Q&A: Disappointing Actresses, Mixed-Up Hunks, Subtitled Crickets

And now the return of the 'Ask Nathaniel/Q&A' series wherein you asked me questions and I pick two handfuls to answer. 

Disposable project on the line for Emily. Yes, another one.DAVID: Which actresses filmographies are you most disappointed in? I'm thinking in terms of actresses you admire and think are incredibly talented, but, for whatever reason, end up working in subpar films.

NATHANIEL: I think the popular answer here is Rachel McAdams but aside from Mean Girls I've never cared too much. The answer that came immediately to mind was Emily Blunt. It’s not that she’s making terrible films per se, it’s just that given how Oscar worthy she was in that plum comic part in Devil Wears Prada seven long years ago, and then how sexy she was in that blink and you’ll miss her bit in Charlie Wilson’s War soon thereafter, I expected her career to explode in the way, say, Carey Mulligan’s did post An Education or at least for her to be more direct competition for Anne Hathaway. I wonder why Blunt isn’t either in more demand or more interested in challenging herself. Maybe it's just bad luck. She seems to be working exclusively in indies that don't crossover, mainstream films that are quickly forgotten or headlining gigs which don't really work in some crucial way (Young Victoria, Adjustment Bureau). I’d love to see her really challenged either by a role or by an auteur. Will Into the Woods bring a happily ever after to that heat-losing career?

The second choice is Evan Rachel Wood who seemed to chuck what looked like incredible range and promise to the side for a long procession of Very Bad Girls. This was, in no small part thanks to her inarguable electricity in Thirteen (2003) but when you play variations on one theme too often you either become a superstar or people lose interest. I thought she was good in Ides of March (2011) but it isn't what she needed. What she needs is a total about face role.

JOHN T: The last foreign language film to clear $20 million was Pan's Labyrinth, almost seven years ago. What do you think it would take for a foreign language film to catch on in that way again?

Amy Adams, Oscar Tragedies, and a Beefcake Triple after the jump...

Click to read more ...

Vintage 1983

With nothing new in theaters worth getting excited about my head has been all over the (time) map of cinema. I picked this year somewhat arbitrarily to discuss.

Were you alive in 1983? Even if you weren't do you think of it fondly? To give you a little context for the year: Ronald Reagan was POTUS and Nancy had just contributed "Just Say No" to the vernacular; M*A*S*H ended its lengthy run on television; Michael Jackson's "Thriller" was all anybody listened to; Cheers and Hill Street Blues were the Emmy champs.

Let's savor 1983's cinematic crop for a moment. Are these movies (and people) and things aging well? Is there much left to savor? 

Best Movies According To...
Oscar: The Big Chill, The Dresser, Tender Mercies, Terms of Endearment, and The Right Stuff were the best pictures nominees but they also loved Cross Creek, Fanny & Alexander, Educating Rita, Silkwood and Zelig
Golden Globe: (drama) Reuben Reuben, The Right Stuff, Silkwood, Tender Mercies, and Terms of Endearment* (comedy/musical) The Big Chill, Flashdance, Trading Places, Yentl*, and Zelig
Cannes: The Ballad of Narayama
Box Office: 1) Return of the Jedi 2) Terms of Endearment 3) Flashdance 4) Trading Places 5) War Games 6) Octopussy 7) Sudden Impact 8) Staying Alive 9) Mr Mom 10) Risky Business
Nathaniel: The King of Comedy, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, Pauline at the Beach, The Return of the Jedi, The Right Stuff, Silkwood, Terms of Endearment, The Year of Living Dangerously and Yentl. I'm holding a spot in my top ten open for Fanny & Alexander or Zelig which are weirdly movies I never get around to seeing even though I am likely to worship both given the time frame in their auteur's filmography in which they land...

Adorable '83 Babies after the jump...

Click to read more ...

Review: "Looper"

An abridged version of this review was originally posted in my column at Towleroad 

"Time travel hasn't been invented yet," Joseph Gordon-Levitt warns us from 2042 in LOOPER's voiceover. "But in the future it will be." In 2072 crime lords send their victims back in time to be killed by "loopers"  like Joe since it's the only way to get away with murder. (Apparently infallible forensic science has also been invented in the future!). 

Loopers dispatch their prey unceremoniously with a crude descendant of the shotgun called a  "Blunderbuss" which is useless at long distances but impossible to miss with up close. When each Looper's contract expires, his older self is sent back to his younger self for execution which is called "Closing the Loop". In this case that's Bruce Willis sent back in time to meet his death at the hands of Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Bruce Willis drag. (Joe's makeup effects, though extraordinarily non fake-looking are initially distracting -- JGL doesn't look like that!) 

Nothing kills genre films quicker than exposition. When you have to pass out glossaries to the uninitiated or explain the rules over and over again, a story can sputter and die or, at the very least, bore you stupid the second time through. Looper, however, is a wonderfully nimble exception given the size of the learning curve. More...

Click to read more ...

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Looper"

The subject is time travel. It only seemed thematically appropriate to post this highly anticipated trailer for LOOPER a week before it premiered but pretend we posted it a week late. 

This time travel crap will fry your brain like an egg"

See, the following conversation actually took place in the past with your comments arriving now from god knows when; surprise us by dating your reaction in the comments. For all we know you're writing from Los Angeles the morning after Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Oscar win as Bruce Willis in the stuffy cradle-to-tomb biopic Bruce Dies Hardest (2031). You know AMPAS will still love those Star-As-Star biopics deep into the 21st century. Ohmygod. His inflection on "Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker" alone was chilling. He BECAME Bruce Willis.

Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker

When were we? It's time to break down the trailer after the jump with our patented Yes No Maybe So system. It's time to break down the trailer after the jump with our patented Yes No Maybe So system. It's time to break down the trailer after the jump with our patented Yes No Maybe So system. It's time to break down the trailer after the jump with our patented Yes No Maybe So system. It's time to break down the trailer after the jump with our patented Yes No Maybe So system.

Click to read more ...

Yes, No, Maybe So: "The Five-Year Engagement"

Amir here with a new edition of Yes, No, Maybe So. Today’s film is The Five-Year Engagement from the Apatow production machine, starring Emily Blunt and Jason Segel, who also co-wrote the film. 

Yes...

• JACKI WEAVER EVERYONE! The Oscar-nominated Aussie surely deserves more demanding roles but at least she didn’t totally fade away as we feared, given her age and outsider status. The movie also has Mimi Kennedy who never fails to make me laugh out loud. After Midnight in Paris, this looks more than a bit like typecasting to me, but if she can find a way to be as funny as in In the Loop we’re in for big laughs.

•Jason Segel’s been having a good few years after he forgot Sarah Marshall. He’s actually proved to be a better comedy writer than an actor. His most recent feature is, of course, in theatres now (The Muppets) and it’s been extremely well-received. Can we assume his hot streak will continue?

No, Maybe So... and the trailer after the jump.

Click to read more ...