ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

The Killer Elite
Opens: 2011
Cast: Jason Statham, Clive Owen, Yvonne Strahovski, Dominic Purcell, Robert De Niro
Director: Gary McKendry

Summary: The story concerns a series of assassinations of members of the British Special Air Service (SAS) by a hit squad called "The Clinic". In response, a group of vigilante special forces members nicknamed 'The Feather Men' take on the hit men in order to protect members of their regiment.

Analysis: Not a remake of, or to be confused with the 1975 Sam Peckinpah film of the same name, this is actually an adaptation of the 1991 novel "The Feather Men" by adventurer and former SAS soldier Sir Ranulph Fiennes. At the time of publication, the book was mired in controversy over Fiennes' claims it was based on factual events and was essentially an 'authorised' history of this group of vigilantes who saved him from being the fifth man slain by the hired guns of a vengeful sheikh seeking retribution.

For nearly two decades, Fiennes was always vague on the story's veracity - the official report states that the four soldiers who served with Fiennes in Oman had died in accidents or of natural causes while the Ministry of Defence has always claimed the events described in the book "simply never took place". When work on this film adaptation got underway a few months ago, the daughter of one of the four soldiers confronted Fiennes who finally admitted to her that the book is fiction (her father actually died during an SAS endurance exercise in Wales in 1979).

While all that controversy was happening in the UK, on the other side of the globe this $66 million film adaptation was midway through filming in Melbourne, Australia which oddly enough was used to stand in for 1970's Paris. Producer Christopher Mapp says that Melbourne and its surrounding areas will play the Middle East and the UK as well, but some actual location shooting in those real-life locations will be done to be blended together and complete the illusion.

Robert De Niro flew in for ten days to play a small role as an assassin, the sole American amidst a cast that consists of three Brits - Clive Owen, Jason Statham and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje ("Lost") - and a bunch of Australians including Dominic Purcell ("Prison Break"), Yvonne Strahovski ("Chuck"), Ben Mendelsohn ("Animal Kingdom"), Grant Bowler ("True Blood"), Michael Dorman ("Daybreakers") and Firass Dirani ("Underbelly: The Golden Mile"). The project also marks the feature debut of Irish commercial director Gary McKendry, whose short film "Everything in This Country Must" scored an Oscar nomination in 2005. Could have a lot of potential.

Imaš bogami da čitaš i da za pojas zadeneš...

ali bukvalno! Pa ovdje ima 300 strana...

Milica me podsjetila na čuvenu mudru žabu

Polako. Jedan pa drugi. Mada, MONTE je veće ludilo.

Let 3 - Omađijaj me (original HD spot)

5 Jadranski Kosor... jeee. Pesma iz predstave... kontekst me zaobilazi ŠIROKO. Mada ima baš ok delova... 

Hej, ovi nastavnici su odlični, baš sam uživao.

Mislim da je priča s Matijom možda nepotrebna, naravno ja nisam dramaturg...


I djeca bi mogla imati nešto izgrađenije likove, ništa posebno, ali kad već sjede na času mogu da čitaju Grand magazin, na informatici gledaju Karleušu na youtubu, eventualno igraju Counter Strike. Naglasak bar po meni bi mogao biti na nekoj ''normalnosti'', koliko je sve to za njih svakodnevno.

i tome slično, da sad ne spojlujem...

Da, to će biti u scenariju kad se bude znalo kad se snima, da nam detalji ne zastare.

Što se Matije tiče, mislim da on suštinski ne motiviše radnju ali svakako služi kao dobar povod da se klinci ispolje...

da, ali u svjetlu zabrane da djeca sjede u krilu Deda Mraza taj povod ne mora biti toliko radikalan, djeca su zaštićena kao polarni medvjedi, štaviše, za mene bi bilo efektivnije da ćale policajac bukvalno učini ono što je prijetio da će učiniti. Kraj filma može biti isti. Zamisli da on stvarno rida zbog jedne dlake? Da ne pretjerujem, može da rida i zbog masnice.

Totalno glup primjer Elephanta, onoj djeci ne treba takav vid motivacije. Naravno, that's only me.

Jel stvarno postoji mogućnost da se ovo snimi?

I da, od detalja zavisi na šta ovaj film može da ispadne, u vezi djece i slika prije svega.

I imam još jednu stvar, možda bi Đ i M mogli biti prisniji, kasniji razvoj događaja u vezi Đ bio bi efektniji.

A i M-arija đovani Karan bi dobila ulogu koju zaslužuje

Bila je ranija verzija u kojoj M ima mnogo drastičniju sudbinu. Strada prilikom izlaska iz škole, prvo rade hormoni a posle cigla. Međutim, to je bilo baš exploitation.

Što se mogućnosti snimanja tiče, scenario je nailazio na entuzijazam ali nikada dovoljan da se neko posveti guranju. Ovih dana imam nagoveštaje da se to možda menja. Videćemo.

Amfilohije se povodom eksploatiranja Marije Karan oglasio sljedećim riječima: Ko sruši Karanovu srušio ga Bog, i njega i njegovo potomstvo, i Časni Krst mu sudio!

I imaće posla sa mnom.


E, ovo Iskušavanje zombija je ludilo!


EDIT: završih, haha general je odličan dodatak, Kim has taught you well!

To sam pisao pre nego što sam čitao Kima. Zato sam se kasnije bez problema nadovezao na njegovu misao.

Ovo pretpostavljam nema nikakvu šansu da se ekranizuje? Nema praznog hoda, totalno kompaktan scenario, otplakao sam ono ''oli da ti ga izdrkam?''

Mislim da su ti šanse za ekranizaciju poprilično jasne. Ali, ove godine ćemo izaći sa tim na konkurs iz čiste obesti." Da šokiramo buržuje", kako kaže junakinja MONTEVIDEA...

Mislim, skript nailazi na pozitivan odjek. Čak smo imali neke iluzije u početku, ali plašim se da će to biti jedan od od "neumirenih projekata".

Jedina šansa da se snimi jeste da nađemo nekog lika, reditelja ili producenta iz regiona koji ima veliku moć a štuje žanr kao formu za plasiranje politićkog sadržaja. Toga u Srbiji nema, Dragojevića to ne zanima više. Ali, po regionu možda ima neko ko bi želeo da snima o crnogorskom mentalitetu, u formi zombi filma. Imao sam par nekih indicija te vrste. Videćemo.

Dva bećara...

Najveći problem je što je Danilo Lazović pod zemljom, a on i Petar Božović su savršeni za te uloge. Mima bi mogao da glumi Mojasa

Mima JESTE Mojaš.

Posle dramatičnih najava i strepnje, pogledao sam F Johannesa Robertsa, i ispostavilo se da nije reč o filmu vrednom naročite pažnje.

Nažalost, Roberts osim toga što je u određenom smislu napravio omaž Carpenteru i to pre svega na nivou samog dizajna "ubica bez lica" nego na bilo kom drugom suštinskom nivou, nije ponudio ništa drugo.

F je film koji se pravi da ima socijalnu dimenziju, da likovi imaju nekakvu psihološku dimenziju, ali ne samo da su oni sasvim konvencionalno postavljeni kao topovsko meso za slashere, nego ostaju negde na pola puta jer na kraju ne funkcionišu ni kao jedno ni kao drugo. Iako je sasvim sigurno, F više slasher nego socijalna drama sa elementima horora, to je jasno, Roberts kao da prikriva nesumnjivo eksploatacijsku dimenziju svog rada, iz razloga koji su mi nejasni pošto je ona očigledna.

Nemam problem sa time što su ubistva mahom data u offu, neka ih tamo, ali postavlja se pitanje šta je u ovom filmu u prvom planu?

Reklo bi se da je Roberts na kraju uspeo da se preračuna i da zapravo F spada u retke filmove koji se oslanjaju na više motiva i žanrova a na kraju ostaju bez ičega, bez jasne teme, jasne ideje šta pretenduju da pokažu publici.

Film opsade sa nejasnom geografijom nema mnogo šanse za uspeh i ono što je finalni kardinalni nedostatak jeste što sama škola kao ambijent, kao zgrada, kao lik za sebe, ne samo da nije uspela da zaigra, nego ne uspeva da ubedi ni da je reč o školi, više liči na nekakvu bolnicu.

U svakom sučaju, F nije film vredan ozbiljnijeg razmatranja. Osim za fanove Roxanne McKee.

* 1/2 / * * * *

ma razbucali su Roksanu tako da im je i to minus

Još je kod Johannesa dobro prošla u odnosu na ono šta bi je snašlo u mom scenariju.

Roxanne bi mogla da igra Milicu u rimejku.

e da imam sad jedno milionče stvar bi bila svršena

A može da glumi i Vuku, Roksana je univerzalna glumica, prefinjenih sposobnosti i sa širokim rasponom talenata.

Pazi, Vuka je pisana za Roxanne

Doduše tad još nismo znali za LIP SERVICE ali smo znali da će nam istorija pružiti idealnu glumicu za tu rolu.

Mojaš je Nick Frost.

MITAR


MOJAŠ


VESKO


BATO

Ko su Vuka i Kitna?

VUKA je ROKSANA, druge nemaju ono što je potrebno


DRAGO I KITNA


ĐED BUDO


UNUKA BUDA će nažalost dobiti


NINO

Ma jok

NINO



BUDO

NINO



BUDO

Tvoj novi Nino odličan.

"Lethal Weapon" scribe and "The Long Kiss Goodnight" writer/director Shane Black has signed onto direct an adaptation of the manga title "Death Note" at Warner Bros. Pictures reports Deadline.

The story revolves around a college student named Light who finds a mysterious notebook which has the unique power to kill anyone whose name is written in it.

When the student uses his newfound power to rid the streets of criminals, he is pursued by an FBI criminologist. The title has already spawned a number of features and TV shows.

Anthony Bagarozzi and Charles Mondry are currently writing the script and Black says the aim is to stick as close to the complexity and spirituality of the original manga as possible rather than "trying to copy it as an American thriller".

Good Manners in the Age of WikiLeaks
Slavoj Žižek

In one of the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks Putin and Medvedev are compared to Batman and Robin. It's a useful analogy: isn't Julian Assange, WikiLeaks's organiser, a real-life counterpart to the Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight? In the film, the district attorney, Harvey Dent, an obsessive vigilante who is corrupted and himself commits murders, is killed by Batman. Batman and his friend police commissioner Gordon realise that the city's morale would suffer if Dent's murders were made public, so plot to preserve his image by holding Batman responsible for the killings. The film's take-home message is that lying is necessary to sustain public morale: only a lie can redeem us. No wonder the only figure of truth in the film is the Joker, its supreme villain. He makes it clear that his attacks on Gotham City will stop when Batman takes off his mask and reveals his true identity; to prevent this disclosure and protect Batman, Dent tells the press that he is Batman – another lie. In order to entrap the Joker, Gordon fakes his own death – yet another lie.

The Joker wants to disclose the truth beneath the mask, convinced that this will destroy the social order. What shall we call him? A terrorist? The Dark Knight is effectively a new version of those classic westerns Fort Apache and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, which show that, in order to civilise the Wild West, the lie has to be elevated into truth: civilisation, in other words, must be grounded on a lie. The film has been extraordinarily popular. The question is why, at this precise moment, is there this renewed need for a lie to maintain the social system?

Consider too the renewed popularity of Leo Strauss: the aspect of his political thought that is so relevant today is his elitist notion of democracy, the idea of the 'necessary lie'. Elites should rule, aware of the actual state of things (the materialist logic of power), and feed the people fables to keep them happy in their blessed ignorance. For Strauss, Socrates was guilty as charged: philosophy is a threat to society. Questioning the gods and the ethos of the city undermines the citizens' loyalty, and thus the basis of normal social life. Yet philosophy is also the highest, the worthiest, of human endeavours. The solution proposed was that philosophers keep their teachings secret, as in fact they did, passing them on by writing 'between the lines'. The true, hidden message contained in the 'great tradition' of philosophy from Plato to Hobbes and Locke is that there are no gods, that morality is merely prejudice, and that society is not grounded in nature.

So far, the WikiLeaks story has been represented as a struggle between WikiLeaks and the US empire: is the publishing of confidential US state documents an act in support of the freedom of information, of the people's right to know, or is it a terrorist act that poses a threat to stable international relations? But what if this isn't the real issue? What if the crucial ideological and political battle is going on within WikiLeaks itself: between the radical act of publishing secret state documents and the way this act has been reinscribed into the hegemonic ideologico-political field by, among others, WikiLeaks itself?

This reinscription does not primarily concern 'corporate collusion', i.e. the deal WikiLeaks made with five big newspapers, giving them the exclusive right selectively to publish the documents. Much more important is the conspiratorial mode of WikiLeaks: a 'good' secret group attacking a 'bad' one in the form of the US State Department. According to this way of seeing things, the enemy is those US diplomats who conceal the truth, manipulate the public and humiliate their allies in the ruthless pursuit of their own interests. 'Power' is held by the bad guys at the top, and is not conceived as something that permeates the entire social body, determining how we work, think and consume. WikiLeaks itself got the taste of this dispersion of power when Mastercard, Visa, PayPal and Bank of America joined forces with the state to sabotage it. The price one pays for engaging in the conspiratorial mode is to be treated according to its logic. (No wonder theories abound about who is 'really' behind WikiLeaks – the CIA?)

The conspiratorial mode is supplemented by its apparent opposite, the liberal appropriation of WikiLeaks as another chapter in the glorious history of the struggle for the 'free flow of information' and the 'citizens' right to know'. This view reduces WikiLeaks to a radical case of 'investigative journalism'. Here, we are only a small step away from the ideology of such Hollywood blockbusters as All the President's Men and The Pelican Brief, in which a couple of ordinary guys discover a scandal which reaches up to the president, forcing him to step down. Corruption is shown to reach the very top, yet the ideology of such works resides in their upbeat final message: what a great country ours must be, when a couple of ordinary guys like you and me can bring down the president, the mightiest man on Earth!

The ultimate show of power on the part of the ruling ideology is to allow what appears to be powerful criticism. There is no lack of anti-capitalism today. We are overloaded with critiques of the horrors of capitalism: books, in-depth investigative journalism and TV documentaries expose the companies that are ruthlessly polluting our environment, the corrupt bankers who continue to receive fat bonuses while their banks are rescued by public money, the sweatshops in which children work as slaves etc. However, there is a catch: what isn't questioned in these critiques is the democratic-liberal framing of the fight against these excesses. The (explicit or implied) goal is to democratise capitalism, to extend democratic control to the economy by means of media pressure, parliamentary inquiries, harsher laws, honest police investigations and so on. But the institutional set-up of the (bourgeois) democratic state is never questioned. This remains sacrosanct even to the most radical forms of 'ethical anti-capitalism' (the Porto Allegre forum, the Seattle movement etc).

WikiLeaks cannot be seen in the same way. There has been, from the outset, something about its activities that goes way beyond liberal conceptions of the free flow of information. We shouldn't look for this excess at the level of content. The only surprising thing about the WikiLeaks revelations is that they contain no surprises. Didn't we learn exactly what we expected to learn? The real disturbance was at the level of appearances: we can no longer pretend we don't know what everyone knows we know. This is the paradox of public space: even if everyone knows an unpleasant fact, saying it in public changes everything. One of the first measures taken by the new Bolshevik government in 1918 was to make public the entire corpus of tsarist secret diplomacy, all the secret agreements, the secret clauses of public agreements etc. There too the target was the entire functioning of the state apparatuses of power.

What WikiLeaks threatens is the formal functioning of power. The true targets here weren't the dirty details and the individuals responsible for them; not those in power, in other words, so much as power itself, its structure. We shouldn't forget that power comprises not only institutions and their rules, but also legitimate ('normal') ways of challenging it (an independent press, NGOs etc) – as the Indian academic Saroj Giri put it, WikiLeaks 'challenged power by challenging the normal channels of challenging power and revealing the truth'.

• The aim of the WikiLeaks revelations was not just to embarrass those in power but to lead us to mobilise ourselves to bring about a different functioning of power that might reach beyond the limits of representative democracy.
  
  However, it is a mistake to assume that revealing the entirety of what has been secret will liberate us. The premise is wrong. Truth liberates, yes, but not this truth. Of course one cannot trust the façade, the official documents, but neither do we find truth in the gossip shared behind that façade. Appearance, the public face, is never a simple hypocrisy. E.L. Doctorow once remarked that appearances are all we have, so we should treat them with great care. We are often told that privacy is disappearing, that the most intimate secrets are open to public probing. But the reality is the opposite: what is effectively disappearing is public space, with its attendant dignity. Cases abound in our daily lives in which not telling all is the proper thing to do. In Baisers volés, Delphine Seyrig explains to her young lover the difference between politeness and tact: 'Imagine you inadvertently enter a bathroom where a woman is standing naked under the shower. Politeness requires that you quickly close the door and say, "Pardon, Madame!", whereas tact would be to quickly close the door and say: "Pardon, Monsieur!"' It is only in the second case, by pretending not to have seen enough even to make out the sex of the person under the shower, that one displays true tact.
  
  A supreme case of tact in politics is the secret meeting between Alvaro Cunhal, the leader of the Portuguese Communist Party, and Ernesto Melo Antunes, a pro-democracy member of the army grouping responsible for the coup that overthrew the Salazar regime in 1974. The situation was extremely tense: on one side, the Communist Party was ready to start the real socialist revolution, taking over factories and land (arms had already been distributed to the people); on the other, conservatives and liberals were ready to stop the revolution by any means, including the intervention of the army. Antunes and Cunhal made a deal without stating it: there was no agreement between them – on the face of things, they did nothing but disagree – but they left the meeting with an understanding that the Communists would not start a revolution, thereby allowing a 'normal' democratic state to come about, and that the anti-socialist military would not outlaw the Communist Party, but accept it as a key element in the democratic process. One could claim that this discreet meeting saved Portugal from civil war. And the participants maintained their discretion even in retrospect. When asked about the meeting (by a journalist friend of mine), Cunhal said that he would confirm it took place only if Antunes didn't deny it – if Antunes did deny it, then it never took place. Antunes for his part listened silently as my friend told him what Cunhal had said. Thus, by not denying it, he met Cunhal's condition and implicitly confirmed it. This is how gentlemen of the left act in politics.
  
  So far as one can reconstruct the events today, it appears that the happy outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis, too, was managed through tact, the polite rituals of pretended ignorance. Kennedy's stroke of genius was to pretend that a letter had not arrived, a stratagem that worked only because the sender (Khrushchev) went along with it. On 26 October 1962, Khrushchev sent a letter to Kennedy confirming an offer previously made through intermediaries: the Soviet Union would remove its missiles from Cuba if the US issued a pledge not to invade the island. The next day, however, before the US had answered, another, harsher letter arrived from Khrushchev, adding more conditions. At 8.05 p.m. that day, Kennedy's response to Khrushchev was delivered. He accepted Khrushchev's 26 October proposal, acting as if the 27 October letter didn't exist. On 28 October, Kennedy received a third letter from Khrushchev agreeing to the deal. In such moments, when everything is at stake, appearances, politeness, the awareness that one is 'playing a game', matter more than ever.
  
  However, this is only one – misleading – side of the story. There are moments – moments of crisis for the hegemonic discourse – when one should take the risk of provoking the disintegration of appearances. Such a moment was described by the young Marx in 1843. In 'Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law', he diagnosed the decay of the German ancien regime in the 1830s and 1840s as a farcical​ repetition of the tragic fall of the French ancien regime. The French regime was tragic 'as long as it believed and had to believe in its own justification'. The German regime 'only imagines that it believes in itself and demands that the world imagine the same thing. If it believed in its own essence, would it ... seek refuge in hypocrisy and sophism? The modern ancien regime is rather only the comedian of a world order whose true heroes are dead.' In such a situation, shame is a weapon: 'The actual pressure must be made more pressing by adding to it consciousness of pressure, the shame must be made more shameful by publicising it.'
  
  This is precisely our situation today: we face the shameless cynicism of a global order whose agents only imagine that they believe in their ideas of democracy, human rights and so on. Through actions like the WikiLeaks disclosures, the shame – our shame for tolerating such power over us – is made more shameful by being publicised. When the US intervenes in Iraq to bring secular democracy, and the result is the strengthening of religious fundamentalism and a much stronger Iran, this is not the tragic mistake of a sincere agent, but the case of a cynical trickster being beaten at his own game.
  

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 14-01-2011, 13:12:35
"Lethal Weapon" scribe and "The Long Kiss Goodnight" writer/director Shane Black has signed onto direct an adaptation of the manga title "Death Note" at Warner Bros. Pictures reports Deadline.

The story revolves around a college student named Light who finds a mysterious notebook which has the unique power to kill anyone whose name is written in it.

When the student uses his newfound power to rid the streets of criminals, he is pursued by an FBI criminologist. The title has already spawned a number of features and TV shows.

Anthony Bagarozzi and Charles Mondry are currently writing the script and Black says the aim is to stick as close to the complexity and spirituality of the original manga as possible rather than "trying to copy it as an American thriller".

aj da vidimo i to čudo, i koliko će ovo biti u emo fazonu.

Žižek, kao i obično sjajan.

Na Corneru samo kvalitetna filosofija.

Posle ovog malog filosofskog interludija da se vratimo onome zbog čega je Corner najomiljeniji a to je prkopavanje po 70s repertoarskom filmu.

Pogledao sam, posle duže potrage koja je obuhvatila i agente u Crnoj Gori, SKY RIDERS Douglasa Hickoxa. Hickox je tek delimično rehabilitovan poslednjih godina kada je Tarantino priznao da voli izvanredni SITTING TARGET (živopisan ovde davnih dana) odnosno kada je Edgar Wright puštao BRANNIGANa na svojim HOT FUZZ filmskim maratonima.

Međutim, Douglas Hickox je opasan reditelj koji je ostavio trag ne samo u akcionom trileru već i u hororu radeći čuveni THEATRE OF BLOOD i mnoge zanimljive naslove. Uostalom, zašto ne reći ostavio je i sina Anthony Hickoxa koji je značajan B-reditelj.

SKY RIDERS je zanimljiv high concept 70s akcijaš koji ima jednostavnu postavku i priča je pšredstavljena bez nekog naročitog zapleta - grčki anarhista otimaju porodicu američkog industrijalca. Prethodni muž industrijalčeve supruge, kog igra James Coburn i to u štimung iz FIREPOWERa dolazi da ih spase uz pomoć grupe američkih paraglajdista, izvlačeći ih iz terorističke baze, jednog napuštenog i teško dostupnog planinskog manastira.

Film se otvara odličnim set-pieceom otmice u kome Hickox radi gotovo bez reči, u domenu elegantnog "čistog filma", potom sledi set-up u kome se odgovara na pretnje, pregovore i sl. Zatim sledi još jedan odlčan set-piece potere po atinskim ulicama za radio signalom terorista da bi teći čin bio veliki parglajderski rescue attempt.

Hickoxove akcija u vazduhu je maestralna i urađena je sa minimum specijalnih efekata koji su pritom jako znalački i dobro urađeni te ne deluju prevaziđeno u bilo kom smislu.

Kao što su sedamdesete bile godine odličnih automobilskih stuntova rađenih sa pravim vozilima, bez crtanja i sl. i to onim najosnovnijim sredstvima, isto važi i za akciju sa letilicama - setimo se Hyamsovog CAPRICORN ONE u kome helikopteri MD500 dobijaju gotovo ljudske osobine kroz koreografiju svog leta i izgled.

Otud ovde Hickox ne samo da jako efektno snima akciju u vazduhu, već opredeljujući se da interakciju likova kroz dijaloge svede na minimumu i uz pomoć Lalo Schifrinovog skora pravi suštinski exploitation film izvaredne lepote u najčistijem smislu pokretnih slika.

Otud se i izvesna pravolinijska postavka priče, pa i slabo korišćenje potencijala svih učesnika glumačke podele mogu ne samo oprostiti već i prevazići jer Hickox vrlo jasno pokazuje šta su aduti ovog filma i prikazuje ih do maksimuma.

Ono po čemu se SKY RIDERS izdvaja je akcija u vazduhu ali je i akcija na zemlji jako efektna i vešto realizovana sa dosta energije i osećaja za suspense. Otud je SKY RIDERS obavezna lektira za ljubitelje 70s akcijaša.

* * * / * * * *

Ja san ovo gledao kao dijete, ali imaj me na umu.

Nema problema.

Inače, evo sad vidim vest, preminula Susannah York koja je igrala u SKY RIDERSu.

RARE EXPORTS Jakmari Helandera, film iz zemlje koja nas je zadužila time što je iznedrila Renny Harlina obeležio je kraj 2010. gopdine. Ovaj ljupki film je pogrešno promovisan kao skandinavski horor, valjda u pokušaju da se nadoveže na LET DEN RATTE KOMMMA IN.

RARE EXPORTS međutim nije horor iako su neke najave činile da zazvuči kao opaka vikinška groteska o "pravom" zlom Deda Mrazu koji ubija decu. Ipak, film je drugačiji, mnogo više mejnstrim i gotovo da nema veze sa "onom" Finskom čiji se bendovi utrkuju u brzini gitara,. klavijatura i goth šminkanja. Mnogo više ima veze sa Brać(al)om Coen i njihovim producentskim remek-delom BAD SANTA i konačno sa Spielbergovim producentskim radovima iz Amblina.

Helander Coenovima duguje pre svega odnos prema miljeu u kome se sve dešava - to je finska zabit koja dosta podseća na Minesotu iz američkih nezavisnih filmova kojima je svojstveno da se dešavaju izvan NY i LA, sa spojem vrlo efikasnog, amerikanizovanog, izlaganja  likova i nekog blagog offbeat humora.

Međutim, kao što su Coenovi podržavši film poput BAD SANTAe u određenom smislu ponudli prototip edgy ikonoklastičnog prazničnog filma, slično je uradio i Helander. Osnovna razlika je u tome što je njegov fokus na vlastitog Trumana Murmana, bjorkastog dečkića Pietarija koji u maniru Amblin junaka iz osamdesetih evoluira iz gimpastog detenceta kome niko ne veruje do akcionog heroja.

Osnovni disbalans stoga proističe iz onoga u čemu su Coeni i Amblin daleki - a to je uvođenje jedne neo-noir deonice pri sredini filma koja ne bi mogla da funkcioniše za dečju publiku sa cool roditeljima. Da tog indie offbeat segmenta nema - Helanderov film bi svakako imao tu vrstu crossover potencijala poput recimo radova Gila Kenana.

RARE EXPORTS je film kojim pre svega preovladava nepretencioznost i jako relaksiran odnos prema temi. Otud pošto je  pokazao da ima dara i da uprkos tome što je talentovan ne planira da ikome soli pamet, Helander se ubraja među sve veću koloniju skandinavskih reditelja koji će ne samo otići u Holivud već će tamo nešto uspeti i da snime. Njegov sledeći film neću isčekivati toliko kao novi rad Tomasa Alfredsona ali svakako više od ičega što sprema Tiommy Wirkola.

* * * / * * * *

Taj film je originirao kao JuTjub projekat kratkih filmova, ako se ne varam, a tek se sad snimio celovečernji. Kum mi je to svojevremeno baš hajpovao...

Mehmete, uskoro ću sročiti i detaljniji utisak o ruskom filmu KRAJ, ali to je ukratko rečeno ozbiljno ludilo. Zamisli film Joce Živanovića koji snima John McTiernan.

Skino sam ga ja ali čekam kuma da se nakani da sednemo zajedno da ga gledamo. Na skip sam pogledao i deluje super.

Ima određene probleme na nivou jasnoće priče u pojedinim delovima i sl. ali zaista jeste vrsta filma koji jedan muškarac može da savlada samo u saradnji sa kumom.

e to imam skinuto i nikako da pogledam, znači dobar je?

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 17-01-2011, 10:57:52
Ima određene probleme na nivou jasnoće priče u pojedinim delovima i sl. ali zaista jeste vrsta filma koji jedan muškarac može da savlada samo u saradnji sa kumom.

Tako smo se izborili i sa I Saw the Devil, pa ne treba menjati tim koji dobija (triper).

Pazi, Bato, film je takav da se gleda sa Kumom, pa ti vidi. Kao jaka hrana.

Uostalom, znamo da ni Rocco u Rusiju ne ide sam, uvek vodi i Omara i Mandinga.

e, al' je išao u Rumuniju sam, vidio sam sopstvenim očima!


btw Omar u Rusiji? To je novost za mene.

U Rumuniju je išao sam na kasting. Al jedno je kasting, drugo je kad treba da se zapne.

e sad sam se razočarao u žabara. Zato Omar može sve sam samcijat

The next film from "The Hurt Locker" duo of Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal will be fully financed by Annapurna Pictures, the Los Angeles-based shingle headed by Megan Ellison, daughter of Oracle Corp. software billionaire Larry Ellison.

Annapurna has greenlit the project to start production in early summer, with Bigelow helming and Boal penning the script (Daily Variety, Dec. 6).

Project is based on the true story of a U.S. military black ops mission, the ramifications of which are still being felt around the world. The film took shape after Boal obtained classified information while researching the project. Locations are being scouted, and casting will begin in the coming weeks while Boal finishes the script.

Bigelow and Boal, in partnership with Megan Ellison, retain and control all domestic theatrical and ancillary rights. IM Global had been in talks to rep the pic internationally but as of Thursday no deal had been reached. No distrib has been approached."This is an exciting, involving story in the tradition of the best film thrillers," Ellison said. "That it is fact-based makes it all the more relevant and fascinating for a worldwide audience."

CAA, which represents Bigelow and Boal and negotiated the deal, will rep the pic in any domestic distribution deal.

It was previously reported that the film would be taken out for foreign pre-sales at the Berlin Film Festival, but with Annapurna onboard to finance, that seems unlikely.

After winning Oscars last year for "Hurt Locker," Bigelow and Boal had eyed "Triple Frontier," a big-budget Paramount film, as their next project.

Script became a hot property, piquing the interest of thesps including Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks and Will Smith.

But due to scheduling conflicts, Bigelow and Boal decided to shoot the smaller-scale film first.

Ellison and Annapurna have also raised their profile of late. Besides being the prime financier on the untitled Bigelow-Boal pic, Ellison and Annapurna will finance and produce John Hillcoat's "The Wettest County," a Prohibition-era pic to star Tom Hardy and Shia LaBeouf.

Ellison was also an exec producer on "True Grit," which was financed by her brother David Ellison's company, Skydance Prods.

Besides "True Grit," Megan Ellison also has producing credits on "Passion Play" and "Main Street," mid-budget films still seeking U.S. distribution. Annapurna filed for LLC status in October 2007.

David Ellison launched Skydance in 2004. Last year, shingle cut a four-year, $350 million financing deal with Paramount.

Quote from: Bata the Životinja on 17-01-2011, 11:18:37
btw Omar u Rusiji? To je novost za mene.

Omar je u nekoliko Rokovih ruskih filmova, verovatno snimljenih tokom iste ekskurzije. Nema ga u Roko revišis Raša, ali ga ima u kasnijim poduhvatima.

Međutim, Omarov najupečatljiviji stant kod Roka je u filmu čiji mi naziv u ovom trenutku izmiče, ali se reči "brazilski" i "šimejlovi" pojavljuju u nazivu, kada Roko dovodi Omara u Brazil i upoznaje ga sa drugaricama, a Omar tek kada skine gaćice jednoj od njih shvata da ona nije baš original žensko. Izraz iznenađenja na njegovom licu je skoro uverljiv, kao što je i odluka da, kad je već uskočio, i zapliva brzacima transdžendrizma. Divan film, topao, ljudski.

Hey folks, Harry here...   yeah, this is kinda awesome if it comes to pass...   Apparently Arnold has reported that he's currently reading 3 scripts including one of my old favorites from Arnie's unmade past.    For me, there are two films that I would kill to see Arnold make.   1) is CRUSADE with Paul Verhoeven.   Then the one that he says he's reading and particularly fond of... is WITH WINGS AS EAGLES!   This could be a great film for Arnold. Wallace's script is awesome.   I'm a little concerned that Arnold may feel that CRUSADE is now out of his age range, if that is the case, I'd love to see him produce that film, so it gets made (Arnie owns the Script).   But WITH WINGS AS EAGLES gets to show off Arnold's ability with multiple languages, and really feels like a classic WWII flick.   This is very good news...











Hi Harry,



Schwarzenegger said he's looking at 3 movie scripts now with one of them being with Wings as Eagles!!! Wow, Arnold has teased fans for 10 years on that one. At last this WW2 film may come our way!

http://www.thearnoldfans.com/news/1741.html

Randy

http://www.thearnoldfans.com