The Soloist

I just think this looks fantastic. I mean even the mention of the words Robert Downey Jr gets me instantly interested and the addition of Jamie Foxx to the mix doesn’t exactly hurt (he’s one of the few rappers-turned-actors who actually has acting skills). This is directed by Joe Wright, the guy who directed Pride & Prejudice and last year’s Atonement. It’s a weird film for him to have taken on but his track record shows he knows what he’s doing so I have every faith in him. Again this looks fantastic.

Changeling

Wow, Angeline Jolie sure does look different to her usual self in her period garb. But that aside this is shaping up to be very good indeed. Not only do we have Jolie’s talent (she can actually act when she is given the right roles) but also John Malkovich supporting her and Mr Clint Eastwood behind the camera. I can’t see how this won’t be good.

The International

I have every faith in director Tom Tykwer, especially when it comes to a thriller like this. He did the fast-paced joy-to-watch that was Run Lola Run (if any of you haven’t seen that already I urge you to do so asap) so I’m sure he’ll bring his skill at creating excitement to the table here. I love both Clive Owen and Naomi Watts  so like The Soloist and Changeling I am very much looking forward to this.

Out of the three I am most looking forward to The Soloist, simply because RDJ but that’s taking nothing away from the other two. All three look fantastic, which one do you like the look of most?

“No one has talked to me about it ever — never,” replied Hoffman. “It happened, like, five years ago, too. It was a rumor back then and it’s still a rumor. [laughs] It’s just in the press. It’s funny.”

To further cement this issue, Hoffman added that he’d never met Nolan (”Maybe I did or met him in passing?”), and that his interest in comic book movies is purely on a fan level, and he intended to keep it that way.

“I’m such a fan of those movies,” related Hoffman. “Comic book movies in general I look forward to — I am a real cheerleader for them. I want them to do well because those are terrific stories. As a kid I was a big comic book collector. What [Nolan]’s doing is taking it in a whole other exciting great place. I’m more a fan, so the interest of being in it isn’t that great. It’s more the interest in wanting to see the next one. It’s probably better that way.”

When further pressed for his level of interest if Warner Bros. approached him about the role, Hoffman said, “I don’t know. I think I’m more interested in seeing someone else do it. I don’t know if I’d be a good Penguin to be quite honest. [laughs]“

Although I wanted the rumours to be true, particularly Hoffman playing the respective part, I never really believed them. It’s far too soon for there to be casting, especially of roles as big as these. Christopher Nolan isn’t even signed on to direct another one so do you really think Warner Bros. are going to go behind the creative force and say, “These characters are going to be in it, and these are the guys who are playing them.”? I don’t think so. Consider the rumour that Hoffman is playing The Penguin absolutely false (at least for now, no one knows what may happen in the future) and I’m sure the Johnny Depp as The Riddler one will soon follow.

“Universal Pictures is in negotiations to have Terry George write the screenplay and Spike Lee to direct the sequel, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Russel Gewirtz wrote the original. Inside Man 2 is the working title.

Inside Man was Lee’s biggest box office weekend opener, focusing on the relationship that emerges at a New York bank between a bank robber (Clive Owen) and a hostage negotiator (Denzel Washington). Lee says he imagines a continued relationship between the two main characters, only in a new high-tension situation. Both Washington and Owen have expressed interest in appearing in the sequel.

“I want the script to be even better than Russell’s, and Russell wrote a really good script,” Lee said. While this may seem like a large task, George has some notches on his belt as writer/director of Hotel Rwanda and writer of In the Name of the Father.”

I absolutely loved Inside Man. I thought it was one of the smartest, most entertaining and most on-the-ball films of it’s type in years. A lot of people were let down by the ending because it wasn’t a big hoorah of one but personally I thought it was in tune with the feel of the rest of the movie – remember things don’t always go as you’d expect, sometimes it’s not always as exciting as most movies tell you.

But to me I can’t really see the point in doing a sequel to it other than to explore the characters a bit more. To me it’s great as it’s own film and I don’t feel the need to extend the story any; it’s fine the way it is.

What are your thoughts on the idea of an Inside Man 2?

“And now, not surprisingly, Dreamworks, its parent company Viacom and Universal Pictures, is being sued for creating an unauthorized remake.

The defendant in the case is not exactly related to Hitchcock’s film, though; the lawsuit was filed by Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust, which owns the rights to Cornell Woolrich’s original short story “It Had to Be Murder” (called “Murder from a Fixed Viewpoint” in the article), upon which Rear Window is based.

“What the defendants have been unwilling to do openly, legitimately and legally, (they) have done surreptitiously, by their back-door use of the ‘Rear Window’ story without paying compensation… In the Disturbia film the defendants purposefully employed immaterial variations or transparent rephrasing to produce essentially the same story as the Rear Window story.”

Rear Window is in my top 10 films of all time and my disgust when I saw Disturbia in the cinema was very high indeed. Basically it was just Rear Window for dummies, a modernization of a story that didn’t need to be so. If you wanna’ experience this story then go and bloody watch the original Rear Window (or in the studios case just re-release it in cinemas) instead of hashing out a modernized, gadget-filled piece of crap that’s only real merit was David Morse as the villain (which was down to him as an actor being awesome and not necessarily the film).

If this company had the rights to this story and Dreamworks did this story without acquiring what should be known as “rights to a remake” then they have every right to sue the hell out of them. I urge anyone who hasn’t had the pleasure of seeing Rear Window to go and watch that and do not watch it’s modern-day, infinitely inferior remake that is Disturbia.

This flick is looking better and better by the minute. The first kind of teaser-ish trailer they released was awesome in it’s own right but this official one just kicks it up more than a few notches. Casino Royale kicked all sorts of ass but if there is such a possibility this next instalment in the long-running franchise looks like it will be even better. Everything about this movie has me really excited to see it (well except for the name, anyway). Quantum of Solace is released on 31st of October in the UK and 14th of November in the US.

Passengers

Knowing

Seems like they both centre around some sort of plane crash, with Passengers it seems obvious why but with Knowing it’s not so easy to know (get it?). Personally I prefer the look of Knowing, as Passengers looks the more run-of-the-mill of the two and apart from the inclusion of Patrick Wilson and Anna Hathaway I can’t say I have a strong interest in it. Knowing has a bigger potential to be total crap, but I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt because of it’s intriguing storyline. To help you make up your mind the trailers for both films are provided below.

Passengers

Knowing

Stanley Kubrick’s intimate World War I film ranks amongst the best war films of all time. Dissimilar to most in the genre, this is less worried about epic battle scenes (although there is one continuous shot of soldiers advancing into battle which is mesmerizing) and more about personal relations of people and consequences of certain of their actions, even if the result of those actions is not necessarily their fault or intention.

Kirk Douglas, working with Kubrick three years prior to their legendary collaboration with Spartacus, is astonishing as a man who does everything he can to stop the execution of three soldiers who are unfairly prosecuted for retreating from battle. There is a clear sense that Kubrick and Douglas were on the same level when making this film, the camera, guided by Kubrick, just seems to work completely in tandem with Douglas. As much of a master that Kubrick was this is as much Douglas’ film as it is his, with the performance of him taking the centre stage just as much as Kubrick’s directing expertise does.

A group of people singing together is usually and supposed to be a happy thing. But the song at the conclusion of Paths of Glory just makes us feel all the more saddened by what has happened throughout the coarse of the film. Kubrick was indeed a master and Paths of Glory ranks amongst his best. – ROSS

Match Point – 2/5

Match Point is the first film in a long while which I just didn’t get. Through a combination of an aim on writer/director Woody Allen’s part to be something unique and a strong sense of confusion (particularly because of a twist in the plot), I just didn’t get what this was supposed to be. There’s a certain feeling of pretentiousness here, as if Allen thinks that he’s above everyone else and he is looking down on you if and when anyone watching, such as myself, can’t or won’t go along with what he’s trying to do.

There are some fantastic performances on display here,  particularly from Jonathan Rhys Myers and Scarlett Johannson (who proves once again that she’s not just a pretty face), and the script (or more specifically the dialogue) is extremely well written but that doesn’t make up for the film as a whole.

These are not people I can identify with in any way, they aren’t even people I can even begin to like let alone really care all that much what becomes of them by film’s end. It’s a very muddled film, it doesn’t quite know what type of film it wants to be; it veers from drama to comedy, then erotic drama then back to straight drama and then bewilderingly to thriller. To me it felt all over the place and thus I felt irritated when watching it.

I don’t doubt that Allen is a talented filmmaker, as like I said the dialogue is very skilfully written here. And that coupled with the fantastic performances from pretty much everyone there is things that hold it back from being outright bad. But from a personal point of view I just didn’t grasp what Match Point was supposed to be, and for that reason it gets a thumbs down I’m sad to say. – ROSS

Funny Games (1997) – 5/5

Two psychotic young men take a mother, father, and son hostage in their vacation cabin and force them to play sadistic “games” with one another for their own amusement.

Funny Games is another one of those films everybody bare me has seen. Finally I found it in my supermarket this afternoon and just finished watching it. I have to admit that it totally blew me away. Funny Games is far more than a Horror, it’s also a depiction of just how often Media violence is in our society and how much we take it for granted and almost let ourselves be entertained by this. Pure genuis!

The film opens up with a helicopter shot of the family arriving at their holiday home on the motorway. While watching this we are shown just how close the family, setting us up for one hell of a ride. This voyeuristic technique makes us wonder why we are sitting here watching this and almost feel slightly intrusive on the family. That’s the genius of Haneke. I must admit that I didn’t go too much on Hidden but this is absolutely amazing. I can see some similarities in the two films there.

I know a lot of people will either love or hate this film I can see why but there are many different meanings to this film. For instance as I said before why, as a viewer you are sitting down to watch this and also questioning the viewing public as a whole. It also shows us parts which you might not fully be shown in an American film and almost plays upon that. Haneke uses emotions of the family almost as bait. The two men constantly play upon why the couple are crying and feeling this way and twisting it for their own amusement. There’s no manipulation here as you might often find in a US film, you are given the opportunity to switch off, as one character says and question just how much violence you can take. Which I think is why this film is NOT pointless as some people have written here.

The characterisation in Funny Games is brilliant and key to the viewers understanding of the film. Both of the two main leads; Anna and Georg Sr are a middle class couple and very likeable indeed. As a viewer you can instantly relate to them and their son Georg. The film’s path is not what you would expect as you really do warm to the characters. Oddly the representation of the two men: Paul and Peter are ones of such charm and sophistication that you don’t feel that they’re the villain on some stages. I’m going to admit that I did find the character of Paul very attractive indeed and didn’t for a second think anything less-but that’s another story entirely! Incidentally Peter is also a man full of charm but is presented as less intelligent and an odd character.-we see this when Peter continuously calls him “fatty” which he hates.

Funny Games is also intelligently written and well paced. 1 hr and 40 minutes flew by and left me utterly speechless afterwards, which of course is genius on Haneke’s part. Funny Games cleverly plays with the conventions of filmmaking and asks the audience:

“We’re not up to feature film length yet. You want a real ending with plausible plot development”.

Also has Paul looking at the camera and talking to the audience, which also gives the character as sense of arrogance to him and almost tells the audience that he’s in charge. What was the most clever thing about this film was the re-wind scene which did leave me slightly disturbed at what I had just watched.

Funny Games is one of the most disturbing films that I have seen and so cleverly written and filmed it’s unbelievable. It’ll leave you feeling horrified at what you’ve just watched and leave you wondering the why you watch violence in the media. Funny Games is a clever film and one which I highly recommend. – SARAH

Before Sunrise – 4.5/5

A young man and woman meet on a train in Europe, and wind up spending one romantic evening together in Vienna. Unfortunately, both know that this will probably be their only night together.

Every once in a while I come across a film that everyone else has seen except for me and Before Sunrise and Sunset are films which I haven’t got around to seeing. Luckily today I sat and watched this wonderful poignant film and I have to admit that it totally blew me away. I remember my film studies lecturer raving about how great this film is. At the time I couldn’t see it but after watching it I can see why.

Before Sunrise is a film miles away from your conventional american romance where you most likely end up feeling grossed out or annoyed that your watching the most irritating actor or actress in Hollywood. Before Sunrise does not do that. You feel like your witnessing a relationship between two strangers which could happen anywhere, at any time. Almost makes you feel happier about life in that sense. I know, from reading reviews about this film, that it changed a lot of people’s life, when it came out in 1995 and I can see why. Before Sunrise makes you feel confident about life and sets you out on a journey which you probably didn’t realise you were on.

The characters are developed wonderfully. Ethan Hawke, plays a typical American, who does not speak any other language other than English-which is often touched upon in the film. You can relate to him well. Julie DelPy, who I haven’t seen much of, brilliantly depicts her character well and again, like Jesse (Hawke) you can relate to her very well. Both leads have excellent chemistry on screen and this is filmed well. The key to this though is the brilliant screenplay, which beautifully uses each line well to show the ever-changing relationship between the two strangers. Each conversation they have so brilliantly written and evident in life, which add to the realism of the film. I would quote something from the film but there are way too many quotes from this film, I wouldn’t be doing it justice. All I can say is that when you sit and watch this this relationship you are watching is real, which is down to the realistic dialogue written.

The direction is simply brilliant. From the shots on the train to the scenery around Vienna, we get a sense of the one night that these two characters are on and the world in which they find themselves in. Key to this is the fact the camera – 95% of the time remains on them. Every bit of Scenery around Vienna for example, is depicted as part of their world-that being just the two of them. From long shots of the lush river through Vienna to the sunset in the morning, as a viewer you feel transported to this world and in some ways, feel like them, that you don’t want this night to end either.

Before Sunrise is probably one of the most romantic, realistic films that I’ve seen and one of the best films of the 1990′s. With the clever observations on life and the depiction of a one night relationship, it’s the sort of film that remind you why you like films. The only thing released recently that could resemble this is Lost in Translation, other than that there hasn’t been a film like this for a long time and it’s a crying shame.

Before Sunrise is a masterpiece and one Romantic film that you’ll never forget. One of the best romantic films I’ve seen in a long while. – SARAH

Host: So thumbs up on The Watchmen, what else you got?

Smith: I saw a movie last night that I cannot talk about.

Host: Was it good?

Smith: It was phenomenal.

Host: Any stars, any break out stars, and do they trek?

Smith: The stars absolutely trek in this film. It is fantastic. Anybody who was worried doesn’t need to be worried–about this film I cannot talk about…It was in very capable hands. The director did a phenomenal job–the director and his crew. Top notch cast and the guy that plays the lead is an instant star. That dude is going to be so famous. He is so wonderful. He picked up a role that I would say is pretty challenging for someone to step into the shoes of, because it is a role that has been played before many times by the same guy.

Host: How do you out Shatner, Shatner?

Smith: I don’t know what you are talking about.

Host: I was just saying that as an expression.

Smith: Yes, absolutely, in a world of expressions, I would agree with that…I am so not good with this game, you are going to bury me man.

Host: We had you on before The Dark Knight and I remember asking you if you could direct a movie like Dark Knight and you said ‘hell no’ it was so far out of your sphere…but I bring that up to preface this. Let’s say a franchise like Star Trek, not that you have seen the movie or we are talking about the movie, but we are talking about it for example. That is something that is so dangerous to attempt. Is that the kind of project you would like to do? Would you like to be the guy who gets to do a movie like that?

Smith: I would not like to be the guy. In the case of something like Star Trek, it would take a really insanely talented filmmaker–storyteller. Like in the case of Star Trek, JJ Abrams. So leave it to the people who are best equipped for it. I am just the guy who should be watching those movies.

This is very good news indeed. As someone who is not at all a fan of Star Trek (I’ve never seen any of the movies and can only vaguely recall the TV series) I am strangely very much looking forward to J. J. Abrams’ takes on it. Since he was one of the people who originally brought us my favourite TV show of all time, Lost, and he was the man behind the insanely fun and original monster movie Cloverfield, I subsequently have every confidence in the man that he is going to give us something special with this.

In my following of the man, Smith has always been someone who’s early opinion of a film has been very trustworthy. I suppose since so many people love his films, filmmakers seem to want to want to show him their movies before pretty much anyone else. They also know that the general movie going audience, those who will end up seeing the movies, see Smith as a movie god and know that people will listen to his opinion. I am certainly one of those people.

What do you make of the trailer and there being a fourth film in the franchise in general?

Now as a loyal fan of both director Takashi Miike and Quentin Tarantino, obviously to see them two work together in any way, shape or form makes me extremely happy. But I will admit Tarantino looks out of place here, I think he hasn’t got it through his head yet that he isn’t an actor…he’s a writer/director, and a damn good one at that. With the exception of his adequate performance in From Dusk Till Dawn (which he wrote the screenplay for, so it was hardly a stretch to pull off his own character) he has proven himself to not have any acting skills. Having said that having heard details about Sukiyaki Western Django, perhaps this odd casting choice suits the loppy feel of the film.

The clip has me even more excited to see this thing, as out of place as Tarantino looks, that 38 seconds looks badass I must say. What do you make of it?