TIFF Capsules: Passion Play, Black Swan, 127 Hours and The Conspirator

My friend txt critic is completing his Toronto journey soon but he sent another batch of thoughts for your perusal. He starts by taking an against consensus stand.

PASSION PLAY
By far the most loathed and eviscerated film of the festival, Mitch Glazer's brazenly out there, 20-years-in-the-works labor of love is extremely slow paced, unafraid to be laughed at for its sincerity and ridiculousness, and -- though I seem to be alone on this -- perpetually interesting. The plot basically boils down to "Mickey Rourke falls in love with circus-freak-with-giant-wings Megan Fox, and has to fight to protect her from violent gangster Bill Murray," so yes, it's silly, but I admired its audacity. Rourke is very very strong, Murray is always fun to watch, and... dare I say it? I thought Megan Fox was *gasp* pretty good (though, again, alone on this). Based on the response, though, who knows if this will ever see the light of day outside of the festival circuit. (B)

That is the sad thing about festivals, even if you're wise enough to mostly see films without release dates (I've never understood why people see things that will be out within in a few weeks) some of them will remain things that only you have ever seen.

SUPER
Basically a rougher, sloppier, darker version of "Kick-Ass," James Gunn's homemade super 'heroes' flick has some moments of madcap dark humor, and a surprisingly solid central performance from Rainn Wilson, but it suffers from a severe imbalance of tone, bizarre flourishes that don't add up to much, and a perpetual mean-spiritedness that left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Ellen Page steals the movie with her childlike ADD energy and karate moves, but Liv Tyler and Kevin Bacon are squandered and seem like they wandered in from another movie. (C-)


127 HOURS
Danny Boyle's true story of survival has been received raputurously on the festival circuit so far, but while I liked it overall, I can't really jump on the bandwagon of fervor. Boyle's energetic directorial style and a bravura physical performance from the normally boring James Franco go a long way towards keeping us involved; But at the end of the day, a guy with his arm pinned under a rock just isn't an inherently cinematic or compelling story, and the jittery editing and flashbacks and hallucinations -- while understandable on a conceptual level -- almost seem like a betrayal of the realities of the situation. Also, as good as Franco is, we never (or at least I never) feel like we know anything about this guy, or why we should have vested interest in his fate. That said, Boyle and Franco do keep us wrapped up in the goings-on, and there are about a half-dozen sequences (including the insanely intense climax) that are pretty remarkable... at least until the epilogue steps on the "uplifting" pedal a little too hard/disingenuously to try to push this into Slumdog territory. It's a solid effort, and will likely go over big with audiences, but I was only intermittently feeling it. (B / B-)

Interesting take. Especially in regards to the betrayal of a gut wrenching terrifying monotony of the experience as it must have been to live. I'm nervous about this one primarily because I thought Slumdog was only OK and it actively started annoying me when people wouldn't shut up about it. Will we see a repeat of that mass hysteria? And if so does that mean Boyle will get to do anything he wants from now on?

And finally txtcritic disputes the positive notices for Robert Redford's Oscar bait and joins many in loving Darren Aronofsky's latest.

THE CONSPIRATOR
Robert Redford's dull as dishwater History Channel re-enactment depicts the true but little known story of Mary Surratt, the mother of the accused collaborator of John Wilkes Booth in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. While it's admirable that Redford would like to teach us all about a oft-overlooked footnote in history, he sure as hell doesn't do much to make it engaging, even with a pretty fantastic cast including Robin Wright, James McAvoy, Tom Wilkinson (sporting ridiculous old-timey mutton chops) and Kevin Kline. History nuts may be enraptured, but as an actual movie, it never breaks out of its dry, dusty courtroom procedural paramaters. All I could think of during the film (especially with the presence of Tom Wilkinson) was "John Adams" and the comparison is certainly not flattering. Blech. (C-)


BLACK SWAN
I hate to pile on more advance hype, but Aronofsky's much-anticipated psychological ballet thriller is truly staggering. A tightly-wound examination of the obsessive quest for artistic perfection, the film packs in one staggering sequence after another, and never allows us to breathe easy or get comfortable. Simultaneously beautiful and grotesque, it'll likely offput as many as it seduces, but this is a movie that will still be held on a pedestal a decade or two down the line. The comparisons being made to "The Red Shoes" and "The Wrestler" are apt, but there are strong traces of "There Will Be Blood" in here as well, in regards to the extremes to which it burrows into its central character. Portman does easily her best work here, carrying the entire film on her shoulders, and Winona Ryder and Barbara Hershey are terrifying perfection. (A)

So... that's the first I'm hearing of someone really mentioning Noni. Could this be a comeback of sorts (I had assumed it was a teensy-tiny cameo since I'm purposefully not reading reviews I don't know one way or the other)? Since this film is not playing the New York Film Festival I will have to wait along with the rest of you until December 1st.

Come again?!? I can't have heard the release date correctly. I'm dying here.

Noni, Aronofsky, Natalie, and Barbara Hershey

Just for fun, here's what the Black Swan team wore to their big Canadian premiere. Mila Kunis did not attend.
*

TIFF Capsules: Let Me In, Tamara Drewe, The Illusionist and Stone.

Normally my friend txtcritic who must remain anonymous just, well, texts me. Usually in the form of pithy sentence long reviews or moviegoing observations. But this time he sent capsules of his Toronto experience thus far. Enjoy.

"The Illusionist" shifts downgear from the infectious exuberance of "Triplets of Bellevile" to a more melancholy, low-key thing. It's largely lovely and endearing, but leaves one with a lot more to admire than to get caught up or involved in (though many others seem to be ringing the "masterpiece" bells). The film's incremental snowballing cynicism will ultimately leave you either profoundly sad or oddly cold/disengaged. I'm somewhat between the two, but I'd like another viewing. B

Leigh, Manville, Ruth Sheen & Jim Broadbent @ TIFF

"Another Year" belongs in Leigh's upper-tier. Lesley Manville gets the showy role. At first, I was ready to cry 'overhyped' but her character subtly shifts and slowly grows more downtrodden in such a realistic way that it will make some uncomfortable with recognition. As a whole, the movie's consistently absorbing and lovely in character detail, but Manville's performance is what makes it a heartbreaker. A-

Consensus definitely places Lesley Manville as an Oscar nominee. We already know that Oscar voters respond to the women in Mike Leigh pictures. But will it be a lead or supporting campaign? That probably depends on how the studio feels about her winning chances in either category. I'll be seeing this picture in a couple of weeks. I loved Manville & Broadbent's chemistry together in Topsy Turvy (1999) and though they're not a couple this time I hope they have plentiful scenes together.

Dominic Cooper and Gemma Arterton at the Tamara Drewe premiere to your left. About Stephen Frears latest....

Based on the graphic novel by Posy Simmonds, "Tamara Drewe" constantly alternates between amusing and irritating. It's devoid of substance and aggressively quirky, while never being less than watchable. Certainly a change of pace for Stephen Frears, but makes you wonder why he decided to make this movie. Tamara (Gemma Arterton) is an empty vessel who barely registers as a character and the only one who gives a performance of any depth or complexity is Tamsin Greig as a cuckolded wife. B-/C+

Though it's to be commended for reaching for something beyond the conventional movie the trailers are selling, "Stone" only barely falls just short of Trainwreck designation. It has enough batshit moments to never lose your interest, but it's ultimately the very definition of a "mess"; there's nary a coherent thought in its head. No one seems to have been given much direction, and we're as dumbfounded as how we should feel about their characters as they seem to be. De Niro shows early signs that this will be his first inspired performance in years but then loses his way, and I never could quite get a handle on what Edward Norton or Milla Jovovich were doing. D+

Finally, the early buzz on Let Me In is good dashing our hopes that critics would crucify it. Now normally we don't root against pictures we haven't seen but why was it remade in the first place? Read on...

While "Let Me In" remains an 'unnecessary' remake throughout, Matt Reeves has crafted a surprisingly successful, respectful 'cover' version of the beloved "Let the Right One In." Aside from one or two (superb) sequences, and some amped-up suspense and gore, not much new has been added here. What most impresses is how the film avoids pretty much every possible expected "remake" decision where it could have pandered or "broadened" appeal or caved to general American sensibilities. Reeves absolutely nails the tone of the original film, imposes largely the same look (often even paying homage to the original shot compositions), and the perfectly cast chief actors -- Chloe Grace Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Richard Jenkins, Elias Koteas -- feel just right in their roles. Skeptics, put away your knives. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. A-

I'm not sure I'll be pleasantly surprised. So far I've read a couple of reviews proclaiming that it's better than the original and several going to lengths to describe how meticulously director Matt Reeves has transferred the visual aesthetics, mood and even the shots of the original. How is a carefully detailed copy ever better than an original? Or at least how does whatever praise it garners seem like more than an interception? Please to explain. Whatever we love about it, must be credited to the original, if what we love was originated there. It's like when some people wanted to give Zach Snyder credit for the visual aesthetics of Watchmen when what he was essentially doing was following the storyboard and character designs provided by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons in graphic novel form.

Kodi Smit-McPhee gets bullied in Let Me In

Sorry, sorry. I know I'm off consensus on this topic. But faithful remakes they make-a me crazeeeeeeeeeee. This is why, ironically, I respected Gus Van Sant's Psycho (1998) so much. See, that widely hated film purposefully billed itself as a recreation... it was, therefore, an honest aesthetic experiment and cinematic exercize rather than a movie made to replace another movie for people who can't bring themselves to read subtitles or watch older films.

Maybe I'll calm down once I've seen it if it's good. Maybe I just don't relish having to watch Chloe Moretz every time a film needs a teenager this coming decade. They're casting her in everything (8-10 projects already on the way) and even if I loved her more, I always enjoy a variety of faces in my moviegoing.
*