think they can be both used to move an audience in a very specific way. So, I don’t limit myself to one or the other. I think that I’d like my movies to have comedy, and drama, and danger, and romance, and kind of every technique that allows you to push and pull the audience and give them as complete an experience as possible.On his musical inspiration: Well, it changes for every movie you know. It starts with a few songs and builds to a couple of hundred songs until before I start shooting, and then I hand over this couple of hundred songs to my editor and she starts cutting through them. Usually, I have one song that gets me in the mood to write each film and strangely enough on all three of my movies that song has never wound up on the movies. On “Thank You for Smoking,” it was the song, “I’m a Man” by Steve Winwood. On “Juno,” it was Yo La Tengo’s “You Can Have It All” and on “Up in the Air,” it was Hank Williams’ “Ramblin’ Man.”On constant air travel:I started enjoying flights for the same reason I enjoyed going to movie theaters. It’s a chance to unplug from your normal life, and a chance to be surrounded by strangers. Your cell phone doesn’t work and your closest friend is this person in 17J and you can have the kind of conversation with them that you would never have with someone you knew well. You find out about lifestyles and jobs you would otherwise not know. I get most of my reading done on planes. And, yes, I collect miles; I collect miles like crazy.On what the future holds:If “Thank You for Smoking” and “Up in the Air” were two parts of a trilogy, and I needed my third angry white guy to fill it in — tobacco lobbyist, corporate termination executive — what is the third slot? I’m not sure. Either maybe pharmaceuticals, lawyers or, I don’t know, someone who works in the clergy.
(12/07/09 8:09pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Everybody’s” Frank Goode is the kind of elderly man that casually brags about his kids’ successes as if you brought it up. Frank (Robert De Niro) worked all his life to watch his children achieve their dreams, but all of them have remarkably kept their dad in the dark for years about their true jobs and marriages all so that he could remain proud. He learns all this when he surprises them at their homes, and one by one, they lie to him. First, there isn’t enough characterization here to paint Frank as a convincingly demanding and pressuring father. Even if there was, the extent to which this family has deceived Frank is completely unrealistic. But what’s worse is the way in which this story seeks to resolve itself. Instead of growth, family bonding and understanding, it takes not one but two tragedies before the kids decide to stop lying. Here’s my moral to the story: If you know a movie sucks, lie to your dad so he’ll buy the ticket.
(11/22/09 11:55pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Roland Emmerich was smart to not make “2012” about religion.Everyone knows bigger box office numbers and fewer controversies come when the antagonist in an apocalypse scenario is a white, conservative politician and not God. But I imagine the whole religion thing wasn’t forgotten. It’s just the rest of the movie is so lowest common denominator, any theology would just be above this material.How will the world end in Roland Emmerich’s fantasy? Solar explosions will send large numbers of neutrinos to the Earth, heating up the planet’s core and consequently causing massive earthquakes and tsunamis along with the magnetic shifting ofthe Earth’s crust. I can buy that. There’s a hilarious discussion string on imdb.com that will prove even this theory is ridiculous. But I’m more concerned about the rest of what Emmerich tries to put past us.His special effects are 100 percent green-screened. Let me be the first to say that as remarkable as his creations are, they are still clearly synthetic, and I don’t find them realistic. Because they are fantasy, they can accomplish miraculous feats that defy the rules of physics.I learned from “2012” that earthquakes and collapsing runways will always incorporate the domino effect as they chase down the escaping plane or car full of characters with speaking roles. When a protagonist changes modes of transportation from being in a Winnebago to being on foot to being on a plane, the speed of the explosion can change accordingly to remain right in the hero’s wake. And every time a plane takes off (three to be exact), it will be inches in front of runway collapsing into Earth’score with just barely enough space to get it off the ground.Some of the initial forms of destruction are punctuated with ridiculous comic relief, which is not a welcome relief after suffering through the rest of the drama of this poorly written script. Plot holes galore (why can’t an engine run if a door isn’t closed?) and numerous moments of stupidity (grab the whole box of maps when a volcano eruption is behind you; don’t waste time looking for the one you need) all add to the hilarity. But some of the more sentimental moments with John Cusack and Amanda Peet are handled nicely, and although Cusack’s character’s survival is not a victory, nor a solution to the apocalypse, I cared what happened to him. At the very least, “2012” is better than the second “Transformers” movie. It’s more fun, not as visually cluttered and much less reprehensibly offensive. That’s not the end of the world, right?
(11/12/09 12:27am)
In the latest edition of the podcast, host Cory Barker is joined by Brian Welk, Paul Mattingly and Brent Williamson for a discussion about the last six weeks in film and the hype surrounding "Avatar."
(11/11/09 11:51pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A curious thing happened around the time the Pixar team started making masterpieces on a regular basis and arguably even when Sergei Eisenstein called “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” the greatest movie ever made: adults started watching kids’ movies for themselves.So who are these movies really for? Are they for kids or the adults who pay for their ticket? Does it not matter what occupies a child’s attention for two hours or do we have no right to make them sit through the same garbage we wouldn’t?Two recent films fall into the middle ground category of arguably being too weird, scary or mature to be classified as kids’ movies: “Where the Wild Things Are,” which I loved, and “A Christmas Carol,” to which I owe an apology for assuming it would be a disappointment. These films are interesting cases, because whether a child can relate to the spastic frivolity of “Wild Things” or is desensitized enough to not be scared by the dark imagery of “A Christmas Carol,” they certainly do not have the innocent simplicity of this year’s “Up,” the comical, if typically nauseating action sequences of “Monsters vs. Aliens” or even the sheer joy of many of the old Disney classics.In all these very different films, I can see both the heightened and decreased expectations of what kids are capable of embracing, learning from and enjoying. How is it in the same year, we can have four youthful gems (“Wild Things,” “Up,” “Ponyo” “Coraline”) and have just as many bland, immature monstrosities of chaotic comic action (“Monsters vs. Aliens,” “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” “Aliens in the Attic” and “G-Force”)? Kids are known to have experienced true love and affection when watching “Finding Nemo” and “WALL-E” and yet expect a certain level of busy and absurd fight and chase scenes from “Over the Hedge” for instance, growing into the new generation of Michael Bay fanboys. With that said, it’s important for studios to give kids credit and begin to set a less juvenile standard. They will understand “Wild Things” in the way mom and dad will not, and although they may not recognize the hidden environmental agenda in “WALL-E,” they will appreciate it all the more upon watching it again as a teen. In terms of the lesser movies, kids will like what they like, studios like Dreamworks will continue delivering on that, and it can’t be helped. It’s not all a bad thing though. The select moments of action in “A Christmas Carol” are beautifully rendered, and something like “Kung Fu Panda” is good wholesome fun.But what all of this says is that kids are susceptible. In most cases, kids will like whatever their parents tell them to like, whether they consciously know that or not. No child will ask for a movie to be in 3-D. No child can say why they liked what they did. No child will appreciate one film’s animated look against another.It all comes down to the patience a chaperone is willing to have. A parent amused by the gimmick that is 3-D will pass that trait on. A parent frustrated by the lack of dialogue in the first 45 minutes of “WALL-E” isn’t trying hard enough, and it would be impossible to expect their child to do the same. A parent too shocked by “Wild Things,” “A Christmas Carol” and “Spirited Away” will foster reservations that can’t be shed through generations.Kids don’t need to mature to watching better films. I’m worried about the adults.
(10/28/09 11:47pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>At WEEKEND we love three things: Halloween, lists and creepy children. And anytime we can combine those three things, we just have to do it. Thankfully, a list of the best horror/scary/Halloween/whatever else you want to call them films does the trick. Below, WEEKEND staffers give their two cents on cinema’s scariest. “Psycho” (1960) - Arguably the greatest psychological thriller of all time, this Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece based on real life serial killer Ed Gein has the same effect that it had during its release nearly 50 years ago. – Doug Evans“The Shining” (1980) - The very definition of “psychological horror”. Stephen King’s sometimes boring novel was perfectly adapted for the screen by a renegade Stanley Kubrick who is at his most creatively vital here. Not only the greatest horror movie of all time, but a candidate for the greatest movie. – Brad Sanders“Let the Right One In” (2008) - In a decade when Edward Cullen and the men of True Blood are dominating the main stream as today’s perception of vampires, the Swedish film “Let the Right One In” challenged American audiences by being a film that took being a vampire seriously. Some remarkable special effects and even an eerily touching romance will make this film one of the all-time greats. – Brian Welk“The Exorcist” (1973) - Um, it’s a fucking exorcism. – Adam Lukach“Night of the Living Dead” (1968) - Walking zombies seem so commonplace today, but if it were not for this George Romero classic, there would probably be no walking dead. This movie gave us the formula for how many times you need to kill someone before they are really dead: twice. – D.E.“Halloween” (1978) - This movie is fantastic because there’s ultimately very little to it. There’s barely any origin story. We don’t know much about Michael Myers. What we do know is he kills teenagers. Turn up the awesome. – B.S.“Blair Witch Project” (1999) - Maybe it’s because the kids I went and saw it with convinced me that it was real, but this movie scared the hell out of me. The amateur documentary style was really original and helps to lend a more real, close to home element to the movie. – A.L.“Rosemary’s Baby” (1968) - Roman Polanski showed what will happen if you make a pact with the devil: you will have his baby. – D.E.“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (1974) - Trumps every other backwoods redneck murder movie by a long shot, a truly terrifying genre masterpiece. – B.S.“Poltergeist” (1982) - Directed by Tobe Hooper, this film exemplifies haunted house horror. A family is tormented by ghosts, and their only savior is a midget woman who is just as scary as the spirits she tries to rid. – D.E.
(10/28/09 9:33pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After her solo trip over the Atlantic, Amelia Earhart became more than
just one of the women and almost one of the men, striking a powerful
blow for women's rights all before World War II.
But in “Amelia,” Earhart (Hilary Swank) comes across less as one of the
men and more as one of the boys, filled with an obnoxious pluck and
paper-thin charm. It
is curious that the film’s Earhart should seem that way, as this movie
is ironically juvenile in its equally bland and amateurish dialogue,
starry-eyed excuse for acting, simplistic editing and effects and
loose, paltry story structure. “Amelia” is less like a biopic and more
like a 4th grader’s book report.
That may seem harsh, but anyone can write a screenplay on Earhart’s
life based on her Wikipedia entry. She clearly did a lot, but the movie
would like to focus on all her achievements and battles rather than
just a select, powerful few. What we learn about the woman is spread
very thin, and the film never gets to the deeper root of her
ambitions.
The results are remarkably dull, and even when so much is going on the
pace of “Amelia” still feels rushed. One moment she’s facing adversity
from the men in her life, the next she’s on one of her treacherous
flights. Then we learn about her skepticism toward advertising and
commercialization. And finally, the film dives into the love triangle
with her publicist and husband George Putnam (Richard Gere) and
Washington aeronautics engineer Gene Vidal (Ewan McGregor).
To accommodate so many story lines, the dialogue suffers and we are
treated not just to the cliches of the biopic, but also those of the
sports movie, action travelogue and Nicholas Sparks-esque romance. It’s
a disaster, and it’s a pain to see these respectable actors suffer
through this. Swank treats every scene as though it were an opportunity
to monologue, and the cookie-cutter lines are already so thin, it’s no
wonder we cringe at how fascinated she pretends to be while saying
them.
Earhart is such an iconic figure that it’s a shame “Amelia” is the movie her life has become.
(10/28/09 7:26pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I must concede that discussion on “Where the Wild Things Are” is above me. It is a film that has been met with such high praise as well as ambivalence, and in that vein, its criticism has transcended film and become a daunting Freudian psychoanalysis of which I understand little. And although I feel it is a great film, either the advocates like myself or the now-emotionally exhausted audiences can all agree that it is a great film with an asterisk. Let’s begin by saying that whether you like the film or not, director Spike Jonze’s visuals and set pieces are stunning, the performances are unique, genuine and award-worthy and the massive tangible puppets that embody the Wild Things are the perfect touch. With that said, “Wild Things” can by no means be a “bad” film, but its subject matter has created a great void between its various spectators. Those who adore the film have seen in it the beauty through the darkness of childhood and the often terrifying inhibitions and imaginations that fuel our growth and maturity. But those who are on the fence have taken that analysis one step further, marking the end of childhood – but where’s the fun in that? Many more have taken the same reading and equated it with a plethora of miserable emotions, all of which still embody childhood itself, as well as the film’s overall theme through chaotic dirt-clod fights and murky cinematography. Who is most right? They all are, equally. I saw both the charm and the pain in “Wild Things,” and I have no trouble imagining a person distraught by what was presumably an innocuous kids’ movie. Jonze’s message about childhood remains perfectly intact, even though it can be unsettling. But what does a film’s ability to arouse such discussion, portray a meaningful theme and be read uniquely actually say? It speaks of timeless source material and a director set to emerge as one of the greats of the next century of film. This collaborative work that evolves in the minds of its viewers upon excessive debate and multiple viewings is the sign of an ever-changing film. “Wild Things” does not simply exist as a work of art; it challenges and inspires deep thought more than almost any other film this year. It is this quality that puts the asterisk next to its great film title, a reminder that great film or not, this is a movie that will be remembered for decades to come. I can think of two movies this year that I consider better films than “Wild Things” and yet do not fall into the category of being an instant timeless masterpiece – “500 Days of Summer” and “The Hurt Locker.” I love these films, but will “500 Days” be as witty 10 years from now? Will “Hurt Locker” still be the definitive Iraq War film? There is one other movie that fits this criteria, the one I think is the best film of the year: “Inglourious Basterds.” Understanding what Quentin Tarantino has done, acknowledging his subtle nods to film history and deciphering whether his characters’ grotesqueries and exaggerations are serious or part of the joke has become more involving for me and other critics than anything else in 2009. I actually had an alternate column on the state of kids’ films lined up for this week, but the more I read about “Wild Things,” the more I realized it and “Basterds” are films that demand to be discussed. It is a rare film that exceeds itself as just something to be watched, and we are lucky enough to have two such films this year.
(10/22/09 2:10am)
In the latest episode of the podcast, Brian Welk and Doug Evans debate the pros and cons of 'Where The Wild Things Are.'
(10/22/09 1:54am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I remember the first time I was with my uncle Greg Welk, a fitness
professor at Iowa State University, as he and my three younger cousins
searched for geocaches – the treasures hidden around the country for
those willing to explore and share their adventures.
Previously we had been disc golfing, and for them, venturing off the
course to find this little trinket was just as exciting as the game.
Last week I caught up with my uncle Greg, who has been geocaching for
two years now and has found “at least 50 or 60 geocaches,” to find out
what makes it so interesting.
BW: Where have you traveled to find the geocaches?
GW: Pretty much anywhere. If I know we’re traveling somewhere,
I’ll download the maps, put them into the geo-GPS, and I’ll have
something to think about and pay attention to when I’m driving along.
We can stop on a road trip and find them in a state park or roadside
area.
People have found these interesting places you wouldn’t otherwise know
about. By following their clues, you can find your way to an
interesting place with a nice view or a bit of history.
BW: What kind of treasures have you found in each of the geocaches?
GW: There’s a lot of integrity in geocaching, and you’re only
supposed to take something if you leave something. You’re supposed to
leave it exactly as you found it, exactly where you found it. They’re
usually pendants or key chains or pens, but one of the cool things is
people sometimes leave Geocoins, which can be tracked around the
country. So you can find one in one spot, it can be taken to another,
and the person that put it in there originally can track where it went.
BW: What got you started searching for geocaches?
GW: It’s the combination of technology and nature. You can be a tech person or an outdoorsman and still find some enjoyment in it.
BW: What drives the people who have found thousands of geocaches?
GW: Like any subgroup on the Web, there’s a need to be “the best
finder” or the “first to find.” One time when we were placing our own
geocache, I recorded its location online before I hid it, and in 15
minutes, people were already looking for it based on the coordinates.
BW: What are some of the best experiences you’ve had searching for the geocaches?
GW: Finding one is good enough. Some of them are rated based on
difficulty, and one of the toughest ones we’ve ever done we had to
climb a steep rock wall, hiked another quarter mile and spent a while
looking in the bushes, but we finally found it.
BW: Isn’t this dangerous at all, especially for the kids?
GW: Some of the places aren’t the best places to go. They could
have poison oak or something, but I don’t mind. Life is an adventure,
and I think some of that rummaging around in the woods and finding
something that’s out there is what I like about it.
(10/20/09 9:07pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>So far this year, Gerard Butler has been unconvincing as a journalist, a video game avatar and now a mastermind murderer. It’s not entirely his fault. “Law Abiding Citizen” is such an inherently idiotic film it’s understandable that Butler’s performance is a few notches shy of the joker.Butler plays Clyde Shelton, who after avenging the death of his family proceeds to murder people while in prison. He’s determined to bring down the legal system after Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) lets one of his family’s killers walk free. The plot is actually quite original. Butler and Foxx make for good enemies and the film keeps us guessing until the end. But “Law Abiding Citizen” is rife with plot holes in pinning evidence against Shelton, and his character is less a mastermind and more a master of the deus ex machina. The film’s moral code is based on loose philosophies and the explanation for Clyde’s brilliant scheme is the most impractical thing I’ve seen on screen all year.Smart as these characters may be, this is a dumb movie.
(10/14/09 10:53pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Let’s assume I don’t just like hearing myself talk and that I had a reason for re-listening to an old WEEKEND Watchers podcast previewing spring films. What I found was that many times I was proving myself right. To no surprise, “Watchmen” was the biggest fanboy exploitation ever made; “State of Play” was one of the better movies of the spring and “Inglourious Basterds,” which at the time was my most-anticipated movie of the year, is now the best movie of the year. Yet in the same podcast, I expressed my excitement for “Duplicity,” “Monsters vs. Aliens,” “Star Trek” and “Wolverine,” all of which were severe disappointments in my book. So who do I blame for my inaccurate predictions? I blame the infinite number of trailers that never fully characterize a film. I blame high expectations for films that never live up to their of hype. And I blame the industry for requiring advance speculation on a film, when all of my information is second hand to begin with, and the first hand was never that informed, either. With that said, I’m not the biggest fan of previews. They are often wrong, uninformative and uninteresting to those only looking for the movies they’ve seen trailers for. But with no intention to further fan the flames of films too over-hyped to begin with, here are my thoughts on the upcoming months in film. Opening on Friday is “Where the Wild Things Are,” everyone’s favorite children’s book no one remembers. Although I’m as hopeful as anyone, if there’s reason to be excited for “Wild” it’s because this is Spike Jonze’s first film since the brilliant “Adaptation” and not the Arcade Fire song that compliments the suspiciously cute trailer. But this month is also home to the Coen brothers’ latest, “A Serious Man,” which is a serious Oscar contender. Hilary Swank is also a potential nominee (for Best Actress) for her performance in “Amelia,” and “New York, I Love You” is the American version of a lovely collection of French short films titled “Paris, Je T’Aime.” In November, potential blockbusters “A Christmas Carol,” “2012” and some weird Wes Anderson thing (“Fantastic Mr. Fox”) are all sure to be disappointments. But how many people will miss out on new films by Pedro Almodóvar (“Broken Embraces”), Rob Marshall (“Nine”) and Jason Reitman (“Up in the Air”) because of a little film called “New Moon?” In fact, the better book-to-film adaptation this year will be of Cormac McCarthy’s (“No Country for Old Men”) novel “The Road.” As for December, the battle of the directors will be the interesting one. Who will win out – Guy Ritchie’s film about Sherlock Holmes or Clint Eastwood’s movie about Nelson Mandela? And whose visual endeavor will be more lucrative – James Cameron’s “Avatar” with some underwhelming 3-D or Peter Jackson’s “The Lovely Bones,” based on a best-selling novel? But if there’s one film I’m most excited about, it’s “Precious,” a film about a black teenage girl with an extremely low self-esteem.It won audience awards at both Sundance and the Toronto Film Festival, and the film is receiving more buzz than “Slumdog Millionaire.” An independent winner for Best Picture would be a marvelous stride for the indie industry, but with continued distribution problems, most people will be lucky to see it before March. I cannot tell you how much more I care about this film and others than teen vampire angst, and it’s up to the masses to show they care, too. If you would like to see “Precious” before its Oscar wins and DVD release, seek out this and other films wherever you can, and know that your ticket is a vote telling Hollywood what movies we desire.
(10/07/09 11:25pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Whip It” wants to be the cutest movie you’ve ever seen. Although it feels like a charming, feel-good indie film, Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut is horribly formulaic. The film is about roller derby, but Barrymore buries the movie’s head in the playbook to the point that the sport could be substituted for anything misunderstood, and it’s a blatant sign of directorial weakness and inexperience.Bliss Cavendar (Ellen Page) has grown tired of beauty pageants and turns to something less conservative, but there is no evidence that roller derby possesses unique values capable of crafting a better person or that this would be a life to aspire to.Page is also at fault. She is an actress brimming with strength and confidence, but here she puts on a timid facade that prevents her character from growing and limits her comedic and dramatic range.With a concept so original, it’s disappointing to see “Whip It” become such a cliche .