Tell me this doesn’t look like the latest high-style, elite-popcorn actioner from the director of Man on Fire, The Taking of Pelham 123, Spy Game and Enemy of the State. The guy who’s studied the chops of Tony Scott is Daniel Espinosa. I’ve seen this movie. I know this movie cold. The sink-or-swim factor will come down to the script by David Guggenheim.

I don’t want to go into this all half-cocked….actually, no, that’s okay…I’ll readily admit that this is a half-cocked notion. It’s just that two initial reactions I had to Charlize Theron‘s Young Adult character — that she’s a cautionary metaphor for “a kind of egoistic Kardashian-like malignancy afoot in the culture right now” as well as a kind of monster in her own right — have been somewhat refined.

We’re talking about an emotionally predatory Jason Voorhees here, and yet armed with a lot of sassy, funny, outrageous-deadpan dialogue. And I’m now starting to think of Theron being closer to Jack Torrance in The Shining than Jack Nicholson‘s other similar-type character, Bobby Dupea in Five Easy Pieces, whom I mentioned the other night.

The key component is that Theron’s Mavis Gary, an alcoholic writer of young-adult fiction who visits her hometown to nab an old boyfriend (Patrick Wilson) who’s now married with a kid, is unrepentant, and if anything is deeper into her mudhole at the end than at the beginning. That’s certainly Jack Torrance, all right. The other factor is a kind of balls-to-the-wall acting style that isn’t looking for empathy or sympathy. Either you embrace the fact that Mavis is a noxious wreck and that there’s nothing about her that is comforting or relatable…or you don’t.

It was clear from the get-go that Nicholson wasn’t playing a normal, average, relatable, ah-shucksian guy in The Shining. That moment when they’re driving up to the Overlook in that yellow VW and talking about the Donner party and Nicholson goes “See?…it’s okay…he saw it on the television!” with that goofy demonic look in his eye, you knew he was coming from a grand guignol place. On some level this is what Theron is doing also, I think. She’s not playing “one of us.” She’s playing a myopia-afflicted freak…but sharing dark cryptic laughs as she goes along, or at least for the first three-quarters of the film.

You know she’s neurotic right away, and you start to see the obsession early on, and then she gets into it a bit more, and then she gets worse and worse. I think if you go into this film knowing the old third-act redemption routine simply isn’t in the cards and the only way to go is to roll with crazy Mavis while getting your bedrock reality fix from Patton Oswalt‘s half-crippled guy, the film will work for you. And you may find, as I have, that Theron’s “arc” (if you want to call it an arc) is a little bit like Jack Torrance’s gradual descent into lunacy.

Compare The Shining‘s staircase-and-baseball-bat scene with the front-yard freakout, wine-on-the-dress scene in Young Adult, and you’ll notice a vague similarity or two.

Patrick Wilson’s vaguely wimpy Buddy Slade isn’t exactly Wendy swinging the bat and whimpering “I just want to go back to my room and think this over!”..but he is a bit of a softie and a pudgehead. But Charlize/Mavis saying “Look, you’re miserable here…this town is awful…I’m here to save you and I’m furious that you’re not hearing me!” isn’t all that far from Jack saying “You’ve had your whole fucking life to think things over! What good is a few more minutes gonna do you now?”

I hate to admit it, but “Nordling”‘s War Horse rave on AICN, which was posted early this morning, deserves respect and consideration. He’s a fool for that sappy, sweeping Spielberg stuff, but he knows how to write, and that implies he may know (or at least picked up some knowledge of) other things besides.

The only thing I’m kinda half-wondering is why doesn’t Nordling mention the pretty young girl (seemingly played by Celine Buckens) we’ve seen in the trailer with the sad, soulful eyes and a tear streaming down her cheek?

Update: I’m told that it’s a separate girl in that “Albert and Joey galloping alongside a moving convertible” scene. I’m speaking of the girl who feels moved to stand up in said convertible to better appreciate the sight of Albert (Jeremy Irvine) and Joey keeping pace. (I for one certainly know this feeling. I’ve been there. If I see something that touches or moves me, I almost always stand up in order intensify the connection, even if I’m in a moving car.)

“War Horse is old fashioned, and I mean that in the best possible sense,” Nordling begins. “It wears its emotions on its sleeve, and there is no place for cynicism in that world. It has obvious films like All Quiet On The Western Front and the films of John Ford and David Lean in its DNA, but the end result is all Steven Spielberg. War Horse is an epic that has Spielberg doing what he does best. He takes the audience on an emotional journey through World War I and out the other side, and the film very much feels like Spielberg paying tribute to the filmmakers he loved as a young man.

“War Horse is what you’d call an ‘old soul.’ It’s a film that could have been made — perhaps not with the technology but definitely with the heart — in Hollywood’s heyday. David Selznick would have adored War Horse.

“And then there are those scenes where Spielberg puts his classic touch on them and those scenes burn themselves indelibly into my mind. The way all the horses react when a companion is put down. The horrors of trench warfare, and the terror of mustard gas. A cavalry charge that’s straight out of Lawrence of Arabia‘s assault on Aqaba.” [Wells interjection: now this is the scene I’m anxious to see!] The beautiful cinematography. War Horse is most definitely a Steven Spielberg work, and he pulls out all the stops to bring the audience into a time that hasn’t been on film very much recently, and he does it with an elegance and a passion that can only come from him.

“It’s not a perfect film” — no! — “but anyone who loves movies and Spielberg’s work in particular really cannot miss this. War Horse is what movies are all about — transporting the audience into a world that will never exist again. As for myself, I loved every moment. For me, War Horse is magnificent.”

For Leonardo DiCaprio, playing J. Edgar Hoover “meant memorizing endless monologues that needed to be delivered with Hoover’s own breakneck cadence,” writes N.Y. Times reporter Brooks Barnes in an 11.2 profile. “Additionally Mr. DiCaprio, who typically comes accessorized with a supermodel girlfriend in real life, had to wrestle aggressively with a man and then kiss him. Oh, and wear a dress.”

From a 4.3.10 HE posting about same: “Okay, I’ve flipped through most of Lance Black‘s J. Edgar Hoover script — i.e., the one that Clint Eastwood reportedly intends to direct with Leonardo DiCaprio as the FBI kingpin — and I haven’t come upon a scene calling for DiCaprio to wear lace stockings and pumps and a cocktail dress. So we’re safe on that score.”

HE’s Manhattan correspondent Jett Wells attended Tuesday night’s (11.1) premiere screening of Oren Moverman‘s Rampart at the Sunshine plex on Houston Street. Here’s his report:

Rampart star Woody Harrelson, Ben Stiller at Tuesday night’s premiere.

“It felt suffocating being surrounded by a ridiculous and cluttered amount of celebrities in such a small theater. Is that Courtney Love? Yup. Martha Stewart? Yes, indeed. Oh hey…yes, Steve Buscemi and Michael Shannon looking for their seats. You couldn’t talk about the iconic faces without looking like an ogling jerkoff, but that didn’t stop all the turning heads in the front rows.

“Before the screening Ben Stiller delivered an introduction, explaining how he first met Oren at the Nantucket Film Festival a year or two ago. He was a big fan of his work but he hadn’t seen his new film with all-star cast featuring Woody Harrelson, Sigourney Weaver, Steve Buscemi, Ice Cube and Robin Wright. He asked the reluctant director to say a few words. “Just stick through it to the end,” Moverman said. And then we were off.

“Rampart is about an angry, Vietnam-vet, sex-addicted, misanthropic LA cop (Harrelson) who longs for the days when cops could muscle out the bad guys by taking them out and cleaning up the red tape later with winks all around. I think.

“While the film is built around strong writing and clever camera angles, the only thing I could pull out this wonky plot line is Harrelson’s performance — his darkest and most sincere since Natural Born Killers. He smokes what seems like six cartons of cigarettes throughout the film (a la Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart), while sleeping with Robin Wright and other random women as he gets his rocks off while acting as a righteous, misunderstood hero defending his name.

Rampart director Oren Moverman, Woody Harrelson.

“His character, Dave ‘Date Rape’ Brown, is an evasive father with two ex-wives. He’s been on the job for 27 years. The setting tells us the LAPD is in the middle of scandal, but Moverman doesn’t focus on the details. Brown, whose nickname stems from his having allegedly killed a serial rapist without being convicted, is convinced that higher powers are trying to use him as a patsy to take the fall for the corrupt city government after he’s filmed beating a man almost to death. He’s convinced it was all set-up.

“The story seems more convoluted in retrospect, and it feels that way when you’re watching it. But the one bothersome, ignored plot line in the film is Brown’s family situation. He lives with what seems to be his two ex-wives who live in two separate adjoining condos, and he living in a small adjacent guest house. While his two daughters despise him for his secrecy and drinking problems.

“It feels like a Mormon polygamy situation, but there’s no way this grizzled cop is anything like Mitt Romney so what’s the deal? It’s bothersome and distracting that no one explains what’s going on with this vital storyline.

“Brown slips into his ex-wives homes to act like a missing husband, slipping into their beds. This involves him asking in so many words, ‘Will you sleep with me?’ Really, who says that?

“Overall the film has a solid core and shows Moverman’s obvious talent, but Harrelson’s performance carries the film even if 30 percent of it doesn’t any sense. Is it an Oscar-worthy performance? Maybe, meh, but at least it reminded me what kind of performance Harrelson still has burning inside him. It’s a refreshing revival in an otherwise bizarre and frustrating film.”

Here’s my somewhat more positive Toronto Film Festival review.

George Clooney has told USA Today‘s Susan Wloszczyna (a.k.a. “Suzie Woz”) that Alfonso Cuaron‘s Gravity “is a very odd film, really. Two people in space. No monsters. It’s more like 2001 than an action film.”

Clooney and costar Sandra Bullock play astronauts working on an orbiting space station. “A satellite blows up and space junk causes damage,” Clooney explains. “We go out in space suits, and she and I are tethered together, floating through space. [So] it’s a two-hander with only two actors in the whole film.” Oh, and “Sandy is the lead.”

Gravity began filming last May in London, and reportedly cost about $80 million — not that much for a sci-fi FX flick. Clooney said that an early cut was recently screened for Warner Bros, executives. The studio will open Gravity on 11.21.12. The Wiki page says it wasn’t shot in 3D but converted to 3D in post-production.

“It is the first time I’ve been in 3-D and, hopefully, the last time,” said Clooney.

When a wife says she can smell the whiff of betrayal on a cheating husband, people nod and go “uhm-hmm”…knowing exactly what she means. And people know exactly what Marlene Dietrich meant when she told Fred Zinneman that people could “smell” the fact that From Here To Eternity was a must-see despite there having been no publicity. But people resent others claiming they can smell what a forthcoming movie will probably be like, based on the usual indicators (including the unmistakable whiff of calculated emotional mauling).

??

Awards Circuit‘s Joey Magidson has posted reactions to last night’s War Horse hinterlands screenings, and only two haters have popped up so far. Most of the reactions to the 146-minute film have been highly positive so maybe it’s pretty good after all.

The best positive review is from @emailjnm: “This was a masterpiece. This should be one of the top two or three during Oscar season. All the hype we were hoping for was well-deserved. Outside of the first 30 minutes being a tad ‘eh,’ the rest of the film is the best I’ve seen [from] Spielberg in years. Some of the greatest scenes I’ve seen in his career. I’m going to go as far as to say that it’s my second favorite Spielberg film after Schindler’s List.

“Truly exceptional. Do see it. Walked out of cinema into the falling snow…lovely!” (from @raeofdawn…but what’s falling snow got to do with anything? Unreliable viewer, too impressionable).

“Fantastic, awesome, a must-see” (from @PensNucksDenver — any person who uses “fantastic” and “awesome” in the same sentence or word group is clearly lacking in discipline and discrimination).

“Holy double-hell, War Horse is freakin’ amazing!” (from @ScoreKeeperAICN….”holy double hell”? Did he actually mean to say “ding-dang, deedly-dee, deedly-doo jiminy creepin’ hotcakes with hot butter and maple syrup!”? Possibly a fool for Spielberg or a low-thread-counter, or both.)

From Hater #1 (@2denniskelly): “Am I the only person who basically hated War Horse? It was nothing more than manipulative and predictable Oscar bait. Move along.”

From Hater #2 (@guany): “This was AWFUL. Nothing but Oscar bait. I’m very disappointed.”

The Mutiny on the Bounty Bluray (’62 version) streets next Tuesday (11.8). I’ve got a comp coming in the mail, but for now DVD Beaver‘s Gary Tooze is calling it “quite an upgrade depending on your discerning eye or system size” and “really sweet” and “jaw-dropping with vibrancy…a higher degree of sharpness via the impressive 2.75:1 widescreen presentation….a very film-like viewing.”

I’ve said two or three times in the past that it’s not the movie (although many portions of it are quite good) as much as the resolution. This mostly-good, partly-problematic sea epic was shot in Ultra Panavision 70, meaning it will look exceptionally vibrant and detailed in high-def.

I wrote the following about the DVD version in August 2006:

“Say what you will about the ’62 Bounty — historical inaccuracies and inventions, Marlon Brando’s affected performance as Fletcher Christian, the floundering final act. The fact remains that this viscerally enjoyable, critically-dissed costumer is one of the the most handsome, lavishly-produced and beautifully scored films made during Hollywood’s fabled 70mm era, which lasted from the mid ’50s to the late ’60s.

“Roger Donaldson‘s The Bounty (’84) is probably a better Bounty flick (certainly in terms of presenting the historical facts), but the ’62 version has more dash and swagger. It has a flamboyant ‘look at all the money we’re pissing away’ quality that’s half-overbaked and half-absorbing. It’s pushing a kind of toney, big-studio vulgarity that insists upon your attention.

“And the ’62 Bounty definitely has first-rate dialogue and editing, and three or four scenes that absolutely get the pulse going (leaving Portsmouth, rounding Cape Horn, the mutiny, the burning ship).

“You could argue that this Bounty is only nominally about what happened in 1789 aboard a British cargo ship in the South Seas. And you could also say it’s more about early ’60s Hollywood than anything written by Nordhoff & Hall.

The ’62 Bounty “is mainly a portrait of colliding egos and mentalities — a couple of big-dick producers (Aaron Rosenberg was one), several screenwriters, at least two directors (Lewis Milestone, Carol Reed) and one full-of-himself movie star (Marlon Brando) — trying to serve the Bounty tale in ’60, ’61 and ’62, and throwing all kinds of money and time and conflicting ideas at it, and half-failing and half-succeeding.

“Seen in this context, I think it’s a trip.”

I’ve detected a little Lon Chaney-as-Grandfather Wu (from the 1927 film Mr. Wu) in one of the recently unveiled Young Adult posters.

Paramount held a special screening this evening of Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody‘s Young Adult (12.16). The kicker was that it happened at the New Beverly Cinema, a beloved West Hollywood repertory theatre that has sentimental value for many but still has awful sight lines. The good news is that I wasn’t the only one who admired the hell out of it, and that Patton Oswalt, portraying a blunt-spoken, half-crippled fat guy who befriends Charlize Theron‘s neurotic writer character, is now a Best Supporting Actor contender…definitely.

Patton Oswalt at Tuesday night’s Young Adult after-party at an art gallery on Melrose near La Brea.

I don’t know what the rules are about reviewing Young Adult, but I can least say that (a) it’s very ballsy, very well written, very uncompromising, very brazen — a leap forward for Reitman and Cody both; (b) it’s darkly funny during the first two-thirds to 75%, and sometimes hilarious; (c) it’s a kind of Jason Voorhees horror film about a raging blind woman, about egotism and myopia and the absolute mania of the self; (d) as I thought about it during the after-party I began to realize it’s more than just a character study or a black comedy, but a cautionary tale about a kind of egoistic Kardashian-like malignancy afoot in the culture right now; (e) Jack Nicholson‘s Bobby Dupea character in Five Easy Pieces bears a certain resemblance to Charlize’s Mavis Gary; ditto Isabelle Adjani‘s Adele Hugo in Francois Truffaut‘s The Story of Adele H..

A guy named Chris who attended the screening shared some comments tonight in an email, including this one: “I do believe that Patton Oswalt is a lock for a Best Supporting Actor nomination, and may even be the frontrunner. The character of Matt Freehauf sticks with you long after the credits are finished, and it is so much more then the ‘comic relief’ performance that the trailer has made it out to be. If Young Adult is a game changer for anyone, it is Patton Oswalt.”

(I. to r.) Diablo Cody, Charlize Theron, Elizabeth Reaser.

(l. to r.) Cody, Theron, Reaser, Patton Oswalt, director Jason Reitman.