Well, I've already written up my feelings on the following two flicks, but Robogeek pleaded with me to be heard on these two films. He has a desire to be heard. Now folks I want you to take notes, and notice his OSCAR predictions, and then write him back in February with the actual nominations and either kiss his robotic buttocks or kick them. Here he goes...
Robogeek reviews "Apt Pupil" and "Pleasantville" -- and makes some Oscar predictions, natch!
Hope is a risky road to travel. The danger of disappointment is great, yet the rewards of fulfillment can be vast.
We here at AICN share a simple hope -- not just that we will find (and encourage) cool movies, but that we might also uncover that profound cinematic experience, and the Holy Grail of the true moviegoer: the perfect film.
This weekend brings us several highly anticipated films, two of which I'll review here. (The first review's short; the second, well, it gets the full Robo-treatment.)
First is Bryan Singer's "Apt Pupil," based on the Stephen King novella. I got to see it at Austin's own movie palace, the Paramount, on closing night of the Austin Film Festival, with Singer in attendance. After a painful array of projection and scheduling problems that plagued this year's fest, this screening came off with nary a hitch. (Although I'd say there was a bit of Hitch's influence in the film, though.)
Expectations for this film have obviously been high, as it is Singer's follow-up to "The Usual Suspects." It is, in fact, a rather bold and unexpected choice of project for him to have taken on. It's an intimate character study -- a theatrical duet, if you will -- that isn't particularly commercial. At all. It's a risky film, and demonstrates Singer's maturity as a director, and in particular his ability to elicit strong, memorable performances from his actors.
By now you should know the premise -- a high school student, while studying the Holocaust, uncovers the fact that a Nazi war criminal is living in his community, and blackmails him into telling him the story of his life during the war. What follows is a psychological tug-of-war that escalates into a battle of wills, as each character is forced to confront the darkness that resides in the depths of their souls.
Now, on the surface, this could be a "Movie of the Week" or, worse, an "Afterschool Special." But Singer weaves a pretty engaging tale full of twists and interesting characters. However, the basic premise is going to be a barrier for most moviegoers, who will no doubt choose less challenging fare. And, in fact, I think the film is handicapped from achieving greatness simply due to the limitations of the story it is telling.
At the center of the film, of course, is the stunningly brilliant Ian McKellan -- probably one of the five greatest actors alive today. Having been a fan of his for years, I relished the chance to see him in this role. There are some unfortunate superficial similarities to his deliciously evil "Richard III," but, as Singer pointed out in the Q&A, most people haven't seen that film. (If you haven't, you should; rent it a.s.a.p.!) Brad Renfro also turns in a strong performance, which impressed and surprised me. But even though he's the film's lead, the movie belongs to McKellan, even if his is technically a supporting role. (Which, in fact, is just as well; this way he can get an Oscar nomination for both this film, as well as his even superior lead performance in the astounding "Gods and Monsters," which I'll review tomorrow.)
The film's supporting cast is also strong, with nice work from Bruce Davison, Elias (Wolverine?) Koteas, and -gasp!- David Schwimmer. Yes, it's true. Really. Listen, I _despise_ "Friends," and have never been able to sit through an entire episode (how does anybody do it?). I applaud both Singer's bravery in casting him, as well as Schwimmer's in taking the role. It's distracting at first, but ultimately works. And, of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't single out John Ottman's fine contributions as both editor and composer of the score.
All in all, "Apt Pupil" is a really good film that just might end up on my Top Ten list for the year. It's a haunting examination on the nature of evil, though I think it just falls short of greatness. And while it's not likely to set the world on fire like "The Usual Suspects," it's a finely crafted, solid piece of work -- one that instills me with even greater confidence for Singer's forthcoming "X-Men." (Psst! Hey Bryan, cast Terence Stamp as Magneto! Please?)
And then there's "Pleasantville." I've been dying to see this film, ever since seeing the ShoWest trailer this past spring and learning the film's pedigree. And given Harry's response to the script (which he wouldn't let me read, for my own good), I became convinced that this movie was a.) going to be a hit and b.) Oscar-worthy.
"Pleasantville" is a perfect film. (I even told Gary Ross so in the lobby after the screening.) "Pleasantville" is a great film. Is it "the rebirth of cinema," as one noteworthy publication has proclaimed? Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. But it is what movies were made for. This is a story that could not be told in any other medium than film. It is pure cinematic magic. And while it is only October, for heaven's sake, and there are plenty of films I have yet to see, my gut tells me this will -- and should -- win the Oscar for Best Picture.
After viewing this film, my first words to Harry were "I only wish 'What Dreams May Come' had been this perfect." Unlike that film, Harry had not let me read the script to "Pleasantville" in advance. "Trust me," he said. "The less you know, the better." And, boy, was he right. That said, please allow a digression before I get into the film itself.
BEGIN DIGRESSION... I want to say a few things about the marketing of the film. First off, the trailer and TV spots give away far too much, in my opinion. Ideally, you shouldn't even _know_ that color starts invading the B&W world of "Pleasantville" -- it should be a total surprise. (Actually, I'm of the mind that trailers and commercials in general should refrain from showing any footage from the second half of any movie.) Secondly, the campaign for this film is misleading, making it look like a light "Back to the Future" type of fantasy/comedy. That doesn't do justice to the film. Now, obviously I understand the realities and economics that dictated these choices; this film is a significant ($40 million + marketing) investment for New Line (read: Warner Bros.) and they want to maximize their profit potential. Fine. But I think marketing this movie honestly without spoiling it could have been done, and would have been at least as effective.
Furthermore, while some execs I won't name feel the need to show off the bag of tricks the film has to offer, I think it's self-defeating, because it makes the whole B&W/color cross-over look gimmicky. And think about it: From the season premiere of "Star Trek: Voyager" to commercials for Haggar Black Label dress slacks, "Pleasantville"'s signature visual trick has already been stolen before the film has even opened. I only hope this is the end of it, but I fear we're going to see many, many more people appropriate this effect as a gimmick until it's as tired as the "morph" and loses its punch. (Kinda like that cool 3D freeze frame effect is starting to, now that it's incorporated into at least three ad campaigns.) ...END DIGRESSION
Okay. Now then. I was utterly unprepared for the depths of profundity and the heights of artistry demonstrated by this film. It is a compelling celebration of ideas, brilliantly conceived and marvellously executed. It is, honestly, like nothing you've seen before, and yet at the same time warmly familiar in its inherent truth, insight and honesty. It is, amazingly, an original film, though it harkens back to many others through cinematic tips-of-the-hat.
There is _so_ much in this movie, so much _to_ this film. It's challenging, thought-provoking, and deeply affecting. Not everyone is going to "get" this film. (In fact, earlier this evening I suffered through watching a local access-television-movie-review-show, on which _none_ of the nearly half-dozen "critics" got it.) However, I'm not presuming to say that _I_ even _completely_ got it; I'm going to have to watch it again and again, and I may never pick up on every little thing in this masterpiece. But I'll love it more and more anyway, and my appreciation of it will doubtless grow. It's that kind of movie, that is endlessly rewarding.
Like Harry, I'm a big sucker for nostalgia. (For instance, given the chance, there's nothing I'd rather do this very moment than to wander around the 1939 World's Fair.) This film pushes all the buttons of nostalgia brilliantly, sucking you in with its siren's song. But then it does something unexpected. It actually takes you on a journey that makes the film ultimately anti-nostalgic, and an affirmation of progress, a validation of change.
Gary Ross' genius is that he has not only made a timeless classic, but a film that is a perfect reflection -- and lesson -- for this day and age. Look at the world we live in. Look at the headlines, the media, the politics, _everything_. How have we let things get to this point? Why did we let things get so out of control? Those are important questions, but what's more important is simply the fact that we have to move forward. There's no turning back. And everything we've lost (or think we've lost) will be balanced by things we'll gain, if we seize the reins of our destiny -- as individuals, as a society, as a culture, as a nation, as a world. Oh, and did I mention that this is Ross' first time helming a picture? It is perhaps the most auspicious directorial debut in a generation. As solid a writer as he's proven to be, he's a revelation as a director. And this script is far and away the best thing he's ever written.
"But what is this movie _about_?" you ask. Well, I don't want to give too much away. But it's a film for all those bastards who say "it's only a movie." Well, duh! That's like saying something is "only a book," "only a painting," or "only music." These are the flowers of the soul, the very manifestation of the human spirit. These are the things that set us apart from animals and inanimate objects. The power of ideas, of creativity, of imagination, of art. What is their value? What a ridiculous question. They are _invaluable_, their worth beyond measure.
About halfway through the film, when Tobey Maguire shows Jeff Daniels a book of paintings -- in color -- I started choking up. At that moment, I was suddenly a child again, going to a museum for the first time, imagining what it would be like to have gone through my whole life without knowing art. After looking at the book, Daniels' character says he'll never be able to paint like that. Maguire's character tells him sure you will, it'll just take practice. Daniels says, no, no, that's not it...
"Where am I going to see colors like that? Must be pretty lucky to see colors like that. I bet they don't even know how lucky they are."
"I bet they don't even know how lucky they are." God, how I lost it with that line. It is so beautifully simple a scene, so powerfully elegant, so richly resonant. Jeff Daniels' delivery -- PERFECT. And that's the magic of the film. Through little things, small details, tiny moments, and subtle nuance, this film says so very much. It's a monument to the power of cinema.
The acting in the film is absolutely wonderful in this film, across the board. Like everything else in the film, every performance is perfect. A particular stand-out is Joan Allen, a pillar of grace and humanity, who I consider the front-runner for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Jeff Daniels, though, gives a performance almost as strong; it's really perfect. Also great to watch are William H. Macy and J. T. Walsh. The two leads -- Tobey Maquire and Reese Witherspoon -- are delightful. Both of them have sort of been under my radar up until now, but they have gained my full attention. And Don Knotts. DON KNOTTS!!! I don't even have the words. Then there's Randy Newman's dead-on score, plus all the inspired source music in the film. Perfect, perfect, perfect. This movie even knows how to _end_ itself perfectly. (Though it does leave a door wide open for a sequel.)
After you see "Pleasantville," do yourself a favor. Go to a museum. Take a walk in a park. Visit a library. Attend a concert. Go to the theater. Feed your soul with art. Make art yourself. Live. Breath. Look. Listen. Taste. Touch. Feel.
...
Since seeing "Pleasantville," I've been pondering what I'd like to see Gary Ross take on as his next project. I know Harry already approached him with a suggestion (a very good one, in fact -- though it's not my place to tell you what it was), but that Ross has since found a project that struck his fancy. But, if I could wave a magic wand, there's a project I think Ross would be perfect for.
"Superman."
Go see "Pleasantville" this weekend. Then read the current four-issue mini-series "Superman for All Seasons," by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale, available at your local comics shop. Rent the old Fleischer Studios "Superman" cartoons, circa 1940, on DVD (click on the NetFlix banner, why don'tcha). Watch the "Superman" animated series on Kids' WB, and rent the "World's Finest" Batman/Superman cross-over three-parter. Then read "Kingdom Come," by Mark Waid and Alex Ross -- perhaps the best work of fiction of 1997. Then think about it. Really think about it. Imagine how Gary Ross could transform a great American myth into a classic American film.
Warner Bros., heed the words of Robogeek! Do something profoundly intelligent, boldly visionary, and profoundly cool. Tim Burton has left the building, and you're scrambling to find a new director to resuscitate a lucrative franchise. Get Gary Ross at all costs. Give him carte blanche, and let him start from scratch if he wants. (And, jeez, boot Jon Peters from the project already, will ya?) He could give you a blockbuster and an Oscar.
Tomorrow, hopefully, I'll be back with my reviews of "The Mighty" and "Gods and Monsters." (Next week -- "Vampires"!) And look for my reviews of the last five episodes of "Babylon 5" over in Coaxial News.
- Robogeek
P.S.: Since I haven't seen anyone else do it yet, I figure I'll be the first to go out on a limb with the following bold predictions (subject to change, of course). The nominations for Best Picture will be... "Beloved," "The Mighty," "Pleasantville," "The Prince of Egypt," and "Saving Private Ryan." (And, right now, my money's on "Pleasantville" to win.)
