TIFF HIGHLIGHT #3: DARK HORSE (new Todd Solondz) & THE IDES OF MARCH

DARK HORSE

This is the first Todd Solondz film in 10 years that isn't connected to any of his previous work (Palindromes being the sequel to Welcome To The Dollhouse and Life During Wartime being the sequel to Happiness). This is definitely his best work since 'Storytelling'. He followed up 2009's 'Life During Wartime' pretty quickly, as there usually seems to be a 5 year wait between each of his films in the last decade.
'Dark Horse' is the story of "Abe". An immature 30-something year old manchild that still lives with his parents (Christopher Walken & Mia Farrow), collects actions figures (there's a scene in the film when he buys a thundercats action figure for $450), lives in his younger brother's shadow and is socially awkward (some scenes are almost painful to watch when he interacts with other people). At the beginning of the film Abe falls in love with the depressed "Miranda" (Selma Blair): another 30-something year old who lives with her parents and battles depression. After one "date", Abe asks Miranda to marry him and she accepts for all the wrong reasons. Like any other Solondz film, he masterfully mixes tragedy with comedy. Just like the bullying Dawn faces in 'Welcome To The Dollhouse', the pedophilia in 'Happiness', the maid murdering the family in 'Storytelling' and the abortion...and more pedophilia in 'Palindromes', we find ourselves laughing at things that really shouldn't be funny.
Abe is just another signature "loser" character in a long line of "Todd Solondz loosers" (Heather Matarazzo in 'Welcome To The Dollhouse', Phillip Seymour Hoffman in 'Happiness', Paul Giamatti in 'Storytelling' and Solondz himself who starred in 'Fear Anxiety & Depression').
The performances were good. Selma Blair may annoy some of you as her character is so depressing to the point where you don't want her to even talk anymore. And something about Christopher Walken's natural creepiness seemed to go perfectly with Todd Solondz' style. It was also nice to see him NOT play a cartoonish version of himself.
Todd Solondz comes off like a modest guy, but something tells me that he got so tired of seeing the common themes of his movies copied for the last 10 years that it kinda forced him to switch up his own style. This is his first film to not feature pedophilia, masturbation or rape.
One of my issues with the film was that it wouldn't end. And its not even that long of a movie to begin with. 'Dark Horse' felt like it ended 3 times. Just put a period on the movie already! Also, every Todd Solondz film (including his rarely seen first feature 'Fear Anxiety & Depression') features a dream sequences and his films often play on reality vs. fantasy, but there was a little too much of that (for my taste) in this.
I'll be giving this one more viewing tomorrow evening.

THE IDES OF MARCH

One of my goals here at the Toronto film festival is to try and see as many of the movies that may not be coming right out in the U.S. any time soon ('carre blanc', 'house of tolerance', 'wuthering heights', etc). 'The Ides Of March' clearly doesn't fall in to that category of films (if I'm not mistaken it has a release date for the end of the month), but there was seriously NOTHING else on the schedule playing that caught my interest, so I figured I'd give you guys a scoop on this a few weeks before it hits theaters.
I think it would've been criminal if a movie with a cast made up of; Ryan Gosling (who's 2 for 2 at Toronto this year with this and 'Drive'), George Clooney, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marissa Tomei and Jeffery Wright had turned out bad. But thankfully 'The Ides Of March' did not. I don't normally go for most recent political thriller/dramas. Sometimes it feels like once you've seen 'Clear & Present Danger', 'Syriana', the Jonathan Demme 'Manchurian Candidate' or 'The Sum Of All Fears', its like you've seen 'em all. They're usually just angry white guys in suits running around, whispering loudly & growling all while double crossing each other every 5 minutes. It gets a little tiring after a while. But 'The Ides Of March', which didn't really have the "action" aspect of all the previously mentioned films, was a surprisingly entertaining political thriller. Of everything i saw on Thursday ('melancholia', 'we need to talk about kevin' and 'le havre'), this was the ONLY film i didn't have to struggle with as to whether i liked it or not. For a film that's only 90-something minutes long, Clooney (who directed and co-starred) didn't rush anything or cram a bunch of convoluted and unnecessary sub-plots in to the story.
In 'The Ides Of March', Ryan Golsing plays "Stephen Meyers": a young up & coming campaign manager for Democratic presidential hopeful "Mike Morris" (played by George Clooney) that gets caught up in an abortion scandal involving a young intern. Things become even more stressful for Morris when his friendship and loyalty are put to the test with his mentor (played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman).
There's a few nods to real life political figures like Gary Condit and his scandal with his intern or Clooney's fictitious campaign logos that look VERY similar to the real life "hope" ads used by Obama during the 2008 presidential election.
With the exception of Tomei and Wright, all of the other cast members had shining moments in the film (and that's not to say that Tomei and Wright weren't great in this. Its just that they were only in a few scenes each). I did find it odd that at certain points in the film Gosling would go in and out of acting like Clooney (smug and cocky) to acting like himself.
So for those of you who were on the fence about this one, I'd say go for it.

SOLARIS: MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE

RELAX, FILM SNOBS! Just hear me out. Oh...before we go any further, i want you all to know that i DON'T think the 2002 version is better than Tarkovsky's (although cliff martinez's soundtrack for soderbergh's solaris is definitely better). Hopefully by now my previous entries on Miami Vice and Fear X have made you change your minds on those movies, and you're ready to move on to this one. Like many people, when the steven soderbergh remake of the classic 70's sci-fi film was released almost 10 years ago, i blindly hated it. I did go to see it, but i went in wanting to hate the movie from the get-go. It never stood a chance. For the most part, remakes are not only bad, but totally uncalled for. Some may say that this remake wasn't necessary, but at the same time, i feel like this is something soderbergh felt he really needed to do. He wanted to share a great movie with a new generation. A mostly younger generation of Americans who wouldn't have the patience to sit through the Tarkovsky version (as sad as that may be). Yes, he made his version half the length of the original, focused more on the love story aspect of solaris, removed & added some things, but had he tried to recreate every shot and have his actors redeliver every single line from the 1972 script, people would've hated that too (remember gus van sant's 'psycho'??). He must have known he was getting in to a lose/lose situation. A big part of people's hatred for remakes comes from that belief that someone is trying to capitalize or make a quick buck off of a foreign or classic movie, because Americans are too lazy to read subtitles and need actors they can recognize. Some of that IS actually true, but in steven soderbergh's case with solaris...gimme a break. By the time he got around to making this, he had already won a palme d'or and an academy award. Had he wanted to capitalize or make a quick buck off of something, surely he was smart enough to know that remaking a Russian arthouse film for the A.D.D. American movie audience wasn't going to get the job done.
Steven Soderbergh is quite the film buff (i learned this from listening to his commentary tracks on various dvd's). 'Solaris' is a film that he clearly loves. Now, and I'm speaking to my fellow movie nerds out there, have you ever had those movies that you love so much that you want to share with other people, and when you finally do, they hate it? I've had that happen to me plenty of times. You know, you loan a friend a movie or recommend something off of netflix, hoping they'll love it as much as you, and upon returning your dvd or reporting back what they thought about the movie, they hated it. Its a pretty shitty feeling. I imagine that's how Steven Soderbergh felt about solaris. I think he knew it needed to be updated (ok, maybe it didn't NEED to be updaed). I'm pretty sure he could sense that one of the reasons Tarkovsky's classic film wouldn't gain much of a new or young audience was due to the constant change and advancement of technology within science fiction films that movie audiences are so use to these days (and there's been a HUGE change between 1972 and 2002). That shouldn't be the sole reason to remake a movie (its not like the special effects and science fiction elements of the 1972 solaris are bad or dated), but at the same time, I don't really think it can be argued that the updated technology (courtesy of James Cameron, who produced the movie) in Soderbergh's remake looks amazing.

a shot of the planet solaris from the 1972 film. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the special effect, but...

at the same time, with recent technology, we get shots and scenes like this which look beautiful. In my opinion, you get even more of a feeling that the planet of solaris is one giant being/lifeform in the 2002 version over the 1972 version (sorry just my opinion). Solaris in the 2002 remake...

A shot of inside the space station in the 1972 version...

The space station on solaris in the 2002 remake (soderbergh kept the basic layout and design, but gave it a more modern look and less colorful/2001 a space odyssy-ish)...

In the last decade, people have finally started to (SLOWLY) come around and accept the fact that not only is the 2002 solaris remake "not bad", but its actually great. Really, what can you honestly say (for those of you who have ACTUALLY seen it) about the solaris remake that's bad. Surely not the acting. Especially from George Clooney. Not for nothing, this is one of those few recent George Clooney films that wasn't designed around his smug awesomeness showing him getting out of tight situations all while looking as cool as possible (see the ocean's movies, out of sight or o brother where art thou for further examples of this. not that some of those movies aren't bad, but still...). Recently Clooney has slowly been breaking that stereotype and appearing in films like; 'The American' and 'Syriana', where he actually dies in the end (oops, sorry). Clooney gives a damn good performance in 'Solaris' in the title role as psychiatrist; Chris Kelvin. A man dealing with the loss of his wife, who at the same time has to go in to space to investigate the mysterious goings-on of a space crew that wont return to earth. As corny as this sounds, in some scenes you can see the angst all over Clooney's face at many crucial scenes in the film. And the chemistry between Clooney and Natsasha Mcelhone (the female lead) is great. Along with being a "science fiction" film, Solaris is also a love story. Yes, its an unconventional love story, but still... You need chemistry in a love story, and there's plenty of it in solaris. Soderbergh shows this chemistry by doing something slightly different with his version. We see a lot more flashbacks and learn how the two lovers met, fell in love and what eventually drove them apart. Also, the supporting cast, specifically Viola Davis, does an amazing job as well. There are some key scenes that highlight Davis's performance; her characters introduction in the film and the scene when she's trying to convince Kelvin that his wife isn't real. Ulrich Tukur gives an eerie and sad performance as Clooney's friend 'Gibarian', one of the most notable characters from the original. Jeremy Davies however, does get a little annoying after a while because it feels like he's trying way too hard to be the weird guy. Some of his mannerisms and the way he delivers certain lines seem kinda forced. But with that performance aside, which still isn't even that bad, the acting in solaris is great. And lets not forget about the jazzy editing, which is highlighted in the "first sleep" sequence. Soderbergh made this during the period when he was experimenting the most with editing, and everything he did seemed to come out so great (like in the limey and out of sight).

Kelvin & Hari in 1972

Kelvin & Rheya in 2002 (not sure why soderbergh changed the name of the female lead, but whatever) 

"Gibarian" from the 1972 version, warning the title character about the dangers of solaris and the strange effect it has on people who stay on the planet for too long.

"Gibarian" in the 2002 Solaris 

Now, the ONE thing i can say that soderbergh's solaris has over Tarkovsky's is the soundtrack (as i said earlier). This isn't even up for debate. Cliff Martinez, who's done the music for quite a few soderbergh films (traffic, king of the hill, sex lies & videotape), made one of the greatest soundtracks of all time in my opinion. The music enhances the film so much its ridiculous. Its probably the films strongest attribute. There's just something perfectly beautiful, atmospheric, haunting and rhythmic about it. I cant say enough good things about the music. So...great music, great performances, great special effects (for a movie like solaris, that does matter) and soderbergh did manage to keep the basic plot and overall "spirit" of solaris. With that being said, i ask you all to give it another chance. I did, and now its become one of my favorite rediscoveries. Its a beautiful film to watch.
The next "misunderstood masterpiece" I'll be exploring will be either; ghost dog or trouble every day (all are films i mentioned in my previous misunderstood masterpiece: 'fear x'). I'll do both eventually, but I'm not sure which one I'll do first.

THE AMERICAN & THE RETURN OF MOVIE POSTER ART (*REVISED FOR 2012*)

This gets my vote for being the most misunderstood and/or most underrated movie of 2010 (after Polanski's 'The Ghost Writer'). This seemed to come and go in the theater faster than i could remember probably because many people (myself included) avoided it due to word of mouth and a few bad reviews. After finally seeing this a few weeks ago, i must admit that this movie was very good. It had a few problems, but it was still very good. I just don't think people were expecting an existential hitman drama/thriller. I mean, look at the official movie poster. Its such an awesome throwback to the old action films of the 1960's and 70's. Not only is 'The American' the most underrated movies of last year, but the movie poster is probably in the top 3 movies posters of 2010. I remember when I first saw the poster and was immediately reminded of films like 'Point Blank' or 'Bullit'. I imagine people saw it, and expected a thrilling, fast pace, non-stop action film along the lines of 'The Professional'. But what they really got was something along the lines of 'Ghost Dog', which was another hitman movie that got a bad rep upon its initial release but now has somewhat of a cult following (especially from the hip-hop community thanks to The RZA). Its almost eerie how much Ghost Dog and The American go hand in hand with one another. Both stories are about assassins, yet there isn't much "action" in either film. Both have minimal dialogue (when compared to your average movie) and have similar endings. And both performances echo that of Alain Delon in a Jean Pierre Melville movie (specifically 'Le Samourai', which Ghost Dog is a loose remake of). In fact, The American reminded me of 'Limits of Control', which was Jim Jarmusch's second existential hitman film after 'Ghost Dog'. Even though I'm not a fan of 'Limits of Control' it took a lot of balls to make that and i give Jim Jarmusch respect for not compromising and making a typical shoot 'em up hitman movie.

In 'The American' Clooney plays a hitman who has to go in to hiding after a botched assignment. He's so disturbed with what happened on that last job that he tells his employers that his next killing assignment will be his last. I actually kinda found this aspect of the movie interesting. Its almost like director; Anton Corbijn was trying to explore the world of post traumatic stress through the eyes of an assassin. I liked it but i could see how others would call bullshit on something like that. After waiting a few days he gets his next mission: to simply build a custom riffle for an assassination (that he wont be executing) of who we're lead to believe is a priest or some religious figure (there's plenty of religious symbolism all through out the film). For something that's supposed to be his last mission, Clooney's character finds this assignment too good to be true and believes his employers are setting him up. For the rest of the movie Clooney's paranoia starts to get the best of him. Naturally there's a love interest. While Clooney is in Italy he falls for a prostitute named Clara (i know. i found this part of the movie a little hard to believe too). Her character is a bit mysterious through out the movie, and we don't see her true intentions until the very end. Clooney's paranoia has him contemplating weather of not she can be trusted. There's also a rival hitman (er...hitWOMAN) employed by the same people as Clooney and he soon worries that she may be the one who's going to carry out his execution.

Now, this movie isn't perfect. One of its main faults is the films deliberate pace (or lack of pace for that matter). Sometimes it just seems slow on purpose. Its almost like Anton Corbijn thought that the slower he made the film, the "cooler" it would seem. Don't get me wrong, the movie is very "cool", but sometimes it tries to hard. This is Anton Corbijn's 2nd feature film (the Joy Division Biopic; 'Control' was his first). He still needs to break out of his music video directing habits. Even though both 'Control' and 'The American' are good films, sometimes they feel like 2 hour long music videos instead of movies. I still love the fact that Corbijn paid homage to the classic action films like the ones i mentioned earlier ('Bullit', 'Le Samourai' and 'Point Blank') as well as others like 'Le Circle Rouge' and 'The Night of the Following Day' (a forgotten about Marlon Brando action thriller from the late 60's). Another positive thing about 'The American' is that it brought back the art of movie poster art, which has kinda been lacking over the years, with a few exception here and here ('Funny Games 2007' and Uncle Boonmee...' for example). Bottom line, if you have the patience chances are you'll enjoy 'The American'.

THE RETURN OF MOVIE POSTER ART
The examples above ('Point Blank' & 'Bullit') aren't the only great movie posters that had an influence on 'The American'. Other films like 'The Sergant' and 'Cool Hand Luke' could also be looked at as inspiration. From the placement and style of the text on the posters, the bold background colors (orange in 'The American', purple in 'The Sergent', blue in 'cool hand luke', etc) to the offsetting of the image of main character, these posters are a true representation of "cool". The kind you'd want to hang up in your home...

and 'The American' is just one of quite a few films bringing back phenomenal poster artwork...