Home add your blog Archives Search Forum Contact RSS FEED

This site is an rss/xml news reader containing our favorite feeds. All articles are the copyrighted material of the blogs that wrote them.

Christopher Nolan Will Help Make The Next
SUPERMAN Movie

post from Rama's Screen on 09 February 2010 11:04:48 AM. © Rama's Screen

WB has been brainstorming since 2006 on how to best bring another SUPERMAN movie. Rumors of Brandon Routh and director Bryan Singer returning have come and gone. Not to mention there’s that irritating lawsuit which forces the studio to make another movie before the deadline. So who does WB turn to for advice? Which filmmaker [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://ramascreen.com/christopher-nolan-will-help-make-the-next-superman-movie/

Digg this

Culture Warrior: On Hollywood and Cheating

post from Film School Rejects on 09 February 2010 11:01:00 AM. © Film School Rejects

Editor’s Note: The following article features possible spoilers on Dear John, 2012, Amelia, and The Lovely Bones. You’ve been warned.

I typically save the boiling points for Robert Fure, aiming instead to frame my column as an observation of media rather than a critique, analyzing trends and their meaning in the context of film and television as an intersecting object of commerce and art. But there is something that has been getting under my skin in some films released in the past several months, and it?s the way that Hollywood deals with the subject infidelity. Repeatedly in recent mainstream films, Hollywood shirks away from the potential complexity or diminishing empathetic audience identification that could occur if they portray any of their protagonists cheating. Instead, they either avoid the subject entirely or embrace the clichéd convenience of a supporting character?s death so that a reunion with the potentially cheating couple can occur guilt-free. I find these alternatives to cheating protagonists more bothersome than if they actually allowed a central character to cheat in the first place, and it represents a level of cowardice on behalf filmic storytellers afraid to explore flawed, multidimensional, human characters to such a degree.

Two weeks ago I saw and reviewed Dear John (I think I?m the only Reject who?s seen it, or at least the only one who admits to having seen it). The third act of the film finds the eponymous John (Channing Tatum) returning home from fighting abroad to bury his father, and he encounters his lost, long-distance love Savannah (Amanda Seyfried). Savannah has married since (or rather, resulting in) their long-distance, longhand breakup, and one of the film?s big reveals is that Savannah has not married the bothersome douchebag college friend who flirted with her repeatedly right in front of John?s eyes, but Savannah?s older, much more sympathetic family friend Tim (the underappreciated Henry Thomas) who is now?in typical Nicholas Sparks fashion?hospitalized with terminal cancer.

So the supposed insurmountable obstacle that a couple must go through in every Hollywood romantic comedy or drama ? being pulled apart and then thrust back together for little more than the dramatic effect of a third act tied into the idea of distance/separation making the heart grow fonder ? is rather easily surmounted by the fact that the man in the way of the couple’s reunion is set to die at any minute. What should be a mountain of conflicting desire ? staying loyal to one?s spouse versus reuniting with a true love ? is rendered almost irrelevantly insignificant by the easy out of killing the character off. We as an audience are put into this situation for the necessity of drama, but for the sake of simplicity, narrative closure, and fear of creating an unsympathetic (albeit layered) character, Dear John ? and many films like it – reduce a mountain into a molehill.

Narrative cheats like this are in no way rare, and numerous examples can be excavated just from films released in the last few months. 2012, for instance, featured amongst its overflowing global and interpersonal conflicts a broken home at its center that must, like the fate of humanity, be restored by the end of the film. But instead of having Amanda Peet confront the fact that she, in the face of death, has realized she must make the difficult decision of allowing herself to fall back in love with her ex-husband, in the process breaking the heart of current husband/boyfriend (?) Tom McCarthy ? all of which would make a compelling character moment regarding the wholly different decisions made when faced with extinction (as opposed to everyday life decisions) in what is otherwise a bloated mess of a movie ? 2012 instead does what is easiest and most cowardly by killing off McCarthy?s character and having Peet and John Cusack completely forget about him in their embrace five minutes later.

What writers, producers, studio execs, etc. think they have achieved when they make such decisions is to do what is necessary to give the audience what they want (the reunion of the central couple, the affirmation of the nuclear family) and what the story purportedly needs without making its central characters seem like bad people. But what happens in movies like Dear John and (especially) 2012 is that, if such a thing occurred outside the emotionally enraptured, subjectivity-directing world of the film, these characters would come across as opportunistic, heartless bastards. In a way, what Peet and Cusack do in 2012 is in many ways worse than if she simply cheated on McCarthy or left him for Cusack, as it renders the entire existence of McCarthy?s character a meaningless obstacle in way of Peet and Cusack?s inevitable reunion.

In the world of such films, supporting character actors like Henry Thomas and Tom McCarthy have no autonomously important purpose of their own. They turn into cogs in a giant wheel who exist as both the obstacle and the means for the more important central characters to reunite. I left both films feeling far sorrier for these supporting characters than I was happy for the protagonists? reunion, for what was probably the love of one?s life for the marriages and relationships of these periphery characters is morphed into merely a forgettable, barely significant speed bump for the lives of the main characters.

Even when a Hollywood movie does deal with infidelity, it?s often dealt with kids? gloves. In last fall?s failed Oscar grab Amelia, Earheart?s cheating is approached with a simplistic three-scene revelation-conflict-reconciliation process that concludes with the married couple holding hands on a beach as if nothing?s happened. We get it, their marriage survived all sorts of conflict, but what is the purpose of introducing infidelity into the narrative if it?s portrayed as having no lasting changes in their marriage? Are we really supposed to believe that everything went back to being the same, with no enduring tensions? Wouldn?t it be more dramatic and interesting if Amelia disappeared during a bumpy patch in their relationship? The film I discussed last week, The Lovely Bones, entirely dismisses an infidelity subplot involving Susie?s mother and the detective that was featured in the book, instead pushing that character out of the narrative and underutilizing the great acting chops of Rachael Weisz. Was Peter Jackson actually afraid of portraying somebody whose teenage daughter has just died as somebody who could afterward make irrational decisions? Instead of giving us a potentially complex and possibly even unlikeable character, Jackson gave us no character at all.

We get it. A cheater does not typically make for a very attractive character. But we need to get over the idea, first of all, that we need likeable characters at the center of every mainstream movie (look at the unrelenting villainy in There Will Be Blood or the magnetic narcissism of Capote). Showing a character making questionable decisions makes them more human, and internal moral dilemmas and moral ambiguity is always more interesting. Nobody can relate to a saint. If the issue of cheating is even alluded to, it should be dealt with consideration of all the complexity and scars involved, not forgotten about, skirted over, or problematically resolved in a simplistic manner. Secondly, filmmakers should understand that sympathy operates differently than empathy. We don?t always have to be supportive of a central character?s decisions, just understand the reasoning behind them. A protagonist can do something absolutely reprehensible in a film, but we will still follow them if we?re given a reason to be invested in them and understand them. We need this character depth not only regarding the specific subject of infidelity; rather the implementation of these practices would make stronger characterization in movies all around. When it comes to narrative shortcuts and quick, simple resolutions, Hollywood needs to get its act together and stop cheating.

Culture Warrior is our weekly walk on the wild side with actual film school graduate Landon Palmer. To read more from Landon, you can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/landon_speak

Terminator Rights Sell to Evil Corporate
Overlords; SkyNet Plans Revenge

post from Film School Rejects on 09 February 2010 10:52:00 AM. © Film School Rejects

The rights to the Terminator franchise have been sold. And it happened with the least amount of fanfare possible. Aside from rumors that the head of Sony Pictures stormed out of yesterday’s auction, it was a relatively bland affair. According to reports, two major studios — Lionsgate and Sony Pictures — were in the running all the way to the end, but bailed just in time to let Santa Barbara-based hedge fund Pacificor win the final prize. The funny part about all of this is that it was Pacificor that was the debtholder responsible for the bankruptcy of the Halcyon Company, the firm that sold the rights. Now pending approval by the bankruptcy court, Pacificor will own Terminator.

According to Nikki Finke, ?Sony and Lionsgate dropped out at just under $29.5 million when it became clear that Pacificor was willing to pay almost any amount of money for Terminator.? Per the deal, Halcyon will keep the revenue streams from Terminator 3 and Terminator Salvation, and will receive $5 million for every Terminator movie produced in the future.

At this point, any and all personnel that might have been involved with another Terminator film have moved on, including Salvation director McG. It leaves the future of the franchise completely up in the air. Though it is safe to say that after paying $29.5 million for the franchise, Pacificor will want to make a movie sooner than later. Salvation earned $372 million worldwide, which is no small chunk of change.

Once this deal is finalized and the rights are handed over, I’m sure we’ll know more. For now though, we’re just disappointed that our bid of $25 and a pack of chewing gum wasn’t even considered. Pretentious pricks.

Christopher Nolan Overseeing Superman for Warner
Bros.; Batman 3 Moving Forward

post from /Film on 09 February 2010 10:40:26 AM. © /Film

I'm sure quite a few people have called for something like this in discussions about what Warner Bros. should do to make Superman work on the big screen: the studio is reportedly turning to Christopher Nolan to act as a "godfather" to help shepherd development of a new Superman film. Before we go further, at this point Nolan is not writing, and is not directing. Rather, Nolan would play more of a mentor's role to help the film get moving. In other words, WB wants him to communicate some of the methods he used to reinvent Batman on film to help Superman get off the ground in time for Warners to exploit the character before the rights go back to the Siegel and Shuster families.Deadline Hollywood has the report, which doesn't have many details on what we can actually expect to see. No surprise there, as Nolan has a movie ...

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/slashfilm/~3/9x4bgEDVvm8/

Digg this

24 Making Time For Theaters

post from Inside Pulse Movies on 09 February 2010 10:28:33 AM. © Inside Pulse Movies

Jack Bauer may travel through time (not literally) on the big screen sooner then you think.

Read The Full Article:
http://movies.insidepulse.com/2010/02/09/24-making-time-for-theaters/

Digg this

Hugh Laurie Eats ORANGES

post from Rama's Screen on 09 February 2010 10:22:20 AM. © Rama's Screen

Is Hugh Laurie a big screen material? He played a supporting role in Street Kings starring Keanu Reeves a couple of years ago and he looked like Dr. House with a badge. His voice role in Monsters Vs. Aliens didn’t stand out but I blame the movie. Sense & Sensibility and Stuart Little were years [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://ramascreen.com/hugh-laurie-eats-oranges/

Digg this

Movie Review: Star Trek

post from Movie Reviews DVD Cinema Film BigScreenBytes on 09 February 2010 10:17:17 AM. © Movie Reviews DVD Cinema Film BigScreenBytes

Having been a fan of the original Star Trek and Star Trek Next Generation I enjoyed this new[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.bigscreenbytes.com/2010/02/09/movie-review-star-trek/

Digg this

Mr. and Mrs. Smith Reboot: Who Thinks This Is a
Good Idea

A quick poll of folks around the Reject HQ offices this morning shows that no one thinks that rebooting Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a good idea. That was to be expected. I’m the only one here at the moment and I think it’s probably the dumbest idea I’ve seen since about an hour ago. However, I’m willing to give this story a shot. Lets check out the details.

Vulture is reporting that writer/producer Akiva Goldsman (I Am Legend, Hancock) is attached to produce the film, which is being set up at Fox’s Regency Enterprises. This newly planned restart will not have the same stars, which means that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are out. It will also not even include the same characters, but rather a new (but similar) couple. This couple’s story will show “how a pair of twentysomething spies are set up as a fake married couple when they graduate agency training.”

Why are we calling this a reboot of Mr. and Mrs. Smith again? It sounds quite different. Vulture nails the explanation: “One of the root rationales behind Hollywood’s reboot fever is that by ditching pricey talent but extending popular name-brand franchises, they get the best of both worlds: a title people know and like, with stars they can afford (i.e., Star Trek).”

So there you have it. It’s cheaper and more profitable to remake a property with young, unsung actors and stick them in a movie that has a recognizable brand. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, no matter how “lame” it might seem. Until talent is attached to this project (director, writer, actors), I’m reserving full-on judgment. For now, it just sounds like it could be a bad idea.

Katrina rescued by the forest department

Feb 9, 2010: Now before you get any ideas let us clarify that the Katrina we are referring to is a 15-day-old rare leopard rescued by.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.realbollywood.com/news/2010/02/katrina-rescued-forest-department.html

Digg this

Purab Kohli tries to scare pretty co-star!

Feb 9, 2010: Model, VJ and actor Purab Kohli, after leaving a mark on the audience mind with his stellar performances in the films ‘Rock On’.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.realbollywood.com/news/2010/02/purab-kohli-scare-pretty-costar.html

Digg this