You know, you’re half smart, Ocean.

– Willy Bank

Soderbergh and company wanted to conclude the Ocean’s saga with Ocean’s Thirteen. This installment is a return of form with the gang returning to their roots in Las Vegas. I am glad that everyone returned to the slick caper story like the first movie.

During their absences between capers, the gang is reunited when Reuben suffers a cardiac infarction when a deal with an egomaniacal property owner, Willy Bank (Al Pacino) goes south. When one of the Twelve is wronged, a price needs to be paid. Danny pays Willy a visit when he was at the construction of his place, The Bank Casino.

The Bank Casino is an extravagant showplace with no expense spared with its marble floors and golden silverware. Willy wants to win another “Five Diamond” necklace for the best hotel in terms of customer service and overall cleanliness. Willy’s right-hand woman, Abigail (Ellen Barkin) is his eyes and ears to see if anybody would do anything during their soft opening.

Danny and Rusty seek the advice of Roman to find a way to seek revenge on Willy before the official opening of The Bank Casino on July 3rd. After some brainstorming, the team decides to destroy Willy from the inside out. First, they have to get inside of the building by bribing the lead concierge, Debbie (Olga Sosnovska), rig all of the games so the gamblers win, create a seismic event and distract a “Five Diamond” critic (David Paymer).

If they pull off this feat, they could get away with over $500 million dollars and at the same time bankrupt Willy Bank in the process. As their plan goes along, they realized that they bit off more than they can chew. Begrudgingly, they seek the help of Terry Benedict to help them carry out the mission.

First, what was up with Al Pacino’s skin? He was fluorescent orange. He was tanoxeric. It distracted me. I’m glad that they recaptured some of the magic from the first movie. I have a problem with some of the lighting. The shadowy scenes muddled everything. Nothing popped out of the screen. Soderbergh ended the series of a good note.

Judgment: If you want to see a return to form, watch this movie.

Rating: ***1/2

Terry, I can’t predict the future. I pay professionals to do that, and even they get it wrong sometimes.

– Reuben

After the massive success of the first movie, Soderburgh and company came back together for Ocean’s Twelve. This setting and story are dramatically different from the glitz and glamour from the first incarnation. Instead of the bright lights of the Las Vegas, the Eleven are focused their attention on Europe. I think that this was a mistake, because it hurt the caper aspect of the story.

When the Eleven successful pilfered Terry Benedict out of his $150 million dollars at the ending of the first movie, (spoiler alert) the beginning show how the gang was doing during the three and a half since the heist. Most of them spent some or all of their $13 million dollars cut.

They get a rude awakening when Benedict tracks them all down wherever they were hiding. He offers them a chance to correct their mistakes by stealing his money. Benedict gives them two weeks to return the money with interest, which is roughly $200 million dollars, or he will kill them.

The gang has a pow-wow to discuss how they could get the money is that short amount of time. They decide to go to Amsterdam to meet up with Matsui (Robbie Coltrane), who gives them an assignment to steal the world’s oldest stock certificate from 1602 worth $2.5 million Euros.

When they do, they realize that a famous cat burglar named “The Night Fox” (Vincent Cassel) got the stock first. Not only that, but the team realizes that The Night Fox made the call to Benedict that ratted them out.

The Night Fox issues a challenge to the Ocean’s Eleven to steal a Coronation Faberge Egg from exhibit in Paris. They want to beat The Night Fox at their own game. Eleven becomes Twelve when they enlist the help of Roman (Eddie Izzard) to help pull off the switch-a-roo.

This movie as a whole is not well executed. The dialogue was not up to par. The scenes dragged on way too long. I was bored to tears. The movie looks grainy. The interaction with the members felt clunky and stagy. There wasn’t the synergy from the first outing. I was disappointed with this movie, especially the last thirty that fell off the tracks.

Judgment: This is one of the instances that the sequel is not better than the original.

Rating: **1/2

You guys are pros. The best. I’m sure you can make it out of the casino. Of course, lest we forget, once you’re out the front door, you’re still in the middle of the fucking desert!

– Reuben

Breaking away from his trademark quirky sensibility, Steven Soderbergh remade the 1960s Rat Pack classic heist film, Ocean’s Eleven. Instead of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Sammie Davis, Jr., the main leads are George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon. Quite a departure. Soderbergh has some success with mainstream movies; I think that his subsequent Ocean’s trilogy exposed himself more to the mainstream consciousness.

Re-channeling his Out of Sight persona, George Clooney plays the titular Danny Ocean that is recently paroled after four years. When he is released, he goes to old stomping grounds to reconnect with his former crewmembers, travel across the country to reconnect with the poker teacher to the stars, Rusty (Pitt).

Ocean’s plan is to steal “x” amount dollars from three casinos, the Bellagio, the Mirage and the MGM Grand all of them owned Las Vegas casino owner, Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia). He would need a large crew at least a dozen to pull off the multiple cons needed to pull off the heist.

Seeing that they need a way inside the way, Danny and Rusty pay a visit to a former casino owner that was wronged by Benedict and knows the ins and outs of the security system, Reuben (Elliott Gould). After he is in, the rest of the crew is assembled like Frank (Bernie Mac), two drivers the twins, Virgil and Turk (Casey Affleck, Scott Caan), electronic expert Livingston (Eddie Jemison), explosives Basher Tarr (Don Cheadle), a “grease man” Yen (Shaobo Qin), Saul (Carl Reiner) and last but not least, master of disguise, Linus (Damon).

They have pow-wow to lay out the foundation of this impossible feat. If they succeed, they stand to get 150 million dollars when the casinos are distracted from an upcoming fight between Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko that same day. In order to let the heist run slowly, they have to lay the groundwork like plant a device on the casino’s closed circuit camera, recreating the vault to practice, the daily routine of their mark.

While relaying the routine of Benedict, Linus thought it would be a good idea to enlist the help of Benedict’s main squeeze, Tess (Julia Roberts) who was also Danny’s ex-wife. Danny’s ulterior motive becomes clear that steals the money is not his only motivation. He wants to get Tess back.

The movie is slick and a little too polished. I had the same problem with this movie as I did with Spike Lee’s Inside Man. I don’t like it when a filmmaker talks down the audience. We don’t need to know every single detail that needed to be explained. When the heist was taking place, I didn’t believe that these people would be able to pull that off. The only person that I liked was Andy Garcia. He has a permanent stoic look on his face that works well with his dickish Terry Benedict.

Judgment: Have a good time with Ocean and the gang in this solid remake.

Rating: ****

[Somehow this film slipped through the cracks in my trying to get this blog up to speed. I saw it in August or something like that.]

Che: Part One is – surprise! – the first part of a two-part biography of Che Guevara by Steven Soderbergh, starring Benicio del Toro.

Plot:
Che Guevara (Benicio del Toro) is a young Argentinian doctor who meets revolutionary thinker Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir). Together they build a guerilla troup of supporters for their cause: to free Cuba from US-friendly dictator Fulgencio Batista.

The acting was very good and the movie was beautifully shot but unfortunately it was also so very boring… And it was damn confusing for people like me who didn’t know the story perfectly already. [I know much of what was going on, but not in any depth.] That’s why I didn’t even bother to watch the second part, despite my admiration of Benicio del Toro.

As I said, the cast was absolutely amazing, especially Benicio del Toro. First of all, he got the advantage to really look like Che, but that’s not all that there’s to it. He perfectly captures Che’s charisma, is rhetoric skills and his determined single-mindedness.

The rest of the cast wasn’t bad either. But what probably struck me most is how many good looking men there were crawling through the forests. [I'm afraid that reality looked differently, but this movie won't convince me of that. ]

But I guess that already points to the problem I had with the film: Everything else seemed to be more interesting than what was actually going on on screen. And I think that I have to blame the script by Peter Buchman for that (unless a whole lot of it ended up on the cutting room floor). The story was jumbled together, most of the characters were never properly introduced and half of the time I wasn’t sure what exactly was going on. It’s one thing to avoid and info dump, but quite another to not give information necessary for the understanding of the plot: There is a middle ground for that.

Also, I thought that the film painted Che maybe in a bit of a too good light – he was so noble and honorary and… I don’t know it just felt like they tried to hide his ruthlessness (and believe me, without ruthlessness [so to say, with ruth] Che would have never achieved what he did achieve) and everything that might compromise his image as an idol. [That's probably because the whole thing was based on his autobiography.]

Summarising: It would have been a good movie if the script would have delivered what the cast and the look promised. As is, it was more of a mess. A boring one at that.

It is hard to believe that this colorful and globetrotting tale of conspiracy, embezzlement, covert surveillance, and due process all spins on a humble amino acid known as lysine. Based closely on real-life events, this story has its origins in the Midwestern head offices of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), an enormous but little known agribusiness conglomerate. Told from the perspective of Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), a brilliant biochemist and divisional vice president, the drama initially concentrates on a possible act of industrial sabotage by an international competitor of ADM. However, when the FBI are called in to investigate, Whitacre voluntarily reveals details of an even greater act of white-collar crime and ends up spending the next two and a half years covertly helping the Bureau to build its case against his fellow conspirators.

“So far, so what?” you might think and you would have a point. For director Steven Soderbergh does play up the mind-numbing aspects of corporate working life – be it the rigor mortis of monthly accounts meetings, the banality of business travel, the unavoidable conversations with dullards, or the hamster-wheel obsession with promotion and bonuses. However, there is something rather unusual taking place at the same time – be it Marvin Hamlisch’s incongruously jaunty score, the various incidents of histrionic dialogue or behaviour, or the surprisingly brisk pace at which events unfold.

Above all, though, there is the curious figure of Mark Whitacre. Right from the outset, there is the puzzling question of whether he is a genius or a madman. On the surface, he seems like a highly successful executive with a wife, a family, a large home, and a garage filled with sports cars. Yet he willingly breaks ranks on the scandal that his company is involved in and gleefully dives into the role of being an undercover operative. Equally, there are no definitive answers to be found in Whitacre’s frequent voiceovers on subjects as diverse as how polar bears know that their noses are black, the pronunciation of his favourite German word (kugelschreiber, in case you were wondering), and the plot of Michael Crichton’s Rising Sun.

In playing the role, Damon treads a careful line between being eccentric and a buffoon with some success. Unfortunately, his role suffers, as does the overall film, from an even more hectic, increasingly unglued, and seemingly repetitive final third. Equally, the failure to develop ancillary characters such as Witacre’s wife (Melanie Lynskey) and the two FBI officers (Scott Bakula and Joel McHale) leads to some frustratingly unanswerable questions being asked at this stage. At the same time, Soderbergh does deserve credit for developing such a curious tone for a fact-based film about corporate greed – a mixture of aloof observation and offbeat humour. Admittedly, it does not quite come off as an idea, but it still sounds far better than The Men Who Stare at Goats!

Abbiamo visto un altro film di Soderbergh in bianco e nero, intitolato The good German, in italiano Intrigo a Berlino, anno 2006 o giù di lì. E’ stato ricreato un bianco e nero d’epoca perfetto, l’ambientazione ricreata non si distingue dalle immagini di repertorio degli anni ‘40, un’illusione totale. La trama è bella.

Ho pensato consecutivamente a due cose.

La prima è che dovrei ricordarmi di non consultare la critica cinematografica, nemmeno dopo aver visto i film, perché influenza negativamente la mia percezione, anche a posteriori, è incredibile. Mi è capitato scorrendo velocemente dei pareri dati a vanvera su Intrigo a Berlino.

La seconda è che in certi casi, al contrario, approfondire permette di apprezzare ancora meglio. Mi è capitato recentemente con il saggio David Lynch non perde la testa di David Foster Wallace, imperdibile. Grazie a questa lettura, penso e ripenso a Strade Perdute da giorni, ma non dico niente a tal proposito perché Claudia lo deve ancora leggere (il saggio). Credo che ci ritorneremo a breve, dopo avere rivisto il film.

Forse la conclusione banale è che è difficile trovare una critica intelligente e interessante.

Steven Soderbergh kręcąc “Che” poszedł z jednej strony na łatwiznę, z drugiej, podjął się wyzwania. Łatwizna polegała na lotnym temacie, tyleż kontrowersyjnym, co wciąż aktualnym w debacie publicznej. Pod tym względem “Che” Guevara był zawsze wdzięcznym obiektem dla komercyjnych przedsięwzięć – tabuny lewicowych che-lovers zawsze wiernie wydadzą pieniądze aby usiąść w jednym (kinowym) rzędzie z che-hatersami, którzy równie wiernie, nieco masochistycznie, sprawdzają kolejne wersje mitu. Druga strona medalu to właśnie fala krytyki, która ciągnie się za Ernesto Guevarą, przekładająca się na każdego kto próbuje ukazywać w korzystnym świetle kubańskiego rewolucjonistę z Argentyny.

Nie będę może pisał o swojej osobistej opinii na temat Guevary, napiszę jednak, że miałem choć trochę nadzieji, że Soderbergh spróbuje temat podjąć z nieco obiektywnej pozycji. Wszelkie wątpliwości zostały jednak rozwiane gdy dowiedziałem się (widz dowiaduje się tego pod koniec filmu), że scenariusz oparty został o “Epizody Wojny Rewolucyjnej” czyli ni mniej ni więcej na pamiętnikach samego Che. Nigga please. Kwestię obiektywizmu możemy więc odsunąć na bok – zresztą łagodność i pobłażliwość rewolucji rzuca się od razu w oczy.

Jak to wygląda więc z punktu widzenia samego obrazu, estetyki i formy? Nijak. Film nuży, jest chaotyczny, wizualnie kompletnie żaden, podobnie zresztą fabularnie. Trochę tu ideologii rewolucyjnej, trochę scen z życia partyzantów, trochę dialogów Che – Castro, ale wszystko zdaje się bezsensowne, prowadzące do nikąd. Po zakończeniu filmu ma się wrażenie pustki. Ten film to ok 2 godzin epizodycznych scenek spisanych przez samego “Che”, pokazanych w przeciętny sposób, przeplatanych fragmentami przemówień Ernesto, w których słyszymy wyświechtane slogany socjalizmu. Ani to ładne, ani to ciekawe, ani to szokujące, ani pouczające, ani prawdziwe. Pytam się więc, po co?

]]> http://windinthetrees.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/serious-men-the-coens-and-soderbergh-against-the-world/ Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:21:01 +0000 hotspur http://windinthetrees.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/serious-men-the-coens-and-soderbergh-against-the-world/

Is it just me or did anybody else get The Informant! and A Serious Man a little mixed up? You vaguely knew that the Coen Brothers directed one and Steven Soderbergh directed the other, but you couldn’t quite keep them straight, right? (No? Maybe it was just me). For years now the Coen Brothers and Steven Soderbergh have been dividing up the work of making the smartest, most beautifully-crafted, halfway-serious, semi-indie films out there, but until this fall I’ve never really thought of them in the same breath, and that’s despite both of their close connections with George Clooney (who appears in neither of these films, even though he seems to be in every other film out right now). But then The Informant! and A Serious Man were released within two weeks of each other and it got me thinking.

Joel and Ethan Coen are, respectively, 8 and 5 years older than Soderbergh. All three of them have been making films since the mid ’80s. Though the Coen aesthetic is easier to pin down than the Soderbergh aesthethic (Soderbergh being far more restlessly adventurous and experimental) their filmographies have much in common. Both (if I can refer to the Coens as a single entity from now on) have made noiry thrillers (Blood Simple; The Underneath) and both have made comic thrillers (Fargo; the Ocean trilogy); both have made jail-break movies starring Clooney (O Brother Where Art Thou?; Out of Sight); both have made ravishing black and white fables (The Man Who Wasn’t There; Kafka); both have essayed left-of-field remakes (The Ladykillers; Solaris); both have contributed short films to portmanteau projects (the Coens to Paris, je t’aime and Chacun son cinema, Soderbergh to Eros). And both have won Oscars and Palmes d’Or.

Above all, both are incredibly fast-working and prolific. The Coens have made half their 14 features in this decade alone. But Soderbergh trumps that, making almost as many features (12, or even 13 if you count Che as two films) in the ’00s than the Coens have made in total, not to mention a TV series (K Street). But the Coens write all their own material, while Soderbergh, who started out as the archetypal writer-director with Sex, Lies and Videotape seems to rely more these days on other screenwriters. The Coens moonlight as their own editor under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes, while Soderbergh (who also moonlights occasionally as his own editor under the pseudonym Mary Ann Bernard) works as his own cinematographer under the pseudonym Peter Andrews (and is one of the best cinematographers in Hollywood at that).

Which brings us to The Informant! and A Serious Man: two very different films which could hardly be more alike. Two films about bespectacled Midwestern suburban putzes who wear their pants too high and feel that the world is against them. Both films had little fanfare before they started getting themselves noticed this summer (The Informant! with its Saul Bass-y poster, A Serious Man with its what-is-it trailer) then premiering within a day of each other at the Toronto Film Festival (though The Informant! had bowed four days earlier in Venice) and opening theatrically within three weeks of their premiere. (Though both directors have appeared in one of the previous two New York Film festivals, I would assume that the NYFF must have rejected both these new works). Though the films have widely differering budgets ($7 million for A Serious Man, $22 million for The Informant!) neither really looks particularly more expensive than the other, with the big difference in cost being the casting: Soderbergh has Matt Damon, while the biggest names in A Serious Man are Richard Kind and Fyvush Finkel (the film’s star Michael Stuhlbarg being better known on Broadway). Though A Serious Man is a film about Judaism (or is it about Jewishness?) and The Informant! is a film about Capitalism (or is it about greed?), the two films have a similar setting and a similar darkly humorous tone. Both films were shot on location (A Serious Man in Minneapolis MN and The Informant! in Decatur IL) and spend equal time in suburban living rooms, kitchens and driveways, offices, and motels. In both films FBI men arrive on doorsteps and bosses linger in office doorways making veiled threats.

Larry Gopnik in the Coen film is a Job-like figure who suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (Stuhlbarg played Hamlet in Central Park last summer in preparation) while Damon’s Mark Whitacre is a man who, though even more paranoid than Gopnik, is more the agent of his own demise. Both ultimately are company men (and scientists no less) just trying to work their way up the ladder—Whitacre as a biochemist at a giant Midwestern corporation, Gopnik as a physics professor at a small Midwestern university.

One of the biggest differences between these serious men, beyond their religion, is their wives. One has the most supportive wife in living memory. The other, the least. If you’ve seen either you’ll know what I mean.

Due to the presence of Damon and the backing of Warner Brothers, The Informant opened with a $10 million weekend, has played on up to 2,505 screens and  has grossed $33 million to date. A Serious Man (distributed by Focus Features) had a $251,000 opening weekend, has played on up to 262 screens and has grossed $7.5 million. But A Serious Man is the better reviewed film (79 metacritic rating, 86% rotten tomato rating, against The Informant!’s 66 and 76%) and looks to play longer.

Adding to the confluence of these films is that I feel almost exactly the same way about them. I enjoyed them both a lot and was a little dissatisfied by them at the same time. If I had to recommend one over the other it would be A Serious Man, but only just.

And then, of course, there are the posters. Assume the position…

Who wouldn’t watch a show about a big fat guy?

Written By: Lem Dobbs
Directed By: Steven Soderbergh

It doesn’t matter where or when The Limey takes place. Time is distorted, the film moves forward and it moves backward with free will. We can’t control what we see, when we see it or how we see it. The only man with any control is Wilson, his dogmatic devotion to avenging his daughter puts him in a place where he knows the when, where and how even when we don’t. I’m sure if you break it down long enough and hard enough a linear timeline can be formed out of The Limey, but that would defeat the purpose. The viewer isn’t supposed to be in control of what they are seeing, only Wilson is afforded that luxury.

For me two things propelled The Limey above standard revenge fare, the direction of Steven Soderbergh and the acting from Terence Stamp as Wilson. The two work hand in hand, whether this was as a result of Stamp going along with Soderbergh or Soderbergh working off of the performance of Stamp I don’t know. I don’t think we need to know why The Limey ends up as such a harmonious picture, we just need to recognize that it is such a unique union of talent.

One of the reasons I loved Traffic so much was because of the talents Soderbergh put on display as a director. The Limey isn’t as full of depth in the directing department, but that’s not to say that The Limey is lacking in the direction department. I thoroughly loved how Soderbergh played with time and space, both in static shots and in how he edited around any sort of linear narrative. By removing the linear aspect Soderbergh creates a vehicle for the obsessive nature of one man, and by cutting off the usual methods through which the audience gains their knowledge he forces the viewer to go along for the ride.

Despite his terrific turn in The Limey I will always view Terence Stamp as General Zod. I didn’t even like Superman II that much, but he created such an iconic character in that role that I will always remember him as the good General. Stamp chooses to toss himself completely into the role of Wilson in The Limey. I believe that he recognized early on how much the movie would depend on his performance and he made sure his performance wasn’t lacking. He is dogged, he is hard, he is believable, there is grit just as much as there is sorrow and longing. You fear his character a tad bit while cheering him on at the same time. It may not be the role I will remember him the most for, but Stamp as Wilson in The Limey may be his best role.

There are some odd moments in The Limey, moments that feel like they could have been done away with. I enjoyed Stacy a fair deal, but his storyline and that of the DEA/whoever the heck those black dudes were could have been done away with. Neither was done badly, but they do distract from the singular pulse of Wilson’s quest to find and kill the man who murdered his daughter. Still, that singular pulse manages to carry The Limey past even those rough points. It’s certainly not an original premise, but The Limey feels like a unique experience thanks to the performance of Stamp and the touches Soderbergh adds to the production. Every once in a while you need a good old fashioned bad ass revenge tale to make you smile, the next time you need that, make yours The Limey.

Rating:

***1/2

Cheers,
Bill

Another play about Casey Anthony and beloved Caylee’s death created by Steven Soderbergh (who directed films Erin Brockovich and Ocean’s Eleven)

Tot Mom is scheduled to run from December 18 through January 31 at the Sydney Theater Company in Australia.

Casey stands to make no royalties from the play, as it’s based on official documents and coverage of the case.

Purchuse your $30 AU Ticket

http://www.sydneytheatre.com.au/2009/tot-mom

Unbelievable

Compelling

Les Voyeurs #88 – Des Voyeurs dans l’avion

Diffusion le : jeudi 19 novembre 2009 à 18h sur Radio Grille Ouverte
vendredi 20 novembre 2009 à 18h sur Radio 16.
Rediffusion le samedi 21 novembre 2009 à 10h sur RGO.
En téléchargement pendant une semaine ici.
Et en écoute permanente là.

Actualité

Capitlism – A Love Story : Sortie au cinéma le 25 novembre 2009 du nouveau film de Michael Moore.
Spiderman 4 : Confirmation de la présence au casting de l’acteur Dylan Baker, interprétant le personnage du Dr Connors, devenant dans la BD le super-vilain Le Lézard.
Buffy, la tueuse de vampires : une web-série animée adaptant la 8ème saison des aventures en comics de la tueuse de vampires, va bientôt voir le jour, faisant donc suite à la 7ème saison de la série TV.
Delta Blues : la série créée en 2008 par Joshua Harto et produite par Georges Clooney à enfin trouvé son acteur principal en la personne de Jason Lee (le héros de “Earl”).
Prince of Persia – Les Sables du Temps :  Le prince de Perse doit combattre un Vizir rebelle désireux de s’emparer des Sables du Temps, un artefact conférant à son possesseur le contrôle du Temps. Adaptation cinéma de la célèbre licence de jeux vidéos. Réalisé par Mike Newell. Avec Jake Gyllenhaal. Sortie France 26 mai 2010. BA visible en VF pourrie ou VO HD.
L’actualité des Arcades : A l’origine ; L’Imaginarium du Dr Parnassus, Le Ruban Blanc (en VO), Away We Go, Micmacs à tire larigot, 2012, Twilight chapitre 2 : Tentation, Saw VI.
Les Beaux Gosses : Le beau coffret collector du film est disponible depuis le 12 novembre. Contient le film en édition collector 2DVD mais également le CD de la BO du film et surtout le “manuel pratique du puceau” !! Dépêchez-vous c’est pas cher !
L’actu du Sémaphore de Nîmes : L’Imaginarium du Dr Parnassus (en VO), mais aussi le film qui n’est plus à Alès et c’est dommage Panique au village !. Le Sémaphore organise également jusqu’au 26 janvier 2010 des projections des grands classiques du cinéma italien dont Affreux, sales et méchants, Les Monstres, Le Fanfaron, Hier aujourd’hui demain, L’Étranger. Plus de détails sur la programmation sur le site du cinéma ici => Sémaphore.

Dossier de la semaine : Des Voyeurs dans l’avion

La saga des “Airport”

Airport (1970) de Georges Seaton
Airport 75 (747 en péril – 1975) de Jack Smight
Airport 77 (Les Naufragés du 747 – 1977) de Jerry Jameson
Concorde : Airport 79 (Airport 80 Concorde – 1980) de David Lowell Rich

Les vols de l’extrême

L’Étoffe des Héros (The Right Stuff – 1983) de Phillip Kaufman
Des serpents dans l’avion (Snakes on a plane – 2006) de David R. Ellis
Des Zombies dans l’avion (Flight of the Living Dead : Outbreak on a plane – 2007) de Scott Thomas
Les Ailes de L’Enfer (Con-Air – 1997) de Simon West
Flight Plan (2004) de Robert Schwentke
Air Force One (1997) de Wolfgang Pertersen
Independence Day (1996) de Roland Emmerich
Die Hard 4 – retour en enfer (Die Hard 4.0 – 2007) de Len Wiseman

Les avions “cartoons” : les Z.A.Z. aux commandes

Les avions du futur

Furtif (Stealth – 2005) de Rob Cohen
D.A.R.Y.L. (1985) de Simon Wincer
Firefox, l’arme absolue (1982) de et avec Clint Eastwood

Coups de Cœur

Les Chevaliers du Ciel (2005) de Gérard Pirès
Aviator (2004) de Martin Scorsese

La bande originale de la semaine :

Papa Loves Manbo par Perry Como
Extrait de la bande originale du film Ocean’s Eleven (2001) de Steven Soderbergh

Chronique : La Carte Postale Sétoise

L’Enfer d’Henry-Georges Clouzot de Serge Bromberg et Ruxendra Medrea

Musique :
Who’s Driving Your Plane ? par The Rolling Stones

Extraits :
Airport 75 (747 en péril)
Des Serpents dans l’Avion
Firefox, l’arme absolue

Présentation : Cédric Cance, Erik Antolin, Jérôme Bauzon
Chronique : l’irremplaçable Jan Jouvert !
Technique : Jérémie Adrian

I love science fiction and I was very excited to hear that an intelligent and thought-provoking director like Steven Soderbergh was going to tackle outer space with the man who spawned the Terminator, James Cameron. With juggernauts like that and a very likeable leading man in George Clooney, what could this film not have going for it?

Soderbergh’s first journey into science fiction is a remake of a 1972 Russian film entitled, Solyaris. The original was dubbed “the Russian 2001″ and found a cosmonaut getting reacquainted with his long dead wife while orbiting the planet Solaris. It was deep, sensitive and even echoed some of the Russian ideals and thoughts of its time.

In the remake Clooney is Chris Kelvin (same name from the original film) an astronaut who comes to a nearly deserted space station to uncover a mystery. While investigating, Kelvin begins being haunted by his dead wife, Rheya (played by Natasha McElhone). Kelvin finds himself drifting away from reality as he comes face to face with why he maybe lost his wife.

The set-up and sentiment is sound in the remake but this isn’t a 1970s science fiction film that uses its characters to reflect on Russian morals and ideals during the Cold War. Instead we are stuck with Clooney and McElhone who seem like too oddest of couples because there is little or no chemistry between these fateful lovers.

The love between these actors is so forced I felt like I had just switched on a re-run of “Days of Our Lives”. Then the film’s photography finds itself panning and zooming into McElhone’s face as it tries to show her through Clooney’s eyes.

Well if it were me I think he would be thinking, “Hmmm, did I brush today?” or “Boy, is my butt cold!”

As the film drifted from the importance of solving the space station’s mystery and problems and focused on Clooney dealing with a distraught McElhone. I so wanted there to be some sort of space station disaster that would at least ignite some sort of release from the film’s continuous mediocrity. I have seen snails with more gusto than this film.

There has been a lot of talk about the film’s scenes involving Clooney’s naked posterior. If it were McElhone’s posterior the film would probably get a “PG-13″ rating but since it’s a “man’s” butt it has to get an “R”. They show more on NYPD Blue for cryin’ out loud.

I believe that Soderbergh’s sentiment for the subject matter is sound and that he did his best to bring forth passion in the space of the film’s waterlogged 90 minutes. Next time, Steve, I suggest you cast someone Clooney enjoys kissing.

1 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Written: November 29, 2002

SPOILERS for Ocean’s 12 (not that you should care), and maybe Ocean’s 11, which is worth seeing, ahead.

Forced together by a very convenient plot device (i.e. do what the screenwriter says or you all die) which renders the ending of the last movie defunct (a common complaint in sequels), the same gang of crooks from Ocean’s 11 do some stuff to steal and make money. Yeah!

However this time they’re not after the money, unlike last time, when they were not after the money. Andy Garcia’s casino owner is replaced by a far more deadlier and noxious foe.

The Eurobag

Far too self-consciously “cute” and “witty” for its own good, this takes the essential formula of the first film and removes the drama and suspense. An example that particularly infuriated me:

A major part of the film involves Julia Roberts’ character Tess impersonating Julia Roberts. Then she meets Bruce Willis. Here’s a clip:

WHAT.

Steven Soderburgh even has the audacity to repeat a plot point from the first movie with Brad Pitt instead of George Clooney. They both chase ex-wives/ex-girlfriends, at the expense of the team, possibly putting them in danger. Except in the first film, it felt organic. The audience didn’t know about it until it was revealed to Matt Damon. Here, a clumsy prologue sequence spills all, and Brad Pitt spends the whole movie violating his own advice.

The problem is the audience knows too much and yet too little. Endless jumps in time and pointless trailing scenes don’t help, filling in character details or backstory that I don’t really care about or need to see. Again in Ocean’s 11 it was organic, and came out while they were planning the robbery (which was the plot of the film). Here it’s just a diversion.

The ticking clock plot device, designed to ramp up the tension in an inherently flat and dull story, doesn’t work. After setting up Andy Garcia as this incredible threat in the first film, he’s relegated to inciting incident duties. Once he’s given them time to give him his money back instead of killing them all as he threatened, he’s no longer bad-ass, and poses no threat at all.

In fact the only stakes in this movie is the shame of losing a stealing competition to a douchebag. Oh the shame! The big reveal – that the entire film we’ve been watching was just misdirection for the real theft, which is then shown only in flashback – is just a giant FU to the audience.

What? People pay to see this? That's funny to me!

Brad Pitt saves this movie. He is a very successful actor, somehow managing to maintain a lot of mainstream appeal while taking some really niche roles between the big fat pay-checks (like this one). He’s a great actor, no matter how many stupid Japanese coffee ads he’s done.

Another good point (I try to find at least a few) is the luscious cinematography. Each frame is beautifully composed and shot, to the point that I tuned out all the “plot” and wallowed in the visuals. More Amsterdam would have be nice – it’s one of my favourite cities.

Any good story-teller’s job is to disguise the form so theme and story can shine through. Completely the opposite is done in this movie, but I don’t mind. The story is so boring and the characters so vapid and untouchable that this is the only thing that can excite me.

Rating compared to original: The original felt fresh. It brought a new style and tone to the heist movie, and was one of those rare ensemble star-studded films that actually worked. Boy do the jokes age quickly here. The characters are annoying and outstay their welcome. There’s not even a clear heist that we can get behind. Time to ascribe an arbitrary number to it.

30% of original’s quality.

Bubble

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Guión: Coleman Hough

Intérpretes: Debbie Doebereiner, Omar Cowan, Dustin James Ashley,

 Laurie Lee, Misty Wilkins, Madison Wilkins, K. Smith

Música: Robert Pollard

Fotografía: Steven Soderbergh

Montaje: Steven Soderbergh

EEUU. 2005. 74 minutos

Indomeñable

Ubicamos esta Bubble en la parcela menos industrial/convencional de la filmografía de un realizador (/productor/guionista/director de fotografía) que, desde que destapara su condición de énfant terrible con la Palma de Oro obtenida con su opera prima, la influyente Sex, Lies & Videotapes, ha dado muestras de un carácter indomeñable y un sumo gusto por la experimentación, ello correspondido con la alternancia en su filmografía de obras y filones comerciales (la saga de Danny Ocean a la cabeza) con los más variados ejercicios cinematográficos experimentales, amén del fomento de nuevos valores mediante su faceta como productor ejecutivo (a menudo acompañado de su amigo George Clooney). Bubble, realizada en 2005 –justo después de Ocean’s Twelve-,  es la primera de seis películas de bajo presupuesto cuya realización el realizador pactó para ser estrenadas “day-and-date”, con inmediatez en cines, televisión por cable (HDNet) y DVD (algo que, por cierto, hizo poca gracia a los ejecutivos de la industria cinematográfica, si bien el fracaso de la película evitó que se avivaran más fuegos de controversia).

Frágil apariencia

El mayor interés del filme reside en los peculiares valores de su producción (cuyo presupuesto alcanzó apenas la cifra del millón y medio de dólares). La película fue rodada en una pequeña villa de Ohio, y en la propia localidad se efectuó el casting para contratar a los actores protagonistas, todos ellos no profesionales, a quienes, por lo demás, se les permitió (o inquirió) improvisar buena parte de los diálogos. Al parecer, las localizaciones correspondientes a los domicilios de los personajes correspondían en realidad a la morada auténtica de aquellos actores… En resumidas cuentas, Soderbergh pretendía vestir desde lo formal las premisas naturalistas que informan el relato, un relato que narra los avatares de un triángulo de personajes de anodina existencia y trabajo en una cadena de montaje en un lugar perdido del midwest americano cuya plácida convivencia y compañerismo se revela súbitamente nada más que una frágil apariencia. En su caligrafía, Soderbergh recurre a una exposición desnuda, diáfana, casi siempre planos congelados, muchos generales para ilustrar espacios y situaciones, otros medios para ilustrar conversaciones, siempre de corta duración, entre los que se cuelan primeros planos de vocación subjetiva, miradas de duda o desconfianza.

Leit-motiv

La verdad es que Bubble propone lo que llamamos cine social, una radiografía de formato verité, en la que se introduce un elemento propio de la serie negra abonando pesimistas tesis sociológicas, con ecos a la prosa nihilista de Jim Thompson. Resulta interesante el trenzado del relato recurriendo al leit-motiv de esas muñecas que los protagonistas manufacturan en la planta industrial en la que trabajan, y que acaba articulando la fuerza simbólica de tan lacónico relato, no por obvia menos interesante, precisamente por la astucia y capacidad de sugerencia de que Soderbergh da muestras al filmar esos plásticos (esas bubbles) que la máquina de Kyle moldea y a las que las mujeres ponen ojos, pelos, pestañas, o al inserir, al final, diversas muestras defectuosas que, gobernando el devenir narrativo, albergan la imagen del horror. Menos felices resultan las dos fugas visuales que muestran el enajenamiento de la asesina, primero en un banquillo en la iglesia y después entre rejas; amén de que esos insertos parecen una burda imitación de las imágenes paranoicas del cine de David Lynch, su obviedad es patente; para respetar el formato y tono del relato bastaba la elipsis en la que se deja el asesinato.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454792/

http://www.bubblethefilm.com/

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060126/REVIEWS/60117006/1023

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-01-17/film/welcome-to-the-doll-factory/

http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/2a460f93626cd4678625624c007f2b46/ac053c404121802f882570fe000c15ab?OpenDocument

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/37447/Bubble-Review.htm

http://www.theindependentcritic.com/bubble

http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=BUBBLE

Todas las imágenes pertenecen a sus autores

Although this New York company has visited us before, in 2004 as the Cedar Lake Ensemble, last weekend’s pair of shows at the Auditorium were a first look at the identity into which Cedar Lake Contemporary Ballet is settling under Benoit-Swan Pouffer, with whom I spoke last week. (His predecessor L. Jen Ballard’s brief and rocky tenure as artistic director is viewed by many, including myself, as something of a beta test.) They brought fifteen dancers and three one-act pieces for a program as strong as any of the incredible shows that have been seen here this year.

Cedar Lake dancers in Sunday, Again. Photo by Carina Musk-Anderson.

Opener Sunday, Again, by Jo Strømgren, worms its way into more emotional environments than the WASPy white costumes and prim Bach mixtape let on. Its first scene, a duet between Jason Kittelberger and Acacia Schachte, is peppered with abstract sight gags and tragicomic bits of nastiness, but also surprise poetry: the ripple of the back scrim as each in turn storms over to punch it was as moving as it was simple. The town-and-country ensemble appears in white socks for a series of dances that let the leitmotif—“luxury problems and gender frictions,” per Strømgren’s notes—sink in before the magnification of individual characters. Strømgren sneaks these sketches in with aplomb: Men stomp across the stage dragging a badminton net while Soojin Choi and Ana-Maria Lucaciu root around in each other’s crotches for a missing shuttlecock; Golan Yousef holds Ebony Williams aloft like an offering in front of 13 bodies rearranging themselves into a string of tableaux like some kind of pre-Raphaelite photo shoot. Transitions between scenes are often filled with chatter and noise unintelligible from the house but pointed specifically at the familiar (concerned whispering, nattering gossip). Sunday, Again maintains an open question about what it is until the very end, but its masterfully-composed arc feels complete nonetheless.

Silence, and selections from Cliff Martinez‘ soundtrack for Solaris (the Soderbergh, not the Tarkovsky), score Crystal Pite’s Ten Duets on a Theme of Rescue. The permutationally-paired-off quintet is visible only as bodies in space: Backlit by small spots on tall booms, the dancers’ faces are barely perceptible, leaving us to focus on Pite’s slippery use of manipulation (one performer often “puppets” another) and tricky cuttings-in. When it comes to movement invention, this Vancouver-based choreographer leaves most of her field in the dust: It’s difficult, especially in near-darkness, to follow how things are happening physically, but the pictures themselves speak clearly. This mystery and impact, combined and balanced, makes for a seriously-potent combination in the hands of Williams, Choi, Jubal Battisti, Jon Bond and Nickemil Concepcion. With regard to the prenominate theme, Pite slyly leaks out that it’s just as much about people not rescuing each other. A few moments, like a man running like mad to grasp a hand coldly extended from a speeding container, or a dancer caught from a fall for just a moment before being dropped to the ground, display the breadth with which Pite approached her subject.

Cedar Lake dancers in Ten Duets on a Theme of Rescue. Photo: Paul B. Goode.

Tucked inside Didy Veldman’s frame of view is the proverbial piece that’s half as long and twice as good. The nine-member cast attacked each vignette with all cylinders firing, but the strongest of them (Kittelberger’s Matrix-style fistfight with Harumi Terayama, beautiful solos for Schachte and Lucaciu) were dimmed by slack pacing and unnecessary interludes. Miriam Buether’s designs for the costumes (party clothes in a Dick Tracy palette) and scenery (a forced-perspective yellow box with three freestanding doors) occasionally grabbed more of my interest than what was happening in them. Still, frame of view’s best pictures have lingered the longest.

Cedar Lake’s repertoire is full of work by choreographers—Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui, Alexander Ekman, Hofesh Shechter, Jacopo Godani, Angelin Preljocaj—seldom if ever seen in Chicago, and its dancers are special, powerful beings. Presenters: Bring this company back, and soon.

Postscript: I’m not privy to the backstory on why this intensely image-conscious contemporary dance company chooses to include the words cedar, lake and ballet in its name, but I can’t imagine it’s doing brand recognition any favors, especially outside of New York. Sure, I’ve known of them long enough that I “see the brand” when I hear the name, but I can’t imagine the average culture vulture coughing up for single tickets to see something sexy and edgy from out of town is likely to find their way from Mediterranean woodlands and tutus to what’s really on offer. Just sayin’.

Hmm so here are some interesting looking trailers – some of which are coming to DVD and some of which may be out in a theater near you.  Certainly not near me, I never get anything cool.  Boo.

The Limits of Control – Jim Jarmusch

Really enjoyed both Broken Flowers and Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai, so I expect great things from this.  Especially with that cast list.

The Girlfriend Experience – Steven Soderbergh

Ok so, the trailer may either entice or bore you.  But I looked up a review and Roger Ebert gives this movie 4-stars, which I’ve rarely if ever seen, so if you put any stock in that sort of thing, it may make it worth checking out.  And check it out you can, at Blockbuster, where I’ve picked it up and put it down many times.  Soderbergh, of course, did all the Ocean movies (no need to put trailers on here) but one little movie he did that I loved and no one else saw:  Solaris with George Clooney. None of the trailers really tell you what the movie is about, so I won’t post them, suffice it to say that it’s worth checking out.  Maybe The GF Exp. is too.  If I do rent it, I’ll get back to you.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox – Wes Anderson

What can I say?  It’s Wes Anderson.  It could be a movie about a guy eating lunch and I’d line up to see it.  In case you don’t know awesome, Wes Anderson is responsible for Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic, and The Darjeeling Limited.  My favorite of which has to be Tenenbaums, though Darjeeling has struck a lasting chord with me.   Now he delves into animation, and while I am a little sad that it isn’t a typical Wes Anderson movie, I still will see it with glee come Thanksgiving.  Woo!

Antichrist – Lars von Triers

I actually can’t watch the trailer again because it creeps me out so much.  And it’s 1pm and sunny here.  This will be creepy and depressing as all hell, I can feel it now.

And that’s all I’ve got for now.  So here are some alternatives to 2012 and whatever else kindof mindless-FX crap will come out by Christmas.  By the way, I’ll probably be seeing 2012 soon, so I’m not hating, but I’m not expecting my brain to be stimulate, just my eyeballs and my manly need to see destruction.

________________________________________________________________________________________

” You just took our reservation? What kind of people are you?” - James Franco and Mila Kunis – Date Night – heh I didn’t think it looked good enough to post up top, but some awesome cameos!

Steven Soderbergh has pulled off a delicate balancing act with The Informant!, his newest film– he manages to satirize corporate crime without any preachiness. It’s a 1970s style character study meeting with broad farce. Soderbergh keeps the mostly true plot kicking along with irreverent narration by our untrustworthy protagonist and a bouncy Marvin Hamlisch score, and the end result is one of the funnier movies of the year. Matt Damon does his best work to date, in a performance reminiscent of Jack Lemmon, and Soderbergh shows that once again, his best work comes from working within the studio system… this is his best movie since Traffic.

Damon plays Mark Whitacre, an executive at Archer Daniels Midland, a food-processing conglomerate. After getting involved with the FBI on an attempt to stop an outsider from blackmailing the company, Whitacre is pushed by his wife (Melanie Lynskey) into telling FBI agent Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula) the truth about ADM– they’ve been fixing prices in the international lysine market. Agent Shepard and his partner, Agent Herndon (Joel McHale) jump at this opportunity to take down the crooks in a major corporate crime, and immediately put their trust in Whitacre, who sticks his neck out at great risk to himself, his family, and his way of life. There’s one big problem, however– Whitacre is a compulsive liar, and despite his good work in the field wearing a wire, time and time again his deceptions and delusions of grandeur make the agent ask… what in the world is wrong with this guy?

The take on this story is really where the film went right– Soderbergh decided instead of taking this in the direction of the usual corporate crime thriller (The Insider, etc.) to make it into a farce. Inspired move, Mr. Soderbergh, as I’ve never seen a film quite like this one before. It manages to make fun of the decisions Whitacre makes without ever being fully unsympathetic. Damon’s performance treats Whitacre as a quirky Ohioan everyman, whose mind wanders and who has big dreams. I have no doubts that the real Mark Whitacre felt the same way about himself before everything started to fall apart– the movie rings true, which is a remarkable feat when the events seem outrageous and the Marvin Hamlisch score sets a broad comedy tone.

It’s taken me a while to figure out exactly how to convey why this movie works as well as it does. Soderbergh took the subject of corporate crime, which is not funny, and a protagonist who in the end is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which also is not funny… and decided to try to make it funny. He cast many stand-up comedians (Paul F. Tompkins, Richard Daley, Patton Oswalt, Tom Papa) in small roles, added a farcical score, and turned the entire system into a big comedy of errors. There’s a commitment to the vision and a sure-handed execution by Soderbergh that make the whole affair compelling and warm. Finally, there’s Damon, who we find ourselves liking despite his lunacy. It’s the most fleshed-out, full-blooded performance of his career, and one would hope there’s an Oscar nomination in the works. He carries the film, gets big laughs, and at the end, even when his delusions of grandeur have destroyed his own life, we still are utterly drawn in. It’s as smart and ably executed a comedy as we’re liable to see all year long.

The Girlfriend Experience (2009) – Steven Soderbergh

Staring: Sasha Grey, Chris Santos

Viewed: 23 November 2009