10.31.2008 | By Mack Chico |
Rated: R on appeal for strong crude sexual content including dialogue, graphic nudity and pervasive language.
Release Date: 2008-10-31
Starring: Kevin Smith
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://zackandmiri.com/
Go to our film page
10.31.2008 | By Mack Chico |
Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Lindsay-Abaire got out of a rabbit hole, only to be ensnared by a spider’s web.
Lindsay-Abaire, who won a Pulitzer in 2007 for his drama “Rabbit Hole,” is in final negotiations to write “Spider-Man 4” for Columbia.
Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire are back as director and star, respectively. Kirsten Dunst also is expected to return for the latest movie featuring the Marvel Comics character.
Plot details are under lock and key. Producer Laura Ziskin had said she would like to aim for a May 2011 release for “Spider-Man 4,” nine years after the original movie’s debut.
Columbia always has gone off the beaten path during the development process when hiring writers for the “Spider-Man” movies. Alvin Sargent, a veteran scribe best known for 1973’s “Paper Moon” and 1980’s “Ordinary People,” served as a writer on the second and third films. Michael Chabon, another Pulitzer winner, also worked on “Spider-Man 2.”
James Vanderbilt previously wrote a draft of “Spider-Man 4.”
Lindsay-Abaire’s “Rabbit Hole,” which starred Cynthia Nixon and Tyne Daly, hit the Broadway stage in 2006 and won four Tonys, including best play. The writer also is known for the play “Fuddy Meers.”
Lindsay-Abaire has said in interviews that his plays tend to be “peopled with outsiders in search of clarity,” which would put his work on sympathetic terms with Peter Parker, who in his classic incarnation is the perpetual outsider.
The choice of scribe also signals that that filmmakers are intent to focus on character, something that critics said got lost in the third installment.
Lindsay-Abaire, now writing the book and lyrics for the Broadway musical adaptation of “Shrek,” has dipped his toe in Tinseltown before, with his adaptation of “Inkheart” due in January. He is also adapting “Rabbit” for 20th Century Fox and Nicole Kidman.
10.30.2008 | By Jack Rico |
Rated: R for pervasive language, violence, drug use and brief sexuality.
Release Date: 2008-10-31
Starring: Guy Ritchie
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: England
Official Website:
Go to our film page
Guy Ritchie made his mark for film-goers not by marrying one of the world’s most visible pop stars, but by crafting Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. He exploded onto the cinematic scene with the former; the reaction from Hollywood was so ecstatic that the latter became virtually a higher-budget remake of its predecessor. Still, while the two may co-mingle in the memory, both are entertaining in their own right. After that, Ritchie began believing his press about doing no wrong and went off the deep end. His most recent features illustrate how badly he has miscalculated his aptitude. Swept Away, a horrific remake of the Lina Wertmuller masterpiece starring the aforementioned pop star, and Revolver, were unmitigated disasters – seen by few and liked by almost none. RocknRolla is Ritchie’s attempt to return to his roots: rough and tumble action, convoluted plots, and rat-a-tat-tat dialogue. All of these things are on exhibit in RocknRolla, but they do not flow smoothly. They feel forced and unnatural, as if Ritchie is keenly aware of what needs to do to placate the naysayers but can’t put everything together in a way that recaptures the magic. As punchy and energetic as the first few moments are, the rest of the film quickly falls back into mediocrity.
The story, as one might expect, features a congregation of bad guys who sleaze around London’s underworld. They include a boss played by a scenery-chewing Tom Wilkinson (an actor who can be sublime or over-the-top – whatever the role requires), a two-bit thug portrayed by Gerard Butler, and a femme fatale in the person of Thandie Newton. The narrator is Mark Strong who, through a quirk of scheduling, is appearing in two movies released this weekend. (The other being Body of Lies.) There are various double-crosses, a Maguffin in the form of a painting we never see, and a Russian land developer who hires some unsavory underlings. Throw in a junkie ex-rock star and a posse of tough guys, and you have typical Ritchie territory. Plot threads entwine and overlap and, in the end, it all comes together. There’s some torture, lots of shooting, and a couple characters get their just desserts. Yet, when the end credits roll, instead of shouting, “Damn, that was cool!” there’s a desire to yell, “Damn, that was lame!” It’s all perfunctory and feels far too contrived and scripted.
RocknRolla has a few high octane moments: the opening credits, which are loud and boisterous and promise more than the film delivers; a caper-gone-wrong that finds the right mixture of comedy and action; and a uniquely edited sex scene that gives new meaning to the phrase “Wham, bam, thank you, Ma’am.” Unfortunately, the things that work are outnumbered by those that don’t. Some of the “clever” bits, such as the big, black thug who understands culture and art, are clichés. Maybe once, long ago, they wouldn’t have been but that’s what happens when something has become overexposed through overuse. The movie spins out of control when it begins to focus on the rock star Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell), whose presence in the film serves only to add another layer of complications to an already convoluted plot. The involvement of people like Johnny diverts the story from the more interesting characters. Get us back to Wilkinson, Butler, and especially Newton.
RocknRolla often feels more like a parody of a Guy Ritchie film than a real movie. Lock, Stock and Snatch both rolled along like bizarre cinematic Rube Goldberg machines where the endings justified the convulsions needed to get to that point. RocknRolla breaks down along the way and the ending is so anti-climactic that it leaves one wondering: “Is that all?” Based on the evidence at hand, one can safely state that Ritchie is a one-note director. With RocknRolla, that note is off-key.
10.29.2008 | By Mack Chico |
Joaquin Phoenix, at a benefit for Paul Newman’s camps for kids Monday, announced his plans to quit acting.
“I want to take this opportunity … to give you the exclusive and just talk a little bit about the fact that this will be my last performance as an actor,” the two-time Oscar nominee said at the San Francisco event. “I’m not doing films anymore.” According to reporters there, he said, “Yeah. I’m working on my music,” Phoenix insisted. “I’m done. I’ve been through that.”
His rep confirmed the retirement.
The 34-year-old performer gave no further details on his career plans – but he has been working on a record for some time British band The Charlatans.
Phoenix, who costars in the upcoming romantic drama Two Lovers with Gwyneth Paltrow, first learned to play guitar for his Academy-Award-nominated role as Johnny Cash in 2005’s Walk The Line.
He was also nominated in 2000 for his supporting role in Gladiator.
10.28.2008 | By Mack Chico |
Rated: For the whoe family.
Release Date: 2008-10-28
Starring: NULL
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: NULL
10.28.2008 | By Mack Chico |
Rated: PG for intense adventure action and some scary moments.; Rated PG-13 for some bloody sci-fi violence. (special edition)
Release Date: 2008-07-11
Starring: Michael Weiss, Jennifer Flackett, Mark Levin, Jules Verne (novela)
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.journey3dmovie.com/
Journey to the Center of the Earth is the first live-action feature to take advantage of the new digital 3-D technology. However, in generating what amounts to a 90-minute theme park ride, the filmmakers lost track of the need to tell a compelling story to supplement the eye candy. Despite taking its name from one of the most famous science fiction novels of all time, Journey to the Center of the Earth is as weak when it comes to “fiction” as it is when it comes to “science.” This movie is an overlong gimmick, an opportunity for special effects whiz-turned-director Eric Brevig to “wow” an audience with his technical bravura. With 3-D, a little goes a long way and, in the absence of a legitimate script with credible characters, the fun dries up long before the running time has expired.
Brevig’s film, based on a screenplay credited to three writers, is not intended to be a strict adaptation of the Jules Verne novel. Instead, it’s more of a sequel. It postulates that the novel’s hero, Professor Lidenbrock, made the trip described in the book and related the details of that trek to Verne, who recounted them in the novel. The characters in this movie – Professor Trevor Anderson (Brendan Fraser); his nephew, Sean (Josh Hutcherson); and their mountain guide, Hannah (Anita Briem) – follow in Lidenbrock’s path as they travel to the top of a mountain in Iceland that reveals tunnels leading deep beneath the Earth’s surface. Below, they discover a prehistoric world where dinosaurs and man-eating plants exist. But it’s getting hot down there, and the trio must find a way to escape before they are broiled alive.
The absence of a villain means that the only conflict is between our heroes and their environment. Under normal circumstances, this would not be inherently uninteresting, but the film’s grip of physics is so confused that the rules display an alarming lack of consistency and change at the director’s whim, depending on what he needs for a particular scene to work. Normally, I’m tolerant of flaws like this in a movie, but the so-called “science” on display in Journey to the Center of the Earth is so atrocious that it creates towering barriers to the suspension of disbelief for anyone knowledgeable about such things. Fortunately for New Line Cinema, the majority of potential customers won’t care.
The film’s “drama” is as painful as its science. The bonding between Trevor and Sean is trite; neither is developed as more than a toy to play around in the 3-D environment. Hannah’s role is to make Trevor look like an idiot and eventually provide some low-key romantic tension. Brendan Fraser tries to bring some of the charm he exhibited in The Mummy to this project, but it feels forced. Trevor is neither likeable nor dislikeable; he’s there to provide us with a human face as a means of entry into a world that’s a cross between Jurassic Park and Land of the Lost.
Ultimately, Journey to the Center of the Earth is about spectacle, so the characters and storyline are of secondary concern. The movie views them as, if not irrelevant, at least inconsequential. This is all about making the digital world come to life and having things jump out of the screen at us. The 3-D work is admittedly done very nicely but, after 30 minutes (or so) of pretty images, one starts to desire more. And the movie can’t deliver. The experience of watching this film in old-fashioned 2-D, while it would brighten the images a little (polarized glasses darken things), must be a hollow one indeed. Take away the 3-D, and there’s little remaining.
Ten years ago, I can recall standing in line at the Universal Studios theme park in Florida to see Terminator 3-D, a twelve-minute sequel to Terminator 2 that was projected in 3-D. Technology has advanced so that now it’s possible to have essentially the same experience in any theater equipped with a digital projection system. However, as with any visual effects tool, 3-D should be applied in service of the overall production, not vice versa. And that’s where Journey to the Center of the Earth goes wrong. Like the virtual roller coaster ride we go on mid-way through the proceedings, there’s something critical missing. Seeing, even in 3-D, is not the same as feeling. And once a movie has lost the capacity to reach us on more than a trivial level, what’s the point?
10.28.2008 | By Mack Chico |
“It’s totally different” from Hanks’ slicked-back coif of the original, insists producer Brian Grazer. “It’s better. Everything is more contemporary. “
The adaptation of Dan Brown’s novel continues the sleuthing adventures of Robert Langdon (Hanks), a Harvard expert in religious symbols who discovers a conspiracy to destroy the Vatican.
Da Vinci collected $758 million worldwide, but even Grazer says the movie moved a little slowly. Angels, by contrast, sprints from crypts, catacombs and cathedrals.
In adapting the hugely successful Da Vinci novel, “I think we may have been too reverential toward it,” Grazer says. “We got all the facts of the book right, but the movie was a little long and stagey.”
In Angels, opening May 15, “Langdon doesn’t stop and give a speech,” Grazer says. “When he speaks, he’s in motion.”
Set in and around the Vatican, Brown’s Angels includes the murders of cardinals, who are mutilated with mysterious symbols. Church officials banned the crew from shooting in key locales, sometimes revoking permits that had been approved, Grazer says.
“Weirdly, even though there was so much controversy on The Da Vinci Code, we were able to shoot everywhere,” Grazer says. “We were in London, France, so it was harder to catch us.”
Because Angels is largely set at the Vatican, “we were pretty much in exile from the religious epicenter of the world,” he says.
Da Vinci Code was rebuked by the church and others for its depiction of history. The fact that Angels didn’t spark as much debate makes its allure less assured.
Paul Dergarabedian of box office tracking firm Media By Numbers says Angels will need to impress critics if it hopes to find success.
“Da Vinci Code didn’t get great reviews, but had controversy to help the box office,” he says. “Better reviews could make up that difference for Angels.”
That doesn’t mean Angels won’t generate any controversy. The film centers on an act of terrorism at the Vatican and examines the tension between science and faith.
“We’re living in a world that’s much more unstable,” Grazer says. “Therefore, our energy is focused on belief. This looks at what would happen when you have an act of terrorism designed to undermine that belief.”
Despite the contemporary topics, Grazer says the movie has no political undertones. “Both parties, through different means, don’t want terrorism to exist in the world,” he says.
As for any evolution-vs.-intelligent design parallels, “I’ll leave that to others.”
But he’s happy to talk about Hanks’ head — and body.
“I’m telling you, he’s got a scene where he’s swimming in Speedos, and he looks fantastic,” Grazer says. “He’s going to add 10 years to his career with that scene alone, just watch.”
10.28.2008 | By Mack Chico |
Natalie Portman is falling in love — and salvaging quiet little films along the way. According to Variety, Portman is set to star in “Love and Other Impossible Pursuits” alongside Scott Cohen and Charlie Tahan. She will play a young woman named Emelia, who must cope with the loss of her infant daughter, while trying to raise her gifted five-year-old stepson, William, and salvage her rocky marriage. The film will be directed by Don Roos for Incentive Filmed Entertainment, and is based on the novel by Ayelet Waldman.
The role originally belonged to Jennifer Lopez, who’s abrupt departure nearly destroyed the film altogether. Portman rescued the film by taking the lead not only onscreen, but behind the scenes — she’s executive producing the film under her banner, Handsomecharlie Films.
David Molner, head of Incentive, can’t say enough about Portman for backing the film. “We were left in the lurch by one actress and rescued by another,” he told the trade. “It goes to show that, particularly with independent features, nothing is more important than the talent. It’s a blessing that Natalie loved the script and now we’ve got a strong film that we can sell.”
This should be a meaty role for Portman, as Emilia is a prickly and unlikeable character, a contrast from many of the roles she’s played in the past. Her progress from precocious “Star Wars” heroine to Hollywood power player has been an exciting one — and hopefully, this will be one of many indie films she’ll carry to the finish line.
For all those in love with Portman — can you handle seeing her as an unlikeable heroine, or do you wish she would stick to playing dream girlfriends? Are you intrigued by her taking on more work behind the scenes, or do you wish she would stay in front of the camera?
10.27.2008 | By Pau Brunet |
In one of the more unusual duels at the North American box office, a perky Disney romantic musical trumped the fifth installment in the grisly “Saw” horror series, according to studio estimates issued on Sunday.
“High School Musical 3: Senior Year,” the first big-screen adaptation of Walt Disney Co’s popular TV movie franchise, sold $42 million worth of tickets during its first three days. The opening sets a new record for a musical, surpassing the $27.8 million bow of the ABBA-themed romance “Mamma Mia!” in July.
“Saw V” followed with $30.5 million, in line with the previous three installments. Moviegoers can expect additional sequels of both films.
The one-two punch of the disparate duo propelled overall weekend sales to their highest level in 10 weeks. The top 12 films grossed $120 million, according to tracking firm Media By Numbers, up about 40 percent from both last weekend and the year-ago weekend.
But the news was not all good. The new cop drama “Pride and Glory,” starring Edward Norton and Colin Farrell, opened at No. 5 with just $6.3 million. It marks the second consecutive dud for Time Warner Inc’s Warner Bros. following “Body of Lies,” starring Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio, two weeks ago.
Disney, on the other hand, is enjoying a strong fall, first with “Beverly Hills Chihuahua” three weeks ago, and now with “High School Musical 3.” The movie also opened in 19 international markets, and was No. 1 in each of them, led by Britain with $13 million.
“Saw V” is the latest installment in the spectacularly profitable torture franchise that kicked off in 2004. Every October since then, a new “Saw” movie has opened at No. 1 in the $30 million range. Total sales peaked at $87 million for “Saw II,” and the film’s distributor, Lionsgate, hopes the new one will finish up in the $60 million range.
The studio, a unit of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp, said “Saw” will soon become the biggest horror franchise, with total domestic sales about $1 million short of the $318 million haul of the 11 “Friday the 13th” films.
Last weekend’s champ, the Mark Wahlberg thriller “Max Payne,” slipped to No. 3 with $7.6 million, taking its 10-day haul to $29.7 million. The film was released by 20th Century Fox, a unit of News Corp.
10.25.2008 | By Mack Chico |
Rated: PG-13 for thematic elements including some scary images, and sensuality.
Release Date: 2008-10-24
Starring: Ronnie Christensen
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: Canada
Official Website: NULL
Go to our film page
‘Passengers’, the fifth film from Rodrigo Garcia, son of the Colombian nobel prize winning author Gabriel Garcia Marquez, sets out to be a profound romantic thriller, yet delivers a platitudinous experience worth only a DVD sit, maybe if that.
The story begins with five survivors of a plane crash. A young therapist, Claire (Anne Hathaway), is assigned to counsel them. When they share their recollections of the incident, they begin to disappear mysteriously, one by one except Eric (Patrick Wilson), the most secretive of the passengers. Eric seems to hold all the answers to this enigmatic puzzle.
Passengers is a thriller that doesn’t thrill or chill the spine. It doesn’t deliver as promised, perhaps due to a disjointed script by Ronnie Christensen. As a result, the film feels uninspired and unsuspenseful. Garcia manages to at least capture the great chemistry between Wilson and Hathaway, by far the film’s best moments. He has shown he can create films with a strong subject matter, in particular with a female cast (Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her, Ten Tiny Love Stories, Nine Lives), but unfortunately it hasn’t translated into success, the same problem his father “Gabo†suffers from.
Outside of some serviceable special effects, a charming performance by the two protagonists, there is nothing else of substance to latch on to. I imagine it seemed great on paper – “ ‘It’ girl Anne Hathaway stars in a thriller love story full of suspense, ghosts and a Hollywood plane crash†– except no one expected the banality of the outcome. The film fits better as Saturday night fare on cable.
Go to our film page
