IRON MAN 3 (2013)

Beginning with 1987’s LETHAL WEAPON Shane Black spent a decade as an overpaid writer of big, smart-ass action movies. But dwindling box office mirrored the diminishing aesthetic returns, and Black vanished until his 2005 directorial debut, the underrated KISS KISS BANG BANG, a crackerjack comic thriller starring Robert Downey, Jr. The latest IRON MAN installment reunites director Black (who co-wrote the script with Drew Pearce) and Downey (as Tony Stark) and retains the prior film’s invigorating fusion of the wiseacre and the world weary, energizing a series in danger of becoming inert. After a fitful flashback to New Year’s Eve 1999 in which we watch pre-Iron Man Stark brush off eager technology maven Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) to spend the evening with pretty geneticist Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall), we return to present day with Stark attempting to recuperate from the apocalyptic attack on New York City by Loki (see THE AVENGERS). Traumatized and sleepless, he spends his nights tinkering in the lab while beloved but beleaguered Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) runs the business. The stalwart Colonel James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), meanwhile, changes his branding from War Machine to the Iron Patriot and becomes part of President Ellis’ (William Sadler) security team. An international terrorist calling himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) blows up the Chinese Theatre, which hospitalizes Stark’s right hand man Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) and brings the inventor before cameras vowing harsh justice. Before a plan can be set in motion, Maya turns up at Stark’s home warning that Killian, her current employer, is in league with The Mandarin. Then all hell breaks loose. While the busy script keeps the action brisk and dialogue crackling, Black gives Downey and Paltrow room to hint at the deep feelings just beneath Stark and Pepper’s glib surface banter. This grounds the outlandish action and keeps human stakes high amidst the CG carnage. In the last decade Black and Downey, former poster boys of vapid excess, have seasoned with age, proving that you can be a grown up and still play with toys.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (2013)

The best STAR TREK films attain a careful balance between reverence to the source material and the sly upturning of expectations. In the 2009 prequel, director J.J. Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman violated the space/time continuum to give Leonard Nimoy (the original Spock) a cameo and themselves permission to disregard any inconsistency within the established Star Trek universe they may create in future films. The movie was enjoyable enough, with sharp casting and strong character rapport, to overlook this breach. Now Abrams and the writers (with the addition of Damon Lindelof) return to the wormhole in this slapdash sequel, and proceed to unravel the fabric of the franchise with careless abandon. After a busy prologue in which Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) race from indigenous space savages and rescue Spock (Zachary Quinto) from an active volcano where he attempts to set off a cold fusion bomb (to save said savages), we return to Starfleet where Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) reprimands and demotes Kirk for violating the prime directive. However, the demotion is short-lived after an attack on Starfleet command forces Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) to send Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise to an isolated planet in Klingon territory, where the attack’s mastermind, Kirk’s future nemesis Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch), has taken refuge. Despite some genuinely harrowing scenes and a handful of engaging character moments -- most involving Quinto, Simon Pegg (as Chief Engineer Scott) and the underused Urban -- the script feels like roughly patched together scenes from better films. Perhaps the puzzling title refers to the willful blindness to which fans of the TV and film series must succumb in order to overlook the gaps in narrative logic through which a fleet of starships could pass. But the filmmakers’ ill-conceived emphasis on confused plotting is merely their second greatest sin. The film’s dramatic centerpiece is ripped whole cloth from 1982’s THE WRATH OF KHAN. This shameless, cynical piece of pilfering is lazy, inexcusable, and unforgiveable.

FRANCES HA (2013)

Films rarely address the awkward transition from feckless youth to dutiful adult in a way that actual grownups might recognize. Too often we spend 90 minutes in the tiresome company of a man-child whose Peter Pan syndrome finally beats us and his screen peers into weary submission. However, this wry, off-kilter comedy does a gender switch, and the whimsical results are discerning, sometimes melancholy, and always humane. 27-year-old Frances (Greta Gerwig) lives the life of a bohemian, barely making ends meet as a student teacher and apprentice at a New York dance studio. She refuses her soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend’s offer to move in, because she prefers to continue living with current roommate and best friend Sophie (Mickey Sumner). Until now she has blithely deferred adult responsibilities and relationships and has come to rely on her friend’s comforting, stable presence. She often says of Sophie, “We’re the same person.” After Sophie announces her plan to move out and spend more time with boyfriend Patch (Patrick Heusinger), Frances’ carefree life begins to unspool. Noah Baumbach & Gerwig’s script feels daft and unruly, not unlike Frances herself. Director Baumbach matches this tone with a loose, irreverent shooting style reminiscent of the French New Wave films of the 1960s, nicely evoked by Sam Levy’s unfussy black and white cinematography. As the unmoored Frances bounces from the couch of rakish Lev (Adam Driver) and adoring Benji (Michael Zegen) to her parents’ (played by Gerwig’s mother and father) home in California to dance colleague Rachel’s (Grace Gummer) apartment to a weekend in Paris to a summer job at her rustic alma mater, she begins to confront the compromises of adulthood. Gerwig’s canny performance keeps us on Frances’ side even as we long to shake some sense into her, and Sumner’s grounded Sophie makes the perfect foil for flighty Frances. We recognize the perfection of their match and feel their growing pains as the friendship necessarily evolves. The witty final shot is both button and grace note that clarifies the film’s enigmatic title.

ROOM 237 (2013)

In 1980 Stanley Kubrick released his film adaptation of Stephen King’s popular horror novel THE SHINING to mostly tepid reviews. The basic premise of the book and film is that a blocked writer, hired as caretaker for an empty, isolated Colorado resort during the winter, becomes possessed by the malevolent spirit of the Overlook Hotel and tries to kill his wife and young son. Initially many fans of the book, myself included, felt that Kubrick’s slow, sterilized approach to the pulpy material missed the forest for the trees – or the hedge animals for the maze. We had hoped Kubrick would make Stephen King’s book. Instead he made a Stanley Kubrick film. During the intervening years, however, the movie worked its way into the subconscious of film culture and began inciting passionate discussions about Kubrick’s true intent, since he clearly failed to make a traditional horror movie. In this enjoyable if somewhat repetitive documentary, director Rodney Ascher gives several SHINING obsessives the chance to expound upon their respective theories, which run the gamut from cogent but unlikely to cheerfully goofy. The most plausible contends that the film depicts the Native American genocide by white settlers, using the Overlook’s preponderance of Southwestern décor, the wash of blood from the elevators, and the ubiquitous horror trope “built on Indian burial grounds” as its basis. The next believes Kubrick was making reference to the Holocaust, with the writer’s German-made typewriter and the repetition of the number “42” (the Nazi’s final solution began in 1942) among its offered evidence. Another suggests Kubrick is confessing to his involvement in the “staged” films of the Apollo moon landings, a widely held conspiracy theory of the time. One points out the impossible geography of the hotel, while another runs the film backward and forward at the same time to find hidden meanings. After a recent viewing of THE SHINING, I believe this is Kubrick’s attempt to drive his audience crazy using visual disorientation and invasive sound design. Based on the evidence of this documentary, he just may have succeeded.

SIDE EFFECTS (2013)

Director Steven Soderbergh’s professed final feature film begins as a tacit critique of our over-medicated culture, from pharmaceutical companies saturating the market with psychotropic medications to ethically challenged doctors testing them on patients to compliant consumers turning to chemicals as a first resort. But then Scott Z. Burns’ clever script alters its makeup and transforms into a winding thriller where greed, deceit and betrayal are more lethal than any side effect. Four years earlier Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) had her life and marriage torn apart when, soon after the nuptials, hedge fund manager husband Martin (Channing Tatum) earns a prison term for insider trading. Shunted from her upstate mansion to a Manhattan apartment, Emily works and waits for Martin’s return. When that day arrives she has an emotional breakdown and drives her car into a wall. This suicide attempt leads her into the care of Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), a psychiatrist with a growing practice and lucrative, well-funded drug studies on the side. After several prescriptions fail to help, Banks consults with Emily’s former upstate analyst Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who suggests he try the antidepressant Ablixa. The new drug works wonders on Emily’s mood but causes her to sleepwalk for extended periods. During one such sleepwalking incident Emily commits an act of shocking violence, and someone must pay. Burns and Soderbergh use subtle misdirection and sharp casting to deftly manipulate audience empathy. With a face that invites sympathy while maintaining aloofness Mara makes for a convincing depressive. Likewise Law treads the fine line between sincere concern and suspect opportunism, while Zeta-Jones hints at the repressed urges bubbling under her brittle professional demeanor. Once the story evolves, however, the filmmakers upturn expectations and skillfully navigate each slippery twist to a satisfying, morally ambiguous conclusion. Throughout his career Soderbergh has proven to be an exemplary film craftsman, and here he is at the top of his game. It would be a shame if this truly were his swan song.

THE POPE’S 2012 OSCAR® PREDICTIONS -- PART 2

This year, thanks to the grim slate of Oscar contenders, torture and degradation go mainstream.  From the indignities of aging in AMOUR, to the Iran hostage crisis in ARGO, to the cruelties of slavery in DJANGO UNCHAINED, to Russell Crowe’s singing in LES MISÉRABLES, to depictions of actual torture in ZERO DARK THIRTY, the Academy seems determined to distract us from the self-important presentations, insufferable acceptance speeches and endless musical numbers we will inevitably endure during the telecast.

Predicting the predilections of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is an annual ritual.  The challenges are myriad in even the most straightforward of years.  And this year is anything but straightforward.  When Oscar® nominations were announced on January 10, 2013, snubbing Ben Affleck for Best Director, there was a seismic shift in award season momentum.  Call it the ARGO Effect.  Now, that movie, well liked but never considered front-runner material, has quickly become the film to beat.  Until that fateful date the producers of LINCOLN were practicing their acceptance speeches.  Now, to quote Cole Porter, anything goes.

Nevertheless there are touchstones to guide you through the chaos.  Close observers know that, in almost every instance, the Academy wants its Best Picture winner to also win the most awards overall.  Using this truism as a guide, the ripple effect will likely influence certain technical awards, definitely Adapted Screenplay, and possibly Supporting Actor – the latter made more possible by the lack of a clear front-runner.

That said, this year has the potential for more upsets than any year since 2002.  Therefore, choose carefully (but not too carefully) and wisely (but intuitively), and you may walk away with the Oscar® pool winnings.

And the nominees for Best Picture are:

AMOUR

ARGO

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

DJANGO UNCHAINED

LES MISÉRABLES

LIFE OF PI

LINCOLN

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

ZERO DARK THIRTY

Before the nominations came out LINCOLN was the presumptive favorite.  Thanks to the Affleck Best Director snub, ARGO is a lock.  Director Bigelow was likewise snubbed.  However, thanks to the faux torture scandal ZERO DARK THIRTY has been removed from serious Best Picture contention.  BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD has the David vs. Goliath factor, LIFE OF PI has the life-affirming factor, and SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK has the Weinstein Oscar®-machine factor.  None will vanquish the Academy members’ need to tell Affleck how sorry they are with a Best Picture award for ARGO.

Should Win:     ZERO DARK THIRTY

Will Win:          ARGO

Overlooked:    MOONRISE KINGDOM

And the nominees for Best Director are:

Michael Haneke, AMOUR

Ang Lee, LIFE OF PI

David O. Russell, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Steven Spielberg, LINCOLN

Benh Zeitlin, BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

This one’s a tough call.  Normally, we could use the DGA Award and/or Golden Globes as a guide.  Since Affleck won both of those and isn’t nominated here, we must use other rationale.  Spielberg was the frontrunner, but the ARGO Effect seems to have damaged LINCOLN the most.  And he’s won the prize twice before (for SCHINDLER’S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN).  Lee also won for BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.  I think the Academy will go with someone who hasn’t won previously.  Zeitlin is too new.  Haneke’s film is too French (which is interesting, considering he’s Austrian).  I’m going out on a limb and predict that Russell takes this horserace, primarily because of the strength of the Weinstein Oscar® machine.  But, then again, it may be saving its juice for Best Actress.

Should Win:     Michael Haneke, AMOUR

Will Win:          David O. Russell, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Overlooked:    Ben Affleck, ARGO

Kathryn Bigelow, ZERO DARK THIRTY

And the nominees for Best Actress are:

Jessica Chastain, ZERO DARK THIRTY

Jennifer Lawrence, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Emmanuelle Riva, AMOUR

Quvenzhane Wallis, BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

Naomi Watts, THE IMPOSSIBLE

Here is another category that could easily go several ways.  Your safest best would be Lawrence.  She’s the closest thing to a frontrunner.  She won the SAG and Golden Globe (Comedy), plus she’s got the Weinsteins behind her.  Chastain would be a reasonable bet, too, as she won the Golden Globe (Drama); but the torture “scandal” could take her out of the running.  Riva, however, was not a nominee for either the Golden Globes or SAG Awards, so she’s the wild card here.  More importantly, she gives the kind of performance the Academy loves.  I think it will be a close vote and Riva squeaks out a win.  But if Lawrence gets called to the stage I wouldn’t be surprised.

Should and Will Win:   Emmanuelle Riva, AMOUR

Overlooked:                Rachel Weisz, THE DEEP BLUE SEA

And the nominees for Best Actor are:

Bradley Cooper, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Daniel Day-Lewis, LINCOLN

Hugh Jackman, LES MISÉRABLES

Joaquin Phoenix, THE MASTER

Denzel Washington, FLIGHT

Neither Jackman nor Phoenix belongs in this category; the former mediocre, and the latter too mannered.  Cooper is very good in a terrific movie, while Washington is terrific in a not very good movie.  However, if Day-Lewis doesn’t win this, I will be shocked.  I can’t even imagine who would get the award if not him.  (Now watch this become the upset category of the evening.)

Should and Will Win:   Daniel Day-Lewis, LINCOLN

Overlooked:                Jamie Foxx, DJANGO UNCHAINED

Jean-Louis Trintignant, AMOUR

And the nominees for Best Supporting Actress are:

Amy Adams, THE MASTER

Sally Field, LINCOLN

Anne Hathaway, LES MISÉRABLES

Helen Hunt, THE SESSIONS

Jacki Weaver, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Adams is great, but the movie (again) is a difficult one.  Weaver is wonderful but doesn’t really stand out.  Field gives, to my mind, the best supporting performance in the field (okay, I didn’t see Hunt, so sue me).  She’s going to lose to Hathaway, however, because the Academy must give the award to someone who (1) lost weight and/or (2) sings and cries through one long, snot-filled, take.  I also predict Hathaway’s acceptance speech is the most insufferable of the evening.  I hope I’m wrong.

Should Win:     Sally Field, LINCOLN

Will Win:          Anne Hathaway, LES MISÉRABLES

Overlooked:    Isabelle Huppert, AMOUR

And the nominees for Best Supporting Actor are:

Alan Arkin, ARGO

Robert De Niro, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Philip Seymour Hoffman, THE MASTER

Tommy Lee Jones, LINCOLN

Christoph Waltz, DJANGO UNCHAINED

This category is another one that could go a number of ways.  Hoffman is the long shot because he’s in a problematic film.  De Niro returns to form after a long dry spell, but his great performance is but one in a very strong ensemble.  Arkin is marvelous; but I’ve seen this before, and I suspect the Academy has, too.  He could, nevertheless, ride to victory on the ARGO Effect.  Jones and Waltz are closest to frontrunner status.  Jones won the SAG Award, and Waltz won the Golden Globe.  Jones won almost twenty years ago for THE FUGITIVE, and Waltz won a mere three years ago for INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, so the Academy may hesitate to give it to him again so soon.  Your best bests are Arkin, Jones or Waltz.  I’m going with Jones.

Should and Will Win:   Tommy Lee Jones, LINCOLN

Overlooked:                Matthew Macfadyen, ANNA KARENINA

And the nominees for Best Adapted Screenplay are:

Lucy Alibar & Ben Zeitlin, BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

Tony Kushner, LINCOLN

David Magee, LIFE OF PI

David O. Russell, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Chris Terrio, ARGO

Considering the strength of the field, this would be tough to predict under normal conditions, with a lean toward Kushner’s LINCOLN adaptation.  Thanks to the ARGO Effect, however, you would be wise to go with Chris Terrio.  For a more in-depth discussion of this year’s best adapted Oscar®-nominated screenplays, please go to the On the Page® podcast available at https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-page-screenwriting/id262077408.

Should Win:     David O. Russell, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Will Win:          Chris Terrio, ARGO

Overlooked:    Tom Stoppard, ANNA KARENINA

And the nominees for Best Original Screenplay are:

Wes Anderson & Roman Coppola, MOONRISE KINGDOM

Mark Boal, ZERO DARK THIRTY

John Gatins, FLIGHT

Michael Haneke, AMOUR

Quentin Tarantino, DJANGO UNCHAINED

This one has a potential for surprise.  Thanks to his WGA win Boal could be considered the frontrunner.  However, neither Haneke nor Tarantino were nominated for a WGA, so they could split the vote or one or the other win outright.  An argument could me made that the torture “scandal” has tarnished ZERO DARK THIRTY’s chances, but one could also be made that the directorial snub of Kathryn Bigelow makes its victory here more likely.  I’m going with the latter scenario.  For a more in-depth discussion of this year’s original Oscar®-nominated screenplays, please go to the On the Page® podcast available at https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-page-screenwriting/id262077408.

Should and Will Win:   Mark Boal, ZERO DARK THIRTY

Overlooked:                Rian Johnson, LOOPER

This wraps up The Pope's Picks for 2012.  Thanks for reading this far, and we'll see you in 2013.

THE POPE'S PICKS AT ON THE PAGE

Michael Musa and I join screenwriting teacher Pilar Alessandra at her On the Page podcast to discuss the 2012 Oscar-nominated screenplays.  Just copy the below link into your browser and click on the Oscar podcast.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-page-screenwriting/id262077408

The program runs about 1:15.  Enjoy.