The vast majority of the buzz surrounding this movie is split across the fact that Kristen Stewart is in it and that she and Dakota Fanning kiss in the film. I’m not wholly sure what the buzz is around the latter, but it should surely be more controversy that salaciousness given that Fanning is only fifteen.
Cinematical’s Kevin Kelly dug the movie, with a pretty significant amount of praise in his review devoted to the performances by Stewart, Fanning and Michael Shannon as Kim Fowley. He describes the performances from all three as “powerful“, but asserts that Shannon “takes this movie, straps it to his back, and walks away with it completely“. On the two female leads:
Kristen Stewart steps out of her normal angsty girl act and nails down the punk rock, hard as nails Jett, and Fanning is equally as good with her disconnected portrayal of Currie, who is dealing with the fact that she’s abandoning her alcoholic father and her twin sister Marie (played as fraternal in the movie, although they were identical in real life) to embrace a life of rock and roll.
Sam Adams for IFC was less taken by the movie itself, but is also praising of the Stewart and Fanning performances:
As much as for its characters, “The Runaways” is a rite of passage for its stars: Fanning, attempting to move beyond her preternaturally placid juvenile roles, and Kristen Stewart, whose volcanic Joan Jett runs hotter than the brooding teens she’s played in, well, everything.
Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir was again entertained, but felt that more was promised somewhere along the line: “[Director Floria] Sigismondi has made a straightforward rock ‘n’ roll biopic that’s fluid and exciting to watch, but clearly aspires to something more,” he says.
One dissenting voice comes from First Showing’s Alex Billington.
…I was completely unimpressed with Floria Sigismondi’s inability to handle the characters, the story, or the film at all. And despite having a good time watching concert scenes, I don’t have much else good to say about The Runaways. This was one of the first big let downs of Sundance for me and I was even looking forward to it.
So mostly love, especially for Fanning and Shannon, though Stewart also picks up quite a few plaudits. There seems a general agreement that it’s a little unfocused character-wise, but the performances do much to rectify these problems.
The Duplass Brothers, Jay and Mark, shift out of the mumblecore movement and into studio-backed filmmaking with a pretty decent cast and a story of comedy potential. John C Reilly plays a guy just out of a break-up who hooks up with Marisa Tomei and then has to deal with her son, played by Jonah Hill, who remains living at home and enjoys something of an odd relationship with his mum.
Katey Rich, who is doing some great work in covering the festival for Cinema Blend, loved the film nearly unreservedly:
The Duplasses play brilliantly with the sense of comfort that comes in a romantic comedy, that secret assurance that we know how things will play out. Because the movie bears that mumblecore label of realism, there’s an actual suspense to this film’s particular will-they-or-won’t-they. By not changing the romantic comedy formula and instead bringing their own style to it, they create something wholly original, a skewed mirror on Hollywood that lovingly turns the old tropes around.
She adds that the film is “stellar and hilarious and by far one of the best things to come out of the festival so far“.
And Rich is far from alone in her praise for the film. HitFix’s Drew McWeeny was equally enchanted by the Duplass’ step up to the big(ger) leagues:
Shot with a simple, austere eye and elegantly constructed, Cyrus was a complete knockout, and Fox Searchlight will figure out how to sell this to the general public in a very big way. What’s great is that Mark and Jay Duplass seem to have proven that they can work for the studios in a way that makes them happy, that allows them to make their movies, and that will reward the faith of the studios with genuinely great commercial fare.
Add to those voices Scott at We Are Movie Geeks, who claims: “There isn’t much you can say that is negative about the film… its pretty much perfect.”
The one major dissenter is Duane Byrge over at the Hollywood Reporter, who isn’t quite wholly scathing, but certainly didn’t find the same level of enjoyment.
A romance laced with psychological poison, “Cyrus” is a well-performed but superficial drama of emotional co-dependency that is unlikely to venture past the select-site/festival circuit.
Overall, “Cyrus” is more a clinical enactment than a complex human drama and ultimately just droops in predictability and easy outcomes.
So a potential breakthrough for the Duplass brothers, though it does sound as though it could struggle to find a major audience if they are so carefully integrating their mumblecore sensibilities with mainstream style.
Having had its two stars, James Franco and Jon Hamm, compare the events surrounding Allen Ginsberg’s obscenity trial related to his poem of the same name of the film to the Proposition 8 battle in California, Howl arrives on the scene with a great deal of cache for the indie audience.
Neil Miller at Film School Rejects kicks off his review with what appears the central debate surrounding the film:
The interpretation of art is tricky. In fact, most great works of art are the trickiest because what makes them great is that they can mean different things to different people. This is something I’ve known, but was reinforced by Rob Epstein’s excellent film Howl, which is a commentary on interpretation set against the obscenity trial that catapulted Allen Ginsberg’s famous poem into the national spotlight. This is also something I realized in the peer conversations that followed my viewing of the film — if taken one way, Howl is a great film. If interpreted another, it loses all of its impact.
He goes on to argue that the film can be read either as an interpretation of the art itself or a meditation on interpretations of art. He also expresses great admiration for James Franco’s central performance, something echoed by MTV. Though this wasn’t something completely shared by Cinematical’s Kevin Kelly, who said that Franco “does a decent job in the role when he’s imitating Ginsberg via recordings, but veers off-track in fictionalized moments”.
Kelly also struggles to find as much enthusiasm as that expressed by Miller, arguing:
Interviews discussing the impact of HOWL, photos, recordings (a vintage recording of Ginsberg reading HOWL aloud was actually discovered in 2007), and more of a background would have been more interesting to watch than this unfortunately clumsy approach to adapting one of the quintessential American poems to film.
It’s scepticism is echoed by indieWire’s Eric Kohn, though he is perhaps even less kind:
Although Howl technically didn’t provide Sundance with its opening night film—it was one of two competition films screened on opening night—it reeks of the stigma associated with the aforementioned slot: Poorly executed, socially relevant counterculture fetishization executed with a few familiar faces. Ginsberg says he reached ‘complete control’ with his composition of Howl, but the movie version apparently has none.
At the moment, Howl looks like it could face a rocky road which may have to be driven by the buzz which seems to surround Franco’s performance. He’s getting praise, but the film itself is getting something of a muted response, with many noting that the two directors had originally envisioned the film as a documentary and have possibly become a little confused in their aims.
Though I could gripe immediately with a bunch of the nominations given, I’m going to give the first part only of this over to the minor grips I have with the BAFTA nominations, announced this morning (and here in full via Empire Magazine).
The leading nominees, each with eight, are Avatar, The Hurt Locker and An Education. The overrating of An Education, at the expense of better British films like In the Loop and Fish Tank, is a little irritating, but the acting is so strong in the film that it seems to have elevated everything around it, including the nominated script by Nick Hornby and the nominated directing by Lone Scherfig. Avatar’s eight is mostly taken up with technical nods, which is entirely fair, but its picture nod, over Inglourious Basterds and Up, is predictable but wrong. Obviously, for those who read or listen to anything I say or write, know that I wholly agree with all The Hurt Locker nods, with my only desire to see much more attention given to Anthony Mackie in the supporting categories.
As with the Golden Globes, I can’t possibly pass this opportunity up to criticise the nomination of The Hangover for script, specifically given it is just a slightly adjusted take on Dude, Where’s My Car?. On personal taste, I probably wouldn’t have sought to reward the script for An Education, but kudos for adding District 9 which, despite a host of action movie tropes peppered throughout, is a much smarter film that the credit given would suggest.
The acting sections are all pretty good. That said, I wouldn’t have given Alec Baldwin a nod for It’s Complicated due to Anthony Mackie’s great performance in The Hurt Locker, but Baldwin is good so not too much annoyance there. Also very good indeed to see Christian McKay nominated for his amazing performance in Me and Orson Welles. Also great nod for Anne-Marie Duff for supporting actress in Nowhere Boy. This seems like the only place where Mo’Nique just might not win for Precious, so Duff and the others could nick it.
It’s a decent enough selection from BAFTA. They are slightly over-praising, as most have, An Education and, as most haven’t, Coco Before Chanel. The nomination of Audrey Tautou over the incredible debut by Katie Jarvis is jarring, but sometimes you have to give concession to BAFTA’s predeliction for costume drama, no matter the costume. But nothing but praise should be given to the nods for The Hurt Locker and District 9, though you might wish that some of the better British films, notably Moon and In the Loop, were given a little more attention outside of nods in those Brit-focused categories.
It would seem to me that the awards season should be used to reward the best films, the best performances in terms of the measurable quality of the product put out rather than the popularity of the nominees. The Golden Globes, as if edging, as my podcast colleague Tommy suggested today, towards becoming a glorified version of the MTV Movie Awards, has this year chosen to nearly-exclusively reward the popular choices.
I have no real problem with James Cameron getting best director; Avatar is an incredible achievement from a technical standpoint. But to reward that film, a confused hodgepodge of political allegory, predictable plot and stock characters, the prize for the best picture seems ridiculous. It is a huge milestone for technical filmmaking, but when put into 2D and playing on television screens across the land after its DVD release, the massive problems with the story and characters will become increasingly clear. To suggest other winners could easily be written off as me just griping that my favourite films didn’t win, but I don’t think many could deny that the success of the vision of The Hurt Locker or Inglourious Basterds far, far surpasses that of Avatar as a piece of storytelling.
Outside of that, witness the prize handed to Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side, a mawkish TV movie-style sleeper hit, beating the nuanced skill of Carey Mulligan in An Education. Witness The Hangover, winner of Best Musical/Comedy, rewarded for managing to convince an entire audience that it was funny despite having only one good performance and then three douchebags, one terrible cameo and one borderline-racist gangster. It was a weak category, but at least (500) Days of Summer spoke to a sense of truth and actually could fit into being both comedy and musical.
There should be some sense of duty for awards that, rather than pander to bringing in the largest possible audience for the truly pointless televising of the ceremony, they should seek to reward those filmmakers that have made films which, even if they failed to connect with audiences, have something to say beyond ‘see how fucking cool this looks!’
The Movie Overdose’s newest, and essentially lone writer Chris Inman outlines his most anticipated movies of the coming year. Listen to Sam, Tom and John’s choices on Episode Number 48.
The Rum Diary
Why the buzz? : Johnny Depp has been a little disappointing of late, starring in major films where he seems to play a caricature of himself, so a return to a more intimate character-driven role will hopefully see a return to form. His performance in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas shows that he is able to ply his trade in supposed ‘unfilmable’ Hunter S Thompson adaptations. Giovanni Ribisi and Aaron Eckhart also star in this story of a freelance journalist writing for a paper in the Caribbean who develops a fixation for rum and a businessman’s fiancée.
Reading the most recent issue of Time, there was a brief note during its Oscar predictions on the comparable box-office totals for The Hurt Locker and Avatar.
The first, an essentially apolitical Iraq war movie which explores the psyche of those addicted to conflict, made a total of $12m at the US box-office. That’s a total of $12m over its entire run in the US.
The second, James Cameron’s uber-blockbuster and undoubtedly a treatise on either environmentalism or, pertinently, the imperialist ambitions of the US in the Middle East, has made that per day. Yes, it’s total box-office in the US so far is around $400m, meaning an average of $12m per day.
So, two points. First, any suggestion that movies about Iraq cannot work isn’t quite true, they just have to be 3D and wrapped in Pantheistic theory. Second, isn’t it slightly depressing that a film which seeks so desperately to understand something about the human condition is trounced so heartily by a bloated, arrogant but visually impressive film. An on-mass example of someone fleeing towards the shiny goods instead of the quality produce.
It would seem that, given that the two are emerging as the key contenders for the Oscars this year, that the Academy has an opportunity either to reward hollow commercialism with a mixed message, or vital independent filmmaking in which the ‘message’ is eschewed in favour of probing the mind of those at the heart of our generation’s conflict.
I watched James Gray’s Two Lovers last night, his polarising relationship drama starring Joaquin Phoenix which, inevitably, was unfairly caught in the storm of madness which surrounded his breakdown and (hopefully) botched rap career launch.
Gray’s films are a strange experience. The man appears to have very little sense of irony on the surface of his work, creating worlds which seems to be deadly serious and yet tinged with a sense that a knowing hand is at work. Two Lovers is, for the most part, an extremely uncomfortable experience, in which we are given Phoenix’s Leonard, a bi-polar, semi-suicidal sometime photographer, who falls in love in two completely different ways with two entirely separate potential mates. The first, Sandra (who is played incredibly well by Vinessa Shaw), is the daughter of one of Leonard’s father’s business acquaintances and friends with whom his father is presently seeking to broker a merger of their respective dry cleaning businesses. She makes her attraction to him known during their first exchange alone, giving Leonard the knowledge that this option has become open to him, something he later takes advantage of on two separate occasions.
The other is Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow) who is the antithesis of Sandra. She is a fuck-up, a former addict conducting an affair with a middle-aged married man in a city law firm, who moves into Leonard’s building and subsequently his life. There is even a sense that I got that her coming into his world wasn’t entirely by accident on her part. She becomes an infatuation for Leonard, someone for him to look after and play the man for, to take her to hospital appointments and give approval on her lover, all the while harbouring notions of a romantic relationship with her.
The triumph of the film is in making the audience understand these relationships, if only from a distance. I could never place myself within the role of Leonard and understand, despite the heroic ideals she drives in him, why he would persist in going after Michelle. But that would be a view from my perspective. Extracting myself from the story and just watching the characters, richly drawn as they are by Gray, I could wholly empathise with the path that Leonard chooses to take in pursuing something with Sandra.
For Leonard, she represents an opportunity to escape an existence of being looked after. His mother near-coddles him when he is at home. His father allows him unlimited leeway whilst working in their dry cleaners. Even in his burgeoning relationship with Sandra, he becomes the one being looked after, a sense beautifully communicated by a scene in which she purchases him a pair of gloves. Leonard sees in Michelle an opportunity to escape this way of living, to take on the task of being the one doing the looking after.
Yet we understand that this relationship is doomed. Despite understanding Leonard’s attraction to Michelle, Gray leads us constantly into knowing that she will break his heart by the denouement of their relationship. Indeed she does, and the moment forces Leonard into understanding his place in life, that he needs to have someone to look after him. The final few scenes, in which this emotional transition occurs and concludes with Leonard using the ring he bought for Michelle to propose to Sandra, is the moment in which Gray’s film shifts from anthropological study of human love to a truly personally empathetic experience.
The film is imperfect, primarily because the detachment which makes it so admirable does not translate into having a truly emotional experience. But there can be no denying that Gray, for all his lack of subtlety in writing relationships, completely understands the inner motivations and desires of his characters.
So, which year in the last decade was the best for film? For me, the shortlist dropped down to two years immediately, 2000 and 2006.
I did predict a few little while ago, but much has changed in the interim and I feel it necessary to update my prediction season for the nominees, something I will do again in early February just before the nominations are announced.
The primary change is the fall of Nine, previously considered a shoe-in for most categories, which looks likely to win absolutely nothing outside of a possible couple of technicals. Add to that the rising popularity of Inglourious Basterds and the seemingly-unstoppable attention being given to The Hurt Locker, plus the apparently disastrous The Lovely Bones, and some things have to change.
Below then are my predictions for the top few categories, with some explanation as to why and, bold as it may be, my predictions for the likely winners in each category.
Our brand new writer, Chris Inman, has not only provided the world with his top five movies of 2009, he now furnishes you lucky people with his top twenty movies of the decade. A couple of controversial more recent choices are included and should be debated immediately, but otherwise it’s a bloody strong list that will definitely find one followers amongst the existing MOD clan who will thoroughly agree with the winner.
Onwards then, and look our for more articles to come from Chris in the very near future as he kicks off his tenure with us in earnest.
Give a big welcome to Chris Inman, our brand new writer on the site. Better known to many as Spanky Patterson, Chris is a long-time listener of the podcast and has now moved on to become the first writer (outside of Sam) to join the site.
As a way of introduction, to allow you all to get to know him a little bit, here’s his five favourite movies of 2009, in ascending order, with his favourites of the decade to come in the next few days.
Just for the sake of my own sanity and desperate need to have these written somewhere, I give you my favourite forty-two films of the past decade. There are at least fifty-six other films I would like to put onto a list, but I think I need to forcefully prevent any more decade-based listmaking as quickly as possible. So beneath is the top ten list, along with a sentence or two on each film and then thirty-two, out-of-list-order, films which I had to include.
You can listen to us discussing these films at length on the podcast on the show, but please do check out the list below for perpetuity. Sam’s list is annotated and included below, Tom’s is not annotated and its right here. This just means you will have to check out the podcast to hear Tom’s viewpoints. So check out Sam’s choices after the jump, along with a few choice thoughts and honourable mentions. Enjoy!
So here’s Tommy’s list of the top ten films of 2009. No annotations, so you’ll just have to listen to the podcast to hear his thoughts. For just the list, jump in. Continue reading →
Time to have a little guess again at which films could be nominated for Oscars in a couple of months time, just entirely based on hype and vague attempts to understand the predictable nature of the Academy. So, for debate and conjecture’s stake, enjoy these predictions for the Oscar nominations in 2010, post jump. Continue reading →
In a column for the Guardian over the weekend, Joe Queenan used A Serious Man to stand in example of movies by directors which stand apart from the rest of their filmography. In the case of A Serious Man, Queenan writes:
A Serious Man falls into that category of films that, for whatever reason, do not have the same texture or mood as a director’s other films. It may be a decision the film-maker has made deliberately, or it may be entirely inadvertent, but these films stand apart from the other movies in a director’s body of work. It is as if the film-maker abruptly decided to take a holiday from his own personality and make a film in somebody else’s style.
He goes on to cite other examples of this theory for great directors. He notes Werner Herzog for Rescue Dawn (“…a well-crafted action picture. And nothing more.“), Spike Lee’s Inside Man (“…certainly doesn’t have the feel of any other Spike Lee film. It is work for hire.“) and Ang Lee with The Hulk (“…one of those catastrophes so bad that its sequel seems like the industry’s personal apology to the movie-going public for what has gone before.“)
He also cites a few examples of better one-offs, such as Scorsese’s Age of Innocence, Eastwood’s The Bridges of Madison County and, inexplicably, Peter Weir’s Green Card.
I’ll leave what he considers good or bad to the side (seriously though, Green Card?) and just comment on the mistake of characterising so many of these films as being far apart from the other work by directors.
WARNING: SPOILERS FOR PARANORMAL ACTIVITY FOLLOW
Welcomed as a returning hero this year by the horror genre, Paranormal Activity heralded the commercial arrival, or re-arrival, of the ‘found footage’ genre (we’ve already got James Marsh entering the fray). The Blair Witch Project, a film still entirely underrated, popularised the sub-genre in the late-90s, though without it ever fully becoming a horror movement in the way that so-called ‘torture porn’ has managed.
Like Cameron Crowe last week, Tarantino’s style is probably more an aural one than visual. He’s certainly not a man without the ability to make a good looking movie, but the only discernible style that seems intrinsically his, on a visual level, is the foot fetish. Otherwise, its the music and the dialogue.
Since the beginning of his career, Tarantino has made a name for himself through his musical choices. Sometimes, and his present choices seem to speak to this, he has a tendency to side further towards more obscure music, often making selections which appear more wilfully obscure than components in aiding the quality of the film. Death Proof, a film I disliked quite a bit, has one amazing moment with the use of ‘Hold Tight’ by Dave, Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich, a complete classic used to perfection. Otherwise, like much of that film, everything felt tightly constructed to evoke a certain style and feeling which felt derivative of Tarantino himself.
If there is one distinctive, auteurist-feature to the directorial work of Cameron Crowe, it’s surely aural rather than visual. He doesn’t necessarily have any visual style, though all of his films seem to have a misty nature to them, a kind of wistful dreaminess in their themes and in the way of their main characters. The only time this fails to happen is with Vanilla Sky, his remake of Alejandro Amenabar’s Abre los Ojos, though even here the soundtrack falls into line with his methods.
The single defining feature of a Cameron Crowe film is surely music. Crowe is interested in music of his characters, music of their time and music they would like. Some would place his squarely as a 60s-70s man, but this era-based categorisation is negated entirely by the first film I’m going to talk about in his column.
So, much to note from this week’s episode. Remember to check us out on Twitter, Facebook, iTunes and email us with any questions. All the links and information for that are now on the left side of the page.
- Darren Aronofksy taking on the Tonbridge heist (via /Film)
- Highlander to be remade by Justin Lin (via Rope of Silicon)
- Poster for The Rock’s Tooth Fairy (via JoBlo)
Notes & Corrections…
Oh dear, this is what happens when Sam has been ill… September Issue director RJ Cutler did not direct The War Room, he produced it for DA Pennebaker. The film also follows the first Clinton campaign, not the second.
The story about Steven Spielberg and his experience watching Paranormal Activity.
This week we try out for a direct continuation of the highly potent Mrs Doubtfire franchise. We present to you our valiant attempt at developing a darker new chapter in everyone’s favourite quasi-Scottish nanny’s life…
Tom: yeah sure
lets do it
Mrs Doubtfire 2?
John: alan moore style
behind the mask
so it’s definitely a direct continuation, right? same cast?
Tom: oh absolutely
it’s set maybe 5 years later
the kids can be recast
and everything seems normal. Robin Williams is still doing the Mrs Doubtfire show
then one night he comes home to his wife and they’re in bed together. and he starts talking dirty in Mrs Doubtfire’s voice.
they both think it’s hilarious that he’s using an old woman’s voice while in bed. and laugh it off. but then robin williams goes to the bathroom, looks in the mirror and sees Mrs Doubtfire in the reflection
cue titles: Mrs Doubtfire 2: Burning Desire
John: because of the flaming fake breasts?
does that play a role in the next film?
Tom: that’s interesting. maybe in a freak accident on set, the breasts melt and get stuck to him
anyway. so basically robin williams has to deal with the fact that he can no longer control Mrs Doubtfire
also i seem to recall in the first that Mrs Doubtfire is always pining over her dead husband. i forget his name. We’ll call him Norman for the time being
Tom: and Mrs Doubtfire wants Norman back, so she’s on the hunt for a replacement Norman
that kindly old bus driver in the first film gets assaulted
John: ah maybe it could be a case of lost time
like robin williams wakes up and doesn’t remember the last few hours
sort of like a transvestite version of Memento
Tom: yeah, but he looks down and he’s wearing frilly knickers
John: that’s right
as Doubtfire he’s trying to fill the void left by norman
Tom: it also becomes a bit like The Fly. because it gets to the point where he’s physically turning into an old lady
he also needs Sally Field out of the picture as she’s not old enough for him
John: so Brundlefire is gradually morphing over the course of the second act, we’ve set up the schism between him and sally field in the first act, where do we go from there?
Tom: we need a hero
someone to save robin williams
John: the gay couple from the start of the first film?
Tom: oh no. they’re brainwashed by Brundlefire to try and use their make-up skills to make Sally Field look like poor deceased Norman
John: ah yes, of course
shouldn’t take that much work though
of course once she looks like Norman, Brundlefire will have to kill her, as Norman is dead. he/she needs to make things perfect
you know i hope the transvestite community isnt appalled by this film.
John: i think a lot of people are going to be appalled by this film. i’m also not sure how i feel about brainwashing the gay couple
there are so many nasty layers to this film
Tom: it’s a nasty film
John: we’ve still not got a hero though
Tom: the cover of the film though will look like the cover of Mrs Doubtfire 1
the trailer too, will be cut to look like a romantic comedy
John: so we’re really going for a suckerpunch of a movie
i like this
Tom: viral marketing too. Robin Williams dressed up as Mrs Doubtfire will respond to random ads in actual newspapers looking for a nanny
John: i think i’d be pretty terrified if williams turned up at my house responding to an ad
John: can pierce brosnan save him?
Tom: oh god i forgot about pierce
he’s the decoy hero though
John: so he dies?
Tom: like scatman crothers in The Shining
yeah. he comes to save the day, then Brundlefire shoves a pepper down his throat and his allergies kill him
John: can we have pierce get a call from williams right at the very start of the movie? so we keep cutting back to brosnan making his way across the globe
only to be peppered in the final reel
Tom: yeah of course
but we still need a hero
what other characters are there in the first one?
John: just looking through imdb, nothing is jumping out
we might need a new character
shouldn’t be too much of a stretch as we have all the important principle cast intact
John: joseph gordon levitt?
Tom: he’s a bit too good for this
John: paul walker
he’s going to be our muse
Tom: ok how about this
paul walker was raised by his grandma who died
and mrs doubtfire comes along and acts as a grandma figure
paul walker has no idea that it’s actually robin williams in disguise
he feels close with Doubtfire, not knowing what he/she is becoming
turns out that Paul Walker’s grandpa was the bus driver who mrs doubtfire murdered
and paul walker remembers his grandpa talking about an old lady with hair legs
and sees doubtfire shaving them and puts two and two together
John: this is such a tragic story
Tom: well with the help of paul walker, robin williams eventually destroys his alter ego
John: so does paul walker then ingratiate himself into the family?
Tom: if only it was that simple
this is where things get meta
robin williams weakened by mrs doubtfire isnt prepared for what happens next
John: now i’m terrified…
Tom: ALL of Robin Williams other alter egos staart to randomly surface as if he is malfunctioning
so Jack, Patch Adams, Bicentential Man, Jakob The Liar, Peter Pan etc…they all start surfacing randomly
like when the T-1000 at the end of Terminator 2 is malfunctioning
robin williams can no longer control his personality
John: ok i’m definitely in on this project
but don’t forget popeye
it’s kinda like a video game boss battle
with each personality, Paul Walker must find its weakness
John: i think we’ve got this wrapped up, what do you think? i’m confident about this one
John Malkovich has joined the cast of Randall Wallace’s Secretariat.
Darren Aronofsky is to make a film about the £53m Securitas van robbery which happened in Tonbridge in 2006.
Zooey Deschanel has married Ben Gibbard, the principal member of Death Cab for Cutie.
FOX has ordered up a whole season of Glee.
Jon Hamm, Will Ferrell and Linda Cardellini are among those backing the cause of health insurance companies in the face of Obama reform policies.
Brad Pitt may play Moriarty in a second Sherlock Holmes.
As we are prone to do, it feels like to kick-off the Oscar buzz season as awards from major film festivals begin to roll in and the ceremony approaches. I realise that this may feel like the kind of wishing-life-away feeling that it given as you walk into shops in mid-September and see Christmas stock out all over the place, but these will get more frequent as we get closer and can begin to actually predict what could win. This is more to provide an interesting gauge of how buzz works, how it changes and how wrong we could well end up being by the time the awards come around.
So, just for the big few categories, here’s what seems like it’s going to cause a stir this year: Continue reading →
Looks like George Clooney could end up directing the Hamdan vs Rumsfeld project, with Matt Damon starring.
Precious is beginning its Oscar buzz season with a win in Toronto.
Apparently Gavin Hood wouldn’t mind making a shitty Magneto movie too.
Jack Kirby’s estate has begun delivering copyright termination notices to a whole bunch folks, including Marvel and Disney, relating to characters the late creator was responsible for.
Five movies which make Film School Rejects hungry.
Declaration of Independence: The Ten Principles of Hybrid Distribution from Indiewire.
Johnny Depp is reportedly less interested in another Pirates movie without Dick Cook at the helm of Walt Disney Studios.
MTV has an exclusive excerpt from Kevin Smith’s SModcast book.
Henry Rollins voicing a Batman character? Fuck, yeah!!
Twitch has an interview with Guy Maddin at TIFF about Night Mayor.
Venice Golden Lion winner Lebanon has been purchased by Sony Pictures Classics.
District 9 has made it over to Nigeria.
As an addendum to the show notes, which you will have read earlier, I thought I would put together a Spotify playlist of some of the songs which we focused on, and the films from which they come. The playlist is below and its linked to here and at the end of the playlist. More of these will follow as I continue the Music in Movies feature on the blog.
The songs are:
‘Gonna Fly Now’ by Bill Conti from Rocky
‘Little Green Bag’ by The George Baker Selection from Reservoir Dogs
‘Needle in the Hay’ by Elliott Smith from The Royal Tenenbaums
‘The Night they Drove Old Dixie Down’ by The Band from The Last Waltz (note: not the version from the live show)
‘The Wind’ by Cat Stevens from Almost Famous: Untitled Cut
‘It’s a Sin’ by Pet Shop Boys from Bronson
‘Across 110th Street’ by Bobbie Womack from Jackie Brown
‘Staralfur’ by Sigur Ros from The Life Aquatic
‘Battle Without Honour or Humanity’ by Tomoyasu Hotei from Kill Bill
‘Falling Slowly’ by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova from Once
‘Pretty in Pink’ by The Psychedelic Furs from Pretty in Pink
‘Lust for Life’ by Iggy Pop from Trainspotting
‘Don’t Stop Me Now’ by Queen from Shaun of the Dead
‘The End’ by The Doors from Apocalypse Now
Disclaimers on all fronts, folks. This is by no means the end of the conversation. We will be running a weekly column on the site considering music in films, published every Monday. There is sooooo much more to talk about with music in films, we have failed to even scratch the surface of all that shall be talked about. Until then however enjoy the above.
So, in the wake of Transformers revenging the fallen all over our minds, we were in need of cooling down from the sheer anger and exhaustion felt in the studio. Though Sunshine Cleaning should have been a great example of an indie to bring us back onto home turf, it ended up an underwhelming experience. The eminently crushworthy pairing of Amy Adams and Emily Blunt, along with the solid Alan Arkin and roles for Steve Zahn and Clifton Collins Jr, just couldn’t quite drive us into anything beyond a tepid lack of satisfaction. Ideas involved were strong, but the execution was half-hearted, even if all of the above tried really hard to elevate the material. Continue reading →