JeffWells Tagged Articles at Cinematical

When it comes to sifting through all actors responsible for portraying the most powerful man on the planet, there's no shortage of options. John Travolta did a great Bill Clinton impersonation in Primary Colors and Timothy Bottoms delivered a near-perfect imitation of George W. Bush in both D.C. 9/11: Time of Crisis and That's My Bush! Neither one comes across as particularly flattering, so presidential nominee Barack Obama has chosen a safer bet: At a recent party in Los Angeles, Obama revealed that he prefers Jeff Bridges' conflicted commander-in-chief in The Contender. Granted, he may have said this simply to keep his audience happy -- in this case, Contender director Rod Lurie, one of the attendees who was willing to plop down $28,000 for the event. "'I just plugged your movie," Obama told Lurie, according to a report the director sent to Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeffrey Wells.

Still, when you're under the kind of intense scrutiny that Obama currently endures, Bridges actually seems like a pretty safe choice. Choose Anthony Hopkins in Nixon and it sounds like you're endorsing the bad guy. Choose Kevin Kline in Dave and you come across as disingenuous. Choose Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove and somebody will call you incompetent. Bridges, on the other hand, plays a fierce leader bound to his moral convictions. Of course, Obama also expressed sympathy over Lurie's short-lived television show Commander-in-Chief, which featured Geena Davis as the first woman president. Perhaps it's no coincidence that he and Hillary have publicly made amends.

If you thought leading a revolution was easy, try filming one. In The Huffington Post, Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere discusses Steven Soderbergh's two-part Che Guevara biopic, comprised of The Argentine and Guerilla. Despite earlier rumors to the contrary, it appears that both movies will definitely screen next month at the Cannes Film Festival, where Soderbergh was warmly welcomed last year for the premiere of Ocean's Thirteen. The reception of his latest project could be even more positive, but its distribution prospects are another story: As Wells explains, Soderbergh's project guarantees to offend some people for its apparent exclusion of Che's stint as the overlord at La Cabana fortress, where he ordered the execution of over 600 political prisoners. Add to that the heavy amount of Spanish dialog and the director's insistence that the two movies should be enjoyed as a four hour-plus package, and you've got enough red flags to send even the bravest U.S. distributors packing.

Wells, who read both scripts, analogizes the project to Lawrence of Arabia. "Hey, how about presenting the two films as a single, gargantuan Lawrence of Arabia-styled deal with an intermission, running between four or four and a half hours?" he suggests, perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Jon Stewart had it right during the Oscars this year when he ironically geeked out over Lawrence of Arabia on an iPod. If most audiences can't appreciate that movie on the big screen now, why would they turn up for something like this?

Several people who have attended the first critic's screenings of Sweeney Todd -- a.k.a., not me -- are declaring themselves totally wowed, although they're all bending over backwards to respect an embargo. Jeff Wells at Hollywood-Elsewhere was so impressed by the film that he declared Tim Burton's decade-long decline to be now officially reversed. He also speculated that Sweeney Todd may be Burton's best film since 1988's Beetlejuice -- high praise, indeed. Wells even goes a little overboard, stating that "at times it melted me like a candle. I was lifted, moved. I was never not aroused." Okay, we get it Jeff -- the movie better live up to that embarrassing hyperbole.

Tom O'Neil at The Envelope starts his review thusly -- "'Sweeney Todd' is the best pic of 2007" -- pretty straightforward, no? "Everybody whose opinion I pooled after the screening tonight said they thought the movie and Johnny Depp were brilliant," he goes on to say. But like Wells, he thinks the film may see its Best Picture hopes held up by a childishly heavy focus on gore. There are apparently rivers of blood in this film, to the point that even some who enjoyed the film tremendously claimed to be turned off by that aspect.

David Poland joins the chorus of cheers, predicting that Depp will win the Best Actor award for his performance as the demon barber and saying that the film demands multiple viewings just to take it all in. Okay, you've twisted my arm -- I'll go see it.

Over at Hollywood Elsewhere, there's been an interesting game of cat-and-mouse going on between Jeff Wells and Warner Brothers around Wells' early review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. A couple days ago, Wells posted a "somewhat negative" review, which is not, in and of itself, a shocking development. A rep from Warner Brothers delivered a smackdown from on high to Wells, slapping him with the dreaded "your invitation to the screening clearly stated NO REVIEWS before opening day blah blah blah take it down or you'll never see another WB press screening until you're too old and decrepit to write negative crap about films."

Wells complied with WB's request and took the review down, but noted that the concept of an embargo was a little moot at that point anyhow, given that last Friday -- a full five days before the hotly anticipated Opening Day -- early reviews of the film were run by Variety's Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt, Time's Richard Corliss, Rolling Stone's Peter Travers, New York Magazine's David Edelstein and Patrick Z. McGavin on Emmanual Levy's site. But who's counting? Apparently Wells is, at least, because just seven hours later, his own review was back up, with Wells noting in the comments in response to a reader that, while the embargo had not been lifted, with all these other reviews already out (42 pre-release date reviews as of now on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 74% "fresh" rating), he didn't feel the need to comply with WB and "hold his water."