Can this overcome the critical thumping it took at Cannes this year? Personally, I think it looks rather good. I’m devoted to Fernando Meirelles, even if I found “The Constant Gardener” to be overbearing and overrated. But it’s hard to argue with talent when it’s clearly there, and this guy has it. Check out the new trailer:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azLX4jjngpY
Variety’s Peter Bart sat down recently with “Hellboy 2” director Guillermo Del Toro, presumably for the upcoming episode of AMC’s “Shootout.”
He also has some nice pics up of the inventive filmmaker’s infamous sketchbooks, though they’re covered in watermarks. I assume it’s all in the way of plugging Sunday’s episode (which should be a good interview…Del Toro could make even Peter Guber seem to be asking pointed questions).
Here’s a look:
Del Toro is a man who loves to let his imagination roam, but he is very much a serious student of film who can discourse on the craft of Hitchcock and who helps guide and promote the work of fellow Mexican filmmakers like Inaritu and Cuaron (with whom he has a production company called Cha Cha Cha). For him, movies are both a playpen and a serious business — and a superbly remunerative place to have a happy childhood.
I’m REALLY looking forward to “Hellboy 2: The Golden Army,” I must say. I was not much of a fan of the initial installment, though I could not, at the time, deny the sheer scope of imagination on display. The trailers and promotional materials for the sequel have indicated the next level of visual splendor, so much so that Cinematical’s James Rocchi said he felt as if his “imagination had eaten too much.”
And despite my extreme distaste with much of Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” franchise, I’m oddly anticipating Del Toro’s “The Hobbit” with a twisted sort of glee.
Finally, it’s a few days old, but Jeffrey Wells recently sat down with the filmmaker (he’s always been an admirer). Have a listen.
As you all know, we in the UK tend to be a bit behind the curve on most American releases, so I didn’t get to see Tom McCarthy’s wonderful “The Visitor” in time for our mid-year review. Had I done so, it certainly would have been in contention for my ‘best of the year so far’ title. (Happily, Blake recognised it in his contribution.)
The film opens in the UK tomorrow (July 4 — an auspicious date for a film that challenges American ideals of liberty quite insistently) and, amid the summer movie crush, is getting a fair amount of publicity here, including this interesting piece in last weekend’s Guardian. Drawing comparison to such indie word-of-mouth successes as “In the Bedroom” and “Junebug,” critic Damon Wise believes that McCarthy’s gentle, wry but politically impassioned film could make a similar dent in awards season:
Normally, articles about the Oscar race appear in late November, once the studios have dusted off their A-list movies. But almost every year when the noms come in, there’s a film that leaves everyone scratching their heads because it seems to have appeared from the ether: it’s the film that came out ages ago, got some good reviews but didn’t do so well at the box office …
Today’s strangers arrive unannounced, and after the surprise appearance of In The Bedroom at the 2002 festivities, the industry now realises that there is no pattern any more: they can come from anywhere. Which, coincidentally, is, in some ways, the plot of The Visitor, a film that ticks several potential nomination boxes – it features a powerhouse central performance, it ponders on the flaws and foibles of being a so-called normal human being, it finds drama in the everyday – and it does it really rather well.
This flew under my radar yesterday, but the Toronto International Film Festival has added a few more films to its Septmber line-up, including Spike Lee’s “Miracle at St. Anna.” The press release has more.
David Cohen offered up a pretty standard story at Variety yesterday, touching on the darkness of “The Dark Knight” and the danger of alienating general audiences versus appeasing fans, etc. He quotes two online Batman fansite sources (truthfully, a knowledgable step if you want to convey any real education on the character — these guys are committed). He then tosses in some perspective from poducer Charles Roven. But I’m wondering if this was the best choice of words for Mr. Roven:
We walk that narrow line of making sure we were true to the character, but it’s not so gruesome. It’s not so utterly real that you turn away in disgust. You watch it and it’s one of the things that lets you know the film is not a real thing. We call it hyper-reality.
I get what he means, but it kind of made me take a step back and read it again. Sort of goes against the grain of the franchise’s mantra just a bit.
Meanwhile, comic geek extraordinaire Kevin Smith was impressed with the film to say the least. Here’s the brief blurb from his MySpace blog:
Without giving anything away, this is an epic film (and trust me: based on the sheer size and scope of the visuals and storytelling, that’s not an overstatement). It’s the “Godfather II” of comic book films and three times more earnest than “Batman Begins” (and fuck, was that an earnest film). Easily the most adult comic book film ever made. Heath Ledger didn’t so much give a performance as he disappeared completely into the role; I know I’m not the first to suggest this, but he’ll likely get at least an Oscar nod (if not the win) for Best Supporting Actor. Fucking flick’s nearly three hours long and only leaves you wanting more (in a great way). I can’t imagine anyone being disappointed by it. Nolan and crew have created something close to a masterpiece.
Warner Bros. publicity has made the round table interviews from last weekend’s “Dark Knight” junket available. There’s a lot of good, in-depth stuff from Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart and the rest.
There is, however, a big hole in everything, because you can’t help but wish Heath Ledger was there to discuss his approach to a character that seems to be an award-worthy swan song.
Keep in mind that these are junketers…so sometimes you get a few doosey questions (usually the first person out of the gate). But everyone weathers the storm well enough. Pay attention to the end of the Bale file; he talks briefly about Michael Mann’s upcoming “Public Enemies” and McG’s “Terminator Salvation.”
There is also a slight spoiler around the 11:00 mark of the Aaron Eckhart interview, however, one that you might want to skip. It isn’t specific, but it’s enough information that could be irritating to know before seeing the film. Enjoy.
Christopher Nolan (writer/director):
[audio:Nolan-TDKjunket.mp3]
Download
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman):
[audio:Bale-TDKjunket.mp3]
Download
Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent/Two-Face):
[audio:Eckhart-TDKjunket.mp3]
Download
More after the jump, including Gary Oldman, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jonathan Nolan!
Two posts at /film and Obssessed with Film have me spinning my wheels this morning, wondering just who in the heck has approached comic scribe Mark Millar to revamp Superman for the screen in three years.
The whole story started with a Daily Record interview that quoted Millar as saying he “always wanted to reinvent Superman for the 21st century.” He then went on to reveal that he had his “director and producer set up” and that there was even a target year in mind: 2011.
This, of course, sent the Web geek community into a bit of a tizzy. In response, Millar (creator of “Wanted” and author of “Superman: Red Son”) had this to say:
PS: That Superman news is interesting, isn’t it? In the interests of clarity (because I’m sure this will be picked up somewhere) a very well known American action director heard about my love of Superman, approached my (sic) and asked me to team up with he and his producer to make a pitch for this. We’ve been talking for several weeks now and, if this is going to happen, we’ll know by Christmas. He has huge pull at WB so fingers crossed. But this is nothing more than a huge US name pulling me into his fold and making me part of a package.
The first name that leaps to my mind is Wolfgang Petersen, but he’s obviously German. However, you may recall Petersen was signed on to direct a Superman vs. Batman film for Warner Bros. way back in 2002. That was, of course, way before Christopher Nolan unleashed his reboot of the Batman franchise on the marketplace. Peterson might be construed as having “huge pull at WB” since he releases most of his films through the studio and has managed a few considerable hits there (“The Perfect Storm, “Troy”) despite the occasional clunker (“Poseidon”).
The filmmaker was also quoted as recently as two years ago — during the build-up to Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns” — expressing an interest in pitting the two superheroes on the screen together. Sure seems like a possibility to me.
Who else could Millar be hinting at? The Wachowski Brothers have sure made a bundle of money for the studio in recent years. “Watchmen” helmer Zack Snyder has also been welcomed with open arms in Burbank after delivering big on “300,” and he seems just the sort of person who’d be interested in reimagining the Superman character for a new franchse.
Francis Lawrence? “Constantine” didn’t really find its footing, but “I Am Legend” (thanks to Will Smith, of course) made a killing worldwide.
McG? The “Charlie’s Angels” films made bank at Sony, but he still convinced Warners to hand him the key to a massive franchise in the form of “Terminator Salvation.” He’s also been here before and, according to rumor at the time, had one hell of a mind to revamp the franchise with casting speculation such as Beyoncé Knowles and Johnny Depp floating about.
And surely Tim Burton — a WB staple through the years with “huge pull” indeed — isn’t treading these waters yet again. Or is he? He certainly had a unique vision of the character once upon a time.
Thoughts? As long as it isn’t Brett Ratner, I’m happy.
Not particularly new or earth-shattering perspective, but worth a link nontheless. From a Xan Brooks item this morning in The Guardian:
History…is not on [Ledger’s] side. James Dean was twice nominated in the wake of his death and yet still finished up as a posthumous loser on the night. More recently, Oliver Reed (for Gladiator) and Ulrich Mühe (The Lives of Others) were both tipped in vain for at least a nomination. In fact, the only actor ever to be awarded a posthumous Oscar was Network’s Peter Finch. Felled by a heart attack during the voting period, he swept to glory on a tidal wave of grief.
Do webmasters really think that a boycott is going to be a blip on Variety’s radar?
(I’m going to geek out quite a bit here, so bear with me.)
Erik Davis at Cinematical points us today to what I would consider a rather ill-advised rant from Sturdy of JoBlo against the idea of introducing the character of Dick Grayson (a.k.a. Robin) into the Christopher Nolan Batman franchise.
Now, I would like to be measured here, because this is an argument far too easily given to hyperbole regarding what Robin is and what he means to the Batman mythos, to say nothing of what his existence means in the scope of a relationship with Bruce Wayne.
I think an introduction is possible, if not valuable, to the franchise Nolan has crafted thus far.
If there is one argument from Sturdy on which I side, it is that Robin has never worked on film or television. Burt Ward’s incarnation in the 1960s television show worked for what the series was going for, but not for what the character was, while the Joel Schumacher films depicted a character far too old and leaning much too heavily on the “young, dumb and full of cum” credo that must have been difficult to resist.
I do, however, think the notion that Robin has never worked in comics can only come from a reader never truly engaged in what DC writers have done with the character over the years. Indeed, many story lines failed because it is a dynamic that is difficult to grasp and control (not to mention dense with a three character history), but the proof of Grayson’s worth came with his own evolution into an adult less convinced but more understanding of his role as a vigilante than Bruce Wayne could ever be.
I know I haven’t seen the film yet, and I know it’s IMDb users we’re talking about, but do we really think that “WALL-E” ought to be considered one of the top six films of all time?
In the first review of the musical adaptation “Mamma Mia!” (a claim they make loud and clear in the headline), The Times of London has tossed out a glowing assessment of what frankly looked to be one of the eye-sores of 2008, from this end.
There’s plenty of praise for Meryl Streep, who is likely on the way to a Golden Globe nomination for her work. Hugo Rifkind has this to say:
Streep is the real star here, and she does serious acting, too, investing a cliff-top rendition of The Winner Takes It All with far more teary gravitas than should be possible for a song that contains the line: “I figured it made sense/ building me a fence”.
I also liked this blurb:
Streep slams wonky, wooden shutters and leads her mob of bridesmaids, ageing sluts and lumpy Greek peasant women on a rampage through that sleepy village like a sun-kissed, middle-aged parody of Cyndi Lauper.
Check out the rest.
There is also this interview with “Mamma Mia!” creator Judy Craymer charting the journey of the musical from stage to screen. Here’s a look:
Hollywood came calling years ago, but Craymer, [Phyllida] Lloyd and the writer, Catherine Johnson, refused to sell the rights. If Mamma Mia! was going to become a film, they were going to do it when they wanted and on their terms. Hollywood invariably wants Hollywood directors and producers but, miraculously, they managed to keep hold of the film themselves. The feat becomes even more unlikely when you consider that none of them had ever done anything remotely on the scale of a Hollywood movie before. But faced with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, Universal decided they wanted the film enough to take it.
The rest.
We’ve reached the mid-way point of 2008, a year that truly seems to be speeding along (or is it just me?). That means it’s time to assess what’s come down the pike over the last six months as our contributors make their picks for the best and worst cinematic offerings of the year so far.
If you want my thoughts on the Oscar potential of these and other releases from the first half of the year, check out this week’s Off the Carpet column.
Note: With Gerard, Guy and me being in the UK at the moment, neither of us has had a chance to see “WALL-E” yet. Press screenings won’t happen until later in the month and it finally opens out here on July 18.
In Contention’s picks for the best and worst of the year after the jump!
Batman-on-Film.com’s Bill Ramey is probably the biggest Batman fan this side of…well, me. He made the trip from Texas to Los Angeles over the weekend to see “The Dark Knight” and participate in the film’s junket, scoring a nicely in-depth interview with director Christopher Nolan.
Here’s the money quote, describing Nolan’s philosophy on whether to include much in the way of an origin story for Heath Ledger’s Joker character:
I felt very strongly that when you take these extraordinary characters — in the movies, I’m talking very much about the movies here. But you take these extraordinary characters and the more you find out about them — where they came from and all — the less interesting they become. And that’s very true to me of say Hannibal Lectre (sic) or Darth Vader. You know when we first saw them onscreen, they were fully formed and an absolute. Unlike Batman — who I wanted very much to explore his origin and where he came from — with heroes it’s just different. But with villains, it’s the opposite. So with The Joker, I wanted present him as an absolute, an agent of chaos and anarchy.
Read the rest here. They do love the Batman-on-Film Web site (11 years running) at Warners and on the Bat crew, I can tell you that.
I must admit, the Los Angeles Film Festival hasn’t always been on my radar in the past, but its stature seems to be growing from year to year. This year’s edition wrapped up on Sunday, with the jury prizes going to Sean Baker’s “Prince of Broadway” in the narrative feature category, and to Darius Marder’s “Loot” in the documentary section.
Just as significant, however, in a festival that boasts “The Audience is King” as its slogan, are the audience awards. Here, a pair of films that already took audience awards at Sundance earlier this year repeated the feat: Jonathan Levine’s “The Wackness” took the gold in the narrative section, while James Marsh’s Brit documentary “Man on Wire” won the international audience award. In the documentary category, Sacha Gervasi’s “Anvil! The Story of Anvil” emerged victorious. A summary and full list of awards can be found here.
The former two have had buzz building around them for months; indeed, earlier in the year, I had Levine’s oddball character comedy on my Best Original Screenplay list until the category got a bit crowded. Still, one to keep an eye on, particularly at the Spirit Awards. Meanwhile, “Man on Wire,” a study of Philippe Petit’s law-defying 1974 tightrope walk between the Twin Towers, has me very excited for its UK release next month. I’d be tempted to predict an Oscar nomination for the film, which also won a Grand Jury prize at Sundance, but the Academy can be sticky about non-US docs.
