Yes, No, Maybe So Double: "Hanna" and "The Other Woman"

It's a double dip for Yes No Maybe So as we're way behind. Can't the movie world just stop for a little bit during the holidays so that we can all enjoy the movies we have right in front of us? Too many things. Too many things. Here's a girlish double and we'll get more manly in the next installment.

Let's start with The Other Woman which used to be called Love and Other Impossible Pursuits (better less generic title) starring the ubiquitous Natalie Portman. And that's ubiquitous with a capital U because, really, she's only going to get more inescapable from here on out.

The Other Woman

First there's this movie, then there's that Ashton Kuchner romcom, then Your Highness, then there's Thor (yes, 4 releases in 2011) plus the next two months of awards shows and then the wedding and the baby and so on. Is she aiming for Jolie/Pitt levels of über celebrity status? You won't be able to get away from her. You're going to look in the mirror and see Natalie Portman.


Don Roos's key successes (The Opposite of Sex and Happy Endings) were told in a unique voice (always a plus) and revealed a deft hand with actors. His frequent collaborator Lisa Kudrow (yay!) plays the first wife and I think everyone wants to know if Natalie, post-Swan even though this was shot earlier, is going to be able to up her game as she moves into her thirties.

On the other hand this looks soft, overly happy and above all unfocused (child rearing, adultery, infant death, custody battles, family bonds, the kitchen sink). It also displays this other woman and asks you to root for her to win the married man which is...unnngh. Really? But it's a trailer, and maybe this isn't at all easy to summarize. Roos, particularly in Happy Endings, was able to balance a lot of flawed characters and emotional arcs. So maybe the marketing department just doesn't know what to do with it?

Despite what seems like far too many plot points (especially for a trailer) you have to admit there's a certain amount of 'wow... this could go in all sorts of interesting emotional directions.' That is if, and it's a big if, the trailer is a false witness to the actual tone.

It doesn't look promising to me but I am curious. You?

This trailer and discussion has presumed spoilers.

Hanna

Next we have Saoirse Ronan training for kills in the woods, with the dissonant mix of modern music and fairy tale titles. Little Saoirse's eventual target: Cate Blanchett.

You can't say that Joe Wright skimps on acting talent lining up Queen Blanchett to square off against Eric Bana (daddy?) and Saoirse Ronan (baby girl?). You also can't say that he didn't earn a couple films worth of experimentation and possible failure after his first two terrific pictures (Pride & Prejudice and Atonement).

I know that the deady little girl thing is a rite of passage for all underage startlets (just ask Natalie Portman, Kirsten Dunst, Dakota Fanning and Chloe Moretz and whoever gets cast in Hunger Games) but I can't say that the child soldier thing is for me. Rooting for trained assassins is so ... unpleasant. Child assassins? Even worse. Why is it such a popular genre? And isn't the trailer giving away a huge twist. [SPOILER?] Isn't it basically saying that Saoirse is Cate's daughter and that Cate is the villain rather than the victim/target? [/SPOILER?]

Visually there are a handful of hooky images and many trailers don't succeed at that even though they all try. Maybe Joe Wright and team could provide real chills (acting) and thrills (action).

So I guess that's two Maybe Sos for me. How are you feeling about seeing either of these pictures?
*

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Green Lantern"

Another round of insta-judgments. Just add trailer. Suddenly we know if...

• yes) we're buying tickets
• no) we're shunning the movie, or...
• maybe so) withholding the judgments until we have more info.

Maybe so is usually the correct answer. Sometimes great trailers lead to disappointing movies. And sometimes virtually every piece of marketing for a movie will practically beg you not to see it when you might actually like it if you do  (*cough* TANGLED... more on that soon).

But it's hard not to pre-judge. Commercials invite you to do just that.

In brightest day... in blackest night... 

Ryan "Sexiest Man Alive" Reynolds stars as the Hal Jordan incarnation of Green Lantern. There have been many Green Lanterns, both before and after him but Hal is the most famous.

Yes. For those of you who are unaware, Green Lantern is actually not just any old superhero. He's powerless. The power is in his ring, a mystical device, and though he's superheroic, he's but one of many. In a way he's like an anonymous everyman worker-bee hero. It's an interesting twist on the typical one-of-a-kind hero concept if you stop to think over it. Which is why I was hoping some really crafty creative type would've pitched this as Green Lantern Corps to some cable station, and made it a really intelligent sci-fi multiple worlds series using something complex/multi-dimensional like Battlestar Galactica as inspirational role model rather than IronDevilSpiderBatSuperHulkMan. Instead it looks like we got...

No. ...just another Superhero Origin Flick. You've got your boyman who is suddenly given the gift of great power and he has to learn adult responsibility and heroism while some bland but beautiful girl encourages him from the sidelines. Sound familiar? It should. And: YAWN. I get that we need our hero myths. But do they have to be so similar every time? Also I laughed so hard this afternoon when @MediaObsessed said on twitter

Blake Lively as a fighter pilot? Oh Hollywood, sometimes penises should not be allowed in casting decisions.

HEE. So so true. I was worried about the casting from the get go. Ryan Reynolds is somewhat talented but there is something a touch blande/assembly line about him... like he's the photograph of a star rather than the flesh and blood actuality (though we totally thank him for the approximation of flesh part). When you add the Hot Girl of the Moment as the love interest it starts to just seem really... generic, like no one had a vision other than a Hulk-like grunted directive "Make Tentpole. Smash Puny Box Office Records."

Maybe So. Er... uh... I got nothing this time. It just looks so generic. It doesn't even look like good eye candy. The visual effects are generic too. It's hard to imagine this even being in contention for Best Visual Effects at the Oscars for 2011. Unless it's a really weak year. They do have 5 visual effects slot now. My point is this: I curse the day that CGI made filmmakers so lazy about the aesthetics of power. Why do all spells, mutations, powers, mystical or scientific equal gaseous colorful swirls?

I'm not interested. I'm a no. I know I complain about superhero movies a lot but I actually love superheroes. Like most boys and some girls, I grew up adoring them. I just want their movie doppelgangers to have more individualized personalities and to be made with real care for the big screen.

You?

The Eyre Above

.
JA from MNPP here. If Nat were around he'd perhaps do one of his "Yes No Maybe So" posts for this, but I've got nothing but yes for this, the first trailer for Cary Fukunaga's adaptation of Jane Eyre, which isn't out until March. (via)

.

.

Fukunaga's Sin Nombre - and I know Nat agrees with me on this - is a wonderful film. Thrilling and moving and gorgeously shot. So no matter what he did next I'd have been paying attention, but an adaptation of Jane Eyre was not at all what I was expecting and that makes me even happier. Love it when a director throws a curve-ball. And the cast... the cast! Michael Fassbender, Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins and Michael Fassbender... drool.


And that trailer is just stunning. I posted a slew of screencaps over at MNPP in case you want to ogle it that way. What do we think?
.

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Sucker Punch"

This goes out to anyone who caught the Sucker Punch trailer and anyone who cares about women as action heroes. Which, as you know, The Film Experience does. Unfortunately caring about something and enjoying it in practice are two different things. In practice there are so many things that can go wrong...

The trailer begins with an abused girl fights back set-up (a blouse ripped off and a  button flying in slo-mo. Suggested rape as your opening gambit? Distasteful). Emily Browning is playing the lead role of "Baby Doll" and reading the summaries, I see something about a lobotomy? Is that why the performance looks so sleepy/blank? Not promising. But soon enough Abbie Cornish and Jena Malone appear and seem to be channeling the kind of badass bitch energy that films like this need as life blood. They're both good actresses and I'm especially curious to see Abbie let loose given that I've mostly seen her in heavy dramas, corseted or otherwise.

There's some sort of Matrix like plot where reality is not reality... but we're in Baby Doll's imagination instead which, as it turns out, is like a parodic version of the imagination of a teenage boy: in her alternate reality, she's a master swordswoman / hooker who fights giant samurais, robots, zombies, aircraft, and dragons. She's backed up by a whole army of interchangeable blonde sex workers with machine guns.

Who knew that hookers were criminally insane, that their imaginations were so similar to teen boys, or that their favorite movies were Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Beowulf and 300?

On the other hand...

You wants us to watch the über watchable CARLA GUGINO doing a funky accent while ruling over a posse of criminally insane burlesque backup dancers? I mean... hells yeah. Count me in... as long as the movie is so bad it's good and knows how absolutely stoopid it is. (Past history suggests, unfortunately, that Zach Snyder is way too earnest a filmmaker to do justice to the ridiculous content of his movies. And Dawn of the Dead showed such promise, damnit.)

Summaries of Sucker Punch's confusing "girl retreats into imaginary universe to escape her wicked father" storyline, suggest that Carla is one of the villains. But in the trailer, she seems to be playing Laurence Fishburne's "Morpheus"" to Browning's idiot cousin version of "Neo." I have a loftier film icon in mind for Carla's gifts: Can't someone give her her own Cristal (Showgirls) level "Goddess" role soon. Time is running out.  'She's gettin a little old for that whorey look.'

Are you a yes, no or maybe so? 

I'm leaning hell no unless I hear that the lively cast of supporting actresses are fun enough to redeem the non-entity central role -- if this trailer is indication (let's hope it's not) Browning has only three expressions in her arsenal: scared, constipated, braindead. Can the fun cast make any kind of impression amongst the visual chaos/violent excess of Zach Snyder's sexual fantasies Baby Doll's imagination?

Related articles: Watchmen review
Action Heroine blog-a-thon
*

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Rabbit Hole"

I probably need to start covering movies I'm not absolutely drooling for in this yes, no, maybe so trailer series. It gets hard to pick the "no" and "maybe" elements for a film like, say, this one here...



John Cameron Mitchell's RABBIT HOLE will hit theaters, albeit only a few of them we're guessing, on December 17th, a date obviously chosen with the perception that it will maximize Oscar prospects.

YES I am, for better or worse, what is known as a "fan" which is to say, once I love something, it tends to be intense (hair pulling excitement, joyful weeping... metaphorically speaking!) and it takes a lot for that love to die out . The word "fan" used to have both negative and positive connotations but now, I suppose, with the invention of the terms "fanboy" and "fangirl", the simpler word "fan" has lost some of its negative connotations.  So I'm okay. I'm still discerning. Unless you think I'm a closer to a Kidman "fanboy" in which case, well, yeah, maybe but shut up -- [hyperventilating, crying] She is awesome!

NO Grief as Major Theme is tricky to pull off. There are all sorts of movie potholes on that journey: pornographic actorly histrionics, pandering "everything happens for a reason!" sentimentality, monotony of tone, boredom of plot. Plus the best work in this genre is nearly impossible to live up to. The best grief dramas are always French (Ponette and Trois Coleurs: Bleu) or are one hour long and found in really unexpected places ("The Body"). But it could be I am just overly touchy on this subject because it cuts too close to the bone when it's sharp. When it's dull, it just makes an awful mess of an important and universal topic. I hope this one is sharp, even though that means it'll hurt more.

MAYBE SO Ever since I heard about the artistic teenager that becomes intermingled with the grieving family, I was curious about how John Cameron Mitchell, who proved a very visual director in his first two features (Shortbus and Hedwig and the Angry Inch), would work that in. I'm pleased to note that the marketing team has used it as a sort of guiding motif in the trailer. I love the linear drawing emphasizing the Academy Award titling, don't you? It somehow seems more playful -- and the Oscars should be cuz they're fun! -- than the boring title cards we usually get when studios want you to know that "A PRESTIGE MOVIE IS COMING!"

Even if this movie didn't have such great festival buzz and Best Actress hype, I would still be a YES as all three principle actors are people I either obsessively love (Kidman) have loved ever since I can remember and always will (Wiest) or generally quite like (Eckhart).

But maybe your reaction veers far off in some other direction? Are you a yes, no or a maybe so when it comes to Rabbit Hole and why?
*

Yes, No, Maybe So: "True Grit"

The teaser for our Christmas present from The Coen Bros has arrived. It's our first good look at the second film version of the novel True Grit. Now why can't trailers for musicals admit their genre as readily as all westerns do -- despite westerns being a similarly troubled genre with notoriously fickle public interest. 



As a teaser there's not much to go on yet. But I am happy to say...

yes Joel and Ethan Coen reuniting with "The Dude" is cause for rejoicing all by its lonesome self and the cinematography by Coen regular Roger Deakins looks unsurprisingly purty. I also reckon Carter Burwell stuck with his "protestant hymn" scoring idea that I scooped for y'all from Nashville this spring if the music in the teaser is representative of what we'll hear in the full movie.

no Matt Damon shooting things is less thrilling than it once was.

maybe so Apart from those strong directorial hands, all four of them, this entire thing will rest on Hailee Steinfeld and she's unknown to us. Good luck Hailee!

I'm actually just doing the Yes, No, Maybe So™ from habit. I am 100% YES. And you?
* Jeff Bridges Joel Coen

Yes, No, Maybe So: The King's Speech

I suppose I must pick up my Oscar-pundit speed now. Sorry for the delays...

Let's talk about The King's Speech



As you know this film came roaring out of Toronto as the audience award winner (see previous post) and The Film to Beat at the Oscars... unless you think that's The Social Network but it's since it's only late September fans of either (in reality or in theory) need to calm down. We were always confident that The King's Speech was an Oscar film even before they started filming which is why we've predicted it for several nominations since April. But now that the trailer is here allowing non-festival goers to have a looksee, what do we think?

On the bright side, it looks fun. Or at least it looks fun to anyone who loved watching Eliza Doolittle learn to properly e·nun·ci·ate. It also gives Colin Firth a meaty role that seems like a reward for elevating A Single Man (2009) (but for the fact that he probably signed for this before anyone saw how great he was in last year's nominated turn). I'm also THRILLED -- and yes it needed to be typed in all caps -- to see that Helena Bonham Carter has managed to escape Burton's gothic dungeon for some badly needed air. She's probably heading straight to her second Oscar nomination with relative ease; You know how they love those supportive wives. What's most surprising about the trailer is that the production values look superb and not in some vaguely rote prestige way but with a vividly handsome specificity. I didn't expect great visuals so maybe Tom Hooper's Best Director buzz isn't so far-fetched for a film that on paper seemed like one for the acting and production design branches mostly.

On the other hand, I am completely allergic to Geoffrey Rush in hambone mode. His win for Shine (1996) is one of my least favorite Best Actor prizes in the category's history and they nominated him for the entirely wrong film in 1998 as he was much more restrained and effective in Elizabeth than he was in Shakespeare in Love. He looks to be bringing the kook to scenes that already have inherent kookiness (speech therapy's comedy friendly exercizes) and I may just break out in hives watching him go for a second Oscar. I'm taking epipen into the theater with me... just in case.

Then we come to the Oscar Bait -- as if Royalty Porn weren't enough of it -- which is the World War II 'Nazi's are coming!' time frame. I hope it's less awkwardly handled here than it was in Mrs. Henderson Presents which this film vaguely reminds me of sight unseen. That's not a purposeful mental jump. It's worrisome rather but probably just based on account of early Oscar buzz, prestige actors, and the world war haunting the periphery of a "light" film.

Again, I might need the epipen but the festival buzz is certainly something to think about in an optimistic way. I'm a Yes leaning Maybe So because, again, Geoffrey Rush is a total No for me most of the time ...especially whilst clowning around. Look, we can't help what we're allergic to. Don't give me a hard time about it.

Are you a Yes, No or Maybe So? And do you buy the Oscar frontrunner (or thereabouts) hype?
*

Yes No Maybe So: The Fighter

Our first glimpse of the highly buzzed David O. Russell boxing picture The Fighter. If it becomes a major player at this year's Oscars I want y'all to remember that I believed it would happen first. Toot Toot. (That was my own horn).



And now the patented foolproof system for judging our own reaction to the trailer: Yes, No, Maybe So™. Join us with your own in the comments.

First things first: It seems obvious that this film will live or die on the chemistry between its central brothers, boxer Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) and his trainer (Christian Bale). It seems obvious from the trailer that their relationship could well float like a butterfly and sting like a bee or whatever the hell boxers are supposed to do. Maybe Wahlberg is the type of performer who has to have a strong director to be properly called an actor -- but that question of his ability is already solved by reteaming him with David O'Russell who is already responsible for his best performance (I Heart Huckabees). Plus we'd like Christian Bale to stop doing these crazy things to his body so maybe mass acknowledgement that he's a good actor will dampen down that particular self-destructive urge for awhile?


On the other hand, haven't we seen enough boxing pictures? Isn't it the #1 most populated sport within the movies -- you'd think there'd be boxing gyms on every corner of every street to meet the need. Boxers are like hitmen: way more prevalent in the movies than they are in real life. But there will be blood... in the movies. Since we've seen so many rise and fall and rise again biopics and so many boxing pictures, what could this possibly add to the bloated over populated genre? I fear it looks a smidge generic... at least visually. Not that you can always tell from a trailer.

The cast sounds good on paper but how do they all come together onscreen? It's possibly delicious that there will be a catfight of sorts between Mickey's mom (Melissa Leo) and his girl (Amy Adams) but it also just might be typical Hollywood poverty porn. You know how they love the 'We're going to Disneyland!' white trash families the movies... or maybe I'm just thinking of the last Oscar baiting boxing pic. So, to make a long story short: I knew that both Leo and Adams were in the movie but who expected that the movie would contain girlfights? Haven't we all wanted to see Amy Adams test her range a little ever since her triumph in Enchanted? So why am I a little worried about her in this context.

How about you?

The Fighter opens in December.
*
*

Yes, No, Maybe So: Mildred Pierce (2011)

It's not intentional but today will be something of a TV day here at The Film Experience -- and to think how we were just bitching about all the false arguments in its favor -- and let's start with this trailer for the HBO Miniseries Mildred Pierce. [thanks to Sebastián for alerting me]



Like Angels in America seven years back, the director, cast and production values allow us to easily pretend that it's really just a feature film in disguise. It's just another part of The Great Convergence because what are today's franchises like Harry Potter and Twilight other than three season'ish long television series with bigger budgets?

YES I'll see anything -- and have seen everything -- that Todd Haynes directs. From subversive queer shorts like Dottie Gets Spanked to the inventive Superstar (the legally troubled Karen Carpenter bio with Barbie dolls) through to Oscar contending films like Far From Heaven and I'm Not There. His films never fail to excite the eyeballs, the intellect and hormones. Some people think he has trouble with the heart portion of entertainment, that his films are too heady, but to this complaint I say [insert expletive]. Even if that were true, better that problem than the far more common cinematic ailments of brainlessness, sexlessness and generic aesthetics.

NO I don't understand the casting of 23 year old Evan Rachel Wood as 34 year old Kate Winslet's nasty ungrateful daughter Veda at all. Aren't they too old and too young for their roles respectively, thus compounding the problem? Believable mother daughter chemistry won't be as important as usual since they're at odds, but still. Not sure I follow this. Plus, I've been aching for Evan Rachel Wood to get out of her bad girl rut. She has more range than this (or at least she once did).

MAYBE SO As much as I love Kate Winslet, performing in the shadow of Joan Crawford's signature role just seems so... foolhardy? It's one thing to star in an adaptation of a novel that's been adapted before. It's quite another to star in an adaptation of a novel that's been adapted before as an immortal and glamorous star's biggest hour.

I'm a yes given Kate + Todd + below the line players like DP Edward Lachman. Though I feel I should note that Todd's regular costume designer Sandy Powell did not work on this -- she told me her schedule conflicted when I interviewed her during the Young Victoria Oscar run.

My current plan: read the book in the next month or two so as not to be thinking of the gorgeous Michael Curtiz noir the whole way through.

Kate in her Emmy winning* role as Mildred Pierce.

You? Have you seen Joan Crawford's Oscar winning take on the Mildred Pierce role? If not, what are you waiting for?

*just guessin'
*