Director Steven McQueen Gives Us “Widows"

As far as I'm concerned, Writer-Director Steve McQueen is a perfect 3 for 3 ("Hunger," "Shame," "12 Years A Slave") in his short filmmaking career. It has been 5 years since "Slave" won the Best Picture Oscar, but it looks like McQueen has decided to tackle the lightest topic thus far in his career: A blue-collar bank robbery. 

The trailer makes the film look like a generic heist film, albeit a well-shot one, but don't we expect more from McQueen than this? I know there is no doubt plenty of potential socio-political topics to tackle here but doesn't the mixture of McQueen and the pulp source material from Flynn feel almost too facile?

McQueen (“12 Years a Slave,” “Shame”) directs from a script he co-wrote with Gillian Flynn (who also adapted her own novel “Gone Girl”). The film stars Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Colin Farrell, Liam Neeson, Daniel Kaluuya, and Robert Duvall.

Here’s the official synopsis:

“From Academy Award®-winning director Steve McQueen (“12 Years a Slave”) and co-writer and bestselling author Gillian Flynn (“Gone Girl”) comes a blistering, modern-day thriller set against the backdrop of crime, passion, and corruption. “Widows” is the story of four women with nothing in common except a debt left behind by their dead husbands’ criminal activities. Set in contemporary Chicago, amid a time of turmoil, tensions build when Veronica (Oscar® winner Viola Davis), Alice (Elizabeth Debicki), Linda (Michelle Rodriguez) and Belle (Cynthia Erivo) take their fate into their own hands and conspire to forge a future on their own terms.  “Widows” also stars Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Robert Duvall, Daniel Kaluuya, Lukas Haas and Brian Tyree Henry.”

“Widows” opens November 16.

Owen Gleiberman: “Star Wars" is a religion that has begun to lose its faith.

From Variety — Owen Gleiberman‘s “Why the Tanking of Solo is a Force of Darkness for Star Wars,”:

"The failure of “Solo” blows a hole in all that. It brings the relationship between “Star Wars” movies and their fans crashing down to earth. It’s the first “Star Wars” film whose box-office performance says: This is just another movie. Another installment in another cinematic universe that provides another hour of diversion for another substratum of entertainment consumers who don’t finally care that much whether all of this really means anything. It’s possible, and even probable, that some “Star Wars” fans have been feeling those whispers of underlying apathy for a while. Butthe box-office performance of “Solo” makes it official that “Star Wars” is a religion that has begun to lose its faith. The faithful may still show up for a while, but that only indicates why they may ultimately fade away: The business of worship should never become a habit."

Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy has been described by an insider as person that “too frequently second-guessed her own choices and hasn’t effectively resolved disagreements with directors.” 

Of course we know of Kennedy's problems with filmmakers, most notably her firings of Phil Lord and Chris Miller on "Solo," the axing of Collin Trevorrow from "Episode IX" and,  letting Gareth Edwards go of his duties on "Rogue One," with Tony Gilroy coming in near that production's end to takeover. [Although Edwards did get final director's credit].  

Lest we forget, that if there is a director Kathleen Kennedy has warmed up to during her tenure as Lucasfilm head, it would have to be Rian Johnson. Yes, the same Johnson who is all but HATED by a fairly large group of "Star Wars" devotees and, yet, was given the task of creating a new "Star Wars" trilogy from scratch for the next decade. So Owen is right, the religion is, in fact, maybe over, and Kathleen Kennedy is to blame. Maybe we should all celebrate the journey to come with "Episode IX," which will surely be a film that JJ Abrams will be making to please the legions of old-school fans that have devoted, for some, their entire lives to this "religion" only to have seen it turbulently shattered the last two years. "Episode IX" will be a back-to-the-basics affair, there's no doubt about it, but will it already be too late? Have Kennedy and Disney already steered the ship a little too far-off to fully recover and be redeemed by Lucas loyalists?

‘The Wild Pear Tree’ Teaser: Nuri Bilge Ceylan's Staggeringly Touching New Film.

Turkish director Nuri Bilge Ceylan already won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival back in 2014 with "Winter Sleep," a shocking win if you ask me since that film is considered one of his weaker entries. Me? I'll always love "Once Upon A Time In Anatolia" a meditative but thoroughly gripping murder-mystery that very much feels like the more minimalist and, almost, equally brilliant counterpart to David Fincher's "Zodiac."

Alas, here were are, the Cannes Film Festival is all but done and, maybe the reason why we haven't heard so much about “The Wild Pear Tree," is the fact that it was screened on the last day of the festival, as a late-minute addition. Which is also why I didn't file anything on it as the next day I was on a plane back home.

The first teaser for “The Wild Pear Tree” is more a series of beautiful images that show just how visually stunning Ceylan's latest is. Its rambling, episodic story of aspiring writer Sinan (Aydin Doğu Demirkol) returning to his native village in rural Turkey after having completed his studies abroad, is more about the dynamic between father and son. Sinan's return to his hometown has him becoming involved and overwhelmed by his father, Idris (excellent Murat Cemcir), a gambling addict up to his knees in debt. 

The film is filled with conversation and I found the first and third hour to be most gripping. It's very hard to really grasp this film without pondering on it, a reflection of its nuances is a must. There's a great conversation that happens mid-way that has Sinan, an imam and a mutual friend debating about Islam and if it should incorporate and adapt to modern morals and values. It's a fascinating conversation that is no doubt a hot-button topic in Turkey, and many other middle-eastern countries. 

Another conversation revolves around Sinan meeting up with a "lost love," former classmate Hatice (Hazar Ergüçlü), who resents the notion that she might have made a mistake staying with her parents. You can tell Sinan and this lovely young woman are infatuated with each other, but that love cannot be shown. She was forced to adhere to her family's customs and find a more religious man. 

Lots of political and religious resonance is felt in "The Wild Pear Tree." That's the thing about it, if you're familiar with Turkish politics this feels very much like a state of the union address from Ceylan.

This is heady stuff from him. The writer-director is trying to give us a film driven by political landscapes, and astonishingly complex dialogue that is driven by philosophy, and religious traditions. The film does very much feel "novelistic," and I think of it as a sort of rambling plunge into the more philosophical and epic works of literature, those that revolved around a single character. There's also this incredible emotional payoff near its end that a THR review aptly called "a transcendental moment so beautiful in its simplicity that the previous three hours of seriousness appear to melt away — is worth every last minute." 

I would agree with that.

A more thorough examination will come when it is finally released, but, suffice to say, I did really like it, it's just very hard to grasp a 188-minute philosophical rumination on rural Turkey and then head out on a 14-hour flight just a few hours later.

There is currently no release date for "The Wild Pear Tree"

“Blade Runner 2049" premiered on HBO last night, shown fully in it's widescreen format and hoping for a second life on TV

Before I watch a theatrical movie on HBO, I always check IMDb to see what the original aspect ratio is of the film. 

Movies tend to garner a second life when they are shown on HBO in repeat cyclical format. Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner," which, by all accounts, I thought was 3/4 of a great movie ultimately spiraled out of control when Harrison Ford's Deckard came into the mix. That's all fine and dandy, it really was one of the most visually stimulating films I had seen in ages. Roger Deakins winning the Oscar for his work was well-earned as well. 

To have a film such as this one produced by a major studio (Warner Bros.) in this day and age of Hollywood obsessions with franchises, sequels, reboots, animation, and superhero movies is something to celebrate. Sure, BR2049 is a sequel, of sorts, to a 1982 cult classic, but it was still very much a risky endeavor for its director Denis Villeneuve and WB. There barely is any plot, it's mostly Gosling acting in a deadpan mode and Deakins/Villeneuve's visuals just take over the narrative drive. 

I know many people that swear by this sequel and for good reason. There are many masterful sequences here. It also helps that despite HBO being infamous for showing widescreen movies in the pan & scan format of the old days, and more recently scanning them to fit modern TVs, that the last few years they have shown several films (Gone Girl, The Martian, The Revenant and Logan) in their original aspect ratios. "Blade Runner 2049" is being show in its original form. That's the only way you will truly build up its fanbase. HBO knows that and respects the intended vision that was meant to be show by its creators. Flaws and all, I think BR2049 deserves and audience after its disappointing box-office intake.

‘Solo: A Star Wars Story' Box Office Has Massive 77% Friday-to-Friday Drop

Variety is reporting that "Solo: A Star Wars Story" is officially a major catastrophe for Disney. Tracking projections have it at a $28 million weekend in North America, that's a 77% drop from last weekend’s lackluster opening of $84.4 million.

The Miller-Lord debacle, the casting of Alden Ehrenreich as young Han Solo seem to have contributed to this massive disappointment.  Lucasfilm head Kathy Kennedy's job is no doubt in jeopardy if another SW film does badly, if not right now it is.

Forbes:

"This is not good, especially when the movie is so expensive and the overseas numbers are so poor. At best it plays like Suicide Squad, X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men Origins: Wolverine and levels out after a super-duper drop for a $210-$215m domestic total."

"If those lesser figures come to pass, Solo: A Star Wars Story will be the lowest-grossing live-action theatrical Star Wars movie ever, without even factoring inflation. In their original releases, Empire Strikes Strike earned $209 million domestic in 1980 and Return of the Jedi earned $252m in 1983. Heck, the Star Wars: Special Edition release earned $135m in 1997, which would be around $275m today.

First Image of Shia Labeouf as Shia Labeouf's Father in Shia Labeouf Biopic ‘Honey Boy'

“Honey Boy” is most definitely a film that is part of our must-see list for next year. It will, at the very least, be a therapeutic film for its star Shia LaBeouf, who is going to tackle some heavy personal daddy issues he's had in his life.

The actual synopsis goes like this:

“A child actor and his law-breaking, alcohol-abusing father attempt to mend their contentious relationship over the course of a decade.”

LaBeouf will star alongside Lucas Hedges in “Honey Boy,” which is directed by Alma Har’el.

Hedges is said to be portraying LaBoeuf back when the actor was starring in the Disney Channel show, “Even Stevens,” in the early 2000s. LaBeouf, has also mentioned he will play his own father. In fact, the title stems from the nickname LaBeouf’s dad gave to his son when he was a child. 

There is currently no release date for "Honey Boy."

Debating who actually deserves to lose their show between Samantha Bee and Roseanne Barr is hypocritical. They are both guilty of crossing the line.

The whole country is talking about ABC axing "Roseanne." In case you didn't know, the Disney-backed network cancelled the most watched sitcom on television, after its star Roseanne Barr compared African American Obama aide Valerie Jarrett to an ape. In the since-deleted tweet, Barr said of Jarrett: "Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj."

ABC Entertainment President, Channing Dungey, quickly released a letter to the media saying "Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show." That was that. 

Of course, the backlash that followed from the right was no doubt predictable. After all, their side is being constantly mocked by the left-wing cultural media. No president in the history of the United States of America has endured the kind of mockery Donald Trump has taken since taking office.

The right want blood for what happened to "Roseanne." An eye for an eye. They have set their sights on TV host Samantha Bee, who, a few hours after Roseanne was cancelled, called Ivanka Trump a "feckless cunt" on her show. The remark has had advertisers leaving left and right ever since. The backlash is there. Why? Because Bee has become a prominent voice for the left, very much akin to the same "heroic" levels of "news" people like Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, and John Oliver. Plus, she's a woman and her fervent female following is what seems to be dictating the insult of Ivanka Trump as "unacceptable." 

Do I find Bee's comment repugnant? Sure. Have I heard worse in these last two years of Democratic vs Conservative twitter bloodbaths? Hell, yeah. However, Barr's comment, comparing a black person to an ape is a little more extreme methinks. It shouldn't even be considered a "bad joke," as some of her supporters are claiming. There was no joke or punchline in what Barr said, just execution and blatant name-calling. Kind of like what Bee did, actually. 

We know why Roseanne's "joke" was bad, but Bee calling an important, integral woman in the White House a "feckless cunt" is something you just shouldn't do. For the sake of female strength and prosperity in this country, do not use a derogatory and sexist term to make a point. Be the intellectual you claim to be, lay down your reasoning behind why Ivanka is a bad person, rather than punctuate it with an all-too-easy insult.

It's been 36 hours since the Samantha Bee controversy, 48 hours since Barr's. Yes, what Roseanne Barr said was far worse. However, did it merit her show to be cancelled, an unprecedented feat as it was TV's most watched sitcom this year. Both Bee and Barr have apologized for their comments, but is that enough? The argument from the right says that if Roseanne's show was cancelled, shouldn't Bee's be as well? However, it's obvious that Roseanne calling a black person a monkey is going a little further down the wrong path in terms of acceptable behavior. You just can't do that. Don't get me wrong, Bee's slurring at Ivanka isn't acceptable either.

Compared to today's media where you HAVE to take a side in the Samantha Bee/Roseanne Barr debate, maybe we just shouldn't here. Why aren't there people blaming both of these popular celebs for their disgusting statements? I feel like I'm in the minority here, which I shouldn't be. What happened to decency and treating each other kindly. Bee and Barr crossed that line. But the political and cultural climate these days seems to be driven by the biblical 'eye for an eye" theory. No, there is no more "they aim low, we aim high" for the Democrats. Why? Because Republicans have long abandoned that ideology in the era of Trump. This is war.

‘Under the Silver Lake' Gets Bumped Back Six Months

Initial release for "Under the Silver Lake" was just under three weeks away. After a less than enthusiastic reception at Cannes, where it garnered love/hate reactions, the movie's buzz has surely diminished. I haven't written anything about it, just yet, but it's a shapeless romp into the L.A. noir of "The Big Lebowski" and "The Long Goodbye," maybe it'll become a cult hit, who knows, but there was a familiarity to the film which, when concocting such a labyrinthine plot, its creators clearly didn't intend to have on-screen.

A24 was originally set to release the film on June 22, but today's announcement that "SIlver Lake" has been pushed back a full six months isn't surprising. The new date is December 7, 2018, maybe they want to try to make the rounds at more festivals and build up a larger following, and, make no mistake about it, there will be people that'll respond to Mitchell's film. I do wonder if this release date change means they're making cuts on the film.

Bloody Disgusting‘s John Squires is reporting the "Silver Lake" shakeup. Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeffrey Wells says "They’ve almost certainly asked Mitchell to go back to the editing room and tighten up his 139-minute film, and perhaps even do a little re-shooting." A tricky task if you ask me, since Mitchell's intention with this film was for it to be confusing, a sort of mental haziness that builds up the overall picture. Confusion and mental haziness were part of the impressionistic thrust. The whole notion of a story revolving around a dream trip in L.A's weird hipster community is nothing new. 

James Cameron Says His 4 ‘Avatar’ Sequels Will Be “Revolutionary”

James Cameron clearly thinks his "Avatar" sequels will be the bees knees of the cinematic world when they are unleashed upon us at the start of the next decade. 

Is there any way around the fact that 2009's "Avatar' sparked the 3D boom? And, yet, almost a decade later, it's still the film that used 3D in the most efficient and visionary way. Suffice to say, as much as he's been blabbing his mouth the last few years, attacking "Star Wars," "Marvel movies," the Terminator's he wasn't a part of etc. Cameron seems to have the utmost of confidence his "Avatar" sequels will, again, revolutionize the biz.  I am ready to be blown away by whatever Cameron has for us, especially if it's a notch higher than the wow-factor that came with the visual technology in 'Avatar."

Speaking at Vivid Sydney, where he was selling 3D, Cameron made a few guarantees:

“I guarantee one thing: Avatar 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all going to be in 3D and they will look sumptuous.”

After electrifying the industry, a mini post-Avatar 3D revolution ensued, one that had most blockbusters employing additional costs to 3D glasses with the ticket price. That whole movement now seems to have subsided. Movie studios are less inclined to have 3D accompanying their picture because the people, quite frankly, have stopped caring for 3D. And yet, here is James Cameron and he is banking his film career on 3D. After all, for all its mind-blowing effects, "Avatar" was, and still is, a poor story that stood in front of a towering visual palette. So the director does need to "wow" us again here. People aren't  going to be buying tickets to "Avatar 2" just for the story of Pandora vs. the American military.

What people fail to understand is that "Avatar" was shot with stereoscopic cameras, which is why most of Hollywood 3D is awful, they don't use stereoscopic 3D, but when it's done the result is damn-near stunning. There have been plenty of auteurs trying their hands with 3D and, many times, with exceedingly impressive results: Martin Scorsese's "Hugo," "Ang Lee's "Life of Pi," Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity," Robert Zemeckis' "The Walk" and even Jean Luc-Godard's "Goodbye to Language."

Don't think Cameron, whose ego has been ballooning, it seems, the more worktime goes into these sequels, will ever admit defeat, He thinks what he has is purely groundbreaking and will revolutionize the field:

“They will be, to the best of my ability, the best 3D that’s possible to make. That includes collaborating with the people at Dolby Cinema, who have developed high dynamic range projection that could put 16 foot-lamberts of light on a 3D screen through the glasses, which is revolutionary. Normally, you’re looking at about three foot-lamberts. Sixteen is what you should be seeing. That’s what movies should look like,” said Cameron (VFX blog).

I'm not worried about Cameron's ability to discover new things on the technological front, but, after the balloon-sized fail of 3D in Hollywood, are we ready for "Avatar 2"? Will it kickstart another 3D renaissance?

Penguin May Be The Villain Of Matt Reeves’ ‘The Batman’

To recap: Ben Affleck wanted to write and direct a more traditional version of “The Batman,” but, not too soon after those intentions were declared, Affleck decided not to helm the movie himself and eventually, the script was scrapped. Then, ‘Planet Of The Apes‘ reboot director Matt Reeves took over as writer/director of the project, now a stand-alone picture from the current onscreen DC Universe and even Affleck’s role as the Caped Crusader was, and still is, in doubt.  Reeves has kept a low profile and been a vault regarding plot and character details of this critical cinematic endeavor for a franchise in desperate need of redemption.

But there is some movement out there. According to a tweet coming from Variety’s Justin Kroll, who has had accurate DCEU intel in the past, Oswald Cobblepot aka The Penguin is being considered as the lead villain role in Reeves’ “The Batman” and the Harley Quin spin-off “Birds of Prey.” “Take this with a grain of salt, as things are constantly changing in the DCEU,” Kroll wrote.  “I’m hearing the Penguin is possibly the choice to play the main villain in The Batman. Sources add even if Reeves decides to go another route the studio could then make him the main villain in Birds of Prey.”

For one, it sounds like Reeves isn’t very far into his script if he hasn’t chosen the villain yet and or DC is really hedging his bets. Josh Gad, who apparently even met with DC last year, is still heavily rumored to take on the role and last year started dropping significant hints on Twitter.

We haven’t seen Cobblepot depicted on-screen since Danny DeVito‘s iconic 1992 performance in Tim Burton‘s “Batman Returns.” Just like Heath Ledger‘s Joker before it, any depiction of a classic Batman character will surely bring up comparisons this past attempts. Matt Reeves is said to be still working on the script for “The Batman,” so this will have to stay as a “rumor” for now. After all, the DCEU is prone to change plans in the blink of an eye, and have been very careful in making this Batman reboot a worthy movie event, especially after the, er, complications that were the result of Zack Snyder‘s six-year tenure with the company.

Justin Kroll

✔@krolljvar

Take this with a grain of salt as things are constantly changing in the DCEU but I'm hearing the Penguin is possibly the choice to play the main villain in THE BATMAN. Sources add even if Reeves decide to go another route the studio could then make him the main villain in BOP

2:41 PM - May 30, 2018

• 781
• 446 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Justin Kroll

✔@krolljvar

22h

Take this with a grain of salt as things are constantly changing in the DCEU but I'm hearing the Penguin is possibly the choice to play the main villain in THE BATMAN. Sources add even if Reeves decide to go another route the studio could then make him the main villain in BOP

Justin Kroll

✔@krolljvar

Reeves is still working on the script, so that could always change but of the multiple BIRDS OF PREY scripts submitted, one does have the Penguin as the main heavy. Either way, it seems WB wants this character cast in the universe sooner rather then later.

2:42 PM - May 30, 2018

• 440
• 228 people are talking about this

What did you think of Alden Ehrenreich's controversial performance in ‘Solo’?

Alden Ehrenreich's performance in "Solo: A Star Story" was rumored to have Lucasfilm so distraught with that they decided to hire an on-set acting coach for the actor. Let that sit with you for a second. This is unheard of, to show such little faith in your lead actor on a big production. After having seen 'Solo," am I surprised help was needed to hone Ehrenreich in the right direction? Not really.

I wrote in my review of the film: "Alden Ehrenreich is not bad, but he's still miscast. The 28 year old actor just can't capture the spirit of Harrison Ford's original performance. It's as simple as that. We just don't care.” 

He was a standout in the Coen Brothers' "Hail, Caesar," where he played a bad actor — ironic? Ever since then, Ehrenreich hasn't impressed me the least bit. First in "Rules Don't Apply," I found his performance was undercooked and not involving at all and then at last year's Sundance Film Festival he starred in the Iraq-War movie "The Yellow Birds," which was considered by many, including myself, as one of the worst films in competiton. 

Ehrenreich's performance in 'Solo’ is underwhelming; it had no charisma with a weak, stiff, over-cooked delivery. 

According to a report from Vulture:

“Lucasfilm wanted something very specific: copying someone else. Alden’s not a bad actor — just not good enough…You could see his acting became more relaxed. He became more Harrison-like,” the source says. “The coach helped!” 

Ehrenreich's contract stipulates that he has to make three Han Solo movies. 

So, did the coach help? Were you satisfied with Ehrenreich's portrayal of Solo? Chime in on the comments section below.

Fall movies

The Hollywood Reporter decided to choose a list of 15 films this week that they thought to have a shot at making the Venice lineup.  The complete THR article is linked here. I added a few more that I thought warranted buzz - 25 in total. I'm seeing a lot of great filmmakers here.

Damien Chazelle's First Man
Barry Jenkins' If Beale Street Could Talk
Olivier Assayas' Non Fiction
Alfonso Cuaron‘s Roma
Steve McQueen‘s Widows
Claire Denis' High Life

Yorgios Lanthimos' The Favorite

Richard Linklater‘s Where’d You Go, Bernadette?

Terrence Malick's Radegund

Jacques Audiard's The Sisters Brothers

Brian DePalma‘s Domino

Benh Zeitlin‘s Wendy
Luca Guadagnino's Suspiria
Xavier Dolan's The Death and Life of John F. Donovan
Mike Leigh's Peterloo
Ang Lee‘s Thrilla in Manila

Adam McKay‘s Backseat
Bryan Singer‘s Bohemian Rhapsody
Felicity Jones as Ruth Bader Ginsburg in On The Basis of Sex
Robert Zemeckis‘s The Women of Marwen

Joe Wright‘s Stoner

Harmony Korine's The Beach Bum
Lazslo Nemes' Sunset

Felix Van Groeningen's Beautiful Boy
Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck's Work Without Author

The unsung genius of William Friedkin

One of the great unsung American directors is no doubt William Friedkin ("The French Connection," "The Exorcist," "Sorcerer," "To Live and Die in L.A"). The filmmker had a mini comeback of sorts with 2006's "Bug," but, especially, 2011's masterful "Killer Joe," two shockers that pushed the boundaries of tension in American cinema. I was hoping that set of films could be a rejuvenation of sorts for the 82-year-old director but, alas, it never came. The fact that both those movies were all but ignored upon release has made it rather difficult for him to find the sufficient funding for his next cinematic endeavor. 

It's been 6 years since "Killer Joe" was released but  he has nothing really planned, at least in terms of fiction. His latest non-fiction venture, "The Devil and Father Amortha," had its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival this past September. The film is the story of Father Gabriele Amortha's and picks up as he's about to perform his ninth exorcism on an Italian woman. 

Friedkin's films have aged like fine wine, have you recently spoken to a person that can't stop raving about "To Live and Die In L.A." I know I have. However, despite his imprint on cinema with "The Exorcist" and " The French Connection" back to back, he followed those up with what many now consider to be the unsung masterpeice of 1970's American cinema: "Sorcerer." His 1977 thriller starred Roy Scheider, and was considered a remake of the 1953 film The Wages of Fear - Despite Friedkin heavily disagreeing with this assessment in "The Friedkin Connection: A Memoir."

Regardless, this timeless movie about greed, almost a spiritual sequel to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre," was set in South America and had four men, on the run from the law, offered $10,000 and legal citizenship if they transport a shipment of dangerous nitroglycerin 200 miles away. Suffice to say, the hazardous journey includes rocky roads, guerilla attacks and, of course, unstable bridges.

Even with another, newly released trailer, “Ocean's 8” still doesn't look good

In a way, the mediocre sequels that followed Steven Soderbergh’s “Ocean’s Eleven” were probably what helped make the case for Gary Ross’ “Oceans 8.” We don’t really know much about the plot for this spinoff of Soderbergh’s classic. However, what we do know is that “Oceans 8,” will not be a remake or reboot of the original. The cast is also great: Cate Blanchett, Sandra Bullock, Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter are some of the best actresses of their generations, oh, and we also have Rihanna added in for good measure. The film is surely a risky bet for Warner Bros and Ross, the underrated filmmaker of “Pleasantville,” “Seabiscuit” and “The Hunger Games,” must surely know what happened to Paul Feig and his failed attempt at an all-female version of “Ghostbusters” just a few years ago. 

With all that being said, I am tempering my expectations for this film. The trailers just haven't done it for me. 

“Hail Caesar!" feels more and more like a rare Coen dud that belongs with the lower tier of their works

HE's Jeffrey Wells mentioned that he gave "Hail Caesar!" "another shot," hoping to see the film in a more "approving light." Suffice to say, second time wasn't the charm:

"Alas, it wasn’t to be. As well-made, well-acted and handsomely designed as it obviously is, I still felt irked and underwhelmed. My re-viewing wasn’t boring. It’s still diverting in several portions (Channing Tatum‘s dance number, Aldren Ehrenreich‘s “would that it twuhhh” scene with Ralph Fiennes) but it feels oddly thin and scattershot."

My response:

"Burn After Reading" clicked after a second viewing. I find many Coen films tend to have that quality. "O Brother," "Burn After the Reading," "The Big Lebowski," "The Man Who Wasn't There," and "A Serious Man" are examples of films that have been severely enriched due to re-watches. That' the sign of great filmmakers, the Coens are always one step ahead of you. With all that being said, I've given "Hail, Caesar" a few shots the last few years, but it's just not as humorous and snappy as it thinks it is. I'll eventually give it another chance but it does feel like that rare Coen dud."

Oh, and in the off-chance, you wonder why I didn't add "The Ladykillers" to the "lower-tier works" in the title, I actually kind of like that movie. Tom Hanks' performance is a total delight. There, I've said it.

Disney Exec Actually Blames ‘Avengers’ And ‘Deadpool 2’ for Terrible ‘Solo’ Box Office

Kathleen Kennedy's job is no doubt on the line now after “Solo: A Star Wars Story” didn't do so well at the box office on Memorial Day weekend.

The Hollywood Reporter found an insider reporting on the goings-on at Disney and how they've decided to blame the low numbers on other films. According to one executive, it wasn’t the movie ‘Solo’ itself that was the problem nor was it the “Star Wars Fatigue” that you might hear about. No, it was “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Deadpool 2.”

“There’s a question of frequency, and how many times people will go to the movies. Is this too much and too soon for a third time in a five-week period?” says Disney distribution chief Dave Hollis said to this weekend.

Hollis blames ‘Infinity War’ coming out April 27, combined with “Deadpool 2” coming out only two weeks later to 'Solo' underperforming.

Hollis does save himself a bit afterward by saying maybe we should just let time pass on and make a judgment instead “Let’s measure how we feel about this until more time passes.”

Christopher Nolan Calls Stanley Kubrick the Greatest Filmmaker Ever and Defends His 70mm Restoration

I attended the Christopher Nolan restoration of  “2001: A Space Odyssey” at the last Cannes Film Festival.  He presented an unrestored 70mm print of Kubrick landmark ahead of a theatrical release which will no doubt have purists first in line to buy tickets. I thought the print was fine, it was more a joyful experience because I was watching Kubrick's masterpiece, one of the greatest movies ever made, on a big screen at the Cannes Film Festival. I mean, if you really want to watch the best quality "2001: A Space Oddysey," you go right ahead and pop that restored 2007 Blu-ray which is exceptional. Jeffrey Wells had a thorough analysis of startling differences between 70mm and Blu-ray. 

No, I believe this love for 70mm by purists that still shoot in it like Nolan, Tarantino, Spielberg, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky is all due to nostalgia. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't get me wrong, I love watching a film in 70mm, it's the most sumptuously "cinematic" feeling you can get when you want a chance to re-live the way you used to watch movies in the past, but in terms of the way it makes a movie look, digital is just the way to go and the way of the future. There's no way around it.  

Wells’ contrasting example of of the 2007 Bluray capture (above) and the unrestored Nolan version (below). Nolan appeared on The Treatment podcast to discuss his love of "2001" and described celluloid and the photochemical process as “the best analogy for the way the eye sees that’s been invented.” 

He's almost trying to defend what some detractors such as Wells have categorized as a lost cause. “There’s a depth to the color, there’s a superiority to the resolution, there’s a depth to the blacks, the contrasts, everything. I mean, there are all kinds of things that digital technology can’t duplicate,” Nolan adds.

“It can do its own version and all that, and there are a lot of filmmakers who respond really well to that and really enjoy that version of imaging, but it’s different. And so when you start looking at film history, and you start looking at ‘2001’ and the experience that I was able to have watching it on an early re-release, to be able to give audiences today that same analog experience, I think it’s very important.”

[IndieWire]

‘Solo: A Star Wars Story’ Bombs At The Box Office

Lucasfilm has not escaped the tumultuous wrath that is “Solo: A Star Wars Story,” its memorial weekend numbers were not impressive, at all. According to projections, the new “Star Wars” prequel barely made $100 million over the course of its four-day weekend, its three-day gross was an abysmal $83 million over three days. Should we call a film that opens with these kinds of numbers a "bomb"?  Its budget of $300 million, much of it used for reshoots, is what makes me use the "B" word. Is Kathy Kennedy in trouble now? Who knows, but fans are not happy.

1. Solo: A Star Wars Story – $83,325,000
2. Deadpool 2 – $42,700,000 ($207,407,352)
3. Avengers: Infinity War – $16,494,000 ($621,688,638)
4. Book Club – $9,450,000 ($31,834,516)
5. Life of the Party – $5,115,000 ($39,102,348)
6. Breaking In – $4,055,000 ($35,643,385)
7. Show Dogs – $3,078,235 ($10,672,960)
8. Overboard – $3,000,000 ( $41,494,413)
9. A Quiet Place – $2,230,000 ($179,993,607)
10. RBG – $1,120,000 ($5,636,638)

The Guardian: Film Critics fear the danger of not having a job and not being ‘relevant’

A Guardian article titled “Ripe For A Kicking: Hollywood’s Love-Hate Relationship with Rotten Tomatoes had made the, not-so startling, claim that critics today are just whorish to studios. 

“Critics have trained themselves to [pretend to] take seriously movies that they don’t take seriously because the danger is not having a job and not being ‘relevant’, being aged out of the discussion.” The numbers bear out this trend. The median Tomatometer score for movies grossing more than $2 million was 51% during the 2000s and 53% during the 2010s. In 2017, though, the year of crashes such as Baywatch and Pirates of the Caribbean 5, the median was 71%. Either critics are enjoying movies more or movies are better than ever.”

Contrary to what some might say, movies are not better than ever claims The article.

The thing I find scariest, that I've oft repeated, is that many critics don't educate themselves with film history. You know, I've been, more or less, writing about movies now for a decade and I have seen some drastic changes occur. The people that disturb me the most are the "critics" I've met that have not seen any black and white cinema. These people do exist, they really do.

Denis Villeneuve Confirms ‘Dune’ Will Be Released In Two Parts

Looks like Denis Villeneuve has major plans for his "Dune." More from my Playlist writeup here.