Tag: Christoph Waltz

Spectre

Spectre, the fourth Bond film in the Daniel Craig era fails to live up to its predecessor.

SpectrePosterDo we need James Bond in 2015? After 2013’s incredible “Skyfall”, the answer was absolutely yes. It was first off unheard of that an action movie, as shot by Roger Deakins, could look that good. But Bond also felt like a human relief in a world of superheroes, wizards and teenagers fighting in dystopian universes. Give me a hard drinking and vengeful Bond with a tortured past, casual misogyny and all, and let him take on a contemporary computer hacker and show why there’s still a place for an analog assassin.

With Sam Mendes back at the helm and Daniel Craig giving 007 another go, “Spectre” seemed to be right in line with “Skyfall”. Bond’s here to stay… or that was until another movie this summer, “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation”, had more memorable fun with the same concept of an outdated agent in a surveillance state of drones and technology. Continue reading “Spectre”

Big Eyes

Tim Burton’s ‘Big Eyes’ is missing the gender politics and humor that would vitalize Margaret Keane’s story.

BigEyesPosterA woman is carefully studying one of Margaret Keane’s paintings of a waif like child with big eyes in a state of poverty and despair. She says, “It’s creepy, maudlin and amateurish. And I love it.”

Tim Burton’s “Big Eyes” tells the story of Margaret Keane, but his film only meets the last two criteria of Margaret’s paintings. “Big Eyes” feels like a standard biopic placed in a maudlin setting, but it lacks the surreal, absurd, cartoonish character that has defined even some of Burton’s worst films. In the process, he loses the humor, wit and even political point of view necessary to make good on Margaret’s story.

Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) was a painter in the ‘50s and ‘60s who attained enormous success with her “Big Eye” paintings. All portraits of children, the moody sketches were pure kitsch and possibly art, but regardless, they sold like hotcakes. Reproduced countless times over, it became possible to buy a Keane at your local grocery store.

The only problem was that Margaret saw none of the attention for her work. Her husband Walter (Christoph Waltz) convinced her that the work would sell better if people thought that it came from a man, so he took credit for himself and eventually became an established artist hobnobbing with Andy Warhol and being torn to shreds in the New York Times. Once the lie and Big Eye empire were established, Walter convinced Margaret that if she were to ever reveal the truth, the whole enterprise would come crashing down. Margaret remained silent for years until a circus of a legal battle in which Walter still claimed he was the sole painter of the Big Eyes.

Immediately Margaret’s story brings to mind women’s rights and what it means to be a female artist either in 1960 or 2015. Burton however doesn’t seem to have a political bone in his body, and he comments as little about the present as he does the past, seeking only to tell Margaret’s story in traditional terms.

Burton also misses an opportunity to take the courtroom material and make it truly outrageous. At one point Walter acts as both his own prosecutor and witness, leaping up and down from the stand with aplomb and play-acting the stereotypes he’s seen on old Perry Masons. Waltz executes the scene with charm, but he’s an actor who can go further, and Burton doesn’t ask him to, playing the moment mostly straight and not technically for laughs. The historical details of Margaret’s story are seedier and more outrageous than Burton even thinks to portray, something that seems peculiar given just how kooky and dark Burton can make established properties like Batman, Alice in Wonderland or the soap opera Dark Shadows.

Even bigger questions of truth, forgery and art seem to linger as untouched subjects. Something like “American Hustle” worked the idea of forgery into the very fabric of its storytelling. Even one of Burton’s best films, “Ed Wood”, explored the idea of whether even the worst art can still be called genius. Why can’t “Big Eyes” make a bigger claim about the nature of art, and how even kitsch and sentimental pap can still move people in a way that makes it art?

Keane’s art was all of those things but seemed weird enough to suggest there was an artist under those layers of canvas. “Big Eyes” amounts to little more than its surface level appeal.

2 ½ stars

The Zero Theorem

Terry Gilliam’s sci-fi satire has many of the same visual, structural and thematic elements of his masterpiece “Brazil”.

With each generation comes the same feeling of nothingness and monotony to the present. People get stuck in dead-end jobs with neuroses and apprehensions, and the new wave of technology doesn’t appear to change much. Terry Gilliam’s ‘80s sci-fi “Brazil” captured the Orwellian state with such surreal humor and visual creativity that its now 30-year-old vision of the 21st Century has made it a cult classic.

Gilliam’s latest “The Zero Theorem” is awfully close to being “Brazil 2.0”, a satirical reimagining of another not-too-distant future that matches “Brazil” structurally, visually and to an extent thematically. Critics have faulted Gilliam for doing a remix of his greatest hits, but his idiosyncratic message is as relevant now as it was then.

“The Zero Theorem” tells the story of Qohen (Christoph Waltz), pronouncing his name “Cohen” with a Q, but no U. Years ago he received a phone call that he believed would tell him the meaning of why he was put on this Earth, but he got disconnected in excitement and now lives in an old church vicariously waiting for that call back. His work involves a new form of computer programming, one that has reduced work to video gaming and inscrutable equations. Qohen begs his supervisor (David Thewlis) to work from home to await his precious call, and in exchange, Management (Matt Damon) puts him to the task of deciphering The Zero Theorem. Continue reading “The Zero Theorem”

Revisited: Django Unchained

Quentin Tarantino’s Spaghetti Western still rubs somewhat the wrong way watching it two years later.

This review is a quick smattering of thoughts that was first shared in my Letterboxd review. 

There’s no questioning Tarantino’s mastery and control behind the camera. Rewatching Django Unchained, the film bursts to life instantly with a just about perfectly gritty and homage of a title sequence and grandly sweeping title song. The film’s opening scene inside a completely dark forest almost looks patently on a set, but Tarantino is doing that intentionally and makes the bleakness and distinct lighting of the scene beautiful. You watch it and its hard to imagine that this will be anything but another of Tarantino’s masterpieces.

I had felt lukewarm about the film on Christmas Day 2012. My somewhat embarrassing review questioned if it was entirely complete as the film was bold, but messy and disjointed, full of set pieces that existed only on their own terms and a revenge plot that felt secondary whenever Tarantino trotted out the flourishes, bloodshed and rap tracks.

And in the first hour of “Django,” those feelings had completely vanished, only to return once Leonardo Dicaprio’s utterly chilling and compelling character showed up. That’s because the first hour is a straight Western, and Tarantino nails it. He could’ve easily drawn out the vigilante hunt for the Brittle brothers to Leone length and made a damn fine film, but he had different ambitions. Continue reading “Revisited: Django Unchained”

Off the Red Carpet: 1 Week to the Oscars

We are now less than two weeks away from the Oscars. The guilds are still chiming in, but the last of the major awards has spoken, and as conflicted as I am to say it, I’m finally jumping on the “Argo” train.

Two things convinced me.

The first was the win at the BAFTAs, the British Oscars so to speak. In a place where it arguably doesn’t have the same cultural, zeitgeist leg to stand on, “Argo” held strong against “Les Miserables” and Michael Haneke in the Best Director race.

But more importantly, it took this long for me to realize that “Argo” was always the front-runner. Way back in September at the Telluride Film Festival, “Argo” thrilled audiences in a way that finally declared Oscar season open. It was the first in a long line of contenders in a year that over eight months hadn’t yet proved why it was so great for movies.

And now it’s still here. “Argo” survived where “Lincoln,” “Silver Linings Playbook” and “Les Miserables” all peaked and faded and “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Django Unchained” buckled under their own controversy.

“Argo” is here to stay, and we were stupid to think that it wasn’t always.

Next week in place of this roundup, I’ll have my final Oscar predictions in all 24 categories. It’s been a fun ride writing this column this season. Thanks for sticking with me. Continue reading “Off the Red Carpet: 1 Week to the Oscars”

Oscars 2013: It's Anyone's Race

Last year when the Oscar nominations were announced, I couldn’t stop myself from yelling at the TV when “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” got nominated for Best Picture.

This year, there were a lot of snubs and a lot of surprises, but I held my tongue.

That’s because last year, I was more or less certain going in that not only would “The Artist” be nominated, it would probably win. The news was what else would share its spotlight in history, not the actual awards.

2012 is different. I didn’t know for sure what would be nominated, and noting how many predictions I got wrong, I can safely say I still don’t know what might win. In ANY category. We still have a real race on our hands.

No, we didn’t see a real surprise nominee like “Skyfall,” “The Master” or something completely out of left field like “The Intouchables” or “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” to round out a top 10, but you tell me who’s going to win Best Picture.

“Lincoln” got 12 nominations, which is a lot. That’s as many as “Ben-Hur” got. But is the movie so universally loved that it can make a clean sweep? It’s hardly Spielberg’s best movie, even if it is his best in a decade, but some people have viewed it as homework.

I have more questions about “Life of Pi’s” chances. “Life of Pi” got 11 nominations, none of them from acting, but it did get a surprise Adapted Screenplay nod and Best Director nod. “Life of Pi” did well at the box office, but how big was this movie’s Oscar campaign? Not as big as “Silver Linings Playbook,” and certainly not as big as “Lincoln.” This movie is practically under the radar, a movie that was probably in the five or six slot for nomination is now looking like the front runner.

As early as yesterday, I would’ve said “Argo” or “Zero Dark Thirty” would be the front runners to win. “Argo” is the most well-liked movie of the year. Very few people have a bad word to say about it, and just about everyone has seen it, both of which are things that none of the other nominees can claim. “Zero Dark Thirty” has a lot of controversy behind it, but it is by far the critical darling of the year. Now however, neither Ben Affleck nor former winner Kathryn Bigelow have been nominated for Best Director. Movies have won Best Picture without winning Best Director before, but only three times in the 85 year history has a movie won Best Picture without even being nominated, those being in 1927, 1931 and 1989 when “Driving Miss Daisy” had a surprise victory.

“Silver Linings” isn’t that weak either. With Jacki Weaver getting in, it’s the first movie since “Reds” to be nominated in every acting category. That gives it eight nominations, which is nothing to scoff at.

Could “Amour” or “Beasts of the Southern Wild” pull off a surprise win? Michael Haneke was on a short list for possible director nominees, but almost no one had first-timer Benh Zeitlin on their lists. Both movies are riding the waves of having the youngest and oldest Best Actress nominees of all time in Quvenzhane Wallis and Emmanuelle Riva.

Even “Django Unchained” doesn’t look too weak. I predicted it would get seven nominations, but it’s got five, and Christoph Waltz taking Leo’s or even Javier Bardem’s spot says something.

That’s already a lot to mull over, but can you honestly make a prediction in any of the other races?

Daniel Day-Lewis seems perfectly plausible to win Best Actor. He’s playing Abraham Lincoln for God sakes. But he would be making history as the only actor to have won three Oscars. Are we prepared to call Daniel Day-Lewis the BEST actor of all time if he wins? Perhaps Joaquin Phoenix is stronger than we think, or maybe “Silver Linings” can ride an acting wave for an Oscar for Bradley Cooper.

Best Actress? Who knows. Jennifer Lawrence is the real movie star of the bunch, but Wallis can light up a room, Jessica Chastain is being called a female powerhouse in “Zero Dark Thirty,” Riva has the support of an older branch who remembers her in French New Wave classics, and Naomi Watts has the British voting block in her largely tearjerker of a movie.

Maybe Robert De Niro will end up being the three time Oscar winner, not Day-Lewis. But consider that everyone else in the Best Supporting category has already won. That’s just unprecedented.

The only conceivable prediction thus far is Anne Hathaway in “Les Miserables.” She steals the show in her three minute song, and there’s no telling that she’s one of the biggest movie stars right now who arguably deserves one. But just how good are Sally Field, Helen Hunt and Amy Adams in their movies? This is not a weak category, as I previously assumed.

No, I’m not quite ready to make any prediction. And that’s a good thing. For years the Academy has been trying desperately to get more people to actually watch the Oscars, be it through trendy hosts, more Best Picture nominees, an earlier schedule and a different presentation format. But now the Oscars have added one element that the show hasn’t had in years: surprise.

Correction: In a previous version, it was incorrectly stated that “Lincoln” received the most nominations of all time, tied with “Ben-Hur,” “Titanic” and “LOTR: The Return of the King.” In actuality, 14 nominations is the record held by “All About Eve” and “Titanic.” The record for most wins is 11.

Django Unchained

If “Inglourious Basterds” was really a Spaghetti Western in a World War II setting, then “Django Unchained” is really a Blaxploitation film in Spaghetti Western clothing. This could be frustrating in its own way, but it may be that “Django’s” intentional identity crisis is what makes it seem jumbled, messy, overlong and almost incomplete.

The ironic part is that this is true of every Quentin Tarantino film. He’s crafted an entire genre all his own in which the messy parts make the experience so damn fun. But Tarantino really was working up to the wire on “Django;” reshoots and last minute editing took place up until early December.

Yet to call “Django Unchained” incomplete makes it sound as though there’s something missing. That would be like having a German folk legend without a mountain; of course there’s one. What’s absent is the spark and allure that made “Inglourious Basterds” so infectious and invigorating.

Gone is the tingling suspense in the dialogue that suggested Hans Landa knew more than he was letting on or that ordering a glass of milk was a sign of an epic search years in the making.

Here in “Django,” the characters are more exciting and colorful than the story, and their dialogue is concerned with whether someone will snap at yet another instance of the N-word and ignite a “Wild Bunch” proportioned firefight. The details behind the motivations seem to be just a matter of circumstance.

Take The Brittle Brothers, a mysterious and vicious gang with a big bounty on their heads. Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a man gifted with his guns but more so with his words, wants to capture them badly, but he knows neither their whereabouts nor what they look like. Django (Jamie Foxx) however, does. Schultz goes through the trouble of freeing Django from a pair of slave owners and enlists his help, and the two dismantle the trio of brothers in no time. The brothers’ threat and their reason for being matters little.

The real story then is Django’s quest to reunite with his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). They discover through the uninteresting means of a logbook that she is the property of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), the wealthy owner of the Candieland plantation. Candie is an avid lover of Mandingo fighting, in which black people brutally beat each other to death in front of adoring whites, and Django and Schultz’s plan is to impersonate wealthy buyers so that they can purchase Broomhilda out from under them.

Even Broomhilda is no one of consequence to anyone but Django. Broomhilda’s transaction could conceivably be handled civilly, but Schultz craves a good battle of wits, and Candie is a Southern Gentleman who just doesn’t want to be made a fool. Django is really just along for the ride.

That’s the problem with “Django Unchained;” in its current edited state, the plot too seems to be along for the ride. Tarantino squeezes juicy moments from the lot, such as Django’s garish blue outfit, some verbose wordplay by Waltz and a few gunfights scored to gangster rap, but they matter less than in the Westerns and Blaxploitation films they were inspired by.

Consider one of the film’s best scenes in which Candie places a skull of a black man on his dinner table in front of Schultz and Django. He eloquently preaches the pseudo-science of Phrenology to explain why black men are inferior to whites, wielding a hammer in a threat to bash some skulls both figuratively and literally. The moment is electric, but it’s a put on, isn’t it? It’s very convenient that Candie has a skull lying around, and he’s only doing it to be showy.

There’s also the moment where a posse of whites ride in brandishing torches and wearing pillow sheets to lynch Django. Just before their attack, one of several of the film’s spontaneous spectacles, he rewinds back to a hilarious routine in which everyone complains that they can’t see out of their sacks. Wouldn’t you say this scene almost intentionally interrupts the movie’s flow?

By the time Tarantino arrives at his exorbitantly bloody finale, he barrel rolls past it to remind you it’s not a Western but a Blaxploitation film, wedging in a torture scene, a director’s cameo and a new, less interesting villain. Something is definitely jumbled if the climax seems to have passed.

“Django Unchained” is like Candie’s belief in Phrenology. The science seems to all be there, and it’s captivating when you hear it, but there’s definitely something about it that feels wrong.

3 stars

Off the Red Carpet: Week of 11/7 – 11/14

We’re at the point where there’s going to be a big movie opening every week until the end of the year now, so get excited.

“Skyfall” has biggest Bond opening ever

“Skyfall” earned $86.7 million at the Box Office this weekend, sending it on its way to trounce even the inflation added record of the fourth Bond, “Thunderball.” It’s popular appeal as well as its just plain awesome quality has lead some to speculate the possibility of nominating Judi Dench, Javier Bardem and Roger Deakins for their respected Oscars, as well as a push for the movie itself for Best Picture. It’s a long shot, but I would be on board.

Best Animated Short shortlist revealed

Could we soon be saying, Oscar Winner Maggie Simpson? The shortlist for the Best Animated Short category was revealed last week, and it includes “The Simpsons” short “The Longest Daycare” and the lovey Disney short “Paperman.” The Pixar short film this year that screened before “Brave,” “La Luna,” was nominated and lost last year. But I can guarantee you now that the little underdog movie no one’s heard of and no one will see will almost definitely win this category. Here’s the full list: (via In Contention)

“Adam and Dog”

“Combustible”

“Dripped”

“The Eagleman Stag”

“The Fall of the House of Usher”

“Fresh Guacamole”

“Head over Heels”

“Maggie Simpson in ‘The Longest Daycare'”

“Paperman”

“Tram”

Christoph Waltz in Best Actor race

I said last week that for some reason people already want to count “Django Unchained” out of the race before anyone’s even seen it. Why no one would consider Christoph Waltz owning “Django” just like he did “Inglourious Basterds” is beyond me, but the difference this year is that he’s being pushed for the Lead Actor race now rather than supporting. Yes, it’s a crowded field, but he was just that good before, and I don’t see why he can’t be again. This also means that Leonardo DiCaprio and even Samuel L. Jackson are people to keep an eye on in the Supporting race. (via In Contention)

Image Credit: The Hollywood Reporter

The Hollywood Reporter Airs Annual Actor Roundtable

Each year The Hollywood Reporter puts together an extended interview roundtable with a collection of actors, usually Oscar hopefuls for that year. Last year they interviewed George Clooney, Viola Davis, Christopher Plummer, Charlize Theron and Michael Fassbender, and this year they’ve interviewed Jamie Foxx, Matt Damon, Denzel Washington, Richard Gere, Alan Arkin and John Hawkes. All six are potential Oscar candidates for acting, three more likely than the others, but their discussion veered much more intellectual. They talked acting on stage, what they would do if they couldn’t act, family and whom they admired. It’s a stirring hour-long discussion between smart actors being very candid in a setting you won’t see anywhere else. (via The Hollywood Reporter)

Gurus ‘O Gold released

The Gurus ‘O Gold have been my go to barometer for Oscar predictions for the last few years. Collectively, they are probably better at anticipating the awards and forecasting changes than any one of them individually. This is their first time forecasting the major categories this year since Toronto. Things are bound to change as a few other movies set in and are seen by the public, but the universal consensus right now is unsurprisingly “Argo,” followed closely by TIFF winner “Silver Linings Playbook.” The surprise I see in the list is the inclusion of “Flight” in 10 spot and “Moonrise Kingdom” on the outs. 10 is probably a generous number for nominees anyway. Take a look at the full list if you’re like me and love charts and spreadsheets and stuff, and avoid it if you think it has the potential to suck all the fun out of the Oscars. (via Movie City News)

Will Best Picture match Screenplay?

A blogger at “Variety” observed that last year was a surprising anomaly in the trend for nominees for Best Picture and Best Original or Adapted Screenplay. The movie with the BP nod always gets the screenplay nod, with historically very few exceptions. Last year alone matched the last 10 years in terms of gaps between the two categories, and it’s worth noting that this year may go the same. “Moonrise Kingdom,” “The Master,” “Amour,” “Django Unchained,” “Beasts of the Southern Wild” and “The Sessions” are all questionable nominees for Best Picture, and that’s just listing the front runners in the screenplay races. (via Variety)

Ben Affleck to receive “Modern Master Award”

For a guy gunning for an Oscar for Best Director with a film set in the ‘70s, it’s got to feel good to win an award called the “Modern Master Award” at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival. Ben Affleck will receive the award on January 26, conveniently not long before the Oscar ceremony itself. (via The Race)

Week 5 Predictions Continue reading “Off the Red Carpet: Week of 11/7 – 11/14”

Carnage

When Alan Cowan’s cell phone vibrates, everything stops, or at least on the surface. Eyes still twitch and appendages fidget, and Alan doesn’t forget whose company he’s in. We wouldn’t want to be rude.

Yet the never ending, subtle anxieties nagging us in social situations, like wanting to drop Alan’s cell phone in a flower pot, make Roman Polanski’s “Carnage” so devilishly enticing. “Carnage” makes the compulsion to be rude immensely enjoyable.

Polanski’s 79-minute nugget of a film is based on Yasmina Reza’s play (she co-wrote the screenplay with Polanski) “Le Dieu du carnage.” It was “God of Carnage” on Broadway while I was in New York, and it starred James Gandolfini, Marcia Gay Harden, Jeff Daniels and Hope Davis. I didn’t get to see that version, so I was thrilled when I heard it was being made into a movie with a cast I admire even more.

Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly play two married couples discussing what to do following Winslet and Waltz’s son attacking Foster and Reilly’s son with a stick. It’s a dark and dryly funny character study of society, civility and judgmental human nature in Western culture.

The families are on edge from the beginning, choosing their words carefully but making their honesty heard.

Michael and Penelope Longstreet (Reilly and Foster) are parents who know best; they have a belief for everything and a blind right to exact justice and understanding for their children. Alan and Nancy Cowan (Waltz and Winslet) are wealthy, busy and intelligent; they disagree but hold their tongues and condescend in private.

This is true at least for awhile, and although there’s a clear sense of how compelling this one-room drama could be on stage, Polanski’s camera show us the finer nuances in these characters’ social awkwardness. He carefully frames each at a variety of lengths and paired with a different partner, so what remains interesting is all that is not being said, the wonderful acting being done when they are not the center of attention and how the screenplay remains nimble and complex to allow changing allegiances.

If in its brief running time “Carnage” devolves to childish bickering too quickly, it’s a forgivable sin because of its naturalism. Perhaps unlike “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”, to which it is often compared, “Carnage” is never strictly goofy or morose and never heavy or frivolous. It doesn’t monologue profound social philosophies and it doesn’t take sides.

“Carnage” is a balanced and delicate character drama that never stops spinning its tiny gears, even if a phone call interrupts it.

3 ½ stars

Inglourious Basterds

Unlike “Pulp Fiction,” Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” pushes no new boundaries in terms of cinema; so it may just fall in at number two on Tarantino’s best list. But this film is a testament to his lifelong passion with movies.
“Inglourious Basterds” displays directing, acting, writing, cinematography and art direction at its finest, and it is the best movie of 2009.

Tarantino’s episodic tale is not a World War II epic but a story set in 1940’s occupied France. His acute obsession with the intricacies and depth of his characters drives the action, and the result is a verbose yet invigorating endeavor. The film clocks in at two and a half hours, but these dialogue riddled scenes each more intense than the last make the time fly by. And yet, the film only has anywhere between 10 and 15 scenes. Tarantino moves the action along through his conversations, and if violence is a consequence or resolution to the scene, it is because his characters have led it to that point.

So any fanboy attending “Inglourious Basterds” may have to wait for the blood to hit the fan, and they will no doubt be praising the beautifully orchestrated violence Tarantino can conjure, but in their patience they will not be disappointed. Tarantino’s screenplay is the crowning achievement of the film, and it’s well deserving of his Oscar nomination. Continue reading “Inglourious Basterds”