"Miss Peregrine" gets top spot at the weekend Box-Office, "Sully" cracks the $100 million dollar mark and "Masterminds" chokes

Almost official. Tim Burton's adaptation of Ransom Riggs' popular novel is set to debut at number one with an estimated $28 million. Peter Berg's "Deepwater Horizon" finished a solid second with $22 million, a successful debut considering it isn't based on a popular book, nor is it a sequel or a remake of a popular source material. If the fall movie season has proven anything so far it's that people are still hungry for serious, adult films such as "Horizon" and Clint Eastwood's very successful "Sully," which cracked the $100 million dollar mark this weekend and solidified its standing as a serious Oscar contender. "Masterminds," which has been delayed for over a year faltered with just $6 million in its first week.

Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross will score Peter Berg's upcoming film "Patriots Day" - their first film without Fincher

Director Peter Berg went on Instagram today to let people know that Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor will be scoring "Patriot's Day," his film about the Boston Marathon bombings. Tremendous news as Reznor and Ross are one of the best in the game. Their work with David Fincher, most notably "The Social Network," is top-notch. Nowadays it'd be tough to have a Fincher without both of these musical geniuses contributing a score to this film. 

Berg's just released "Deepwater Horizon," which I REVIEWED at TIFF earlier this month and which is now in theaters. "Horizon" is said to include in its previews our first look at "Patriot's Day." The actual trailer, I'm told, should be out by Monday and we very much look forward to it given that this has the potential to be a major Oscar player.

Berg wrote on Instagram: "I couldn't be more honored than to be working with these two straight up genius artists. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Bringing their deep soul and fury to "Patriot's Day." Game on, this is a major addition for the film and I can just picture their musical stylings blending very well with Berg's film, which is supposed to be a procedural about the hunt for the bombers.

Oscar 2017

Viola Davis is officially being campaigned as Supporting Actress, so we have taken her off the Actress contenders. Taraji P Henson, lead for "Hidden Figures" has been added to Actress list.

Updated 10.23.16

Best Picture
1) "La La Land"
2) "Manchester By The Sea"
3) "Fences"

4) "Silence"

5) "Sully"

6) "Lion"

7) "Loving"

8) "Jackie"
9) "Arrival"

10) "Moonlight"

Best Actor

1) Casey Affleck, "Manchester By the Sea"

2) Tom Hanks, "Sully"

3) Denzel Washington, "Fences"

4) Ryan Gosling "La La Land"

5) Joel Edgerton, "Loving"
6) Viggo Mortensen, "Captain Fantastic"

7) Andrew Garfield, "Silence"

8) Dev Patel, "Lion"
9) Miles Teller, "Bleed For This"

10) Michael Keaton, "The Founder"

Best Actress

1) Emma Stone, "La La Land"

2) Natalie Portman, "Jackie"

3) Amy Adams, "Arrival"

4) Ruth Negga, "Loving"

5) Isabelle Huppert, "Elle"

6) Meryl Streep "Florence Foster Jenkins"

7) Jessica Chastain, "Miss Sloane"

8) Marillon Cotillard, "Allied"

9) Annette Benning, "20th Century Women"
10) Taraji P Henson, "Hidden Figures"

Best Supporting Actor 

1) Mahershala Ali, "Moonlight" 

2) Michael Shannon, "Nocturnal Animals" 

3) Jeff Bridges, "Hell or High Water"

4) Lucas Hedges, "Manchester By the Sea"

5) Liam Neeson, "Silence"

6) Ben Foster, "Hell or High Water"

7) Hugh Grant, "Florence Foster Jenkins"

8) Aaron Eckhart, "Bleed For This"

9) Stephen Mckinley Henderson, "Fences"

10) Timothy Spaal, "Denial"

Best Supporting Actress
1) Viola Davis, "Fences"

2) Naomie Harris, "Moonlight"

3) Nicole Kidman, "Lion"

4) Octavia Spencer, "Hidden Figures"

5) Michelle Williams, "Manchester By the Sea"
6) Felicity Jones "A Monster Calls"

7) Margo Martindale, "The Hollars"

8) Molly Shannon, "Other People"

9) Helen Mirren, "Eye in the Sky"

10) Lupita Nyong'o, "Queen of Katwe"

Best Director

1) Damien Chazelle, "La La Land"

2) Ang Lee, "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk"

3) Kenneth Lonergan, "Manchester By the Sea'

4) Denzel Washington, "Fences"

5) Martin Scorsese, "Silence"

6) Pablo Larrain, "Jackie"

7) Barry Jenkins, "Moonlight"

8) Paul Verhoeven, "Elle"

9) Clint Eastwood, "Sully"

10) Jeff Nichols, "Loving"

Best Foreign Language Film
"Elle"
"Toni Erdmann"
"Neruda"
"The Salesman"
"Under the Shadow"
"From Afar"
"Fire At Sea"
"The Age of Shadows"
"Julieta"
"Land of Mine"

Best Animated Film
"Zootopia"
"Kubo and the Two Strings"
"Finding Dory"
"Moana"
"The Red Turtle"
"Sing"

Best Documentary Feature
"OJ: Made in America"
"The 13th"
"Lo and Behold"
"Before the Flood"
"Weiner"
"Gleason"
"Cameraperson"
"Jim: The James Foley Story"
"Amanda Knox"
"Zero Days"

Jim Jarmusch's "Paterson" is the best movie of 2016 so far ...

I saw Jim Jarmusch's "Paterson" at the Cannes Film Festival back in May, but it still lingers in my mind. Its hypnotic, moody atmosphere is unique and the masterful direction by Jarmusch possibly a career best. The film is a poetry of people, places, lives that seem superfluous and without much purpose. In Jarmusch's world people come and go, words gets written down and erased, but there always exists memory. It raises it glass to the small details in life, those that we take for granted. 

The film is set in Paterson, New Jersey - home of Lou Costello and Poet Carlos Wiilliams!- and takes place in the span of seven days in the life of -the aptly named- Paterson, as played by Adam Driver, a bus driver that leads a simple life and takes refuge in writing poetry about the smallest things imaginable. He eavesdrops through conversations, take inspiration through family and friends and his partner Laura, as played by Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani, herself a creative mind that turns their home into a layered, almost manically, labyrinth of stripes and matching colors. 

They both accept each other, flaws and all, like any true-to-life couple would. They defy their ordinariness by creating art and supporting each other the best way they can. It's a beautiful dissection of a relationship that could very well be your own. The film is an ode to the art of creating anything. Art is a powerful medicine for the soul and Jarmusch knows that very well having made his own cinematic medicine since his groundbreaking debut feature "Stranger Than Paradise" shook up the independent film movement in 1984. 

"Paterson" is quietly affecting and contemplative enough to blow your mind in certain sequences. This is a film about people that are not materialistic, not influenced by money. They ride like freewheelin' artists through life's necessities but stamp it with their own, unique mark. It is such an important movie for our times that it makes you appreciate every second, every moment of your absurdly mysterious life. 

The film is a stylistic departure for Jarmusch, it is also his most personal film. It has to be. Here is a risky endeavor for an artist that has taken his fair share of risk-taking leaps. In "Paterson" he takes nothingness, the most mundane details imaginable, a white canvas and fills it with such artistry and magical elegance to take your breath away. It is not only a wise film, but also a lovely one as well. A career peak if you will.

Notes on The Playlist's 'Best and Most Exciting Directors Working Today' List

It is an ambitious thing to do, isn't it? "Best" and most "exciting" directors working today in the business. A tough call, and to make such a list you probably have to set a few biases aside and look at the bigger picture. I put down a few notes on the list. The full article can be found HERE and my own concocted list if you scroll down. At least we can agree that Paul Thomas Anderson is the man and current master of the art form.



These don't make that much sense to me and should be higher:

Richard Linklater (#93) does not make any sense whatsoever. He's on such a hot streak these days that even making a "fun" romp like "Everybody Wants Some" seems to bring out the best in his work. The last 20 minutes of that film are just astounding.

Nuri Bilge Ceylan (#84) When a guy wins four awards at Cannes for four different films I think he should at least be a little higher. This is a director that is a force of nature and whether you like his films or not he is an influential figure in the world cinema scene.

Olivier Assayas (#82) "Summer Hours," "Carlos" "Clouds of Sils Maria" and "Personal Shopper" were his last four films. Assayas is very hot right now. This is too low of a ranking.

Alejandro González Iñárritu (#77) You might not like his films, but there's no denying he is changing the game with every movie he makes. 

Ang Lee (#74) "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," "The Ice Storm," "Brokeback Mountain," "Sense and Sensibility," and "Life of Pi." Lee is as good and reliable a filmmaker as you can get. Forget "Taking Woodstock" and "Hulk" for a second and look at the consistency he has had for the last 20+ years. 

Michael Mann (#69) Can we forget about "Blackhat" for a sec? "Thief," "Manhunter," "The Insider," "Ali," "Public Enemies," and "Collateral" can take care of the rest. A master.

Darren Aronofsky (#67) Anyone that's released "Requiem For a Dream," "Black Swan" and "The Wrestler" the past decade or so should be much higher in my books. 

The Dardennes Brothers (#66) Before this year's underwhelming "The Unknown Girl" the brothers were the most CONSISTENT filmmakers in the world. They had a perfect track record and have won the Palme D'or twice.

Apichatpong Weerasethakul (#63) Many consider this guy as the best director in the world. He is changing the language of cinema with his movies.

These are way too high:

Xavier Dolan (#50)  I mean, really? This guy?
Sofia Coppola (#38) I really like her, but she's been struggling of late.
Jill Soloway (#33) I love "Transparent," but she does not belong here.
Cary Fukunaga (#31) No, just no. He has immense talent, but not #31.
Jane Campion (#14) I love Campion, but she's been O.K. since the 90s.
Mia Hansen-Løve (#9) A bit too high, but she is turning into something very special.

I decided to split my list between American and World cinema, because it just makes much more sense that way. 

American Cinema

(1) Paul Thomas Anderson (2) The Coen Brothers (3) Martin Scorsese (4) Spike Jonze (5) Alfonso Cuaron (6) Todd Haynes (7) Wes Anderson (8) Richard Linklater (9) David Fincher (10) Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu 

World Cinema

(1) Michael Haneke (2) Lars Von Trier (3) The Dardennes Brothers (4) Wong Kar-Wai (5) Apichatpong Weerasethakul (6) Pedro Almodovar (7) Asghar Farhadi (8) Mike Leigh (9) Olivier Assayas (10) Cristian Mungiu

Daniel Radcliffe on Swiss Army Man: 'People fixate on the farting'

From a recent The Guardian interview"

"You can’t give an accurate impression of Swiss Army Man in three minutes. And people fixate on the farting, which makes you want to go: “Yeah, but it’s also really beautiful and weird, and there’s nothing else like it.”

To tell you the truth, I completely forgot about the film since I first saw it back in Park City. It did end up getting a release date this summer and was met with lukewarm reviews. Take away and you still have a somewhat original concept, a talking corpse movie - but with not enough substance to truly warrant a directing award at Sundance. I met the directing team behind it, Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinbert, quirky, cool guys that supposedly want to remake "White Chicks." By the way, I'm all for that idea.




An excerpt from my review of "Swiss Army Man" at Sundance:

"The directing award went to the directing duo behind the most polarizing film of the fest Swiss Army Man. Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert won the award for a movie that Twitch Film’s Jason Gorber called “The Citizen Kane of fart joke movies.” If that doesn’t interest you at all then steer far away from this movie starring Daniel Radcliffe as a dead, farting corpse and Paul Dano as a distraught man stranded in the middle of a dessert Island. They somehow form a friendship and learn to help each other in the process. Radcliffe’s corpse is used as a jet ski ride whenever he farts, on the other hand Dano tries to teach his compadre about the joy of life by dressing up like a a girl and putting the moves on good ol’ Harry Potter. Not much else can be said, just sit back and let the ridiculousness of this movie drop your jaw down to the floor."

Christopher Nolan is said to be getting $20 million upfront and 20% of the gross for World War II epic "Dunkirk"

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Christopher Nolan's earnings for "Dunkirk": $20 million upfront and 20% of the gross. The most lucrative deal since Peter Jackson's equal earnings for "King Kong." Nolan has a very large and loyal fanbase, the biggest of any mainstream director I can think of. He also enormous power in terms of creative freedom, which could be a blessing and a curse at times, especially if you've seen his flawed, but fascinating 2014 Science Fiction opera "Interstellar."

Which other mainstream filmmaker get this kind of dough for a film ? The answer is not many. The article goes on to say that "even a director as esteemed as David Fincher can find himself getting nickeled and dimed when a studio is less certain of a project’s future; Fincher lost "Steve Jobs" to Danny Boyle because he wouldn’t back down from his $10 million asking price (plus, he wanted control of marketing). 

Esteemed doesn't really mean as much as the bottom line. Fincher's films don't make that much money. Nolan's most definitely do rack it up. Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Michael Bay, Ron Howard and Robert Zemeckis are probably right up there with him in that elite list of directors.

As per The Playlist, "Dunkirk" "is inspired by Operation Dynamo, the near-miraculous evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and other Allied troops from the French seaport of Dunkirk, which took place from May-June of 1940. Hoyte van Hoytema ("Interstellar") is lensing the picture, with Hans Zimmer providing the score."

Production has just wrapped up and set for a Summer 2017 release date.

Martin Scorsese's 39 Essential Foreign Films

"This list is an absolute good. The list is life. All around its margins lies the gulf."

A look at Kristen Stewart in Olivier Assayas' "Personal Shopper"

I was hoping it'd come out this year, but, alas, we will have to wait until next spring it seems if my conversations with its publicist at TIFF are any indication. They have decided to, in his words, "follow the same plan as what what was done with Assayas' "Clouds of Sils Maria," which also starred Stewart.

In the meantime we have this just released trailer to wet our appetites a bit.

EDIT: one look at IMDB says it has an official release date of March 17th, 2017.

Excerpts from my Cannes review:

"Olivier Assayas’ latest, "Personal Shopper" was the infamous film that got booed. Although highly stylized, the film didn’t deserve that reaction. Revolving around a ghost story that, not by accident, happens to take place in a fashion industry filled with artifice, the film is meant to be absorbed for what it is: A taut, terrific venture into the unknown."

"Kristen Stewart stars as Maureen, a top-model’s personal shopper that also, supposedly, happens to be telepathic. When her brother dies she begins to question the many curious events happening around her, which includes a mysterious texter. The texting scene is close to half an hour long and is the make it or break point for many of the film’s champions and detractors. I found it entirely absorbing. Same for the rest of the movie, except for a unfortunate weak coda that ends the movie on an ambiguous note, instead of in a clear and concise manner."

"No matter, this is top-notch filmmaking with an impeccable performance by Stewart, who hasn’t really had to carry a full movie on her own until this one. She is alone in many scenes throughout the picture and does an admirable job leaving you in a state of hypnosis with her mannerisms and quirks. Assayas, a great director, quite clearly wanted to create a supernatural atmosphere, with much influence on the 1960 classic "The Haunting." As far as those kind of movies go, there is nothing wrong in putting "Personal Shopper" next to them" [B+]

Nate Parker to appear on 60 Minutes

Thanks Jefferey Welles over at Hollywood-Elsewhere for the heads-up:



EDIT: It seems like he will not apologize in this interview. From a just released clip we have Parker saying that he got exonerated and found not guilty and doesn't need to apologize ...

So here's my history with Nate Parker's "The Birth of a Nation"
I reviewed it at Sundance this past January with very mixed feelings.

Excerpts from my 1.19.16 rumblings:

"Winning the Dramatic Grand Jury Prize and Audience Award is a sign that this movie is about to take Hollywood by storm. It was made to piss people off and get them out of their seats shouting. Recounting the story of Nat Turner, an African American Slave that lead a rebellion in 1831 to free African-Americans in Virgina. There’s blood soaked, sweat induced, passion in every frame of Nate Parker’s flawed film. You can never discount this kind of filmmaking, even when it’s by a first-time filmmaker still learning his narrative steps. The aptly titled film is bound to cause a stir when it gets released later this year, choosing the title of D.W Griffith’s grand, but very racist, 1915 masterpiece is a sign that the times might be in fact changing. Parker makes mistakes and those mistake do end up costing him. Portraying Turner as Jesus-like figure doesn't help, nor does the fact that he fumblingly sets up his story in a lame almost skittish way. The actual rebellion only happens near the end. Bad decision. Parker isn't fit yet to carry such a heavy subject matter as a director, his amateurish mistakes are absurd and almost too naive, but his mind and passion are in the right place and his movie relevant as ever, which is why so many here are on Team Parker"

Fine. This sounds like a C+ kind of movie which is what I would have given the film back in Park City. People went gaga over it which, I found, really had to do more with current political climate than the actual quality of the film itself.

With that Sundance triumph Parker was well headed to the Oscars with his film, but then BOOM. Controversy struck:

"A past case involving rape charges. Parker and, then wrestling teammate Jean MiGianni Celestin, were accused of raping a fellow Penn State student while she was intoxicated and unconscious. It doesn't stop there, they both started harassing her after she pressed charges on them. If you read the court orders and records of calls that are online you will see a helpless victimized girl, that just wanted to get an education, harassed both physically and mentally to the brink of near-suicide.

The Parker case was well-known, I even asked Hollywood Elsewhere's Jefferey Welles about it back in January to which he just shrugged it off and said the case is closed. He was right, the case was closed, but recently we found out the victim committed suicide, after two failed attempts, three years ago. Ok, here we go. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize how implicated Parker is to this. Can we, the public, actually forgive him for what he has done? That's none of our business. What is more important is if the victim's family should forgive him and, in a rather vague, but fascinating statement, they seemed to have definitely not forgiven Celestin and Parker."

Ok, so now we have a problem and The Toronto International Film Festival, an event that was supposed to crown the film, was right around the corner. I was sent down by The Playlist to cover the press conference which ended up being a total clusterfuck:

"The mood was awkward at today’s press conference, as Parker kept dodging questions concerning his past. “This is a forum for the film, the people sitting on the stage, I don’t want to hijack it with my personal life,” he said when asked why he hadn’t yet apologized to the family of the woman at the centre of the case. “Respectfully I want to continue to celebrate the people that are in front of us today.” His outspoken co-star Gabrielle Union concurred, “There is the art and there is the artist, these are two different things … To those that want to stay home I tell them whatever issue you have bring it to the theatre and judge for yourself.”

Parker seemed content with having his cast answering some of the more pertinent questions, but stepped in to confirm that the release and awards push are continuing on as planned. “I can’t speak for the [distributor] Fox [Searchlight]. We are still moving forward as planned with everything.” He went on to elaborate “I don’t pretend to be an expert on people’s reactions. I’m a filmmaker. I am going to stand in that lane and stay there.”

He didn't really seem to apologize in any way, shape or form. Which is really what people are asking for. He was even asked why he hasn't apologized by the NY Times and completely dodged, deviated that question.

The film's reviews have been a little more tepid since then, oh critics, and all that brings us to this Sunday's 60 Minutes interview. Which, I understand, has been in the works weeks before than infamous TIFF presser. Maybe he was waiting for a national audience to "officially" say he's sorry.

Capsule Reviews: "American Honey," "Deepwater Horizon," "Miss Peregrine's School For Peculiar Children," "Masterminds"

American Honey (R)

"Andrea Arnold’s American Honey will be a polarizing film. A 160 minute road trip to Americana hell, if you will. An "On the Road" for and about millennials. Cannes is not the last we’ll hear about this movie and I’m perfectly fine with that. No one should dismiss it, for it has so many great moments in its scattered running time that one might have to look through a bit of rambling incoherence to find them."
"Non-professional actress Sasha Lane plays Star, a lost American soul that decides to hop on-board a bus full of Magazine-selling kids that go cross country to make money and sell magazine subscriptions. On the way they listen to pop radio and have sing alongs. Those sing-alongs end up taking up the full-length of a song. Some are quite exceptionally moving and exciting, whereas others meander. It’s just that kind of a movie, either you go with its flow or you just don’t. I did." 

"It’s not just singalongs. There’s an admirable sense of free-wheeling going on here. Arnold is depicting an American society of millennials that are disconnected and disconcerted with the American way. They’d rather sell their bodies than live in a capitalist-run society trying to live the “American dream”. As the film jogs along we get a fuller sense of the dynamics at play here. The structure, which is infuriating at times, runs constant repetitive circles, and yet we are fully engaged with much of what we see. There’s an overall sense of unimaginable freedom in Arnold’s filmmaking. It’s a vital, great movie that could probably use a trim." [B+]

Deepwater Horizon (PG-13)

"(Director Peter) Berg is interested in the visceral experience more than the actual post-tragedy consequences. Which is not to take away from the fact that "Deepwater Horizon" does succeed in what it intended in the first place: putting us on the edge of our seats. The action is relentless, with a primal use of special effects to get us smack dab in the middle of a life-or-death situation with these men. Think "Titanic", but with flames instead of water. Lots and lots of flames, but it eventually becomes overkill."

"The Coast Guard gets called in to help out, but the fire seething through every corner of the ship makes it impossible for them to do anything other than set up lifeboats and hope the workers make it out alive. Mike Williams comes to save the day, portrayed as a heroic action figure by Wahlberg. Following the action in "Lone Survivor," Berg reasserts his gift for bracing set-pieces. As the Deepwater Horizon bursts into flames and crumbles into oblivion, Berg’s camera moves furiously, but we are always alert to what’s at stake."

"In a film that has so much going on, action-wise, it would have been nice if Berg slowed down the visceral aspect and tried to build some kind of personality to his characters. Many go on and off screen with little provided background, the likes of which is saved solely for Wahlberg’s Mike and Russell’s Jimmy. If anything, "Deepwater Horizon" reminds us just how talented an action director Berg is and how often substance becomes a second thought for the director." [C]

Miss Peregrine's School for Peculiar Children (PG-13)

"While watching Tim Burton's "Miss Peregrine's Home For Peculiar Children" I couldn't help, but be reminded of Burton's better days as a director. Which is not to say that his new film, based on Ransom Riggs' ultra popular YA novel, is a total bomb. His knack for great visuals is still in tact, but this is not a story that Burton would have undertaken during his peak years. It's a paycheck, but, Burton being Burton, he really does try to make this work."

"That's the problem with his latter-day career. "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory" and "Alice in Wonderland" were steps back when they were supposed to be steps forward. He tried to get back to his glory days a few years ago with "Big Eyes" which barely missed the mark, but proved that he does still strive for artistic freedom." 

"Miss Peregrine's Home For Peculiar Children" is a safe, moderately entertaining film that is meant to rake in the big bucks. You will likely not see his name in the advertisements for the film because there already is a specific fanbase for the film. The visuals are, in some circumstances, stunning, but the story is thin and the auteuristic stamp somewhat nonexistent." [C]

Denial (PG-13)

"The true story centers around the legal battle David Irving (Timothy Spall) and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) questioning the historical validity of the holocaust. Yes, the story might sound oddly over-the-top, but it did happen. Irving, a man who considers himself a historian, believed the holocaust was a complete hoax. So much so that he decided to bring Lipstadt to court over her book Denying the Holocaust, which he deemed insulting and filled with lies. Lipstadt decided to hire a top-notch legal team, headed up by Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson), with the financial help of Steven Spielberg among many other celebrities, to prove that Irving was not just a fraud, but a racist man that was filled with hate and craved public attention."

"Directed by Mick Jackson, from a screenplay by David Hare, the film doesn’t try to reinvent the genre or break new ground, rather telling the story justly without any stylistic interference. The events that occurred were almost too outrageous, with Irving defending himself without a lawyer, that this simple visual style that lets the story speak for itself."

"Spall, a Mike Leigh regular, brings dimension to his role of an evil man that truly believes what he says and seems to soak up all the attention he can get. Weisz, despite a distracting wig, is fantastic with her portrayal of a woman that won’t give up and risks a life’s work for a court case many in the U.K were taking a little too seriously. Both actors make Denial much easier to swallow, even when convention hits and familiar ground is met." [B]

Masterminds (R)

Do I really need to say anything about this movie? It's already a miracle I didn't walk out from last night's screening. This film has been in the can for nearly a year now with delays in release. It's "based on a true story" although that claim should be taken as seriously as the Coen's with "Fargo." Just a terrible mess of a movie. Galifianakis is a goofball that gets suckered by his work crush, as played by Kristen Wiig, into perpetrating a heist at their security job. 17 million dollars. Biggest heist in U.S. history. The actual story is interesting, the film not so much. It feels like an overextended SNL skit. [D]

"Dark Night" tackles the Aurora shooting

The 2012 Shooting in Aurora, Colorado - at a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" - was a tragedy that will likely not be forgotten anytime soon. The gunman ended up killing 12 people and injuring 70. The remnants of that horrible act are still being felt to this day, but, just like most of the mass shootings we have witnessed this past decade, filmmakers have refused to tackle the topic. Are we ready to deal with this through art? I can't really tell you, but Paul Greengrass' "United 93" is proof that, when done right, art can truly transcend tragedy and put things into perspective. The best example being Gus Van Sant's prophetic "Elephant" which was released only a few years after its targedy, Columbine, occurred.


I saw Tim Sutton's "Dark Night" at Sundance this past January. The room was practically empty and that is a good way to explain the way the film was met over there: with calm, polite appreciation, but, truth be told, I know a lot of critics that skipped their screening of the film. I Wasn't one of them. The movie seemed fascinating from the outset. It all takes place in the span of a day and follows the lives of six strangers that will end up at that screening of "The Dark Knight Rises."

Sutton refuses to show the actual act, but instead focuses his lens on the people. Not a bad idea, if Van Sant made us witness the horrid crime that was happening, Sutton cuts that part out. Nevertheless "Elephant's" influence throughout the film is felt. That is the actual only flaw of the film, it really does try too hard to be like "Elephant." Its meditatively simple approach is quite clearly something that has been ripped off from Van Sant's style, but you can also see this stylistic decision as a kind of nod/tribute to Van Sant as well. Whatever the case, "Elephant" and "Dark Night" would make a nightmarish double header [B+]

Courtesy of IndieWire:

"Cinelicious Pics has acquired all North American rights to Tim Sutton’s critically acclaimed “Dark Night.” Billed as “an artfully understated critique of American gun culture,” the film is “loosely based around the 2012 massacre that took place during a multiplex screening of ‘The Dark Knight’ in Aurora, Colorado.” Sutton’s feature uses pseudo-documentary technique and a cast of non-professional actors to chart the course of six strangers — including the eventual shooter — over one fateful day. The film was shot in Sarasota, Florida, and lensed by veteran French DP Helene Louvart and boasts an original score by Montreal-based Maica Armata."

Full article can be found HERE

Underwhelming Cannes entry "Mean Dreams" gets a trailer

I saw "Mean Dreams" at Cannes as it was part of the Director's Fortnight. I can't really say I very much liked it. Most of it felt cliched and inauthentic. What did stand out was first-time Filmmaker Nathan Morlando's visual style which was very much influenced by, who else, Terrence Malick. Malick is really becoming a go-to name these days for many young filmmakers. I guess him coming back from retirement in 1998 for "The Thin Red Line" was something of a blessing for all of us as it really added his important and integral name back to the forefront of cinema. There have been cheap Malick ripoffs since then and, at times, "Mean Dreams" does feel like that. It's a teenagers on-the-run film that recalls Malick's "Badlands," but has none of the verve or audacity of that 1973 masterpiece. In the film Casey (Sophie Nelisse) and Jonas (Josh Wiggins), both part of separate broken homes, decide to make a run for it. Where are they going? They're not too sure, neither is director Morlando [C]

Has there been a better cinematic year than 1999?

"Being John Malkovich," "American Beauty," "Magnolia," "Election," "The Sixth Sense," "Boy's Don't Cry," "Eyes Wide Shut," "Fight Club," "The Limey," "Three Kings," "The Iron Giant," "Toy Story 2," "Bringing Out the Dead," "The Talented Mr. Ripley," "The Insider," "The Matrix," "Summer of Sam," "Office Space," "South Park," "The Blair Witch Project," "The Dreamlife of Angels," "American Pie," "Bowfinger," "Payback," "Man on The Moon," "Austin Powers The Spy Who Shagged Me," "All About My Mother," "Go," "Rosetta," "The Straight Story," "The Green Mile," "Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai," "Run Lola Run," "Dick."

EDIT, RogerEbert.com's Susan Wloszczynya and Joblo.com's Christopher Bumbray mentioned on Facebook the year 2007, and, I must agree, it gives 1999 a hell of an argument as an equal and, if not, better contender: 

"No Country For Old Men," "There Will Be Blood," "Zodiac," "The Assassination of Jesse James," "4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days," "The Lives of Others," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "Ratatouille," "Eastern Promises," "Michael Clayton," "Sweeney Todd," "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead," "Superbad," "American Gangster," "The Darjeeling Limited," "Black Book," "Death Proof," "The Mist," "Knocked Up," "Lust Caution," "Rescue Dawn," "Into the Wild," "The Lookout," "Live Free or Die Hard," "The Simpsons Movie," "Breach," "A Mighty Heart," "Rescue Dawn," "Bug."

Paul Schrader's deliciously subversive "Dog Eat Dog"

I saw this one at Cannes and also interviewed its Director Paul Schrader and Writer Matthew Wilder. Interview can be found HERE. Excerpts from my Cannes review:

"The opening scene to "Dog Eat Dog," a little backstory about Willem Dafoe’s wildly erratic Mad Dog, is an open invitation for the audience to accept the nasty gravitas of this wholly terrifying and violent movie.  There were a few walkouts during my screening at Cannes, but director Paul Schrader and screenwriter Matthew Wilder wouldn’t want it any other way."

"Based on the novel by Eddie Bunker, “Dog Eat Dog” is Paul Schrader’s latest movie and it’s a doozy. The three main guys in the story, Troy (Nicolas Cage), Diesel (Christopher Matthew Cook), and Mad Dog (Willem Dafoe), have been released from prison and find themselves trying to adapt to everyday life. The California “three strike law” is very much on their minds, but they are hooked on the visceral aspect of violence. They claim one more hit, one more jackpot, that’s all they want, but we know their high is never-ending. "

"There isn’t an ounce of fat in Wilder’s wildly inventive screenplay. The film is an amalgam of everything that’s come before it in the gangster genre and yet it feels fresh, new and revitalized by stinging exuberance. Schrader’s direction is possessed - he hasn’t been this energized by a film since 2002’s great “Auto Focus.” It's a high-octane comeback for a filmmaking maverick that we badly need today in these dismal cinematic times"

Comparing Terrence Malick’s Two Different Versions Of Epic "Voyage Of Time" Passion Project

More or less a work in progress since years before "The Tree Of Life" was released back in 2011,Terrence Malick's much delayed "Voyage of Time: A Life's Journey" has been a near odyssey to reach the screen. Even years even before ‘Tree of Life’ masterwork, Malick had tried to develop a film about the origins of earth for Paramount in the 1970s entitled "Q." He eventually abandoned the project, but some of the footage, some of it shot nearly 40 years ago from "Q" is employed in "Voyage of Time."  But at least for ten years during the making of “Tree of Life,” Malick and cinematographer Paul Atkins have tried to achieve the impossible with this film: make a movie about the beginning, the middle, and the end of time. With such an ambitious concept, it’s not surprising “Voyage of Time” took forever to make and complete. What is surprising is that Malick finally ended up with a scant 90 minute running time for his movie, narrated by Cate Blanchett, and a 40 minute IMAX version, narrated by  Brad Pitt. Both versions are very different in terms of goal, scope and ambition and so we attempt to break them down here. Note: you can read our Venice solo review of "Voyage of Time: A Life's Journey" here.

Voyage of Time: A Life's Journey"  

90 minutes long, the Cate Blanchett-narrated version is a fascinating, but flawed piece of work. It encompasses a world ofideas for such a short amount of time. Something is indeed missing in this version, which starts off with Blanchett cooing a typical Malick-ian, breathy voice-over. 

"Mother" she whispers tenderly, "you walked with me then in the silence. Before there was a world. Before night or day. Mother, where are you?” We see the sun rising, but then the film cuts to digital, hand-held, grainy footage (fairly rare in the Malick world outside of the GoPro cameras he’s been recently employing, of the homeless in Los Angeles and Refugee camps in Africa. These scenes tend to meander in the 90 minute version, which includes more grainy footage such as an Israeli Orthodox wedding, an Indian wedding, all of which are justly cut out of the 45 minute IMAX version. 

Practically replicated in the film the big bang scenes in "The Tree of Life" are spectacular. The formation of the earth's core with eye-popping CGI, courtesy of FX wizard  Dan Glass, is just magnificent. It’s awe-inspiring visuals, incredible similar to the opening celestial footage, “The Tree Of Life,” but it is so ravishing to look at, it never gets old. This portionof the film is cut in half in the IMAX version. Also the vague, almost maddening Cate Blanchett narration is replaced by a more straightforward Brad Pitt voiceover fit for planetariums all across the country. And, really, isn't this a film that is essentially meant to be played in space museums worldwide?  

With an idea that could quite conceivably be one of the most ambitious in movie history, it is a real shame that Malick doesn't add more content after the Homosapiens segment and just decides to end his movie on an ambiguous note of what the earth's final days might look like, being swept up by a black hole and just vanishing as if it never existed.  

As gorgeous as “A Life’s Journey” can be, there it’s rather shapeless and doesn’t seem to be as much sense of purpose in it compared to the IMAX version as it meanders amorphously. Ironically, even a longer running time than the IMAX version works against it. Malick tries to construct a fluid groove to build his film upon but cannot truly make it all his ideas gel, in just 90 minutes. Counterintuitively,  longer running time with added scenes might have made the entire epic endeavor feel like a richer, more involving experience.

Voyage of Time: “The IMAX Experience"  

As we’ve details, ‘The IMAX Experience is sharper and cleaner, but it’s also a different beast. The grainy digital footage ‘A Life’s Journey’ is replaced in the IMAX version by cutaways of a young girl, standing in a field and pondering the beauties of nature. Despite what it sounds like, these scenes area more subtle and nuanced break compared to the more direct and inconsistent attempts in the longer version at making parallels between today's world and the yesteryear of earth's first inhabitants. They also deliver much-needed fluidity to Malick’s film from sequence to sequence.

But what about earth's first inhabitants? Both films have the evolutionary process in full-on display: Sea creatures, Dinosaurs, Elephants, Apes, and eventually man. Malick wisely trims down many of the underwater sequences in the editing room as they ponderously take up much of the running time in "A Life's Journey." That isn't to say that they completely don't work, because when we are first introduced to the earth's first sea creatures we are astonished by what we see, but this repetition gets old; but not in the IMAX version. The Pitt narration is, unlike Blanchett’s, clear, concise and reminiscent of David Attenborough’s narrative style in theBBC nature documentaries he is so famous for contributing his vocals to (think “Frozen Planet”). The frustration with Blanchett’s rambling, inconsistent “poetry” in ‘A Life’s Journey’ is completely erased and makes for a cleaner, more enjoyable finished product. It is informative and contextualized enough to hold us enthralled in all its stunning images. There little not ponderous contemplation, just straightforward storytelling which is a breath a fresh air given the overtly ponderous hot air of his last two films “To The Wonder” and “Knight of Cups.”

There are also added visuals in the all-IMAX-shot  version that don’t appear in “A Life’s Journey,” most probably becauseof how extraordinary they look in 4K compared to the 35mm version. 

Of course, the science community will likely flip for many of the sequences that Malick has conveyed in both versions. If dinosaurs in "The Tree of Life" were just barely seen, his new doc does the creatures some epic justice. In the IMAX version Malick's iconic lenses show us the Jurassic era in full flesh and its a wonder to behold. He has dinosaurs preying, trying to survive, and eventually wiped out by an asteroid that leaves the screen black.  

Subsequent to the end of the dinosaur age, the reformation of earth is also stunningly rendered, with the planet trying to heal and gain back what it had built before the planet was nearly destroyed. Malick does gracefulness like no one else and the elegance and fluid shape of these scenes is mesmerizing and a stark reminder to never take this beautiful planet for granted.  

 

The biggest selling point of the 45 minute IMAX version is obviously the IMAX itself and its a big reason why ‘Life’s Journey’ cannot compete.If there ever was a film that could maximally display  IMAX's effectiveness and awe-inspiring technological prowess, this is it. TO be visual nerds about it 2K versus 4K, 1080 resolution is just no match. The difference is simply enormous. The colors pop out more, as do the effects and the rock formations and the overall power is overwhelming. Jaws will drop and eyes will pop. Malick’s rapturous film no doubt will screen in planetariums worldwide, perhaps until the end of time.

A Voyage of Time [B/B+]

The IMAX Version [A-] 

Something feels off with Denzel Washington's "Fences"

What do I see here? A scene where Denzel hams it up for the camera and Viola Davis cries relentlessly, those beautiful buggy eyes telling a world of emotions. But something is off here? I'm not sure what? Maybe not enough was given to us in this first sneak peek, but the overall vibe Im getting is Oscar-bait with adaptation limits that have squandered many other similar movies hopes in the past. This is based on August Wilson's play of the same name which also starred Washington and Davis. Those are powerhouse actors. They can elevate just abut anything. It is directed by Washington, whose previous efforts showed his limitations as a director. "Antwone Fisher" and "The Great Debaters" both competently watchable, but ultimately unsatisfying in their unattainable expectations. Do I hold out hope for "Fences"? Of course, it has two of the greatest working actors in the game working on a labor of love. The movie means a lot to everyone involved, but can it transcend into something truly special? We will see. The movie opens on Christmas day.

Notes on "The Accountant" starring Ben Affleck

The film is currently under embargo and, like all embargoed films, I can only be vague and abstract about my feelings for the film (which I caught this afternoon). A full review will have to come at a later date, most probably around its October 14th release date, but think of this as Affleck's action star movie, quite similar to Liam Neeson in "Taken" or Keanu Reeves in "John Wick." Affleck's film is really just an old-fashioned action movie with not much on its mind, but to entertain.

Courtesy of IMDB:

"Christian Wolff is a math savante with more affinity for numbers than people. Behind the cover of a small-town CPA office, he works as a freelance accountant for some of the world's most dangerous criminal organizations. With the Treasury Department's Crime Enforcement Division, run by Ray King, starting to close in, Christian takes on a legitimate client: a state-of-the-art robotics company where an accounting clerk has discovered a discrepancy involving millions of dollars. But as Christian uncooks the books and gets closer to the truth, it is the body count that starts to rise."

Scorsese's "Silence" coming out December 23rd

FINALLY. The savior has cometh to save the movie year! I REPORTED last week that the film would indeed be released this year and now we have an official release date: December 23rd, 2016.

I'm hearing it will get screened for press in November. Now, where's the trailer? I mean, this is too good to be true. We want actual footage of the damn thing. Variety has the whole story HERE.

Toughts on SXSW Winner "Tower"

Excerpt taken from my SXSW review:

"What Keith Maitland has created in "Tower" is a singular technical achievement, but also, for its first hour or so, a bracing indictment of quite possibly the very beginning of the mass shooting phenomenon that is still occurring to this very day in the United States. Maitland creatively combines still photos, 8mm footage from the tragedy, and rotoscopic animation, much like Linklater's "Waking Life" to create a fully fleshed-out depiction of that fateful day in 1966 when a lone gunmen rode an elevator to the 22nd floor in the University of Texas tower and started randomly shooting at innocent by-standing students and staff. It feels like the most visceral action movie in quite some time, but also showcases an immaculate example of true heroism. Although its last half hour doesn't come through as expected and the film changes its tune dramatically by looking at the aftermath of the event, the first hour is well worth a watch. "