Dan Trachtenberg is in talks to write and direct an MCU movie for the Mutant era. Per the report, it's a theatrical feature. It's also a single-character film, not an ensemble piece.
Miike has directed a whopping 114 films and TV productions. Almost nobody has seen all of them, and if you have, you're not just a completist—you're a madman.
Netflix and Lionsgate are teaming up on “Fairytale in New York,” a new action thriller starring Aaron Pierre, with “Sisu” helmer Jalmari Helander directing. Netflix will distribute and Lionsgate will produce.
Borgli and Robbie had been talking about her starring in his next film, and she's now committed to shooting it sometime in 2027, which means it will likely come out in 2028.
This year’s 12th edition of the Scary Movies festival at Film at Lincoln Center premiered Ari Aster’s extended version of “Midsommar” this past Saturday.
While everybody has been freaking over Christopher Miller and Phil Lord being fired from the Star Wars Han Solo film, Woody Harrelson, whose just quit weed might I remind you, is telling us all to chill and calm down and that "Obviously the force is with us." What is that supposed to mean? Is it a knock on the previous, departed filmmakers? Who knows, but it seems like he's quite happy with the hiring of Howard. By the way, there is still no word on who will actually nab the coveted directing credit on the film. Howard would have to shoot more than half the movies, 51%, to be credited as "director."
“Oh, you can relax, man — because obviously the Force is with us,” Harrelson said to Variety. "Ron is great. He’s awesome. He’s such a gentleman and so prepared.”
Harrelson and Howard worked together in 1999's EDtv.
A documentary about the ISIS stronghold in Raqqa, Syria, Matthew Heineman‘s “City of Ghosts” might be the definitive document thus far about the Syrian civil war. Heineman received frontline access to the citizen journalist collective of “Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently,” a group which tries to defy threats against their lives by the terrorist organization and has as a goal to fight the misinformation and indoctrination of their people at the hands of this radical evil. The deeply humane stories being told here are numerous and will no doubt cast a human perspective on this vast and infuriating war which is, underreported on a daily basis by the world media. The film’s final image, that of a journalist with a bounty on his head trembling in fear for his life, will haunt you for days [B+]
Good to hear, and love seeing everyone promoting to go see it in 70mm IMAX, it's really the only way to get the full experience with the scale this film is going for. From the tweets it does sound like the film is told from three distinct narratives (land,sea,air I assume) and they don't happen concurrently. Meaning we'll be jumping between three timelines to tell these separate stories. Also saw one tweet complaining about the lack of character but I like the idea of Nolan just dropping us in with these soldiers and not having forced dialogue to reveal character development. It's good to hear the film isn't dialogue heavy.
Legendary US film critic Leonard Maltin, whose movie yearbook was an annual buy for me way back in the day, says that there is an increasing lack of interest in film criticism because, well, now anybody or everybody can become a "film critic" thanks to the internet and social media.
"I do think something has been lost. I don’t want to sound like an old fogey, but I remember how much it meant to me when I was first published, as a kid, it meant I’d reached a certain goal or status… you are good enough to be published. But now you can publish yourself."
Agreed, but how about this little tidbit:
“When people ask me what qualities critics should have I have a stock answer, it should be equal parts passion and knowledge, and the knowledge comes from experience. If you’ve never seen silent films, or foreign language films, if your education with film begins with Star Wars then you’re handicapped.” I do think that this is where the problem really begins. A lot of the younger critics I've met in recent years have barely scraped the history of film, hell some have never even seen a silent movie and their lack of knowledge of cinema, even from the 50s, 60s and 70s, is an empty wasteland. I've always been disturbed by that. If you decide to concentrate your life on writing about movies, why dishonor its history and the founding fathers that built its language. Blasphemous as far as I'm concerned.
“None of the studios are financing… or backing intelligent, adult material for the big screen [though] there are exceptions here and there. They’ve done this to themselves. They’ve driven people towards high-end television. TV outlets are giving [filmmakers] the opportunity to do something creatively rewarding, so how can they not jump at the chance at that, no matter where it ends up?”
There's definitely something to this. Nowadays there's not as much established credibility between, say, The New York Times and the average person with a blogspot account. That being said, some of the most thoughtful criticism can be found on blogs or websites, so there's that. All this to say, I really miss Roger Ebert.
When we heard the news that Christopher Nolan's latest film was going to be 107 minutes in length we were stunned. Here's a director known for epics, his excess if you will. Wasn't 'Dunkirk' supposed to be this summer's epic? A WWII Christopher Nolan movie running for just 107 minutes? The last film Nolan directed that was under 2 hours? "Insomnia," way back in 2002. Every movie since then has been over 120 minutes or more, much more.
"I wanted it to be an intense an experience as possible and therefore as lean and stripped down and short an experience as possible. You can only sustain the degree of suspense"
Yikes, what a sardonic smile. Cesar Romero's Joker looks like he was inspired by this guy the movie itself was an adaptation of Victor Hugo's "L'homme qui rit" (1869). Conrad Veidt may be most known today for playing Major Strasser in Casablanca and Cesare in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. How cool is it when creators take inspiration from silent cinema, also, remember, this movie was only twelve years old when the Joker was created.
Some little birdies are telling me that Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner 2049" will premiere at the upcoming Toronto International Film Festival. The good news is not only is Villeneuve being behind the camera, Hampton Fancher, who wrote the original Blade Runner, and Michael Green (Logan), have collaborated on the screenplay. But, that's not all. Quite possibly the greatest cinematographer of my time, Roger Deakins, is photographing the film. Can the anticipation get any greater?
Here's the official synopsis:
"Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society in chaos. K’s discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years."
“Blade Runner 2049” will be released on October 6th.
I caught a screening of "Spider-Man: Homecoming" last week and was left feeling somewhat underwhelmed. It's not that Jon Watts' film isn't competent or watchable or even thrilling in spurts, but the shadow of Sam Raimi's original trilogy still looms large and haunts this film, just like it did with Marc Webb's two movies from a few years ago. As I've mentioned before, Tobey Maguire will always be my Spider-Man. Tom Holland actually does a great job here, he's better than, previous Spidey, Andrew Garfield at capturing the rambunctious rebellious spirit of Peter Parker. This is a star-making performance. Choosing a much younger actor to play Spider-Man was the best decision Marvel and Sony could make, it brings a kind of spirited freshness the Webb movies didn't have. In fact, you can tell Marvel has really tried to distance itself from whatever traits the Raimi films had. That also does limit the scope of this film as I do believe Raimi found the best vision imaginable in "Spider-Man 2" and that ignoring some of the fascinating details he concocted in that movie about Spidey does a major disservice to "Homecoming." Michael Keaton is also fantastic as the film's chief villain, Adrian Toomes aka Vulture. Every scene he's in makes the film's somewhat tamed stakes feel much more vitally important. And so, it's too bad Keaton's services are barely used until the final half hour or so of the film. I liked the inclusion of Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark, a Marvel character that is rarely used these days, but, whenever onscreen, reminds you how unique and different those "Iron Man" movies really are, especially the first and third chapters. The snarky chemistry he has with Holland here is a clear highlight, they feed off of each other's personalities to create a dysfunctional bond that has many laughs. Homecoming's portrayal of high school life has a Saturday morning television vibe that does work. All of this to say that if it was Watts, Feig and company's goal to distance the webslinger away from previous installments, it has done just that. The Raimi Spider-Man movies are still the definitive portrayal of the web-slinger on screen. Hell, I also liked "Spider-Man 3," flaws and all. Sure, it overreached a bit with its running time and the lack of Venom, but it certainly retained the heart of the first two movies, something that the money-grabbing Marc Webb movies had none of. Webb's career has been in limbo ever since those movies.
"Spider-Man 2" may still be the most perfect superhero movie of the Marvel universe, Raimi is the guy that came closest to pouring Stan Lee's brains onto the screen. My favorite thing about Raimi's Spider-Man movies? They're the only Superhero movies I can think of that really indulged in the sheer unadorned fun, goofiness of the comic books. They had a campiness about them which felt genuine and to which Watts, more or less, tries to attain here. The problem is that, this being the third cinematic attempt at Spidey, it's been overdone and it doesn't help Raimi produced the very peak of it in 2004.
"Given all the attention that Russia’s Vladmir Putin has been getting of late, it would be very hard to find a more relevant film than Bryan Fogel’s documentary Icarus, which deals with the Russian government’s Olympic cheating scandal. The scandal was uncovered by accident by Fogel, who was following a Russian scientist for a doping documentary, but found out he had a much bigger story at hand. This is the kind of film where a twist happens in almost every frame and the filmmaker, Fogel, seems to have stumbled upon a goldmine of a narrative."
"Icarus" will be released August 4th via streaming on Netflix
Brent Lang over at Variety has all but confirmed that Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" will be released in 70mm in over 125 theaters nationwide. That's fine. I can dig that, but what about the film itself? The film is due for release on 7.21.17 - 15 days from now. As we speak, we've heard nothing about a press screening happening here or anywhere else in the country, except for the obligatory junkets. Usually, if a studio knows it has a winner it tends to dish it out to critics 14+ days in advance of the release to build word of mouth. Am I worried? You bet I am. It doesn't help that I already had reservations about the film (its PG-13 rating, its short running time). I still have hope, but my expectations are dwindling by the day ...
The story, about the defense and evacuation of British troops during WW2 in Dunkirk, will be told from three perspectives–the land, sea and air– is said to "contain little dialogue and to create suspense solely through details." Doesn't sound like the inventiveness that Nolan has given us since his first film, "Following," more than 18 years ago. This seems to be a David Lean-inspired foray into Hollywood classicism, something, I believe, will not match well with Nolan's sensibilities. I still have hope, but that hope is dwindling by the day ... A journalist friend sent me this: "During a recent trip to LA a director friend said he talked to an editor on "Dunkirk." How is it? my friend asked. The editor paused. "A $200 million dollar film about a massive military retreat," he said. "Air, land and sea. Hmmmm."
EDIT: I emailed the Boston publicist inquiring about an estimated date for when press screenings would be happening. She just replied confirming that they are screening it the same week it opens. So anywhere between July 17-20th. That's worrisome.
According to a source close to the Telluride Film Festival, it's all but clinched for "Little Miss Sunshine" directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris' "The Battle of the Sexes." That is positive news in regards to the film's quality as Telluride has always been very picky in choosing its 22 or so slots.
The film, which stars Emma Stone and Steve Carell, is about the historic tennis match between the 29-year-old, number two-ranked tennis sensation Billie Jean King,and the retired, boorish former Open champ Bobby Riggs. Elisabeth Shue, Andrea Riseborough, Alan Cumming, Sarah Silverman and more join Stone and Carell in the film, and given the chemistry, the lead duo had in "Crazy Stupid Love,” this seems like a solid ensemble all around. "Battle Of The Sexes" was also penned by the talented Simon Beaufoy, known for writing Danny Boyle classics "Slumdog Millionaire" and "127 Hours." The 1973 "Battles Of The Sexes" tennis match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs captured the imagination of not only tennis enthusiasts, but of the whole world. There has always been the persistent rumor that Riggs threw the match to settle the debts he had with the mob. Whether or not the movie will tackle this part of the subject has yet to be determined. Here's the official synopsis:
"The electrifying 1973 tennis match between World number one Billie Jean King (Emma Stone) and ex-champ and serial hustler Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell) was billed as the BATTLE OF THE SEXES and became the most watched televised sports event of all time. The match caught the zeitgeist and sparked a global conversation on gender equality, spurring on the feminist movement. Trapped in the media glare, King and Riggs were on opposites sides of a binary argument, but off-court each was fighting more personal and complex battles. With a supportive husband urging her to fight the Establishment for equal pay, the fiercely private King was also struggling to come to terms with her own sexuality, while Riggs gambled his legacy and reputation in a bid to relive the glories of his past. Together, Billie and Bobby served up a cultural spectacle that resonated far beyond the tennis courts and animated the discussions between men and women in bedrooms and boardrooms around the world."
What Matt Reeves has done in "War For the Planet of the Apes" is bloody brilliant. The third, and presumably final, chapter in the "Apes" series is one of the most entertaining movies I've seen this year. The miraculous thing about it is that it barely has any dialogue. Sure, there are lines uttered here and there, but the fact that 99% of the apes can't speak and the main human character, a teenage girl, is deaf which results in a film that relies HEAVILY, instead of visuals, to tell its story.
"War" is better than "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" as it relies more heavily on character than actual war. There's no excess here, just pure unadulterated thrills that rely on the audiences smarts to pull through. Don't worry summer movie buffs, there is action, gloriously on display, especially in its final third, but Reeves is after much much more here. He's made the closest thing to a silent movie that we will likely have in today's Hollywood zeitgeist.
And so, his net project, DC's "The Batman," has just skyrocketed in anticipation. Zack Snyder's take on the caped crusader was limp and pummeling to the point where we had almost completely given up on having a film that might harken back to the glory days of the Christopher Nolan films. That is until Reeves showed up. The Shakespearean tragedy he's brought to the Apes movies is transcendent. Now comes word, via a talk Yahoo Movies had with the director, that his Batman movie will be a return to the Nolan-esque world we all loved: Film Noir, existential, bleak as black coffee, that's how we love our Batman:
“What I love that [Nolan] did was that he took the genre seriously. What studios are willing to make at the moment is a very, very narrow band of films. What I discovered is that this genre has the potential to be about something more. You can use the metaphors of the genre to talk about [a lot]. I think the other thing that I really admire in what [Nolan] did was knowing what it is to make a big studio film, which often can fall into that sense of committee filmmaking where there’s an anonymity to the point of view of the film. What I admire in what [Nolan] does is that, despite being a filmmaker in an enormous system, his perspective comes through. That to me was very exciting, it’s always exciting when you see a film of his because of that. That’s what I feel like I’ve been trying to do, it’s trying to allow a perspective to come through despite the fact that we’re in this very large studio movie world." Excited yet? Just when we thought we couldn't trust DC movies anymore, they bring us "Wonder Woman" and now a Matt Reeves directed Batman movie. Comeback? Well, maybe after Snyder's "Justice League" is released this November ...
Martin Chalakoski has written a rather touching article about the depths of compassion and friendship which resided between Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. The tearkerking moment comes in around the time Hardy died on 8/7/57 and Laurel decided to halt his acting career forever.
"As much as they were inseparable friends and “partners in crime” in all of their mischiefs on the big screen, they were just as close in real life. In 1957, when Oliver Hardy passed away, Laurel, devastated by his best friend’s death, never fully recovered and so, retired from acting, refusing to perform on stage or act in another film without his best pal." "Shortly after that, both of them fell ill, and on August 7, 1957, Oliver died of a major stroke. This left Stan devastated and he was at the time too ill to attend his funeral. After the ceremony, he wrote a public letter in which he stated, “I feel lost without him after 30 odd years of close friendship & happy association.”With his partner and best friend now gone, Stan refused to perform ever again."
"What he did for the remainder of his eight years was to meet with their many fans, who were more than eager to hear some of the stories about them, and he was always glad to share them, enabling him to reminisce over his dear friend while doing so."
Ok, I'll budge. Many crix have released their "best of 2017 so far" lists. I'm, of course not counting the great cinema that I've already seen which will be released in the next 6 months (Call Me By Your Name, The Florida Project, Columbus, A Ghost Story, Mudbound, Good Time, The Square). It's been a better than average year thus far, so much so that if the year ended I'd actually be satisfied by these titles. So without further ado: 1) The Big Sick 2) Get Out 3) Baby Driver 4) Colossal 5) Wakefield 6) Logan 7) The Lost City Of Z 8) Norman 9) Raw
“We are looking at a five-movie storyline — Civil War, Homecoming, Avengers: Infinity War, untitled Avengers, Homecoming 2 — or whatever we end up calling it — as an amazing five-story journey for Peter Parker,” Feige says. “In the way that the events of Civil War directly inform the opening of Homecoming and his state of mind as he goes back to high school, so too will the events of the next two Avengers movies as he continues with high school."
"This original 22-movie arc ends with the untitled Avengers in May of 2019 and then two months later it will be Peter and Spider-Man (on July 5, 2019) that usher us into the aftermath and how things proceed from there."
This is all Rothman’s idea, by the way. He’s going to pour millions into this campaign because he believes “Brand New Day” is a great movie.