Thursday, June 30, 2011

At the Cineplex

Summer brings with it just a few guarantees: hot weather, kids out of school and blockbuster season at the Cineplex. With so many big budget, massive star vehicles charging into theatres (along with some lesser-known experiments), we at My Cinema are always struggling to keep up. So, here's a quick overview of some of the films we've seen in recent months- the ones that didn't quite warrant the full review treatment but deserved a mention nevertheless.

Read about Bridesmaids, Arthur, Water for Elephants and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides after the jump.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Super 8

When I was in film school, it was common to start off the introductory classes by going around the room and asking everyone who their favorite director was. I would sit, nervously anticipating my turn, as every other student rattled off Sundance-approved names both obscure and less so. Aronofosky, Lynch, Soderbergh, Nolan (this was in the days before The Dark Knight, when you could still be cool for loving Nolan because he hadn't yet gained COMPLETE popular dominance). Or occasionally people ran out the classics card, and touted off Kubrick or Bergman. And when it came to me, I inevitably squeaked out "Spielberg?"

Now, partially, if I'm being honest, this was my own version of film-student-rebellion. I grew so sick of everyone trying to one-up each other with their "I know someone older, foreigner, and more punk rock than you" game, that I figured the best way to counteract that was to name the most successful, modern, and decidedly un-punk rock director currently making quality films. After all, saying Spielberg was your favorite director as a film major was like claiming George W. Bush was your favorite president as a poli-sci major. But despite this rebellion, mostly I answered Spielberg because, well, I've just always adored the work of Steven Spielberg.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

First Class

Kelly recently reviewed the excellent Thor and in her review mentioned that I'm a bit of a superhero nerd. I actually think I'm the perfect amount superhero nerd: knowledgeable enough to enjoy the films and add a bit of depth to moments like Cyclops saying in the first X-Men, "What would you prefer, yellow spandex?" But I'm not so much of a nerd as to be bothered, or even really notice, continuity errors or changes from the originally, especially not in Marvel properties. As such, I'm exactly the audience Marvel wants for these movies: enthusiastic to the point of rabid, yet easy-to-please.

And the thing about Marvel is, with few exceptions, they've been doing a damn fine job of pumping out movies that both provide fan service and truly good, serviceable films. Mostly, they do this by hiring people actually suited for the job. On Thor, the man who it turned out could best bring to life the grandiose absurdity of Asgard was Kenneth Brannagh, and the only guy I could imagine balancing on the tightrope of slapstick fish-out-of-water comedy and hubris was Chris Hemsworth. For X-Men: First Class, that's Michael Vaughn (Kickass) as well as stars James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender.

About halfway through First Class I found myself wondering if the movie was going to suffer from what people refer to as "prequel-itis." This occasionally debilitating disease robs films of their dramatic tension, due to the fact that we all know how they end. But the knowledge of where Magneto, Mystique, Professor X and the others end up adds an element of grandiose tragedy to the buddy story, even in its most lighthearted moments. Enjoying that montage where Fassbender's Magneto and McAvoy's Xavier exude a cocky enthusiasm as they track down mutants? Flash forward to Ian McKellan locked in a plastic prison at the beginning of the first film.

On top of that, the reliance on WWII and Cold War imagery adds an element of realism amongst the blue-skinned mutant shenanigans. It really helps to tease out the X-men themes of belonging, acceptance and honor.

X-men First Class is not a perfect movie (in comparison with Magneto and Xavier, for example, Mystique as the third side of that triangle seems underdeveloped), but it's a solid, exciting, well-developed outing that continues X-Men's casting hot streak. It's too bad the opening weekend box office didn't match that of recent smash The Hangover II, but if Marvel continues to be have the best studio quality record short of Pixar, I'm looking forward to even more chances to reenter the marvel universe.

GEEKY SIDENOTES (here be spoilers!):
* I liked the government precursors to S.H.I.E.L.D.
* Jennifer Lawrence's ageing up into Rebecca Romijn was all sorts of brilliance
* Kevin Bacon?! KEVIN BACON!

Sunday, May 29, 2011

The God of Thunder

Rachael is the superhero expert, I freely admit that. When it comes to genre knowledge, franchise history and source material familiarity- I'm not your girl, at least not when we're talking Marvel vs. DC (or whatever it is we're talking). But I've seen my fair share of hero movies. Like everyone, I'm a Batman fan and hold The Dark Knight in the highest regard. I liked the first Spiderman and all three X-Men (the first one publicly, the second 2 not so much), even Iron Man impressed me (though I didn't see the sequel). So I'm going to talk about Thor. If you think that I am wrong about Thor, let me have it in the comments section, because I freely admit that I'm not on my own turf here.

But here we go nevertheless...

Friday, May 13, 2011

Jane Eyre's Dreary, Gray Kingdom

The newest film version of Jane Eyre is a cold affair. It's gray-tinted, rain-soaked, slowly paced and underplayed. None of this is to an unforgivably negative effect. In fact, this gray sense of dismal circumstance works sort of perfectly for Jane Eyre, a dreary text in itself. It does, however, make for a rather unpleasant film experience and adds nothing new to the oft-adapted text.

Leading lady Mia Wasikowska competently takes on the iconic literary figure, her mature understatement sometimes crossing into monotone territory but generally filling the screen well. Michael Fassbender is too conventionally and inarguably good looking for Mr. Rochester and his tortured side isn't particularly well developed. The result is a less interesting but more likable leading man than is standard. Sally Hawkins, though underused, is a nice surprise, playing against type as the bitter Mrs. Reed, and generally the whole supporting  cast is pretty good (especially Jamie Bell as the fascinating John Rivers).

Many of the smaller characters (Hawkins and Bell's parts most of all) are cut down quite a bit. This means a lot of what makes them interesting goes away, making them little more than fifth business for the A plot. The Bertha issue, for example, is shorthanded to the point where it sort of stops making sense. Perhaps the most prominent of these cutting victims, however, is Dame Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax) who simply has to be pickier with her film choices.

As much as Dame Judi slumming it has become a standard of dreary British period pieces, so has almost everything in this film. It's not bad, it's just been done. Even the estate supposedly belonging to Mr. Rochester is unmistakably 2005's Pemberley (aka the home of Pride and Prejudice's Mr. Darcy). Jane Eyre is a decent film, in a technical sense, but it neither says anything new nor entertains enough to make up for that.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

The Hunger Games Makes the Jump to My Cinema

I have been obsessed with The Hunger Games since I first sunk into Katniss's world. Over on My Bookshelf, I waxed poetic about how the series helped me recapture that Harry Potter, so eager in anticipation magic. So I can't believe it's taken me this long to comment on the casting of the scary-as-hell, god-i-pray-they-harry-potter-it-and-not-golden-compass-it movie adaptation.
First, Katniss. The girl who was on fire. For this dark skinned, dark haired, badass warrior, the movie chose Jennifer Lawrence, who may be badass but is decidedly not dark skinned nor dark haired. And honestly? If the movie wants to cast a blond oscar-nominee over a brunette who can't act, I'm down with it.
That goes for Peeta and Gale too. In the books, Peeta is blonde and I always imagined kind of all-american-boy looking, with broad, bakers' shoulders and an open face. Gale is darker skinned and haired, more like his long time best friend Katniss. And the two actors they cast? Josh Hutchinson, dark haired and smaller, is Peeta, and the light-haired all american-boy Liam Hemsworth is playing gale.
But honestly? I never cared that Daniel Radcliffe had blue eyes rather than green, and I don't care that Maggie Smith is older than I pictured McGonagall. What I care about is that these actors are capable of bringing my beloved characters to life. And by casting people with no overt physical resemblance to the characters (e.g. by NOT casting Alex Pettyfer as Peeta just because he has blond hair, despite the fact he can't act), I'm making the leap of faith to believing that they are casting based on talent. A leap of faith underscored by how talented I KNOW Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutchinson are.
So color me cautiously optimistic for the movie adaptation of this challenging, fascinating and heart breaking book series.
And also cautiously optimistic they'll cast Robert Downey Jr. as Haymitch.

Monday, March 21, 2011

The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau could have been a really great film. At its core it's full of interesting philosophical questions, ones that introduce possibilities that both fit into and are new to global spiritual narratives. Ideas of fate, free will and intelligently designed plans are expressed alongside darker ramifications like the sacrifice of potential in some for the ultimate success of others. The thought that the plan for our lives is always being rewritten, that there are angel-like forces at work in our world to enforce it, the fact that there are lingering effects from previous incarnations of our plan, the possibility that our plan involves cutting someone we love's life short so we can be driven to succeed... the fact that there is a plan at all, an architect, the chairman! There is so much intellectual possibility in this film.

And it expands from there. Writer/director George Nolfi plants these ideas into the world we're currently living in and then ties them back through time, using the highs and lows of human history as evidence for his mythology. The whole thing is quite brilliant. But then it starts to break down.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

The 2010 My Cinema HONORARY AWARDS

Introducing the annual My Cinema Honorary Award. This distinction, announced separately from the rest of the winners, is awarded each year to celebrate standout achievement in any given category. We have 2 winners this year, because we simply couldn't choose. Winners aren't nominated in the regular My Cinema Awards. Rather, they're honored separately as the best things that happened in cinema all year (whether they be directors, actors, cinematographers, writers, etc...).  It just so happens that both of this year's winners are actors. Without further ado, this year's winners are...

Sunday, February 20, 2011

The My Cinema Award Winners


For the first annual My Cinema Awards our writers got together to honour the best of the best in the 2010 film landscape. Out of the 4 or 5 nominees in each of our 12 categories, these are the ones who stood out the most to us this year. Some are multi-award winners or Oscar shoe-ins, others are lesser known gems that we think made a huge contribution to cinema this year. So without further ado, here are the 2010 My Cinema Award Winners:

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

My Cinema Recommends: Barney's Version

You probably didn't see it. It's only up for one Oscar (makeup?! really?!) and though Paul Giamatti won Best Actor at the Golden Globes for his truly extraordinary performance, no one really lends much weight to the comedy/musical categories or even pays attention to the Globes if the Oscars don't seem to agree. But here's what I'm saying: they're wrong, you REALLY SHOULD see it.

Barney's Version is one of the most touching films of the year, one of the wittiest, one of the most complex,  one of the most evocative. It's expertly acted with the incomparable Paul Giamatti at its core delivering what I think is easily the performance of his career so far. He's joined by the beautifully understated Rosamund Pike and the beautifully overstated Minnie Driver as well as Scott Speedman, who is excellent as Barney's enigmatic friend Boogie, and the always-wonderful Dustin Hoffman as Barney's eccentric father. The script by Michael Konyves, adapted from Modercai Richler's novel, is superb, telling a fascinatingly funny and heartbreaking story.

That's all I can say, I've run out of adjectives. Just see it, you can thank me later.

Friday, January 28, 2011

So Apparently The Oscar Nominations Were Announced...

Posted by Rachael
In recent years, my wide eyed enthusiasm for the Oscars has dampened a bit. I can basically trace the moment back to 2006, when Crash beat Brokeback Mountain, and I learned that (despite what I've learned from thousands of Hollywood movies) the most deserving film doesn't always win. Big shocker, I know. When The Dark Knight failed to even garner so much as a nomination, I pretty much gave up caring. And since then my passion for what I once described as "my Super Bowl" has dwindled. Last year I could barely muster up any enthusiasm for the crop of idiosyncratic nominees.

But I'm actually pretty okay with this year's crops of nominees. Sure there are some glaring omissions (really, no Danny Boyle for best director for 127 Hours? That entire movie was crafted out of the blood, sweat and tears of James Franco and the ridiculously kinetic movie making style of Danny Boyle, even when trapped in one very tiny space. And the decision to honor Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine but not her partner in domestic lack-of-bliss Ryan Gosling was somewhat disconcerting), but by and large I'm pretty happy with a crop of nominees that really spans the spectrum between crowd pleasing blockbusters and weird indie films. On top of that, I'm sort of strangely optimistic for the hosting duo of Anne Hathaway and James Franco, an optimism that is only increased when I listen to interviews of James Franco who claims he found out about his nomination only minutes before attending a Keats class at Yale.

Without further ado, my none-too-scientific response to the Oscar nominations and predictions of who should win (I'd say who would win, but I am notoriously bad at Oscar predictions, having pathetically lost at the past seven years' Oscar ballots).

Best Picture -- And The Nominees Are...

  • “Black Swan”
  • “The Fighter”
  • “Inception”
  • “The Kids Are All Right”
  • “The King's Speech”
  • “127 Hours”
  • “The Social Network”
  • “Toy Story 3”
  • “True Grit”
  • “Winter's Bone"
  • REACTION: I've seen all but one of these films (Winter's Bone), and frankly enjoyed most of them. There's not a single film on this list that seems glaringly undeserving, and I like that it spans genres (from horror to kids films). While I'm not entirely sold on the whole 10 Nominees thing, I do think it gives a chance for the Academy to include movies that aren't just the typical flow. I'd have loved to see a surprise nomination for the under-recognized-despite-critical-acclaim The Town and maybe some additional love for the challenging Blue Valentine, but I'm excited to see The Kids Are All Right and 127 Hours on here. Basically, this category comes down to a three way competition for me between Black Swan, The Social Network and The King's Speech. If you'd told me this summer that I wouldn't even be considering Inception, I'd have called you crazy, but I really loved these three movies.
  • PREDICTION: The Social Network. I loved Black Swan, and thought the King's Speech a moving piece of classic cinema. But The Social Network is infinitely timeless, a modern day tale of hubris and loneliness that rivals anything produced throughout time and produced with infinite talent and personal expression.
  • Actor in a Leading Role -- And the Nominees Are...

    • Javier Bardem in “Biutiful”
    • Jeff Bridges in “True Grit”
    • Jesse Eisenberg in “The Social Network”
    • Colin Firth in “The King's Speech”
    • James Franco in “127 Hours”
    REACTION: Besides my aforementioned disgust at the fact that Ryan Gosling wasn't recognized for his fantastic turn in Blue Valentine, I can definitely see most of these nominees. And it basically comes down to a two way race for me, between the cool, collected-to-the-point-of-nearly-psychopathic turn by Jesse Eisenberg in "The Social Network" and the one man show that is James Franco in "127 Hours."
    PREDICTION: And it's Franco, by a nose. Eisenberg's turn is nothing short of revelatory in The Social Network, but he's a part of an amazing ensemble. Franco is a tour-de-force in the film and it's entirely his performance that makes the movie.

    Actress in a Leading Role -- And The Nominees Are...

    • Annette Bening in “The Kids Are All Right”
    • Nicole Kidman in “Rabbit Hole”
    • Jennifer Lawrence in “Winter's Bone”
    • Natalie Portman in “Black Swan”
    • Michelle Williams in “Blue Valentine”
    RESPONSE: To start with, I haven't seen Rabbit Hole, but I've heard Kidman's amazing. And both The Kids Are All Right, Black Swan, and Blue Valentine were all actorly paradises that allowed their lead actresses to truly shine. In a year that seemed kind of weak on female performances in retrospect, it's still striking just HOW strong these performances are.
    PREDICTION: I'm going with Natalie for this one. She had to completely transform her own public image along with her body, and she did it in a way that not only felt real amongst a horror-pastiche of magical realism but also managed to anchor the story in a true emotional core.

    Animated Feature Film -- And The Nominees Are...

    • “How to Train Your Dragon” Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois
    • “The Illusionist” Sylvain Chomet
    • “Toy Story 3” Lee Unkrich
    RESPONSE: And here's where I become a crumudgeon. For the past 3 years, I have sincerely believed that an animated film was the best of the year. And this year, three of my top ten movies were animated (Toy Story 3, Despicable Me, and Tangled). But this category is kind of bull hooey. First of all, Toy Story 3 is already nominated as one of the BEST films of the year. That means that of all genres, all movies made last year, Toy Story 3 has been recognized as one of the best. How, therefore, can it be judged against two movies that were not so nominated, and have anyone expect any movie but Toy Story 3 to win? I'm not saying that Toy Story 3 is a lock (although traditionally Best Animated Feature Film has been all Pixar all the time), I'm just saying that in an awards ceremony that doesn't distinguish by ANY other genre, it's ridiculous that animated films are treated differently than other genres, especially when animated films have consistently been some of the best films of the year.
    PREDICTION: That being said, Toy Story 3. More or less guaranteed. How To Train Your Dragon was a surprisingly effective success story, and The Illusionist is the little cartoon that could, but Toy Story 3 was a trilogy capper unparalleled in the history of trilogies. It's a truly gorgeous ending to a film saga that has literally chronicled my generation's childhood while helping older generations come to grips with the loss of their own.

    Actor in a Supporting Role -- And The Nominees Are...

    • Christian Bale in “The Fighter”
    • John Hawkes in “Winter's Bone”
    • Jeremy Renner in “The Town”
    • Mark Ruffalo in “The Kids Are All Right”
    • Geoffrey Rush in “The King's Speech”
    REACTION AND PREDICTION: I have no more on this category to say besides Christian Bale. He has consistently been the best actor of his generation (sure, snicker because of Batman, but I will stuff so much American Psycho, The Machinist, Rescue Dawn and 3:10 To Yuma down your throat), and he more than deserves this nomination for his energetic, sympathetic and above all funny turn as a washed-up boxer in "The Fighter."

    Actress in a Supporting Role -- And The Nominees Are...

    • Amy Adams in “The Fighter”
    • Helena Bonham Carter in “The King's Speech”
    • Melissa Leo in “The Fighter”
    • Hailee Steinfeld in “True Grit”
    • Jacki Weaver in “Animal Kingdom”
    PREDICTION AND REACTION: Hailee Steinfeld should be a lock for this category, mainly because she singlehandedly makes True Grit the excellent picture that it is. Adams and Leo are fine in The Fighter, Carter is her typical excellence in The King's Speech, and I haven't seen Animal Kingdom, but Steinfeld shows a grace, maturity and most of all bad-assness in True Grit that not only makes the movie, but makes me want her to be the protagonist Katniss Everdeen in my new favorite book, The Hunger Games (which check out my hunger games review if you want to know what a big deal that is for me).

    Directing -- And The Nominees Are...

    • “Black Swan” Darren Aronofsky
    • “The Fighter” David O. Russell
    • “The King's Speech” Tom Hooper
    • “The Social Network” David Fincher
    • “True Grit” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
    REACTION: If Danny Boyle were nominated, I would say he should win, hands down. I'm also surprised to see a lack of Chris Nolan here (I imagine it's a bit of Inception backlash).
  • PREDICTION: Darren Aronofsky, by a nose. I think David Fincher pulled off something fantastic with The Social Network, but I think Aronofsky walked a tight rope with Black Swan that I believe he fell just on the right side of. He staged a cinematic ballet-turned-horror-story that held me captive from beginning to end. That being said, I won't be upset if it turns into the David Fincher show.
There are a few other categories that I care about (Best Adapted Screenplay should be a "Social Network" lock, Best Original Screenplay should be "Inception," and Cinematography should easily go to "True Grit"), but mostly I'm just interested in how this many talented films play against each other in the race towards the Academy Awards.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Exclusive Interview with "The Trotsky" Writer/Director Jacob Tierney

 One of the best films to come out of Canada last year (actually, just one of the best films period) was The Trotsky, a comedy about a teenage re-incarnation of the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, starring Jay Baruchel and Colm Feore. 

If you've seen the film (as all of you should have), you'll remember the lackadaisical 20-something version of Lenin who Leon tracks down at the end of the film. That's actually Jacob Tierney, the film's young writer and director. 

The Trotsky is nominated for a 2010 My Cinema Awards for Best Comedy and Jacob himself is nominated for Best Screenplay. 

Last week I got the chance to speak with the clever and amicable writer/director about The Trotsky, his writing process and current projects. 

Read on for our full interview

Sunday, January 9, 2011

On The Western Front

First let me apologize for that title, it's inexcusably bad. But I had to come up with an excuse to talk about The Coen Brothers' grimy and excellent western True Grit in the same article as the melancholy story of a country western singer Country Strong, which I think is just as well executed, if not as showily artistic.

True Grit has been and will be getting lots of recognition by critics and award shows. Jeff Bridges will be nominated for things and the Coens will be invited to the Oscars- because they always are. Which is not to take anything away from their work on True Grit, it's excellent work. The only Coen film I've ever really liked, True Grit is a brilliantly composed story of a girl trying to track down her father's murderer, based on a novel by Charles Portis. The script is very well written, the film insightfully directed by the oft-lauded Coens and they deserve the awards they'll get for this one.
But I'm not sold on Bridges. Last year's Oscar winner does a fine job in the film, but his character lacks nuance, slipping into caricature at times, spitting and sprawling his way through the story. Compared to his wonderfully human performance in last year's Crazy Heart, Bridges seems to me to not be at his very best in True Grit, and I certainly don't think his character places him in the "leading actor" category, industry politics are the ones doing that.  Instead, I believe the praise should be falling where it hasn't been quite as much. Hailee Steinfeld, whose only acknowledgement so far has been a SAG nomination for supporting actress, is the heart and soul of the film. Not only is she unquestioningly a leading actress not a supporting one (it's her story), the 14 year old does a phenomenal job with an incredibly complex role. As the main character Mattie Ross, Steinfeld gives a remarkably mature performance that easily overshadows her Oscar-nominated/winning co-stars (Bridges, Matt Damon and Josh Brolin- all of whom really are very good in the film). The well-praised True Grit has somehow managed to house the most underrated performance of the year.

Country Strong, on the other hand, is getting overlooked on all counts. Here we have yet another instance of me disagreeing with the norm. With a rotten tomatoes score of only 17% and a Metascore of 44/100, consensus seems to be that Country Strong is pretty weak. But I disagree. I found it engaging. I think Gwyneth Paltrow does an exceptional job with a realistic horror show of a fallen-angel character (all-too familiar in this day and age) and the film tells an accessible, recognizable and interesting story. Supporting actors Tim McGraw, Garrett Hedlund and Leighton Meester are all excellent as well. Meester, in particular, surpasses expectations as an upstart singer. I expected her character to be a one-dimensional villain who would swoop in and push Paltrow's Kelly Cantor out of the spotlight, and possibly steal her husband along the way.
I was delighted to find that Chiles (Meester) is much more interesting than that. They all are. No one is an archetype, they're all wonderfully complexly gray. The music also fully surpasses expectations, working in 3 different styles of country music and performance and featuring extremely strong vocals from Paltrow, Meester and Hedlund. All four principal characters are equally compelling and well-executed in this well-told but simple story. Is it being overlooked because of the glittery guitar and the blond curls? Because I really think it's a truly excellent film.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Out of England

There are two distinctly British films playing in theatres right now. The King's Speech, one of Oscar's top contenders, is a formal high-art story about monarchy, duty and the pressure of expectation. Made in Dagenham is a scrappy, spirited, populist film about factory workers fighting for their rights. The former's principle plot is centered on elocution; much of the dialogue in the latter is so colloquial that it's hard to understand. Two more different accounts of the British experience are hard to imagine, but there is much more connecting them than their country of origin.
Both are technically very good films. They feature excellent performances from their leads (Colin Firth, for the second year in a row finally proving how great he's always been, and Sally Hawkins, bringing her Happy-Go-Lucky pluck to a deeper role), strong supporting players (King's Geoffrey Rush and Dagenham's Miranda Richardson, among others), solid scripts and clever direction. Both are stories of overcoming adversity, about leadership, about standing up for yourself and what's right. Both are true stories, centered on national political issues and are told somewhat cheekily. Both also suffer from some slow plotting and the occasional corny moment. But both overcome that easily.

Ultimately, The King's Speech is the better movie. The performances are pitch-perfect, the script tighter, the direction more artistic and the story more unique and therefore compelling.  It's plain and simple just a very good film and is deserving of much of the praise that's been heaped on it. I'll be annoyed if it sweeps all the major awards, but it certainly deserves some of them. In a year with tons of great films from the lofty King's Speech to the underrated Dagenham, celebrating just one seems plainly wrong.

Rabbit Hole: the movie

The new film adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize/Tony-winning play Rabbit Hole has gotten some excellent reviews. If I were watching this film as an original story, who knows, I might agree with them. But as an adaptation of the remarkable play I saw just a few months ago, the film of Rabbit Hole is but a shadow of what it could be.

At a basic level, the screenplay adaptation by playwright David Lindsay Abaire undermines the story in its attempt to broaden it to fit the new medium. Updates like the footage of Danny being on his father's phone instead of on videotape seem like good ideas for modern believability but it lessened the significance of the moment. It's not really possible to delete a video from a phone unless you view it first or go looking for it with the express purpose of deleting it. Becca's insistence that she just made a phone call makes it seem like she's lying, she deleted it on purpose. The loss of ambiguity and supposition of guilt takes away from her character.

Glimpses inside the grief support group are a good addition but should have been played a bit funnier- in keeping with the darkly comic undertones of the original play. I like the inclusion of Auggie, that's the only change I think really adds much of anything. Sandra Oh's character is interesting as a character in herself (I like the idea of a character as a possible version of Becca and Howie a few years further down the line) but the consequences of her storyline with Howie do nothing to deepen his character.

But it's the rearranging of Becca's relationship with Jason that is perhaps the most disappointing of the major script changes. One of my favourite parts of the play, the reading of Jason's letter to Becca, is understandably eliminated (letters are hard on screen), but I think it's really important to Jason's character to have him be the one to make contact, not Becca. As it plays in the film, the development of their relationship is far more clandestine than it needs to be. It seems almost inappropriate, stalker-ish. Becca's unexpected path in dealing with grief seems more wrong than different in the film when a major aspect of the play is that there is no wrong way to grieve.

But many of the original lines do remain, including my favourite speech, where Nat tells Becca that eventually the grief will become something she can live with, carry around like a brick in her pocket. And even with some undermining changes, a good story is a good story.

However, the casting of the film is truly perplexing. Miles Teller is an okay Jason and Tammy Blanchard is just fine as Izzy. Neither is particularly inspiring, which is depressing in itself, but they're not bad either. Neither is Diane Wiest as Nat. She's a bit whiny at times and perhaps too soft-spoken for an out-spoken character but she does a fine job with her pivotal speech.

What bothers me about Aaron Eckhart in the role of Howie is that as much as I convince myself that he really is a good actor, I hardly ever believe in him (other than his perfect turn as Harvey Dent). His jaw is too square, his biceps too big, his hair too perfect; he just sort of looks like a Ken doll. He plays as too perfect, too strong. The over-the-top scene in which he yells at Jason for entering their house is scary, less because he seems to be cracking his perfect demeanor and more because he evokes an army drill sergeant. Eckhart plays the more tender moments better, but overall just seems like a strange choice.

But the real heart of the piece is Becca, a terribly complex character who can be no less than admirable and no more than aggravating. She has to be a boiling pot of troubles that aren't allowed to reach a boil. She has to be defensive and over-compensating and neurotic and never anything other than deserving of pathos. But Nicole Kidman can't do that. I really just don't think she can. She always looks like she's acting, not being. And even in her best moments she seems cold, not in a distanced-person-who-suffered-a-great-loss way, in a "I'm afraid of your germs, keep your distance" way. I don't buy Nicole Kidman as a mother (which is weird because I know she is one), nor is there really any connection between her and the other characters (not even Jason, with whom Becca's inexplicable connection is a crux of the piece). I know she's an Oscar-winner and considered a great actress, but Becca's an unmistakably human, empathetic, complicated character and I just think that casting the star of Stepford Wives was a mistake. That sounded harsh. Here's the thing: Nicole Kidman is very very good at some things, this is not it. And it is predictably not it. And the casting director should have known that. And Rabbit Hole without Becca isn't much at all.