Nearly a month after its Oscar-qualifying run found it alienating critics in New York and Los Angeles (and almost two months since indelibly, ignominiously entering the zeitgeist as The Daldry), this week finally finds Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close reaching theaters nationwide. And while roughly half of reviewers to date have lauded director Stephen Daldry’s adaptation of the Jonathan Safran Foer novel, the other half has issues — big issues — with everything from lead actor Thomas Horn to Daldry’s handling of the book’s central tragedy of 9/11. It’s no Jack and Jill, but that’s no reason not to throw on a raincoat and go frolic in the bile. Wish you were here, David Denby!
9. “Despite its overweening literary pretensions, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is about as artistically profound as those framed 3-D photos of the Twin Towers emblazoned with ‘Never Forget’ that are still for sale in Times Square a decade after 9/11. [...] It’s Oscar-mongering of the most blunt and reprehensible sort.” — Lou Lumenick, NY Post
8. “Poor little Oskar! Such an adorable, pint-sized heap of neuroses. What better mouthpiece for an author, or a filmmaker, to use as a way of exploring the personal cost of a great communal tragedy. Do you get the idea that Oskar must emerge from his own teeny-tiny personal prison and, yes, embrace the world? Never has the tragedy of 9/11 been made so shrinky-dinked.” — Stephanie Zacharek, Movieline
7. “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close isn’t about Sept. 11. It’s about the impulse to drain that day of its specificity and turn it into yet another wellspring of generic emotions: sadness, loneliness, happiness. This is how kitsch works. It exploits familiar images, be they…
Full Story »The annual critical powwow that is Slate’s Movie Club is currently underway, with that site’s Dana Stevens leading a conversation between a redoubtable quartet also including Michael Phillips, Dan Kois and Movieline’s own Stephanie Zacharek. What’s on the agenda?
To date, topics discussed include:
· Goosebumps vs. nausea (looking at you, Melancholia)
· Great-looking mediocrity (cough, Tree of Life, cough)
· What if Fast Five is better than Drive?
· Charting a relationship between Bucky Larson and Shame
· Bridesmaids and the resuscitation of the rom-com
…and much more to come! Go! Read it!
· Slate Movie Club [Slate]
Full Story » 
So there’s good news and bad news about Madonna’s W.E., whose Venice/Toronto festival coming-out parties made more of a splash for the Material Girl’s attitude toward hydrangeas than for being the type of classy, prestigious filmmaking breakthrough its principals had anticipated. Critics, including Movieline’s own Stephanie Zacharek, were cool toward W.E. at best, with some beating it apart like a glossy piñata. That’s the bad news. The good news is that we know what that calls for, especially with Harvey Weinstein at the domestic-distribution reins: Recut!
Dueling reports from The Daily Mail and Page Six (grains of salt at the ready, but still) place W.E. squarely in the scissors’ path ahead of its Dec. 9 release. One unnamed “executive” told the Mail, “We see shots of a lot of corridors, so they can go, and other scenes can be trimmed,” while sources talking to Page Six — an outlet historically hardwired with a direct line to Weinstein HQ — were a little more reserved, explaining that negotiations with Madonna over what to cut (some estimates say as much as 10 minutes of footage from the festival version could find the cutting-room floor) are “delicate,” adding diplomatically, “Madonna can make any changes she wants.”
We’ll see. She might consider the input of The Guardian’s Xan Brooks, one of W.E. harshest critics who nevertheless today offered five suggestions for salvaging the film before the crucial awards-season push. How about, say, a horror film?…
Full Story »Madonna’s latest effort as a filmmaker, W.E., has not been the beneficiary of what you’d call especially glowing reviews out of the Venice Film Festival. Our own Stephanie Zacharek is among the more magnanimous critics to receive it there, calling it “at times comically bad. But it’s also criminally watchable.” At the other end of the spectrum are reviews citing its “galactic-level awfulness” and characterizing it as “inept, gauche and mendacious.” So what does the pop icon do when confronted with a fan? Let’s go to the videotape!
I mean, it’s unfortunate, but let’s face it: When you’ve spent years lip-syncing on stage, a live microphone can really catch you off-guard.
[via The Lost Boy]
Full Story » 
The calm before the Transformers storm is expected to continue this weekend, with a pair of new wide releases opening to less-than-scorching receptions. That doesn’t portend flops, though, or even disappointments. Let’s check the Forecast!
[Click the links below for Movieline’s reviews.]
NATIONAL FORECAST
· Cars 2: As Toy Story 3 showed us last year with its $110 million opening weekend, a Pixar franchise is like a license to print money. And as the original, relatively modest-performing Cars showed us back in 2006, an ancillary merchandise bonanza is just as much a reason to establish a franchise as any. So! Cars 2 may be a soulless, cynical puddle of 3-D puke on the glimmering floor of Pixar HQ, but all that matters is that your son buys a Lightning McQueen toy. Which will then commence sodomizing his Chewbacca toy. Wait, where were we? Oh, right. Anyway, animation fatigue, 3-D burnout and general apathy toward the Cars brand won’t totally shut this thing down. I like it to overperform, in fact, though not by much. Bring on Transformers 3! FORECAST: $63.6 million
· Bad Teacher: Films like The Box and Knight and Day have ushered in that strange era of every A-lister’s career, this time for Cameron Diaz: The era just beyond the knowledge that big openings are no longer sure or nearly sure things. With Justin Timberlake and Jason Segel on her team, however, and the raunchy, R-rated spirit of Bridesmaids and The Hangover Part II lingering over the summer, a sleeper is not entirely…
Full Story »Spanish filmmaker Pedro Almodóvar has called his upcoming thriller The Skin That I Live In “a horror story without screams or frights,” and that is pretty much what the movie looks like according to a creepy French teaser trailer. Well, a “horror story without screams or frights,” but with subplots involving Antonio Banderas and synthetic skin, terrorized prisoners being hosed down in a cellar and masked, knife-wielding ninjas.
Movieline’s own Stephanie Zacharek reviewed the film at this year’s Cannes Film Festival and determined that although it isn’t as perverse as Almodóvar’s Matador, it is still irresistibly depraved. Sold!
[via TwitchFilm]
Full Story » 
Woody Allen is many things, but a box office draw is not necessarily one of them. Midnight in Paris — the 45th feature film Allen has directed in his illustrious career — is open now in limited release, and while the reviews have been sparkling, it likely won’t earn enough money to pay for the catering bill from Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. But is Allen as much of a box office pariah as he’s sometimes portrayed? Ahead, find 13 indispensable box office facts about Woody Allen’s decades-spanning career.
Click here to launch the slide show.
For more on Midnight in Paris, check out Stephanie Zacharek’s review here.
Full Story »· Whether or not Todd Phillips was kidding around when he said that The Hangover was envisioned as a trilogy remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: The Hangover Part II exists. It’s coming out in less than a week! Instead of worrying about Part III, let’s sit back and watch a clip from Part II. Click through for a look at the morning after, then stick around for more Buzz Break.
· New York Times writer Dave Itzkoff uncovered a treasure trove of handwritten notes and pages from Network screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky, including a wishlist of stars that he wanted to cast in the film. Could you imagine Cary Grant, James Stewart, Henry Fonda or Paul Newman in the iconic role of Howard Beale? [NYT]
· Woody Allen and casting director Juliet Taylor discuss Allen’s five best ensemble casts. A must read for Woody fans. (Check out Stephanie Zacharek’s rave review of Midnight in Paris here.) [USA Today]
· Here’s the funniest thing you’ll read all day, courtesy of Albert Brooks. [@AlbertBrooks]
Full Story » 
Despite what you may be thinking, the most elusive and sought-after figure on the Croisette hasn’t been Johnny Depp. Here at Cannes, where film-geekery runs high, everyone is wondering: Will the notoriously reclusive Terrence Malick emerge from the shadows for a personal appearance? He’s become the “Where’s Waldo?” of the festival.
Tree of Life screens for critics Monday morning, and although Malick is something of a cult figure among critics, he’s not universally beloved. Some of the critics I chatted with today expressed doubts and reservations, even though almost everyone (myself included, and I’m not a Malick fan) is looking forward to seeing the film. Even I’ll admit: The trailer looks gorgeous, though Malick’s brand of beauty has burned me just about every time. I should love Malick: His movies are gorgeous-looking, he has an old-fashioned sense of craftsmanship, and even though his pictures are slow-moving, there are plenty of tortoise-style filmmakers — Hou Hsiao-hsien, for one — that I love madly.
What kills the deal for me is Malick’s preference for natural scenery — gently waving grass, sunlight peeking through leafy greenery — over human characters, and actors. Whether I respond to Tree of Life or not — and who knows? I may — I’ll have more to say about that tomorrow, and probably more yet when the movie opens in the United States on May 27.
Meanwhile, if I happen to see the man himself, strolling along the Croisette or eating a croissant, I’ll be sure to let you know.
Read more of Stephanie Zacharek’s coverage of Cannes 2011 here.
Full Story »