The Screengrab : christopher plummer

Screengrab Review: "Up"

Nick Schager — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:30:00 GMT

3D lends Up’s imagery an entrancing vibrancy, providing even more visual depth to Pixar’s literally and figuratively deepest offering yet, a masterful tale of longing, regret, dreams and happiness wrapped up in a colorful, rollicking adventure-yarn package. Channeling Werner Herzog (specifically, The White Diamond) as well as his own prior, superlative Monsters, Inc., director Pete Docter’s film has a lightness befitting its central object – a house floating from urban development hell to South America via a bounty of brightly hued balloons – and a profundity at once subtle and piercing. Docter captures the exhilaration of exploration, the wonder of cinema and the thrill of young love in an immaculately realized opening, as young Carl Fredricksen, decked out in an aerial cap and goggles, stares in awe at newsreel footage of his adventurer hero Charles Muntz, and then during an imaginative stroll discovers a kindred spirit – and lifelong partner – in Ellie, whom the subsequent decades-spanning silent-film montage reveals as his beloved wife. It’s a wordless sequence that rivals any put to film this year (or in last year’s WALL-E), conveying an aesthetic nimbleness and richness of mature feeling – of the joy and pain of adulthood, specifically regarding the way life can unpredictably rebuff, and force us to reconfigure, our aspirations for the future – that’s simultaneously elating and heartbreaking.

It’s difficult to overstate Up’s magnificent blend of humor and pathos, a combination sewn tight by wide-ranging compassion – for the sorrow of loss, the excitement of traversing the unknown, the pleasure of camaraderie, and the freedom that comes from seizing the present rather than being tied down by the past. That last lesson is one learned by 78-year-old widower Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) only at the end of his saga, in which – after losing Ellie and about to lose his home to predatory real estate developers – he takes flight in his house to South America’s fictional Paradise Falls, where Muntz (Christopher Plummer) once famously travelled and where he and Ellie (as communicated by her mantelpiece painting) had always dreamed of residing. His journey, however, is not the solitary one he’d envisioned, as he’s unexpectedly joined by portly Wilderness Scout Russell (Jordan Nagai), a kid whose lust for the natural world and its myriad creatures and mysteries slowly strikes a chord with Carl. And once in Paradise Falls, the duo find further companions in the form of Dug (Bob Peterson), a pooch who can speak (and in different languages, to boot) thanks to a wondrous collar created by the now hermit-like Muntz, as well as a rare, fleet, ostrich-like bird that Muntz desperately wishes to catch.

Carl and his makeshift unit’s exploits include a series of increasingly loony chases topped off by an actual aerial dogfight, all orchestrated with a jaunty fluidity in tune with the sumptuous candy-colored visuals. Whereas centerpiece sequences provide the material with its requisite invigorating kick, panoramas of the house hovering above the clouds exude an almost spiritual grace, expressing the attainability of dreams with a deftness matched by the film’s later conception of the floating house, being dragged by crotchety Carl and enthusiastic Russell across the Paradise Falls ridgeline, as a manifestation of the burdensome past Carl must learn to release. That, to do so, Carl must first confront Muntz, the childhood idol-gone-mad who now seeks to destroy him, only further enriches this portrait of the essential and onerous weight of history, people’s continual process of self-definition (and –reinvention), and the vital necessity of family. Humorously and empathetically considerate of Carl’s bonds with Russell and Dug, unafraid to look tragedy in the face, and yet also brave enough to celebrate the hopeful promise that lurks around each new, unexplored corner, Up exudes a wit and wisdom that elevates it to the animated adventure apex.

When Good Directors Go Bad: Waterloo (1970, Sergei Bondarchuk)

Paul Clark — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Of all the great cinematic epics, none is bigger than Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace. Simply put, everything about the film is massive- its budget (upwards of $100 million in 1960s dollars), its production schedule (nearly five years), its cast (tens of thousands of Red Army soldiers were used as extras in the battle sequences), even its running time of nearly eight hours. Yet War and Peace would merely be a footnote in movie history if its largesse was its only notable quality. Reviews of the day praised it not only for its epic scope and impeccable production values but also for its emotional sensitivity and human drama. Even today, War and Peace remains a masterpiece of its kind, and the rare adaptation of a great novel that does justice to its classic source material. For this not insignificant miracle, credit should be given not only to the Soviet film industry but also to Bondarchuk's sure-footed direction.

After the international acclaim for War and Peace, Bondarchuk decided to make a film about The Battle of Waterloo. For most filmmakers, this would have seemed a hugely ambitious project, but compared to War and Peace, a seemingly modest one for Bondarchuk. In order to bring the project to the screen, Bondarchuk received financial backing from Italian super-producer Dino De Laurentiis, and together they enlisted several well-known actors, led by Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as the Duke of Wellington. In addition, the film's $25 million budget afforded Bondarchuk the chance to re-create the battle on the same scale as the wartime sequences in War and Peace. But despite these factors, Waterloo was a disappointment both with critics and with audiences, garnering mostly middling reviews and making back less than one-fifth of its original budget, and sending its once-hot director back to the USSR for the rest of his career.

After Waterloo flopped big-time at the box office, De Laurentiis chalked its failure up to the lack of big-money stars in the cast. But while it's tempting to wonder what sort of Napoleon could be played by De Laurentiis' first choice Richard Burton, I'd say that Steiger did just fine with the role. This is especially true in the character's more grandiose moments- Steiger was always a magnificent ham, and Napoleon gave him a chance to cut loose in some entertaining ways that livened up the film. And for his part, Plummer did a capable job as the arrogant upper-class general Wellington.

Likewise, I'd say the battle sequences are as spectacular as advertised. As in War and Peace, the sight of thousands upon thousands of actual humans on the battlefield is still impressive, and still impossible to duplicate with CGI. In order for the sheer magnitude to achieve its intended effect, Bondarchuk films most of the battle in long shots, the better to comprehend the narrative of the battle itself. I also liked Bondarchuk's use of "God's eye" shots at several times in the battle, especially when the English Army forms itself into tight squares to fight off the advancing French cavalry. Had Bondarchuk tried to make a tactics-heavy recreation of the battle a la Cy Endfield's Zulu, Waterloo might have been a classic.

As it stands, the film is a missed opportunity, primarily because he and screenwriter H.A.L. Craig simply can't find a way to successfully integrate his principal characters into the battle. One of the triumphs of War and Peace was that Bondarchuk made us care about the people who were fighting the battle. But rather than exploring the lives of some of the soldiers in any kind of depth, Bondarchuk concentrates his narrative on Wellington and Napoleon and the differences in their approaches to war. This contrast is fairly interesting early on, but once the battle begins the tactic stops working. After all, it's hard to care about two men who essentially stand back and watch as thousands of men march to their deaths.

Today, any notoriety Waterloo may have comes mostly from the rumor that its disappointing box office performance led to production being shut down on Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon. But whether or not this is the case, the bile this idea summons up in some cinephiles is somewhat unfair. After all, hugely expensive epics were on their way out, and besides, Kubrick made A Clockwork Orange instead, so it's not like his career took much of a hit. Taken on its own terms, Waterloo ultimately doesn't work, but there are dazzling sequences that demonstrate what a gifted filmmaker Bondarchuk was, and it's a shame that more of his work isn't available in the U.S. I guess seeing him “go bad” on such a grand scale has made me want to see him make good again.

No Shit, Sherlock: Guy Ritchie Reimagines Holmes

Scott Von Doviak — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:30:00 GMT

Here at the Screengrab, we’re not philosophically opposed to a “re-imagining” of Sherlock Holmes. After all, the ace detective has been through a lot in his century-long career on the silver screen. He’s been played by Peter Cook, Peter Cushing, Peter Lawford and Peter O’Toole. He’s even been portrayed by actors not named Peter, including Christopher Lee, Christopher Plummer, John Cleese, Michael Caine and someone named Hugo Flink. But we’re pretty sure even the great Basil Rathbone would turn in his pipe and deerstalker hat at the news out of Hollywood this morning.

Guy Ritchie, the man behind such meticulously crafted mysteries as Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, will spearhead the Holmes revival. According to the Hollywood Reporter, “Ritchie has signed on to write and direct a reimagining of super sleuth Sherlock Holmes for Warner Bros. Lionel Wigram and Dan Lin are producing the movie, which takes its cues from a forthcoming comic that Wigram wrote as a selling tool for a new take on the classic Sir Arthur Conan Doyle character. The concept sees the character be more adventuresome and less stuffy than previous screen incarnations and mines on more obscure character traits.”

The phrases “selling tool” and “less stuffy” certainly have me salivating at the prospect of a hip new Sherlock for the 21st century, how about you? Can I get an “Elementary, my dear Watson”? No?

Related:
Madonna Ruins Casablanca
Take Five: True Crime

Will Gilliam’s Imaginarium Shut Down?

Scott Von Doviak — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:00:00 GMT

There are any number of tragic aspects to the sudden death of Heath Ledger, the very least of which is the effect his demise might have on films in production. But this is a film blog, after all, and it only took a couple of clicks at the IMDb to determine that at least one movie may be in jeopardy. No, it’s not The Dark Knight; as far as we can tell, Ledger’s much-anticipated turn as the Joker has been in the can for months. In a cruel twist of fate, it’s Terry Gilliam’s latest opus, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, which began shooting last month in London. Yes, the same Terry Gilliam who saw his production of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote grind to a halt when his star Jean Rochefort fell ill.

According to Variety, Imaginarium is not a sequel to Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, but rather “a characteristically convoluted tale of a travelling theater troupe led by the 1,000-year-old Parnassus (Christopher Plummer), whose magical mirror lets his audience escape into a universe of boundless imagination.” In the article, Gilliam acknowledges the troubled history of many of his productions, but insists “my problems have been no greater or less than anyone else's. I just talk too much, or there's always a documentary crew around.” One wonders if he’s changed his mind about that now. It’s not clear how large a role Ledger had in Imaginarium or how much of it had been shot; we do know that Tom Waits had been cast as the Devil, which sounds worth the price of admission in itself.

As noted earlier here on the Screengrab, Gilliam’s Quixote film may yet be revived. We’ll have to wait and see whether his latest production has been dealt a fatal blow.