Johnny Simmons

                

Into Temptation was released earlier in the year. Few saw it. I don’t doubt that ten years from now few will have seen it then, either. It happens to many films; some deserve it, many don’t. That’s Hollywood. I can’t be certain if Into Temptation is definitely a part of the latter. In fact, when I reviewed the film I had no substantial qualms about the C Grade I gave it. It’s not a perfect film by any means; unfortunately the inadequacies of the film shroud two good performances. The lead performance of Jeremy Sisto and the supporting turn that is the subject of this write-up.

         

Into Temptation’s advertising [minimal at best] would have us believe that Chenoweth is the co-lead. It’s not hard to see why. In a cast of no-names she’s the only real ‘star’. I suppose if you’re the type that found Rachel Weisz to be lead in The Constant Gardener, you’d find Chenoweth as lead here; but I digress. Her character is a prostitute who comes to confession after some years. She’s committing suicide in a few days and wants a final confession. In those first moments, we see as much as her as we do of Catherine Zeta-Jones in the first few minutes of Chicago – a hand, breasts, shoulders, but not much. What ensues is the priest [naturally] trying to find this woman and during this we get snippets of Chenoweth’s associations with a few people as she leaves goodbye notes for them.

              

The film is comfortable subjugating Kristin’s Joan to a mere plot point in the awakening of Jeremy Sisto’s priest and with a poster that suggests equal merits for the two, it’s a bit annoying. Linda is obviously a troubled young girl, and the flashbacks of her as a child only seem like the tip of the iceberg. Certainly, a suicidal prostitute is just a little too much of a cliché for its own good. For many scenes Kristin walks around silent, a look alone must convey the anguish she feels, and she does it beautifully. In a scene she says she planned on writing a suicide note, but then realised no one would see it. It's a depressing thought, but her delivery is what makes it so profound.

Into Temptation is a bit too trite for it’s own good and Kristin’s casting is a bit strange. A four foot eleven prostitute? Where have I heard that joke? To the director’s credit, her height isn’t elucidated. But to the writer’s discredit, Kristin is given little to do. However, that’s what makes the performance all the better though. So many women get served good roles, Kristin must work to make Linda memorable. Jeremy Sisto is admirable, but the entire film is waiting for that substantial piece of acting that Kristin gets to do at the end. And it’s a double edged sword. She does it well, no doubt; excellent even. But the writing is almost contrived that it could easily have gone awry in another’s hands. Luckily, it’s not another. It’s Kristin. If anything Into Temptation has convinced me that Kristin Chenoweth is capable of more than that bubbly effervescence we’ve come to love. Unfortunately, it’s one of those good performances that nobody saw. Or will ever see for that matter. Sucks.
           
I shall return later in the evening with two more entries.

Sunday is going to be a big day; but not for the reason you think. Sure, it's the Golden Globes and what not, but I'm so blase about the Oscar race and whatnot. Did you even hear the results of the BFCA? What did you think? Mo'Nique, Waltz, Streep [and Bullock], Bridges. Granted I haven't seen Crazy Heart yet, but it's still generic. Sure Mo'Nique and Waltz are fine, but...I don't know whatever. Moving on...

I've been digressing, but Sunday is a big day because Stinkyluli is hosting his Fourth Supporting Actress Blog-a-thon. I told you about this already and I fear that you thought I was merely jesting when I ordered you to participate. Well, I was not. Seriously, I wasn't. You still have about a day to write up a few words, lines or pages [asking too much?] on a Supporting Actress of your choice. It's been a good year for the Supporting Women, even though precursors are only noticing a few don't let them fool you. Just look at my banner.

Univarn gets retrospective on us and broods over not getting the appeal of some films, despite their critical and commerical success. Interesting thought, I know I missed the bus when it came to Up In the Air and The Hangover, and having just watched Precious for a second time I'm seriously re-thinking that B I gave it. I think I did give it too much. Sigh.

Nathaniel, Nick and Mike offer up another look at two Best Picture winners; this time Silence of the and Going My Way. Neither would have been my pick that year. What about you?

                 

Jose offers up a look at the Coens' A Serious Man. He tells me I should watch it, but what do you think. Should I?

And finally, rememeber that Kreativ Post. Well two more wonderful people have singled me out for it. I'm no Meryl Streep and acceptance speeches don't come to me that easily. I'll probably pull a Hepburn and stay home to avoid the pressure. Still, it would be incredibly remiss of me not to point the way to Danny and Nicholas. The former I've been reading for months and the latter I feel like a douche for not reading more often. They're both worthy of your time.

It’s no surprise that the most distant year of the last decade is also the most distant year in my memory. I probably have to do much catching up on the films released that year, so I’m going back to my original format for reviewing the years instead of drawing it out.

                   

Judi Dench in Chocolat 
...for taking what could be the ultimate sleepwalking performance and turning it into something that’s as funny as it is fulfilling. I know I’m alone on this one, but I find her glorious here.

                      

Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock  
...for taking the passionate artist and turning her into something pretty fantastic. Steals the show from Ed Harris? You bet. And that’s not easy.

                        

Julie Walters in Billy Elliot  
...for making her teacher role into something completely human and enjoyable. And just because she’s Julie Walters.

                

Kate Winslet in Quills 
... for doing more with her eyes than many do with multitudinous lines of dialogue.

                         

Catherine Zeta-Jones in Traffic  
...for standing by her man in true Latina fashion, and for showing the world than she could be more than Zorro’s wife.

Runners Up: Kate Hudson in Almost Famous, Lena Olin in Chocolat

Don Cheadle in Traffic
...for managing to stay in my memory even though the part isn’t that “big”, but mostly for that last scene of his.

Benicio Del Toro in Traffic
...for every scene he’s in. Yeah, he’s that good.

Willem Defoe in Shadow of a Vampire
...for turning in his best work and for being typical Oscar bait at its best while still breaking all the rules.

Albert Finney in Erin Brockovich
...for reacting to Erin just as we would and for making his Ed a true person.

       

Joaquin Phoenix in Quills  
...for doing this the same year as Gladiator and for making this character into something that wasn’t annoying.

Runners Up: Aaron Eckhart in Erin Brockovich Michael Douglas in Traffic, Alfred Molina in Chocolat, Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator

          

Runners Up: Jennifer Lopez in The Cell

          

What can I write about these five, they fight with 2003 for having the most distinguished set of women nominated and they got it right by my judgement.

         

Runners Up: Christian Bale in American Psycho, Jamie Bell in Billy Elliot

         

In such a good year for men it’s a pity that Bale, Bell and Ruffalo saw no love.

          

Daldry for Billy Elliot
...he earns point for this fulfilling debut and the start of an illustrious career.

Scott for Gladiator
...he directs it like the true epic that it is, faults and all

                      

Schanbel for Before Night Falls
...just because this could have been a generic thing...and it isn't...

            

...for making a biopic enjoyable, interesting and even laugh out loud funny. And for directing Julia to greatness.

          

...he manages to make each part interesting and good and the audience never gets bogged down by all the information.

Runners Up: Lasse Hallestrome for Chocolat, Kenneth Longergan for You Can Count On Me,  Ang Lee for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

          

Billy Elliot 
...because it’s pure fun. The end.

      

....because I love it to excess and because it’s a fairy tale that’s still believable even when it shouldn’t be.

             

...for the fact that it’s the kind of biopic I can get behind but mostly because it knows what to do with its cast.

       

Traffic 
...because it used to the ensemble cast to its fullest before it became the “in” thing to do.
           
You Can Count On Me
...because having a sibling can be both wonderful and horrible. 

                      

EVERYTHING I SAW: [Alphabetically]

I first came across word on Three Blind Mice when Glenn Dukes of Stale Popcorn vociferously championed it as the best film of the last year. The term ‘best of’ should never be taken lightly, especially from Glenn and they’re not wasted here. Three Blind Mice follows the experiences of three young seamen as we examine their last night before heading back out to sea. Such a premise, and even the beginning, suggest that a quirky comedy is on the way and although Three Blind Mice is definitely quirky, and even though a host of comedic elements are imbued in the narrative – the phrase quirky comedy seems too much like an underestimation.

            Newton, Schmitz, Lesie

Three Blind Mice begins and ends with its performances. It’s an ensemble in every sense of the word, where even the smallest characters have their time to shine – but of course the heart and soul [forgive the cliché] are the leading trio. Immediately after seeing it I could not quite decide on a favourite, but days later Ewen Leslie as the ostensible lead fades more and more from my memory. His performance is not bad, but I don’t find it as proficient as his co-stars even if he does have the most profound character. I will admit that his disconcerting resemblance to Michael Phelps threw me off for a few minutes. Toby Schmitz veered in and out of importance for the first thirty minutes, but there’s that confession of sorts he makes in a restaurant and it’s not so much his voice as it is his face when he delivers it. It’s especially moving, though not in the obvious way. Still, neither of the men can compare to Newton. I’m not sure this character should work as well as it does but Newton adds so many layers to the performance that he’s more than just the stock troublemaking friend.

Newton as the director and co-star of the film [he also writes the thing] has created a world so lived in, so genuine, that we don’t for a moment doubt the authenticity of it all. I can’t recall ever watching a truly Australian film, but Three Blind Mice veers dangerously close to that old idiosyncratic British that we’ve come to appreciate. Lines are delivered with such deadpan looks and the seemingly mundane becomes exceptionally resonant. Still, Three Blind Mice is not perfect. It’s not that the shift between comedy and drama isn’t well done – it is – but there seems to be that delicate suggestion of something lacking. Something that five days after the fact I still can’t put my finger. But as Renoir said, perfection is an ideal – blah, blah, blah. You may not wholeheartedly laugh at Three Blind Mice and you probably won’t cry; but I’m damned if by the end of it all you won’t feel oddly – moved…? It’s a small film, but it is no way slight.

I'm still on that somewhat foolhardy quest to watch as many films as I can before the end of this month when I'll start recapping the last year in film. So here are three more, somewhat overdue, reviews. Will either of them make a change to the Encore Award Nominations? Peut-etre.

Surprisingly, quite entertaining with good blends of drama and comedy. In a year of female directors it’s a pity that Drew couldn’t have gotten just a LITTLE more love. It seems like an ideal Golden Globe nominee for musical or comedy. Ellen Page is better here than in Juno, and that’s a bigger compliment than it seems. The film is actually casted to almost glorious perfection, which I was not quite expecting. But of course, the consummate supporting actress of them all steamrolls the entire cast even when she doesn’t try. It's Marcia Gay Harden for the win. Yep.        B

             

Damn, this is one bleak film. Clocking in at just below 90 minutes I don’t know why more people haven’t seen it. Of course it’s pretty grim. But it’s not as unnerving as previews would have you think. Viggo Mortenson is as usual excellent, perhaps his best ever – perhaps. The atmosphere is so palpably apocalyptic and Kodi Smith-McPhee is something of a revelation. But the person who deserves much praise is Charlize Theron who fades away before half an hour but is exceptional in her bit role. Is it too late to start a campaign for her and Mortenson?              B

                    

We see Amy Adams as an adult again; it’s been some time. It’s easy to place it as a trifling bauble but it has a whole lot of heart in it and does well what it has. It gets a bit of uncertain somewhere towards the middle but it’s able to pull it off, even though it could have been just a tighter. Still, it’s a pleasant piece and Alan Arkin is a charm to watch as is Emily Blunt who needs to get a significant role pronto. In the end I like it. And you’ll probably like it. B-

                 

Nancy Meyers is not a perfect writer or director. She’s certainly no Jane Campion but her defence she’s no Nora Ephron either. I suppose she would fall somewhere in the middle. I remarked last year that I didn’t expect her latest comedy [of sorts] about the lives of the middle aged to trump her other comedy about the middle aged; and I believe I was correct.

                 

It’s Complicated is not a film that suffers from bad writing, as much as it’s a film that suffers from too much writing. This is a story that despite all it claims to be is quite thin on plot, and after 100 minutes it becomes so indulgent that it doesn’t know when to excise the extraneous and the make it’s point as quick [and effective] as possible. There isn’t a scene that particularly rings false, but Nancy Meyers seems to have missed that particular screenwriting class that insisted on murdering your darling. Her dialogue is good, but at times it’s dialogue for the sake of dialogue and doesn’t readily lead to the denouement of the film. The therapy sessions adds nothing new to the fabric, neither does that brief and quickly forgotten mulling over plastic surgery, the conference call she shares with her friends are surely filled with some interesting one-liners but what exactly do they do that makes them necessary? And that weed scene? Don’t even get me started. It’s Complicated is the type of film that could have benefited from some crisp script modifications.

I can’t help wishing that Streep’s Jane would have just stayed single in the end instead of reiterating that tired old stereotyping of needing a man – regardless of age. I’ll be honest – I’m no Streep lover myself; but she’s thoroughly luminous here. But, I fear it’s more a luminosity from Streep being Streep than Streep being Jane. She’s just not as unmannered a comedienne as that other old broad; but It’s Complicated works because of her; not in spite of her. She’s the most effective of the adults actually, although Alec Baldwin seemed heading for that prize in the first half – by the end his character seemed so eviscerated that there wasn’t much for him to do. Still, the adults are commendable. But the actor that comes out guns blazing [as far as I’m concerned] is Jon Krazinski. I found myself waiting for him to appear on screen. It’s not that he steamrolls the other actors. Everyone’s [save for Kazan who almost spoils The Adventures of Pippa Lee too] is on an even keel; but Krazinski’s subtle comedic abilities are a definite plus to Meyer’s comedy.

                

In the end though, I go easy on It’s Complicated. It mucks up some things along the way but when it comes down to the essentials it’s strangely on point. The relationship of the siblings particularly felt so authentic to me [just like me and my two older sisters and divorced parents] and though I’d have liked a more vociferous response from at the end when it came to the state of affairs with their parents, the affiliation was there, even if the dreadful Zoe Kazan was getting on my nerves. It’s Complicated is not going to be remembered as a quality addition to cinema, it’s a trifle in some ways. But it’s a pleasant one.

         

So after Parts One, Two and Three I'm finally read to unveil the ten films I'm anticipating the most for 2010. I suppose many weren't all too pleased with 2009. I've not decided as yet, though they were not the decade's worst. But with a new decade beginning I hope 2010 impresses more than it disappoints. These are the ten films that have had be salivating for quite some time.

                               

I’ll admit that I’m not the biggest Nolan fan although the sheer bravura of The Prestige, as imperfect as it was, left me convinced that he could do great things. Sure this has Leonardo DiCaprio and Marion Cotillard [in what's probably a small role]; but I'm not certain if this is going to be that film that makes me love him. I really don't know much about this film, other than it's scientifically charged plotwise, and involves a ton of blackmail. That's not much to go on, but I'll see how it goes.

                

Julianne Moore and Annette Bening star as lesbian lovers with two children. When the sperm donor father enters the picture, drama ensues, naturally. Seeing Julianne and Annette play off each other could be something especial. I’ve been wanting Mark Ruffalo to get some love for some time now. After his eclectic turn in You Can Count On Me he’s showed up doing underrated work in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Zodiac and Reservation Road. Hopefully this doesn’t become too generic. I have high hopes.

                                    

Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley [two of the Bennett sisters] star is this supernatural drama, based on a somewhat acclaimed novel. The story centres on a group of English friends who find out that the exclusive private school which they attend is simply a front for harvesting organs. It does sound a bit like The Island, but I'm still expecting this to be good. It will be nice to see Keira and Carey team up again with Sally Hawkins in a small role.

                          

Here it is, another Annette Bening piece. Naomi Watts, Kerry Washington and Samuel Jackson. The drama surrounds a woman [Bening] searching for the daughter she gave up for adoptions decades ago. Washington co-stars as a woman searching for a child to adopt. This was screened to good reviews last year and though I don’t want to jinx her [again] notices predicted an Oscar showing for Ms. Warren Beatty herself. I’ll see what happens. Still, regardless of whether or not Oscar recognises this. I’m keeping my eye on it.

                       

This is pure fanboy. I tried to adjust and adjust, but it ends up in my top ten because regardless of the quality I am dying to see this. I’ve read the book so much that my hardcover copy is becoming tattered. I mean, I hate to sound like a nerd, but I’m just way too excited for this. I hope that they finally give Rupert Grint something notable to do than just act as some sort of inane form of comic relief.

               

Alice in Wonderland is one of the most original, entreating but simultaneously thought provoking. I have to admit that the previous live action version was a guilty pleasure, and with all his broodiness and his macabre self I can’t resist Tim Burton. Sure, I love him more when he’s toned down [Big Fish] but I love him any way. Helena Bonham Carter as The Red Queen is the type of wonderful casting that’s just scintillating. This looks like it’s going to be the most entertaining movie experience of the year to come.

          

Cate Blanchett and Russell Crow are a duo I would pay good money to see. The Aussies. Ridley Scott is an underrated director who has yet to win an Oscar. I warrant it won’t be for this, but I’m all ready to see a new incarnation of Robin Hood. It’s anyone’s guess if it’ll be able to combat with Errol Flynn/Olivia de Havilland, but visually thus far it look satisfying and my anticipating will remain untempered until I see it.

          

This film is important because it marks the return of Nicole Kidman to cinema. Not that Nine wasn’t cinema, but it wasn’t a lead role. Aaron Eckhart and Nicole Kidman star as a husband and wife who cope with the death of her child. Perhaps, that alone sounds generic – but adapted from a Award winning play [which earned Cynthia Nixon a Tony]: I don't think so. Diane Wiest costars as her mother with Sandra Oh and Tammy Blanchard in supporting roles.

                 

This was actually coasting along as my number one for some time until…My reasons for anticipating this are multitudinous. Scorsese and DiCaprio have impressed me three times in the last decade, add that to Michelle Williams – whom I like, though I didn’t like her Brokeback turn, Emily Mortimer [underrated in Match Point], Mark Ruffalo [underrated in everything he does], the wonderful Patricia Clarkson and Ben Kingsley and you have what looks like one hell of cast. Scorsese is one of those directors that just work for me, and the chances are that I’m going to like what he does. I’m just not sure if I’m going to love it or worship it.

       

Helena Bonham Carter and Colin Firth star as the parents of Queen Elizabeth II, Michael Gambon, Geoffrey Rush, Timothy Spall and Guy Pearce costar. The film centres on George VI, who in the 1940’s has developed a nervous stutter. With the help of unorthodox speech therapist [Rush] who helps to work on the “king’s speech’, George eventually loses the stutter leading his country through the horrid 1940s. It’s a weird premise, duly noted. But the film’s cast is top notch – Helena Bonham Carter in particular needs a good role. And the director Tom Hooper won an Emmy for his adaptation of the first Elizabeth’s life. It’s being distributed by the Weinstein Company who are probably hoping for Oscar love, which I am too actually. I suppose it’s a weird choice for my number one, but I have really high hopes for this – obviously.