"Wonder Wheel" NYFF bust or a pleasant surprise?

With "Last Flag Flying" all but gone from the Oscar race, hey don't blame me I liked it and gushed about it to director Richard Linklater when I interviewed him, NYFF is about to head into what might possibly be the make it or break it week of the fest, with the screening of Woody Allen's "Wonder Wheel."  People so desperately want it to hit the bullseye and become the winner it has the potential to be. Not many have seen it, but the buzz for Kate Winslet's performance has been deafening. In this industry it's actually quite easy to build up buzz for it to only whimper off into oblivion once the film or performance is actually seen, that's why I remained cautiously optimistic about Woody's 48th feature film when I went to a morning screening of it the other day. 

Yes, he's made 48 movies, I'd say around 2/3 of them are, at the very least, good. His batting average has softened up a bit the last 17 years or so, but he's still found a way to give us "Blue Jasmine," "Midnight in Paris," "Match Point," "Vicki Cristina Barcelona," and, yes, even his highly underrated Joaquin Phoenix/Emma Stone flick "Irrational Man," in which the Woodman gave a damn near-autobiographical contemplation on his fear of death. The slight, delicate "Wonder Wheel" does belong in that upper-tier group, but with reservations.

It is slated to screen for the guild today in L.A. and NYC and again for the press on October 13th in those same cities. 

The film is set in the Coney Island of Woody's youth, as Kate Winslet plays a 1950’s housewife who cheats on her carousel-operator husband (Jim Belushi) with a lifeguard, played by Justin Timberlake. Enter the stepdaughter (Juno Temple) who visits daddy for the summer and, you guessed it, also falls for the lifeguard. The film is a blend of comedy and heavy drama, but it doesn't necessarily resemble Allen's 2013 triumph "Blue Jasmine," in which a Xanax-popping Cate Blanchett's version of A Streetcar Named Desire's Blanche DuBois set the screen on fire, Cate won the Oscar. Kate will probably not.

Make no mistake, "Wonder Wheel" is solid Allen, it speeds through its plot in the same way "Bullets Over Broadway" did, mixing gangsters, comedians, clueless thespians to make a whole that feels like it could have only been made by the 81-year-old-filmmaker. And don't miss an incredibly emotional sequence where Winslet's character lets it rip for a fair amount of minutes. Clips from this scene alone could be replayed over and over by Amazon in promotional bits and land Winslet her eighth Oscar nomination.

For the time being, it seems to be part of a select few films remaining to be fully screened this year that has a shot at awards. The others are Paul Thomas Anderson's "Phantom Thread," Steven Spielberg's " The Post," Ridley Scott's "All the Money in the World" and Rian Johnson's "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," which I hear is a breathtaking spectacle. 

Embargoes have prevented me from speaking more about the film, but more will be written when it lifts on the 13th.

Wise Decision? Amazon gives Lynne Ramsay-helmed, Joaquin Phoenix-Starring "You Were Never Really Here" February 23rd, 2018 release date

Amazon studios has given the critically acclaimed "You Were Never Really Here" a pitiful release date, set for next February 24th. Are you kidding me? You should have heard the critics after the Cannes screening I attended back in May, they were doing backflips for this Joaquin Phoenix-starring movie in which he plays a veangeful hitman. Many were even thinking it might win the Palme D'or. It currently has an 88 Metacritic score, which is pretty impressive considering none of the competition at this year's Cannes received a higher score. 


EDIT: Andrei Zvyagintsev's "Loveless" also received a score of 88.

What does this all mean for director Lynne Ramsay's film? Well, that it has an uphill climb to be noticed in February considering many critics are off that time of the year or have come back from Sundance and are taking a break from watching movies. There's also the fact that if Ramsay's film wants to be noticed come awards time, people will have to remember the film 9+ months hence after its initial release date. Terrible decision from Amazon, hopefully the film won't be ignored because it's an original vision Ramsay has given us and well worth a look. 

Here's what I wrote about the film this past Cannes:

"I saw Lynne Ramsay’s latest film twice at Cannes. A rarity for me, but a case could be made for Ramsay’s film to be dissected as it packs a whole can of worms in its 83 minute running time. Joaquin Phoenix plays a war veteran who now works as a hitman. His attempt to save a young girl from a sex trafficking ring becomes very complicated once he uncovers a political conspiracy lurking beneath it. The editing is the real sell here as Ramsay tries an experimental approach through quickly snipped flashbacks and voiceover. She finds ways to show as little as possible, but say as much as is needed, building up her main character in ways that feel like the story is being told through his subconscious. Heady stuff, but masterfully done and a groundbreaker if there ever was one at Cannes."

Official Synopsis:

"A missing teenage girl. A brutal and tormented enforcer on a rescue mission. Corrupt power and vengeance unleash a storm of violence that may lead to his awakening."

"Blade Runner 2049"

"Blade Runner" is a peculiar film. It doesn't necessarily have much of a thick, narratively-driven story as much as it has themes, characters, resonant-filled subtleties which cannot necessarily be summoned in a single viewing. It's all about atmosphere, but within that atmosphere is meaty substance. That's why it was greeted with indifference back in 1982 and only became a classic in the ensuing years. Hell, some people, many actually, are still not convinced of its legitimacy worthy of the movie time capsule. The main question the movie asks, about humanity and our worth, deserves the warranted, heated discussions it has attained over the last 30 years. It all revolves around if Harrison Ford's character Deckard, the blade runner of the title, is a droid or a human? Does it even matter? The latter is something its director Ridley Scott seemed to be hinting at, as droids, much like humans, wanted the same freedoms we take for granted: To feel, ache, rejoice, hurt, love etc.

And so, the mighty Scott has passed the torch for the followup to ever esteemable Denis Villeneuve, a filmmaker that has no doubt proven his big-studio worth these last 5 years with flawed but technically, and professionally, impressive work such as "Prisoners," "Sicario" and "Arrival." Films that have garnered immense fanbases and have catapulted the Quebecois director to the ranks of Hollywood directing heaven with the likes of Nolan, Spielberg, Scorsese, or at least now he has with "Blade Runner 2049" which feels like icing on the cake, further proof that he is the real deal that I've been touting about since his 2011 French Canadian masterpiece "Incendies" make the film festival rounds.

None of his American films have managed to capture the bloody, brutal brilliance of "Incendies," but, by golly, is this man on his way to that peak again, slowly learning the tricks of the trade to fully master his own auteur voice in a studio system lacking in, well, distinct and unique voices.

"Blade Runner 2049" is Villeneuve gaining confidence in his ability to let a narrative breathe and have the confidence of the audience member to follow him along a deeply steeped, tip-toeing and risky narrative. It's 153-minute length, not counting the 11-minute credits, will surely be an endurance test for many because, well, just like the 1982 predecessor, nothing really happens, but everything does as well. It's a film front-loaded with cinematographer Roger Deakins' beautifully lit frames, but beneath those frames lie secrets that will no doubt become more visible with repeat viewings, or at least that's what I hope because after a single viewing of "Blade Runner 2049" I can honestly say a lot of questions are still left unanswered.

The film, set thirty years after the original, has a quiet brooding lead character in Ryan Gosling's Officer K, who is a blade runner himself, seeking defacto droids that pose as humans. Just like Ford's Deckard, he's the best at what he does. Trouble comes in the form of an uncovered secret that could open a whole can of worms for the totalitarian government of the new world, which leads K on a quest to find Deckard, who's been missing for more than thirty years. It implicates K and a childhood memory that was implanted in his subconscious when he was created or did it actually happen?

That plot description is only a thin guide to a vast and ambitious effort from Villeneuve, who had a publicist read a note he wrote before the screening of the film began asking critics to not divulge crucial plot points of the film in their reviews. I will not do that. This imperfect, messy, but energetic film deserves to be seen without any knowledge of the plot. The less you know, the better.

Pacing issues notwithstanding, the main flaw I have with the film is in its final third. Here's the thing about "Blade Runner 2049" the more you discover its secrets, the less intriguing it becomes, for 2 hours and change you are completely surrounded in mystery as to what will be coming next. You do know it all leads to a meeting with Ford's Deckard, thank the trailer for that, but there's a vibe that Villeneuve and Deakins create that's damn near mystical. Villeneuve should have taken a cue from his predecessor and not given us any concrete answers. Nevertheless, the final few minutes are astounding.

We all figure this will be the movie that will have Roger Deakins win his first ever Oscar, right? After all, Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner 2049" is a transportive visual feast for the eyes which has no less than a dozen, or so, of the best shots of the entire movie year. The legendary cinematographer and 13-time nominee shoots the hell out of this visionary sequel and will surely be a contender come Awards season [B+]

Box Office: In a very tight race Kingsman: The Golden Circle holds on to #1 with $16.9M, while American Made comes in at disappointing #3 with $16.7M. Also Flatliners bombs at #5 with $6.7M and IT passes The Exorcist in worldwide gross ($555.5M), making it highest grossing R-rated horror film

1. “It” — $17.3 million ($291.1 mil.) 
2. “American Made” — $17.01 million 
3. “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” — $17 million ($66.7 mil.) 
4. “The LEGO Ninjago Movie” — $12 million ($35.5 mil.) 
5. “Flatliners” — $6.7 million 
6. “Battle Of The Sexes” — $3.4 million ($4 million) 
7. “American Assassin” — $3.3 million 
8. “Home Again” — $1.7 million ($25.1 mil.) 
9. “Til Death Do Us Part” — $1.5 million 
10. “mother!” — $1.4 million ($16.3 mil.)

"The Disaster Artist" just won top prize at the San Sebastián Film Festival

An incredible thing has happened at the San Sebastian film festival. James Franco's "The Disaster Artist," surely one of my very favorite movies this year, has just won the coveted top prize, The Golden Shell. This will hopefully have people take Franco and his film a little more seriously because it is truly a beautiful valentine to the movies. 

Here's Variety with the coverage:

"Having placed second in Toronto’s People’s Choice Awards, James Franco scored his first big outright win as a director, his “The Disaster Artist” scooping Saturday night the 65th San Sebastián Festival’s Golden Shell, the top plaudit at the highest-profile film event in the Spanish-speaking world."

“This was a family affair, my brother, my sister, my old friend Seth Rogen,” Franco said, accepting the award on stage at San Sebastián."

"He added, thanking Warner Bros,: “It’s a very simple film about a crazy man but he had big dreams and it’s better than not having dreams. I hope that in these crazy times this brings a little light and inspiration.”

"If anyone could possibly manage to steal a bit of thunder from Del Toro’s premiere on Tuesday, it may be James Franco whose “The Disaster Artist” finally screened a full 8 months after premiering at South by Southwest and bypassing every other festival until this week. Franco’s movie is a love letter to awful cinema, very much in the same vein as Tim Burton’s “Ed Wood.”

Here's what I had to say about the film this past September at TIFF:

In 2003, “The Room,” a film financed by self-proclaimed impresario Tommy Wiseau for $6 million, was supposed to be the culmination of his imagined talents, his ultimate artistic statement, and the capstone to his suspiciously vague career. But what turned out instead was what many consider one of the very worst movies of all time.

Wiseau wrote, directed and financed “The Room” in a vain attempt to salvage his own 500-page novel that no publisher wanted to touch. However, the resulting mish-mash was so bad that it has defied categorization to become a cult-classic comedy disaster. The film was such a compellingly inept trainwreck that it seemed too bad to be real. Were Wiseau’s intentions truly genuine? Did he really set out to make a good movie or was he aiming for outrageous satire? As told in the memoir by Wiseau’s best friend Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) upon which the film is based, we discover the horrifying truth that their intentions were sincere. This deadpan passionate delusion adds immeasurably to the allure and charm of the picture.

The fact that Franco and company — which includes Seth Rogen, Zac Efron and Kristen Bell as collaborators in the hapless menagerie — have decided to put on a straight face and take it all very seriously, brings a hilariously endearing vibe to the festivities. Wiseau was an L.A. oddball whose age, source of income, and nationality were blatantly fishy. He claimed his entire family haled from New Orleans, but his distinct Eastern European accent belied that tale. Unlike most directors, his only prior claim to fame in the public eye had been as street vendor in San Francisco. One way or another Wiseau somehow amassed a fortune as a real-estate entrepreneur and invested $6 million in his folly “The Room.” Though universally ridiculed, it enjoyed an unexpected resurrection as a cult classic in its own right, with recurrent, raucous screenings worldwide.

Wiseau himself has been fairly quiet about the Franco’s film, but he more or less gave his stamp of approval by showing up to the premiere in Toronto. Franco said “We were unsure of what he was going to think, especially because he said, [mimicking Wiseau’s accent] ‘Greg book only 40 percent true,’” recalls Franco. “It was like, well, that’s what we based it on, so what are you going to think about our movie? I was like, ‘So, Tommy, what did you think of the movie?’ And he said, ‘I approve 99.9 percent.’ And we were like, ‘What was the 0.1 percent? He said, ‘I think the lighting, in the beginning, a little off.’ [Laughs]

The Disaster Artist, therefore, arrives as a double-dip of cinematic devotion separated by 15 years and a million gasps. It’s a valentine to movies that went wrong in all the right ways, an ode to the stinkers which we love and can’t live without. That it succeeds so effectively is thanks to Franco’s affectionate directing and dead-on performance as Wiseau. Post-screening a gang of Oscar bloggers gathered around pondering the mind-blowing possibility Franco could garner a nomination for this performance. It’s absolutely not out of the question. The role is much more than just a one-note take on an enigmatic and absurdly misguided individual. It manages to explore unexpected layers about the reckless lunacy of movie-making that we often forget exist when the outcome works out well. Can Tommy Wiseau circuitous path, at last, lead him to the Oscars? I say, why not.

"The Shape of Water"

 

Guillermo Del Toro is a cinematic treasure. You can dislike the genres he tackles or the fanboy themes he is obsessed with, but he's a visualist in the truest sense of the word. In 2006 Del Toro finally made a film worthy of his immense talent: "Pan's Labyrinth." Everything clicked in that movie, it brought all sets of movie fans together to hail it for what it was: a masterpiece. This was no "Blade 2" or "Hellboy," instead it was a cinematic triumph with enough stunning images to pop your eyes in amazement. A modern day "Wizard Of Oz" with a schizophrenic little Dorothy, the most imaginatively created monsters and an open-ended finale that made us all talk about it when the lights came back on. Del Toro has always had a knack for visuals but never had the story to back it up - here he did. His last film was "Crimson Peak," which I very much admired for its visuals more than its tiresome story, was met with a polite shrug, but now he's back in "Pan's Labyrinth" territory "The Shape of Water."

“The Shape of Water” was written, produced, and directed by Del Toro. It takes place in the United States in 1963, where there’s a hidden, high-security government laboratory that is housing a secret experiment, sea-creature monster from Latin America kept chained in a water tank. Sally Hawkins and Octavia Spencer star in the film as two workers who stumble upon the classified experiment and try to save it. Hawkins' character not only wants to bring it salvation but she ends up falling for the creature as well. Enter Michael Shannon, the hostile government agent who wants the creature for his own twisted experiments.

"The Shape of Water" is a genre exercise that works wonders as a beautifully realized fairy tale of the highest order. Just like Pan’s Labyrinth, the visuals are hypnotically enchanting. In the midst of Cold War 1963, a shy night-shift custodian named Eliza (the brilliant Sally Hawkins) falls for creature locked up in the secret government laboratory where she works. The cast is aces, from her gay next-door neighbor and best friend (a touchingly funny Richard Jenkins), to her chatty co-worker (the always entertaining Octavia Spencer), to a sympathetic Russian scientist trying to save the creature (the great Michael Stuhlbarg), to the nasty villain of the film (a scene-chewing Michael Shannon), this is one of the best ensembles of any film this year. The Toronto crowd went wild for the scenes which were filmed at Toronto’s famous Elgin theater. Eliza lives atop the cinema in the movie, which is also, unsurprisingly, where the film had its rollicking Ontario premiere 

Del Toro investigates the deep depths of human emotions here. "The Shape of Water" is a love story, but it feels genuine and never out of bounds. Hawkins is incredible as Elisa, a mute, isolated woman who works as a cleaning lady in the top-secret laboratory and whose loveless existence brings her to find comfort in the creature. She nary speaks a word here and yet she's mesmerizing in every single one of her scenes. 

Del Toro’s film, the toast of Venice, came to TIFF with the highest of expectations that were admirably fulfilled. It’s a visual masterwork that will most likely receive the backing of critics nationwide. This festival bow felt like a homecoming for Del Toro, a permanent resident of Toronto, who has easily made his best film since 2006’s Pan’s Labyrinth. It's a surreal journey that takes place in the wee-wee hours of the evening and builds the kind of gloomy but transporting atmosphere just rarely see these days at the movies.

[B+]

Flatliners Remake Holds a 0 Percent On Rotten Tomatoes

It wasn't supposed to be a good idea, to begin with, and it seems like it has turned into a disastrous endeavor for Sony Pictures, who already have money problems, to begin with. Remaking an average movie is never a good idea, what can you possibly bring that's any different or more exciting to the original, which was, fine, watchable as it went along. 

Niels Arden Oplev directed the remake and his filmography is decent enough, the highs are the original Swedish version of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and a few episodes of "Mr. Robot." This is clearly a pathetic low in his career. Maybe his Hollywood career is all but done because few nitwits decided to remake freakin' "Flatliners."

They didn't screen it for critics and I actually used a free Fandango movie ticket, don't ask me why, to catch it at the local AMC multiplex. It's bad, I don't think there was a single legitimate scare in the entire film. I also don't know how Ellen Page has managed to make all these movies in a span of a few years. IMDB says 8 movies, in which she starred or co-starred, have been released in the last 3 years. She sure found a way to not be typecast after "Juno," which almost everybody believed was what was going to happen. Almost a full decade since "Juno" and she still looks 13 years-old. Anyway, "Flatliners," BAD.

Did anybody watch it this weekend?

‘Last Flag Flying’: Richard Linklater Talks Sequels, More ‘Dazed’ & Disappointment With ‘Everybody Wants Some!!’ [Interview]

So, I spoke to Richard Linklater about his latest film "Last Flag Flying." The full transcript can be found below, but I found him to be an endearing and very thoughtful person, which is rare in this industry. His film is opening the NYFF and has been received with mixed reviews. I liked it and, I believe, the mainstream will as well.

The Last Detail,” Hal Ashby’s 1973 masterpiece about the road trip and toxic friendship which developed between three Navy sailors has aged like fine wine over the years, turning into an elegy for the country’s loss of innocence post-Vietnam. Jack Nicholson and Randy Quaid‘s incredible performances drove the narrative home with unexpectedly touching vitality, and the picture has cemented a place as one of the greats of 1970s American cinema.

Last Flag Flying,” which premiered at the New York Film Festival, is set some 30 years after “The Last Detail” in 2003, when the war in Iraq was on everybody’s mind. Based on Darryl Ponicsan’s novel, who also collaborated with Linklater on the screenplay, it has Richard “Doc” Shepherd (Steve Carell) reuniting with Former Marines Sal (Bryan Cranston) and Richard Mueller (Laurence Fishburne), but the mission this time is very different — they have to bury Doc’s son, a young Marine killed in the Iraq War. Arlington Cemetery is the destination and, with the assistance of his old buddies, they travel through the eastern part of the country to bring the casket “home.

Director Richard Linklater’s “sequel” isn’t really a direct follow-up, so much as its meant to drive Ashby’s timeless themes, and its core soul, forward to a new era. Despite being set three decades later, the country’s imperilled moral battles haven’t changed a bit and, if anything, have considerably worsened.

[Interview posted on The Playlist]

Quentin Tarantino Still Open To The Idea Of Directing ‘Star Trek’

What’s old becomes new again. So, the story goes a little like this: in a 2015 podcast talk with Nerdist circa “The Hateful Eight” press, director Quentin Tarantino talked about many things as he’s wont to do. Topics broached were his love for “Speed Racer,” Marvel’s “Luke Cage” (he wanted to make a movie in the ‘90s) and “Star Trek,” a sci-fi property that the “Pulp Fiction” filmmaker said he preferred to “Star Wars.”

While he talked about the movies to small degree, it was the “Star Trek” TV shows that clearly made a mark on the director. In fact, he knew many of the episode names off by heart suggesting some of them could be expanded into a movie.

“Some of those episodes are fantastic, and the only thing that limited them was their ‘60s budget and 8-day shooting schedule. And even having said that, they did a magnificent job. You could take some of the great, classic ‘Star Trek’ episodes and just easily expand them to 90 minutes or more. And really do some amazing stuff,” Tarantino enthused. “The obvious one would be ‘City On The Edge Of Forever,’ that’s what everyone would go to, but there’s a reason why everyone would go to that. It’s one of the classic stories of all time, and one of the great time travel stories. However, in thinking about that concept even further though, I think one of the best ‘Star Trek’ episodes ever written was for ‘Next Generation’… ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise.’ I actually think that is one of the great, not only space story, but the way it dealt with the mythology. That actually could bear a two-hour treatment.”

Great, that’s two years ago and life goes on, presumably, it’s one of the many, “Hey, you know what would be cool?” ideas Tarantino has talked about publicly over the years, generally when asked (you can listen to the full podcast conversation here).

But the Internet is the Internet and suddenly, very recently, that same conversation of Tarantino talking “Star Trek” has been edited into a digestible bite and has gone viral. Will Tarantino make a “Star Trek” movie with only two films supposedly left in his career according to the director? Almost certainly not.

But thanks to TMZ the clip is circulating. The tabloid show caught Tarantino at the airport and asked him if he would be interested in making a “Star Trek” movie. “It would be worth having a meeting about,” he said, briefly also confirming the aforementioned statements that he plans to direct two more films before retiring (we’ll believe that when we see it, and he’s already said TV won’t count towards that number).

It all sounds very intriguing, albeit a little far-fetched given that shooting hasn’t even started yet on QT’s next movie, which will take on Charles Manson murders, and could star Brad Pitt, Jennifer Lawrence and other A-List stars. It sounds cute, but Tarantino handling a “Star Trek” movie? Hardly. This is a helmer who has exclusively generated his own content aside from “Jackie Brown,” which he made his own regardless.

And Paramount suddenly giving their reins of a mega-franchise to a director that doesn’t make mega-franchise movies? Not going to happen. What would be MUCH more realistic is Tarantino directing and writing an episode of “Star Trek” TV. Hell, “Star Trek Discovery” debuts on CBS tonight, so the timing there would be perfect.

Still, with Tarantino supposedly winding his career down, you’d be foolish to believe the director would finish up his largely impeccable filmography with someone else’s intellectual property.

‘Brawl In Cell Block 99’: Vince Vaughn & Don Johnson [Interview]

[I originally published this on The Playlist]

Kidman revival

This has been a hallmark year for Nicole Kidman. Not only did she make a splash on TV with HBO‘s critically acclaimed series “Big Little Lies,” but she also took Cannes by storm with three films playing on their slate this year: Yorgos Lanthimos‘ “The Killing of A Sacred Deer,” Sofia Coppola‘s “The Beguiled,” and John Cameron Mitchell‘s “How to Talk to Girls at Parties.” Not to mention that Jane Campion also debuted seven episodes of her TV series “Top of the Lake” at Cannes, in which, you guessed it, Kidman stars. The truth of the matter is Kidman doesn’t really need what people are calling a “comeback.” She’s always been taking on roles that push her forward artistically, and in this decade she’s given us great performances in John Cameron Mitchell‘s “Rabbit Hole,” Lee Daniels‘ “The Paperboy,” Park Chan-Wook‘s “Stoker” and, although I am not a fan, Garth Davis‘ “Lion.”

The Last Jedi Rumored Runtime Makes it Longest Star Wars Film Yet

The anticipation is incredibly high for Rian Johnson's "The Last Jedi," so much so that the film's running time would make the news. Well, is 150 minutes enough for you? That's according to a website which deals with film distribution, so not some random rumor. The Source is Cineworld, which has been reliable in the past in revealing accurate, studio-fed info. If this is, in fact, the actual running time then that would make it the longest Star Wars film yet. Next longest? Attack of the Clones at 142 minutes. The original three films in the trilogy are the three shortest. "Star Wars," "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" clocking in at 121 minutes, 124 minutes and 132 minutes respectively. It is quite clear that Johnson is aiming for the fences here with "The Last Jedi." As I've said before, Johnson is the most talented filmmaker that has ever helmed a "Star Wars" movie, it's not even close.

Mike White on ‘Brad’s Status,’ Ben Stiller & Mid-Life Crises [Interview]

Originally published on The Playlist

Annihilation (2018) - Teaser Trailer - Paramount Pictures

'Terminator 6' Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton Sets Summer 2019 Release Date

The “Terminator” franchise has been all but dead to me. The last two films, “Terminator: Salvation” and “Terminator: Genisys,” well, they were soul-crushing. The only way I could hop back onto the bandwagon would be if James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton would make their return. Well, I wouldn't be writing this if that weren't case. Yes, Hamilton, Arnie and James Cameron, as producer, are coming back for T6. “Deadpool” helmer Tim Miller will be directing, that's a good thing. In a chat with THR, Cameron and Miller are confirming that “This is a continuation of the story from ‘Terminator 1’ and ‘Terminator 2,’ Cameron further elaborates “And we’re pretending the other films were a bad dream. Or an alternate timeline, which is permissible in our multi-verse.” Amen!

The major surprise in all of this? Cameron luring back Hamilton, the main star of his two films in the franchise, and, gulp, his ex-wife. “Jim was fucking terrified,” Miller jokes. “I was,” Cameron confirms. “It took me a week just to get up the nerve. No, that’s not true. Linda and I have a great relationship. We’ve stayed friends through the thick and thin of it all. And she is the mother of my eldest daughter. So I called her up, and I said: ‘Look, we could rest on our laurels. It’s ours to lose, in a sense. We created this thing several decades ago. But, here’s what can be really cool. You can come back and show everybody how it’s done.’ Because in my mind, it hasn’t been done a whole lot since the way she did it back in ’91.”

So now all we need is a release date. Well, guess what?  A July 26th, 2019 date has been announced, which means this project better hurry up into production sooner rather than later. This has just sky-rocketed at the top of my must-see list for 2019.

James Cameron Doubles Down on 'Wonder Woman' Critique

Whether you agree or disagree with him, it's refreshing to hear James Cameron's opinion on cinema, it's never watered-down and extremely honest. Hopefully, he can back up all this talk with a great movie of his own, more specifically when his much-delayed sequel to "Avatar" hits theaters in the near future, whenever that may be. Do I have hope for those upcoming films? Well, let's just say my expectations have been diminishing over these last few years.

If you remember last month Cameron admitted he wasn't a fan of Patti Jenkins' "Wonder Woman." He had spoken with The Guardian and said that he actually advanced feminism at the movies better with Terminator's Sarah Connor (the exact quote can be read at the bottom of this article).

Well, he's added sparks to the flame with more comments which will surely have people talking again. Speaking to THR, Cameron refuses to back off from his previous comments and in fact seems to double down on them.

"Yes, I'll stand by that. I mean, she was Miss Israel, and she was wearing a kind of bustier costume that was very form-fitting. She's absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. To me, that's not breaking ground. They had Raquel Welch doing stuff like that in the '60s. It was all in a context of talking about why Sarah Connor — what Linda created in 1991 — was, if not ahead of its time, at least a breakthrough in its time. I don't think it was really ahead of its time because we're still not [giving women these types of roles]. Linda looked great. She just wasn't treated as a sex object. There was nothing sexual about her character. It was about angst, it was about will, it was about determination. She was crazy, she was complicated. … She wasn't there to be liked or ogled, but she was central, and the audience loved her by the end of the film. So as much as I applaud Patty directing the film and Hollywood, uh, "letting" a woman direct a major action franchise, I didn't think there was anything groundbreaking in Wonder Woman. I thought it was a good film. Period. I was certainly shocked that [my comment] was a controversial statement. It was pretty obvious in my mind. I just think Hollywood doesn't get it about women in commercial franchises. Drama, they've got that cracked, but the second they start to make a big commercial action film, they think they have to appeal to 18-year-old males or 14-year-old males, whatever it is. Look, it was probably a little bit of a simplistic remark on my part, and I'm not walking it back, but I will add a little detail to it, which is: I like the fact that, sexually, she had the upper hand with the male character, which I thought was fun."

These are the previous comments which started this Cameron vs Jenkins debate:

“All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over ‘Wonder Woman’ has been so misguided. She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!” “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards, Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon. She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me, [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

"Downsizing"

I love Alexander Payne's movies. At his best ("Election," "About Schmidt," "Sideways," "Nebraska) the venerable writer-director depicts the small-town humanism happening in various parts of America. So it was with great anticipation that I sat down in my seat at the Toronto International Film Festival, eagerly anticipating the next statement from this American master.

"Downsizing" which, like all of Payne's movies, is also a satire, and follows Paul and his wife (played by Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig) who believe their lives would be better if they were to use the newest technology of Downsizing. What is Downsizing? It's a scientific process which has people shrink themselves and be transferred to Lesiureland,  a new tiny world. It's all in part to save the environment and planet earth from mass consumption. If you're downsized you won't need much food or utilities to survive and the planet will benefit from that. 

Throughout the first act, I found myself immersed which, thanks to some incredible special effects, have you discovering a whole new world, unlike anything I have seen before. However, the film's second half is another story. The political and religious take over Payne's story, Wiig completely disappears, a love story is developed and off-beat, quirky humor is infused into the screenplay. Of note, Matt Damon's Yolo partying neighbor as played by Christophe Waltz. It doesn't work. 

Another problem is that many of the newly introduced characters of the second half just aren't that interesting and bring nothing of interest to the film. Worst of all is Ngoc (Hong Chau), whom Paul meets and starts to fall for, yes they have great chemistry together, but the love story that is developed is cliched and makes you feel let-down given that the movie promised in the first half, with relevant themes connected to today's socio-political world, is squandered in favor of a more pedantic storyline. It doesn't help that Ngoc is a racist caricature of Asian stereotypes. Every word she says is cringing and, yet, Damon, the ever brave actor that he is, puts on a straight face throughout. 

Back to the first hour of the film. When Payne sucks you  into this other world that has been built for those who shrunk themselves over the years, you will find yourself transfixed at how visually exciting it all is and and how well the deadpan comedy, a Payne specialty, works wonders. It's an eye-opening concept filled with little homes, little cars and, of course, little people. It's also not a far stretch to say this it is one of the most original movie ideas in recent memory, but sadly an idea doesn't make an entire film.

Technically "Downsizing" is bound to receive recognition in technical categories.  I wish this film went through a few more rewrites because there is a satirical gem hidden somewhere in Payne's film. In fact, it turns out, it's the worst movie he's ever made [C]

First Reactions to BLADE RUNNER 2049: It's A "Masterpiece."

There are still 16 days to go before "Blade Runner 2049" is released, the very first reactions have finally hit Twitter. I don't know where this screening took place, but, as far as I know, the film is supposed to be screened for normal critics and press the week of release. My own invite is on the 4th of October, just a few days before the Friday release. Whatever the case may be, a few fanboys, and fangirls, have seen the film and are all but raving about Villeneuve's latest. The word "masterpiece" is thrown in for good measure. I'll wait until actual NY and L.A. press chime in, but, for now, any doubt you may have had about this film is put on the shelf for the time being.

The Steven Spielberg Question.

Jeffrey Welles over at Hollywood-Elsewhere had his latest anti-Spielberg rant yesterday, to which I had to reply and set the record straight as to where Steven Spielberg, a flawed yet perceptively brilliant filmmaker, stands in my books and should really stand overall in cinematic history. 

Welles' view on Spielberg is this:

“Spielberg knows his craft like few others, but 85% to 90% of his films have mostly been free of any kind of singular passion or deep-rooted beliefs about human nature and how the world works or an underlying current of any kind. Spielberg is a Capra-esque suburban sentimentalist who believes in the goodness of American families, small-town neighborhoods, emotional moms, chubby kids, aliens cute and ferocious, happy endings, carefully choreographed action and wow-level spectacle."

“From ’75 through ’82 Spielberg was regarded by everyone (myself included) as a consummate filmmaker. He seemed to have an extraordinary ability to make his movies jump through the scrim — stylistically vivid (although not very artistic), often entertaining, and, of course, financially successful."

My take:

"I'd add 1971's "Duel" and 1974's "The Sugarland Express." So, really, he hit his stride between 1971-1984 (Duel, Sugarland, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Radiers of the Lost Ark, and, YES, even Temple of Doom). Starting with "The Color Purple" right up until "Amistad," (14 years) Spielberg was a lost puppy. Yes, he did make his best film during that time, that would be "Schindler's List," but everything else was bland, safe and too slick for its own good."

"Now, here's where we might differ Jeff. I actually find Spielberg became a better and more mature filmmaker post-Amistad. The craft and masterful storytelling he produced between 1998 and 2006 ("Saving Private Ryan," "Munich," "Minority Report," "AI: Artificial Intelligence," "Catch Me If You Can" and "War of the Worlds") was incredibly impressive. This was some of the riskiest storytelling he'd ever given us."

"Also, his technique seemed to have changed around that time. It felt more refined and less obvious. These were also some of the darkest, most despairing films he ever made. In other words, given the 30+ years of experience he had behind the camera, he just became a better filmmaker and learned from his mistakes. The way he edited, shot, and let the scenes breathe was just masterful. He also used long shots more often, a sure sign of having more confidence in his craft. His style looked simple, yet it was incredibly complex and effective."

"I can go on and explain how he lost his way again after that, starting with the hiccup that was Indiana Jones 4, but that would have to take up another few paragraphs. Suffice to say, it seems like he's been mostly hit and miss for the last 8 years or so."

‘It’ Sequel to be Released Sept. 6, 2019.

Looks like "It," based on Stephen King's ultra-popular novel, has officially secured a release date for its sequel.

Deadline:

"The sequel to New Line’s It will be hitting the screen on Sept. 6, 2019. That’s the same post-Labor Day frame that the first chapter launched in, racking up an unprecedented $123.4M domestic opening — the best September has ever seen. Andy Muschietti directs the second half of Stephen King’s novel which focuses on the Loser’s Club, 27 years later, when they’ve grown up and away. But then a devastating phone call brings them back."

This news seemed inevitable, what's surprising about all this is the fact that there is cno screenplay written for the sequel nor is a cast really confirmed. 

The film, a propulsive blockbuster hit, has recently surpassed The Exorcist as the highest-grossing horror movie of all-time (although if inflation is included the Exorcist would still be at the top.) IT's success is not a huge surprise considering the buzz that surrounded the film. The horror reboot's trailer nabbed almost 200 million views on YouTube (197 million to be precise) in its first 24 hours. That is insane. What's even more astounding is that it beat the previous record holder, "The Fate of the Furious," by almost 60 million views.