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

  • For Your Consideration: Diego Luna for Best Supporting Actor

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

    The Godfather  (1972)

    Bad Education  (2004)

    The Dark Knight  (2008)

    Tropic Thunder  (2008)

    Doubt  (2008)

    Milk  (2008)

    When the Golden Globe nominations were announced last week, there was one glaring omission from the Best Supporting Actor category: a nod for Milk. Actually, there were four glaring omissions, because Milk still does not have a definite forerunner among its quartet of campaigned-for supporting actors, which includes Josh Brolin, James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna. Did the Hollywood Foreign Press Association truly snub the film, as has been suggested, or could the organization simply not decide which actor to nominate? Perhaps the two favorites, Brolin and Franco, cancelled each other out. If so, the Academy needs to ensure that such a thing doesn’t happen with its Oscar nominations. And the best way to do this is to get behind Diego Luna for Best Supporting Actor.

    This will no doubt seem like a ridiculous suggestion this late in the game, particularly to the critics who fail to appreciate Luna’s performance. His character, Jack Lira, has been labeled underwritten and unnecessary –– neither of which is true –– and “annoying,” which is precisely how the real Lira was thought of anyway. Kirk Honeycutt at The Hollywood Reporter called Luna’s performance “looped,” Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe joked that the actor “appears to have wandered over from some drunken college production of Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education,” and A.O. Scott at The New York Times wrote that Lira is played “with an operatic verve that stops just short of camp,” which is a little more polite than the multiple reviews that actually straight-up call it camp. Then, there’s Slant critic Ed Gonzalez, who does the most damage, claiming the performance is “embarrassing, miscalculated.”

    The easiest way to lash back at these criticisms is to accuse most reviewers as being biased against flamboyancy. Sure, Luna’s portrayal of Lira can be viewed as over the top, but that’s not the fault of the actor. And to otherwise negatively respond to the character as “camp” is to display an issue with such insecure personalities as Lira, who projects a boisterous over-identification with the flamboyancy of homosexuality as a sort of masochistic masquerade. The character of Lira is not so much underwritten as unknown and unwelcome, which was basically the reality of his context within Harvey Milk’s campaign. But then to consider the accuracy of Lira’s character and of Luna’s portrayal is to wrongly think that Milk is concrete in capturing the true story. Rather, Milk is more the familiar tale of any martyr who sacrifices his own happiness for the happiness of the masses, who damages his own relationships in order to make possible others’ relationships. For this, Lira is a necessary narrative device, both in terms of contrasting with Franco’s more reserved love-interest character and in terms of contrasting, as the single-save, with the larger civil rights goal at hand. In this role, Luna certainly goes above and beyond the call for serviceability in his portrait of jealous desperation and the politically dismissed individual.

    Highlighting the critics’ praises for Luna would unfortunately amount to quoting mostly also-ran notices in which he’s included, by name or not, within celebrations of the whole supporting ensemble (including the one supporting actress contender, Alison Pill). Indeed, it is this recognition of the film’s ensemble that has probably allowed for so much of a split among the film’s kudos, and yet it’s one of Milk’s greater assets that there is such equality and consistency with regards to the characters and the acting. Sean Penn may be the obvious lead, and his performance may be spotlighted above the others as a result, but in group scenes Gus Van Sant places the titular character in a fairly even playing field with the rest, enough that Focus Features may just as well have included Joseph Cross, Victor Garber and other unrecognized cast members on its For Your Consideration posters for Milk.

    In a perfect world they all could be nominated, and honored, as they will be when the film most assuredly wins the Outstanding Performance by a Cast award at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. But the closest thing for the Academy to do in this fashion would be to name all four campaigned-for supporting actors from Milk. Considering a lack of sure things in the category other than Heath Ledger, who is certain to win the award posthumously, there would be little harm in having the other slots filled by Brolin, Franco, Hirsch and Luna. Plus, it would make Oscar history, as it would be the first time the Academy nominated four actors in this category (three films have had three actors nominated: On the Waterfront; The Godfather and The Godfather Part II). Another idea is to simply shrug away the three most celebrated contenders (Brolin, Franco and Hirsch, respectively #2, #6 and #10 on The Envelope’s Supporting Actor Buzzmeter) and pull out the underdog, the non-registering yet still deserving Luna.

    The other alternative is to continue the divide, which will lead to a category as follows: Ledger (The Dark Knight); Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road); Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt); Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder); Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire). With no love for either Franco, who has been chosen by the Independent Spirit Awards and the Golden Satellite Awards, or Brolin, who has been picked by the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics. Both actors were actually jointly selected as nominees for the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s awards, but it’s difficult to imagine this compromise happening with the Academy’s voters, who may have a one-or-the-other attitude when considering whose year, Brolin’s or Franco’s, it really was. Both actors equally deserve the recognition for their collective 2008 performances, though that shouldn’t necessarily count towards a nomination for a single role, and both are sure to be cast in more Oscar-worthy parts in the future. Hirsch, likewise, is due for the honor after being ignored last year and will similarly continue to acquire juicy roles in the future. Luna, on the other hand, is less likely to get the kinds of roles that attract Oscar recognition, especially if his negative reviews from Milk follow him in his career. So, in a way, he’s the more deserving supporting actor in the bunch.  Not only did he give as remarkable a performance as his fellow cast members, but also he’s probably the one who’ll most benefit from the honor. And the Oscars needn’t be so much a competition and marking of who is best; it ought to be a general celebration of great talent and also a push for further excellence from such talent.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Yule-A-Go-Go Recipients for 12/15/08

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

    As promised earlier today, here are the first two member profiles as we highlight some of those who have made Spout the great place it is over the course of 2008 (and even before that). As promised, each one of these members will receive a copy of Yule-A-Go-Go on DVD for them to snuggle up to in ways we don’t need to hear about.

    –Chris Thilk, Director of Marketing

    Username:  Risselada

    Real name: Brian Risselada but some people here call me Rizzo

    From: Jenison, MI. But have been in Chicago, IL for over 4 years now

    Fav Group on Spout: Movie Polls

    Last five movies I saw for the first time that have become my favorites:

    Most Unusual Place You’ve Ever Watched a Movie: I’m not sure the most unusual place I’ve watched a movie, but one of the most unusual experiences I had watching a movie was when a couple of my friends and I went to see Happy, Texas when it first came out.  I personally wanted to see Bringing Out the Dead, but that movie was chosen and our fates were sealed.  Without going into too much detail I will say that when we first walked into the theater we were the only ones there.  And by the middle of the movie one of my friends was writhing around on the ground in just his underwear, covered in Mountain Dew, while angry old biker in leather was cussing him out.

    I’m excessively honored to be chosen as a featured profile!  I LOVE SPOUT!!!

    ———-

    Username: leeroy711

    Real name: Emery

    From: Phoenix , AZ

    Last 5 movies I’ve loved: Missing (1982) Touch of Evil (1958)Sukiyaki Western Django (2007)Volver (2006) and  The Princess and the Warrior (2000).

    My favorite group on spout is The Weekly Theme.

    Most Unusual Place You’ve Ever Watched a Movie: The strangest place I’ve ever watched a movie has to be at the Glendale Drive-in. A friend and I used to know where the hole in the fence was. We would sneak in and find a family that was watching something we wanted to see and sit on the parking block next to thier car so we could just pretend that we were with them. Also, I watch about one movie a week on my laptop in a hotel room in Nogales, AZ (border town) which is just a strange place to find yourself in.

    Merry Christmas!


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • THE WRESTLER Review

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

    The Wrestler  (2008)

    From the first scenes of The Wrestler, in which Maryse Alberti’s handheld camera follows Mickey Rourke from behind as his Randy “The Ram” Robinson goes through the closing motions of what we’re to understand is a typically trying day, director Darren Aronofsky announces that he’s picked up a new set of aesthetic references since his last film, the non-linear effects extravaganza The Fountain. It’s apparently impossible for contemporary directors to adopt the technique described aboce without someone suggesting that they ripped it from a film by the Dardennes brothers, but its use in The Wrestler feels very different from its use in, say, L’Enfant: it doesn’t produce the same sense of a tension that could break if the camera ever allowed its subject to get too far away. In fact, several times, the camera just stops while Rourke keeps moving, allowing us to appreciate the full physicality of the actor’s performance long before we ever see his face.

    There must be a cerebral component to the way Rourke approached becoming the aging wrestler at the center of this film, because otherwise I doubt he’d have been able to so deftly navigate the character’s expansive emotional arc while still nailing all the jokes. But this performance goes way beyond the brain, or the precision with which Rourke transformed his appearance, or even the naturalism with which he performs the wrestling choreography. This is a performance that seems to start and end in the cardiovascular system, making everything Rourke actually does seem effortless. As if he’s just breathing it.

    A wrestling superstar in the 80s (famous enough, at his peak, to have his own 8-bit representation jumping off the ropes in a Nintendo game), 20 years later Randy is barely holding it together, sleeping in a van when his trailer is padlocked for failure to pay rent, unloading boxes at a supermarket to make the cash from small-time meets stretch to cover his bleach, tanning and human growth hormone habits. Randy remains fiercely committed to the sport, even though his body’s not what it used to be, and even though the sport –– at least on a mainstream, big-money level –– no longer has much interest in him. With the 20th anniversary coming up of Randy’s biggest fight (a face-off with an Iranian flag-waving wrestler by the name of The Ayatollah), Randy’s producer approaches him with “two words: Re. Match.” This gives Randy something to work on other than the hot-and-cold affections of aging stripper Pam (Marisa Tomei), but when a particularly intense fight results in serious injury, Randy has to turn off autopilot and reevaluate his options. That this all manages more often than not to avoid sports film fall-rise cliches and veer into unexpected directions whilst exploring a wide range of feeling is a minor miracle. It’s a cliche to say that Rourke’s performance is “fearless” but, well, it is. But it only works as well as it does because of the economy of The Wrestler’s construction, and the stealthiness of Aronofsky’s craft.

    The Wrestler may not superficially look or feel much like a Darren Aronofsky film, but that fact has too often been stated as relieved praise by people who had grown skeptical of the filmmaker. It’s true that The Wrestler’s style is, at least compared to Aronofsky’s previous two films, bare-bones, and the cutting is relatively sedate, and that the turn to austerity marks a comeback in terms of critical opinion for the filmmaker who, with Requiem for a Dream and then The Fountain, tried critical patience with his perceived bottomless indulgence for visual trickery.  But in its own way, it’s just as much of a film built on setpieces as Requiem, and just as dependent on style to draw lines between inner lives and external action and circumstance.

    Aronofsky has acknowledged that his goal was to stick to “the documentary style” as much as possible. This goes beyond the almost always hand-held camera: the wrestling scenes were shot at “real” meets staged by the production, with real current and former wrestlers as extras and as Rourke’s opponents, while Tomei learned from and danced alongside professional strippers. There is something undeniably farcical about a name-brand filmmaker (whose wife was recently on the cover of VOGUE, no less), dropping two movie stars into facsimiles of lower-class American life, produced with the “realism” of non-fiction film in mind.

    But it works. The documentary tropes end up playing like drag designed to temper the absurdity of the nuts and bolts of Pam and Randy’s jobs and lives; it makes their more melodramatic moments seem all the more plausible. And Aronofsky knows when he can get away with casting off his realism (as when Randy makes an entrance at his supermarket job to the sound of a crowd cheering in anticipation), and when he can’t. The stylistic quick-change allows us to transform back and forth between objective observer and subjective participant. As a filmmaker, you could say Aronofsky has moved from digital surrealism to a photorealist presentation of a hyperreal world.

    If Aronofsky gets away with his constructed reality, its a testament to the work of screenwriter (and former Onion writer) Rob Siegel that The Wrestler’s characterizations can be comical, but never really condescending. And in the ways in which Randy and Pam find common ground, the filmmakers carry across a subtext of cultural critique. At the risk of giving too much away, both Randy and Pam traffic in a kind of fear of intimacy for a living: they take on personas that are very much about what their bodies look like and how they can move and what kind of power they can exert, and they perform for crowds looking for a kind of vicarious thrill, but their admirers never see anything but the surface. Both past their prime to some extent, at one point the pair bond on their mutual nostalgia for the 80s, particularly the music, which Randy says was all about having fun. “And then that pussy Cobain had to come along and ruin it for everyone,” he gripes. “The 90s sucked,” Pam agrees.

    The Wrestler is about two people whose professions are in some way dependent on 80s-dated, surface oriented ideas of gender and entertainment and escape, who were left behind in a way when pop culture took a turn away from fantasy, towards something supposedly more authentic, more real. But fantasy is a tool that most of us use to deal with reality. In some way, that dealing process has been the subject of each of Aronofsky’s films, which makes The Wrestler one of a piece.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Twitter Contest - Spout’s Favorite Christmas Movies

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

    You ready to play a little game? It’s called the Twitter Holiday Movie List Game… ready?

    How to play? It’s easy:

    • Follow Spout (@spout) on Twitter and send a reply to us with your favorite Christmas movie to us via Twitter.
    • Include the hash tag #spoutxmas
    • If your movie appears on Spout’s Christmas list, Spout buys the movie for you!
    • The contest continues until the whole list has been guessed. Enter as many times as you like!

    The winners will be announced on Twitter (and then here on Inside.Spout) when the list has been completed.

    Limits:

    • Only the first six correct twitter responses will win.
    • Only one movie per winner.
    • Movies will only be shipped within the U.S.

    Why are we doing this? Every Wednesday at noon the Spout team drops whatever we are doing, we gather together, and pop a DVD into the player and sit back and enjoy a movie. Lately, the movies have had one theme: Christmas. We thought we shouldn’t be the only ones having the fun and watching holiday themed films, so here is your chance to join in on our holiday fun. The Spout team has put together a top six favorite Christmas movie list (we’ll review the list after the contest is over), and if you can guess what movies are on this list we will buy the film and ship it to you for free. I should preface this by saying you’ll need a twitter account to play, if you don’t have one check out Twitter now.

    If you’re not already following Spout on Twitter do so today. That way you’ll be in the know for the latest and greatest movie news, reviews and commentary as well as be the first to know about contests and promotions like this.

    Good luck and merry Christmas!


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • 5 Reasons Why I’m Thrilled That the CHE Roadshow is a Hit

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

    If you’ve read this blog with any regularity, you’ll know that, as a work of stand-alone cinema, I am not crazy about Che. However, that doesn’t mean that I was anything but thrilled to hear that the Steven Soderbergh film sold out most of its weekend shows at the Ziegfeld in New York and the Landmark in Los Angeles. Here are five reasons why Che’s +$30k opening weekend per screen average is –– say it with me now –– Good For Cinema:

    It validates IFC’s willingness to take chances on acquisitions. Over the past 18 months or so, as one studio has shut down their indie arms after another (and the Weinsteins have drifted off into virtual acquisitions irrelevance), IFC has picked up the buying slack, walking away with seven films at this year’s Cannes alone. There’s been some criticism that the company buys so many films that they can’t give each special attention, and when a much-praised film like The Pleasure of Being Robbed (one of those Cannes buys) is ushered out of the IFC Center after a single not-spectacular weekend, it’s easy to see how the rush instigated by the volume of product could get on the nerves of interested parties. But Che’s big weekend proves two things: a) the IFC team’s willingness to buy films that nobody else puts out is paying off, and b) they are capable of giving a product with special needs the individual concern that it needs. And speaking of the need to impress in a single weekend…

    The roadshow concept puts first weekend mania to good use. When a festival acquisition opens and closes at the IFC Center after a single week, the filmmaker is disappointed, but IFC’s model of simultaneous distribution via Video On Demand means that the film itself is still able to reach viewers on a longer tail. On that model, the one week NY theatrical run serves as a generator for press for the VOD run. The Che roadshow takes that concept and explodes it: by making Che’s Oscar qualifying run an event, complete with an opening night appearance by Soderbergh (see below), IFC has created guaranteed interest for its planned 2009 release of Che as two seperate films. In part, because…

    …the roadshow also puts a sense of confrontation back into film culture. The new At the Movies isn’t bad just because Ben Lyons is so bad (although he is so, so bad). It’s bad because the sense of conflict has been neutured. Any film worth a damn is going to inspire conflicting opinions; right now the only real public space for those clashes is the blogosphere, and the extent to which our back-and-forths are actually truly public at all is debatable. Friday night’s premiere of Che at the Ziegfeld, where the audience stuck around for a rowdy Q & A session with Soderbergh which stretched into the early morning hours and included audience member debate over whether Guevara was “a revolutionary” or “a murderer” (see the video above, via indieWIRE), proved that there’s still a chance for meaningful conversation and conflict about a film’s worth and intentions in the public sphere.

    It gives auteurs with big ambitions hope. When Che appeared at Cannes, Variety’s Todd McCarthy mocked Soderbergh’s ambitions and wrote the endeavor off as a “commercial impossibility.” That, of course, was meant as a pejorative; again, I don’t like the film, but in relating my issues with it, I praised Soderbergh for making a film so obstinately indifferent to commercial concerns. It’s Variety’s job to assess a film’s future in the market,but in this case, they did it in a scolding way, imposing their own standard for success on a film made with different goals in mind. That Che seems to be finding its audience in spite of Variety’s assessment should hopefully give hope to other filmmakers that they can actually get away exploring uncompromised visions, as long as they temper their expectations.

    Soderbergh may be breaking his own pattern. In the two decades since Sex, lies and videotape premiered at Sundance (yes, it will be 20 years next month), Soderbergh’s career has had its ups and downs, and major successes have often given way to two projects that were percieved as commercial failures (usually one made on an “art” budget and the other a big studio disappointment), which seemingly necessesitated a return to “safe” territory. Ocean’s 11 begat Full Frontal and Solaris, which Ocean’s 12, begat Bubble and The Good German. Ocean’s 13 was both awesome (for what it was) and awesomely successful. If Soderbergh could follow that up with a project as uncompromising as Che and have it not ultimately declared a financial debacle (even a $5 million total gross would make it a huge hit compared to the average gross of an IFC simultaneously released film), maybe going forward he’ll be on better footing to merge his experimental instincts with his Hollywood clout more seemlessly than before.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Terminator Origination: The T-800 Begins. Clip of the Day

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

    Terminator [Film Series]  Production Year

    Today’s video isn’t new, so don’t get your hopes up too high; this isn’t a companion to the new Terminator Salvation trailer (which you can watch here), nor does it confirm whether or not Arnold Schwarzenegger has a cameo in the new installment. It’s just a hilarious deleted scene from Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Or, maybe it’s just a gag. I’m not even sure if it’s from the film’s DVD.

    Two reasons why I’m sharing this now: first, I’d never seen it prior to this past weekend; second, it’s a fun alternative to the seriousness of the Salvation trailer. I love Christian Bale as much as the next guy, but he really knows how to put a straight face on an otherwise enjoyable franchise. If Sean Penn can give us a great big smile, Bale can too. I know, Terminator Salvation should appropriately be dark, but it doesn’t need to be depressing. That giant, clunky robot at the end is laughable enough to allow intentional comic relief.

    Then again, the terrifically amusing scene below, in which Schwarzenegger makes fun of his voice, was obviously even too over the top for Terminator 3. And that one was the most playful of the Terminator films. So, there’s certainly no hope for something so fun in the new sequel.

    [via College Humor]


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog