BuzzSugar

Duplicity: Stylish Spy Caper That's a Touch Too Calculating

BuzzSugar — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:00:55 -0700

It's hard to go wrong with Julia Roberts and Clive Owen in a movie together. The two starred in Closer as a couple in a toxic marriage. This time around they play two corporate spies who are intoxicated with each other. The sexy part comes from the way they look (Owen is tan, Roberts is back with that big ol' movie star smile) and the fact that the characters' day jobs make it hard for them to trust each other, despite the longing between them.

I was expecting Duplicity to be the kind of movie at which I could kick back and enjoy the chemistry between the two stars. You know, the kind of movie in which double-crossing is just a spy's way of flirting, and covert operation lingo is laced with innuendo. I'm sad to report that's not the movie I viewed at all. I'll tell you why if you read more.

I've been intrigued by the idea of Tony Gilroy (the man responsible for the 2007 drama Michael Clayton and writer of the suspenseful Bourne movies) delivering a fun and sexy spy romp starring two of the world's most gorgeous people. I knew to expect a grown-up movie that respects my intelligence, though I was skeptical about how much lightheartedness Gilroy could bring to the screen.

Turns out my skepticism was valid, as I found that the romantic and comedic elements take a backseat to a complex storyline about the corporate spy organizations within pharmaceutical companies. It's all made even more tiresome by a complicated timeline (there are a lot of flashbacks). Instead of asking you to invest in the sexy leads, Gilroy asks the audience to just hang in there through every twist and turn of nonsense in return for a big reveal that will piece it all together for us in the end. Well, by the time I saw the big reveal, I was just glad the movie was over rather than blown away by the cleverness.

On the plus side, the movie looks gorgeous and is delightfully sophisticated. The opening slow-motion sequence on a tarmac is funny and stylized in a way that reminded me of the Oceans 11 movies. Julia and Clive are delightful in Rome and there's a particular moment in which he kisses her neck that satisfied the kind of airy seductiveness I was looking for. There's also a great little sequence with the hilarious Carrie Preston (of True Blood) that is truly alive with comedic timing and wit. But unfortunately, the fun stuff is weighed down by the overly serious corporate saga unfolding. I think the drama is supposed to give us some food for thought on top of the fun, but it's actually just a drag, and it's utterly useless as a parable.

Then there's the matter of Julia Roberts. It's amazing to see this famous siren of the screen back in action. She's all curves with decolletage proudly on display. She's glamorously dressed in European weekend-wear and expensive-looking heels and trench coats. She's middle-aged and it's such a blessing to see a real woman sexily strut her stuff up there on the big screen. But Roberts' performance is distractingly uneven. One moment her eyes are alive with intelligence and wit and the next it looks as though no one is home. When she laughs it's electric, but then other times she just looks drained of energy. It's a strange "comeback" to be sure, but hey, maybe it's just a warm up.

Photos courtesy of Universal Pictures

Valkyrie: Shallow and Underwhelming

BuzzSugar — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 07:30:18 -0800

While there are a zillion World War II movies out there already, I kept an open mind going into the Tom Cruise star vehicle Valkyrie. Sure, this is a movie that has been dogged by bad press from start to finish (even due, in part, to the fact that Cruise is a Scientologist) but I can see that there is a fascinating movie to be made out of a German resistance movement involving Nazi officers in Adolf Hitler's inner circle.

High-ranking, aristocratic officers attempting to assassinate Hitler? There's so much to explore here! Were these men heroes? Or was it a desperate and calculated power grab when it was clear the Germans were losing the war? What did these men know about the mass murders of Jews that had taken place and when did they know it? Did any of them, including Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise) who led one of the most daring plots to kill Hitler, have a genuine crisis of conscience? And if so, what does that kind of moral awakening look like?

In a war that is often depicted very starkly as good vs. evil, within the German rank and file there were shades of gray and this makes for interesting psychological thriller fodder for sure. So why did Cruise and director Bryan Singer forego that kind of film in favor of a totally reductive, shallow, glossy, big-budget flick that will leave you feeling underwhelmed and a little icky because you just spent over an hour rooting for Nazis? I really don't know, but let's talk about it. Just read more.

First of all, I'm a little baffled at how little characterization exists in this movie. We are asked to very simply and easily accept these men as heroes and root for them when they are Nazis, for Pete's sake. Just trying to kill Hitler and place yourself and your pals into power isn't quite enough to make us care. And at times it's hard to root for people you know are going to fail because - spoiler alert? - Hitler survives the assassination attempt and World War II continues on.

The whole experience is confusing to say the least. For example, in the opening scene we see Cruise on the ground in Africa fighting on behalf of Hitler's Germany when the "enemy" (that would be the Allied forces fighting to stop Hitler from totally destroying Europe) airplanes zoom in to launch an air strike and bodies go flying everywhere. Instinctively my sympathy went toward the soldiers on the ground, but then. . . aren't these Nazis? Who am I rooting for here? And why?

My fundamental issues with the filmmakers' approach aside, the real question is: Is it entertaining popcorn cinema? And in my opinion the answer is no, not really. It's not the laugh-riot some thought it might be (Cruise, Nazis, eye-patch, ya know) thanks in part to a solid cast that props the movie up, including Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, and Eddie Izzard. It's not a very satisfying experience that fails to keep viewers on the edges of their seats, save the moment when Cruise's character attempts to plant a bomb quite literally under Hitler's feet. There's also a nicely executed political coup late in the movie that is captivating to watch - an example of the potential this movie had.

Finally, at the center of this wannabe-blockbuster is one of the most self-conscious performances of Cruise's career in which he takes all that burning intensity he so often brings to the silver screen and buries it away. I've read that part of Stauffenberg's heroism was his ability to recruit others to his cause based on sheer charisma and charm. Never would have guessed that from this portrayal.

Photos courtesy of MGM

Movie Preview: Clive and Julia in Duplicity

BuzzSugar — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:30:40 -0800

The next project from Tony Gilroy, writer and director of Michael Clayton, is Duplicity, a spy thriller with a sexy couple at the heart of it. Clive Owen and Julia Roberts play two corporate spies with a romantic past who "hook up to pull off the ultimate con job on their respective bosses." Paul Giamatti and the awe-inspiring Tom Wilkinson also star.

I watched the trailer a few times because I'm easily distracted by how good-looking Clive Owen is, but in the end I think it looks like an intriguing enough film. There's not a lot of chemistry going on with the main duo, but the premise seems fun. And I think the song used in the second part of the trailer is that Bitter:Sweet tune used as the theme song for Lipstick Jungle (it drove me a little crazy at first trying to figure that out). Duplicity opens March 20. To check out the trailer, read more.

Source

RocknRolla: Slow to Build With a Rockin' Finish

BuzzSugar — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 06:30:32 -0800

RocknRolla is extremely similar in tone and format to director Guy Ritchie's other films, and I must say I'm starting to think that his movies are only as good as the actors in them. Snatch is a good ensemble piece overall, but the most memorable parts are due to standout performances by actors like Brad Pitt and Alan Ford. Though not as good a film as Snatch, RocknRolla similarly benefits from some fine performers, in this case Tom Wilkinson, Mark Strong, and Toby Kebbell, among other members of the extensive cast in this convoluted story.

And by convoluted I mean I'm not sure I can even get into the plot here without writing another six paragraphs or so. Suffice to say there are a couple high-level criminal guys (played by Tom Wilkinson, Mark Strong and others), a resourceful accountant (Thandie Newton), a few bumbling low-level thugs (Gerard Butler, Idris Elba, Tom Hardy), and a druggie rock star, Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell) all chasing around large amounts of money and/or a beloved painting. There are a lot of men behaving badly because they had cruel fathers. There's a good amount of violence (often paired with great music) and torture mixed with dry, dark humor. It's funny and exciting - but not consistently so. For more on what I mean, read more.

The beginning is slow to build, with tons of details to take in at once, and sometimes the story is downright uninteresting. But the ending is exciting enough to make you forget the entire hour or so that came before it. Maybe that's Ritchie's shtick: Saving the best, most memorable parts for last so you're left with the impression that it was a great movie.

So, is it worth it? That depends. If you haven't liked any of Ritchie's stuff in the past, this movie will definitely not change your opinion. If you've never seen his movies, start with Snatch and make RocknRolla last on the list. And for any fan of his, RocknRolla is worth it for the helluva good ride we get to take in the last third or so of the movie.

Oh, also: We get a brief glimpse of Gerard Butler's bare backside. So. There's that.

Photos courtesy of Warner Bros.

Movie Preview: Guy Ritchie's RocknRolla!

BuzzSugar — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:31:47 -0700

The title of this movie doesn't have an exclamation point at the end - I added that to the headline on account of my extreme enthusiasm for the RocknRolla trailer! As a huge fan of Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, I am positively giddy to see a trailer for another movie in that same vein. Plus, the cast rocks. There's Tom Wilkinson, Thandie Newton, Jeremy Piven, and, well, Ludacris. There's also Hottie McManly himself, Gerard Butler.

The trailer shows a supernatural aspect to this movie, along with the same old violence and that kind of wry, dark humor that permeates Snatch and Barrels. The plot description states: "London's criminal underworld takes notice of a Russian mobster's shady land deal, a scam that puts millions of dollars up for grabs."

If you are already a fan of director Guy Ritchie's style (we can ignore that he ever had anything to do with Swept Away for now), you might swoon at this trailer just as much as I am. The movie opens in the UK September 12, and then we'll get it October 31. Until the video becomes embeddable, you'll have to check out the trailer over on Empire where it premiered. Enjoy! And let me know what you think.

Source

Citizen, Liberty, and Buzz Watch HBO's Recount!

BuzzSugar — Sun, 25 May 2008 07:30:12 -0700

HBO's movie Recount is on tonight at 9 p.m.! Is it watchable? Heck yes! Citizen, Liberty and I watched it at Citizen's house - she concocted a drink called a "Hanging Chad" which was sweet, dessert-y and left a way better aftertaste than the original. Want to know what we thought before you commit to two hours? Here you go!

Will Liberty and Citizen have it out over Warren Christopher? Will Buzz strangle them for not stopping talking the entire movie? To find out, read more.

To watch or not to watch? I'd vote for it. It's a well-done movie that will - mark my words - be up for awards when the time comes. Plus it's, you know, important and stuff.

Best Picture Breakdown: Michael Clayton

BuzzSugar — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:33:41 -0800

From now until the 2008 Oscars air on Sunday night, I'll be breaking down the five contenders for Best Picture, giving you the scoop on why each film could win and why it might not stand a chance. I started off with There Will Be Blood, and today I'm turning my sights to Michael Clayton.

The plot description on IMDB is most succinct: "An attorney known as the Fixer in his law firm comes across the biggest case of his career that could produce disastrous results for those involved." It's screenwriter Tony Gilroy's first attempt at directing and he lucked out with some phenomenal talent: George Clooney, Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson - all of whom nabbed acting nominations as well. To see what I think Michael Clayton has going for and against it in this year's race, read more.

Why It Might Win

The Academy seems to be smitten with this film. Other movies in this category have already won many awards in other circles, but this is the first awards committee to seem truly besotted with Clayton.
Director Tony Gilroy delivers some of the best direction I've seen in any of the movies from 2007. The quick edits and artful alternating between storylines makes for a visually interesting story. I was particularly struck by the ending in which the credits roll and the camera stays on Clayton's face as he sits in a cab, his destination unknown. The attention to detail on Gilroy's part is impressive.
That George Clooney . . . he's just so darn watchable. Playing the titular character, he struggles through this turning point in his life and we know that though he was once less of an upstanding person, there's no doubt that he's the ragged hero of this story. You just gotta love Clooney.

Why it Might Not Win

Though beloved by many critics and, clearly, the Academy, this movie isn't particularly appealing in the general sense. Many people found it to be boring, confusing and simply not enjoyable. Every one of the other movies nominated for Best Picture this year was a bigger hit with audiences.
While the larger message in this movie has to do with moving from moral emptiness to a place of redemption, in general, the subject matter isn't particularly grand. Lacking a sweeping universal subject as well as much interesting action, it may not grab that Best Picture award.
The same reason that it might win also works against Michael Clayton: it's been nominated for several awards. The Academy might reward the film in other categories and hand the statue for Best Picture to another movie.

Photo courtesy of Warner Bros.

Michael Clayton Gets a Theatrical Re-Release

BuzzSugar — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:30:50 -0800

Warner Bros. has announced today that the George Clooney drama Michael Clayton will get a re-release in approximately 1,000 North American theaters starting January 25. The film was originally released in October and didn't do too well at the box office - but this was before all the awards buzz started up. Apparently the movie has made "more than 100 critics' top-ten lists." It also nabbed four Golden Globe nominations and five BAFTA Awards nominations, among others.

Do you think you'll check out Michael Clayton in its second theatrical run? If you've already seen it, what did you think?

To check out the trailer for Michael Clayton, read more.

Photo courtesy of Warner Bros.

Michael Clayton: Even Clooney Can't Revive Something So Sleepy

BuzzSugar — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:00:00 -0700

George Clooney is an incredibly handsome man. He's a capable actor and has an endearing way about him onscreen. As a general rule, I love watching him and will seek him out in pretty much any capacity. Additionally, director Tony Gilroy is responsible for writing such successful suspense movies as the Bourne trilogy. So why did I nearly doze off during Michael Clayton?

Clooney does his charming, disarming best in this role, but I'm not convinced it's a great role. Gilroy wants badly for the audience to care about the titular character, but doesn't give us any reason to do so. Same goes for the plot in general. You can gather together the greatest actors around, but if we're given no way to connect to either the story or the characters, we viewers will find ourselves, well, falling asleep. To see what I mean, read more

Michael Clayton is a legal "janitor," someone who cleans up the evil messes of a law firm's morally questionable clients. He's a dad, a reformed gambling addict, and someone with some major money troubles. The mess he's currently cleaning up has to do with a shady "agrochemical manufacturer" company U/North that has done some kind of bad thing that is never really explained. So, there are allusions to the stakes being high, but no clear explanation for why they are that high. There are just some people (headed up by Tilda Swinton's nervous character) who will apparently stop at nothing to hide the company's wrongdoings (which, again, we don't really know anything about).

Clayton's colleague on the U/North case, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson, who turns in a wonderful performance), has finally lost it - he stopped taking his meds and, after years of defending morally corrupt clients, grew a raging conscience. Clayton mildly tries to help his poor, crazy colleague while also dealing with such personal struggles as a surly son he doesn't listen to very well and trying to pay his substantial debts. Clooney is so beautiful and much of what he does in this film is subtle and understated, so kudos to him for that. Yet when a "suspenseful" drama puts people to sleep, I wish the filmmakers would have opted for not so much understatement. If only the coolest and savviest of moviegoers are able to stay awake through this film, then count me among the dumb, drooling masses.

Photos courtesy of Warner Bros.

Dedication: Too Weird for Its Own Good

BuzzSugar — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:00:00 -0700

Dedication, the directorial debut from Justin Theroux, is a weird little movie. And while that's not necessarily a bad thing, Dedication gets a little too lost in its own weirdness, ultimately overwhelming what could be a sweet, unlikely love story.

At the heart of Dedication is Henry Roth (Billy Crudup), a basket case of a children's book writer who occasionally has to put heavy objects (encyclopedias or other large books, preferably) on top of himself to feel safe. The one person in the world who can tolerate his antics is his illustration partner, Rudy Holt (Tom Wilkinson), whose particular brand of tough love seems to calm Henry down. The two are working on a tough deadline for a children's book based on their character of Marty the Beaver (dreamed up, amusingly enough, in a porno theater) when Rudy dies suddenly of a brain tumor. That leaves Henry without an illustrator, not to mention without an anchor to the regular, non-neurotic world.

Enter Lucy (Mandy Moore), an illustrator plucked by editor Arthur Planck (Bob Balaban) to work with Henry. Henry spends most of his time trying to figure out just how insulting and nasty he can be to Lucy before she gives up and leaves him alone; considering she's been offered $200,000 if she gets Henry to finish the book (unbeknownst to him, of course), it will take a lot more than insults to get her to leave. It's a perfectly solid plot, but Theroux doesn't control the movie's tone enough to execute it well. To see what I mean, read more

The first half of the movie feels trippy and surreal, something straight out of a David Lynch film (an effect I doubt is coincidental - but more on that later). Henry, angry over Rudy's death, continues speaking to his dead partner in a series of dream sequences, shot with a choppy, deliberate camera effect. Crudup does a fine job of conveying Henry's various psychoses, and though much of his character is never really explained - why the books? why the OCD tendencies to rearrange the condiments at every restaurant? - he's interesting enough. One of Theroux's greatest strengths as a director is his use of music, and the soundtrack adds a lot to the story, with the disjointed sounds of Deerhoof giving an additional window into Henry's psyche and the more mellow Cat Power representing Lucy's calming presence. But in general, the effects are a little too strange to be useful; after the first couple of jolts into Henry's alternate reality where Rudy is still alive, the device felt tired.

But I still prefer the vaguely experimental tone of the movie's first half to the more standard love story it becomes in the end, because in all the trippiness, Theroux forgets to give us much reason to care about Henry or Lucy. Mandy Moore gives Lucy a good underlying toughness, but her character - who is also trying to decide whether to get back with her professor/thesis adviser (Martin Freeman) - isn't written deeply enough to understand why she'd put up with either of these guys. When the weirdness of the movie's first half starts to fall away, the story just feels empty.

Which brings me back to David Lynch. Theroux, who worked with Lynch on Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire, wrote in the press notes for Dedication about how the legendary director had influenced his own style. So I suppose it's not surprising that Dedication feels like a clumsy attempt at taking elements of Lynch's films and applying them to a romantic comedy. But, well, even Lynch himself isn't famous for his great romantic comedies.

Source