New Blog/Podcast: Cinecast

Please visit Cinecast, a new film podcast with Adam Kempenaar and Sam Hallgren.

OUT TO LUNCH

I regret that CS may go on hiatus for awhile -- as if I wasn't on one already. I could find time to post links to stories and write three or four sentences every day, but I always wanted to mix blog-style conversation with some legit, halfway-decent film criticism, and that simply requires more time than I have right now. I do expect to be back in one form or another though eventually. Thanks for reading.

I KNOW

I'm being a terrible blogger. I have plans to write. I really do. Just haven't seen anything in awhile due to a hectic schedule, other than 'Adaptation' for the second time. Laughed harder, enjoyed it more... still stopped caring when the 'Hollywood plot' kicks in, and think that Kaufman can't pull off the film being both a satire and about personal growth and loss and love blah blah...

RANDOM MUSINGS

Speaking of comic-book movies... I caught the first non-teaser trailer for Ang Lee's 'The Hulk' (June 20) before 'Daredevil' Sunday night and all I can say is -- these CGI artists must be stopped. I'm wasn't necessarily looking forward to 'Hulk' that much, but Lee is exactly the type of virtuoso director who should have been helming 'Daredevil.' And I like the cast. After being so charismatic in 'Chopper,' Eric Bana was a great choice for the titular character; a very-haggard looking Nick Nolte (when isn't he haggard-looking?) plays his father; and Jennifer Connelly -- who, for what it's worth, may be the sexiest woman on the planet, in addition to being a fine actress -- stars as his love interest. The first 30 seconds or so of the trailer introduces us to these stars and sets up the story and then wham!, we get our first glimpse of the green computer-generated monstrosity that is supposed to be the Hulk and, well, it just looks awful... like something out of a Nintendo game. No, I'm not showing my age by saying Nintendo instead of PlayStation or X-Box. I mean it really looks like Nintendo. I don't think I can sufficiently explain just how bad the Hulk looks in this preview. See for yourself here.

Legendary cinematographer Conrad L. Hall was posthumously awarded with the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) top award Sunday for his work on 'Road to Perdition.' Hall died of complications from bladder cancer on Jan. 4 at the age of 76 and is almost surely going to win the Oscar as well, where he is competition with Dion Beebe (Chicago), Edward Lachman (Far From Heaven), Michael Ballhaus (Gangs of New York) and Pawel Edelman (The Pianist). Hall won an Oscar for 'American Beauty,' his first collaboration with 'Perdition' director Sam Mendes, though he will probably always be remembered for 1967's 'In Cold Blood,' and perhaps even one signature scene, which I recall as one of the first instances where I actually became aware of what a cinematographer can add to a film. Here's how a feature on the ASC's web site describes it: "In an unforgettable scene, a chillingly unemotional killer speaks to the prison chaplain, who is reading the Bible aloud in the dim glow of a desk lamp. The light coming through the window creates a moody ambience. When the crew used a wind machine to put movement into the rain, the water condensed and ran down the window like a veil of tears. During a rehearsal, Hall noticed that the light and streaks of water on the window cast shadows on the killer’s face that looked like tears. He and director Richard Brooks subsequently incorporated the 'happy accidthe film. It captured the sense of pathos in a way that words couldn’t, and it was a major departure from the classical Hollywood style." Eric wrote a little tribute to Hall here on Jan. 17.

DAREDEVIL - 'Daredevil' collected a tidy $43.5 million at the box office over the weekend, despite being almost universally panned by critics -- Rotten Tomatoes shows a 50% freshness rating, which isn't terrible, except that most of the positive reviews are from small-time newspaper critics and fringe Internet folks like myself; the only big-name critic to give it a positive review was Roger Ebert and all he can say about it is, "The movie is actually pretty good." Such a box office triumph would seem to lend credence to the notion that critics are not only powerless, but completely out of touch with the average moviegoer. However, as I've always said, the fact that a movie makes a ton of money doesn't necessarily mean audiences enjoyed it any more than critics, especially when we're just looking at opening weekend totals. Even 'Godzilla' made over $100 million and have you ever met anyone who liked it? Last weekend was an extended one for some because of President's Day and it was also Valentine's weekend, which had to help 'Daredevil' tremendously because it's an obvious date movie. Guys like superheroes, action and Jennifer Garner, while chicks like Ben Affleck in spandex -- a perfect compromise. But how big will the drop-off be next weekend when the word gets out that this movie is a borderline stinker? I remember reading a feature somewhere in which writer/director Mark Steven Johnson explained how he loved the comic as a kid and had to push hard to get the studio to allow him to direct their big-budget-franchise-to-be; of course, they wanted a bigger name director like Ridley Scott. The story warmed my heart until I thought about the fact that this is the same guy who ruined one of the greatest books of all-time, John Irving's 'A Prayer For Owen Meany,' in the form of the mostly dreadful 'Simon Birch.' The story behind 'Daredevil' has all the makings of a great comic-to-screen transfer. Instead of an all-powerful do-gooder like Superman or, to some extent, Spider-Man, Daredevil is set apart by his disabilty, having been blinded as a kid. He fights crime amidst the grime of Hells Kitchen and does so with a vigilante mentality, dispensing justice as he sees (no pun intended) fit. It's the kind of dark, psychological stuff Tim Burton had a ball with in 'Batman.' But Johnson is no Burton, nor is he Ridley Scott or Bryan Singer, who successfully made a comic-book film ('X-Men') that never felt like a cartoon and managed to be serious and thoughtful without being (overly) pretentious. Everything about 'Daredevil' -- from the dialogue, to the music, to the shot selections -- is painfully obvious. The narration consistently tells us what we've already been shown in a previous shot, and the music selection is so literal and corny it's laughable. I wish I had taken notes just so I could recount the number of times the lyrics to various songs verbalized exactly what was taking place on screen. The visual effects and fight sequences were also lame because it's impossible to shake that been-there-done-that feeling when you are watching the same tiresome, high-flying kung fu moves popularized by 'The Matrix' and 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' What's worse is that there is no legit explanation for any of the characters in 'Daredevil' to have such abilities. As Movie Poop Shoot's Jeffrey Wells so nicely put it: "...Murdock is still just a blind guy who, not being from Krypton or any other planet outside our solar system, should be bound by the laws of physics. How, then, does he get to jump from building to building like a human grasshopper? The answer, of course, is because Batman, Spider-Man, Superman and the X-Men are all gravity-defying bipeds with super powers or appearances of same, and therefore Matt Murdock -- the star of a movie competing with all these previous super-hero flicks -- has to match them stunt for stunt." The action stuff aside, I can't help but wonder what a better writer and director could have done with this material. Instead of spending any time showing how the corrupt, insufficient justice system is what forces Murdock, a lawyer by day, to don his maroon outfit and play judge and jury at night, Johnson gives us one measly and ridiculously unrealistic courtroom scene where Murdock unsuccessfully prosecutes a rapist. Instead of having any sympathy for Murdock's endeavor to seek justice, I couldn't help but wonder if Matt just isnt a very good lawyer.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

NO, REALLY - I will post today. I will post today. I will post today.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

OSCAR REACTION PART DEUX - Sam makes a great point in the Feedback Forum regarding 'Punch-Drunk Love': "If they had released it in late-December or January with the other prestige pictures, I guarantee that Anderson would be getting Nia Vardalos's original screenplay nomination and Emily Watson would have Queen Latifah's supporting actress nom." It is amazing how much of a factor release date is when it comes to the Oscars. All five nominees for best picture came out near the end of the year, as did most of the acting category nominees save for Diane Lane in 'Unfaithful' and Paul Newman in 'Road to Perdition.' That being said, 'Punch-Drunk' was probably hindered by its language and subject matter that was described in one letter to the Chicago Tribune entertainment section as being "obscene." (I'll have to dig this letter out and post it here sometime because it is one of the best examples of the disconnect that exists between film critics and moviegoers. This particular woman felt that critic Michael Wilmington tricked her by using the words "romantic comedy" to describe something so vulgar. Hilarious stuff.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR -- Chris Cooper (Adaptation), Ed Harris (The Hours); Paul Newman (Road to Perdition), John C. Reilly (Chicago), and Christopher Walken (Catch Me If You Can)
How great is it to see usually unsung actors like Chris Cooper and John C. Reilly garnering some attention? Unfortunately, even though I liked Reilly as "Mr. Cellophane" in 'Chicago,' he was basically playing the same boring, cuckolded husband role he seems to have perfected. As I said when I wrote about 'Chicago' on Jan. 6 (A.O. Scott Stole My Thunder) the best performance in the whole film was turned in by Richard Gere, but somehow his Golden Globe win didn't translate into an Oscar nom. Newman and Walken are both fantastic in their respective films. The dignity and humanity Newman brings to his mobster character in 'Perdition' is the best reason to see that movie. The only choice that bothers me here is Ed Harris for 'The Hours.' I've always been a huge Harris fan, but his performance as a poet dying from AIDS is far too showy. It just screams Oscar, and apparently it got the Academy's attention.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS - Kathy Bates (About Schmidt), Julianne Moore (The Hours), Queen Latifah (Chicago), Meryl Streep (Adaptation), and Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago)
I can't comment on Kathy Bates' performance, but I have pretty much the same reaction to it as her co-star Nicholson getting another nomination. She already has one Oscar and excels at playing over-the-top characters. Do we really need to reward her again? Like Reilly, Queen Latifah is barely in 'Chicago' enough to warrant a nomination. That Miramax marketing team is good, isn't it? Streep is another actress who is hard to root for because she already has, what, three Oscars at home? But I'm glad to see she got a nod for her surprising turn in 'Adaptation,' playing a neurotic, lonely writer who gets caught up in drugs and sex, instead of her break-down-on-cue-give-me-the-Oscar-now performance in 'The Hours.'

BEST DIRECTOR - Rob Marshall (Chicago), Martin Scorsese (Gangs of New York), Stephen Daldry (The Hours), Roman Polanski (The Hours), Pedro Almodovar (Talk To Her)
I still need to see 'Talk To Her,' though if 'The Two Towers' was deemed worthy of a best picture nomination, then Peter Jackson probably should have gotten a directing nod. I've always been a traditionalist when it comes to the notion that the best picture is made by the best director. Scorsese will probably win, regardless of whether 'Chicago' beats 'Gangs' for best picture, because the latter is a more ambitious, epic-sized achievement. In a way, it will be a little sad though because Scorsese will finally get rewarded for a film that isn't as deserving as 'Taxi Driver,' 'Raging Bull,' or 'GoodFellas.' The Academy will probably try to make up for its past transgressions this year. My vote would be with Polanski since 'The Pianist' is the best film of the bunch.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

ERIC'S OSCAR REACTION - Just a lot of good, interesting writing to which I thought I'd provide links. If you're like me, some of the most interesting selections each year are the foreign-language nominations, because they are the only category that does not receive any hype. You usually can't see them at very many theaters, and the conventional wisdom among distributors is you have to pick and choose where you show them as the film-going public generally doesn't like them. They may be right, but 'Talk to Her,' Pedro Almovodar's critically-acclaimed valentine did not get nominated for this category despite being on around 90% of critic's top 10 lists. June Thomas has an OK explainer of this on Slate, but it's more noteworthy for the links it provides. One is for an explainer from a previous year, on Adam's recent question about why some actors seem wrongly or oddly nominated for a Best Actor/Actress vs. Supporting Actor when they don't seem to fit that description. Even better is a link to a diary by a member of AMPAS foreign-film committee, Ken Rudolph, explaining his reaction to every single movie as well as his predictions for the nominations. And best is a link to an L.A. Times story about the Afghanistan film, 'FireDancer,' the first ever entry for the country in the Oscars, where the producer allegedly killed the director and kept his head in his refrigerator. Yes, you read that correctly.

As far as my feelings, I really thought Jeffrey Wells summed it up best when he started composing his Oscar Balloon 2003 before the 2002 nominations even came out. Granted, he lives in L.A. and writes about the industry for a living, but his Feb. 7 column was right on with his aloof tone. Most of the column is actually a deconstruction of why 'Antwone Fisher' hasn't done better with award nominations, but it's still pretty solid. I usually find his columns hit or miss, so I don't read him all the time, but he always writes what he experiences or feels about a movie, and I like that, unlike some of his readers that lambaste "Nuts" further down in his last column. His new one today is quite good as well, and I generally agree with his Oscar sentiments. He has a tidbit about 'City of God' not getting any love in the foreign language category, as well as more gossip about 'A Confederacy of Dunces,' which we'll officially dub as the most eagerly anticipated project of the next 5 years for Eric, or TMEAPIN5YE.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

OSCAR REACTION - If you read my regurgitation yesterday of the Chicago Tribune's Oscar predictions, then you couldn't have been too surprised when the nominees were announced this morning. Between them, Mark Caro and Michael Wilmington were pretty much dead on. Let's go through each of the main categories, shall we?

BEST PICTURE -- Chicago, Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Two Towers and The Pianist
I've seen all of these films except for 'The Two Towers' and I can't say I'm offended by any of these choices. 'Chicago' isn't worthy of 13 nominations, but it just missed my top ten films of the year list. 'Gangs' suffers from a muddled final act, but Daniel Day-Lewis' performance alone lodged it at #10 on my list. 'The Hours' is totally overrated, but not insufferable -- at least it wasn't for me, though I freely admit to being won over by the charm of the book's author, Michael Cunningham, during the post-screening Q&A I attended here in Chicago. The only film that truly deserves to be on this list, however, is Roman Polanski's 'The Pianist.' There are a handful of scenes that are so emotionally scarring that I still play them over in my head about once a day. As pointless as the Oscars are in the grand scheme of things, it's nice to know that more people will be influenced to seek out this film thanks to the nomination.

BEST ACTOR - Adrien Brody (The Pianist), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Day-Lewis (Gangs), Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt).
I haven't seen 'Schmidt' or 'The Quiet American' yet (the latter just opened in Chicago last weekend), so I can really only comment on the other three. Then again, I don't care if I ultimately think 'Schmidt' is the best film of all-time, there's no way I'd root for Jack to win another award. His win for 'As Good As It Gets' has to be one of the biggest Oscar crimes since Roberto Benigni's win for 'Life is Beautiful.' Everyone except Brody has won at least one Oscar before, either as a lead or supporting actor, so I'm tempted to root for him just on that basis alone. Of course, you can also root for him because he delivers an amazing performance -- intense and emotional, but subtle. I thought Cage was probably the best thing about 'Adaptation,' but I'm rooting for Brody or Day-Lewis. Curiously, Lewis' role as Bill the Butcher never struck me as a lead role. Granted, he towers over DiCaprio in the film and is without a doubt one of the most fascinating characters in recent memory, but he isn't the main character of the story -- DiCaprio is. I always assumed Lewis would get a supporting nod. Not that the Academy has ever really had a clear criteria for this. Donald Sutherland was nominated for Best Actor in 1980 for 'Ordinary People' despite the fact that newcomer Timothy Hutton -- who is in probably 95% of the movie -- was the clear protagonist. Hutton won for Best Supporting Actor, but Sutherland only got the Best Actor nomination because he was Donald Sutherland and nobody knew who Hutton was.

BEST ACTRESS - Salma Hayek (Frida), Nicole Kidman (The Hours), Diane Lane (Unfaithful), Julianne Moore (Far From Heaven) and Renee Zellweger (Chicago)
I saw all of these performances except for Hayek's and, again, I'm not offended by any of the choices -- though I guess I would be disappointed if Zellweger won simply because she's just a little to winsome as Roxie Hart. I think Kidman, Lane and Moore are all three great actresses and are deserving of the honor as a sort of lifetime achievement award, if not necessarily for the performances in question. But if I was voting I'd give it to Moore. I thought her 'Mrs. Magnatech' was as complex and real a character as you could expect to find in a post-modernist marvel like 'Far From Heaven.'

More to come...


E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum