Author: Owen Gleiberman (81-90 of 258)

Jan 27 2011 01:58 PM ET

Sundance: Vera Farmiga triumphs in the evangelicals-are-people-too drama 'Higher Ground'

Higher-Ground-VeraImage Credit: Molly HawkeyI don’t agree with most of the attacks on Hollywood by Christian fundamentalists, but there’s one criticism — and it’s a major one — that they’re absolutely right about: When it comes to portraying people of faith, Hollywood is worse than disrespectful — it’s shamefully disinterested. When a comedy like Saved, much as I’m a fan of it, passes for a vital vision of American Christian experience, you know that there’s something missing in our movie culture. (Robert Duvall’s The Apostle is a great film, but it’s about as far from the lives of everyday Christians as you can get.) READ FULL STORY »

Jan 26 2011 11:28 AM ET

Sundance: 'Margin Call,' a Wall Street drama led by Zachary Quinto and Kevin Spacey, powerfully captures the day the money died. Plus, 'The Black Power Mixtape'

Margin-Call-QuintoImage Credit: Jojo WhildenIn the ’80s, the movies that revolutionized American independent film, changing it from something earnest into something hot-blooded and knowing, were modern freakazoid noirs like Blood Simple and Blue Velvet, drenched in sex and violence and tantalizing dread. These days, the subject matter that has the equivalent effect is high finance. Money, and the corruption of money, is the new, sophisticated content porn of the indie world. More than ever, we’re all obsessed with the lure and the false promise of money, and with how so much of it went poof! over the last three years. The cautionary dawn-of-the-economic-crisis message movie has become a genre unto itself — think Up in the Air, The Company Men, and The Girlfriend Experience, the latter two of which premiered at Sundance. (Okay, the genre is still young, but it’s certainly a lot more promising than the post-9/11 where-were-you-when-the-towers-fell? soap opera.) Margin Call, which is set at a fictionalized version of Lehman Brothers, is steeped in the finance jargon of our time (one of its running jokes is that even the people who speak this language will stop to remark, “Say it in plain English!”), but the movie isn’t medicine. It has the avid hookiness of good David Mamet, the into-the-night tension of something like 12 Angry Men. Call it 12 Sleazy Men (and one woman — hello, Demi Moore). READ FULL STORY »

Jan 19 2011 10:48 AM ET

Here's why 'The King's Speech' (as good as it is) won't win Best Picture

kings-speech-obamaImage Credit: Laurie Sparham; Chung Sung-Jun/Getty ImagesWhatever your prediction for the big winner in this year’s Academy Awards race, the case to be made for each of the two front runners — The Social Network and The King’s Speech — breaks down in a fairly conventional way that almost anyone could agree on. The Social Network, of course, goes in with the momentum of having swept every single major Best Picture award, from critics’ groups to the Golden Globes, with an almost frightening authority. Offhand, I can’t think of the last time a movie really did that — it’s the definition of a juggernaut. The Social Network is also the hip, supersmart, brashly original, acclaimed-for-its-singular-vision choice, and the fact that it’s closing in on making $100 million gives all those qualities an added cachet: The picture stands as vital proof — to the world and to Hollywood — that a hip, supersmart, brashly original movie, one that consists of almost nothing but people sitting around in rooms talking, can still connect powerfully with a popular audience. Plus, David Fincher, with his up-from-grunge visual bravura, and Aaron Sorkin, with his up-from-quality-television verbal fireworks, represent two very different breeds of Hollywood veteran. They have both been around long enough, and wielded enough creative influence, for Academy voters to say, “It’s their time.” READ FULL STORY »

Jan 16 2011 01:28 PM ET

'Black Swan': Why it's the swoon-for-it-or-not movie of the season. And where do you stand?

black-swanImage Credit: Niko TaverniseA true love-it-or-hate-it movie only comes along every once in a while (Moulin Rouge was one; so was The Blair Witch Project), and by that standard Black Swan, Darren Aronofsky’s lurid and voluptuous agony-of-dance horror film, doesn’t qualify. It’s not a movie that anyone I’ve talked to genuinely dislikes. And why would they? Aronofsky, a sizzling craftsman, keeps the thrills and the hallucinations, the mirrored twists, the whole sexy-masochistic high-maintenance kinkiness of the ballet world — or, at least, this tony pulp version of it — at full boil. He keeps the movie pulsing and the audience watching. Yet if Black Swan doesn’t qualify as a love-it-or-hate it movie, I still think it’s a drama that divides people into two wildly divergent camps. There are those who swoon for it…and those who don’t. Those who experience this sensationalistic riff on the perils of artistic performance as, itself, a work of art — and those who, like me, enjoy the movie with a certain basic qualification, who consume it as primitive, almost trashy fun (these are the viewers you hear in megaplexes giggling at some of the dialogue) but who never really take the leap of connecting to it as a daredevil feat of imagination. READ FULL STORY »

Jan 12 2011 11:38 AM ET

Gwyneth Paltrow: Why do so many people hate on her?

gwyneth-paltrowImage Credit: Jon Kopaloff/FilmMagic.comTwenty years ago, I had never heard of “Spence.” But in the late 1990s, as Gwyneth Paltrow blossomed from an up-and-coming actress into a radiant young movie star, I began to hear about it a lot. “She went to Spence” is usually how it got said, the telltale syllable spat out with a special knowing emphasis, a little curlicue of disdain. That accusatory line became a kind of celebrity take-down mantra, the equivalent of the line about Madonna you always heard at parties in the ’80s: “She can’t sing — it’s all tricks done in the studio.” (Yeah, right.) The Spence School is the elite private school for girls located on E. 91st St. in Manhattan. It’s where Gwyneth Paltrow got her education, and for a lot of people, it was a perfect symbol of the floating-on-air ritzy princess bubble in which she grew up. The daughter of Blythe Danner! Raised amid the stately brownstone fortresses of the Upper East Side! With Steven Spielberg as her family friend! The insufferableness of it all!! READ FULL STORY »

Jan 7 2011 12:58 PM ET

From 'The Fighter' to 'Black Swan,' jittery nausea-inducing shaky cam is the new normal. Can you handle it?

the-fighter-steadycamImage Credit: Jojo WhildenShooting a dramatic feature film with jittery, handheld shaky cam — for that imitation-documentary, this isn’t just a movie, it’s reality! feeling — isn’t new, and neither is the complaint that so often gets heard in response to it: “I couldn’t watch that movie — it made me sick!” Personally, I have to say that I’ve never once had the experience of sitting through a film shot in the aggressively off-kilter, wavery-cam style only to have it make me sick to my stomach. When you see as many movies as I do, it may be an occupational hazard to become immune to that sort of quease-inducing kinesthetic-visceral fake-out. (If it makes the afflicted feel less jealous, I can’t go on twirly carnival rides.) READ FULL STORY »

Jan 3 2011 12:18 PM ET

Pete Postlethwaite: A face, and an actor, you couldn't forget

pete-postlethwaite-name-fatherImage Credit: Everett CollectionPete Postlethwaite, in his long, sturdy, and vibrant career as an actor, first in theater and television and then, beginning in the late ’80s, in the movies, was the face of a great many things: rage, fatherly tenderness, criminal brilliance. Whatever he was playing, though, Postlethwaite, who died yesterday at 64, was always a face: a face so lumpen and craggy you could never forget it, with its ruddy broken nose and thin-lipped scowl of protest, its flesh that hung down over cheekbones that were prominent enough to look like a pair of jutting apples, and those eyes that burned with some fierce dark private anguish that seemed to reach back into the centuries. It was a face that was all angles and emotion — one that could have been drawn by Picasso. It was a face that haunted you with how haunted it appeared to be.

I’ll never forget the first time I saw him, in Distant Voices, Still Lives (1988), Terrence Davies’ powerful autobiographical drama about growing up in working-class Liverpool in the ’40s and ’50s. This was the role that brought Postlethwaite to prominence, but he was already 40 years old. He had been a repertory actor (including one stint with the Royal Shakespeare Company), and also a sheel-metal worker and welder, and what appeared to be a lifetime of hard living was already etched — welded — into those features. He played the hero’s brutal alcoholic father, a man who flew into slashing fits of anger, and Postlethwaite made those explosions so feral and terrifying, such a stark bulletin from the bottom of the whiskey bottle, that you felt, almost physically, how they could have battered his son’s heart into something delicate and fragile and cringing. Yet Postlethwaite also showed you the human side of this domestic monster. He was scary enough to make Robert Duvall in The Great Santini look like an amateur dysfunctional abuser, but he also had an authentic, almost childlike interior soft woundedness. He had layers, and as Postlethwaite now planted himself on the world movie stage, he brought that same stubborn complexity of feeling to role after role. READ FULL STORY »

Jan 2 2011 06:08 PM ET

'Blue Valentine' and 'Somewhere': The return of the American art film -- and, yes, that's a good thing

Ryan-Gosling-DorffImage Credit: Davi Russo; Merrick MortonThe term art film probably should have been retired about two decades ago — and when you think about, it kind of was. On the rare occasions that something now gets tagged as an “art film,” it’s generally meant in a vaguely dismissive and even pejorative way. It means not art but arty: high-minded and self-conscious, precious and austere. It means art less as pleasure than as medicine (which, in my book, tends to mean third-rate art, like the pseudo-Euro hitman-with-angst dud The American). Yet I’m tempted, out of a fresh wave of nostalgia, to haul out the old scarlet A for Art Film in connection to two quietly exciting new American features, Derek Cianfrance’s Blue Valentine and Sofia Coppola’s Somewhere, if only because both films take you back to the best of the early ’70s, that much-revered era of American filmmaking when the spirit of European cinema had spread to Hollywood and had given rise to a liberating new hybrid: the raw, loose, reality-based American art movie — films that were out to capture “the truth” in front of your eyes, even if it was a little like catching lightning in a bottle.

Blue Valentine, starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, tells the story of a deeply imperfect, at times violently angry, yet also disarmingly tender six-year marriage that is rapidly hitting the skids, and the movie is staged with a breathtakingly close-up, warts-and-all intimacy that isn’t so far removed from the train-wreck voyeurism of certain reality-TV shows. Somewhere, starring Stephen Dorff as a sexy, jaded Hollywood movie star who is working his way through an existential crisis of fame (he’s so beloved for his image that he no longer knows who he is), often reminded me of Entourage without the entourage. So what makes these movies art films? Simple: In each case, the filmmakers capture whatever it is they’re portraying — a working-class family in a rural Pennsylvania suburb, a movie idol crashing out in the anonymous luxe sterility of the Chateau Marmont — with an incisive, almost journalistic detail; they get the surfaces exactly right. Yet we’re also invited, in nearly every scene, to look beyond the surface, to enter the troubled hearts and minds, the fascinatingly messed-up interior spaces, of all these characters. The approach is nothing if not novelistic: These movies may have “stories,” but once you get onto their wavelength, the real story they’re telling is spiritual and psychological. It’s the story of what you can’t see. READ FULL STORY »

Dec 27 2010 01:28 PM ET

'True Grit': John Wayne vs. Jeff Bridges -- which one has more true grit?

wayne-bridgesImage Credit: Everett Collection; Lorey SebastianIt doesn’t take rocket science to see why True Grit enjoyed the biggest opening weekend of any Coen brothers movie to date. The film may not have won the Coens their most rapturous reviews (though the critics were largely enthusiastic), and it’s hardly their best or most defining work. Yet it’s a remake of a famous and, indeed, iconic Hollywood movie — one that, while not quite a “classic,” remains a robust and beloved end-of-the-studio-system-era Western. OMG, I used the R-word! — I called True Grit a “remake.” The vulgarity, the lowbrow cluelessness on my part! From the outset, you see, the directorial and studio spin on this movie has been to insist that it’s a completely different animal from the deeply sentimental 1969 when-fresh-faced-teenybopper-met-grizzled-old-marshal fable of popular vengeance. The Coens, making their publicity rounds, have talked and talked about how they went back to Charles Portis’ original novel, which was published in 1968. But if, like me, you’ve never read the novel (and I would guesstimate that 97 percent of the people who saw True Grit over the weekend have not), then after all the remake? what remake?! spin, you might be startled to see how close the movie really does come to the 1969 version. At times, it borders on being a scene-for-scene, line-for-line gloss on it.

There are differences, of course. The Coen brothers’ version is more tasteful and intimate and art-directed, a kind of color-coordinated curio. Hailee Steinfeld’s Mattie Ross is notably younger than Kim Darby’s (which, at times, makes the new Mattie seem even more of an old movie concoction), and major sections of the picture are set at night (a technique that worked a lot better in No Country for Old Men). That said, the essential hook of the new True Grit is, and always was, the sheer curiosity factor of wanting to see Jeff Bridges, in his born-again middle-aged movie-star prime, take on the role of Rooster Cogburn, the part that won John Wayne his only Academy Award.

There’s a reason that a great many people still don’t hold Wayne’s cornball-crusty performance in very high esteem. By the late ’60s, movies were in the middle of a revolution, and they had a new audience, known (it now sounds so quaint) as the Film Generation. At the time, a lot of folks under a certain age felt that it was almost their duty to hate John Wayne. READ FULL STORY »

Dec 22 2010 11:58 AM ET

Why I wish we could go back to having only five Oscar nominees

10-oscar-nominationsImage Credit: How many nominees is too many? As every entertainment junkie knows, the most fun thing about the Academy Awards is talking about them. All the speculative chatter — Is it Natalie Portman’s year? Is The Social Network an Oscar movie or too much of a heady/critical darling/digital generation movie? — may be the height of trivia, but it gives us all a (tiny) stake in the outcome, and it’s also a way of trying to nail down, each year, that elusive yet revealing thing that is the Hollywood Value System. Besides, the Oscars are still the ultimate media-buzz-industrial-complex horse race. Can True Grit, after getting snubbed by the Golden Globes, snag a nomination for Best Picture? How about 127 Hours, with its rave response from reviewers, its grisly (if transcendent) final twist, and its just-okay performance at the box office? And what about The Fighter? I personally think it’s a terrific movie, but did the media oversell it as a contender?

In the past, those might have been tasty questions to chew over. This year, however, I find myself having the same Oscar conversation — or, more to the point, giving the same Oscar answer — over and over again. It goes something like this:

YOU: Do you think True Grit will get nominated for Best Picture?

ME: Yes, I do. I’m not sure it would, though, if there were only five nominees. But with ten, it probably can’t miss.

YOU: What about 127 Hours?

ME: Same situation. With only five nominees, I’m almost certain it wouldn’t be nominated. With ten, I bet it will be.

YOU: How about Toy Story 3?

ME: Definitely! And it’s great that they’re finally nominating animated films for Best Picture. Of course, if there were only five nominees, I’m not sure Toy Story 3 would make it…

Do you sense a pattern here? And, what’s more, a certain creeping rhythm of ho-hum tedium? READ FULL STORY »

Advertisement

Find Movies and Showtimes

Powered by MovieTickets.com

Choose Your Movie

All movies

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP