Say good bye to "The Conspirator," and hello to "Rabbit Hole"

In what is becoming an increasingly overcrowded year (especially in the lead actress category), some films are in danger of joining Tree of Life in 2011, despite assumptions that they would at least have Oscar-qualifying runs this year. Two films whose fates were recently questioned were Toronto selections The Conspirator and Rabbit Hole, which have both been seen by critics and the public after months of precious little promotional material. Well, for those of you keeping track, it's time to update your predictions, if only slightly.
Deadline New York has confirmed that The Conspirator has a distributor, but it won't land in theaters until Spring 2011 (in other words: good-bye Oscar chances). Meanwhile, Showbiz411 is reporting that LionsGate is very close to picking up Rabbit Hole with the intent being to get it out in theaters in time for the upcoming Oscar race.

Trailer for "The Tourist"

All in all, this looks like surprisingly standard normal-guy/girl-gets-roped-into-espionage/criminal-hijinks, (we already saw this with Knight and Day, albeit with the genders flipped). They're obviously banking more on the star power, which is something of a big deal considering that these two mega-stars have never worked together, let alone in co-lead roles. It could be lush, exotic (it's hard to mess up the visuals when the setting is Venice), and hugely entertaining, but I think we can scratch this off of the list of potential Oscar contenders, even with its director's pedigree (The Lives of Others).

Toronto Review Round Up: "Rabbit Hole"

Despite turning in some strong work in the past few years, Nicole Kidman has unfortunately found herself in that category of recent Oscar winners who just can't seem to catch a break. Ever since Cold Mountain (2003) and Dogville (2003/4 depending on your preference), nearly everything film she's been part of has been met with either mixed or negative reviews (which is a shame; I actually liked Birth and Australia quite a bit). Her latest attempt to get back on everyone's good side is Rabbit Hole, John Cameron Mitchell's (Hedwig and the Angry Inch) directorial adaptation of David Lindsey-Abaire's critically acclaimed play (which won Cynthia Nixon a Tony). After missing out on the Cannes and Venice film festivals, the film, also starring Dianne Wiest, and Sandra Oh, has finally been shown before the public, and if you've been waiting for the start of a "Kidman comeback," you can finally breathe a sigh of relief, if the first reviews and audience reactions are any indication.

Cinema Blend's Katey Rich gets things off to a glowing start, praising Mitchell's direction for "[opening] up the story without ever overdoing it. Most importantly, he leaves room for his stupendous actors to take over." And as for flaws, Rich points them out, but makes them seem minor at most. She writes that "Not everything in Rabbit Hole avoids cliche - the one screaming and crying scene between Becca and Howie feels a little forced," and "while Lindsey-Abaire's writing can put too fine a point on things in some scenes, it frequently takes your breath away with its insight." The Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt isn't quite as positive, claiming that the film is "a little too self-conscious for its own good" in that nearly every scene involves the tragedy that sets off the film. Still, he praises much of the writing, despite some of it being "heavygoing" in subject matter.

Of the performances he has much nicer things to say, especially of Kidman, whose performance he calls "riveting because she essentially plays the entire film at two levels." Over at Variety, Peter Debruge calls the film "refreshingly positive-minded" in its treatment of the grim subject matter, and praises the film's use of humor. Debruge also highlights Kidman and Eckhart's work, which he calls "expert [and] understated." Like Rich, Debruge says that the film has been "adroitly expanded" from the stage version, which certainly helps to erase those fears that the film's stage origins might feel too obvious. Finally, the Seattle Times' Moira Macdonald writes in her late-night festival summary, "Saw my last TIFF '10 movie this morning and it was a stunner: Rabbit Hole."

Additional Reviews:

RopeofSilicon: "These characters feel real and so does their sadness and the way they go about trying to cope. Instead of their grief wearing on you, you want to reach out and give them a hug."

Toronto Verdict: A largely successful transition from stage to screen, thanks in large part to Mitchell's direction, Lindsey-Abaire's adaptation of his own work, and an ensemble filled with terrific performances led by Kidman and Eckhart.

First look at "The Tourist"

The first official trailer will hit tomorrow (exclusively on Yahoo! for the first two hours before it is sent to other sites). Originally slated for 2011, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's follow-up to The Lives of Others is certainly much more commercially friendly with Jolie and Depp headlining, but the 10 second clip, repeated OVER and OVER again for your viewing pleasure, doesn't do much to excite me. Granted, it's only 10 measly seconds, but Depp seems a little too close to Capt. Jack for my liking with that "aaaaaaaghgotta go!" bit. Maybe it will all seem less jarring in the full trailer, but considering the star power involved, I'd hate for one of the two leads to be a let down. Ah well, let's suspend trailer judgement until we actually see the trailer in question.

Toronto Review Round Up: "What's Wrong With Virginia?"

Two years ago Dustin Lance Black wrote a screenplay for a little movie called Milk, and it kind of went over well with the Academy. Two years later, Black's latest, which he also directs, is opening in at the TIFF in hopes of finding a distributor. Unfortunately, if these first reviews are any indication, there could be quite a bit wrong with "Virginia."

Cinema Blend's Katey Rich is mixed on the film, and says that it is "all over the place in every imaginable way...vacillating wildly from camp to melodrama to harsh satire and back again." However, she's kind to the performances, particularly Jennifer Connelly's weave, about whom she writes, "Connelly has rarely looked more fragile or dangerous," and calls the performance "her best work in years."

Slightly less kind is The Hollywood Reporter's Michael Rechtshaffen, who summarizes the film as "an unfortunately curdled misfire." He gives no praise (or criticism) to the performances, but repeatedly takes Black's tone to task, and says that the film is "tonally all over the place" and that "what's wrong with Virginia is small potatoes compared to what's wrong with this film." Howard Feinstein at Screen Daily continues in the same vein, and says that while the film starts out with promise, "the screenplay becomes as overloaded as a packed rollercoaster, testing the viewer's patience along the way and offering little in the way of pay off."

Additional Reviews: [awaiting]

Toronto Verdict: [awaiting]

Toronto Review Round Up: "Little White Lies" [incomplete]

One of the biggest film festivals in the world, and one of the most important in regards to Oscar predictions/indicators, has been underway for a few days now, and along with previously premiered films like Black Swan, The King's Speech, and 127 Hours are previously unreviewed films like Rabbit Hole (I'm reaaaaaally hoping for good reception on this one) and the subject of this post, Little White Lies.

"Lies," which has been on my radar for a while now mostly because it stars Marion Cotillard and is directed by her boyfried (fiance?) Guillaume Canet, even though there hasn't been too much available out it yet. That should change very quickly, and the first reviews from the TIFF screening are finally making their way online. Michael Rechtshaffen of The Hollywood Reporter is generally positive in his assessment of the ensemble dramedy, though he says the film is hampered and "loses much of its effervescence as it goes on - and on." Rechtshaffen praises the performances, especially those of Cotillard and co-star Fracois Cluzet, both of whose work is described as "bright and energetic."

Variety's Jordan Mintzer's review is similar. He says parts of the movie fire on all cyllinders, and the performances are strong, but that it's simply too long for its own good. Mintzer calls the film "disjointed [and] occasionally effective" and says that Cluzet is "too over-the-top here." Mark Olsen over at the LA Times is more positive on all fronts though. He only mentions the film's length once, writing that Canet "somehow pulls it all together." And Olsen is particularly kind to Cotillard, writing that she, "gives a performance of acute emotional ability. There is a mischievous playfulness to her performance here, with a deep undercurrent of sadness, which makes for a most remarkable turn." He goes on to suggest that, were the performance in English, Cotillard would be a likely Best Actress hopeful, even in this increasingly overcrowded year that is threatening to push some films (please don't let one of them be this or Rabbit Hole) to 2011 to join Tree of Life.

Additional Reviews: [awaiting]

Toronto Verdict: [awaiting]

"The Social Network" - REVIEW

Last night I was lucky enough to attend an early screening of the increasingly buzzed-about The Social Network, aka "that Facebook movie with the weird trailer." Writer Aaron Sorkin and actor Armie Hammer (who plays a pair of WASPy twins) were in attendance for a Q&A session after, which I'll touch on briefly in the review, which only adds to the excitement. Considering its recent gain in awards potential buzz, I was particularly excited to see what David Fincher and crew had to offer, and they certainly don't disappoint.

It would (and a few months ago, was) be easy enough to dismiss a project like The Social Network as a sign that Hollywood has run out of ideas, and is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. After all, how interesting could the founding of a damn social networking site be? Some code gets strung together, and BAM, popular website, right? Not exactly. Quite a bit of drama went down in the founding of the massively popular site, and director David Fincher and writer Aaron Sorkin have done a very good job of putting the story (from Ben Mezrich's novel "The Accidental Billionaires") on screen in a very compelling manner.

Perhaps the best decision that Sorkin made in his screenplay was to keep the film from siding with any of the three main angles involved (Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, and the Winklevoss twins). In taking various scenes that happened according to the three wildly differing depositions, he's turned it into a sort of Rashomon-style story, only you only see everything once, and never know whose point of view it's from. While this does have some slight drawbacks (you don't really "feel" for someone even when they get screwed), the decision overall is a success. Zuckerberg could easily been an easy villain/anti-hero, yet the final scene seems to tell us to hold off on making a final judgement. Another small issue is that, given Sorkin's love of (rapid-fire) dialogue over story (his words, not mine), at times the characters all feel less like fully-developed people, and more like extensions of Aaron Sorkin (to make an unnecessary Inception reference, these would be the different sides of his subconscious populating his dream world). As such, it's also not much of an actors piece, despite solid work across the board from its young and capable cast. Eisenberg is conniving and hard-to-read, Garfield is sympathetic, and Armie Hammer and Max Minghella are suitably flustered as Zuckerberg's first enemies. Roles played by Rooney Mara (our new Lisbeth Salander), Rashida Jones, Justin Timberlake, and Brenda Song are all solid, but without enough to make them terribly memorable.

But the issues pretty much stop there. Even though I'm not sure I'd call this Fincher's strongest effort as a director, this is a very good film that perhaps owes more to its screenplay. Sorkin's rapid-fire exchanges really suit the material and setting here, all very smart Harvard students, computer programmers, and lawyers for whom such off-the-cuff cleverness seems plausible, and as a result, is highly entertaining. And even with the above-mentioned love of dialogue, Sorkin has still crafted an immensely engaging and compelling story. Helping him along are the film's second and third strongest assets: the editing and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' score. The two together bring an incredible sense of life to a bunch of conversations of computer code, blogging, web design, and legal questions, pushing the film's tone at points to pseudo-thriller (and I mean that as a high compliment). Even a scene of Andrew Garfield's Eduardo Saverin looking at an envelope on his floor is made compelling simply by the placement of the pulsating music. The film runs two hours, yet when I realized that I was at the final scene, all I could think was, "but wait, please tell me there's more to see."

So while its characters may not exactly "pop" or feel like full-on, flesh-and-blood people, they certainly aren't one-note caricatures; they're simply part of the Aaron Sorkin universe. And with David Fincher at the helm, directing such a solid ensemble of young talent, it's hard to say that this is a bad thing. This is a well-acted, excellently crafted, and occasionally very funny film that does a great job of telling a story that most people probably wouldn't want care about on the surface. A Facebook status message might be shallow, and hell, the whole site might be completely vacuous, but the story behind it is certainly not. This is so much more than just "a dumb Facebook movie."

Grade: A-/A