Second Opinion - The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

July 3, 2012, 11:29 pm

≫ Next: Award Worthy: Richard Chew talks about the Oscars and BAFTAs

$

0

0

The Amazing Spider-Man, 2012.

Directed by Marc Webb.
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Irrfan Khan and Chris Zylka.


SYNOPSIS:

Teenager Peter Parker begins to develop super powers after being bitten by a genetically engineered spider.


You might remember that I expressed a few negative thoughts about The Amazing Spider-Man two months ago in this analysis of the trailer, but since then, I’ve tried to avoid reading reviews and watching clips, as I wanted to go in with a clear mind. I did not want to prejudge the movie. After all, I love Spider-Man: I love the comics, films, games, toys, cartoons, so I didn’t want the new film, directed by Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer), to disappoint.

And after watching it? Well, I’m not going to compare it to Raimi’s films. This is its own thing and I respect that. I’ll also admit right now that I was wrong about some of the things I wrote in the trailer analysis, but y’know what?

I was right about a few things as well.

I’m not sure if there’s any need to provide a plot summary, as we all know this story so well. Peter Parker is abandoned by his parents at a young age and grows up with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). Peter grows up to look like Andrew Garfield and is a social outcast at school, super intelligent but also as dumb as a post when it comes to not getting punched in the face and talking to other people, especially the gorgeous Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). Discovering clues about his father’s work, Peter goes in search of “the truth”, which leads him to get bitten by a fancy spider, meet Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) and inadvertently create a monster while learning to use his powers and become a super-hero. Will he be able to get the girl and stop The Lizard?

Parts of the film are great, especially the acting. Garfield brings depth and vulnerability to the role of Peter Parker. Stone is perfectly cast as Gwen Stacy, giving a brilliant performance as a well-written female protagonist, who is neither constantly in danger nor in need of being rescued, and has her own agency and gets things done. More female characters should be like this. Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy is phenomenal. His performance is possibly the best part of the movie for me, due to the presence he has on screen and the balance he creates between angry police chief and caring, protective father, as well as his involvement in the film’s climax.

In fact, I really enjoyed the first act of the movie. The character and personality of Peter Parker is given plenty of time to develop and grow, and his relationship with his uncle and aunt is very engaging and human. There’s humour when appropriate and brilliantly realized drama, especially in an argument between Ben and Peter. The whole thing with the parents at the start actually works quite well: being abandoned at a young age gives Peter a reason to be a moody, angst-ridden teenager, and I didn’t hate it like I did in my trailer analysis.

But as time went on, perhaps around the point when Peter finally has the suit on and is swinging around New York, plot holes appear and characters start making really stupid decisions (I won’t go into these for the sake of spoilers), and my patience started to wear thin. I think I was most insulted by the sequel bait in the post-credits sequence.

You know how the trailers and posters have gone on about “the untold story” and built up the mystery of the parents? That... that’s rubbish, I’m afraid. Okay, it’s sort of there: it makes up the first five or so minutes, and gives Peter a reason to meet Connors in the science labs, and provides the Macguffin needed for Connors to make his Lizard serum, but that’s it until the bit at the end, which teases how “the truth” of Peter’s parents will be explained in the sequel. The untold story is, in fact, left untold.

Blow that nonsense. Prometheus has already done the whole “here’s a bunch of questions with no answers, but don’t worry, the sequel will sort it out” thing this summer and rightly got called on it.

Then there’s Curt Connors. Ifans gives an okay performance, and Connors is written fairly well: we are not too sure whether he is a good guy or bad guy, whether he wants to help Peter, or whether he is guilty over something from the past... but then he injects himself with a serum and goes insane, deciding to embark on mad fantasy of “ridding the world of weakness.” How dull.

I think this is a cliché unique to the Spider-Man universe, where Spidey is the only person allowed to have powers and use them for good. Whenever someone else gets powers, no matter how good or normal they are and no matter how similar the process is to how Peter gained powers, they always end up going mad with power and turning evil. The same happens here. In the Marvel Studios movies, at least the bad guys are generally not very nice people, even before they gain superpowers.

And, of course, the Lizard still looks bad. He looks less jelly-like than he did in the trailer, but his head and face are distractingly weird. Even the filmmakers seem to think he looks rubbish: after Connors initially transforms into the Lizard, it then skips to him being on a bridge, messing with some cars and getting kicked by Spider-Man. There’s no establishing shot to make him look imposing or powerful, to attempt to showcase how “great” he looks (or could have looked). Compare this to how the Abomination in The Incredible Hulk was introduced. We catch a few far-off glimpses of him, see the damage he causes, and then as an army jeep races towards him the camera zooms in and we get a full-body shot of this monstrosity, leering into the camera in all his glory. Whatever you think of the design of the Abomination (and I know it’s not the best), the filmmakers at least had confidence in it, and it was certainly a more exciting introduction of the main villain.

What about the rest of the film? In my trailer analysis, I thought the film was trying to do too much. I was right.

The initial act of the film is great, with its focus on character building, high-school drama and family interactions. Marc Webb’s ability to direct drama and character relationships is used to full effect. But once Peter gets bitten, it starts to fall apart. Early in the film, he discovers information about his father, but he ignores what he finds for ages, discovers his powers, then goes back to look at the information, then he discovers more powers, then he interacts with a bunch of characters, then finally gets around to exploring and testing his powers! There’s an intense, emotional scene between him and May that seems like it is going to go somewhere... then May is left out of the picture for about an hour, and the film only remembers she exists towards the end! I could go on about how things keep repeating themselves, like how in one scene, Peter uses his powers to get revenge and acts like a jerk, then Uncle Ben calls him on this, only for Peter then to act like a jerk while trying to get revenge again a few scenes later, as if he’s learned nothing, until Captain Stacy calls Spider-Man on it. There’s just too much stuff going on, and the film only focuses on one thread for a few scenes at a time. Eventually the plot just felt chaotic, with characters disappearing and things being left unexplained.

One thread explores how Peter becomes a hero. In fact, the whole film is meant to show the evolution of Peter from a nobody into a vengeful jerk and then into the protector of New York, and it does this really well. It’s essentially using the plot from Batman Begins for its own ends (and there’s nothing wrong with that), attempting to provide realistic reasons for why Spider-Man looks and acts the way he does, and this stuff is great! I really liked this approach. This sequence is well-plotted, as it explains why he decides to wear a mask, then why he needs web shooters, then why he needs a spandex outfit. Although, considering it attempts to take this pseudo-realistic path, it doesn’t explain why the spandex outfit is bright red and blue, or why he needs to wear silver sneakers with the suit...

So there you have it. It has some brilliant performances, some good writing and story ideas, but the execution, especially of the action and the design of the Lizard and the Spidey suit, just doesn’t work. Worst of all? If you’re borrowing jokes from X-Men Origins: Wolverine, you’re probably doing something wrong...

Flickering Myth Rating - Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Luke Graham is a writer and graduate. If you enjoyed this review, follow him @LukeWGraham and check out his blog here.

---

Award Worthy: Richard Chew talks about the Oscars and BAFTAs

July 3, 2012, 11:50 pm

≫ Next: Jena Malone cast in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

≪ Previous: Second Opinion - The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

$

0

0

Trevor Hogg chats with Richard Chew about what it is like being an Academy member and what it takes to be nominated for Best Editing at the Oscars...

“Recently I was looking at both the BAFTA awards and Oscar winners to see if there was any correlation between Best Editing and Best Picture, and even more importantly any correlation between the writing nominations and Best Editing awards,” reveals Academy Award-winning film editor Richard Chew (Star Wars). “Arbitrarily I went back to 1970 because that’s when the more adventurous film editing started to bloom. A good example from that year is the documentary Woodstock [1970] which was nominated for Best Documentary as well as Best Editing; it was edited with such verve and boldness, unlike most other American documentaries or movies up to then. It won the Best Doc Oscar, and not the editing one, but at least it got exposure for its cutting. Anyway moving forward from that time, I started counting up the winners of Best Editing Oscars and found that only four of those films – four out of 42 that won for Best Editing – only four did not also have a Best Picture or a Best Screenplay win or nomination behind them; they are The Matrix [1999], Black Hawk Down [2001], The Bourne Ultimatum [2007], and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo [2011]. That suggested to me that those four films had outstanding editing merits on their own, and their recognition was independent of the momentum or popularity of a Best Picture to carry it along, or even a writing nomination to support it.” Upon learning that his Oscar-lauded colleague Anne V. Coates (Lawrence of Arabia) found it strange to receive an Oscar nomination while the director did not, Chew responds, “She’s talking about the close collaboration between director and editor which determines anything that ends up in the picture. An editor is never going to make something stick if the director doesn’t agree with it. She’s right about the nomination not recognizing that.”

“As a member of the editing branch I can nominate films only for Best Editing and Best Picture,” explains Richard Chew. “Eventually all Academy members from every branch can vote in all categories on the final ballot. However, there are some specialized categories, like foreign language films or short films, where you have to attend a screening in order to vote.” The Los Angeles native and former philosophy student readily admits, “I don’t consider myself knowledgeable about every craft category when it comes time to vote, so sometimes I don’t vote in all of them. In voting for Best Editing, I wonder if actors or makeup artists or publicists know what to look for. Even editors frequently don’t know because we don’t know what is attributable to the screenplay, or which to the director’s style and or which to the editing. For instance, one of the editors who won the Best Editing Oscar for The Social Network [2010] said in an interview [my paraphrase], ‘We were just following what the script said.’ Now that in itself calls for a great deal of editing skill, but that assignment is a lot different from what Walter Murch [The English Patient] and I did on The Conversation [1974], where the final cut of that picture differed greatly from what the script structure was.”

“I look to see how a story unfolds and develops, and how conflict is introduced. And if there are parallel stories, I look to see how they are interplayed to advance the picture as a whole,” states Richard Chew when describing his criteria for nominating a movie for Best Editing at the Oscars. I look at transitions to see, as in the case of Moneyball [2011], how efficiently they are fashioned to suggest displacements of time or development of character. I also look particularly at montages because they are basically devices to truncate scenes or condense sequences that come at the wrong time or place or are too repetitive. Also I look to see how much a film breathes. I’m not a big fan of relentlessly paced films like a Moulin Rouge! [2001], which is like a song full of all eighth notes. I like to see some whole notes, rests, eighth notes, quarter notes, and half notes. I like to see an alteration of rhythm. So those are among the things that I look for in a picture and then of course, I become absorbed like any other moviegoer with the films that grab me, whether it’s funny, sad, or revealing.”

“The Artist is an amazing film because I find that not having dialogue can really change the timing of how we cut a film,” marvels Richard Chew when reflecting on the Best Picture winner which was one of the five nominees for Best Editing at the 2012 Academy Awards along with The Descendants, Hugo, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Moneyball. “In The Artist everything was held a little longer so you’re forced to study the face of the principal on the screen because you don’t have the dialogue. You need to get what’s going on before cutting to a reaction. I liked how that picture was put together because it allowed a little more breathing within. It allowed us the sheer joy of being able to see how a movie works. Then of course there was that brilliant sequence where sound effects are introduced in the hero’s dream -- reminding us of how movies were changing and how the hero’s world has disappeared. The Descendants I liked for different reasons. I liked how it honed in on the performance of the two main characters, the [George] Clooney character and his teenage daughter. I liked how we were allowed to dwell on Clooney, whether to study him in close up absorbing the gravity of the moment, or to watch him in long shot sagging sadly or running desperately. Some of its editing challenged the rules about how long to stay on something without cutting.

“Hugo masterfully interwove so much of its visual effects with the editing style of the period of the story,” observes Richard Chew. “It was the dynamic duo of the Thelma [Schoonmaker] and [Martin] Scorsese collaboration – their intercutting of the comedy of Sacha Baron Cohen [Borat] with the pathos of Ben Kingsley [Shutter Island] and the innocence of the young boy and girl. The pacing pushed the story forward despite it being so multi-layered with characters. I thought it was superb.” Commenting on the Scorsese-Schoonmaker cinematic partnership of over 30 years, which has resulted in three Oscars and six nominations for Schoonmaker, Chew remarks, “There has to be a particular mind-melt between editor and director. When you look at these collaborations that are so long-lasting, it’s like a left-hand, right-hand thing. They may work together or separately, but it’s for a common purpose, like playing the piano. And you don’t know until you enter into that relationship whether it’s going to be comfortable. As an editor you have your own ideas that you want to insert, but at the end it’s the director who’s the ultimate decider. It is not always easy; there’s a lot of tolerance and patience usually on the part of the editor, I would say.”

“The most recent Oscar winner offered up a full meal as far as editing is concerned,” notes Richard Chew. “I haven’t read the script for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but it’s an editing tour-de-force. There’s probably only one way you can edit David Fincher’s shooting style because it’s so energetic, and his angles so skewed and dramatic; his kinetic style is so muscular that it requires you to cut the film with an edgy, pulsing sharpness. It’s a great job, and others must have seen that too because this is one of those films which didn’t get a Best Picture or Best Adapted Screenplay spotlight to go with it.” Chew was also enthusiastic about Moneyball. “I liked the transitions. You would see the character react or not react to something, see him stew, then it would cut to a hallway and a chair would come flying out. It’s a time cut but it’s dynamic in terms of the action that follows a reflective moment. There are also some montages during the ballgames that slow the action down, which made it exciting without seeming like another sports movie. I thought that was terrific.”

Drive (2011) impressed Richard Chew. “The editing made that picture work. It was nominated at BAFTA for Best Editing but wasn’t nominated here at the Academy.” He is not surprised, however, that the noirish drama starring Ryan Gosling (Fracture) did not contend for Best Picture. “It was too dark for that.” One of the perks of being an Academy member is being able to see films that are not widely distributed. “I belong to the Foreign Language Film Committee which is my favorite part of being in the Academy. Within it I get to see the submissions from over 60 countries each year. Not that I see all of them, but at least when I can, I get to see different cinematic sensibilities. I like that. I saw a film submitted from Turkey that eventually wasn’t nominated. In it, I would say probably the first 15 or 20 minutes of Once Upon a Time in Anatolia [2011] only had about 10 shots in it. The opening scene was a long shot of three characters, one of whose back was to the camera, and we couldn’t hear the dialogue, and that probably held on the screen for two to three minutes. Some action occurs at the end, and you wonder what it’s about; then it cuts to a really wide shot out in the country where you see headlights of a few cars and that’s on the screen for another minute or two. The whole film was more or less told in shots that held for an extremely long time without a cut. Sometimes the camera moved and sometimes it didn’t. Maybe it’s because I had been seeing films that were so kinetic that when I saw this one I was really drawn into what was going on.” When asked about his personal preference in regards to which movie should have won the Oscar for Best Editing, Chew states, “I’m not going to talk about what I voted for because they all were superb for different reasons. Myself, I wouldn’t vote for a ‘Best’. It’s unnecessary and makes it like a sporting contest. Filmmaking is a creative task, not a competitive endeavour to be measured. It’s enough to nominate what is excellent and celebrate that.”

Opening photo courtesy of Liv Torgerson.

Many thanks to Richard Chew for taking the time for this interview and for more of his insights read his Cutting Edge profile.

Trevor Hogg is a freelance video editor and writer who currently resides in Canada.

Jena Malone cast in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

July 4, 2012, 1:05 am

≫ Next: Thoughts on... J.K. Rowling's The Casual Vacancy cover reveal

≪ Previous: Award Worthy: Richard Chew talks about the Oscars and BAFTAs

$

0

0

According to The Hollywood Reporter, actress Jena Malone (Donnie Darko, Sucker Punch) is set to be offered the role of Johanna Mason in Lionsgate's The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, nabbing the part ahead of competition from the likes of Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and model-turned-actress Zoe Aggeliki (R.I.P.D.).

Malone is said to be in early negotiations to join Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss Everdeen and Josh Hutcherson's Peeta Mellark in the cast of the sequel, which sees Francis Lawrence (Water for Elephants) taking over directing duties from Gary Ross for the second installment of Suzanne Collins' bestselling book series. If successful, Malone would also reprise the part for the third movie, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is currently scheduled for release on November 22nd, 2013 with a cast that includes Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Toby Jones, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland, Willow Shields, Elizabeth Banks and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Thoughts on... J.K. Rowling's The Casual Vacancy cover reveal

July 4, 2012, 1:10 am

≫ Next: Diana Rigg and Rachael Stirling to co-star in Doctor Who episode

≪ Previous: Jena Malone cast in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

$

0

0

As the cover artwork and synopsis is revealed for J.K. Rowling's first post-Potter novel, Kirsty Capes looks forward to The Casual Vacancy...

Having suggested that the final instalment of the Harry Potter series would be the end of her writing career, J K Rowling shocked fans earlier this year when she revealed that she would be releasing a new novel for adults (not an adult novel, don't get too excited), entitled The Casual Vacancy.

With Potter being one of the most bought, read and talked-about book series of the last twenty years, it's no surprise that the hype surrounding The Casual Vacancy has been astronomical. Many die-hard Potter fans, myself included, cannot wait for the release of Rowling's new book.

Having said that, the HP community do have several entitled reservations concerning Vacancy. Of course, this is Rowling's first novel outside the realms of the world of Hogwarts, and more broadly, children's literature. With every new Harry Potter book, an evolution of writing style and proficiency was witnessed. Let's face it, The Philosopher's Stone had a rather basic style, to say the least. One can't help but wonder how Rowling's style will translate into the new novel, especially as these are her first steps into the world of, shall we say, big boys' books. Alongside this we have a seemingly basic and stale plotline of a small-town election-cum-murder mystery:

When Barry Fairbrother dies in his early forties, the town of Pagford is left in shock.

Pagford is, seemingly, an English idyll, with a cobbled market square and an ancient abbey, but what lies behind the pretty façade is a town at war.

Rich at war with poor, teenagers at war with their parents, wives at war with their husbands, teachers at war with their pupils … Pagford is not what it first seems.

And the empty seat left by Barry on the parish council soon becomes the catalyst for the biggest war the town has yet seen. Who will triumph in an election fraught with passion, duplicity, and unexpected revelations?

The revealing of the cover for The Casual Vacancy this week has put some of my frivolous reservations to bed. My shallow aesthetically-pleased brain sadly often does judge a book by its cover. And this cover, may I say, is mighty fine.

Cast your memory back to the revealing of the Goblet of Fire artwork. That Hungarian Horntail became an image etched into the mind of many children the world over. In fact, with each of the Potter covers, speculation was rife about what each image could mean for the plot of the story, the trials and tribulations Harry might face in this instalment.

How refreshing to see with a book directed at a more mature audience, Rowling has opted for a minimalist, simplistic cover, revealing little more than what we already know about the story and plot. My art critic's eye is drawn particularly to the colours - scarlet red and yellow. Red indicates death and pain, or on the other hand, love and passion. Yellow is associated with luxury and wealth - possibly greed? It certainly fits with the genres. The fonts are again minimalist and a stark change from the oh-so familiar template of the Potter books. And of course, the black cross illustration refers to the premise of the plot - the election.

The cover for this new book reveals little of Rowling's intentions with The Casual Vacancy. What I, amongst many other die-hard fans, am hoping for is that Vacancy is simply the first chapter in Rowling's life after Harry. The Potter books were the cusp of my childhood, and will always play a major part in my life. But, unfortunately, like cheesecake, Desperate Housewives and summer holidays, all good things must come to an end. Potter did it in the most honourable way, and Rowling's service to literature will be remembered and cherished for many lifetimes. What the world holds its breath for now, is whether The Casual Vacancy will do what Potter did. The answer is likely no, but I have every faith that it will come pretty damned close. Long live J K, and long live Harry Potter.

The Casual Vacancy is scheduled for release on September 27th, 2012.

Kirsty Capes

Diana Rigg and Rachael Stirling to co-star in Doctor Who episode

July 4, 2012, 2:13 am

≫ Next: Promo posters for Avengers Assemble and Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H.

≪ Previous: Thoughts on... J.K. Rowling's The Casual Vacancy cover reveal

$

0

0

Dame Diana Rigg (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) and her daughter Rachael Stirling (Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, Snow White and the Huntsman) will co-star in an episode of Doctor Who in the sci-fi show's new series.  The story, specially written for the pair by regular TARDIS scribe Mark Gatiss, will also feature Matt Smith's (Christopher and His Kind, Bert and Dickie) new companion Jenna-Louise Coleman (Emmerdale, Captain America: The First Avenger).

Filming for the episode began this week, on July the 2nd. The Press Release on the Doctor Who website reveals that Rigg will play a "Yorkshire local" and that the script will "recreate their off-screen relationship" of mother and daughter. It will be the first time that Rigg and Stirling have worked together as actresses. Stirling explains that previous projects offered to them as a duo "have not been tempting". Clearly the world of Doctor Who, and a plot which head writer Steven Moffat suggests could be terrifying, was tempting enough to finally bring about a professional partnership.

In other Doctor Who news, the first episode of the new series, to be broadcast later this year, has been unveiled as Asylum of the Daleks. The return of the Doctor's arch enemy was perhaps inevitable, but on this adventure the Time Lord will face every type of Dalek he has ever encountered.

Do you think the new series is looking promising? We welcome your thoughts and comments below.

Promo posters for Avengers Assemble and Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H.

July 4, 2012, 5:02 am

≫ Next: First trailer for Jack Reacher starring Tom Cruise

≪ Previous: Diana Rigg and Rachael Stirling to co-star in Doctor Who episode

$

0

0

Ahead of next week's San Diego Comic-Con International, Marvel has released details of what to expect from their Marvel Television Presents panel on Saturday July 14th. The big attraction is the world premiere of Avengers Assemble, which is set to replace The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes next year, along with the unveiling of Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H., an all-new Marvel Mash-Up featuring the Fantastic Four, a brand-new episode of Ultimate Spider-Man and an 'astonishing' new project from Marvel Knights Animation.

As part of the announcement, Marvel also released the following promotional images for Avengers Assemble and Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H....



In addition to the TV panel, Marvel's live-action Cinematic Universe will have a presence at Comic-Con in the shape of Iron Man 3, while an official announcement is also expected on the identity of their mystery 2014 movie, which of course is strongly tipped to be Guardians of the Galaxy.

First trailer for Jack Reacher starring Tom Cruise

July 4, 2012, 9:37 am

≫ Next: Teaser poster and new synopsis for Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful

≪ Previous: Promo posters for Avengers Assemble and Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H.

$

0

0

It hasn't been the best of years for Tom Cruise, what with his current marriage troubles, the disappointing box office returns for Rock of Ages, and the fact that he's just hit the big Five-O. However, the Hollywood star will be hoping that 2012 ends on a high with the release of the action thriller Jack Reacher, which received its first trailer yesterday, timed neatly to coincide with his 50th birthday.

Jack Reacher marks the second directorial effort for Academy Award-winning screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects) after 2000's The Way of the Gun and is adapted from One Shot, the ninth book of British author Lee Child's Jack Reacher book series. The film sees the Cruiser taking on the role of the eponymous former U.S. Army Military Police Major as he investigates a sniper attack on an American City, and also stars Rosamund Pike, Robert Duvall, James Martin Kelly, Richard Jenkins and bonkers German filmmaker Werner Herzog.

Anyway, here's the trailer:


Jack Reacher will hope to replicate the success of last year's Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol with a holiday release, opening in North American cinemas on December 21st and arriving in the UK seven days later.

Teaser poster and new synopsis for Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful

July 4, 2012, 10:20 am

≫ Next: R.I.P. Eric Sykes (1923 - 2012)

≪ Previous: First trailer for Jack Reacher starring Tom Cruise

$

0

0

We haven't seen anything from Sam Raimi since 2009's low-budget horror Drag Me to Hell, but the Evil Dead and Spider-Man director will mark his return to blockbuster filmmaking next year with Disney's Oz: The Great and Powerful - a prequel to L. Frank Baum's classic Oz book series that imagines the origins of one Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkel Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs, better known as the Wizard of Oz. Here's the first teaser poster, along with a new synopsis for the $200m production...


"When Oscar Diggs (James Franco), a small-time circus magician with dubious ethics, is hurled away from dusty Kansas to the vibrant Land of Oz, he thinks he’s hit the jackpot—fame and fortune are his for the taking—that is until he meets three witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz;) and Glinda (Michelle Williams), who are not convinced he is the great wizard everyone’s been expecting. Reluctantly drawn into the epic problems facing the Land of Oz and its inhabitants, Oscar must find out who is good and who is evil before it is too late. Putting his magical arts to use through illusion, ingenuity—and even a bit of wizardry—Oscar transforms himself not only into the great and powerful Wizard of Oz but into a better man as well."

Oz: The Great and Powerful is currently scheduled for release on March 8th, 2013.

---

R.I.P. Eric Sykes (1923 - 2012)

July 4, 2012, 1:54 pm

≫ Next: First look at Matt Damon in Neill Blomkamp's Elysium

≪ Previous: Teaser poster and new synopsis for Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful

$

0

0

Legendary British comedian, actor and writer Eric Sykes has died aged 89 after a short illness. Born in Oldham in 1923, Sykes went to become one of the country's best-loved comic talents through his radio, film, television and stage work, enjoying a career that spanned seven decades and saw him collaborate with a host British comedy icons such as Tommy Cooper, Tony Hancock, Frankie Howerd, Hattie Jacques, Sid James, Spike Milligan, Warren Mitchell, Harry Secombe and Peter Sellers.

Moving to London after the Second World War, Sykes began his entertainment career writing for radio, including the classic BBC comedy series The Goon Show, before successfully transitioning to film and television in the 1950s. Between 1960 and 1965, he appeared alongside Hattie Jacques in the sitcom Sykes and A..., which he co-created with Johnny Speight, with Sykes and Jacques subsequently appearing in the follow-up series Sykes (1972-1979). Sykes would also collaborate with Speight on the short-lived sitcoms Curry & Chips (1969) and The Nineteenth Hole (1989), as well as making a guest appearance in Speight's best-know series Till Death Us Do Part in 1970.

Having suffered hearing problems for most of his adult life, Sykes' eyesight began to fail him in the 1990s, although he continued to remain active, with later credits including film roles in The Others (2001), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) and Son of Rambow (2007), as well as guest appearances in TV shows such as dinnerladies, My Family, Heartbeat and Agatha Christie's Poirot.

First look at Matt Damon in Neill Blomkamp's Elysium

July 4, 2012, 7:00 pm

≫ Next: Thoughts on... The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

≪ Previous: R.I.P. Eric Sykes (1923 - 2012)

$

0

0

Neill Blomkamp made a big splash back in 2009 with his fantastic feature debut District 9, so it goes without saying that there's a lot of interest in his next offering Elysium, especially considering all the secrecy that's surrounded the production. The film is set to be a part of Sony's presentation at Comic Con next week, and to whet our appetite the first shot of Matt Damon's character has arrived courtesy of Entertainment Weekly (via The Playlist)...


Last month saw the arrival of an official synopsis, which gives us an idea of what to expect from the $120-budgeted sci-fi flick:

"In the year 2159, two classes of people exist: the very wealthy “Coordinators,” people who can afford bio-genetical engineering, who live on a pristine man-made space station called Elysium, built by the Armadyne Corporation, and the rest, who live on an overpopulated, ruined Earth. Secretary Rhodes, a hard government official, will stop at nothing to enforce anti-immigration laws and preserve the luxurious lifestyle of the citizens of Elysium. That doesn’t stop the people of Earth from trying to get in, by any means they can. When unlucky ex-con Max is backed into a corner, he agrees to take on a daunting mission that if successful will not only save his life, but could bring equality to these polarised worlds."

Damon is joined in the cast of Elysium by Jodie Foster (Carnage), Sharlto Copley (District 9), William Fichtner (The Dark Knight), Alice Braga (Predators), Diego Luna (Contraband) and Wagner Moura (Elite Squad). It is currently scheduled for release on March 1st, 2013.

Thoughts on... The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

July 5, 2012, 12:00 am

≫ Next: Woodcut prints inspired by classic movies

≪ Previous: First look at Matt Damon in Neill Blomkamp's Elysium

$

0

0

The Amazing Spider-Man, 2012.

Directed by Marc Webb.
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Irrfan Khan and Chris Zylka.


SYNOPSIS:

Peter Parker develops superhuman powers after being bitten by a genetically engineered spider.


$114,844,116. Hands up if you know what significance this number has in film history.

That’s right; it is the total opening weekend gross for the first film to break the $100 million-in-a-single-weekend barrier. And what was that film? Yes, it was Sam Raimi’s 2002 Spider-Man. The film took the box office by storm, smashing every record in sight and inadvertently becoming responsible for the never ending tirade of comic book-inspired movies we now see every year. Before this, there was only really Batman, Superman and the then single X-Men picture making money, but Sam Raimi and Spider-Man opened the floodgates and they’ve remained open ever since. Thanks to this revolutionary blockbuster and the realisation of the iconic character on the big screen for the first time, the comic book movie joined animation, best seller adaptations and TV remakes as the go-to choice for the major studios in need of a summer tentpole release.

Who can blame them? When you have a hit on your hands, the next logical step is to recapture that magic and sell it again and again and again in a different guise until people get sick of it. Raimi and Sony/Columbia were no different and 2004’s superior sequel, Spider-Man 2, still remains one of the best films in the comic book genre. But sadly, modern audiences have not grown sick of this rinse-wash-repeat formula and the summer releases are getting increasingly worse with an influx of remakes, reboots, and films based on board games and toys. But money, not quality or even a sense of a decent story, is all that seems to matter and in 2007 Raimi, too, fell into this trap and gave us a woeful conclusion to the trilogy with Spider-Man 3.

If only Sony would have given Raimi his own way in negotiations for the-then mooted fourth film, then we might not be faced with the utter failure that is The Amazing Spider-Man. Sure, the third film was terrible but I can’t believe the same team would have made the same mistakes again. It could have been the best of the series in an attempt to right the wrongs of 2007. But part 3 made a LOT of money and Sony knew there was life after Raimi. At the box office, maybe, but certainly not with Marc Webb at the helm. He shows a total lack of control and grasp of a huge budget in the same way Martin Campbell did on Green Lantern; both directors are way out of their league with the material and it shows in both films from very early on. The first-person camera fails to excite whilst the action shots are by-the-numbers and far too ‘safe’ for this size film. The direction looks like Webb was afraid to stamp any sort of authority on the picture and perhaps Sony execs were bullying him into making the film they wanted to see. It’s not unheard of but the leap between (500) Days of Summer and Spider-Man is obviously far too big for him.

Spider-Man should never have been subject to a reboot because the film, like it or not, will always be compared to the Raimi series and, with only a 10 year gap, it is rightly so. Sony and Marvel’s greed, lack of imagination and utter laziness is the real crime on show here with Webb left at the crime scene. It makes me furious to think Sony announced the release date of the sequel before this movie was even released. So sure they are in its success, the quality no longer dictates even the discussion of a sequel. It comes as no surprise when you think that Iron Man 2, Thor, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are getting sequels, too.

Webb is certainly not alone in sharing the blame. Even Bryan Singer or Christopher Nolan can’t turn a truly diabolical script into something enjoyable for anyone over the age of 14 who needs more than loud noises and non-stop action; there are far too many plot holes and woefully contrived set-ups to allow the brain to switch off and appreciate the nonsense. If Superman: The Movie, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2 and X-2 hadn’t had scripts which made you believe, for even just the running time of the film, that what you are watching is actually happening in the world of the story, they too would be failures. But they had good stories, and they work each and every time they are viewed, despite any flaws they may have. It is not the intention of this review to provide spoilers so I’ll just give these key words; launch code; internal voices, liquid nitrogen (how would the character know?), antidote, lizard policemen... the list is endless.

The pacing is all over the place in this film. The first half is so incredibly dull as we watch the same story from 2002 being told over again but with a few amendments thrown in to justify its creation. The problem is simple; 10 years ago is not long enough to retell the same story that was told perfectly well and then built on from there. Does this mean The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and the Star Wars prequels are to be rebooted as well? No one wants that, but the studios know tickets will be sold in their millions if they do. It’s an utterly boring affair.

As for the ‘action packed’ second half; it’s just as dull for not one of the scenes packs a punch or shows any sign of originality. Yes, the Spider-Man effects have been improved but so what? Raimi’s first two films were not built on the strength of the effects, but the strength of their stories and characters and believability. The CGI simply brought it to life, the writers and directors did the rest. The effects of the villain, a man sized lizard, are some of the worst you’re likely to see from a Hollywood release. So bad, they ruin any chance the villain had of showing any menace or threat, but good CGI is useless anyway without a story to back it up and the villain’s motivations in this film are to turn the humans into lizards for no other reason than to give Spider-Man something to do for a tiresome final hour.

Even the score is noticeably bad in the film; even the legend that is James Horner cannot find the right mark with The Amazing Spider-Man. The only people who come out of the wreck with only minor injuries are Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy but they are no better than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, just different.

But we didn’t ask for different, we didn’t ask for reboot, and we didn’t really want this at all. What we got was a minor improvement on Spider-Man 3, and that is no praise at all.

Flickering Myth Rating - Film: ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Rohan Morbey - follow me on Twitter.

Woodcut prints inspired by classic movies

July 5, 2012, 12:05 am

≫ Next: Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 - Episode 6 - Review

≪ Previous: Thoughts on... The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

$

0

0

A few days back we received an email from Los Angeles-based writer and carving enthusiast Loren Kantor, letting us know about some rather fantastic woodcut prints he's created which have been inspired by a selection of his favourite films. Here are a few examples...

Marlon Brando:


David Lynch:


North by Northwest:


Be sure to check out Loren's blog Woodcuttingfool for more movie-inspired woodcuts, including Manhattan, The French Connection, Humphrey Bogart, Edward G. Robinson, James Cagney, Buster Keaton, Jack Palance, Harold Lloyd and Steve Buscemi.

Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 - Episode 6 - Review

July 5, 2012, 2:31 am

≫ Next: Thoughts on... Transit (2012)

≪ Previous: Woodcut prints inspired by classic movies

$

0

0

Luke Graham continues his episode by episode review of E4's latest American sitcom...

It’s Just Sex was an attempt by Don’t Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 to tell a delicate and tender story about relationships and the act of love... nah I’m just kidding, it’s a typical episode of Don’t Trust that takes the piss out of celebrity sex tapes and one night stands in the show’s typically rude and irreverent way.

The plot examines how June (Dreama Walker) deals with her crush on Charles, an attractive customer from work. The fact that Charles has no brains behind his pretty face means that good girl June, who’s only slept with her fiancé Stephen, is hesitant to have a relationship with him. She is conflicted until roommate Chloe (Krysten Ritter) points out the obvious solution to just have casual sex with him. After some convincing and coaching from Chloe, June successfully beds the hunk, but will she be able to leave it as a one night stand, or will her caring nature prevent her from abandoning the idiotic man-child with a parrot fixation?

The other storyline occurs as a result of June’s spring cleaning, as she accidently gives away a sex tape starring Chloe and James Van Der Beek, which leads to a typical blackmail plot. This is actually cleverly subverted: rather than fretting, James is happy to release it as it will boost his popularity, potentially giving him the winning edge he needs for Dancing with the Stars. Unfortunately, his ‘performance’ is not up to a great standard. Will he and Chloe be able to re-film the tape, despite her “scorched earth” policy of not sleeping with a man more than once?

But, that is all there is to say really. It’s another episode with lots of funny moments, such as pervy neighbour Eli’s hatred of celebrity sex tapes because they are an affront to pornography, and the expanded role of Pastor Jin (Rosalind Chao, Just Like Heaven), but it’s also not a particularly interesting episode. The character of Charles is not very original and the main dilemmas of the story are kind of dull. The themes are shallower in this episode than usual, and I’m just left with little to say.

Okay here’s something highbrow to analyse. Seemingly, a rule of the series so far has been that Chloe’s actions represent, to some extent, either bitchy behaviour or are morally reprehensible. For instance, her tendencies to scam and manipulate people, steal money and lie are bad and bitchy things to do. Of course, the flipside is that June is too naive or too innocently good, and therefore similarly unrealistic and unhealthy, which gives each episode the purpose of bringing these two extremes (Chloe’s negative side and June’s positive side) to a happy, healthy and normal median. However, Chloe is guilty of two bad things according to this episode. Firstly, the fact she does not care about her lovers or the people around her, whereas June cares too much about the feelings of others, which is fine and engaging. The second thing the episode argues, on the other hand, is that Chloe has too much promiscuous sex, which is bad, while June’s decision to rarely, if ever, have sex is also unhealthy. And that’s quite a few shades of bullshit.

A healthy appetite for sex is just as valid a lifestyle choice as celibacy, and the writers’ decision to judge each choice as being the unhealthy extreme is just wrong, essentially sending the message that if you have more than a certain amount of casual sex, then you are a “bitch” like Chloe. I think that is fairly irresponsible of the writers.

Maybe I’m blowing the issue out of proportion or overanalysing things. How can I bring things back to a suitable, cheerful tone? Erm... ooh I know! The funniest moment in the episode is June’s huge grin after sleeping with Charles, because her blond curls and big, puppy-dog eyes make her look as excited as a kid on Christmas morning. Seriously, for me, Dreama Walker’s hugely expressive face often provides some of the biggest laughs and best moments of the series.

Overall, it’s an adequate episode. Not as funny or clever as previous episodes, but not awful. The fact that it essentially recycles plot points from the first two episodes (June’s search for a man was explored in episode two and June losing something important belonging to Chloe was from the pilot) is perhaps the reason I was less interested in this episode. It was the first time this clever, entertaining series felt... unoriginal.

Luke Graham

Check back next week for Luke's review of Episode 7. You can read his reviews of previous episodes: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

You can also follow Luke on Twitter: @LukeWGraham

Thoughts on... Transit (2012)

July 5, 2012, 3:35 am

≫ Next: The Flickering Myth Reaction to the trailer for Dredd

≪ Previous: Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 - Episode 6 - Review

$

0

0

Transit, 2012.

Directed by Antonio Negret.
Starring Jim Caviezel, James Frain, Elisabeth Röhm, Diora Baird, Sterling Knight, Ryan Donowho, Jake Cherry and Harold Perrineau.


SYNOPSIS:

A gang of bank robbers use a suburban family as unwitting couriers to move millions of dollars of stolen money past a police roadbloack.


What happens when four bank robbers put their stolen money in with the luggage of a family on vacation and then have to try and hunt them down to get it back? Well, you get a pretty mediocre action movie.

Four bank robbers - Marek (James Frain), Robyn (Elisabeth Rohm), Evers (Ryan Donowho) and Losada (Harold Perrineau) - steal $4 million off an armored truck. They plan on heading out to the coast to hop on a boat and go their separate ways. Only problem is they run into a roadblock setup by the police to try and find out who stole the money. An opportunity arises when they see a family, lead by Jim Caviezel, with a lot of luggage on top of their car. By putting the money with the family they can easily get by the roadblock. The problem is the gang now have to track down the family and get the money back before they find out they've got it.

The problem with Transit is that the filmmakers play it too safe. Instead of trying to do something original or even something with a little suspense they do everything we've seen before in countless other action movies and it just all feels too familiar. Something else that just took me out of the movie was that these were some of the dumbest villains I've ever seen. Some of the choices they would make were just ridiculous and at times unintentionally funny.

Another problem here is that most of the acting is very weak. Jim Caviezel is pretty decent in the lead role. He's a believable father figure and I think he played the part well. James Frain is great as the main villain Marek and the always reliable Harold Perrineau does fine work here too. Everyone else involved either didn't seem like they were trying or they were just giving a really bad performance. Diora Baird as the mother here just didn't do it for me. She was at least trying but her performance just came out bad altogether. The biggest flaw in the cast comes from Sterling Knight who plays the oldest of two sons in the family. Knight is laughably bad in almost every scene and is far from believable.

Not everything here is bad. There are some decent action scenes, including a death I did not see coming, and the pace of the movie is perfectly fine. It just felt like it could have been so much better because it does have an interesting premise. The execution just isn't there and makes this somewhat of a disappointment.

Flickering Myth Rating: Film ★ / Movie ★ ★

Jake Peffer

The Flickering Myth Reaction to the trailer for Dredd

July 5, 2012, 3:45 am

≫ Next: The Amazing Spider-Man confirmed as the first of a new trilogy

≪ Previous: Thoughts on... Transit (2012)

$

0

0

The Flickering Myth writing team trade opinions on the first trailer for Dredd...

In 1995 Sylvester Stallone starred as judge, jury and executioner in Judge Dredd. Whilst the film has its fans, they are mostly drowned out by the critics. The movie has a dire 15% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is slammed for weaknesses in almost every department. It is remembered as a slice of mindless action, which for some went too far, glorifying violence and doing little else. Veteran critic Roger Ebert neatly summarised Judge Dredd as "a Blade Runner for audiences with Attention Deficit Disorder".

Fans of the comic book that inspired Stallone's futuristic action flick presumably hoped that someone would come along to create a film worthy of the source material. In late June we showed you the trailer for Dredd, directed by Pete Travis (Vantage Point). But what did our writing team make of the sneak peek of this new, independent, British take on the brutal law enforcer?


Simon Moore: It is a real relief that Karl Urban manages to say "I am the Law" without resorting to the facial krakatoa that was Stallone's performance...but on the evidence of this trailer, the rest of the reboot looks as if it's not progressed much beyond that disastrous original. Just as before, it seems to miss the point of Judge Dredd completely. The 2000 AD comics weren't advocating ultra-violence, they were satirising it. Can anyone else see even the faintest glimmer of a hint of satire in that trailer? Nope. Neither can I.


Gary Collinson: It’s great to see an ambitious British effort like this but sadly it doesn’t seem like they had the budget to really do Judge Dredd justice. Mega City One looks far from ‘Mega’, and by cramming all the action into a single building (if that turns out to be the case), it’s easy to see why it’s been accused of knocking-off The Raid. Still, it looks like there’ll be plenty of action on offer and it would have to sink to some depths storywise to reach the level of the Sylvester Stallone version. So, with only that for comparison, I’m sure fans will be pleased enough, even if it doesn’t turn out to be the definitive adaptation. As for the actual trailer, they probably could have done a better job of introducing Dredd too…


Simon Columb: It seems a bit like Total Recall/Tron: Legacy + The Dark Knight... the futuristic stuff, the hint of a darker, judge-like role... and based on a comic book. As someone who hasn't read the comic book, as good as it may be, it doesn't seem groundbreaking. Just cashing in on the craze that is currently going around. Very 2012.

Anghus Houvouras: I won't lie. I'm a fan of the first Judge Dredd. Much like someone is a fan of watching a garbage fire. It's so simultaneously the best and worst aspects of summer blockbusters. Great production design and huge set pieces, stuffed with inconceivably bad writing and acting. I remember seeing the original in the theater and sitting there slack jawed with the sheer volume of terrible crammed into this attractive looking package. Dredd looks to be something completely different. I think the low budget treatment makes more sense to the character. Maybe it's just me, but I think the character of Judge Dredd has always been about the cool factor. It's better in concept than execution. And while I liked this trailer, I immediately get that B-Movie vibe. Once you see 'LIONSGATE' you know what you're getting: an affordable genre film. I hear people complaining about the contained location, but did a massive expansive world help Judge Dredd as a movie? I'm not blown away by the trailer but am interested enough to see it. I think Judge Dredd might be like The Punisher. No matter how many attempts to take that coolness from the page to the screen, you end up losing too much in the translation to make something excellent.


Rohan Morbey: Really disappointed by the trailer. I hate over-use of slow-mo and this is using it as if it were going out of fashion (which it sadly is not). It looks to be in the same category as Resident Evil, Hitman and all the other lower-league action pictures. I can't see it being a huge success.


Luke Owen: I wouldn't insult the movie by comparing it to the Resident Evil films, but I get your point. Personally, I like the look of it. Dredd looks cool and the action looks like it might be fun. And best of all, not a Rob Schneider in sight.


Tom Jolliffe: I don't really see a selling point for this. It looks quite cheap at times and the slow motion seems to be there to milk the 3D aspect. To me it just looks a little bit straight to video, and low end at that. I was half expecting to see Lorenzo Lamas or Eric Roberts pop up. In fact that chizelled, stubbled jaw line could easily be Lamas if we didn't know any better. At the same time though, it looks like it could be fun, but I don't think people, bar die hard Dreddites, will flock to the multiplexes for this.


Scott Davis: All in all, I was rather impressed by the trailer. Sure, it looks like it has been made on a small budget, hence The Raid style setting, but it looks better than a lot of movies coming up in the second half of the year. Urban and Headey are brilliant casting choices too, and will only elevate the film above the normal bog standard sci-fi actioner.

Oliver Davis: Usually I hate CGI, but those slow motion shots really capture the punk vibe of the comics. The 80s colour palette fits those scenes rather well. Those look like the most expensive parts of the movie, though, as some of those crowd scenes look like they've been snatched from London riots footage.Also, the drug they're describing - isn't that Brass Eye's Cake?


Martin Deer: This looks like it could be a fun, good, movie. Don't expect much more from it though to be honest but I'm certainly interested at this stage.


Matt Smith: From the trailer, I'd hope it's an 80s-style flick with a bit of grit. Urban's casting, yes, should elevate it but a big problem (amongst many big problems) with the previous Dredd movie was the script. So hopefully this one will have a script that wasn't written by a complete maroon.I also hope it doesn't get bogged down with comparisons with The Raid, purely because people will say they've ripped it off when Dredd went into production before (correct me if I'm wrong, but do it gently. I'm fragile.) And if they do something original with the 'shoot up through a building of bad guys' plot, who cares if they're similar?I doubt the film's gonna be out of this world, but it can still be a good flick. And you can't really tell from a trailer. It could surprise us.

Matt is right; Dredd could surprise us. The trailer and the marketing campaign thus far may showcase as many flaws as it does strengths, but it hints at considerably more promise than the Stallone version. Even if this Dredd is nothing more than another generous helping of senseless brutality it looks as though it will have its own distinctive visual style. Having said that, however, this is not necessarily a good thing. Several of our writers pick up on the emphasis on slow-mo. Surely it's going to be a near impossible task to do something new with such an overused technique, especially when the plot requires it repeatedly?

Frankly the trailer is baffling at points. The drug at the heart of the story seems ridiculous and a weak premise for any film. To make matters worse it is introduced to us with a strange choice of music, seemingly out of sync with Dredd's overall tone and look. When added to clunky dialogue and clumsy subtitles, the first minute of the trailer is a disaster. Thankfully it's at this point that Karl Urban's Dredd turns up with some action scenes and more suitable, dramatic music. Appropriately, it's Dredd himself that rescues this trailer. But ultimately he only elevates it from awful to average.

Our writers seem pretty sure Dredd will be mediocre with some mild enjoyment. But what do you think? How do you judge Dredd? (I'm sorry I couldn't resist).

---

The Amazing Spider-Man confirmed as the first of a new trilogy

July 5, 2012, 3:55 am

≫ Next: An extended TV spot and new banner for The Dark Knight Rises

≪ Previous: The Flickering Myth Reaction to the trailer for Dredd

$

0

0

We already knew that a sequel was in the works, and considering the strong opening this week for the Marc Webb-directed reboot, it should come as little surprise that Sony has now announced The Amazing Spider-Man as the first installment of a new trilogy based around Marvel's friendly neighborhood wall-crawler.

Via the official TASM Facebook page today...

"It's finally here! The Amazing Spider-Man is the first installment in a movie trilogy that will explore how our fave hero's journey was shaped by the disappearance of his parents."

Although Marc Webb is yet to sign on for the sequel, TASM scribe James Vanderbilt's script for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is currently being rewritten by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, the screenwriting duo behind the likes of Transformers, Star Trek, Cowboys & Aliens and the upcoming Van Helsing reboot.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is set to swing into cinemas in 2014 with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone reprising their roles as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy.

An extended TV spot and new banner for The Dark Knight Rises

July 5, 2012, 6:57 am

≫ Next: Filming begins on Mad Max: Fury Road as first set pics emerge

≪ Previous: The Amazing Spider-Man confirmed as the first of a new trilogy

$

0

0

With Spider-Man grabbing most of the headlines this week, the marketing department at Warner Bros. has popped up to remind us that another comic book character is heading to cinemas in just over two weeks time (yeah, like we need reminding) with the release of a new poster / banner for The Dark Knight Rises, which features a stenciled image of Bane against a Gotham City manhole cover.

The best thing about this banner? Bane's eyes...


And that's not all, as an extended TV spot has also been released, which features some snippets of new footage...


The epic conclusion to Christopher Nolan's Batman saga, The Dark Knight Rises stars Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard. And it will finally be here two weeks from tomorrow...

Holy Franchise, Batman! - Available now via Amazon.

Filming begins on Mad Max: Fury Road as first set pics emerge

July 5, 2012, 8:00 pm

≫ Next: Movie Review - The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

≪ Previous: An extended TV spot and new banner for The Dark Knight Rises

$

0

0

George Miller's return to the dystopian world of Mad Max has certainly been a long time coming. A script for the long-awaited fourth installment, Mad Max: Fury Road, was completed back in 2003, with Miller aiming to reunite with original star Mel Gibson once again on the franchise they launched back in 1979, only for the project to hit delay after delay. After delay.

In 2009, Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises) signed on to replace Gibson in the lead role as the leather-clad ex-cop with a view to shooting the sequel in Australia in 2011, only for heavy rainfail to leave the desert location covered with wildflowers, scuppering Miller's plans for a post-apocalyptic landscape.

For a time, it seemed that Fury Road would find itself stuck in development hell, but filming has finally kicked off in Namibia this month, and the first set photos have popped up online to prove it:



Nothing too revealing, but at least it's happening at long last...

Described as a 're-imagining' of the Mad Max universe, Fury Road sees Hardy joined in the cast by a shaven-headed Charlize Theron (Prometheus), Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (Transformers: Dark of the Moon), Riley Keough (Magic Mike), Adelaide Clemens (X-Men: Origins: Wolverine) and X-Men First Class pair Nicholas Hoult and Zoe Kravitz. The film is expected to hit cinemas some time next year... unless anything else goes wrong, that is.

Movie Review - The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

July 6, 2012, 12:00 am

≫ Next: Two new posters for The Dark Knight Rises

≪ Previous: Filming begins on Mad Max: Fury Road as first set pics emerge

$

0

0

The Amazing Spider-Man, 2012.

Directed by Marc Webb.
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Denis Leary, Irrfan Khan and Chris Zylka.


SYNOPSIS:

A brilliant but troubled young man is bitten by a genetically altered spider, changing him forever.


We know this story, don’t we? We’ve heard it all before, so they say. Not exactly. The Amazing Spider-Man is all heart, and despite re-telling the origin of Peter Parker just 10 years after it was told by Sam Raimi, this one plays out a little differently and more engagingly.

I’ve always liked Spider-Man, however I have been critical of The Amazing Spider-Man from the offset: the teaser trailer, the teaser posters, all failed to excite me. And I voiced that loudly out of an appreciation for the character. This film had a tough job in front of it; it was coming off the back of a previous, very successful trilogy, despite a horrendous third instalment which frankly undid all of the good work Sam Raimi did in the first two. In essence, The Amazing Spider-Man was Spider-Man’s Batman Begins. It needed to reboot the franchise and get Peter Parker back on track. And boy, does it do just that.

The film plays out to pretty much the similar beats we have seen before, but that’s because you cannot change the basics of who Spider-Man is. You just cannot. What this re-telling does do however is change Peter Parker from what we have seen previously and show you a different side to him. When we first meet Peter it is a flashback to his childhood. We see the moment his parents left, of their own accord, under suspicious circumstances, leaving Peter in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Peter is hurting, and you can really sense that in Andrew Garfield’s performance. Peter is of course bullied, as usual, however this time he stands up for himself, as well as others, and this time the beatings are brutal. Gone are the trip-ups as he gets on the school bus and in are powerful shots to the gut.

Things begin to change for Peter and a series of events are set in motion when he discovers his father's briefcase, hidden away like a dirty secret in the basement. In it he finds a picture of his father with work colleague Dr. Curt Connors, leading him to Oscorp and that fateful spider bite.

From here everything plays out much differently. When Peter begins to obtain his new powers, he is frightened, and frankly why wouldn’t you be? If you woke up and suddenly could hang from ceilings, climb walls and had the reflexes of a god, would you simply smile and check your new muscles out in the mirror? Or would you freak out? The brilliance of Peter as a scientist is much more a focal point in this series, and is in fact integral to the plot.

Uncle Ben’s role is also more central to the plot, and his relationship with Peter is much more father/son than what we’ve seen before. This Uncle Ben shouts, and gets angry, scolding Peter for neglecting his commitments, responsibilities and promises. And it’s here we really see the heartbreak and pain that Peter suffers from; it's gut wrenching, and brings a tear to the eye. Uncle Ben’s death plays a much larger role in the creation of the persona of Spider-Man, as Peter sets out firstly on seeking revenge - which is completely understandable given the circumstances - before events point him in the direction of using his new gifts for something greater, all stemming from Ben’s words in their last meeting.

The tone is dark, and in the build-up to this film I was concerned it would be too dark for the sake of being dark, and that all of the images of Peter wearing a hoody and talk of him being “moody” and “brooding” would really miss the mark and simply be adhering to the current trend of teenage drama. However it is pitch perfect, and completely in character. It’s never over the top or over played. Peter’s pain and loss is hinted at slightly in his loneliness, and then aggressively when the moment is right and the emotion boils over. This film is all heart, and if you don’t feel for Peter then I can’t imagine you have much of one. What I loved about this Peter was his arrogance, his self-assured cockiness. That’s Peter Parker, and it’s great to see him finally on screen.

The film really is about loss and grieving, and the villain, Dr Curt Connors / The Lizard fits that theme perfectly. Connors has been dealing for some time with the loss of his arm, which he hopes to re-grow using cross species genetics, much like reptiles have the ability to do. Connors hopes to change the world, and in this regard he is sympathetic. Connors hasn’t moved on from his loss, whereas Peter tries to and finds the things in his life which can help him move forward. He isn’t alone, and he never was.

The film has its faults, I will not deny that. The action sequences are disappointing as they never really reach any kind of great spectacle or become thrilling and exhilarating; they seem very much a back drop for the actual character development, which frankly is fine with me. That being said, Spidey, as he swings through the city and moves across walls and ceilings, has never, ever, looked so good on screen. Andrew Garfield talked about wanting to mimic an actual spider in his movements as it hadn’t been done before, and he accomplishes that perfectly.

There is a complaint that a few plot points are never answered - specifically Peter’s parents' disappearance - which is not true. There is an answer for why they left, it’s there, it’s hinted at and explained to us by Peter himself as he figures it out. Yes, we get the sense that there is more to it, but that’s building a mystery successfully. The reason his parents left IS answered, and that’s all we need in this film because it answers the questions that Peter himself is trying to figure out. But the deeper mystery is there, and we leave the cinema wanting to come back to find out the answers, rather than leaving feeling like we were short changed. I’ll concede that the alluded to fact that Peter was experimented on by his father and Connors is kind of dropped, but it’s never really picked up to begin with. Again, it’s not relevant to the plot of the film, but instead establishes a deeper mystery upon which to build.

The cast are brilliant, and it’s really the strongest area of the film. Garfield, Stone, Ifans, Leary, Sheen and Field all put in incredible performances that sell their characters and make us care for them. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, who is a credit to the writing as much as it is the acting, is an independent free-thinking woman who is engaging, believable and enjoyable to watch. Unlike the shrieking, damsel-in-distress of Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane.

All in all The Amazing Spider-Man is a terrific film. It’s fun, witty, and has tonnes of heart. If this film was to be the Batman Begins of its franchise, it achieved just that. And I do hope that Sony change their decision to have the writers from the Transformers series write the sequel as everything that we’ve seen thus far has hit the right notes, and I’m wanting more of the same.

Flickering Myth Rating: Film ★ ★ ★ ★ / Movie ★ ★ ★ ★

Martin Deer

Two new posters for The Dark Knight Rises

July 6, 2012, 12:08 am

≫ Next: Movie Review - Ice Age: Continental Drift (2012)

≪ Previous: Movie Review - The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

$

0

0

Yesterday we saw a new banner for The Dark Knight Rises featuring a stenciled image of Bane (Tom Hardy), but since then two brand new posters have emerged for the epic conclusion to Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. First up is another Bane-centric offering, which was unveiled through the real time strategy browser game, The Fire Rises:


Following that, the IMAX Poland Facebook page released a brand new IMAX poster, featuring a shot of Batman (Christian Bale) against the backdrop of a Gotham in flames. The light shining through the logo is a great touch:


The Dark Knight Rises stars Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard and hits cinemas on July 20th.

Holy Franchise, Batman! - Available now via Amazon.