Mel Gibson has had a bad year. Apocalypto isn't going to make it any better. Gibson's outline for the piece -- a lengthy, action-filled run-or-die story set in the midst of ancient Mayan culture -- didn't exactly sound like a rousing crowd-pleaser, and his DUI bust and subsequent rantings took even more of the luster off his star power. But Apocalypto isn't as atypical as it may seem -- from Braveheart on, Gibson's directorial efforts have been fairly blood-soaked historical exercises -- and Apocalyto isn't just more of the same, it's entirely too much of the same.

Apocalypto's plot is simple, and you can sense the mythic ideas the script was formed around; a man, captured by killers, has to escape them and race home to save his family. Films about early cultures are always tricky, but you can feel the desire to keep it simple: In many ways, Apocalypto is a pretty stripped-down affair. Our hero is on the hunt, he pauses at home, and then he is in peril and in flight. And yet, the resources brought to bear here and the decisions made -- to shoot in the original Mayan dialect, in Mexico, for a finished film with CGI-effects and huge practical stunts -- bloat that premise up with the kind of excess that money, in fact, can buy. (Shot for approximately $40 million, it's nearly impossible to imagine Apocalypto making more than a quarter of that investment back.)

I'm trying to write up Apocalypto this afternoon, and I stepped out to go to the cafe to find the streets full of cops: Apparently somebody gave a a 9mm-salute after a funeral a half-block away. So, I'm thinking about violence. And violence in movies. I mean, one of the ideas that drives me crazy in the cultural discourse is the idea that violent films lead to violent acts. But you know what? If violent popular culture led to gunfire, there wouldn't be anyone alive in Japan. And within a week, I've seen two films, both incredibly violent -- and one of them excited me and engaged me and challenged me, and the other just left me bored and unhappy and angry.

I think that violence in movies is like film in movies, or music or color or costumes; it's an element, and the question isn't how much of it you've got, it's how well you use it. (If you look at them closely, I contend that Pulp Fiction is a much more moral film than Forrest Gump. ... Which is a story for another day.) But my pick for the best film of the year, Children of Men, is full of violence -- upsetting, real, grim stuff that's still depicted with artistry and vigor; my least favorite film of the year, Apocalypto, is also full of violence, but it's clammy and silly stuff -- boring and blood-soaked and incredibly obvious. (And again, more on that later.) But as violent as Apocalypto was, it didn't make me want to kill anyone by committing human sacrifice. Or using poison-frog darts. Or a club. Or whatever. Or, if someone's going to be pointing anything out of their window on the street where I live, I'd much rather have it be a movie than a gun.

How was your day?

J.

Well, awards season has officially begun -- while film critics nationwide have been trying to cram in screenings of movies before their respective critic's awards nominations close (BFCA members, for example, have to file their nominations before Midnight Friday), one group has already made it's choices. The National Board of Review has named Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima as the best film of the year. Other surprises can be found on the full list of winners, including Martin Scorsese winning Best Director for The Departed, and Forrest Whittaker winning Best Actor for The Last King of Scotland; at the same time, The National Board of Review is easily one of the most mysterious of all critic's groups who hand out gongs at the end of the year -- as David Poland concisely points out at his blog, The Hot Button, the New York-based NBR isn't exactly the most accurate Oscar predictor. Add in the fact that the NBR is notoriously troubled by accusations of corruption and incompetence, and Iwo Jima's win may seem more like a blessing than a curse for Warner Bros, who moved Iwo Jima up to be released and eligible for awards consideration in 2006 after the critical and box-office disappointment of Flags of Our Fathers, Eastwood's first World War II epic of the year. ...

Does hearing about this award spark your cuiosity about Letters from Iwo Jima? Or leave you wondering more about who the heck the National Board of Review actually are?

There still seems to be no official press release regarding Don Cheadle's involvement in a Miles Davis biopic, but TMZ is reporting that not only is the actor confirmed to star as the jazz trumpet legend, but he will be directing the film, as well. Erik told us back in March about the project, but at that time it was thought that Sony Pictures would be involved and that Antoine Fuqua might be interested in directing it. Then, just a few weeks ago, Jessica mentioned that there are in fact two competing Davis pics.

Apparently, the main setback in getting this project started was securing music rights. That is where Sony ended up being involved, as producer Cary Brokaw went to the studio, which released his last two pictures, as a go-between in dealing with Davis' Columbia Records catalog (Sony Pictures and Columbia Records are owned by the same conglomerate). But the film will not be produced by the studio; Brokaw will reportedly be financing it independently. I predict, however, that in the end it will be distributed by Sony Classics.

Writing the screenplay for the bio are Chris Wilkinson and Steve Rivele, the Oscar-nominated duo behind other biopics, such as Nixon, Ali, Copying Beethoven and an upcoming film about Jackie Robinson. Depending on Cheadle's talent as a director -- we will see his handiwork first with next year's Tishomingo Blues --- he could very well go on to win an Oscar (or two!) for this project. We already know that he's an amazing actor and that the Academy loves biographical roles, so this is obviously a film that should generate buzz even before the thing has its first day of shooting.

Since there isn't much to do until February except speculate about the Oscars, buzz around who is going to receive a nomination is already starting to build. The New York Times has an article on the support behind Eddie Murphy's performance in the film adaptation of the stage hit musical Dreamgirls.

Plenty has been written about the career of Eddie Murphy, from his rise on Saturday Night Live to his seemingly permanent residency in family-oriented comedies. Dreamgirls hasn't even been released yet, but already heavyweight Jeffrey Katzenberg is throwing his support behind Murphy for a best supporting actor nomination: "Eddie can walk on water, it's just instinct. I know he can do it." The producer John Davis was willing to declare that "Eddie will definitely win the Oscar" for the film, allegedly after seeing only the first five minutes of Murphy's performance. The film has even stirred talk of a revival of the show on Broadway.

It's probably pretty unlikely that Murphy will win an Oscar, however the Academy loves those crazy "wild card" picks and if Murphy gets the nod, I have a feeling he would be filling that requirement. Dreamgirls opens this Christmas so we'll all get the chance to see if Murphy is going to be a serious Oscar contender among other suggested heavies like Jack Nicholson (The Departed), Michael Caine (The Prestige), and Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine). The question will be with competition like that does Murphy even stand a chance?

I may have seen the best movie of 2007 on Friday. I mean there are plenty of caveats above and beyond the "may" in that first sentence: The best movie of 2007 in my opinion, of course, and frankly I want to watch the movie again on a big screen before I decide. Of course, the fact I want to watch it again is interesting. The fact that it has me cross-referencing and re-contemplating half the rest of the year's films, from United 93 to Pan's Labyrinth is also interesting. I'm not being coy by not naming the film -- I just, again, want to be sure. I mean, I was insanely fired up over the trailer for The Good German, and that didn't exactly work out. (More details about that on Wednesday, in my The Good German review. ) But if I've seen a trend in this year's films, it's that many of them are what for a lack of a better term I'll call fables -- evocative and heartfelt dream-like tales that are long on imagination and vision but short on rigorous story. Some of the more impressive films I saw all year were fables in that way -- Brick; Pan's Labyrinth; The Lives of Others; Lights in the Dusk and, yes, the film I saw on Friday -- they may not be coherent narratives (or, rather, they may not be conventionally coherent narratives) but something in them sticks to your heart and dreams and head in a rare way. The movie I saw on Friday is ugly, harsh and wrenching; there's something mutedly hopeful in it, like slow strings coming through harsh bass notes. Yet at the same time, as the credits roll, there's no guarantee those strings will be ultimately be heard instead of the blank silence of death. And that's what makes this time of year exciting for a film critic -- although, really, it's what happens every time the lights go down and you sit hopeful in the darkness: Maybe you'll see something worth talking about and re-assessing. Maybe you'll see something worth thinking about. Worth feeling for.

What's the best movie you've seen all year? And seen any good fables lately?

J.

In an announcement this morning, Cardinal Roger Mahony, who is featured prominently in Amy Berg's Oscar-shortlisted documentary Deliver Us From Evil, disclosed that the Los Angeles Archdiocese will pay out $60 million to abuse victims. Although $60 million seems like a huge sum, the payout only covers 45 victims - -just 8% of the 562 claims against the LA Archdiocese -- who will receive approximately $1.3 million each. Mahony was quote in a story in the Los Angeles Times as saying that $40 million of that total had been held back from last year, and that parishes will not feel the hit of the payout, but that there will be "more pain" as the rest of the claims are settled.

Well, it looks like no matter how hard we try, we just can't escape Factory Girl. My personal interest in this movie has been waning for a while now, and the trailer didn't exactly inspire confidence. There has been word of re-shoots, and now entirely new scenes are being added. None of which is a particularly good sign, but Harvey Weinstein refuses to say die when it comes to this Warhol-era biopic.

A report from Radar, has Weinstein making the rounds to make sure that the Academy doesn't forget about Factory Girl when it comes time to hand out the nominations. Weinstein has taken out "For Your Consideration" ads in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. It seems a little premature considering that the film hasn't even finished shooting in New York, and the deadline for Oscar consideration is fast approaching. A spokesperson for Weinstein defended the move, saying that critics had "seen an early cut of the movie and given it high praise, especially Sienna Miller and Guy Pearce's performances. We don't think it's premature to start promoting the film for awards consideration." Which I can't help but think translates into sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la I can't hear you". I guess we will see who gets the last laugh when the film opens this December. ...


[ via Hollywood Elsewhere ]

If you comb through the Oscar nominees from the past 79 years, it might look like a pretty decent list of quality films. But if you start to consider the titles that weren't nominated, you can get a more complete picture of just how badly they have failed to represent the broad spectrum. It's easy to find neglected Best Picture contenders that weren't nominated (Touch of Evil, Vertigo, 2001: A Space Odyssey, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Do the Right Thing, Mulholland Drive, etc.), but a bit harder to sift through some of the other categories.

A recent report in Variety looks at the most dubious and most annoying category, Best Song. Music expert Jon Burlingame goes through ten years and finds ten glaring examples of songs not nominated, including "Someday My Prince Will Come" from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" from Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), "A Hard Day's Night" from A Hard Day's Night (1964) and anything from Saturday Night Fever (1977). The winner in 1977 was "You Light Up My Life" by Debby Boone from a movie called You Light Up My Life that has apparently been almost entirely forgotten.

On the night of September 11, 2001, I got online and shared a few conversations with pals from around the world. I'm sure those discussions were a lot like the ones you had with your friends and family: The shock, the fury, the overwhelming helplessness, the heart-wrenching sympathy for the victims and their families. But since I'll often use humor as a defense mechanism (yes, even in the very bleakest moments), I remember asking a few of my film critic colleagues: "Hey, how long do you think it'll be before Hollywood decides to make a few biopics about what happened today?"

And now here we are, just over five years later, and 2006 has yielded not one but two rather distinctive takes on what went down during the blackest day in our nation's history. Universal's United 93 was the first one out of the gate, focusing on the final hours of some stunningly heroic "average Joes" who chose to fight back -- even as they knew it was probably the last thing they'd ever do. Fortunately, it was every bit the sobering and respectful film we all hoped it would be. A few months later came Paramount's World Trade Center, which told the tale from the perspective of two NYC Port Authority police officers who became trapped under tons of concrete rubble. Again, the filmmakers took a heartfelt and admirably sincere approach to the story, giving us a look at a massive tragedy through the eyes of two normal American families.

Aside from the events that inspired their creation, the two films couldn't possibly be more different -- and now that Oscar season has rolled around yet again, the experts are extra-busy handicapping which movie should win what and which movie doesn't deserve squat. So I thought it might be interesting to do a little "compare & contrast" on the films, focusing mainly on which sections might be considered most Oscar-worthy ...

There are a lot of things I get tired of -- people who spit in the streets, swearing in front of kids, waiting for the cannibalism to break out on Jericho. And one of the things most likely to make me roll my eyes back in my head is the tiresome, never-ending self- congratulation of the Baby Boom generation. Yes, yes, we get it -- you were really special, you truly were. If by 'special,' you mean 'numerous and annoying and in love with your own mythos.' I mean, I saw Bobby at Toronto; I fell into a bored, listless coma, snapped to attention only by the musical-hallucination number (and God, I wish I were kidding) featuring Ashton Kutcher in a bad hippie wig saying 'No, you shut up. ..." over and over to an orange. To an orange. I got up and walked out, figuring that anyone with a shred of self-awareness would recognize it for what it was -- yet another round of Hollywood's aging leftist dinosaurs, Liberalsaurus Rex, dislocating their own shoulders to pat themselves on the back. But then I read San Francisco Chronicle reviewer Mick LaSalle calling Bobby " ... one of the year's best films." (In the interests of disclosure, I know Mick, see him all the time at screenings, and he's one of the warmest, brightest and most considerate guys you could ever meet. But then again, he also thought Click was one of the year's best films.) I don't know if people are flocking to see Bobby -- Rotten Tomatoes has it at a paltry 44% "Fresh" rating, and the box office is abysmal; it's made six million dollars in 12 days on 1,600 screens. At the same time, I know it's going to be crammed down our throats this awards season -- and hey, if everyone who was in it votes for it, it might actually have a shot. That's one good thing about a movie with such a nonsensically huge cast, I guess: When you've made a miserable failure, at least you have lots of company.

Have you seen Bobby?

J.

According to the Associated Press, Maggie Gyllenhaal won the Best Actress award at the 2006 Stockholm Film Festival for her performance in Sherrybaby. Sherrybaby also won Best Picture, and Ryan Gosling took home Best Actor for Half Nelson. Meanwhile, director Lasse Hallstrom returned to his hometown to collect the festival's Lifetime Achievement Award.

Hallstrom, 60, made his big-screen directing debut in 1975 and also helmed music videos for ABBA. Later, he enjoyed a breakout international hit with his 1985 coming-of-age film My Life as a Dog. It was released in the US in 1987, earning him an Oscar nomination for Best Director. It wasn't long before he began making movies in Hollywood, cranking out such forgettable dramas as Once Around (1991) and Something to Talk About (1995). But Oscar didn't forget about him; Leonardo DiCaprio earned a Best Supporting Actor nod for his performance as a developmentally disabled boy in What's Eating Gilbert Grape? (1993). In 1999, Hallstrom became the Weinstein brothers' go-to guy (along with John Madden) for Oscar films: The Cider House Rules (1999), Chocolat (2000), The Shipping News (2001), An Unfinished Life (2005), Casanova (2005) and the upcoming The Hoax.

Hallstrom told Reuters about his plans to adapt Per Olov Enquist's prize-winning book The Royal Physician's Visit for an upcoming film, but his next film will be The Daughter of the Queen of Sheba, to be released in 2008, with his wife Lena Olin in a lead role. He also told reporters that My Life as a Dog is his personal favorite of all his films, though he expected that it was too "typically Swedish" and would be "impossible to export."

I agree that My Life as a Dog is his best film, and frankly it's the only one that's even remotely tolerable. But he needn't have worried. Its goopy coming-of-age story was about as Swedish as Stand by Me was; that kind of film plays well in any country. No, Hallstrom is the type of director who is specifically available to win awards. None of his films has any spark of life or any personality; there's no evidence as to why he wants to make films or why he has chosen these specific subjects. They just have a kind of noble, distant sheen.

I mean, if you want to talk Swedish directors, he's no Ingmar Bergman.

If you've been looking forward to The Good German, I have some bad news: It is apparently not that good. According to Anne Thompson's Risky Biz Blog (in a post from Sheigh Crabtree), the new Steven Soderbergh film was received pretty horribly at a recent DGA screening in NYC. And despite the director being present for a Q&A, members of the audience felt no need to be nice. The writer claims that during the film there was some guffawing and loudly expressed commenting going on, and when the film ended, there was little applause. Then, when Soderbergh came out for questions, it got even worse. One person asked if the film was supposed to be a spoof or parody of The Third Man. Eventually, Soderbergh issued his own criticisms of the audience members but also had a little fun with the response.

First of all, I'm shocked that The Good German is bad for reasons other than featuring Tobey Maguire (he's good in a Spidey mask; that's about it). Second, I'm surprised at how hostile an audience can be, especially an industry audience, which I thought typically preferred to kiss ass than draw blood. Also, I have to wonder if The Good German, which Soderbergh attempted to make as a film from 1945, is just too old-fashioned for modern cynics. Would it seem like a better movie to 1940s audiences, or to modern audiences if it really was from 1945? I don't think that Casablanca would be accepted any more easily if made today. At least, not if cast with today's crop of actors. Ditto with The Third Man.

So far Rotten Tomatoes shows only two reviews of The Good German, and both are favorable. On the IMDb, 125 people have voted and the film's rating is currently 5.7/10. I guess we'll have to see if the film can generate any better buzz before it bows on December 15.

I love when celebrities speak their minds, because 1) it is interesting to hear what they have to say, and 2) their minds are often filled with controversial statements. Actors especially are given crap for giving their opinions, but really how is it different for them to advertise a cause or point of view than to sell fashion or goods? Is it different because they aren't getting paid for their thoughts? Is it okay for them to support charities and causes through events but not through interviews? And shouldn't Susan Sarandon, who is well known for being one of the more outspoken celebrities in the world today, find another way to attempt communication with more conservative-minded people than by way of her own voice? Here are the latest in celebrity causes and criticisms:

• According to the Daily News, Sarandon is one of a few celebrities trying to get The Ground Truth seen by members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and subsequently one of a few now slamming the military for lack of interest. On Veteran's Day, the actress joined Cher, Paul Haggis, Olivia Wilde and others for a special AOL event, during which they spoke with war veterans and promoted the documentary. Now, apparently Cher has made 5,000 copies of the film's DVD for American soldiers to view, but Army, Navy and Marine Corps bases are not showing any thanks. An Army spokeswoman responded via the newspaper, saying that the film is an activist piece, not a documentary, and says that it, "has a definite point of view," adding that the military isn't encouraging soldiers to boycott the film, but it isn't interested in promoting it to them (what does she find more suitable for the troops? Sahara). While it is obvious that The Ground Truth has a bit of a slant -- it would be impossible for it not to -- I found it mostly unbiased, actually. You can read my review of the film here.
  

Being associated with Oscar is a very good thing indeed. Films that win an Academy Award (or many) will typically see a boost in ticket sales. Before that, the nomination alone benefits their box office performance. Now it appears that simply being shortlisted has its advantages, too. One day after the Academy released its narrowed-down list of feature documentary contenders, ThinkFilm announced they've picked up the rights to one of the films on that list. The company will distribute The Trials of Darryl Hunt, which was produced by HBO Films and directed by Ricki Stern and Anne Sundberg. The doc premiered last January at Sundance and in April it won the audience award at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival.

It tells the story of Darryl Hunt, a black man who was tried and convicted for the rape and murder of white newspaper reporter Deborah Sykes in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in 1984. Hunt was sentenced despite there being no physical evidence, simply off a testimonial given by a former Ku Klux Klan member. After ten years, in 1994, a DNA test cleared Hunt of the charges, yet he wasn't released from prison for another eight years.

The film would probably make for a good, though upsetting, double-header with the 2005 Sundance Special Jury Prize winner After Innocence, which examines the difficult process of re-entering society following, and despite, being exonerated. Unfortunately, such a double-header will likely never happen on television, since After Innocence was produced by HBO competitor Showtime. After Innocence was also shortlisted for the doc feature Oscar last fall, but didn't garner a nomination. Still, it did okay in limited release and gets occasional play on Showtime (including this Thursday morning). The Trials of Darryl Hunt, which was set to premiere on HBO sometime in 2007, will now get a theatrical and DVD release courtesy of ThinkFilm.