|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantum of Solace |
Greatest Hits |
Season 4 Episode 12 |
|
coming shortly |
|
|
talk twaddle @ DVDfever Youtube |
|
Dec 01 2008
DVDfever co uk
Just £12.98! 
DVD / Blu-ray
Wall-E
Armstrong & Miller
Police: Certifiable
News & Views
DVD List
Right To Reply
|
Dan Owen reviews
I s s u e # 1 8 1 |
MOVIE NEWS
DOOMSDAYNeil Marshall third film following Dog Soldiers and The Descent will star Rhona Mitra (right), most famous for playing Lara Croft in early promotions.In Doomsday, a lethal virus codenamed Reaper slaughters thousands of people, leading to the authorities containing the infected behind Hadrian's Wall in Scotland. 30 years later, a group of specialist (led by Mitra) are despatched into the quarantine zone to find a cure...
HIS DARK MATERIALS - THE GOLDEN COMPASSThe first of Philip Pullman's three novels being adapted into a movie certainly has an astounding cast, and it's growing by the week! We now hear that Eric Bana (Munich), Kevin Bacon and John Hurt are involved alongside Daniel Craig, Nicole Kidman, Sam Elliott and Dakota Blue Richards.
THE HOBBITDirector Peter Jackson officially declared himself off the proposed Hobbit movie. Jackson's team are engaged in a lawsuit over accounting practices with New Line Cinema's dealing with The Lord Of The Rings, and the studio doesn't want to wait until this matter is laid to rest before committing to The Hobbit. So they're actively looking for a fresh director. You can read Jackson's letter to his fans here.
SPY VS STUEx-007 Pierce Brosnan (right) is set to go back to the world of espionage for this comedy, about a commitment-phobe called Stu who plans to propose to his girlfriend during an island vacation. However, on the other side of the island is a debonaire spy (Brosnan) who competes with Stu for his girlfriend's affections.
THE THING - REMAKEJohn Carpenter has already suffered the indignity of a poor remake of one of his classic films (The Fog), although he was executive producer and gave it his blessing! But now, cherished 80s "body horror" classic The Thing is being remade.The good news is that Battlestar Galactica creator Ronald D. Moore is scripting the new movie, itself a remake of Howard Hawks' original. The producers are Marc Abraham and Eric Newman, who helped remake Dawn Of The Dead, while original producer David Foster is also involved. No word on the director yet, but I'm personally glad Moore is working on this. He's proven he can re-invent things with BSG, while the premise itself -- of a shape-shifting alien dug up in the Arctic -- should involve some CGI monstrosities. Carpenter's remake was a seminal film that stands up to scrutiny even today (the make-up was the last hurrah for non-CGI creatures in many peoples minds) but I'd curious to see what 21st-Century tech can achieve...
WOLF CREEK 2Director Greg McLean has suggested he might film a sequel to his surprise horror hit.McLean: "I possibly will be [doing the sequel]. I want to do it. It's such a great character. The first I met the Weinstein's, at Sundance, they said 'How much to do the sequel?' I just said I didn't want to cash in now. It just wasn't right, because what that says is that the first film's not serious -- it takes something away from it." "I've never been against popping out sequel after sequel -- Saw, for instance, has an ingenious plot that you can do it with that -- but [Wolf Creek] was designed to be a particular kind of horror film, not the kind of film you can just pop 'em up. They get trashy. I'm really proud of the film and I don't want to just put out a piece of shit -- so if it takes two or three years, it doesn't matter."
INTERVIEWDarren Aronofsky (right) is the director of Pi and Requiem For A Dream. These are both movies the general public probably don't know of, although Dream ranks as one of the most harrowing and emotionally draining experience I've ever had in a cinema. Go check it out! Anyway, Aronofsky returns after years of absence with The Fountain, a sci-fi love story starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Coming Soon spoke to the director: ComingSoon.net: I feel like a hypocrite because when I talked to you in San Diego after watching the movie, I suggested that you don't do any interviews and just let people figure out your movie for themselves. I definitely got more out of it on second viewing. Darren Aronofsky: Well, thanks! I think the first 20 minutes often sets the audience apart, because we were trying to mirror that feeling of sci-fi or graphic novels where the first 80 pages or so, you don't know what's going on, then suddenly it starts to make sense and a whole world starts to flesh out. I think that with "The Fountain," for the first 20 minutes, people are like "What's going on?" but then it suddenly starts to make sense. If people get that far, they're in. CS: Has the movie changed a lot since the version I saw in San Diego a few months ago? Aronofsky: There's a slight change that I tinkled with three or four months ago. There was a line that Hugh Jackman wanted in the film that I loved, but I couldn't figure out how to cut it in, which is that line in the trailer: "Death is a disease; there's a cure, there's a cure and I'll find it." That was not in the first cut. What happened is that San Diego was the final cut, and then there was this one thing that kept us battling in the edit room for a long time, and it had to do with the order those scenes were right around that part of the film. I think we all made the right decision and a few months ago, I kind of figured out in the middle of the night. I had one of those "oh!" moments and I approached Jay, my editor, and said, "Will this work?" and we threw it together on our own to look at it, and me and Jay thought it was much better. Sometimes you just need that time. It happens to me, I look back at "Requiem"-and that's the reason I don't watch "Requiem" or "p" any more, 'cause I know I would see things and I'd be cringing-but luckily, the one good thing that came out of waiting for our release date was that we had the time to make it a little better. I think that's what did it. What's funny is that it's actually exactly how the script is now. We moved away from the script and changed it a little bit, but then I figured out a way to bring it back to the script. CS: One of the themes of this movie is obsession, whether it be to find the Tree of Life or find a cure for death, so I'm sure a lot of people must assume that this movie was your obsession, having spent so much time trying to get it made. Aronofsky: (laughs) I got a comment on that! For me, it's not about quantity. It's about doing the film that you believe in. Filmmaking is such a hard job, there's so many disappointments, there are so many challenges, there's so many roadblocks, especially when you're trying to do something different that's not exactly in this small box. But it's all I know how to do, and so I just believed in this material and it just rang true from my gut and I just had to get it done, so here we are. CS: Do you think once the movie hits theatres, you can finally find some closure and leave it behind you? Aronofsky: Absolutely. A good friend of mine, another filmmaker, once told me, "You never finish a film, you abandon a film" and I think that's true. I think it all finally settles in when I get that DVD, packaging, mass-produced, and I'm like, "Okay, this is the movie and it's all done." CS: But these days, directors like Ridley Scott are doing massive reworkings of their movies, releasing "Director's Cuts" so would that be something you might ever do? Aronofsky: No, I've been lucky with all my movies. My final cut has been my cut. I think at some point I'd love to do a remix of a "p." When we mixed that, there was only Dolby SR, and I'd love to discrete remix of it at some point, which is kind of like tinkering after it's all done, but it's just updating it for the latest technology and doing an HD version of it. CS: Also, having some money to throw into it might allow you to do some things you weren't able to do originally. Aronofsky: Well, we mixed "p" in like 5 days, which is just absurd, but I'm pretty happy with the mix. I think we did a pretty good job, and I like the way it feels and looks. I'd love to do a 10th Year Anniversary, so hopefully that will happen at some point. Ten years in '08, so we got a couple years. CS: You just have to make sure you don't go all George Lucas and start putting in new characters using CGI. Aronofsky: No, no, I wouldn't go that far. That's obsessive. CS: Going back a bit, you started making this movie a number of years ago on a bigger budget with a different cast. How did you end up with Hugh Jackman after Brad Pitt dropped out and you had to start all over again? Aronofsky: To be honest, Hugh wasn't even on my initial list, and that's because I hadn't seen him do anything except for his "X-Men" work. He's great in that and that's a very difficult thing to do, but I didn't really know his work. Then I saw him in "The Boy From Oz," the thing he won the Tony for, and even though he plays a singer-songwriter who's married to Liza Minelli, which has absolutely nothing to do with the character in "The Fountain," he had such passion and charisma and commitment and fever, that I was just like, "I have to see what this guy thinks of my script." When he read it, he just really got it, so that's how it all worked out. CS: What was his reaction after seeing the completed film? It must be a very different experience than making the movie since there's no way to know what it will be like when edited together. Aronofsky: What was his reaction? You'll have to ask him, but he told me it's not only the favorite film he's ever been in, but it's his favorite film. But you have to ask him, because I can't quote him. He was really happy with it, but it was really strange because the day I showed him the finished film was also the night Rachel went into labor. It was a very surreal night. CS: Do you ever stick around to see the movie with an audience to see how they react? Aronofsky: I think the last time I'll see this film ever will be tonight at the premiere in L.A. I think once it's done-I'll probably watch it again on DVD just as a quality check, just to make sure it's correct-but I won't ever see it again after tonight. CS: Did you watch it in Toronto or Venice or any of the other premieres? Aronofsky: Oh, no, no. I watched it actually in Spain at this film festival outside of Barcelona called Sitges, which is a fantasy film festival, because it was a really young, youthful crowd and the projection was beautiful and two of my best friends in the world were there, so I decided to watch it with them. You see a film so many times when you're making it, that at a certain point, you just have to stop watching it or otherwise, you can get lost in the ego conversations in your head about it. You get lost in so much stuff in your head. That's why I haven't seen "Requiem" since it came out, or "p" since that came out, so it's been a long time. Even if it comes on TV, I'll watch it for ten, fifteen seconds, smile to myself and then move on. CS: I deliberately avoided reading the graphic novel until after seeing the movie, but I was surprised how much of the story and images were similar to the movie. Did you get any inspiration from Kent Williams' art in the graphic novel while shooting the movie? Aronofsky: I did steal a few shots from Kent. When he breathed the ring in and it turns into the Queen, that transition I got from Kent. I think Kent definitely had his own vision, but you can just see how connected the scripts were. It wasn't that big of a difference between the two movies. CS: When you went back to redo the movie, starting from scratch on a lower budget, what did you end up changing? Aronofsky: Well, if you look at the battle scene, right there was $15-20 million dollars. That was a big thing, getting rid of that. Then there was the big action sequence in space, which is the thing that I probably do regret not having done, but there was that big action sequence on the outer surface of the ship that I wanted to do, but that we couldn't afford either. CS: When I visited the Montreal set, I saw the spaceship and I saw the other Tree of Life, but were the other locations also done on the soundstage like the lab and hospital? Aronofsky: Everything was a soundstage, except the museum sequence and Lillian's farmhouse, of course, but everything else was built. The way [the production designer] interrelated everything was very inspirational to me. Everything comes out of Tom in the space ship. All the other sets and designs come out of the same type of material, same type of colours, same type of background as what was happening on that tree ship. Things like the throne room with all those candles hanging, why did we have those candles? Well, if you stick a character in front of it, those candles go out of focus, and they look exactly like the starfield of Tom in space. The Christmas lights on the rooftop behind Rachel also go out of focus and become a starfield. You'll start to notice as you watch it again; you'll see celestial objects floating throughout all the time sequences. That was certain stuff that we did and there's a lot of that type of thing. CS: It must have taken an insane amount of planning to cut all that together and make the transitions work. Were some of the delays of the movie done to get extra time to get all the editing and post-production done? Aronofsky: No, I don't think so. I think we had a pretty normal timeframe of editing. The film was done in February, we've just been waiting for a release date for eight or nine months. The studio wanted to release us in the fall, so that's what it's been. We've been waiting for that, and that's why it's taken this amount of time to get here. Otherwise, the cut and the post for a visual effects movie was pretty much right on time. CS: When I saw the movie in San Diego and again last week, watching the movie was almost like a religious experience where everyone was very quiet and respectful. I'm curious if that's been the same with other audiences. Aronofsky: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Audiences have been very kind of silent watching the movie. I did a lot of Q 'n' A's afterwards, and it's been a similar positive reaction. I keep getting exactly what you just said. People all over the world from Tokyo to Spain to Belgium to D.C., people almost always in these Q 'n' A's afterwards come up to me and they go, "Hey, man, that wasn't a movie, that was an experience." That to me, has been just great, because to take someone, not just on a normal narrative journey but to take them somewhere else, and just thinking and feeling in a way they haven't felt before, that's a great compliment, and I've enjoyed that. I've seen a similar reaction around the planet. CS: I was really surprised when I woke up at 4 in the morning the day after seeing the movie, thinking about something in the movie that really affected me. Aronofsky: What's interesting is most films you leave and you've got the whole journey. When I made "p", it was a very different world. People saw a movie once, and then maybe saw it again on DVD. In fact, "p" was historically the first film downloaded, and it was also one of the early DVDs and we were playing with the menus and designing all that stuff. I think in today's world where kids are downloading sh*t to their computer, to their iPod, people are watching stuff over and over again, so we wanted to make this puzzle that gets richer and richer the more people see it. There's a lot of things in the film that people aren't going to get on a first trip. That's not completely true. There are some people who've been out there in these Q 'n' A's I've met who get it instantly, and they basically tell me exactly what it's about and they've gotten what it all means, but a lot of people I think are grasping for it the first time. But I hope that it will turn into a cult film like '"p" and "Requiem" and people will want to see it again. CS: For this movie, you've moved from Artisan to Warner Bros. They seem to really be behind making movies as an art-form rather than as a commercial venture, but they obviously must care about making their money back as well. How's that been working out? Aronofsky: I hope there's enough commercial elements in the film that people want to see it, and I think it asks the big questions about why are we here? What is life? What is death? What is love? And those are questions people have been asking, since we crawled out of the primordial soup. I think there is a commercial end to that, and at the core of the film, it really is a love story between Hugh and Rachel. Another thing I've noticed on the road is that people keep saying that when they're there with their loved ones, they've just had an incredible experience, and I think it might be a really good date movie in the sense that the women get to see this great love story, they get to see Hugh Jackman's shirt off. The guys get a little Mayan adventure and some whacked out science fiction, and afterwards you're GUARANTEED, I promise you, a good conversation. (laughs) CS: I wondered how you felt about American movie audiences these days and whether you think they really want to learn the answers these days? The real world seems so tough and awful that many moviegoers may just want to be entertained rather than having to think about movies. Aronofsky: I think you're right. I think definitely people want to just have the entertainment of escape at times, but I think that people also do want to be transported to a different consciousness and have a different experience. You know, people aren't going to the movies anymore, and I think for me at least, it feels like when I go to the theatre, I see something that's pretty well advertised but I feel pretty let down as the same-old-same-old. If "The Fountain" gives you anything, it's definitely a very, very different and new experience. CS: Where do you go from here? This time since finishing the movie, have you continued to write? Aronofsky: Exactly. We're developing a few projects and I can't talk about them yet, but we're very, very close. CS: In the years since "Requiem," there was a lot of talk about you playing with other people's characters like "Batman" and "Watchmen." Have you gotten over the desire to do that? Aronofsky: That was all a bunch of hype. For the last five or six years, I've been working on "The Fountain." We've had conversations on a few. I mean, "The Watchmen" I was on for a week, literally. I was definitely interested in doing it, and then they wanted to go right away, but I was working on "The Fountain" so I couldn't do it. And "Batman" was a writing gig, a chance to work with Frank Miller, but things got blown out of proportion by the internet. I've been trying to make "The Fountain" and I'm pretty much a one-trick pony. I get my dream project and I stick with it, and now we're starting to figure out what to do next.
DAN'S MOVIE DIGEST BLOG (DMDB) - Dan Owen.blogspot.comThe sister blog to this weekly movie-related news service is still going strong. Right now the blog is focusing on TV reviews for Heroes (the excellent new superhero drama from the States), the disappointing Doctor Who spin-off series Torchwood, and the BBC's enjoyable Robin Hood series. Recent posts to DMDB include:
|
US TOP 10 (CINEMA)All figures are weekend box-office gross, including Sunday estimates (at the time of posting):
UK TOP 10 (CINEMA)
|
All the following are U.K. release dates, and are subject to change.
Email Dan Owen
The following is a list of Dan's Movie Digests online :
2007 Retrospective: Part One
2007 Retrospective: Part Two
2007 Retrospective: Part Three
2007 Retrospective: Part Four
Issue 188: August 22nd 2007
Issue 187: August 8th 2007
Issue 186: February 22nd 2007
Issue 185: January 26th 2007
2006 Retrospective: Part One
2006 Retrospective: Part Two
2006 Retrospective: Part Three
2006 Retrospective: Part Four
Issue 184: December 20th 2006
Issue 183: December 8th 2006
Issue 182: November 30th 2006
Issue 181: November 22nd 2006
Issue 180: November 15th 2006
Issue 179: November 6th 2006
Issue 178: July 19th 2006
Issue 177: July 12th 2006
Issue 176: July 6th 2006
Issue 175: June 23rd 2006
Issue 174: June 16th 2006
Issue 173: June 7th 2006
Issue 172: May 18th 2006
Issue 171: May 10th 2006
Issue 170: May 4th 2006
Issue 169: April 26th 2006
Issue 168: April 20th 2006
Issue 167: April 12th 2006
Issue 166: April 5th 2006
Issue 165: March 29th 2006
Issue 164: March 15th 2006
Issue 163: March 9th 2006
Issue 162: March 3rd 2006
Issue 161: February 22nd 2006
Issue 160: February 15th 2006
Issue 159: February 8th 2006
Issue 158: February 3rd 2006
Issue 157: January 27th 2006
Issue 156: January 18th 2006
2005 Retrospective: Part One
2005 Retrospective: Part Two
Issue 155: November 24th 2005
Issue 154: November 18th 2005
Issue 153: November 11th 2005
Issue 152: November 4th 2005
Issue 151: October 21st 2005
Issue 150: October 12th 2005
Issue 149: October 7th 2005
Issue 148: September 29th 2005
Issue 147: September 21st 2005
Issue 146: August 19th 2005
Issue 145: August 10th 2005
Issue 144: August 4th 2005
Issue 143: July 29th 2005
Issue 142: July 22nd 2005
Issue 141: July 13th 2005
Issue 140: July 8th 2005
Issue 139: June 30th 2005
Issue 138: June 24th 2005
Issue 137: June 17th 2005
Issue 136: June 9th 2005
Issue 135: June 2nd 2005
Issue 134: May 25th 2005
Issue 133: May 20th 2005
Issue 132: May 11th 2005
Issue 131: April 20th 2005
Issue 130: April 13th 2005
Issue 129: April 6th 2005
Issue 128: March 23rd 2005
Issue 127: March 16th 2005
Issue 126: March 2nd 2005
Issue 125: February 23rd 2005
Issue 124: February 17th 2005
Issue 123: February 11th 2005
Issue 122: February 2nd 2005
Issue 121: January 26th 2005
Issue 120: January 21st 2005
Issue 119: January 12th 2005
2004 Retrospective: Part One
2004 Retrospective: Part Two
2004 Retrospective: Part Three
2004 Retrospective: Part Four
Issue 118: December 22nd 2004
Issue 117: December 15th 2004
Issue 116: December 8th 2004
Issue 115: December 1st 2004
Issue 114: November 24th 2004
Issue 113: November 18th 2004
Issue 112: November 11th 2004
Issue 111: November 3rd 2004
Issue 110: October 28th 2004
Issue 109: October 13th 2004
Issue 108: October 6th 2004
Issue 107: September 29th 2004
Issue 106: September 22nd 2004
Issue 105: September 15th 2004
Issue 104: September 8th 2004
Issue 103: September 1st 2004
Issue 102: August 11th 2004
Issue 101: August 7th 2004
Issue 100: Greatest Underdog Movies Part 4
Issue 100: Greatest Underdog Movies Part 3
Issue 100: Greatest Underdog Movies Part 2
Issue 100: Greatest Underdog Movies Part 1
Issue 99: July 28th 2004
Issue 98: July 21st 2004
Issue 97: July 9th 2004
Issue 96: July 7th 2004
Issue 95: June 30th 2004
Issue 94: June 22nd 2004
Issue 93: June 6th 2004
Issue 92: May 28th 2004
Issue 91: May 23rd 2004
Issue 90: May 14th 2004
Issue 89: May 9th 2004
Issue 88: April 30th 2004
Issue 87: April 24th 2004
Issue 86: April 17th 2004
Issue 85: April 9th 2004
Issue 84: March 27th 2004
Issue 83: March 19th 2004
Issue 82: March 12th 2004
Issue 81: March 5th 2004
Issue 80: February 27th 2004
Issue 79: February 20th 2004
Issue 78: February 13th 2004
Issue 77: February 6th 2004
Issue 76: January 30th 2004
Issue 75: January 23rd 2004
Issue 74: January 16th 2004
Issue 73: January 9th 2004
2003 Retrospective: Part One
2003 Retrospective: Part Two
2003 Retrospective: Part Three
2003 Retrospective: Part Four
Issue 72: December 12th 2003
Issue 71: December 4th 2003
Issue 70: November 28th 2003
Issue 69: November 21st 2003
Issue 68: November 14th 2003
Issue 67: November 7th 2003
Issue 66: October 31st 2003
Issue 65: October 24th 2003
Issue 64: October 17th 2003
Issue 63: October 10th 2003
Issue 62: October 3rd 2003
Issue 61: September 26th 2003
Issue 60: September 19th 2003
Issue 59: September 12th 2003
Issue 58: August 29th 2003
Issue 57: August 22nd 2003
Issue 56: August 15th 2003
Issue 55: August 8th 2003
Issue 54: August 1st 2003
Issue 53: July 25th 2003
Issue 52: July 18th 2003
Issue 51: July 11th 2003
Issue 50: July 4th 2003
Issue 49: June 27th 2003
Issue 48: June 20th 2003
Issue 47: June 13th 2003
Issue 46: June 6th 2003
Issue 45: May 30th 2003
Issue 44: May 23rd 2003
Issue 43: May 16th 2003
Issue 42: May 9th 2003
Issue 41: May 2nd 2003
Issue 40: April 25th 2003
Issue 39: April 18th 2003
Issue 38: April 11th 2003
Issue 37: April 4th 2003
Issue 36: March 28th 2003
Issue 35: March 21st 2003
Issue 34: March 14th 2003
Issue 33: March 7th 2003
Issue 32: February 28th 2003
Issue 31: February 21st 2003
Issue 30: February 14th 2003
Issue 29: February 7th 2003
Issue 28: January 31st 2003
Issue 27: January 24th 2003
Issue 26: January 17th 2003
Issue 25: January 10th 2003
Issue 24: January 3rd 2003
2002 Retrospective: Part One
2002 Retrospective: Part Two
2002 Retrospective: Part Three
2002 Retrospective: Part Four
Issue 23: December 20th 2002
Issue 22: December 13th 2002
Issue 21: December 6th 2002
Issue 20: November 29th 2002
Issue 19: November 22nd 2002
Issue 18: November 15th 2002
Issue 17: November 8th 2002
Issue 16: November 1st 2002
Issue 15: October 25th 2002
Issue 14: October 18th 2002
Issue 13: October 11th 2002
Issue 12: October 4th 2002
Issue 11: September 27th 2002
Issue 10: September 20th 2002
Issue 9: September 13th 2002
Issue 8: September 6th 2002
Issue 7: August 30th 2002
Issue 6: August 23rd 2002
Issue 5: August 16th 2002
Issue 4: August 9th 2002
Issue 3: August 2nd 2002
Issue 2: July 26th 2002
Issue 1: July 19th 2002
DVDs reviewed by the editor are watched on a Panasonic TXW32R4 32" widescreen TV
connected to either a Creative Dxr2 DVD-ROM player or Microsoft Xbox and
played through a Sony STR-DB930 amplifier.
PC games reviewed by the editor are on:
** IN THE PIPELINE **
Page Content copyright © Dan Owen, 2006.
Visit
Dan Owen.blogspot.com
