Month: January 2010

In dual 12.20 postings called “We Love the Aughties: An End-of-Decade Clip Party,” L Magazine’s Matt Zoller Seitz has provided “an exhaustively subjective reflection on ten years of moviegoing.” He started “by soliciting suggestions from a number of L critics and friends and went from there. The roughly chronological arrangement of clips generally reflects the year of the films’ public premiere, although some films have been grouped with the year of their initial US theatrical run.”

So many assemblages seem to emphasize the slamp-bang, high-emotion, startling-visual stuff. In fact, nearly every video wrap-up piece about any year or era or genre does this. (Or so it seems.) Seitz’s aughty reels are much more initimate and thoughtfully moody — very well chosen for their ability to trigger just the right moods and associations.

“Perhaps it’s too much to hope for — a world where Apple provides low-cost, two-way video anywhere that saves print journalism while reducing phone costs, augments reality while cutting your commute and even brings humanity closer together while stopping traffic jams and pollution.” — from “Five Ways Apple’s Tablet May Change the World,” by Business Week‘s Ben Kunz.

The following exchange happened on a 12.17 Charlie Rose Show between Rose, N.Y. Times critic A.O. Scott and New Yorker critic David Denby, The topic was the political metaphor in Avatar, and the way James Cameron delivers it. I’m pasting this because Scott explained very clearly and concisely what Avatar‘s game is.

CHARLIE ROSE: “It also has political messages.”

A. O. SCOTT: “Oh, yes. And I think that, you know, in some ways they might be, the politics you might say are a little naive, perhaps.

ROSE: “It’s straightforward.”

SCOTT: “The Na’vi are kind of noble savages in the classical sense. They have so in tune with nature and they have this holistic life, and the humans are these alienated, greedy, rapacious, militaristic, racist people.”

DAVID DENBY: “But what a comedy that this pro-ecology, anti-technology message is being delivered though in a package that is the piece of the advanced technology, costing $250 million and further. It’s definitely aimed at the Bush administration because there’s talk about shock and awe, we’re going to hit those monkeys.”

ROSE: “Fight terror with terror.”

DENBY: “Yes. And it’s being distributed and partially paid for by Fox, by Rupert Murdoch, a right-wing press baron who one imagines supported the war in Iraq.”

SCOTT: “Plus, quite provocative — if that’s the analogy, then what happens to [Sam Worthington‘s Jake Sully] is quite provocative and even…

DENBY: “It’s more than ‘go native’, in other words. He leads the revolt.”

SCOTT: “But that’s the fun of it. I think that entertainment like this at its best has always had kind of an allegorical top lead, has always been able to weave in sort of some kind of political message. And part of the fun of going to movies like this is it simplifies and clarifies and makes emphatic something that in the real world is, of course, much more complicated and nuanced and difficult.

“It’s also not ironic. There are no sort of winks and nudges. This is not a movie that’s kind of self-conscious and playful and showing you how smart it is. It’s a very sincere piece of storytelling.”

I have a theory that thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of 50-and-overs have been turning on over the holidays because of the cannabis laughing scene in Nancy Meyers‘ It’s Complicated. It’s a contact high and the most enjoyable scene in the film. My guess is that it gave various boomers and older GenXers the idea, especially, I’m guessing, as a fun New Year’s Eve activity. If attractive and sophisticated Meryl Streep and Steve Martin can do it, why can’t we?

I’m not going to name names, but I’m well acquainted with a lad of 21 whose divorced mom recently saw It’s Complicated, and who very soon after asked the young lad to score a little weed on behalf of her mid 50ish boyfriend, who hasn’t turned on in 20 years. Young lad went all the way out to Coney Island to cop yesterday afternoon, and then had to train it back to Manhattan and drop off the two or three grams. He preemptively bought rolling papers on the assumption that the above-mentioned couple wouldn’t have any.

I think this is fairly hilarious. If anyone can report any first- or second-hand observations along these lines, I’m all ears.

Yesterday ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons (a.k.a. “The Sports Guy” in ESPN magazine) posted the most bluntly and enjoyably written reviews I’ve read anywhere of 2009’s two most attention-getting sports films — Invictus and The Blind Side — although his ’09 favorites (which he riffs on briefly) were Sugar, Big Fan and The Damned United.

ESPN’s Bill Simmons

Excerpt #1: “Invictus‘s first problem was making Nelson Mandela the movie’s lead character in a misguided attempt to be an important film that transcended sports. Sure, Morgan Freeman nailed the difficult accent as well as the dignified, congenial way Mandela carried himself. But isn’t Freeman always dignified and congenial? This was like watching Red walk around Shawshank with better clothes and a cooler accent. I just couldn’t get past it. Hiring Freeman to play Mandela was too easy — like getting Omar Epps to star in the Mike Tomlin story or something.

“Plus, the same qualities that made Mandela such a wonderful human being prohibit him from being a compelling movie lead. Freeman plays Mandela correctly as a proud man with a huge heart. He speaks softly, in something of a stilted monotone. He keeps smiling and inspiring people despite all the horrible things that had happened to him, except he wasn’t a commanding presence who brought a room to life like, say, Martin Luther King Jr., or even Herm Edwards. There was nothing to figure out about him, no surprises coming, no layers that needed to be peeled back. He was just a great and understated man.

“Hollywood knew this, the filmmakers knew this, and they couldn’t figure out how to translate Mandela to the big screen for two hours. What they should have done was build Invictus around the rugby team, made it a sports movie, and then made Mandela a supporting character for effect. Ideally, we would have seen him five or six times at most to maximize his presence (like how Jack Nicholson was used in A Few Good Men), so every time he appeared on screen, it would have felt powerful and substantial.”

Excerpt #2: “I never thought that Sandra Bulllock, the Nolan Ryan of chick flicks, could carry a sports movie. Wrong. She owns every scene and hasn’t been this likable since 28 Days. Even better, she exhibits the same Southern sassiness/sexiness that Julia Roberts didn’t have in Charlie Wilson’s War. It’s worth seeing this movie just for Bullock. She out-Juliaed Julia.”

Excerpt #3: “Because Hollywood doesn’t get analyzed like sports — we don’t create complicated statistics to evaluate careers or even use recent history to determine whether someone is better or worse than the general public might think — our perception is that Clint Eastwood is one of the best directors.

“Within Hollywood circles, his directing is legendary for a different reason: Eastwood bangs out expensive movies under budget and ahead of schedule. Doesn’t shoot a ton of takes, doesn’t drift from the script, doesn’t waste afternoons waiting for the sun to set just right, stuff like that. He’s the most efficient director working today. Because we like him personally, he gets more credit than he deserves and a free pass every time he makes a clunker. By all accounts, Eastwood bangs out a project, takes a few weeks off, then bangs out the next one.

“So how can we call him a great director? Or even a good one? Is efficiency the best trait for directing? Think of the time James Cameron spent creating a 3-D world in Avatar or Jason Reitman spent crafting Up in the Air. then ask yourself this question: What would have happened if Invictus had been driven by someone with that kind of passion? Potentially, it would have been one of the greatest sports movies ever made, right?”

Movie City News’ Last Film Critics in America list (which stood at 121 when it was last updated in March ’09) didn’t include Washington Times film critics Sonny Bunch and Kelly Jane Torrance. That’s a moot point now because Torrance and Bunch got whacked yesterday, according to a 1.1.10 e-mail from Bunch. “Economics and all that,” he says. “They liquidated the entire arts/features desk.”

Sean P. Means, keeper of the Salt Lake Tribune‘s film critic departed list, should take note. The most recent update I could find of this article/topic is from last May, when Means reported about the dismissal of the Arizona Star‘s Phil Villarreal. (Who has since landed a new film critic gig with OK magazine.) The Salt Lake Tribune‘s search engine sucks eggs.