'Lincoln,' 'Silver Linings,' and 'Les Miz' lead SAG award nods

Zero Dark Thirty may have won top honors from the New York Film Critics Circle, National Board of Review, New York Film Critics Online, and a number of critics organizations in smaller cities (Boston, Washington D.C.), but it emerged from the Screen Actors Guild Awards competition with just one nomination. Jessica Chastain was nominated for Female Actor in a Lead Role, for a part some think
has Oscar-winner written all over it. It's a bit surprising that Zero Dark Thirty didn't get a nod in the Best Ensemble department, especially since it has so many well-known (and up-and-coming) actors in supporting roles, including James Gandolfini, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler (Super 8), Jennifer Ehle,  mumblecore vet Mark Duplass, and Chris Pratt ("Parks & Recreation"). However, they did have comparatively small, forgettable roles compared to Chastain's, and to the supporting roles in the other nominated films. Argo highlights the talent not only of Ben Affleck, but also has some meaty, comedic roles for John Goodman and Alan Arkin. Silver Linings Playbook generated buzz for three of its stars, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, and Bradley Cooper. Lincoln, Les Miserables, and The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, the same deal.

Does this change the lineup for the Oscars? In short, no. Besides Zero Dark Thirty, a couple of other movies are still strongly in the running. Les Miserables is getting points for being a musical done right. Lincoln is the one appealing to the older, staid voters in the Academy, while Silver Linings Playbook has energized many critics and has a more youthful feel. Then there's Argo, which had some great early momentum but is losing out to movies that are just ramping up their buzz as they move into release. Marigold Hotel got a vote for Best Ensemble in part because of SAG's older and U.K. voters, and it does have a deeper cast than Zero Dark Thirty. However, that movie only has an outside chance of being recognized at the biggest awards ceremony, and most likely will receive a few nominations, max. The winners of the SAG Awards won't be announced until January 27, one month before the Oscars.

'Zero Dark Thirty' is ambiguous about torture. It would have been a bad movie if it wasn't.

Just as Zero Dark Thirty is accruing awards, controversy is also accelerating over the movie's depiction of torture. New York Magazine's David Edelstein has voiced unease over the torture scenes, saying in his review "As a moral statement, Zero Dark Thirty is borderline fascistic. As a piece of cinema, it’s phenomenally gripping—an unholy masterwork." I'm with Edelstein on the "masterwork" part, but I disagree completely about the "fascistic" part. Zero Dark Thirty is carefully neutral about torture. I went into the screening against torture, and I came out against it. I think it's also possible to
go into the movie approving of torture, and come out also approving of torture. It's the movie's lack of evangelism for the anti-torture standpoint that has people getting nervous. When really, that's what makes director Kathryn Bigelow' and screenwriter Mark Boal's follow-up to The Hurt Locker so great.

Compare Zero Dark Thirty to the upcoming release of Promised Land, a love letter to liberal concerns over drilling for natural gas. The filmmakers are clearly against drilling, and though they try to present other opinions, those positions are only really used as more evidence to support their stance. It's baby food for liberals: bland, unchallenging, guaranteed to be safe going down. Imagine if Zero Dark Thirty had taken this approach, using the movie not to document the hunt for Bin Laden but as an indictment of torture. The entire feel of the movie would be different, and the audience would be guided into being a critic, not an observer.

I found plenty in Zero Dark Thirty to support my anti-torture position. The sequences themselves are brutal, both for the victims and those that are reduced to their basest levels by inflicting violence onto another person. The "big lead" does not come from torture but from its aftermath. CIA agent Maya (Jessica Chastain) and her colleague (Jason Clarke) trick someone into thinking he has already confessed information under duress. He confirms what they say while gorging himself on hummus. Sure, some may think that the kindness method would only work after cruelty, but I'm not one of them.

Besides torture, there are other things that are startling about the raid on Bin Laden. How they call someone's name and shoot him when he turns to respond. The way one of the wives is killed. The fact that I didn't like the way many of the characters acted makes Zero Dark Thirty feel less like a movie and more like the "docudrama" some are calling journalist-turned-screenwriter Mark Boal's take. These are unpleasant truths. America tortured. In a raid, there is no time for those movie-style hesitations, where a character looks the other in the eye for long moment before pulling the trigger, perhaps accompanied by a speech. The things that make us feel better about right and wrong, the good guys and the bad guys. Zero Dark Thirty shows us another reality, and challenges us in our reaction. Do the ends justify the means? People are coming away with the movie with different answers to that question, a sign that Bigelow and Boal have done their job.

Bond is back: 'Skyfall' makes a rare return to number one after three-week hiatus

Just like in Skyfall, Bond is back. After debuting in first place, Skyfall spent three weeks playing second fiddle to The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn--Part 2. Now that steeply declining franchise finale has dropped to third with $9.2 million. Skyfall, declining just 33% from last week, rose to first place with $11 million. That gives the Daniel Craig-led movie a total of $256
million in the U.S., plus another $656 million abroad for a total of $918 million. At this point, I bet Sony's counting its pennies and trying to see if it can top the $1 billion mark. The ten-figure mark aside, the movie is close to being the studio's most successful in five years. For a franchise release that was delayed for so many years thanks to MGM's bankruptcy, this is the best possible outcome. Maybe Hollywood can learn a lesson that spacing apart franchise titles and putting together a quality script can lead to a huge payoff.

After a poor debut and a 43% drop in its second weekend, Rise of the Guardians leveled its fall with a 20% slide to $10.5 million. The DreamWorks Animation title has been something of a disappointment, but the holiday-themed tale may be able to hold onto an audience through
Christmas. In two weeks, it will have the 3D re-release of Monsters Inc. to contend with, but that's about it in the family entertainment department.

Playing for Keeps, the only new wide release of the week, did just about as poorly as expected, debuting with a total of $6 million. Gerard Butler's career is now in critical mode, since he also appeared in the surfing flop Chasing Mavericks. He's already filmed his next role, in 2013's Olympus Has Fallen, so he really needs that movie to be a success to help revive his career.

End of Watch had a moderately successful re-expansion into over 1,000 theatres. The goal was to break $1 million, but the cop procedural finished with $733,000. Still, considering last week the movie earned just $22,000, the increase in theatre count added a nice chunk to the total.

Hyde Park on Hudson debuted to a $20,000 per-screen average in four locations in New
York and Los Angeles. With many awards-leaning pictures opening in the $50,000 to $70,000 per-screen range, that's not good. It looks like the story of a romance between FDR and his cousin will be passed over both by critics and by audiences.

Ed Burns' Fitzgerald Family Christmas put in a $3,400 per-screen average in four locations. Burns' Irish Catholic stories have a following, but it's unclear if they all showed up opening weekend or if the opening is a launching point to nice holiday run.

This Friday, one of the most anticipated movies of the year comes out. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will release in over 4,000 locations, with many theatres showing it in 3D and select locations previewing director Peter Jackson's high-frame-rate version.

'Playing for Keeps' isn't vying for a spot in the top five

We're into the second week of post-Thanksgiving coasting. The release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey next Friday has had something of a chilling effect. Any studio that wants a movie to play strongly for a couple of weeks in a row opted out of this weekend. The only new wide release is Playing for Keeps (2,837 theatres). Currently tracking at 0% on Rotten Tomatoes,
things do not look good for the Gerard Butler-led romantic comedy. It's more of the same-old, the story of a retired pro soccer player who coaches his son's team, gets with all the soccer moms, and then pursues his ex-wife. FilmDistrict may hope the movie will approach $10 million, but somewhere in the $5 million range will be more likely.

Seeing a gap in the marketplace, Open Road will re-expand the release of End of Watch, which received good reviews when it first opened eleven weekends ago. While playing in 1,249 locations, it should rack up at least a million and cross the $40 million mark.

The top five films will all be close together, with receipts right in the $10 million range. Skyfall has been playing ahead of Lincoln in the weekday box offices, so there's a good chance it will maintain its lead through the weekend. Rise of the Guardians may lift a bit to approach the two leading films thanks to families attending weekend matinees. Life of Pi will also be in the mix and settle somewhere in the $10 million range. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn--Part 2 will likely finally give up its lead as its steep week-to-week drops bring it below Skyfall and Lincoln, which
have descended on a slower slope.

One notable specialty release will join the awards-seeking fray, Hyde Park on Hudson, which will open in four locations. The story of the relationship between FDR (Bill Murray) and his cousin (Laura Linney) "feels creepy instead of
romantic," notes critic Daniel Eagan. "As portrayed by Linney, she's a naive, poverty-stricken
girl seduced into an affair with an abusive, serial philanderer." This is the second film to feature an actor playing King Edward, who stuttered, and The King's Speech is many times better. This is one audiences can skip in favor of the many far better similar options out there right now, including Silver Linings Playbook (better romance, better comedy), Lincoln (better historical picture), and The Sessions (better relationship between two people where one is disabled).

On Monday, we'll see which of the returning releases had the most steam, if Playing for Keeps managed to score with audiences at all, and if End of Watch's expansion strategy worked.

'Star Trek Into Darkness' trailer offers little to set the sci-fi sequel apart

Ok, maybe I'm just jaded, but the teaser trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness was a total yawn-fest for me. A big part of the problem is the trailer itself. It uses the low horn blasts first used to such great effect in the trailer for Inception, but have since been copied in other trailers, like the one for Prometheus. In this one, the editing of the footage to the horn blasts doesn't even feel like it's timed right. Plus, where's the story? It's all just random explosions and moments of terror. Oh, and a voiceover from a villain (Benedict Cumberbatch) who vows to destroy all that is good in the world. What's new? This trailer gets a big thumbs down. The 2009 Star Trek was so great because it brought in people who weren't Trekkies. This trailer seems like it's just trying to appeal to a fanbase that will see the movie anyway. I hope the poor quality of this teaser trailer is just the marketing department or the fact that effects-laden footage just wasn't ready. Because it makes me not want to see the movie.

 

 

Compare that teaser trailer to this one for the 2009 Star Trek. By using radio-transmitted announcements and news footage, it evokes the feeling of the 1960s space race. Instead of focusing on the high-tech flight deck, they open with footage of a welder creating the Enterprise. That's the kind of trailer that made people want to see the movie. The second trailer focused on a young Kirk driving a vintage red convertible, and the third showed a grown-up Chris Pine in the desert on a motorcycle and then in a bar with a jukebox. These were images that seemed far outside of a typical sci-fi film (though the desert was a wee familiar for any Star Wars aficionados). Maybe Paramount doesn't have the luxury of including the footage of the origin story this time around, but if they plan to sell this movie on action sequences alone, they're in trouble.

 

Weighing in on the high-frame-rate version of 'The Hobbit'

Reactions to the high-frame-rate version of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey have been mixed. A demo at CinemaCon fell flat, with many exhibitors finding the format looked liked television. There is, of course, a reason for that. Film speed is 24 frames-per-second, while television is often projected at 30 fps or higher, depending on if you're watching, say, sports versus a prime-time drama. At last night's 3D, high-frame-rate screening at a Times Square multiplex, my reaction went from negative to neutral, and then cautiously positive. I do think the technology will
be part of the future of filmmaking, but it will take adjustment. History has shown that some naturalistic changes to film form were at first perceived as unnatural. Most famously, Technicolor was reserved for big-budget, showy pictures, while dramas and serious movies stayed with the lower-cost black-and-white format. Perhaps in part because of the genres that used color, seeing a film in color was seen as unnatural. Now, watching a black-and-white movie, it's hard to imagine anyone finding that medium more realistic-looking. Early Technicolor was, in fact, often brighter and more saturated than real life, which may have been part of what audiences were reacting to. Now we don't even think about that. We just think color = more real.

In the opening, brightly lit scenes of The Hobbit, the high frame rate looked wrong. It was either my eyes adjusting, or (if they shot in sequence, which is doubtful), that they were just figuring out the best lighting for the high frame rate. So most likely my eyes just needed a period of time to acclimate, as my mind reconciled watching a frame rate we only see in TV with an epic movie. Because high frame rates show so much detail, they have a tendency to make sets look fake. Again, I think that's something that productions will learn to accommodate. On the flip side, you can see the actor's hair flyaways, the texture of a wool sweater, and other minute details that normally aren't captured by film. Still objects, in particular, look amazingly real. I do feel a bit sorry for the actors who now have every single pore and wrinkle showing. With an almost all-male cast of gruff-looking dwarves, that isn't a problem, but it will definitely be an issue when dealing with romances or anyone supposed to look pretty. Right now, the hazy-light filters Jackson appears to be employing in certain scenes just aren't cutting it.

One problem I often have with movies is when they quickly pan, which can look choppy and feel uncomfortable to the eye under standard frame rates. There have been many times that quick motion and pans have brought me
out of the narrative, and I internally chastised the director for
violating film's laws of motion. With The Hobbit, this isn't an issue.

I admire Peter Jackson for advocating for a new technology by actually doing it himself, and to a series worth billions of dollars, no less. It's not quite as wowing as the 3D in James Cameron's Avatar, but I also think the benefits of high frame rate will be easier to replicate. So many poor 3D movies released in the wake of Avatar, with none worth the extra ticket price. I hope that high frame rate does not command a ticket premium, but makes the theatrical moviegoing experience that much more vivid and distinct from an in-home experience. There are many films that can benefit from high frame rates, so more directors should follow Jackson's path and experiment with providing an even better experience with this technology.

NYFCC gives 'Zero Dark Thirty' its top honors

The New York Film Critics Circle gave three cheers for Zero Dark Thirty, awarding the film a trio of honors: Best Feature, Best Director, and Best Cinematography. Director Kathryn Bigelow's follow-up to her Oscar winner The Hurt Locker is even better than that movie, in my opinion. Zero Dark Thirty is broader in scope and more harrowing. Plus, it centers on the (successful!) hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The movie was already in pre-production when Bin Laden was killed, forcing writer Mark Boal to rewrite the script last-minute. I think the fact that the movie was originally
concieved as a story of failure makes the resulting film less hagiographic. It's just the straightforward tale of a CIA agent (Jessica Chastain) with a hunch that wherever Bin Laden's trusted courier is, Bin Laden must be there too.

This isn't the first time Bigelow has been honored by the New York Film Critics Circle. They previously gave her the Best Director honor for The Hurt Locker back in 2009. That movie, about bomb defusers in Iraq, also won Best Picture. Could this mean that Zero Dark Thirty could take top prize come Oscar time?

I still haven't seen another frontrunner, Les Miserables, but Zero Dark Thirty certainly has what it takes to win the Oscars. Gravitas tends to triumph when it comes to the staid Oscar stauettes, so that would raise the movie above another one set in the Middle East, Argo, which was more comic. However, Bigelow won just a few years ago, and under circumstances that can't be repeated. She was the first female recipient for Best Director, and the movie won Best Picture over the behemoth Avatar (which was directed by her ex, an intriguing piece of Hollywood history). However, Tom Hooper, who directed Les Miserables, won Best Director and Best Feature even more recently, for 2010's The King's Speech. There are so many potential stories of success, and deciding factors, like audience response, still in play. How will Zero Dark Thirty do at the box office, for example? Will the procedural story of a female CIA agent catch on with audiences who may have been expecting a male hero? For the moment, I'm with the NYFCC, and my money's on Bigelow.