Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world

TOP STORY:

Lars Von Trier Returns to Sci-Fi. Today in Film Bloggery 10/09/09

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 month ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

After years of gut-wrenching “Golden Heart” films, chalk-outline experiments about “America,” a co-founded movement for pure cinema and other infamous works including his most recent, the explicit horror film Antichrist, it’s easy to forget that Lars von Trier started his feature film career in the science fiction genre. Of course, he being who he is, Von Trier’s dystopian detective story The Elements of Crime isn’t easily identifiable as sci-fi.

And neither, I’m sure, will be his next venture, a “psychological disaster” film titled Planet Melancholia. I’ll ignore the Hollywood Reporter’s reference to “Roland Emmerich territory,” especially since it follows the equally asinine description of Antichrist as being in some way related to a slasher film, and stick to comments from Von Trier and his partner at Zentropa Entertainment, Peter Aalbaek Jensen.

First: The filmmaker’s statement of “no more happy endings!” could easily be the next Von Trier t-shirt, joining the recently released “chaos reigns” design and the Van Halen-style tee.

Jensen added that hopefully no genitals will be cut off, that there will be some special effects employed, that this won’t be about an alien invasion (though there apparently will be a threat from the titular planet) and that this will be “romantic, in a Lord Byron sort of way.” I’ll admit the only familiarity I have with Byron is as a character in Bride of Frankenstein. But regardless, as a longtime fan of Von Trier’s, I’m excited for this film no matter what the inspiration or comparison.

After he dedicated Antichrist to Andrei Tarkovsky, though, I’m really hoping Von Trier sets his new film on a spaceship, a la Solaris. You know Von Trier in outer space would be the greatest thing of all time.

Check out what other film bloggers are saying in response to this news after the jump:
…Read more

California is Going Down in 2012. Today in Film Bloggery 10/02/09

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 month ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

I don’t watch television so I didn’t witness Sony’s “media roadblock” presentation of 2012 footage last night, but fortunately — like all TV-related things I want to see — the footage is available online. Actually, the online clip is longer: five whole minutes of John Cusack outrunning the collapse of California with a limousine. Yes, all of California. From what it looks like, Cusack and his estranged family are the only ones to survive. I kinda feel like I even died in the disaster along with the millions of West Coasters. That’s how insanely destructive this footage is.

Honestly, this sequence may be the most ridiculous and awesome footage from any film I’ve ever seen, and I have to thank Erik Davis of Cinematical for bringing it to my attention this morning with a Tweet claiming “California is going down” may be the movie quote of the year — though I think “Chaos reigns” already has that distinction. Sure, this footage resembles a lot of nightmares I’ve had, and after all the Pacific earthquakes this past week I’m even more worried that the actual Big One is approaching (and I don’t even live out there), but it’s just so damn ludicrous that I’ve already watched it a few times back to back. And I can’t wait to see it again in the theater. Is anyone not with me?

Check out other film blogger’s thoughts on the footage after the jump:

…Read more

Zombieland Trailer is Unnecessary Yet Awesome. Today in Film Bloggery 06/19/09

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 5 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Do we really need more zombie movies? Just as one is opening — the Nazi zombie flick Dead Snow — another gets a trailer: the zom-com Zombieland, starring Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone and Oscar nominee Abigail Breslin. Also, according to the IMDb page, Bill Murray has a cameo as a zombie. After the brilliant Shaun of the Dead, there’s not much need for more zombie movies, especially humorous zombie movies, but I can’t help but be excited about this thing. Hopefully that tongue-in-cheek narration is heard throughout the movie and not just in the trailer, in which it’s employed hilariously.

Anyway, as entertaining as Zombieland looks, it’s certainly contributing to the potential over-saturation of the genre. Somehow, though, zombie movies aren’t as threatened, no matter how many examples are made, as some other types of movies. Vampire plots, for instance, are too common these days. And apocalyptic scenarios in general (which does include zombie stories) are excessively prevalent (today’s other most popular trailer is for Roland Emmerich’s destructoporn flick 2012, which also features Harrelson). Yet we always think most films would be better if they had zombies. The real question may be, then, do we really need more non-zombie movies?

Lets see what the film blogs have to say about this trailer after the jump:
…Read more

7 Thinly-Veiled Stand-Ins for Dick Cheney

7 Thinly-Veiled Stand-Ins for Dick Cheney

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 6 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

All comparisons between Dick Cheney and Darth Vader were rendered moot recently when George Lucas told Maureen Dowd, of The New York Times, “George Bush is Darth Vader. Cheney is the emperor.” In response to that clarification, David Edelstein wrote a piece in this week’s New York magazine in which he attempts to find another movie villain who Cheney resembles even more than any character in Star Wars. Ultimately, though, he settles on the former vice president being something of a villainous mutt: “Cheney is Palpatine with a soupçon of Sauron, a pinch of Voldemort, a dash of Mabuse, a jigger of Fu, with some Elmer Fudd and Richard Nixon folded in.”

That’s an interesting conclusion, but do we really need to soil our memories of these cinematic evildoers by likening Cheney to them, and worse, vice versa? It’s bad enough the guy has shown up in a lot of contemporary movies, both officially (W.) and unofficially. In Jim Jarmusch’s new film, The Limits of Control, which opens this week, a certain character is an obvious, albeit somewhat veiled, stand-in for Cheney. And at least seven other recent films similarly feature a character who is a dead-ringer for the old VP. We count them down, in order of most intentionally Cheney-like, below.
…Read more

Oops: Five Movies That Failed to Predict the Future, Part 2

Oops: Five Movies That Failed to Predict the Future, Part 2

Kevin Buist
By Kevin Buist posted 9 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Last week I offered a list of movies that made ambitious predictions about the near future, only to lose credibility when their dark futures didn’t become a reality. As meaningful as this exercise is, it’s also very limited, I can only debunk movies whose futures have already failed come true, or can I? Using FutureMe.org, I sent my future self an e-mail, asking how movies which predict what the next ten years have fared. Luckily, PastMe.org must be up and running in 2019, because I received a prompt and courteous response from my future self. Here is the response, which I will write in ten years:

Past Self,

Got your e-mail about failed movie predictions. I knew it was coming ;) Here’s what I’ve got for you:

2012

I realize this Roland Emmerich mega-budget doomsday picture hasn’t come out yet in your time. I don’t recommend seeing it when it does, unless you were so impressed with Emmerich’s filmmaking in Godzilla and 10,000 BC that you actually want to see more. The film predicts that multiple apocalyptic catastrophes befall the world in 2012, in accordance with an ancient Mayan calendar which stops on December 21 of that year. What we know now is that the Mayans simply ran out of room on the rock they were carving, and were not trying to warn future generations of anything. Promoters of New Age Mayan mysticism did make a big deal about what they said would be the end of the world, making several appearances on popular talk shows. Of course, nothing happened on December 21, 2012, except that the special edition Blu-Ray of 2012 went on sale, hoping to make up for poor sales by becoming the ironic Christmas gift of choice.

I Am Legend

This 2007 Will Smith vehicle is another example of revisionist futurism, when a story’s prediction doesn’t come true, the story is retold and the date is moved further into the future. This is the third film adaptation of Robert Matheson’s original novel. Published in 1954, the book follows a scientist named Robert Neville from 1976 to 1979. Neville is apparently the sole survivor of a pandemic which resembles vampirism. The Will Smith version takes place in 2012, clearly a favorite year for doomsday prophets. While the prediction of a virus that turns everyone into rabid beasts didn’t exactly come true, that year’s American Idol competition was particularly brutal, inspiring an outbreak of backyard gladiatorial battles, similar to those now used to choose the winner of the show.

The Postman

This 1997 film, directed by and starring Kevin Costner, was generally regarded as a flop when it was released. It grew in popularity, however, as its prophetic vision of 2013 began to look more like reality. In the film, society is in ruins after a nuclear war. Costner’s character inadvertently brings hope to the destitute survivors when he starts delivering mail. While there was no global nuclear war in 2013 (that doesn’t happen until 2015), the film did accurately predict the return of pony express style mail delivery. Due to the ongoing financial crisis, the US government shut down the Postal Service, assuming that private carriers and e-mail would fill in. It worked for a few months, until bad loans and $300-per-barrel oil drove the private delivery firms out of business right during the Great Broadband Crash of ‘13. It was a bad year. But letters from loved ones did seem that much more meaningful when they were hand delivered by a disheveled vigilante fighting off dysentery.

Back to the Future Part II

The 1989 film Back to the Future Part II made several predictions about what the world of 2015 would look like. Having lived through that memorable year, I can tell you things didn’t turn out as shown in the film. In reality, flying cars were not released commercially until 2036, but never became widely available due to the market domination of flying Segways. Hoverboards, on the other hand, were widely available by 2015, but were pulled off the market following the unfortunate death of Tony Hawk during the 2016 X-Games. Many blamed the incident on Hawk’s malfunctioning cybernetic legs, rather than the Hoverboard, but the toy was still unable to recover from legal trouble. One prediction Back to the Future Part II did get right was Marty McFly’s futuristic Nike shoes. Nike released the Air McFly, in July 2008. While they were a limited edition, there’s no reason you couldn’t wear them in 2015.

Blade Runner

In Ridley Scott’s 1982 science fiction noir, Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a hard boiled detective hired to assassinate several illegal androids known as replicants. The film’s predictions about what a gritty futuristic Los Angeles would look like were pretty accurate. Genetically engineered pets are also available, but you need to go to some rather unsavory neighborhoods to find people who produce them. Super realistic androids, similar to replicants, also exist in 2019. Which brings me to a rather important point. This e-mail is not actually from your future self. I am a replicant. Your memories were transferred to me shortly before your grisly death.

Thanks for writing. If you have any more questions about the future of movies, let me know!

Best,

Future Kevin

5 Most Offensive Uses of Special Effects

5 Most Offensive Uses of Special Effects

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 11 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Should special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off.

For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth).

So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years:
…Read more

5 Filmmakers Who Deserve an Economic Bailout

5 Filmmakers Who Deserve an Economic Bailout

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 12 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Catherine Hardwicke hit one out of the park for female directors this past weekend, but she had a lot of help. Not only was she working with a pre-sold property, she also had a very manageable budget of $37 million. Quite different from the $2 million she had to work with on Thirteen a few years back. Of course, she had similar budgets on Lords of Dogtown ($25 million) and The Nativity Story ($35 million), and both were box office disappointments. Still, she’s going to keep on being trusted with more money — if Summit is smart they’ll keep her on for at least the first Twilight sequel, which will surely come with a higher price tag — and as long as she continues with genre films, she’s sure to remain a profitable director.

Not every talented filmmaker does well with more money. Danny Boyle, for instance, typically bombs with bigger budgets. And a lot of foreign auteurs strike out when handed costly studio-produced genre or franchise pics (Jeunet’s Alien Resurrection is a favorite example). But there’s the occasional filmmaker who, like Steven Soderbergh or Christopher Nolan, can make something worthwhile out of any budget they’re allotted. And then there are the many indie filmmakers who quickly find themselves at home with modestly priced broad comedies, such as the case with Seth Gordon easily transitioning from the Slamdance doc The King of Kong to the star-studded Hollywood holiday pic Four Christmases, out this week.

Who will be the next small-scale filmmaker to successfully rise up and prove him or herself worthy of bigger budgets? SpoutBlog has selected five directors we’d like to see given an economic boost, each because he or she would likely deliver something more interesting and popular than the usual Hollywood product.

…Read more

10 More ’80s Teen Movie Actors for Roland Emmerich to Cast

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

By now I’m sure you’ve heard that former ’80s teen-movie star John Cusack will star in Roland Emmerich’s apocalypse spectacular 2012. Considering the blockbuster filmmaker has previously directed the likes of James Spader (in Stargate) and Matthew Broderick (in Godzilla), I figure it’s only a matter of time before he’s worked with all our favorite ’80s teen-movie actors. So, here’s a list of the next ten actors most appropriate for Emmerich to cast:

  1. Kirk Cameron - The former star of TV’s Growing Pains and the ’80s flick Like Father, Like Son has more recently starred in the Christian-targeted Left Behind movies, which, in dealing with the Rapture, fit in with Emmerich’s usual penchant for end-of-the-world scenarios. Considering his pro-creationist stance, he probably wasn’t a fan of Emmerich’s recent caveman epic and his Evangelical status means he probably disagrees with the climate change message of The Day After Tomorrow. Too bad, because seeing Mike Seaver in a big-budget action extravaganza would be awesome.
    …Read more

FilmCouch #62

Paul Moore
By Paul Moore posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Raquel Welch, Camilla Belle

Roland Emmerich (Independence Day) is probably the most bankable schlock-meister working. 10,000 B.C. is a snickerfest with some amazing woolly mammoths. On the evolutionary chain of movies, it’s a driect descendant of the campy Raquel Welch star vehicle, One Million Years B.C. (1967). Adam Forrest and I thought it would be fun to watch them both, but didn’t expect One Million to blow us away when it turned more Shakespeare than schlock.

Karina phones in to explain what makes a good musical and why Love Songs–opening tonight–and so many others from the last 30 years don’t make the cut.

 
 FilmCouch 62 [30:42m]: Play Now | Download

FilmCouch 62

(Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store and an episode will download each Friday)
10,000 B.C., One Million Years B.C., Love Songs

Big Budget B-Movie Trend Continues with ‘10,000 B.C.’ Trailer

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

10000bcmammoths.jpg

Eventually Hollywood will learn it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on a B-movie. It may just take awhile. But if the road towards re-education didn’t begin with Grindhouse, it will possibly start with Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C., the trailer to which is now available courtesy of CHUD.com. The $75,000,000 movie follows a tradition of cheesy Saturday afternoon flicks like 1940’s One Million B.C. and its 1966 remake One Million Years B.C. Of course, back then the B.C. stood for “before computer (effects)” and featured the spectacular — and silly, maybe — visual effects of Roy Seawright and Ray Harryhausen, respectively.

Sure, in terms of effects and spectacle, 10,000 B.C. looks cool, just as Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow looked cool, but it also has the potential of being unintentionally funny, in the same way the primitive people in Battlefield Earth came off as ridiculous. Emmerich may as well have put in dinosaurs, despite the historical inaccuracy, because this isn’t the kind of movie to be taken seriously, anyway. The one thing the movie may have going for it is it’s combination of historical epics like Alexander with fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings, which gave us its own mammoth-like creatures. I just imagine the story being nowhere near as believable as either one of those examples.

Anyway, if attempts to make big-budget B-movies didn’t work for Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!), Peter Jackson (King Kong) or Tarantino and Rodriguez (Grindhouse), could it really work for the guy who already failed such an attempt with Godzilla?