Acme Archives Selling Limited Edition Avatar Concept Art!
Did you end up loving James Cameron’s Avatar? Are you a believer that it’s going to change movies forever? Well, if you loved it that much, you can buy some rather expensive but gorgeous prints of concept art from Avatar over on Acme Archives. I think a few of these were first introduced at Comic-Con, but thanks to SlashFilm we know that Acme is currently selling four different concept art prints that can be purchased on paper, canvas, or vistachrome, which is “a highly saturated vibrant image laminated on 1/4 inch plexi and mounted on wood with metal standoffs.” That’d look pretty awesome hanging on my wall!
Acme is selling three different pieces of concept art showing certain scenes as well as one facial sketch titled “Neytiri” that’s signed by James Cameron. “This preliminary sketch by James Cameron gave the designers a feel for the development of Neytiri and the other Na’vi characters.” You can see examples of each piece of art below. I wanted to feature all of them because they’re so gorgeous. Click each below to be taken to the Acme Archives page for purchase (though don’t forget to choose between paper, canvas, or vistachrome):
All of these are limited edition giclee prints that come with a certificate of authenticity. The three concept art prints (not including the Neytiri face) sell at $185 each unframed and are 10 inches by 21 inches in size. The canvas versions sell for $475 unframed and the ultimate vistachrome versions sell for $1800 but come mounted and framed and are 14 inches by 32 inches in size. Very expensive, but worth it if you’re a true fan!
My favorite one is the last one I featured above, the blue “Willow Glade” print that shows Neytiri and Jake running across one of the giant luminescent logs at night with the waterfall in the background. This art was actually shown in Amsterdam at CinExpo in the summer, which is where the very first footage from Avatar was revealed. “Production Designer Robert Stromberg created a hallmark environment in this design that served as a backdrop to Jake’s journey through the phantasmagorical depths of Pandora.” I love all of these prints, but if I had enough money to buy one, that’d be the one I’d get. Anyone else planning on buying one?
Discover More: Cool Stuff, Featured, Hype
Joe Johnston Planning to Shoot Captain America Next June
We haven’t heard much from Marvel recently about The First Avenger: Captain America, which is still slated for release in July of 2011. What we do know, though, is that Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, Jurassic Park III, The Wolfman) is directing and the screenplay is being written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (of all three Chronicles of Narnia movies). Fangoria (via ComingSoon) just published a teaser piece for their upcoming issue that has an interview with Joe Johnston talking about Wolfman. However, near the end of the article they drop a little tidbit about Johnston’s plans to start shooting Captain America in June.
Here’s the key quote: “… recalls Johnston, speaking from the art department of The First Avenger: Captain America, which he’s readying for a June start.” Marvel is preparing to start shooting Kenneth Branagh’s Thor in January (as reported here), which I’m sure will shoot at least until April. Then they’ll probably take a break to support Iron Man 2’s release in May before prepping a June start for Captain America. It’s great to hear that this is moving along smoothly, now we just need casting. Who will be playing Cap, that’s what I want to know! So which of Marvel’s 2011 movies are you more excited about – Thor or Captain America?
Discover More: Hype, Movie News, Opinions
Director John Waters’ Funky Picks for the Best Films of 2009
Hearing the name John Waters, you should already expect this list to be quite eccentric, and that’s exactly why I’m featuring it. We’ll be seeing plenty of the big Oscar on all kinds of best of lists, so why not feature a few films that you probably haven’t heard of or never saw? Waters posted his complete list on artforum.com (thanks to Anne Thompson for the link) with explanations for every film. For example, on why he included Whatever Works: “Gerontophilia never seemed so appealing. This time, Woody goes a little gay and lives to tell about it with lovely, comic success. I am so mad I don’t have this director’s career.” Read on for his list!
John Waters’ Best of 2009:
1. Import/Export (dir. Ulrich Seidl)
2. Antichrist (dir. Lars von Trier)
3. In the Loop (dir. Armando Iannucci)
4. World’s Greatest Dad (dir. Bobcat Goldthwait)
5. Brüno (dir. Larry Charles)
6. Lorna’s Silence (dir. Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne)
7. Broken Embraces (dir. Pedro Almodóvar)
8. The Baader Meinhof Complex (dir. Uli Edel)
9. Whatever Works (dir. Woody Allen)
10. The Headless Woman (dir. Lucrecia Martel)
My other favorite explanation is for Brüno. Waters states: “Don’t listen to the critics—it’s better than Borat. Imagine a hetero teen couple in a mall on a first date somewhere in Middle America watching Sacha Baron Cohen pantomime every known gay male sex act, ending in a joyous ‘facial.’ Sometimes audiences get what they deserve.” Ha! If you’re wondering what Import/Export is, it’s a 2007 film directed by Austrian filmmaker Ulrich Seidl about the “miserable lives of Ukrainian immigrants in Vienna.” It just opened in New York this summer, even though it played at Cannes in 2007. Odd choice for #1, but that’s why I love Waters.
Discover More: Featured, Movie News
Interview: Lord Blackwood Himself, British Actor Mark Strong
If you’ve seen Sherlock Holmes, or at least seen the trailer, then you probably know who Lord Blackwood is. British actor Mark Strong plays Blackwood, Holmes’ “depraved adversary” in the movie, and is not only quite devious and brilliant, but also seems to have supernatural powers. Just before I talked with director Guy Ritchie, I got on the phone with Mark Strong. Despite the sinister nature of the villain’s he plays, he’s one of the most down-to-earth and incredibly humbling actors I’ve ever had the pleasure of interviewing. This time my focus was on Sherlock Holmes, but I also threw in a few questions about John Carter of Mars.
This is the second time I’ve talked with Mark Strong. Last year I did an exclusive profile on him and talked with him on the phone for over an hour. I don’t say this often, but he’s an actor that I could talk to endlessly, not only because he always has so much to say, but also because he’s extraordinarily talented and incredibly smart and has a immense love for his craft. So without further ado, read on for my newest interview below!
Mark Strong: How are you doing?
I’m great. How are you?
Strong: Good. Yeah. Very good. Very excited about the next year or so, because I’ve got some wonderful things all just bubbling under, about to come out, and I must admit, I’m pretty proud of every one.
Yeah, I know. Everything looks great. I mean, I’ve seen Sherlock Holmes — you’re fantastic in that. I’m really looking forward to everything. The new Robin Hood trailer came out, and I think I saw you a couple times in it, coming out of the water, swinging a sword, so you do have a lot of good stuff coming up.
Strong: Yeah. It’s great. It’s a very exciting time. Kick-Ass as well, I’m really looking forward to.
Yeah! I guess they just showed it at the Butt-Numb-A-Thon, the Ain’t It Cool event, but I wasn’t there. I heard everyone loved it, though.
Strong: Oh, good. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. It’s a really witty film. It’s good fun.
To get into Sherlock Holmes a little bit, I guess this is the third time you’ve worked with Guy Ritchie, right?
Strong: Yeah. That’s right.
What’s it like working with him now? Have you developed a certain dynamic with him because you’re so familiar with his style and he’s familiar with the way you work? What’s it like with you guys on set?
Strong: I think actors who work with directors regularly all feel the same. I know Ridley [Scott] and Russell [Crowe] and Leo [DiCaprio] and Marty Scorsese, they — because I’ve chatted to both of those guys, and what it does, working with somebody again and again, is it means that you eliminate “the dance,” the need for the dance that you have to do with somebody when you first meet them and first work with them. It basically means: “You put your foot there, I’ll put my foot there, and how are we going to kind of work around each other, and what is our shorthand going to be with each other?” Basically, by the time you get to work with somebody after a few times, you’re just straight in. They know what you think, you know what they mean, and it means that you can get on and do the job without having to tip-toe around each other.
What was your first impression of the Sherlock Holmes script when you first read it?
Strong: When I read it, it was a very straightforward Holmesian whodunit, I thought. It was a very kind of — it read very traditionally, and slightly theatrically, as well. I have to say that while we were shooting it and working on it, it developed an awful lot from the original script. A lot more banter was introduced between Robert [Downey Jr.] and Jude [Law], for example. And Blackwood, the task with him was always just to bring him back from being too theatrical. We didn’t want him to be a mustache-twirling pantomime villain, but on the other hand, we wanted him to be bold and confident and scary so that you would genuinely believe, a) that Sherlock saw him as a threat, and b) that all these guys would follow him so he could commit his deeds.
That seems like it was part of the story anyway, how he pulled everything off, in essence. And I don’t want to give away any of it, but just the progression of the film up to the final climactic moments, and then the explanation of what you did and how you achieved everything was a fascinating part to watch.
Strong: Yeah, I agree. I think it’s lovely that he kept that whole whodunit nature for the Holmes purist. I think you get a real satisfaction from seeing a plot that is extremely convoluted, and you get a real pleasure from seeing everything solved at the end. That’s quite an old-fashioned detective trick, I think, a detective story trick. And if the Holmes purists are at all worried that they’re not going to get the Holmes they want, I think that’s certainly one strand that is true to the traditional Conan Doyle, as well as the fact that everything in the movie does actually come from the novels and short stories, apart from Blackwood, interestingly. But in any case, that whole Holmes with a peaked cap and a magnifying glass and a meerschaum pipe, that was all invented. None of that actually exists in the novels and short stories. That was a look that was created for Holmes by the people who made the first few movies.
You touched on this a little bit, but if you could go into it further, about what you worked on with your character, and how much work you did with Guy and with the writers to develop Blackwood further once you were cast.
Strong: Well, the things that we had to look at that were significant were that he had to be a worthy adversary for Holmes, so we had to make him truly and genuinely frightening, if possible. We created that, I suppose, by — costume is very important. We realized that the Victorians controlled a third of the world in that point. Their empire was expanding. The Industrial Revolution was gathering pace. They were extremely confident people. That, plus the fact that Blackwood is a member of the aristocracy, is a Lord, and then we wanted to develop a real confidence about him, and even make that spill over into a kind of ambitious sort of narcissism, so we dressed him to impress, basically, with this incredible outfit.
I also chose to wear that wig with a slightly harsh shaved sides of my head to give a real Prussian strength theme. And then a voice, we decided, needed to have gravitas in order to be able to lead all his acolytes into following him to take over the world. So those were the things we worked on visually, and Guy was very keen to, as I said, prevent him from becoming too theatrical, even though a lot of his lines are quite showy lines. But the trick is, Victorian times… they were quite keen on the idea of show. Hypnotism was coming to the fore, escapology was something they were becoming interested in, so the idea of a showman isn’t particularly unusual for that period of time, so all those elements and ingredients went into making Blackwood.
How much of it was done practically? Because to complete that “magic trick” of having you be so confident and such a powerful adversary came from doing a lot of the effects practically. The one that pops to mind is when you were in the meeting and the American ambassador shoots a gun and bursts into flame and falls out the window. Those moments, seeing that guy light up on fire, your face was just blank, like it’s something you had planned out and were completely prepared to do. But I would imagine if you were seeing that in person, it would actually be a lot scarier. Were those kind of effects done practically on set?
Strong: Yeah. What we needed to — well, that moment is an interesting moment because it’s a fantastic idea. This guy turns up in the rain to this meeting, and while he’s in the rain, constituent in the raindrops are some chemical that get onto his cloak, in the knowledge that should he try and pull a gun and fire it, the spark would then ignite all of that, and he’d catch fire. And, of course, it’s a fantastically showy moment for everybody sitting around, because it looks like Blackwood has made him explode with the force of his will.
But if you actually think about it, the amount of effort involved in creating that moment that Blackwood would have to — there’s a lot of luck involved that the guy does pull a gun, and that the rain has stayed on his cloak, or the chemical has stayed on his cloak. It’s wonderfully ambitious, and the fact that he remains blank while he’s doing it, because all the thoughts racing through his head are, “Oh, my God! This is perfect. I can’t believe, a) that it’s worked, and b) I can’t show any emotion because I need these guys to believe that I do this every day… that I have the power to make somebody combust with the force of my own mind.”
So, practically, though, the guy didn’t catch fire on the day. I mean, that was added. That’s an effect that was added later. That demands its own discipline, that you have to stand there and imagine this guy bursting into flames and crashing out of a window.
Of course. That’s essentially why I’m so fascinated by your performance. That moment, and so many of them in this film in particular really stand out, where to pull that off and make it seem that everything was that fluid and that it all happened at that moment is pretty impressive.
Strong: Thank you. Well, you see, that’s what makes him a worthy adversary, and also, I think the audience has to sort of believe, “Oh my God, you know, this guy, he’s got something.” So it was fun to create him.
You always play a lot of different characters, and especially recently, you’ve been playing a lot of villains. Do you try to differentiate your different villains so that we never feel there’s an overlap? As in if I go see Kick-Ass or Sherlock Holmes or something else, that I’m never going to think to myself, “Oh, it’s Mark Strong I’m seeing,” rather than a character in particular?
Strong: Oh, I hope so. I truly hope so. That’s exactly what I try and achieve. And I feel like if you were a straight leading man, that is much more difficult, because essentially you are the guy in the middle of the story, and you can’t really do much to yourself, because your job really is to be yourself. What I love about playing the villains is that I can adapt them. I can use wigs. I can use costume. I can use accents to create these different characters. The one, I suppose, unifying thread amongst them all is that they have a bad side, but what I try and do with all of them is find out why.
I think with good guys, you never really think, “Why are they good?” But with bad guys, you might find yourself thinking, “What’s made them like this?” So, psychologically, I find them really interesting, and I can find different ways to differentiate them.
For example, say with Blackwood, there’s a scene in which his father confesses to Holmes that Blackwood was conceived in a Masonic ritual. Now, that made me start thinking, “What kind of a childhood is that?” And how bizarre for that man to have that start in his life — a father who obviously doesn’t really care, and a mother who wasn’t his father’s wife conceiving him after a Masonic ritual. That’s pretty bizarre. So that gave me the impetus to allow him to try and achieve what he’s trying to get, because he’s misunderstood, and he deserves it because he’s been treated so badly.
With Frank D’Amico, for example, in Kick-Ass, there’s a guy who is a mafia guy who’s sort of achieved — he has reached the level where he’s not really involved in the dark stuff anymore. But these damn kids, the superheroes, start messing with his business, and that’s what makes him turn and become bad.
In Robin Hood, Sir Godfrey, Robin Hood’s nemesis, with him it’s a need to control his environment, i.e. the country, because he’s thinks that the people who are running it aren’t doing a very good job. So I can vary the intentions of each of these dark characters. I can find different things that they’re after. I suppose you’d call it their motivation. I can find different motivations for them all. That, coupled with the ability to change the physical look of them all and the way in which they achieve what they achieve, gives me that differentiation, so that’s what I try and do with each of them.
That’s fantastic.
Strong: So that’s a very long, convoluted answer, but it’s a fascinating question, and I genuinely believe that I am able to vary them, and that’s why I think I’m lucky, and that’s why somebody said to me, “Are you stuck in the villain roles?” And I said, “Absolutely not. Swap the word ’stuck’ for ‘enjoying.’” I’m enjoying them because they give me leeway to make them all different.
Well, the reason I ask is because it’s almost a catch-22 in that you become such a unique character in each of these roles, that you’re hoping people don’t recognize you in them, but in the acting world, that’s exactly what I think you’d want, to be recognized as a that actor.
Strong: Well, weirdly, though, Alex, I prefer to take a back seat. I don’t want people to say, “Oh, you know, that’s Mark Strong.”
Really?
Strong: I want them to lose themselves in the character. And sometimes you get a real opportunity to do that, like with Hani Salaam in Body of Lies. I know people who know me who didn’t know it was me. The best compliment I was paid was somebody saying, “I knew you were a Jordanian, [but] I thought you were Iranian,” which obviously I’m not. So I think it doesn’t matter if you play the same kinds of parts, as long as you, the actor, sink yourselves in — if I can sink into those parts and sort of disappear, that’s what I’m after, really. That, for me, is then creating a character, and it doesn’t matter how many of these villains you play, because they’re all different. I don’t think you have the leeway to do that if you’re a straight leading man, I have to say.
That’s such a great point, and that’s why I love character actors, and that’s why I love talking to you and watching you act, because I get to see that more often, and I love seeing a character really become such a unique, brilliant character. Heath Ledger with the Joker is another example of that working beautifully.
Have you been offered any lead roles? Would taking on a lead role be something you’d consider doing?
Strong: Sure. I mean, I played leads on stage. I’ve played leads on the television. I’ve had leads in smaller movies… and yeah, I mean, I love the mercurial nature of being an actor, and I will take on anything if I think I can do something with it. So, whether it is playing a lead, whether it’s being a villain, whether it’s being Pinbacker in Sunshine — Danny Boyle wasn’t even intending to cast an actor in that part. He was going to cast an athlete, a physical gymnast, who didn’t really say much. But I said to him, “That’s the part I want to play,” because it was another stretch of something that I’ve not done, so I’m up for anything, really, if I can bring something to it.
I noticed that it says that you’re cast in John Carter of Mars, the upcoming Andrew Stanton film.
Strong: That’s right. Yeah, which I’m really looking forward to.
Could you speak a little bit more about your character? It looks like you’re playing one of the aliens on Mars named Matai Shang, if I’m correct, right?
Strong: That’s right. I play a character — well, they’re all based on these Edgar Rice Burroughs books in the 30s, called Princess of Mars, and the character in there called Matai Shang, who is the ruler of a race of people called the Therns, and basically they have godlike status. They’re a mythical race that the Martians, the people who live on Mars, aren’t even sure exist. So, basically, we exist over and above, like the Olympian gods in Greece, the people that actually inhabit the planet. So that’s going to be — when I met Andrew and he showed me the mood boards and things and his vision for it, it’s really intoxicating, because he’s such a good storyteller, and obviously extremely talented, so that’s something I’m really up for.
I’m just curious because we almost know nothing about it. I mean, we’ve got Andrew Stanton, who’s coming from Pixar and his animation work, now making a live-action, or part live-action, movie. I’m curious how it’ll even look or how it’ll work?
Strong: Yeah. It’s going to be fascinating, especially in the light of Avatar, because, if I know anything about Andrew Stanton and Pixar, they always want to be in the vanguard of everything, so I’m sure that they will be very conscious of what James Cameron’s been able to achieve in his movie, and try and take it further.
Definitely. Exactly. I’ve seen Avatar, too, and I loved it. An amazing film.
Strong: I’m sure. I’m sure.
The visuals in it are incredible, and I think it will really change the way films are made in the future.
Strong: Yeah, I can’t wait to see it. I haven’t seen it yet, obviously. Alex, I’ve got to fly now because I’ve got to go and talk to another journalist.
Thank you to Mark Strong and Kate for this opportunity once again. I always love talking to him! Sherlock Holmes is currently playing in theaters now, so go see it as soon as you can!
Discover More: Featured, Interviews
Indie Trailer Sunday: Awesome District 13: Ultimatum Trailer
I decided to feature the official US trailer for District 13: Ultimatum today because there’s no better way to wrap up 2009 than with some kick ass parkour. This is the last Sunday of the year, but don’t fear, as the Indie Trailer Sunday series will still continue on next year (as long as you guys want it to?). Anyway, District 13: Ultimatum is the sequel to the parkour movie District B13 from 2004. This already showed at some film festivals and I’ve heard great things, especially if you loved the first one (read Neil Miller’s review) or just want to see some awesome parkour. But enough of my bantering, watch the District 13: Ultimatum trailer!
Watch the official US trailer for District 13: Ultimatum:
You can also watch the District 13: Ultimatum trailer in High Definition on Apple
Damien and Leito return to District 13 on a mission to bring peace to the troubled sector that is controlled by five different gang bosses, before the city’s secret services take drastic measures to solve the problem.
District 13: Ultimatum is directed by up-and-coming Spanish filmmaker Patrick Alessandrin, of Spanish films August 15th and Mean Spirit previously. The screenplay was written by fellow filmmaker Luc Besson who also wrote all three of the Transporter films as well as District B13, Unleashed, and Taken. Magnolia Pictures is bringing District 13: Ultimatum to limited theaters starting on February 5th, 2010 next year.
Discover More: Indies, Trailers, Worth Watching
Another Controversial Decade List: IMDb’s Top 25 Movies
With the decade ending in only four more days, these “best of the decade” lists are popping up all over. A few weeks ago we featured Metacritic’s Best Reviewed of the Decade (it was Pan’s Labyrinth) and last week we featured FlickChart’s Top 20 of the Decade (The Dark Knight was #1). Now we have IMDb’s Top 25 Movies of the Decade. This wasn’t officially announced by IMDb, but Peter from SlashFilm compiled the list based on the user rating for each film. This is probably going to be controversial, as always, but because it’s The Dark Knight as #1 once again, I think that’s a sign that it may indeed be the best film of the decade.
IMDb’s Top 25 Movies of the Decade:
1. The Dark Knight (2008)
2. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
3. City of God (2002)
4. Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
5. Avatar (2009)
6. Memento (2000)
7. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
8. WALL-E (2008)
9. Amélie (2001)
10. The Departed (2006)
11. The Pianist (2002)
12. Spirited Away (2001)
13. The Lives of Others (2006)
14. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
15. Requiem for a Dream (2000)
16. Inglourious Basterds (2009)
17. Up (2009)
18. Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
19. The Prestige (2006)
20. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
21. Downfall (2004)
22. Gran Torino (2008)
23. Sin City (2005)
24. District 9 (2009)
25. Batman Begins (2005)
I know that a few of you are probably thinking: “Avatar?! How did it get one here?” Well, it only has 69,101 ratings so far, but believe it or not it is currently ranked that high. It’ll probably move down the list once it receives more ratings, but I’m sure it’ll still remain in the Top 25. Also it should be noted that Christopher Nolan is the only director to have four movies on this list, which pretty much makes him the “Director of the Decade.” The problem with these Best of the Decade lists is that they’re all subjective, but this list in particular, that’s ranked by hundreds of thousands of moviegoers, might be the most accurate. Thoughts?
Discover More: Cool Stuff, Discussion, Opinions
Weekly Moviegoer – What Movies Do You Want Re-Released?
What if you missed Avatar? Say the snow kept falling, you got busy, had a business trip, family obligations, something unexpected happened, and/or anything else kept you from getting to the multiplex on time. And when you finally had three hours to spend on Pandora, the movie was out of theaters. What would you do? Settle for the DVD? It’s doubtful even the new 3D televisions would provide a fair substitute for what you’d have experienced on the big screen — especially the big, big IMAX screen.
Fortunately I saw that movie, and it’s quite likely anyone who wants to see it can and will, unless they’re extremely busy (though anyone who’s that busy probably doesn’t care about movies anyway). But surely there has been that movie every now and then that you really planned on seeing and really meant to see in the theater and just did not make it. For me, this year’s most regrettable theatrical miss is the 3D re-release of Toy Story and Toy Story 2.
It’s not surprising that it didn’t happen. Long movies and special double features are more difficult to make time for. It’s the reason I didn’t get to see Steven Soderbergh’s Che in the theater and it’s the reason I failed with the Toy Story movies, which were shown together, back-to-back, for only a month. That limited release window hurt, as well. Somehow I guess I was actually that busy back in October that I couldn’t fit them into my schedule, even after Disney extended what was initially supposed to only be a two-week run.
I can now only hope the studio puts the films out again in June to coincide more closely with Toy Story 3. But I wish for re-releases like this all the time. They’re not extinct, as we saw a year ago with the return of The Dark Knight to cinemas, but they are rare, and they’re certainly not the same as they were before VHS came along and ruined everything. Damn home video in all its forms for being so convenient and accessible yet poisonous to the general idea behind theatrical re-releases.
When I visited a similar subject earlier this year, I merely complained about missed opportunities. Now I want to propose that Hollywood get behind the re-release concept again. With 3D movies gaining popularity and clout, and people understanding that there are still (or again) great moviegoing experiences to be had that can’t be matched at home, no matter how nice the home theater, there’s good reason to at least re-release a few good 3D movies every few years. I’d love to see Monster House in 3D again, for instance.
Why not other kinds of movies, too, though? Let’s not forget that the highest-grossing films of all time (adjusted for inflation) are mostly such thanks to constant re-releases. Just imagine if DVDs had existed fifty years earlier. Gone With the Wind would not have made so much money. Would the studios not like to see that kind of dough again?
All they need to do is make video, cable and other releases temporary for certain theatrically appropriate films so that it’s feasible for them to re-release those films down the road. You know, like what Disney was doing with its home videos for a while. Or, did that not work out well for them?
I’d like to think people would go see re-releases of the Lord of the Rings movies and Matrix and The Dark Knight every few years. We don’t need the excuse of special editions with added special effects or anniversary versions with corrected props. Just give us the original movies we love again!
What, are the multiplexes too full for such an idea? How about the studios make room by making fewer movies, preferably fewer bad movies. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have each studio put out only two films that they put a lot of time and thought into and also be able to see some older movies again on the big screen.
Yes, I live in a dream world, more fantastical than the one created by James Cameron for Avatar. But I have to assume at least that film will be given the occasional re-release, at least for as long as it takes for 3D TVs to be a commonality in American homes. Yet it just won’t be the same. And revival houses aren’t likely to ever be equipped with the technology to one day feature a retrospective of digital 3D films. So that Toy Story double feature may have been a once in a lifetime opportunity that I missed.
Just as I asked last year about missed movies of 2008, what movies did you miss in 2009 that you wish they’d re-release so you can see them properly on the big screen? Are there any other movies (from any time) you’d sacrifice the ability to rent if you could instead occasionally see them in the theater again?
Discover More: Discussion, Editorials, Opinions
Sound Off: Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes – Your Thoughts?
Now that you’ve seen it, what did you think? The last time we saw British detective Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson on the big screen was in 1985 in Barry Levinson’s Young Sherlock Holmes. Now director Guy Ritchie and producer Joel Silver have brought him back again. But how is the new movie? How are Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law together and Holmes and Watson? Is it entertaining to watch or is it all style and no substance? How is Mark Strong as the villain Lord Blackwood? Is it a classic Holmes story? If you’ve seen it, then sound off, leave a comment, and let us know what you thought of Sherlock Holmes!
To fuel the fire, Sherlock Holmes is a fantastic movie. I’ve seen it twice and I loved it even more the second time. It’s a considerably darker movie with a lot more intensity than I was expecting, but that’s exactly what I wanted from a Guy Ritchie directed Sherlock Holmes adventure, so no complaints. I had a blast watching it and I was impressed with all of the performances and the story and the great visuals and everything. Hans Zimmer also used a badass bass sound whenever Lord Blackwood showed up that brought a smile to my face whenever I heard it. And just like Star Trek, I’m already excited to see the sequel (with Professor Moriarty).
What did you think of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes? Was it entertaining or only mediocre?
Discover More: Discussion, Hype, Sound Off
Clint Mansell Scoring Aronofsky’s Black Swan With Tchaikovsky
Great news for those of you who are fans of the immensely talented and vastly underrated composer Clint Mansell. In a recent interview with IFM’s Little White Lies (via The Playlist), Mansell revealed that he will be reteaming with Darren Aronofsky for his upcoming film Black Swan. Aronofsky is currently shooting the supernatural thriller, that’s about rival ballet dancers (including one that may be a ghost), in New York as we speak. Mansell also explains that he’s talked with Aronofsky about creating the score for this entirely out of elements from Tchaikovsky’s 1876 ballet Swan Lake. Wow, now that could be a truly amazing score.
The interview is fantastic, so I suggest reading it if you’re a fan of Mansell, but here’s the Black Swan part:
“Well it’s all really embryonic at the moment, one of the main ideas we’ve got is building the entire score out of elements from Swan Lake. I mean it would have to be vastly screwed with, but that’s a starting point. Sometimes we’ve had ideas in the past and you put them into practice and they just suck, so we’ll see. Darren only just started shooting so for now it’s about doing the nuts and bolts really and providing him just what he needs to shoot with and in January I’ll start to mess around with some of the things we’ve talked about.”
Although he scored Aronofsky’s Requiem for a Dream in 2000, I became a true fan of Mansell after hearing his amazing score in The Fountain (iTunes link). He also scored Duncan Jones’ Moon and Aronofsky’s The Wrestler and a few other movies, but sadly has never been nominated for an Oscar, even though he certainly deserves one. I was already looking forward to Black Swan but this just makes it even better. Using music from Swan Lake kind of reminds me of how Quentin Tarantino has recently built up the soundtracks in his movies out of pieces of old Ennio Morricone scores. I’m already anxious to find out if this actually happens.
If you’re interested, you can hear the theme to Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake on YouTube. Just imagine hearing that music remixed by Clint Mansell playing behind a supernatural ballet thriller starring Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, and Vincent Cassel that’s directed by Darren Aronofsky. That sounds incredibly mesmerizing!
Discover More: Indies, Movie News, Opinions
Five Young Comedians Seen on the New ‘Grown Ups’ Banner
Didn’t we just see a young Adam Sandler in Funny People? If you went to the movies recently, you might’ve seen this new banner for Dennis Dugan’s comedy Growns Ups starring Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, Rob Schneider, and David Spade. The banner has five very young-looking photos of all five of those comedians to make people interested in seeing how these five “friends” will act as grown ups. We featured the first teaser trailer for this back in November. While it wasn’t a very long trailer, I thought it looked like it could be good. Even if you’re not interested, it’s still pretty cool seeing these photos. I wonder if they’re real?
Thirty years after their high school graduation, five friends reunite for a Fourth of July holiday weekend.
Grown Ups is directed by long-time comedy director Dennis Dugan, of You Don’t Mess with the Zohan, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, The Benchwarmers, National Security, Saving Silverman, Big Daddy, Beverly Hills Ninja, and Happy Gilmore previously. The screenplay was co-written by Adam Sandler, Tim Herlihy (Bedtime Stories, Mr. Deeds), and Fred Wolf (Dickie Roberts, Without a Paddle). Sony is bringing Grown Ups to theaters everywhere on June 25th, 2010 next summer. Is this movie growing on you at all?
Discover More: Hype, Opinions, Posters
