No Time To Catch Your Breath

I have this crazy idea I've been kicking around for the last year or so and it goes like this: People need a break from new Hollywood releases. Therefore I plan to propose an official Offseason, in which no new movies would be released beginning the day after the Oscars each year, and ending April 1st (if you don't know yet, April is the new July - Iron Man 2 will officially kick off the 2010 summer movie season...next April).

What would this Offseason do?

1. Allow everybody a break in which to catch up on the past year's releases and any classics they've been waiting to watch on DVD. You get a solid month to get to all those movies you've been meaning to see.

2. Prevent Hollywood from feeding us garbage. Everyone knows the months of January - March are the dumping grounds for movies that studios have no faith in. Don't be fooled by box-office records during these months (My Bloody Valentine, Paul Blart: Mall Cop and Friday the 13th have pulled in millions and millions of dollars in recent weeks), because it just means we're paying more for less. These movies dumb down movie audiences and they're a waste of time and money. Get rid of this dumping-ground time and you'll get rid of these garbage movies at the same time. Or, at the very least the studios will be forced to dump the garbage in with the rest of the movies throughout the year, when they can be easily ignored and quickly moved out of theaters.

3. Build inflated anticipation for the summer movies (as if there isn't enough already).

4. Other stuff, but I'll stop listing because I've been on a tangent and I want to better prepare the details of this proposal offline before I submit it to Hollywood.

My point in mentioning all of this is that despite the fact that there are fewer quality movies in theaters during these months, I'm still somehow unable to catch a break. Here's why:

FEBRUARY 16 - MARCH 16

Universal Noir @ The Heights - Starting tonight with This Gun for Hire and continuing for the next month, Barry Kryshka's Take-Up Productions presents "From the Vaults of Universal: Seven Classic Film Noirs". This will be at least the fourth impressive series Barry has launched in the last year, and he is clearly establishing himself as one of the most hard-working film impresarios in the Twin Cities. Kathie Smith posted a nice Q & A with Barry last week in which he explains the challenges of screening classic films and his goals for future programming. Check it out and don't miss the opportunity to see one of these classics at the beautiful Heights Theatre.

______________________

MARCH 2 - 19

The Amazing Double Interlocking Polaroid System 3D Film Festival @ The Parkway - In just over a year's time, Joe Minjares has turned The Parkway into one of the most intriguing theaters in town. Second-run releases, classic movies, special events, and now a 3D film festival. During the first few weeks in March, plan on paying the always low $5 admission price to see one of these classics in 3D: House of Wax, Gorilla At Large, Miss Sadie Thompson, Inferno, The Mad Magician, and Dial M For Murder.

______________________

MARCH 6 - 8

1st Annual Italian Film Festival (Mpls./St. Paul) @ MCAD - Aside from the fact that is' presented by the Italian Cultural Center of Minneapolis/St. Paul, I don't know much about the background on this three day, five film festival coming up in March, but that it's happening at all is a promising sign. Check out the synopses of the five contemporary Italian films here, and make plans to head to MCAD for one of the three nights.

Did I forget to mention the best part? ALL THE SCREENINGS ARE FREE.

______________________

MARCH 6 - 21

16th Annual Women With Vision International Film Festival: "Dimensions" @ The Walker Art Center - There's never a break in the action with films at the Walker. After wrapping up the Expanding the Frame series next week, the inspiring annual festival that celebrates "the perspectives women bring to the art of filmmaking" will kick off with Treeless Mountain from South Korea. This is one of the unsung movie events in the Twin Cities each year, and I admit that I even I haven't given it the attention it deserves. Last year I only saw the affecting Mutum and I was sad to have missed Older Than America. This year I have my sights on 3D Sun, Examined Life and The Sari Soldiers (pictured).

______________________

So much for an offseason, especially with the 27th Annual Minneapolis-St. Paul International Film Festival (MSPIFF) looming on the horizon, confirmed for April 16-30. (Speaking of which, it appears the Global Lens series will curiously be part of MSPIFF this year and not screened at the Walker...very interesting move by Minnesota Film Arts. Also interesting to see that the aforemention Mutum is included in this year's Global Lens series.)

And just a reminder, upcoming movies and events to keep an eye on are always listed in my primitive release schedule on the left.

Notoriously Wrestling with Che

(otherwise known as my misguided attempt to review three movies at the same time)

"You know very well, who you are;
Don't let 'em hold you down, reach for the stars..."

So goes the well known chorus to "Juicy", the career-making debut single by the late Christopher Wallace, (known to the world as the Notorious B.I.G. or, more endearingly, just "Biggie"). On its own the chorus is a blandly inspiring slogan, but in the context of the song, and more importantly in the context of Biggie's life, it speaks to the stalwart determination of a man to prove his worth even when others weren't questioning it.

If that sounds familiar, it's because we've seen the same story told in three recent movies: Notorious, The Wrestler, and Che, all three of which illustrate the lives of men who just didn't know when to say "when". From my perspective it doesn't really matter that two of them are about real people and one of them is not. As Randy "The Ram" Robinson, Mickey Rourke is essentially playing himself. Conversely, both Christopher Wallace and Che Guevara have been mythologized to the point that they can almost be viewed as fictional characters.

I'm not saying that the three men lived similar lives; on the surface they could hardly be more different. I'm saying that they shared an inner struggle that no one else could understand - one that transcended their wildly different educational, cultural, and familial backgrounds: a primal need for acceptance. Acceptance from world powers (Che), acceptance from peers (Notorious), and acceptance from themselves (The Wrestler). Driven almost mad in seeking this acceptance and never finding themselves satisfied, all three of their lives traversed a path that, in hindsight, was all too predictable.

Tragically and perhaps not surprisingly, each of these men had extremely difficult relationships with their families (shown above). Not only did all three have failed marriages, but they also had children from whom they were estranged, if they knew them at all. I admit knowing little about the inner workings of each of their families, but it's apparent to me that Wallace, Robinson, and Guevara were simply too caught up in their future to realize what they were leaving in the past, family ties included.

You can hardly blame them, in one way, since at the height of each of their popularity they were admired by hundreds, thousands, or millions (depending on the character) of people. Like most iconic figures, their time in the limelight was intense yet fleeting, with much of their influence being realized after their careers peaked.

So how do the movies measure up when it comes to drawing us into the lives of these men? A brief look at each:

- Che: Directed by Steven Soderbergh (Ocean's Thirteen), it's a two-part epic that surprisingly keeps you engaged for a full four and a half hours, mostly due to a magnetic performance by Benicio del Toro. It's the same type of work he continues to do (most recently in Things We Lost in the Fire) with little fanfare and even less recognition from Hollywood award-givers. For what must have been one of the most challenging roles of his career, it's a shame so few people have taken the time to appreciate it.

Whether Che is a humanizing biopic or a historical epic isn't as obvious as it may seem on first viewing, but either way it's an engaging, informative film that, in my opinion, was long overdue. I expect this will be looked back on as a major achievement by Soderbergh, but in the meantime it's only an honorable mention as one of the best films of 2008.

Grade: A-

- Notorious: What's apparent throughout this straightforward retelling of Biggie's meteoric rise is that it's meant to shine a blindingly positive light on the rapper's life and career. If you weren't hip to the production details before seeing it, it will make a lot of sense in the end credits when you see Voletta Wallace (Biggie's mother) and Sean Combs listed as executive producers. I can actually respect Combs for allowing Derek Luke (Miracle at St. Anna) to play him as a young, cocky producer with an immediately recognizable goofy dance, but I'm not sure I'm OK with the movie covering Biggie's entire career and essentially glossing over all the interesting details. It plays like an adaptation of an article from The Source magazine - luxurious living and backstage belligerence, but little analysis of what was actually motivating the artist.

Despite Jamal Woolard's eye-popping turn as the title figure, when it comes down to it Notorious simply falls short of its potential, which of course wasn't the case with the actual man. If nothing else he deserves a treatment that attempts to illustrate his impressive inner drive. For comparison, the Oscar-nominated documentary Tupac: Resurrection wasn't perfect, but at the very least it leaves you much more interested in its subject. Notorious just leaves you singing "Juicy" for a few days - in which case you could just listen to the album instead.

Grade: B-

- The Wrestler: Certainly one of the most surprising movies of 2008 (and one that clocked in at #7 on my year-end list), The Wrestler continues the recent trend of not actually being about what you think it's about - Blindsight, Surfwise, and Trouble the Water serving as other recent examples. Darren Aronofsky seems to get a kick out of giving his films ambiguous titles (The Fighter is due out this year or next), which piques your interest without raising your expectations too high. He really has to be given credit for making films that are different enough to defy easy categorization, yet still exist within some kind of similar genre. You never know what you're going to get, and I find that refreshing.

From this point on, the same should really be said for Mickey Rourke as well. Although he's admitted that he felt he'd turned in a strong performance immediately after wrapping on the set, I'm not sure how obvious it might have been in the moment that he'd dialed in one of the best acting jobs of the decade. People will say it's easy because his career path has been so similar to his character's, but I'm not sure how quickly I buy that sentiment. Try acting as yourself at another age in your life, maybe 10 years ago - or 10 years from now, to make things even more difficult. There's a lot of nuance to that kind of performance, and Rourke must have found it challenging to separate himself completely from the character, allowing "The Ram" to exist as a wholly unique man. His success in doing so accounts for as much of the excellence of the overall film as Aronofsky's direction or Robert Siegel's screenplay.

Grade: A

So I guess I didn't conclusively answer the question I posed prior to those brief synopses, but in short I think i could say this: Che and Notorious do well in telling the story of two men, but don't necessarily offer enough under-the-surface insights as to what was going on in their heads. The Wrestler has the advantage of covering a much shorter period of its character's life, and it doesn't waste a minute in portraying "The Ram" as a completely realistic guy who could be struggling along in any city in America.

For that reason - its ability to provide the most depth and authenticity to its central character - I have to consider The Wrestler as the best of the bunch.

REVIEW: Friday the 13th (C)

Come on, don't you know by now that Jason ALWAYS wins at hide-and-go-seek? His feet are as light as a ballerina's.

Find my review from the Star Tribune here.

Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 7
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 7
Music - 5
Social Significance - 1

Total: 37/50= 74% = C

300 Words About: Waltz With Bashir

The horror of remembering the sins of the past...

In reviewing the underrated Stop-Loss just about a year ago, I asked the question,”… are we going to be ready when the real effects of the war start here? When hundreds of thousands of veterans are going through the same unexaggerated struggles as these characters?” The answer, I still believe, is no.

But what I failed to consider until I saw Waltz with Bashir is that a number of these veterans may not even remember their experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other undisclosed places. No harm, no foul? Not quite, but an interesting phenomenon to consider. With Waltz with Bashir, Ari Folman has turned the stereotype of the war-traumatized soldier on its head, introducing us to himself in one of the most personal films of the year (alongside another powerful documentary, Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father).

Having passively observed as a 19 year-old Israeli soldier the brutal massacre of two refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, Folman found himself simply unable to remember the incident when another veteran described a recurring nightmare to him one night at a bar. Upset and eventually unsettled by his own foggy visions of the past, Folman set out to find those who fought by his side with hope that they would shed light on what really happened.

Animated but not rotoscoped, the result is an often hypnotizing blend of interviews and reenactments that illustrates a troubling history not only in Beirut, but also in the minds of so many Israeli soldiers. What must it be like to realize you've been a part of something so reprehensible? Though I'm sure Israeli war veterans don't comprise much of the Academy, it struck a nerve with enough voters to earn a nomination for Best Foreign Language Film, even if it was overlooked for Best Animated Film (dogs and robots and pandas go down a little easier for the kids, you know) and Best Documentary Feature (the animation likely distracted from the reality for many voters).

If it isn't obvious enough, Folman readily admits Waltz with Bashir is "a very anti-war statement. I was trying to say that wars are really useless and a waste of life for so many people for the sake of nothing." That much is clear - what's not is just how many American soldiers will be making the same film in 30 years.

REVIEW: Coraline: 3D (A-)

Remember this classic scene from Mallrats, or the "Seinfeld" episode where Mr. Pitt stubbornly refuses to walk away from the Magic Eye poster? Like most people, I always found it hilarious to laugh at the people who couldn't relax their eyes and let the image soak in. It was so easy for me to see three dimensions, even back in the 80's when I saw the space opera Captain EO (remember when Michael Jackson acted?) at Walt Disney World and grasped at the stars as I sat dumbfounded in my seat.

Then, somehow, I lost it. Over the course of the last few years I've found myself sitting expressionless in theaters (recently Beowulf, and to a lesser extent, U23D) while people around me "ooh", "ahh", jump back in their chairs and swipe at the air in front of them. Me? I only see the movie now - clear and sharp, but in two dimensions.

Of course the mystery here is how I'm unable to see the third dimension when the ridiculous looking glasses should be doing all the work for me. What's my problem? Evidently I don't know how to operate the glasses. Or I'm a medical marvel.

In any case, I'm always up to try it again, thinking, "Maybe it will work at the next movie"...in this case, Coraline, based on Neil Gaiman's award winning novella, published in 2002.

The good news: most of the time, I experienced three dimensions. And when I did - especially in the last 20 minutes - Coraline was a dizzying delight. It was the creepy, cold, and captivating movie I wish Pan's Labyrinth would have been. Everything clicked perfectly - the seamless stop-motion animation, the splashes of color, and the beautifully haunting musical score by Bruno Coulais.

Why do animated girls and women almost always have blue hair?

You eventually wake up from every dream, however, and Coraline was no different. Although I should say I never really "fell asleep", meaning I couldn't quite surrender myself to the movie. It felt like a nap I kept waking up from, partly because I became restless in the middle third, and partly because I kept fiddling with my 3D glasses to see if Coraline would look the same without them. It's not a great sign that the story failed to engage me, especially since it's a really interesting concept about every kid's wish for a different life.

As such, (and I can't believe I'm actually saying this) I almost wish Coraline would have been a scarier movie. For how frightening it already is for young children, why not go a little further? I say freak the adults out and give the kids a theater experience they'll remember forever. Heck, just give them any theater experience to remember, since this might be the last generation that doesn't watch the majority of their movies at home.

But that's neither here nor there. Despite my minor issues with the 3D and the tone of the story, Coraline is, on balance, a solid movie in the early period of 2009...even an early contender for Best Animated Feature? Maybe that's a little premature with Monsters vs. Aliens (also in 3D), Up, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, 9, Astro Boy and The Princess and the Frog all due out this year. But at this rate "Best 3D Animated Feature" might be added as an Oscar category, and Coraline would have that locked up.


Grade:
Writing - 10
Acting - N/A
Production - 10
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Social Significance - 3

Total: 36/40= 90% = A-

Some Detours

Since I've unfortunately been too busy in 2009 to devote much attention here lately (January featuring the fewest number of posts I've had in a given month since 2007), I'll nod in the direction of two other spots worth checking out. These are in addition, of course, to the many excellent blogs listed in my sidebar on the left, most of which are updated far more frequently than mine:

- The 3rd Annual Muriel Awards

Paul Clark once again heads up the Muriel Awards (named after his guinea pig), an impressive two week awards series celebrating the best in film from 2008, including all of the major Oscar categories as well as some great extras (Best Cinematic Moment, Best Breakthrough Performance, Best Body of Work, etc.). Also celebrated are Anniversary Films - the Best Films of 1958, 1983, and 1998 (50th, 25th, and 10th year anniversaries, respectively). Keep an eye on Silly Hats Only - one award is announced each day through February 22nd, when Muriel will proudly announce her choice for the Best Picture of the year. This marked my first year as a proud voting member of the "Muriel Academy".

- The 6th Annual "Great Performers" Feature

Each year the New York Times Magazine scores exclusive interviews and photo shoots with the Oscar nominees and actors/actresses that gave great performances in the year prior (I studied this more in-depth last year). Available on newsstands today and online everyday, the feature is essentially an issue of People Magazine disguised as something much more artsy and intellectual. So if you don't have any shame fawning over actors and actresses (I do have shame, for the record, but I'm making an exception...I think), check it out.

________________________

I hope to get back on track here this week but I'm so far behind I don't even know where to start (should I review Notorious, The Wrestler, Che, Wendy and Lucy, Coraline and Waltz with Bashir? Impossible!). I'm already a week behind for January's Underrated Movie the Month, so that will either have to be backdated or skipped altogether. And there are other features and posts that have been sitting in draft form waiting for me for weeks, plus some writeups I have due for other sites/blogs due in the next week or two. February's too short!

Oscar Luncheon 2009

I had fun last year with observations on the group photo from the annual Oscar Nominees Luncheon, which was held yesterday afternoon, so I figured I'd make a tradition out of it. I recommend clicking through to open the high-resolution version in another window.

(photo courtesy of Awards Daily)

- Doesn't take long to find the coolest guy in the room, does it? Back row, center. Please let him make an acceptance speech...

- So I know it must take a while to arrange everyone for this photo, but aren't there some considerations made for height? Too bad for back row, second from left, who has to peer over his neighbor's shoulder just to ensure that he has a record for his grandchildren to see.

- So does Josh Brolin really always have the "Leonardo DiCaprio in Body of Lies" scruffy goatee? I guess he can pull it off better than Leo, but I think it hides what's actually a pretty handsome face. Yes, I'm straight and I called Josh Brolin handsome.

- Is that Jack Nicholson standing next to Brolin? Whatever happened to Jack Nicholson?

- Anne Hathaway literally looks like she's eleven years old- literally, eleven years old.

- Hardest guy to find in the room: Richard Jenkins. Time to play a little game of "Where's Walter? (Vale)".

- Frozen River is up for Best Original Screenplay and Best Actress, but it should have been under consideration for Best Makeup as well. Melissa Leo looks about 20 years younger and happier than her character did.

- If I was a jerk and I hadn't seen Nerakhoon (The Betrayal), here's where I'd make fun of Thavi Pravasath's teeth. But I'm not, and I have seen it, and it's fantastic that he's there. Good for you, Thavi. You win the Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova Award for "Hollywood Outsider Who Makes The Room A Whole Lot Cooler Just By Being There".

- This is just an educated guess, but Penelope Cruz has to be the most photogenic person in the entire room, doesn't she? Has anyone ever seen a less-than-completely-flattering picture of her?

- Speaking of flattering, Amy Adams appears to be right off the set of a shampoo or conditioner commercial.

- Philip Seymour Hoffman is noticeably truant from this group, but third row, left end is a halfway decent fill-in for him.

- So is the agreed-upon arrangement: "Dorks wear nametags, cool kids don't"?

- Martin McDonagh has been here before, but that's no excuse for the scowl. Apparently he'd rather still be in Bruges.

- Fortunately, Brad Pitt and his pet mustache skipped the luncheon. Along with Penn I'm not sure the room could have handled two creepily mustached Best Actor nominees. Please, somebody break the trend before Oscar night.

- How can Kate Winslet look so happy? She's been to this luncheon like four or five times already and walked away empty-handed on the big night every time. At least roll your eyes or stick your tongue out.

- Year after year, there are still just way too many white males in this photo - especially ones wearing dark jackets and blue or white shirts. Doesn't anyone have any style besides Mickey Rourke?

- You can just hear the thoughts running through first time nominee Werner Herzog's mind: "It vuz a straynch ant ohfervelming experienss to be wit so many Holy-wood loominarees."

- It's nice to see Carl Deal and Tia Lessin there (filmmaking team behind Trouble the Water), but the picture is a little incomplete without Kimberly and Scott Roberts, who in my opinion were just as involved with the production of that film. But I guess including an aspiring rapper named "Black Kold Medina" just wouldn't be "proper"...never mind that Three 6 Mafia was there a few years ago.

- The more I see Frank Langella with that thin white beard, the more he reminds me of Sean Connery.

- And the award for Most Underdressed goes to...you, fourth row, right end.

- Is it just me or does Angelina Jolie's absence just make the whole group seem less, um, narcissistic and pretentious?

-There's always one person who doesn't look like they belong, but they figured they'd sneak in and hey, maybe if they look like they should be there then nobody will notice. Usually identifiable by an overly eager smile or a smirking, knowing look at the camera, this year's interloper was difficult to pinpoint. But there he is: back row, sixth from the left. Hey, wait a minute...!