Family Film Guide: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I'

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I'
Director: David Yates
Rated: PG-13 for action and some language
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Helena Bonham Carter
Get showtimes & tickets
Common Sense Media rating: On for 12+

Moviefone Mama Says: The Chosen One (Radcliffe) is on a mission, and with Dumbledore dead, he needs his best friends Ron (Grint) and Hermione (Watson) to help him track down and destroy the missing horcruxes (those pesky bits of You Know Who's soul that are the key to defeating him). This is definitely the darkest of the Potter movies, full of intense and upsetting sequences and the highest body-count of the seven films. Because of some of the deaths and torture scenes, this is not for the precocious little kiddies who are reading the books at six, seven or eight. Beautifully shot and incredibly well-acted, this penultimate installment in the Potter saga is half nail-biting thriller, half lyrical relationship drama meets "road movie." The three young actors do their finest work depicting a mature emotional range -- from fear and frustration to jealousy and horror. It's a perfect pick for parents and their tween or teen book fans.

Did You Know?: Handsome Bill Weasley is played by Domhnall Gleeson, who in real life is the son of Brendan Gleeson, or as Potter fans know him, "Mad-Eye" Moody.

Parent Concerns: This is a tough call for those with upper-elementary-aged kids who've read the books, because there are several disturbing scenes and deaths in the movie. Not only do characters meet their end via wand-point, but one beloved creature dies in a particularly heart-wrenching scene after being stabbed, and one major character is tortured and branded. Other upsetting sequences include a jump-worthy moment when Voldemort's snake Nagini attacks; a Hogwarts professor is humiliated and Avada Kedavra'd; a popular character loses an ear to a curse; and Harry, Hermione and Ron are chased and snatched and tormented in many life-or-death scenes.

Here are three talking points to extend your moviegoing experience.

1. Heroes Need Help: Remember eighth-grade English when you learned about Carl Jung's "hero's journey"? Harry Potter is one of literature's best examples of the hero archetype. He must face aspects of his mission (especially in 'Part II') alone, but along the way, he needs a lot of help, primarily from Hermione, Ron and the Order of the Phoenix. What makes Harry a hero; his destiny or his choices? What about his friends -- what sacrifices do they make to help Harry? Is Harry "perfect," or does he have character flaws? Compare Harry to other well-known heroes like Frodo or Luke.

2. Pureblood Propaganda: When Harry, Ron and Hermione use Polyjuice to infiltrate the Ministry of Magic, they find the "Magic Is Might" monument (as described in the books), and all sorts of books, pamphlets and laws that discriminate against muggles and muggle-born witches and wizards. While younger tweens may not recognize the Nazi imagery and allusions, older middle-schoolers and up should notice the extremist propaganda. This is an important talking point. A lot of kids don't understand that "blood status" purity is at the root of Voldemort's agenda, and it obviously has a lot of real-world references as well -- not just Nazi Germany.

3. Teenage Wasteland: Take one glimpse at Ron's heart-sick look (pictured) and you'll quickly realize that this movie features an angst-filled burgeoning romance between Ron and Hermione. It's as subtle as Hagrid's footprint that those two are in love, but they choose to (badly) suppress their feelings in order to keep going on the horcrux hunt. It all proves too much for poor Ron, though, who can't help but feel like the second-best sidekick no one would prefer. How does Ron face and overcome his insecurities? How believable was the romantic tension in the movie? Did Ron have a reason to seem suspicious of Harry and Hermione's platonic friendship?

Three to See: Literary Heroes
1. 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone': Young kids who aren't ready for 'Deathly Hallows' can still enjoy the series' first film, which chronicles Harry's introduction to magic and first year at Hogwarts.
2. 'The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe': Kids will adore seeing the Pevensie siblings discover the magical land of Narnia, meet the wise and selfless Aslan, and help defeat the White Witch.
3. 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring': Director Peter Jackson's adaptation is nearly universally adored by audiences and critics alike, and with good reason. Haven't met a teenager yet who didn't love this beautifully acted trilogy.

View the original article here

Harry Potter and the Outcasts of Hogwarts

Posted by Rodneyon 19. 11. 2010in News Chat

In anticipation of Harry Potter starting the first chapter of his last movie this weekend, I present this very clever mashup I tripped over online of Harry Potter and The Hangover.

I think the video would have been far more effective if the “add in” characters didn’t try to have such stupid voices.

Otherwise, very well put together little mashup!

Via

View the original article here

Marathon Man: The 'Harry Potter' Series

 

Introduction

Does the 'Harry Potter' series really need any sort of introduction at this point? Surely just about every human being with access to a library and a multiplex has heard of the boy wizard, his years of education at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and his ongoing battle with the evil dark wizard Voldemort. Chances are pretty strong you've read the books and seen the movies. Or read one of the books and saw a movie or two. Or burnt the books and gritted your teeth through a theatrical trailer, but that's besides the point. You've heard of Harry Potter. This introduction is moot.

With the penultimate film, 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1,' opening today, I decided it was time to revisit the series, to examine it as one epic adventure instead of a single film every year or two. Whether you're a Potter fan or not, you cannot deny that there are more than a handful of remarkable things going on in this series, things that deserve analysis within the context of the larger story, a story that may feature the same characters and cast but is driven by four different directors with four distinct visions.

It was time for me to watch all of the 'Harry Potter' films in one sitting.

Marathon Prep

As part of the marathon process, I decided to track three key aspects across the entire series. First, The Thespians, or which esteemed actors or actresses joins the bursting-at-the-seams cast this time around and what do they contribute to the film and series? Second, The Magics, where I'll examine how magic, the single most important thing in the entire world of Harry Potter, is realized and portrayed in each film. Finally, Accuracy to the Book, where I'll activate my (perhaps hazy) memory and attempt to judge how each film functions as an adaptation. Naturally, I'll then top off each film with some personal Thoughts of my own.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001), directed by Chris Columbus

The Thespians: The first thing you notice about the first Harry Potter film is that the cast surrounding the unknown leading child actors is a group of professionals that simply borders on the absurd. Just take a look at the Hogwarts faculty -- Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Warwick Davis and Robbie Coltrane. Then you have John Hurt, John Cleese, Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw popping up elsewhere! It's like someone picked up England and shook hard enough that every reputable British actor fell into a pile and was forced to participate. Those who don't appear here will appear in future films. (I've come to the conclusion that if you are British, you are somewhere in the Harry Potter films. You may not be aware of it, but oh, you are.)

What's most remarkable is that none of these actors are phoning it in. With this many big names in the cast (performing roles that often don't offer that much screen time), you'd expect at least one or two of them to sleepwalk through the film. Actually, although the quality of the series will fluctuate, the one unbreakable constant of all of the films is the quality of the supporting performances.

The Magics: Since both the audience and Harry himself are brand new to this world, every spell and magical object is treated as a grand, colorful event. This is a film that treats a rather mundane feather levitation as a big set piece! It's the appropriate choice -- how else do you sell the initial overwhelming wonder of this world without going BIG with it?

Accuracy to the Book: As far as adaptations go, you won't find a film more faithful to its source material than 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.' However, it's faithful to a fault, choosing to capture the minutiae of the novel while glossing over key plot points because it seemingly expects everyone in the audience to already be familiar with the story (the exact rules of Quidditch are never given a proper explanation). A novel is allowed to sprawl and to go off on tangents and dwell on the tiny details that go with learning the art of magic in an enchanted castle in the middle of nowhere. A film needs to find a have direct story with a beginning, middle and end.

Of course, the counter argument is that the three-act structure is putting storytellers in a strait jacket, but my response is that a creative strait jacket is a necessity when adapting a novel as dense and detailed as this one. By sticking so close to the book, 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' feels like a series of events with no proper sense of pacing, so much so that we don't actually build to a climax as much as the climax just, well, happens.

Thoughts: 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' is about as well-intentioned as a movie can get, but that doesn't stop it from being pretty terrible for much of its running time. Awkwardly directed, shot and paced, the film is a nightmare from a technical standpoint. Everything from the flat, non-atmospheric lighting to the flabby editing drags the movie down in a big way and the finished result feels like a marathon of a made-for-TV miniseries instead of a big budget feature film.

So yeah, I'm going to place the bulk of the blame here on Chris Columbus, a man who's made his fair share of awful motion pictures and has no business directing an effects heavy fantasy adventure. There is a distinct lack of vision behind the camera -- as faithful as the film is to the text, the dull production design and overly silly tone clash with Rowling's whimsical but emotionally grounded tone. This is a strange case where everyone involved obviously loves (or at least appreciates) Harry Potter, but no one gets why it works.

In Columbus' defense, he is adapting a children's book, so perhaps it's appropriate that 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' is a children's movie; light, fluffy and with no sharp edges whatsoever. The lack of bite is irritating to those of us who know how fascinating and complex the series will become but it really is the perfect film for the 5-8 year olds in your life. Credit must also be given to Columbus' eye for casting. Not only is the Hogwarts staff filled with remarkable actors, but the kids themselves are perfect finds. They may be a little stiff here and there, but they get better with each passing film, growing enough that their award-winning co-stars don't completely embarrass them.

While this may be a pretty lousy film, it does effectively set the groundwork for the entire series, building the playground that other, let's face it, more inspired directors could play in. It's a nice effort that just doesn't work, especially when directly compared to the more ambitious films that would soon follow it.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002), directed by Chris Columbus

The Thespians: Oh, there are some British actors who didn't appear in the first film? This time around, Jason Isaacs, Kenneth Branagh and the voice of Toby Jones pop up, slipping effortlessly in the ensemble. The eternally underrated Isaacs is inspired casting as the icy and quietly villainous Lucius Malfoy, Branagh shows that he can play a comically pompous buffoon with the best of them and Jones is always a welcome addition to any movie, even when he's just providing the voice for an irritating house elf. Also, although Mark Williams and Julie Walters both appeared in the first film as Arthur and Molly Weasley, their roles are significantly beefed up in the second outing and they will remain vital, important characters throughout the rest of the series. Although not nearly as famous as many of their co-stars, Williams' and Walters' portrayal of these characters, who may be the most vividly drawn and lovable people in the series, borders on perfection.

The Magics: It's more of the same, really, although the Weasley family's enchanted flying car is one of the niftier magical items to show up in the series. There is a showmanship to the magic in these first two films that's completely charming but it undoubtedly would have felt out of place in the later, darker films in the series.

Accuracy to the Book: Like its predecessor, 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' is faithful to its source in the worst possible way. Although individual moments sparkle, the film as a whole drags, making it's nearly three hour running time feel like five. This should have been a movie about an investigation: What is the chamber of secrets and who opened it? Instead, that investigation shares the movie with a half dozen other subplots, most of which act as simple fan service.

Thoughts: It cannot be stated enough how much of an improvement 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' is over the first film. For one thing, the flat made-for-TV lighting that plagued the first film is gone and this one actually looks like a real movie. Secondly, the broad, almost silly tone has been diminished, allowing the threat at hand to actually feel like a real threat, with real stakes and real danger. There is real menace behind the creature that's sneaking around Hogwarts and paralyzing innocent students and when Harry it forced to journey into the titular chamber and take it down, it feels like a real climax. In fact, it's one of the best sequences that Chris Columbus directed for this series.

That doesn't make 'Chamber of Secrets' a great film, it makes it an okay film, a film that goes down far easier than 'Sorcerer's Stone' but remains oddly slight. The big problem here is that this is a long film. Unpleasantly long. Because the movie takes its sweet time meandering through needless scene after needless scene, you feel each and every one of those 161 minutes. I've already said it, but it needs to be said again, this time in all-caps so that the people in the back of the room can hear me. Ahem: A GOOD ADAPTATION MOLDS ITS SOURCE MATERIAL INTO A NEW NARRATIVE, IT DOES NOT SIMPLY COPY AND PASTE EVERYTHING INTO A SCRIPT. Thank you.

Misgivings aside, I understand why many fans like these first two films more than the later films. They're friendly and pleasant and find joy in this magical world. Whereas later films will be about war and death and betrayal, these two are about discovery and making new friends and embarking on that traditional hero's journey and finding your place in the world after years of thinking you were lost. Chris Columbus is going for the hearstrings while every other filmmaker to tackle this series goes for the throat. In a strange way, these films are a necessity for the later entries to work at all; when things get truly dark, the characters and their audience are able to look back and wonder where the innocence has gone.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), directed by Alfonso Cuaron

The Thespians: The great Gary Oldman as escaped convict Sirius Black. David Thewlis as full-time professor and part-time werewolf, Remus Lupin. Emma Thompson as the batty psychic Professor Trelawney. Timothy Spall as the rat disguised as a rat, Wormtail. Heck, even Julie Christie pops in for about two minutes for a role that could be considered a cameo if it wasn't so small. Class acts, the lot of 'em. Of course, the unfortunate passing of Richard Harris after the second film required the role of Professor Dumbledore to be recast and with all due respect to Harris, Michael Gambon nails the role in way he never could. To be perfectly honest, Harris' frail, soft spoken Dumbledore has nothing on Gambon's vital, eccentric, ex-hippy Dumbledore.

The Magics: Allow me a metaphor. A child is overjoyed to learn that he's being allowed to live in Disneyland and spends the first two years of his new life in "the happiest place on earth" overjoyed by the sights and sounds that are all around him. However, there comes a point when the animatronics in Pirates of the Caribbean start to look a little fake and he's memorized all of the drops and turns in Space Mountain. It becomes routine. It becomes mundane. It becomes life. That's the magic in 'Prisoner of Azkaban.' After three years of this, Harry is no longer surprised when something wild and unexpected happens because in this world, something wild and unexpected is always happening. For the first time, magic becomes a background element of the film, something that adds subtle details and character to the world instead of providing "WOW!" moments.

Accuracy to the Book: 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban' is the antithesis of the first two films -- a terrible literal adaptation but a pretty amazing movie. Director Alfonso Cuaron claims he didn't read the books or see the two previous films and oh man, does it show! Although the story has been contorted and re-arranged in a way that's still infuriating fans, this entry manages to rise above its predecessors by not remaining slavishly faithful to every detail and just letting the movie become its own beast. Cuaron fills the story with his own personal touches, redesigning the Potter universe to fit his personal whims and axing anything, even moments that feel incredibly important to the mythology of the series, that gets in the way of his personal vision. The result is a lean film that looks nothing like Columbus' entries, ignores much of the book and actually feels like a real movie. My inner Potter fanboy remains irked, but my inner Cineaste still thinks it's a remarkable achievement from a remarkable filmmaker.

Thoughts: The fact that 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban' opens with a thinly veiled masturbation reference tells you right away that new director Alfonso Cuaron is here to take things in a new direction. The fact that the scene features Harry using magic outside of school, something that almost got him expelled in the previous film, tells you that Cuaron doesn't care about continuity or staying true to the previous films or even to the books. Cuaron is here to make what Cuaron wants to make and there's nothing you sissy little fanboys and fangirls can do to stop him, so there.

The result is almost shocking. The warm, friendly Hogwarts of the Columbus years is gone, replaced with a gray, moody castle nestled on treacherous landscape. The prim and proper school children have been replaced by shaggy, undisciplined teens with loose ties and un-tucked shirts. Tom the barkeep, formerly a jolly, smiling older man, is now a terrifying Max Schreck-ian hunchback who speaks by grunting. A journey on the Knight Bus, somewhat unremarkable in the book and used primarily as an expositional scene, becomes a major set piece filled with wild imagery, slapstick comedy and a talking shrunken head. Columbus' pedestrian cinematography has been replaced with gorgeous compositions and shots that would make Terrence Malick nod with approval. When Cuaron makes use of a handheld camera, it's almost shocking considering how pinned down the first two films are.

'Prisoner of Azkaban' may play fast and loose with the Potter universe and it may be a little messy, but it's focused and it's fast, making sure it's a good movie before it's anything else. No, not good. This is a great movie; a continuously surprising adventure filled with all sorts of monsters and all kinds of action and a fascinating core conflict. The true nature of Sirius Black acts as the series' first step into morally gray territory, feeding the central theme of the film: growing up is hard, messy and difficult but you have do it and you have to make the right choices, no matter how much it hurts. Cuaron's carefree style perfectly reflects this, dwelling on the characters' disappointments and failures. When you really think about it, the good guys don't win at the end of 'Prisoner of Azkaban.' They only survive. Such is life.

It's probably a good thing that Cuaron never returned to the series. Who knows how his creative tampering would have royally screwed over the increasingly vital continuity of the series? However, his work here is vital to the series, dislodging Harry Potter from a narrow, dull place and shaking things up, transforming the Potter movie universe into something appropriately cinematic.

Continue to Part 2

View the original article here

Emily Blunt may join a Five Year Engagement

Posted by Rodneyon 18. 11. 2010in News Chat

After Jason Segal finishes his Tour de Muppet, and it will return to an Apatow rom-com called Five Year Engagement, and his co-star is expected to be Emily Blunt.

Latino Review says:

The movie was described as a couple’s five year engagement with the break ups, cross country moves, meeting new people and fluidity of relationships without ever getting married.

This of course could induct Emily Blunt as a potential member of the Apatow Crowd (you gain membership by being in more than 2 Apatow directed/produced films) and once again proves that a goofy underachiever can score with a crazy hot supermodel of a woman.

And I live in an Apatow world.

I am looking forward to this as anything Apatow has his hands in interests me.

View the original article here

Actors We Miss: Richard Harris

He was the first character we saw in the very first 'Harry Potter' film. As twice played by Richard Harris, Professor Albus Dumbledore personified wisdom, goodness and benevolence. Sadly, Harris died shortly before the release of 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' in 2002 and so we can only imagine how he would have played the role in the subsequent films. With the penultimate episode in the series, 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1,' opening in theaters nationwide today, it's a good time to look back and remember an actor who is very much missed, not just as headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, but for a body of work that encompassed roles from a rugby player to an undercover detective to a soldier of fortune to a determined farmer to a Roman emperor to the King of England (more than once!).

Harris, born in Ireland, gained steady work as an actor after he was forced to abandon a promising career as a rugby player due to health issues. His early films included supporting roles in 'The Guns of Navarone' and 'Mutiny on the Bounty,' the latter alongside Marlon Brandon. He hit pay dirt with 'This Sporting Life,' Lindsay Anderson's bruising 1963 drama about a rugby player whose rough-hewn personality causes problems for him both on and off the field.

Admittedly, "rough-hewn" doesn't quite capture the fullness of Frank Machin, his character in the film. Frank is a cauldron of emotion, overflowing with simmering rage that boils over constantly. Frank is an oven set on high, the temperature control broken. He can't control himself even when he wants to, which prevents him from fully connecting with a widow (Rachel Roberts) in whose home he lives. Other actors might have overplayed the more unlikable aspects of Frank's personality, yet even at his worst, we can understand Frank because Harris tempers his outbursts with equal measures of frustration and fleeting glimpses of regret. Both Harris and Roberts were nominated for Academy Awards.

The trailer for 'This Sporting Life':

Harris proved to be a suitable antagonist as an obstinate Confederate dandy in Samuel Peckinpah's 'Major Dundee,' played a ship captain trying to regain the love of Julie Andrews in 'Hawaii,' and made a memorable impression as a singing King Arthur in 'Camelot.' To get a better idea of Harris' abilities as a vocalist, give a listen, if you dare, to his hit recording of "MacArthur Park," released the following year.

Whatever you think of Harris as a singer, he was very successful at the time and took a break from acting to concentrate on his musical career. He returned to the big screen in 1970, beginning the decade in rousing fashion with 'The Molly Maguires' and 'A Man Called Horse.' 'The former allowed Harris to brood, quietly and convincingly. Critic Daniel Kasman described him as "magnetic [and] intelligently insular" as an undercover operative in an 1880's Pennsylvania coal mine, "transforming Bogart's middle-route persona for the Method acting of the '60s." Sent to spy on a group that was sabotaging mining operations, his character comes to question which side he should be supporting.

He was an English nobleman captured by the Sioux in 'A Man Called Horse,' initially reduced to the status of an animal. When he can no longer stand the indignities heaped upon him, he stands up for himself and eventually gains the begrudging trust of the tribe. Yet he is unwilling to forget the way he was treated, even as he is about to undergo a painful ceremony to prove himself worthy to marry the sister of the tribe's chief; he first insists on unleashing a stream of invective that gets everyone in an uproar. Satisfied that he's been heard, he goes through with the ceremony and is accepted fully for his bravery. Harris is, once again, magnetic; you can't take your eyes off him throughout the picture.

Harris' best performances tapped into a grounded reality that lent a gritty feel to the material. In 1978's 'The Wild Geese,' an enjoyable if routine action picture, he was believable as a retired mercenary who is gentle and loving with his young son, intensely loyal to his fighting comrades Richard Burton and Roger Moore, and merciless as a commander in the field.

Those type of roles became fewer and far between as the decade progressed. Harris had developed serious addictions to drinking and drugs -- reportedly, he was drinking buddies with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole -- and his legendary off-screen hell-raising took its toll. The quality of his movies veered dangerously; for every halfway decent 'Robin and Marian' or 'Juggernaut,' there was an 'Orca' or 'Tarzan, the Ape Man' waiting in the wings.

As the actor aged into his 50s, the roles began to evaporate. He took to the stage, reprising his starring turn in 'Camelot' for several years, until he talked his way into the leading role in Jim Sheridan's 'The Field,' which earned him his second Academy Award nomination.

Harris played Bull McCabe, a farmer who has cultivated a field for many years, transforming it from rocks and dirt into a beautiful, valuable piece of property. After the owner dies, he learns it will be sold at auction -- possibly to outsider. Here's his reaction, which electrifies the local pub:

'The Field' catapulted Harris back into play, making the most of his screen time in big studio productions like 'Patriot Games,' 'Unforgiven,' and 'Gladiator,' as well as smaller, quieter films such as 'Wrestling Ernest Hemingway' and 'To Walk with Lions.' There's something of the regal rogue in his performances during his latter years, the mark of a man who carried himself with style and elegance, and perhaps a touch of resigned acceptance about the opportunities he may have lost because of his boisterous lifestyle. He became a popular guest on late night talk shows, principally because he was a great storyteller.

Here he tells Conan O'Brien how he gained revenge against an uppity English actor in his youth:

And then came the 'Harry Potter' films, which raised his profile and introduced another generation to an actor with indelible power and passion.

Richard Harris died on October 25, 2002, at the age of 72. Very few actors have ever displayed such fierce vitality and rakish charm in such large measure.

View the original article here

Cowboys and Aliens Trailer Online

Posted by Rodneyon 18. 11. 2010in News Chat

I love a good western, and I love a good sci-fi film.

So I am already predisposed to love Cowboys and Aliens and now a trailer has dropped.

They are calling this a Teaser Trailer, but I don’t think that’s what this was at all. It might be the first trailer, but its not much of a Teaser. This clearly sets out the plot and tone of the movie.

I also wonder how this might have felt with Robert Downey Jr in the role of the mysterious memory challenged cowboy.

I had to really stop and think about what these simple fronteirsmen would be thinking of all this. Even at the moment when his alien shackle “beeped” I had to stop and think… the word “beep” wouldn’t have even existed back then.

Nothing beeped!

And it is important to note that they are clearly out powered by the alien forces and the one weapon they have to fight back would be that mysterious transformer bracelet that seems to generate a weapon that can bring one of their fighter craft to the ground.

Still looked pretty cool to me.

View the original article here

Exclusive: 'Skyline' Producers Respond to Unkind Critics

Last weekend I saw (and rather enjoyed) 'Skyline,' a throwback-style "aliens attack!" sci-fi/horror flick. The film has problems, but I was rather shocked (and a little chagrined) when I saw the print critics and the onliners pounce on the flick like it was the world's last fish in the world's smallest barrel. I certainly expected some negative reviews -- the film is no classic -- but not the curiously outraged derision that was thrown 'Skyline's' way.

Then one of the filmmakers found me on Twitter; we began chatting about the response to the film, and that leads us here: A frank and candid discussion about the unpleasantness that greeted the theatrical release of, let's face it, an unapologetically silly and entirely matinee-friendly sci-fi monster movie. Our thanks to 'Skyline' writer-producers Liam O'Donnell and Joshua Cordes for participating.

How difficult is it to read negative reviews and NOT take the criticisms personally?

Liam O'Donnell: It's like being exposed to any kind of venom: It takes a while to build up your immunity. People tell you not to read the reviews, but I tried to read every one. Even more important: I would search the movie on Twitter and see the feedback from everyday people. So it was extremely painful initially, but now I skip over a "Skyline. Worst. Movie. Ever." tweet without it even registering. You need to take your lumps and read the feedback because it makes you stronger and it motivates you to do better.

The irony is that we both really wanted to screen the movie for critics because we stood by the movie and then when the first Hollywood Reporter review came out we were kind of shocked by the level of animosity towards the film. I mean, it's not a perfect film by any means, but it's a fun end-of-the-world monster movie. I think we were both expecting it to be more embraced by the horror and monster loving community. We're an indie production that did this because we love this stuff and I think you can feel that sincerity in the film.

Joshua Cordes: Yeah, I was pretty floored by the response. I'm a big boy. I know the Internet can be a mean place. But to be honest, I always felt like I'm part of the online movie community. And I sincerely made a movie that I wanted to see, and hoped they'd want to see, but apparently that wasn't the case. And it hurt, because I love movies and people who love them, and were getting reactions like we made something that came out of some dark intentions. A soulless cash grab? Shamelessly capitalizing off the latest trends? Homogenized Oscar-bait? None of those were true.

'Skyline', warts and all, was always meant to be a harmless fun time. Pretense be damned. I know it's not a perfect movie, but I've enjoyed plenty of movies with flaws before. It takes a lot for me to completely damn a movie. Maybe it's because I appreciate how much it takes to make one every step of the way. I wasn't a huge 'Transformers' fan, but I marveled at the technical achievement and enjoyed A-list actors taking something so inherently silly and selling their performances. And our movie cost what their craft services budget was, and some of the reviews said we didn't have a single redeeming value to our film. So, definitely it was personal. But, you know what? My mom and dad didn't raise a crybaby. I can take it.

What percentage of the complaints about 'Skyline' did you find yourselves agreeing with? Anything specific?

Liam: Writing for a location has a lot of advantages – it can be done quickly and precisely. But sometimes the limitations shut you off from thinking of ways to creatively accelerate the story. My least favorite part of the film is in the second act after they get back into the apartment up until the aerial battle. I wish we had done more in the segment to raise the stakes and get the audience more invested in the characters. That said, I think the cast did a great job and I still really like Jarrod and Elaine as a couple. The rest of the characters were never meant to be overly likable but I wish we had been funnier in the first act. I think what's there is fine but I wish we had written some more laugh out loud moments to keep that part of the film moving better.

Josh: Though I feel the "characters are all douche bags" comments are rough, it does expose a truth that we needed more to empathize with. I think there's a bunch of stuff on the edit bay floor that could have helped with this, especially with Jarrod, Elaine and Oliver. But again, it was slowing down the movie. We opted for speed in lieu of character. It might have helped, or not. In the end, we were playing with horror archetypes with our characters, but tried to ground them more. If we went a little broader, maybe the first act would have been more fun for people.

And I agree with Liam that when the crew holes back up in the apartment, we don't keep the pressure cooking as much as we should have. On a technical level, I think the cut could have been tighter. I think it would have helped some of the performances. But the edit work during the action sequences I thought was stellar. So, with a lot the criticisms, I can't help but accept and agree, but I don't see them as black and white. Again, that's where the reviews were very hard to register, as wholesale condemning the entire production makes it hard to pinpoint what went wrong with audiences. And I want to know, and learn what clicks with audiences better.

Why do you feel there's a "backlash" against the movie?

Liam: There are probably a couple of reasons. First off, the movie was marketed as an 'Independence Day' action fest instead of what it is: 'Night of the Living Dead' in a penthouse with aliens instead of zombies. I think if we had played up some of the horror vibe and then showed glimpses of the bigger money shots – similar to the Comic Con trailer we cut – people's expectations would be more in line with what we delivered.

Also we're getting trashed for being derivative when I think our main hook is actually pretty original with the siren lights and the mass abduction. I've never seen hundreds of people sucked off the face of the earth like that – but again, maybe seeing those shots over and over again in the marketing made people forget we were bringing something new to the table.

The Strause Brothers have a lot of baggage from directing 'Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem,' and Joshua and I have baggage by coming from VFX backgrounds. I think the least fair one is that the cast was ridiculed out of the gate for having television backgrounds. It's the perfect storm for critics to sink their teeth into.

Josh: I totally concur. Now, people may have not liked the movie regardless of how it was marketed. But there's always gonna be audience retaliation if you sell them something it isn't. Audiences love surprises, but they also want to know what they are in for. In this case, they thought they were in for non-stop "fight back", when the movie was in fact a contained thriller. And there is a huge tonal difference between that and a rousing action picture. Almost every review called us some manner of 'Independence Day' rip-off, when our movie is nothing like it. So, again, I don't know if that's the marketing talking, or you just can't have big space ships over L.A. and not be called 'Independence Day -- even though the original 'V' was the first I remember to do city sized ships.

Also agreed on the Bros. baggage from 'AVPR.' And a lot of people scoffed at Liam and I from the get-go as not only first-time screenwriters, but VFX guys. Okay, I get the VFX guy thing, but I didn't just stumble into writing. I've been doing it my whole life. This is just my first thing that got made. Maybe I'm corny, but I'm always rooting for the first-timer. I hope every aspiring filmmaker out there gets his or her movie made. Even the ones hating on 'Skyline.'

Do you feel that 'Skyline' is being held to a higher standard than other "aliens attack!" movies?

Liam: Maybe. but I guess after a breakout movie like 'District 9' you can't blame people for expecting something on that level. But that was never really our objective. I think movies should be judged on whether they succeed at delivering on their own premise. We wanted to make a fun, spooky popcorn movie with brain sucking beasts from outer space -- and I think we did that.

Josh: It shouldn't be. But maybe it is. 'D9' is a tough act to follow. It was awesome on every level. But we had set out to make the movie we made, that embraced conventions that every invasion movie before us had adhered to, and then have fun with them. And what's baffling to us is when we played against convention, we got fried for that also.

A small but vocal dose of animosity has been thrown at the film's final scene(s), but I think it's one of the coolest parts of the flick. Why are people angry about the ending?

Liam: It's a small dose of animosity? I thought it was so bad it was already legendary! But we didn't follow the tried and true formula that people have come to expect. The humans didn't win. People were bitching when the trailer hit, "oh I'm sure humans will save the day again, how boring!" We tried something different with the third act and took a big risk and guess what? People ... they actually do want the happy ending. I think when people reject an ending they go back and judge the rest of the film harshly.

We were a little surprised by the reaction because everyone internally was so enthusiastic. Brett Ratner loved it and brought Joshua and I to a few of his projects after he watched the movie. The original script was incredibly well-received by several big writers in town that gave us some notes. We pre-sold the entire budget of the film based on the script and short teaser. Originally the mothership was only a short coda where we saw that Elaine's pregnancy saved her from the de-braining and she heard an off-screen whisper of her name. We had such a bleak ending we wanted to at least show that she was still alive – give a little bit of hope and mystery. As we developed it the story began evolving and we started playing up Jarrod's immunity to the light more and more.

And the mothership sequence started growing larger and larger. And when we came up with turning him into the Pilot we all got really excited for a number of reasons. One because it really completed his arc from boy to man/protector – and the metaphor was realized – he literally transformed, which we were all excited by. And it got really weird sci-fi comic bookish. The movie starts very accessible and goes into a really weird direction and I liked that. For us, it was like "yes, the world has ended and humanity may be gone but at least there's this glimmer of hope that the human spirit can still endure." And obviously him turning into a Pilot alien opens up the so many cool possibilities of him in the sequel. Big freaking monster fights.

Josh: Actually, that's where all the bashing started to not feel so bad. The Comic Book Guy hyperbole of "Worst Ending Ever!" totally put things into perspective. At that point I was able to laugh and just go "what freakin' ever." I would agree that a majority of people didn't respond to it. But for some, it was their favorite part of the movie. It was a crazy move that no studio would have let us do. Hit or miss, no lawyer in a suit decided our ending, and that feels good.

As first-time writer/producers, how do you know what to "keep" from a negative review and what to throw away?

Liam: People have complained that there's a lack of exposition in the film and have accused us of being too lazy to include it. Exposition is by definition the laziest writing you can do. We were trying as hard as we could to not explain things because we generally hate how that dissipates the mystery. To us, as soon as things are explained they cease being scary. We didn't want a scientist to magically pop up and explain things – and really all the information you needed was there visually anyway. But in hindsight that's a case where we tried too hard to do things differently and should have thrown the audience a bone.

Josh: We sought to not have exposition from scientists or the news reports, or any easy answers, and we got fried. One review was like "at least ID4 gave us that scene with Bill Pullman mind melds with alien and learns their plans." And I'm like, really? I saw 'ID4' in theaters seven times. It's so much fun. But that scene was the one where I was like "c'mon." But people like answers, I guess. Even when we revealed the aliens intentions at the end, through visual storytelling, it was too late. The answers that were sought for were not easily doled out and we lost people.

Another zinger was that nukes never work against the aliens. But they do in 'Skyline'. And then we added another misdirect with the ship-rebuild. We got slammed for that too. I've never seen an alien ship rebuild itself while pissed off monsters begin spilling into the city. I think that's fun and cool.

As I discussed earlier, the more tempered the reviews, as opposed those gone "zing fishing," give us a lot more to take away from them.

Given the film's budget, it's already in the black. Do you think the negative reviews may prevent 'Skyline' from expanding beyond the one film?

Liam: The sequel treatment is very ambitious and addresses a lot of the issues people have with 'Skyline'. It's more character-driven, it's not set in one location, it's action-packed. We're going to have to see how it plays out. International box office has been very strong. Russia alone was around $5.3 million last weekend. I think the film will play great on DVD and cable TV. And because our ending is so crazy even people that don't like 'Skyline' have expressed interest in seeing the sequel. So in one form or another the story will be told.

Do you think the film would have been received more warmly if it'd gone "full R" with the action and the horror?

Liam: This is really my biggest question about it. Because it really is a dark, apocalyptic R-rated story trapped in a glossy PG-13 body. The original draft was written for an R but it wasn't really over the top. We came to a crossroads where we could either push it over the top and go R rated or tone down the language and do what we felt was PG-13. After doing 'AVP:R' where the Brothers actually got flack for the amount of gore, it made sense to do something different.

But then once we got to the MPAA, we had a lot of trouble with the brain ripping shots. We had made them bloodless; the idea was that the tentacles sort of microwaved the flesh so that it turned into a black liquid. And then the brains were pulled out in some glorious close ups. It was intense but I still think the stuff in 'War of the Worlds' with the first Tripod attacks, the bodies in the river, and the blood harvesting was on the same level. But we are definitely not Steven freakin' Spielberg, so what can you do?

Also the floating brains on the mothership had to look more "sci-fi," according to the MPAA, so we added that blue glow, which is why Jarrod's brain glows red. Originally it was a normal brain with the entranced black vein effect on it. It's a catch 22: if it were hard R, it definitely would have been more embraced by the horror and online critics. But in our exit polling kids under 17, boy and girls liked 'Skyline' the best.

Josh: Not to keep nodding in agreement, but Liam hit it dead on. Especially with the MPAA stuff. We got hit hard. Even our original de-brainigs weren't slathered in blood. We were referring to the film's gore as "temple of doom style." Ripping stuff out, without the viscera. But then we were getting notes as simple as "too violent" from the ratings board (the more general the note is, the bigger the problem you have) and our brains became "crystal skull style." Not where we wanted to go. We really tried to make something for all audiences and they hammered us, so yeah, now I wish we'd just said screw it and made a bloodbath. (I'm a gorehound anyway). Since we're getting no street cred for going out and making a movie on our own, maybe the gorehounds could have given some love at that point.

Also, we wrote, shot, and did all the vfx on this film in under a year. The schedule was brutal and unfortunately didn't allow us to test the film because it wasn't finished until the last moment. We got backed into a release date and inevitably the film was hurt by it. Another lesson learned the hard way.

What's been your favorite reaction or feedback on the film so far?

Josh: I saw it opening night in Times Square, full house. The crowd hit every reaction as expected, and there were lots of smiles on the way out. Can't be any happier than that. So, I was glad I wasn't in one of the harsher crowds.

Oh, and all the compliments given to the creatures and visual effects. The crew worked so hard on it, in such a short amount of time, so even the reviews that destroyed us, when compliments went to all the artists involved it was appreciated (and well-deserved).

Liam: My favorite reaction is from people that actually like it! Surprisingly, it seems to have a very strong effect on younger women; they get into the love story and they really respond to the ending. I've seen people start theorizing what happens in the sequel and really getting into the world. So even though there's a smaller fan base than we were hoping for it's still gratifying to see people respond to it.

View the original article here

Forgotten Friday: The Star Wars Holiday Special

Posted by Rodneyon 19. 11. 2010in News Chat, Reviews

Thanks for checking out our Forgotten Fridays feature. This is a feature to review some older films that maybe you have forgotten about or maybe never got around to seeing that we just want to share. They may not be old, maybe not forgotten, but they are not new. Just fun to share.

Today, we review The Star Wars Holiday Special!

Genre: Torture
Directed by: Steve Binder
Staring: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, James Earl Jones, Bea Arthur, Art Carney, Diahann Carroll, Harvey Korman, Jefferson Starship
Released: November 17, 1978

THE GENERAL IDEA
The Star Wars Holiday Special is a 1978 American television special set in the Star Wars galaxy. It was the first official Star Wars spin-off. The show was broadcast in its entirety only once, in the United States, on November 17, 1978 on CBS from 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time (EST).[1] In the storyline that ties the special together, Chewbacca and Han Solo visit Kashyyyk, Chewbacca’s home world, to celebrate Life Day. Along the way they are pursued by agents of the Galactic Empire, who are searching for members of the Rebel Alliance on the planet. The special introduces three members of Chewbacca’s family: his father Attichitcuk, his wife Mallatobuck, and his son Lumpawarrump.

THE GOOD

This is actually the first appearance of Boba Fett. That’s all I have.

THE BAD

First off, the complete span of time wasted on the “day in the life of” Chewbacca’s family is done completely without the benefit of dialogue and is completely boring. You actually welcome the interuptions that pass as “plot” of various guest stars, Luke makes a video call and his makeup has him looking like a girl, holodramas, dance scenes, the animated short (in which Boba Fett makes his first appearance) and a psychodellic Jefferson Starship performance.

After all these pointless distractions that prove more embarasing than the boring Wookiee daily grind, the gang is reuinted and takes part in the Life Day ceremony that ends with Carrie Fisher proving she can’t sing.

OVERALL

Lucas all but denies that this ever happened. He will admit Jarjar, but not this. I can honestly tell you it is utterly terrible. But for the same reason that people will watch Troll 2 or The Room, the very experience of watching this is a testament to Star Wars devotion.

I own a bootleg VHS copy of this purely because there is no other way to get your hands on it. I inflict it on as many people as possible, but since my VHS player died, souls have been spared.

Since all of these Forgotten Friday reviews are going to be what I would already give a high rating to, I had a Tv, Rent or Buy scale going on, but it would seem that an overwhelming majority of my picks get a BUY rating.
So with every Forgotten Friday you see from now on, you get to rate your anticipation for yourself!

TV – If you are at least a little curious, catch it if it comes on TV.
Rent – If it is something you have heard of and forgotten, or just remember enjoying this as much as I did once upon a time, go rent it.
Buy – But if you are like me, and you agree with my review you should go buy it. If its featured here, I already have.

View the original article here

'Source Code' Trailer: 'Moon's Duncan Jones Returns with More Smart Sci-Fi

 

It's safe to say that Duncan Jones' 'Moon' was one of the best films of 2009 and easily one of the best science fiction films to hit theaters in a long time. An amazing tale of isolation and mortality following the lone human operator on lunar mining colony, it still boggles the mind that such a professional, beautifully made film was the debut feature from director Duncan Jones. It's readily available on Netflix instant watch, so if you haven't watched it yet and aren't doing anything for the next two hours...

Anyway, the trailer for Jones' next film has hit and those who were worried about a sophomore slump should have have their fears assuaged. Let's not beat around the bush: 'Source Code' looks fantastic.

The set-up is classic smart sci-fi: as part of some sort of futuristic program, a soldier named Colter (Jake Gyllenhaal) finds himself reliving a devastating train accident over and over again in order to find the culprit responsible for the deadly derailing. He is aided in his investigation by a superior officer played by the lovely Vera Farmiga, and another played by Jeffrey Wright, who looks like he's got a mad scientist thing going on. Naturally, Colter develops feelings for one of the accident's victims (Michelle Monaghan) and tries to find a way to save her. It's like 'Groundhog Day' with a thriller makeover.

It's definitely a slick and exciting trailer and if the finished result is half as compelling as 'Moon,' it will be one of the must-see films of 2011. Watch the trailer after the jump.

You can also check out the trailer is super hi-def over at Apple.

View the original article here

Ryan Reynolds is the Sexiest Man Alive 2010

Posted by Rodneyon 18. 11. 2010in News Chat

You know the Captain of the Football team gets to date the Captain of the Cheerleaders. Its just natural that such alphas would be attracted to each other.

So is it any surprise that GQ’s Babe of the Year – Scarlett Johansson would be married to People Magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive?

Worst Previews

Ryan Reynolds, who is starring in the upcoming “Green Lantern” movie, beat out Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr, Jon Hamm (“Mad Men”), and singer Jon Bon Jovi for the top prize.

I get that twinge of jealousy everytime my wife’s eyes gloss over and sighs when Reynolds walks on screen. But my wife is too hot for me to get jealous of me gushing over Scarlett’s perfect pouty lips and curvy petite form.

He beat out Robert Downey Jr and that Kellan Lutz guy from Twilight. While some are calling this a surprise, I am no pro on judging male sexiness but even I see the choice as obvious.

He dominates the rom-coms, has some sharp good looks, and he has a sense of humour (which women find more attractive than his chiselled muscles or boyish good looks)

Reynolds is the popular “it boy” of the last few years with a great track record, and has always been a sex symbol to women. Why would this be a surprise?

View the original article here

Pierce Brosnan Movies

Pierce Brosnan Movies - The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

For the Hollywood remake rule, which dictates that an update of an older film be inferior to the original in almost every aspect, The Thomas Crown Affair stands as a glorious exception. The original 1968 film, starring a dapper Steve McQueen and a radiant Faye Dunaway, was a diverting pop confection of mod clothes and nifty break-ins, but not much more. John McTiernan's new version, though, cranks up the entertainment factor to mach speed, turning what was a languid flick into a high-adrenaline caper romance. Thomas Crown (Pierce Brosnan) is now a man of industry who likes to indulge in a little high-priced art theft on the side; Catherine Banning (Rene Russo) is the insurance investigator determined to get on his tail in more ways than one. If you're thinking cat-and-mouse game, think again--it's more like cat vs. smarter cat, as both the thief and the investigator try to outwit each other and nothing is off-limits, especially after they start a highly charged love affair that's a heated mix of business and pleasure.

What makes this Thomas Crown more enjoyable than its predecesor is McTiernan's attention to detail in both the set action pieces (no surprise from the man who helmed Die Hardwith precision accuracy) and the developing romance, the witty and intelligent script by Leslie Dixon (she wrote the love scenes) and Kurt Wimmer (he wrote the action scenes), and, most of all, its two stunning leads (both over 40 to boot), combustible both in and out of bed. Brosnan, usually held prisoner in the James Bond straitjacket, lets loose with both a relaxed sensuality and a comic spirit he's rarely expressed before. The film, however, pretty much belongs to Russo, who doesn't just steal the spotlight, but bends it to her will. Beautiful, stylish, smart, self-possessed, incredibly sexy, she's practically a walking icon; it's no wonder Crown falls for her hook, line, and sinker. With Denis Leary as a police detective smitten with Russo, and Faye Dunaway in a throwaway but wholly enjoyable cameo as Brosnan's therapist. --Mark Englehart

Pierce Brosnan Movies - GoldenEye (1995)

Pierce Brosnan ignites the screen in his first adventure as the unstoppable James Bond. When a powerful satellite system falls into the hands of a former ally-turned-enemy, only 007 can save the world from an awesome space weapon that -- in one short puls.

The 18th James Bond adventure was a runaway box-office success when released in 1995, thanks to the arrival of Pierce Brosnan as the fifth actor (following the departure of Timothy Dalton) to play the suave, danger-loving Agent 007. This James Bond is a bit more vulnerable and psychologically complex--and just a shade more politically correct--but he's still a formally attired playboy at heart, with a lovely Russian beauty (Izabella Scorupco) as his sexy ally against a cadre of renegade Russians bent on--what else?--global domination. There's also a seductive villainous with the suggestive name of Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen), and the great actress Judi Dench makes her first appearance as Bond's superior, M, who wisecracks about 007's "dinosaur" status as a globetrotting sexist. All in all, this action-packed Bond adventure provided a much-needed boost the long-running movie series, revitalizing the 007 franchise for the turn of the millennium. --Jeff Shannon

Pierce Brosnan Movies - Heist [VHS] (1989)

Neal was framed by his partner and put in jail for four years. He lost his business and lost his woman, but now he's back and he's looking for revenge. Neal's swindling ex-partner is about to get taken for everything he's got-and then some.

Neal was framed by his partner and put in jail for four years. He lost his business and lost his woman, but now he's back and he's looking for revenge. Neal's swindling ex-partner is about to get taken for everything he's got-and then some.

A fun flick, with beautiful Brosnan growing into his bones  as he hit age 35. An elegant man playing a small-time hood  is a nice contrast. Note the hair slicked back. Audrey  Wood plays the bubble-headed moll who divides her favors  between Brosnan and Skerrit, showing little emotion for either  guy. Nice seedy race track atmosphere, pretty hot love scenes,  and a light hearted adio accompanied by the Spanish version of "My Way". Recommended. 

Leonardo Di Caprio Movies

Leonardo Di Caprio Movies - Body of Lies (Widescreen Edition) (2009)

The CIAs hunt is on for the mastermind of a wave of terrorist attacks. Roger Ferris is the agencys man on the ground, moving from place to place, scrambling to stay ahead of ever-shifting events. An eye in the sky a satellite link watches Ferris. At the other end of that real-time link is the CIAs Ed Hoffman, strategizing events from thousands of miles away. And as Ferris nears the target, he discovers trust can be just as dangerous as it is necessary for survival. Leonardo DiCaprio (as Ferris) and Russell Crowe (as Hoffman) star in Body of Lies, adapted by William Monahan (The Departed) from the David Ignatius novel. Ridley Scott (American Gangster, Black Hawk Down) directs this impactful tale, orchestrating exciting action sequences and plunging viewers into a bold spy thriller for our time.

Leonardo Di Caprio Movies - Romeo + Juliet [VHS] (1996)

Baz Luhrmann (Strictly Ballroom) takes a shot at reinventing Shakespeare's story of star-crossed lovers as a visual pastiche inspired by MTV imagery, Hong Kong action-picture clichés, and Luhrmann's own taste for deliberate, gaudy excess. The result is explosive chaos, both in terms of bullets and visual sensibility, which some may find impossible to stick with for more than a few minutes. Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes play the leads, though not with much distinction, while Pete Postlethwaite makes a huge impression as this movie's version of Friar Laurence. The film is successful in spots, but overall its fever-dream game plan is difficult to ride out. --Tom Keogh

Guaranteed to work or your money back - PLEASE NOTE ALL MONIES FROM THIS SALE GO TO A 501 (C)3 NO KILL ANIMAL SHELTER

Leonardo Di Caprio Movies - Inception (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy) (2010)

Science-fiction features often involve time travel or strange worlds. In Christopher Nolan's heist thriller Inception, the concepts converge through the realm of dreams. With his trusty associate, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, a fine foil), Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio, in a role that recalls Shutter Island) steals ideas for clients from the minds of competitors. Fallen on hard times, he's become estranged from his family and hopes one last extraction will set things right. Along comes Saito (Ken Watanabe, Batman Begins), who hires Cobb to plant an idea in the mind of energy magnate Fischer (Cillian Murphy, another Batman vet). Less experienced with the art of inception, Cobb ropes in an architecture student (Ellen Page), a chemist (Dileep Rao), and a forger (Tom Hardy) for assistance. During their preparations, Page's Ariadne stumbles upon a secret that may jeopardize the entire operation: Cobb is losing the ability to control his subconscious (Marion Cotillard plays a figure from his past). Until this point, the scenario can be confusing, since the action begins inside a dream before returning to reality. Then, after the team gets to Fischer, three dream states play out at once, resulting in four narratives, including events in the real world. It all makes sense within the rules Nolan establishes, but the impatient may find themselves much like Guy Pearce in Memento: completely confused. If Inception doesn't hit the same heights as The Dark Knight, Nolan's finest film to date, it's a gravity-defying spectacular to rival Dark City and The Matrix. --Kathleen C. Fennessy

Matthew McConaughey Movies

Matthew McConaughey Movies - A Time to Kill (1996)

You wouldn't know it by watching the Batman movies they collaborated on, but this smart adaptation of John Grisham's novel proves that director Joel Schumacher and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have some talent when the right project comes along. Schumacher had previously directed Grisham's The Client, and brought equal craft and intelligence to this story about a young Southern attorney (Matthew McConaughey, in his breakthrough role) who defends a black father (Samuel L. Jackson) after he kills two men who raped his young daughter. Sandra Bullock plays the passionate law student who serves as McConaughey's legal aide and voice of conscience in the racially charged drama. Added to the star power of the lead roles is a fine supporting cast, including Kevin Spacey, Ashley Judd, and Oliver Platt. --Jeff Shannon

John Grisham's bestseller A Time to Kill hits the screen with incendiary force, directed by Joel Schumacher (Batman Forever, The Client). Sandra Bullock, Samuel L. Jackson, Matthew McConaughey and Kevin Spacey portray the principals in a murder trial that brings a small Mississippi town's racial tensions to the flashpoint. Amid a frenzy of activist marches, Klan terror, media clamor and brutal riots, an unseasoned but idealistic young attorney mounts a stirring courtroom battle for justice. The superb ensemble also includes Brenda Fricker, Oliver Platt, Charles S. Dutton, Ashley Judd, Patrick McGoohan, Chris Cooper and both Donald and Keifer Sutherland. These and other talents make A Time to Kill "one of the year's most powerful films" (Jeffrey Lyons, SNEAK PREVIEW/ABC WORLD NEWS NOW).

Matthew McConaughey Movies - Two For The Money

Synopsis: Brandon Lang loves football: an injury keeps him from the pros, but his quarterback's anticipation makes him a brilliant predictor of games' outcomes. Needing money, he leaves Vegas for Manhattan to work for Walter Abrams advising gamblers. Walter has a doting wife, a young daughter, and a thriving business, but he has problems: a bum heart, a belief he's a master manipulator, and addictions barely kept in check. He remakes Brandon, and a father-son relationship grows. Then, things go awry. Walter may be running a con. The odds against Brandon mount.

Matthew McConaughey Movies - The Newton Boys (1998)

The Newton Boys were the most successful bank robbers in the history of the United States. They never killed anyone, never snitched, and only robbed banks (just bigger thieves, in their opinion), until their final deal, which was a botched train robbery for $3 million. Engagingly played by Matthew McConaughey, Ethan Hawke, Skeet Ulrich, and Vincent D'Onofrio, the Boys don't have the kind of flaws of more brutal criminals that make for more volatile dramas. The film ambles along in a leisurely way to tell its story of the Newtons' bank-robbing career, with an ever-present air of reverent Americana. This may make some viewers impatient, and cause a glow in others. It seems like a departure for director Richard Linklater (Slacker, Dazed and Confused)--a costumer to be sure, but Linklater's deliberately amiable pace perfectly balances the Boys' personalities. You may wander into this movie and feel right at home. The golden-hued cinematography of Peter James (Driving Miss Daisy) adds a level of comfort that makes everything warm-like. The end credits intercut archival footage of two of the real-life Newton boys toward the end of their lives, one from a 1980 appearance with Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show. --Jim Gay

It seems the only way "The Newton Boys" can make good is by goin' bad! Faster than you can say "nitroglycerin," they've knocked over more than 80 banks from Texas to Canada. Now their sights are set on a multimillion-dollar Federal Reserve train robbery, but the Feds are about to turn up the heat!

Christian Bale Movies

Christian Bale Movies - Equilibrium (2002)

Delivering awesome high-tech action in the power-packed style of THE MATRIX and MINORITY REPORT, EQUILIBRIUM stars Christian Bale (REIGN OF FIRE) and Taye Diggs (CHICAGO) in a thrilling look at a future where the only crime is being human! In an attempt to end wars and maintain peace, humankind has outlawed the things that trigger emotion -- literature, music, and art. To uphold the law, a special breed of police is assigned to eliminate all transgressors. But when the top enforcer (Bale) misses a dose of an emotion-blocking drug, he begins to realize that things are not as they seem! Also starring Sean Bean (THE LORD OF THE RINGS) and Emily Watson (RED DRAGON).

A broad science fiction thriller in a classic vein, Equilibrium takes a respectable stab at a Fahrenheit 451-like cautionary fable. The story finds Earth's post-World War III humankind in a state of severe emotional repression: If no one feels anything, no one will be inspired by dark passions to attack their neighbors. Writer-director Kurt Wimmer's monochromatic,Metropolis-influenced cityscape provides an excellent backdrop to the heavy-handed mission of John Preston (Christian Bale), a top cop who busts "sense offenders" and crushes sentimental, sensual, and artistic relics from a bygone era. Predictably, Preston becomes intrigued by his victims and that which they die to cherish; he stops taking his mandatory, mood-flattening drug and is even aroused by a doomed prisoner (Emily Watson). Wimmer's wrongheaded martial arts/dueling guns motif is sheer silliness (a battle over a puppy doesn't help), but Equilibrium should be seen for Bale's moving performance as a man shocked back to human feeling. --Tom Keogh

Christian Bale Movies - The Prestige (2006)

Award-winning actors Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Scarlett Johansson star in THE PRESTIGE, the twisting, turning story that, like all great magic tricks, stays with you. Two young, passionate magicians, Robert Angier (Jackman), a charismatic showman, and Alfred Borden (Bale), a gifted illusionist, are friends and partners until one fateful night when their biggest trick goes terribly wrong. Now the bitterest of enemies, they will stop at nothing to learn each other's secrets. As their rivalry escalates into a total obsession full of deceit and sabotage, they risk everything to become the greatest magician of all time. But nothing is as it seems, so watch closely. And be prepared to watch it again and again.

The Prestige attempts a hat trick by combining a ridiculously good-looking cast, a highly regarded new director, and more than one sleight of hand. Does it pull it off? Sort of. Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman play rival magicians who were once friends before an on-stage tragedy drove a wedge between them. While Bale's Alfred Borden is a more skilled illusionist, Jackman's Rufus Angier is the better showman; much of the film's interesting first half is their attempts to sabotage--and simultaneously, top--each other's tricks. Even with the help of a prop inventor (Michael Caine) and a comely assistant (Scarlett Johansson), Angier can't match Borden's ultimate illusion: The Transporting Man. Angier's obsession with learning Borden's trick leads him to an encounter with an eccentric inventor (David Bowie) in a second half that gets bogged down in plot loops and theatrics. Director Christopher Nolan, reuniting with his Batman Begins star Bale, demonstrates the same dark touch that hued that film, but some plot elements--without giving anything away--seem out of place with the rest of the movie. It's better to sit back and let the sometimes-clunky turns steer themselves than try to draw back the black curtain. That said, The Prestige still manages to entertain long after the magician has left the stage--a feat in itself. --Ellen A. Kim

Christian Bale Movies - The Machinist

THE MACHINIST is the story of Trevor Reznik, a machinist who hasn’t slept in over a year. Working in a machine shop, Trevor faces the usual occupational hazards, yet his extreme fatigue only makes them worse, causing him to accidentally cut off a co-worker’s hand. What Trevor suffers from clearly isn’t a typical case of insomnia…

As a bleak and chilling mood piece, The Machinist gets under your skin and stays there. Christian Bale threw himself into the title role with such devotion that he shed an alarming 63 pounds to play Trevor Reznik (talk about "starving artist"!), a factory worker who hasn't slept in a year. He's haunted by some mysterious occurrence that turned him into a paranoid husk, sleepwalking a fine line between harsh reality and nightmare fantasy--a state of mind that leaves him looking disturbingly gaunt and skeletal in appearance. (It's no exaggeration to say that Bale resembles a Holocaust survivor from vintage Nazi-camp liberation newsreels.) In a cinematic territory far removed from his 1998 romantic comedy Next Stop Wonderland, director Brad Anderson orchestrates a grimy, nocturnal world of washed-out blues and grays, as Trevor struggles to assemble the clues of his psychological conundrum. With a friendly hooker (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and airport waitress (Aitana Sánchez-Gijón) as his only stable links to sanity, Trevor reaches critical mass and seems ready to implode just as The Machinist reveals its secrets. For those who don't mind a trip to hell with a theremin-laced soundtrack, The Machinist seems primed for long-term status as a cult thriller on the edge. --Jeff Shannon

New Comedy Movies

John Candy: Comedy Favorites Collection

I don't even know how I came across it or why, but one of my favorite movies of all time is John Candy's 'Going Berserk'. I'm sure not many people remember this one since it probably got limited release, but it's packed with non-stop comedic genius. 

John Candy, along with fellow SCTV alumni, Joe Flaherty and Eugene Levy star in this 1983 comedy centered around 'regular joe' John Bourgignon,(Candy)who's about to marry Nancy Reese, a congressman's daughter. Days before the wedding, John, who makes his living between drumming and limo driving, is hypnotized by one of his fare's, a big time cult leader, Rev. Sun Yi Day. The reverend plans to have John kill his 'would be' father-in-law, Ed Reese, on his wedding day, but John doesn't take to the mind control and begins to act like a moron whenever subliminally prompted to kill. 

Despicable Me (Single-Disc Edition) 

Despicable Me is a compelling animated comedy about an aging supervillain's falling popularity at the hands of a younger supervillain and three young orphan girls. Gru is a true, bad-to-the-core evildoer who's earned the title of the world's No. 1 supervillain. But when young upstart Vector steals the Pyramid of Giza, Gru's status suddenly sinks to No. 2. Gru counters his fall by speeding up his plan to shrink and steal the moon, enlisting the help of his army of minions and the elderly Dr. Nefario, but a lack of funding and the difficulties involved in stealing the needed shrink-ray gun threaten to derail everything. Adopting three young orphan girls is an unlikely, but seemingly effective means to further Gru's evil mission, but Gru quickly discovers that caring for three young girls is more work, and distraction, than he could ever have anticipated. What unfolds is an unexpected shift in attitude that will forever change the lives of Gru, Vector, and all three young girls. A visually appealing film produced by Chris Meledandri (Ice Age, Ice Age 2: The Meltdown, and Horton Hears a Who), Despicable Me is full of weirdly shaped characters and settings that are somehow a perfect fit for Sergio Pablos's story. What's especially refreshing is that in this film, 3-D effects are used skillfully and effectively: even when the effects are exploited for comic reasons, they don't become a distraction, as is all too common in many recent movies. The film is full of corny banter and silly antics that inspire plenty of spontaneous laughter, and the minions, while not the best-developed characters, sure are comical. Ultimately, there's also a wholesome message about following one's heart. Steve Carell is the perfect villain-gone-soft in his role as Gru, Jason Segal is quite funny as Vector, and Julie Andrews makes a surprising appearance as Gru's very un-motherly mom. The story isn't new, the humor is relatively juvenile and somewhat forgettable, and it's no Toy Story 3, but Despicable Mecelebrates silliness in a way that's satisfying and highly entertaining. (Ages 6 and older) --Tami Horiuchi