Rummaging through Guillermo del Toro‘s filmography is like opening Christmas presents from your favorite uncle. The one whose affinity for the absurd and welcoming of the weird makes him the coolest uncle ever. Except it’s not Christmas with del Toro, is it? It’s most definitely Halloween, a time when the love of the spooky and the monstrous becomes a contagion, and – more religiously – the past is remembered through the dead and the hallowed. Gross, funny, action-packed, heartfelt and scary in varying spurts, del Toro’s directorial oeuvre (to say nothing of his 30-odd produced films) is consistent in one obvious way: visual depth. With little interest in layered profundities and intricate camera-work, del Toro’s stories pave the way for the production design, cinematography, and special effects to take centre stage (his background is, after all, in special effects). But through these visuals lies a bottomless love affair with outcasts of all types, Mother Nature’s little creatures, and big monsters with big purposes, making his storytelling relentlessly compelling through theme as much as image. The key word in that last sentence isn’t “monsters” or “creatures,” by the way; it’s “love.”Read More Post a comment (0)
It’s April Fool’s Day! The day when all anyone wants to do is find a way to dupe and delude their loved ones. Well, you won’t find any of that here, but I figured it would be neat to salute a harmless & fun tradition by quickly listing some of the most entertaining fools I’ve had the pleasure of re-watching endlessly. The landscape of cinema can evolve a dozen times over, and, like cockroaches after a nuclear disaster, these fools will live on. But first, a bit of catch-up.
The Film Grapevine has been a little M.I.A. recently, due to my busy times with some festival coverage and features on The Playlist and Way Too Indie. You’ll pardon the plug I’m sure, but those interested to stay up to date with my latest coverage, the latest stuff includes and isn’t limited to: great dog films, Kornel Mundruczo, original horror scores, fantastic new films from up-and-comers, and my latest analysis of the latest & greatest family drama on the small screen.
Today’s a good a day as any to resuscitate the blog with some harmless fun and list 11 (because round numbers are too square, amirite) timelessly entertaining fools who are immune to being mundane. Read on, and don’t trust anything anyone tells you today! (Except this article. Trust me, these fools are hella entertaining).Read More Post a comment (0)
Joseph L. Mankiewicz once said, “The difference between life and the movies is that a script has to make sense, and life doesn’t.” When I think about Clint Eastwood‘s “American Sniper,” which crushed the box-office last weekend with over $100 million in four days and garnered more Academy Award nominations than anyone expected, Mankiewicz’ words resonate all the clearer. The controversy this film ignited due to its success makes less sense than its incredible box-office numbers. Buckets of acid are being flung at the film’s supposed pro-American propagandist attitude, heroic celebration of its protagonist, and its rewriting of the Iraq war. The purported negative stigma of “American Sniper” can be summed up in this Storify page from independent journalist Rania Khalek, using reactions from certain audience members as fuel for her fiery accusations.
This fervent reaction is troubling because, within this whirlpool of flying dung, a lot of people seem to be forgetting a crucial factor: the movie itself. “American Sniper” is not a piece of pro-American propaganda, it doesn’t rewrite the Iraq occupation, it doesn’t celebrate Chris Kyle as a hero, it doesn’t downplay PTSD, and it doesn’t glorify war. The worst, legitimate, politicized accusation one can throw at the film is that its Iraqi characters are one-dimensional, pointing out one especially brutal scene featuring a drill and a terrorist nicknamed The Butcher that feels like a “24” episode guest-directed by Quentin Tarantino (even though, apparently, The Butcher is based on a real Shia warlord). Since the film’s primary focus isn’t an “us vs. them” mentality, but more a “man vs. war” one, the concern of depicting the villains as one-dimensional couldn’t have been a big one for Eastwood. It would have reportedly been for Steven Spielberg, the original director attached to the project. But once he stepped off, and Eastwood took over, a different kind of film was born. Since I’d take subtlety over sentimentality any day of the week, I’m pretty happy with how that went down.Read More Post a comment (1)
Paul Thomas Anderson‘s new movie is very strange, and left me, even more than “The Master,” completely disoriented after its first viewing. Anderson threw me into this world, or more like lulled me into it thanks to Joanna Newsom‘s narrator Sortilège, and kept spinning me like a spinning top while exhaling marijuana smoke with Bob Marley-levels of thickness right into my face. “I’m glad I was there, loved hanging out with those people, don’t know what the fuck it was all about, can’t wait to be back.” That was my insta-reaction to”Inherent Vice.” I knew I had to see it at least once more before writing about it.
The second time around was a much more sober experience. I followed more closely, understood the Coy Harlingen and Sauncho Smilax characters more, but still got lost right before Martin Short makes his incredibly entertaining cameo. Understanding Harlingen and Smilax made me appreciate Owen Wilson blending into the film’s context surprisingly well just by being Owen Wilson, and Benicio Del Toro at his funniest best, respectively. The second time around, more importantly, I confirmed my impression that the film’s core themes are defined by Larry “Doc” Sportello’s (Joaquin Phoenix) relationships with, first, his ex old lady Shasta (Katherine Waterston, in breakthrough mode), and secondly, Bigfoot (Josh Brolin, giving an ultra-layered performance). And then, it hit me like a ton of bricks made of duh: every Anderson film is defined by the relationships of his characters. “Inherent Vice” is just the most elliptical Anderson film yet, and it’s deliberately confusing to the point of making you think the plot matters more than the characters. I felt ready to write.Read More Post a comment (0)
[Caution: this essay review contains spoilers in its last paragraph.]
After his “Death” trilogy (“Amores Perros,” “21 Grams,” “Babel“) Alejandro González Iñárritu took an even more depressing route. Instead of swallowing the proverbial chill pill by directing something lighter, looser, something with a sliver of optimistic verve in its veins, he went ahead and made the ultimate downer of his filmography: “Biutiful.” Nothing against the film itself (it personally moved me to no end, and I believe it contains the best performance Javier Bardem has ever delivered), but it’s bleak as all fuck. Despite his stupendous critical success with all four, the Mexican director clearly needed a mood swing. And he’s swung so successfully with “Birdman;” he must feel like he’s flying just as highly as his protagonist does. But, “Birdman” doesn’t mean a change in approach. If you’ve already fancied Iñárritu pretentious with his unsubtle direction, non-linear story lines, and imbalanced tones (I’m merely playing devil’s advocate here), “Birdman” could make you sick to your stomach with how unapologetically contrived it is. This contrivance, this forced artificiality, I argue, is the film’s greatest virtue.Read More Post a comment (1)
It’s almost the end of 2014, and by now people must be getting real sick of all the Year End articles, listing out the Best films, the Worst films, the Best Scenes, the Most Overrated, Underrated, etc. etc. It’s December, after all, when the entire film writing community seems to funnel out the same exact articles in various shades. But, as I’ve said in my own Top 20 feature, which you can now read on The Playlist, these lists are necessary for critics to get the word out about themselves and their peculiar tastes. Even ranking “Boyhood” as number 1 or number 8 tells you something different about that individual.
Anywho, some of the year’s greatest year-end articles for me are the ones that tend to delve into the art of film a little more through shots (examples include The Playlist’s Top 12 Shots of the Year, The Dissolve’s Shot of the Year, Kris Tapley’s 10 Shots of the Year – even though I begrudgingly add that last one since I’m not a fan of his self-stroking style). Considering this, I thought I’d churn out my final list before the year closes. It’s one that I’ve had great pleasure thinking about and compiling, because these frames (whether I liked the overall film or not) stuck with me, stunned me, and struck me with awe. Whether it’s because of their sheer aesthetic beauty, the weight of their emotional baggage, or all of the above, these single frames lingered on long after the final credits rolled and are truly, in every sense of the word, unforgettable.
Jump the cut to see why movies are paintings in disguise.Read More Post a comment (0)
Paul Thomas Anderson is the bee’s knees. If you were to have every working American director in a single room for an emergency meeting, PTA would be the spokesperson and everyone would shut the fuck up as soon as he took the mic. Same goes for David Fincher and Terrence Malick (though, the latter wouldn’t be getting up on any stage.) Anderson’s debuted in 1996 with “Hard Eight” (also known as “Sydney“), and it was already obvious how well he directs actors and how fantastically in tune he is with music and sound. While it also showed signs of things to come as far as the father-son motifs and smooth slicing of American values go, it wasn’t until “Boogie Nights,” the year after, that people started to realize this guy is good. This guy is really, really, fucking good.
Today, he’s one of the best, and he’s been the epicentre of a critical circle jerk for undeniably good reasons. His actors usually get some kind of award recognition (Julianne Moore, Tom Cruise, Bill Reynolds, Daniel Day-Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, etc.) and even when his themes are too dark for cookie-cutter-loving voters, he might walk away with a nomination or two (as in the case of “There Will Be Blood“). He’s made 7 feature films by now, including his latest one “Inherent Vice,” which opened last Friday in limited fashion around NY and LA.
As my own little personal way of celebrating this modern auteur, this bonafide cinematic brainiac who will one day have libraries of books written about him, I’ve decided to talk about 10 perfect moments from his films. All of these moments reveal a perfect symbiosis of performance, writing and direction, often juxtaposing black humour with dark undertones, or simply gripped in the shackles of what makes us human.
A couple of provisos: since I’ve limited myself to 10, there will be nothing from “Hard Eight,” as much as that film is dear to me. Also, back off PTA fanboys; I realize that there are more than just 10 perfect moments in his films, but there’s no way I’m going to sit here and talk about everything that makes his cinema so fascinating because that’s a book and ain’t nobody got time for that. Not yet, anyway.
Jump the cut to read.Read More Post a comment (0)
I know, I know. Writing about 12 Philosophical Shots in Terrence Malick’s cinema, reviewing an Iranian black and white vampire film, and now talking about potential comic book roles. My “voice” echoes all over the place and I’m a total cinematic inbetweener. That’s me! I love my arthouse stuff as much as I love to think about all the potential, untapped, comic book material out there still waiting to be exploited by Hollywood. (Well, OK, I love my arthouse stuff more). This newest Grapevine article is all about the mainstream casting director freak in me, though, looking at potential actors who would fit perfectly into a comic book setting, but weirdly haven’t been cast in any comic book role as of yet.
So, we’ve all heard how Benedict Cumberbatch officially signed on for Marvel’s “Doctor Strange,” and how the cast of “Suicide Squad” is ballistic. Given the level of dominance the comic book movie has had ever since Bryan Singer‘s “X-Men,” it’s only natural that every actor considers – or is considered for – comic book roles. Come to think of it, these days it’s more surprising to hear that a popular actor hasn’t been in a comic book movie or TV show yet. Well, say hello to this article.
Whether they’ve never lost their popularity, or they’re trying to regain it, here’s a group of well-established actors who have the experience and the eccentricity, but not a single comic book character between them. For fans of the genre, here’s the good news; comic books and graphic novels (for the purposes of this article, the term comic book bundles both) have plenty of untapped material still left to be explored, and not just in the standard Marvel and DC superhero stories we’re all so familiar with.
In light of the Cumberbatch and “Suicide Squad”casting news, and in an effort to look ahead at future adaptations that can provide something more than just pretty special effects and superhero worship, this article is going to match up 12 actors with his or her perfect comic book character, yet to be seen in live-action form.Read More Post a comment (3)