I've just finished combing through the list of films in this year's Toronto Film Festival, and I have it narrowed down to 49. I look at the list and sigh. How can I see six films a day, write a blog, see people and sleep? Nor do I believe the list includes all the films I should see, and it's certainly missing films I will see. How it happens is, you're standing in line and hear buzz about something. Or a trusted friend provides a title you must see. Or you go to a movie you haven't heard much about, just on a hunch, and it turns out to be "Juno."
Nicolas Cage in "Bad Lieutenant"
I can't wait to dive in. Knowing something of my enthusiasms, faithful reader, let me tell you that TIFF 2009's opening night is a film about the life of Charles Darwin. The festival includes the film of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road." And new films by the Coen brothers, Todd Solondz, Michael Moore, Atom Egoyan, Pedro Almodovar, Hirokazu Kore-Eda, Alain Resnais and Guy Maddin--and not one but two new films by Werner Herzog. Plus separate new films by the three key talents involved in Juno: The actress Ellen Page, the director Jason Reitman, and the writer Diablo Cody.
Okay, I've already seen two of those. They were screened here in Chicago (Page as a teenage Roller Derby in "Whip It," Cody's script for "Jennifer's Body," starring Megan Fox as a high school man-eater, and that's not a metaphor). I already saw more than ten of this year's entries at Cannes, including Lars on Trier's controversial "Antichrist," Jane Campion's "Bright Star," Gasper Noe's "Enter the Void," Almodovar's "Broken Embraces," Bong Joon-Ho's "Mother," Lee Daniels' "Precious," Mia Hansen-Løve's "The Father of My Children," and Resnais's "Wild Grass." A lot of good films there. Not all of them, but a lot.
So am I ahead of the game? Hollow laugh. Sometimes I think Ken Turan, the esteemed film critic of the Los Angeles Times, has the right idea. He makes no effort to conceal his practice of grabbing an aisle seat and leaving after the first 15 or 20 minutes. Publicists don't have panic attacks, because he makes it clear his walk-outs are strategic, not judgmental.
"That way I get a good overview of a festival, and I'll see the whole film when it opens. It will be fresh in my mind, and since I'm not seeing the whole thing for a second time, it'll have a greater impact," he tells me. Kenny will check off 50, maybe 75 movies, minimum. There is a method to his madness. Me, I sit there for the whole thing, even "The Brown Bunny." Sometimes in desperation I try to will myself to doze off, but you can never sleep when you want to.
Paul Bettany as Charles Darwin
Ken and I will have it easier at Toronto this year because we both saw von Trier's "Antichrist" at Cannes. A visionary apocalyptic canvas or a disgusting and pornographic exploitation of women, depending on who you believe. Well, I saw all of it, and when he does, does he have a surprise coming. "Antichrist" was the first TIFF selection to completely sell out in advance. I expect the press screening to be so crowded the Mounties may have to use dogs and fire hoses.
I anticipate Jon Amiel's "Creation," about Darwin, because I'm an admirer of the Theory of Evolution. But the film I anticipate most of all is "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans," by Herzog. Nicolas Cage, an actor who was born to work with Herzog, plays a New Orleans cop who is rotten to the core. The film's title and the rotten cop, but apparently not much else, are borrowed from Abel Ferrara's 1992 film, chosen by Martin Scorsese as one of the ten best films of the 1990s. The Herzog film just premiered at Venice to good reviews. If ever there was a director incapable of merely "remaking" someone else's film, that would be Werner Herzog.The Coens are back home again in Minnesota for their "A Serious Man," which stars Michael Stuhlbarg as a physics professor in the 1960s, when it was easier to believe in a Newtonian universe. Their "Burn After Reading," at last year's festival, was generally received as a disappointment but with those boys, you just never know.
Carey Mulligan and Peter Sarsgaard in "An Education"
Michael Moore will be flying in from Venice with his "Capitalism," which got favorable reviews. I gather it isn't so much about capitalism as its manifestation in the modern banking system, which cheerfully underwrote the mortgage bubble and rewarded itself so handsomely. Love Moore or despise him, and many are in both camps, you can always count on an uncommonly entertaining documentary.
Some of the TIFF films, many of them strong, were screened early for Chicago critics. The one that stood out for me above all the others was Lone Scherrig's "An Education," starring Carey Mulligan as a 16-year-old who starts dating a man well into his 30s (Peter Sarsgaard). In 1960s London, he's everything the witless boys her age are not--and also not everything he seems to be.There's something about Sarsgaard's cool detachment that makes him ideal for roles involving plausible deception; we can even believe it when he convinces her protective parents to trust him. What a smoothie. What's special about the film is the way it takes a common enough movie situation and reinvents it from scratch, especially with the intelligent, far from clueless, teenage girl.
It has long been said that opening night at Toronto represents opening day of the Academy Award season. Waiting for the curtain to raise, who looks like a sure thing for nomination? Carey Mulligan from "An Education," I'd say. The scenes in Paris will remind you of Audrey Hepburn.
¶When I get to Toronto I'll be blogging on a more or less daily basis. For the timeliest updates, check the Journal's home page.
¶
This year's Toronto films, descriptions, and stills.
¶
Guy Maddin's "Night Mayor of Winnipeg"
¶
Werner Herzog's "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans"
QUOTE
There's something about Sarsgaard's cool detachment that makes him ideal for roles involving plausible deception; remember him as the reporter who invented stories in "Shattered Glass?"
END QUOTE
Sarsgaard does not play Stephen Glass. You're thinking of Hayden Christenson. Sarsgaard played Glass's editor, Chuck lane.
Ebert: Damn. First post, and it finds an error.
I hope you have a wonderful time at the festival this year. How you manage to see the number of movies that you do is incredible to a layman like me. How do they not get all jumbled up in your mind before you have a chance to write the review? Do you take notes during or right after the film? You must.
At any rate, I'm sure the city is looking forward to both the festival and your arrival as a guest. I'm certainly happy to have you as a guest in my country. Here's to the old haunts you'll visit, the old friends you'll see, and the new films you'll enjoy! Watch out for those knee slappers.
While I agree that Sarsgaard's minimalism is an under-appreciated asset, it was Hayden Christensen who was so good as Stephen Glass in "Shatterd Glass".
Great insight into the madness of the festival, though I'm somewhat inclined to wag my finger at Ken Turan. Gosh, I hope to make it to one of these someday...
Ebert: Every reader on this entry seems to know that.
Toronto is a wise substitution for Cannes for North American festival-goers.
Quite a mouth watering spread, and you have quite whetted the appetites of us readers (as you know how to). Hope you land a Great One!
FYI: Though he was in the film, Sarsgaard was not the fraudulent reporer in Shattered Glass. That was Hayden Christensen. No need to run this comment, especially if I am the 4oth person to point this out.
I don't know how you can keep the themes, images and plots of several different films in your head at one time-- I once watched five films in twelve hours and, while I had very vivid dreams that night, the next morning I couldn't recall which one was which... so... good luck!
I was taking a look at the lineup earlier, and it looks like there are some promising films being screened. I'm not sure what to think of Bad Lieutenant -- I mean, I'm fairly sure it will be completely excessive and over-the-top judging by the trailer alone, but Cage and Herzog is such a dangerous combination. I'm anticipating a brilliant disaster -- something so bad it's not just good, but great. (Besides, I never really cared much for the Ferrara version despite really trying to, so I guess that helps.)
Seriously, wont watching so many films in one day ruin your enjoyment of films you have to watch the next day? I realize you may have to as part of your job, but I doubt anyone can give an accurate review of a movie they saw while burnt out.
Ebert: I see fest films a second time if I can. Just saw "Bright Star" again.
This is the first time I have ever actually posted a comment onto your incredible blog. I have been an avid reader of it for some time, I suppose around the time that I realized I wanted to make movies. It seems to me an odd time to strike considering the fact that I have something rather insignificant to say. "Antichrist's" trailer is quite possibly one of the strangest trailers I have ever seen and lends itself to disturb the general public in a way that I believe will hurt its effectiveness at the box-office--I hate the box-office and its overly convincing "facts." Art isn't appreciated, explosions are. There it is, the first comment to a hopefully successful career in blog posts.
Ebert: Welcome.
Yes, the trailer is strange. But intriguing. I doubt you could get away with that final shot in a trailer shown in a movie theater.
Roger you said you saw "Whip It" and "Jennifer's Body". What did you do think of those movies?
Ebert: "Jennifer's Body" will be reviewed on 9/18. "Whip It" on 10/2.
Bad Lieutenant looks awesome! Also, I have been dying to see Antichrist ever since you wrote those intriguing posts on them a while back. Creation is a must-see, I hope the acting and plot do justice to Darwin's masterpiece of a theory... Everything else you mentioned... Well, I guess I'm just jealous that I can't be at the top cutting-edge film festivals like you. Man, I hope I make it one day and can submit something to those festivals.... Dream come true right there. I guess I'll keep writing and filming till my overnight hit is made....
Werner Herzog directing Nicholas Cage? Will probably have to see that to see if Herzog can make me like him. Why is it that some actors rub us the wrong way?
Michael Moore is certainly entertaining. Will he receive profits from his new film? Isn't that Capitalism?
Ebert: I hope so.
Roger,
On "Bad Lieutenant", what did you think of the rather public catfight between Abel Ferrara and Herzog?
I agree that Herzog will "re-imagine" the film completely, but I did feel Herzog was very disrespectful with some of his comments towards Ferrerra. I felt this way mainly because you kind of expect Herzog to be a gentleman. Ferrara is known for a hot temper. Not so much Herzog. And if he hasn't heard of Ferrara or seen any of his movies, I think he should join a film appreciation course. I would ask the course authorities to keep a good guard on their film cameras though, wouldn't you?
I expect it to be awful though. Nic Cage, gifted actor that he sometimes is, has been generally turd for most of the decade. I don't think he can hold a candle to Kietel's performance which may be one of the most brutally honest and frank portrayals ever brought to the screen.
Anyway, hope you are enjoying the fest...hope Herzog can prove me wrong...
P.S- Wasn't Bad Lieutenant remade this year already? A film called "Observe and Report" starring Seth Rogen is essentially Bad Lieutenant for mall Cops, isn't it?
Ebert: I hadn't thought of it in quite that way before...
Dear Roger,
Would it have killed you to tell us a bit about the Road and Herzog's other movie? And what's up w/ the Bad Lieutenant anyway? Not sure if that trailer you posted looked awesome or not. What did you think? I'll be first in line, either way. It's going to be hard for you to ever pan Werner after he dedicated a whole movie to you. This is too much of a tease on your part. I'm going to have to make it to the next fest.
Doing 6 movies a day is quite an ordeal, what with the logistics of simply getting from venue to venue, keeping hydrated and nourished and maintaining one's bladder and bowel.
I find it hard enough to do 3 per day. But it is well worth it, especially the Q&A sessions with the film makers. Where else does one get to talk and hear from someone like Hirokazu Kore-Eda whose film "Still Standing" was a standout for me from last year's festival. Or to see Jimmy Page, the Edge and Jack White on the same stage.
And so many foreign films never even make it to our theaters and when they do one often has to wait a whole year for what can sometimes be just a one week run at the local art house theater.
Ebert: Speaking of that, Kore-Eda's "Still Walking" is available on most cable systems via Video on Demand as we speak.
Ebert,
I was wondering, between Cannes and TIFF, which festival do you prefer? I'm talking about the experience of being there, the atmosphere of the event, the presentation/organization of the festival itself. Lastly, I was wondering what would benefit a film more: premiering at Cannes or TIFF? Thanks for your time,
--AAS
Ebert: Well, Cannes is Cannes, but Toronto is more user-friendly.
Well, I'm jealous. 49 movies is a lot though. Good luck. I'm personally most looking forward to the new Reitman film the most as Juno and Thank You For Smoking are among 2 of my favorite comedies And I know it's early for Oscar speculation but if anybody can deliver a comedy to Best Picture winner, it's might be a Reitman/Clooney combo.(or Pixar)
I have a massive amount of respect for you as a writer and someone with an insightful outlook on life. Would you be able to critique a love letter I am writing? It is for a librarian I have been flirting with for about a year.
Love is much like the rain, it comes and goes. It can always be counted on but not when you want it, and it can get in the way of your plans
Sometimes there are droughts that make me want to cry, and sometimes it storms onto you and you almost drown and are so happy that you would almost welcome death.
You look at me and give the traditional smile that is required for our informal commercial relationship but behind it I see true love and admiration. You ask about my dog and make me feel good about myself, like I matter like anyone GIVES A ** about who I am and what my soul deserves out of this spinning blue dirtball that would be worthless without your uniqueness.
I memorize every nuance of your face and fantasize about an embrace. While I admit some of my fantasies are sexual in nature I mostly think about us sitting on the couch watching a movie as you smile and close your eyes and burrow your head into my chest while grinning contentedly and all feels right in the universe.
You are better than rain or love, the earth and all its atoms have no meaning next to you, my brain transcends matter thinking of your ephemeral qualities. You make me into something different that soars.
Destiny is a rare thing, most pass through their lives like sand in a generic hourglass in a forgotten warehouse. They have wives and children but in the end don't feel one tenth of a percent of the quality of emotion and searing PLEASURE/PAIN that those who open themselves up to reality and find a true soulmate can achieve.
The fact that I feel this way about you has assured myself that this is destiny, I know you consider yourself just another plebian with a menial job who is undestined for a beautiful life but my love will elevate you as you shall elevate me. We will live in isolation and spend each day contemplating beauty and end each night with a joyous post-orgasm sob and our children will grow up to be great men that imbued with the power of our love will cure diseases and lead nations.
I myself desire no achievements or accomplishments, only the accomplishment of owning your soul is what I desire. If you reject me the universe will have lost its purpose and I will be a shell of a woman.
Because I feel this way about you means that 4 dimensional cosmic subatomic forces (perhaps superstrings?) have been awoke and alerted and are using the interconnectivity of every atom and piece of energy in the universe to push us together. We are why the universe was created.
Ebert: "Awakened," not "awoke," but if she doesn't go for that, I'd give up on her.
The Festival runs from September 10th to 19th - so it won't be long now before our intrepid leader find himself once again in Toronto, Canada; where the dead and the dying reportedly line the streets and corpses stretch for miles - at least according to Fox News and people who watch it.
For that reason alone, I'm looking forward to your daily dispatches, if just to confirm that you're still alive and haven't been found dead in a theater somewhere. :)
I'm also curious to know what's on that list you'd narrowed down to 49 films - you're not going to tell us though, are you? I'm going to guess!
If you're willing to see Antichrist in Cannes, then I'm thinking you'd be willing to see "Valhalla Rising" by director Nicolas Winding Refn in Toronto!
Official trailer...scary...
http://tiff.net/livefromthefestival/mediagallery/1984/default.aspx?mode=video
FYI: here's the official site for the festival and the video page in particular, where folks can watch 38 trailers!
http://tiff.net/livefromthefestival/mediagallery/default.aspx?mode=video
I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts on the pair of Herzog films. The trailers for both are insane in ways only Herzog can pull off. The Bad Lieutenant trailer has been making the rounds for a while and if you didn't know it was Herzog you might think it's an awful looking B-movie, but somehow I know that a break-dancing ghost being shot at by Nicolas Cage will be appropriate within the context of the film. As for the other film? Herzog as produced by David Lynch? Yes, I think I'll see that.
Enjoy yourself, Roger! Please don't stress about anything, or your system verses other peoples' systems, or how much you see or don't see. Just take in what you can and get sleep so you can enjoy it. I'm sorry to be your doctor, but my advice is not to worry too much about the blogs or responding to messages. You get to do this all year round.
As for Michael Moore, I love *and* "hate" him. I love how bold and entertaining he is, but I don't feel that I'll ever really trust him again after having seen the documentaries opposing him. He fights for what's moral to him, but lets go of other morals in order to convince others of the moral he's focused on.
Hope you see a masterpiece!
I love that photo of Paul Bettany as Darwin with the reflection of an orangutan. Everyone should take a photo like that at least once in their lives.
I saw "Orphan" recently, and immensely enjoyed Peter Sarsgaard's performance. He brings a subtle hint of malice, which makes almost all of his performances ever so slightly unsettling.
Have fun. It looks like a great list of films this year.
I'm eagerly anticipating your thoughts on Herzog, Solondz, and the Coens. All three are directors I refuse to miss.
I know this isn't really related to this particular blog entry, but I have to ask out of curiosity. Upon examining the new "At the Movies" Website, I was pleased to see A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips already inserted as upcoming replacements to the unworthy duo that previously hosted that show. The website has been completely redone with Scott and Phillips bios and pictures, marking them as the new official hosts. These are two critics that I respect and consistently read. I was just curious whether this new "At the Movies" show has your blessing as a worthy descendant of Siskel & Ebert and Ebert & Roeper.
I've heard that "Antichrist" has unsimulated sex in it. If this is true how would a relatively big name like Willem Dafoe be willing to make a movie like that. Couldn't it be somewhat bad for his reputation? I heard that Sook-Yin-Lee was fired from her radio station for her real sex scenes in "Shortbus" so how's Willem Dafoe's situation any different?
Ebert: I'm not sure about the sex. But Dafoe's reputation is for being fearless.
"Sometimes in desperation I try to will myself to doze off, but you can never sleep when you want to."
Wow, I'm so glad you mentioned this. I've noticed this phenomenon many times myself!
This will be my first year attending TIFF and I must say: before I read this blog, I was pretty excited. After reading this blog, I can barely sleep because I'm so excited. I look forward to seeing the Mounties at the Antichrist press screening!
Good luck!
Hi Roger,
Do you know anything about the new Clint Eastwoods film about Nelson Mandela? When will that premier? Are you looking forward to it?
I must say, two apartheid movies in the same year - one about aliens, the other a Clint Eastwood movie, that's quite interesting!
Hello Roger,
Am trying the Venice Festival for the first time. One film which blew me away was "a rational solution" by Jörgen Bergmark. The flim consists of brilliant quartet of actors. You think about it and see their faces in your minds eye long after.
They also have just shown a reprint of Liliana Cavani's "Galileo", which would appeal to your humanist side.
Sadly neither films are in Toronto. Two to add to your 49 once you leave the festival.
Ben
Ebert: Isn't Venezia wonderful? Does everyone still gather at that cafe across from the Palazzo del Cinema?
I envy your job. My particular field is fine art, and I love writing, but I figure that the art writing world is too saturated or the competition too great. Is there a chance I'm wrong?
Still, I'd love to be attending that festival with you. It seems like the Darwin film was conceived for your attendance, no? Funny how circumstances twist themselves around like that. I'm very excited about "The Road", the Cohen Bros., the Almodovar, the Herzogs (wow), the Campion, the Soderberg. It looks like we have a lot to look forward to (the movies, and your writing).
Have you been to the Seattle International Film fest (where I live)? It's long, I know, but I'm curious what you think. Have fun!
I would help you publish your blog; living in Australia I could do the night-shift, whilst you're sleeping. Think about it!
I enjoyed Ferrara's version of "Bad Lieutenant" but can't for the life of me imagine what Herzog would make of it. I'm sure the result will be interesting. I wasn't a fan of Nicholas Cage until, on your advice, I watched "Leaving Las Vegas". Judging from the trailer the film looks less bleak and more witty, almost reminiscent of a Tarantino film.
I adore films and have seen thousands, many of them at your suggestion. I recently saw a copy of von Trier's "Antichrist" and I must say the feeling of fascinated dread it manifested stunned me into a sad reverie. It is some sort of feverish masterpiece that will not leave my thoughts. I read descriptions of some of the scenes in the film and still knowing what was going to happen seemed to make it worse. I had a stomachache after the film and a deep sadness for von Trier and what he must have went through while making it. I admire von Trier a great deal but honestly where does a filmmaker go after this? If I were a critic, I would have absolutely no idea where to begin to review this film and my question to you is, would you sit through the film again or is once in a lifetime enough for this one? Can you imagine the film goer whose favorite film will be this one? The person who will see it over and over again. I think once may be just a little too much for me.
Godspeed, Roger, and good luck. Yours has traditionally been the coverage I pay closest attention to during Toronto. I can only hope that someday you get the chance to come down to Austin for our Fantastic Fest at the Alamo Drafthouse, which starts later this month.
I wonder, when Herzog's new film is screened in Toronto, how will the Canadian presenters pronounce 'Lieutenant'?
PS - When Martin Scorsese says he thinks Abbel Ferrera's 'Bad Lieutenant' is one of the 10 greatest movies of all time, I think he's just taking the piss out of his buddy Harvey Keitel for dropping trou for that shi*tfest.
Ebert: Only one of the best 10 films of the 1990s.
Looking forward to a rich crop of your essays when I return next week.
Mr. Ebert,
Do you feel pressure (from yourself, your editors or otherwise) to see films you are sure will make it to theatres in Chicago on order to stockpile reviews for print? Is there a criteria for selecting a film to see and a film to avoid?
I'm of two minds about the program of my local festival (the Atlantic Film Festival); I want to see The Invention of Lying with Ricky Gervais before everyone else, but if I do I miss Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison, a music doc. Decisions, decisions...
Ebert: Every film will screen again before it opens. I go to what looks interesting or newsworthy.
I have never heard of a festival that sceens so many 'critic friendly' films before. I mean, how does this work? There must be a fee on some sort for each film, the more prestigeous the more $$. How do they make money, anybody??
Also, as one reader asked the question how Roger can review all these films under extreme fatigue, I can only say that in my opinion it hasn't affected his work. The only mysteries to me are the reviews of Dick Tracey, Blue Velvet...and the re-review of The Brown Bunny (You brought it up)and I have all his reviews (well, published anyway)
So, morale of the story? Don't slow down RE and let's all collectively put a hex on Vincent Gallo for puttin' down the man. Let's turn Vincent into a good film maker
I just watched the trailer for Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans for my first time. I gotta say that Nic Cage looks like he's put up his first great, over the top performance since Matchstick Men. It's not going to be mentioned during the awards season, but at least it's better than most of what he's been doing for the past few years. Plus Werner Herzog is obviously a great, influential director.
Ebert: Why didn't more people like "Matchstick Men?"
Very much looking forward to your comments, and especially to see if you talk more about Antichrist. I managed to catch a preview screening in London back in July and I thought it was just fantastic, one of LVT´s best.
Also, will you be seeing and talking about Harmony Korine´s "Trash Humpers"?
I so wish that I could be there for the festival. One of these days I should just make a committment and go. But, vacation time is precious in the corporate world right now, and I'm hoarding it to cover potential layoff time.
So, once again, I will have to live vicariously through you and your experience there. Which is a very close second to being there!
I'm looking forward to seeing Creation, about Darwin. I will, no doubt, both enjoy it and disagree with some of it. I'm okay with that. It will have me think, and that's always a good thing.
My ideal festival experience would be to meet Diablo Cody. I was an early reader of her excellent blog. Back when it was still pink and she was still dancing. Before her book. Long before her screenwriting gigs. Her brilliance and wit was evident way back then. I'm glad that she is having much deserved success. She is a gem.
Randy
I know that you defend Antichrist and that you like Dancer in the Dark. I also know that you don't like Dogville. On the whole, do you like Lars von Trier or do you find him to be pretentious?
PS: The reason more people didn't like "Matchstick Men" is because they went into it thinking it would be a mindless heist film. No one went in expecting Sam Rockwell's and Alison Lohman's performances. Nic Cage I thought was okay but definitely over the top.
Ebert: Why didn't more people like "Matchstick Men?"
I know, right? It's such a wonderful film with astounding performances from Nic Cage, Sam Rockwell, and especially Alison Lohman. Also, D-Day's in it, which also works in the flick's favour.
It might not be Ridley Scott's best, but it's probably my favourite of all his films.
(No, that is not an oxymoron. Many Orwell afficianados, me included, identify "Down and Out in Paris and London" as their favourite, even though it's hardly the author's "best" book.)
Ebert: Why didn't more people like "Matchstick Men?"
I feel many people need to read the book of the same name, by Eric Garcia, to fully appreciate how dead-on Nice Cage was in his role in 'Matchstick Men'. My only beef with that movie was the changed ending, but that often happens when a book is adapted into a movie.
Hi Roger, Long-time fan of yours! Just wondering if you can share any thoughts on two films I'm an extra in: Whip It! and All's Faire in Love. I'll be happy even with just one word for each; Thank you!
Ebert: You'll have to wait for my reviews.
Are the Venice Festival and the Toronto festival too close together to realistically attend both? Or is that a young critic's game? If I was at Venice I would have wanted to throw a shoe at Hugo Chavez. Stone is a putz for lionizing that guy.
Ebert: A young guy's game? Who has the expense account? Those days are over.
A few people commute from Venice to Toronto, but they're mostly distributors and publicists.
Hi Roger,
The two films that I'm excited about seeing and hearing from you are Herzog's 'Bad Lieutenant: Port of call New Orleans' and von Trier's, 'Antichrist'. Although I wont be attending the festival, what chances do you think that 'Antichrist' has at a wider release? (seeing is that you already saw the film)
Also, on a side note, what would you say is the best film you've ever seen at the Toronto film festival?
Paul Bettany is an incredible actor. He is one of those actors who people tend to forget about until they are impressed with him in one of his many solid supporting roles. I am glad to see him in something other than his new film, Legion, which looks like a combination of The Mist and Tremors--instead of motion-sensing worms, we get angels in leather with sub-machine guns.
But Bettany made the Da Vinci Code somewhat bearable, was incredible next to Crowe in A Beautiful Mind, and played a Darwin-esque naturalist/explorer in Master and Commander. Hopefully, Creation will be the first of many solid roles to come and Legion is a slight hiccup in an otherwise impressive career.
(I could be completely off-base with Legion. I realize that the trailer has only just been released. Some of my disdain comes in a disappointment of yet another angel movie that portrays the supernatural in stereotypical action roles. What was so wrong with Clarence?)
Less people saw "Matchstick Men" because Nicholas Cage appears in so many movies that are clearly just paychecks. Since it's so hard to know which roles are junk and which are good, discerning filmgoers stay away in droves.
As much as I respect and enjoy Herzog as a directer, I cannot imagine what would have spurred him on to re-do BL. And, yes I realize that he will simply 're-do' etc. Cage cannot hold a candle to Keitel (I have come to the conclusion that the fewer the dimensions to his character, the better Cage is - for example, Leaving Las Vegas, arguably his best role. Or Adaptations. Or Bringing Out the Dead. He is at his best playing charactertures, where he can provide his "spaced-out" treatment). Even the title has me uneasy. Perhaps it is trying to distance itself from comparison to the original but in doing so merely calls attention to it. THis (at least the original) is a story made by the character, it is very intimate, clausterphobic even. To stay in that realm invites only comparisons to Keitel; to go elsewhere begs the question: where is there to go, and why?
Matchstick Men -- meh, I thought it was just shy of ok the first time through and recently balked at a re-watch. Standard 'burn-out-weeerd-guy' characterture provided by Cage; a screen full of ugly characters played up to be 'hip' or 'edgy'; a twist that perhaps most saw coming if they were paying attention; an ending seeking justification for what preceded by providing redemption for a character that evoked little in the way of empathy -- these are some reasons why MM didnt resonate. It was a movie that tried to move on too many levels. If it picked one and faded out the other it would have been more successful, I think. Too much going on to provide any one thing justice.
I already mentioned my anticipation of Creation in another post, especially your thoughts on it being someone so knowledgable about Darwin. I'm also hoping to hear about Ondine, Leaves of Grass, the Informant, and Chloe.
Roger, you had two additional blog writers for Cannes. That was an excellent thing to do. I wish you had done that for Toronto just to increase your enjoyment of the festival, and perhaps Chaz's as well :>) Maybe next year.
Look forward to the posts. I was wondering when Bright Star was finally going to open. I have seen a print ad within the last couple of days. May have been in Vanity Fair.
Ebert: It opens Sept. 25.
I should have, but guess who gets to publish the guest entries, choose the artwork, and so on?
I'm lukewarm about "The Road." I dunno, the trailer didn't seem to have the right tone for me, after reading the book. I guess that's a complaint you could make about any adapted movie. But for instance, the film appears to give an explanation for the worldwide devastation, even though I'm pretty sure such an explanation is unnecessary.
Through serendipity and the largesse of TIFF, I get to see the Gala of Herzog's "Bad Lieutenant". (We got the tickets as kind of a clerical mistake, but they are not bursting our balloon and taking them back.) I am very excited! We also have tickets to see the Darwin film and a movie of about Hildegaard von Bingen (Vision). We are also going to see "A Prophet" and taking the kids to see the turtle movie. I am super excited. I got the backpack filled with the water and trail mix. ;)
I followed Turan's advice, and allowed myself only the first 40 seconds of each trailer you have posted.
That way they'll be fresh when I actually see the full trailers in a theater in a couple of months.
My partner and I have the goal of making it to TIFF in 2010. Is there anywhere on the web that we can look at for advice to 1st-timers?
Ebert: Not anywhere, sadly, where you'll only have to read the first paragraph.
Scott's criticism of "Matchstick Men" reminds me of the infamous "Too many notes" anecdote regarding Mozart's "Die Entführung aus dem Serail."
I'm not being glib, Scott, since you probably have a valid point. Nonetheless, eppur si muove.
The "love letter" was a weird creative writing excercise, no girl wouldnt be freaked out by that I realize. Im wacky lol
Roger, if there are any movies you should see and review, please look at the Canadian films. It is Toronto after all, but if there is any film industry that is in the pits and needs to be noticed, it is the Canadian film industry. David Cronenberg can't do it on his own. There are good films and talented filmmakers in Canada, but they're being forgotten about, even by Canadians themselves.
If "the Road" movie is as good as the book we're in for a treat. The Coen brothers have set the bar mile heigh with their adaptation of "No Country for Old Men", it'll be hard to match that. Their own "Burn after Reading" could not do it. I hope they can with their new movie.
And I'm happy to see there are still controversial movies, good or bad. The day there are no more controversial movies is the day everything stands still.
Cage is the most hit and miss, unappreciated, over the top actor in Hollywood today. His recent achievements include Matchstick Men, The Weather Man, Adaptation to name a few. Judging by the trailer for Bad Lieutenant, this is the Cage I know and love.
Nic Cage is using that Kinski pivot! He's not in the frame, then he's all over it as the camera pans by him breaking the axis, and he's looking in the direction of the pan!
Fantastic. Viva Long Beach!
Roger,
I've never commented here before but have been reading your blog and reviews for awhile. You are a fantastic writer and a very important inspiration for me.
I'm terribly excited to see what you think of the new Coen brothers movie. It's sad to hear that the festival's reception of Burn After Reading was generally "disappointed"; I guess they didn't get it.
I'm not very familiar with Lars Von Trier's work but after reading your essay on Antichrist I am very interested in his work and the experimental/bizarre nature of his work. The profound effect the movie has had on you to write so extensively about it without a review is very interesting to me.
Thank you for all your hard work. You wrote a blog entry some time ago about your fear that young people pay no attention to your work, et cetera. I believe this is untrue. Passionate movie fans can appreciate your work, regardless of age. I have been reading your fantastic writing for about three years (I'm nineteen now) and I remain enthralled. Thanks for your hard work over the years.
Arlo
While waiting for Michael Moore's movie "Capitalism, A Love Story" to come out, I found a movie about stock market corruption called "Stock Shock."
It exposes all sorts of stock market corruption. "Stock Shock" follows several Sirius XM investors through their experience of watching their stock go from almost ten dollars a share---down to 5 cents/share. "Stock Shock" suggests this might be due to "naked short selling" and other market manipulation by high rollers on Wall Street. I don't know if I'm a believer, but at least it gives a good review of how our stock markets are engineered. Amazon.com has it and stockshockmovie.com
Ebert: And not to forget "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005),"
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050428/REVIEWS/50413004
Is it just me, or is Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" one of the worst titles ever? Sounds like a direct-to-video sequel.
"Nicolas Cage, an actor who was born to work with Herzog..."
A little off-topic, but after recently watching the Italian schlock masterpiece "Five For Hell" closely followed by the masterpiece-in-general "Inglourious Basterds", I can't help but lament that we'll never get to see Klaus Kinski in a Tarantino film....how amazing would THAT be?
Ebert: It would have led to bloodshed.
After covering Sundance for 16 years (and attending for 18), I finally convinced my bosses at The Salt Lake Tribune to let me go to Toronto. I'm eagerly anticipating diving in at one end and just seeing what I can see in a limited amount of time, and seeing how this festival differs from the one I cover every year.
Roger, I hope I run into you at least once. You haven't been back to Park City since your surgery, and we miss you in Utah.
Ebert: Chaz was just there, flying the flag.
I'll bet you love it. Remember--Tim Horton's for coffee, not Starbucks. It's a national religion. And donuts, not bagels. A cult.
Great that you are back in your element. And so much fun that you share your experiences with us plebes back home. The Cannes chronicles were a gas. Can't wait till your focus turns to "The Road." Just read the book. Awesome. Excited when learning John Hillcoat("The Proposition") was directing. Cast looks great-even got the Deputy from "No Country for Old Men." Figured Cormac McCarthy would get a lot of play after NCfOM. See where the talented Todd Field(In the Bedroom) is helming the "Blood Meridian" project-reading that one next.
Cheers.
I liked "Matchstick Men" and confess I'd rather see Nicholas Cage in the Bad Lieutenant than Harvey Keitel - but only because some films get too close to life for my comfort. Which is ironic, I know.
The thing which allowed it to transcend its medium and reach a place refereed to as "Art" - ie: Harvey's performance - is also the same thing that made me recoil and loathe it. Mind you, and it was years ago, but I'd rented "The Bad Lieutenant" and "Reservoir Dogs" and watched them back-to-back (THAT'S the context in which I first saw these two films!)
Note: I'm smarter now, and know to balance things out better. :)
As for "Antichrist"...
I confess, and despite everything ever said about it, I'm curious to see what all the noise is about. Moreover, it's actually possible to see it now regardless of where you live, as it's been - um, "floating around" since August as an advanced screener.
A comment from a place which shall remain unknown:
"I watched this film last night and quite enjoyed most of it. Taken that Lars von Trier rewrote the script to fix the "reveled" ending, adding the mental and emotional state of the director I'd say the final product is quite interesting.
I don't think there's a need for a good/bad rating scale, moreover this film shall be viewed as a bald attempt to profoundly expose the darkness and nihilism in nature (human's too), yet it failed to deliver a well-shaped story (and story-telling process). I have to applaud the cinematography; amazing animal images (great Philosophy concepts and Metaphors behind the classic fox, deer and crow) and the no-face people? well that was an engaging idea. All in all, even if this isn't your sort of film it is worth watching it, you'll get something out of it, and it could very well serve as a measurement bar for other horror/wierd movies." - a guy on the internet
And so again, I'm tempted. As here's someone who was and indulged that curiousity - and didn't think it sucked. That said, someone else wrote:
"This film is kind of like a horror fun house without any monsters jumping out at you and when you get to the last room you are quite literally punched in the face for no reason at all."
Jeepers. Punched in the face - that's not good.
It's because I'd be able to control "how" I watch it that I'm tempted to even consider it. I wouldn't have to sit through anything "too" genuinely disturbing (ie: I could forward past stuff likely to give me nightmares.)
Note: a few years ago, a CNN News crew on assignment in Egypt, filmed an actual act of female castration on a young girl. It made headlines around the world and exposed the truth and reality of it. Despite that fact, it still goes on. Point being, I don't need to see it a movie; I've got the real thing burned to memory.
And yet... what's the final scene? I know it's not that, and rather something else. But what could be more horrible than that if you're a girl??? And is wanting to know, a good enough reason to a watch what your instincts tell you in advance, you're going to deeply regret? Even if you can fast-forward?
I'm not too squeemish - I've got my doctor's appointment today at 4:00 pm for plastic surgery; cyst removal. And the only thing on my mind is whether I should I take the bus (this requires a transfer though) but which drops me closer to the Medical Building - or - take the Skytrain and get off at Royal Oak Station (near the Smallville Studios, by the way) and walk 5 blocks?
I'm not thinking at all about needles or knives or blood etc. And the cyst is close to where Vampires usually bite you in the movies! So I'm gonna have a really cool scar and everything! I'm already thinking-up stories to tell as to how I got it.
"Well Bob, it happened like this: I was camping with friends in Costa Rica, when suddenly and out of nowhere..." Chuckle!
Point is, clearly, I'm not the sort of person who's easily freaked out. Nor do I go looking to be freaked out. More like: what's under the rock? It's the not knowing that's starting to drive me nuts and yet I'm well aware of Pandora's box and let sleeping dogs lie, blah, blah.
But again... what's the under the rock? :)
I'd guess it was a disappointment only for those expecting No Country for Old Men, but I enjoyed Burn After Reading quite a bit for what it was. Great actors, good pace, and a great sense of timing.
Thanks Roger, I can look forward to your Toronto posts to keep my mind off the Illini's performance this past weekend.
Regarding Night Mayor of Winnipeg: If the movie itself is cut anything like the trailer, it'll be Man with a Movie Camera as directed by Murnau. On ether.
Ebert: I may have to steal that.
What are the Cohen brothers up to? They just keep getting better, so I'll be looking for it -- though I didn't fully understand 'No Place for Old Men' in the final scenes.
Is there a blog where the minutia of that film was discussed, as was 'Inglorius Basterd's' in the more recent Trivia and AA threads?
Fargo was exceptional in my view, and I've enjoyed everything they've done.
a quick one because I'm at work - but oh this entry is making the wait until Thursday soooooooo hard!
I was very happy to get Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. Now I can't even wait after the trailer.
On the other hand...my most zealous film loving friend politely turned down the chance to see Antichrist with me. I wasn't sure if I can handle it by myself...the trailer confirms it - think I'll have to sit this one out for now. Overactive imagination does not bode well here.
An Education - one of my top must sees on a pure hunch. Glad to hear you liked it!
Ebert: "Antichrist" is difficult. "An Education" is to be treasured. Your hunch is on the money.
I'm a Chicago critic. How come I never get invited to these things. Or do you have to be able to line a bird cage with the reviews to get tapped?
Ebert: Hi Ferdy. They don't pay your way, y'know. It's open to the public. Not cheap, but reasonable. When the Canadian dollar was low it was something else.
I can't wait to see Antichrist, but I have a felling I'll have to wait till its DVD release. I live halfway between New York City and Boston just far enough where its an inconvenience to go and see a limited release film. Oh well, I guess I have to wait.
I dread The Road. If it can't match the bleak world of the book it will be a disappointment. If it does, though, it will be very hard to watch.
There was a great first-person account of the true story behind the movie "The Education" published in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/jun/07/lynn-barber-virginity-relationships
I have not seen the movie, but the part where she expects her parents to insist that she goes to university and they don't was heart-braking.
Interesting question...
Why Do People NOT Go To See A Movie?
Times have changed. There are no more Movie Stars in the old sense of the term. No current actor can 'open a movie' - that is, get people to show up solely on the strength of his/her presence. If any actors could, no film would ever flop.
These days people go to a movie to see the movie. What it's about is more important than who's in it. Most of what's out there now is aimed at a very specific niche audience (adolescent boys of all ages and genders). Anybody else is at the mercy of the chain bookers, and frankly, the older audience is far less inclined to cough up $20+ or more sight unseen for an unknown quantity.
Speaking strictly for myself, I have only this to add. I don't go to nearly as many movies as I once did, for this reason: I'm just not interested. I don't think I'm alone in this.
Sorry...
Ebert: Why didn't more people like "Matchstick Men?"
Loved it! And have done my best to try and turn more people on to it. I feel like I may have an answer to your question though. It's form is unexpected--it's a movie about con-men. An audience, when seeing a movie about con-men, expects to be conned by the film with twists and turns and such. When they find after an hour and a half the movie doesn't really twist and turn, but instead tells a straight story of this man and his situation, an audience isn't getting what' it has expected and gets uncomfortable and frustrated. Finally when the twist comes at the end (or reveal or whatever you want to call it), it's not the movie screwing the audience over (a la the Sixth Sense type of ending) but one character screwing another character over--again leaving the audience frustrated at not getting what it expected, even it if it superior to what they thought it would be.
Just one humble opinion. See it if you haven't!!
Roger,
I was wondering if you were planning on seeing The Vintner's Luck while in Toronto?
Directed by Niki Caro with a universal cast (including Caro's Whale Rider leading lady, Keisha Castle-Hughes, it is adapted from one of my favourite books by New Zealand author Elizabeth Knox.
I know your review won't appear until it releases, but if you could just give a hint of what you thought, should you see it, that would be good. Of course, Variety will likely post a full review.
BTW I saw An Education in July and loved it! Mulligan is definitely headed for an Oscar nom, and with a 10 Best Pic line-up, the film could be up for Best Pic. If only they extended Director to 10 then we could see Scherfig, Bigelow, Caro and Campion all up for the big one.
Enjoy Toronto.
I've seen Werner Herzog in interviews, and I just wonder... how can such a nice man make such nasty movies?
Ebert: "Encounters at the End of the World" isn't nasty.
Six films a day?!? That's crazy! That's 12 hours, if they were back to back, and they probably wouldn't be back to back. You could always wait for the DVD.
Ebert: That's how many it would be, not how many it will be. Saints preserve us!
Personal request, and not at all related to the movies you're seeing this week: If you go to Stephen Temple Books, could you write a brief aside on your visit? When I went to Toronto in April, I had about 15 minutes or so, which isn't enough for a first time visitor; maybe not enough for any visitor.
I had enough time to find an old paperback copy of Burrough's The Soft Machine, but didn't notice the shelves of old sci-fi right by the door!
So, what does the seasoned shopper go in there looking for, and where does he look?
And, just to get back to movies, I saw Watchmen at one of the ScotiaBank theaters that functions as a theater and a food court. As some poor schmuck whose film-going tends to happen at AMCs, I was basically blown away by the sound and picture quality, not to mention the true stadium seating. I'm not going to go out looking for screen comparisons because I could be wrong and my mind could be playing tricks on me, but I seem to remember the regular screen there being somewhat similar to the diet IMAX screens that are cropping up all over the place, and they had a real IMAX to boot. Impressive, though the infomercials played before the movie were a bit much.
Ebert: I hardly ever go to a used book store looking for a particular book. It's sort of like dowsing for water. I don't know how it works, but I'll find something. I never leave empty-handed, even if I didn't realize going in I required an illustrated 1940s hardbound of "Nana" by Zola.
It looks like the most shocking thing about the new Bad Lieutenant may be the revelation that some people did not view the original Bad Lieutenant as a sympathetic character. Some hearts are too cold to be warmed by the healthy joie de vivre he displayed before things went sideways. Those who see his blithe assurance that he will never be seriously questioned by other police officers, but lack the empathy to feel the dilemma of wielding power so great that failure to abuse it would be wasteful, are more likely to respond to characters muddled by pointless suggestions of motive other than opportunity. People who have never had the privilege of living in New York City may lack the cultural background to grasp the ironic paradox of a man whose tragic flaw was also his redeeming virtue – his faith ... in the New York Mets.
Well I'm anticipating "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans", but will it get wide distribution?
I think "My son, My Son What Have Ye done?" my get on more screens? I don't know that's my weird logic, can we expect another great interview with Herzog, like the one you did for "Invincible"?
John Vicars said "I heard that Sook-Yin-Lee was fired from her radio station for her real sex scenes in "Shortbus" so how's Willem Dafoe's situation any different?"
Actually no, she was threated with a firing if she took the part but after much negative press the CBC backed down.
She remains to this day the host of the CBC program "Definitely not the opera." She also has a movie out in TIFF this year that she directed "Year of the Carnivore".
This comment serves the single purpose of addressing to you, Roger and to say thank you for your movie knowledge, not a week goes by before i find myself wandering on your movie reviews and agreeing with 80% of your reviews. Just to say, when i need quality, close to reality reviews... not those pseudo critics mumbo-jumbo talk... i go to your website/ blog.
Thank you, from Europe, Portugal.
Ebert: I'm one of those weirdos who has been to Mozambique but not Portugal. Call me an ex-Colonial.
I've got tickets to the opening night screenings of Creation and Antichrist. You can bet I'm excited to see Creation and nervous to see Antichrist.
I also made sure that among my choices I selected "Up in the Air". The premiere of Juno was one of the absolute highlights of my TIFF experiences - to stand and applaud and cheer a marvelous film and the amazing cast and crew on the stage was awesome. When Jason Reitman thanked Toronto audiences and said that he would be back to debut each of his upcoming releases at the Toronto Film Festival at the Ryerson theatre I vowed to be there to hopefully experience another similar amazing moment.
I walked out of Juno predicting it would be a huge hit and was delighted that Roger supported it so strongly helping it to reach the audience it deserved. Has there been another film that opened across the U.S. in 7 theatres, peaked 7 weeks later at 2500+ and made over $200 worldwide?
Similarly, Roger, thanks for supporting the well deserved Oscar win for Crash!
Hopefully, Roger, you can help another movie this year that deserves that little boost. Hope to catch a glimpse of you at TIFF.
Ebert: I was at the same screening of "Juno" you were at. What a spontaneous, joyous ovation.
This year I'm high on "An Eduction," but I don't think it's going to lack for support.
Roger,
A movie that was screened at the Toronto Film Festival a ways back was Terry Gilliam's Tideland. It's an extremely strange film that's not for everyone, but I always wondered, what did you think of it? I enjoyed it but I realize it's certainly a movie that provokes a rather extreme reaction.
Thanks.
Ebert: I didn't see it.
Jim Hoberman in the Villaeg Voice: "The Toronto audience with which I saw Tideland last year responded as though being water-boarded—a 15-minute immersion had people gasping for the exits..."
I'm curious to see what you think of Antichrist, Roger. I get the feeling from reading your reviews that you give little credence to the horror genre, and as I'm an avid horror fan, I love to see just how often I see things in horror films that you don't. Oh, and for the record, as with so many current horror films, Antichrist has gotten a lot of buzz from horror fanboys but looks like trash to me from what little I've seen of it.
I found "Antichrist" to be an outstanding movie, albeit hard to watch at a moment or two. A friend and I were just rediscussing it this morning...when grief, madness, nature and maybe the occult collide. I'll see it again, I'm sure. What I'm not sure about is where the title comes in.
Here in Seattle at SIFF, I would do 3-4 movies a day on my days off work. It evoked zombie-like facial features if I did 2 or more days in a row. Good luck with your festival. Bring a sandwich or 2.
Ebert: Good advice. A meal consumed is a movie missed.
I'm glad to see that Herzog is really stretching his wings now. Everything he makes, I seem to gobble up even more than the last. He's one of those directors that uses his curiosity about life and nature, and brings us into those adventures.
I dare compare him to Jim Cameron, as they are very different film makers, it's their love of nature and science that make their fiction films so much more full of depth. There aren't many directors that seek out such adventures in their own lives.
Herzog is like a cinematic Jacques Cousteaus.
DR
Are any of these on your list?
Mr. Nobody
Mother and Child
City of Life and Death
Mao's Last Dancer
Women without men
The Waiting City
London River
Accidents
Fish Tank
Enter the Void
Mr. Ebert,
I just got back from Spain and a buddy of mine there showed me "Broken Embraces." I just found out it premiered at Cannes and you mentioned it's being screened in Toronto. It is a masterpiece. I have a theory on whether Mateo's recollection is accurate or if it his idealized version in which he turns the events into a film noir. He turns himself into the hero, Lena into a damsel in distress, and Martel into a heartless villain. Also clever is how Almodovar conveys reality and Mateo's version of reality. When the first flashback comes it's told objectively and is set in regular day-to-day settings (streets, office buildings, etc.) When Mateo starts narrating events things start taking place in mansions and film sets, expositions usually in film noir. I may be wrong but that was the impression I got.
I'm not a big fan of trailers as too often they give the whole story away. However, if you love trailers the tiffreviews website gives over 160 trailers for the 280 feature length films at TIFF. I find foreign language film trailers are generally superior and there are quite a few here.
http://www.tiffreviews.com/2009/08/25/over-160-official-tiff-2009-trailers-at-tiffreviews-com/
Furthermore let me thank Roger and other film critics who write great reviews without incorporating critical spoilers. Our film viewing experience becomes so much more enjoyable if we're careful about the reviews we read.
I'm interested in how HARRY BROWN turns out. I love, LOVE Sir Michael Caine, so I hope it's good!
Doug - The title's meaning is revealed in its artwork (hint: last letter)
I'm a bit hit and miss about Antichrist. It's what may have happened if Bunuel directed the last unwritten Hitchcock script. I love both of these filmmakers, but it doesn't quite come off here. There are missing pieces for me(either facts about Von Trier's personal life, or just not educated enought?) that would I suspect help the overall impact of the movie.
I don't want to give the details away here readers, but I will say that the true meaning of this film (in my opinion) will upset just over 1/2 the population.
Roger, when you finally review this film, it would be fantastic of you could offer your thoughts on the final shot. I loved it, but I don't quite know why.
This year I'm going for the first time (inexcusable really since I've lived in Toronto my whole life) and am tremendously excited. So far I've got tickets for Bad Lieutenant, Chloe, and Mother. If nothing else they all should be interesting and thought-provoking. If I see you there I'll try and give you a little wave or thumbs-up, it's the least I can do for someone who has helped me develop my love of film.
I'm gonna admit my bias, but I'm most out of all of them looking forward to the Coens' "A Serious Man", as I myself am I die-hard fan and I admire all of their films on one level or another (with the possible except of "The Ladykillers", which had one really good scene but the rest was just dreadful). I doubt it will surpass the masterpieces that are "Fargo" and "No Country for Old Men", but Coen movie a major event. Even a bad movie from them is still a million times better than 5 movies made by a lesser directing talent. I must be crazy to have that movie be the main one I'm looking forward to when most of the other ones look just as interesting.
Interesting line up, what caught my eye is Grant Heslov's 'The Men Who Stare At Goats'. I'm familiar with the Jon Ronson book it's based on and am very curious as to how it plays out. If it is played straight and follows the source material then it could be a blackly comic classic, if it goes for laughs then I fear it'll fall flat.
I just saw "Irreversible" last night. My friend told me to rent it, so I did and threw it on last night before going to bed (terrible idea). That movie blew my mind. I was drained after the first 15 minutes (up to the bashing of the guys face with the fire extinguisher - I had to turn my head away a couple times). I didn't know how much more I could take. So I paused it, looked up your review, saw that there was a brutal rape scene coming up, and debated whether I should turn it off or not. I read a bit more of your review and saw that the movie progressively settles down, scene by scene, ending with the couple cuddling in their bed. So, I decided to tough it out and finish the film (I had to turn away during the rape scene several times as well). I've never experienced a film like that before.
Anyway, here's my question: how does "Irreversible" compare to "Antichrist"?
Oh, since you love Trivia so much...did you know that they inserted a low frequency hum during the first 15 or 20 minutes of Irreversible? And that this specific frequency causes discomfort & nausea to humans? It's as if Gaspar Noe wanted you to vomit.
@Bad Lieutenant
"Shoot him again...his soul is still dancing."
Yes! I will have to see that. I hate how much people seem to love complaining about Nicholas Cage, always calling him a lousy actor with terrible movies. I concede that he does appear in some genuine clunkers, but even when the movie itself is bad, I still like him.
I made the comment about Herzog before. I agree - not all of his movies are nasty. But my point was that he seems to be an incredibly personable, genuinely nice man (I loved him in the gonzo mockumentary Incident At Loch Ness). Similarly, David Cronenburg seems to be a very nice person who makes very dark movies. You've met these people personally - do you ever feel this disconnect?
" It's what may have happened if Bunuel directed the last unwritten Hitchcock script. "
Hoo-boy. That demands to be seen, and sounds demanding to watch. (and no, Roger, this isn't an attempt to tease an opinion out of you before your official review).
Roger - I'm wondering why there are no good movies that take place *at* film festivals. In fact, the only movie I can think of taking place at film festival at all is, um, Jiminy Glick In La La Wood, which I believe made Your Movie Sucks. Is the idea of a movie at Cannes or Tiff or Sundance just too insular an idea for the general public?
Aside to Julian D: I have a Strong hunch that the movie that gets a little boost from Roger this year will be Whip It! He won't say anything until his review Oct. 2nd, but I have this feeling for two reasons: 1. As an extra in this movie I saw first hand, along with cast and crew, how painstakingly meticulous Drew Barrymore was in her preperation and direction for every scene, storyboarding, et al.
Secondly, it's my understanding she showed her Godfather Steven Spielberg an early cut to get his thoughts and they were reportedly very favorable. Therefore I'm predicting that Whip It! will be the sleeper smash hit of TIFF! I will truly be shocked if I'm wrong about this.
I heard that Sook-Yin-Lee was fired from her radio station for her real sex scenes in "Shortbus" so how's Willem Dafoe's situation any different?
Sook-Yin Lee is Canadian. Canadian mainstream tends to treat sex with the same hysteria as Americans. I am Canadian (though I am an exception to this rule).
I'm interested in the new Bad Liutenent, but it looks like Cage's character will have some redeeming qualities that will make us like him and grow to hate him; whereas, in the original, you have to hate Keitel. I do understand, though, that they are two seperate films and I'm going off what I seen in the trailer for Herzog's version.
I do wonder if Cage will do the naked-and-stone crying scene that really epitomizes the original.
My time for watching and reviewing movies is getting smaller these days due to clash between work and movies, and there are still another movies I think I have to watch. I watched "Katyn", "Sugar", and "The Hangover" recently, and then "O'Horten", "Still Walking", and "Sin Nombre" are waiting for me. I have to postpone movie schedule due to work and I do not know when I will be able to watch them and others. I am even not sure whether I will be able to watch "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring" till September. The list seems endless and I'm tired for going between movies and my work, but these are good movies, at least.
Good luck with TIFF. There are many movies I am very interested, and I wish I could go there. By the way, this time, I hope nobody will hit you.
P.S.
In South Korea, "Antichrist" will be released with some modification. Release date is not determined yet.
Hi Roger,
I am going to be seeing Soul Kitchen, directed by Fatih Atkin at TIFF. I know nothing about the movie or director (other than the TIFF blurb, which sounded intriguing to me). Just curious if you would be able to whet my appetite (pun intended) for this film and/or its director.
Enjoy T.O. -- it doesn't have Steak 'n' Shake, but we still like it here!
I'm going to TIFF on Thursday, and leave Monday. It'll be my first film festival experience, and I'm shaking with anticipation. I'm a little scared of how crowded and intense it'll be, since large crowds of people are terrifying for me, but otherwise I can't imagine anything more fun.
My dad's taking me and even paying for all of it, because I'm done film school next year and he wanted me to see a lot of the best Canadian independant films out there as my competition, and see what I'm up against. So unfortunately, I'm missing lots of the big name flicks, like Informant and Serious Man and Bad Lieutenant.
Roger, do you perfer going to film festivals to see the big pictures before everyone else does, or do you perfer seeing the little films that probably won't even get a DVD release, even if they don't always turn out wonderful? Personally, I'm quite happy I get to see something major like The Road and Jennifer's Body along with small Canadian flicks like All Fall Down and Trotsky.
so cheers, and hopefully I'll see you there. If you see a kid wearing a "What Would Ingmar Bergman Do?" T-shirt, that'll be me.
Ebert: I enjoy finding small films, but part of my job is seeing the big ones. I need to keep the editors happy.
You'll be wearing the T-shirt from Thursday to Monday? You'll fit right in at film school.
As I was scrolling down the post and got to the picture from "An Education," I wondered "who is this channeling Audrey Hepburn in Paris?" I'm glad she does it for more than one shot!
Ebert: So I'm not the only one who thought that.
I've been doing TIFF since I was a student 10 years ago, and this year's lineup is the strongest one yet. This year I'm seeing 50 films, and usually the list I have to work with gets up to 80 or so titles that I have to pare down to 50. This year my list got up to 125.
I'm blessed to live in Toronto, since it's the best public film festival in the world, hands down. There's room enough for everyone to see what they want to see. Films don't actually ever really sell out. You can purchase ticket packages during the summer months, and even then the festival saves tickets for when single tix go on sale, and then they save more for same-day buyers and for those in the RUSH lines.
There are so many films to see, both big and small. I'm looking forward to "Bad Lieutenant" as well, and can't wait for "Up In The Air", the new Jason Reitman with George Clooney, or Clooney's other title, "The Men Who Stare At Goats", or Scott Hicks "the Boys Are Back". Hicks always comes to Toronto with a very good film, from "Shine" to "Snow Falling On Cedars" to "Hearts In Atlantis". Todd Solondz has been a Toronto fave for over a decade, and his new "Life During Wartime" is getting great early reviews; it follows the characters of "Happiness" 10 years later, played by different actors. Rodrigo Garcia (Nine Lives) is back with "Mother & Child", with Annette Benning, Samuel Jackson and Naomi Watts among others. And there are new one's from Neil Jordan, Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie), Atom Egoyan, Francois Ozon, Tim Blake Nelson (the Grey Zone), and Richard Bouchareb (Indigenes).
Michael Caine had a great festival a few years ago with "Quiet American", and he's back with "Harry Brown", and he's featured in the Mavericks section as well with tix selling out quick for a 90 minute interview and Q&A session with the actor.
Australia is one of the big stories of the fest, bringing a record 19 films, including Samantha Morton's directing debut "The Unloved", the musical "Bran Nue Day", and the documentary "The Topp Twins", with it's twin sister act creating tons of buzz up here.
The documentary section looks as good as ever. Can't wait for "Colony", about the sad and mysterious plight of bees in North America over the last couple of years; "Hugh Hefner: Playboy and Activist" looks good, and so does the new one from Chris Smith (American Movie) called "Collapse". "How To Fold A Flag" is the new one from the team that made "Gunner Palace", which scored a great reaction a few years ago. Their new one follows soldiers back from Iraq and the process of how they re-enter their lives.
The list of foreign films is as vast and superior as ever, with titles from Iran I can't wait to see like "Bassidji", a doc about Iran's religious leaders, or "Women Without Men" that follows the stories of 5 women in the early 50's when the Shah was overthrown by the west. Fatih Akin made a strong impression up here two years ago with "Edge of Heaven", and his new "Soul Kitchen" was one of the early "small" titles to sell out quickly. Another title generating buzz is "Deliver Us From Evil" from Ole Bornedal, whose "Just Another Love Story" has been kicking around North America for months now.
In every time slot it's agony trying to figure out what to see. You start by piling up titles and then your homework becomes about what to cut, and then reviews and buzz are the monkey wrenches in the whole process. You end up dropping a big title that will find a release a month or so from now in order to discover titles like "George Washington" or "Man Push Cart".
Can't wait to follow along with this year's blog, it really looks like we could be in for one of the best fall movie lineups in the last decade or so based on everything there is to see in Toronto this year.
By Paul J. Marasa on September 8, 2009 4:08 PM: Regarding Night Mayor of Winnipeg: If the movie itself is cut anything like the trailer, it'll be Man with a Movie Camera as directed by Murnau. On ether.
Ebert: I may have to steal that.
I was going to comment, "Didn't Stravinsky say, 'Good artists borrow, great artists steal,' but I think he stole the line from Picasso, who stole it from T.S. Eliot, etc. In any case, you're in good company.
(Enjoy Toronto; we had our second honeymoon there, and it was swell: cuisine and music from around the world, and Cuban cigars. Best Neighbor to the North a country could want.)
Ebert: Hi Ferdy. They don't pay your way, y'know. It's open to the public. Not cheap, but reasonable. When the Canadian dollar was low it was something else.
I mean the advance screenings held in Chicago. I have always paid my way to out-of-town festivals, including Ebertfest! I love doing it, too, but the budget only goes so far.
Ebert: Very true. But you asked what you had to do to be invited. Consider yourself invited!
By John on September 8, 2009 1:49 AM
I have a massive amount of respect for you as a writer and someone with an insightful outlook on life. Would you be able to critique a love letter I am writing? It is for a librarian I have been flirting with for about a year. . . I myself desire no achievements or accomplishments, only the accomplishment of owning your soul is what I desire. If you reject me the universe will have lost its purpose and I will be a shell of a woman.
Uh, not to be too traditional, but John, you might want to change that last line . . . unless your parents believed in non-conventional nomenclature
Ebert: Good catch!
I hope John checks in back here before sending that letter on its way.
I was in the middle of a 6000km hitchhiking trip to Newfoundland for a wedding when I realized that I'd be in Ontario for the festival. Toronto is out of the way and not in anyway cheap, but how many chances is a humble prairie boy going to get to see Herzog in person? Probably none since I can only do the first two days but for those days I bought tickets for everything I could get into. So I guess what I'm saying is Roger would you like to have breakfast Thursday, Friday or Saturday? I'm buying...
And is anyone driving from Toronto to Montreal on Saturday because I need a ride.
P.S If I see Clooney I'm going to heckle him re: Batman and Robin. I'm also considering flirting with Penelope Cruz. They may consider this their public warnings.
Ebert: No breakfasts for me. (1) I'm on a liquid diet. (2) I hit the first press screening every morning.
I've thought a lot about Antichrist, the best that I can say about it, is that it's an intriguing piece of dysfunctional filmmaking, with every segment tripping the movie up. The shift from a drama centered on an exploration of grief, to a creepy atmospheric horror film is already jarring : we spend so much time on the former that the arrival of the latter is throwing the audience off. And then comes brutal violence, in a move that is just like a premature ejaculation (in every conceivable way). Later, one shot is all that it takes to obliterate any point that Von Trier might have been trying to make. This, of course, is a reductive way of putting it. After all, I was mesmerized by the use digital camerawork, the fearlessness of Gainsbourg (and I've never been a fan of hers) and the climate of this movie is unique, the sense that there is an auteur in command (well, before we get to the "Gynocide" chapter).
Yet thinking about it, I fail to see the interest you feel towards it since all I saw watching it, was a gracious ballet dancer flailing, then tumbling artlessly from the stage.
Howdy sir,
Not to be a punk, but Darwin's grand achievement was the theory of natural selection, not the "Theory of Evolution." Evolution as an idea had been kicked around since Aristotle, but Darwin was the one who finally came up with an elegant and logical mechanism by which it could occur.
In regards to BL:PoCNO, I read today that Herzog says that the title was forced upon him by the producers. Apparently, one of them was involved with Ferrara's original Bad Lieutenant, and wants to create a franchise; otherwise, it seems that the two films share little but the title.
Can we stop saying "Theory of Evolution"? Evolution is a fact. Species evolve into different species. We can see evidence if it in fossil records. We can see with our own eyes in strains of bacteria we grow in a laboratory setting. Darwin's theory is called Natural Selection, which explains how and why species evolve.
"a meal consumed is a movie missed"
thats what i was thinking. i always wondered where they got the name cannes. now i realize its a heads up for dudes who want to see more than 2 movies in a row in one day. either they mean don't eat or you'll go to the bathroom during the movie, or the food thats served near cannes sucks and you'll be getting your stomach pumped :P gosh ain't i a stinker
An Education had decent but not overwhelming buzz when it premiered at Sundance. It was one of the hotter tickets, given the Nick Hornby connection, and Mulligan was the toast of Park City on premier night. It also won the audience award for international drama, despite an incredible roster of in competition films in that category -- including Bronson, Five Minutes of Heaven, and La Nana (the jury winner).
I'm actually fascinated by the foresight of some of these companies to spot Oscar worthy films at Sundance, buy them, sit on them for 9 months letting most of the Sundance buzz subside, and then to blow off the doors with them at TIFF. My guess is that both An Education and Push: A Novel By Saphire (or whatever it's TIFF title will be) will be extremely well received, and that Toronto will bring them a much larger audience than they would have received with direct distribution right after Sundance.
I'm not sure what all this means about Sundance. I'm partial to it. But I worry that its cachet may be diminishing as TIFF's expands. I don't know how I feel about that -- if it means less Paris Hilton and more of a return to its independent roots, I'm all for it, I guess.
the informant, incidentally, is one that I would want to see at TIFF.
Ebert: They're autumn pictures.
"Informant!" is...surprising...
My review will appear on Sept. 18.
Matchstick Men is such a wonderful and underrated film, and still in my opinion the best movie of 2003. Not being a huge fan of Ridley Scott, it impressed me even more. His visuals here are stunning-especially the way he uses blue from the pool-and Nicolas Cage, Sam ockwell, and Alison Lohman are all just stunning in their acting, especially Cage, who seriously deserved any kind of nomination that year. I remember six years ago when it came out being so happy that Ebert gave it four stars, and am glad it popped up into this conversation as well.
Roger,
Tell me Charlize Therons character in "The Road" has not miraculously been brought back to life in this movie... it looks like it from the editing in the trailer, say it isn't so, the Coens did such a wonderful job of "No Country", has justice been done in this case?
What on earth is Herzog doing getting mixed up with Cage? I can only see this having one outcome.
""I heard that Sook-Yin-Lee was fired from her radio station for her real sex scenes in "Shortbus" so how's Willem Dafoe's situation any different?"
Sook-Yin Lee is Canadian. Canadian mainstream tends to treat sex with the same hysteria as Americans. I am Canadian (though I am an exception to this rule)."
No Canadians do not. How do I know? The public supported her decision to do the role and because of their support she WAS NOT fired from the CBC. She's still the host of Definitely Not the Opera.
I saw him in Weather Man and think it is one of his best role. I find it funny how many films are about "man" like "Matchstick Me." I hope Nicolas will do a lot more.