Which new drama series will make a bigger splash at 65th Primetime Emmy?, Bait an Oscar, Official The Kings of Summer News and Reviews , 2012-13 Final TV Season Rankings (Total Viewers), Top 25 TV Stars Still Without Emmys, Mad Men (SEASON 6) Thread, CANNES 2013, Early 2014 GRAMMY Awards Discussion, Official VEEP Season 2 Thread, HLNTV.com is NOW posting links to Emmy reels - check 'em out!
Welcome - Make Your Predictions! Give Us Feedback!, Oscars, Golden Globes and Film Awards, Primetime Emmys, Daytime Emmys, Tony Awards, Grammys and Music Awards, General Discussion: All Non-Award Topics, Games! Games! Let's Play Games!, Report SPAM Here, Polls! Polls! Who Should Give Back Their Oscar? , Daytime Emmys Judging 2012, Daytime Emmys Judging - 2011
Advertisement
| May 24th 2012, 15:32 |
|
|
|
Todd McCarthy's positive review for The Paperboy (praises the cast and many of Daniels' choices): http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/paperboy-cannes-review-zac-efron-nicole-kidman-329071 Instead of getting all prestigious after the success of Precious, Lee Daniels has gone even more down and dirty with The Paperboy, a tasty wallow in sordid goings-on down South in 1969. Basking in a funky, disreputable feel despite its prestigious source material and classy cast, the film has been crafted to resemble a grungy exploitation melodrama made in the period it depicts, which might mystify the uninitiated but gives Paperboy an appealingly rough and rasty texture. There is no release date set yet, but Millennium probably would be well advised to jump straight into wide release rather than go the specialized route, as many upscale urban types likely will look down their noses at the trashy milieu and behavior. Working from the well-received 1995 novel by Pete Dexter (Deadwood, Paris Trout), Daniels and Dexter have stuck closely to the book’s storyline in their adaptation but have amped up the racial element by making one major character and two secondary ones black rather than white. This doesn’t create any fundamental differences but does thicken the deck with extra tensions and innuendo. This is a tale of murder, idealistic journalism, warped sexual desires, a slipshod legal system and inbred backwater types hostile to outsiders. Suspecting a miscarriage of justice in the case of the murder of a small-town cop, Miami Times reporter Ward Jansen (Matthew McConaughey) returns to his native Lately, Fla., to dig into it with the help of black collaborator Yardley Acheman (David Oyelowo), who was white in the novel. The instigator of it all is Charlotte Bless (Nicole Kidman), a trashy blond of a certain age with a thing for felons; she announces that, after a long correspondence, she’s now engaged to Hillary Van Wetter (John Cusack), the swamp rat due to be executed for the cop killing. Determined and sharp-witted behind her loud outfits and heavy eye makeup, Charlotte puts on quite a show when she accompanies Ward and Yardley to their first meeting with the crumpled, stringy-haired Hillary; the betrothed couple indulges in a heavy-breathing bout of mutual auto-eroticism at first sight. But Hillary’s not the only one with the hots for the leggy sexpot. Ward’s younger brother Jack (Zac Efron), who distributes the local paper published by their father (Scott Glenn), drives the gang around in his truck and becomes fixated on Charlotte, his agony exacerbated when she has a fling with Yardley. A college swimmer with great looks and a rippling body, Jack is a directionless, unformed young man, and it’s the first big-screen part Efron has handled with skill and conviction; he’s quite good in it. Hillary is obviously a no-good guy, but that doesn’t mean he committed the murder. Still, Ward and Yardley get far from a warm welcome when they trudge through a gator-infested swamp in an attempt to extract exonerating evidence from Hillary’s uncle, whose dislike of outsiders is advertised by the Confederate flag on his house. Thwarting expectations, the story doesn’t remain squarely on the track of righting the wrongs of the justice system and solving a mysterious murder. About midway through, attention turns to some even more perplexing personal misjudgments, as two major characters make ill-advised decisions that lead to dire consequences; in the end, it’s a tragedy, but for nothing like the reasons one might suspect at the beginning. Daniels starts the film in unnecessarily choppy fashion with interview-style narration from the Jansen family’s maid and cook (Macy Gray) that misleadingly makes her an early center of attention. But once it settles in, the story and the characters’ often misguided obsessions take hold. So do the stylistic choices; the film is gloriously grubby in a fashion that technical improvements during the past 40 years have made obsolete. The colors and contrasts are ugly, the lighting garish, the cutting sometimes jarring and jumpy, combining for an inelegant look of a sort that marked low-budget, and often Southern-shot, programmers during the AIP, New World and Crown-International era. And it’s perfect for this material and its period. In the spirit of the venture, the entire cast gets down and comes off all the better for it. Both Efron and McConaughey get very messed up physically, and both actors seem stimulated to be playing such flawed characters. Kidman exults in tramping it up but also reveals Charlotte’s superficial strength and more fundamental weakness. Merely laying eyes on Cusack’s creepy convict would be enough to convince most people that he shouldn’t be allowed out amongst the public, while Oyelowo’s Yardley shrewdly holds back, both out of understandable wariness of others’ attitudes and a reporter’s learned skepticism. Louisiana locations are well, used and the soundtrack, a mix of Mario Grigorov’s original score and potpourri of period tunes, is a small feast. |
| May 24th 2012, 19:06 |
|
|
|
I was not the biggest fan of Lee Daniels' "Precious" but after reading a few reviews of Paperboy, I am so excited! Nicole Kidman peeing on Zach Efron, someone losing an eye after sex, random irrelevant twists! I am so in! Anyways, I am a bit underwhelmed by the response my two most anticipated films from Cannes have received. "Rust and Bones" has received good to decent reviews, but after Jacques Audiard's riveting "A Prophet," it does come as a bit of a disappointment for me. I am intrigued to see how he fits in "Fireworks" from Katy Perry twice into his film... "Post Tenebras Lux" sounds like a complete incoherent mess. I was a bit afraid of that when looking at the clips and reading the description. Reygadas is the type of director who stays in his head, and while things make sense to him, it won't always translate to the audience. "Holy Motors" and "Amour" look like the breakout films of the festival. Haneke will win something, maybe his 2nd Palme d'Or. Overall, the response to these films have been lukewarm. A disappointment considering how last year we had "The Tree of Life," "Drive," "Midnight in Paris," and "Melancholia" electrifying filmgoers in Cannes.  |
| May 24th 2012, 20:36 |
|
|
|
A couple things to keep in mind - French films almost never win (only twice in the last 37 years). And there are still films to be seen, with often the programmers placing strong candidates in the last weekend (even though the US press and industry takes off in large numbers and pretends the festival is over already).
|
| May 24th 2012, 22:17 |
|
|
|
Yes, we were wondering how Daniels would try to top his previous exercise into incest and child abuse. Golden showers, meh. Maybe if Kidman takes a dump on Efron?
I can't imagine "Midnight in Paris" electrifying anyone anywhere. |
| May 25th 2012, 08:23 |
|
|
|
Very positive review for Cosmopolis from IndieWire: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/cannes-review-david-cronenbergs-cosmopolis-robert-pattinson-don-delillo-paul-giamatti-samantha-morton-juliette-binoche-20120525 "Cosmopolis," an adaptation of Don DeLillo’s typically provocative novel of the same name, is the first feature film since 1999's "eXistenZ" that filmmaker David Cronenberg has directed and scripted. This in part explains why "Cosmopolis" is such a triumph: it’s both an exceptional adaptation and a remarkable work unto itself. Cronenberg makes slight but salient changes to DeLillo’s source narrative. These changes, which are best described by one character as “slight variation[s],” prove that Cronenberg’s given serious consideration to what should and shouldn’t be represented in his adaptation of the author’s ruminative, conversation-driven narrative. For example, in Cronenberg’s film, Eric Packer (a surprisingly adequate Robert Pattinson), an ambivalent and self-destructive power broker, does not get to have sex with his wife like he’s wanted to do throughout DeLillo’s book. Other changes, like the fact that Packer is investing and studying the steady rise in the Chinese yuan in the film and not the Japanese yen, as in the book, are equally striking. These differences noticeably enrich DeLillo’s original story, making Cronenberg’s "Cosmopolis" that much more rewarding in its own dizzying way. It’s fitting that Pattinson, today’s It boy, plays Packer, considering who Cronenberg’s Packer is. As a former start-up wunderkind, the 28 year-old Packer is comically death-obsessed. “We die every day,” he risibly exclaims to one of his sizeable retinue of advisors. Packer gets daily check-ups from his doctors partly because he enjoys the routine of it but also because he’s looking for something to confirm his suspicions. He’s convinced he’s found that something when he’s told that his prostate is asymmetrical. It’s pretty funny to see Pattinson, being the young, pretty tabula rasa that he is, play Packer, a wheeler-dealer that used to be hot shit but is now unable to sleep because he fears that he’s no longer relevant. Throughout both versions of "Cosmopolis," Packer searches for a break in his routine. Against the advice of his over-protective bodyguard Torval (Kevin Durand), he fights back anarcho-protestors and gridlock traffic caused by the President’s visit to another part of town so he can go get a haircut. The ritual, and also the familiarity of this ritual, is what matters to Packer. But Packer also insists on going out and getting his haircut now because, as he explains during one of many declamatory speeches, of the turbulent conditions Torval has warned of. He’s no longer waiting on his death, he’s inviting it. Packer is in that sense, as is also later explained point-blank in a speech, a contradictory figure. For example, he allows Vija Kinski (Samantha Morton), one of the more decisively outspoken of his advisors, to tell him that the anti-capitalist protestors that are impeding his progress are actually just another part of the capitalist system. Pattinson’s Packer latently agrees with this assessment but that changes when he sees one protestor self-immolate himself. Kinski insists that the protestor’s gesture is unimportant, but Pattinson sulkily protests that it has to be. The fact that Pattinson’s practically pouting when he rejects Morton’s negative assessment is telling. His death wish is sheer petulance, something that doesn’t come across as directly in the original novel. Cronenberg and Pattinson’s Packer is a different kind of suicidal but their character isn’t significantly less active in constructing his own demise. In DeLillo’s "Cosmopolis," Packer knows what’s happening with the yen, whose value keeps exponentially increasing, but is keeping that knowledge close to his chest. In Cronenberg’s variation, he's less sure. Packer is thus more immediately defined by his frustration with the finite-ness of his capabilities. He looks to others for solutions to his problems and finds that his yes-team can only confirm his own impotence. He is not slyly organizing his own downfall, but frantically seeking it out, unsure of whether or not he can find what he’s looking for. Packer only succeeds by sheer dumb luck: the man and an assassin looking for him have a lot more in common than the two realize. At the same time, Cronenberg doesn’t slim down DeLillo’s simultaneously sprawling and precisely dense narrative as much as he carves his own flourishes onto it. A couple of scenes, including Packer’s interest in bidding on a chapel full of art, and his visit to a night club full of drug-fueled ravers, are only necessary to establish a uniform pace to Cronenberg’s narrative. But in that sense, these scenes are just as essential as the ones where Kinski and Torval give Packer advice. Everything matters in Cronenberg’s "Cosmopolis," but not everything is necessarily the same as DeLillo’s book. And that makes the film, as a series of discussions about inter-related money-minded contradictions, insanely rich and maddeningly complex. We can’t wait to rewatch it. ................................................... As an aside, I was reminded of Crash when I saw the Cosmopolis trailer (Cronenberg's Crash, of course). I hope it's a return to that quality. |
| May 25th 2012, 09:57 |
|
|
|
Justin Chang's Cosmopolis review for Variety: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117947638/ An eerily precise match of filmmaker and material, "Cosmopolis" probes the soullessness of the 1% with the cinematic equivalent of latex gloves. Applying his icy intelligence to Don DeLillo's prescient 2003 novel, David Cronenberg turns a young Wall Street titan's daylong limo ride into a coolly corrosive allegory for an era of technological dependency, financial failure and pervasive paranoia, though the dialogue-heavy manner in which it engages these concepts remains distancing and somewhat impenetrable by design. While commercial reach will be limited to the more adventurous end of the specialty market, Robert Pattinson's excellent performance reps an indispensable asset. The first film based on a DeLillo tome, as well as Cronenberg's first feature-length script since 1999's "eXistenZ," "Cosmopolis" is an uncommonly straightforward adaptation by a filmmaker who, in movies like "Naked Lunch" and "Spider," found an inventive visual syntax for the psychological and intellectual conceits at work. Working here with a spare, episodic narrative and dialogue that teems with heady ideas, Cronenberg adopts a direct, scene-by-scene approach that crucially nails the novel's tone of archly stylized pessimism. Already an unholy pillar of capitalism at 28, handsome, sharply attired Eric Packer (Pattinson) decides he needs a haircut and sets out on the crosstown journey in his white stretch limousine, the interior of which is equipped with screens and gizmos that seem far more futuristic than the cold, gray Manhattan outside its windows. A presidential motorcade has slowed traffic to a crawl, giving this billionaire assets manager plenty of time for in-limo consultations with his chief of technology (Jay Baruchel) and currency analyst (Philip Nozuka), who warns his Eric he's borrowing too aggressively against the Chinese yuan. Escorted by security head Torval (Kevin Durand), Eric need not leave these leather-seated confines to have vigorous sex with a g.f. (Juliette Binoche), or to receive a lengthy prostate exam while chatting away with his finance chief (Emily Hampshire). Occasionally he'll get out for bewilderingly frequent meetings with his demure, distant wife, Elise (Sarah Gadon). As day darkens into night, the limo moves past a rap star's funeral procession and into a throng of protesters wielding fake rats as their monetary mascot. Until the guns come out in the final act, each of Eric's one-on-one meetings has essentially been a verbal sparring match. The initial discussions of technological and financial vulnerability give way to discussions of more abstract concepts: the primitive nature of sexual desire; the expendability of the masses for the sake of a visionary idea; the dizzying speed of human progress and the inability of language to keep up with it. Yet language is precisely what "Cosmopolis" has in abundance as it confronts the viewer with reams and reams of bluntly articulated, hyper-intellectual discourse. Cronenberg lets DeLillo's ideas speak for themselves but accents them visually, particularly in the way the camera plays up Eric's monstrous callousness and arrogance by emphasizing his physical distance from the hovering crowds. Rarely venturing outside its protagonist's ivory-tower-on-wheels, the film generates a mood of unsettling intimacy and isolation despite the chaotic swirl of human activity in the streets; it's mass misery observed through a glass darkly -- quite literally in the case of the limo's tinted windows. Charges that this study in emptiness and alienation itself feels empty and alienating are at once accurate and a bit beside the point, and perhaps the clearest confirmation that Cronenberg has done justice to his subject. In presenting such a close-up view of Eric's inner sanctum, the film invites the viewer's scorn and fascination simultaneously; to that end, the helmer has an ideal collaborator in Pattinson, whose callow yet charismatic features take on a seductively reptilian quality here. It's the actor's strongest screen performance and certainly his most substantial. The other thesps make only fleeting impressions, though Samantha Morton gets some mileage out of her one-scene turn as Eric's articulate chief of theory, and Mathieu Amalric gets a brief, hilarious appearance as a "pastry assassin" whose antics bring Rupert Murdoch's 2011 pie-thrower incident to mind. In a role effectively tightened from the book, Paul Giamatti is superb as a sad sack who represents Eric's antithesis in every particular. Craft contributions are at the director's high standard, from the crisp rhythms of Ronald Sanders' editing and the cold, slightly metallic cast of Peter Suschitzky's lensing to the unostentatious detail of Arv Greywal's production design. Howard Shore supplies one of his subtler scores, at times registering as little more than an ominous background rumble. ................... Not enough reviews to make an educated guess, but Paul Giamatti may be a supporting contender (apparently has a great scene in the film - akin to Hurt in A History of Violence) . |
| May 25th 2012, 13:57 |
|
|
|
This year is only a disappointment if you only care for more accessible fare. "Holy Motors" and "Cosmopolis" alone seem to be much stronger than most of the most competition last year combined. than you have "Amour", "Beyond The walls", "The Hunt"... all films that seem to be very, very good, not to mention "Killing Me Softly", that might also be pretty damn good. If anything, last year looks weaker in comparison. |
| May 25th 2012, 16:24 |
|
|
|
^Alain Resnais! Bernardo Bertolucci! David Cronenberg! Michael Haneke! Abbas Kiarostami! John Hillcoat! Jacques Audiard! Ken Loach! Benicio Del Toro! Gaspard Noe! Takashi Miike! Philip Kaufman! Leos Carax! Ken Burns! and quite a few other greats... including Dario Argento!!! Not too shabby, eh??? Seriously. |
| May 25th 2012, 18:31 |
|
|
|
Perhaps "more accessible fare" is not the phrase you are looking for. "The Tree of Life" and "Melancholia," two of the most acclaimed films from Cannes 2011, are far from middlebrow. I will give you the reaction to "Holy Motors" has been exceptional, probably the best reaction to a Cannes film in 2 years. It seems to be quite a rare, weird treat that has everyone talking. Leos Carax came in as quite an underdog and is leaving with the best reviews of his career. Even if his film fails to win Palme d'Or, his film is going to gain a critical following for sure. Other than that, "Amour" has been the other film that can compete with "Holy Motors" in terms of critical acclaim. There are also those that have been received with mostly favorable reviews like "Beyond the HIlls," "Cosmopolis" and "Rust and Bones." Overall, Cannes seems to have more duds and films with tepid reception than usual. |
| May 27th 2012, 05:36 |
|
|
|
I've read more than a few journalists that claim Holy Hotors to be the most rapturously received competition film in recent memory, even ahead of such notable favorites as Pulp Fiction Uncle Boonmee, which is totally unexpected and great. I'm hoping it picks up distribution before too long, but selling this film here in the states will be a monumental task, even with the Palme. That said, I agree there's a chance this might be too out there for the Palme, relegating it to the Prix or Directing prize instead. Instead, I think Nanni Morretti and this jury will select Amour. That no director has won back to back Palmes is the one thing giving me second thoughts. Now that Mud has screened, and seems to have been met with an unfortunately tepid response, some sure to be wrong predictions: PALME D'OR: MICHAEL HANEKE- AMOUR GRAND PRIX: LEOS CARAX- HOLY MOTORS PRIX DU JURY: CHRISTIAN MUNGIU- BEYOND THE HILLS DIRECTOR: THOMAS VINTERBERG- JAGTEN 65TH ANNIVERSARY PRIZE: ALAIN RESNAIS- YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET ACTOR: DENIS LAVANT- HOLY MOTORS ACTRESS: MARION COTTILARD- RUST & BONE SCREENPLAY: HONG SANG-SOO- IN ANOTHER COUNTRY Finally, while I agree this year's festival hasn't been a disappointment, except for on the American side, I would argue that besides the obvious standouts like Holy Motors, Amour, Beyond the Hills, No, Moonrise, Cosmopolis, and others, I don't see a Tree of Life, Take Shelter, Drive, Melancholia or Skin I Live In in this year's lineup, in or out of competition. Many films seemed to either be met with a mixed to average response, particularly the Americans, or just they didn't quite live up to the pre-hype. I sensed more excitement for last year's lineup, as a whole, as compared to this years. But I'm anticipating several of these titles still.  |
| May 27th 2012, 06:36 |
|
|
|
I too have the feeling Carax will probably get relegated to Grand Prix or Director but I think even Moretti probably knows he might look foolish if he doesn't pick Holy Motors for the Palme. The reception has been just too rapturous. I have a feeling Moonrise Kingdom will win something. My gut tells me either Screenplay or Prix du Jury. Amour is really confounding me because I can't see it NOT winning one of the four main awards (Palme, Grand Prix, Jury or Directing) and it also seems ultra competitive for either of the acting plums. But this rule kind of prevents it from winning 3 of those + a performance award: The prize list must not contain more than one joint award. The Palme d'Or can never be awarded jointly. No film can receive more than one award. However, the award for the Best Screenplay and the Jury Prize can be combined with a Best Performance award, on special dispensation of the Festival's President. Anyway, here's what I'll think they end up doing: Palme d'Or: Leos Carax, Holy Motors Grand Prix: Thomas Vinterberg, Jagten Director: Carlos Reygadas, Post Tenebras Lux AND David Cronenberg, Cosmopolis Prix du Jury: Michael Haneke, Amour Actor: Jean-Louis Trintignant, Amour Actress: Marion Cotillard, De rouille et d'os Screenplay: Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola, Moonrise Kingdom 65th Anniversary Award: Alain Resnais, Vous n'avez encore rien vu Yes, I'm predicting a tie. Mostly just for kicks but also because the 50th, 55th and 60th fests had ties, so one might just happen. |
| May 27th 2012, 07:42 |
|
|
|
Haneke will not win Palme D'Or or Grand Prix. I found out Moretti REALLY doesn't like him. They will probably reward "Amour" with acting wins instead. I think Mads Mikkelsen wins actor for "The Hunt" and Emmanuelle Riva for "Amour". I'm surprised many are picking Cotillard. her performance and the film weren't THAT well received. And no one said there's a rule a celebrity should win every year in either acting category. Final Predictions Palme: "Holy Motors", Leos Carax Grand Prix: "In Another Country", Hong Sangsoo or "Like Someone In Love", Kiarostami Special Jury Prize: "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet", Resnais Director: David Cronenberg, "Cosmopolis" Actor: Mads Mikkelsen, "The Hunt" Actress: Emmanuelle Riva, "Amour" Screenplay: "Behind The Walls" |
| May 27th 2012, 09:08 |
|
|
|
Predicting a tie is a good bet, I think, actually. I almost predicted one myself between Garrone's Reality (or even the Reygadas) and the Mungiu for the Prix du Jury, but opted against it. I really like your call of Cronenberg for Director. I almost went that same route, because it's a hunch I've been having and mulling over the past couple of days. But I really believe Jagten is winning something, moreso than I do Cosmopolis. If nothing else, maybe I could see Cronenberg snagging Screenplay, but Moonrise Kingdom is a great prediction there. I think you might be right about it winning something. Anderson's always had a European sensibility to his work that I always knew could play well on the Croisette, but with its screening being so early and with even more well received films out there, and so few awards to give out, I couldn't make room for it in my predictions. The Carlos Reygadas remains a mystery to me (of course, that's the Reygadas way, so I should expect nothing less from him). The reactions seem to be leaning towards the more negative side than the positive, with some people calling it a incoherent mess, but it definitely has its champions, and you never can tell how the Jury is reacting to these films. So in summation, I think you might be underestimating Beyond the Hills, but then again, I might be doing the same thing to Post Tenebras Lux. But I just don't think the passion's going to be there. Between Denis Lavant and Jean-Louis Trintignant, whoever's film doesn't end up winning the Palme, I see winning Best Actor for that film. But then there's also Matthias Schoenaerts and Mads Mikkelson to contend with, with an outside shot for Vladimir Svirski perhaps. Cottilard's main competition, IMO, are the two actresses from Beyond the Hills (Cosmina Stratan and Cristina Flutur), Margarethe Tiesel from Paradise: Love and, of course, Emmanuele Riva from Amour . Finally, I feel like I'm underestimating In the Fog and Reality, and I have a feeling Audiard could win Director. As for Amour not winning the Palme because Moretti allegedly doesn't like Haneke, I'm not sure if Moretti is that petty, and I'm not even sure I believe that story, but anything's possible and filmmaking's a cynical game. I do think the Carax is neck and neck and probably should win. We'll know soon enough! |
| May 27th 2012, 09:31 |
|
|
|
Here's a link to the ceremony: (better one for scottferguson): http://www.justin.tv/tv_papou#/w/3147009664/2 Wi |
| May 27th 2012, 10:48 |
|
|
|
Winners so far: Grand Prix: Prix de la Mise en Scene (best director): Prix d’interpretation feminine (best actress): Prix d’interpretation masculine (best actor): Prix du Scenario (best screenplay): Camera d’Or (best first feature): Prix du Jury (jury prize): Palme d’Or (short film): |
Facebook Timeline
