Film Junk » Drama http://www.filmjunk.com Blog and Podcast Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:09:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en The Artist Review http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/08/the-artist-review-2/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/08/the-artist-review-2/#comments Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:29:52 +0000 Shannon http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70917 I’ve been frantically trying to catch up on every movie that I should see before Oscar night, but for some reason, I have continuously shoved The Artist to the bottom of the screener pile for months. I found it difficult to conjure up much enthusiasm for a film that is not only silent but filmed entirely in black and white. What’s the big deal? Why is this film a frontrunner for the heated Best Picture race? It looked dull and tedious. Wrong, on both accounts. The Artist is one of the most charming films I have ever seen. It’s a wonderful tribute to the golden age of film, all the while managing to feel wholly original and exhilarating. It’s little wonder it has emerged as a critical darling this season. There’s nothing else quite like it. A dashing hero (Jean Dujardin) and a coquettish ingénue (Berenice Bejo) whirl their way through a tale of romance, melancholy, loss and redemption. Dujardin is George Valentin, the debonair reigning king of silent film who stars in swashbuckling adventures that enthrall the audiences who are devouring this new form of entertainment. Valentin is a contract performer for a major film studio, and expertly uses his good lucks and charisma to market whatever film project he is promoting. The result is mass chaos whenever he shows up on a red carpet event. He knows how to work the crowd, and women strain to catch a glimpse of him. One day a clamoring cutie named Peppy Miller finds herself face to face with her idol when she stumbles out from behind the velvet rope, and it is Kismet. The two have instant chemistry, and take the opportunity to ham it up for the camera. The next day the photos are splashed across the front page of every newspaper across the nation, and everyone wants to know who the mystery girl is. Peppy’s brush with fame inspires her to pursue her dreams of being a star, and she auditions for bit part in George’s next film. Not only does she snag the part, but she gets to spend some stolen (though chaste) moments with George, who offers some words of advice to the ambitious starlet. Though he is obviously transfixed by Peppy, he is married, and honors that commitment. This all takes place on the crux of a development that will change the future of film forever: the arrival of “talking pictures”. George eschews the new type of movies being made as a silly fad, while Peppy embraces the future, and becomes one of the fresh faced performers at the same studio that represents George. In an ironic twist of fate, George sees his star plummet to the ground at the very same time Peppy’s explodes. After several years, the once proud George finds himself penniless and broken, while Peppy is at the toast of Hollywood. However, Peppy has never forgotten her crush. It’s wonderfully romantic. Dujardin and Bejo are magnificent in their respective roles. Since there is no spoken dialogue in the film, the two must convey every single emotion with highly nuanced facial expressions and body language. There are some subtitles that provide sparse bits of dialogue, but the movie relies almost completely on the performances of the two principals. Director Michel Hazanavicius (Bejo’s real-life husband) coaxes some magic from the pair; they also deliver one hell of a dance sequence in the movie that left me giddy. It’s a throwback to the musicals of the 50s, something we don’t see today. I can imagine the nostalgia it will inspire in older Academy members, so I think its chances for taking home the big prize are better than ever. Though this film deals with the transition from silent to speaking film, it reminded me of the times when big actors were under contract with major studios like MGM, then gradually a new model was adapted. Gone today are the days when a particular actor guarantees a big box office opening. Even recent heavyweights like Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks are capable of faltering at the box office. We’re on to the next era, where actors are plucked from obscurity in order to cut budget costs and studios cross their fingers that every once in a while they will hit the bulls-eye with a mega franchise like Twilight or Fast Five. Someday we’ll be waxing poetic about the stars of the '80s and '90s (I’ve already begun doing so). Despite the lack of color, The Artist boasts sumptuous cinematography. You won’t even notice that it is in black and white. The characters pop on the screen, and Hazanavicius perfectly frames the shots so that you can focus on their faces, which are the centerpiece of the story. I’m not even going to touch on the controversy swirling around the score of The Artist, but as far as I am concerned, it’s perfect for the film; punchy and kicky at times, soft and subtle at others. This is one of those films in which the score actually becomes an integral character. I would be remiss without mentioning some of the excellent supporting players in the film. John Goodman plays Al Zimmer, George’s longtime boss and friend who agonizes over releasing George from his contract. Then there is Uggie, the Jack Russell dog who has catapulted to fame after his endearing performance as George’s loyal canine companion (and co-star). Do yourself a favor and believe the hype - The Artist is one of the most entertaining films of the year. -- Shannon

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> I’ve been frantically trying to catch up on every movie that I should see before Oscar night, but for some reason, I have continuously shoved The Artist to the bottom of the screener pile for months. I found it difficult to conjure up much enthusiasm for a film that is not only silent but filmed entirely in black and white. What’s the big deal? Why is this film a frontrunner for the heated Best Picture race? It looked dull and tedious. Wrong, on both accounts. The Artist is one of the most charming films I have ever seen. It’s a wonderful tribute to the golden age of film, all the while managing to feel wholly original and exhilarating. It’s little wonder it has emerged as a critical darling this season. There’s nothing else quite like it. A dashing hero (Jean Dujardin) and a coquettish ingénue (Berenice Bejo) whirl their way through a tale of romance, melancholy, loss and redemption. Dujardin is George Valentin, the debonair reigning king of silent film who stars in swashbuckling adventures that enthrall the audiences who are devouring this new form of entertainment. Valentin is a contract performer for a major film studio, and expertly uses his good lucks and charisma to market whatever film project he is promoting. The result is mass chaos whenever he shows up on a red carpet event. He knows how to work the crowd, and women strain to catch a glimpse of him. One day a clamoring cutie named Peppy Miller finds herself face to face with her idol when she stumbles out from behind the velvet rope, and it is Kismet. The two have instant chemistry, and take the opportunity to ham it up for the camera. The next day the photos are splashed across the front page of every newspaper across the nation, and everyone wants to know who the mystery girl is. Peppy’s brush with fame inspires her to pursue her dreams of being a star, and she auditions for bit part in George’s next film. Not only does she snag the part, but she gets to spend some stolen (though chaste) moments with George, who offers some words of advice to the ambitious starlet. Though he is obviously transfixed by Peppy, he is married, and honors that commitment. This all takes place on the crux of a development that will change the future of film forever: the arrival of “talking pictures”. George eschews the new type of movies being made as a silly fad, while Peppy embraces the future, and becomes one of the fresh faced performers at the same studio that represents George. In an ironic twist of fate, George sees his star plummet to the ground at the very same time Peppy’s explodes. After several years, the once proud George finds himself penniless and broken, while Peppy is at the toast of Hollywood. However, Peppy has never forgotten her crush. It’s wonderfully romantic. Dujardin and Bejo are magnificent in their respective roles. Since there is no spoken dialogue in the film, the two must convey every single emotion with highly nuanced facial expressions and body language. There are some subtitles that provide sparse bits of dialogue, but the movie relies almost completely on the performances of the two principals. Director Michel Hazanavicius (Bejo’s real-life husband) coaxes some magic from the pair; they also deliver one hell of a dance sequence in the movie that left me giddy. It’s a throwback to the musicals of the 50s, something we don’t see today. I can imagine the nostalgia it will inspire in older Academy members, so I think its chances for taking home the big prize are better than ever. Though this film deals with the transition from silent to speaking film, it reminded me of the times when big actors were under contract with major studios like MGM, then gradually a new model was adapted. Gone today are the days when a particular actor guarantees a big box office opening. Even recent heavyweights like Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks are capable of faltering at the box office. We’re on to the next era, where actors are plucked from obscurity in order to cut budget costs and studios cross their fingers that every once in a while they will hit the bulls-eye with a mega franchise like Twilight or Fast Five. Someday we’ll be waxing poetic about the stars of the '80s and '90s (I’ve already begun doing so). Despite the lack of color, The Artist boasts sumptuous cinematography. You won’t even notice that it is in black and white. The characters pop on the screen, and Hazanavicius perfectly frames the shots so that you can focus on their faces, which are the centerpiece of the story. I’m not even going to touch on the controversy swirling around the score of The Artist, but as far as I am concerned, it’s perfect for the film; punchy and kicky at times, soft and subtle at others. This is one of those films in which the score actually becomes an integral character. I would be remiss without mentioning some of the excellent supporting players in the film. John Goodman plays Al Zimmer, George’s longtime boss and friend who agonizes over releasing George from his contract. Then there is Uggie, the Jack Russell dog who has catapulted to fame after his endearing performance as George’s loyal canine companion (and co-star). Do yourself a favor and believe the hype - The Artist is one of the most entertaining films of the year. -- Shannon

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/08/the-artist-review-2/feed/ The Woman in Black Review http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/03/the-woman-in-black-review/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/03/the-woman-in-black-review/#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:15:28 +0000 Colin http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70701 Recipe for a Hollywood horror flick: pick a screenplay with a vaguely creepy-sounding title like The Woman in Black. Be sure the writer included one or all of the following: portraits with the eyes scratched out, little kids' drawings, antique toys, etc. Next, shoot everything at half exposure. Then pick a quiet weekend to release and collect your fifty million dollars. Repeat. It's a racket that works like a charm, and isn't going away until the audience does. The Woman in Black stars 'Arry Potter 'imself — Daniel Radcliffe — as Arthur Kipps, an adolescent English estate lawyer bound unluckily for a haunted house in the boondocks. Kipps' job is on the line, which accounts for his eager beaver attitude upon arrival, and dogged insistence on seeing the property, even against the behest of, oh, everyone in town. You know where this is going. Once inside the isolated island manor, Kipps can’t seem to get any work done. A typical sequence of scenes plays out with the protagonist sitting down to study a stack of documents and being immediately distracted by some foreign sound or supernatural happening. And then the investigation's afoot; jump scares abound, though they fall too formulaically to conjure much anxiety or subsequent shock. After all, scares by appointment aren't very scary. The screenplay is particularly disappointing given its author, Jane Goldman, who spun genre into gold with Kick-Ass and X-Men: First Class. Too dour to pass as a throwback haunted house flick, and too clichéd to surprise anyone, The Woman in Black is caught in the nebulous nowhere between fun and frightening. Even if her writing were stronger, however, there's no guarantee it would be spared the blunt hand of James Watkins, a director with the finesse of a steamroller. He brings not an ounce of aesthetic originality to the table, imbuing the movie with the same ugly, washed-out palette of six dozen other studio horror failures. The technique is intended to foster a mood, but it's a cheap substitute for good old-fashioned filmmaking. Mood isn't achieved in camera — it's an aggregate of art direction, camera placement, performance, music, etc. The obvious digital look of the film also hampers the believability of its period setting — the turn of the century never looked so bland. Performances add little life to the landscape. Daniel Radcliffe manages not to embarrass himself, and that's being generous. Frankly, it's tough to buy the Hogwarts alum as a dad when he's been playing a teenager for ten years. It's equally tough to imagine him a widower, as he broods with all the emotional turmoil of an Olsen twin. Ciarán Hinds plays Kipps' sole confidant in the haunted hamlet, and fittingly enough, delivers the film's sole compelling performance. Still, his character never goes anywhere, a waste of Hinds' talent. Effective horror is contingent upon a willingness to take the audience outside its comfort zone, and The Woman in Black is too creakily formulaic to creep us out. Because Hollywood is a business, it's more desirable to greenlight a derivative script and hire a yes-man director than to risk something edgier that might not pay off. The cycle continues. The Woman in Black follows that recipe to a T, but there's something lost in translation. Maybe the recipe wasn't all that good to begin with. Maybe the whole cookbook needs to go. — Colin

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> Recipe for a Hollywood horror flick: pick a screenplay with a vaguely creepy-sounding title like The Woman in Black. Be sure the writer included one or all of the following: portraits with the eyes scratched out, little kids' drawings, antique toys, etc. Next, shoot everything at half exposure. Then pick a quiet weekend to release and collect your fifty million dollars. Repeat. It's a racket that works like a charm, and isn't going away until the audience does. The Woman in Black stars 'Arry Potter 'imself — Daniel Radcliffe — as Arthur Kipps, an adolescent English estate lawyer bound unluckily for a haunted house in the boondocks. Kipps' job is on the line, which accounts for his eager beaver attitude upon arrival, and dogged insistence on seeing the property, even against the behest of, oh, everyone in town. You know where this is going. Once inside the isolated island manor, Kipps can’t seem to get any work done. A typical sequence of scenes plays out with the protagonist sitting down to study a stack of documents and being immediately distracted by some foreign sound or supernatural happening. And then the investigation's afoot; jump scares abound, though they fall too formulaically to conjure much anxiety or subsequent shock. After all, scares by appointment aren't very scary. The screenplay is particularly disappointing given its author, Jane Goldman, who spun genre into gold with Kick-Ass and X-Men: First Class. Too dour to pass as a throwback haunted house flick, and too clichéd to surprise anyone, The Woman in Black is caught in the nebulous nowhere between fun and frightening. Even if her writing were stronger, however, there's no guarantee it would be spared the blunt hand of James Watkins, a director with the finesse of a steamroller. He brings not an ounce of aesthetic originality to the table, imbuing the movie with the same ugly, washed-out palette of six dozen other studio horror failures. The technique is intended to foster a mood, but it's a cheap substitute for good old-fashioned filmmaking. Mood isn't achieved in camera — it's an aggregate of art direction, camera placement, performance, music, etc. The obvious digital look of the film also hampers the believability of its period setting — the turn of the century never looked so bland. Performances add little life to the landscape. Daniel Radcliffe manages not to embarrass himself, and that's being generous. Frankly, it's tough to buy the Hogwarts alum as a dad when he's been playing a teenager for ten years. It's equally tough to imagine him a widower, as he broods with all the emotional turmoil of an Olsen twin. Ciarán Hinds plays Kipps' sole confidant in the haunted hamlet, and fittingly enough, delivers the film's sole compelling performance. Still, his character never goes anywhere, a waste of Hinds' talent. Effective horror is contingent upon a willingness to take the audience outside its comfort zone, and The Woman in Black is too creakily formulaic to creep us out. Because Hollywood is a business, it's more desirable to greenlight a derivative script and hire a yes-man director than to risk something edgier that might not pay off. The cycle continues. The Woman in Black follows that recipe to a T, but there's something lost in translation. Maybe the recipe wasn't all that good to begin with. Maybe the whole cookbook needs to go. — Colin

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/03/the-woman-in-black-review/feed/ Jessica Chastain and Joel Edgerton to Star in a Unique Double Feature http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/03/jessica-chastain-and-joel-edgerton-to-star-in-a-unique-double-feature/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/03/jessica-chastain-and-joel-edgerton-to-star-in-a-unique-double-feature/#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:07:34 +0000 Aaron http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70591 Jessica Chastain (The Help) and Joel Edgerton (Warrior) are two of the more buzzed about actors working today, so it's no surprise that they would have their choice of interesting projects. However, their latest career choices could offer something truly unique. The two have signed on to star in a double-feature film project for Myriad Pictures entitled The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: His and The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Hers. The films explore a couple's relationship during a difficult time in their marriage. The His film will capture the perspective of Edgerton's husband character, a restaurant owner, while the Hers film details the perspective of Chastain's wife character who decides to go back to college. William Hurt is also in negotiations to join the cast in an unspecified role. The project is the brainchild of Ned Benson (In Defiance of Gravity), who wrote the two scripts and will direct both films. It's important to note that, while the two films are companion pieces to each other, they will also stand on their own. While I'm sure there are plenty of films to illustrate differing perspectives of a relationship, I can't think of any others that divide those viewpoints into two films. It's an interesting idea to be sure, but could it be the kind of thing that sounds good on paper and fails to follow through in execution? I'd certainly be willing to give these films a shot, especially considering the actors involved. What do you think of the concept behind The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: His and The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Hers?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> Jessica Chastain (The Help) and Joel Edgerton (Warrior) are two of the more buzzed about actors working today, so it's no surprise that they would have their choice of interesting projects. However, their latest career choices could offer something truly unique. The two have signed on to star in a double-feature film project for Myriad Pictures entitled The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: His and The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Hers. The films explore a couple's relationship during a difficult time in their marriage. The His film will capture the perspective of Edgerton's husband character, a restaurant owner, while the Hers film details the perspective of Chastain's wife character who decides to go back to college. William Hurt is also in negotiations to join the cast in an unspecified role. The project is the brainchild of Ned Benson (In Defiance of Gravity), who wrote the two scripts and will direct both films. It's important to note that, while the two films are companion pieces to each other, they will also stand on their own. While I'm sure there are plenty of films to illustrate differing perspectives of a relationship, I can't think of any others that divide those viewpoints into two films. It's an interesting idea to be sure, but could it be the kind of thing that sounds good on paper and fails to follow through in execution? I'd certainly be willing to give these films a shot, especially considering the actors involved. What do you think of the concept behind The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: His and The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Hers?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/03/jessica-chastain-and-joel-edgerton-to-star-in-a-unique-double-feature/feed/ John Hawkes Signs on for Jackie Brown Prequel http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/02/john-hawkes-signs-on-for-jackie-brown-prequel/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/02/john-hawkes-signs-on-for-jackie-brown-prequel/#comments Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:17:11 +0000 Sean http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70542 Does John Hawkes look like a young Robert DeNiro? Writer-director Dan Schechter seems to think there is a resemblance of some sort, as he has just cast him to play a younger version of DeNiro's character from Quentin Tarantino's 1997 film Jackie Brown. A few years back, Schechter wrote a spec script for an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel The Switch, a prequel that takes place 15 years before Rum Punch, the book that Jackie Brown was based on. Leonard ended up liking it so much that he granted him the rights to make the movie and also signed on as a producer. Now Schechter is also directing the movie, and Yasiin Bey (the actor formerly known as Mos Def) has also signed on to play Samuel L. Jackson's former role. The plot synopsis is as follows:
"Ordell Robbie and Louis Gara hit it off in prison, where they were both doing time for grand theft auto. Now that they're out, they're joining forces for one big score. The plan is to kidnap the wife of a wealthy Detroit developer and hold her for ransom. But they didn't figure the lowlife husband wouldn't want his lady back. So it's time for Plan B and the opportunity to make a real killing -- with the unlikely help of a beautiful, ticked-off housewife who's hungry for a large helping of sweet revenge."
My first thought after hearing about a Jackie Brown prequel is that it would like be nothing more than direct-to-video fodder, especially without the involvement of Quentin Tarantino. Dan Schechter has only two films under his belt, neither of which I have heard of previously (Goodbye Baby, Supporting Characters), and that doesn't seem particularly reassuring. However, they've now got two solid actors in Hawkes and Bey, and the fact that Elmore Leonard has given it his blessing should mean something as well... right? Are you interested in seeing a Jackie Brown prequel?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> Does John Hawkes look like a young Robert DeNiro? Writer-director Dan Schechter seems to think there is a resemblance of some sort, as he has just cast him to play a younger version of DeNiro's character from Quentin Tarantino's 1997 film Jackie Brown. A few years back, Schechter wrote a spec script for an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel The Switch, a prequel that takes place 15 years before Rum Punch, the book that Jackie Brown was based on. Leonard ended up liking it so much that he granted him the rights to make the movie and also signed on as a producer. Now Schechter is also directing the movie, and Yasiin Bey (the actor formerly known as Mos Def) has also signed on to play Samuel L. Jackson's former role. The plot synopsis is as follows:
"Ordell Robbie and Louis Gara hit it off in prison, where they were both doing time for grand theft auto. Now that they're out, they're joining forces for one big score. The plan is to kidnap the wife of a wealthy Detroit developer and hold her for ransom. But they didn't figure the lowlife husband wouldn't want his lady back. So it's time for Plan B and the opportunity to make a real killing -- with the unlikely help of a beautiful, ticked-off housewife who's hungry for a large helping of sweet revenge."
My first thought after hearing about a Jackie Brown prequel is that it would like be nothing more than direct-to-video fodder, especially without the involvement of Quentin Tarantino. Dan Schechter has only two films under his belt, neither of which I have heard of previously (Goodbye Baby, Supporting Characters), and that doesn't seem particularly reassuring. However, they've now got two solid actors in Hawkes and Bey, and the fact that Elmore Leonard has given it his blessing should mean something as well... right? Are you interested in seeing a Jackie Brown prequel?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/02/john-hawkes-signs-on-for-jackie-brown-prequel/feed/ Ridley Scott Could Make Cormac McCarthy’s The Counselor His Next Film http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/01/ridley-scott-could-make-cormac-mccarthys-the-counselor-his-next-film/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/01/ridley-scott-could-make-cormac-mccarthys-the-counselor-his-next-film/#comments Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:31:18 +0000 Aaron http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70450 Whether you're a fan or not, you have to admit that Ridley Scott consistently stays busy, especially for a guy in his 70s. While he's wrapping up work on Prometheus, Scott has been sorting through options for his next film and he may have found what he wants with The Counselor, a script written by celebrated novelist Cormac McCarthy. The story follows a respected lawyer who dabbles in the drug business only to get sucked in and then struggles to find a way out. The Counselor represents McCarthy's first spec screenplay, which was quickly optioned by the producers of The Road, Nick Wechsler, Steve and Paula Mae Schwartz, back in December. If he does direct, Ridley's production banner, Scott Free Entertainment, would join the project as well. Though The Counselor is described as "reminiscent of the rough and tumble world depicted in No Country For Old Men," the story differs somewhat from McCarthy's typically masculine-oriented material by placing two female characters in leading roles. We also know that the script is contemporary and set in the Southwest, again recalling images of the Coen Brothers film. While there have been several film adaptations of McCarthy's work over the years, this will be the first time we will experience his prose directly, which sounds like a good deal to me. If Scott comes to this film with his creative juices still flowing from Prometheus, then I'm definitely in. What are your thoughts on Ridley Scott tackling a Cormac McCarthy script?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> Whether you're a fan or not, you have to admit that Ridley Scott consistently stays busy, especially for a guy in his 70s. While he's wrapping up work on Prometheus, Scott has been sorting through options for his next film and he may have found what he wants with The Counselor, a script written by celebrated novelist Cormac McCarthy. The story follows a respected lawyer who dabbles in the drug business only to get sucked in and then struggles to find a way out. The Counselor represents McCarthy's first spec screenplay, which was quickly optioned by the producers of The Road, Nick Wechsler, Steve and Paula Mae Schwartz, back in December. If he does direct, Ridley's production banner, Scott Free Entertainment, would join the project as well. Though The Counselor is described as "reminiscent of the rough and tumble world depicted in No Country For Old Men," the story differs somewhat from McCarthy's typically masculine-oriented material by placing two female characters in leading roles. We also know that the script is contemporary and set in the Southwest, again recalling images of the Coen Brothers film. While there have been several film adaptations of McCarthy's work over the years, this will be the first time we will experience his prose directly, which sounds like a good deal to me. If Scott comes to this film with his creative juices still flowing from Prometheus, then I'm definitely in. What are your thoughts on Ridley Scott tackling a Cormac McCarthy script?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/02/01/ridley-scott-could-make-cormac-mccarthys-the-counselor-his-next-film/feed/ Darren Aronofsky’s Noah to Film This Summer http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/28/darren-aronofskys-noah-to-film-this-summer/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/28/darren-aronofskys-noah-to-film-this-summer/#comments Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:48:40 +0000 Aaron http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70299 It looks as if director Darren Aronofsky will finally throw his hat into the ring of big budget filmmaking this year as his epic Biblical tale Noah gets off the ground at Paramount. His regular director of photography Matthew Libatique has stated that shooting will begin by this July with an eye on a Fall 2013 release. For such a large scale story, an appropriately hefty $130 million budget is planned. The script has been undertaken by John Logan (Hugo) and, as far as the content goes, this retelling will not be skipping over the more adult subject matter that often gets ignored. While it's certainly exciting to hear confirmation that Noah will happen, perhaps a wait-and-see approach is still best given Aronofsky's track record with proposed high-profile projects. Actors like Christian Bale and Michael Fassbender have been attached to portray the titular character in the past, although neither are attached at the moment. By shooting in the summer, Fassbender probably won't be able to fit the film into his schedule since he'll be busy shooting Steve McQueen's new film Twelve Years a Slave at that time. Whoever ends up with the role, expect it to be a big name to hang that sizable budget on. It has also been revealed that the film will feature a semi-antagonist role in the form of a character who constantly doubts that Noah is doing the will of God. That's not exactly revelatory news since that's how the story goes, but perhaps Aronofsky and company will have their own twist on the overall dynamic. Does this news give you hope that we will actually see Noah hit theaters next year?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> It looks as if director Darren Aronofsky will finally throw his hat into the ring of big budget filmmaking this year as his epic Biblical tale Noah gets off the ground at Paramount. His regular director of photography Matthew Libatique has stated that shooting will begin by this July with an eye on a Fall 2013 release. For such a large scale story, an appropriately hefty $130 million budget is planned. The script has been undertaken by John Logan (Hugo) and, as far as the content goes, this retelling will not be skipping over the more adult subject matter that often gets ignored. While it's certainly exciting to hear confirmation that Noah will happen, perhaps a wait-and-see approach is still best given Aronofsky's track record with proposed high-profile projects. Actors like Christian Bale and Michael Fassbender have been attached to portray the titular character in the past, although neither are attached at the moment. By shooting in the summer, Fassbender probably won't be able to fit the film into his schedule since he'll be busy shooting Steve McQueen's new film Twelve Years a Slave at that time. Whoever ends up with the role, expect it to be a big name to hang that sizable budget on. It has also been revealed that the film will feature a semi-antagonist role in the form of a character who constantly doubts that Noah is doing the will of God. That's not exactly revelatory news since that's how the story goes, but perhaps Aronofsky and company will have their own twist on the overall dynamic. Does this news give you hope that we will actually see Noah hit theaters next year?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/28/darren-aronofskys-noah-to-film-this-summer/feed/ Belle de Jour Blu Ray Review http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/belle-de-jour-blu-ray-review/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/belle-de-jour-blu-ray-review/#comments Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:35:35 +0000 Jay C. http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70043 Luis Buñuel's Belle de Jour is a sexy and disturbing psychological case study that investigates the masochistic desires of its main character as she attempts to fulfill her urges and reconcile her past. The film opens with a red herring of sorts, as we're introduced to a couple on a romantic carriage ride. The woman, an attractive blonde, shuns the advances of her companion, resulting her forceful removal from the carriage by its drivers. She's led into the woods blindfolded, and eventually tied to a tree, hands above her head. After ripping down the back of her dress, the man signals the drivers to whip her. She seems to enjoy it. An abrupt cut reintroduces the same couple, now in their bedroom getting ready for bed. It was all a dream…or a fantasy. Séverine Serizy (Catherine Deneuve) is a seemingly normal, happily married woman who finds herself continually daydreaming about masochistic, sexual scenarios. She's always managed to subdue her fantasies until a friend -- and admirer -- tells her about a local high-class brothel. She decides to investigate and is inexplicably drawn to the place, offering her "services" with one caveat; that she be done by five o'clock. For this, she's given the nickname "Belle de Jour", or "daylight beauty" (thanks Wikipedia!) As she grows accustomed to engaging in sexual acts with a multitude of customers (all of which have varying tastes and fetishes), she keeps her newfound profession a secret from her husband. Eventually Séverine services Marcel, a young gangster who grows obsessed with her. This, along with the discovery by a friend that she's working at the brothel, prompts her to leave. This sends Marcel into a rage, as he's willing to do whatever it takes to have her to himself. From here on, you get a sense of Séverine 's world slowly starting to crumble. You can't help but wonder whether or not she's more concerned about her husband finding out about her taboo day job or the thought of having to stop her escapades and return to her normal life. It almost seems like the whole point of engaging in this activity, aside from indulging her sexual urges, is to be found out. Séverine is desperately trying to sabotage everything around with her passive/aggressive actions. Her motivations are complex and intriguing, and the fact that she only feels sexually aroused when being abused raises questions about her past. We do get occasional glimpses at her childhood as Buñuel utilizes fantasies and daydreams to disrupt the narrative and momentarily puzzle the audience. These surreal flashes are actually quite affective in providing us with insight into Séverine 's desires and more importantly, her past. It's through this that we discover an apparent episode of childhood molestation, which says a lot about her actions. I wish I could hold Belle de Jour up against the rest of Buñuel's filmography, but I'm sad to say this is the only film of his I've see thus far. Having said that, I am aware of the surreal nature of his work and could definitely see that influence shining through. The thing I like about the way in which he handles the daydream sequences is he depends solely on creating unusual visuals within the frame, in no way depending upon any fancy camera moves or special effects. Watching Catharine Deneuve dressed in a white gown, being pelted in the face with mud was truly a provocative and captivating image. There are a few moments where you might find yourself temporarily disoriented by what's real and what's imagined, but Buñuel is generally quick to recalibrate the audiences senses. It's only in the final scene of the film that he lets Séverine 's daydreams take centre stage, leaving the audience with a seemingly ambiguous (although in my opinion, clearly explainable) ending that I actually found to be quite depressing. She spends the entire film living out her fantasies as a result of her past, only to end up regressing even further into her daydreams and further away from reality. Next to the cinema, blu ray is likely the best possible way to experience a film like Belle de Jour for the first time. The print is void of dirt and scratches and the transfer is pretty much flawless. As I've stated previously, these releases do a great job at approximating the look and feel of watching a movie on actual film. The colours are rich and a subtle layer of grain is visible throughout. There's a pretty good selection of special features, including an audio commentary by Michael Wood, author of the BFI Film Classics book on Belle de Jour. The disc also includes a new video featuring sexual politics activist Susie Bright and film scholar Linda Williams. Finally, there's a new interview with screenwriter Jean-Claude Carrière and a segment from Cinema, a French television program featuring interviews with Carrière and Catherine Deneuve. -- Jay C.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> Luis Buñuel's Belle de Jour is a sexy and disturbing psychological case study that investigates the masochistic desires of its main character as she attempts to fulfill her urges and reconcile her past. The film opens with a red herring of sorts, as we're introduced to a couple on a romantic carriage ride. The woman, an attractive blonde, shuns the advances of her companion, resulting her forceful removal from the carriage by its drivers. She's led into the woods blindfolded, and eventually tied to a tree, hands above her head. After ripping down the back of her dress, the man signals the drivers to whip her. She seems to enjoy it. An abrupt cut reintroduces the same couple, now in their bedroom getting ready for bed. It was all a dream…or a fantasy. Séverine Serizy (Catherine Deneuve) is a seemingly normal, happily married woman who finds herself continually daydreaming about masochistic, sexual scenarios. She's always managed to subdue her fantasies until a friend -- and admirer -- tells her about a local high-class brothel. She decides to investigate and is inexplicably drawn to the place, offering her "services" with one caveat; that she be done by five o'clock. For this, she's given the nickname "Belle de Jour", or "daylight beauty" (thanks Wikipedia!) As she grows accustomed to engaging in sexual acts with a multitude of customers (all of which have varying tastes and fetishes), she keeps her newfound profession a secret from her husband. Eventually Séverine services Marcel, a young gangster who grows obsessed with her. This, along with the discovery by a friend that she's working at the brothel, prompts her to leave. This sends Marcel into a rage, as he's willing to do whatever it takes to have her to himself. From here on, you get a sense of Séverine 's world slowly starting to crumble. You can't help but wonder whether or not she's more concerned about her husband finding out about her taboo day job or the thought of having to stop her escapades and return to her normal life. It almost seems like the whole point of engaging in this activity, aside from indulging her sexual urges, is to be found out. Séverine is desperately trying to sabotage everything around with her passive/aggressive actions. Her motivations are complex and intriguing, and the fact that she only feels sexually aroused when being abused raises questions about her past. We do get occasional glimpses at her childhood as Buñuel utilizes fantasies and daydreams to disrupt the narrative and momentarily puzzle the audience. These surreal flashes are actually quite affective in providing us with insight into Séverine 's desires and more importantly, her past. It's through this that we discover an apparent episode of childhood molestation, which says a lot about her actions. I wish I could hold Belle de Jour up against the rest of Buñuel's filmography, but I'm sad to say this is the only film of his I've see thus far. Having said that, I am aware of the surreal nature of his work and could definitely see that influence shining through. The thing I like about the way in which he handles the daydream sequences is he depends solely on creating unusual visuals within the frame, in no way depending upon any fancy camera moves or special effects. Watching Catharine Deneuve dressed in a white gown, being pelted in the face with mud was truly a provocative and captivating image. There are a few moments where you might find yourself temporarily disoriented by what's real and what's imagined, but Buñuel is generally quick to recalibrate the audiences senses. It's only in the final scene of the film that he lets Séverine 's daydreams take centre stage, leaving the audience with a seemingly ambiguous (although in my opinion, clearly explainable) ending that I actually found to be quite depressing. She spends the entire film living out her fantasies as a result of her past, only to end up regressing even further into her daydreams and further away from reality. Next to the cinema, blu ray is likely the best possible way to experience a film like Belle de Jour for the first time. The print is void of dirt and scratches and the transfer is pretty much flawless. As I've stated previously, these releases do a great job at approximating the look and feel of watching a movie on actual film. The colours are rich and a subtle layer of grain is visible throughout. There's a pretty good selection of special features, including an audio commentary by Michael Wood, author of the BFI Film Classics book on Belle de Jour. The disc also includes a new video featuring sexual politics activist Susie Bright and film scholar Linda Williams. Finally, there's a new interview with screenwriter Jean-Claude Carrière and a segment from Cinema, a French television program featuring interviews with Carrière and Catherine Deneuve. -- Jay C.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/belle-de-jour-blu-ray-review/feed/ The Grey Review (Colin’s Take) http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/the-grey-review-colins-take/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/the-grey-review-colins-take/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:39:11 +0000 Colin http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70285 So it's come to this: Liam Neeson, a pack of wolves, and a filmmaker with delusions of grandeur. The Grey might have passed as merely a second-rate survival flick had it laid off the pseudo-intellectual grandstanding and quickened the glacial pace. Unfortunately, its shepherd, Joe Carnahan, knows no such restraint. Bloated, juvenile, and absurd, the movie attempts to pass off a few cheap thrills as an ode to humanity. Oh, and according to Carnahan, it may return to theaters to make an Oscar run in October. Give me a break. Neeson plays Ottway, a professional wolf hunter with a penchant for internally reciting corny poems written by his deceased daddy. "Once more into the fray/ Into the last good fight I'll ever know/ To live and die on this day," he rasps. Hey, how that's poetry elective going? It might seem profound as a beer hall anthem to rally spirits in the fourth quarter, but it's embarrassingly maudlin as the emotional crux of a movie. But enough about poetry — let's talk about wolves. A plane crash strands about half a dozen men in The Middle of Nowhere, Alaska. Hounded by a pack of edgy predators, the crew must literally fight for their survival. Never mind the practical how-tos like sustaining an expedition without potable water — they've got man-hungry wolves on their tail! The biggest, nastiest wolves special effects can conjure, though they're mostly relegated to chasing everyone from one tired setpiece to the next. Here's the problem — with riveting wilderness docs like Touching the Void and Encounters at the End of the World streaming online, there's no excuse to settle for such a stagey drama. But Werner Herzog is obviously beyond these morons; someone in The Grey paraphrases Grizzly Man as that movie about "The fag and the bears." Are these guys from Alaska or a college fraternity? I don't demand that any character be likeable — but I ask that they be interesting. Not a one in Ottway's ragtag group of "fugitives, drifters, and assholes" brings a single compelling trait to the table. Ottway wins the likability contest by default, even though his character might as well be the Wikipedia page on wolves for all he contributes to the conversation. And it's a shame we're stuck with such shallow people, because their trek is often atmospheric, and the many perils they face might mean something if we actually cared about who they are. Writer/director Joe Carnahan can get by on keen visuals, but he writes like an emotionally stunted 19-year-old. His ceaselessly abrasive, hollow characters engage in dialogue with all the wisdom and wit of a whirring garbage disposal. Their pointless, profanity-laden bickering and eventual, manufactured camaraderie play stilted, not uplifting. Just die already. The Grey is a mangy, flea-bitten excuse for an epic with an obnoxiously inflated self-image. Nowhere in its unwarranted 117 minutes does it possess a shred of the intellectuality it pompously aspires to, nor does it achieve a badass nirvana despite its consistent, cocksure projection of masculinity. Carnahan succeeds in scoring a few cheap thrills, but he ought to leave the philosophizing to the artists. End rant. — Colin For another take on The Grey, check out Shannon's review.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> So it's come to this: Liam Neeson, a pack of wolves, and a filmmaker with delusions of grandeur. The Grey might have passed as merely a second-rate survival flick had it laid off the pseudo-intellectual grandstanding and quickened the glacial pace. Unfortunately, its shepherd, Joe Carnahan, knows no such restraint. Bloated, juvenile, and absurd, the movie attempts to pass off a few cheap thrills as an ode to humanity. Oh, and according to Carnahan, it may return to theaters to make an Oscar run in October. Give me a break. Neeson plays Ottway, a professional wolf hunter with a penchant for internally reciting corny poems written by his deceased daddy. "Once more into the fray/ Into the last good fight I'll ever know/ To live and die on this day," he rasps. Hey, how that's poetry elective going? It might seem profound as a beer hall anthem to rally spirits in the fourth quarter, but it's embarrassingly maudlin as the emotional crux of a movie. But enough about poetry — let's talk about wolves. A plane crash strands about half a dozen men in The Middle of Nowhere, Alaska. Hounded by a pack of edgy predators, the crew must literally fight for their survival. Never mind the practical how-tos like sustaining an expedition without potable water — they've got man-hungry wolves on their tail! The biggest, nastiest wolves special effects can conjure, though they're mostly relegated to chasing everyone from one tired setpiece to the next. Here's the problem — with riveting wilderness docs like Touching the Void and Encounters at the End of the World streaming online, there's no excuse to settle for such a stagey drama. But Werner Herzog is obviously beyond these morons; someone in The Grey paraphrases Grizzly Man as that movie about "The fag and the bears." Are these guys from Alaska or a college fraternity? I don't demand that any character be likeable — but I ask that they be interesting. Not a one in Ottway's ragtag group of "fugitives, drifters, and assholes" brings a single compelling trait to the table. Ottway wins the likability contest by default, even though his character might as well be the Wikipedia page on wolves for all he contributes to the conversation. And it's a shame we're stuck with such shallow people, because their trek is often atmospheric, and the many perils they face might mean something if we actually cared about who they are. Writer/director Joe Carnahan can get by on keen visuals, but he writes like an emotionally stunted 19-year-old. His ceaselessly abrasive, hollow characters engage in dialogue with all the wisdom and wit of a whirring garbage disposal. Their pointless, profanity-laden bickering and eventual, manufactured camaraderie play stilted, not uplifting. Just die already. The Grey is a mangy, flea-bitten excuse for an epic with an obnoxiously inflated self-image. Nowhere in its unwarranted 117 minutes does it possess a shred of the intellectuality it pompously aspires to, nor does it achieve a badass nirvana despite its consistent, cocksure projection of masculinity. Carnahan succeeds in scoring a few cheap thrills, but he ought to leave the philosophizing to the artists. End rant. — Colin For another take on The Grey, check out Shannon's review.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/the-grey-review-colins-take/feed/ The Grey Review (Shannon’s Take) http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/the-grey-review-shannons-take/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/the-grey-review-shannons-take/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:39:02 +0000 Shannon http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70098 January is usually known as an arid wasteland for new film releases. Studios dump all the films that weren’t good enough for awards consideration, and the results are not pretty. My expectations for The Grey were tempered accordingly. I expected a campy creature-feature, nothing more. What I got instead was a complex, touching and intelligent tale of survival. Solid acting, breathtaking set pieces and thoughtful ruminations on faith and spirituality elevate The Grey from the typical ranks of action-adventure movies. A group of oil company workers described as “unfit for mankind” depart on a small plane bound for Anchorage, which crashes in the middle of the frozen tundra somewhere in Alaska. Only seven of the passengers survive, but the crash becomes the least of their worries. The small band of men must face hunger, fatigue, freezing temperatures and a large population of territorial wolves. Ottway (a terrific Liam Neeson) instantly becomes the de facto leader when he takes charge in the chaos and panic following the crash. While others are dazed, terrified and in shock, Ottway is calm, collected and practical. A particularly poignant scene establishes his strength of character as he gently helps ease a dying man into death. That’s the exact moment that I knew the film was going to be special.  Neeson is so poised and graceful in the scene; I completely believed in his character from that moment on. The film feels very much like Jaws meets Deliverance. The rough and tumble men bond over their shared sense of peril while they are picked off one by one by either the wolves or the elements. The great injustice of surviving the harrowing plane crash only to succumb to these forces is frustrating to watch. You truly want these men to survive because they deserve to. Which brings me to the faith aspect of the film. Many of the men have strong faith, or believe that there must be some pre-destined reason that they were the only survivors. But how do you hold on to those beliefs when you see your numbers dwindle? Why would you be put through all of this only to be ripped apart by wolves? Ottway is a complicated character. Ironically, he was employed by the company as a sniper who protected the base from wolves and bears, giving him some inside information on wolf behavior.  He was dangerously close to committing suicide on the evening the plane departed, but after the crash he arises a new man, determined to survive the ordeal. He is the heart and soul of the group, at times appearing to will them to live. Late in the movie, he shouts a phrase of dialogue that gave me goose bumps. He looks up in the sky, tired, alone, and scared and screams, “F*** faith, EARN IT” to whoever or whatever is out there. It kind of blew me away, because by that point you completely understand why he says it. How many tests can one man take? Neeson is fantastic as Ottway, and without him, this is an entirely different film. Bradley Cooper was originally slated to play the role, and the movie would have been laughable if that were the case. Neeson has an air of melancholy and a sense of authority about him that is perfectly suited to Ottway. It’s no secret that Neeson tragically lost his wife a few years back, and he clearly draws on that in this role. As for the hand wringers who worry that Neeson is now stereotyped as these badass action heroes, who cares? He’s damn good at it. Though Neeson carries the movie, the supporting actors are very good: namely Dermot Mulroney and Frank Grillo. Director Joe Carnahan (The A-Team, Narc) missteps a bit with the pacing of the film, but for the most part, he does an admirable job with the material. The plane crash scene was as scary as any I’ve seen, and the disarray and shock following the wreck was completely harrowing. Carnahan had the benefit of filming in Vancouver, and the cold and the wind are palpable. The biggest disappointment is the CGI wolves. For reasons I can’t ascertain, no one has been able to render a convincing CGI wolf to this day. They always seem a bit off, so be prepared for that. Thankfully their appearance is kept to a minimum. Lots of the tension arises from simply hearing them. The action set pieces are thrilling, but it’s the humanization of the characters where he really excels. This is the type of movie we would usually find disposable characters. You might know their name, but nothing else before they get picked off. Here we get to know each of the men - how many kids they have, if they are married, etc. A few scenes that take place over a campfire reminded me of the close intimacy that the men in Jaws developed while on the boat. In both cases the men are scared out of their minds, and quickly build meaningful relationships. In The Grey, it takes a while for a few of the men peel away their false bravado and lower their defenses toward one another. It’s only after Ottway posits that it is okay to admit you are scared shitless that the men become a more cohesive unit. The Grey features a lot of elements from horror, action, adventure, survival and drama to create a wonderful hybrid film. It’s a welcome January surprise that skews toward a male audience, but I think women can appreciate the humanistic component of the film. It should be a crowd pleaser, though audiences will be frustrated with the ending. (Hint: Be sure to wait through the credits for a final shot.) - Shannon For another take on The Grey, check out Colin's review.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> January is usually known as an arid wasteland for new film releases. Studios dump all the films that weren’t good enough for awards consideration, and the results are not pretty. My expectations for The Grey were tempered accordingly. I expected a campy creature-feature, nothing more. What I got instead was a complex, touching and intelligent tale of survival. Solid acting, breathtaking set pieces and thoughtful ruminations on faith and spirituality elevate The Grey from the typical ranks of action-adventure movies. A group of oil company workers described as “unfit for mankind” depart on a small plane bound for Anchorage, which crashes in the middle of the frozen tundra somewhere in Alaska. Only seven of the passengers survive, but the crash becomes the least of their worries. The small band of men must face hunger, fatigue, freezing temperatures and a large population of territorial wolves. Ottway (a terrific Liam Neeson) instantly becomes the de facto leader when he takes charge in the chaos and panic following the crash. While others are dazed, terrified and in shock, Ottway is calm, collected and practical. A particularly poignant scene establishes his strength of character as he gently helps ease a dying man into death. That’s the exact moment that I knew the film was going to be special.  Neeson is so poised and graceful in the scene; I completely believed in his character from that moment on. The film feels very much like Jaws meets Deliverance. The rough and tumble men bond over their shared sense of peril while they are picked off one by one by either the wolves or the elements. The great injustice of surviving the harrowing plane crash only to succumb to these forces is frustrating to watch. You truly want these men to survive because they deserve to. Which brings me to the faith aspect of the film. Many of the men have strong faith, or believe that there must be some pre-destined reason that they were the only survivors. But how do you hold on to those beliefs when you see your numbers dwindle? Why would you be put through all of this only to be ripped apart by wolves? Ottway is a complicated character. Ironically, he was employed by the company as a sniper who protected the base from wolves and bears, giving him some inside information on wolf behavior.  He was dangerously close to committing suicide on the evening the plane departed, but after the crash he arises a new man, determined to survive the ordeal. He is the heart and soul of the group, at times appearing to will them to live. Late in the movie, he shouts a phrase of dialogue that gave me goose bumps. He looks up in the sky, tired, alone, and scared and screams, “F*** faith, EARN IT” to whoever or whatever is out there. It kind of blew me away, because by that point you completely understand why he says it. How many tests can one man take? Neeson is fantastic as Ottway, and without him, this is an entirely different film. Bradley Cooper was originally slated to play the role, and the movie would have been laughable if that were the case. Neeson has an air of melancholy and a sense of authority about him that is perfectly suited to Ottway. It’s no secret that Neeson tragically lost his wife a few years back, and he clearly draws on that in this role. As for the hand wringers who worry that Neeson is now stereotyped as these badass action heroes, who cares? He’s damn good at it. Though Neeson carries the movie, the supporting actors are very good: namely Dermot Mulroney and Frank Grillo. Director Joe Carnahan (The A-Team, Narc) missteps a bit with the pacing of the film, but for the most part, he does an admirable job with the material. The plane crash scene was as scary as any I’ve seen, and the disarray and shock following the wreck was completely harrowing. Carnahan had the benefit of filming in Vancouver, and the cold and the wind are palpable. The biggest disappointment is the CGI wolves. For reasons I can’t ascertain, no one has been able to render a convincing CGI wolf to this day. They always seem a bit off, so be prepared for that. Thankfully their appearance is kept to a minimum. Lots of the tension arises from simply hearing them. The action set pieces are thrilling, but it’s the humanization of the characters where he really excels. This is the type of movie we would usually find disposable characters. You might know their name, but nothing else before they get picked off. Here we get to know each of the men - how many kids they have, if they are married, etc. A few scenes that take place over a campfire reminded me of the close intimacy that the men in Jaws developed while on the boat. In both cases the men are scared out of their minds, and quickly build meaningful relationships. In The Grey, it takes a while for a few of the men peel away their false bravado and lower their defenses toward one another. It’s only after Ottway posits that it is okay to admit you are scared shitless that the men become a more cohesive unit. The Grey features a lot of elements from horror, action, adventure, survival and drama to create a wonderful hybrid film. It’s a welcome January surprise that skews toward a male audience, but I think women can appreciate the humanistic component of the film. It should be a crowd pleaser, though audiences will be frustrated with the ending. (Hint: Be sure to wait through the credits for a final shot.) - Shannon For another take on The Grey, check out Colin's review.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/the-grey-review-shannons-take/feed/ A Dangerous Method Review http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/a-dangerous-method-review/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/a-dangerous-method-review/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:38:51 +0000 Shannon http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70168 David Cronenberg has always been drawn to psychologically challenging material, especially when it has to do with breaking societal taboos. Flip through his filmography (Videodrome, The Fly, Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch, Crash) and you’ll see some seriously depraved stuff. He has mellowed substantially in recent years (A History of Violence, Eastern Promises), but thankfully, he still has an appetite for the kinky stuff. A Dangerous Method tells the somewhat sordid tale of the birth of psychoanalysis, but it’s fairly restrained for a Cronenberg film. No envelope pushing here, just a fascinating look at a trio of psychiatrists who laid the framework for the modern practice of psychiatry. Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is delivered by carriage to the doorstep of Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) in 1904. She’s batshit crazy, cackling and wailing like a banshee. She also has a severe vocal tic that renders her almost incapable of communication. Jung patiently tries out the controversial method of “talking therapy” on the patient, and damned if it isn’t determined that she’s a masochist at heart. Repression and shame have caused her behavioral problems, and once she becomes aware of this, she miraculously changes into a remarkably brilliant woman (who likes to indulge in the occasional spanking, like you do). Jung develops an unethical sexual relationship with the patient, all the while acting as her mentor, as the cured Sabina is now studying psychiatry. Meanwhile Jung holds Sigmund Freud  (Viggo Mortensen) in the highest regard, and the two develop a professional relationship that later devolves into jealousy and a shared obsession for Sabina. An interesting aspect of the film is the absolute lack of moral fortitude with these early scholars. Sleeping with patients is considered  “an occupational hazard”, and it is completely expected that everyone holds a mistress at bay until carnal urges necessitate an encounter. It’s so different from what we expect from our doctors today (especially psychiatrists) that it is unsettling. I enjoyed A Dangerous Method, but I didn’t find it to be a truly great film.  Knightley’s performance (while Sabina was ill) was difficult to watch. It is completely over the top, but I don’t doubt that Knightley was playing the role exactly as directed. I fault Cronenberg for not reining it in a bit. The tics are greatly exaggerated and I found these scenes embarrassing to watch. Fassbender disappears into his role, and Jung’s character is quite tragic. Although his wife is fully aware of his indiscretions, she never cuts him loose, hence he lives a somewhat miserable existence. Mortensen plays Freud as a cigar-chomping eccentric who supports some truly bizarre theories for the times. He’s compelling, but this is Fassbender’s show. There are a few major plot holes; Jung and Freud are shown on a boat eager and ready to descend on America, but it is never mentioned again. I felt like our screening was missing a scene or two. Even at a lean running time of under ninety minutes, the film still had some pacing issues. However, it is certainly worth a watch for its subject matter, which proves that truth can be stranger than fiction. - Shannon

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> David Cronenberg has always been drawn to psychologically challenging material, especially when it has to do with breaking societal taboos. Flip through his filmography (Videodrome, The Fly, Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch, Crash) and you’ll see some seriously depraved stuff. He has mellowed substantially in recent years (A History of Violence, Eastern Promises), but thankfully, he still has an appetite for the kinky stuff. A Dangerous Method tells the somewhat sordid tale of the birth of psychoanalysis, but it’s fairly restrained for a Cronenberg film. No envelope pushing here, just a fascinating look at a trio of psychiatrists who laid the framework for the modern practice of psychiatry. Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is delivered by carriage to the doorstep of Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) in 1904. She’s batshit crazy, cackling and wailing like a banshee. She also has a severe vocal tic that renders her almost incapable of communication. Jung patiently tries out the controversial method of “talking therapy” on the patient, and damned if it isn’t determined that she’s a masochist at heart. Repression and shame have caused her behavioral problems, and once she becomes aware of this, she miraculously changes into a remarkably brilliant woman (who likes to indulge in the occasional spanking, like you do). Jung develops an unethical sexual relationship with the patient, all the while acting as her mentor, as the cured Sabina is now studying psychiatry. Meanwhile Jung holds Sigmund Freud  (Viggo Mortensen) in the highest regard, and the two develop a professional relationship that later devolves into jealousy and a shared obsession for Sabina. An interesting aspect of the film is the absolute lack of moral fortitude with these early scholars. Sleeping with patients is considered  “an occupational hazard”, and it is completely expected that everyone holds a mistress at bay until carnal urges necessitate an encounter. It’s so different from what we expect from our doctors today (especially psychiatrists) that it is unsettling. I enjoyed A Dangerous Method, but I didn’t find it to be a truly great film.  Knightley’s performance (while Sabina was ill) was difficult to watch. It is completely over the top, but I don’t doubt that Knightley was playing the role exactly as directed. I fault Cronenberg for not reining it in a bit. The tics are greatly exaggerated and I found these scenes embarrassing to watch. Fassbender disappears into his role, and Jung’s character is quite tragic. Although his wife is fully aware of his indiscretions, she never cuts him loose, hence he lives a somewhat miserable existence. Mortensen plays Freud as a cigar-chomping eccentric who supports some truly bizarre theories for the times. He’s compelling, but this is Fassbender’s show. There are a few major plot holes; Jung and Freud are shown on a boat eager and ready to descend on America, but it is never mentioned again. I felt like our screening was missing a scene or two. Even at a lean running time of under ninety minutes, the film still had some pacing issues. However, it is certainly worth a watch for its subject matter, which proves that truth can be stranger than fiction. - Shannon

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/27/a-dangerous-method-review/feed/ Spielberg Close to Signing on for Moses Movie http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/26/spielberg-close-to-signing-on-for-moses-movie/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/26/spielberg-close-to-signing-on-for-moses-movie/#comments Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:36:25 +0000 Sean http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=70077 As Mel Gibson will tell you, moviegoers seem to love it when you mix the Bible with some good old fashioned violence, and if Warner Brothers has their way, Steven Spielberg could soon be directing a gritty biblical epic of his own. They've been trying to set up a movie with the working title of Gods And Kings that tells the story of Moses from a somewhat new perspective. Sure, we all know that he freed the Jews from slavery and received The Ten Commandments from God himself, but according to some interpretations he was also a fierce warrior and may have been a commander in the Egyptian army that once led them to victory against the Ethiopians. It's not entirely clear what version of events will be portrayed in the film, but this is intended to be a "Braveheart-ish version of the Moses story" and they are hoping that Spielberg can "direct it with the gritty reality of Saving Private Ryan." Sounds like a guaranteed blockbuster if you ask me. According to Deadline, Warner Brothers has been hounding Spielberg to direct this project since September, but for a while it was unclear if he would be available (he just finished Lincoln and is now currently working on Robopocalypse). Fortunately for them, he seems to be into the idea and has continued to negotiate with them. If all goes well, a deal is expected to be finalized by the end of the month. The script was written by Stuart Hazeldine (Paradise Lost) and Michael Green (Green Lantern), and the project is being produced by Dan Lin (Terminator Salvation) and Matti Lesham (Paula Abdul: Cardio Cheer). It's unclear if this is related to another Moses biopic that was being set up at Fox a couple of years ago. They are aiming to start production sometime in March or April of next year, so if Spielberg does sign on, it would definitely be his next project after Robopocalypse. What do you think, are you interested in seeing Steven Spielberg direct a bloodier and grittier version of The Ten Commandments? Could this be even bigger than The Passion of the Christ?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> As Mel Gibson will tell you, moviegoers seem to love it when you mix the Bible with some good old fashioned violence, and if Warner Brothers has their way, Steven Spielberg could soon be directing a gritty biblical epic of his own. They've been trying to set up a movie with the working title of Gods And Kings that tells the story of Moses from a somewhat new perspective. Sure, we all know that he freed the Jews from slavery and received The Ten Commandments from God himself, but according to some interpretations he was also a fierce warrior and may have been a commander in the Egyptian army that once led them to victory against the Ethiopians. It's not entirely clear what version of events will be portrayed in the film, but this is intended to be a "Braveheart-ish version of the Moses story" and they are hoping that Spielberg can "direct it with the gritty reality of Saving Private Ryan." Sounds like a guaranteed blockbuster if you ask me. According to Deadline, Warner Brothers has been hounding Spielberg to direct this project since September, but for a while it was unclear if he would be available (he just finished Lincoln and is now currently working on Robopocalypse). Fortunately for them, he seems to be into the idea and has continued to negotiate with them. If all goes well, a deal is expected to be finalized by the end of the month. The script was written by Stuart Hazeldine (Paradise Lost) and Michael Green (Green Lantern), and the project is being produced by Dan Lin (Terminator Salvation) and Matti Lesham (Paula Abdul: Cardio Cheer). It's unclear if this is related to another Moses biopic that was being set up at Fox a couple of years ago. They are aiming to start production sometime in March or April of next year, so if Spielberg does sign on, it would definitely be his next project after Robopocalypse. What do you think, are you interested in seeing Steven Spielberg direct a bloodier and grittier version of The Ten Commandments? Could this be even bigger than The Passion of the Christ?

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/26/spielberg-close-to-signing-on-for-moses-movie/feed/ Jeff Who Lives At Home Trailer Starring Jason Segel and Ed Helms http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/23/jeff-who-lives-at-home-trailer-starring-jason-segel-and-ed-helms/ http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/23/jeff-who-lives-at-home-trailer-starring-jason-segel-and-ed-helms/#comments Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:37:31 +0000 Sean http://www.filmjunk.com/?p=69852 I finally got around to seeing my first Duplass Brothers movie last year with Cyrus starring Jonah Hill and John C. Reilly. While I enjoyed the film and it made me interested to see more of their movies, I understand that it's probably not an entirely accurate representation of their work since it is also their most accessible film to date. It does, however, seem like it could be a good indicator of what to expect from their next indie comedy Jeff Who Lives At Home, which also happens to star a handful of fairly well-known actors: specifically, Jason Segel and Ed Helms. The story revolves around two brothers, Jeff and Pat, one of which (Segel) is a slacker still living in their mother's basement, while the other (Helms) is employed and happily married. After spotting Pat's wife (Judy Greer) with another man, they start to suspect that she might be cheating on him, and so they team up to get to the bottom of things. The movie also stars Susan Sarandon as their mother, and it looks to be just the right balance of goofy and sweet. I'm not running out to see it right this minute, but it definitely seems like it will be an easy watch. Jeff Who Lives At Home hits select theatres on March 16th; check out the trailer after the jump and see what you think.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> I finally got around to seeing my first Duplass Brothers movie last year with Cyrus starring Jonah Hill and John C. Reilly. While I enjoyed the film and it made me interested to see more of their movies, I understand that it's probably not an entirely accurate representation of their work since it is also their most accessible film to date. It does, however, seem like it could be a good indicator of what to expect from their next indie comedy Jeff Who Lives At Home, which also happens to star a handful of fairly well-known actors: specifically, Jason Segel and Ed Helms. The story revolves around two brothers, Jeff and Pat, one of which (Segel) is a slacker still living in their mother's basement, while the other (Helms) is employed and happily married. After spotting Pat's wife (Judy Greer) with another man, they start to suspect that she might be cheating on him, and so they team up to get to the bottom of things. The movie also stars Susan Sarandon as their mother, and it looks to be just the right balance of goofy and sweet. I'm not running out to see it right this minute, but it definitely seems like it will be an easy watch. Jeff Who Lives At Home hits select theatres on March 16th; check out the trailer after the jump and see what you think.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

]]> http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/01/23/jeff-who-lives-at-home-trailer-starring-jason-segel-and-ed-helms/feed/