Since we’re a week away from the official start of summer movie season I’ve thrown together a quick top ten list of the movies I’m most looking forward to. I did the same thing last year, and looking back at that now I’m pretty sure I was a lot more excited about last year’s offerings.
The truth is most of this summer’s "biggest" movies leave me shrugging my shoulders. I’ll probably end up seeing expected blockbusters like Superman Returns, The Da Vinci Code, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Poseidon and The Break-Up but if any of them got stuck in movie limbo and were never released I wouldn’t really care. This year’s slate is also heavy on lackluster looking animated fare (from DreamWorks, Fox, Warner Bros. and even one for film snobs: Richard Linklater’s trippy A Scanner Darkly) and high-concept mainstream comedies (Jack Black as a Mexican wrestler, Owen Wilson as an annoying houseguest, Adam Sandler finding a magical remote control and the aforementioned Vaughaniston extravaganza). Maybe one, or some, of these will surprise me, but I’m not counting on it.
Even two major movies from prestige directors—Robert Altman’s A Prairie Home Companion and Michael Mann’s Miami Vice—aren’t sparking my interest (Altman’s because of mixed early reviews and Mann’s for all sorts of reasons, including the fact he’s one of my least favorite Important directors).
I have, at least, already seen one great movie due for release this summer: a documentary about a crossword puzzle tournament (just screams "grab the popcorn!" doesn’t it?). Wordplay (June 16) is a fun crowd-pleaser in the vein of spelling bee doc Spellbound and should be an arthouse sleeper.
Looking over last year’s list some of my selections turned out to be disappointing (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), bad (Bad News Bears) or excruciating (Wedding Crashers) but there were some surprises (The 40 Year-Old Virgin and Land of the Dead were far better than expected and my favorite summer release, Junebug, was impossible to predict). One movie (Romance & Cigarettes) was never even released and I still haven’t gotten around to another (The Brothers Grimm) which was released, but to terrible reviews.
In other words, who knows how any of these will turn out, but on paper [Pickler sez "huh?"] I’m looking forward to:
10. Cars (June 9)
Ok, frankly I’m not really excited about this one either but of all the animated summer offerings it’s the one I’m most likely to see. And considering I had a similar lack of pre-release enthusiasm for Toy Story and Finding Nemo I’ve learned you write off Pixar at your own peril.
9. Snakes on a Plane (August 18)
I’m not expecting greatness from this, I’m expecting, well, snakes on a plane. Although the Internet hysteria over the movie’s concept has already made it dangerously overhyped it still seems like the perfect late summer movie, and, sadly, one of the season’s most "original" concepts.
8. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (July 14)
I would dismiss this as quickly as the rest of the big dumb-looking summer comedies but this dumb-looking NASCAR spoof reunites Anchorman’s director Adam McKay and leading man Will Ferrell. And even though Anchorman is an incredibly dumb movie it’s also a ridiculously funny one. It also helps that McKay and Ferrell have enlisted a cast that includes John C. Reilly, Sacha Baron Cohen, Gary Cole, David Koechner, Amy Adams, Leslie Bibb, Greg Germann and Jane Lynch.
7. Idlewild (August 25)
The Outkast guys have made a musical. There’s no shortage of potential pitfalls here but it’s interesting for the curiosity factor alone. It helps that there’s a solid supporting cast and it comes from HBO Films. At the very least we’re guaranteed the summer’s best soundtrack.
6. Lady in the Water (July 21)
The pretentious tagline "A Bedtime Story" and the rapidly declining quality of M. Night Shyamalan’s movies don’t do much to inspire confidence but casting Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard in the lead roles (and Jeffrey Wright in key support) makes it instantly intriguing. Plus this is likely to be either Shyamalan’s redemption or his downfall, place your bets now.
5. World Trade Center (August 9)
United 93 is already a critical smash and another 9/11 movie a few months later might be just too much. But this is a different kind of story, Oliver Stone is a master filmmaker (or used to be at least) and Nicolas Cage, Michael Pena, Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal make for a great core cast.
4. Little Miss Sunshine (July 28)/Half Nelson (August 11)
Two movies that built their buzz at Sundance. Sunshine became a big deal when it sold for the most money—partly because its cast includes Greg Kinnear, Toni Collette and, most importantly, Steve Carell—while Nelson caused a smaller stir but puts Ryan Gosling back in cinemas, where he belongs (and throws in promising actor Anthony Mackie as a bonus). It’s a good bet these will best most summer offerings, quality-wise.
3. X-Men: The Last Stand (May 26)
After two movies X-Men is the best comicbook franchise going and even though hacky Brett Ratner is at the helm this time I’m still excited to see what goes down in the third installment.
2. The Science of Sleep (August 18)
This might’ve topped the list if it wasn’t for a few troubling observations in some early reviews. There’s a fine line between quirky-enjoyable and quirky- appalling and director Michel Gondry has been on both sides before (the right side with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and the wrong side with Human Nature). Now he’s made a movie without screenwriter Charlie Kaufman but with Gael Garcia Bernal, one of the best international leading men in the business. This is sure to be one of summer’s biggest small movies and I hope it’s one of the best.
1. Mission: Impossible III (May 5)
Yeah I know, Tom Cruise is crazy and I’m not supposed to be excited about this but as far as pure summer popcorn movies go this is the big one for me. I really like both previous Mission films (you’re forgiven if you don’t) and I’m excited to see what JJ Abrams does with his first movie (and whether it can match some of his excellent television work on Lost and Alias). There’s also the best cast ever assembled for a Mission outing. It opens next Friday so we’ll find out fast. Then it’s four long months till fall…
Friday, April 28, 2006
Goodbye Kellie Mae
I suppose I shouldn’t let the events of this week’s Idol go by without mention. After Tuesday night’s so-so "Great Love Songs" performance show I would’ve demanded two things:
1) That Paris place in the top three after delivering another flawless performance and
2) That Kellie Pickler finally hit the bottom three, especially after back-to-back weeks of outright sucking (which she readily admitted).
So I got half of what I wanted, and it was the more important half. I thought Kellie might get the boot but I didn’t want to be optimistic enough to really believe it. In my mind Elliott was doomed, not because he gave a bad performance (he didn’t, it was clearly one of the three best) but because his song was dull, and he performed too early in the show.
But maybe America was as "moved" by Elliott as Paula was and instead Kellie departed the show in the Carmen Rasmusen/John Stevens/Constantine Maroulis memorial slot of sixth place. Kind of fitting isn’t it? I’ll admit, now that she’s gone, that she was sort of entertaining for her stupid remarks ("I’m a mink!?" "On paper? What’s that?") and if she does have some sort of future in the entertainment business I won’t be too opposed, as long as singing isn’t a major part of it. (The great joke of both of this season’s country contestants is that if they had auditioned for the generally superior Nashville Star I’m positive they would’ve been rejected.)
As for Paris’ placement in the week’s bottom two, there’s nothing much to say other than the obvious: she deserves better. Hopefully she’ll hang on for a couple more weeks and maybe viewers will start to realize that Taylor, kinda like Kellie, isn’t worth keeping around.
But I doubt it.
1) That Paris place in the top three after delivering another flawless performance and
2) That Kellie Pickler finally hit the bottom three, especially after back-to-back weeks of outright sucking (which she readily admitted).
So I got half of what I wanted, and it was the more important half. I thought Kellie might get the boot but I didn’t want to be optimistic enough to really believe it. In my mind Elliott was doomed, not because he gave a bad performance (he didn’t, it was clearly one of the three best) but because his song was dull, and he performed too early in the show.
But maybe America was as "moved" by Elliott as Paula was and instead Kellie departed the show in the Carmen Rasmusen/John Stevens/Constantine Maroulis memorial slot of sixth place. Kind of fitting isn’t it? I’ll admit, now that she’s gone, that she was sort of entertaining for her stupid remarks ("I’m a mink!?" "On paper? What’s that?") and if she does have some sort of future in the entertainment business I won’t be too opposed, as long as singing isn’t a major part of it. (The great joke of both of this season’s country contestants is that if they had auditioned for the generally superior Nashville Star I’m positive they would’ve been rejected.)
As for Paris’ placement in the week’s bottom two, there’s nothing much to say other than the obvious: she deserves better. Hopefully she’ll hang on for a couple more weeks and maybe viewers will start to realize that Taylor, kinda like Kellie, isn’t worth keeping around.
But I doubt it.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Who's running the show?
Big news from two (or maybe two and a half) TV geniuses last week that directly, and indirectly, affect a couple of my TiVo season pass veterans:
The news: Gilmore Girls creator/mastermind Amy Sherman-Palladino won’t be returning to the show next season, and neither will her husband/cohort Daniel Palladino. They walked away from a reported $5 million one-season deal partly because they wanted a two-season deal instead. That was a problem for producer Warner Bros. Television because the cast (including Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel) only have deals in place for one more season. And many people believe that season will be the last.
Why this is bad: Over the past six seasons the Palladinos wrote about 90 of Gilmore’s 131 episodes, and also directed a significant number. There’s no question Amy is the driving force behind the show, and its most celebrated and unique qualities—the rapid-fire, impressively witty dialogue; the complex family relationships; the finely tuned mix of comedy and drama—came directly from her. If Gilmore really is entering its final season (which is a huge if, especially considering it’s sure to be a major player in the launch of the CW next year and the new network will obviously be eager to keep its "hits") it will be downright wrong to not have Amy there to end the show on her terms. Whether we should blame the Palladinos or Warner Bros. for all of this is debatable, but you can read the couple’s side of the story in this lengthy TV Guide interview (warning: there’s a big fat season finale spoiler in the middle of the interview). Also, the newly appointed showrunner, David Rosenthal, is generating some, um, controversy of his own.
Why this is good: The current season hasn’t exactly been one of the Girls’ strongest. Lukewarm (yeah, pun intended) chemistry between the central couples, audience-punishing story developments (Lorelai and Rory’s prolonged estrangement, Luke’s annoying daughter, Logan’s stubborn refusal to die) and a lack of interesting new characters have made the show feel a bit stale when just a year ago it was at a creative zenith. So maybe a fresh perspective will actually help (maybe one that isn’t so intent on torturing key characters with forced obstacles). And while creating something on the level of Gilmore can be difficult to duplicate I wouldn’t put it past the Palladinos to come up with a brilliant new show sometime over the next few seasons (how about a sharp romantic comedy with a well-written ensemble of quirky characters, a la Cheers?).
Bottom line: Enjoy the Palladino-run Gilmore while it lasts (three more episodes, starting tonight). While I think it’s very possible the show will be around for longer than just one more season (depending heavily on how Lauren and Alexis adapt to life without the Palladinos, and how much money they’re offered for season 8) it’s unlikely Gilmore will ever be truly great again—even if Graham has pledged to do her part for quality control. Let's just hope for really good.
Meanwhile...
The news: The man behind Alias, Felicity and Lost—J.J. Abrams—has set the follow up project to his upcoming feature debut, Mission: Impossible III, and the choice is another big franchise project: the 11th film in the Star Trek series. Reportedly it will focus on the early days of characters like Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, detailing how they met and what happened on their first mission.
Why this is good: Following disasterous box office for the tenth film and ratings so miserable they forced Star Trek: Enterprise off the air after four seasons (rather than seven, like all previous Trek spin-offs), it looked like Trek was dead. But [insert warp speed joke here] this deal means the franchise is back in a big way. And a fresh way. Abrams will write the script with Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, who also wrote MI:3 and many episodes of Alias (from seasons one through three). In recent years Trek has been overshadowed in the sci-fi world by the empty hype surrounding Star Wars and the astonishing quality of the Battlestar Galactica revival. But the concept remains a good one and Abrams seems like just the guy to oversee a compelling reinvention.
Why this is bad: Well let’s forget for a moment that Orci & Kurtzman have several questionable writing credits (including The Island, ew!) and focus on Abrams. I’m saying all of this before seeing MI:3 but two things come to mind. First it’s inevitable but still kind of sad that with his bigscreen career heating up there will be less time for him to focus on small screen output. Maybe it’s just perception but J.J.’s shows tend to be better with him around. And as for his feature career I find it a little disappointing that he’s moving from one franchise to another. Maybe it’s smart to build up a track record (and work on mass appeal properties, unlike the cult appeal mistake Joss Whedon made) but it’s still a bit hard to truly make your mark, quality-wise, with the third or eleventh film in a franchise property. Of course it can be done.
Bottom line: We have to face the fact that J.J. has pretty much left TV behind for the time being, and hopefully his output in the film world will turn out to be equally rewarding.
The news: Gilmore Girls creator/mastermind Amy Sherman-Palladino won’t be returning to the show next season, and neither will her husband/cohort Daniel Palladino. They walked away from a reported $5 million one-season deal partly because they wanted a two-season deal instead. That was a problem for producer Warner Bros. Television because the cast (including Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel) only have deals in place for one more season. And many people believe that season will be the last.
Why this is bad: Over the past six seasons the Palladinos wrote about 90 of Gilmore’s 131 episodes, and also directed a significant number. There’s no question Amy is the driving force behind the show, and its most celebrated and unique qualities—the rapid-fire, impressively witty dialogue; the complex family relationships; the finely tuned mix of comedy and drama—came directly from her. If Gilmore really is entering its final season (which is a huge if, especially considering it’s sure to be a major player in the launch of the CW next year and the new network will obviously be eager to keep its "hits") it will be downright wrong to not have Amy there to end the show on her terms. Whether we should blame the Palladinos or Warner Bros. for all of this is debatable, but you can read the couple’s side of the story in this lengthy TV Guide interview (warning: there’s a big fat season finale spoiler in the middle of the interview). Also, the newly appointed showrunner, David Rosenthal, is generating some, um, controversy of his own.
Why this is good: The current season hasn’t exactly been one of the Girls’ strongest. Lukewarm (yeah, pun intended) chemistry between the central couples, audience-punishing story developments (Lorelai and Rory’s prolonged estrangement, Luke’s annoying daughter, Logan’s stubborn refusal to die) and a lack of interesting new characters have made the show feel a bit stale when just a year ago it was at a creative zenith. So maybe a fresh perspective will actually help (maybe one that isn’t so intent on torturing key characters with forced obstacles). And while creating something on the level of Gilmore can be difficult to duplicate I wouldn’t put it past the Palladinos to come up with a brilliant new show sometime over the next few seasons (how about a sharp romantic comedy with a well-written ensemble of quirky characters, a la Cheers?).
Bottom line: Enjoy the Palladino-run Gilmore while it lasts (three more episodes, starting tonight). While I think it’s very possible the show will be around for longer than just one more season (depending heavily on how Lauren and Alexis adapt to life without the Palladinos, and how much money they’re offered for season 8) it’s unlikely Gilmore will ever be truly great again—even if Graham has pledged to do her part for quality control. Let's just hope for really good.
Meanwhile...
The news: The man behind Alias, Felicity and Lost—J.J. Abrams—has set the follow up project to his upcoming feature debut, Mission: Impossible III, and the choice is another big franchise project: the 11th film in the Star Trek series. Reportedly it will focus on the early days of characters like Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, detailing how they met and what happened on their first mission.
Why this is good: Following disasterous box office for the tenth film and ratings so miserable they forced Star Trek: Enterprise off the air after four seasons (rather than seven, like all previous Trek spin-offs), it looked like Trek was dead. But [insert warp speed joke here] this deal means the franchise is back in a big way. And a fresh way. Abrams will write the script with Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, who also wrote MI:3 and many episodes of Alias (from seasons one through three). In recent years Trek has been overshadowed in the sci-fi world by the empty hype surrounding Star Wars and the astonishing quality of the Battlestar Galactica revival. But the concept remains a good one and Abrams seems like just the guy to oversee a compelling reinvention.
Why this is bad: Well let’s forget for a moment that Orci & Kurtzman have several questionable writing credits (including The Island, ew!) and focus on Abrams. I’m saying all of this before seeing MI:3 but two things come to mind. First it’s inevitable but still kind of sad that with his bigscreen career heating up there will be less time for him to focus on small screen output. Maybe it’s just perception but J.J.’s shows tend to be better with him around. And as for his feature career I find it a little disappointing that he’s moving from one franchise to another. Maybe it’s smart to build up a track record (and work on mass appeal properties, unlike the cult appeal mistake Joss Whedon made) but it’s still a bit hard to truly make your mark, quality-wise, with the third or eleventh film in a franchise property. Of course it can be done.
Bottom line: We have to face the fact that J.J. has pretty much left TV behind for the time being, and hopefully his output in the film world will turn out to be equally rewarding.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
A major TV loss
Scott Brazil died on Monday at the age of 50 from complications relating to Lou Gehrig's disease and lyme disease. I didn't know him (never even met him), so I can only speak about his loss from a creative standpoint, which is significant. Scott Brazil wasn't a huge name, but he was a driving force behind one of television's best shows, The Shield.
Although The Shield is known as the brainchild of Shawn Ryan—who is primarily responsible for the complex story arcs and emphasis on deep characters—Brazil was the one who kept it all moving over the past five seasons as executive producer and showrunner. He directed 11 episodes, including brilliant season finales "Circles," "Dominoes Falling" and "On Tilt," and played an invaluable role in shaping the look and feel that continues to make the show so distinctive. He was spoke of with great esteem and affection by both Ryan and Michael Chiklis when I was fortunate enough to interview each of them (and please check out this fine memorial by TV writer Alan Sepinwall which includes a remembrance from Ryan and a very eloquent response to the post).
It's painful to know that Brazil won't be there for the inevitably incredible ending to a rare show that keeps getting better with age. But his artistic legacy lives on.
Although The Shield is known as the brainchild of Shawn Ryan—who is primarily responsible for the complex story arcs and emphasis on deep characters—Brazil was the one who kept it all moving over the past five seasons as executive producer and showrunner. He directed 11 episodes, including brilliant season finales "Circles," "Dominoes Falling" and "On Tilt," and played an invaluable role in shaping the look and feel that continues to make the show so distinctive. He was spoke of with great esteem and affection by both Ryan and Michael Chiklis when I was fortunate enough to interview each of them (and please check out this fine memorial by TV writer Alan Sepinwall which includes a remembrance from Ryan and a very eloquent response to the post).
It's painful to know that Brazil won't be there for the inevitably incredible ending to a rare show that keeps getting better with age. But his artistic legacy lives on.
We won't always have Paris
Congratulations Paris! You give one of your best Idol performances yet (second only to, or maybe even tied with, "Midnight Train to Georgia" from the semifinals) and you're rewarded with... the bottom three!
It was no surprise to see Ace leave. He wasn't a total disaster like he was in Queen week and (almost) everyone else was at least decent, so what reason was there to vote for him?
It was also no surprise to see Chris in the bottom three. The change of pace may have made Simon proud but it didn't suit him. He sounded fine but for the first time ever he was completely generic. I don't like Chris but he's usually good at what he does. And sappy is not what he does. (I think it also hurt that he went first and everyone else was consistent, being at the top of the bill may have hurt Paris too.)
And it was no surprise that even though she gave the worst performance BY FAR that embarrassment to humanity Kellie was not in the bottom three. She may be dumb as a brick (do you think she even knows what a brick is?) but she somehow figured out that yes, her performance sucked. And she apologized. And her "fans" (whoever they are, these people scare me) probably thought she was cute as ever.
But HOW does Paris make the bottom three after NAILING Ella Fitzgerald's "These Foolish Things"??? ARE PEOPLE STUPID???
Oh wait, of course they are. Kellie and Taylor are now the only contestants to never make the bottom three. Obviously it's not talent that helps you succeed, it's having a big, slightly annoying, personality and never hiding it. (But, on the bright side, before we just assume these fools will be the final two remember that Smeagol/Constantine never made the bottom three until he was eliminated...)
The fact is it gets really interesting from here out. Logic would say Elliott goes next. All of the other remaining contestants have frequently, legitimately been called possible winners. But he and Paris have both been in the bottom three two times now. And even if they both are bottom three again next week they're going to have to be joined by a "fan favorite." And let's remember it was the round of six that did in Smeagol last season...
It's nice that the season is unpredictable, but it's too bad that's not because there's a lot of worthy performers.
It was no surprise to see Ace leave. He wasn't a total disaster like he was in Queen week and (almost) everyone else was at least decent, so what reason was there to vote for him?
It was also no surprise to see Chris in the bottom three. The change of pace may have made Simon proud but it didn't suit him. He sounded fine but for the first time ever he was completely generic. I don't like Chris but he's usually good at what he does. And sappy is not what he does. (I think it also hurt that he went first and everyone else was consistent, being at the top of the bill may have hurt Paris too.)
And it was no surprise that even though she gave the worst performance BY FAR that embarrassment to humanity Kellie was not in the bottom three. She may be dumb as a brick (do you think she even knows what a brick is?) but she somehow figured out that yes, her performance sucked. And she apologized. And her "fans" (whoever they are, these people scare me) probably thought she was cute as ever.
But HOW does Paris make the bottom three after NAILING Ella Fitzgerald's "These Foolish Things"??? ARE PEOPLE STUPID???
Oh wait, of course they are. Kellie and Taylor are now the only contestants to never make the bottom three. Obviously it's not talent that helps you succeed, it's having a big, slightly annoying, personality and never hiding it. (But, on the bright side, before we just assume these fools will be the final two remember that Smeagol/Constantine never made the bottom three until he was eliminated...)
The fact is it gets really interesting from here out. Logic would say Elliott goes next. All of the other remaining contestants have frequently, legitimately been called possible winners. But he and Paris have both been in the bottom three two times now. And even if they both are bottom three again next week they're going to have to be joined by a "fan favorite." And let's remember it was the round of six that did in Smeagol last season...
It's nice that the season is unpredictable, but it's too bad that's not because there's a lot of worthy performers.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Making the arthouse fun again
Last week I was going to make a joke about how I like the thinking behind the David Spade/Rob Schneider/Jon Heder vehicle The Benchwarmers because it allows me to avoid one movie instead of three. But then the appalling-looking thing opened almost $20 million. Ew. Enough on that.
Especially because there are some good movies out there. Even though Hollywood hasn't tempted me with much so far this year (I'll make it to Inside Man soon) the festival circuit has provided some interesting, and unusually entertaining, options.
Friends with Money (which premiered at Sundance) is like the opposite of the aforementioned Big Dumb Hollywood Comedy. You could split this one four ways and I'd be just as happy. That's because we get Jennifer Aniston, Joan Cusack, Catherine Keener and Frances McDormand as the quartet of principal characters for writer/director Nicole Holofcener, who previously made smart, talky, small indies Walking and Talking and Lovely & Amazing. Other than deciding not to title it "Friends and Money" Holofcener hasn't altered her style much: this is smart, talky and very small.
So small it risks being called slight. And it is. But it's also so well acted and written, with genuinely witty dialogue, that it's silly to dismiss (or miss). All four of the leading ladies are great: Aniston is clearly most comfortable in indie films, Cusack is less wacky than usual (to good effect), Keener is a Holofcener-vet for good reason and McDormand pretty much steals the show. There are some guys in the movie too, providing solid support for the women, most notably: Simon McBurney, Jason Isaacs, Greg Germann, Bob Stephenson and Ty Burrell (and, a little less notably, Scott Caan). But you can tell by the lack of marquee names in that group where the focus is.
Yeah Friends with Money is primarily about four female friends. And relationships. And sex. And money. But, although Holofcener directed some episodes, this isn't really Sex and the City. It's an indie film. If you need to, think of it less as a girly movie and more as a funny movie. That's its strength and that's enough.
Also small, indie and directed by a woman (which is still rare enough to be worth pointing out) is The Notorious Bettie Page from HBO Films and director Mary Harron. Some viewers will be frustrated that this biopic about a 1950s pin-up queen, known for both colorful nude shots and naughty underground light bondage photos, doesn't go further in exploring its subject. But I think it's a refreshing change from standard serious bios.
Bettie Page is simply fun and a big part of that is due to its star, Gretchen Mol. Mol was always easy enough to write off as an actress but she delivers a truly exceptional performance here, she's so endearing it's actually impossible to imagine the movie without her. Utilizing a slight Southern accent and a perfect mix of innocence and self-assurance, Mol is in Reese Witherspoon territory. There's not a false moment. It's the breakthrough performance she's been working towards her whole rocky career. Who knew?
I love it when actors defy preconceived notions, but that's not the only pleasure of Bettie Page. As a filmmaker Harron has a lot of fun with both style and subject matter, creating a love letter to movies of the period. The bulk of the film is in black and white but there are some gorgeous "Technicolor" interludes later on and visual tribute is paid to everything from high school dramas to "instructional" shorts to lush melodramas to film noir.
And even though the film doesn't probe very deeply into the real Bettie Page there's something wonderful about a movie that centers around a lead character who poses nude and is deeply Christian, and she isn't judged for either one.
It's also worth mentioning some of the very entertaining supporting performances, especially from Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor and Jared Harris as a close-knit "family" of pornographers (1950s-style). Above all this movie is a portrait of a bygone era when it was truly possible to be naughty and nice at the same time. In other words, it's the sweetest movie involving light bondage ever made.
Especially because there are some good movies out there. Even though Hollywood hasn't tempted me with much so far this year (I'll make it to Inside Man soon) the festival circuit has provided some interesting, and unusually entertaining, options.
Friends with Money (which premiered at Sundance) is like the opposite of the aforementioned Big Dumb Hollywood Comedy. You could split this one four ways and I'd be just as happy. That's because we get Jennifer Aniston, Joan Cusack, Catherine Keener and Frances McDormand as the quartet of principal characters for writer/director Nicole Holofcener, who previously made smart, talky, small indies Walking and Talking and Lovely & Amazing. Other than deciding not to title it "Friends and Money" Holofcener hasn't altered her style much: this is smart, talky and very small.So small it risks being called slight. And it is. But it's also so well acted and written, with genuinely witty dialogue, that it's silly to dismiss (or miss). All four of the leading ladies are great: Aniston is clearly most comfortable in indie films, Cusack is less wacky than usual (to good effect), Keener is a Holofcener-vet for good reason and McDormand pretty much steals the show. There are some guys in the movie too, providing solid support for the women, most notably: Simon McBurney, Jason Isaacs, Greg Germann, Bob Stephenson and Ty Burrell (and, a little less notably, Scott Caan). But you can tell by the lack of marquee names in that group where the focus is.
Yeah Friends with Money is primarily about four female friends. And relationships. And sex. And money. But, although Holofcener directed some episodes, this isn't really Sex and the City. It's an indie film. If you need to, think of it less as a girly movie and more as a funny movie. That's its strength and that's enough.
Also small, indie and directed by a woman (which is still rare enough to be worth pointing out) is The Notorious Bettie Page from HBO Films and director Mary Harron. Some viewers will be frustrated that this biopic about a 1950s pin-up queen, known for both colorful nude shots and naughty underground light bondage photos, doesn't go further in exploring its subject. But I think it's a refreshing change from standard serious bios.Bettie Page is simply fun and a big part of that is due to its star, Gretchen Mol. Mol was always easy enough to write off as an actress but she delivers a truly exceptional performance here, she's so endearing it's actually impossible to imagine the movie without her. Utilizing a slight Southern accent and a perfect mix of innocence and self-assurance, Mol is in Reese Witherspoon territory. There's not a false moment. It's the breakthrough performance she's been working towards her whole rocky career. Who knew?
I love it when actors defy preconceived notions, but that's not the only pleasure of Bettie Page. As a filmmaker Harron has a lot of fun with both style and subject matter, creating a love letter to movies of the period. The bulk of the film is in black and white but there are some gorgeous "Technicolor" interludes later on and visual tribute is paid to everything from high school dramas to "instructional" shorts to lush melodramas to film noir.
And even though the film doesn't probe very deeply into the real Bettie Page there's something wonderful about a movie that centers around a lead character who poses nude and is deeply Christian, and she isn't judged for either one.
It's also worth mentioning some of the very entertaining supporting performances, especially from Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor and Jared Harris as a close-knit "family" of pornographers (1950s-style). Above all this movie is a portrait of a bygone era when it was truly possible to be naughty and nice at the same time. In other words, it's the sweetest movie involving light bondage ever made.
Another One Bites the Dust
So Queen's Idol victim was fat-bottom-lovin' Bucky instead of We-Won't-Rock-You Ace. Even when a mediocre contestant goes home there's still something wrong with the choice. But I'm glad we don't have the performance-inept cowboy to kick around anymore, so I'll leave it at that.
It was certainly a better choice than what we had the last couple weeks. During my absence we lost someone who deserved it (Chicken Little), someone whose elimination was unfortunately inevitable (Lisa) and someone whose elimination still makes no sense at all (I was never a huge Mandisa fan but she was growing on me... and it's completely unfair that country caused her downfall while thoroughly terrible Kellie keeps flying high week after week without even hitting the bottom three; her dumbfounded reaction to Simon's "on paper" comment this week was the absolute end of the line, stupid isn't cute, it's stupid).
Right now there's only one person who I really look forward to each week. Paris really is a little dynamo, her performances since hitting the top 12 have been consistently engaging and entertaining. Her vocals aren't flawless but the roughness only adds to her appeal for me. And unlike the show's most consistent performer (Chris, blah) she never ceases to surprise. When she practically morphed into Tina Turner to rock out to Queen I was truly amazed. And this after a funky fresh "Work It Out" (most entertaining top 12 performance by anyone so far) and a soulful "How Do I Live" (in which she managed to find depth in a shallow song). No one else is worthy of such praise this year but I am very concerned about just how far she'll be able to go.
My other former co-favorites Elliott Yamin and Katharine McPhee are two different stories. Elliott is still solid, but he never makes a strong enough impression. Are his performances too simple? Are his arrangements too predictable? Is he just a little lacking in star charisma? I'm not sure what it is. I'd definitely rank him second only to Paris in terms of personal appeal but I can't exactly call myself a fan. Still I hope he stays around for several weeks to come.
Katharine, on the other hand, needs to do something great fast. She's always been inconsistent but right now I'm just bored with her. She's the most beautiful girl out there but that's the only thing separating her from the rest of the bland pack. And it's not enough.
It was certainly a better choice than what we had the last couple weeks. During my absence we lost someone who deserved it (Chicken Little), someone whose elimination was unfortunately inevitable (Lisa) and someone whose elimination still makes no sense at all (I was never a huge Mandisa fan but she was growing on me... and it's completely unfair that country caused her downfall while thoroughly terrible Kellie keeps flying high week after week without even hitting the bottom three; her dumbfounded reaction to Simon's "on paper" comment this week was the absolute end of the line, stupid isn't cute, it's stupid).
Right now there's only one person who I really look forward to each week. Paris really is a little dynamo, her performances since hitting the top 12 have been consistently engaging and entertaining. Her vocals aren't flawless but the roughness only adds to her appeal for me. And unlike the show's most consistent performer (Chris, blah) she never ceases to surprise. When she practically morphed into Tina Turner to rock out to Queen I was truly amazed. And this after a funky fresh "Work It Out" (most entertaining top 12 performance by anyone so far) and a soulful "How Do I Live" (in which she managed to find depth in a shallow song). No one else is worthy of such praise this year but I am very concerned about just how far she'll be able to go.
My other former co-favorites Elliott Yamin and Katharine McPhee are two different stories. Elliott is still solid, but he never makes a strong enough impression. Are his performances too simple? Are his arrangements too predictable? Is he just a little lacking in star charisma? I'm not sure what it is. I'd definitely rank him second only to Paris in terms of personal appeal but I can't exactly call myself a fan. Still I hope he stays around for several weeks to come.
Katharine, on the other hand, needs to do something great fast. She's always been inconsistent but right now I'm just bored with her. She's the most beautiful girl out there but that's the only thing separating her from the rest of the bland pack. And it's not enough.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
I mean, come on!
I'll try to make up for my prolonged absence shortly but I just want to ask, Ace is going home on Idol tonight, right?
[Joining him in the bottom three: Bucky and... Katharine (or Elliott?), although Taylor deserves it. I really hope Paris isn't there two weeks in a row, but if she is after last night I don't know what she could possibly do to survive.]
[Joining him in the bottom three: Bucky and... Katharine (or Elliott?), although Taylor deserves it. I really hope Paris isn't there two weeks in a row, but if she is after last night I don't know what she could possibly do to survive.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)