Leydon Kills “Wicker”

“It’s difficult to pinpoint the precise moment when Neil LaBute‘s remake of The Wicker Man completely jumps the tracks. For some, it will be the scene where Nicolas Cage, in dire need of transportation, turns a gun on a passing bicyclist and melodramatically commands: “Step. Away. From. The Bike.” For others, it will be the fight scene that ends with Cage delivering a karate kick to a feisty Leelee Sobieski . (Take that, bi-yotch!) But for most, the point of no return will arrive during an extended climactic sequence that calls for Cage to pad about in a tacky bear costume. It’s so hilarious, it’s almost, well, unbearable.” — Joe Leydon on his Moving Picture blog, wriring in a much more down to it and funnier than his Variety review.

Bush gets it

Okay, okay…Bush takes a bullet and croaks in Death of a President, a drama that will show at the Toronto Film Festival and also air on England TV in October. And it’s a big hah-hah. But is it? And if so, why? I’m not getting the undercurrent. I wish Bush had never been elected, but I don’t want to fantasize about him being dead. Maybe it’ll work as a piece of plain old imaginative story-telling, but there’s something vaguely distasteful at the bottom of it.

Olivier was gay….zzzzzzz

I read those Laurence Olivier and Danny Kaye stories years ago — common currency — and we’ve all thought about the undercurrent of the snails-and-oysters scene in Spartacus and so on, so I’m not getting why there’s a revisitation piece in the Daily Mail, written by Michael Thornton, about Oliver’s bisexuality.

Here in Toronto

Ich bin ein Toronto resident now, having arrived here around 9 pm this evening. Same old town, same leafy-shady trees, same friendly people, same old black squirrels.

“Departed” meets MySpace

Is there something incongruent between the MySpace aesthetic (advertising one’s self, celebrating one’s uniqueness, looking to meet people, etc.) and Martin Scorsese‘s The Departed, which is said to be pretty rough and bloody and ferocious? Somehow the two don’t seem like a spiritual match. Nonethess, here’s the Departed‘s MySpace page.

Craig and Young

That brief kissing scene (it’s over in a flash) between Toby Young‘s Truman Capote and Daniel Craig‘s Perry Smith is one of many things in infamous (showing this weekend in Telluride and next week in Toronto) that feel askew. Craig’s rugged boxer-like English features couldn’t look more different than the real Smith’s face, which was soft, round and semi-mournful and half-defined by his mother’s Cherokee blood. Craig’s black hair dye and dyed black eyebrows don’t begin to make him look right physically, not to mention the fact that he’s at least a head taller than Young whereas the real Capote and Smith, both shrimps, were almost exactly the same height. And I’m not even mentioning the two rough-up scenes between them that probably didn’t happen, according to a guy I’ve spoken to who was close to Capote.

“Little Children” review

David Poland, who saw Todd Field‘s Little Children a week and a half or two weeks ago along with a handful of other critics, is calling it the “best American film” and “first American masterpiece” of 2006, as well as on Fields’ part “one of the great sophomore efforts of all time.”
Another guy who’s seen this New Line release admires it but feels it may be a little too cool and detached to rank as a big-time Oscar contender…we’ll see.
Poland says Children “is the film that Ang Lee and Alan Ball and Robert Redford and Paul Thomas Anderson and even Woody Allen have been trying to make for a long time. New Line’s terrific, but narrow, trailer for the movie, understandably, focuses on ‘the affair’ in the film. But man, I am here to tell you — it’s just the appetizer.
“The film is very, very funny, but audiences are afraid to laugh at a lot of the humor.” (How does Poland know that? Is he quoting data from test screening reactions? If so, who’s feeding him tthis?) “After all, how funny are cheating and perversion and mean-spiritedness and outright stupidity? Very funny. But it’s a Kubrickian humor…tough and more than a little shocking. There isn’t a shot in the movie that feels wrong. Whether it’s a table scene with four characters who are each in a completely different place emotionally or a scene underwater meant to force/allow us to see through the eyes of a sex offender or a satirical take on football,
“Field uses the whole toolbox with assurance and detail. And any time you get the feeling that maybe he got the wrong performance out of someone, the reason why it is perfection is right around the corner.”
Here’s another slightly-less-admiring review by Emanuel Levy.

Nic Cage’ s bear suit

I didn’t go to that 10 pm promotional screening of Neil LaBute‘s The Wicker Man at the Chinese last night after all, but a few reviews are up on Rotten Tomatoes and so far it has a 22% positive rating. Comments about that animal outfit (a “bear suit“, two guys called it) that Cage wears in one scene are troubling. Screen Daily‘s Allan Hunter saw it in Edinburgh and says it’s “particularly ill-judged, diluting, distorting and demeaning virtually all the qualities that made the 1973 British original so haunting. The result is a clunky, conventional mystery yarn that will appeal to aficionados of the Robin Hardy classic that is frequently voted the best British horror film ever made. Younger genre fans without the baggage of old allegiances will merely find it tame and old hat, moreso given its lack of gore and gimmicks.”

Off to Toronto

I’m flying to Toronto early this afternoon and won’t arrive there until 8:30 Toronto time this evening. I went there a bit early last year and caught two or three of the pre-festival local press screenings, and it helped a bit. Plus I’m training down to Syracuse on Saturday morning to see Jett, who just began his freshman year there last Monday. Later this evening I’ll hopefully be getting a dispatch from a friend or two about the first day at the Telluride Film Festival.

“Zodiac” rumble

A filmmaker friend has passed along some info about David Fincher and Zodiac, by way of an editor pal who knows a sound mixer who worked on Zodiac a while back.
“This girl is very smart and cool,” this guy says. “She’s very much the San Franciso arty girl who hates a lot of Hollywood shit and is funny talking about working on all the shit she does. Anyway, she said Zodiac is fucking brilliant and so amazing and smart. I really, really trust this girl. She says the movie is great and that George Lucas was blown away by it.
“She also said that Robert Downey, Jr. gives an incredible Oscar-level performance.
“But here’s my favorite detail. The first half of the movie, which takes place in the late ’60s, is mixed mono when all of radio was AM and with the advent of FM, in the chronology of the film as the calendar moves into the ’70s, the movie turns stereo. Such a great idea. She said that Fincher has the best ears of anyone other than David Lynch.
“The other point to make here is that if Zodiac sucked there’s noway Dreamamount would ever greenlight Fincher’s Benjamin Button project, which will star Brad Pitt.”

Two “Infamous” reviews

On the occasion of its Venice Film Festival showing, Variety‘s David Rooney has gone thumbs-down on Douglas McGrath‘s Infamous, the other Truman Capote-writes-“In Cold Blood” movie from Warner Independent (opening 10.13). “There was an integrity and character- complexity to Bennett Miller ‘s Capote that’s missing from this glossier biopic…none of it rings trueInfamous doesn’t measure up to its predecessor and seems unlikely to echo the attention it received.” But Hollywod Reporter critic Kirk Honeycutt thinks it’s pretty damn good. Infamous, he writes early on, “gives you the unique opportunity to see how two sets of filmmakers can take exactly the same story, make extremely tough though different choices in emphasis and tone and achieve brilliant movies.” Go figure. I’ve seen it, but no review until the Toronto Film Festival.

Boring Saint

Boring Saint

Variety‘s Phil Gallo starts out telling it straight and true about David Leaf and John Scheinfeld‘s The U.S. vs. John Lennon (Lionsgate, 9.15) in his Venice Film Festival review, but then he begins to equivocate and cottonball. As does the film itself.

Here are my three main arguments with the documentary, which Lionsgate will release on 9.15 after showings at the Telluride and Toronto film festivals, along with Gallo’s review:
(a) The doc does “persuasively chronicle an artist sticking to his guns through activism” as the U.S. government conspired to kick Lennon out of this country in the early ’70s as a way of getting back at him for using his celebrity to stir up sentiments against the U.S. military’s fighting of the Vietnam War. And Gallo is dead right in saying that “by getting Ono to cooperate and open the vaults, the storyline follows the Ono-approved bio that posits Lennon as saint, excising his dark periods and their years apart, which could have enhanced the portrait.”
< ?php include ('/home/hollyw9/public_html/wired'); ?>
The Lennon portrayed in this film is indeed scrubbed clean and phony as a three-dollar bill, and there’s no doubt in my mind that Leaf decided on this portrait — Lennon as a kind-of St. Francis of the anti-war movement, a guy who did nothing but good things and spoke only of love and peace and stopping the killing — under the influence of his and Scheinfeld’s alliance with Lennon’s widow.
I call it the “Curse of Ono” — the more control she seems to have over any portrait of the late ex-Beatle, the more sugar-coated it turns out.
Like anyone else, Lennon was a mixed bag — part genius, part beautiful guy, part angry guy, part saint, part asshole, part man-of-courage, part prima donna, part gifted troubadour, part abusive drunk (during his 1974 “lost weekend” phase), part mystical seeker. But you only get the positive stuff from Leaf-Scheinfeld-Ono. And after an hour or so of the vigilant, heroic, positive-minded Lennon, you want to barf.

It’s almost like listening to a speech by Big Brother: “John Lennnon was God’s gift…better than most of us…learn from his story…praise the good things he did for this country…follow in his footsteps!”
There’s nothing more boring and infuriating, even, than a doc determined to sweeten and sanitize the truth. Anyone who knows anything about the real John Lennon, warts and all, will be shifting in their seat and going slowly mad.
(b) 40 Lennon songs — 37 from his solo career — “are used pointedly [and] out of chronological order and tied to the visuals thematically,” Gallo notes with some approval. He’s wrong to wink at this. The out-of-chronology thing is bad, but what really hurts are the painfully on-the-nose cues that intro the playing of each tune. Thematic links between what we’re seeing or hearing about Lennon on-screen and the songs that pop up a few seconds later are almost enough to turn a longtime Lennon fan off his music for life.
The idea in stuffing so many songs onto the soundtrack, of course, is to market a new double-album, which, of course, Ono and VH1 (which partly financed the pic) will profit from. I appreciate that there are many tens of thousands of GenXers, twenty-somethings and teenagers who barely know Lennon’s stuff and will be turned on to his music by this film, and that’s fine…but if you already know the songs and the drill, it’s truly awful to hear them re-played alongside a series of dreadfully clunky biographical observations.

(c) The film completely ignores the biggest irony that naturally goes with any look at Lennon’s life as an engaged, socially involved artist and agitator, and so does Gallo. I’m speaking of the apparent reason Lennon was killed by Mark David Chapman on 12.8.80, which had to do with Chapman, a psychotic nerd and homicidal asshole, deciding that Lennon had to pay the price for withdrawing from being the courageous and nervy “John Lennon” of legend and turning into a house-husband, abandoning his musical career, ceasing his political activism, etc.
In short, Leaf and Scheinfeld’s movie celebrates what a brave and commendable guy Lennon was when he got into a standoff with the government, but doesn’t even acknowledge that his abrupt withdrawal from this activity, from occupying his persona as Lennon-the-bold-and-outspoken, is what ended his life. They could have spoken to some friend or biographer who could have at least mentioned this (without giving Chapman’s motive any respect, I mean)…but the irony never surfaces. It isn’t even breathed upon.

Read more