Weekend Box Office: Viewers Log On, Join 'The Social Network'

Reports peg “The Social Network” costing Sony $40-$60 million, which means this number one opening should be more than solid. But then you have to consider prints and advertising - a movie about angry nerds staring at computer screens and occasionally yelling at each other with maximum verbosity doesn’t sell itself. The picture might count as “relevant” and “important” but with a likely costly Oscar campaign coming, Sony’s going to pray this has enough legs to get to $100 million and not settle for $60m. In Facebook terms, this isn’t an Eduardo Saverin opening, but it is a Mark Zuckerberg opening. Sony was probably banking on a Sean Parker-type weekend.

The numbers suggest the film did extremely well on the coasts and weak in the Midwest, South, and various flyover regions*. There could be the nugget of a possibility that “The Social Network” is something more cerebral, even esoteric. Perhaps it’s the notion that this is a story where no one is really worth rooting for, and at heart, the film explores the complexities of truly godless individuals. Or maybe it’s the very real possibility that “Network” was snobbishly pushed harder on the coasts, while the rest of the nation was left to tune out from this movie about people tapping on their keyboards to create a waste of time website that serves no real, practical purpose. Let us not forget that sometimes, being a “good” movie isn’t enough of a hook for some viewers.
Conventional wisdom says that kiddie flicks have legs, even when they aren’t heavily attended, and “Legend of the Guardians” won't buck that trend. Still, this thing has flop written all over it, whether it’s a $100 or $150 million expenditure, even if it was a Legendary Films/Warner Bros. co-production, and even if they paid the voice cast in trinkets and tchotchkes. Even though there's no relation between the projects, WB didn't gain any promotional traction by pushing this film a week after their own Ben Affleck bank robbing caper, something most studios usually know to avoid. It looked more nature-film than action picture, and those early ads, with laughably terrible guitar rock over the cuddly CGI images, probably turned off parents hoping they could take their kids to something a bit less somber-looking.

“Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” had a hearty fall from its perch, losing about half its audience. An expected fall for this type of film, this sequel is still projected to perform right at expectations, landing at $50-$60 million easily. You could have argued that all parties involved needed this to be bigger, but that case is dubious now - failing to become a zeitgeist grabber and, likely, an awards contender keeps Shia LeBeouf in the Brand Name sweepstakes, but not in the Real Actor department. And Oliver Stone likely buys himself some time and a chance to be director-for-hire yet again despite a serious declining Q rating based on diminished skill and reliance on hefty budgets. Of course, this sadly might be the last time we see Michael Douglas strutting his stuff on the big screen, and for a former box office lion like him, that likely carries weight for the people who have added to “Wall Street 2” tallies.

At the WB, they reward success not with fruit baskets or gift certificates but with a chance to helm “Superman.” However, all reports suggest Ben Affleck would rather have the fruit basket, free massage and chaise longue that come with the success for “The Town,” which held remarkably well in week three and looks poised to challenge $90 million domestic. A movie that makes $100 million in the September-October time period has a serious effect on your cred, but it’s oodles better if the film has legs and benefits from what appears to be word-of-mouth. “The Social Network” and “Wall Street” may have topped the box office recently, but “The Town” still carries a lot of “I’ve gotta see that” heat from the general public.

“Easy A” continues to stick around, a stellar hold getting the film over the likely $40 million domestic target, with more ground to cover. $60 million isn’t out of the question, a number that can turn a bit player into a star. Emma Stone, this is your moment: don’t work with CGI owls. Screen Gems had a rocking summer, and with this sub-$10 million film generating significant theatrical profit (providing p&a wasn’t out of control - always a possibility), all parties involved could pull in serious dough by association. More than likely, director Will Gluck has now atoned in the eyes of studios for “Fired Up,” one of last year’s biggest flops.

When a film sits on the shelf for more than a couple of years, it’s a terrible sign for everyone. But Paramount knows when God gives you lemons, you make applesauce, and was able to get Paramount Vantage's leftover “Case 39” into a couple thousand theaters years after that boutique label closed. Most studios would treat a film like this as radioactive and it would go straight-to-DVD, but Paramount rolled the dice on a likely cheap ad campaign (and no press screenings) and will get the film to a potential $15 million gross. Overture have to be smarting that “Let Me In” was taken out by the knees partly because the horror dollar was being squeezed by not only “Case 39” and “Devil” but also “Hatchet II” and “Chain Letter.” The last two were quiet indie releases though, so Paramount, who could have shat out “Case 39” on any weekend to similar results, comes out looking like a dick. Viewers, meanwhile, had to be confused by the fact that Bradley Cooper no longer looked so buff and Renee Zellweger didn’t resemble a Shoggoth.

We don’t wish to hate on this decision, but what kind of Tranya does one have to sip to think that they would make serious money by remaking “Let The Right One In”? Overture somehow saw dollar signs in remaking a “beloved” recent horror classic that made $2 million domestically on the art house circuit, imagining they got brownie points for staying close to the source material. “Let Me In” is as alienating as major releases get, a dark, snowy, somber adult film starring kids and ostensibly featuring horrific violence. “Let Me In” had no recognizable faces, a hard-R rating and ads that (appropriately?) showcased vampirism as a disease, when audiences have already declared that they prefer their vamps with guns (“Underworld”), smoking hot (“Twilight”) and generally sans real tragedy. No matter how strong Matt Reeves’ vision for this remake was (and it's an excellent effort), it was DOA as soon as it was announced, and most of us are just stunned they got it into 2000 theaters. Of course, more people will have seen “Let Me In” than “Let The Right One In” by the time the dust settles, but this material just isn’t for everyone. Which is our condescending way of saying that lots of people have terrible taste.

In indie theaters, "Catfish" and "Waiting For Superman" remained the top attractions, with "Catfish" expanding to the tune of $607k on 34 screens and the Davis Guggenheim doc pulling in $407k with the week's best per-screen average ($11k per). While "Catfish" isn't showing the kind of breakout potential people expected, "Superman" could play pretty strongly if this expansion is managed the right way, and potentially it could be a rarity, the $1 million doc. "It Might Get Loud" and "An Inconvenient Truth," Guggenheim's previous, crossed that barrier with ease (particularly the latter), but "Superman" is a noticeably tougher sell. Still, the impetus behind a film like this is, as long as one person sees it, it has made a difference. Also, the people who made "Waiting For Superman" are already millionaires.

In a crowded indie marketplace, Woody Allen's "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" averaged $8k per-screen, with $232k on 29 screens. "Get Low" continues to bring in audiences, bringing its total to $8.6 million with a strong $204k in its tenth weekend, while super-doc "Freakanomics" barely made a dent with $33k on seventeen screens. The big loser for this weekend? The horror genre. In addition to "Case 39" and "Let Me In" bellyflopping, two smaller releases had debuts on the frail end of the spectrum. "Hatchet II" pulled in only $62k on 68 screens, while "Chain Letter" was one of the year's biggest tanks at 406 venues, pulling in $143k, a meager average of $352 per-screen. Pass this on - support your local indie theaters, folks.

1. The Friendster Lounge (Sony) - $23 million
2. Legend Of The Guardians: Owly! (WB) - $10.9 million ($30 mil.)
3. Wall Street: Money Takes A Knee (Fox) - $10.1 million ($36 mil.)
4. The Town (WB) - $10 million ($64 mil.)
5. Easy A (Sony) - $7 million ($42 mil.)
6. You Again (Disney) - $5.6 million ($16 mil.)
7. Case 39 (Paramount) - $5.4 million
8. Let Me In (Overture) - $5.3 million
9. Devil (Universal) - $3.7 million ($28 mil.)
10. Alpha And Omega - $3 million ($19 mil.)

*Bear with us; Hollywood considers anything that isn’t New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago “flyover regions.”

Read More

The Films Of Oliver Stone: A Retrospective

Oliver Stone loves his country, but he is also its loudest critic. Whether tackling history head on in films like "Platoon" or "Born On The Fourth Of July," or profiling presidents in "JFK," "W." and "Nixon," and even in seemingly genre-centered material like "Natural Born Killers" or "Any Given Sunday," Stone views America in his own unique, if sometimes contradictory ways. His track record is certainly marked by tremendous highs, definitely lows and curious middles (mostly marked by genre excursions like "U-Turn," "Any Given Sunday" and "The Doors") but he is never one to sit still. If there's any evidence of Stone's constantly changing priorities only has to look at his last four films — "World Trade Center," "W.," "South Of The Border," "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" — to truly get a sense of a director driven both by passion and finance, and by a love for his country that is also pained by its failings.

As much to his detriment as it is to his advantage, Stone remains one of the most unique and vocal voices among working American filmmakers. While is output might be uneven, his films are hardly ever boring. Often experimenting with different lenses, film stock, techniques, camera angles, Stone is continually find new ways to shape and tell his stories. With that in mind and with "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" hitting theaters this weekend, we take a look back at Stone's films determining which ones worked, those that didn't and highlighting the ones we wouldn't mind seeing again.

"Natural Born Killers" (1994)
Oliver Stone's 1994 serial-killer film was the filmmaker at his most kaleidoscopically strange; a savage, of-the-moment take-down of the media and its fascination with true life killers (contextualizing it amidst OJ, the Menendez Brothers, and those serial killer trading cards doesn’t make the movie any less bonkers), it should have been a revelatory experience, especially when you factor in its A-list cast (including Robert Downey Jr., who for some reason has an Australian accent) and its bold visual experimentation. But what it turned out to be was Oliver Stone, so hyped up on the movie (and the moment’s) over-sized much-ness, that he forgot to, you know, tell a story. The movie was very loosely based on a script by Quentin Tarantino, and starred Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis as a pair of star-crossed spree killers, and that’s pretty much all you’ll get out of the plot. Instead, we’re forced to endure painful, sitcom-y flashbacks with Rodney Dangerfield as Lewis’ pedophile father and such lush visual embellishments as rear projections in which a Pegasus flies by their vintage American convertible. What any of this means, exactly, seems beside the point: this was Stone going for a mood more than a movie, the fever-dream of the current American climate, which, in the end, lacks any real punch. The best thing that came out of the movie was the fascinating nonfiction book “Killer Instinct” by producer Jane Hamsher. [C-]

"Nixon" (1995)
Stone’s truly underrated masterpiece. What could have been a more sanctimonious take-down of the infamous president, Stone, with a crack team of collaborators (many of them from “JFK” - composer John Williams, cinematographer Robert Richardson) created a richly dense and layered portrait of a weak-willed man with more than a few co-conspirators that were just as ruthless and cutthroat as he was, if not more so. Since the movie lost money and only received a smattering of critical acclaim, most will remember Anthony Hopkins’ hypnotic performance as Nixon: sweaty, concerned, able to erupt into furious rages, and always listening to his wife Pat (Joan Allen), who comes off as more than a little Lady Macbeth. What’s interesting to note is that, on such a huge film, Stone really pushed the envelope, in terms of experimental editorial work; in what other major studio biopic would you see a scene, in which a floral bigwig meets with Nixon, while time lapse footage of a flower blossoming is super-imposed over the image? “Nixon” combined the trippy go-for-broke-ness of “Natural Born Killers” with one of the most uniformly excellent all-star casts ever assembled and, mercifully, a dogged determination to actually tell the story; the story of Nixon. [A-]

"U Turn" (1997)
Standing out like a sore thumb in the director's filmography, Stone set the politics aside and had a little fun with the desert noir "U Turn." Billed, very deliberately, as "An Oliver Stone Movie" rather than as a "'film," it's a lunatic, gonzo piece of pulp, with the same spirit as "Natural Born Killers," but freed of the desire to be meaningful. Sean Penn is as close to an everyman as he's ever played, and gives a solid performance, but he's overshadowed by supporting players who seem to be in some kind of competition to out batshit-crazy each other. Every person that Penn meets in Superior, Arizona is more nuts than the last, from Jennifer Lopez's femme fatale (which surely got her the role in Soderbergh's "Out of Sight"), to Joaquin Phoenix's combustible Toby N. Tucker. It's a crude, unrestrained piece of work, but as time goes on it's become a rather enjoyable one — not a film that'll stick in the mind, by any means, but a blast while it lasts. Let's face it, any film involving a hideously-made-up Billy Bob Thornton playing solo Twister has to be worth tracking down, right? [B-]

"W." (2008)
The most striking thing about “W.” is what it isn’t. After wildly embellished movies like “Nixon” and “Natural Born Killers” (even “Any Given Sunday” is pretty weird), “W.,” the third film in his unofficial “president trilogy,” feels positively square. Straightforwardly told and edited, the story of one of history’s most reviled presidents, the war-startin’, election-stealin’, torture-endorsin’, grammar-ignorin’ George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) plays more like a mundane human drama than the toothsome take-down you might have expected. Part of this has to do with the almost limitless amount of humanity Brolin brings to the role, part of it is the sensation that the movie was really, really rushed (because it was). It’s the first movie in Stone’s oeuvre that seems to be crying out for another, definitive director’s cut, one with all the flourishes you’d expect, but alas, it isn’t meant to be. Instead, we’re stuck with this half-formed film, which isn’t without its pleasures (like seeing Richard Dreyfuss mumble his way through a Dick Cheney impression), but there’s not a whole lot to hang onto at the end of the day. It’s a minor effort, for sure, not as totally limp as “World Trade Center” but far from the firing-on-all-cylinders glory of “JFK” or “Nixon.” [B-]

"Salvador" (1986)
Given Oliver Stone's perpetual (and justified) indignation with American imperialism in the last century, and his general predilection for politically controversial subjects, it should have come as no surprise in the '8os when it was announced that the filmmaker would be making a film about the problems in Central American and more specifically, the violent civil war in El Salvador that raged from1980 through 1992, complete with the meddling of the U.S. government and military. Seen through the eyes of a downtrodden, irresponsible and unreliable American journalist and photographer (James Woods), the film tracks the hack as he travels to San Salvador with his equally dubious friend (Jim Belushi) in hopes of reviving his career and glory days by capturing footage of the war. Entangled with both leftist guerrillas and the right wing military, the journo soon finds the romanticism of Robert Capa-like war photography is gone and all that's left are the ugly horrors of war. The picture also co-stars Michael Murphy, John Savage, Elpidia Carrillo, Tony Plana, Cynthia Gibb and Juan Fernandez, and while not as overt as say, "JFK," it's not exactly subtle either. While Stone does try and paint the picture of both sides (sort of), it's clear his sympathies lie with the lefty revolutionaries struggling to overthrow their corrupt and death-squad happy government. That really wouldn't be so bad if the dialogue wasn't a thinly-veiled attempt to deliver a ham-fisted and diatribe-y monologue about U.S. hegemony or creating a second Vietnam (while all valid concerns, it's far too obvious and stilted). Still, while dated, "Salvador" was considered a strong piece of work at the time, is still a respectable piece of work and moreover is still entertaining enough to sit all the way through without feeling too restless. [B]

“Any Given Sunday” (1999)
Having never really understood the concept of understated or subtle, Oliver Stone’s work has always been over-the-top, but there’s a delineating line between his thematic overkill and his stylistic one. “JFK” marked the perfect confluence of multi-media formats climaxing to a sight and sound extravaganza, but then after that picture (“Natural Born Killers”), Stone went into a kind of schizophrenic overkill that only someone like Tony Scott could appreciate (and continues to do so). Stone then calmed down, slightly, a few years later when he got around to 1999’s football drama, “Any Given Sunday,” but the picture is still hilariously amplified and exaggerated with gusto. Just look at the synopsis for crying out loud. It’s a football movie called, a “look at the life and death struggles of modern day gladiators and those who lead them.” At his hammiest, loudest, and most over-the-top worst/best, Al Pacino plays the frustrated coach trying to bring his broken team back from the dead (cue: sports drama cliche) and somehow tame his arrogant, narcissistic and mercurial young quarterback (Jamie Foxx), who just won’t play by the rules — literally, he just does what he wants and changes plays mid-field. Co-starring Cameron Diaz (the team’s owner), Dennis Quaid (a fading quarterback losing his edge), James Woods, L.L. Cool J (all-around hilarious), Matthew Modine, Charlton Heston, Ann-Margret, Lauren Holly and more, “Any Given Sunday” is so melodramatically over-the-top, the film becomes like an unintentional parody of a sports film, but therein lies a lot of ironic value, and while excessive and over-sensationalized at every turn, it’s still pretty entertaining, even if that’s in an laughing-at-you, amused way. [C]

"Platoon" (1986)
The past is another country; they do things differently there - like give Oscars to Oliver Stone, and cast Charlie Sheen as a bookish innocent - which makes rewatching “Platoon” in 2010 an unintentionally poignant experience. It’s not a bad film, indeed in terms of craft and performances it is one of Stone’s best, but prevailing attitudes towards war have undergone such a philosophical revolution in the intervening years as to make its message, if not irrelevant, then anachronistic. Controversial at the time for its suggestion that at least some of the bad guys in Vietnam could be found in the ranks of U.S. soldiers, today it feels trite — did we really need to have the Vietnam war reduced to the fight for the soul of one privileged white boy before we could understand its horror? That Stone transposes the good vs evil axis away from the U.S. vs The Enemy and onto the internal struggle of mentality and ethos between martyr Elias (Willem Dafoe) and his pot-smoking followers, and the treacherous Barnes (Tom Berenger) with his cadre of murderers and rapists, may seem like progress of sorts, but in so doing he ascribes every virtue of nobility to the former, and every cruelty to the latter, so all he has really done is switch one bogeyman for another. These simplistic dichotomies do the film no favors in our muddier moral times; to us now, the idea that the U.S. might be involved in a protracted foreign war for less-than-pure motives and for which the true cost is measured in human lives, and yes, souls, is not a revelation, it’s a daily debate. For better or worse, the world and its wars have moved on, and for all "Platoon" is a well-made, intermittently affecting film, it has been left behind like a buried artifact, its interest now mostly archaeological. [B]


"Wall Street" (1987)
At this point, what can really be said about "Wall Street" that hasn’t already been said? The Gordon Gekko character is an American icon (for better or worse...), numerous pop-culture catchphrases have emerged and endured from the ridiculously quotable script, Michael Douglas spent the rest of his post-Wall Street career doing riffs on the same character (something he’s very good at), and Charlie Sheen became a legitimate box office presence. Because Wall Street is so much a product of its time (in many of the same ways that a film like "Top Gun" was a product of its time), it’s tough to look back and criticize it for being one thing or not. It was a reflection of where we were at a particular point in time, and a foreshadowing of what was to come in the future (the upcoming "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" feels similarly timely). Stone and Stanley Weiser’s propulsive screenplay moves like a locomotive bound for the next stop with a sense of never-ceasing urgency. Sheen, as the naive newbie with his post-Platoon baby-face still intact, was a great match for Douglas’s icy villain; their Central Park show-down, as photographed by the incomparable Robert Richardson, reaches near epic/mythic proportions as the two of them trade verbal blows before Gekko pops his top. It’s father vs son, mentor vs student, man vs man. And that’s what Stone has always excelled at — showcasing men of strong wills going up against one another until someone hits the floor. "Wall Street" shares a lot in common with De Palma’s "Scarface" (also scripted by Stone), and much like Scarface, has taken on a new life over the last decade as something that Stone and his collaborators probably never thought it would. It’s one of Stone’s most influential films, and a defining work in his canon. [A]

"Heaven & Earth" (1993)
17 years ago, Oliver Stone completed his Vietnam trilogy with "Heaven and Earth" (the other two films being "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July"), a searingly melodramatic look at the Vietnam war through the eyes of an innocent Vietnamese woman. Stone, not known for showcasing strong, central female characters in his movies, went for something different in "Heaven and Earth"; it’s a work that feels distinctly feminine while still retaining the Stone edginess that he’s become famous for. Overall, it may be the weakest of his three Vietnam films, but it’s not without its merits. Unfairly dismissed by most critics upon its initial release (Roger Ebert was one of its few notable champions) and ignored by audiences (the film grossed less than $10 million domestic on a $35 million budget), Heaven and Earth tells the true story of Le Ly (the excellent Hiep Thi Li), a Vietnamese woman whose life was destroyed by the Vietnam war. Separated from her family after numerous village raids and assaults, she meets a seemingly nice and caring U.S. soldier played by Tommy Lee Jones, in one of his customarily intense performances. Her marries her and takes her home only to be confronted by repressed battlefield demons, which help destroy his life with Ly. As mentioned earlier, Stone has never been a “woman’s director,” which may be why "Heaven and Earth" lacks the focus that his other works have. Far from a bad film, it’s simply uneven, but as always, it’s ambitious and great in many sequences and respects. Robert Richardson’s stunning cinematography joined forces with Victor Kempster’s outstanding production design to create an epic-feeling film while Stone’s script went for the intimate more than his work usually does. It’s a solid effort that seems to have been lost in the shuffle. [B-]

"Talk Radio" (1988)
Oliver Stone found a compatriot in Eric Bogosian, whose play and performance supplies much of the grunt work in this tightly wound drama. Essentially a one-man show, Bogosian is aces as Barry Champlain, a shock jock whose passion for spitting vitriol at anyone unfortunate enough to cross his airwaves is matched only by his own self-aggrandized caustic personality. Stone follows Champlain through a sweltering, nerve-wracking day, whirring his camera around the sound booth like a madman but maintaining a firm grip on Bogosian’s exacting performance (despite a over-reliance on sarcasm that typically goes hand in hand with the nervy Jewish film stereotype), while Leslie Hope, Alec Baldwin and Stone regular John C. McGinley all do solid work behind the scenes. "Talk Radio" must have been a passion project for Stone, and it shows — this is personal work, for both author and filmmaker, but Stone renders it just conventional enough to stay on rails, speeding to a surprising and saddening conclusion. Like Barry Champlain, Oliver Stone likes to go all out, but his direction here thankfully shows noticeable restraint. [B+]

"Born on the Fourth of July" (1989)
We cannot pretend to know Oliver Stone the man, but if his films are any indication, Vietnam is a festering wound constantly aching at the soul of the director. With "Born on the Fourth of July," Stone finds an outlet altogether different from the ideological jungle hell of "Platoon" or the straight-laced drama of "Heaven & Earth." The story of Ron Kovic, based on his memoir (an honest and heart-breaking read, seek it out), stars Tom Cruise in one of his rare performances that people will talk about for as long as the couch-jumping movie giant is among the living, and then some. As Kovic, a paralyzed Vietnam veteran struggling to come to terms with a life-changing condition and a country that labels him a hero almost out of desperation, Cruise goes for the (pardon the pun) gold, delving heart and soul into Kovic. Spending most of the film in a wheelchair, Cruise is believable and relateable as a young man unwilling to rehabilitate and assume the role everyone wants him to play. Stone’s exploration of idealogy stills pops in the picturesque Norman Rockwell small town life that sends Kovic off to war and welcomes him with open arms while looking on him as half a man. Kovic’s attempts to come to turns with his sacrifice and a costly mistake he made on the front are engrossing, and the supporting cast is as good as they come, with Willem Dafoe making his mark as another wheelchair-bound veteran who whisks Kovic away to a temporary paradise. Stone’s stylistic choices are right on the money here, whether he’s using color temperature to separate flashbacks from the main story or a brief display of slow motion to capture the incident that permanently upends Kovic’s existence. "Born on the Fourth of July" is an out-pouring of emotion, and a well-earned one at that. [A-]

"The Doors" (1991)
Oliver Stone's semi-factual look at the life and times of Jim Morrison and his acid-rock band, The Doors, infuses the standard tripped-out and conspiracy-laden Stone rhetoric. Who was Jim Morrison and why did he fall apart, seem to be the basic questions posed by Stone, but in the end the viewer is left wondering why they cared in the first place? With mere glimpses of twisted half-baked memories from Jim's early years, it's hard to understand the evolution of this man, whom Stone seems hellbent on approving of and having us fall in love with. Sex, drugs and rock n’ roll were key notes of the 1960s, but what Stone left out of this film is any of the soul or art that usually coincided with them. It's shot and edited like a TV movie, or worse, a film school project, and there are too many throwaway characters to give the film any real biographical merit. On the positive side, Val Kilmer is sensational as Jim, psychotically engulfing himself in his role, and he made it difficult for many to think of Jim Morrison without conjuring up his portrayal. What could have been an interesting and in-depth look at a tortured musician battling America's prudish and naive idealism, became two hours of whining rock star shaky footage. Stone adores deconstructing and critiquing social norms, and has had great success with it previously, but this picture completely missed the mark. The rise and fall of one of the most noted bands of the 1960s is not captured in "The Doors" and Stone missed many opportunities to make this more than just a drug addled, sad sack story of indulgence and narcissism. It's watchable, if only for the soundtrack, an underutilized Kyle MacLachlan and Kilmer. [C-]

"JFK" (1991)
Probably Stone's most intricate picture, and possibly even his best, "JFK" takes up the cause of controversial Louisiana district attorney Jim Garrison, who prosecuted local businessman Clay Shaw for involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Historically speaking, the evidence is thin, but as a piece of propaganda, Stone's film is second to none; by the time you walk out, you're convinced that Kennedy was the victim of a terrible conspiracy, and the director expertly lines up the inconsistencies of the official story (if there's anything more powerful and persuasive in political cinema than the "back and to the left" scene, we've yet to see it). While your head knows that it's less than convincing, your heart goes with Stone, and that's a testament to the quality of filmmaking on display. The helmer makes a talky, three-hour-plus story fly by with bravura direction; the fill-in-the-blanks sequence with Donald Sutherland alone is a masterclass of editing. But it would be a mistake to undervalue the performances he draws from his cast: Kevin Costner has rarely been better, or more likable, while the mammoth supporting cast, from a near-unrecognizable Jack Lemmon to a scenery-chewing Tommy Lee Jones, is uniformly excellent. [A]

"Alexander" (2004)
Boy, where to begin with this one. Possibly the most ambitious film Stone has ever attempted to make, "Alexander" is a pronounced and overwrought failure on a number of base levels that render it watchable largely for its camp factor only. It’s a shame too, since there is much skill on display behind the camera — the battle scenes are grandiose and gorgeously lensed, for the most part eschewing tight choreography instead relying on impressive mounted bouts of confusion that feel just a tad more authentic. Where Stone’s film sinks is unfortunately, the cast — the director has from time to time let actors play fast and loose, but never to the degree that most thespians indulge in here. Then again, their characters are barely sketched out and mounted with absurdly over-exaggerated habits — from Angelina Jolie’s snake-handling potentially incestuous Olympias to Val Kilmer’s groggy over-eater Philip and Jared Leto’s painfully misguided eye-shadow addict Hephaistion. Colin Farrell as the titular military genius demands a sentence of his own — you can see him straining, trying to draw us in, but the larger-than-life Alexander is too much for the actor — then struggling with alcohol and drug addiction — and it slips away early in the film. When "Alexander" isn’t engaging in bloody warfare (Stone literally uses a red filter during a major sequence late in the film), it's front-loaded with giggle-inducing lover’s talk between Alexander and Hephaistion that almost always falls flat. A rare full-on misfire for the divisive director and a good opportunity for this writer to tell you to see Farrell in "In Bruges," where he’s fantastic. [D+]

"World Trade Center" (2006)
Considering his reputation as a provocateur and political firebrand, many were dreading Stone's take on the still-recent events of 9/11. But, following hot on the heels of Paul Greengrass' masterpiece "United 93," the biggest surprise was how conventional a melodrama Stone's film proved to be. He clearly needed to play nice after the tanking of "Alexander," but no one was expecting anything close to the Lifetime movie-of-the-week that "World Trade Center" turned out to be. It's not without its moments: Stone stages the attack itself strongly, albeit in a way reminiscent of 1970s disaster movies, and few directors are as adept at handling male bonding, which makes up much of the second half of the film. But, particularly when put up against Greengrass' picture, it can't help but come across as a somewhat cynical, dishonest piece of work, taking a tragic day and mining a happy ending from it. The political subtexts are a little disturbing (Michael Shannon's character, who later served in Iraq, declaring that "they're going to need some good men out there, to avenge this"), the filmmaking unsubtle — witness the soft focus flashbacks from Nicolas Cage's character, or the religious motifs — and Stone's total inability to depict women has rarely been so demonstrable as in the short shrift given to Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal as the stricken spouses. We're sure that Stone's heart was in the right place, but it comes across as "The Green Berets" of the 9/11 era, rather than "Born On The Fourth Of July." [D]

-- Mark Zhuravsky, Drew Taylor, Nick Clement, Oliver Lyttelton, Jessica Kiang, Danielle Johnsen, Kevin Jagernauth, RP

Read More

Review: 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' Is Messy But Still Entertaining

As soon as that dopey 75th Anniversary version of the 20th Century Fox logo dissipates, the first sounds we hear in "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" are of a prison gate opening, and someone shuffling through it. It's followed up by a good gag: Michael Douglas, as Gordon Gekko, the role that nabbed him a Best Actor Academy Award oh-so-many moons ago, collecting his personal belongings, having intoned to him gravely by a prison guard, things like "A money clip with no money in it" and a briefcase-sized cellular telephone.

It's when he walks out of the prison, though, that the current state of his character is really revealed: there's no one there to pick him up. The year is 2001 and Gordon Gekko is hopelessly alone; bridges burned, prestige squandered, his slicked-back hair has gone slack and gray, and he looks more like a teacher of comparative literature at Hampshire College than a wolf of Wall Street. And just as soon as we're introduced to shaggy Gordon Gekko, we leave him. We flash forward 7 years and are introduced to the real central character of 'Money Never Sleeps,' Shia LaBeouf, continuing his fine career path of being "younger versions of already established characters," as an enterprising trader named Jake Moore.

Jake, unlike Gordon, has some moral bearing, at the very least: he's been tutored, affectionately, by the head of his firm, Lewis Zabel (Frank Langella), and has at least one earth-conscious venture he's trying to funnel money towards (it involves lasers; don't ask us). When it becomes apparent that the corporation is going under, Zabel makes a desperately plea to the Feds to be bailed out. Here he's met with resistance, chiefly from the film's villain, a smarmy hedge fund shark named Bretton James (Josh Brolin) who wears really well tailored-suits (you can tell by the sharp angle of his shirt collars). Devastated, Zabel takes his own life.

If there is any emotional hook to hang the big, ungainly hat of "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" on, it's revenge. Jake wants revenge on Bretton James for killing his company and causing his mentor to commit suicide, and in order to exact said revenge, he makes a devil's bargain with Gordon Gekko. Gekko, it's revealed, wasn't imprisoned for the charges Charlie Sheen's Bud Fox lobbied against him as a result of the first movie, no, he was put away by somebody else altogether (who could it be? Oh right it's Josh Brolin, that was fairly obvious).

And what does Gordon want in return? He wants to reconnect with his daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan), who just so happens to be engaged to driven, determined Jake. But is Gordon actually ready to make amends for being a dickish, reptilian asshole? Or will he go back to his old ways again, with the slicked-back hair, and go-go Reagan-era ethos? This should be fairly obvious, too.

The first "Wall Street" was made before Oliver Stone made bold, splashy, big budget movies that often incorporated extremely experimental elements (at least editorially), and for all of its big talk about consumerism and greed it was rigidly formulaic, as square as anything else in Reagan's America. This film is happening after Stone has gotten his ya-yas out and gone back to making oddly mundane movies, like the toothless "W.," and it's good to see him having fun again. Stone adds some pretty embellishments (iris ins, split screens, overlapping images, camera movements that scale entire buildings) and the movie moves along at a clip, even if it is at least 20 minutes too long. Kudos should be also handed to composer Craig Armstrong, with a nicely atmospheric score (the less said about Stone's insistence on using some Brian Eno/David Byrne songs, the better).

But "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is a mess; this much is certain. There's so much going on, both visually and plot-wise, that, coming out of the movie, you're not sure exactly what the thing was about. It's peppered with genuinely touching moments, but they often gets lost in a swarm of subplots and byzantine finance world mumbo jumbo that is rarely, if ever, explained. Was the movie a barbed critique of the current economic crisis? Was it a character piece about a reptilian alpha male who learns to become human again? Was it a revenge parable? A love story, maybe? Or a whirligig look at the way that the financial system works (visualized, gloriously, as glittery towers of information)? Maybe it's all of these things; or none. The raw power of "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is that it leaves you with the sensation that none of that really matters; that no matter how scatter-shot the film may seem it is unifying in one key way — it's really, really entertaining. And as good as greed is, for a big budget Hollywood confection, solid entertainment is even better. [B]

Read More