Browsing Tag

Movies

Movie Review: MORNING GLORY

Morning Glory (opening Nov. 10) stars Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton; was written by Aline Brosh McKenna, screenwriter of The Devil Wears Prada; and directed by Roger Michell, who helmed Venus and Notting Hill. One of the producers is J.J. Abrams. It’s a complete mystery to me, then, why a movie this full of talent can be so inferior.

McAdams stars as Becky Fuller, the super ambitious producer of a last-place morning talk show who’s determined to keep it from cancellation by hiring respected newsman Mike Pomeroy (Ford) to co-host with former beauty queen Colleen Peck (Keaton). Trouble is, the two can barely stand each other. Pomeroy doesn’t want to be there—the gig is a contractual obligation—while Colleen resents his arrogance. Becky pulls out all the stops for ratings, including putting her hapless weatherman through death-defying stunts so viewers can laugh at his screams. Meanwhile, another producer (Patrick Wilson) is mooning over her but Becky wonders if she can commit to the relationship and her job, especially since the cranky Pomeroy requires around-the-clock maintenance. It’s the veteran newsman, though, who finally teaches her a few lessons about life and love.

One of the most annoying things about this movie is how poor McAdams, an extremely charismatic actress, has to crank Becky’s neurotic, hyper energy up to eleven in every scene. She’s running, running, running everywhere and talks so fast, it’s exhausting to watch her. It doesn’t really make sense why she runs so much. Becky comes across as a type-A personality, someone who’s detail-oriented and organized, at least in her professional life. And yet the harried running implies she’s always late for appointments (including an important job interview), like a slacker who overslept or an assistant who forgot to fetch the coffee. Maybe the thinking was if McAdams just kept moving, no one would notice the plot holes.

The actress should be given credit, though, for still managing to infuse Becky with charm; it’s impossible to bear her ill will when she flashes her warm eyes and disarming smile. If this role had been played by, say, Katherine Heigl, I would’ve chugged Drano to end my misery.

Less successful than McAdams are Keaton and Ford as the bickering anchors, though it’s hardly their fault. Colleen isn’t developed enough as a character for viewers to care much about (though Keaton does look like she was enjoying herself) while Pomeroy seems to deserve his reputation as “the third worst person in the world.” Ford probably wanted a departure from his dramatic, heroic personas when he agreed to play a jerk in a comedy but ironically, he’s much funnier as Han Solo and Indiana Jones. Though I could sympathize with Pomeroy’s reason for disgruntlement and his disdain for “fluffy” segments after a long career in hard news, the character’s meanness sucked joy out of many scenes, and not in an amusing way like Miranda’s bitchiness in Prada. It’s a little meta that Ford seemed to be doing weighty dramatic acting while everyone else was putting on lighter fare.

Morning Glory doesn’t quite work as a romantic comedy, either. Wilson, a Tony-nominated actor, is reduced to little more than beefcake as Becky’s ultra-patient boyfriend. Their scenes feel contrived and we’re not sure why Adam took a liking to Becky in the first place; their initial encounter involves her having an embarrassing fangirl moment when she runs into Pomeroy in an elevator. In fact, McAdams has more chemistry with Ford, though in a strictly platonic way. We root more for Pomeroy and Becky’s relationship to work out because it has a better chance at making her happy in the long run.

Nerd verdict: Morning not so glorious

Photos: Paramount Pictures

Share

Movie Review: MEGAMIND

While DreamWorks’ Megamind (opening Nov. 5) is diverting enough, it breaks no new ground and doesn’t have the emotional resonance of Pixar movies. It’s more like a Chinese meal you enjoy but end up hungry again an hour later, perhaps even forgetting you had dinner at all.

Megamind’s origin story is similar to Superman’s in that his parents sent him to Earth when his planet was destroyed. But he wasn’t the only baby who escaped. The other infant’s ship landed in a rich couple’s home, where the boy received every advantage that comes with his class, while Megamind’s pod landed in a much more unsavory place, supposedly setting his course in life. He decides his only choice is to become the baddest supervillain ever.

His biggest obstacle? The other baby growing up to be Metro Man, an alpha male in every way and protector of Metro City. Metro Man thwarts Megamind’s most dastardly deeds until one day, he can’t anymore, causing Megamind to have identity issues. What good is a supervillain when there’s no superhero to stop him? He gets a chance to find his true purpose when another bad guy shows up to wreak havoc on Metro City. Will Megamind stop him or join forces with him?

The movie has good things to say about how we judge people and free will vs. destiny. As a kid, the giant-blue-headed Megamind always got picked last for dodgeball and he grows up thinking a life of crime is his only option after an unfortunate childhood. Ferrell does decent voice work, knowing when to turn on the frenzy and when to keep it quieter, but the movie’s casting is too obvious. Need a brainy, dry-witted brunette? Tina Fey, of course! A hunky guy who has it all? Who else but Brad Pitt? A nerd who can’t get the girl? Hey, let’s get Jonah Hill! Wouldn’t it have been more interesting to have Pitt play nerdy and Hill be heroic? In animation, where actors are unencumbered by their physical appearance, they should be able to play anything but Megamind seems content with making easy choices. In contrast, I wouldn’t have thought of Tom Hanks first to play a cowboy or Tim Allen to voice an astronaut.

While I’m comparing, I might as well mention that Megamind works fine as surface entertainment but I saw a missed opportunity for it to move viewers on a deeper level the way Pixar movies can. Megamind struggles with his image and outsider status, themes most of us can relate to, but the filmmakers merely do a gloss job on these matters. It’s okay to strive to only entertain, but playing it safe keeps the movie decidedly earthbound instead of blasting its appeal into infinity and beyond.

Nerd verdict: Megamind makes small impact

Photo of Tina Fey by Michael Murphree

Share

Movie Review: 127 HOURS + Notes from Q&A with Filmmakers

It’s been about 72 hours since I’ve seen Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours (opening Nov. 5) and I can’t stop thinking about it. You know how some experiences stay with you? This movie has clung to me the way Aron Ralston clung to life while stuck deep in a crevice in Utah’s Blue John Canyon.

Adapted from his autobiography Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Hours recounts the 5+ days in 2003 that Ralston, an experienced canyoneer, spent alone and trapped after falling and having his right arm pinned by a boulder. Not having told anyone where he was going, Ralston (James Franco) knew it was up to him whether he lived or died there. He eventually freed himself by doing something most people probably wouldn’t have the physical or mental strength to do. It sounds grueling—and it is—but Franco, director Danny Boyle and his production team have managed to make an incredibly moving and uplifting film about it all.

Let’s start with Franco. Holding the audience’s attention in every frame of a feature film all by himself has a difficulty level of at least 9.85 but the actor pulls it off with aplomb. He’s charming, raw, and even funny as he tracks Ralston through frustration, delirium, and Hell-no-I-won’t-die-here determination, giving life and energy to what are essentially monologues (well-written by Simon Beaufoy). Though Franco has delivered award-winning performances before in Milk and the James Dean TV movie, his work here should take the already busy actor’s career to new heights.

The movie’s impact is also helped along by striking cinematography from Anthony Dod Mantle and Enrique Chediak. The blue skies, brown earth, Ralston’s red T-shirt with a bright yellow sunflower combine to create vibrant tableaux. Even as Ralston is stuck in what could’ve been his death trap, he caresses the rocks around him and reaches his leg towards sunlight, heartbreaking gestures of appreciation for the undeniable beauty around him. At one point, there’s a long continuous shot that starts in the narrow trench with Ralston and slowly pulls out to a wide aerial view of the canyons that’s breathtaking.

And then there’s Boyle. Working with several of his Oscar-winning team members from Slumdog Millionnaire, the director has, in his own words (see more below), made “an action movie where the hero can’t move.” The movie begins with the kind of kinetic energy we saw in the street scenes in Slumdog, full of speed and movement. Ralston is shown as an adrenaline junkie, never stopping in one place for long, until nature, the thing he loves most, stops him cold and forces him to re-evaluate his path in life. The movie’s momentum could have come to a crashing halt at this point but Boyle found a way for us to continue on Ralston’s journey by taking us into Ralston’s mind as he reminisces about the people he loves most. I didn’t realize how deeply entrenched I was with Ralston in that canyon until the moment help finally comes after he climbs out and encounters other hikers. I wept, hard, shaking with tears of relief for several long minutes, exhaling and realizing my heart had been in my throat.

I imagine that those of you familiar with the story will want to know how graphic those scenes are depicting what Ralston did to survive. I couldn’t watch but did observe the reactions of the people around me. Judging by that and the sound effects, the scenes are quite disturbing. But they don’t last long and shouldn’t deter you from seeing this amazing film.

Nerd verdict: Tense, gripping Hours

I attended a screening sponsored by Variety which had Boyle, screenwriter Beaufoy and producer Christian Colson doing Q&A afterward. Some highlights from the discussion:

  • Boyle first approached Ralston in 2006 about doing the film but Ralston had wanted to make it as a documentary back then.
  • Once Ralston came on board, he shared with Boyle the videotapes he made in the canyon for loved ones when he thought he would never see them again. Boyle thought they’d be hard to watch but was amazed by how dignified and lacking in self pity the messages were.
  • Because the story is mostly internal monologue, Beaufoy didn’t think it could be adapted into a movie. Boyle figured out how to make it cinematic through the video clips Ralston makes and his memories, when he talks to his family back home.
  • Ralston is extremely detailed. When the filmmakers sent him a 60-page script, he sent back 70-page notes.
  • Ralston genuinely believes the accident was a blessing because it made him stop and re-think his life.
  • Shooting was done in the canyon where the accident happened, with close-ups done on a set in a warehouse in Utah.
  • The first test screening was done in New Jersey, where the audience stood up, pumped their arms in the air and yelled “YES!” at the end. This mitigated the painful experience for Ralston, who was watching it for the first time.

Photos: Chuck Zlotnick

Share

Movie Review: RED

Every summer, Hollywood rolls out loud, explosive blockbusters and this past season was no exception. Most of them were duds, though—Prince of Persia, anyone? Maybe that’s why we had to wait until fall for Red (out October 15) because this is no dumb action movie. Based on graphic novels by Warren Ellis and Cully Hamner, the thriller is a rollicking good time, a shoot-’em-up that works because someone was smart enough to cram it not only with fun action pieces but talented and charismatic actors, too (sorry, Jake Gyllenhaal doesn’t do it for me).

Urban and Willis

Bruce Willis stars as Frank Moses, a Retired, Extremely Dangerous former CIA agent whose biggest thrill nowadays comes from flirting with Sarah, the telephone rep (Mary-Louise Parker) in charge of sending him his government checks. He decides one day to travel to Kansas to see her in person but before he can get there, something happens which forces Moses to kidnap Sarah and take her on the run. It soon becomes clear someone is out to assassinate him and other R.E.D. agents. They reunite to face the threat head-on and make their attackers regret they started the fight.

I skipped Willis’s recent flops—Cop Out, Surrogates, etc.—wondering if he’s still got what it takes to anchor a decent flick. He settled this issue quickly, turning in an effective performance as Moses, former Marine and highly competent field agent. It’s been over two decades since he was anointed an action star in Die Hard but Willis can still pull off the badassness. The movie even addresses the age issue when Willis has a confrontation with a young agent played by Karl Urban, who makes cracks about Moses’s age until Moses shows him who’s boss.

The other R.E.D. agents are portrayed by Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, and John Malkovich, looking like they’re having a blast. It’s great fun to see Mirren decked out in an elegant gown then whip out a massive machine gun and just go to town. (There are more flying bullets fly in this movie than shoppers at a Wal-Mart on Black Friday.) Malkovich plays yet another loony-tunes character but the man can’t help it if he does it so well. Urban, who left no impression on me whatsoever as the young Bones in last year’s Star Trek or as Eomer in the Lord of the Rings movies, finally made me sit up and notice his intense Agent Cooper.

Director Robert Schwentke may have stumbled with his adaptation of Audrey Niffenegger’s The Time Traveler’s Wife, but he seems to have found source material with a much better fit this time around.

Nerd verdict: You’ll like seeing Red

Photos © Summit Entertainment

Share

Faith is the New Black? Conversation about GLEE, STONE & CONVICTION

**SPOILERS**

I’ve noticed in the last week that there was a trend in the entertainment I saw—an examination of faith in its different forms. Last night’s Glee questioned God’s existence, a discussion brought on by Kurt’s dad lying in a coma after suffering a heart attack. There was the funny approach—Finn believing in grilled cheesus, a Jesus-like image burnt into his grilled cheese sandwich—and the overwrought one—Rachel and her Yentl impersonation. The most affecting scenes turned out to be Sue’s revelation that she started doubting God as a kid because He didn’t cure her sister’s Down Syndrome, and Kurt’s singing “I Want to Hold Your Hand” for his dad because that’s something real he can believe in.

**END SPOILERS**

I also attended screenings of two movies—Stone (out October 8th) and Conviction (October 15th)—that also deal with faith, though the movies’ styles and what the lead characters believe in differ dramatically. Stone stars Edward Norton as the titular character, a convict trying to manipulate his parole officer, Jack (Robert De Niro), into giving him an early release by getting his beautiful wife, Lucetta (Milla Jovovich), to seduce Jack. Conviction is the true story of Betty Anne Waters (Hilary Swank), a high school dropout who goes back to school to obtain a law degree so she can get her wrongly convicted brother out of a life sentence for murder.

My contributing writer, Eric Edwards, and I had widely varying viewpoints on these movies so I’m posting the following discussion instead of traditional reviews.

Pop Culture Nerd: I had no idea Stone was about spirituality. I thought it was a crime thriller. Did you know?

Eric Edwards: No, I was expecting a violent prison movie. I didn’t see the trailer but didn’t think I needed to. They had me with Norton and De Niro. I had no clue it was about a journey of faith and redemption.

PCN: Which I don’t have a problem with, but I don’t like being misled. Nowhere in the ad campaigns did I see an indication of the subject matter. I went in expecting a gritty thriller and got a talky examination of faith done in a heavy-handed way.

EE: It was a bit heavy-handed…

PCN: Characters were reading and quoting excerpts from the Bible! Stone’s wife’s name is Lucetta but Jack would call her Lucy, which could also be short for Lucifer. C’mon!

EE: But it’s a topic that’s timely. These days, we need our faith, we need something to hang on to. And for the record, I’m not a Bible thumper. If you notice, the characters doing the heaviest thumping in the movie are the most lost.

PCN: Here’s the thing: my faith is strong but I don’t go around trying to hit people over the head with it. It’s a personal thing for everyone. I thought Stone was preaching too hard. That incessant chatter from the Christian talk radio station Jack listens to was driving me batty. While the radio host was hammering and hammering his points home, I just wanted to reach through the screen and turn off the radio.

EE: We’re not subjected to that chatter while we’re in Stone’s world. I think the movie is about extremists and asks us where our positions are on the belief scale. Anything that makes us think like that is worth the price of admission.

PCN: I’m all for movies that promote intelligent thought but I don’t like being suckered. The official synopsis for the film says it’s “a tale of passion, betrayal and corruption” but it’s really a long lecture on spirituality. If they want to do that, say it up front. And show, not tell.

Like Conviction. That movie showed me what absolute faith looks like. Betty Anne believed in her brother’s innocence and set out to prove it. She was tested over and over, in ways that would’ve crushed most people’s spirit, but she never wavered. Actions speak louder than words, right? Betty Anne acted on her faith while Stone and Jack just sit around talking about it. And Betty Anne’s real.

EE: Are you sure you didn’t just like Conviction more because you didn’t have to watch people going to church and reading from the Bible like in Stone?

PCN: What?? I go to church.

EE: OK, I’m not calling you an atheist. I guess my problem with Conviction is that I felt the brother (Sam Rockwell) wasn’t worth saving. He was kind of a jerk. Betty had such a tunnel-vision approach to getting him out of prison that she may have done more damage to her husband and kids while she was at it.

PCN: Betty Anne sacrificed a lot in her crusade but that’s how her faith guided her.

EE: To the detriment of everyone around her.

PCN: Not her brother.

EE: He was in prison.

PCN: So he didn’t need her?

EE: She could’ve balanced her focus more.

PCN: She felt her life purpose was to get her brother exonerated. I’m still trying to figure out my life purpose so I’m not going to judge how she goes about accomplishing hers. I thought what she did was pretty inspiring.

EE: Let’s agree to disagree on this point and move on. What did you think of the performances?

PCN: I liked Ed Norton a lot once I got past the cornrows and character voice, which made me chuckle at first. My favorite line of his: “I don’t want no beef with you; I just want to be vegetarian.” De Niro was De Niro, Jovovich was interesting in that she kept me guessing about her true motivations.

In Conviction, I really liked Minnie Driver’s and Swank’s performances. Driver brings so much levity and energy to the movie; her Boston accent is spot-on. Swank excels at playing the scrappy underdog who takes on impossible challenges.

EE: I enjoyed Norton’s work—I believed the transitions in his performance the most. I don’t like seeing De Niro weak. I don’t mind him vulnerable, but not weak. He’s De Niro! As far as Swank is concerned, hasn’t she played the same character about 15 times? I think her performances are repetitive.

PCN: You wanna talk about repetitive? When was the last time De Niro did something truly fresh in the last two decades?

EE: OK, but if you consider his entire career, it’s more varied than Swank’s so far.

PCN: True, but she’s got time. We’ll see.

Nerd verdicts:

Eric Edwards—A solid Stone, Misguided Conviction

PCN—A dull Stone, Moving Conviction

Photos by Ron Batzdorf

Share

THE TOURIST Trailer

The Tourist is one of the movies I’m most looking forward to this year. It stars Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie and was shot in Venice, Italy. It could be about accountants and I’d watch it. I like how even though it’s supposed to be a thriller, Depp is bringing a little bit of goofy to it. And Jolie’s character’s name is Elise!

Anybody else excited about this movie?

Photo: Peter Mountain

Share

First Photos of Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander

RooneyMara.net has posted the first photos of Rooney Mara in training for David Fincher’s adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The pictures aren’t great quality but they’re clear enough to see Mara looking Lisbeth-y. You can click on the site’s name to see more photos.

Do these look promising or are you still skeptical? I want pics of my boy Daniel Craig as Blomkvist! [UPDATE: For the first official photos of Mara as Lisbeth, click here.]

Share

Movie Review: GOING THE DISTANCE

I wasn’t sure about writing this review because…well, does anyone care? Anybody plan to see it this weekend? OK, in case there’s one die-hard Drew Barrymore fan out there, here goes.

Barrymore’s Erin and Justin Long’s Garrett meet over a videogame, which should clue you in on their general maturity level, in a New York bar. He, an A&R guy at a music label, lives in the city and she, an aspiring journalist, is finishing an internship at the fictional New York Sentinel newspaper. They hit it off instantly and agree to embark on a casual fling for Erin’s remaining six weeks in NYC. To no one’s surprise but theirs, they realize they want to continue their relationship even after she goes home to San Francisco. So they Skype, attempt phone sex, and inundate each other with cutesy texts to try to keep the passion burning. It eventually becomes clear the long distance arrangement isn’t enough and one of them needs to sacrifice everything and move to make the relationship work.

The main problem with this movie is Long. He’s a competent enough actor in supporting roles and the Mac commercials but lacks the charisma to be a romantic leading man. It doesn’t help that his character looks and acts like a college student, living with a roommate (Charlie Day) who doesn’t close the bathroom while on the pot. When Erin is considering giving up a dream job to move to New York and be with Garrett, I thought, “Really? For him? Do you know hard it is to get a job in this economy?” Now, if Garrett had been played by, say, Hugh Jackman, I would’ve been shouting, “GO, girl! Don’t worry—it’ll all work out!” I would have encouraged her to move to Australia and adopt an aborigine wardrobe if need be.

The movie also suffers from a split personality. It wants to be both a crude Apatowish comedy and a rom-com but director Nanette Burstein, a documentarian helming her first fictional feature, doesn’t succeed at meshing the two styles. The romantic sparks barely flicker—Long and Barrymore come across more like platonic friends despite their off-screen history—and the bawdy humor seems forced. At one point, a drunk Erin yells at a guy, “Suck my dick!” It’s not funny the first time; she hollers it again. Still not funny. It’s as if Barrymore was trying really hard to show she can be as raw as any guy. I’d bet she can be (aren’t the sweetest-looking girls usually the dirtiest) but her attempt to prove it here falls flat.

Nerd verdict: Don’t bother Going to see Distance

Photo: Jessica Miglio

Share

The Girl Who Will Play Lisbeth Salander Is…

…Rooney Mara.

David Fincher has finally chosen the lead actress for his adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Mara, 25, will star opposite Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist, Robin Wright as Millenium‘s editor Erika Berger, Stellan Skarsgard as Martin Vanger, with Max von Sydow in talks for Henrik Vanger.

A few weeks ago, Fincher had whittled down his choices to these four actresses, three of whom are foreigners. Fincher went with the sole American, presumably because he worked with her in his upcoming The Social Network. I don’t know anything about Mara’s acting so I won’t judge but will admit I was kinda rooting for one of the others since the filmmakers are apparently still setting it in Sweden. Then again, Mara has as much chance as the others of being believable since they’re not Scandinavian, either.

For more info, click here.

Lisbeth fans, what do you think? (UPDATE: Here are first photos of Mara in character.)

Share

The Right Girl

As announced earlier this week, Daniel Craig is confirmed as Mikael Blomkvist in David Fincher’s version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and the two sequels in Stieg Larsson’s Millenium trilogy. I whooped for joy at this news because I think there’s no better choice for Blomkvist. Craig has the intelligence to portray the journalist and the sex appeal to convince us Blomkvist is a ladies’ man.

But now the focus turns towards the casting of Lisbeth Salander, which is more crucial to the success of the franchise. According to numerous sources, Fincher has narrowed his choices to the following four actresses:

  1. Léa Seydoux
  2. Sarah Snook
  3. Rooney Mara
  4. Sophie Lowe

I’m excited that three out of four are foreigners—Snook and Lowe are Australians, Leydoux is French—and all are unknown here. When I watch the movie I’ll want to see only Lisbeth up there, not thinking, “Oh, that’s Ellen Page /Natalie Portman/Carey Mulligan in punk makeup.”

What do you think? Do you want an unknown or more established actress as Lisbeth? Judging only from their photos, do any of these give off a Lisbeth vibe to you? How do you feel about Craig as Blomkvist?

Share

INCEPTION’s Inception: Review and Conversation with Christopher Nolan & Creative Team

From L.: Rao, Hardy, Gordon-Levitt, DiCaprio, Page, Watanabe

Watching Christopher Nolan’s Inception (opening July 16), I thought of my college Japanese instructor during my second year of studying the language, the hardest I’ve ever learned. The teacher had just transferred from Yale and spoke to us in Japanese as if we were natives, refusing to stop and explain things even if most of us just gaped at him, hopelessly lost. Finally, a frustrated classmate whined, “C’mon, give us a break. We’re not Yale.” (For the record, we were at the University of Virginia, a perfectly good school, thanks very much.) Our teacher stopped and said, in perfect English, “I will not come down to your level. I want you to come up to mine.”

With his latest movie, Nolan seems to be saying the same thing to audiences. Inception is a complex maze, one that will require lots of brain power and concentration to understand. Even though I didn’t get all of it (I’ll need to re-watch it on DVD with subtitles), I enjoyed trying to grasp the movie’s concepts and was grateful Nolan didn’t make it easy for us.

I’ll do only a vague plot summary since the less you know about it, the better. But there will be mild spoilers in the Q & A section below where I recap some behind-the-scenes tidbits Nolan and his creative team shared when they showed up after the screening to discuss their process. You might want to come back and read that after you see the movie to learn how they pulled off some of the eye teasers.

Hardy

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an expert extractor, someone who enters people’s dreams to steal their most valuable secrets. He has a team of assistants consisting of characters played by Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Dileep Rao and the charismatic Tom Hardy, each of whom has a special skill. Cobb also has the talent of inception, the power to plant an idea in someone’s mind and make the dreamer think it’s his own. It’s this ability he must use to finish one last job for a powerful client, Saito (Ken Watanabe), who can help Cobb return to a life from which he has been exiled.

Gordon-Levitt

Because Inception takes place mostly in dreams, it contains some eye-popping imagery. One sequence is reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey and a fight scene involving Gordon-Levitt calls to mind not Batman, but Spider-Man. And lest you think it’s mostly CGI, it isn’t (see Q & A).

DiCaprio, doing solid work in his second movie this year featuring altered reality, heads an impressive cast, though most of the actors are underused. Page doesn’t get to whip out any of her sass as Ariadne, our exposition facilitator; Michael Caine’s part could’ve have been done by any number of actors; and Cillian Murphy, with his unsettling blue eyes, plays it straight when he’s more interesting as characters who are creepy and freaky.

Cotillard

The two standouts are Marion Cotillard as Mal and Hardy as Eames. Cotillard is a divine presence, gorgeous and menacing and vulnerable all at once. The British Hardy, whom I’d never seen before (his credits include RocknRolla and the next Mad Max movie, in which he’ll take over the titular role) has the kind of magnetism that signals future stardom on these shores.

And then there’s Nolan. I’m just going to call him the next Best Original Screenplay Oscar winner right now because I doubt any other script this year will beat Inception in originality. Watching the movie was a little like dreaming for me—experiencing it in the dark, submerged in fantastical imagery, having uneasy sensations but not wanting things to end right away because I wanted to see what happens. When it was over, I wasn’t sure I could explain everything. There are curious plot holes but as with a lot of sci-fi, I can’t argue much about real-world logic. Perhaps to balance out the movie’s more bizarre aspects, Nolan gets quite literal with the names (Mal’s is a big clue and in Greek mythology, Ariadne helps Theseus escape from a labyrinth) and a couple of chess references (because it’s a mind game?). The emotional impact is lightweight but still, I hope Nolan uses his power of inception to plant in the minds of Hollywood studio executives the idea that we need more smart, creative entertainment like this.

Nerd verdict: Open your mind to Inception

Q & A

*Mild Spoilers*

After the screening, Pete Hammond moderated a session with Nolan, his producer/wife Emma Thomas, cinematographer Wally Pfister, composer Hans Zimmer, production designer Guy Hendrix Dyas and casting director John Papsidera. Except for Dyas, everyone had previously worked with Nolan before this movie, most going all the way back to Memento.

I couldn’t transcribe everything but here are some highlights:

  • Nolan had wanted to do something about dreams since he was a kid but it wasn’t until 10 years ago that he zeroed in on the idea of doing a heist film that takes place within dreams. Despite his clout after the success of the Batman reboot, he finished the entire script before pitching it to Warner Bros. because he wanted them to see his whole concept.
  • Heist films are usually methodical but Nolan decided to make this an emotional love story because that’s what keeps him passionate about what he does.
  • The biggest challenge for producer Thomas was shooting in six countries, including Morocco, France and England. When she read the first 80 pages of Nolan’s script many years ago, she had no idea how it could be brought to the screen. By the time the script was completed, she had the Batman movies under her belt and was more equipped to take on a big project like this.
  • Pfister said Nolan made clear there would be no strange color palettes to indicate when someone’s in a dream. He wanted all scenes to look real so audiences would never be sure where they are. Pfister and Nolan do very little pre-planning when it comes to lighting, keeping it natural and allowing the locations to dictate how they should light them. There was never any scheme to use lighting to delineate between the dream levels.
  • Dyas spoke about creating duplicates of the same sets—a horizontal version,  a vertical one, etc. During the pivotal gravity-free scene with Gordon-Levitt, the hotel corridor was set inside a gimbal then rotated with Gordon-Levitt inside and a camera mounted to one wall. Because the actor was on wires, Nolan had to direct him like a puppeteer.
  • Papsidera was so adamant about Cotillard playing Mal, he pushed Nolan to travel to the Moroccan desert to meet with her (she was filming another movie). Somehow they missed each other there and ended up meeting in Paris. Coincidentally, an Edith Piaf song plays an important part in the movie but Nolan had written that in the script 10 years ago. He considered changing it after Cotillard came on board but then decided he liked having that connection.
  • During the sequence when the team is skiing, Pfister had to hire Chris Patterson, an experienced skier, to shoot footage while going downhill. Nolan really wanted the handheld effect to put viewers inside the action but it was something Pfister couldn’t do. Patterson had to capture every shot while skiing and they’re not sure how he did it without slamming into trees.
  • Nolan looked at different formats to shoot the movie. It was mostly shot in 35mm, some 65mm, up to 360 frames per second. Nolan tested 3D conversion in post-production and got good results but didn’t have enough time to do it in the scientific way he wanted.
  • When asked if any images from his subconscious are in the movie, Nolan said he had no idea.

Photos: Warner Bros.

Share

Movie Review: THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE

I loved this book, thought it was better than The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because there was no opening exposition; it just hit the ground running. Since the Tattoo movie blew my pants off, I was expecting big things for the Fire adaptation.

Hate to say it—I was a little disappointed. Though the story remained mostly faithful to Stieg Larsson’s novel, which moved like a flame on a trail of gasoline, the movie’s pacing was oddly plodding. It’s as if some scenes were held a beat too long when a quicker cutaway was needed to maintain the urgency of the situation. After seeing it, I remembered reading last year that this movie and the next, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, had been intended for TV, which explains the rhythm and by-the-book procedural feel. Some scenes were probably meant to fade out into commercials while others were intended to come back from them. This impeded the movie’s overall momentum.

It probably didn’t help that there’s a lot of ground to cover here. After Lisbeth becomes the number one suspect in three brutal murders, she goes on the run while Blomkvist tries to find her and clear her name, unearthing secrets about her past, including why she was committed to an asylum when she was twelve. Whereas the revelations are shocking in the book, they lose their punch when disclosed via long, static conversations between characters. Since cinema is a visual medium, I wish director Daniel Alfredson (taking over from Niels Arden Oplev) had found a way to show, not tell.

But it’s not all bad because the electrifying Noomi Rapace returns as Lisbeth Salander and truly, there’s no one better for this role. Lisbeth experiences hell and Rapace goes there. Her performance is devoid of vanity; she does whatever it takes to bring Lisbeth to life. There’s a long stretch when she doesn’t talk but you can read all her thoughts through her eyes, a sign of a smart actress. Lisbeth is softer this time around; she’s often makeup-free (I’m so glad she didn’t get a boob job as she does in the novel) and has a tender scene with her former guardian, Holger Palmgren (Per Oscarsson), showing that our girl is perfectly capable of caring for someone as long as that person isn’t a sadistic rapist pig.

Michael Nyqvist is also back as Mikael Blomkvist, looking even less believable as a handsome ladies’ man than in the previous film (keeping my fingers crossed for Daniel Craig in the American version). He gets Blomkvist’s doggedness across, but doesn’t have the journalist’s fire-in-the-belly righteousness. The rest of the cast is serviceable, with Micke Spreitz credible as the giant monster Ronald Niedermann.

The last quarter of the movie is the strongest, breathholdingly suspenseful despite my knowing what would happen. I jumped as much as the couple next to me in the theater, who probably haven’t read the books since they gasped at every revelation, especially about Zalachenko and Niedermann. The ending differs from the novel’s in several small details and is a little less abrupt, wrapping up with a scene that’s actually the opening of the third book. It’s still open-ended but that’s not why I left the theater feeling dissatisfied.

Nerd verdict: Fire doesn’t quite ignite

Photos © Music Box Films

Share