Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Oscars: Best Picture Underdogs

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Bride Wars  (2009)

    I’m still catching up on RSS feeds after a week away, but as movie blog talk increasingly moves towards Oscar prognostication (because what else are we gonna talk about between now and Sundance –– Bride Wars?), I’m noticing a sort of two-headed theme emerge in the last week of the year. One the one hand: While Slumdog Millionaire, Milk and Benjamin Button all have their fans, no one seems crazy enough about the front-runners for the final two best picture slots (Frost/Nixon, Doubt and, um … Revolutionary Road? Maybe?) to label any of them as a lock; on the other: this year, to be contrarian seems to be equivalent to being populist.

    Factors A + B first resulted in a mostly-online push for a Best Picture nomination for The Dark Knight. It might have seemed laughable before the movie opened (a comic-book cape flick blockbuster annointed for all time as one of the five best films of the year? Please!), but the campaign has gathered so much steam that the film’s worthiness is now a non-issue; in fact, it’s currently comfortably lodged within the top five on the Gurus of Gold predictions chart at Movie City News.

    If it worked once, maybe it could work again. And thus, we find bloggers like Kris Tapley and Jessica Coen putting their weight behind a Wall-E Best Picture nod; AJ Schnack arguing that Man on Wire, one of the most popular and crowd-pleasing documentaries in years (not to mention the best reviewed film in any genre of this year) deserves the same; and, most interesting to me, David Carr arguing that Iron Man is more deserving of the Best Picture slot that may have already been ceded to The Dark Knight.

    I still haven’t seen Wall-E (I know, I know), but I could definitely get behind an Oscar fight between Iron Man and Man on Wire. Both films would have made my 2008 top 20 for sure, and either would be a less embarrassing film to laud than Benjamin Button.

    So what say you? What popular successes do you deem more worthy of a Best Picture nod than this year’s crop of humdrum prestige pictures?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • New Year Wishes For 2009 From Lauren Wissot

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Walk on Water  (2004)

    In 2008 we began the year in entertainment by bidding a premature goodbye to hottie Heath Ledger, his death casting a shadow on summer blockbuster The Dark Knight; and ended it by delivering a fond farewell to “The Dark Angel,” the Marilyn Monroe of the fetish world, “Queen of Pin-Up” Bettie Page. In between we lost numerous other screen sizzlers: Charlton Heston, Paul Newman, Suzanne Pleshette, even Vampira! But since the New Year is a time to look forward as well as pay tribute to the sexy stars we leave behind, I’ve compiled my wish list for a very steamy 2009.

    1.  Woody & Bond Make a Porno

    In 2009 Woody Allen must continue his 2008 sexy success with Vicky Cristina Barcelona by directing a porn flick. Preferably starring Daniel Craig.

    Yup, 2008 was the year Woody Allen figured out that casting hot tamales like Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz can do wonders for your onscreen sex life. So now that the Woodman’s discovered the cinema equivalent of Viagra, it’s time for him to take the next step: toss that neurotic crutch into the Hudson (or Thames or Seine) and finally shoot his long-awaited, hardcore remake of Bergman’s The Passion of Anna.

    2. Lauren’s Israeli Hearthrob Must Come to the US.

    In 2009 Israeli actor Lior Ashkenazi (who made me believe in sexy miracles when I caught up with Walk On Water on DVD this year) must star in a small, independent, American film that will require him to do press in NYC – and grant me an exclusive interview in his hotel room.

    Ah, Lior Ashkenazi, Israel’s knockout brunette answer to Mr. Bond. A TV (“In Therapy”) and movie star (the aforementioned Eytan Fox flick) in the holy land, he’s a virtual unknown on these shores. Which means some savvy, Sundance-bound director in the market for a hypnotic leading man could probably pick him up at a reasonable price (then hopefully send him to me for free). And unlike, say, hard-body hottie Jason Statham, he can act and speak English at the same time.

    3. The Transporter must transport his own package off screen.

    In 2009 Jason Statham must stop acting and start stripping.

    It’s about time to break the news to Guy Ritchie and Luc Besson that (Br)it boy Jason Statham can’t actually, um, act. Which is fine since he’s got a bod that can do the talking for him. Sure, the modeling career made complete sense, but onscreen unless he’s flying through the air Hidden Dragon-style or wrangling a big fat fire hose, Statham can be upstaged by a hydrant. Perhaps he could check with Chippendale’s or with the Aussies to see if the Thunder from Down Under is looking for a tasty new boy toy.

    4. Baz Luhrmann must go full Brokeback.

    In 2009, Baz Luhrmann must follow up the epic Australia with a Brokeback Mountain style western starring Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe.

    I haven’t seen Australia, for though I’m a big fan of Hugh Jackman’s chest, I’m a bit burnt out on workaholic Kidman, not to mention nearly three hours of Luhrmann visuals strikes me as the equivalent of bingeing on everything in Willy Wonka’s factory, Charlie included. Which is why Luhrmann must switch to homo mode and make real use of hirsute Hugh and rough trade Russell – the Boy from Oz meets Cinderella Man – out in the outback at last.

    5. Arnold Schwarzenegger must turn The Wrestler into reality.

    In 2009, the Governator must pump himself back up to take on Mickey Rourke and Jean-Claude Van Damme in a Mr. Geriatric Olympia competition.

    Both Rourke and Van Damme made muscle-bound movie comebacks in 2008, so why shouldn’t the onetime Terminator also toss his “top” hat into the ring? And since no one wants Rourke’s face to have to face more plastic surgery, nor JCVD split and pull a groin muscle, the Gov’s sport of choice would be the safest bet. Besides, if Mr. Geriatric Olympia doesn’t work out, the former steroid boys could always call it a meta-competition.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Andy Warhol meets Steven Spielberg. Clip of the Day

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Andy Warhol is responsible for a multitude of things: pop art resurgence, making the “Edie Sedgwick” a hipster Halloween costume and paving the way for the Club Kids in 1980s New York.

    And here he is interviewing Steven Spielberg in an undisclosed hotel room as–oddly enough–Bianca Jagger interjects every so often. It’s a brief, weird 1:55 clip, but during this time we learn that Spielberg is incredibly interested in radios, Warhol is adept at manipulating people on drugs and–oh yeah–there’s a high chance a few things got ingested before this begins. Either way, still doesn’t explain Steve’s love of Nazis or just what the hell set this thing up.

    [Interview via Defamer, Movie City Indie]


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Is MSNBC Redefining Documentary?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    At the Kansas City Star’s TV Barn blog, Aaron Barnhart examines MSNBC’s strategy of devoting as much as a third of their schedule to “documentary” programming. Barnhart takes issue with the channel’s use of the word “documentary” to encompass content as disparate as, on one hand, Witness to Jonestown (an original production of the newish MSNBC Films combining new interviews with ample footage from NBC’s archives) and Dear Zachary (which MSNBC Films acquired in partnership with Oscilloscope straight from the festival circuit); and on the other, the schlocky stuff that makes up the bulk of their “Doc Blocks,” like the Lockup series of Dateline-style exposes set inside various North American prisons, and the COPS knock-off Caught on Camera.

    Amazingly, when Barnhart went to Michael Rubin, who programs all of this stuff for the network, and asked, “What’s the deal?” Rubin basically went on the defensive. Not only did he call Lockup specifically “a jewel,” but he insisted that MSNBC’s viewers make no distinctions between high-brow and low-blow non-fiction content. As he puts it:

    “I work in a new world,” said Rubin, a veteran of network news going back to the “West 57″ show on CBS. “I look for everything my viewers are interested in. They’re as interested in the inside of a prison as much as they are interested in Dear Zachary or Supersize Me (the Morgan Spurlock film also acquired by MSNBC).

    “They’re interested in going somewhere they can’t get to on their own, whether it’s inside a prison or the story of Dr. Bagby. No matter what film we do, the viewer is guaranteed to be an eyewitness. Our tastes span the full spectrum — and so does human interest.”

    What I find interesting about this (and potentially dangerous) is that once the assumption is made that in the “new world,” COPS rip-offs are equivalent in the eyes of the audience to documentaries with loads of film festival acclaim –– ie: when what many of us consider “art” is invited to sit at the table with “trash” –– what’s to stop a “jewel” like Lockup from crossing over to the realm of art? And, of course, there’s the question we always, always come back to: what are we going to do about The Hills?!?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Big, Stupid Hollywood Films We’re Looking Forward to in 2009

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Southland Tales  (2007)

    Julie & Julia  (2009)

    Oh, 2008 … where has the time all gone to? It seems like just yesterday that we were cringing at the faux Golden Globes, learning about Sweding, and seriously debating Juno’s chance at winning Best Picture. What fools we were! Perhaps we ought to head into the last year of The Aughts with a better game plan.

    With that in mind, I’ve devised a list of films that I’m excited to see (for the first time or not) and talk about in the coming 12 months. Later in the week, we’ll take a look at some movies we saw at festivals in 2008 which now have a release date in 2009, and also films which have no release date, but which we expect to see show up on the festival circuit in the coming months. But we’re going to get the macro out of the way first: after the jump, you’ll find three Big, Stupid Hollywood Movies which I’m assuming will be awful, but possibly in an interesting way. Do share the titles you have your own eyes on in the comments.

    The Taking of Pelham 123 — The IMDb boards are full of debate over the ethical specifics of this Tony Scott-directed, Denzel Washington-starring remake of the 70s classic. A sample: “Pulp Fiction (edit: I mean Resevoir Dogs) had the “Color names” (mr brown, mr blue etc.), a direct reference to the original Pelham. What if the new Pelham also has the color names?” worries  FelixVanNorten. “I bet people are going to be all mad over it saying it is lame that they stole it from Resevoir Dogs.” Yes, probably! File this one under Probable Trainwrecks We Won’t Be Able to Ignore.

    Julie and Julia — Julie Powell’s blog-to-book account of a year spent cooking her way through Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Volume 1 is notable amongst first-person food memoirs, in that it avoids the easy crutches of eating-as-pathway to spirituality and/or metaphor for sex. What it makes no effort to avoid, are the cliches of The New Chick Lit/Flick. Julie is a smart-mouthed working New Yorker who drowns most frustrations in girl talk and cocktails –– and on that score, it’s (almost refreshingly) square, in that at the end of the day, Julie is essentially a harried but not unhappy, completely realistic contemporary housewife. All of which is taking the long road to say that the book doesn’t exactly cry out for cinematic adaptation. There’s just no real drama; when it looks like Julie’s not going to be able to cook all the recipes … she just cooks faster. When she gets into fights with her husband … they make up. What fresh contrivances will director Nora Ephron cook up to tug at the heartstrings of the lonely lady audience? I must find out!

    The Box — I didn’t hate Southland Tales –– which, it seems, has become an increasingly controversial position. The Box is Richard Kelly’s tail-between-the-legs, “I swear, I can make a film that doesn’t bleed money and taint the reputations of all involved!” follow-up. In the Causes For Alarm column: it’s been bumped down the release schedule at least twice, and it stars Cameron Diaz, who has somehow become the go-to star for PG-13 Movies That Make A Lot Of Money That No Adult Will Admit To Having Paid To See. In the But Maybe It’s Not So Bad column: I didn’t hate Southland Tales!


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • CARGO 200 Director Alexei Balabanov, Interview

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Brother  (1997)

    Voina  (2002)

    Cargo 200  (2007)

    Upon its Russian release in 2007, Cargo 200 immediately provoked a national furor. Alexei Balabanov’s grim little movie centers around one Captain Zhurov (Alexei Poluyan), a police officer in 1984’s Soviet Russia who uses his position of authority to essentially institutionalize rape, prisoner beatings and all-round mayhem.  In a typical scene, he tosses the corpse of a girl’s soldier-fiance next to her while she’s chained to a bed and proceeds to read the dead man’s love letters.

    When I first saw Cargo 200, I thought it was supposed to be black comedy, but it isn’t; its pitch-perfect production design is part of a whole package designed to check any nostalgia for the departed Soviet era, even if it summons up long-gone discotheques and hairstyles effortlessly. Cargo 200 itself is the code word for the boxes in which dead soldiers are shipped back from Afghanistan, which pretty much sums up the grim tone. Already available through Netflix, Cargo 200 receives a much-deserved if small release January 2; Balabanov’s film is appalling, but it’s also surprisingly elegant.

    A few contextual things you may like to know: despite working as an interpreter for two year in the ’80s, Balabanov will only do interviews in Russian, so I spoke with him over the phone in that language. Balabanov is not what you might consider a tactful, soft-spoken guy: in an interview in 2007 with “Novaya Gazeta,” he responded to a question about charges of xenophobia with the terse statement, “In every country there are decent people and there are freaks.” Cargo 200 is his first film to be screened outside of festivals in the US in a decade, since 1997’s Brother, so I’ve included contextual notes as needed.

    When did you first come up with the idea for Cargo 200?
    I came up with the idea for Cargo 200 a long time ago, after the film River [a 2002 project about a 19th-century leper colony left unfinished after actress Tuiara Svinoboeva died in a road accident during production]. I traveled a lot around the country in 1984-86. I know Siberia and the far north well, and this is based on true things that happened. The only thing I made up when the corpse of the dead soldier is thrown into bed with the girl. In reality, when I served in the army from 1981-83, the boxes with dead soldiers from Afghanistan disappeared all the time. And where they ended up, no one knows. Those kind of discotheques were everywhere then, I went to them. At that time, there were limitations on vodka, so everyone bought imitation vodka.

    A lot of American reviews said the movie’s set in 1984 in reference to Orwell’s book.
    No. That’s not correct. The truth is, Gorbachev is a thief. There was a famous cotton scandal in Uzbekistan in 1983. Everything that happened connected back clearly to Moscow, and it was all terrifying. And Gorbachev was then the Minister of Agriculture. That’s the whole story. I had 1984 in mind, because this was the last year under Chernenko. After that began changes in the country, right after his death.

    The two boys who walk off together at the end are going to become oligarchs, right?
    Yes yes yes, these are the people who will start businesses in the future. These are the beginnings of capitalism, and then these people became oligarchs. I don’t love capitalism. I don’t love communism either. I like it when people are honest and decent. Oligarchs are for the most part not decent people because their capital is stolen. The communists, they’re simply terrible people.

    Does your film belong to the chernukha genre [a series of films popular during perestroika depicting Soviet life as unpleasantly as possible: 1988's Little Vera et al.]?
    In the first place, this is a film without genre. I insist on this. I don’t like chernukha or horror movies. This is a film without genres that absolutely reflects the position of our history in 1984.

    In the second place, many people don’t like this film, many people like it. For example, Alexey Zernov the famous director said “We all wanted to make such a film, but we didn’t have enough courage. But Balabanov made it.” It was very pleasant for me to hear his words. It seems to me that this film is honest, truthful and good. There’s no chernukha. In any case, the worst kind of movie is those they say nothing, when people instantly forget if when they watch it.

    Did the ban on anyone under 21 seeing it cause you any problems?
    Honestly, this is a formality. In reality they let everyone in. For example, I took my children to this movie. I’m not worried about showing it to them: my youngest is 13, my oldest 19. They go to the movie and they’re let in.

    I read you were planning to work with Willem Defoe at one point.
    I became friends with Willem Defoe at Telluride. He really liked [2002's] War. We walked around and talked. I told him about my idea for a film called The American. When I wrote it, I sent it to him. He read it and said it was very good, but he didn’t see himself in this role. I badgered him about it for a long time, but he refused.

    Afterwards we began looking for an American actor and settled on Michael Biehn. We began filming with Biehn in New York, and he was great. Then we moved to Northern Siberia, and he began to drink vodka heavily. We filmed there for three days, then moved to Irkutsk. There all hell broke loose. He drank himself into a stupor. I refused to continue filming, and winter was already passing. He returned to Los Angeles and promised to return the money. He didn’t return anything. We filed a lawsuit in 2003.

    Is the lawsuit over?
    Of course not. We lost our money and that’s it.

    How do you feel about the current state of the Russian film industry?
    It’s not very good. Government support has fallen because of the world financial crisis. Has my film Morphia shown up there yet?

    No, it’s the first time I’ve heard of it.
    You’re calling me from New York?

    Yeah.
    Well, then you can easily find it at Brighton Beach.

    Pirated copies?
    Of course. You can find it online easily. It came out right after the premiere. Bad quality, but now there’s a better one. You can find it at Brighton for sure. Morphia is based on the early writings of Mikhail Bulgakov. This was the first screenplay by Sergei Bodrov Jr., who’s sadly dead now.

    Do you think people misunderstand Cargo 200 when you show it outside Russia?
    I don’t know. I think that 1917, the revolution, everyone understands what that means. All this happens at every step to this day. They kill every day. They show it to us on television every day, and it’s getting worse and worse.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog