"The Way Back" Trailer

Unfortunately an HD version has yet to surface; hopefully that will be soon. Now, as far as the trailer is concerned, I'm mixed. Even in heavily pixelated quality, the photography looks impressive, but the trailer as a stand alone piece is a bit jumpy. The beginning is rushed with too many title cards being thrown around and mixing too many different clips. Still, I'm very excited for this, especially after the generally positive reception the film has received at film festivals. And I love that we finally have a trailer that advertised Colin Farrell as "Golden Globe Winner Colin Farrell."

New trailer for "127 Hours"

Now that is what should have been released to begin with. The greater focus on Franco's alone moments, which will take up a considerable portion of the story, are very reassuring, and it's easy to see why some have pegged Franco as the leading Best Actor contender (even over Firth). I'm still iffy on whether Danny Boyle's style will enhance the trapped moments or make them unbearable, but of course I'll simply have to wait until November to see for myself.

"Never Let Me Go" - REVIEW

At the outset of Never Let Me Go, Mark Romanek and Alex Garland's adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's acclaimed 2005 novel, we're told in title cards that "the breakthrough came in 1952," and that "life expectancy jumped to roughly 100." The story then jumps into the mid 1980s. But make no mistake; you'll find nothing remotely futuristic to look at in this understated tale of love and betrayal. What you'll find instead, is a mostly successful adaptation of a novel that was perhaps not meant entirely for the screen.

Kathy H (Carey Mulligan), Ruth (Keira Knightley), and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) spend their child hood years at Hailsham, and elite boarding school for similar special children. As they are told by headmistress Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling), "keeping yourselves healthy is of paramount importance." But why? What is so special about these kids? While the fates of the children are described thanks to fellow teacher Miss Lucy's (Sally Hawkins) breakdown, they're never given a special name. You'll also notice, and this isn't a spoiler, that they don't seem to ever give a moment's thought to running away, merely delaying a fate they've been conditioned to accept. Despite the vaguest trapping of science fiction, Ishiguro's work, and Romanek's film in turn, is still very much a romance and a tragedy, one with the stiffest of upper lips.

And it's precisely that stiff upper lip, combined with the aforementioned lack of sci-fi tropes, that seems to have made Never Let Me Go so divisive. Having read the novel, I think it's a good adaptation of the novel, but not a great one, though it does capture the novel's essence and mood. Never Let Me Go may involve a built-in tragic device, but Romanek and writer Alex Garland don't seem concerned with yanking out buckets of our tears, as was the case with the novel. This sort of film belongs in a weird sub-genre of quiet heartbreakers. Those that stir some feeling within, but never with so much attachment or manipulation so as to make you reach that breaking point and feel tears flow freely down your cheeks. That said, I can certainly see where someone would find this style detrimental to the film as a whole. Case in point: the friend I saw the film with, whose first words as the lights went up were, "ugh, really?"

Somewhat more agreeable, though, are the performances. Beautifully cast from its trio of lead young-adults, to the smaller adult roles filling out the periphery, one of Never Let Me Go's strengths comes from its acting. Mulligan, so good last year in An Education, makes another impressive turn here, although I wish she hadn't been tasked with so much narration. Backing her up with surprising strength are Garfield, also enjoying good reviews for The Social Network, and Keira Knightley, in her best performance since her Oscar-nominated turn in Pride and Prejudice (2005). Playing a surprisingly unsympathetic character, Knightley is the movie's biggest surprise, and a standout in the cast. Smaller adult roles, like those played by Rampling and Hawkins, are well handled, although Rampling's "big scene" feels somewhat mishandled in terms of timing. And before I forget, I must give kudos to the casting team for doing a brilliant job of picking counterpart actors to play Mulligan/Knightley/Garfield in their Hailsham days; fabulous casting.

Technically and artistically, the cast are backed up by two standouts. First is Rachel Portman's lovely score, even if it does occasionally start a hint too suddenly or play just a half-notch too loudly. More impressive is Adam Kimmel's lovely cinematography, filled with striking (yet somehow subdued) interiors and landscapes that posses a muted sort of beauty, even if there are a handful too many shots of singular tears rolling down Mulligan's heartbreakingly expressive face.

Obviously it's not for everyone, not even fans of the book. I find it weird that in so many of these divisive films which provoke such strong reactions ("BRILLIANT!" "GOD-AWFUL!"), I usually land in the middle (ex: The Fountain, which I merely liked, not loved or hated), and Never Let Me Go is no exception. It is mostly very true to its source material, brilliantly cast, gorgeously composed, and strongly acted, and yet it carries a most curious level of emotional impact along with it, one that I sometimes feel should have remained on the page, in spite of all of the film's strengths.

Grade: B-

Trailer for Julie Taymor's "The Tempest"

Well I guess I can see why the reviews have been so mixed, because I have no idea what I just watched. No, really, what the hell was that? The costumes look great and the actors seem solid enough, but those special effects, especially the dogs and CRAZY BIRDMAN BEN WHISHAW are all over the place. I really, really loved Taymor's last stab at Shakespeare (Titus) so my hopes were pretty high for this one, but this trailer really isn't doing a lot to bolster my excitement in the face of the reviews.

Full-length "True Grit" trailer

A much different, yet equally thrilling direction. I love getting to hear more of the dialogue, and it's always a plus getting to see more of Roger Deakins' cinematography. This looks tough, brutal, and brilliant. The only thing that seems off is Matt Damon's make-up; that facial hair seems weird on his face somehow. Still, the cast looks great, and the more I see of Hailee Stanfield, the more impressed I am with her. If anyone could take a classic, star-vehicle western and potentially create a great remake, it's the Coen brothers, and this looks like one hell of a Christmas present. Great use of that Johnny Cash song too, by the way.

4th Quarter Preview: October, November, December - Part 2/2

4th Quarter Preview: Part II

09. 127 Hours dir. Danny Boyle - November 5 [Limited/Wide?]

Why?:

• Based on the reviews out of TIFF and Telluride, Danny Boyle and screenwriter Simon Beaufoy have turned hours of James Franco stuck between some rocks into a compelling and engaging piece of work.
• Reviews claim that Franco gives an astonishing, career-best performance.
• Parts are so intense, one festival audience member fainted. Now that sounds like strong film making right there.

Why Not?:

• We already know how the story ends, more or less. Will that kill some of the dramatic tension?
• Will Boyle's somewhat hyperactive style be too much when the main character is rendered virtually immobile?

08. Biutiful dir. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu - November or December

Why?:

• Generally good reviews out of Cannes.
• Great reviews for Javier Bardem, back in a front-and-center leading role.
• Inarritu knows how to tell emotionally powerful, gritty stories.
• Mexico officially chose it as their Foreign Language Film entry.

Why Not?:

• Inarritu's first time working without a script from Guillermo Arriaga after their personal falling out.
• Some find Inarritu's films to be to reliant on contrivance to create overly wrenching drama, and this one, though linear, seems pretty stacked with unrelenting misery.

07. The Way Back dir. Peter Weir - December 3 [Limited]/January 21 [Wide]

Why?:

• An allegedly triumphant comeback for director Peter Weir.
• Strong reviews for the cast, which includes Colin Farrell, Jim Sturgess, Ed Harris, and Saoirse Ronan
• Even with its tough subject matter, Weir has apparently refrained from sugar-coating anything. It may not all be 100% historically accurate, but it will still be gritty.
• Strong reviews for the cinematography and use of landscape photography.

Why Not?:

• Reviews have been kinder to the first half, and some say the second grows repetitive.
• Is it too bleak for its own good?

06. Another Year dir. Mike Leigh - December 31 [Limited]

Why?:

• Rave reviews out of Cannes for the celebrated writer/director's latest, especially for star Lesley Manville.
• The lovely trailer gives the impression that this is serious, mature, limited, and understated film making at its finest.

Why Not?:

• Leigh simply isn't for everyone, and I have no doubt that this will rub some the wrong way.

05. Somewhere dir. Sofia Coppola - December 22 [Limited]

Why?:

• Coppola returns to more familiar territory after her not-as-warmly-received departure (Marie Antoinette).
• Generally strong reviews which have called it subtle, smart, and beautifully acted.
• A comeback for Stephen Dorff, and a breakthrough for Elle Fanning, younger sister of Dakota.
• Oh, and it kind of won the Golden Lion in Venice last month.

Why Not?:

• Like Mike Leigh, Coppola is divisive. Some either find her work totally empty and pretentious, or simply "good but not that good."

04. The King's Speech dir. Tom Hooper - November 26 [Limited]

Why?:

• Raves out of Toronto and Telluride, including a handful of standing ovations for Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush.
• Last year, we saw Colin Firth make his first run at an Oscar. This year he's back and really gunning for it, and is pretty much the front-runner (along with Franco).
• A very good cast, a respected director, and interesting subject matter.

Why Not?:

• Have the festivals overrated it?
• It could be a very limited performance showcase with little else to offer other than acting.

03. True Grit dir. Joel and Ethan Coen - December 25 [Wide?]

Why?:

• That gorgeous, haunting trailer.
• The Coens reportedly stayed closer to Charles Portis' novel than to the John Wayne-led original.
• The Coens usually inject a healthy does of ironic nihilism into their films, usually treating people and events with a wink. But when they want to be serious (No Country for Old Men), they can be brilliant at it, and True Grit certainly looks quite serious.
• Hailee Stanfield, in the trailer at least, seems like a good, grounded casting choice for Mattie Ross.

Why Not?:

• Will the Coen's style mix as well with Portiss' work as it did with Cormac McCarthy's?

02. Black Swan dir. Darren Aronofsky - December 1 [Limited]

Why?:

• Have you seen the so-insane-it's-good trailer. If not, treat yourself.
• Strong reviews out of Venice and subsequent festival screenings.
• Career-best reviews for Natalie Portman.
• Said to contain a unique way of photographing its thrilling dance sequences.
• Compared to classic women-going-mad flicks like Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby.
• Natalie Portman pulls a feather out of her arm. Let me say that again: Natalie Portman PULLS A FEATHER out of her arm.
• Clint Mansell's score is based on part of the Swan Lake score.

Why Not?:

• There's a small minority who aren't impressed, and label it a piece of Grand Guignol nonsense.

01. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I dir. David Yates - November 19 [Wide]

Why?:

• The beginning of the end is here.
• David Yates helped the series really grow up, so it's fitting that he gets to take the series through its often dark finale.
• Two great trailers showcasing appropriately grown-up, dark, and grim footage.
• Warner Brothers seems to have pulled out all of the stops for this one, and with good reason; the source material has plenty of full-blown EPIC moments, and it seems that most of them have been preserved.
• It's better than Twilight.

Why Not?:

• If you've never been a Potter fan, don't expect this one to change your mind.
• Remember, after those credits roll, we still have to wait EIGHT MONTHS to see the full completion of this film series. Couldn't they have just put Part II in December to totally dominate the Christmas market?

4th Quarter Preview: October, November, December - Part 1/2

We're down to the last three months of the year, and as such it's time to take a look at what will (hopefully) be worth a visit to the theater as we move through changing leaves, Halloween, Thanksgiving, exams, and of course, the dreaded wave of critics awards that will kill any chance of a surprise on Oscar night. Now, since two of the movies on this list opened yesterday, and I've already seen one, I'll condense their entries and keep their placement separate of the main list. And as much as I hate to do it, I'll be cutting down on anticipated foreign titles, if only because it can become difficult to determine where their releases/Oscar eligibility lie. For example, Palme D'Or winner Uncle Boonmee... might be eligible for Oscar consideration, but it won't be hitting normal-people theaters until March of 2011, which is after the ceremony as currently scheduled (late February). So, with that out of the way, here are the top ___ reasons to give your money to those who already have far too much of it over the remainder of the year:

The Social Network and Let Me In - October 1 [Wide]: I've already given my review of The Social Network (go HERE), but Let Me In is one I haven't gotten around to see that has my interest peaked:

Why?:

• Surprisingly good reviews considering it's a remake of a beloved Swedish film
• Praise for both of the child performances, which is absolutely key to this story
• Vampires actually acting like vampires (no sparkling necessary)

Why Not?:

• If you've seen and love the original, do you really need to bother?
• Amped up blood and gore in spots might not do service to the story

And now for your feature presentation...

2010 4th Quarter Preview Part I:

18. The Tourist dir. Florian Henkel von Donnersmarck - December 10 [Wide]

Why?:

• The first pairing of mega stars Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp working with the director of The Lives of Others.
• Um...it's set in Venice?

Why Not?:

• The unimpressive trailer and poster. The studio seems to think that slapping Depp and Jolie's names on it are all it takes. Audiences like to see EFFORT.
• Angelina's doing a foreign accent. God help us all.
• No, the film doesn't need to be Oscar-worthy to be good, but it wouldn't hurt if there was something really intriguing about this. So far? Eh...

17. TRON: Legacy dir. Joseph Kosinski - December 17 [Wide]

Why?:

• For those who have seen the original, a chance to see the story continued. For those who haven't? Cool special effects and Oliva Wilde in a tight black suit with asymmetrical hair.
• Special effects have finally advanced enough to catch up with what the makers of the original probably wish they could have done.
• The film can't afford to be to much of a insider's film if it wants to make money (the original flopped), so no risk of being super confused by what went on in TRON.

Why Not?:

• It didn't really suck audiences into its world the first time around. Why should the sequel be any different?

16. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest dir. Daniel Alfredson - October 29 [Limited]

Why?:

• The conclusion of the hugely (and not entirely deservedly) successful Swedish adaptations of Stieg Larrson's trilogy.
• The last chance to see the perfectly cast Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth, in full-blown mohawk, no less.

Why Not?:

• The last installment, also directed by Alfredson, was a disaster.
• The continuing blandness of Michael Nyqvist.

15. Miral dir. Julian Schnabel - December 3 [Limited]

Why?:

• Interesting, timely subject matter (Israel/Palestine conflict).
• Talented cast including burgeoning (stateside) star Hiam Abbass, who has been really strong in films like The Visitor and Lemon Tree.

Why Not?:

• The less than kind reception at Venice.
• Generally unkind reviews for star Freida Pinto's performance.

14. The Fighter dir. David O. Russell - December 10 [Limited]

Why?:

• Strong cast featuring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, and Melissa Leo.
• Small-but-early buzz is fantastic.
• A chance to see Amy Adams in a tougher, grittier role.

Why Not?:

• The trailer makes it feel like just another sport-triumph-of-the-will story.
• O. Russell isn't exactly a film maker for everyone (I Heart Huckabees, anyone?)

13. The Tempest dir. Julie Taymor - December 10 [Limited]

Why?:

• An absolutely phenomenal, eclectic cast headlined by the likes of Helen Mirren, Chris Cooper, and Alfred Molina.
• Julie Taymor made her mark on film with a vivid Shakespeare adaptation (1999's fabulous Titus), so working on the Bard again should be grounds for quality work.

Why Not?:

• The extremely mixed reactions out of Venice and New York.
• Apparently Taymor wasn't as wild in her mix of time periods this time around, which was one of Titus' strong suits.

12. RED dir. Robert Schwentke - October 15 [Wide]

Why?:

• A fun concept led by a wonderful cast of older actors including Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, and John Malkovich.
• Early reactions have said that the film is very fun and engaging.

Why Not?:

• It could just be a throwaway shoot-em-up.

11. Blue Valentine dir. Derek Cianfrance - December 31 [Limited]

Why?:

• Very strong reviews out of Sundance and additional festivals.
• After several years of wandering, Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling could be back in the Oscar race.
• The film was snatched up by the Weinsteins, and with Miral not looking good, they'll need a performance piece to drive them through the coming months.

Why Not?:

• Some say it's unbalanced and unfairly slanted against Williams' character.
• An entire film about two people in love? Sounds like Before Sunrise/Before Sunset, right? Yes, only this time it's all really, really bleak.

10. Rabbit Hole dir. John Cameron Mitchell - December 17 [Limited]

Why?:

• Apparently it's the end of Nicole Kidman's MEH streak of mixed and badly reviewed films, and frankly, it's about damn time.
• Rave reviews for the performances, especially Kidman and Dianne Wiest.
• Mitchell has been praised for expanding the film enough to eliminate any staginess, which is always a big nitpicking point for stage-to-screen translations.

Why Not?:

• Grim subject matter (though there is apparently some humor) that is discussed almost constantly.
• This road (coping with a child's death) has been covered so many times before. What else can it bring to the sub-genre aside from some great performances (not to discount this, btw)?

Well, that's all for now. Part II will be up tomorrow, with some evaluations more along the lines of Rabbit Hole and Blue Valentine, and less along the lines of the likes of Miral.