The Crippled Corner

[crippled_avenger]

Colin Firth is in talks to star in Matthew Vaughn's adaptation of the comic "The Secret Service" for 20th Century Fox.

Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons' comic series follows a seasoned Secret Service agent (Firth) who takes a younger agent under his wing as they investigate the murder of every resident of a small town and a mysterious secret involving Mount Everest.

Vaughn co-wrote the screenplay with his "Kick-Ass" and "X-Men First Class" collaborator Jane Goldman and is directing, producing and financing the project via his MARV Films banner.

The film is currently scheduled for a November 14th 2014 release.

[Meho Krljic]

The Secret Service je uistinu jedan od boljih novijih Millarovih stripova. Odobravam Vaughnov njuh.

[crippled_avenger]

Vaughn i Millar su u nekoj simbiozi. Moram da priznam da sam pokušao da čitam ali sam onda odlučio da sačekam film.

[Meho Krljic]

Čak ni Gibonsov crtež te nije pridobio? Tvrda si srca. Ali, da, Vaughan i Millar su solidan tandem, ja odobravam njihovu neprirodnu vezu.

[crippled_avenger]

Nisam daleko odmakao, ali je naracija bila više filmska nego literarna, stripovska, i odaje mi utisak da je više pisan za potrebe prodaje autorskih prava...

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, posle Kick Ass su svi njegovi stripovi tako pisani, nije to neka tajna.

[crippled_avenger]

To ga je pokvarilo. Daleko smo od onog Millara koji je napisao monumentalni RED SON.

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam I GIVE IT A YEAR Dana Mazera, još jedan pokušaj kompanije Working Title da podmladi kreativni tim predvođen Richardom Curtisom koji ih je učinio vladarima na polju sofisticirane a rado gledane romantične komedije. Pokušaja je bilo nekoliko, što sa američkom posadom, kao u slučaju filma DEFINITELY MAYBE što sa Britancima, ali Curtis se pokazao kao nezamenjiv. No, osim DEFINITELY MAYBE nije ni bilo pokušaja da se snimi romcom većeg kalibra bez njega.

Ipak, Dan Mazer koji dolazi sa sjajnom reputacijom najbližeg saradnika Sache Barona Cohena, jeste svojevrsni Curtisov naslednik, barem utoliko što je počeo rqadeći televizijsku komediju a potom "sazreo" u filmskog scenaristu. Ipak, ni sam Curtis nije tako brzo dobio priliku da režira, njegov rad je prvo pokorio svet u režijama iskusnih profija, tako da je Mazer bio izuzetno privilegovan a I GIVE IT A YEAR je doživljen kao pokušaj da se u osvit BRIDESMAIDSa, Working title uvede u novi milenijum.

Nažalost, Mazerov film nema snagu ni Curtisovih scenarija, niti njegovih režija. Zaplet je postavljen mehanički, glumačka podela je dobra ali bez nekoga ko bi se izdvojio kao što se nekada izdvajau Hugh Grantm premda sasvim sigurno ni Grant se nije izdvojio slučajno i tome su mnogo pomogli talentovani saradnici.

Rafe Spall je zanimljiv izbor za leading mana, Rose Byrne takođe može da bude leading lady ali bez jačeg materijala njih dvoje naprosto nisu dovoljni. Anna Faris je simpatična ali u osnovi uzalud potrošena kao romantic interest glavnog junaka a Jason Flemyng i Simon Baker daju filmuneobičan B-šmek.

Dan Mazer polazi od premise da želi da snimi anti-romcom, kreće od kraja tipičnog romcoma, od venčanja. Ovaj zaključak da je kraj romcoma venčanje je opšte mesto kao i da ova vrsta filmova ne završava hepiendom već tragedijom, ali potom sve dalje se razvija krajnje šematizovano i bez razbijanja bilo koje konvencije.

Ubeđen da je okrenuo romcom naglavačke, Mazer ne samo da tone sve dublje u konvencije već i kad pokušava da ih ismeje ne shvata da im se samo potčinio, i to više nego što može da pretpostavi.

I GIVE IT A YEAR jako pokušava da bude smešan i u tom smislu povremeno uspeva mada je što se mene tiče mogao biti i efikasniji, no svakako pokušaja ima, i kad su neuspeli barem nisu previše sramotni. No, gledaoci kojima je legao humor ovog filma svakako imaju i bolje mišljenje o njemu u celini.

Srećom, Working Title još iuvek ima Curtisa na rasolaganju tako da potraga za njegovim naslednikom ne mora da žuri. Možda je to zaista Dan Mazer ali ovaj film to ne pokazuje...

* * 1/2 / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Richard Curtis je za Božić 1991. godine napisao scenario za BBCjev specijal BERNARD AND THE GENIE u kome je u prazničnom ambijentu parafrazirao priču o Aladinovoj čarobnoj lampi. Curtisov stil humora je prilagođen atmosferi praznika ali je i dalje zadržao svoj efekat, pre svega zato što je izuzetno uspeo, a postavljen je tako da bude mio i onda kada je provokativan.

Duha igra tada izuzetno traženi britanski komičar Lenny Henry koji probuđen posle dve hiljade godina u lampi kanališe dosta fish out of water, gotovo boratovskog, nesnalaženja u novom svetu, dok naslovnog junaka igra Alan Cumming. Kao negativac pojavljuje se Rowan Atkinson, Curtisov redovni saradnik.

Pored Curtisovog humora, ovoj nesumnjivo TV produkciji dopunski efekat daje i režija paula Weilanda koji ne beži od rešenja i "efekata" kojis u karakteristični za bioskopski film kojim se ovaj reditelj tada već doduše dosta neuspešno već bavio. U određenom smislu, Curtis je pomogao Weilandu da se posle svog holivudskog lutanja digne na noge producirajući mu film SIXTY SIX. Kada se sagleda Weilandov britanski opus, odlazak u Holivud zapravo deluje ne samo kao potpuni autogol već verovatno i razlog zašto se nikada nije proslavio kao reditelji sličnih mogućnosti sa kojima je bio u istoj generaciji.

Stepen ozbiljnosti u pristupu i izvrsnog Curtisovog humora, uprkos jednoj malo razvučenoj deonici i opštem TV looku, pokazuje da Weiland nikada u Americi nije imao dodira sa ovako ozbiljnim materijalom i to u znatno ambicioznijim produkcijama.

BERNARD AND THE GENIE je školski primer kako se u uslovima namenske praznične produkcije može proizvesti kvalitetan rad.

[crippled_avenger]

After the success of his adaptations of "Let the Right One In" and le Carre classic "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy," filmmaker Tomas Alfredson has settled on a film version of the children's novel "The Brothers Lionheart" as his next project.

The $50 million project, currently targeting a Christmas 2014 release, will be the most expensive Scandinavian production in history.

Set in a magical land of the afterlife, the story follows two brothers who join the resistance against an evil ruler who enforces control over the land with a dragon.

'Right One' author John Ajvide Lindqvist is penning the script based on Astrid Lindgren's work which has been labelled as "unflinchingly" dark and subversive.

The project looks to have taken priority over the 'Tinker' follow-up "Smiley's People" which remains in development.

[crippled_avenger]

Chappie
"District 9" and "Elysium" writer-director Neill Blomkamp and star Sharlto Copley will re-team for a third sci-fi feature together - "Chappie".

All that's known of the story is that it's in an unusual setting and will feature comedic elements.

[crippled_avenger]

Stuart Hazeldine ("Gods and Kings," "Paradise Lost") has been hired to rewrite the script for the film adaptation of Bernard Cornwell's "Agincourt".

Michael Mann is attached to direct this story of a young man under a death sentence who is saved by his skills as an archer when King Henry V notices him.

The archer develops into a warrior and falls in love with a young woman whose virtue he saved from a lecherous priest, while the king prepares to lead his outnumbered English troops against the French in the Battle Of Agincourt.

Michael Hirst and Benjamin Ross penned previous drafts. Mann will shoot the film after he wraps his Chris Hemsworth-led cyber crime thriller at Legendary Pictures.

[crippled_avenger]

Jeff Hanneman, co-founder of Slayer, dies of liver failure following spider bite

Musician died of liver failure while recovering from a skin-eating condition he contracted after being bitten by a spider

Jeff Hanneman, guitarist and co-founder of thrash metal band Slayer, who has died of liver failure at the age of 49. Photograph: Shirlaine Forrest/WireImage

American guitarist Jeff Hanneman, a co-founder of the heavy metal band Slayer, died in southern California on Thursday, the band said in a statement posted on their website. He was 49.

"Hanneman was in an area hospital when he suffered liver failure," the band said.

The guitarist had been recovering from a spider bite which had left him with necrotising fasciitis, a flesh-eating disease which attacks subcutaneous tissue.

Hanneman founded Slayer with fellow guitarist Kerry King in the early 1980s in suburban Los Angeles.

The band was known as one of the "big four" thrash metal groups of the 1980s, along with Anthrax, Megadeth and Metallica.

Hanneman is best known as a writer of the songs Raining Blood and Angel of Death from the 1986 album Reign in Blood, which is considered a landmark of the thrash genre.

Fellow musicians took to Twitter to express their grief. Slash, guitarist with Guns'n'Roses, said: "Tragic & shocking news about Jeff Hanneman. He is going to missed by so many. What a sad day for Metal. RIP man", while Andrew WK said "Jeff Hanneman will always be a metal god. A true master, he gave energy and excitement to millions, and will continue to."

Hanneman is survived by his wife, Kathy, and three siblings.

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam IRON MAN THREE drugi rediteljski rad Shane Blacka, i samim tim jedan od najočekivanijih filmova ove godine. Nažalost, u ovom filmu ono što je Marvelova Phase Two odnosi prevagu, i IRON MAN THREE je otud ipak više Marvel nego Shane Black, iako se ne može reći da mu nije data prilična sloboda i da film nema neke njegove pečate.

Prva krajnje neobična odluka je to što su film pisali Drew Pearce i Shane Black. Pearce kao autor zanimljivog ali ne naročito ubedljivog britanskog sitkoma o superherojima NO HEROICS je "glavni" scenarista ovog filma a Black je drugopotpisani što je već prilično neobično. Naime, ako bi neko angažovao Blacka da režira film verovatno je primarni razlog njegova scenaristička veština, a sasvim sigurno da njegova rediteljska kompetencija ostaje pod B. Ruku na srce, neke od svojih signature scenarija Black nije pisao sam, ali je obično špica reflektovala njegovu dominantnu poziciju.

Problem Marvela, ruku na srce, diskvalifikuje ovaj film iz moje vizure ali verovatno ne i iz vizure fanova. Naime, Marvel universe sada je postao svojevrsna telenovela sa nekim nepotrebnim kontinuitetima koji se, paradoksalno, više ni ne reflektuju na događaje u filmu. Isto tako ostao je i kontinuitet prilično tanke vizuelne kulture prva dva IRON MANa i AVENGERSa gde sve dok ne počne akcija (u kojoj se biju dva specijalna efekta) sve izgleda kao osrednji sitkom - no Black svakako nije reditelj koji će to da razbije.

No, glavni kontinuitet čini IRON MAN 3 naročito apsurdnim. Naime, u svetu u kome se deševa IRON MAN 3 već su se desili AVENGERSi. Kad kažem desili pod tim mislim da su došli vanzemaljci i razlupali Njujork, da su se pojavili zeleni džin i nordijski bog i odbranili grad, dakle ovo je svet u kome se zna da nordijski bogovi imaju ovaploćenje u našem svetu i da postoje vanzemaljci... Neko bi očekivao da građani idu naoružani ulicama u blindiranim vozilima, da je nastupila civilizacijska nulta tačka i sl. Međutim, društvo je ostalo toliko "normalno" da je Extremis doživljen kao neverovatno moćno oružje a Mandarinove pretnje putem televizije uteruju strah u kosti. Ako imamo u vidu da su cele devedesete i dvehiljadite Amerikanci u stvarnosti imali priliiku da gledaju slične Bin Ladenove nastupe, rekao bih da je dolazak bogova i vanzemaljaca ipak nešto morao da promeni.

Naročito ako imamo u vidu da je Extremis kada je weaponizovan najsličniji onome što piju žrtve u filmu LIVE WIRE Christiana Duguaya.

Naravno, kontinuitet u kome se IRON MAN 3 dešava u svetu u kome su se desili AVENGERSi niko nije tražio, autori su ga sami uveli i u krajnjoj liniji oni sami na njemu insistiraju. Očigledno je jedino Tony Stark promenjen tim događajima, naime povremeno upada u krize kao umekšani Martin Riggs s tim što nema ni govora o samoubistvu.

Dramski sukob u filmu je na nivou vodvilja, i ono što je možda najveći Blackov uspeh je to što se IRON MAN konačno otrgao od one postavke u kojoj ide red Downeyevog zamuckivanja, red akcije u kojoj se tuku dva specijalna efekta. Sada, u određenom smislu, sve to deluje organski i akcija je znatno osmilšljenija, i to ne samo vizuelno već upravo scenarstički od akcionih situacija u drugim Marvelovim filmovima iz ove faze. Otud paradoksalno, sada Downeyevo zamuckivanje više nije glavni adut i jedini "gledljivi deo" IRON MANa.

Rekao bih da je svemu doprineo Blackov dosta zdrav, neozbiljan odnos prema materijalu i da je IRON MAN konačno uvodeći humor u akciju i pre svega uvodeći dramaturgiju u akciju zapravo pokazao koliko Black nedostaje baš u domenu scenarija za akcione filmove. Doduše, zanimljivo je da su neki set-pieceovi bazirani na kultnim Blackovim scenama, recimo napad helikoptera na Starkovu kuću jako podseća na napad Južnoafrikanaca na Riggsovu kuću u LETHAL WEAPON 2 (sjajno parodiran u filmu LOADED WEAPON ) potera kroz jelke u selu podseća na predstavljanje Riggsovog lika u prvom filmu, a finale na tankerima takođe vuče na dvojku. Naravno, tu je i jedna vintage Black scena mučenja sa sve time da im junak komično anticipira šta će im uraditi (to je naročito prisutno u LAST BOY SCOUT, LONG KISS GOODNIGHT i KISS KISS BANG BANG) i to su sve prijatni detalji. Jedina razlika je u tome što su oni u tim filmovima sprovedeni sa punim ubeđenjem a ovde je to dato kao posveta samome sebi. Iako je recimo KISS KISS BANG BANG bio "lagano štivo" i nije bio hardboiled u pogledu odnosa prema junacima, on je imao svojevrsnu tenziju prilagođenu stilizaciji. U IRON MANu prave tenzije nema, motivi "osvete" postoje više na rečima nego na delima ili u odnosu likova među sobom.

Kritičari koji prepričavaju ovaj film na nivou motiva junaka deluju skoro parodično, iako je osveta pokretač nekih događaja, ovo je film koji je daleko od toga da zaista uspeva da ubedi u pogledu motiva ili da stvori odnos gledaoca prema događajima o kojima film govori.

Jedina situacija u kojoj likovi na ekranu zaista dobiju neku "težinu" i desi se neki odnos među njima jeste kada Tony Stark upozna dečaka. Tu se ponajviše oseti Blackova old school kompetencija, odnos među likovima, nesvakidašnje reakcije i sl. M;eđutim, taj odnos ostaje potpuno ispušten i praktično nema nikakvo "organsko" razrešenje već se samo "prebrine" u epilogu.

Zanimljivo je da Black zapravo nikada ne uspeva da izvuče u prvi plan suštinu Extremis zapleta a to je da se sukobljavaju junak koji je uz pomoć nauke spolja uspeo da prevaziđe svoj hendikep i negativac koji je uz pomoć nauke iznutra prevazišao svoje probleme. Mislim da je upravo taj sukob bio osnov uspeha tog stripa i učinio ga jednim od boljih u istoriji IRON MANa.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

[Meho Krljic]

Ja to nisam još pogledao, mada se kanim, ali jasno mi je što zameraš na tim "mekim" resetovanjima kontinuiteta, mada je to u svetu stripa, naravno, business as usual. Videćemo, slutim da neće mnogo da mi smeta. Što se Extremisa tiče, Warren Ellisova priča koja je uvela ovaj koncept u Iron mana je bila i sama soft reboot serijala, pomerila origin Iron mana nekoliko decenija bliže nama itd. i bila dosta kontroverzna u svoje vreme jer je superheroju koji je bio stoprocentno tehnokratski kapitalista (dakle, čija je supermoć bila mnogo novca i jak inženjerski intelekt) dala "prave" supermoći. Implikacije toga su rabljene sve do pre godinu dana, a sumnjam da film ima tolike ambicije.. Videćemo.

[crippled_avenger]

Čitao sam Ellisovog Extremisa, ne u celosti doduše. Ovde se nikada ne dođe do toga, ali Pepper dobije supermoći kada okusi Extremis tako da postoji nod u tom pravcu.

Ja nemam problem sa tim da kontinuiteta nema, i mislim da bi to bilo sasvim logično i pomoglo filmovima da budu autonomniji. Međutim, kada se već insistira na nečemu toliko besmislenom kao što je kontinuitet sa AVENGERSom onda to mora ubedljivije. Naprosto, taj Događaj je promenio civilizaciju kakvom je čak i junaci filma poznaju...

[Meho Krljic]

Shvatam šta veliš i verovatno ću se složiti. Ali mislim da je Marvelov naum, bar kako ga ja vidim gledajući te filmove, da se koristi "meki" kontinuitet, dakle, samo obrisi - zna se ko je koji lik i otprilike njegova priča, ali se ne insistira na konzistentnosti, čak i u faktografskom smislu a kamoli u kulturološkom. Mislim, već između Vaughanovog X-Men First Class i njemu prethodujuće trilogije i Wolverinea postoje ozbiljne diskrepance u kontinuitetu (i to faktografske, pobrajao sam ih kad sam pisao o First Class), a to je sve jedan kutak Marvelovog univerzuma. Dakle, verujem da se u priličnoj meri posle svakog filma opšti kontinuitet resetuje na jedan "večiti" status quo a ono gde je bitan kontinuitet (na primer odnos Tonyja Starka i Pepper Pots) se posmatra kao individualan fenomen. To je u skladu sa stripovima, koji tako nešto provlače već decenijama, mada naravno da razumem zašto to žulja gledaoca. Videćemo kako će dalje da funkcionišu stvari, da li će i kako drugi nastavci Tora i kapetana Amerike (i naredni Hulk ako ga bude) tretirati kontinuitet, pogotovo kako će Spajdermen dalje tretirati kontinuitet, uzevši u obzir da je u pitanju druga produkcija. Slutim da će Tor i Kapetan Amerika, možda i Hulk imati reference na Avendžerse, ali najviše u domenu lip servicea, ne verujem da iko u Marvelu ima ambiciju da kreira "pravi" narativ između svih ovih filmova.

[Usul]

Lepo je to sve primetio cripple ali mislim da nikome u marvelu nije na umu da stvarno poveze sve te linije desavanja u neku smislenu celinu. Cini mi se da oni jednostavno rade ono sto vec decenijama rade u stripu. Supermen je sa nama od 1938 i sama tehnologija i drustvo nije primetno napredovala zbog njegove pojave. On je tu da brani americke vrednosti a mi nas zivot nastavljamo onako kako smo ga i vodili. Ako se nesto i desi vezano za drzavu onda je to vise kao supertajni projekt koji ukljucuje jos drugih superheroja. Kako bi inace prodavali tolike stripove?

[crippled_avenger]

Moj osnovni problem je u tome što je ta vrsta "kontinuiteta" nešto što doživljavam kao duboko antifilmski zahvat. Prosto, sve ovo počinje da mi liči na veliku televizijsku seriju koja se gleda u bioskopu, u kojoj nijedan film nema nikakvu autonomiju jer se direktno nadovezuje na nešto i piosle njega se očekuje da će nešto biti. To ipak samo po sebi nema veze sa sequelima, pošto su sequeli ponavljanje određenih uspelih formula sa većim ili manjim osveženjima. Međutim, sequeli su po definicji zasebni filmovi i zaista je moguće prvo pogledati ALIENS pa tek onda ALIEN ili u krajnjoj liniji pogledati ALIEN i nikada više ne gledati išta iz te serije filmova.

Čini mi se da ni AVENGERS ni IRON MAN 3 nisu filmovi koje publiak iole može da razume ako se sa njima suočava prvi put. Tako nije bilo u slavnim danima kada je TERMINATOR 2 inicirao neke klince u prvi TERMINATOR, recimo...

[Meho Krljic]

Lepo je to sve primetio cripple ali mislim da nikome u marvelu nije na umu da stvarno poveze sve te linije desavanja u neku smislenu celinu. Cini mi se da oni jednostavno rade ono sto vec decenijama rade u stripu. Supermen je sa nama od 1938 i sama tehnologija i drustvo nije primetno napredovala zbog njegove pojave. On je tu da brani americke vrednosti a mi nas zivot nastavljamo onako kako smo ga i vodili. Ako se nesto i desi vezano za drzavu onda je to vise kao supertajni projekt koji ukljucuje jos drugih superheroja. Kako bi inace prodavali tolike stripove?

Pa, da, to je tako. Marvel je u Ultimate univerzumu imao ozbiljniji pristup kontinuitetu, sa ozbiljnijim promenama i uticajem superheroja na svet itd. Ali u glavnom univerzumu se to nikada nije desilo. Niti će.

Moj osnovni problem je u tome što je ta vrsta "kontinuiteta" nešto što doživljavam kao duboko antifilmski zahvat. Prosto, sve ovo počinje da mi liči na veliku televizijsku seriju koja se gleda u bioskopu, u kojoj nijedan film nema nikakvu autonomiju jer se direktno nadovezuje na nešto i piosle njega se očekuje da će nešto biti. To ipak samo po sebi nema veze sa sequelima, pošto su sequeli ponavljanje određenih uspelih formula sa većim ili manjim osveženjima. Međutim, sequeli su po definicji zasebni filmovi i zaista je moguće prvo pogledati ALIENS pa tek onda ALIEN ili u krajnjoj liniji pogledati ALIEN i nikada više ne gledati išta iz te serije filmova.

Čini mi se da ni AVENGERS ni IRON MAN 3 nisu filmovi koje publiak iole može da razume ako se sa njima suočava prvi put. Tako nije bilo u slavnim danima kada je TERMINATOR 2 inicirao neke klince u prvi TERMINATOR, recimo...

Ti si u pravu i meni to i jeste nešto najzanimljivije kod Marvelovog pristupa produkciji, baš taj pesudotelevizijski pristup svojim filmskim serijalima, sa kao nekim kontinuitetom i deljenim likovima. Niko nikad nije radio takve stvari na filmu, pogotovo ne u ligi od 50-100 miliona dolara i mada verujem da će se na kraju to pokazati kao greška, ne mogu da se nekako ne zadivim ambiciji.

[milan]

Ti si u pravu i meni to i jeste nešto najzanimljivije kod Marvelovog pristupa produkciji, baš taj pesudotelevizijski pristup svojim filmskim serijalima, sa kao nekim kontinuitetom i deljenim likovima. Niko nikad nije radio takve stvari na filmu, pogotovo ne u ligi od 50-100 miliona dolara i mada verujem da će se na kraju to pokazati kao greška, ne mogu da se nekako ne zadivim ambiciji.

Mislim da to na kraju i nece biti greska. Ta ambicioznost ce im se isplatiti, u to sam ubedjen. E sad, videcemo koliko godina ce to trajati, a posebno me zanima kako ce proci Guardians of the Galaxy, za koji se ja bojim da ce biti prvi njihov flop. (A to nikako ne bih voleo, posto taj strip prosto obozavam!)  Kao neko ko decenijama prati americki strip prilicno redovno, kontinuitet sa Avengersima mi nije smetao, odnosno, podrazumevao mi se, a cak bih bio potpuno iznenadjen da ga nije bilo. Osnova americkog stripa i jeste u serijalizovanom pripovedanju, koje, naravno, ima slicnosti sa TV pripovedanjem. E sad, meni stvari koje Cripplu smetaju nisu zasmetale, posto svake godine u strip serijalima barem dva puta New York razruse do temelja, a ljudi ostaju da zive u njemu kao da se nista nije dogodilo. Dakle, to je jedna od konvencija koja se u stripu podrazumeva - pa sam je ja podrazumevao gledajuci i ovaj film.
Inace, meni se film mnogo dopao, i nadoknadio je sva razocarenja koja su prethodni Iron Man filmovi doneli sa sobom. 

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, ja i kažem, mi koji smo navikli na strip tretman kontinuiteta ovo gledamo kao jedan divan i ambiciozan eksperiment, ali razumem zašto to Kripla žulja. A i ja sam prilično uplašen za Guardians of the Galaxy. Ko bi rekao da će TO dobiti filmsku verziju pre, šta ja znam, nekog pametnijeg Daredevila ili novog pokušaja FF.

[crippled_avenger]

Fantastic Four se sprema punom parom, Daredevil je u nekom warpu oko prava bio sve do pre par meseci. Mislim da će se Marvel svakako pozabaviti time.

Ja potpuno razumem fascinaciju Marvelovom ambicijom, problem je samo u tome što jednog dana, kada sve ovo prođe i kada ti filmovi budu deo neke "prošlosti" i ljudi ih susretnu po prvi put, i krenu da gledaju po ko zna kom redosledu, shvatiće da su to stomilionski filmovi na nivou serjala iz tridesetih koji su danas, s pravom, zaboravljeni. Ali, ni njihovi autori ni ostatak ekipe nisu ni pretendovali na večnost, niti su ulagali tolike resurse.

U tom pogledu ima sjajnih filmova po stripovima koji stoje i dan-danas baš zbog svoje "filmske" autonomije. Nema potrebe da ih nabrajam. Ovi filmovi tu autonomiju nemaju a ako imamo u vidu da su neki talentovani ljudi sraćili i po dve-tri godine radeći ih to meni sve deluje krajnje žalosno.

Kad je reč o novijim Marvelovim filmovima, postoji niz naslova još iz dana Avija Arada kao što je BLADE ili novijih kao što je FIRST CLASS koji su mi se izuzetno dopali i smatram ih izuzetno vrednim i "autonomnim". Ili recimo oba nova HULKa. Čak mislim da recimo CAPTAIN AMERICA ima taj kvalitet. Ali od AVENGERSa kada počinje taj Phase Two nastupa rasulo u kome se prepliću filmovi o nefilmičnim i apsurdnim likovima kao što je THOR i taj mentalitet bioskopizovane televizijske serije.

[Meho Krljic]

Legitimno. Kako rekoh i ja mislim da će ovo biti grandiozan eksperiment sa neuspelim krajem, ali mi je zanimljivo da to vidim.

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam PARKER Taylora Hackforda, osvežavajuće old school ekranizaciju romana Richarda Starka, posvećenu Donaldu Westlakeu, u kojoj se Jason Statham laća lika kog su prethodno igrali Lee Marvin, Jim Brown, Robert Duvall i Mel Gibson ali u svojevrsnim aproprijacijama i Anna Karina i Peter Coyote. U svakom slučaju ona klkučna linija ipak jeste Marvin-Brown-Gibson i Statham se u skladu sa svojim mogućnostima nije osramotio. Hackford se potrudio da PARKER ne bude tipičan Stathamov film iako je maksimalno iskoristio njegove fizičke predispozicije i omogućio da Parker fizički isprati sva prilično gadna iskušenja koja se postavljaju između njega i poslovične naplate duga. Stoga kad treba, Parker se ne libi da bude u svojoj i tužoj krvi do kolena, ali je u osnovi ovo jedan vrlo elegantan i dinamičan skoro dvočasovni krimić u kome je Hackford sklopio niz dobro podmazanih elemenata menjajući predznak nekima kao što je Statham, a potpuno aproprirajući druge kao što je Jennifer Lopez koja je ovu vrstu žene već igrala u filmovima OUT OF SIGHT i BLOOD AND WINE, ali ne i u U-TURNu sa kojim Hackford deli neke ljude u podeli ali ne i estetiku.

Hackford je u svojoj kraijeri radio razne žanrove, sve sa solidnim uspehom, i u PARKERu donosi onu stabilnost koja nedostaje mnogim savremenim rediteljima, vlada ritmom, pripovedanjem i izlaganjem karaktera čineći da u pojedinim deonicama film deluje i "bolje" od materijala na kome je zasnovan a to je scenario Johna McLaughlina koji je adaptirao roman. S jedne strane, Hackfod uvodi nekoliko sitnih viškova kao što su flashbackovi kojima pojačava Parkerovu motivaciju i razjašnjava neke "manje bitne" detalje. No to sve ne menja utisak da je upravo ova vrsta tradicionalnog krimića nepšto što nedostaje savremenom Holivudu jer je "prejeftino" za velike studije a preskupo za nezavisne producente. Srećom, uslov da bi ovaj film bio je Jason Statham koji se još reće tom ničijom zemljom i Hackford je uspeo da ga pravilno iskoristi i upakuje u svoj narativ. Rečju nije snimio Stathamov film već film sa Stathamom.

Negativci imaju značajnu ulogu u zapletu ali nemaju puno prostora u filmskoj priči i to mi je prijalo jer konačno nemamo negastivce koji su previše prominentni kao "ličnosti" sa svojim artificijelnim objašnjenjima zašto su takvi ili suvišnim scenama u kojima se pokazuje koliko su zli. Negativci u PARKERu su vrlo slični glavnom junaku, ćute i rade svoj posao, sa tom razlikom što imaju leđa preko nepotistčkih veza i što se u pogledu na poslovne planove razlikuju sa njim. Međutim, Hackford je zapravo odmerio prisustvo negativaca i njih ima onoliko koliko treba da ih bude. No, svakako je da će nekim gledaocima zasmetati odsustvo jačeg antagoniste, odnosno tradicionalnog negativca. Michael Chiklis će takođe ponekome zaličiti na Gregg Henryja nosećeg negativca iz PAYBACKa.

Ako imamo u vidu da je PARKER prvi film u kome je Westlakeov junak poneo svoje ime jer je u svim dosadašnjim ekranizacijama imao neko drugo (mada zbog prirode svog posla ni sam Parker ne govori često svoje pravo ime već koristi niz lažnih identiteta) Hackford je svakako bio suočen sa velikim iskušenjem i bio je na velikom ispitu. Mislim da je taj ispit položio. Pre svega zato što je film vrlo solidan. Statham verovatno nije definitivni Parker, koplja će se lomiti između Marvina i Gibsona, a oni su u svojim filmovima bili i veći aduti od samog Westlakea.

Međutim, u PARKERu, Statham je potčinjen Westlakeu i Hackfordu i uprkos svemu tome uspeva da ostane zvezda. Samim tim i Parker uspeva da se afirmiše izvan imena i obaveznih figura zvezde koja ga igra i zato ovaj film sigurno zaslužuje da nosi ime književnog junaka jer je zvezda morala da mu se prilagodi.

* * * / * * * * 

[milan]

Tejlor Hekford je stari majstor, nema sta.

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES Dereka Cianfrancea koji je postigao svetsku slavu sa filmom BLUE VALENTINE a onda je odlučio da snimi svoj CRASH (po uzoru na Paul Haggisa, ne na Cronenberga). Rezultat je nažalost ne samo slabiji od BLUE VALENTINE već podjednako artificijelan i banalan kao CRASH. Cianfrance čak ni svojim indie postupkom koji u ovom filmu paradoksalno dobiju najzuzbudljiviju formu u scenama akcije, pljačke i krivičnih dela, a deluje vrlo sporno tamo gde mu je jača strana, a to su dramske scene u kojima ova All-Star podela koju čine Ryan Gosling, Bradley Coopper i Eva Mendes deluje potpuno lažno, kao da je zalutala sa seta nekog skupog blokbastera da se izmotava na setu nekog filma o sirotinji. U tom domenu, Gosling se najbolje snalazi i uspeva da kanališe tu potrebnu emociju, s tim što ni on više u ovom žanru nije svež. No, čovek koji je na svojim plećima izneo HALF NELSON ipak zna kako se radi posao u ovoj vrsti filma.

Zato je uz Goslinga u ovom filmu najbolji Dane De Haan koji je izbio u prvi plan prošle godine sa filmom CHRONICLE ali bogata kolekcija filmova koj će imati ovih dana govori o tome da je već neko vreme bilo jasno da je reč o perspektivnom mladom glumcu.

Ako bi žarište problema u ovom filmu moralo da se nađe u jednom domenu, to je svakako sama priča. Naime, scenario razrađuje tri povezane ali nažalost prilično tanke priče. ZU većini filmova koji se baziraju na više vezanih ili nezavisnih priča, uglavnom se javlja utisak kako su autori skupili nekoliko priča koje su nedovoljne za celovečernji film i sklopili ih u celinu. Kod Cianrancea je utisak obrnut, možda se ove priče čak i mogu razraditi u celovečernji film, ali nikako ne funkcionišu u ovakvim segmentima i deluju nedovoljno sadržajno u takvoj formi.

Na kraju, cela priča o tome kako u Americi šta god čovek da uradi nema socijalne mobilnosti deluje kao pokušaj da se spase što se spasiti može od prenaglašene i skoro pa naivne melodrame.

* * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam IN THE BEDROOM, rediteljski debi glumca Todda Fielda koji je u svoje vreme postigao veliki uspeh i počašćen je sa dosta značajnih nominacija za oskara. Reč je o melodrami koja se u završnom činu "organski" i vrlo spontano pretvara u triler ne bi li se razrešila. Fieldov film je značajan po tome što sve vreme ima vrlo "zreo" ton i donosi niz briljantnih rediteljskih rešenja u "teškim", delikatnim i suštinski nefilmičnim scenama koje bi reditelji koji nemaju ukusa verovatno mnogo lošije snimili. Iako debitant, Field bolje vlada elipsama od mnogih iskusnijih kolega i u tom pogledu sjajno "sakriva" neke stvari. Osnovni problem filma je to što mu Field verovatno ponet dobrom glumom postavlja trajanje od preko dva sata koje ipak nije bilo potrebno, i sasvim sigurno bi film očuvao i ovaj efekat, i ritam i atmosferu sa reduciranom minutažom.

Zanimljiv detalj je da glavna junakinja diriguje školskim horom koji peva našu narodnu muziku.

* * * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam RKO 281 Benjamina Rossa, priču o nevoljama koje je imao Orson Welles kada je aludirao na W.R. Hearsta u filmu CITIZEN KANE. John Logan je napisao scenario za ovaj zanimljiv film koji se dotiče intrigantne teme ali u krajnjem zbiru ne uspeva da prikaže niti svu istinu o ovom slučaju niti da iznese pravu sliku dešavanja.

Jedan od osnovnih problema je Liev Schreiber u glavnoj ulozi koji je prestar da bi igra Wellesa čiji je najveći uspeh došao u neverovatno mladim danima. Welles tada nije bio dečak ali nije bio ni sredovečan čovek kao glumac koji ga igra. U holivudskim okvirima, važno je naglasiti da je Welles debitovao sa ambicioznim i provokativnim filmom kao vunderkind, sa 24 godine, i da je deo njegovog sukoba sa okolinom proisticao pravo iz te mladosti. Liev to ne uspeva da kanališe i za početak Welles deluje kao neko ko je po uzrastu sasvim uobičajen holivudski reditelj. Međutim, on je bio velika kocka od starta pre svega zbopg svoje mladosti, zatim zbog provokativne teme koju je odabrao, i situacija mu je bila otežana baš time što je mlad i sve vreme je postojao utisak da je neodgovaran i da studio zato ne treba da stane iza njega.

CITIZEN KANE je bio melodrama o eroziji ličnosti, a RKO 281 je melodrama o nastanku tog filma tako da se sve i razrešava na tom nivou, sa šematizovanim transformacijama ličnosti, velikim inspiracionim govorima kojima se junaci ubeđuju u jedno ili drugo.

Naravno, Logan je radio ovaj scenario u epohi kada je Hollywood Babylon postao mejsntrim tako da je mogao da se dotakne nekih duhovitih detalja, od kojih je najzabavniji deo kada Walta Disneya optužuju da je simpatizer nacista.

Još jedan zanimljiv element je prikazivanje antisemitizma kao česte prepreke sa kojom su se suočavali holivudski moguli pre Drugog svetskog rata, i otud je jasno kako je antisemitizam kasnije postao neoprostiv greh u Holivudu. Iz današnje vizure delčuje potpuno neverovatno strah holivudskih mogula da bi u osvit Drugog svetskog rata neko mogao da objavi u novinama da su oni Jevreji.

Logan je kasnije pisao scenario za AVIATOR Martina Scorsesea, kao i nesnimljeni, a opet u određenom smislu "kultni" scenario za mannov film o detektivu koji radi za holivudske mogule i u tim skriptovima je bliži Ellroyu nego politički korektnijoj slici koju nudi u RKO 281. Otud je RKO 281 kao film o snimanju CITIZEN KANEa mnogo brže zastareo nego Wellesov rad.

[crippled_avenger]

With Garfield aboard, helmer will make his passion project on the 'essence' of Christianity
Scott Foundas
Chief Film Critic @foundasonfilm   
Martin Scorsese can finally give voice to "Silence."

After two decades of false starts and near misses, the director can now look forward to shooting his long-gestating adaptation of Japanese novelist Shusaku Endo's novel next summer.

Scorsese not only has secured the financing he needed and a production greenlight for June 2014, he's landed a coveted leading man: "The Amazing Spider-Man's" Andrew Garfield.

The project, which also will feature Ken Watanabe, is sure to catch the attention of international distributors at the upcoming Cannes market, which marks a new experience for the director, who has headed the Cannes jury and presented four movies in competition.

Sinking into a sofa in his midtown Manhattan office on a recent morning, Scorsese reflected on the planned pic, which he holds particularly dear to his heart. The subject matter — the very roots of religious faith — has long fascinated him, from his childhood aspiration to the priesthood to his controversial screen adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis' "The Last Temptation of Christ," released in 1988.

"It's something that has always been part of my life," he says. "It's difficult for people to understand who are not part of that world that I grew up in, which was Roman Catholicism in New York City in the 1950s. I was impressed enough to try to become part of that world, and realized at the age of 15 or 16 that it was much tougher, much more complicated than I thought ... in terms of vocation."

Garfield will star as Father Rodrigues, a 17th-century Portuguese Jesuit who travels to Japan with a fellow priest amid rumors that Rodrigues' mentor has abandoned the Church. It is a moment of religious persecution in the Asian nation, with Christians forced to practice their faith clandestinely. Watanabe will portray the priests' interpreter, alongside a Japanese cast that includes Issei Ogata (who played Emperor Hirohito in Alexander Sokurov's "The Sun"). As with "Temptation of Christ" and his 1997 Dalai Lama biopic "Kundun," a box office dud, the commercial prospects for Scorsese's latest passion project are challenging.

Scorsese admits that the mostly Japanese-language production is meant for a smaller audience than his hits "Shutter Island," "The Departed" and "The Aviator," but suggests, "Then again, it's a thriller. Thriller meaning they are undercover," he says. "I'm interested in this, whether it's undercover priests or undercover cops."

Location scouting is still under way for the production, which is being co-financed by Emmett/Furla Films and Belgian producer Paul Breuls' Corsan Films. Scorsese hints that a veteran collaborator, singer-songwriter Robbie Robertson, may come onboard for the soundtrack.

"He and I started talking about this a year and a half ago, before I started 'Wolf,' about ideas for certain kinds of sounds," said Scorsese, who is busy editing his latest film "The Wolf of Wall Street," starring Leonardo DiCaprio.

The helmer first read Endo's novel 25 years ago, when Archbishop Paul Moore sent it to him following a screening of "Last Temptation of Christ" held for New York religious readers. He recalls being struck by the book's "complex simplicity," and its sense of "cutting away all the trappings, cutting away the dogma, cutting away everything and dealing with the very essence of ... you could say Christianity, you could say Jesus." Added the director: "It seems to have been a great idea, but can it be implemented? And if it is, it seems that it has to be on an individual level, in how one behaves, in how one treats other people in one's own lives." (Curiously, Scorsese, a voracious cinephile, admits he never saw the 1971 Japanese film version of "Silence," directed by nonagenarian Masahiro Shinoda.)

Almost immediately after reading the book, Scorsese began working on an adaptation with frequent screenwriting partner Jay Cocks, but other projects interrupted the process, and the script wasn't completed until 1996. By then, Scorsese observes, "the landscape of Hollywood had changed."

His most recent picture at the time, "Casino," had performed solidly at the box office ($116 million worldwide), and was made with the full support of its studio backer, Universal Pictures. "But ultimately, when the film was released, it was clear that it no longer pays for studios that are owned by major corporations to make a $50-$60 million profit on a movie," Scorsese said. "They want to make more. So that was the end of that kind of picture for me."

In the two decades since, Scorsese, like many of his generational colleagues (Woody Allen, Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin), has depended largely on independent financing, much of it from longtime patron Graham King, who produced/and or co-financed "Gangs of New York," "The Aviator," "The Departed" and "Hugo." King has a stake in "Silence," which he helped shepherd since 2001, but his ultimate involvement in the production is uncertain. "It's an issue of what makes sense at that time," said Scorsese, whose frequent collaborator Emma Koskoff (a producer on "Wolf of Wall Street" and executive producer on "Hugo") will produce "Silence," along with Irwin Winkler, Randall Emmett, George Furla, Vittorio Cecchi Gori and Barbara De Fina.

Asked whether he has any hesitation making a film about Catholicism at a moment when the Catholic Church has been making its most unflattering headlines since the reformation, Scorsese said: "Not at all. Certainly, it's a religious subject, but the mystery that I'm talking about, Rodrigues' conflict with himself, and the essence of Christianity — which is something I believe in strongly — is timeless, and has to do with who we are as human beings."

[crippled_avenger]

Sony Pictures Entertainment has closed its deal with "Iron Man 3" director Shane Black to co-write and direct "Doc Savage," which Black is eyeing as his next film.

One of the most popular characters of the pulps of the 1930s and 40s, Doc Savage was also popularized on radio, film and television. He is a scientist, physician, adventurer, inventor, explorer and researcher. He has been trained since birth to be nearly superhuman in every way, with outstanding strength, a photographic memory, and vast knowledge and intelligence. He uses his skills and powers to punish evil wherever in the world he finds it.

Black co-wrote the screenplay with Anthony Bagarozzi and Charles Mondry, based on the hero of pulp novels, films, and comic books.

Neal H. Moritz is producing the project with Ori Marmur through his Original Film banner. Michael Uslan will also serve as a producer on the film.

Sam Dickerman and Lauren Abrahams are overseeing the title for Columbia Pictures along with Hannah Minghella, Sony's president of production who made the announcement with studio president Doug Belgrad.

"We couldn't be more excited to be building a franchise from the ground up with Shane and this team," said Minghella. "Shane and Neal have a fantastic understanding of the character and a great take on the material and we can't wait to get this production up and running."

Black most recently co-wrote and directed "Iron Man 3," which has grossed more than $700 million since opening a little more than one week ago. He previously wrote and directed "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang."

Black is represented by WME and attorney Alan Hergott.

[Meho Krljic]

Lepo. Mada, još jedan dokaz da Warner apsolutno nema pojma šta da radi sa svojim IPjevima. Doc Savage je čak imao i mali revival pre jedno dve godine u DC-ju, pisao ga Azzarello i sve redom. I na kraju Sony snima film. Koji je kuras tom Warneru???

[milan]

Flop u najavi.

[Meho Krljic]

    Ma, sad, ne mora da bude. Šejn je trenutno on fajr a Sony osokoljen Aeronmenom 3 možda omogući ozbiljne uslove da se ovo pravi. Mada, naravno, ovo bi mogao biti naredni Džon Karter s Marsa.

[crippled_avenger]

Warner ne snima sve DC propertyje. Kao što ni Disney i Marvel nemaju prava na one propertyje koje su licencirali drugim studijima, s tim što će oni sve major propertyje vratiti sebi osim onih koji se ne uklapaju u Disneyev profil tipa Blade i Ghost Rider. Tako recimo Sony ima THE BOYS a Summit radi RED. E sad, koliko shvatam Sony je kupio DOC SAVAGE kao junka pulp romana a ne kao strip, tako da verovatno DC ni ne prodaje te likove...

[Meho Krljic]

Jasno je to, samo se čudim da Warner to daje Japancima umesto da se sami pozabave. Marvel je Spajdermena, istina, dao Sonyju, ali otkada je otkrio čari sopstvene produkcije, radi drugačije i mnogo je uspešniji. Warner mi deluje kao korporacija gde leva ruka ne zna šta radi desna.

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam THE BLACK HOLE Gary Nelsona iz 1979. godine. Mnogi doživljavaju ovaj film kao Disneyev odgovor na STAR WARS mada pre bih rekao da je ovaj film nešto bliži STAR TREKu po svojoj poetici a u sebi svakako ima i nešto od FORBIDDEN PLANETa recimo. Priča je jednostavna i govori o grupi astronauta koji na ivici Crne rupe pronalaze napušten brod na kome poludeli kapetan rukovodi posadom robota i planira da uđe u Crnu rupu. Junaci suočeni sa ludilom kapetana kreći da otkrivaju razne misterije i van i unutar broda.

Nelsonov film krase ambiciozni ambijenti svemirskog broda, nekoliko simpatičnih scena bestežinskog stanja i likovi comic relief robota u kojima se u određenom smislu mogu naći koreni likova kao što je Pixarov Wall-E. Nažalost, i najživopisniji likovi ostaju upravo ti roboti koji su verovatno imali zadatak Disneyevog odgovora na R2D2 i C3PO.

Maximilian Schell je efektan kao ludi kapetan ali nažalost pošto je od prvog do poslednjeg sekunda lud ta rola postaje monotona i ne nudi izazove. Ostatak ekipe u kome su Anthony Perkins, Ernest Borgnine i Yvette Mimieux uglavnom vegetira u svojim rolama.

Disney je bilo potrebno dugo vremena pre nego što će naći svoj oslonac u domenu SFa, i na kraju će se ispostaviti da je dramski prilično tanki TRON bio praktično jedini SF u tom periodu sa kojim je Disney uspeo da uhvati zeitgeist.

* * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Ne slažem se, mislim da je Warner posle Disneya najozbiljnije koordinirani medijski koncern u Holivudu, uostalom o tome svedoče i njeihove ekranizacije stripova koje su uvek bile izuzetno ambiciozne i ozbiljne (ako izuzmemo ekscese tipa STEEL) - nezavisno od varijacija u dometima jer npr. čak i GREEN LANTERN koji je bilo slab film nije bio neambiciozan - međutim, mislim da oni svemu prilaze konzervativnije jer uprkos tome što DC u stripovima pravi te razne crossovere, grupisanja likova i sl. njima je ipak sam film i njegov kvalitet mnogo više na prvom mestu nego u Marvelu. Dakle, mislim da oni tek sada ulaze u fazu te nezajažljvosti Marvelovog tipa što je i razumljivo jer se Marvel samo bavi stripovima i njihovim ekranizacijama a Warner se ipak prevashodno bavi filmom i junacima koje smatra vrednim major filma (Superman, Batman a potom Green Lantern i sl.). Stoga, meni se čini da ako pokušaju da uđu u tu vrstu Marvelove filozofije verovatno ulaze u partiju čiji je prvi potez povukao neko drugi a to nikako nije dobro.

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam PASSION Briana De Palme, starački promašaj koji u sebi ima nešto užasa koji je bio svojstven poznim radovima velikih autora kada su dobijali nogu u Holivudu i skončavali u Evropi, ili se vraćali svojim korenima, kao recimo pozni Fritz Lang. PASSION je film koji u sebi sadrži niz "loših" scena koje smo sretali u "dobrim" filmovima, od Chabrola do samog De Palme, međutim problem je u tome da ono što je njegov autorski pečat koji pomera te scene iz domena "konvencionalno kvalitetnog" ne postoji i sve ono što je loše u ovom filmu deluje više kao plod nemoći nego kao plod autorskog pečata koji iracionalno ruši barijere i konvencije.

U tom pogledu, De Palma je ovde prevashodno žrtva vlastite nemoći jer je u glavnim ulogama imao Rachel McAdams i Noomi Rapace za koje su se tih dana otimali svi holivudski studiji a on nije ni jednoj ni drugoj učinio uslugu, upetljavši ih u jako loš film koji ih je prikazao ne samo u lošem svetlu kao glumice već i u fotografskom pogledu obe grozno izgledaju za razliku od žena koje je svojevremeno fetišizovao De Palma. Neke naročite živosti nema ni u dirty old man sekvencama u kojima De Palma pokušava da prikaže njih dve u lezbijskom odnosu, a ostatak glumačke ekipe koja ih okružuje je sa priličnog dna kace i stvara utisak priličnog disbalansa.

De Palmin film otud više deluje kao neki prilično loš internacionalni exploitation iz prošlosti s tim što ovde nije reč o omažu toj vrsti filma već najgorem mogućem primerku takvih produkcija. Lišen većine svojih stalnih saradnika izuzev kompozitora Pina Donaggia, za koga moram priznati nisam ni znao da je još uvek živ, De Palma potpisuje svoj najgore snimljen film, a svakako i jedan od najslabije dizajniranih.

U odnosu na francuski original koji je režirao Alain Corneau, De Palmin film više liči na ogoljenu šabrolovsku dramu i ima više "francuskog" u sebi od Corneaua koji je u pogledu na priču bio mnogo konvencionalniji.

* 1/2 / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Transkript Soderberghove žvake od pre neki dan:

    A few months ago I was on this Jet Blue flight from New York to Burbank. And I like Jet Blue, not just because of the prices. They have this terminal at JFK that I think is really nice. I think it might be the nicest terminal in the country although if you want to see some good airports you've got to go to a major city in another part of the world like Europe or Asia. They're amazing airports. They're incredible and quiet. You're not being assaulted by all this music. I don't know when it was decided we all need a soundtrack everywhere we go. I was just in the bathroom upstairs and there was a soundtrack accompanying me at the urinal, I don't understand. So I'm getting comfortable in my seat. I spent the extra $60 to get the extra leg room so I'm trying to get comfortable and we make altitude. And there's a guy on the other side of the aisle in front of me and he pulls out his iPad to start watching stuff. I'm curious to see what he's going to watch – he's a white guy in his mid-30s. And I begin to realize what he's done is he's loaded in half a dozen action sort of extravaganzas and he's watching each of the action sequences – he's skipping over all the dialogue and the narrative. This guy's flight is going to be five and a half hours of just mayhem porn.

    I get this wave of – not panic, it's not like my heart started fluttering – but I had this sense of, am I going insane? Or is the world going insane – or both? Now I start with the circular thinking again. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's generational and I'm getting old, I'm in the back nine professionally. And maybe my 22-year-old daughter doesn't feel this way at all. I should ask her. But then I think, no: Something is going on – something that can be measured is happening, and there has to be. When people are more outraged by the ambiguous ending of The Sopranos than some young girl being stoned to death, then there's something wrong. We have people walking around who think the government stages these terrorist attacks. And anybody with a brain bigger than a walnut knows that our government is not nearly competent enough to stage a terrorist attack and then keep it a secret because, as we know, in this day and age you cannot keep a secret.

    So I think that life is sort of like a drumbeat. It has a rhythm and sometimes it's fast and sometimes it's slower, and maybe what's happening is this drumbeat is just accelerating and it's gotten to the point where I can't hear between the beats anymore and it's just a hum. Again, I thought maybe that's my generation, every generation feels that way, maybe I should ask my daughter. But then I remember somebody did this experiment where if you're in a car and you're going more than 20 miles an hour it becomes impossible to distinguish individual features on a human being's face. I thought that's another good analogy for this sensation. It's a very weird experiment for someone to come up with.

    So that was my Jet Blue flight. But the circular thinking didn't really stop and I got my hands on a book by a guy named Douglas Rushkoff and I realized I'm suffering from something called Present Shock which is the name of his book. This quote made me feel a little less insane: "When there's no linear tie, how is a person supposed to figure out what's going on? There's no story, no narrative to explain why things are the way things are. Previously distinct causes and effects collapse into one another. There's no time between doing something and seeing the result. Instead the results begin accumulating and influencing us before we've even completed an action. And there's so much information coming in at once from so many different sources that there's simply no way to trace the plot over time". That's the hum I'm talking about. And I mention this because I think it's having an effect on all of us. I think it's having an effect on our culture, and I think it's having an effect on movies. How they're made, how they're sold, how they perform.

    But before we talk about movies we should talk about art in general, if that's possible. Given all the incredible suffering in the world I wonder, what is art for, really? If the collected works of Shakespeare can't prevent genocide then really, what is it for? Shouldn't we be spending the time and resources alleviating suffering and helping other people instead of going to the movies and plays and art installations? When we did Ocean's Thirteen the casino set used $60,000 of electricity every week. How do you justify that? Do you justify that by saying, the people who could've had that electricity are going to watch the movie for two hours and be entertained – except they probably can't, because they don't have any electricity, because we used it. Then I think, what about all the resources spent on all the pieces of entertainment? What about the carbon footprint of getting me here? Then I think, why are you even thinking that way and worrying about how many miles per gallon my car gets, when we have NASCAR, and monster truck pulls on TV? So what I finally decided was, art is simply inevitable. It was on the wall of a cave in France 30,000 years ago, and it's because we are a species that's driven by narrative. Art is storytelling, and we need to tell stories to pass along ideas and information, and to try and make sense out of all this chaos. And sometimes when you get a really good artist and a compelling story, you can almost achieve that thing that's impossible which is entering the consciousness of another human being – literally seeing the world the way they see it. Then, if you have a really good piece of art and a really good artist, you are altered in some way, and so the experience is transformative and in the minute you're experiencing that piece of art, you're not alone. You're connected to the arts. So I feel like that can't be too bad.

    Art is also about problem solving, and it's obvious from the news, we have a little bit of a problem with problem solving. In my experience, the main obstacle to problem solving is an entrenched ideology. The great thing about making a movie or a piece of art is that that never comes into play. All the ideas are on the table. All the ideas and everything is open for discussion, and it turns out everybody succeeds by submitting to what the thing needs to be. Art, in my view, is a very elegant problem-solving model.

    Now we finally arrive at the subject of this rant, which is the state of cinema. First of all, is there a difference between cinema and movies? Yeah. If I were on Team America, I'd say Fuck yeah! The simplest way that I can describe it is that a movie is something you see, and cinema is something that's made. It has nothing to do with the captured medium, it doesn't have anything to do with where the screen is, if it's in your bedroom, your iPad, it doesn't even really have to be a movie. It could be a commercial, it could be something on YouTube. Cinema is a specificity of vision. It's an approach in which everything matters. It's the polar opposite of generic or arbitrary and the result is as unique as a signature or a fingerprint. It isn't made by a committee, and it isn't made by a company, and it isn't made by the audience. It means that if this filmmaker didn't do it, it either wouldn't exist at all, or it wouldn't exist in anything like this form.

    So, that means you can take a perfectly solid, successful and acclaimed movie and it may not qualify as cinema. It also means you can take a piece of cinema and it may not qualify as a movie, and it may actually be an unwatchable piece of shit. But as long as you have filmmakers out there who have that specific point of view, then cinema is never going to disappear completely. Because it's not about money, it's about good ideas followed up by a well-developed aesthetic. I love all this new technology, it's great. It's smaller, lighter, faster. You can make a really good-looking movie for not a lot of money, and when people start to get weepy about celluloid, I think of this quote by Orson Welles when somebody was talking to him about new technology, which he tended to embrace, and he said, "I don't want to wait on the tool, I want the tool to wait for me", which I thought was a good way to put it. But the problem is that cinema as I define it, and as something that inspired me, is under assault by the studios and, from what I can tell, with the full support of the audience. The reasons for this, in my opinion, are more economic than philosophical, but when you add an ample amount of fear and a lack of vision, and a lack of leadership, you've got a trajectory that I think is pretty difficult to reverse.

    Now, of course, it's very subjective; there are going to be exceptions to everything I'm going to say, and I'm just saying that so no one thinks I'm talking about them. I want to be clear: The idea of cinema as I'm defining it is not on the radar in the studios. This is not a conversation anybody's having; it's not a word you would ever want to use in a meeting. Speaking of meetings, the meetings have gotten pretty weird. There are fewer and fewer executives who are in the business because they love movies. There are fewer and fewer executives that know movies. So it can become a very strange situation. I mean, I know how to drive a car, but I wouldn't presume to sit in a meeting with an engineer and tell him how to build one, and that's kind of what you feel like when you're in these meetings. You've got people who don't know movies and don't watch movies for pleasure deciding what movie you're going to be allowed to make. That's one reason studio movies aren't better than they are, and that's one reason that cinema, as I'm defining it, is shrinking.

    Well, how does a studio decide what movies get made? One thing they take into consideration is the foreign market, obviously. It's become very big. So that means, you know, things that travel best are going to be action-adventure, science fiction, fantasy, spectacle, some animation thrown in there. Obviously the bigger the budget, the more people this thing is going to have to appeal to, the more homogenized it's got to be, the more simplified it's got to be. So things like cultural specificity and narrative complexity, and, god forbid, ambiguity, those become real obstacles to the success of the film here and abroad.

    Speaking of ambiguity, we had a test screening of Contagion once and a guy in the focus group stood up and he said, "I really hate the Jude Law character. I don't know if he's a hero or an asshole". And I thought well, here we go. There's another thing, a process known as running the numbers, and for a filmmaker this is kind of the equivalent of a doctor showing you a chest x-ray and saying there's a shadow on it. It's a kind of fungible algorithm that's used when they want say no without, really, saying no. I could tell you a really good story of how I got pushed off a movie because of the way the numbers ran, but if I did, I'd probably get shot in the street, and I really like my cats.

    So then there's the expense of putting a movie out, which is a big problem. Point of entry for a mainstream, wide-release movie: $30 million. That's where you start. Now you add another 30 for overseas. Now you've got to remember, the exhibitors pay half of the gross, so to make that 60 back you need to gross 120. So you don't even know what your movie is yet, and you're already looking at 120. That ended up being part of the reason why the Liberace movie didn't happen at a studio. We only needed $5 million from a domestic partner, but when you add the cost of putting a movie out, now you've got to gross $75 million to get that 35 back, and the feeling amongst the studios was that this material was too "special" to gross $70 million. So the obstacle here isn't just that special subject matter, but that nobody has figured out how to reduce the cost of putting a movie out. There have been some attempts to analyze it, but one of the mysteries is that this analysis doesn't really reveal any kind of linear predictive behavior, it's still mysterious the process whereby people decide if they're either going to go to a movie or not go to a movie. Sometimes you don't even know how you reach them. Like on Magic Mike for instance, the movie opened to $38 million, and the tracking said we were going to open to 19. So the tracking was 100% wrong. It's really nice when the surprise goes in that direction, but it's hard not to sit there and go how did we miss that? If this is our tracking, how do you miss by that much?

    I know one person who works in marketing at a studio suggested, on a modestly budgeted film that had some sort of brand identity and some A-list talent attached, she suggested, "Look, why don't we not do any tracking at all, and just spend 15 and we'll just put it out". They wouldn't do it. They were afraid it would fail, when they fail doing the other thing all the time. Maybe they were afraid it was going to work. The other thing that mystifies me is that you would think, in terms of spending, if you have one of these big franchise sequels that you would say oh, we don't have to spend as much money because is there anyone in the galaxy that doesn't know Iron Man's opening on Friday? So you would think, oh, we can stop carpet-bombing with TV commercials. It's exactly the opposite. They spend more. They spend more. Their attitude is: You know, it's a sequel, and it's the third one, and we really want to make sure people really want to go. We want to make sure that opening night number is big so there's the perception of the movie is that it's a huge success. There's that, and if you've ever wondered why every poster and every trailer and every TV spot looks exactly the same, it's because of testing. It's because anything interesting scores poorly and gets kicked out. Now I've tried to argue that the methodology of this testing doesn't work. If you take a poster or a trailer and you show it to somebody in isolation, that's not really an accurate reflection of whether it's working because we don't see them in isolation, we see them in groups. We see a trailer in the middle of five other trailers, we see a poster in the middle of eight other posters, and I've tried to argue that maybe the thing that's making it distinctive and score poorly actually would stick out if you presented it to these people the way the real world presents it. And I've never won that argument.

    You know, we had a trailer for Side Effects that we did in London and the filmmaking team really, really liked it. But the problem was that it was not testing well, and it was really not testing as well as this domestic trailer that we had. The point spread was so significant that I really couldn't justify trying to jam this thing down distributor's throats, so we had to abandon it. Now look, not all testing is bad. Sometimes you have to, especially on a comedy. There's nothing like 400 people who are not your friends to tell you when something's wrong. I just don't think you can use it as the last word on a movie's playability, or its quality. Magic Mike tested poorly. Really poorly. And fortunately Warner Brothers just ignored the test scores, and stuck with their plan to open the movie wide during the summer.

    But let's go back to Side Effects for a second. This is a movie that didn't perform as well as any of us wanted it to. So, why? What happened? It can't be the campaign because all the materials that we had, the trailers, the posters, the TV spots, all that stuff tested well above average. February 8th, maybe it was the date, was that a bad day? As it turns out that was the Friday after the Oscar nominations are announced, and this year there was an atypically large bump to all the films that got nominated, so that was a factor. Then there was a storm in the Northeast, which is sort of our core audience. Nemo came in, so God, obviously, is getting me back for my comments about monotheism. Was it the concept? There was a very active decision early on to sell the movie as kind of a pure thriller and kind of disconnect it from this larger social issue of everybody taking pills. Did that make the movie seem more commercial, or did it make it seem more generic? We don't know. What about the cast? Four attractive white people... this is usually not an obstacle. The exit polls were very good, the reviews were good. How do we figure out what went wrong? The answer is: We don't. Because everybody's already moved on to the next movie they have to release.

    Now, I'm going to attempt to show how a certain kind of rodent might be smarter than a studio when it comes to picking projects. If you give a certain kind of rodent the option of hitting two buttons, and one of the buttons, when you touch it, dispenses food 40% of the time, and one of the buttons when you touch it dispenses food 60% percent of the time, this certain kind of rodent very quickly figures out never to touch the 40% button ever again. So when a studio is attempting to determine on a project-by-project basis what will work, instead of backing a talented filmmaker over the long haul, they're actually increasing their chances of choosing wrong. Because in my view, in this business which is totally talent-driven, it's about horses, not races. I think if I were going to run a studio I'd just be gathering the best filmmakers I could find and sort of let them do their thing within certain economic parameters. So I would call Shane Carruth, or Barry Jenkins or Amy Seimetz and I'd bring them in and go, ok, what do you want to do? What are the things you're interested in doing? What do we have here that you might be interested in doing? If there was some sort of point of intersection I'd go: Ok, look, I'm going to let you make three movies over five years, I'm going to give you this much money in production costs, I'm going to dedicate this much money on marketing. You can sort of proportion it how you want, you can spend it all on one and none on the other two, but go make something.

    Now, that only works if you are very, very good at identifying talent. Real talent, the kind of talent that sustains. And you can't be judging strictly on commercial performance, or hype, or hipness, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone running a multi-billion dollar business to be able to identify talent. I get it, it's the studio, you need all kinds of movies. You need comedies, you need horror films, you need action films, you need animated films, I get it. But the point is, can't some of these be cinema also? This is kind of what we tried to do with Section 8 is we tried to bring interesting filmmakers into the studio system and protect them. But unfortunately the only way a studio is going to allow that kind of freedom to a young filmmaker is if the budgets are low. And unfortunately the most profitable movies for the studios are going to be the big movies, the home runs. They don't look at the singles or the doubles as being worth the money or the man hours. Psychologically, it's more comforting to spend $60 million promoting a movie that costs 100, than it does to spend $60 million for a movie that costs 10. I know what you're thinking: If it costs 10 you're going to be in profit sooner. Maybe not. Here's why: OK. $10 million movie, 60 million to promote it, that's 70, so you've got to gross 140 to get out. Now you've got $100 million movie, you're going spend 60 to promote it. You've got to get 320 to get out. How many $10 million movies make 140 million dollars? Not many. How many $100 million movies make 320? A pretty good number, and there's this sort of domino effect that happens too. Bigger home video sales, bigger TV sales, so you can see the forces that are sort of draining in one direction in the business. So, here's a thought... maybe nothing's wrong. Maybe I'm a clown. Maybe the audiences are happy, and the studio is happy, and look at this from Variety:

    "Shrinking release slates that focus on tentpoles and the emergence of a new normal in the home vid market has allowed the largest media congloms to boost the financial performance of their movie divisions, according to Nomura Equity research analyst Michael Nathanson".

    So, according to Mr. Nathanson, the studios are successfully cutting costs, the decline in home videos have plateaued, and the international box office, which used to be 50% of revenue is now 70%. With one exception in that all the stock prices of all the companies that own these studios are up. It would appear that all these companies are flush. So maybe nothing's wrong, and I've got to tell you, this is the only arena in history in which trickle-down economics actually works, because when a studio is flush, they spend more money to make more money, because their stock price is all about market share. And you know, there's no other business that's this big, that's actually this financially transparent. You have a situation here in which there is an objective economic value given to an asset. It's not like that derivatives mortgage bullshit that just brought the world to its knees, you can't say a movie made more money than it actually made, and internally, you can't say that you didn't spend what you spent on it. It's contractual that you have to make these numbers available.

    Now don't get me wrong, there is a lot of waste. I think there are too many layers of executives, I don't know why you should be having a lot of phone calls with people that can't actually make decisions. They'll violate their own rules on a whim, while they make you adhere to them. They get simple things wrong sometimes, like remakes. I mean, why are you always remaking the famous movies? Why aren't you looking back into your catalog and finding some sort of programmer that was made 50 years ago that has a really good idea in it, that if you put some fresh talent on it, it could be really great. Of course, in order to do that you need to have someone at the studio that actually knows those movies. Even if you don't have that person you could hire one. The sort of executive ecosystem is distorted, because executives don't get punished for making bombs the way that filmmakers do, and the result is there's no turnover of new ideas, there's no new ideas about how to approach the business or how to deal with talent or material. But, again, economically, it's a pretty straightforward business. Hell, it's the third-biggest export that we have. It's one of the few things that we do that the world actually likes.

    I've stopped being embarrassed about being in the film business, I really have. I'm not spending my days trying to make a weapon that kills people more efficiently. It's an interesting business. But again, taking the 30,000 foot view, maybe nothing's wrong, and maybe my feeling that the studios are kind of like Detroit before the bailout is totally insupportable. I mean, I'm wrong a lot. I'm wrong so much, it doesn't even raise my blood pressure anymore. Maybe everything is just fine. But... Admissions, this is the number of bodies that go through the turnstile, ten years ago: 1.52 billion. Last year: 1.36 billion. That's a ten and a half percent drop. Why are admissions dropping? Nobody knows, not even Nate Silver. Probably a combination of things: Ticket prices, maybe, a lot of competition for eyeballs. There's a lot of good TV out there. Theft is a big problem. I know this is a really controversial subject, but for people who think everything on the internet should just be totally free all I can say is, good luck. When you try to have a life and raise a family living off something you create...

    There's a great quote from Steve Jobs:

    "From the earliest days of Apple I realized that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software we'd be out of business. If it weren't protected there'd be no incentive for us to make new software or product designs. If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear creative companies will disappear or never get started. But there's a simpler reason: It's wrong to steal. It hurts other people, and it hurts your own character".

    I agree with him. I think that what people go to the movies for has changed since 9/11. I still think the country is in some form of PTSD about that event, and that we haven't really healed in any sort of complete way, and that people are, as a result, looking more toward escapist entertainment. And look, I get it. There's a very good argument to be made that only somebody who has it really good would want to make a movie that makes you feel really bad. People are working longer hours for less money these days, and maybe when they get in a movie, they want a break. I get it.

    But let's sex this up with some more numbers. In 2003, 455 films were released. 275 of those were independent, 180 were studio films. Last year 677 films were released. So you're not imagining things, there are a lot of movies that open every weekend. 549 of those were independent, 128 were studio films. So, a 100% increase in independent films, and a 28% drop in studio films, and yet, ten years ago: Studio market share 69%, last year 76%. You've got fewer studio movies now taking up a bigger piece of the pie and you've got twice as many independent films scrambling for a smaller piece of the pie. That's hard. That's really hard.

    When I was coming up, making an independent film and trying to reach an audience I thought was like, trying to hit a thrown baseball. This is like trying to hit a thrown baseball – but with another thrown baseball. That's why I'm spending so much time talking to you about the business and the money, because this is the force that is pushing cinema out of mainstream movies. I've been in meetings where I can feel it slipping away, where I can feel that the ideas I'm tossing out, they're too scary or too weird, and I can feel the thing. I can tell: It's not going to happen, I'm not going to be able to convince them to do this the way I think it should be done. I want to jump up on the table and scream, "Do you know how lucky we are to be doing this? Do you understand that the only way to repay that karmic debt is to make something good, is to make something ambitious, something beautiful, something memorable?" But I didn't do that. I just sat there, and I smiled.

    Maybe the ideas I had don't work, and the only way they'll find out is that someone's got to give me half a billion dollars, to see if it'll work. That seems like a lot of money, but actually in point of fact there are a couple movies coming down the pike that represent, in terms of their budgets and their marketing campaigns, individually, a half a billion dollars. Just one movie. Just give me one of these big movies. No? Kickstarter!

    I don't want to bring this to a conclusion on a down note. A few years back, I got a call from an agent and he said, "Will you come see this film? It's a small, independent film a client made. It's been making the festival circuit and it's getting a really good response but no distributor will pick it up, and I really want you to take a look at it and tell me what you think." The film was called Memento. So the lights come up and I think, It's over. It's over. Nobody will buy this film? This is just insane. The movie business is over. It was really upsetting. Well fortunately, the people who financed the movie loved the movie so much that they formed their own distribution company and put the movie out and made $25 million. So whenever I despair I think, OK, somebody out there somewhere, while we're sitting right here, somebody out there somewhere is making something cool that we're going to love, and that keeps me going. The other thing I tell young filmmakers is when you get going and you try to get money, when you're going into one of those rooms to try and convince somebody to make it, I don't care who you're pitching, I don't care what you're pitching – it can be about genocide, it can be about child killers, it can be about the worst kind of criminal injustice that you can imagine – but as you're sort of in the process of telling this story, stop yourself in the middle of a sentence and act like you're having an epiphany, and say: You know what, at the end of this day, this is a movie about hope.

    Thank you.

[crippled_avenger]

Četiri jahača apokalipse.

http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/kultura.71.html:433380-I-domaci-film-cuva-narod

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam izvanrtedan televizijski film THE OUTSIDER Michaela Ritchieja. Reč je o krimiću nastalom po scenarijzu Roya Hugginsa koji je zadužio američku televiziju radeći razne slavne serije, od THE FUGITIVE do THE ROCKFORD FILES preko MAVERICKa. Huggins i Ritchie su dosta sarađivali pre nego što je ovaj krenuo da radi bioskopske filmove, i najveći deo svog prilično bogatog televizijskog opusa uradio je u saradnji sa njim.

THE OUTSIDER je bio pilot za istoimenu seriju koja je zaživela i Ritchie je potom režirao i jednu epizodu. Međutim, ovaj pilot je jednoipočasovni standalone film i u mnogim aspektima je bolji od raznih bioskopskih filmova o privatnim detektivima. Hugginsov scenario je maštovit iako u osnovi prati matricu tipičnog detektivskog hardboiled filma, pre svega zato što je vrlo duhovit unutar obaveznih figura koje svako ostvarenje ovog profila mora da ima. Zatim, milje u kome se film dešava je osvežen uvođenjem priče o guruima koji eksperimentišu sa LSDom, i živopisnim prikazom ljudi koji su se iz raznih krajeva Amerike slili u Los Anđeles.

Michael Ritchie je energičnim i duhovitim rediteljskim postupkom savršeno ispratio kvalitete Hugginsovog scenarija a u glumi je ponudio dosta autentičnosti kojom osvežava ustaljene postulate glume u televizijskom krimiću toga doba. Ritchiejevi junaci su jasno čitljivi kao što medij zahteva ali je svaki od njih i za nijansu autentičniji i bliži ubedljivosti filmskih likova koji nešto "kriju".

Darren McGavin je odličan u glavnoj ulozi. Ipak, sasvim sigurno je da bi i ovaj film i sama serija bili poznatiji da je Huggins već tada regrutovao Jamesa Garnera za ovu ulogu. Ostatak ekipe čine provereni ljudi poput Josepha Wisemana i Edmonda O'Briena što doprinosi filmskom izgledu i bogatstvu cele produkcije.

U svakom slučaju THE OUTISDER je nezaobilazna stvar za sve ljubitelje krimića šezdesetih i sedamdesetih a naročito za one koji su zainteresovani za Ritchiejev rediteljski opus.

[Meho Krljic]

Pogledah konačno Iron Man Three i zaista, moram da se donekle složim sa Kripletom, insistiranje na kontinuitetu sa Avendžersima je neobično slaba tačka ovog filma. Naime, ono treba da bude verovatno dvojako iskorišćeno, prvo kao referenca publici na prošlogodišnji megauspešni samr blokbaster, a drugo kao izvor Tonijevog PTSD/ future shock ponašanja koje se ispoljava u krizama anksioznosti što kroz njih prolazi u nekoliko scena. I sad ovo drugo je legitiman dramski materijal ali se s tim ne ode apsolutno nikuda. Imam utisak da je ovo imalo prominentnije mesto u nekoj ranijoj verziji scenarija ili priče, da je trebalo da bude izvor Tonijeve promene i sazrevanja ali se na kraju svelo na tri scene u kojima se on krevelji bez ikakvog ozbiljnog povoda a publika treba da kaže "vidi kako glumi jebotebog".

To na stranu, scenario svakako ima interesantne i potentne elemente, pre svega u domenu sazrevanja Tonija Starka kao lika. Ako je u drugom delu napustio autodestruktivni promiskuitet i pronašao monogamno pribežište, ovde se judeohrišćanski moralni model produbljuje sa ne naročito suptilnim prikazivanjem važnosti uloge oca na koju se prvo aludira u susretu sa Majom Hansen u Malibuu a onda se i bukvalistički prikazuje sa dečakom koji mu postaje sajdkik.

Takođe ceo zaplet i peripetija sa Mandarinom i otkrivanje toga ko/ šta je on je meni bilo okej kao ideja, jedan interesantan novi put da se gleda na terorizam i kulturu straha što poslednjih deset i kusur godina hara Amerikom. Naravno, egzekucija scenarija je druga stvar i ovde ima zastrašujuća količina plot holova, od najsitnijih koji se tiču fizike pa do najkrupnijih - gde su Avendžersi, kako se kontroliše Iron patriot itd. U elementima je Black sjajan, akcione scene su obogaćene elementima slepstika i to uglavnom ima opravdanje, pošto posle Iron man 2 niko ne očekuje od ove franšize "ozbiljnu" akciju, ali u celini, film je tipično braindead i zahteva gledaoca koji aktivno suspreže sumnju, upitanost, čak i najpovršniju analizu posmatranog.

Možda najgore od svega, primetan je zamor materijala, pogotovo u likovima koji sada svoje karakterne osobine moraju da prenaglašavaju do parodije da bi delovalo kao da i dalje imaju neki razvoj, odnos Peper i Tonija je predstavljen kao nešto zdravo za gotovo i oni u principu glume nekakav sredovečni bračni par iz kakvog sitkoma a čak ni Maja Hansen/ Extremis/ Mandarin i sve što se događa ne uspevaju da njihov odnos mrdnu iz ležišta.

No, hajde, dobri su to glumci i mada daleko od toga da spasavaju film, uspevaju da ga učine ne-neprijatnim. No, ovde ipak možemo da pričamo o svojevrsnom nagomilavanju likova za potrebe nekakvog održavanja kontinuiteta sa franšizom - lik pukovnika Roudsa je potpuni višak i dramaturški je nepotreban ali kapiram da je logika bila da se ne sme izbaciti crni sajdkik iz filma u kome su svi praktično kavkaskog tipa. Takođe, Favroov lik je potpuni višak ali kapiram da je to sad bila kompenzacija za to što više ne režira...

Ne znam šta Marvel planira dalje sa Iron Manom, ali imam utisak da nam sleduje (možda soft) ribut, pogotovo s obzirom na kraj ovog filma.

[crippled_avenger]

Po svemu sudeći Marvel je stavio fokus na to da Downeya veže za sledeće AVENGERSe i to im je glavni posao sada a za IRON MAN su već najavili želju da im nude kao Bond sa soft rebootovima, promenama glumaca i sl.

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, eto. Mislim, i on i Gvinet su sad već ozbiljno stari i to se na njima vidi.

Inače, trebalo bi jednom da ti dam da pročitaš Ellisov Extremis story arc do kraja (ima samo šest nastavaka, nije strašno) a da nastaviš posle toga sa Iron man Director of SHIELD koji se na to nadovezaoi  koga su pisali otac i sin Knaupf, to bi ti se, držim dopalo jer je u pitanju relativno ozbiljan triler.

[crippled_avenger]

Vrlo rado. Ja sam Extremis čitao, ali ne ceo.

[milan]

A onda da nastavis dalje sa Matt Fractionom, koji je Ironmana odveo u nove visine. 

[crippled_avenger]

GTA real life cars

http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/gaming/the-real-life-cars-of-gta

[дејан]

...izvor Tonijevog PTSD/ future shock ponašanja koje se ispoljava u krizama anksioznosti što kroz njih prolazi u nekoliko scena. I sad ovo drugo je legitiman dramski materijal ali se s tim ne ode apsolutno nikuda. Imam utisak da je ovo imalo prominentnije mesto u nekoj ranijoj verziji scenarija ili priče, da je trebalo da bude izvor Tonijeve promene i sazrevanja ali se na kraju svelo na tri scene u kojima se on krevelji bez ikakvog ozbiljnog povoda a publika treba da kaže "vidi kako glumi jebotebog".

не могу се сасвим сложити...птсд је сем, хм, комичних сцена, довео до (како сам ја схватио!) производње гомиле разноврсних одела (на даљинско управљање!) који на крају и 'спасавају редова рајана старка, роудса и преЦедника' (док се пеп снашла сама) и праве божићни ватромет којим симболички ослобађају старка од голфског синдрома трауме и маске.

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam JOURNEY INTO FEAR Normana Fostera. Ovo je jedan od RKO filmova na kome deo autorstva sebi prisvaja Orson Welles koji je u filmu glumio, zasigurno režirao svoje i deo "tuđih" scena. Ipak, reč je o B- filmu za koji ni Welles ne negira da je rađen nrzo i da su mnoge stvari snimane uporedo što je i dovelo do toga da režira "ko stigne". Wellesova uloga u ovom filmu se smatra njegovom prvom monster-rolom u smislu da igru ogromnu, grotesknu figuru vlasti, u konkretnom slučaju turskog obaveštajca. Film govori o pokušaju nacista da se dokopaju američkog vojnog savetnika koji je konsultovao neutralne Turke. Glavnu ulogu igra Joseph Cotten koji je i autor scenaristička adaptacije romana Erica Amblera. Cotten je sarađivao sa Wellesom i na AMBERSONSima a među nepotpisanim scenaristima ovog filma je Ben Hecht.
Ako imamo u vidu krštenicu ovog filma a snimljen je 1943. godine, vizuelno je izuzetno ekspresivan, međutim sama priča nije dovoljno zanimljiva. Nagomilani su likovi koji nisu potrebni ni priči niti vrlo suženom trajanju filma od jedva 69 minuta. Neka od vizuelnih rešenja i smisao za humor pojedinih radnji svedoči o Wellesovoj umešanosti. Uprkos zanimljivim detaljima, JOURNEY INTO FEAR ipak nije film zbog kog treba da mu bude žao što nije potpisan.

* * / * * * *