“Everyone is really enjoying Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows. The feedback I’ve been getting is super positive. That’s why I started doing this to begin with. I’d so much rather be doing this than some little indie movie that everyone says is fantastic and it kinda sucks, and it’s boring.” — Robert Downey, Jr., speaking for a Holmes EPK video posted by the Guardian.
Cameron Crowe‘s We Bought A Zoo opens on Friday, 12.23. I’m re-posting the review I wrote nearly four weeks ago after catching the nationwide Thanksgiving sneak. Here, also, is a side piece called “We Bought A Jail.”
The first two thirds of Cameron Crowe‘s We Bought A Zoo (20th Century Fox, 12.23) tries too hard to be endearing, or so it seemed to me. For 80 minutes or so it’s a not too bad family-type movie that works here and there. In and out, at times okay and other times oddly artificial. And then it kicks into gear during the last third and delivers some genuinely affecting sink-in moments and a truly excellent finale.
Matt Damon is better-than-decent in the lead role of Benjamin Mee, a nice guy who for complex emotional reasons decides to buy a zoo in the Thousand Oaks area. Scarlett Johansson is believably forceful as the head zoo keeper (or whatever the correct title is), and Thomas Haden Church is under-utilized as Damon’s advice-giving older brother.
The stand-out performance comes from 14 year-old Colin Ford, I feel. There’s also a surprisingly inconsequential, poorly written one given by Elle Fanning, who by the way wears too much eye makeup.
The first two thirds are better at delivering family-friendly studio schmaltz than War Horse, but that’s not saying much. It suffers from on-the-nose dialogue and a bad case of the cutes, which is what happens when Crowe’s magical realism vibe doesn’t quite lift off the ground because the exact right notes haven’t been found or hit.
The movie never really transforms into a suspension-of-disbelief thing. You’re constantly aware that you’re sitting in a theatre seat watching actors speak that tangy, semi-natural-sounding, spiritually upbeat Crowe dialogue and listening to the usual nifty Crowe-selected rock tunes (“Cinnamon Girl”, “Bucket of Rain”, etc.).
Matt Damon, imprisoned Bengal tiger in We Bought A Zoo.
But the last third kicks in with better-than-decent emotional conflict and payoff scenes, and the heart element finally settles in from time to time, and there’s a great diatribe against the use of the word “whatever” and an exceptional father-son argument scene and nice use of refrain (“Why not?”). Endings are half the game, and by that rule or standard We Bought A Zoo saves itself.
It won’t kill you to see it, and you might like the first two-thirds more than I did. Whatever.
Johansson gets to do a lot of arguing and shouting in this thing, and at some point I began saying to myself, “Jesus, I wouldn’t ever want to be in an argument with her…she’s really angry and adamant and unyielding.” And I began to think that I might be sensing, maybe, how her marriage to Ryan Reynolds came apart.
The film is based on Benjamin Mee‘s true-life, this is what really happened book of the same title, but it’s been personalized by Crowe to some extent and is basically about recovering from loss, grief, trauma.
Crowe’s marriage fell apart in 2008 and his career hit a land mine in 2005 with Elizabethtown and then stalled again with mysterious shutdown of Deep Tiki in late ’08/early ’09, so Zoo is actually his story on one level or another, I suspect.
But my basic feeling about We Bought A Zoo is similar to a line that former Secretary of State James Baker once said about a senior Iraqi official during the 1991 Gulf War: “A good diplomat with a bad brief.”
Damon, Johansson, Cameron Crowe during filming of We Bought A Zoo
We Bought A Zoo is harmlessly decent family pap, but it rests upon a fundamentally rancid notion that zoos are cool. Zoos are emphatically not cool. I’ve been to zoos three or four times in my life and I like checking out the giraffes and lions and orangutans as much as the next guy, but they’re built on the conceit that animals living sullen and diminished lives inside cages are entertaining, and that looking at these creatures from the safe side of a cage and chuckling at their behavior and smelling their scent somehow enhances our lives by connecting us (or our kids) to nature. Which is, of course, horseshit.
Outside of the makers of this film and zoo owners and clueless lower-middle-class Walmart types, I don’t think there are any intelligent and compassionate people on the planet who believe zoos are a good idea. At best they’re an unfortunate idea. A message during the end credits informs that Mee’s zoo in England (i.e., Dartmoor Zoological Park) is a highly respected one, but it’s still a zoo.
Last month’s exotic animal slaughter in Ohio reminded a lot of us that it’s fundamentally wrong to keep exotic animals in cages to satisfy some bizarre emotional longing to bond with them, which, outside of respectably maintained zoos, is some kind of low-rent, Middle-American scumbag thing. Remember how Tony Montana kept a Bengal tiger chained up on the grounds of his mansion?
Zoos are prisons, and it’s dead wrong to sentence animals to life terms in them, however spacious and well-maintained their cages or how loving and caring and compassionate their keepers may be. Zoo animals don’t live in “enclosures,” as zoo-keepers prefer to call them these days. They live in effing jail cells just like Jimmy Cagney and George Raft did in Each Dawn I Die, or Elvis Presley in Jailhouse Rock.
Crowe is renowned for using great rock-music tracks in his film, but I doubt if he ever considered using Presley’s “I Want To Be Free” for We Bought A Zoo. I thought of it last night when I was driving home from the screening, I can tell you.
“There’s no joy in my heart, only sorrow
And I’m sad as an animal can be
I sit alone in my fake-love enclosure
And this enclosure is a prison to me
“I look out my window
And what do I see?
I see a bird
Up in a tree
(Chorus)
“I want to free! (oh, yeah)
Free! (oh, yeah)
Free-hee-hee…I want to be free
Like a bird in a tree (wanna be free)”
“Yet here comes Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson, bound and determined to transform the mildly humorous adventures of an intrepid boy reporter into a big-budget computer-animated hit,” writes Marshall Fine. “Unfortunately, they find themselves trapped on the Road to Hell, paving furiously.
“Perhaps Spielberg and Jackson (who produced) simply made The Adventures of Tintin (Paramount, 12.21) to amuse themselves. So, hopefully, at least two people will come out entertained.”
From my 11.11 review: “If you have a place in your moviegoing heart for an empty synthetic entertainment that will delight your inner nine-year-old, Steven Spielberg’s Tintin will rush in and twinkle your toes.
“All I know is that I never, ever want to sit through Tintin again. Because, as I said last night, it is popcorn punishment. I felt like I was being whoopee-cushioned and thrill-ridden to death, or like a virus was being injected into my system. Such amazing filmmaking — all about light and colorful characters and swirling camera movement and high adrenaline and technology — and it was making me sick.”
14 months ago the New Zealand Herald reported via news.com.au that Peter Jackson‘s The Hobbit — a two-part prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy that began filming last March — “is expected to cost $500 million (US) and has already racked up legal fees believed to exceed $100 million.
“The most expensive movie to date was Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, which cost $300 million (US),” the story continued. “The soaring Hobbit costs are mostly due to settlements with rights holders, whose wrangles with Warner Bros/New Line Cinema could have delayed shooting for another decade.
Pic will star Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield and Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug. Several actors from Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings film trilogy will reprise their roles, including Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood and Orlando Bloom.
“Following a dumb brute on its arduous journey from master to master (most of whom perish), War Horse has an unavoidable similarity to Robert Bresson‘s sublime Au hasard Balthazar,” writes Village Voice critic Jim Hoberman in a 12.21 posting. “Indeed, the sequence in which Joey — like Bresson’s donkey — is adopted by a willful, unlovable French peasant girl suggests the parallel might have occurred to Spielberg.
“The difference is not solely a matter of Bresson’s ascetic restraint and Steven Spielberg‘s shameless schmaltz, or Bresson’s tragic sense of life and Spielberg’s unswerving belief in the happy ending. Suffering witness to all manner of enigmatic human behavior, Balthazar is pure existence; Joey is an abstraction. Had Spielberg elected to show war (or life) from Joey’s perspective rather than use the horse as the war’s protagonist, the movie could have been truly terrifying.”
In a 10.18 HE posting called “Joey vs. Balthazar,” I wrote the following: “In Bressonworld, casual cruelty and inhumanity are visited upon a saintly little donkey. In Spielbergland, bombs explode at night, pretty photography commences, John Williams‘ music swells, and everyone falls in love with Joey-the-adorable-horse.
“It was my hope that Spielberg, needing to replace the wondrous effect of the pretend horses in the stage show, would shoot War Horse as a total horse-POV thing, allowing us to see our carnage and compassion anew through the eyes of an innocent. Dashed!”
MTV.com’s Josh Horowitz has posted an above average q & a with Girl With The Dragon Tattoo helmer David Fincher. Here’s the audio, and here’s the text version. Fincher obviously has a cough, and to judge by the sound of it I wouldn’t want to be in his vicinity without gloves and a surgical mask.
In my initial review of Mission: Impossible 4 — Ghost Protocol I should have given it points for being very well cut, engineered and choreographed. It’s a shallow and steroid, but nicely mechanized. It’s shrewd, tight and hard. But another thought hit me as I watched it for the second time last night at the Zeigfeld. It’s a kind of sequel to T2: Judgment Day.
The action stunts in that landmark 1991 thriller were extreme and out there, but this was logically allowed by the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger‘s Terminator and Robert Patrick‘s T-1000 were cyborgs with super-powers and the ability to absorb all kinds of blows and body trauma.
And now, 20 years later, here we are with Tom Cruise, the star of M:I4, performing many similar stunts. He gets hit by cars, runs after moving cars, crawls up the side of a glass Dubai skyscraper with only one grip-glove, drives a car that drops 35 or 40 feet and crashes into a steel platform, etc. Okay, he limps a little bit toward the end but otherwise Cruise’s Ethan Hunt is much more cyborg than human.
The makers of M:I4 — Cruise, director Brad Bird, producer JJ Abrams — are anything but stupid. They know how dopey it is to show Cruise doing all this stuff, and they know that most audiences will roll with it. But the bottom line is that they probably felt they had no choice but to go full cyborg, and not just with Hunt’s stunts but those performed by costars Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton, Michael Nyqvist and Josh Holloway.
That’s because today’s big-scale action films are so stuck in the box, and so beholden to absurdist, gravity-defying dynamics, that super-flex action heroes are often obliged to perform stuff that only Schwarzenegger and Patrick were allowed to do in James Cameron‘s T2, but which no humans could have done because it would have been, like, ridiculous. Because Cameron is a realist. He shows us wild stuff, but he believes in logic and “rules.”
Director Andrew Jarecki, producer JJ Abrams during last night’s MOMA after-party.
But it ain’t ridiculous any more because the bar has been raised and there’s nowhere for action-movie directors, writers and producers to go except to keep upping the voltage and making action films nuttier and more cartoony.
This is why I said three days ago that there’s only one kind of thriller that can work these days — i.e., the human-scale, back-to-basics-and-believability model found in Steven Soderbergh‘s Haywire and Nicholas Winding Refn‘s Drive. I love thrills and action and dangerous situations, but it’s so much better when you can truly believe (or at least mostly believe) what you’re seeing on a screen.
That said, Mission: Impossible 4 — Ghost Protocol is going to be very popular and make loads and loads of money.
Thanks to the good friend who got me into the premiere and after-party last night. It was a nice time all around, and the food was fantastic.
Katie Holmes, Tom Cruise on Ziegfeld red-carpet.
Brad Pitt‘s Moneyball performance isn’t just a lock for a Best Actor Oscar nomination but a likely winner, I believe. The reason is Pitt’s other big 2011 performance — an unhappy, frustrated, dictatorial suburban dad in Terrence Malick ‘s The Tree of Life. It’s been touted by many (including Grantland‘s Mark Harris in a well-hidden 12.20 post) as the better of the two, and yet Pitt’s awards heat is all about Moneyball. Bottom line: No other potential Best Actor nominee has a similar two-for-one equation going on
“Given a role with such wrenching father-son dynamics, it must have been tremendously tempting to play only the red-meat stuff [in The Tree of Life] — the explosions, the clenched need for control, the abusiveness, the small tyrannies,” Harris writes. “Pitt does all that impeccably, but he never forgets that the inadequate father he’s playing is also a man who cares for his children, who teaches them things, who can’t bear not to be a good provider. Pitt doesn’t soft-pedal the character’s potential for cruelty, but he lives so deep inside the role that even when he’s behaving monstrously, he lets you see the self-loathing, the sense that he’s nursing a wound that will never heal.
“Nobody in the supporting-actor category did more nuanced, layered, complicated work this year. But instead of being at the center of the discussion, his performance is on the fringes, because the system has decided that Pitt will be ‘taken care of’ with a Best Actor nomination for Moneyball. He deserves that nomination. He deserves this one even more.”
Update: A cople of hours ago a friend wrote that “George Clooney, of course, has two films too including Ides of March so Pitt isn’t the only one with two perfs in the Best Actor ring, and Clooney has an advantage having written produced , directed and costarring in his. You might want to make note before your commenters do.” I replied that he was right, of course, “but Clooney’s Ides performance is nowhere close to Pitt’s Tree of Life performance in terms of layered gravitas and praise for same…not even close. It’s a fine Clooney performance, but nothing to drop your pants and go crazy for.”
Movieline‘s Louis Virtel has posted a piece titled “50 years Later, What’s The Greatest Scene in Judgment at Nuremberg?” That’s easy, and the answer has nothing to do with any performance. I’m referring to a moment of “pure cinema” that happens in an early courtroom scene, or roughly between 6:05 to 7:11 in the clip below.
.
German defense counsel Maximillian Schell is delivering his opening remarks in German. We listen to him speak a line or two and then translators providing the English version, back and forth, two or three times. Then the camera announces that the film is shifting gears by sharply zooming in on Schell, and wham — he’s suddenly speaking English. During this one instant director Stanley Kramer puts aside the basics and talks directly to the audience. It’s the only innovative brushstroke in an otherwise conventional (although very well written and acted) drama.
I’ve found (i.e., been sent) a quote from The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo extra Donald Josephson in a recent article in Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter. Here’s a crude Google Translate version, and here’s the excerpt:
“The most fun was to keep up with Rooney Mara in the green room, where the actors wait between shots…and [to] hear her anxiety over whether she would be better than Naomi Rapace. She had lots of those ‘mirror mirror on the wall’ moments in there. Mara asked her assistant all the time, ‘Do we not do better when we did this scene? Do I not look better than her? Am I not better? Am I not young? Are not I cool?’ And the assistant just replied, ‘Yes, yes, yes! You’re the best, you’re the best!'”
Deadline‘s Pete Hammond doesn’t write articles that report about this or that film teetering or losing steam in the Oscar race. He writes articles that ask “is this or that film teetering or losing steam in the Oscar race?” But combine Hammond’s piece with a similar one from TheWrap‘s Steve Pond, and you have “a situation”, I’d say.
The bottom line is that however Stephen Daldry‘s Extremely Loud & Extremely Close (Warner Bros., 12.25) fares in a commercial or award-winning realm, it began showing too late (and DVD screeners were sent out too late) to stir sufficient conversation as the Golden Globe and SAG nominations were being decided. It was blanked by both orgs. No critics group has so far awarded any aspect (including Max Von Sydow‘s supporting performance as an elderly mute, which attracted early buzz), although EL&IC has (or had) been nominated by the BFCA, the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association, the Houston Film Critics Society, the Phoenix Film Critics Society and the San Diego Film Critics Society in this and that category.
Daldry was quoted yesterday morning by N.Y. Times “Carpetbagger” columnist Melena Ryzik about the delay: “I’m a fiddly director,” he said. “Any director would like to keep shooting. If it were up to me I’d keep shooting for another year. But we had to finish.”
So far Extremely Loud has a dismaying 50% Rotten Tomatoes rating. The balance could shift as more reviews arrive between now and opening day, but negative reactions from the Associated Press’s Dave Germain,Variety‘s Pete Debruge and Screen International‘s Brent Simon speak for themselves.
That said, the film got an intensely positive, highly emotional response from a mixture of press, guild members and Joe Schmoes when I saw it at the Los Angeles County Museum on 12.8. There was an older, overweight woman sitting behind me who moaned at times during the screening, and then she stood up and cheered when the film ended. I don’t relate to people like this, but Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close will almost certainly connect with paying audiences if this woman was at all representative.
I can’t imagine anyone in my circle having the slightest interest in sitting through Underworld: Awakening (Screen Gems, 1.20). Apart from the black-leather default geek-eroticism radiated by Kate Beckinsale-as-Selene, blah blah. I always think “hmm” when a film has been directed by two guys (in this case Mans Marlind and Bjorn Stein). But the poster looked great as I waited for the R train last night at B’way and 49th.
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/reviews/"><img src=
"https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/reviews.jpg"></a></div>
- Really Nice Ride
To my great surprise and delight, Christy Hall‘s Daddio, which I was remiss in not seeing during last year’s Telluride...
More » - Live-Blogging “Bad Boys: Ride or Die”
7:45 pm: Okay, the initial light-hearted section (repartee, wedding, hospital, afterlife Joey Pants, healthy diet) was enjoyable, but Jesus, when...
More » - One of the Better Apes Franchise Flicks
It took me a full month to see Wes Ball and Josh Friedman‘s Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes...
More »
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/classic/"><img src="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/heclassic-1-e1492633312403.jpg"></div>
- The Pull of Exceptional History
The Kamala surge is, I believe, mainly about two things — (a) people feeling lit up or joyful about being...
More » - If I Was Costner, I’d Probably Throw In The Towel
Unless Part Two of Kevin Costner‘s Horizon (Warner Bros., 8.16) somehow improves upon the sluggish initial installment and delivers something...
More » - Delicious, Demonic Otto Gross
For me, A Dangerous Method (2011) is David Cronenberg‘s tastiest and wickedest film — intense, sexually upfront and occasionally arousing...
More »