March will get some shine with the earnest 'Sapphires'

Early 2013 has had just a few bright, fresh releases. After a few months with the best specialty films the year has to offer, there's nothing to appeal to audiences who like quality, thought-provoking features. Auteur-bait Stoker came out a couple of weeks ago, and now there's another film worthy of arthouse applause and crossover success: The Sapphires. The story of four Aboriginal young
women in Australia who style themselves as an R&B quartet and play for American troops in Vietnam is sweet story that will have you rooting for their success--but it also packs a punch, with insights about race and identity that will feel both familiar and foreign to American audiences. In Australia, the movie has been a huge success, as anyone who read a recent "Day and Date Down Under" column can attest.

The movie bills itself as a true story based on the experiences of the mother of playwright Tony Briggs, who also co-adapted the screenplay. He took a lot of liberties with the material, but the heart of what went actually happened is there. What's most shocking is how overtly racist Australia was in 1968. A trio of girls try to enter a contest at a local watering hole, where they receive a completely indifferent reaction despite their stunning harmonies. Still, their performance catches the attention of a down-and-out
promoter/manager (Chris O'Dowd), who tries to get them a contract to sing in Vietnam. In the city, the girls track down a long-lost cousin who was taken away from them as a girl, because of her light-colored skin, and raised as white--a common practice at the time. She joins the group, but the bossy leader of the quartet has trouble keeping in her anger at the light-skinned girl for abandoning her Aboriginal identity, despite the fact that as a young girl she had little choice in the matter.

Once they're in Vietnam, the girls flirt with the troops, wow them with their R&B hits, and narrowly avoid getting caught in the crossfire. Here the movie can lag a bit, but overall The Sapphires is an entertaining underdog story that offers education about another country's history of racial oppression. The Help set to music, with a less pat outcome. The girls refer to themselves as the "blacks" of Australia, sometimes as way of explanation to the American troops. In American terms, the Aboriginals suffered from the kind of government policies and cultural beliefs that oppressed both Native Americans and Blacks. They were alternately assimilated and separated out into poor, rural areas, and openly discriminated against. While thousands of miles away, the United States is something of a touchstone for the singers. They're aware of the Civil Rights movement that is afoot in the U.S, which they see expressed in the country's soul music. That makes their performances of the music that much more powerful. As they learn to sing in that style, you can feel them changing, and rebelling against the structures that have constrained them. The Sapphires is launching in four theatres this Friday, and it's my vote for those who need a reprieve from the action films and thrillers that have been dominating the release slate.

'Real Steel' set to dominate Columbus Day weekend box office

By Sarah Sluis

Family-friendly films have been doing well in recent weeks, from the G-rated re-release of The Lion King to the PG-rated Dolphin Tale. Now the PG-13-rated Real Steel (3,440 theatres) is aiming for family audiences. Hugh Jackman stars as an ex-boxer who discovers he has a ten-year-old son. They reconnect by training a robot boxer for the championships. Critic Frank Lovece dubbed it "a science-fiction family film in which nine-foot-tall boxing robots are greased not with oil but with schmaltz." The movie, however, is not without flaws. "Something's not quite right when the robots have more soul than the leads," Lovece concludes. The support of family audiences and higher-priced IMAX screens should earn Real Steel over $20 million this weekend. With a third of kids out of school on Monday, Columbus Day, the feel-good robot tale should also experience a fourth-day boost.

The opposing candidate is The Ides of March (2,199 theatres), which stars George Clooney as a presidential contender in a movie he also directed. The ensemble piece, adapted from the play Farragut North, also features Ryan Gosling as a whipsmart press secretary. Unfortunately, "like a good politician," the movie "promises more than it delivers," according to critic Daniel Eagan. "Good intentions" don't make up for the "trite" moments that will create "inevitable bad word-of-mouth." Still, ticket sales from men and women over 25 should bring this movie above $10 million.

I'd rather not dwell on The Human Centipede 2 (The Full Sequence), which is opening in 18 theatres. "Strictly for fans of the original, and you know who you are," THR critic Frank Scheck warns. This is a movie so vile, just thinking about the plot description grosses me out, but it's also become something of a pop culture talking point. So just so you know: The sequel was banned in the U.K., and the first film was parodied on "South Park."

Also on the specialty front is Dirty Girl (9 theatres), which features a teen girl (Juno Temple) behaving badly and her overweight gay sidekick. Critic David Noh championed the "totally engaging road movie," but critical opinion has been less enthusiastic. Just 23% of critics gave the movie a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

On Monday, we'll see how Real Steel fared and if audiences voted for The Ides of March.

'Trollhunter': A funny, not-so-scary horror mockumentary

By Sarah Sluis

For someone who loves the idea of horror movies, but finds many of them too scary in practice, I recommend Trollhunter. The Norwegian horror-comedy mockumentary is one of eight films in the Tribeca Film Festival's Cinemania section, which "represent a well-rounded spectrum of contemporary genre filmmaking�from science fiction to horror to exploitation to fantasy."

The Cinemania films are some of the more offbeat and just plain weird movies in the festival, but they're often hidden gems. Last year I caught Dream House, a horror movie in which someone literally kills for an apartment--commentary on Hong Kong's insane housing market. Trollhunter's message is more subtle and focused on environmentalism and bureaucracy. It's more interesting not because of its light commentary, but because it provides a little window into Norwegian culture. Also, it's true: Norwegian fjords are stunning.

The film centers on three college students who decide to investigate a recluse who hunters suspect has been poaching bears. They follow the recalcitrant man until they catch him in action: He's a government-supported trollhunter, and he's sick of not getting overtime, hazard, or night pay. Sure, he says, follow me. I'm sick of this job.

The trio (a soundwoman, a cameraman, and the on-screen guy) get up close and personal with the trolls, which are surprisingly well-done. The filmmakers must be using CG shots, but they look incredibly seamless for a low-budget movie. If they "cheated" at all, it was by using mainly low light, but all the troll scenes take place at night anyway. The trolls themselves (for there are many varieties) are scary but also slightly comedic. They're dumb and smelly, so it's not too hard to outwit them--but that doesn't mean they can't kill you.

Hard-core blood and guts fans may be disappointed. I don't think I've seen this little gore in a horror movie, ever, and the suspense was well within this horror novice's comfort levels. But Trollhunter is also a fun ride through annals of Norwegian folklore, breathtaking shots of the austere landscape included. The mockumentary form, too, is incredibly expressive, including mundane details such as sound checks and white balances along with intensity-building use of night vision and even a cracked camera lens. Director Andr vredal is a newcomer, with just a few credits under his belt, but he's definitely an emerging talent who can do a lot with very little.

Catch Trollhunter at the Tribeca Film Festival, or watch it on VOD starting on May 6th. Distributor Magnet will also release the film in select theatres beginning June 10th. Watch the trailer here.

Tribeca Film Festival: Mouthwatering doc �Jiro Dreams of Sushi' delights audience

By Sarah Sluis

Most people will never pay $300 for a sushi dinner, but the documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi gives an hour and a half look into a restaurant whose sushi meals cost that much and often take just fifteen to thirty minutes to consume.

The Tokyo restaurant is led by chef Jiro Ono, an 85-year-old whose right-hand man is his fifty-something son. His younger son, who will not inherit the business, has already branched out and opened another restaurant, but the older son is holding out until he can carry on his father's business�though fifty seems a little old to be still working under your father. The restaurant, which has just a dozen seats, is run meticulously, and the documentary follows the rhythmic life, day in and day out, of the sushi chefs.

Director David Gelb said in a Q&A afterwards that his shots of Jiro's sushi-making were inspired by "Planet Earth." The crisp, HD shots are sometimes slowed down slightly, and the camera will arc around a completed hand roll, allowing audiences to appreciate the simplicity and beauty of his creations.

After watching the documentary, $300 for dinner actually seems like a deal. The secret to good sushi is an incredible amount of painstaking labor. Want tender, not rubbery, octopus? Massage it for 45 minutes. Want the best fish? Develop relationships with vendors who each specialize exclusively in tuna or eels. Cut it the right way. Add just enough vinegar to the marinade. Don't prepare anything beforehand. Above all, taste, taste, taste.

Jiro's son tells an anecdote. He made tamagoyaki (egg sushi, pictured right) over two hundred times before his father liked it enough not to throw it out. Jiro has many apprentices, and they spend a decade making sushi before they're considered good enough to move on from an apprenticeship.

At the Tribeca screening, the audience was incredibly giving and delighted in hearing the lengths Jiro goes to achieve often humorous levels of perfection. They were also concerned about Jiro and his business in the wake of the earthquakes and nuclear disaster in Japan. The director assured us that his family is safe and sound, but noted that many reservations have been canceled due to the instability in the aftermath of the tragedy. Procuring fish, too, has become more difficult. Many coastal fisheries have been wiped out. There just isn't that much to buy at the fish market.

For a stomach-growling look at the sushi world, see the film at the Tribeca Film Festival or await its release through Magnolia, which has plans to release the doc later this year. Watch the trailer here.

Controversial war doc 'Armadillo' follows Danish soldiers in Afghanistan

By Sarah Sluis

As an American, it's impossible to watch war documentaries like Restrepo and Gunner Palace without evaluating where you stand politically. These are our troops, and the question "Should we bring our troops home?" constantly comes up. While watching the Danish war documentary Armadillo, I felt more politically agnostic. In Denmark, the film ignited huge controversy, but American viewers will benefit from a slight remove that allows them to reflect on the nature of soldiers in war. Yesterday, I saw the documentary at a screening in New York City that included a panel with director Janus Metz, Danish journalist Louise Stigsgaard Nissen and American journalist/filmmaker Brian Palmer.

Along with a cinematographer, Metz embedded himself with the troops for a six-month deployment in Afghanistan. The government gave him more access than the U.S. government, on the condition that they "security screen" the film. During debriefing sessions, soldiers have an informal rapport with their commanding officers, clearly voicing where they "sucked" and what they did great. To a U.S. audience, that registers as disrespect (or enlightened, by allowing enlisted men to point out things that might go unnoticed), but American journalist/filmmaker Palmer pointed out that U.S. embeds don't have access to such sessions--"The U.S. learned their lesson from Vietnam."

Metz includes very humanizing and sometimes unflattering portraits of the soldiers. They hire a topless stripper for their going-away party. They watch porn on their laptops. He also shows their playful side--wrestling with each other and hot-rodding around on motorbikes within the base walls. Most of these soldiers are intent on seeing action, becoming heroes, but they don't have much of a chance to do so. They mainly go on patrols, trampling through fields in an effort to show force and hold the area. Sometimes they get hit by IEDs, a fate that wounds the greatest amount of men. The lucky ones end up with amputated limbs.

When the soldiers finally see action, they go overboard. In a firefight with the Taliban, they're told that the fighters are directly in front of them, in a ditch. One man throws a grenade, wounding four soldiers, and then the men finish them off with 20 to 30 bullets. This is a grey area: Do you go into a ditch to rescue armed Taliban members, or do you kill the soldiers, who are most likely about to die? None of the soldiers ended up being tried by the military police, but it's interesting how the investigation was opened--a soldier blabbed about the incident to his mother, who contacted the authorities.

Metz's project was originally intended for a television program, but he had higher aspirations. "I didn't see the point of going into these situations for a half hour of television." Technically, the movie is top-notch, with bright, colorful cinematography that puts you straight in the action. Some of the coverage during battles was provided by soldiers wearing cameras on their helmets, giving viewers a "first person camera" experience not unlike a video game. Metz plays with this fact even further, in one case match cutting from an explosion on the soldiers' video-game screen to an explosion in the real world. These men want to play heroes and be part of the mythology of warfare.

Though perhaps this is not the documentary's intent, Armadillo makes clear that this war is unwinnable. The men are prisoners of their own fort. The Taliban will shoot at them during patrols from civilians' houses, and disappear. Make a bomb, and disappear. Their war is one of attrition. The Taliban would never have enough resources to attack the base, but the men cannot go more than 800 to 1000 meters outside before encountering fire.

Just as in the movie Restrepo, the base code-named Armadillo was abandoned some time after filming ended. It was just too hard to hold down.

The Lorber Films release will open on April 15 at the IFC Center in New York City. It won the Grand Prix at the Semaine de la Critique at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival.

Release spotlight: 'Meek's Cutoff' brings indie sensibility to the Western

By Sarah Sluis

I was more than a little surprised to find out that director Kelly Reichardt's next film would be set in 1845. On the Oregon Trail. Like her previous film, Wendy and Lucy, the movie takes place in Oregon and centers on a journey, but all those bonnets and wagons in Meek's Cutoff threw me for a loop. The film centers on three families traversing the Oregon Trail in the route's early days. They have enlisted a wilderness man as a guide, but he has them lost in the middle of the desert without water. One of the settlers (Michelle Williams) spots an Indian, and fights against having him killed. She wants him as a guide. But will he be able to get them to water in time?

Meek's Cutoff touches on certain aspects of the Western genre, but lightly. Reichardt isn't trying to make an anti-Western, but rather provide a window into the day-to-day life of settlers. The days on the trail unfold with the precision, detail, and quiet of an Italian neorealist film. You feel the significance and tedium of the daily chores as if you were a settler yourself. Meek's Cutoff is also unique for its portrayal of women. Williams displays some of the spunk and initiative of the young Mattie Ross in True Grit, but Reichardt takes care to point out how customs exclude the women from decision-making. In more than one scene, the men discuss what to do next, while the women stand back a distance, unconsulted. Instead they listen, but with the concentration of someone calculating their next chess move.

As with Wendy and Lucy, watching Meek's Cutoff can feel a little tedious, since the movie focuses so much on minute details. While the tension builds, the ending is abrupt, which I kind of expected. There were no signs that the narrative would end up tied in a bow. Meek's Cutoff is best viewed as an experience, a museum exhibit with a point-of-view. While I was unclear on the historical background at the time, the title refers to a "shortcut" that guide Stephen Meek took 200 wagons and one thousand people through. Though they eventually navigated through the treacherous terrain, over twenty people died. I assume that the movie limited itself to three wagons for budgetary reasons, but it ends up providing added dramatic impact. With just nine people on the screen, it's easier to see how alone and lost these settlers are. In the desert, I'm sure the settlers felt alone even with a thousand people, which registers as a giant crowd on screen.

The Oscilloscope Laboratories release premiered at Sundance, where the wild landscape of the surrounding area must have provided a pause--how the West has changed in the past 150 years. The movie will release this Friday in New York City, with additional cities to follow.

Will the NC-17 rating of 'Blue Valentine' scare away audiences?

By Sarah Sluis

Blue Valentine is one of the rawest, real movies I've ever seen. It's certainly one of the best films coming out in 2010. It's also been rated NC-17 by the MPAA.

Last week, I went into a screening knowing that the movie had been assigned an NC-17 rating, which the distributor,Weinstein Co., is appealing. I heard the movie included sex, violence, and scenes from an abortion. I was expecting something to be so bad that it would really stand out and deserve such an extreme rating. I was wrong.

If this movie is guilty of anything, it's making such a compelling, real story that everything hits you three times as hard. The screenplay originated from a child of divorce, Cami Delavigne, and it shows. The dialogue captures the nature of a dysfunctional relationship perfectly. Even when one member of the couple tries to make nice, the other one shuts down their efforts. Dean (Ryan Gosling) tries to plan a romantic getaway, and Cindy's (Michelle Williams) weariness with every extra effort he attempts is excruciating. I have never before been able to intuit a couple's dysfunction from dialogue like this on screen. Their phrases are like psychological onions, with so much hidden meaning and rage and discontentment to unpeel.

According to The Wrap, the MPAA took issue with "a single sex scene in which there is minimal nudity and the sex act is not even entirely shown." Based on that clue, I suspect they're referring to a scene that could be considered the husband raping his wife. Though disturbing, and certainly not appropriate for children under 17, I don't feel it warrants a NC-17 rating. In reality, such a rating is a kiss of death, locking a film out from being advertised in mainstream outlets and branding it as exploitative, gratuitous, and near-pornographic, something that Blue Valentine most assuredly is not. Moreover, Blue Valentine received no comments at all on the festival circuit about "graphic" content--compare that to the outcry last year over Lars Von Trier's Antichrist (which didn't even bother to get a rating).

In the old days of the rating system, filmmakers could only show "bad things" if there was a moral message (e.g. gangsters dying at the end of the movies to show that bad acts are punished). I don't advocate requiring such messages, but context does matter. Blue Valentine does not glorify such acts but takes us to the breaking point in a couple's marriage. This is not "throwaway violence" but an emotionally draining experience that leaves you feeling a bit shell-shocked as you leave the theatre. If realism makes such graphic content acceptable in my eyes, the MPAA often takes a different point-of-view. "Comic book" violence often is considered more acceptable than realistic, bloody encounters. But this viewpoint can also lead to distorted judgments. There's a huge difference between truly innocuous, non-violent "fights," like the enemies just kind of disappearing in G-rated Up (it's unclear if anyone dies) and comic book heroes blasting or hi-yaing enemies to death again and again in PG-13 movies. When it comes to graphic portrayals of violence in R-rated films, there's also a split between spurting, gratuitous horror movies and similarly graphic but drama-driven deaths in war films.

Blue Valentine has a strong case for appeal. The film is stunning and could perhaps find a kindred spirit with Boys Don't Cry, which successfully appealed its NC-17 rating and went on to win an Oscar. The producers of Boys Don't Cry, however, re-cut the film to win an R rating, something the makers of Blue Valentine won't do.

A friendly discussion of 'The Social Network'

By Sarah Sluis

In case you haven't heard, "that Facebook movie" is coming out in two days. It seems like every critic is raving about the movie, currently rated 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, and every magazine has a Mark Zuckerberg story on its cover, but my advice is this: If you want to enjoy a good movie (not a great movie, mind you, a good movie), don't believe the hype.

While The Social Network is a perfectly competent and enjoyable film, it didn't awe me as much as I expected. When I watch a movie, I expect to be taken on an emotional roller coaster, but this one had the highs and lows and emotional arc of a television show. I was entertained, but not stunned. When I start hearing "Best Picture at the Oscars," my expectations get raised. When I see an awesome trailer, I expect the film to deliver. While living up to those kinds of predictions can be hard, there are definitely films (like Avatar) that live up the buzz.

The Social Network goes by very fast, but doesn't really ever rest on anything. Citizen Kane (which people are unfortunately comparing this movie to) also covered a lot, but it didn't feel rushed the way this does. One technique I didn't think added much was cross-cutting between Zuckerberg's Facebook-related lawsuits and the rise of Facebook. There wasn't a significant difference between Zuckerberg the rising star and Zuckerberg the defendant. If they were going for that stark contrast that you get with a "before/after he was behind bars" kind of movie, they failed.

The writer (Aaron Sorkin), director (David Fincher), and producer (Scott Rudin) of this film are immensely talented, and all have works on my "best" list. I saw bits and pieces of their trademark strengths, but everything didn't add up. Fincher was at his best at showing off Harvard's in-groups, creepiness, excess and conspiracy, hearkening back to his work on Fight Club, Se7en and Zodiac. I loved Sorkin's use of technical dialogue (hello, he is an offspring of Howard Hawks, although I prefer him when he's channeling the geekiness of Ball of Fire, not that His Girl Friday opening sequence).

I'll gladly see the movie again to find out if the Emperor really is wearing clothes, but in the meantime I'll keep my lonely position and set my sights on another film for Best Picture--True Grit.

Documentaries lead the pack at Toronto Film Festival

By Sarah Sluis
FJI critic and correspondent Erica Abeel concludes her report from the Toronto International Film Festival, which wrapped this weekend.

Telling the truth can be hazardous to your professional health. But here goes anyway. Maybe I just made exceptionally poor choices, but this year�with a few notable exceptions�the Toronto International Film Festival included too many lame features. A shout-out, first, for the exceptions: French-Canadian Denis Villeneuve's magisterial Incendies and South African Life, Above All by Oliver Schmitz, both due to travel stateside, and on the higher-profile end, Woody Allen's You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, with its wicked, twisty humor, and Black Swan, the thrilling, over-the-top ride by Darren Aronofsky, which should prove a hot ticket once it bows in theatres here.

Among the duds, count two features from directors with great track records. The reliably kinetic John Cameron Mitchell stumbles with Rabbit Hole, top-lined by Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart playing a couple whose toddler has been killed in an accident. But to follow them through the stages of mourning is about as electrifying as queuing up at Toronto's Lester Pearson Airport, where the embalmed indifference of the officials is a movie in itself. Adapting from the play by David Lindsay-Abaire, helmer John Cameron Mitchell has failed to open it up, and the only fun on hand is ogling Aaron Eckhart's ripped pecs. Amazingly, this dreary ride comes from the director of such hell-raisers as Shortbus and Hedwig and the Angry Inch.

At least Rabbit Hole offers the charisma of its principals. Little, though, can rescue It's Kind of a Funny Story from the wonderful team of Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden. I loved their Half Nelson. But I wonder what prompted the pair to film the story of a depressive, suicidal teen checking himself into a mental ward. Nothing happens. The teen (Keir Gilchrist) learns the ropes of the ward, hangs with longtime resident Bobby (Zach Galifianakis) and meets a girlfriend. Hey, if Nerve.com doesn't work� The attitude toward the mentally ill, who are a sad lot�One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest this ain't�comes across as condescending.

Then there's the hipper-than-thou Kaboom by Gregg Araki, who made the terrific Mysterious Skin. No point in trying to walk you through a plot. So far as I could tell, it concerns a sex-crazed, bisexual college boy plunging into a supernatural world of demons, cults and Armageddon. The film, I'm told, is about "existing in a borderline psychotic, psychosexually hyperactive imaginary universe that feels absolutely real and true." I want whatever that critic was smokin'. Sample oral-sex joke from hero's girlfriend: "It's a vagina, not a bowl of spaghetti." Most improbable line: "I have a huge paper due Friday." Uh, you do? I don't remember college being so much fun.

If there was any compensation for such bombs, it could be found in a trio of superb documentaries. Along with Charles Ferguson's Inside Job (a pick of the New York Film Festival), count the hugely entertaining doc Tabloid by Errol Morris. At the center of the story is Joyce McKinney, a former beauty pageant queen, who falls for a Mormon, pursues him�after his church forbids their union�to England, ends up kidnapping him�and it only gets weirder. In Joyce, Morris has nailed a true American original who may or may not be barking mad. He also grapples with the way tabloids massage the truth, so the real story lies forever buried. Innovative devices, such as amusing stills and weird cartoons of Mormon rituals, break up the talkiness. And Morris uses to great effect the Interrotron, a customized teleprompter that projects Morris' face in front of the camera so that his subjects must look simultaneously into his eyes and the lens.

A brilliant, essential documentary is Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer by Alex Gibney. Though he might have appended "and Rise." Hardly a broadside, the film is marked by a cool, objective tone, which should expand its demographic. A tough crusader against Wall Street, on course to become America's first Jewish president, Spitzer was famously derailed by the Justice Department's prosecution of the Emperors Club escort agency, which revealed that Client #9 was Spitzer. Though the New York Post and others had a ball, unanswered questions remain: Did politics play a role in the investigation?

Bringing fresh insight to Spitzer's story, Gibney and writer Peter Elkind reveal that the guv's main squeeze was not Ashley Dupre, but "Angelina," who (played by an actress) talked for the first time (and don't you love it that she's gone on to work on Wall Street?) Gibney also centers the film on statements from the charismatic, blue-eyed Spitzer, both politic and revealing. Though we never�and likely never will�get to the million-dollar question: Why the hell did he do it and what was he thinking? Politicians not being known for introspection, maybe Spitzer himself couldn't answer.

The film is plenty juicy. You can watch Spitzer admit that the escort agency caper was a form of hubris "which goes back to the Greeks," thanks for the attribution. You hear the agency's giggly madame reveal that Dupre has "a perfect cooch." You learn that these high-end hookers look like all-American coeds. Makes it less of a transgression? Or is it compensation for the horny freshmen with dandruff who couldn't get a date with a looker?

But after we get off on the prurience factor, let's face it: How does Spitzer's need to explore sex outside his marriage impact on my or anyone else's life? Hell, in France he would have been applauded for it! Testosterone, a real man, etc. Yeah, I know Spitzer did something illegal, but consider this: The Mann Act that he violated wasn't pursued in other cases.

Most crucially, Gibney's film reveals that the Wall Street titans he'd spent his career targeting were allied to choreograph Spitzer's downfall. And why wouldn't they be? He went after such a fellow as a certain Blodgett, who quipped that he once made what he called POS�i.e., piece of shit, or $12 million a year. He went after Goldman Sachs years before anyone else, and venture capitalist Ken Langone, the New York Stock Exchange board director who signed off on an outrageous pay package for its chairman and CEO, Richard Grasso. Gibney trots out convincing evidence that these men maneuvered behind the scenes to unseat Spitzer. With the notorious former guv about to assume a new role as talk-show host on CNN, and public interest in him high, Client 9 should find a substantial audience.

The duty of a war documentary: 'Restrepo'

By Sarah Sluis

Last week I saw the Sundance Award-winning documentary Restrepo (read FJI's review here). Directors and journalists Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger (author of The Perfect Storm) followed a group of soldiers in the Korengal Valley for a year. In an area known as "The Valley of Death," these soldiers engage in firefights every day, and up to multiple times a day--the kind of combat not seen since Vietnam. The documentary's stated purpose is to document the life of the soldiers, without including the overarching politics

or outside viewpoints. I enjoyed the documentary, with some hesitations. After hearing it lambasted by another blogger, who felt the movie "misleads and distorts in a way that any fair-minded person would and should find infuriating," I feel the need to weigh in.

The documentary opens with the kind of scene that scares you half to death and gives you a huge adrenaline rush. While in an armored Hum-V, the soldiers take fire. They abandon their vehicle, take cover, and return fire. The camera moves Blair Witch-style, looking down at the ground as the camera operator runs for cover. Sonically, it goes from recording huge booms and gunfire so loud it's distorted, to eventually losing all sound, broadcasting a barely perceptible static. It's freaky, and one of those scenes you can't believe is real, because it feels like a movie.

Of course, most of the time the soldiers are hanging out, horsing around, or shooting at targets hundreds of yards away. They also have weekly meetings with local elders, and occasionally wake up residents in the middle of the night to gain information or detain them for questioning. Here, my sentiments toward the soldiers were not as positive. These soldiers are not culturally sensitive. You can understand their

frustration, but at the same time they act incredibly rude. The leader speaks to the elders with exasperation, annoyed that they are still focusing on the errors of his predecessor. The soldiers laugh about "the cow incident," in which they killed (and ate) a villager's cow that had become tangled in their fence, but they also don't seem understand how the cumulative impact of these incidents can engender ill will among the residents. No wonder the townspeople are hiding the Taliban, and the situation seems like it can only get worse.

Even if the documentary itself doesn't address how this behavior can affect what's going on in the bigger picture, its scenes are indelible. This week, General Stanley McChrystal is in the news for his comments in a Rolling Stone article, which just led to his dismissal as top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. When I read the article, I paid attention to the new military strategy referred to as COIN (counterinsurgency theory). "Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps," the article explains, you "[send] huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government." I seriously doubt that the soldiers' presence in the Korengal Valley fostered good will among the locals. At its most benign, their actions were a nuisance and prone to misunderstandings. Once the soldiers start taking residents out of their homes in the middle of the night, killing cows and speaking to them in rude and frustrated voices, the relationship between the locals and the soldiers becomes one of toleration. Trust? How can they trust each other? The residents are hiding Taliban and soldiers accidentally kill innocent people trying to find them. By presenting footage without extensive commentary or contextualization, the filmmakers are doing audiences the favor of letting them draw their own conclusion.

Restrepo shows, it does not tell. Will everyone that watches the documentary be worried about how the soldiers treat the locals? No. But with many sources of information about the war in Afghanistan, there is a place for a documentary like Restrepo, and its portrait of Afghanistan is one I will remember for a long time.

'Sex and the City 2' is not (quite) a romantic comedy

By Sarah Sluis

The reviews are in for Sex and the City 2, and some of them are positively scathing. If you start with the New York Observer review, which opened with "The only thing memorable about Sex and the City 2 is the number two part, which describes it totally, if you get my drift," and work down from there, you have a pretty good idea of what people are saying.

Sex and the City 2 is an extremely easy target, with its over-the-top antics and tenuous connection to real life (at least in movie form). But it's also worth noting what it's not. It's not a story that ends when the girl and the guy get together. And, as I mentioned in my own review, the movie is about how sex, the city, and relationships bond the women to one another. The men in the story are always less important than the friendships, and that's what sets this series apart. It's also what makes some people call the show feminist, empowered, and things like that. It's like the teen movie Now and Then, but with cocktails and crazy clothes.

Writer/director/producer Michael Patrick King's interview with the Wall Street Journal best illustrates how this works (my bolding).

"Mr. King admitted that 'Sex and the City' and its great volume of stories has affected the romantic comedies that have come after. "It's not that they're stealing from us, but we stole from life," he said. "And we got there first. But they've lost the comedy in romantic comedies, or they've lost the romantic. Like girls are doofuses and they're sneaking into beauty parlors and dying each other's hair blue," Mr. King said, referring to the Kate Hudson film Bride Wars."

At one point (when "Sex and the City" was a series), it did feel like it was emulating (a more glamorous than yours) real life, describing the details of socializing in Manhattan and the silly quirks of relationships. I don't feel that the movies capture that feeling as well as the series, which had an added intimacy by being televised in one's own home. I also think the costuming got way out of control--I sincerely doubt anyone would wear a ball gown skirt and T-shirt in a Middle Eastern market. It just looks weird.

Sex and the City has its many detractors, including those that despise its particular brand of feminism. The series itself was supposed to be revolutionary, because it had independent women who were single long after they were supposed to be. As King says to the WSJ, "Sex and the City is about outsiders. Single girls as lepers, should have been married by now. It's the reason the whole thing took off." However, the fact that three out of four of the women are married by the second movie may negate this point. Was "Sex and the City" merely reflecting the fact that people were no longer marrying and having children in their early twenties?

I'm at the point where I hope there won't be a Sex and the City 3 (I've had my fill), but I will also be eagerly awaiting the box office returns from today, opening day. If I can choose between last year's juggernaut Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Sex and the City 2, I'd definitely like to see more of the latter.

'Please Give' reflects its New York City audience

By Sarah Sluis

Please Give, the latest film by Nicole Holofcener, follows a Manhattan woman (Catherine Keener) who feels incredibly guilty about those less fortunate than her. She runs a business selling vintage furniture, and is

remorseful about buying items from mourning children. Her family has also pre-bought the apartment of the aging lady next door, which they will renovate after her death. Then there's the twenty dollar bills she dispenses to the various homeless people hanging out around 5th Avenue.

As I settled into my seat for the movie, a selection at the Tribeca Film Festival, I overheard the conversation of the two ladies next to me. First, they discussed feeling guilty while on a cruise, because they are staffed with people from third-world countries away from home for nine months of the year. Then, they had a worried discussion about how much to tip delivery men (it was decided that a $5 tip on a $25 purchase was sufficient). They could have been characters right from Holofcener's

movie.

Which is what is so great about Holofcener, who wrote and directed the film. She's spot-on in her characterization and dialogue. The movie is very New York-specific (but that never hurt Woody Allen or "Seinfeld") and captures a specific group of people in New York without becoming too in-jokey. It's the kind of movie that finds humor in truth. A fake tan greeted with an eyebrow raise is much more effective than oompa-loompa jokes about the orange hue. I've seen Holofcener's previous movie, Friends with Money, and was pleasantly surprised. Please Give was so much better, perhaps because each character can be both sympathetic and repulsive.

One of the most telling moments for Keener's character is when she starts crying while a group of young people with Down's Syndrome play basketball. She's so guilty over feeling better off than people, she fails to see that people that are "less fortunate" than her have happy and fulfilling lives in their own way. All she can do is feel bad for people, she can't empathize or see how their lives

have good and bad times just like hers. In between moments like these, there's more superficial concerns, like her daughter's desire for $200 jeans and clear skin. The daughter of the aging woman next door, played by Rebecca Hall, has a sad moroseness around her that channels Noah Baumbach. In a final touch of reality, how the characters act in a group is much different than how they are in twos. Keener's daughter and Hall relate to each other honestly and as friends as they walk dogs together, and the other daughter of the aging woman (Amanda Peet) has an affair with Keener's husband (Oliver Platt). All this, despite the fact that the two families are ostensibly awkward enemies because of the apartment sale. That's why I'll put Holofcener's film among the best that I have seen this year.

Check out FJI's interview with director Nicole Holofcener and our review.

An early look at 'How to Train Your Dragon,' 'Shrek Forever After' and 'Megamind'

By Sarah Sluis

In the world of animation, Pixar may be getting most of the press and awards, but DreamWorks Animation is sneaking up on them. While Pixar is releasing an average of one film a year, DreamWorks Animation has three movies lined up for 2010, all in 3D.

At a presentation in New York yesterday, I saw 10 minutes of Megamind (releasing November 5th), 30 minutes of Shrek Forever After (releasing May 21st) and a feature-length version of How to Train Your Dragon (releasing March 26th).

How to Train Your Dragon is the most Pixar-esque of the bunch, eschewing pop culture references and humor in favor of a universal story and an intricately conceived world. The cinematography is stunning, and represents a huge step forward in CG animation. As directors Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders explained to us, the animation and lighting teams are typically separate departments that do their work without even talking to each other. They brought in frequent Coen Brothers cinematographer Roger Deakins (who is also listed as a visual consultant for Pixar's Wall-E) to give a talk on linking the lighting and animation steps--he ended up staying to supervise the whole project.

The end product has a dynamic use of light that reflects the dim, candlelit world of the Vikings in the story. While CG animation started out with very flat lighting (think: Toy Story), How to Train Your Dragon at times looks like an animated version of Barry Lyndon. Because of the cinematography and story (and perhaps the fact I got to see the whole thing), this movie impressed me the most. Even in an unfinished version, with the score and certain scenes only roughly animated, it had the most epic, timeless feel. Later, we found out that Steven Spielberg was responsible for one cluster of scenes at the end that were only barely sketched out in animation. The ending had recently been tweaked based on Spielberg's comment after a viewing--a change the directors quickly incorporated.

Beyond the cinematography, little details like hair were rendered with incredible detail. The odd thing with animation is that the closer it approaches

reality, the more hyperreal it looks. Getting the kind of definition

you'd see on natural hair makes it stand out instead of blend in.

Storywise, producer Bonnie Arnold called Hiccup, the film's protagonist, a "teaching hero," an "Obama-type" character because of his emphasis on change--a rather timely comparison. Because the movie is based on a series of children's books by Cressida

Cowell, the team had a J.K. Rowling level of detail to work with. At the press lunch, everyone from Jay Baruchel (voice of the lead, Hiccup) to producer Bonnie Arnold showed an

expansive knowledge of the film's world beyond what appears in

the movie. If How to Train Your Dragon is a success--and it should be--expect a sequel or two in the works.

Shrek Forever After continues to do what the franchise does best: pleasing both children and the parents sitting with them in the theatre. The fourth installment takes its inspiration from It's a Wonderful Life. The filmmakers

even have gambling, corrupt townspeople and partying witches (the PG

allusion to the prostitutes populating Pottersville). But instead of intervention-by-angel, it's all motivated by an evil creator of magical contracts in fairy tales: Rumpelstiltskin. For those that have watched the first three Shrek movies, the "what if" scenario will be a huge payoff, rewarding viewers for their investment in Shrek's world.

Megamind takes the trio of superhero, villain, and damsel in distress and turns it on its head. In this version, the villain is the center of the story, and it was hinted that he, not the superhero, ends up with the damsel in distress. With its snappy dialogue and voice performances from Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, and Brad Pitt, this movie appears to be the next step forward after last year's superhero tale Monsters vs. Aliens, which also played with the genre.

With so many movies in the works, DreamWorks Animation is poised to take advantage of the rising sucess of 3D movies at the box office. With a final sequel and two original titles releasing this year, one with definite franchise potential, the studio will be one to watch.

Weighing in on 'The Lovely Bones'

By Sarah Sluis

Many of the people turning out to see The Lovely Bones on Friday will have read Alice Sebold's haunting book. Told from the perspective of a dead girl, Susie Salmon, after she is raped and murdered, the book brought insight into the aftereffects of such a misunderstood and shrouded crime. Profoundly nuanced, its shaded morality gave its characters emotionally complex reactions to the tragedy.

After reading Alice Sebold's memoir of her own brutal rape, Lucky, I felt I understood The Lovely Bones even more: being a victim of such a terrible crime leads you to experience events as though they are outside yourself. You can easily lose a sense of agency. Instead, you often feel as though you are watching things happen from above. Susie narrating the events going on in her family from heaven is not much different than how she might have experienced life had she been raped but not murdered.

Sadly, much of this is lost in Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lovely Bones, which completely misses the tone of the book. Most grating is his vision of heaven. He seems more interested in giving his special-effects company a lot of work than motivating the move to fantasy. The surroundings, rich and lush and detailed, stick out from the rest of the movie.

Many people have praised the performances in the movie (and I agree with the assessment that Stanley Tucci has a standout role), but some lines sounded really, really bad and misdelivered to my ears. I saw the actor instead of the character. I suspected part of this was related to the tone. When you're trying to make something wispy and ephemeral, and fail, it can lead to dialogue that feels quite odd.

Finally, there's the rape and murder scene. Given that a child is involved, and the movie's PG-13 rating, it's not surprising that this vicious act is omitted. But instead, Jackson moves quickly from the terror of anticipation to a confusing scene where at first she's actually fleeing, and then she's fleeing in her mind, before finally pausing for a brief moment when she realizes what's happened to her. It missed the mark for me, to the point where I was sitting in the movie theatre in disbelief about how the movie was skipping over one of the most painful, but necessary, moments of the story. What I really wanted was a still moment where the audience was forced to dwell on what was happening. Though I already thought the tone was messed up by then, this really sealed it for me.

This omission will be a comfort to some, and for others it may be all they need to conjure up enough horror. Hollywood Elsewhere, for example was happy with the decision, explaining "I really, really didn't want to go there, even glancingly," and liked Jackson's "decision to show her escaping from her own death, running away from something that has happened but is so horrible that she instantly imagines or wills herself into a fantasy-escape mode." For me, it was not enough to carry through the rest of the movie. In the book, the rape and murder is always on your mind, and it's always on the characters' minds. I didn't feel that way watching the movie.

Given the subject matter, this is the kind of movie that people will see only if motivated by must-see reviews touting its artistic merit. Not many people want to be subjected to a Schindler's List if critics are coming out calling it "so-so." By comparison, Precious has garnered glowing reviews. It, too, shows the rape of a child (much more graphically) and her escaping to a fantasy world. Compared to the elaborate world created by Jackson, her escapist moments are downright spare, but the movie works by keeping us grounded in Precious' dismal reality. Translating Alice Sebold's prose to film, which requires depicting these events on-screen instead of in one's head, is a tall order, so it's not a huge surprise that Jackson didn't succeed. Those that have read the book should skip it or go in with managed expectations.

'This Is It' shows Michael Jackson as we want to remember him

By Sarah Sluis

I knew Michael Jackson first as someone photographed with scarves and clothes covering his head. Magazine articles speculated about his appearance and plastic surgery, allegations were put forth about his sexual abuse of children, and his own children had mysterious paternity and maternity.

That's not the Michael Jackson you see in This Is It. For a younger generation, many of whom filled the seats at my Wednesday night screening, the concert documentary offers an opportunity to see the King of Pop back in peak form. He's guarded, not reclusive, and his exacting nature comes across as perfectionism, not diva behavior.

Because Michael Jackson is holding back on singing in the rehearsals to preserve his voice, the most stand-out songs are those staged with elaborate choreography. The dancing has incredible energy, precision, and ingenuity. Even surrounded by powerful dancers half his age, Jackson comfortably holds the lead. The dancers also help cue our awe. A casting session whittles down the hundreds of immensely talented dancers vying for a spot, and the ones that remain seem overjoyed by the opportunity to work alongside one of their idols. They applaud during rehearsals and show an incredible amount of respect for the man who has influenced contemporary dancing.

For those curious about the challenges of staging big concert productions, plenty of behind-the-scenes moments abound. The audience at my screening got a big kick out of Jackson's direction to let a song intro "simmer," and shouted the phrase back at the screen with a joyful glee--"Let it simmer, Mike!" One of Jackson's accompanists, after getting grilled by Jackson about the "simmering" pace, goes on to convey his respect for a pop artist who is such a perfectionist. He actually knows all his records and exactly how everything should sound. In the age of Auto-Tune, Jackson is a welcome anomaly. Though it seems he was planning on using echo effects live, judging from one performance, he brings with him a history of pop singing independent of the technological crutches standard in today's music world.

This Is It is worth going to the theatre for the crowd, but not necessarily for the IMAX. While the quality is far better than you would expect, the aspect ratio sometimes shifts to something smaller and grainier. Director Kenny Ortega, who was in charge of both the stage and film production, puts together an engaging two-hour experience. He expertly conveys half-completed effects, and instead of feeling like you missed something, you fill in what could have been. By showing us the strength of Jackson's would-be stage performance, This Is It seals his reputation as an icon.

'G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra' keeping its mission secret

By Sarah Sluis

Paramount undoubtedly felt burned by the terrible reviews Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen received, though it had the last laugh when the movie turned out to be a tremendous box-office success. For G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, the studio simply decided to forgo screening the movie for critics--though a few select members of the online media have seen it. Saturating the market with 4,007 screens, it's expected to pull in at least $50 million. Its plot, which involves a super-secret elite force of soldiers who battle with a similarly elite group of terrorists, should please those looking for fight scenes and weapons launches, and not those looking for the plot motivating the battle.

The delightful Julie & Julia, opening in 2,975 theatres, should earn somewhere in the high teens to early twenties. Because its main quadrant is older females, this film's run is less defined by its opening weekend, and more by its longevity. As a food-lover myself, I found the film went down quite easily. Nora Ephron's "gift for endearing female characters," whom she portrays as "uniquely creative individuals" overcoming obstacles, makes this movie great for an uplifting afternoon. As our critic Maria Garcia notes, "Julie Powell was in her late 20s when she began the blog that sparked her writing career, and Julia Child was nearly 40 when she finally graduated from Le Cordon Bleu. We're reminded in this film of the ways in which older women inspire young women, and the vitality which young women like Julie Powell offer women Ephron's age." This is exactly the kind of movie grandmothers, mothers, and daughters would go to and enjoy together.

Horror fans will have yet another option to get their scares this weekend when A Perfect Getaway opens in 2,129 theatres. "A genuinely unexpected twist," along with a self-referential set of main characters who are wannabe screenwriters should set this horror movie apart from the rest.

Comedy-romance Paper Heart opens in 38 theatres. The mockumentary has a definite hipster feel to it, with its self-consciousness and subtle mockery of rural and suburban values. Charlyne Yi carries the film with her endearing awkwardness, and the interviews with people about their experiences in love are a modern update on the interview sections in When Harry Met Sally.

Finally, Paul Giamatti stars in Cold Souls, a tale of people whose souls can be swapped to suit their whims. Our critic Rex Roberts found that "the movie's busy combination of science fiction, satire and absurdity, cloned onto a fairly conventional comedy-drama, favors style over substance. Viewers are encouraged to ponder life's existential dilemma, but [director Sophie] Barthes and [cinematographer-producer Andrij] Parekh offer only irony and sentiment as cynosures." Barthes' work has drawn comparisons to Charlie Kaufman, so fans looking for a little more Being John Malkovich may delight in the echo.

Next Monday, we'll see how G.I. Joe's critic-free strategy worked, whether Julie & Julia pulled in audiences its opening weekend, and if Judd Apatow's Funny People has stayed strong through its second week at the box office.

'Food, Inc.' is worth digesting

By Sarah Sluis

If you're one of the millions of people who eagerly consumed Fast Food Nation, and followed it up with Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, the documentary Food, Inc. will drive home the points of these books in an easily digestible, tear-jerking, visual experience.

At the screening I attended, the critics (usually a quiet bunch) occasionally let out an "mm-hm" or sympathetic scoff to punctuate some of the documentary's points: Preacher, meet choir. Food, Inc.'s tri-city release on June 12th will distribute the film to the sympathetic, liberal cities of New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, so it remains to be seen whether this documentary would be a successful conversion device if you were to drag along a reticent relative or friend.

Food, Inc. focuses on the whole range of food politics: legislation, corporate practices, local farms vs. factory farming, food safety, nutrition, the effects of fast food, and the class issues surrounding food consumption. While most of us are familiar with the basics of these debates, the examples offered by Robert Kenner, who has directed episodes of PBS's "American Experience," make all the difference. While many people are sickened by food, I was sickened by the story of a mother whose son was killed by a burger tainted with E.coli. Sadly,

although testing at the plant turned up the virus, the meat was not

recalled until weeks after her son had already eaten the burger. Her pursuit of the passage of Kevin's Law, which would require speedy notification of food contamination, is one of the most touching vignettes of the film.

Because Food, Inc. looks at food from the farm to the table, it's able to showcase unusual solutions to problems like E.coli contamination in meat. Turns out, fixing this isn't just about plant cleanliness, but grazing practices that promote the virus. According to the food scientists interviewed in the film, E.coli multiply in the gut when cows are fed corn instead of grass. Feeding cows grass a week before slaughter will remove the majority of E.coli from their gut, but the expensive practice simply isn't part of the corporate slaughterhouse process.

Factoids like these are the kind of things evangelists like to share over dinner with friends (perhaps to their consternation), and there's plenty more in Food, Inc. It never felt too didactic to me, but rather took the role of a microphone, amplifying and neatly laying out the arguments of prominent activists. The interview with the CEO of Stonyfield Farm yogurt, Gary Hirshberg, is one such standout segment. The former radical now sells his products in Wal-Mart, and sold the company to the corporation that produces Dannon yogurt. While these choices have made his liberal friends aghast, he sees the growth of organic companies as a way to reduce the net amount of pesticides and negative byproducts in our ecosystem. With most of the organic upstarts (like Kashi, for example) being acquired by the big food companies, the question floating around is, will these companies be able to scale up the organic, free-range movement and improve the quality and safety of our food? Or will growth compromise the core tenets of these companies, like locally sourced food?

Food, Inc. is a thought-provoking documentary, though even a convert like me found a few moments that relied more on emotion and exaggeration than statements backed up by firm research. With food politics such a hot topic, this documentary is required viewing for anyone who's ever reached for organic milk, or drawn back once they've viewed its price.

Food, Inc.'s website can be accessed here.
A NY Times article about the bottoming-out of the organic milk market can be read here.
Sneak-peek clips of Food, Inc. viewable here.

Advance buzz: '(500) Days of Summer'

By Sarah Sluis

Yesterday I saw (500) Days of Summer, the Sundance sensation that's already captivated bloggers and prompted people to count their calendars down to its July 17th release. The sweet, self-aware film--the screenwriters call it "postmodern"--can come off as smug or earnest, though I lean towards the latter interpretation. Fox Searchlight picked up the film, a sure sign that it will follow in the footsteps of the studio's other indie successes, Garden State, Juno, and Little Miss Sunshine.

The movie opens by telling us it's not a love story, even though, well, it kind of is. Tonally, the best comparison is Annie Hall: it's telling you a love story that won't have a happy ending, but somehow makes you leave the theatre thinking about the lobster pot-like moments in the movie, not the break-up.

(500) Days of Summer is incredibly playful stylistically. The morning after Tom's first night with Summer, for example, he checks himself out in the car window and sees Harrison Ford in Star Wars. Everyone moves to his beat, and the scene eventually turns into a dance sequence, and a straight-from-Disney animated bluebird flies through the foreground. So how is this not obnoxious? The sequence seems to come from Tom's subjective point-of-view. He's sentimental, he works for a greeting card company, so it makes sense that he would have these fantasies. Music-video director Mark Webb does a great job keeping the style in check. He avoids hard shifts to fantasy sequences, the kind where the character looks around to see an empty park where a legion of dancers were a moment before, but keeps them slighly loose and open: fun "what ifs" that allow you to share Tom's excitement. Another particularly effective device was a split-screen sequence of Tom attending a party hosted by Summer. The left-hand side shows "Expectations," the right-hand side "Reality," and for a couple minutes we see the scene evolve in different directions. It's a playful style that comes straight from music-videos, but used sparingly, effectively conveys Tom's disappointment. Tom even interacts with the soundtrack. He explains, as "She's Like the Wind" swells in the soundtrack, that he just can't help feeling the music. To me, the style and reflexivity work because Webb is careful to tie each use to Tom's emotions, instead of going willy-nilly just because something would look cool.

With an original, challenging screenplay by Michael Weber and Scott Neustadter, and expert direction by first-timer Webb, (500) Days of Summer is going to be the kind of film people love to love, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised to see one of those Garden State-like backlashes where some get annoyed with the film's self-aware cleverness. It's definitely a film that people will want to talk about afterward, and if the reaction is like the standing ovation the film received at Sundance, it looks like it's going to be a particularly happy summer for Fox Searchlight, which is already on a winning streak with Slumdog Millionaire.

Behind the scenes with Selick on 'Coraline'

By Sarah Sluis

Coraline releases this Friday, and, its creepiness level is right up there with director Henry Selick's 1993 movie The Nightmare Before Christmas, a film I found a little too disturbing and unsettling when I saw it on the upper side of grade school (to be fair, I was much more fright-averse than average). For an adult, however, Selick's tone conjures up just the right amount of heebie-jeebies. In the age of computer animation, it's astonishing to see the meticulous, detail-oriented work that goes into such a production--of note, it's the first stop-motion film to be filmed in 3D. Our Maria Garcia interviewed director Selick here about the filmmaking process, and our Executive Editor Kevin Lally reviewed the final product here, and both stories are worth checking out.

In Garcia's interview, Selick touches upon that stop-motion, Chucky-like quality of puppets:

"the puppets 'make the creepy

things in the story more charming' and 'add creepiness to the

charming stuff'"

In Coraline, puppets not only depict the action, but have a sort of role in the film itself. Coraline's Other Mother and Other Father have buttons for eyes, giving them unchanging, penetrating expressions. Over at Wired, they have a slide show of the production process. Pink cherry blossoms, for example, are hand-painted pieces of popcorn--that took eight hundred hours to paint. Grass is painted fake hair, facial expressions (which number 25,000) come from 350 types of eyebrows and 700 types of mouths, and steam is cotton that defies gravity through hair spray.

After the jump, more photos from the Coraline production.

The popcorn-decorated trees

Piano wire mustache

Creating Coraline

Cotton held up with hairspray

'Twilight' a romance of meaningful glances

By Sarah Sluis

Like a teenage daydream ignited by the examination of each possible meaning of that look your lab
partner gave you in biology, Twilight imbues meaningful glances with more smoldering romance than one would think possible in this millennium.  Caught in a romance that transcends time, Edward and Bella just have to search each other's pale, slender-chinned, slow-motion, extreme close-up faces, and make eye contact.  The audience shrieks, sighs, and they know, we know, that it doesn't matter that Edward is a vampire and Bella is a human.  They will be together, forever.  Repeat this moment every couple scenes (in a tree, in a house, in a parking lot, in biology class!) like a fugue, and you have the thrill and electricity of Twilight.

Overwrought emotion is frequently dismissed as melodrama, but with Twilight the sustained palpablity of emotion is a compliment.  Some moments of dialogue may inspire a too-good-to-be-true laughter among more jaded audience members, but that doesn't mean they're not enjoying it.  What kind of person would throw away a love note just because it's too earnest in some points?  For fangirls in the throes of a relationship with Edward and Bella (Stephenie Meyer's series now numbers four) there are private jokes.  A scene in which Edward calls himself a lion and Bella a lamb inspired gasping shrieks among the fangirls seated below me, melting over the enunciation of the pet name they had only ever read.

Like arty vampire picture Let the Right One In, Twilight
takes time to show us the "rules" and the

day-to-day life of vampires.  We get to visit Edward's house, the residence of several vampires.  The modern space has a large, framed, modern color block painting.  Upon closer examination, we see dozens of graduation caps acquired by the perpetually high school-age Cullen family.  "Yeah, it's kind of a family joke," notes Edward wryly.  Bella remarks on the lack of a bed in Edward's room (he doesn't sleep), in an exchange remarkably devoid of innuendo.  We learn the powerful vampires love to play baseball, but only in a
thunderstorm, when the cracks of their bats blend in with the thunder.  The rendering of the game is no Quidditch, and I bet producer Summit Entertainment wished they had spent a little more on special effects, which could have been more robust and drawn out.  But because we are so emotionally invested in Edward and Bella, the thrilling escape scene in a Jeep that follows surpasses, for a brief moment, the emotional impact of Quantum of Solace.  Ouch.

Twilight will undoubtedly do well at the box office, so the question everyone is asking now is HOW well.  Over 2,000 screenings are sold out, more than many of the previous Harry Potter movies.  The word-of mouth among the series' devotees is effusive:  as soon as the girls at the advance screening could rip their embargoed cell phones out of the manila envelopes (I screened the film on Tuesday, and Summit required we relinquish all cell phones during the film, even wanding audience members to check), their fingers started sending gushing texts.  Forget word-of-mouth, Twlight will succeed based on Facebook statuses and Twitters. 

As far as numbers, I'll enter my "superstar" prediction here: $100 million in four weeks.  This summer's Sex and the City, with its older, but still devoted, fan base, passed the $100 million mark in its third week (it made $99 million through its second week).  Most of this year's animated pictures have passed $100 million in two weeks.  The cautionary comparison is live-action HSM3: Senior Year, an aging franchise, but still one with a devoted legion of Zac Efron fans.  That film has earned $84 million through its fourth week--I see that as Twilight's worst-case scenario, which would still vastly exceed the film's sub-$40 million production budget.  Summit Entertainment still claims they  only expect $40 million in returns, but the numbers $50 and $60 million have also been floated around.  If Twilight can earn $50 million in its first week, and drop less than 50% each subsequent week (exponential decay, the subject of Twilight girls' math homework!), it will make $100 million in four weeks.  However, as much as I would like to see this film succeed, vaulting the stars, the series, and Summit into a big deal, I don't see girls successfully dragging their relatives to Twilight over next week's Thanksgiving weekend.  Time will tell.