Annapurna and the Weinsteins

The Weinstein brothers have ridden the roller coaster of success for the last 25 years, starting with Miramax. They were moderately successful when it came to distributing art and foreign films in the beginning, then Quentin Tarantino came around and suddenly they blew up. They became perennial big time money makers and Oscar contenders, which lead to Disney buying out Miramax and a subsequent falling out which, in hindsight, everyone should have seen coming.

They formed their own company once again: The Weinstein Company, and they seemed to have been barely skirting by until, once again, Quentin Tarantino bails them out with the hugely successful Inglourious Basterds. A newly reinvigorated company now, they buy the distribution rights to The King's Speech and The Artist and turn them into box office successes.

Great. So why does it feel like they still don't quite know what they're doing? The movie business has always been based on luck, but the Weinsteins's entire career seems based on luck. The hope that Quentin Tarantino would turn out to be as great as he is, the hope that the movie they pay the distribution rights for turns out a profit. Still, The King's Speech and The Artist were low-risk/high reward type films. They were crowd pleasers. Despite the violence, QT's films are also usually crowd-pleasing, to an extent. The Weinsteins have never been able to show that they can produce and distribute more difficult adult drama successfully.

This year makes all that abundantly clear. They had a killer lineup this year. Lawless, The Master, Silver Linings Playbook, Killing Them Softly, Django Unchained... sure I didn't like Killing Them Softly, but on paper it just seems like you couldn't lose with five films like that. Five films from great filmmakers: Hillcoat, PT Anderson, O. Russell, Dominik, QT... they should've had 2012 in the bag. So what happens?

Lawless comes out to decent reviews, but middling box office returns. It gets stuck in that lousy August 31st weekend, a weekend where everyone's usually BBQ'ing or preparing to go back to school or something. Nobody seems to want to watch films that weekend. You had Tom Hardy just coming off The Dark Knight Rises, Shia Labouef who's a pretty recognizable name, and the rest of the cast is rounded by solid performers. It's an entertaining flick that aims to please more than it aims to challenge. The release date it got, however, never really gave it a chance to succeed. Overall, it did ok in the box office, but it could've done way better.

Few weeks later, The Master comes out to rave reviews and great buzz. Its first weekend, it breaks records in limited release. From the outset, this film was clearly going to be a tough sell, but one has to imagine it could've done better than $15 million in the box office. It's always had serious awards buzz, and honestly, probably would've been better off with a late-October/early-November release with a slow rollout until the Oscar noms came out.

Silver Linings Playbook also has some great reviews and positive press, it's still making its slow rollout so the jury is still out on the film. Killing Them Softly has had decent reviews, but the box office returns appear to be woeful with an F cinemascore rating to boot, meaning that moviegoers kinda hated the film. Again, another film that seemed poorly handled. The marketing was completely deceptive and having it be released to nearly 3,000 theaters just seems like a boneheaded move at this point. If anything, Silver Linings should've gotten the wide release and KTS the limited one.

This all leads to Django Unchained and its Christmas release. Once again, it's all on QT to bail the Weinsteins out again. Can he do it? Can the film be successful? Judging by crowd reactions whenever I see the previews for this film, I say yes. It has a great cast, QT's riding high on the success of his previous film, and its Christmas Day release may actually help, instead of hinder, like with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo last year. But hey, True Grit did pretty well on its Christmas Day release two years before.

So Django Unchained just might bail the Weinsteins out and their year may be saved but it doesn't undo a poorly managed year on their part. They appear to have no idea how to market difficult movies such as these and due to the lack of success, I predict they're gonna try buying distribution rights to cheaply made, crowd-pleasing period films yet again and then try to grab Oscar acclaim soon after. This year it really seemed like they were gonna go for the jugular with all these challenging movies and they're limping as they head to the finish line.

The one who it may hurt the most, perhaps not financially, but mentally, is Megan Ellison and her production company Annapurna Pictures. Here's a bright young woman who, at age 25, suddenly decided to start her own film production company and help out some great filmmakers who otherwise may have had a really tough time getting their films made. Lawless, The Master, Killing Them Softly... next year she has Spike Jonze's "Her" and Bennett Miller's "Foxcatcher." She still has Zero Dark Thirty coming out later this year, a film that's not being distributed by the Weinsteins, but Sony Pictures instead.

What I hope is that she doesn't back down after a tough year like this. Maybe think twice before making distribution deals with the Weinsteins again. They have poorly handled her films, flat out. She, and the films she's produced, deserve way better. Her conscious effort to provide thought-provoking art films to the forefront should be applauded, but her lack of immediate success is a bit disconcerting. I remember first hearing she was going to be funding all these films and my first thought was "yes! this woman is an angel" but then I started to think "wait, what if these films don't do well?" That turned out to be a valid question.

But here's to Megan Ellison. The movie business is a tough one, especially in these tough economic times when the movie-going audience dwindles more and more each year. A person doing this great of a service always manages to get rewarded somewhere down the line. Hopefully Megan is able to get hers. And hopefully The Weinsteins are bailed out by Quentin and eventually figure out how to market difficult films successfully. They were onto something this year, trying to put these films out to the public, they just didn't do a good job. That doesn't mean they should stop trying.

Killing Them Softly is a complete misfire

I read in an interview recently that Andrew Dominik, the writer and director of "Killing Them Softly" (which was adapted from the novel Cogan's Trade), was angry when he wrote this film. Angry with the state of the world, angry at a lot of things. That definitely comes through in his latest film, the first film he's made in five years. The anger is pretty apparent from the opening credits and it doesn't escape the screen for the rest of its 100 minutes.

Killing Them Softly is an angry film, but it's not exactly articulate. It's set in late 2008, the start of the economic collapse in America. Constantly, we hear George W. Bush and Barack Obama making speeches in the background, trying to appease a country that's about to fall apart. Killing Them Softly is angry about the state in which we live in, but it doesn't know where to point its finger. At our world leaders? At low-life criminals, or low-lifes in general? At society? What is it, exactly? It's all best exemplified by Jackie Cogan's last line of the film (which I won't spoil). Jackie's angry. So are we. We're angry because we had to watch such an angry movie with no payoff. Angry that there's no flow, no rhyme, or reason to this film. Angry that such a great cast and a clearly talented filmmaker wasted their time. It's ok to be angry, but anger without nuance just feels like a rant. And by the end, you simply don't feel like hearing it anymore.

I said Andrew Dominik is a talented filmmaker and I stand by that statement. Even in this film, it's abundantly clear that he's talented. This is only his third film, but you can tell he knows what he's doing behind the camera. And when you've made a movie like The Assassination of Jesse James (his 2nd film), you don't really need to say much more. The Assassination of Jesse James was a brilliant fucking film, it can't be overstated, and I must make that clear as I continue writing this. Maybe just to even remind myself. That was a film that was beautifully shot, with great performances all around. It was a slow burner of a movie, that contemplated its every move, but in doing that it actually made you feel remorse for a criminal like Jesse James and nothing but contempt for his killer, Robert Ford. It was nuanced. You felt contempt for Robert Ford, but in another way, you pitied him. Nothing was cut and dry in that film and that why it was so beautiful.

So what went wrong here? The problem stems from its painfully simple story: two dumb guys successfully rob a mob protected poker game which is run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta). Fingers are pointed, people are angry, so they turn to Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) to set matters straight. Jackie's a hitman, he's given orders from Driver (Richard Jenkins) who basically speaks for the mafia. Jackie's plan is to off one guy and hire Mickey (James Gandolfini) to off the other. But Mickey turns out to be an unreliable drunk, so Jackie decides to take matters into his own hands.

That's pretty much the movie. Poker game gets robbed, people get killed. Meanwhile, as we constantly hear in the background of the film, the entire country is falling into economic ruin. The subtext may be interesting, but the approach is all wrong and the story is too simple and poorly-constructed to make us care about the subtext. Everything is just too blatant and obvious. It's like hearing someone constantly ranting and raving, it gets tiring by the end. We get it. By the end, the subtext becomes so heavy-handed that you wonder why it's there in the first place.

This is a flat, lifeless film that actually contains some decent performances from Pitt, Gandolfini, Jenkins, and the two dumb criminals Johnny and Frankie (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn). They're all solid to an extent, but aside from Brad Pitt, the rest aren't really given much to do. Pitt's character seems to be the only one who knows what he's doing, but too much time is spent on him listening and reacting. By the time he finally gets to shoot and kill people, it feels like an afterthought.

The Assassination of Jesse James was remarkably crafted, but the way the story is crafted in Killing Them Softly leaves a lot to be desired. Too often it feels we're going from one scene to the next without there being a sense of flow and continuation between them.  Johnny and Frankie meet, they talk, they talk to their boss. Jackie and Driver talk in the car. Then they talk in the car again. Then Jackie meets with Mickey, then talks to Mickey at a bar. Then in a hotel room. It all has this "cut and paste" feeling, like it's just going through the motions. There's no flow between the scenes. No sense that anything is escalating. No sense of tension. It's just flat all around. If Dominik succeeded anywhere, it's managing to suck the life out of all of these scenes. Even when there are scenes that are funny, it still feels lifeless. There are indeed some funny scenes here and there, but it's all based on your run-of-the-mill, simple-minded gang talk about the last time they got laid. It might make you chuckle, but it's not exactly inspired material.

And you know, there are times when Dominik's brilliance comes through. There are just enough bits and pieces here and there that keeps this from being truly terrible. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of them. It gets to the point where you really have to look to find the positives of this film. I am thoroughly disappointed. Great filmmaker, great actors, great crew, and it just adds to disappointment. A complete misfire. I felt like this film would be better in the form of a written essay where Andrew Dominik can list to us all the problems he has with the world, because in movie form, it just doesn't work.

I can go on further into the negatives but I'll stop there. Look, Andrew Dominik's gonna make more great films. He's young. This is just film number three. You can't just make The Assassination of Jesse James and not go back to greatness again. A majority of critics seem to even like this film so who knows, maybe I'm crazy. I give Andrew Dominik a B, maybe a B+ for the effort... at least he tried. But the execution was all wrong to me. This is a film that doesn't raise any questions, nor does it make any statements, it's just one loud rant that's not worth listening to.

Grade: D

Rust and Bone review

I find there's often a common misconception when it comes to the melodrama, at least with my generation. Back in classic Hollywood times, melodramas = dramas, basically. There were a lot of great ones too. With the melodrama, ultimately, only one thing matters: the performances. Much like a good stage show, if the acting is supbar then it's a worthless experiment. It could be a gorgeous looking film, but if the performances don't match up, it ruins it. Melodramas are a tricky thing to get right and it takes a great filmmaker to make a great melodrama. French filmmaker Jacques Audiard is a great filmmaker. "The Beat My Heart Skipped" signaled that, then "A Prophet" cemented it. So where does Rust and Bone fit?

That wasn't a rhetorical question, the answer is basically the middle. Not as amazing as "A Prophet" but definitely worth your money, Rust and Bone is a good melodrama with two great performances and an engrossing story. What Audiard does that's interesting is the raw element that he adds to his films that gives things a more "real world" flavor. Whether it's the handheld camera-work, the minimal use of lighting, or simply-crafted story---Audiard adds just enough touches here and there to pull you in and then lets his actors' performances do the rest of the talking.

The film starts off with Ali (Matthias Schoenaerts) who's left with his five-year old son. He travels to South France to live with his sister as she helps him find work. Ali doesn't exactly know what he's doing when it comes to raising his son Sam and kind of expects his sister to do the majority of the work.

One of the first jobs he gets is as a bouncer. It's here where we meet Stephanie (Marion Cotillard). Stephanie just got into a bad mixup at the club and Ali offers to take her home. When he takes her home, we learn that she trains killer whales. Ali leaves her his number before he leaves, in case she needs anything.

From there, the story takes quite a turn. Stephanie gets into a terrible accident at her job and eventually she meets up again with Ali. Ali's a great character in that he's simply a doer. He has no time to think about the consequences of his actions, he just does what he feels like doing. This can often have undesirable effects, but it's this mentality that helps bring Stephanie out of her funk. Because of him, she's able to find some joy in her life again and they develop quite an interesting bond that could wind up being something more.

Rust and Bone has many elements of a romantic drama as well as the melodrama, as hinted above, and overall, things blend quite nicely. The only unfortunate thing with this film is that we don't really get enough time to really breathe with these characters. Too often, it cuts back and forth between Ali and Stephanie and it's only really when the two are together that the film is at its best. Schoenaerts and Cotillard are great matches and have good chemistry. Cotillard in particular gives a beautiful and affecting performance which, with any lesser actress, could be the deciding factor on whether or not the movie is good.

When it's not just about the two of them, the movie can sometimes threaten to fall off the rails as we're introduced to different plot points here and there that just don't quite mesh well altogether. That said, it all eventually leads to an ending that is actually very well-done so the trip was well worth it.

Not quite a stroke of genius in the way "A Prophet" was, but Rust and Bone is great talent showcase for nearly everyone involved.  With a couple of little kinks here and there it could've been even better, but what we're left with, is still pretty damn good.

Grade: B+

Glad I'm not an Oscar blogger

This weekend films like Zero Dark Thirty, Les Miserables, This is 40, and Django Unchained all screened for critics and members of the Academy. Because voting ballots for the Oscars are being handed in earlier than usual, studios have decided to have their films screen earlier than usual. That can be a double-edged sword: the film could gain buzz a month in advance or it could falter and suddenly the film is dead before it even got released.

For some, it's their job to go to these screenings and give their reactions, I get that. But twitter really bastardizes that process. From the sounds of it, so far, it sounds like Zero Dark Thirty and Les Mis are getting great buzz. But it's not even about how good they are, it's "Can it beat Argo or Lincoln for Best Picture" or "Oh Les Miserables is totally going to win it all now!"

It just makes me wonder if that's what goes through their heads as they watch the film or do they preserve judgment until afterward? Twitter provides instant reactions and I also wonder if some care more about being the first to react to something as opposed to having a deep, considerable opinion on the matter. It wasn't that long ago that bloggers waited at least until the critics' awards started happening before they seriously started predicting the Oscars. But now it seems like anytime a new "oscar contender" is released, we immediately start to wonder about its prospects.

Seriously, if I had the luxury of attending to free screenings like these knuckleheads, I would take the time to enjoy the films (or if I don't like, take the time to figure out why). It's not like any of them really have anything intelligent to say about these films, I mean, how silly and ridiculous is it to judge a film based on its potential Oscar prospects? We both know the Oscars don't go for the best film, they go for the film that is best "tailored" to their interests. So, when people judge these films, it's almost like they look for certain clues as to how it could wind up winning Best Picture or Director or Actor. Sometimes, in the case of Daniel Day-Lewis, the obvious is the obvious. But, discussing the Oscars in the midst of talking about the film's merits is completely ok with me. What bothers me is the twitter aspect, where most of these film bloggers and critics start Oscar campaigning and sounding like a bunch of spoiled brats.

The worst part of it is that a lot of them don't really care about film. They know that there is a certain amount of people interested in the Oscars, there must be since there's a shitload of blogs devoted to them. But, you know they don't really care about film because they'll talk about a film like they're a teenaged girl or boy talking about a crush. At the same time, they'll talk down about a film that's been made by someone they consider "uncool" or maybe they don't support their views on other shit that has nothing to do with the film at hand.

It's laughable to me how what seems like a nice comedy/drama in Silver Linings Playbook is being hounded and questioned on how good its Oscar prospects are. Whether or not Jennifer Lawrence will win Best Actress, people judging whether or not she'd win because she's "attractive" enough for Academy voters. It's absurd.

Thing is, in general, I enjoy the whole Oscar game. It is a game. But I don't like to talk or to think about it until the Oscars are right around the corner. It's interesting to see what the Academy will go for every year and it's equally frustrating to see how the results turn out. But something changed in me a little, reading twitter after the first few Les Miserables screenings ended. The amount of people clamoring about its Oscar chances and whether or not Tom Hooper will win his second consecutive Oscar made me realize how sad it all really is. "Oh it'll probably split between Spielberg for Director and Les Mis for Best Picture." It'd be ok if this was based on anything substantial, but it's not. It makes you realize how little these people care about the films themselves. They literally will look at a film and judge whether or not "it's good enough for the director to win his second Oscar" or maybe it'll just split the BP/BD vote. Seriously? You're thinking about that after watching an epic musical? Did you LIKE the film? And if you did, why not talk about that some more instead?

It makes me feel bad for the potential career trajectory of Tom Hooper. Here's a guy, he makes a few films in the early 00's with not too much attention, then The King's Speech comes out and he's the Oscar darling. He wins over the likes of Darren Aronofsky, Fincher, and the Coen Brothers. He seems like a mild-mannered enough guy, and you know what? He made a great film that was well-liked by critics, the academy, and audience members. I didn't think of it as one of the best films of the year, but he still made a really good film.

So then he follows it up, two years later, with a beautiful looking musical where all of the actors sing live which is a bold and unusual move. It's much longer than The King's Speech, it has a much bigger cast, it's most ambitious in scope. Before even seeing the movie, I feel that Hooper must be praised for taking his recent success and being a little more uncompromising on this next film. Sure, hearing at first that he was making Les Miserables sounded like "oh wow, he must really like winning Oscars," because yeah the idea of the movie with that cast sounds like Oscar bait material. But after hearing people talk so positively about it, it could very well be a legitimately great film and that's what we should be talking about. We should also be talking about where it places Tom Hooper among the ranks of great, promising directors. Those are more interesting conversations. Because if Tom Hooper turns out to be a fantastic director whose only "flaw" is making crowd-pleasing, successful films... I think we can live with all of that. Not every good director has to be challenging to the point of confusing and alienating his audience. We need some directors like that, but we also need great populist directors. Otherwise, movies will be relegated to mindless popcorn fare. A movie like The King's Speech and potentially Les Miserables maybe popcorn fare too, but they most certainly wouldn't be mindless.

That's why this stuff bothers me because a guy like Hooper is unfortunately making these films in the wrong age: the twitter/Oscar blog age where his films will constantly talked about in regards to how "Oscar worthy" it is instead of how good the film is. And that's just sad.

Of course I'll talk about the Oscars from time to time and I might mention a film's Oscar chances in a review, but my reviews would never revolve around that and I would make sure I never talked about the Oscars ad nauseum. So why does it bother me anyway? Why do I care to complain about it? Because it just makes me sad to see potentially interesting film discussions be denigrated to Oscar talk. It's just one big wasted opportunity in my opinion. This shit needs to stop, or at least cool it until we get some critics' top 10 lists and the New York and LA critics start handing out awards. At least, wait until that. For now, we all know nothing.

Life of Pi: Easy to like, a little harder to love, but the visuals are tremendous

I've been seeing a lot of articles, write-ups about Ang Lee lately and how versatile the filmmaker is and it made me think about how much I undervalue him as a filmmaker. He really is one of the best, he's not always consistent, but he always seems to bounce back in big ways and get back in the limelight with something pretty great. Visually, Life of Pi can be counted as part of that trend. It's absolutely beautiful in so many ways and it's hard not to have respect for Ang Lee and the film crew involved in what is, at times, a truly breath-taking experience. It's a film made for the visual medium in a lot of ways, but as enchanting as it may be, it loses its fire with the cutting back and forth between the story Pi tells and the conversation between him and the reporter who wants to write a book about his experiences.

From when it was announced, it had sounded like this would be quite a challenge to get Life of Pi off the ground but 20th Century Fox took a chance, an expensive chance. The results on screen are gorgeous visuals that are actually enhanced with the 3D. The best thing I can say is that I legitimately forgot I was wearing the glasses soon after the movie started. Ang Lee used it well. When they're out to sea and we learn of Pi's struggle to survive out in the middle of the ocean, it's really powerful stuff. It even raises some interesting questions, with religious overtones that never felt too intrusive.

Pi Patel now in his 50s lives in Canada with his wife and children, a reporter comes to visit him after hearing that Pi has a story that could make him believe in God. Pi talks about growing up in India, being named after a swimming pool in France (Piscine Molitor), which unfortunately sounds too much like "pissing." He eventually starts calling himself Pi once he gets to high school, memorizing all the numbers to Pi in order to get people to stop making fun of him for his unfortunate sounding name.

When Pi is well into his teens, his father announces that they're going to be moving to Canada and will be selling the zoo that he owns. They'll be taking a ship to North America, with a plan to sell the animals along the way. Whilst on board the ship, something goes horribly awry in the midst of a terrible storm in the middle of the sea leaving Pi all alone on a lifeboat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan, and an adult Bengali tiger. Pi then goes into great detail about how he manages to survive despite this unpleasant situation.

I understand the need for this film to be told in a "storytelling" fashion, someone in the present day telling a person this story, it's necessary because Pi's subjectivity as a narrator comes into play in a very big way towards the end. I get that and at the end it kinda pays off when we're forced into trying to decide what really happened on the lifeboat and wonder what Pi really had to go through in order to survive.

But the film would have been a masterpiece if we stuck to the visuals. If they managed to somehow get that aspect across whilst focusing primarily on the extraordinary journey, it would have been even more emotionally riveting, satisfying, and could still be thought-provoking. As it is, we have great moments mixed in with momentum-killing breaks in the story. This is a film that could've really been a wild adventure, it was already out there enough as it is, but the framing of this story has been used a bit too much in the past 50 years or so and they didn't really inject anything fresh into that part of it.

You may think it's a minor criticism but it's really not. Because the film has this storytelling aspect of it, it hides almost as much as it shows and in the end, you ultimately feel like there's something so much more to the story that you're missing. Its absence ultimately makes the film a bit too easy to swallow given the intensity of the lead character's struggle. It delves into some interesting ideas and metaphors, but it would've much better if it tried to explore these metaphors visually instead of cutting back into present day, and forcing us to contemplate the "real story" ourselves. It makes us wonder if the story was really worth getting into in the first place.

There's nothing inherently wrong about the twist of the film, but given how strong this film is visually, it feels like a cop out to reveal the twist verbally and not visually. Ang Lee and his crew did so many great things with this film from the amazing CGI, to how beautiful the sea visuals look, to the sequence of the ship sinking. That was all nice, but when it came to tying all of this to the heart of the story, that's where the film faltered. Because of this, the emotional climax hardly exists, leaving the audience to almost feel kinda empty.

Still, one simply cannot ignore just how gorgeous this film really is, Life of Pi is truly a sight to see and I can assure you that it's worth seeing it in 3D. It pulls you in almost as soon as you start watching it and it's easy to get hooked, but despite some of the best visual moviemaking of the year, I can't help but think just how much more satisfying and brilliant it could have been.

Grade:  C+

A pause to harp on the idea of a PT Anderson and Robert Downey Jr. collabo

Seriously, this needs to happen. The connection between the two actually runs pretty deep. PT Anderson happens to be good friends with Robert Downey Jr.'s father. Those two, earlier this year, made a series of videos for Criterion Collection where they took a look at some of Robert Downey Sr.'s films that had been released in a Criterion boxset at around the same time. Naturally, PT Anderson and Downey Jr. also have a mutual respect for each other.

Paul Thomas Anderson has been talking about his next movie being a Thomas Pynchon adaptation, Inherent Vice. Just reading the book could make someone excited about the potential prospect of PT Anderson making the film version and Robert Downey Jr. playing the main character. What's most exciting for me is that the tone is lighter, looser, and at times, sillier than where PT has been lately. The Master has some funny bits and pieces but it's got two intense male (and one female) performances. Robert Downey Jr. could inject a fresh, new, energetic life. It's not that PTA necessarily needs a change of pace, but he's always been one to be two steps ahead of all of us. The Master, though, wasn't all too far away, in terms of mood, from There Will Be Blood. Two different movies, but they both feature intense lead characters who never change. Overall, they're serious in tone and in the themes they explore. What I loved about The Master though was its willingness to simply leave things open. With TWBB, you knew Daniel Plainview was scum, you know Eli Sunday was scum. But Freddie Quell? Lancaster Dodd? Peggy Dodd? Are they bad people? Yes and no. That's much more of a gray area.

Nevertheless, doing a film like Inherent Vice next is a great next step. It kinda has a Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye feel to it and we all know what a big fan PT Anderson is of him. What we know most of PT Anderson is his willingness to change. His style hasn't evolved, it's shifted dramatically. Is it that he's matured? Perhaps. Is it simply that he will cop to any style as long as it suits the film?

The reason why Paul Thomas Anderson is my favorite filmmaker today is because, like Louis CK in stand-up comedy, PT Anderson just does things on an entirely different level than everyone else. It's not that he's better, it's just that nobody is even trying to do what he does right now. No one is entering the territories he's immersed himself in. But, most of all, nobody seems so confident and comfortable in completely changing the way they work in order to service the story they're trying to tell. He's looser, more willing to try a bunch of things and see what fits. He's more capable than ever in giving his actors free range to explore as much as they want to.

He's also less indulgent. In the Magnolia days, he fought to keep the running time at three hours, eight minutes. At the time, he was insistent it stay that long. He thought every frame of the film needed to remain. Now? He admits that he could've cut a few scenes out or shortened a few here and there. He admits that it could be shorter. That new attitude reflects The Master. It's a 135-minute film and tons of footage has presumably been cut out. So much so that he has created a 20-minute collage of scenes that were cut from the film and it's gonna be on the DVD/BD release.

Those who have followed the film's marketing from the beginning know that there was some great footage in the teaser trailers that were not in the final cut of the film. Perhaps in 1999, The Master would've been 160 minutes long, but now? He's not that guy anymore. He's grown up.

Robert Downey Jr. has also grown up, dramatically. Here's a guy who constantly had drug problems in the '90s and early '00s. A great, promising actor who constantly put his career in jeopardy even if he wound up getting rave reviews in nearly all of his performances. He's a natural acting talent, always has been. He's a great movie persona that never seems to get old no matter what movie he's in and that personality exploding when he was cast as Iron Man in 2008. Before the movie came out, people actually wondered if he could carry the movie and whether it could be successful. Well? After Iron Man, its sequel, and The Avengers, as well as another film franchise: the Sherlock Holmes trilogy; RDJ has firmly established himself as one of Hollywood's go-to leading men.

The problem? Aside from starring in Due Date with Zach Galifianakis back in 2010, Downey Jr. has basically only been in blockbusters. He also had a great, memorable role in Tropic Thunder. But, how great would it be for this reinvigorated leading man to star in a fun, loose Paul Thomas Anderson film?

The one thing that has always managed to elude Paul Thomas Anderson is box office success. He's been Oscar-nominated, he's won tons of critics awards, he has respect from his peers in the industry as well as many critics. He has a devoted fanbase, but it's not that large clearly. Otherwise, explain how The Master only managed a $15 million intake. He's never gonna be the one to willingly make a crowd pleaser, a film that his fans will love right away and that will crossover to a larger movie audience. There Will Be Blood had a reasonable amount of success, but not that much either.

That's why collaborating with Robert Downey Jr. is perfect. Here's a critically acclaimed actor with box office clout working with a critically acclaimed filmmaker lacking in commercial success. Who knows how Inherent Vice turns out, but if the adaptation winds up being as fun as the book is...

Perhaps I'm getting a bit ahead of myself, I'm just excited by the idea. As much as I'm looking forward to another PT Anderson film, I'm also looking forward to Robert Downey Jr. capitalizing on his recent success and trying on something with a little more dramatic flair to it.

The Summer of 2013 is actually shaping up to look pretty good for film

Here's what we got so far...

 May:
Iron Man 3
The Great Gatsby
Star Trek into Darkness
The Hangover part III

Yes, three of those are sequels, but to interesting franchises. I didn't like The Hangover part II, but I like the actors in those films a lot so I'm interested in seeing if they can come together and make a superior third film. Also, I find a lot to like about the first Hangover still, having watched it recently for the 20th time.

June:
After Earth
The End of the World
Man of Steel
World War Z
Kick-Ass 2
Monsters University

I'll be interested in seeing if M. Night Shyamalan can finally find his groove back, maybe Will Smith can help. Seth Rogen and his friend Evan Goldberg wrote and directed The End of the World, it has a great comedic cast. Though the title too much resembles "The World's End" which is Edgar Wright's upcoming film.

As for the rest, they could go either way, like the first two. But at this point, they look interesting. Though Kick-Ass 2 may suffer greatly since Matthew Vaughn isn't the director.

July:
The Lone Ranger
Pacific Rim

Really the only two July titles I'm halfway interested in. The Lone Ranger may be fun, may be stupid, perhaps both.

Pacific Rim though is Guillermo del Toro's long-awaited return to the big screen after a five year absence and he promises it'll be big. Can't wait.

August:
Elysium

Ok that's the only one in August that I'm looking forward to. Neill Blomkamp's much anticipated follow-up to his debut "District 9." Starring Matt Damon. It'll be great to see just how good of a filmmaker Blomkamp really is after hitting a home run with his first.