A post this morning at The Awl ruminates on The New York Times‘ apparent love affair with Nora Ephron, writer/director of Julie & Julia. The paper has taken to covering her/the movie about once every other day in the month leading up to the film’s release this week, to the point where Nikki Finke has cried conspiracy. Choire Sicha gives the paper a bit more credit; though he criticizes the Times for having “no idea what lays beyond its own fortress walls,” he sympathises with the media’s attraction to Ephron as a “charming, fun whirlwind” and a “bridge” between New York old money and Hollywood commerce.

This is all very interesting, but it would be easy to read The Awl’s post and make the dangerous inference that since The New York Times is gaga for Julie & Julia, and because The New York Times tends to “exhibit absolutely clearly that they have very little idea anymore what readers are, or even should be, interested in,” ergo, there somehow won’t be much of an appetite for Ephron’s food porn outside “their bubble,” which Sicha accurately assesses Ephron is “deep inside.”  But to make such a leap of inference would both give the film too much credit, and Ephron’s extremely commercial instincts not enough. I saw the film at Traverse City over the weekend, and while I personally wish it was, well, better — imagine a movie split between post-WWII France and New York in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that actually treated its twin protagonists as engaged products of their socio-historical surroundings rather than just borderline-sitophiliac ciphers! –– the 500 elderly Midwesterners I saw it with seemed completely satisfied. It may be true that Ephron represents, as Sicha suggests, a link between New York and Hollywood that this city’s newspaper can’t resist, but The Great New York Times Ephron Splooge is probably not as much about either coast as it is about much of the country in between.

Just as we’d prefer for Hollywood to remake bad films rather than beloved classics, we’d also like to see more TV adaptations of obscure and failed series — as long as there’s going to be such a giant void of creativity anyway, why not go for the forgotten titles and at least make it seem like you’ve got fresh ideas?

Unfortunately, Hollywood continues to ignore our logic and is instead adapting the popular 80s cop show T.J. Hooker for the big screen. It may not be the most familiar or beloved series of all time, but it has enough name recognition to make it a success, a la the S.W.A.T. and Starsky & Hutch movies before it.

We have no interest in yet another veteran/rookie team-up, though, especially a blatantly recycled one. So we decided to mine deeper into our TV Guide issues from the 80s and pick out some lesser-known high-concept shows that would make awesome movies if only they had more of a built-in, nostalgic audience to justify a green light.

Check out our pitches after the jump, and thank us when Hollywood gets wise to the ideas.
…Read more

Ratings were up 10% from last year, and polls indicate that viewers of the Oscars last night mostly enjoyed the telecast and would like Hugh Jackman back to host next year. So why am I still harping on the negatives? Well, no matter how many entertaining elements of the ceremony people remind me of, I have to argue that while the awards themselves were great, the television show was not. And unfortunately, I was not inside the Kodak auditorium where I might have better appreciated the things we all at home should have been able to appreciate. And anything I found entertaining from where I sat in my apartment was pretty much thanks to talented presenters and winners, such as Philippe Petit, Tina Fey, Janusz Kaminski, Dustin Lance Black, Kunio Kato and Danny Boyle.

And I’m not the only one who has complaints. Below you’ll find some criticisms from bloggers who either thought the show was completely terrible or thought it was mostly good with only a few minor gripes.

…Read more

Two more days until we find out who wins this year’s Academy Awards! Okay, so the exclamation point is more than forced. It’s been quite awhile since we’ve had even an ounce of excitement about the Oscars. But we mustn’t let predictability get us down. Sure, even the still-uncertain races (Penn vs. Rourke; Winslet vs. Streep; Man on Wire vs. Trouble the Water) are anything but interesting, because the everyman of 2009 couldn’t care less about who gave the year’s better performance and would probably be fine shrugging his shoulders at the TV screen in the event of a tie (or, better yet, irresolution). However, there’s one thing people keep forgetting about the Academy: they’re full of surprises.

So, rather than just go with the easy, “predictable” predictions, we attempted to guess who and what will Crash the Oscars this year with a surprise victory — preferably the kind that adds an “ing” to “upset.” And once again, we’d like to extend the forecasting fun to you. What surprises do you expect and/or hope for? Or, if you’re down with the boring route, what “certain” winners do you truly believe in? And why? The most accurate comments will be reprinted in our final Oscar column on Monday.
…Read more

Yesterday, for the second time in two weeks, In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley confessed to being done with 2008 and noted a bunch of anticipated 2009 films. These aren’t necessarily titles he’s looking forward to seeing, though; it’s basically a preliminary jump on next year’s Oscar season. Because apparently this year’s Academy Awards are all but handed out, the winners properly predicted and expected, and now it’s time to think about what will be up for what in 2010. Those titles Tapley lists are Rob Marshall’s Nine, Peter Jackson’s Lovely Bones, Michael Mann’s Public Enemies, Clint Eastwood’s “Mandela“ (formerly The Human Factor), Richard Curtis’ The Boat That Rocked, Scott Cooper’s Crazy Heart and the latest from Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life), Steven Soderbergh (The Informant), Paul Greengrass (Green Zone), Martin Scorsese (Shutter Island) and James Cameron (Avatar).

Oh, and then Jeff Wells had to go and hint that Spielberg’s Lincoln is likely to arrive by year’s end. What and who else is being foreseen as nominated this time next year? Check out the links after the jump.

…Read more

In 10 out of 14 years, the winner of the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role has gone on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. If this year marks the 11th such congruence, Meryl Streep will take home the Oscar. Yet there is an odd circumstance with the Academy’s nominations that hurts Streep’s chances. Another one of the Academy’s Best Actress contenders also received a SAG Award Sunday night: Kate Winslet, who won the supporting actress trophy for The Reader. At the Oscars, this role has been recognized as a lead performance, one that is likely a favorite to win.

Yes, it is a strange situation, one that shocked and confused Oscar prognosticators (especially this writer) on Thursday morning. Winslet’s Reader performance was campaigned as a supporting role, and she was recognized as such by the Golden Globes, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, the Chicago Film Critics Association and of course the Screen Actors Guild. A few organizations did nominate her for a lead award for The Reader, though few people take the Satellites seriously, and the BAFTA Awards are different than most in that they permit Winslet to compete against herself in the same category (she is also nominated for Best Leading Actress for Revolutionary Road).

Some now believe the Academy’s deviation will in fact cost Winslet the Oscar she could have won in the supporting field. Either voters will be confused about what film she’s nominated for (unless I’m simply less observant than elderly Academy members, which may indeed be the case), or she will now split the majority vote with Streep and thus allow Anne Hathaway or Melissa Leo to slip ahead (Angelina Jolie is believed to have no shot). Another idea is that voters will dismiss Winslet due to doubts over which category the performance belongs in. But since enough members of the Academy made it a point to nominate her as lead actress in the first place, this is hardly a reasonable theory.

…Read more

Oh, 2008 … where has the time all gone to? It seems like just yesterday that we were cringing at the faux Golden Globes, learning about Sweding, and seriously debating Juno’s chance at winning Best Picture. What fools we were! Perhaps we ought to head into the last year of The Aughts with a better game plan.

With that in mind, I’ve devised a list of films that I’m excited to see (for the first time or not) and talk about in the coming 12 months. Later in the week, we’ll take a look at some movies we saw at festivals in 2008 which now have a release date in 2009, and also films which have no release date, but which we expect to see show up on the festival circuit in the coming months. But we’re going to get the macro out of the way first: after the jump, you’ll find three Big, Stupid Hollywood Movies which I’m assuming will be awful, but possibly in an interesting way. Do share the titles you have your own eyes on in the comments.

…Read more

• The Dark Knight has been disqualified from the race for the Original Music Score Oscar. After four hours of discussing the matter, the executive committee of the Academy music branch non-unanimously deemed the score, which was technically only co-composed by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard yet which credited three others on sheet music for royalty purposes, ineligible on account of the inclusion of these partial collaborators.
• Michael Moore claims his Fahrenheit 9/11 follow-up (once titled Fahrenheit 9/11 and a 1/2) has become less like a sequel to that film and more like “a bookend to Roger & Me.” The new doc will focus more on the financial crisis than on foreign policy and will feature an “end-of-the-empire tone.”
• Meryl Streep may finally be upstaged. She’ll star opposite a cute little feline in a movie based on the non-fiction book Dewey: The Small-Town Library Cat Who Touched the World.
• The less feel-good true story of a 1987 prison riot will be the subject of an untitled film referred to as the “Delta Force prison project.” Unfortunately, that name isn’t necessarily a hint that Chuck Norris will star.
• It was only a matter of time: a high school-set retelling of The Scarlet Letter involving a teenage girl who thinks it’s beneficial to have the reputation for being a slut. It’s called Easy A.
• “Urkel” wrote a romantic comedy about a texting-based love affair.

In a crowded year for Best Actress contention, Anne Hathaway could be the only first-timer to receive an Oscar nomination in the lead category, possibly going up against mainstays such as her Devil Wears Prada costar Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet, as well as the less-nominated vets Nicole Kidman and Kristen Scott Thomas. Her main competition for the outsider, dark horse position is Frozen River’s Melissa Leo (who may benefit from her film’s initiatory screener campaign even though River’s theatrical release was early and hardly noticed), and Happy-Go-Lucky’s Sally Hawkins, whose film just debuted to favorable reviews citing her brilliant (as in talented and bright) performance. But Hathaway is sure to be the victor –– even though her performance in Rachel Getting Married is hardly deserving of such an honor.

The Oscar buzz for Hathaway has been high for weeks now, enough that the actress apparently joked about it in her Saturday Night Live monologue earlier this month (I thought of it as less a current-year expectation than a general career goal, but it’s made Risky Biz Blog’s Steven Zeitchik compare Hathaway to Catherine O’Hara’s buzz-afflicted character in For Your Consideration). The fact that she’s a well-known movie star should make Hathaway’s buzz continually more reportable by the press and more noticeable by both the public and the voters, which gives her some advantage over Leo and Hawkins in terms of cultural consciousness.

…Read more

• Is Bruce Wayne, as John Carney wonders at Dealbreaker, “exactly the ‘better class of criminal’ that the Joker describes”? Spoileriffic analysis of Batman’s white-collar misdeeds follows.
• Mike Jones weighs in on the sale of indieWIRE to SnagFilms. “Despite the owners’ (which included myself, to a very small extent) desire to sell under the right terms, indieWIRE seemed destined to be independent.” Buuut…”The difficult truth about being independent is that it’s mostly for the young.”
• Glenn “Lists are Bullshit” Kenny offers 14 numbered thoughts on Mamma Mia! He begins by contemplating “the comingled semens of Pierce Brosnan, Stellan Skarsgard, and Colin Firth competing in the fallopian tubes of Meryl Streep”; he ends with the admission, “I kind of want to have sex with Christine Baranski.”

• There’s apparently a new Batman movie out? And it had the best weekend opening ever? Hmmm. The things a girl misses when she goes on vacation! Meanwhile, Meryl Streep continued to prove her insane drawing power at the summer box office, as Mamma Mia! withstood the Dark Knight onslaught to scrape up a totally respectable $27.6 million.
• Cinetic Media is developing a “multimillion-dollar film-finishing fund”, with the help of an injection of cash from Aver Media.
• Time Warner Cable has struck a deal to carry Fearnet, the horror movies on-demand service of Sony Pictures TV, Lionsgate and Comcast.
• Fergie’s inexplicable career progress continues unabated.

Meryl Streep has previously sung on screen (most recently for Robert Altman’s A Prairie Home Companion), but the upcoming Mamma Mia! is the first real musical of her 30 year career. Why all the singing and dancing, and why now? “It was to prove Pauline Kael wrong,” insists Stuart Jeffries.

In this Guardian interview, he suggests to Streep that her decision to take a lead role in this likely summer blockbuster was nothing but a long-delayed strike against the film critic who decades earlier complained that Streep acted only “from the neck up.” Amazingly, Streep essentially shrugs and says, “Yeah, maybe”––and then goes on to tie Kael’s criticism of the actresses body language to the film critic’s ethnic/economic insecurity. The actual, speculative diss after the jump.

…Read more

I keep forgetting that Mike Myers is not actually playing an Indian in The Love Guru, and yet I’m constantly reminded by the film’s commercials, which show that ridiculous shot of a little kid’s body with Myers’ giant head digitally superimposed onto it. Really, Myers’ character (Pitka) is a white American who is left on the doorstep of an Indian ashram when he’s a child. Then he’s raised as Indian, I guess (or simply Hindu, but then why the accent?).

Apparently the character, Pitka, couldn’t simply look and talk like Myers. He had to have that silly accent and the clothes and the facial hair, despite the fact that Deepak Chopra, who partially inspired the character (and who appears in the movie), is able to wear jeans and be clean-shaven. Because who would believe Myers as an Indian guru with just the voice, the clothes and his baby face?

Of course, Myers is not the first actor to wear or grow a beard and/or mustache in order to take on the guise of another ethnicity. Sure, it’s also the accent and the makeup that transforms the actor, but with the most recognizable faces, it’s the facial hair that really seals the deal for supposed authenticity.

1. Charlton Heston as Mexican in Touch of Evil (pictured above) - Maybe if Heston could maintain the accent he wouldn’t have needed the mustache. But then in photos he still would have just looked like regular old Heston. With the whiskers, however, he looks like regular old Heston with a mustache. If this look defined a man as Mexican, then many characters from the ’30s must have been Mexican. Rhett Butler? Mexican. Nick Charles (and anyone else played by William Powell)? Mexican.
   …Read more

I don’t know if they show Broadway musical ads on television anywhere outside the New York area, but I used to hate the cheesy commercials for Mamma Mia! This coming from a guy who loves cheesy, especially when it involves ’70s music like ABBA. As much as I was turned off by those ads, though, I have to admit the new trailer for the movie adaptation is a perfect continuation of their marketing style. The quick edits that just barely show us parts of dance numbers, the overplayed acting that doesn’t seem as suitable when close up and on-screen — the only thing missing is shots of the audience dancing and clapping. And that trademark image of the mother and daughter in front of the mirror.

Of course, this means I’m turned off to the movie, too, despite my man crush on Colin Firth, who plays one of the three men who might be the father of the bride, and my interest in seeing Meryl Streep pumping her arms up and down a lot. If there’s anything more cinematic that Mamma Mia! resembles than those Broadway ads, it’s two terrible, sunshiny musicals: From Justin to Kelly and Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights. Nonetheless, I’m sure plenty of moms and daughters are more excited about the movie than I am, which is fine for them. I’ll stick to watching the more macho ABBA movie, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, preferably with my dad.

If you like the trailer, be sure to check it out in crisp HD over at Moviefone, and check out the photo gallery at Cinematical. Oh and check out one of the old Mamma Mia! Broadway promos here.