Royal Rumble - The top four movie stars square off over Christmas

How odd is this? In literally seven days, we'll have four films starring the four biggest stars on the planet, four of the very last true movie stars who still do star vehicles. This weekend we have the biggest star on earth, Will Smith, with the dark, depressing Oscar-bait vehicle Seven Pounds. We also have Yes Man, the first true comedic star vehicle for comedy icon Jim Carrey since Bruce Almighty back in 2003 (Fun With Dick And Jane was a tag-team picture with Tea Leoni). Both films probably have ceilings of $125 million and both should be considered major successes if they get anywhere close to that.

The next weekend we have the former king of the mountain, Tom Cruise, trying to reassert his box office credibility (and save his fledgling United Artists) with Valkyrie. It's a darn good movie, but box office may be limited as there aren't any set pieces that merit repeat viewing (again, $125 million seems to be the best case scenario here, which would be right in line with The Last Samurai and Minority Report).

Next we have Bedtime Stories, this year's attempt at Night At The Museum, another kid-friendly fx-filled fantasy yarn starring a popular comedian. This time, the automatic 'advance straight to Go, collect $200 million' award goes to fellow comedy giant Adam Sandler (in his follow up to You Don't Mess With The Zohan, which this non-Sandler fan is placing on his best of 2008 list). We'll see if the Adam Sandler quality to box office pattern holds true again (that''s 'good movie = underwhelming grosses'), but I'm pretty sure this one is so well positioned and high-concept that it would make $150 million even if Michael Madsen were in the lead.

While all four of these films have the potential to do well with the long Christmas break season, I have to note two oddities. First of all, we have four films from four of the biggest true movie stars all going head-to-head with each other. They all have their reasons though. Will Smith scored huge with this weekend the last two years in a row, with fellow Oscar bait The Pursuit Of Happyness and I Am Legend. Jim Carry scored the prior two years on the pre-Christmas jaunt as well (Lemony Snicket and Fun With Dick And Jane both crossed $100 million). Bedtime Stories is trying so hard to be Night At The Museum that it's choosing the same release date. As for Valkyrie, well, apparently MGM wants to make sure it's out by 2008 for tax-related reasons, make of that what you will.

The truly funny part is that the two drama divas and the kings of comedy are not opening against each other. Sure, it would be foolish for two zany comedies and two dark dramas to open directly against each other, but it still feels like a missed opportunity. In comic book terms. 'what would happen if Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler fought each other?' and 'who would win in a smack down between Tom Cruise and Will Smith?'. As it is, it feels like a super-hero/super villain team up where they end up fighting the other guy's nemesis at the climax.

Random thoughts as the night dwindles on. Any takers on who will emerge victorious and who will crash in defeat? Place your bets, folks, this is going to be an epic confrontation (complete with collectible cover).

Scott Mendelson

X-Men Origins: Wolverine trailer

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE HD

First of all, do you know anyone who is going to refer to this film by its full title? I know Fox wants a franchise of origin stories (Magneto is next), but just calling it Wolverine would have sufficed.

As for the trailer, I'm relatively unimpressed. The action looks big, but for some reason the whole movie feels small, especially when compared to the immediate competition (Star Trek, Terminator Salvation). It's a good thing this is the first film of the summer, because that's the only trump card it has (it's Paramount's job to now convince moviegoers that Star Trek is the real first film of summer). That 'Logan hangs onto a helicopter' shot is fine, but it's not what you end a trailer on.

On the plus side, I'll see Liev Schreiber in most anything. And while it's nice that they got a real actor to play Sabertooth, but where art thou, continuity? I don't think Gambit looks as bland as others do, but then I'm not a die-hard fan either. The other fan cameos are too inside-baseball for this casual fan, so I won't comment on them (I guess Ryan Reynolds was tired of doing quirky, mind-spinning comedies that no one saw). Frankly, assuming any of them survive, Fox has enough new mutants in this film to start a whole new series (the "Weapon X" franchise?).

Oh, and regarding that shot of Logan in the Civil War: Over 50,000 Canadian citizens fought for the North, and 10,000 fought for the South in the American Civil War.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Valkyrie (2008)

Valkyrie
2008
120 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Films that are based on true stories of failure and/or disaster can often make superior suspense yarns then those whose outcome is theoretically unknown. If the film can trick the audience into forgetting that they know the story already, it is a sure sign that all is well. Furthermore, tension can be explicitly built into the foreknowledge of doom, where the suspense comes not from ‘will it all go wrong?’ but rather ‘how will it all go wrong?’.

A bit of plot: Bryan Singer’s period suspense tale Valkyrie concerns the last of over a dozen separate plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler during the reign of the Third Reich. The plot that is presented here is unique because it was the only one that specifically dealt with what to do after Der Führer had been killed. Colonel Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) has just been seriously wounded on the battlefield in Africa near the end of the war. Fed up with Hitler’s various tyrannical misdeeds, at the expense of Germany’s honor, Stauffenberg soon finds himself aligned with an elite inner circle of trusted Nazi officers who seek a common goal and a common ideology. Together, they hatch a scheme to not only kill Adolph Hitler, but to use an existing contingency plan (‘project Valkyrie’) to take complete political power in Germany and negotiate an end to the war.

Singer takes this little known piece of history and turns it into a tense, ensemble caper picture. As the plan unfolds, the picture begins to resemble a 1940s version of Mission: Impossible. Like the feature film variation, Tom Cruise plays the ‘point man’ of sorts, while the supporting cast nervously does their part to ensure the successful treason at work. Since the failure of said plot is a historical given, writers Nathan Alexander and Christopher McQuarrie (the latter teaming with Bryan Singer for the first time since The Usual Suspects) smartly concentrate as much on the aftermath of said plot as the build-up.

While this is certainly a star vehicle for Tom Cruise, the supporting cast of elders gets their moments to shine as well. Kenneth Branagh’s initial scene, involving Bill Nighy and a duplicitous case of wine, is a true armrest grabber. Tom Wilkinson shines as a power-hungry commander whose loyalties shift per the given occasion. Terence Stamp has a weary, beaten down sense of foreboding defeat, almost cursing himself for resorting to treason and murder. Carice van Houten appears briefly as Stauffenberg’s wife; apparently because Tom Cruise and Bryan Singer liked Paul Verhoeven’s Black Book as much as I did. It should be noted that each actor is permitted to speak in his or her natural accent, but it works surprisingly well as you stop noticing after the first five minutes (ala- The Hunt For Red October, Tom Cruise speaks his first several lines in German and then slowly segues into English).

Whether this will be ‘Tom Cruise’s comeback vehicle’ is irrelevant. It is every bit as good as most commercially-minded Tom Cruise pictures (think The Last Samurai or Minority Report) and reminds viewers that, personal issues aside, Cruise is one of the biggest movie stars of the last fifty years for a reason. He is a solid actor, has uncommonly good taste in material, and continues to work with the very best directors possible. It’s cool to do so now, but the young Cruise using his star power to work with challenging filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Oliver Stone was a new or reemerging idea in the 1980s. That he surrounds himself with veteran actors like Stamp and Branagh shows respect for the film as a whole, rather than merely his own screen image (just as casting Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the villain in Mission: Impossible 3, knowing full well that Hoffman would easily steal the movie and the critical huzzahs, shows a certain courage).

Valkyrie just misses out on being a great film (it’s no Black Book), but it easily merits mention as a good one. The third act has far too many scenes of nameless troops racing around to apprehend other nameless troops, and the scenes with Cruise and van Houten drag the pace of what should be a tight procedural thriller (more emotional impact is gained from fleeting glimpse of family photos than from any family bonding scenes). But the set pieces are tense and logical, and the story allows Singer to literally use the ‘bomb under the table’ bit that Hitchcock discussed as an archetypical suspense scenario. Singer and Cruise have made a fine historical pulse racer that is surprisingly satisfying and tense. Before Cruise’s 2005 couch-jumping antics, it was taken for granted that a Tom Cruise thriller would be at least this good. Valkyrie is every bit as good as you remember a Tom Cruise movie being, back when you still liked Tom Cruise.

Grade: B

Review: Gran Torino (2008)

Gran Torino
2008
116 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Clint Eastwood is the rare actor who has had two ‘final acts’ in his career. The first came in 1992, when the revisionist western Unforgiven accidentally revitalized his career after a full decade of relative irrelevance (the only good films Eastwood made in the 1980s were Tightrope, Bird, and The Dead Pool, none of which were terribly successful). Unforgiven seemed to represent one final western, a final action film that attempted to reinterpret or deconstruct the various mythical gunslingers of his heyday. But, of course, it received rapturous reviews, became Eastwood’s first $100 million grossing picture and won four Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director for Mr. Eastwood himself. So this final curtain instead paved the way for ‘Clint Eastwood – critically admired director’ (never mind that he had been directing solid films since Play Misty For Me in 1971).

Unforgiven was followed by fifteen-years of critically acclaimed films, and another Best Picture/Best Director Oscar combo for Million Dollar Baby in 2004. For this last leg of his career, Eastwood has been known as a director first, and an actor second. Since 1992, he acted in only one picture not of his making, Wolfgang Peterson’s masterpiece 1993 thriller: In The Line Of Fire.

Gran Torino will allegedly be Clint Eastwood’s final acting role. If this is the case, then the 78 year old icon has chosen a perfectly pleasant offshoot as his acting swan song. That it is not a film worthy of multiple Oscars is not a slight against the picture. It is a fun, witty, and poignant last dance that ends up being a modern day take on the classic western archetype that Eastwood knows so well. Whether Eastwood deserves or receives an Oscar nomination for his lead performance is irrelevant. It is every bit as appropriate an acting finale as John Wayne’s The Shootist.

A token amount of plot – Walt Kowalski is a Korean War veteran who has stayed in his old neighborhood as the economic conditions deteriorated and his neighbors began to less resemble himself and begin to resemble the very Koreans he went to war with in his youth. This unrepentant racist himself lost and without purpose following the death of his wife. However, circumstances change when a young Hmong neighbor attempts to steal Walt’s prized auto mobile, his 1973 Gran Torino. After the youth’s family forces him to work off his moral debt by helping Walt with various chores, the grumpy old man forms a surprising bond with his neighbors and with this young man. However, tensions from nearby gangs threaten to destroy Walt’s new found peace.

The film is first and foremost a showcase for crusty old Clint. While the broadly comic performance skirts with camp from time to time (he actually says ‘Get off my lawn!’ in two separate scenes), the usual Eastwood subtlety and low-key film making keeps the drama rooted in plausibility. And while the bond between Frank and Thao isn’t terribly deep (arguably less so than, for example, the friendship between Daniel Larusso and Mr. Miyagi in the first Karate Kid), it is entertaining and their interactions with Walt’s few friends provide solid laughs (the always welcome John Carroll Lynch cameos as a barber shop owner). And Clint Eastwood once again presents one of the most realistic, three-dimensional priests seen in film today (Christopher Carley is terrific here, as was Brian F. O'Byrne in Million Dollar Baby).

The film does have some worthwhile commentary on ethnicity. Walt’s Hmong neighbors are generally hard-working, never expect a hand out folks, the same kind of people whose values are supposed to embody ‘real Americans’ in the eyes of so many who oppose immigration and decry the melting pot of America. The film also dances with the idea that the very people who most strongly oppose ethnic integration (conservative, lower-income suburbanites) are the ones who often live in a multi-cultural Petri dish. And, despite being stand-ins for ‘friendly minorities who mend Walt’s racist heart’, Thao and his sister Sue are intelligent, funny, and relatively three-dimensional characters in their own right. Something that the film gets just right is the idea that friendships between different races actually allow for more overtly humorous racism, since there is no longer any malicious intent (Sue laughs when Walt jokingly calls her a ‘dragon lady’, knowing that he’s comfortable enough around her to be tossing out such ribald jabs).

The last fourth of the film delves into Walt’s struggle with the local gang element, and the film threatens to turn into Grumpy Old Dirty Harry. Without going into spoilers, I can say that it doesn’t quite go to that extreme, and the finale has a surprising poignancy for those who know the classic western myths (one could argue that it has similar ideas to No Country For Old Men, but I’ll say no more than that).

Gran Torino is not a masterpiece. It’s a fun character drama that features a knowing but winning final performance by Clint Eastwood and just enough commentary to make it worth discussing. In this current deluge of pretentious, overly arty Oscar bait, Gran Torino is a solid, well-oiled machine. It’s just an unpretentiously good yarn.

Grade: B

Review: What Doesn't Kill You (2008)

What Doesn’t Kill You
2008
100 minutes
rated R

By Scott Mendelson

What Doesn’t Kill You is a movie that at times feels like a remake of countless other films. It is yet another biographical story of a lower-class Boston family and the problems with falling into a life of crime. But, as Roger Ebert always says, it’s not what it’s about but how it’s about it. The film overcomes the déjà vu with uncommonly strong acting, and a low-key realism that provides a stronger emotional response by refusing to delve into melodrama.

A bit of plot – This film is the allegedly autobiographical story of writer/director Brian Goodman. Brian and Paulie (Mark Ruffalo and Ethan Hawke) are best friends, having grown up on the south side Boston. As happens to all too many in that area, they eventually turn to a life of petty crime, as a means to scrape by. While Paulie is a wild-eyed and somewhat hardened criminal, Brian is attempting to make a life that includes his wife (Amanda Peet) and their children. However, set backs and unexpected developments threaten to derail Brian’s attempt to leave the life behind and earn the respect of his children.

As is often the case, Mark Ruffalo’s naturalism raises this movie to a higher level, to something outside of cliché. For the last several years, he’s excelled at grounding the various romantic comedies he’s starred in, be they good (13 Going On 30) or bad (Rumor Has It). His general dramatic work has given an extra shot of credibility to otherwise fine pictures (Zodiac, You Can Count On Me). He is one of the few actors that automatically makes a movie better just by appearing in it. This is the closest thing he’s had to star vehicle and he does not waste the opportunity. This is an Oscar worthy performance and one of the very best of the year.

This is not to say that the rest of the cast does not hold up. Ethan Hawke again does solid supporting work. Ironically, this is the second Ethan Hawke movie in a row (after the brutally intense Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead) that opens with a seemingly botched robbery and then proceeds to flashback to the beginning). Amanda Peet also has a natural grief that honors the material. She is heartbreaking as she watches her relatively decent husband struggle to be reliable and trust worthy despite the obstacles in his way. Even the kids who play Brian’s children have a few moments worth noting, especially a late scene where Brian asks his older son what he has to do to win back his respect (the answer is devastating in its simplicity and as a study of low expectations).

The other thing that makes this picture stand out is the last third of the film, which deals not with the clichés of crime and thuggery, but with the near impossible task of rebuilding a life after a stint in the pen. Brian and Paulie both end up in prison, and Brian’s daunting attempt to redeem himself, and make a live for his family, is heartbreaking in its blunt bleakness. This is relatively uncharted territory for bottom of the food chain crime dramas, and this portion is genuinely fascinating and compelling. What Doesn’t Kill You doesn’t chart that much new territory in its first two acts, but a relatively original third act makes the film worth seeing as a story.

Story telling aside, the film is still filled with terrific, low-key performances that make the movie, at the very least, an acting treat. Ruffalo is always worth watching, as he’s quickly becoming one of my very favorite actors. Amanda Peet gets meatier material than she’s had in awhile and Ethan Hawke is solid too. Donnie Wahlberg, who co-wrote the film, has a fun cameo as an embittered cop who keeps an eye on Brian post-prison. It's not exactly a stretch for him, but the more talented, less famous Wahlberg brother is always welcome onscreen.

Once again, had this solid, adult drama been released in the spring or the summer, it would have likely stood out instead of being buried in the award derby. But it is certainly worth the time for fans of the genre and the actors. And, for general moviegoers, it is worth seeking out for a brutally honest, achingly realistic, and emotionally compelling look at the other side of petty crime – the slow, painful path to legitimacy.

Grade: B+

Review: 199 Lives- The Travis Pastrana Story (2008)

199 Lives: The Travis Pastrana Story
2008
84 minutes
Not Rated

by Scott Mendelson

To this day, Tin Cup still maintains its place as the sports movie with the most surprising and exciting climax. If you recall, the 1996 Ron Shelton picture ends with Kevin Costner on the 18th hole in first place for the title at the PGA US Open. However, after missing a (literal) long shot and landing in the water, Costner’s Roy McAvoy refuses to simply take the water penalty and move his ball to the other side of the pond that separates his current position from the green. Again and again, the ball goes into the water, but McAvoy would rather make that shot and lose the Open then simply give up and end it with a short putt.

Travis Pastrana, it would seem, has the same mentality. Time and time again, we see him almost sabotage himself on the dirt bike race track where he flourished. Torn between the strict linear race and the freedom and risk of freestyle jumping, Pastrana often blows races that he should have one, for the chance to try a random jump along the track. But then, when you’ve been motorcycle racing since you were four, competing since 14, and you’ve already base-jumped the Grand Canyon several times since your eighteenth birthday, the potential for boredom is certainly plausible. And it becomes quickly apparent that Mr. Pastrana is the sort of person who would rather lose (and lose badly) at something new and challenging than win at something that he’s already exceptional at.
199 Lives is a straight, no-frills documentary concerning the life of Travis Pastrana, currently considered one of the premier talents in the dirt bike motor cross circuit. Frankly, my knowledge of motocross begins and ends with the 1986 Nintendo game, Excite Bike. So while I am not the intended audience for this feature, it is a worthwhile glimpse into a culture that I know oh so little about. The title likely comes from the incredible cornucopia of injuries that Travis has sustained in his life time. He’s broken his wrist seven times. He’s had eight knee surgeries on the right knee and seven surgeries on the left. He’s separated his shoulder three times. He’s had at least twenty-five concussions. I can only wonder how his body and mind will react should he actually survive to old age.

The feature is pretty much a talking-heads affair, with friends and family sharing their memories and thoughts on the X-games superstar. His father is presented as a relatively hard man, not without love, but with the mindset of an army drill instructor. He’s an avowed atheist, while his wife is a true believer, and one of the highlights is a brief back and forth on their respective theological beliefs.
The film never really passes judgment on its person of interest. No one really tries to sell the idea that he is a hero, nor is he condemned for some of the consequences of his constant need for speed (he once nearly killed himself and two friends driving a car into a tree at 135 miles per hour). He is simply a person who excels at the sport which always came naturally to him.
The film comes up short only in the area of context. There is little mention of his fan base and almost no recollections from sports pundits or sports historians. Although I do not expect such a specialized documentary to explain the complete rules and history of motor cross, a little historical and factual background would have been nice. And, curiously, aside from breath taking scenes of Travis literally motor biking into the Grand Canyon and parachuting to safety, there is actually very little footage of him racing and jumping (although the DVD special features more than make up for that deficiency).

For those who already posses a genuine curiosity in Travis and the world of motor cross, this 84 minute documentary is worth a gander. But for those unschooled in the realm of dirt bike racing and dirt bike stunts, it is an unnecessary diversion. It will not make a fan out of you if you aren’t a fan already.

The DVD:
The feature is presented in 1.85, anamorphic widescreen. The picture is certainly not reference material, but the hi-def video is more than watchable. The lone audio option is English 5.1, and there are sadly no subtitles or captions.
The bonus features are actually a nearly 30 minutes longer than the feature itself. Most of it is comprised of various races and stunts that make up the short career of Travis Pastrana. There is a twelve minute video where Travis counts down his ten favorite stunts or racing moments. There is a two-minute clip of general reminiscing, and several minutes of Travis’s X-Games highlights (note – there is a 3-minute Easter egg on the “X” in X Games in the sub menu for this feature). The biggest special feature is a compilation of nine medal-winning X Games moments. This feature runs a whopping 83 minutes. The video quality on all of these bonus features is adequate and the aspect ratios are varying.

Final Note – If you are a fan of the sport or the man, 199 Lives: The Travis Pastrana Story is more than worth your time, if only for the ample collection of highlights in the supplemental section. But it offers little insight or context for non-fans.

The film - B-
The DVD - B+
Total - B

Watchman Comic Con trailer and Terminator 4 trailer go online...,

This Watchmen piece was apparently shown at this summer's Comic-Con. It's far superior to the second trailer that came out last month. I'm going to assume at this point that the amount of slow motion footage in the trailers is not representative of the film itself (there's your running time solution right there). Maybe it's just a matter of the characters not actually speaking, or the haunting music, or maybe it's the token footage that deals with the mundane (after all, Watchmen is not hip or cool, but a sad and sorrowful tale of opportunities lost and dreams unfulfilled), but this is a far more promising glimpse into 2009's most nail-biting 'Geez, will it be good?' movie.

And here is the full Terminator: Salvation trailer that just went up. This looks like a dark, gritty war picture that just happens to involve giant killer robots, which is just the way to go with this material. Whatever concessions were made for that alleged PG-13 rating, the tone wasn't among them. Ironically, this may end up resembling the underrated 2002 Christian Bale/Matthew McConaughey dragons vs mankind flop, Reign Of Fire, which was itself incredibly bleak for a summer popcorn film. So far, all signs point to a solid winner here.

Between Watchmen, Terminator: Salvation, and Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, Warner Bros is well on its way to leading the pack this summer (of course, Harry Potter 6 will make so much money that Watchmen can flop and they'll still be just fine).

Scott Mendelson

Review: Nothing But The Truth (2008)

Nothing But The Truth
2008
107 minutes
rated R

By Scott Mendelson

Rod Lurie’s Nothing But The Truth is the very definition of professionalism. It is a rock-solid entertainment, made by adults, starring adults, and intended for adults. In a film industry less dominated by more fantastical genres, it probably would qualify as a B-movie. But, in today’s kid-friendly and fantasy-drenched multiplexes it stands out as that rarest of things – a quality drama for grownups.

The plot is a moderate reworking of the Valerie Plame/Judith Miller story from summer 2005 In very brief, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for a time for refusing to reveal a source on a story (written by others) that revealed the identity of a CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame’s husband had written an embarrassing editorial debunking on one of the main justifications that the Bush administration used for war with Iraq. The story here is slightly different. In this case, Washington-based reporter Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale, capping a solid year that started with Snow Angels) refuses to reveal the source of leak regarding the identity of a CIA officer (an Oscar worthy Vera Farmiga), whose husband revealed that Venezuela was wrongly blamed for the assassination attempt on the president.

As you can see, this slight change almost qualifies as cheating. In Lurie’s version, the reporter may be reckless in exposing the identity of an undercover operative, but she’s still on the side that wishes to expose the corruption of a sitting (right-wing) president. In the real story, Judith Miller was helping to cover up those who exposed Plame’s identity as an act of right-wing political retribution. It didn’t help that Miller was one of the primary cheerleaders in the run up to the Iraq invasion, her work was eventually so utterly debunked that she was allegedly forced out. First-amendment die-hards like myself were torn that summer, but the constitutional martyrs are not always the good guys. It would have been interesting to see Lurie paint a sympathetic picture of a war-monger and lousy reporter, playing the righteous victim as she went to jail to protect the tenants of her profession.

But, that is not the film that Lurie wishes to make. And the film he has made is a very good one. Presented with a bare minimum of melodrama, the film focuses on the plight of Armstrong while also dealing with the aftershock for CIA agent Erica Van Doren. As Van Doren is repeatedly grilled by her superiors (who think that either she is the leak or she sloppily disclosed her identity) and Armstrong is threatened with jail time, we realize that we sympathize with both of these women. Surprisingly for a Rod Lurie picture, the film goes out of its way to avoid painting anyone with a particularly villainous brush. Even the bulldoggish Special Prosecutor (Matt Dillon) is not evil, but simply dedicated to a course of action that the film does not agree with.

The rest of the film is exceptionally cast. Alan Alda has several winning scenes as a once powerful attorney who eventually takes Armstrong’s case (he knows full well that the press no longer has the support of the public it attempts to inform). David Schwimmer does understated work as Armstrong’s embittered husband, and Noah Wyle has fun as the increasingly flustered representative of the newspaper in peril. Only Angela Bassett is underserved, as she’s given too little to do as Armstrong’s sympathetic editor.

There really isn’t much more to say. The story unfolds pretty much as you’d expect it to, with a couple mild twists along the way. That the film stands up for reporters’ rights over national security is kind of a given. Farmiga does some of the best work of her career, even if it’s too understated to attract much attention. Beckinsale has a great moment when she acknowledges the double standard of women/mothers sticking up for principle to the emotional harm of their children (“you can trust reporters, unless they’re mothers, cause then they’ll eventually crack”), and every major character is portrayed as intelligent, principled, and at least partially sympathetic. This is simply a smart film filled with smart actors who play smart characters.

It is a shame that it is likely to be lost in the December awards derby, since surely it would have gotten more attention as adult counter programming in the spring or summer (why oh why can’t the studios release ‘award-worthy’ movies all year round?). But Nothing But The Truth absolutely deserves your attention. It rises to the level of quality that we should not take for granted, even while we wish we could. It’s just a darn good movie.

Grade: B+

Catherine Hardwicke fired from Twilight sequel...

Fresh off the presses, although apparently it's been rumbling under the surface for awhile. Director Catherine Hardwicke has been fired by Summit Entertainment for the production of the second book in the Twilight series, New Moon (the studio may decide to shoot parts 2 and 3 back to back, we'll see if they even touch the much loathed finale). Certainly no one was praising the direction of the quick-kill blockbuster first entry in the series, but I'm usually all for creative continuity in franchises when it can be achieved. Besides, although I've only seen the movie, from what I've been told by casual readers, this is the biggest book to movie quality upswing since The Bridges Of Madison Country.

Still, questions are abounding as to A) what caused this to occur, B) how much credit Hardwicke deserves for how good/bad Twilight turned out, and C) why the hell Summit announced this in the middle of an international press tour? I can't imagine that Hardwicke is going to be too rosy for tomorrow's junket, although I'm assuming people already knew about this and this was just the public confirmation (to keep Hardwicke herself from breaking the news?).

As is always the case in these sudden situations, rumors are flying about Hardwicke's professional temperament on the set of her several movies as well as how much say she had in the final outcome of Twilight. Of course, Hardwicke isn't one to mince words, so I imagine we'll get her version of the story soon enough unless there is a deal that requires everyone to play nice and smile for the cameras.

The next important question is who does Summit get to replace her. No, for once, I'm not going to say Martin Campbell. I am 100% certain that her replacement will also be a female, if only so Summit can avoid the understandable pr nightmare of firing a female director from a female-driven series and replacing her with a dude. Still, the mind reels at the possibilities for stunningly inappropriate male directors for the teenage vampire romance series. Paul Verhoeven? Michael Mann? Quentin Tarantino? Woody Allen?

From a quality stand point, I'm all for someone like Kathryn Bigelow. The second book is supposed to be more action-intensive (with werewolves) and she certainly has the chops. Anything that gets her work is OK, and her new Iraq war action film, The Hurt Locker, is supposed to be fantastic. For comic reasons, my vote goes for Lexi Alexander, purely so I can hear a gravel-voiced trailer guy/gal intone 'from the director of Green Street Hooligans and The Punisher: War Zone comes... New Moon. But then I've always enjoyed the potential for awkward plugs ('from Warner Bros, the studio that brought you Natural Born Killers and Casablanca comes... Speed Racer!').

Still, it's always a shame when a director makes a lot of money for a studio and gets kicked in the butt for it regardless. Maybe she and Richard Donner can bond (since he's thankfully not pulling a Richard Lester on Gavin Hood's X-Men Origins: Wolverine after all).

Speaking of which, we'll have a pretty good idea if Fox got their 'kid-friendly' Wolverine movie when we see the first trailer on Friday. Of the big action tent poles, I'm pretty sure all that's left to tease is Transformers 2: Revenge Of The Fallen. Will Paramount wait till Christmas day and debut it with The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button (a very expensive Oscar bait picture that needs all the box office help it can get)?

Scott Mendelson

Angels And Demons teaser goes online... (a victim of the "Tomb Raider Trap"?)

The only thing about this trailer that makes me interested is the brief appearance of Stellan Skarsgard. Anyway, I wonder if this sequel will be the latest victim of what I like to call the 'Tomb Raider Trap'. In that I mean, if your first film makes a lot of money despite being a film that no one liked, then you just can't win. Even if you make a better film than the original, people will still remember that they didn't like the previous entry and they won't even sample the next chapter.

Tomb Raider: Cradle Of Life was a far superior film to the original Tomb Raider, a real flesh and blood, stunts and dirt adventure film. Yet it did just half the domestic business ($66 million vs. $132 million). Prince Caspian was a markedly better film than The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, yet it did just 48% what the first film did in the US ($142 million vs. $292 million). Yes, The Da Vinci Code opened to a mammoth $77 million and ended up with $217 million, but the film went over like un-buttered toast to most audiences. Alas, my prediction did not come true and 'so dark the con of man' did not become the catchphrase of the summer ("Dude, that new CD is so dark the con of man!"). This time there will be no controversy, no countless hours of free publicity on prime time news shows, no worldwide debate about Tom Hanks's hair cut (a cut so nice, Nic Cage had to copy it twice). Hell, even the teaser above looks boring, and that takes work when you're not showing much footage. Now we just have the sequel to a movie that people didn't particularly like in the first place. If I had to peg one 'surprise flop' for the summer, my vote goes for Angels And Demons.

And, trust me Warner Bros, it doesn't matter how much you fix Superman, no matter how much you 'Wrath Of Khan' it, audiences are going to be incredibly skeptical about any sequel. And, if I were Sony, I'd be very concerned about the complete collapse of Quantum Of Solace (domestically, anyway). It opened at nearly double the opening weekend of Casino Royale and now will barely surpass the $167 million that the Martin Campbell reboot grossed in America. I'd be concerned about the reception of the next film in this series. In both cases above, I'd at least make sure to keep the budget below $150 million, just in case. Actually Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan actually did drastically reduce the budget between pictures (from $40 million to $14 million, with much recycling from the previous production), and it still grossed about $3 million less in the US despite its eventual status as a genre classic.

Scott Mendelson