Roman Polanski Arrested

From indieWIRE (and anywhere else you find movie news):

The Associated Press is reporting that director Roman Polanski has been taken into custody by Swiss police on the 1978 U.S. arrest warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Polanski was flying in to receive an honorary award at the Zurich Film Festival when he was detained late Saturday at the airport, organizers at the festival said in a statement. Zurich police since confirmed the arrest, but have refused to provide more details because he said it was a matter for the Swiss Justice Ministry. Switzerland and the U.S. have an extradition treaty dating back to the 1950s that is still in force.

Festival organizers said Polanski’s detention had caused “shock and dismay,” but that they would go ahead with Sunday’s planned retrospective of the director’s work. The Swiss Directors Association sharply criticized authorities for what it deemed “not only a grotesque farce of justice, but also an immense cultural scandal.”

This comes over a year after the release of Marina Zenovich’s documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” which discussed how Polanski was the subject of a media onslaught after being convicted of statutory rape with a 13 year-old girl. He became the victim of a salacious mix of trumped up headlines, frenzied reporters and an attention-starved judge much more eager to satisfy his own desires to tap into the celebrity mix, than adjudicating justice. He fled the United States for France in the midst of this.

Polanski recently asked a U.S. appeals court in California to overturn a judges’ refusal to throw out his case. He claims misconduct by the now-deceased judge who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it. The now 45-year-old victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski’s bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

Prior to today’s arrest, Polanski for many years avoided visits to countries that were likely to extradite him, such as the United Kingdom. He travelled mostly between France, where he resides, and Poland. As a French citizen, he was protected by France’s limited extradition with the United States.

Trailer: "A Single Man"

For the past few weeks now, I've been wondering when some good trailers would be showing up. And what I've found out this past weekend is that sometimes you just have to search for them. I've been looking into film festivals and things that have been picked up and searched good ol' YouTube for some of the trailers.

One of them is A Single Man. According to IMDb, the film is "a story that centers on an English professor who, after the sudden death of his partner tries to go about his typical day in Los Angeles." Colin Firth has never impressed me too a great extent, but it looks like this is his chance to nab the Oscar (or at least a nomination). And Julianne Moore looks beautiful as well; I love that first shot of her in the trailer. I can certainly see this at the Academy Awards, in Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Cinematography. Check it out for yourself over at YouTube.

Emmy Awards 2009: My Picks!

Hope Davis has my pick for Best Actress in a Drama Series. Who has yours?












The Emmy Awards are in a couple of hours.. here are my predictions and votes!

Outstanding Comedy Series
My pick: Weeds. This show has been full of surprises ever since its first season. From moving to the suburbs to Mexico (along with its opening credits), each episode has provided a new, twisted plot line. Where a typical twist or climax (such as a wedding or the birth of a child) may be built-up until the season finale, Weeds turns these tricks throughout a season, providing surprises throughout each episode.
Who will win? The Flight of the Concords just ended its run after its second season, but probably won't get the lady. Instead, 30 Rock might get it again, and frankly, I'm sick of it.

Outstanding Drama Series
My pick: Mad Men. Granted, I've only seen Season 1 (2 is in the mail!) but I still believe the show deserves another one. For one, it provided a committed audience to AMC and gave the network original programming. For another, it has an outstanding cast with incredible storylines and an interesting vision of the 1960s (and from what I hear, an honest one). And who doesn't like to look at the handsome Don Draper in his mysterious air of cigarette smoke?
Who will win? Mad Men.

Outstanding Made for Television Movie
My pick: Grey Gardens. It's the only one I've seen, and the performances really blew me away, however, all of these biopic films have a formula and fulfill it as unoriginally as the last. But, it was still extremely impressive because of the performances.
Who will win? Grey Gardens. Trust me. It will.

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series
My pick: Alec Baldwin. Listen, I'm tired of him winning it. But I'm not particularly interested in the other nominees. My second vote is for Jemaine Clement simply because Flight of the Conchords was so brilliant and original. But, hey, Alec Baldwin is hilarious.
Who will win? Alec Baldwin.. again.

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series
My pick: Gabriel Byrne. PLEASE give this man his Emmy!! He won the Globe for it last year, and he was more than brilliant this year. His character was given much more to do than just listen to his patients; he had much more of a personal story through his personal life and work. Byrne carries this series brilliantly and deserves this award.
Who will win? I'm afraid Jon Ham might take it, but it was a surprise last year when Bryan Cranston took it for Breaking Bad. And, Michael C. Hall has been losing it every year since Dexter started, so this year might be his. Your guess is as good as mine.

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series
My pick: Toni Colette. I think The United States of Tara is such a well-written show with such a great cast, and no other actress could really carry this series like Toni Colette. She transforms into these different roles so beautifully and knows how to say so much with one glance in the mirror. And I'm tired of Tina Fey getting it.
Who will win? Toni Colette... please?

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series
My pick: Elizabeth Moss. She's go great on Mad Men, right? She's got such a great role and serves it so well.
Who will win? Saving Grace was recently canceled (or just quit?) so I think Holly Hunter may be receiving it, but who really watches that show, anyway? Maybe this is Moss' year?

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie
My pick: Drew Barrymore. I have never enjoyed Drew Barrymore's work or appreciated her as an actress until this film. She was absolutely brilliant and breathtaking in Grey Gardens and deserves an Emmy statue as recognition. Her co-star, Jessica Lange, deserves one as well (could there be a tie?), but I think Barrymore really showed her chops in this film.
Who will win? Either Lange or Barrymore. Personally, I think Jessica Lange will get it. And she deserves it.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series
My pick: Neil Patrck Harris. I've only seen a few episodes of How I Met Your Mother, so I can't reallybe the perfect critic, but I was empressed with NPH's work on the show. And he's hosting the awards, could this be a sign?
Who will win? NPH.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series
My pick: Michael Emerson. Emerson has really produced an incredibly mysterious character in LOST, a show that is already full of intensity and mystery. He's been nominated twice already, and while I do think that in previous seasons he was better, he still deserves the statue.
Who will win? You're guess is as good as mine.. but I wouldn't mind if John Slattery got if or Mad Men.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
My pick: Jane Krakowski. I think she had some really great moments this past season of 30 Rock and she really has great physical comedy, in addition to her lines.
Who will win? I think Kristin Chenowith might grab it this time, but we'll see.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series
My pick: Hope Davis. Hope Davis was an absolute surprise this past season of In Treatment. I have never been familiar with her work, but her appearance on In Treatment gave me another fantastic female role of which to be in awe (besides Dianne Wiest, also nominated, last year won). She really delved deep into this character and struck a chord with every line. Give this Emmy to her!
Who will win? I really believe it is Hope Davis this time. Not sure why; it just seems the others are more "Been there, done that" and Hope Davis is pushing her way out. She certainly deserves it.

And this is where I end my choices and predictions. Yes, I left out a few awards here and there; these are just my main concerns. Also, please ignore any spelling mistakes or name confusions - I'm typing this up quickly so I can get ready for the show!

Listen to Imogen Heap's "Ellipse"

Harry Potter and the Biggest Disappointment

Light your wands (Lumos!): spoilers ahead.

I should make a few things clear before I really get into this review. First, I am a huge Harry Potter fan. I fell in love with the books after I saw the first film, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Since then, I have attended the midnight premieres of books five through seven and movies three to six. Secondly, I want to make it clear that I am more than willing to view each film separate from the book. I have never disliked one of the Harry Potter films because of a missing plot or scene, simply because I liked the scene from the book. Therefore, when I later state that I dislike the choice of Yates deleting the Hogwarts battle and funeral scenes, it is not because I simply enjoyed the scenes in the book. It is because they serve a purpose; because they work in context of both the book and (would have worked) in the film.

It is very disappointing to me that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince has achieved a substantially higher rating at Rotten Tomatoes than its predecessor, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (my favorite of the lot, very close to Prisoner of Azkaban).

Roger Ebert states that HP6 is a "darker, more ominous" film, but I remember differently. What I found most aggravating about the film was its mixture of light-hearted romance and creepy, "ominous" (sorry to steal your term, Ebert) scenes. It was unbelievably choppy throughout the film. We would witness a scene where Lavendar Brown, played over-enthusiastically (still comedic, I must say) by Jessie Cave, makes a move toward Ron Weasley, and then we would shift to a scene of Draco Malfoy looming throughout the dark, melancholy hallways of Hogwarts castle. The inconsistency was as bad as Goblet of Fire, where the director seems to be struggling with the tone of the film.

Yet again, Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly has proven herself as boring as I was throughout the film. Her review is almost a complete summary of the plot instead of an analyzation of its quality. Instead, the only real critique she lends to the film is a short sentence, hardly even a summary:

They've found just the right balance of timeless spiritual profundity and contemporary teen specificity...

This is extremely vague, but Schwarzbaum seems to be taking the same view of Ebert and other critics, applauding the film's mixture of comedy and drama. It doesn't make sense that Half-Blood Prince is the "funniest of the films" (as the trio has stated in many interviews) because it has been understood since film three that the films become darker and darker. And, quite frankly, the plotline of HP6 (that being Voldemort's journey to power) is quite dark. The filmmaker failed to commit to the darker tone.

What I found most surprising and pleasing about the film was Jim Broadbent's turn as Professor Slughorn, a character I viewed as both annoying and boring in the book. However, Broadbent brings both comedy and a sad secrecy to the character, making him more human in the film than the books. He was probably the most interesting character throughout, stealing every scene in which he appeared.

The omissions of the small battle scene at Hogwarts and Dumbledore's funeral are bothersome ones. According to an interview, Yates exprssed redundancy toward the insertion of the battle at Hogwarts at the end of the film. I agree, sure, that every Potter film has ended with a large battle climax, but it is a necessary redundancy. We have expected this ending for five films; why change it now? Additionally, the "battle" that did occur after Dumbledore's death was sporatic. In the book, many Death Eaters travel throughout the school and battle students and professors in various hallways. The film, however, shows Bellatrix Lestrange (overly campy in this film) and other Death Eaters travelling through the Great Hall - simply to blow up a few windows and smash some goblets - and then to Hagrid's hut, only to set it on fire and walk away. Their actions don't make sense and serve absolutely no intensity/purpose to the climax.

Dumbledore's funeral in the book allowed readers to focus on Harry's struggle with accepting his death. Instead of focusing on Harry's (our protagonist, mind you) response to his death, we see a collection of students and professors raise their wands in allegiance and make the Dark Mark disappear. There was only a slight emotional pull to this scene, but where was Harry's resolution to this? We followed Harry throughout this entire film as he developed an even closer relationship to the Hogwarts Headmaster, and then leave it abruptly. Again, I do not hold hostility toward the deletion of these scenes because of their absence. Instead, I argue that these scenes were necessary for the film because they work and have a purpose that was otherwise unfelt.

The problem here is not that I am a fanatic of the books, as Dan Kois of the Washington Post suggests. Instead, Yates has created a film undecided in tone and unnecessary in many scenes (why did we need Quidditch this time?). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a huge disappointment to the Potter series. But don't worry, Warner Bros., I'll still see the movie again in theaters (probably IMAX), purchase the DVD (the two-disc edition, of course), follow-up with the last two films, and visit the theme park next year. That's all you really want anyway, right?

"In Treatment" is the finest

As I don't have HBO, I've been having difficulty catching In Treatment, Season Two. However, I was visiting home recently and had the chance to enjoy the wonderful On Demand HBO. In Treatment is a five-episode a week show (adapted from the Israeli counterpart BeTipul)that I was absolutely enthralled with since the first season, which some critics did not enjoy as much. However, I am happy to say that the second season is even better, and many critics agree.

Let's start with an argument, as usual. I disagree with a statement from Variety's review in March. In this review, Brian Lowry suggests, once again, that the writing is more apparent than the acting, stating that it is "too apparent." In his first review of the program, Lowry was more critical, stating that the screenwriting is self-conscious. I feel that this cannot be an accurate assessment. The writing may seem more apparent in this series because it is (generally) two people in a room talking. People today are used to more action in television and film, and this series is brought together completely by its dialogue. Thus, the writer may inevitably be a part of the viewer's experience; however, this does not take away from the characters. Each character is so raw, honest, and completely relatable. There is always a quality (or qualities) divulged in each episode that one can look and say "Yes, I know that person; I know someone just like that." This is the strength of the show; it is entirely dependent on the writing and that's okay.

Lowry also labels the show as "melodrama," however, I'm not sure I would categorize it as such. I feel that the show is so complex with the character's actions, motives, and minds that it is something deeper, farther than melodrama. Instead of being over-the-top it actually seems under; we must critically analyze the characters as Paul (Gabriel Byrne) does.

Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker praises the program, and I actually agree with everything he states - because it contains no negative comments. The characters in season two are arguably more interesting than the previous. I think the praise for this goes to the idea of seeing Paul and the patients out of Paul's office. Throughout the episodes we sometimes catch a glimpse - and even a full episode - outside of Paul's office. We are able to observe the character(s) in a new light, literally. This change is most effective with Paul, certainly more interesting than season one. We see him struggling through more personal difficulties than a crumbling marriage, and we see him personally go through each obstacle. Then, at the end of the week, we observe him psychologically with Gina.

In Treatment deserves more praise than any television show on air. The writing, acting, cinematography, direction and music are totally heart-wrenching, sometimes comedic and always eye-catching. However, as Lowry states, it probably won't catch a large audience, but that's okay. Part of my love for HBO is the secrecy: I am watching a true gem that others aren't able to cherish. It's like an autograph or a limited edition book. It's mine, and no one else's.

P.S. Give Gabriel Byrne an Emmy!

Why "Up" is less than Up-lifting

Last year, I sat in the theater for a screening of Disney and Pixar's Wall-E. I found it to be the best animated feature film I'd ever seen. It had all the similar features of an animated film: beautiful cinematography, comedic (and at just the right moments dramatic) characters, and great music. But Wall-E contains features that we had not seen in animated films - but more of that later.

I enjoyed Up, I did, but I found it less than original. Up is certainly no Wall-E. However, almost every review for the film praises it as much as Wall-E, giving them the film the same "grade" and similar praise. Up does not deserve the same amount of praise.

Dear Lisa over at Entertainment Weekly states that Up contains "breathtaking" features: the comedy, the animation, the balloons. She then goes further to say that the movie's great accomplishment is that the audience is not meant to see these features; that the audience is meant to focus more on what the characters are going through. Isn't this what every Pixar film seeks to accomplish? In Wall-E, we are carried through the beginning with no dialogue, focusing on Wall-E's lonely, hardworking personality. In Toy Story we view the interactions between each character and devote our time to the conflict between Buzz and Woody. Lisa, your statement is just as unoriginal as Up.

Ebert also lends a four-star review for the film, lending one unoriginal compliment after another.

It begins with a romance as sweet and lovely as any I can recall in feature animation.

There. Even he states the movie's unoriginality; the story is just the same as others animated features! So why does Up deserve such praise? This statement sums up (pun intended) the film completely: there isn't anything truly original about it. There are funny animals, there are talking animals, there's a dramatic, touching plot weaved in with comedy. So what.

Kenneth Turan's review at NPR stated one of Up's achievement is tackling "one of Hollywood's taboos: old people" by having the main character a lonely old man who - as the reviewer states - carries a walker. But, how can this film tackle that taboo by also supplying this "old man" the strength to carry his home across a large plateau, literally running from talking dogs and birds? Don't tell me that this film is tackling a taboo; they're exaggerating the character to child-like form to make it less taboo.

Perhaps my review is biased; I am constantly thinking of Wall-E, which achieved an extremely high dose of originality: politically, the film tackled an incredibly important issue in the current world, forecasting the destruction of Earth and mankind. As an animated feature, the film used live-action in small doses to expose the issues expressed in the film, making the audience more attached and intertwined in the story. And, of course, providing an almost silent film with even more expressive emotion and story. Wall-E, it seems, will always be Pixar's greatest achievement, whereas Up tries to fly too high.