Here we are with three more films debuting up in Toronto. We've had reports from Hallenbeck on VERY BAD THINGS, which I believe is his fave film of the year (though knowing Joe he probably just saw A THIN RED LINE or something and has changed his mind that bastard) HOME FRIES has had fairly bad word of mouth, which I hate cause I just love Drew. And RUN LOLA RUN... I can't remember hearing about that one. So here we go, another batch of the latest word....
Some feedback from the Toronto Film Fest:
VERY BAD THINGS
Are you sick and tired of the never-ending parade of wuss-o-rama PG-13 fare that keeps coming off the Hollywood assembly line? Are you equally sick and tired of the "use-the-F-word-three-times" fare that passes for "R-rated" these days? Are you starving for some kickass jet black comedy? Does the prospect of a slick movie with first-rate production values and enough sex, drugs and (especially) violence to give Donald Wildmon and Jerry Falwell coronaries sound appealing? Did you like the movies RESERVOIR DOGS and/or SHALLOW GRAVE?
If you answered "yes" to all of the above, rejoice! The movie you've been waiting for is coming down the pike! It's name is VERY BAD THINGS, and it was one of two major highlights of my trip to the Toronto Film Festival. It's tentatively scheduled to open in the States in two months, on November 20th. It's sick! It's twisted! It's demented! It's politically incorrect! It's hysterical! In short ... I LOVED IT!! And I certainly wasn't alone ... the applause from the sold-out crowd (at 9:00 AM on a Sunday, no less) was loud and enthusiastic. (Especially noteworthy since there was nobody connected with the film introduced before the film.)
What sets the story in motion is a bizarre accidental death that occurs at a wild Vegas bachelor party, partially precipitated by drugs. A "corporatespeak" Christian Slater (at his Jack Nicholson best) convinces the others that the only logical option is to dispose of the corpse in the desert, but things start careening out of control before they can even start. And when the group of five finally does make it back to L.A., things start going really going crazy, with the raging guilt of Daniel Stern (who gives by far his best performance ever) precipitating the maelstrom.
Besides the question of whether or not the five will get caught and have to answer for their deeds, another major question hangs over the story and keeps it moving (it never lags): will the wedding of the bride (Cameron Diaz, in another winning comedy performance) and groom (John Favreau, the pilot in DEEP IMPACT) come off successfully? One of the great comic hooks of this film is the way that Diaz is determined that nothing, repeat nothing, will sidetrack her big day.
Without (heaven forbid) giving away the ending, let me say that it's a "living hell" doozy. One thing that I really loved about it was seeing "Forrest Gump technology" put to a deliciously twisted use!
The film was written and directed by actor Peter Berg, and I think that he's found his true cinematic calling in these new capacities. The only acting work of his that ever registered with me was when he played Linda Fiorentino's hung-like-a-horse "D.F." in THE LAST SEDUCTION. With VBT, it's like he's slam dunked on his first try the basket that Quentin Tarantino's fans have been waiting (and waiting...and waiting...) for him to sink ever since PF. In my book, this film earns Berg total amnesty for his earlier complicity in the quintessential low-budget Disney feature film, ASPEN EXTREME.
The critical repsonse to this film is likely to be restrained, largely due to the ferocity of the backlash that can be expected from America's moral guardians. (Variety was cool to it and Roger Ebert's already made it abundantly clear that he's going to give it a "thumbs down" come opening day.) So take your cue from people who've seen it who have no fear of hate mail or being chided by Michael Medved. I strongly suggest that you check out the two reviews that have previously been posted here if you want more information ... I'm in almost total agreement with both of them:
REVIEW NUMBER ONE
REVIEW NUMBER TWO
Probably the greatest praise I can give this film is to say that I can't WAIT to see it again in November with some of my local friends. And if Polygram softens the picture *at all* for American distribution -- thus undermining the praise that I've been heaping upon it since getting home -- I'm going to have to do some very, VERY bad things to those responsible.
RUN LOLA RUN
I know that it's hard, but try to imagine the following: an MTV movie ... with *brains*! That is, try to envision a full-throttle sensory assault where rapid-fire cuts, quick changes of perspective and other assorted A-V tricks all serve a storytelling purpose rather than merely being employed to distract you from noticing that there IS no story.
Can't do it, can you?
Believe it or not, this seemingly impossible feat has been brilliantly pulled off by German new-wave wunderkind Tom Tykwer in his third feature, RUN LOLA RUN ("Lola Rennt" in German). It was by far the most innovative film that I saw at the Toronto Film Festival, and it also earned the loudest applause. (Although it's not altogether fair to compare it to my other fest favorite, VERY BAD THINGS, since Tykwer was present at the screening and no principals were present at VBT.)
The film starts with a phone call between a pair of young twentysomethings. On one end is Lola (Franka Potente) the obviously nonconformist (she sports died-red hair and tattoos) daughter of a local banker; on the other is her brooding, pistol--carrying small-time hoodlum boyfriend Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu). The situation is this: due indirectly to Lola not meeting him earlier because her motorbike got stolen when she went for cigarettes, Manni has lost a bag with 100,000 deutsche marks that he was running for his boss. The boss has been known to maim underlings who steal so much as a beer from him. Manni has to deliver the money to the boss at noon sharp. It's 11:40.
Manni tells Lola that he has no choice but to rob a large supermarket near where he's calling from. Lola emphatically urges him not to, telling him that she'll meet him by the store by noon with the money. She then goes tearing out of her apartment, down the stairs (in an animated sequence), and out of the building.
So begins a dazzling cinematic consideration of cause and effect -- the major ripples that even the smallest spur-of-the-moment decisions can have and the domino effect of a minimally altered event. Tykwer has ingeniously created a structure that permits you to see multiple ramifications of singular changed events. One of his many effective video techniques is to freeze the picture after Lola bumps (or almost bumps) into someone, impose the words "AND THEN..." on the screen, and follow these words with a rapid series of still photographs showing what subsequently happens to the person. Many of the divergences of fate caused by a slight variation in Lola's actions are hysterical in their extremity.
You NEVER know what's going to happen next in this movie. The pacing is frenetic (set to a great techno track, co-authored by the multi-talented Tykwer), and the surprises are never-ending. While the idea of altered events is certainly not new to movies ("Back to the Future", "Groundhog Day"), there has never been a treatment of the concept as bold or innovative as this one. This is truly groundbreaking cinema ... look for Hollywood to buy it and bastardize it post-haste. ("We've got to make the leads two wholesome kids who accidentally get in over their heads." "You know the truck that almost hits the glass? Make that a PEPSI truck.")
But fortunately, there WILL be a chance to see the unspoiled original in the States. It was announced at the showing that a deal has just been struck with Sony Classics. The release date has yet to be decided, but when it opens, I suggest that you point yourself towards the theater showing it and then superimpose your own name into the title.
HOME FRIES
Any Drew Barrymore fans looking forward to her "new" film, HOME FRIES, be advised: these fries are being served with a turkey sandwich.
I saw the world premiere last Wednesday night in Toronto. The director and the entire primary cast (Drew, Luke Wilson, Jake Busey, and Catherine O'Hara) were in attendance, all introduced before the film. There was much fanfare, and the Drew fans were clearly out in force.
Then the movie started. I knew that it was in trouble about five minutes in, during a scene in which police are investigating a dead man found in a park ... the actor wasn't even trying to play dead. (Ever seen a corpse that can sit upright without back support?)
It became obvious as things progressed that this was a low-budget, slapped--together film that was probably originally intended for cable or straight-to--video release. (In fact, I found out later on that it has been in the can since prior to the release of THE WEDDING SINGER.) There's nothing in this film that even hints at originality ... believe me, you've seen it all before.
Drew doesn't embarrass herself, but the same can't be said for the rest of the cast. Some of them seem to be acting in a different production altogether, especially Luke Wilson, who seems locked into a state of soap opera angst for the entire film. And Jake Busey is as hammy in the film as he was on stage for the Q&A session that followed the screening.
There were sporadic chuckles, but only one real laugh during this alleged comedy. The applause at the end was strictly of the polite, "country club" sort. (I heard considerably more sustained laughter and more "real" applause at the screening of a comedy from the Philippines during the festival, to give you some idea.)
I had a better time talking movies and computers with two people sitting beside me while waiting for Drew to make her late entrance than I did watching HOME FRIES. Mark my words, this film is destined to become "Comedy Central filler" in short order. Chalk up yet another dud for Warner Brothers.
