Anvil! The Story of Anvil (***)

ANVIL! THE STORY OF ANVIL
Directed by Sacha Gervasi

***

They say that comedy comes from tragedy. One of the funniest films that I've ever seen, This Is Spinal Tap, follows this theory, as we watch a has-been 80's hair band trying to stay alive in the dog-eat-dog world of the music industry. With Anvil! The Story of Anvil, all we get is the tragedy. All we get is the torment which comes for the hunt of elusive fame. It's a harrowing tale about two men who refused to give up on their dreams, and planned to rock on till they die.

In 1984, a collection of 80's metal bands toured throughout Japan. Most of them, including Whitesnake, The Scorpions, and Bon Jovi, became huge hits, selling millions of records. Only one group on that tour did not become huge, and that band is Anvil. This film, directed by Anvil follower Sacha Gervasi, tells the story of what they're doing now. There is the lead singer and guitarist, Steve "Lips" Kudlow, who works delivering foods to elementary school cafeterias. There's also Robb Reiner, the band's drummer, who does odd jobs and paints. The two met in gradeschool, and swore to each other that they would rock till they were old... and now they're old.

In their hayday, Anvil was widely respected by their peer group, particularly their second album Metal On Metal. Acts like Metallica and Guns N Roses looked up to their style and their act, specifically Lips' eccentric on-stage act, which included leather, wrap-around suspenders and playing the guitar with a dildo. Unfortunately, outside of the metal underground, they never got the respect and success most of their fans feel they deserved. Why not? The band throws around many theories: including bad management, apathetic record labels, and overall ineptness. Either way, the two founders, even at age 50, still seek what has slipped through their fingers so often.

In the film, Anvil plans a tour throughout Sweden and the Czech Republic, in hopes that their performances will create some buzz, and convince a record label to release their thirteenth album, This Is Thirteen. The trip quickly becomes a disaster: they're late for shows, they miss their trains, they don't get paid, and they return home in the same position they were before. They decide to record and release their album themselves. Lips has to take a job as a telemarketer in order to pay for it.

As movie characters, Lips and Robb are magnanimous but temperamental, dedicated but crumbling. There are few people, I believe, who can be as motivated as these two are after spending about eighty percent of their lives pursuing one goal. They are both married with children. Their families are supportive, but don't have much in the way of optimism. The only thing they have is Anvil, and it prevents them from succumbing to the near-poverty that they live in.

I couldn't help but think of Spinal Tap as I watched this film. Not only because there's an amp that actually goes to 11. Not only because there is scene where the band visits Stonehenge in England. Not only because the director of Spinal Tap was also named Rob Reiner. No, what draws the two together is the way they explain how any torture can be overcome by what you love. You may seem pathetic, washed-up, and past your prime in your everyday life, but there is a whole new world atop the stage.

Interestingly enough, the film doesn't seem to care much about Anvil's music--none of their songs are ever played in the film fully. The director seems to think that it is the men themselves that are so important. He does lionize them to a point. I'm a firm believer that not everybody deserves popularity, even if they have talent. They are not shown as irresponsible druggies or bad husbands and fathers, but they do throw tantrums and do things to sabotage their own journeys. The presentation states that they are sympathetic, and it's not always easy to buy.

Lips and Rob find some success at a gig in Tokyo, Japan toward the end of the film, but there is never much in this film in the way of catharsis. Like I said, this is not a great "rockumentary", because it doesn't care about the actual music. What it is, is a portrait of a tragically quixotic couple of guys, who always sees the light at the end of the long, neverending tunnel.

Up (***1/2)

UP
Directed by Peter Docter

***1/2

Every once in a while, there comes a film so beautifully made and told in such a heartfelt fashion that it will lead even the most emotionally-reserved toward their catharsis. Up, the new film from the most consistently brilliant film studio in the country--Pixar--is one of those films. Much in the style of their other films WALL-E and The Incredibles, Up does not pander toward its target audience (small children along with their parents), but instead plans to enlighten them and mystify them.

When Carl Fredricksen was a young boy, he dreamed of adventure. Along with his childhood friend Ellie, he looked up to world-traveler Charles Muntz, who explored the grounds of Venezuela searching for a mysterious beast. When Muntz is accused of being a fraud, he flees back to the wilderness, never to be seen again. For Carl and Ellie though, their mutual infatuation with Muntz was the beginning of a quickly blooming relationship, which lead to marriage and a fulfilling life.

The two keep collecting money so they can one day travel to South America, but life continues to get in the way. A tire blows out; they take money from the collection. Carl breaks his arm; they take money from the collection. Time goes by, and the correct opportunity never presents itself. Eventually, when they are both elderly, Ellie passes away and Carl is left alone inside their dream home, with land developers constantly pressuring him to sell it and move into an old folks' home.

Unwilling to be bossed around, Carl ties billions of helium balloons to the chimney of his home, and begins his flight to South America. He is unexpectedly joined by Russell, a toddler boy scout, looking to help out the elderly in order to get his final scout badge. The two land in Venezuela, but still have a ways to walk before they can get to the waterfall Carl always dreamed of taking Ellie. They run into a large, colorful bird, which Russell names Kevin. They meet a talking dog named Doug (his collar is super smart and can express his simple thoughts). They also run into Muntz, who is still exploring the jungle to prove he isn't fraudulent.

With its sparse 96-minute running time, the only complaint that I really have with this film is that it isn't long enough. The film's conclusion happens so quickly and so conveniently, that you're disappointed that you can't spend more time with these characters. Carl, in particular, is a fascinating person. With his About Schmidt groan and box head, Carl brings an interesting theme of mortality to this supposed kids' film, and it is this depravity that always separates Pixar from the other studios.

Oh, and the colors. Finding Nemo was praised for its palette, but what this film does is fascinating. The wilderness is so bright and beautiful, while Carl's home interior is bland and various shades of grey, and then there's the inside of Muntz' masterpiece zeplin, so dark with the only color coming from the orange of dim light. These films always have magnificent production design and cinematography, but never get the recognition they deserve in those categories (or any category, for that matter) because it's animation.

The evolution of the relationship between the naive Russell and the grumpy Carl makes the foundation for the film's story. Most scripts in this position would give the child unwarranted wisdom, which leads the main character to discover his inner crabbiness. Not so here. Russell, I assume to be about four-years-old and Asian-American, is friendly, brave, and gregarious, but not wise. They grow together because of their human qualities, not because they're teaching each other anything.

I feel I've spoken rather clumsily about this film. Surely, it's the first film I've seen since The Soloist, and I've been out of practice in my writing, but if there is anything that I wished to convey about this picture, it is this: it is an absolutely beautiful film for people of all ages. With its talking dogs and personable birds, its sure to send the kids into a tizzy, but its the unrelenting drive of Carl (and his unavoidable parrallel toward his idol Muntz) that makes this film memorable.

Lars von Trier Doin' Work

Lars von Trier has never been the kind of filmmaker for the faint of heart. His films, so emotionally hard-hitting and tragic can leave haunting images that float through your mind for days. His Breaking The Waves was a beyond-upsetting portrait of a simple young woman's loss of purity; Idioterne was part of his Dogme 95 movement, and featured a group of young men and women pretending to be mentally retarded. Yet, even with that notorious reputation, his latest film Antichrist is creating quite a stir at Cannes.



WARNING: What follows in this piece contains some spoilers from the film Antichrist, so if you're into surprises, look away.

Based on that trailer alone, you can guess that this film will probably push the boundaries that most pictures stay within. It is a horror film about a man (Willem Defoe) who tries to treat his wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) from a deep depression she has suffered since the death of their young child. They scream, they argue, and sooner than later, they inflict horrible pain upon each other, both physically and psychologically. Among the acts detailed, the wife supposedly drills a hole into her husband's leg, connects it to a grindstone, smashes his testicles, and then gives him a hand job until he ejaculates blood. Another moment being talked about is when the wife cuts off her own clitoris with a pair of scissors.

What role does this kind of exhibitionism play in cinema today? I'm not sure, mostly because I have not seen the actual film (it doesn't have a US distributor, and it will most likely be saddled by small theater release and an NC-17 rating). The detailed events that happen in the film are shocking, but not particularly surprising if you're familiar with the work of von Trier, but what seems to be debated over in France is whether or not he may have become too megalomaniacal for his own good. Narcisism has never been a debate for von Trier, after the showing of his film last week, he stated in an interview: "I am the best filmaker in the world".

I'd have to imagine that both Defoe and Gainsbourg--two excellent performers in their own right--are von Trier fans, because these kinds of acts require absolute trust in the man in charge, and absolute fearlessness. The film's cinematographer is recent Oscar winner Anthony Dod Mantle, and it is said that he films the horrific moments with stark clarity. Again, there's nothing in Mantle's work that would suggest that he would do it any other way. If there is one thing von Trier has certainly accomplished with this Antichrist fiasco, he has drummed up more publicity for this film than anything the film could have done on its own. The man has created a career by coaxing controversy, and even after all these years, we've fallen for it again.

Double Trailer Watch Whammy: Nine & Whatever Works

In my two-week hiatus, there was an incredible emergence of late-year trailer sightings. First The Road, and now Nine. I'm still not sure if I'm as excited about this film as I am for the animated film 9 (I know these films have nothing to do with each other but they'll always be tied together in my mind), but seeing the actual images that Rob Marshall creates always drums up anticipation and enthusiasm. The most interesting thing that I saw in the preview was the opportunity for Day-Lewis to be playful (when's the last time we've seen that? A Room With A View?); and of course, the film's star-studded female line-up (Kidman, Cruz, Dench, Loren, Cotillard) is something to behold.



Ah... it feels so good to see Woody going back to his bread and butter. Not that he isn't a good serious filmmaker (Interiors and Another Woman are all sorts of brilliant), but there's nothing I love more than watching Woody at his most purely nebbish and silly. Add to that a seemingly perfect match-up with Curb Your Enthusiasm's Larry David, and a supporting cast including Patricia Clarkson, Evan Rachel Wood, Ed Begley Jr., and Michael McKean, and there is a possible set-up for Woody's best film since 1999's Sweet and Lowdown (I don't care what anyone says, all of his films have been mediocre since that great movie).

Trailer Watch: The Road

Ever since reading Cormac McCarthy's harrowing story of a man and his boy trying to survive, I have been anticipating this film. While reading the story, Mortensen seemed like the perfect choice for the film's protagonist, and while I'm not familiar with Austrailian filmmaker John Hillcoat, the visuals in this trailer look just lush enough to be satisfying. The story seems jumbled a bit (Theron's character is basically a cameo in the book; there is never any explanation as to why the world has become such a wasteland in the original story), the film doesn't seem to compromise any of the book's captivating intensity.

A Word About...

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
Directed by Tom Alfredson

The Swedish horror film was an underground hit in America last year (even prompting talks of a remake before it was even released), but I wasn't able to see it due to limited theater appearances--plus the fact that at that time much time had to be spent trying to watch all of the actual American films that were being packaged in December as well. That being said, after a mountain of expectation, Let The Right One In is a horror film that delivers much more than its slasher peers.

The story of Oskar (Kare Hedebrant), a twelve-year-old, often-bullied outcast who daydreams about revenge alone in his room. His life changes when a young girl named Eli (Lina Leandersson) moves in next door with her father. He only sees her at night, but he comes to like her. Unfortunately, Eli is a vicious, blood-sucking vampire who can't help but feast on blood, no matter how she manages to come across it.

The most fabulous aspects of Let The Right One In are the ways it attempts to humanize the often looked-over concepts of horror films. Eli's father attempts to satisfy his daughter's urges by murdering random wanderers and draining them of their blood. His attempts always fall flat though, and Eli is forced to fight for herself. Furthermore, the romance that blooms between Eli and Oskar envelopes both sweetly and plausibly. The characters within the film are not Dracula-like caricatures, but instead human beings--only a few are infected.

The film's slow pace can put you off occasionally, but overall, Let The Right One In is one of the most exceptional horror movies of the decade.

***1/2

The Soloist (**)

THE SOLOIST
Directed by Joe Wright

**

Steve Lopez has been a respected staff writer for the Los Angeles Times newspaper since 2001, and the most memorable thing he ever uncovered during his work there was revealing the stunning life of Nathaniel Anthony Ayers Jr. The collection of columns he wrote about Ayers evolved into a book, which has now become a film with Jaime Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. Buzz was soaring about this film during its original release date in late November of 2008, but then it became all moot when the film was pushed to April of 2009.

Why? Many claim that the film's Oscar chances would have benefited from a bleak April opening, as opposed to coming out with all the heavy hitters during November and December. I don't believe that theory. No studio would release a film in April if they logically thought that the film had any chance of winning the Academy statue. The only time where films released this early become late-year awards' favorites are when the films are totally awesome (Fargo, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Silence of the Lambs). Unfortunately, The Soloist is not totally awesome.

The film follows Steve Lopez (Downey Jr.), after suffering a rather violent face injury, when he stumbled off of his bicycle and landed face-first into the asphalt. Lopez is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and even in his debilitated state, he continues to write about his troubles in ICU. His life is at a crossroads. His boss, Mary (Catherine Keener), is his ex-wife, he barely talks to his college-bound son, and the newspaper business is floundering more and more. The only functional part of his life is his writing.

While pacing around downtown Los Angeles, Lopez finds Nathaniel Ayers Jr. (Foxx) playing a two-stringed violin in front of a statue of Beethoven. Nathaniel speaks rhythmically, but incoherently, and when he drops a hint that he attended Julliard School of Music in his past, Lopez finds that he could be the perfect story. After further research, Lopez finds that not only did Nathaniel attend Julliard, but he was actually an immensely talented wunderkind, whose cello playing was superb by his pre-teen years.

Lopez is fascinated by the concept of a former promising prodigy becoming a disjointed, homeless man. He tries to probe Ayers, to find out his history, and how his misfortune came to be. All he can find is that mental problems forced him to drop out of Julliard, and after running out on his sister, he lives on the streets, playing his music in the downtown tunnel. The film chronicles Lopez's attempts to rehabilitate Nathaniel, and help him realize his fullest potential as a musician, but its the friendship that forms between the two men that Lopez never sees coming.

This is Joe Wright's third film, and his first American, non-period film. Atonement was your typical late-year, prestige film, but his version of Pride of Prejudice was probably the greatest version of that story--other than Jane Austen's prose. I'm not totally sure what he's trying to accomplish with The Soloist, though. As the story of an anxiety-riddled writer struggling to balance morality with journalistic objectivity, The Soloist is quite interesting; but as the story of a man's crumble at the hands of mental illness, the film is merely mediocre.

Too many times, flashbacks and asides about Nathaniel interrupt the narrative flow of Lopez's journey. Not that Nathaniel's story isn't interesting, but the way it is told in this film is not unlike many conventional Hollywood showcases of mental illness. Lopez is the man that moves the story from A to B, but the melodrama of Ayers slowly going insane is too tempting to resist for these filmmakers. Its this confusion of theme and tone, I think, that pushed this film's release for nearly half a year--not its Oscar chances.

Luckily, the work of Foxx, Downey Jr., and Keener are occasionally enough to make up for it. Playing a possible paranoid schizophrenic (the film never confirms what his illness is), Foxx probably had ample oppurtunity to overact and be flamboyant, but he prefers the subdued confusion that makes his pain that much more aching. As for Downey Jr., he has quickly become an actor that I could literally watch in anything, no matter how uninspired. His Steve Lopez isn't so much a recreation of a real person, but the invention of a character so tormented and sad, that his constant sarcasm is that much more dejected.

The inconsistency of The Soloist has to be blamed on Joe Wright, who seems to have had trouble transferring from English costume dramas to American stories of redemption. Sure, the shots are beautiful and inspired, and the visual storytelling is top notch, but the ACTUAL storytelling is lacking. Not to trivialize the troubles of Nathaniel Ayers, but his experiences in this film don't seem much different than your average schizophrenic movie character. The film's source material--Steve Lopez--should have gotten much more screentime.

Adventureland (***1/2)

ADVENTURELAND
Written and Directed by Greg Motolla

***1/2

Greg Motolla's Superbad was an immensely popular coming-of-age story about two unpopular teenagers trying to get laid during one crazy night. The film was penned by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg and contained some of the most inflammatory comedic dialogue I'd seen in a while. Now, Motolla is on his own as a writer, and what kind of story does he choose to tell? The coming-of-age story about an unpopular college kid trying to get laid during one crazy summer at one crazy amusement park.

Sure, the same formula is there, but what Motolla accomplishes with Adventureland is very interesting. His eye for sentimentality glimmered a bit in Superbad, but with this film it is quite obvious that he is not just another cog in the Judd Apatow machine. Bad taste is not celebrated, the film's humor is subdued (none of the manic expletive explosions from Jonah Hill here), and the events highlighted are poigniant expositions about growing up and falling in love.

The year is 1987, and James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) just graduated from college and is looking forward to his graduation present: a trip to Europe with his best friend. After that, the two plan to move to a high-end New York City apartment as they attend grad school at Columbia. Unfortunately, when James' father loses his high-paying job, the trip is thrown out the window, and even his grad school plans are put into jeopardy. His only option is to get a summer job, and the only one available is at the notorious amusement park named Adventureland.

The low-end park has creaky rides, rigged games, and is run by Bobby (Bill Hader) and Paulette (Kristen Wiig), an optimistic married couple, who couldn't understand why anybody wouldn't want to work at a place where Falco's "Rock Me Amadeus" is played every twenty minutes. James is thrown into games, and he is mentored by the grizzled veteran Joel (Martin Star). Joel is a rather awkward-looking man, whose apathy is only equaled by his sarcasm. The most important person James meets at the park is Em (Kristen Stewart), a grungy young girl with an eye for dysfunction and an ear for classic rock.

Em is a complicated girl: her father remarried soon after her mother died to an insecure bald woman, and she is caught in a secret affair with the park's married maintenance man (Ryan Reynolds). Despite all that, James is intoxicated by her, and spends most of his summer trying to get close to her. There are other stories which include Joel's unsuccessful exploits in love, and the emergance of Lisa P. (Margarita Levieva), the hot sexpot legend who has returned for the summer. The core of the story, though, deals with James and Em, and the evolution of their relationship.

What's most fascinating about Adventureland is its showcase of the comradery that arises at even the worst occupations. The friendships and bonds that are created at the strangest places are shown in a sincere and honest way. The script is supposedly based on Motolla's real encounter with Adventureland, and his summer job there. There's a real care with the way Motolla tells the story, and he treats it with a delicate manner. It doesn't matter that the ideas are hackneyed or unoriginal, because the connection that Motolla has adds to the film's charisma.

The film also has quite an amazing ear for music. The film's soundtrack contains songs from Lou Reed, The Velvet Underground, The Cure, The Rolling Stones, and The Replacements. It's obvious that Motolla's actual affection for the music is the reason for their inclusion (I find it hard to believe mainstream teenagers in the 1980's were rocking out to Lou Reed's Transformer), but the songs are used effectively and are a treat for any fan of classic rock. You can see any film from Zack and Miri Make a Porno to Watchmen to see a film that has a great soundtrack but gravely misuses it.

The film's cast is loaded with comedic all-stars, including Hader, Starr, and Wiig, who carry most of the burden of making the film funny. As I've said before, this is not a movie about jokes but about becoming an adult. Jesse Eisenberg is fantastic as James, in his first major role since the fantastic The Squid and The Whale. His nebbish, sarcastic persona has shades of Woody Allen. The film's biggest star is probably Twilight's Kristen Stewart. The only other film I'd seen her in was a bit part in Into The Wild, where I found her absolutely captivating. In Adventureland, she's a convincing self-destructive young woman, and she may become the new face angst-ridden young actresses. Sure, I'd say Ryan Reynolds is miscast as the adulterous, but suave mechanic slash rock-n-roller, but that is just small nitpicking.

Adventureland is a film being promoted as a zany, teenage sex comedy. I'm sure I wasn't the only one surprised to find out that the characters were college students. I'm sure the fact that the film is the antithesis of Superbad will turn a lot of people off, and its current box office takings reveal that. All that said, with this film, Motolla has established himself as one of the best new comedic filmmakers in the business.

Monsters vs Aliens (**)

MONSTERS VS ALIENS
Directed by Rob Letterman & Conrad Vernon

**

This review is actually from over a week ago, but due to plain busy-ness, I was never able to actually post it. Better late than never.

It looks like 3-D films have come back with a vengeance. Close to all major animated releases now are being optioned as 3-D pictures (and lets not forget IMAX, as well). Sure, these films due quite a damage on the box office, but they do even bigger damage on moviegoers' wallets (my eight-year-old sister's ticket alone cost $10). But then there is a rather large border between the films that take the imagination of their storylines and use the third dimension to further enhance that; and the films that are made specifically to exploit the agitating nature of 3-D.

Monsters vs Aliens can be VERY agitating. The film surely doesn't have much interest in coaxing the standard family humor of Disney, nor does it commit to the transgressive, pop culture-referencing nature of the Shrek films. This is a movie made for the specific purpose of being shown in 3-D. The very opening contains a scientist playing paddle ball--a big, red ball flying ferociously at the audience. All the gimmicks you need are there, and while there is still the sass from other Dreamworks animated films, there surely isn't the same commitment to superior storytelling.

The film is about Susan Murphy (Reese Witherspoon), who is getting ready to get married to her narcissistic weatherman fiance Derek (Paul Rudd). Everything is going to plan, before a giant meteor falls on her moments before the ceremony and turns her into a fifty-foot being with super human strength (re-named Ginormica). Without haste, the government takes her down and brings her to a confidential facility, where she finds out that her seemingly perfect world may never be the same again.

She's kept inside a steel-walled prison, and her only companions are Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie), a former mad scientist, whose mad experiments transformed him into a pint-sized insect; there is The Missing Link (Will Arnet), a half-fish, half-whatever, who has some pretty surprising strength of his own--and an ego to boot; and then there is B.O.B. (Seth Rogen), a giant blue blob with one eye, who has no brain (but he does have wit). These are monsters that the government have hid from the population in an attempt to protect them and the monsters from hysteria.

Ends up the chemical from the meteor that made Susan such a giant freak is the envy of a sadistic alien named Gallaxar (Rainn Wilson), who travels to Earth hoping to extract it from Susan. After the asinine US President (Stephen Colbert) tries to create peace talks with the aliens, things quickly go sour, and they decide--rather spontaneously--that the only force they have to fight the aliens are the monsters. Four monsters against an alien army. Monsters Vs. Aliens; it's all in the title.

I don't mean to make the case that family films are above a plot like this; absurdity is a mainstay in most child-aimed animated films. Animated films are at a strange point in their history. WALL-E and Persepolis were both groundbreaking, beautifully made films, stylistically and thematically. Meanwhile, most film audiences are caught in the traction of more mainstream films like Bolt and Kung Fu Panda. People are always going to for the more mainstream film--that's why it's called "mainstream", but the execution of these so-called mainstream films are becoming poorer and poorer, to the point that audiences don't even realize that they should demand better (and these same people call WALL-E boring. *sigh*).

The good news? There are quite a few moments within the movie where the humor works, even if it is misguided. Like the Shrek films, there are many jokes that are meant to throw parents a bone. Most of these, though, are simply flat and unfunny, and since none of the kids understand them, it makes it much more frustrating for the adult viewers. No, the funniest parts of the movie are the low-brow, physically comedic moments. These characters are pure prototypes in monster form, and to see these hackneyed plot points taken from that perspective is sometimes intriguing.

I guess I've made no secret of the fact that I do not like the slew of 3-D films coming through the woodwork lately. Even Pixar's Up, which seems like more spectacular material from that studio, is being promoted as a 3-D film. The technique worked occasionally in the film Coraline, but that was a film that held many themes about dreams and the surreal. These newer films are purely exploitative, and I'm not sure if the fad will fold over like it did decades earlier. For now, we'll just be paying through the nose everytime a classic animated film is re-released in 3-D (a new Beauty and the Beast to be coming soon--no kidding).

Trailer Watch: Moon

I'd like to make an amendment to my previous post of super early Oscar picks, and include Sam Rockwell in my Best Actor predictions (bumping off Javier Bardem). This film (directed by David Bowie's son Duncan Jones) looks absolutely amazing, and I'm usually not the biggest fan of science fiction. This will be my most anticipated movie of the summer.

What We Know In April: Who's ALREADY Pushing for Oscar?

It's impossible for anyone to know who's going to be nominated for the Academy Awards in April, but that never stops it from being fun. This early, the only thing we know is a cataclysm of movie stars and directors who may or may not combine to win the elusive gold. At this early stage, I'll take my own crack at who's already taken a bite at the front-runner status:

Best Actor:

Javier Bardem, BIUTIFUL
Matt Damon, THE INFORMANT
Johnny Depp, PUBLIC ENEMIES
Morgan Freeman, THE HUMAN FACTOR
Viggo Mortenson, THE ROAD

I disappointingly go for an all-movie star line-up here, but not without good reason. Freeman plays Nelson Mandella in a film directed by Clint Eastwood (this is a perfect formula for Oscar. Mortenson is the lead in the film based on the hard-hitting Cormac McCarthy novel (if you've read it, you'd know why Mortenson is perfect). Damon combines with Stephen Soderberg and packs on the pounds. Depp combines with Michael Mann, and plays bank robber John Dillinger as well. As for Bardem, he's starring in a film by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (isn't it surprising that these two have never worked together?).

Best Actress:

Penelope Cruz, BROKEN EMBRACES
Carey Mulligan, AN EDUCATION
Michelle Pfeiffer, CHERI
Natalie Portman, BROTHERS
Audrey Tautou, COCO AVANT CHANEL

I'm going with two foreign-language performances, which isn't exactly the smartest move, but its hard for me to ignore Oscar's love of biopic (Tautou plays Coco Chanel), or Cruz once again musing Pedro Almodovar. As for Portman and Pfeiffer, those are both just educated guesses/wishful thinking. Portman is in a tragedy directed by Jim Sheridan, and Pfeiffer reconnects with Stephen Frears for a period drama. There's mush to be said about getting an early start (ask Richard Jenkins), and Carey Mulligan sure has all of the early buzz for An Education.

Best Director

James Cameron, AVATAR
Peter Jackson, THE LOVELY BONES
Michael Mann, PUBLIC ENEMIES
Lone Scherfig, AN EDUCATION
Martin Scorsese, SHUTTER ISLAND

The 70's and 80's might have been Scorsese's prime, but the Oscars love him this decade (he's gone 3/3 with Best Director nominations for his feature narrative films since 2000). James Cameron may have been silent since Titanic, but he's amassed a great enough buzz for Avatar that this seems like a sensible pick. Michael Mann is a great director they've never fully loved, while Jackson is great director which they like... occasionally. Both have a strong chance this year. Which leaves me with Lone Scherfig, which means that if I'm right, she will be only the fourth woman EVER nominated as a director. Like I said before, it helps to be a front-runner.

Best Supporting Actor

Billy Crudup, PUBLIC ENEMIES
Matt Damon, THE HUMAN FACTOR
Tobey Maguire, BROTHERS
Mark Ruffalo, SHUTTER ISLAND
Stanley Tucci, THE LOVELY BONES

It sure looks like a good year for Damon, and he does have very stong pull early for both lead and supporting categories. I think Crudup will ride some Watchmen momentum, and get a nod for the more conventional performance (he plays J. Edgar Hoover). Tucci plays a child murderer, which would seem extremely baity if I didn't wholly admire Tucci as a performer. I pick Maguire only because the early word is that he's great in the role (and I think he didn't totally rub out ALL of his good will with Spider-Man 3). As for Ruffalo, he has to get a nomination eventually, doesn't he? DOESN'T HE?

Best Supporting Actress

Patricia Clarkson, WHATEVER WORKS
Judi Dench, NINE
Lisa Kudrow, 17 PHOTOS OF ISABEL
Leslie Mann, FUNNY PEOPLE
Mo'Nique, PRECIOUS

This is really, truly a hopefest. Nothing would make me happier (at least at this point) than to see this line-up next January. Clarkson, Mann, and Kudrow are wonderful comedic performers, but they rarely get their due. These roles seem pretty good. Dench is an Academy mainstay, and is said to have one of the better roles out of all the actresses in Nine. As for comedienne Mo'Nique, her performance in Precious has been much talked-about (More on that here). Let's see if this long-shot nomination hopeful can stay ahead in the race.

Best Picture

An Education
The Human Factor
The Lovely Bones
Public Enemies
Shutter Island

Pretty conservative choices here, I know, but I would go to war with this line-up (at this point of the year, at least). We've got the small film that no one saw coming (but everyone saw coming) with An Education. The endearing, mythologizing biopic with The Human Factor. A hard-hitting tragic drama in The Lovely Bones. An expertly made gangster film with Public Enemies. And then we also have a Martin Scorsese film (Shutter Island); nuff said about that.

Trailer Watch: Taking Woodstock

If you really look at the filmography of Ang Lee, you'll see an assorted bag of period pieces (Sense & Sensibility), franchise action films (Hulk), provocative political films (Lust, Caution), high-brow kung-fu films (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) and a gay Cowboy movie (Brokeback Mountain). The man has won two Oscars already, and can seemingly tackle any genre thrown in front of him. With this movie, he seems to be going for light comedy, and actually casted a relatively green comedian (the very funny Demitri Martin) in the lead. Sure, its packed with veteran acting talent like Imelda Staunton, Liev Schrieber, and Eugene Levy, but what can you make of this film, really? Well, if Lee's behind the reigns, then I'm in.

Mo'Nique for Oscar?

The other day I was watching the Broken Lizard film Beerfest on television. I had no real interest in the film other than my inherent love for a previous Broken Lizard film entitled Super Troopers (one of the more underrated comedies on the past decade). I bring this up because the film had an interesting supporting role played by "big, loud, and proud" comedienne Mo'Nique, as a backstabbing woman who has trouble suppressing sexual urges. This is not outside the prototype for most film roles MoNique has had.

Nowadays, though, people have been talking about Mo'Nique a bit differently. As in: future Academy Award nominee. Sure, it's silly to be talking about future nominations in April, but the raves she's getting for her supporting role in the film Precious are avalanching quickly. The film had a spark at Sundance, and now buzz is growing as trailers were seen by anyone who paid money to see Madea Goes To Jail (yet another cruel trick played upon anyone who doesn't want to get sucked into Tyler Perry mania).

I don't know what to think of Precious, really. The film's plot is about a young, illiterate girl (newcomer Gabby Sidibe) who's pregnant with her second child. Details about the plot are sketchy, since so few have seen it, but other supporting players include Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz. The film was originally entitled Push, but because of an attrocious film which came out earlier this year, they've had to change the title to avoid confusion (smart move, who would want to get mixed up with that hunk of crap?).

The consistent reaction to the film, though, is that Mo'Nique's performance is a show-stopper. There's one of these every year: one actor nobody had any hope or faith in comes out and does something amazing. Last year, it was Mickey Rourke; a couple of years ago it was Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children. Could this year's surprise performance really come from Mo'Nique? Sure seems so. I eat these kinds of stories up, and I surely hope this performance lives up to the hype, cause I'd love to see her grace Hollywood's red carpet with all the industry elite--it's always fun to see someone crash the party.

Nine Retrospective

In my first blog poll, more people voted Rob Marshall's screen version of the stage musical Nine to be their pick to be the Best Picture winner of 2010. In April, this doesn't mean much more than the few people who happen upon this blog seem to think Nine is the Academy's type of film. And why not? Rob Marshall's last stage-to-screen attempt, Chicago, was able to take home the Best Picture prize. Also, this film is lined up with a heavyweight cast which includes Daniel Day-Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Sofia Loren, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, and Penelope Cruz, among others. Any other tidbits, you ask? Oh yeah, the stage material is a musical version of Fellini's all-time classic 8 1/2.

So, all that being said, why am I not very interested in seeing this film? I was aware of it enough to include it in my poll, though it was probably the film I anticipated the least out of the quartet I chose. I adore Chicago, even if it isn't the best film of 2002, and it is a bit "stagey". The truth is, there's something to be said about films that rework classics. Surely, the stage version of Nine was a big hit, but there's a difference between reinventing a film on Broadway, and then taking that reworking and trying to recreate it as a film. Something incredibly redundant about it.

Also, this film's cast may be a little too stacked. Kind of like the baseball team that loads itself with home-run hitters and forgets to address the pitching staff. As seldom as Day-Lewis works, anyone else would have preferred Javier Bardem staying on? He at least has a fraction of the sensuality that Marcello Mastonioni holds on screen. As for Cruz--who everybody says has the meatiest role of the actresses--my anticipation for her performance in this film is nowhere near as high as her reunion with Pedro Almodovar in Broken Embraces.

Above: Bad Math

Hate to be a sour grape, but I see Nine as the Benjamin Button of 2009. I will see it, as I'm sure that it will be a hit with many awards groups, but I don't hold its release in relatively high regard. I could--scratch that, I hope--that I'm wrong about the film (that's what happened when I saw Babel three years ago, and it was a very pleasant surprise). Just don't expect me to be first in line to see it.

P.S. In September, there is an animated film named 9 coming out, which looks absolutely amazing. Wouldn't it be very embarrassing if Nine isn't even the best film of 2009 named "nine"? I don't know about you, but I find this showdown fascinating.

Duplicity (**1/2)

DUPLICITY
Written and Directed by Tony Gilroy

**1/2

When you make a film as good as Michael Clayton, the expectation for your follow-up is obviously going to be very high. Tony Gilroy had been kicking around Hollywood for years as a scriptwriter, which is what made the success of his directorial debut, Clayton, that much more sweet--he'd worked for it. For his second film, Duplicity, Gilroy doesn't tone down the intelligence of his screenwriting, but does try to fit into a more mainstream package. The result is somewhat hit-or-miss.

The story focuses on two former government agents. Ray (Clive Owen) worked for MI-6, and at social gathering in Rome years ago, he met Claire (Julia Roberts), who was then employed by the CIA. They spend one steamy night together, but when Ray wakes up, it turns out that he was nothing more than an assignment, and Claire had completed it. Cut to present day, and both Ray and Claire have quit their government jobs to work as spies for conglomerate corporations trying to get the best of one another.

Routinely, Ray and Claire run into each other again, and now it seems their on the same side. Claire is now a spy, implanted as a counterintelligence agent within a rival company. This rival company, headed by the megalomaniac Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson), has supposedly crossed paths with a new product that may become the next biggest thing. The company employing Claire, headed by an equally narcissistic CEO named Richard Garsik (Paul Giamatti), wants their hands on this mystery product, so they hire Ray to help Claire pull it off.

There are the usual pitfalls: Ray and Claire argue, Howard and Richard do a little more than that, and of course there is a whole lot more than meets the eye. The dynamic between Ray and Claire is the film's main plot point, but it is frequently pushed aside by long-winded flashbacks and complicated moments where we're expected to believe what the characters are saying, because we have no idea what they're talking about.

Now, is there some wit and charm to Duplicity? Surely. Owen and Roberts do have some chemistry--at least what they were able to scrap together, after those smolderingly damaging scenes they shared in 2004's Closer. It's not the intelligence of the script that has the most issues. Unfortunately for this film, it seemed to be aiming for Ocean's Eleven in tone, when it should have been going more for more black comedy. The twists within the Ocean's Eleven film are deceptively simple, where in Duplicity, the motifs of split screens and flashbacks can leave the audience in a tailspin.

Gilroy, for the second film in a row has been blessed with a highly enviable cast, and two legitimate movie stars in the leads. As I stated before, Owen and Roberts do have some spark together, and they use Gilroy's sarcastic dialogue well. Their relational arguments seem sincere. Arguably, out of this whole ensemble, Paul Giamatti is the best actor--at the very least you'd have to say that he has the most range out of all the performers. Duplicity's best moments are when Giamatti is allowed to let loose, and his one-liners are the only times when the comedy in the script truly succeeds.

Complication for the sake of complication gets to be tedious after a while, and Duplicity really stretches out its good will. After directing two films, Gilroy has already established himself as a highly-stylized filmmaker, using visual motifs and break-neck editing. This film doesn't take itself nearly as seriously as Michael Clayton, but I don't think it is expected to. You can't forget that Gilroy made his bones by writing films like The Cutting Edge and Extreme Measures. Gilroy is above those scripts, but not all the time.