Few leading male actors have followed the roundabout career trajectory of Josh Hartnett. Though indisputably tall, dark and handsome, Hartnett still manages to avoid the pratfalls of typecasting by landing roles in strange projects with questionable appeal. While this choice comes at the expense of a quality resume, his performances can lend barely competent films at least one redeeming ingredient: I could give or take Wicker Park, Resurrecting the Champ, and even the good intentions of The Black Dahlia, but each benefits from Hartnett's expressive glare, furrowed brow and whispered delivery. He's an instant generator of gravitas.

Although August, director Austin Chick's second feature after the relationship drama XX/XY, doesn't qualify as Hartnett's best movie, it's certainly one of his meatiest roles – right up there with his work in the unfairly maligned Lucky Number Slevin. As the crudely pompous CEO of the mysterious start-up company Landshark in New York City during the summer before 9/11, Hartnett offers a maddened, garrulous anti-hero replete with dark humor and sustained by a surge of baseless confidence. The movie follows the audacious entrepreneur, Tom, as his fifteen minutes begin to run out – and it concludes with him facing off against a freakishly powerful David Bowie as the icy corporate foil. Despite the age gap, both men exude an eerie amount of restraint – which is not the case for the film. August adds up to less than it aspires to be, but it's populated with enough curiosities to keep you watching.

You just saw him running from vampires in the cold, dark Alaska of 30 Days of Night. Now get ready to see Josh Hartnett evading more human adversaries on a hot, Texan football field in End Zone. According to Variety, the actor has been cast as the lead in an adaptation of the farcical Don DeLillo novel, which will be directed by George Ratliff (Joshua). The movie, scripted by Ratliff and his Joshua writing partner David Gilbert, will see Hartnett as a college football running back who is ruining his chances for stardom by thinking too much about another kind of end zone, that related to nuclear war. Also cast are Kat Dennings (Big Momma's House 2), who plays the love interest, and Joshua star Sam Rockwell, who plays the school's publicist. Another significant role, not yet filled, is a professor of international terrorism and mass destruction who sees Hartnett's character as a perfect soldier.

I can't really picture Josh Hartnett as a perfect soldier, let alone a football player. But I guess I never could have imagined him as a cop or a pilot or any other responsible position had I not seen it realized on screen. Mostly my image of him is focused on three relatively slacker roles: Trip Fontaine in The Virgin Suicides; the sex-crazed abstainer of 40 Days and 40 Nights and the "wrong man" protagonist of Lucky Number Slevin. Now that I think of it, though, I could see him as one of the pot-head jocks in Dazed and Confused, and since DeLillo's novel was released in 1972, it places Hartnett's End Zone character in almost the same environment. Of course, I don't recall Randall "Pink" Floyd ever contemplating nuclear war.

I have an issue with year-end best-of lists. Or, I should say I have an issue with making them, myself. Every year I think about giving in to the tradition, but then I stop myself when I realize that I haven't seen enough movies. There are the last-minute releases of late December to wait for. There are films I missed earlier in the year that haven't yet arrived on DVD. And ever since I took a hiatus from reviewing films, it has gotten worse, because I see fewer movies than I normally do. Typically I don't discover my favorite pic of a given year until the following year or later.

So, rather than write up a list that may change tomorrow or the next day or 10 years from now, I've decided to reflect on the bad movies I saw. I've definitely seen more bad movies than good movies, anyway. But rather than make a list of the worst of '06 -- I probably haven't seen the real worst any more than I've seen the best -- I fondly recalled the movies that were crap, but were enjoyable, nonetheless.

Some of the movies on my list are wholly guilty pleasures, while others have one or two specific aspects that I found more guiltily pleasurable than the movie itself.

• 10.) Cobra Starship's 'Snakes on a Plane (Bring It)' video from Snakes on a Plane - Sure, Snakes on a Plane is a guilty pleasure -- it was made to be. But it is just too obvious to mention it as a whole, and anyway it really wasn't as enjoyable as it should have been or was meant to be. The music video during the movie's credits, though, is another story. In my opinion it overshadows the actual movie by a long shot. It may be as self-consciously intent on producing irony and camp, but it succeeds where SOAP doesn't. Maybe because it is catchy, maybe because the band looks like a parody of contemporary hipster bands, or maybe because it is shorter -- I am far more likely to return to the video for a good laugh than to the movie (not that I'll turn off the movie on a lazy Sunday with nothing better to do; it is still a guilty pleasure, itself).

Right now, The Guardian has a neat little thirty-question quiz up called 2006: The year in film. How well do you remember everything (film-related) that happened this year? And when I say everything, I mean even the tiniest details -- like quotes from actors, marketing mishaps and deaths. That's right, The Guardian has assembled a unique list of multiple choice questions that are, at best, extremely random.

Personally, I found the quiz to be rather easy, but then again I write for a movie blog -- I should know these things, right? However, I was surprised to only score 28 out of 30. Yes, even I'm not perfect. They got me with one death question (pick the actor who died in 2005, not 2006), as well as on a question about a marketing mishap that occurred during Lucky Number Slevin's promotional campaign. Now, if you're a faithful Cinematical reader, then you should be able to answer most (if not all) of the questions correctly, seeing as we've covered each topic at least once. Have fun, and definitely come back after you've finished to let us know your score.

Bonus Cinematical question not included in The Guardian's quiz: Which film did Erik predict would gross the most money at the box office this past summer? And was he right?

[via Hollywood Wiretap]

It's Easter weekend, and for a lot of us that means easter egg hunts, church services, and dinner with the extended family. After stuffing yourself silly with chocolate bunnies, marshmallow chicks and ham and listening to Uncle Bert's war stories for the 89,000th time, you'll be ready to escape -- and where better to escape to than the movies? If you live in Seattle, count yourself lucky. You'll have more to choose from than Scary Movie 4 or The Wild.

UW Film Club 

This week at UW brings us a showing of Academy Award-nominated Brazilian film City of God. Tuesday, April 18 @6PM, Electrical Engineering Auditorium. Also this week at  UW:

Beautiful Boxer shows as part of International Queer Nights, Tuesday, April 18 @7PM, Q Center

ASUW A&E Movie Spring Series - every Weds. at the HUB Ballroom.

April 19 - Memoirs of a Geisha @5:30PM; Chronicles of Narnia @8PM

 

Despite seeing its take drop about 50% from the massive first weekend (not uncommon for big animated films), Ice Age: The Meltdown nevertheless retained the top spot and, with nearly $35 million, became the first film of 2006 to go over the $100 million mark. Taking the second spot was the latest Adam Sandler-produced brainfest, The Benchwarmers, which took in $20.5 million on about 3300 screens. Phat Girlz, the other un-reviewed debut of the weekend, struggled into the ninth spot with only $3.1 million. Though the film was shown on many fewer screens than Benchwarmers, it nevertheless scored a much smaller per-screen average, which is not a good sign. The weekend's other two new films, Take the Lead and Lucky Number Slevin, both finished in the top five, with $12.8 and $7.1 million respectively. Also notable was the film in the tenth spot, Jason Reitman's Thank You for Smoking, which took in $2.4 million on 300 screens, averaging an impressive $8000/screen.

The full top 10 is after the jump.

Once again, two major releases weren't screened for critics, thus sending much of the mainstream media in a tizzy about What This Means For The Future of Criticism. Do they not remember going over all of this a couple of months ago? Because nothing has changed -- studios still hide bad movies. It's a bummer, but also totally understandable. We did, however, get early looks this week at Lucky Number Slevin and Take the Lead. The short version: Lucky Number Slevin is either incredibly clever or just thinks it is, while Take the Lead is utterly unsurprising.

• Lucky Number Slevin: The reviews for this one are sort of weird. Most critics give it credit for being stylish and clever, but by the same token, many are turned off by how self-conscious that style and wit are; Quentin Tarantino's name is mentioned more than once, as an example of someone whose work exhibits similar tendencies, but with a warmth that is missing from Slevin. Others, like James and our man Roger Ebert, are so irritated by the smugness of the film that they can't even enjoy all the things it thinks it has to be smug about. If you know what I mean.
  

• Take the Lead: Everyone agrees that it's a big pile of cliches; the disagreement is over whether the cliches are well-done or not (most critics, like Jette, think not). In addition, an unusual amount of negative attention is paid to the screenplay, which is quite disconcerting -- given the number of average screenplays we all regularly sit through, this one must really be uncommonly awful. There are a few, however, who enjoy the film, primarily (and refreshingly) for its charmingly old-fashioned sensibilities.
  

Shockingly, this weekend might actually be sunny here in the Puget Sound. If you're like me, you'll be out and about soaking in some rays that don't come from a lamp, but that's okay. Once the sun goes down, you'll still be wanting something to do, though --  and as always, Seattle has your movie fix.

UW Film Club 

This week brings us the 5th Annual Native Voices Film Festival. Check out the schedule - all events are free, so if you don't want to spend $20 to go see something at the multiplex, this might be a good option.

(Editor's note: This review is an expansion of Cinematical's Sundance review of Lucky Number Slevin.)

Once upon a time, crime films were grim; gritty; bleak. Then Tarantino came along (and there were precedents before him, but never mind) and crime films changed -- now, the sounds issuing off the screen weren't just the crack and ricochet of bullets, but the zing! of snappy patter and high-speed wordplay. The regrettably-named Lucky Number Slevin isn't a post-Tarantino crime film; it's a post-post-post-Tarantino crime film, and when you're the millionth director to stagger through what used to be undiscovered country, it's hard to look like a pioneer.

Directed by Paul McGuigan (Gangster Number One), Lucky Number Slevin is a candy-colored crime movie that, after a few preliminary murders, starts as a wheelchair-bound man (Bruce Willis) is killing time at the train station by telling a young man about a fixed horse race. Flashing back to the '70s, Willis relates how father and husband Max came across the info about how a certain nag was a sure thing, bet all his money … and lost. Owing the money -- and being privy to a private fix -- led the two newest crime bosses in New York to punish Max by killing him. And his wife. And his son. What do murders that took place 30 years ago have to do with the here-and-now? Well, that's a long story; it's too bad it's not an entertaining one.

According to the trade papers, MGM is schedule to announce an ambitious new slate of distribution deals later today. Though the studio stopped doing production of its own when it was acquired by Sony last year, this afternoon it will reveal deals with independent studios that will have it distributing about 20 films over the next year. The bulk of that number will come from The Weinstein Company and Bauer Martinez, which are together expected to contribute up to 15 pictures. Titles from that duo could included such TWC films as Clerks 2, Lucky Number Slevin, and Young Hannibal: Behind the Mask, as well as Bauer properties The Darwin Awards and Christian Bale starrer Harsh Times. Other, smaller productions houses will also be part of the deal: Lakeshore Entertainment is already on board, and talks are on-going with Sidney Kimmel Entertainment, among others.

The smaller companies will have the option of utilizing MGM's growing marketing department for movie promotion, while TWC and other bigger studios will continue to promote their own properties. Another aspect of this deal is MGM's contract with Showtime, under which the company is responsible for up to 30 slots over the course of the year; the films that are part of this deal could fill some of those slots.

Perhaps in an effort to place himself above what might just be a fairly crappy movie, Ben Kingsley has demanded that he be billed as "Sir Ben Kingsley" in Lucky Number Slevin's UK promotions. It doesn't appear, however, that the film's lack of quality is totally to blame for Kingsley's idiocy, since he once reprimanded a German reporter who had the nerve to call him "Mr. Kingsley" with "It's Sir Ben. I've not been a Mr. for two years." Ouch.

Happily, his fellow knights have climbed all over him for such ass-tastic behavior, thus restoring the world's faith in fake royalty. Sir Roger Moore, by far the coolest ex-Bond, weighed in with: "It's a load of pretentious bollocks." Meanwhile, Chariots of Fire producer (Lord) David Puttnam, said "I think Ben's barmy and I wish I could just get hold of him and say 'wake up'. It's a silly thing to do." Finally, though he didn't speak on Kingsley's demands, we can easily guess at the feelings of Sir Michael Gambon, who threatened to hit anyone who called him "Sir" when he was filming Angels in America. Michael Gambon rules.

We reported back in December that an Equalizer movie was officially on the way. At the time, producer Mace Neufeld (the man behind the Jack Ryan series) was in place, but the Weinstein brothers had yet to find either their director or star. Though the latter opening still exists, the former has been filled by Scottish director Paul McGuigan. McGuigan watched the series as a kid - "Growing up in Scotland, there were few channels and good shows to watch, and this was one that penetrated my psyche" - and, reassuringly, claims that he would never age McCall down to conform to the current Hollywood style.

I don't know about you, but I think I'll cling to McGuigan's affection for the show as a good sign, and try to ignore the fact that his track record (Lucky Number Slevin, which was liked by pretty much no one who saw it at Sundance, is his most recent effort) is less than stellar. That said, what he needs most now, clearly, is our prayers as he tries to stand up to the suits, who will inevitably demand that the film star someone young and pretty. How does "Chad Michael Murray, Equalizer" strike you?

Once upon a time, crime films were grim; gritty; bleak. Then Tarantino came along (and there were precedents before him, but never mind) and crime films changed – now, the sounds issuing off the screen weren't just the crack and ricochet of bullets, but the zing! of snappy patter and high-speed wordplay. The regrettably-named Lucky Number Slevin isn't a post-Tarantino crime film; it's a post-post-post-Tarantino crime film, and when you're the millionth director to stagger through what used to be undiscovered country, it's hard to look like a pioneer.

Directed by Paul McGuigan (Gangster Number One), Lucky Number Slevin is a candy-colored crime movie that, after a few preliminary murders, flashes back to the '70s as a wheelchair-bound man (Bruce Willis) is killing time at the train station by telling a young man about a fixed horse race, and how father and husband Max, who came across the info about how a certain nag was a sure thing, bet all his money … and lost. Owing the money – and being privy to a private fix – led the two newest crime bosses in New York to punish Max by killing him. And his wife. And his son.

We don't know why Willis is revealing this information, but soon Willis's journey is interwoven with that of Slevin (Josh Hartnett), a young man who's come to New York to hang with his buddy Nick after losing his job and his girl and getting mugged. Slevin explains all this to Nick's cheerful, bubbly across-the-hall neighbor Lindsey (Lucy Liu) who's curious about where Nick is and why this stranger's in his apartment. Slevin soon has other problems, as representatives of The Boss (Morgan Freeman), believing Slevin to be Nick, take him to talk to The Boss about a small matter of $96,000 that Nick owes one of The Boss's underlings. The Boss is willing to wipe the debt – in exchange for a small favor. Next, Slevin is dragged to see The Rabbi (Ben Kingsley), The Boss's rival, about the matter of $33,000 that Nick owes. On introduction, The Rabbi is cordial: "You must be Nick." Slevin's not enthused: "Must I be? Because that hasn't been working out for me. …"

If that kind of rat-a-tat dialogue works for you, you'll love Lucky Number Slevin. What you won't love is Lucky Number Slevin's plotline, as it contorts itself into one of those films where twist is piled on twist and revelation comes on the heels of other revelations. All that wrapping, though, can't conceal that Lucky Number Slevin is hollow at its core; put more bluntly, I'd be more engaged by Lucky Number Slevin's capacity to twist and turn like a crack-addled cotton snake if I were given a reason to care. The press screening of Lucky Number Slevin featured a few chortles from the assembled press due to screenwriter Jason Smilovic's constant barrage of quips, fast-talk blather and snappy comebacks – much in the way that, if someone fired a shotgun at you for a hundred and ten minutes, one or two pellets would invariably strike your funnybone. Every actor in Lucky Number Slevin gets a good line or two – what they don't get is a real character to portray or a story that matters to be part of.  Packed with flash and smash-cut edits, loaded with gunfire and cheap thrills, Lucky Number Slevin is a shaggy-dog-story of a crime film with no punch to its punchline.

Others on Lucky Number Slevin: Variety's Justin Chang describes it as "Thoroughly -- and sometimes justifiably -- infatuated with its own cleverness," while Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter ultimately feels that "no matter how badly the movie cons you, you must admit that the film is stylish as hell."