Movies

Interview with Oliver Stone and Darren Aronofsky: Its interesting to note the dynamic between the older veteran filmmaker and the fresh-faced, spunky young director. I’ve never been much of a fan of Stone (especially his newer works), but its clear that Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) looks up to him. I didn’t get the feeling that Stone had actually seen any of Aronofsky’s films, which I thought was kinda funny (though its probably not true). I saw Requiem for a Dream the other night; its probably the best flick of last year. I’m now looking into therapy though. Very brutal movie. Stylistically brilliant, Aronofsky pulls just about every punch in the cinematic book, and it works.

I’m looking forward to his upcoming projects too. Originally, he was going to work on a WWII haunted submarine movie called Proteus that was going to revolutionize the horror genre (he said this film would be the scariest film you’ve seen in the last ten years), but he chose to do Requiem instead and handed the script over to David Twohy (director of Pitch Black and The Arrival). Twohy renamed the movie Below and is reportedly retooling the script, which (for me) is bad news. I really would have liked seeing what Aronofsky would have done with it. Next up is Batman: Year One. Aronofsky is working with Frank Miller on a script, and if Warner Brothers likes it, he might also be directing. Don’t hold your breath though. Then there is this Untitled Aronofsky science fiction project that he keeps mentioning in interviews and talks, but refuses to give any details about… this is apparently the next thing we’ll see from him. He said the movie, which he co-wrote with his old roommate, would be huge in scope, and “freaky.” I can’t wait.

It seems the marketing guys at Dreamworks/WarnerBros have been hard at work setting up an intricate web of sites that pertain to the world of the upcoming film A.I. in the mid-22nd century. Apparently this has “set off an entire underground of researchers who are uncovering more and more of this web of mystery. There are entire layers of plot centering around the murder of one Evan Chan involving affiars and various humans and A.I.s. There are real phone numbers to call, emails which send back clues, places people have left there phone number and may be called back, and passwords and access codes etc to uncover new pages in the mystery.” Wow, while those marketing fellows are most likely evil, I have to admit, they are running quite an interesting show over there. There are even rumors that this internet mystery is not limited to a static, linear flow; that the marketing fellows are actually altering the websites as needed based on progress made. Theres a bunch of interesting discussion dedicated to the A.I. game, including a yahoo group, CA’s thread and AICN’s. Much of this is most likely the work of a bunch of evil ad agency trolls who are pushing and manipulating the discussion (“these guys made that kick-ass game called Majestik”), but its interesting nonetheless.

The Mandarin term wu xia pian originally referred to the genre of martial arts films. “Wu xia” means chivalrous combat, and “pian” means film. It�s China’s version of the Western, but instead of six-shooters and saloons, its swords and kung-fu. It’s arguably the first form of martial arts film, with its origins dating back hundreds of years (in the form of literature and theater).

Which is probably why the film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon flopped in its homeland. To us Westerners, CTHD embodied a different culture with a familiar edge and it was a refreshing change from the typical Hollywood action flick. Critics and audiences alike hailed it as an original blurring between eastern and western cinema, but these types of films have been around for decades back in China.

That being said, CTHD is a particularly good example of the Eastern and Western combination that will hopefully improve both sides of the equation. I, for one, will certainly investigate the genre further, as doubtless others will, but CTHD is definitely going to be the standard by which the others will be judged.

Wrong! You are a filmmaker. So am I. And it only took 10 minutes to learn everything I needed to know. Thank you, Robert Rodriguez. Once you’re ready to make your movie, you might want to take this Filmmaker’s Exam.

It seems that the latest premise 20th Century Fox is considering for X-Men 2 concerns the Legacy Virus, a man-made disease that is only infectious to mutants, eventually resulting in their deaths. I’m assuming this was a story arc that originally appeared in the comics, as Michael Chabon’s proposal (see below) also used the Legacy virus as a major story element. It is only a treatment and could very well be passed over in favor of something else. Of all the rumored story lines, I think the most interesting is the Wolverine Solo pic which focuses on the Logan character and a search for his identity (fitting in perfectly with the ending of the first film). There are several advantages for Fox:

1. Not having to reassemble the massive cast dealing with schedules, negotiations, etc would free up time and allow the shoot to begin sooner.
2. Wolverine’s massive popularity among fans would ensure a good box office and omitting the other 5 or 6 X-Men would streamline the story and keep the budget down.
3. When execs see the possibility of expanding the franchise while keeping the budget and cast concerns to a minimum, they try and do so.

Not to mention how much Hugh Jackman kicks ass as Wolverine. Whether or not that would make a good movie, I don’t know. I would be really worried about their explainations for Wolverine’s past, so maybe we’d be better off with another ensemble film.

The X-Men and I: Michael Chabon’s thoughts and proposal for the X-Men movie. It never saw the light of day, but its interesting to note that Chabon’s 4 elements that are essential to the X-Men are present in the version of X-Men that did make it to the screen. Chabon’s actual proposal is a good read, but I don’t know if it would have been any better than the filmed version. Chabon wrote last year’s Wonder Boys, a movie friends have been hounding me to see; I shall have to do that.

Special thanks to Metascene (Meatscene?), which has been updated more times in the past few weeks than it has this year. Good work Fred!

The Oscars happened last night. Ho hum. Gladiator won best picture. Ho hum, big suprise. Rather than ramble on about how Gladiator was good, but not best picture good, I’ll speak about Steven Soderberg’s win for best director, which, I felt was well deserved. Now, I’m going to admit, I haven’t seen most of the movies nominated this year, but I did see Traffic and I felt that it was superbly directed. I was extremely impressed. I feel for Ang Lee, however, since he was probably also deserving of the award. From what I’ve heard about Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky (director of Pi) was also deserving, and he wasn’t even nominated (thats what you get for making a brilliant but relentlessly brutal film).

Since I probably won’t get around to doing a year 2000 movie roundup until August (like I did last year), I’m going to link to Widgett’s, which is entertaining and honest and a good read. He makes the point that the year 2000 wasn’t as bad as everyone made it out to be, and overall, I think he might be correct. But 2000 had 2 things going against it: a slow start (first impressions count) and even with the strong ending, the year still wasn’t nearly as strong as 1999…

Today is National Pi Day and also the birthday of one Albert Einstein. I plan to celebrate by popping in Pi, one of my favourite movies of recent years. A kinetic, grainy, paranoid masterpiece, Pi strikes a certain cord with me and for some reason, appeals to my personal philosophy (3.14 stars; sorry, couldn’t help myself). 8:54, Press Return {insert cool Clint Mansell Music here}.

A homemade MST3K episode (complete with familiar silhouettes) lambasting Dungeons and Dragons among other role playing games. Don’t let it pass, its a riot (even if you don’t like D&D)! I miss MST3K a lot. Its just so much fun seeing them tear a bad movie apart. I’ve got a couple of episodes on tape (including the infamous Manos:The Hands of Fate) and, of course, the Movie, but there are over 200 episodes out there. I think I might even be tempted to watch TV if someone started airing them again…[via boing boing]

In some completely unrelated news, I’m beginning to worry about the mutant fungus from space (well, ok, maybe its not completely unrelated). Biologists are worried about virulent new strains of fungus which the russian space station Mir will bring back to Earth.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist.

John Shirley, known to me through his script adaptaion of The Crow (a comic book by James O’Barr), argues the finer points of the film Fight Club with underground film maker Ethan Wilson. The article contains Shirley’s original comments, Wilson’s response, and Shirley’s response to Wilson. A quote:

“It�s fucking with you right from the start�it�s daring you to notice it�s a movie all along. It doesn�t care; it wants you to question the media continuum; question your cultural assumptions.”

Personally, I agree more with Shirley, not just because pointing out the “rage” is a significant contribution in itself, but because the lack of a constructive alternative makes its own statement. Does it even lack a constructive alternative? In losing everything, didn’t Ed Norton’s character gain something? All this discussion proves is that Fight Club is most certainly an artistically and philosophically significant film. Why else would it elicit such an (emotional) response? Ahh, the joys of a film that doesn’t spell everything out…