Friday, May 12, 2006
"OMG I hope it's like a hard "R", man!"
More random and probably useless rumblings regarding Batman Begins F'Realz Now continue to pummel the net, courtesy of fansite Batman On Film. Apparently, bat-fans should expect to see a much "darker" sequel...
Here's the word from BOF, copy and pasted for your and my convenience (c'mon now, it's a Friday):Got the following tidbit in today I thought may interest you all. A few tidbits from a friend of BOF that sort of comes straight from the horses mouth, so to speak (he explained how, I just can't tell you all the details). Anyhow, expect:
- "They" pretty much have got the plot for the film outlined.
- Nolan has been re-going over all of the various Batman comics even more to comb for fine details.
- They (Nolan and co.) want it to be even darker than BEGINS.
- The studio is supportive of creating something as accurate to the Batman comic books as possible and less about it being some kind of summer popcorn "mega-hit."
If by "darker" they mean less third act brainlessness and less lines like "I gotta get me one of those", than please please please darken this bitch away!
Source: Batman On Film Continue reading "OMG I hope it's like a hard "R", man!"
Trailer: Miami Vice
Up until last night, Superman Returns was the movie I was most looking forward to this summer. But all that has changed with the release of the new trailer for Michael Mann's brand-new update of Miami Vice.
The trailer is pretty short for a final trailer - assuming it is the final one - but the material packed in to that one minute and thirty seconds is glorious. Lots of speedboat racing, Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx both getting their end away, explosions, undercover operations, and most importantly, conflict between Crockett and Tubbs. I wasn't sure how Mann was going to go with this new version of the classic TV series that introduced designer stubble and pet alligators, but from what I've seen thus far, he's stripped it down and reinvented it in a much more profound way.
Let us now list the reasons why this movie will be amazing:
1. Michael Mann is a great, great director, and the best visualist this side of Ridley Scott.
2. Colin Farrell is one of this generation's best actors.
3. Jamie Foxx probably is this generation's best actor.
4. Gong Li is really hot.
5. It looks like COPS.
6. It makes Linkin Park sound good. And I HATE Linkin Park.
Miami Vice is released on July 28.
Source: Apple.com Continue reading Trailer: Miami Vice
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Man, If I Could, I Would Totally Enter Jason Bateman's "Kingdom"... Wait, What?
Jason Bateman, straight man and goddamn prince of the completely great and already sorely missed Fox sitcom Arrested Development, is the latest human to join director Peter Berg's burgeoning cast for the upcoming terrorism film The Kingdom. Bateman? Really? Huh.
The film, already featuring Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, and Jennifer Garner, "follows a team of American counterterrorism agents who go to a hostile Middle Eastern country after a bombing attack against Americans there."It's not clear yet what roles each of the above thesps will be playing, but as far as Bateman is concerned, considering his filmography, I think it's a pretty safe bet to assume he'll be playing a hairy and unkempt terrorist... again. That said, this is definitely shaping up to be a project to watch closely.
The Kingdom is tentatively set to open sometime in 2007.
Source: Variety Continue reading Man, If I Could, I Would Totally Enter Jason Bateman's "Kingdom"... Wait, What?
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Editorial: Directors Vs Editors
It used to be that directors were just the highest paid members of the crew and film was a producer's medium. Then, in the 60's, the French got involved and it all went to hell. Trauffaut, Godard and a bunch of other people who's films I have definitely seen all of, created 'The New Wave' one afternoon while bored in a cafe. Out went the old ways of Hollywood's studio system - with its star grooming, shot composition rules and censorship codes - and in came complete freedom for the creator, the 'auteur' theory, and horse burgers in the catering van.
The 'auteur' (author) theory (theory) champions film as a personal expression of the creator, rather than a collaborative act of making an entertainment product. It is not a profession but a vocation. It is, heaven help us, 'art'.
The last golden era of Hollywood (the 70's) was mostly due to the autuer theory finally reaching America, when young filmakers (Scorcese, Coppola, Spielberg), full of these crazy French ideas, were able to sneak in to Hollywood just as the old, producer-led, studio system was collapsing under the weight of a lot of crap musicals. As a result they made such legendarily great and personal films as The Godfather, Mean Streets and, ummm, Jaws, and the notion of 'director as god' was thrust manfully into our consciousness, where it remains today.
The problem with this notion of 'director as god', as those French people would probably say if they could be bothered to talk to us, is that it is bullshit. As always, we learnt the wrong lessons.
If the 'New Wave' was about anything, it was about breaking down old and staid rules set up by the top down power systems of the studios. We have interpreted it as simply putting the director at the top of the power structure instead of the producer. Silly us.
And when I say 'us', I mean me, because I certainly used to think this way, so let me exorcise some demons here.
The reasons why we enjoy the films we enjoy have absolutely as much to do with the invisible touch of the editor as the groping mitts of the director. They are, in fact, very different jobs yet we tend to use the term 'director' as meaning 'the guy who made the film'. And while people like Robert Rodriguez may say he does everything in his home-cooked movies (don't believe all of the hype), he is very much the exception to the rule.
Jaws, when first assembled in the editing room, did not work at all, mostly because the very silly rubber shark looked like a very silly rubber shark. The editor's solution was to take the shark out of the picture until the very end. Jaws, apart from ushering 30 years of blockbuster shit, is still terrifyingly great.
Star Wars, when first assembled in the editing room, did not work at all because the editors were assembling according to old rules - letting shots play out to their full length, cutting before and after the action and so on (and this can all be seen on the documentary 'Empire Of Dreams' on the latest DVD release of the Star Wars Trilogy which you all have, suckers). Lucas went in with a new editor, shortened everything, cut on the action and suddenly the breathless adventure of Star Wars that we love (and ushered in 30 years of shit) was born.
In both cases the shots (the stuff the director did) didn't change, but the change in editing made all the difference in the world.
The director's job, in the strict definition, is entirely set-bound. He is there to collect a bunch of footage in order to give to the editor to actually make the movie. A director on set can choose the angles for the shots, he can coach the actors to deliver their lines at a certain speed or emotional pitch, he can put them in specific places in the frame (called 'blocking' apparently), he can choose to whizz the camera around or keep it locked off. But once the shots are in the can and the sets are struck, technically the director's job is done. This can piss a director off no end. For while I've given examples of editors working with their directors, there are plenty of examples of the editor (at the behest of the studio, or the vain lead actor, or just because he doesn't like the director) can entirely change the director's vision around.
Let's say you have a horror movie - and a scene where a pretty lady walks down a hall, stalked by something only for it to turn out to be a cat. The director will have collected a bunch of shots together. A long shot from behind of the lady walking. A close up of the face as it looks terrified. A POV shot of her as she walks into the darkness. A wobbly 'chase' camera shot that follows her and moves around her. A shot of a cat leaping out. A shot of her reacting with horror to the cat and then a shot of her being relieved that it is only a cat. Finally, being a horror movie, there is a close up of her breasts.
And that's it. The director's job is done.
(And for those asking if any shoot would ever be so generic: yes. ''Coverage' is the term used for filming every scene over and over in close, mid, and master shots which is useful for giving the editor as many choices as possible and for giving the director no need to actually bother working out what the scene is supposed to be about, thus freeing up time for banging the extras.)
Then comes the editor. He can choose to concentrate on the long static shot to emphasize the vulnerability of the girl (figure very small in the frame, surrounded by darkness), he can choose to only use the close up of the face, so as to increase claustrophobia and to get the audience to empathise with the lady's fear, he can use the 'chase' shot (an old horror staple) that suggests a malevolent force following her, to make the audience anticipate the kill and become complicit in the murder. He can choose to keep the shots long for that quiet brooding sense of dread, or quick and chaotic for a bit of modern style horror. He can also choose that bit in the shot of the cat where it shows its ass to camera and you have instant comedy.
Even further, the editor could choose to show the cat at the beginning of the scene, so letting the audience know there is nothing to actually fear, so distancing them from the scared character of the lady and making the scene about the paranoia of the character. Don't show the cat and the audience is there empathising with the lady, feeling the character's fear.
How about choosing the shot of the cat, then a shot of the breasts, cut back the cat, cut to the lady looking happy, then have the cat leaping forwards - instant bestiality!
The choices, from the same set of shots, is almost endless.
If a different style of horror movie becomes very succesful very quickly (the creeping dread of Ringu, or the ironic scares of Scream), you can bet that a bunch of horror movies still in post production are being quickly re-edited to catch the new trend.
How does the director avoid this? You could go with Hitchcock's route of shooting your film in 15 minute takes (see Rope or, if you really don't love life anymore, Under Capricorn), thus giving the editor nothing to do. The problem with those films is that they become like stage plays, which seem airless, confined and stilted when shown on a screen. Edits are the grammar and syntax of a film. They are necessary, so any idea about the purity of the unbroken take can really be seen as the director merely getting greedy and not wanting the editor to take his work and cut it up. It is nothing but selfishness.
Look at the final fight between Vampire and Werewolf in Van Helsing (I mean, don't actually look at it, as that would involve watching the film but, you know, trust me). Its long takes feel like 500 word sentences without commas, colons or, for that matter, spaces. Difficult to read and definitely no fun.
Slightly more succesful are people like Billy Wilder who would only shoot what he wanted to end up on screen, thus giving editors no room to manouvre. He famously edited The Apartment in a couple of weeks and it's great. But then Billy wilder was a genius both of film-making and of working around the controlling influences of the Hollywood studios.
You could become both director and editor, like Rodriguez or Cameron or, slightly less egomaniacally, you could accept that the editor is your right arm and develop long working relationships with them like Spielberg and Michael Kahn (who I'm willing to bet was the one who made Twister very watchable dreck, instead of just dreck).
The point of all this is that we really should remember that it is the spaces inbetween the shots that make a film great. Editors are not just there to diligently assemble an already-made film. Rhythm, context, transition and all the other dark arts of the editing room are what make a film live. When you say 'wow! great shot!', the greatness has as much to do what came just before and what follows as much as the shot itself. If you saw stills of a Michael Bay opus, you might be forgiven for thinking they came from a beautiful film.
As one final example of the power of editing, I give you George Lucas. Anyone who has trawled through the commentaries on the Star Wars prequels knows that he is proud of the fact that he makes the films in the editing suite, to the point of changing compositions, compositing different takes of different actors in the same shot, even changing the locations of entire scenes. If the prequels seem lifeless, plasticky and dull to you, don't blame Lucas the director. Blame Lucas the editor.
Source: My Arse Continue reading Editorial: Directors Vs Editors
Summer Preview 2006 - Part 2
PoseidonThe Cast? Josh Lucas, Kurt Russell, Jacinda Barrett, Andre Braugher, Richard Dreyfuss, Emmy Rossum, lots of creaking ship noises.
What's It About? A cruise ship capsizes in the rough seas of the frigid North Atlantic. As the ocean liner hangs upside down in the water, a small group of survivors try to weave their way through the ship's treacherous passages in a desperate attempt to reach the surface before the vessel fills with water.
Will It Suck? I think so, but it has some quality elements in its favor, including director Wolfgang Petersen, who knows his way around a boat movie (although 2000's A Perfect Storm may have given Capt. Pete a bit of the old "water on the brain"). Kurt Russell has the ability to make almost any movie better by his mere presence, and his fellow actors Dreyfuss, Braugher and Lucas (who gets top billing here, because?) are no slouches. Fresh-faced Emmy Rossum risks being typecast as "that cute girl in the disaster movie" with her third such role in a row (and I'm counting Phantom of the Opera in that run because it's a disaster in the guise of a movie).
It's a little old hat at this point to complain about the remake epidemic going on in Hollywood, so I'm not going to bring it up here. I will front-kick the idea that we need another film to add to the tired boat disaster sub-genre, however. No matter how thrilling this movie may be, the same three or four, maybe five gags always come into play with a sinking ship film. We all know that air is good and water is bad for human lungs. So, will you be counting the minutes along with me until someone opens a bulkhead door and sends a billion or so gallons of water rocketing through, swamping everyone down an upside-down passageway turned water park from hell? Some people are going to drown, maybe some will get electrocuted or ironically burned alive. I-beams will fall from impossible heights to crush helpless so-and-so's. If our heroic survivors, mourning the loss of their fellow passengers, do manage to make it out of the boat alive(and you would think they would have to go down to go up, since the ship is flipped over) the bends would kill them before they reach the surface because they can't control their rate of ascension. If we're really lucky, and I'm not counting on that, maybe a killer sea creature or two will get involved. That would be ridiculous. But don't think the producers didn't consider it.
Has this lullaby put you to sleep yet?
Okay, maybe I'm just being overly negative. Summer = big dumb action movies = fun for all. Still, without Shelly Winters' buoyant mass swimming breathlessly about in the murky depths, my faint interest in this "update" hinges on Jacinda Barrett wearing a hopelessly wet T-shirt.
The Omen 666The Cast? Julia Stiles, Liev Schreiber, David Thewlis, Mia Farrow, Pete Postlethwaite
What's It About? An American diplomat and his wife have a boy named Damien, who shows signs of being a problem child. Through a series of bizarre occurrences and the intervention of a priest driven mad by apocalyptic thoughts, the diplomat comes to believe that his son may in fact be the earthly embodiment of the devil.
Will It Suck? Holy Mary mother of Todd, I hope so! Now I get to rant about remakes. By most accounts, this is a straight-up carbon copy of the original 1976 classic starring Gregory Peck and Lee Remick. Like the infamous shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, it's very existence is an affront to the memory of the original, and it is the most egregious form of capitalism posing as entertainment. The makers of this new incarnation can't even use the excuse (one I heard about the Psycho remake) that they are retelling this story because the original was shot in black and white, that dreadful standard of old movies that the new generation of moviegoers supposedly can't abide. If this movie is anyhwere close to the original in quality, then it's still not worth the trouble. If it's much better, it'll be a goddamned miracle.
One more quick observation: the new kid playing Damien cannot be as shiver-inducing as the little boy who played the part in the first movie. There is no way that will happen. But he's got a great name: Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick. Only the name Pinto Guinness Davey-Fitzpatrick could be more pleasing to the eye and soul.
PulseThe Cast? Kristen Bell, Ian Somerhalder, Christina Milian, Samm Levine, Rick Gonzalez.
What's It About? Spirits drift into our world through technological gadgets such as computers and cellphones. The threat from the great beyond increases rapidly as the ghostly apparitions begin to overrun the human race.
Will It Suck? The chances are good. Notice how flimsy the plot summary is above? That's not because I don't want to give away any important details. Those ARE the details. I saw the Japanese version not too long ago when I found out about this remake (I'm three for three in the "you did this to yourself" category with this remake shit) because I wanted to gauge the quality of the source. After watching that movie (called Kairo in Japan), I can report that the do-over will have to stand on its own merits. I was bored into a coma by the Japanese film. I knew where it was going, but I did not care because it was taking so long to get there. The American version is sure to discard some of the slow pacing and simmering tension, because American audiences don't prefer that stuff. Most likely, the new one will contain lots of ear-shredding audio cues and more malevolent ghosties. Loud noises substitute for actual horror with the Generation-Starting-Over-With-A kids.
What scares me most about this movie is that it suffers from a pretty good trailer. "Suffers" you might ask, what does that mean? Well, I have a feeling that the marketing people wanted to push this movie really hard to shoot for respectable opening weekend returns, so most of the good scenes are in the trailer. I have no idea if that is true or not, it's just a hunch. Part of the trailer reminded me of White Noise a little bit too, so that's a bad luck association that others are sure to make. Finally, if IMDB can be trusted (it's the internet, so why not), some scenes in Pulse: Caucasian Edition were re-shot in order to get a PG-13 rating. The original versions of those scenes were deemed too scary by the MPAA. The idea of something like that should drive off the average old-school horror fan. The rest of you can have your nü-horror.
What does the rest of the TFL crew have to say?
Andrew Clarke
Poseidon: Unless the violence is ultra gory or the wet women are braless, I really can't see a reason to see this. Hollywood movies proclaiming their realistic and intense emotions (spattered all through the seeded pr in advance interviews for this one) promise dull stretches of hopelessly trite sentimentality without so much as an alien anal probe to spice things up. One to avoid.
The Omen 666: There is a teaser trailer to this that shows Damien on a swing in a playground. When he turns to look at directly at the camera, everyone in the audience laughed, thus making me enjoy being in a busy cinema for the first time in years. Could be good for a giggle, but I get a horrible feeling it thinks of itself as a 'classy' horror movie, which only promises not nearly enough decapitation.
Pulse: The Japanese original is classily made but utterly tedious, consisting of a lot of the same character jittering around an empty city while being attacked by slow motion effects. While I applaud it's uncompromising doominess (something that won't survive the translation, I guarantee), I believe this is one j-horror that could be improved by the hollywood treatment.
Charlie Brigden
Poseidon: Wolfgang Petersen is usually a solid director, and he made the best boat movie of all time (Das Boot). Kurt Russell is also great. However, I have no interest in this and I hear it's a total wash-out.
The Omen 666: What's the point? From what I can see, they've just completely remade the original, together with David Warner's head making a cameo. They've even made a bad facsimile of the original poster. The original is a great movie, and this is not needed, folks.
Pulse: Didn't like the original (Kairo). Have no interest in this at all. I doubt the H-horror version will have the nervousness (read: nothing happens AT ALL for long periods), which was the only thing I found interesting.
George Merchan
Poseidon: Even though I completely love Enemy Mine, I completely hate Wolfgang Petersen. He's almost as substance-less as Michael Bay but with none of the visual pizazz. Maybe I'm just still bitter because Troy turned out to be utter wank. Either way, I'm anticipating my next bowel movement more than this hilarious looking piece of boredom.
The Omen 666: If there's one thing I've learned from The Omen 666, it's that children with bowl haircuts are great to point and laugh at. Carlos is right; buy the original (in a brand new 2-Disc Collector's Edition no less) and skip this shit.
Pulse: I've never seen the Japanese version. Apparently I'm not missing much. American remakes tend to be diluted shit (diarrhea), so I think I'll pass. And why do I keep referring to fecal matter in my writings? Man, I need a thesaurus.
Katanga
MAN, FUCK THIS SHIT!
Carlton Stevens
Poseidon: Only seen some of the original. Kurt Russell is about the only reason I would see this, but I'm not going to anyway. I was tired of the giant disaster films back in the late 90s, and that still hasn't changed.
The Omen 666: Another one where I've only seen parts of the original. I believe in Liev Schreiber, especially after Everything is Illuminated, but this just knocked him down about 20 points.
Pulse: God, I'm with Katanga, this stuff is horrible. Yet another where I haven't seen the original, and if judging from the information I'm getting about the remake, I don't want to see that either. Count me as one of the people who don't understand the whole "Japanese Horror Revolution" thing that's going around.
Shane Yaroch
Poseidon: This just looks big, loud, and annoying to me. Even though this is exactly the kind of flick to take advantage of the bigness and loudness of modern movie theaters, I'm going to ignore it and wait for it to come to DVD, if I even see it at all.
The Omen 666: Liev Schreiber once said that he mainly takes film roles so that he can afford to continue doing what he really loves: stage acting, which I love him for. Liev Schreiber has had sex with Naomi Watts, which I hate him for. This movie has no bearing on me or my Liev Schrieber love/hate relationship. I've yet to see the original, which I should, but I'm probably never going to see this one.
Pulse: I'm not up on my J-Horror at all, so I haven't seen the original, and The Ring is the only J-Horror remake that I've liked, which gives the genre a .0001 batting average. Color me uninterested. Continue reading Summer Preview 2006 - Part 2
Monday, May 08, 2006
DVD Cockfight: 05/09/06 Edition
Hey kids, I humbly apologize for the lack of DVD Cockfight last weekend. It was one of those ebb and flow life moments where the tides kept rolling in and the thing that had to be tossed out of my dingy was this column. So, we’re going to double up on you like the Olsen twins and give you the goods from last week and this week. We’re sluts like that.
05/02/2006
Delicatessen (1991) Directed By Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Starring Dominique Pinion
Ok, just because the guy needed to restock his wine and cheese cellars by directing the absolute worst Alien sequel anyone could ever fathom…doesn’t mean he’s a shitty director. Judging from his non-Ripley work, the man has talent to burn. I haven’t seen this one but IMDB says “Post-apocalyptic surrealist black comedy about the landlord of an apartment building who creates cannibalistic meals for his odd tenants.” Sounds great, actually! The $30 price tag at Amazon screams rental, however.
PS – Look at Jeunet:
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)Directed By Elia Kazan
Starring Marlon Brando, Vivien Leigh
This belongs in every film snob’s collection. I haven’t looked over this edition to see how it fares with the old disc, but if you haven’t bought it…it’s high time. Brando, man…when people talk about intensity the image of him in this movie comes to my mind. He’s raw emotion. I believe this is the performance that reinvented film acting. Before this actors were big, in the theatrical sense…talking loud, a little too grand for reality. Here Brando is so focused and subtle. If it weren’t for this guy we wouldn’t have our De Niros, Pacinos or Roarkes.
Available on its own or in the Tennessee Williams Film Collection along with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Sweet Bird of Youth, The Night of the Iguana, Baby Doll, and The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone.
05/09/2006
The 400 Blows (1959)Directed by François Truffaut
Starring Jean-Pierre Léaud
This is a Criterion re-release of the first chapter in the adventures of Antoine Doinel. I can tell you honestly that these are films that you probably should see if you are remotely interested in a career in filmmaking. It’s not pretentious, it’s not hard to sit through, it IS hard to imagine what a lot of seminal filmmakers would have been like if this was never available to them.
Munich (2005)Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush, and Daniel Craig
My absolute top film of last year arrives. I go through these phases of dismissing Spielberg and then really cherishing when he does something I wasn’t expecting. I wasn’t expecting as ambiguous a film from him as Munich. It is a film that weighed on my mind for weeks. Tonally it’s such a love letter to heist films, men-on-a-mission films, and 70’s films…that when the characters wake up to what they are doing emotionally and politically it’s quite bracing.
The DVD comes in two annoying flavors. A single disc with little to nothing onboard in the way of special features and some terrible cover art. And a two-discer with what looks like some EPK-ish material and really lovely cover art. The price differential being in the neighborhood of $10. In my humble, the film is really all that matters on this one.
The New World (2005)Directed by Terrence Malick
Starring Colin Farrell, Q'Orianka Kilcher (a stunner, boys), Christian Bale, and strangely Brian Cox is not in this even though common sense dictates he should be.
Personally, I’m going to hold off until the inevitable DIRECTOR'S CUT surfaces. I loved this and if I made a top ten list this would have been on it…or near it. Calling it beautifully photographed is like calling Monica Bellucci “kinda cute”, it’s fucking gorgeous. I doubt it will enthrall the masses (or didn’t looking at it’s B.O. haul) with its narrative. But it’s a total Malick film all the way around.
OH and one more time:
Continue reading DVD Cockfight: 05/09/06 Edition
