reviews – Page 11 – Pop Culture Nerd

Review of FROST/NIXON and Script Giveaway

When I told a few friends I was going to a screening of Frost/Nixon, they all asked, “Why?” I said, “Because I think it looks interesting.” They said, “Ugh, it’s two men talking. Boooooring.”

I’m happy to say it isn’t dull as dirt. Frank Langella, Michael Sheen and director Ron Howard make the film crackle with tension. Richard Nixon and David Frost’s duel is just a more verbal version of Jim Braddock and Max Baer’s fight from Howard’s Cinderella Man. Like that boxing match, you have a heavyweight sparring with an underdog who proves to be much more pit bull than anyone expected.

A quick montage at the start of the movie fills in anyone who’s been living on Mars on the Watergate scandal and fallout, including Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s pardon. We see Frost watching the televised resignation speech, practically drooling over the audience it garnered. He decides to woo Nixon for an interview strictly for ratings at first. Soon, pressure mounts from his peers for him to elicit an apology from the former president. But Nixon is a formidable opponent, trained in public speaking and how to be “presidential” while Frost is disdainfully referred to by some as “just a talk-show host.” We see Frost training for his big fight by immersing himself in the minutiae of Nixon’s life while struggling to land financial backers for his show (Nixon’s fee alone was $600,000). This all leads up to the movie’s main event on April 22, 1977—the final day of interviews during which Frost would pin Nixon into a corner about his shady Watergate dealings.

Langella brings Nixon roaring back to life and thankfully does so without prosthetics. He relies on his talent to portray a man too proud to say sorry but too burdened if he didn’t. The actor does use that familiar guttural voice which calls to mind all the Nixon (and Jimmy Stewart) impressions I’ve ever heard. But it’s not Langella’s fault Nixon sounded like that and after a while I got used to it.

Sheen’s performance, though, is my favorite in the film. As he readies his slingshot for his Goliathan opponent, we can see the insecurity and vulnerability beneath the perennial grin and slick TV-host veneer. Sheen actually made me wonder at times if Frost would be up to the task though I already knew the outcome. Universal Pictures has decided to submit both actors for Best Actor Academy-Award consideration and I hope Langella doesn’t overpower Sheen, who has the less showy but more difficult role.

Among the solid supporting cast, Kevin Bacon, as Nixon’s steely Chief of Staff Jack Brennan, was a head above the rest for me. You might be quick to label him a jerk until you glimpse the heart beating beneath the surface. Bacon made me feel that of the millions who were disappointed and hurt by Nixon’s Watergate involvement, Brennan was the one who took it hardest.

In bringing Frost/Nixon to the screen, writer Peter Morgan (who also wrote the play) and Howard were successful where John Patrick Shanley was less so with Doubt—opening up a play to make it more cinematic. Doubt the movie comes across like a filmed play (see my review here), but Howard said in the Q & A I attended that he was determined to have Sheen and Langella break the rhythm of the stage dialogue they’d already performed many times in London and on Broadway. He also employs a faux documentary style with lots of cross-cutting between scenes and interviews and archival news footage. Howard can sometimes be too safe for me but he does really sharp work here, taking a story whose ending is already familiar to a whole generation and making it compelling and fresh again.

(Limited Release, December 5)

Rating: Good

SCRIPT GIVEAWAY: On Wednesday, December 3, at noon PT, I’ll be giving away Frost/Nixon scripts. At that time, I’ll post a trivia question about Nixon and the first 5 subscribers who leave the correct answer in the comments section will be emailed a PDF version of the script. You have to be a subscriber to be eligible so even if you’re the first person to leave the correct answer but you’re not on the list, you will not get a script. I never spam so if you haven’t subscribed but want to participate in future giveaways, do it now!

4 Comments

Review of REVOLUTIONARY ROAD with DiCaprio and Winslet

Remember those scenes in Airplane! when Robert Hays’s character tries to tell fellow passengers his life story but it’s so intolerable, one lady hangs herself while another man commits seppuku? When the lights went up in the theater after the screening of Revolutionary Road I attended, I half expected to see people hanging from the rafters or setting themselves on fire. This is easily the most depressing movie of the year and I’ve seen Defiance.

But let me be clear: Road is very good; it’s well-acted, -written, -directed, -photographed, -costumed, -scored, etc. It’s definitely smart, adult fare. But its themes are so disturbing, the film is more terrifying than anything featuring people with saws or wearing hockey masks.

The obvious draw will be the reunion of Titanic lovebirds Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, playing another period couple—this time in the 1950s—but engaged in a very different kind of relationship. Frank Wheeler (DiCaprio) meets April (Winslet) at a party when they’re both young and certain they’d set the world on fire. She’s studying to be an actress while he’s just back from the service, still figuring out his future. Fast forward to two kids and seven years later, her acting career has fizzled and he’s stuck in a soul-sucking cubicle job which he describes by saying, “There’s nothing interesting about it at all.” Desperate to infuse some passion and excitement back into their lives, April sells Frank on the idea of ditching everything and moving to Paris with their children. But complications ensue and the dream ends up far from a happy ending.

DiCaprio and Winslet do wrenching work, taking Frank and April from a hopeful existence to a “hopeless emptiness.” The acting isn’t always natural, sometimes overly demonstrative and other times very fifties-style Stepford-ish. But the two stars manage to cut open Frank and April’s inner selves as if performing metaphorical open-heart surgery on each other and the result is just as bloody and raw.

The supporting cast is first-rate, especially Michael Shannon as John Givings, the supposedly insane son of Kathy Bates’s realtor character. Shannon gives an electrifying performance as an outsider who comes into the placid neighborhood on Revolutionary Road (ironically named because there’s no revolution happening in any of these people’s lives) and rips right through the Wheelers’ facade of domestic perfection. But while the performance is a standout, the employment of his character is a bit cliche and too convenient—having the crazy guy be the only person who speaks the truth no one else will.

Besides the name of the road, other monikers also seem to mock what they represent. Wheelers are supposed to denote people on the move but this couple is paralyzed by inertia. Frank is not so much—he has moments of eruption but most of the time he puts on a smile and keeps his innermost thoughts to himself. And April, a word which usually symbolizes spring and a time of renewal, can’t seem to escape a lonely, unending winter.

The devastating thing about this movie, based on Richard Yates’s novel of the same name (which I haven’t read), is that it posits Frank and April’s situation could happen to anyone. (Heck, it could’ve happened to Jack and Rose from Titanic had Jack lived.) We all start out thinking we’re headed for great things but some wake up one day realizing “we’re not that special,” as April says. Even if you watch this movie feeling all superior and thinking, “I’m not a housewife stuck in a rut” or “I’m not some guy in a dead-end job,” who knows where you’ll be ten years from now? The deterioration of lives and dreams could happen so slowly that you don’t notice until one day you look around and wonder how you got to where you are, an unfulfilled place you swore you’d never end up in. I’m not trying to depress you; this is what Road depicts. It puts these issues under a magnifying glass and no matter how much the characters squirm, director Sam Mendes keeps the glass on them until the heat makes them burst into flames.

Mendes has plumbed this territory before—Road is like American Beauty (it even has a similarly stark, piano score by Thomas Newman) with a younger couple and less black humor. He’s a brave man to embark on such a bleak exploration of marriage with his wife in the lead; the film’s even dedicated to their children. (I wouldn’t know WHAT to think if my parents dedicated a movie like this to me.) Road deserves to be seen and I’d recommend it, but be forewarned it will not add to your holiday cheer.

And leave all weapons at home, just in case.

(Limited release, December 26)

Rating: Good

2 Comments

Review of Baz Luhrmann’s AUSTRALIA

My friend Eric and I attended a Variety screening of Australia on November 20 (it opens Nov. 26), where Hugh Jackman, director/co-writer Baz Luhrmann and co-producer Catherine Martin did Q & A afterwards. Jackman looked very much like the Sexiest Man Alive in his black leather jacket and all-black ensemble but that’s beside the point.

The film is a big, ambitious epic that deals with everything from Australia’s Stolen Generation (how half-white, half-Aboriginal children were taken away from their families to be trained as white people) to battling cattle ranchers competing to provide beef to the Army and the Japanese bombing of Darwin during World War II. In the midst of all this, Nicole Kidman’s aristocratic character, Lady Sarah Ashley, and Hugh Jackman’s no-name ranch hand (he’s simply called Drover, which means a person who drives cattle herds) fall in love.

Eric and I had wildly different reactions to the film so I thought we’d do a Siskel-and-Ebert-style review instead of just me writing a straight one.

Our conversation went something like this:

Pop Culture Nerd: It was obvious Luhrmann was trying to make an overly stylized, old-fashioned epic so I just went with it and enjoyed it, although, admittedly, some things were pretty ham-fisted.

Eric: Some things? Other than the relationship between King George and Nullah [an Aboriginal elder and his grandson, who narrates the movie], I don’t believe there was a single organic moment in the whole film.

PCN: You did not just say “organic.” That’s an overly used and vague word. What do you mean exactly?

Eric: Organic, to me, in terms of acting, means real, unaffected and having a ring of truth. For me, Kidman is huffing and puffing her way through the entire film and Jackman is busy mugging for the camera. I find it hard to believe they ever did a scene together. It looks like they said their lines separately and were spliced together later during post-production. They weren’t listening to each other, which makes it all the more jarring when you see the stillness and focus during the scenes between King George and Nullah.

PCN: Granted, the acting is not naturalistic. It’s very much about making an ENTRANCE and holding the smoldering looks. It’s that old-movie style of acting. Kidman is a little cartoonish in the beginning but I felt it was to give her a place to go during the course of the movie. She has to start out as a somewhat silly woman so her eyes could be opened along her journey. Once she settles down, she’s much more grounded. And Jackman said during the Q & A he was directed to be over-the-top, at least during the slo-mo shower scene, which was hilarious. Drover is Indiana Jones and Rick Blaine. Luhrmann said he wasn’t going for naturalism. He wanted to make something like Gone With The Wind and Casablanca and Lawrence of Arabia. This movie is nowhere near that stratosphere but it’s still enjoyable.

Eric: Yes, he invoked those movies over and over again. I think it’s unfair to compare Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman to the likes of Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, but Bogart and Bergman at least knew when to throw away a line and when to give it intensity. So his comparison rings hollow for me, which is disappointing because I’m a fan of Baz Luhrmann.

PCN: I’m neither a fan nor a hater. I think he’s hit or miss. I liked Strictly Ballroom, not so much William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet. I thought Moulin Rouge was visually bold but just okay overall. This movie is flawed, it’s too long, it tries to include too many stories and elements—comedy, romance, mysticism, action, Western, the Stolen Generation, World War II—but it was never boring.

Eric: At least with Ballroom, R + J, and Moulin Rouge, Luhrmann had a clear vision. With this movie, he seems to have had a number of stories he wanted to tell but there’s no clear focus. There’s nothing wrong with juggling a number of plot lines as long as they become cohesive by the end of the movie. What I saw on screen was a story about Australia’s Stolen Generation derailed by the addition of two high-wattage movie stars.

PCN: I do agree that the Stolen Generation plot got sidetracked by the rivalry between the ranchers and the romance. But the battling-ranchers storyline introduced a lot of conflict and the cow stampede was heart-stopping. It reminded me of the stampede in The Lion King that killed Mufasa, but in live action.

Eric: The stampede was incredible. When Nullah (Brandon Walters) stands at the edge of the cliff and stares down the cattle heading for him, it’s so powerful. And even though you know the kid was never actually in danger on set, he seemed to have really experienced it.

PCN: That kid is great. I can’t believe he’d never done any acting or even seen a large city before doing this movie. He’s a natural. He anchors the whole film for me.

Eric: He’s just as intense in all his scenes with King George (David Gulpilil). Sadly, Bryan Brown (who plays King Carney, the rival rancher) and David Wenham (as his lackey, Fletcher) are reduced to playing stock bad guys drinking from oversized beer bottles and doing everything they can not to twirl their mustaches and laugh maniacally.

PCN: Yeah, those guys are pretty one-note. They’re just stereotypically greedy and evil.

Eric: For me, this movie’s a mess and only barely redeemable by its cinematography. It’s an over-the-top romance novel with too much money behind it and not enough vision.

PCN: I think Luhrmann had too much vision for one movie and that’s why he ultimately failed to make a great one. But some of that money was put to good use. The cinematography is spectacular; some of those vistas are breathtaking. It makes me want to call my Australian friends to see if I can come visit.

Eric: No argument there. The vistas are beautiful. But some of them looked too spectacular. Luhrmann mentioned that he digitized some scenes.

PCN: So? Name one recent movie that hasn’t been digitized in some way.

Eric: That’s not the point. From what I’ve heard, Australia’s so beautiful you don’t need to digitize it, especially the Outback.

PCN: The CGI is so subtle that it didn’t bother me. I don’t think you would’ve noticed it, either, if you hadn’t heard Luhrmann say he used it.

Eric: True.

PCN: So, in conclusion, are you telling people not to see it or wait for the DVD or what?

Eric: Wait for the DVD. Maybe the extras will make it worth their time.

PCN: I think if people have 2 hours and 45 minutes to kill and they like those old-fashioned epics that studios rarely make any more, they should check this out on the big screen. The acting is cheesy at times but once you accept that’s the broad style they’re going for, the film can be entertaining. It’s not great but it’s worth a look.

Rating—PCN: Good, My Friend Eric: Sucks Dirt

1 Comments

Review of DOUBT Plus Q & A with the Cast and Writer/Director

Having seen Doubt (opening December 12), I have none whatsoever that Meryl Streep will be nominated for Best Actress in January. You’re probably thinking, “Blah blah, whatever, she gets nominated every year.” Well, the woman can’t help it if she’s genius at what she does.

The first time we see her character, Sister Aloysius, in the movie, we only see the back of her head but she’s already intimidating. Garbed in the traditional black nun’s habit as she walks up the aisle of a church during mass, she’s only seen from the waist down as she shushes one kid and thwacks another upside the head for talking. It’s a great introduction to her character, someone who terrifies people even when she can’t be seen.

Set in 1964, Doubt is based on John Patrick Shanley’s play of the same name (Shanley also directed this movie) which starred Cherry Jones in a Tony-winning Broadway turn. Sister Aloysius leads a solo crusade against Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), whom she believes has taken an unnatural interest in the sole black student at the Catholic school they run. Caught in the middle is the young nun Sister James (Amy Adams), who’s convinced Father Flynn is innocent but also admires Sister Aloysius’s conviction.

The cast does exceptional work. The trick in Streep’s performance is she avoids making Sister Aloysius an all-out, one-dimensional villain (she’s actually very funny at times). She’s maddening in her ad hominem attack on Father Flynn, possessing no evidence other than that he has long fingernails and likes three lumps of sugar in his tea; ergo, he must be evil. But watching Streep work, I didn’t hate Sister Aloysius. I felt she was a woman desperately hanging on to the familiar tenets of her faith so she can avoid facing the winds of change (literally—strong winds blow a lot in this movie but more on that in the Q & A). I didn’t condone her actions but felt sorry for her because change will come no matter what she does.

Adams also turns in a strong performance as the young Sister James. She has got to have the most innocent face on any actress in Hollywood over 15. Her untainted quality shines right through that dark habit she wears. Her work might be subtle but it’s complex; it’s not easy to play such a guileless adult without becoming annoying. Viola Davis, as the black student’s mother, has only about two scenes in the whole film but makes a searing impact as a woman faced with impossible choices.

Hoffman does his usual exemplary work, keeping us guessing as to the priest’s guilt. In one scene, though, he might’ve forgotten he was in a movie and thought he was doing the play instead. The scene is a confrontation in Sister Aloysius’s office and Hoffman shouted quite a bit. It would’ve been fine if I were watching him from the back row of a big theater but on film, it was the only time I thought Hoffman was over the top.

Shanley with Streep on set

It’s not hard to mistake this movie for a play, though, because it comes across very much like one. There are long scenes of just two people talking in interior settings with no cutaways. The acting and writing are compelling enough to keep my interest but I imagine the play wasn’t opened up very much during the adaptation process. Most of the actors have only one costume in the movie, the visuals and score are subdued. The minimalism might have been intended to keep the focus on the ideas Shanley presents, themes which are particularly timely in this election year when some people seem to embrace change while others have nothing but doubt.

Rating: Good

The cast and Shanley did a really entertaining Q & A after the screening I attended. Check back this weekend for my report on that, in which they discussed the film, working with each other and their insecurities as filmmakers.

Also coming up this weekend—my review of Australia and Q & A with Hugh Jackman and Baz Luhrmann.

1 Comments

Review of Gus Van Sant’s MILK

After seeing Milk (opens Nov. 26, one day before the 30th anniversary of his murder), I predict that one of the five slots on the Academy-Award Best Actor wheel has been claimed by Sean Penn as Harvey Milk. I don’t think this comes as a surprise to anyone who has followed Penn’s work. Some actors, when they try to stretch by putting on weight, ugly makeup, accent, physical handicap, mental illness, etc., just look like themselves playing dress-up. But Penn, like Daniel Day-Lewis, can completely metamorphose into someone else right before our eyes. His embodiment of Milk is so accomplished, when a video clip of the real Milk appears at the end of the movie, I thought, “Oh yeah, I’ve been watching Sean Penn, not the real man.”

The real Moscone (L) and Milk (R) - Rink Photo

The real George Moscone (L) and Milk (R) - Rink Photo

This effect is aided by the film’s documentary style and ’70s feel. It begins with black and white footage, interspersed with newspaper clippings, of police raiding gay bars, loading men by the dozens into police vans. Then we see Penn as Milk in 1970 New York, boldly propositioning Scott Smith (James Franco) in a subway station. The men became lovers then moved to San Francisco two years later. Milk opened a photography shop called Castro Camera on Castro Street and became active in local politics after being initially shunned by other merchants for public displays of affection with Smith. He was elected to the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors in 1977 and became the first openly gay elected official in the U.S.

from the Scott Smith Collection

In his short term before he was shot along with San Francisco Mayor George Moscone in 1978, Milk successfully fought Proposition 6, which sought to remove all gay teachers from their jobs. The scenes of Milk campaigning against this measure echo the recent California fight against Prop 8, which bans gay marriage. These scenes made me wonder if the election results for Prop 8 would have been different if Milk were still alive.

Over the years, actors such as Robin Williams and Jim Carrey have been attached to a Milk project. I’m glad it eventually came to Penn because I can’t imagine the others doing it. Penn displays qualities in Milk we’ve rarely seen in his past work. First off, he smiles a lot. When he’s excited about something or someone, his whole face sparkles like a child who’s been given a puppy. He’s vulnerable but determined, humble but proud, speaks softly but carries a bullhorn. Thankfully, Penn makes Milk full-blooded and doesn’t employ stereotypical gay mannerisms.

The cast consists of many talented actors but the standouts for me are Franco, Josh Brolin and Emile Hirsch. Franco, as Milk’s long-time partner “Scotty,” has developed quite an interesting career for himself, mostly staying clear of bland pretty-boy trappings. His chemistry with Penn is palpable and his gravitas grounds Penn as Milk’s political dreams take flight in the film.

Brolin plays Milk’s assassin Dan White as a man seemingly more in conflict with himself than with Milk. He has a smooth veneer that doesn’t quite cover the anger simmering just below the surface. Brolin deftly handles White’s slow unraveling and this is the most mature, interesting work I’ve seen him do (and he’s done some good work in recent years). Startlingly, in a medium shot, Brolin looks almost exactly like the real Dan White (check out the YouTube video below), down to the parted hair and tan blazer. The hair, makeup and wardrobe people were spot on.

Hirsch, unrecognizable as Cleve Jones in a ‘fro and oversize glasses, is just loose and having fun. It’s hard to imagine this is the same guy who played the tortured Christopher McCandless in last year’s Into the Wild.

I like Van San’s choice of documentary style for the film, as if he knew he had a good story (captured in a script by Dustin Lance Black) and great actors and just rolled camera and got out of the way. The events were incendiary enough; Van Sant didn’t need to take a heavy-handed approach. He didn’t have to feed us the outrage; he let us see for ourselves. His decision to incorporate real news footage of Anita Bryant as one of Milk’s antagonists is inspired because no one could have played that role and uttered those anti-gay proclamations quite like Bryant herself.

Rating: Good

The clip below is from NBC Nightly News, with David Brinkley reporting the news of Moscone and Milk’s assassinations. It includes footage (used in the movie) of then-Board of Supervisors President Dianne Feinstein confirming the shootings at a press conference.

1 Comments

Scoop! Review of THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON Plus Q & A with Brad Pitt, David Fincher

Last night, I attended the first L.A. audience screening (meaning not a test screening) of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (out Dec. 25), where Brad Pitt and director David Fincher did Q & A afterwards. I haven’t seen a review anywhere else because the movie was only recently finished (Fincher said there are still 3 shots he’d like to fix) so this might be the first.

Before I get to the movie’s review and fun facts learned from Pitt and Fincher in person (who practically put on a comedy routine), I want to mention that in the next couple weeks, I’ll be going to screenings of some hotly anticipated Oscar bait like Australia, Milk, Frost/Nixon, Revolutionary Road and Doubt, so make sure you bookmark this page for all the scoop.

I also have 3 beautiful, glossy Benjamin Button programs that were handed out at the screening. They’re 6 pages long and not available anywhere else. They contain color photographs plus Q & A and testimonials from Pitt, Fincher, Cate Blanchett, screenwriter Eric Roth and producer Kathleen Marshall. On Nov. 16, I’ll randomly select 3 people from my subscribers list to receive one so if you’d like a program, subscribe now!

OK, on to the movie review. It’s based on an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story but it’s been expanded quite a bit because the epic film runs about 2:45 long. It opens in New Orleans in a hospital as Katrina is approaching. Fincher uses the framing device of Blanchett’s character, Daisy, on her death bed to tell Benjamin’s story. Julia Ormond (wasted in a thankless role) plays her daughter Caroline, who reads from her mother’s diary, taking us into flashbacks about a baby born in New Orleans in 1918 looking like an 80-year-old man (an older woman takes one look at the baby and says, “He looks just like my ex-husband!”). We soon find out this baby is not near death, as a doctor suspects, but will in fact get younger as he ages. This might have something to do with a newly installed clock in the local train station that tells time backwards. The clock was created by the mysterious Monsieur Gateau (Elias Koteas), who wanted time to go backwards so that his son, killed in World War I, might come back to him.

The baby’s father, Thomas Button (Jason Flemyng), who actually owns a button factory, is so horrified by his son’s wrinkled visage, he first intends to throw him in a river but then changes his mind and leaves him on the doorstep of a nursing home, where caretaker Queenie (the spirited Taraji P. Henson) finds him and takes him in. Queenie, who’d been told she couldn’t have children, isn’t fazed by the baby’s condition (ossified bones, cataract-filled eyes), calling him “a miracle, just not the kind one hopes to see.”

Queenie raises the boy in the nursing home, where Benjamin has no idea at first that he’s not old like everyone else. Here, he meets red-headed Daisy for the first time as a 5-year-old (visiting her grandmother) and is instantly infatuated. They embark on a friendship that evolves into a love that lasts for the rest of their lives despite their impossible circumstances. Before they can meet again as lovers in mid-life, Benjamin finds work on a tugboat and heads off to see the world, while Daisy becomes a star ballet dancer, performing in Paris and with the Bolshoi in Russia.

When they finally come together as lovers, it’s with the knowledge it can’t last. “Will you still love me when my skin is old and sagging?” she asks. “Will you still love me when I have acne?” he retorts. Complications and separations ensue until they come together again one last time at the end of their lives in drastically different forms.

Pitt, buried in old-man makeup for most of the movie (we only get to see him as golden boy for about 15 minutes), gives a nice, subtle performance full of wonder and longing. When the 7-year-old Benjamin crawls into a makeshift tent with 5-year-old Daisy to share secrets, the scene could’ve been creepy because after all, it’s a grown man under some sheets with a little girl. It’s a testament to Pitt’s skill, then, that we’re able to overlook his old-man exterior to see the innocence in Benjamin’s eyes and realize it’s really just two kids playing.

Having said that, I wasn’t as moved by this film as I wanted to be. This was number one on my list of must-see holiday movies and I so wanted to be blown away but it just didn’t happen. This movie is a very ambitious effort—it looks gorgeous, there are some groundbreaking special effects and the rest of the cast also do excellent work but it’s the kind of movie you respect more than love. It’s like a piece of art that you look at and say, “It’s pretty,” but don’t necessarily want to bring home.

I think the problem for me was the stakes weren’t high enough for Benjamin and there was no sense of urgency throughout most of his life. Except for his father’s initial reaction, everyone pretty much accepts Benjamin upon first meeting. He doesn’t go to school where other kids beat up on him, he gets a demanding job as crew member on a tugboat while looking like a fragile old man and the captain barely questions it, and Daisy knows right away he’s not as old as he looks when she first meets him. In order for the film to be more compelling, Benjamin needs more obstacles to overcome. Even when he sees some action in World War II, we don’t fear for his safety because we already know the film will probably take us to the end of his life to fully explore his extraordinary condition. (I haven’t read the short story so if any of you have, please leave a comment and tell me how this differs from Fitzgerald’s version.)

I’m surprised there aren’t more riveting moments in this movie, considering it’s directed by Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en). I was attracted to it after hearing that Fincher would take the unsentimental route. Well, it’s unsentimental almost to the point of passivity. This isn’t to say it’s boring—it isn’t. Many times, it’s even laugh-out-loud funny (watch for an old man repeatedly telling people he’s been hit by lightning seven times). There are visually interesting aspects—the film looks like old stock at times, where you can see the pops and scratches like on an old newsreel. The color is sometimes muted, sometimes overly saturated, like the unnatural tones of a black and white movie that’s been colorized. The crash of the tugboat against a German submarine is breathtaking, Titanic-like but on a much smaller scale. The score by Alexandre Desplat (Oscar-nominated for The Queen but I thought his score for The Painted Veil was more enchanting) is lovely as usual.

All this amounts to a lot of value for your money, an especially attractive quality this holiday season. I just wish I could’ve been more moved by this character’s life story instead of being left feeling like a casual observer.

Call me only mildly Curious.

Rating: Good

Check back tomorrow for the conclusion of this post, where I’ll report what Pitt and Fincher shared during the Q & A.

Subscribe to Pop Culture Nerd by Email

33 Comments

One Cool Ride with Don Winslow’s THE DAWN PATROL

My friend Betsy had been recommending Don Winslow’s The Dawn Patrol to me for a few months but I’d resisted ’cause I found out it was about surfing. I’ve never surfed, don’t know anything about it, am afraid of big waves and didn’t think I’d want to read about a bunch of surfer dudes. Boy, was I wrong. I finally picked up the book and, like a big wave, it slammed into me, rolled me a few times and didn’t let me up for air until two days later.

Boone Daniels and his five friends make up the Dawn Patrol, a group of surfers (five guys, one girl) who meet every morning at dawn to tackle the waves at Pacific Beach in San Diego. Then the others go off to “real” jobs while Boone moonlights as a private investigator, but only enough to afford fish tacos on flour tortillas because “everything tastes better on a tortilla.” He takes a supposedly easy case—locating a missing stripper who was supposed to testify in a major trial—but finds out a little girl has also gone missing. This brings back memories of the case which resulted in Boone’s quitting the San Diego Police Department, one involving a missing little girl he was unable to find. Boone is determined not to fail this time and as he gets farther into the investigation, it forces him to choose sides and do things that might ruin the brotherhood of the Dawn Patrol.

Though the subject matter turns out to be heart shattering, the book has many hilarious moments. The scene where the gang takes one of its members, Hang Twelve, to a strip club for his birthday made me laugh out loud. “Naked asses” and “buffet” really should never be in the same sentence. Everyone in the patrol is funny, compelling and cooler than cool but their easy, jokey banter belies the fact they would fiercely watch each other’s back.

My friend Betsy with Winslow

The thing I love about Winslow’s breezy style is that he paints clear pictures in succinct strokes. In describing a man about to be attacked by thugs in his home, Winslow writes, “He’s on his third Corona when the door comes in.” He also pulls off something I’ve never seen before—a complete sentence consisting only of the same word repeated three times as subject-verb-object, as in the final sentence here: “Now he drives his truck…with his best friend in the back, a man who is like family to him. But like ain’t is. Is is is.”

Winslow is so good with his prose, he even makes the history behind the surf culture interesting. Normally, I would’ve skipped over these sections to get to the whodunit but with Winslow, you don’t want to miss a word because none is wasted.

Rating: Brilliant

3 Comments

WHAT JUST HAPPENED with Robert De Niro, Sean Penn, Bruce Willis

When I was invited last week to a screening of What Just Happened (limited release, Oct. 17), my first reaction was, “What the who?” Though the movie was directed by Barry Levinson (Diner, Rain Man) and stars Robert De Niro, Bruce Willis, Sean Penn, Robin Wright Penn, John Turturro and Catherine Keener, I hadn’t seen any publicity or even heard of it. Usually this is a sign a film is a turkey and the studio is trying to dump it. Well, Happened is not a dud but its fate might still resemble one of the movies within this movie if the studio doesn’t get behind it.

De Niro plays Ben, a harried producer trying to wrap post-production on one film (Fiercely, starring Penn) while preparing for start of production on another, starring Bruce Willis (playing an ass version of himself). Fiercely‘s director, Jeremy (Michael Wincott), is an infantile, drug-addled poseur who thinks being edgy means ending his film with a dog being shot multiple times. The studio head (Keener) wants a different ending or else she’ll can the Cannes premiere and dump the movie.

Meanwhile, on Ben’s other film, Willis has gained a lot of weight and a Grizzly Adams beard he refuses to shave (this is supposedly based on Alec Baldwin, who refused to shave for producer Art Linson’s 1997 movie The Edge). The studio threatens to shut down production if Ben can’t persuade Willis to look like a movie star. Ben’s also juggling couples therapy with his second ex-wife (Wright Penn) to learn how to be “so happy apart, [they’ll] never want to get back together,” while making time to drive all his kids to school.

The movie is based on Linson’s book of the same name, subtitled Bitter Hollywood Tales from the Front Line. Linson (Into the Wild, Fight Club) also wrote the script here so it’s no surprise De Niro is a sympathetic alter ego. Ben drives a Porsche SUV and lives in a nice home with fancy toys but we see the price he pays for all that and not once did I envy his life. If you’ve ever wondered exactly what a producer does, this movie gives a glimpse. He’s a mediator, hand holder, babysitter, bullshit talker all in one.

The movie has some very funny moments poking fun at the ridiculous behavior of some Hollywood denizens. Willis is obviously having fun playing an over-the-top diva version of himself but I’ve seen people behave this way so maybe it’s not so satirical. And the shooting-the-dog ending is ludicrous but you suspect some real-life director has tried getting away with it while claiming indie cred.

The all-star cast turns in solid work as expected but besides Ben, there isn’t anyone to really root for. We laugh but don’t empathize. The question is: Will people outside Hollywood be amused or disgusted by all the imbecilic, narcissistic behavior? My guess—if you find Entourage funny, you might enjoy this film. If you think Ari Gold is a pig, go see something else that doesn’t include bloody dog corpses.

Rating: Okay

0 Comments

TV Review: ELI STONE

I watch a lot of mystery/thrillers on TV—24, The Closer, House, Monk, Burn Notice, The Mentalist, to name a few—because I enjoy trying to crack the case before the protagonists do. But even if I succeed, the fun is short-lived since on these types of shows, people are always getting murdered, blown up, cheated on, lied to, etc. After a while, I start feeling pretty cynical about the world and the bad things that happen in it.

That’s why I was pleasantly surprised over the summer to discover Eli Stone on DVD, a show that uplifted, inspired and—least expected of all—moved me. Jonny Lee Miller plays Stone, a shark of a lawyer until he gets a brain aneurysm that gives him visions of the future. At first disturbed and confused by them, Stone eventually embraces his visions, considers himself a kind of prophet and sets out to help people change the course of their lives, sometimes literally saving their lives in the process.

This premise has every chance of making the show one big hunk o’ stinky cheese but amazingly, it’s anything but. Did I mention Stone’s visions are usually set to George Michael songs, with Michael performing in person sometimes? And Stone’s spiritual advisor is a sarcastic, Asian acupuncturist who fakes a heavy accent for other customers but speaks perfect English with Stone and calls him “dude.” There is enough skepticism from other characters (almost all his colleagues) about Stone’s divinatory status to undercut any earnestness Stone might have once he accepts his calling.

But Stone isn’t a sappy guy. He still has some of his former killer-attorney instincts, he just now uses them for good. He struggles constantly to understand his metaphorical visions, which can happen at inopportune times and reveal truths others don’t want to hear.

I didn’t watch this show when it was on last year because I’m not that interested in watching things about faith. Everyone’s version of spirituality is different and I didn’t want to be spoon-fed someone else’s. But this show is fun, with characters bursting into exuberant musical numbers to convey hidden messages to Stone. I hate musicals so I have no idea why I find these interludes so entertaining. Perhaps it’s because they sometimes happen right in the middle of a somber event (a guy would dance beautifully before he drops dead), making me wonder if there isn’t some lightness to be found even in our darkest hours.

I also like how Stone strives to keep his faith and convince his peers he’s not crazy whenever he predicts the future. At times, he’s not certain of his sanity and yet he fights this uphill battle because he believes faith is necessary, that we’d all lead bleak lives if we always demand empirical evidence before believing in something. His arguments on this point have the potential to be schmaltzy yet they’re surprisingly moving. Sometimes his predictions are wrong and people resent him but he keeps trying to do the right thing. It’s this courage of his convictions in a cynical world that makes him more heroic to me than Jack Bauer any day.

So, pick up the first-season DVDs, binge-watch this weekend and you’ll be all caught up for the new episode next Tuesday, guest-starring Katie Holmes. I don’t like her much but this show has surprised me about so many things, I’ll probably love Mrs. Cruise by the time it’s over.

Nerd verdict: Have faith in Stone

3 Comments

Reviews of New TV Shows

We’re about a month into the TV season and I’ve had time to sample some of the new shows. Nothing has blown me away so far but there are a couple I found promising and two that disappointed.

Life on Mars (ABC, Thursdays, 10 p.m.) is the American remake of a BBC show starring Jason O’Mara, Harvey Keitel (in his TV series debut), Michael Imperioli and Gretchen Mol. It’s about NYPD detective Sam Tyler (O’Mara), who gets hit by a car and wakes up in 1973. Did he time-travel or is he really in a coma and all the events we see are only in his subconscious? It’s unclear, as it was in the original British version. Sam continues to solve cases in 1973, some of which might be related to the serial killer he’s tracking back in the present. He’s seriously hampered in his job by the lack of a computer, cell phone and use of DNA science. His colleagues also seem to be renegade types who don’t necessarily play by the rules (Keitel’s character, Lt. Hunt, prepares to rough up a suspect already in custody. “Is that necessary? Tyler asks. “No, it is not,” replies Hunt, as he punches the suspect). The look of the show is gritty and sepia-toned and Imperioli sports a ’70s-porn-mustache from hell. But the fashion and soundtrack are groovy (The Who, Rolling Stones, David Bowie, whose song is the show’s title) and the cast makes it all compelling. This might be a cop show but it looks and feels different than any other currently on the air. Rating: Good

The Mentalist (CBS, Tuesdays, 9 p.m.) is a more conventional police procedural but Simon Baker keeps it interesting. So far the cases are unexceptional but Baker’s laid-back charm as Patrick Jane pulls the show along. Patrick is a man who used to pretend he was a psychic to bilk money from people, but then a serial killer slaughtered his family (the killer didn’t like the fake psychic pretending he could predict the man’s next move) and now Patrick works as a consultant for the California Bureau of Investigation. He says psychic powers don’t exist; he solves cases by being very, very observant. Robin Tunney plays the agent who works with him and unfortunately, her performance is as flat as Baker’s is cool. She’s completely unconvincing as a tough investigator and has no authoritative presence whatsoever. The rest of the agents haven’t been given much to do but Owain Yeoman and Tim Kang are talented actors so hopefully their roles will be beefed up in the future. Rating: Good

CBS debuted another hour-long this season that involves a psychic but has nothing to do with crime-solving. The Ex List stars Elizabeth Reaser as a woman told by a psychic she has to marry within the year to someone she’s already dated or else she will end up alone. So Bella Bloom sets out to locate and re-date her exes (awkward much?). Reaser is very winning as Bella but the scripts so far haven’t supported her. Her friends are underused (Amir Talai is usually very funny, even in commercials, but only has about two lines per episode) and Rachel Boston is annoying, useless, and unbelievable as Bella’s sister (they look nothing alike). I really wanted to like Ex since Reaser is such a talented actress but if the show doesn’t stop being so cutesy and ridiculous (someone puts a toupee on her privates after she over-waxed!), I’ll have to put this on my Nix List. Rating: Okay

Another female-centric show is Kath & Kim (NBC, Thurdays, 8:30 p.m.), starring Molly Shannon and Selma Blair. I don’t have to tell you much about this show because if you watched any of the Olympics, you’ve already seen the clips a thousand times. So what’s a whole episode like? I wouldn’t know because I couldn’t get through it. The jokes were so stale and outdated I thought I‘d traveled back to 1973. Selma Blair, whose career I’ve never understood (she does seem like a smart girl in interviews and looks cute on red carpets), rolls her eyes so furiously you’d think the eyeballs might tumble out her ears. Molly Shannon didn’t have one funny line in the 17 minutes I watched the show. And poor John Michael Higgins, so funny in the Christopher Guest movies, is completely wasted here as the straight man (he plays Kath’s suitor) to the ladies’ antics. If you’re gonna cast Higgins, you’ve got to let him run wild. Rating: Sucks Dirt

6 Comments

Review of HAPPY-GO-LUCKY

I consider myself a pretty happy person. Of course I have my grumpy days but it takes a lot for me to stop being optimistic. So I looked forward to seeing a movie called Happy-Go-Lucky (limited release Oct. 10), the latest offering from Mike Leigh (Vera Drake, Secrets and Lies). I’d heard buzz from the festivals that this movie is guaranteed to make me happy. Instead I was slightly annoyed.

The very capable Sally Hawkins stars as Poppy, a grade school teacher who embodies the titular state of being. Even when her bike is stolen, she only regrets not having had the chance to say goodbye to it. She lives with her best friend in a rented flat, goes clubbing on weekends, and takes driving lessons every Saturday from an instructor who’s always angry. Her younger sister thinks she’s being irresponsible by not buying a house and settling down to start a family but Peppy–er, Poppy–insists she’s happy and loves her life.

It’s to Hawkins’s credit that Poppy is likable but at times the script makes her do implausible and foolhardy things, all because she’s so trusting in the goodness of people. In one scene, she’s walking home alone at night in a scary part of town (already unwise) when she sees an intimidating-looking homeless man. Though the man seems unstable and ready to erupt into violence, she sits and chats with him for awhile because she doesn’t want him to be alone. It’s an incredibly altruistic act but if this movie weren’t a comedy–or if it were real life–there’d be a very good chance she wouldn’t emerge unharmed from the encounter.

Poppy’s exuberance becomes exhausting at times, with Hawkins constantly giggling, rolling her eyes, making faces, doing funny voices, acting cute. It’s as though her personality has only one note. It’d be frustrating trying to have a serious conversation with someone like Poppy because she responds to everything with a joke. I’d wonder what she’s covering up with all the funny stuff. It’s not until near the end of the movie that Poppy has some sobering moments and it’s nice to see she can actually feel a different emotion.

I certainly don’t dislike generally happy people; I much prefer them to gloom-and-doom types. I just wanted Poppy to have a more three-dimensional disposition–that’s to say, more recognizably human–and perhaps an explanation of why she’s the way she is.

Rating: Okay

6 Comments

Review of SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK–a Charlie Kaufman experience

I attended a screening of this movie where the writer Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Being John Malkovich) was present and I immediately wanted to write a review of it. But I found it difficult to start because the film is so complicated to summarize. As Kaufman himself said, “It’s something to be experienced like a dream.”

It could have been a nightmare. Kaufman said the film came into being when Sony Pictures head Amy Pascal asked him and frequent collaborator Spike Jonze to do a horror movie. They two men talked and decided what scared them most were things like the passing of time, isolation, heartbreak, illness and mortality. They pitched it to Pascal and she greenlit it (an amazing leap of faith, considering the subject matters).

Her gamble paid off. Kaufman was only going to write it with Jonze (Adaptation, Malkovich, both from Kaufman scripts) intended as director. But Jonze went off to direct the upcoming Where the Wild Things Are so Kaufman took the directing reins for the first time.

It’s fitting then that his directorial debut is about a director, Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who sets out to mount the biggest play of his life after his wife Adele (Catherine Keener) leaves him, taking their young daughter with her. He takes over a huge warehouse in Schenectady, NY and painstakingly reconstructs a microcosm of his world, complete with replicas of buildings and roads and his own home, to explore it in a way which might allow him some control. He hires a cast of hundreds to represent people in his life, including himself. The rehearsal process stretches over 17 years and when some of the doppelgangers start falling for the real people and vice versa, Caden has no idea how his play will end and we have no idea what’s real and what’s stage acting.

Of course, this synopsis doesn’t do justice to the complexities of the script. As expected in a Kaufman film, there are many things that will mystify viewers. But instead of annoying or shutting out the audience, Kaufman somehow pulls us into the experience anyway and keeps us watching though we may not understand what we see. He makes us think about our own grand issues in life and manages to move us even if we’re not sure why. The tone is melancholy but the film also has many humorous moments. And the incredible cast of Oscar winners and nominees (including Emily Watson, Michelle Williams, Samantha Morton, Dianne Wiest, Hope Davis, Jennifer Jason Leigh) makes even some of the absurd moments seem grounded and relatable.

There is a running motif of a burning house in the movie which I asked Kaufman to explain. His reply: “I don’t want to explain everything because it takes away the possibility it may mean something else to someone else. It means what it means. If it means nothing to you, then it means nothing.”

Some might say that’s a frustratingly obtuse response (my friend thought it was a cop-out) but to me, it was perfect. I’d been sitting there thinking, “Why don’t I get it?” His answer liberated me. I can think it’s profound or it’s garbage but at least I don’t think I’m stupid for not understanding it.

But I did comprehend Kaufman’s dream analogy. He said, “You don’t understand your dreams. But sometimes I wake up and I’m devastated in a way that I’m not in my waking life.”

And that’s what it feels like after watching Synecdoche–as though you’ve just awoken from a mesmerizing, shattering dream.

Rating: Good

Note: The title of the movie is not a typo. Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part of something represents the whole or the whole stands in for a part.

The trailer is below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIizh6nYnTU]

1 Comments

Newer Posts