The Crippled Corner

[Meho Krljic]

How The Man Behind The Machines Of Mad Max Put A Hellscape On Wheels

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam rediteljski debi Alexa Garlanda EX MACHINA koji me je zanimao i kao nekoga ko je radoznao prema njegovom radu, i kao ljubitelja žanra, i kao fana Domhnalla Gleesona i Alicije Vikander koje je okupio u podeli i konačno kao scenaristu filma EDERLEZI RISING koji ima određenih tematskih sličnosti sa ovim filmom.

Otud sam film gledao i sa velikom anticipacijom ali i sa određenom strepnjom ako imamo u vidu taj aspekt industrijske špijunaže.

EX MACHINA je vešto koncipirana SF melodrama sa elementima trilera koja se nadovezuje na HER Spike Jonzea i generalnu tradiciju promišljanja moguće ljubavi između čoveka i mašine. Spike Jonze je doduše doveo tu temu do krajnjeg horizonta prikazujući mašinu koja nema telo, dočim je Garland umnogome konvencionalniji jer njegova mašina telo Alicije Vikander pa samim tim taj lik olakšava razvoj eventualnog emotivnog odnosa.

Da parafraziram jednu od efektnih rečenica iz Cronenbergovog romana CONSUMED, i HER i EX MACHINA govore o junacima koji "unboxuju" žene bazirane na veštačkoj inteligenciji, s tim što je Jonze značenjski otišao dalje jer se fokusirao na manje uverljivu a opet apsolutno moguću sliku odnosa čoveka sa smartfonom, dočim kod Garlanda telesnost ipak ima značajnu ulogu u uspostavljanju romanse. Otud moglo bi se reći da je odnos glavnog junaka i žene-androida apsolutno fetišistički, da ne zalazi u domen čiste Ljubavi kao kod Jonzea. Samim tim sebi može da dozvoli i noir razrešenje.

Ono što se postavlja kao pitanje jeste da li je telesna pojava bila sine qua non ove čiste noir postavke koja seže do rukopisa Jamesa M. Caina u kojima fatalna žena manipuliše naivnim muškarcem protiv svog supruga-gospodara. Da li je Garland propustio priliku da ovu stvar odnese na viši nivo? Svakako, jer na kraju junakom ne manipuliše veštačka inteligencija već veštačka telesnost koja mu je učinjena dostupnom kroz model AI.

Otud je EX MACHINA jedan vrlo konvencionalan, rekao bih čak i konzervativan film koji ponajviše prija zbog svog krajnje old school ljubavnog trougla, noir uloga, i pokazivanja kako komercijalizovani umovi velikih tehničkih vizionara našeg vremena, ne mogu da dobace do nove Suštine, ali mogu itekako da komodifikuju uprosečena zadovoljstva. Tako ni odnos manipulacije nije baziran na tome što je virtuelna žena Ava pametnija od muškaraca nego na tome što su oni ekstremno glupi.

U svetu neo noira, EX MACHINA se može nadovezati na konvenciju ovog žanra iz ranih devedesetih kada su ga između ostalog karakterisali i izrazito naivni muški likovi koji su se razlikovali od kanonskih noir junaka koji su sebe videli kao promućurne.

Ostavljam naravno određenu rezervu prema autorovim namerama, odnosno nemam odgovor na pitanje da li on misli da je akcenat njegovog filma na nekoj vrhunskoj pameti jer ako to misli onda je pogrešio, ali u krajnjoj liniji nije poremetio prijatan efekat svog rada.

Međutim, tu jednostavnost neo noir strukture Garland transponuje u savremeni ambijent, inspirisan imaginarijumom kapitalizma bez frikcija. U suštini, osnovna poruka filma nije zavoljivost veštačke inteligencije, već pretpostavka da su osnovni odnosi eksploatacije među ljudima ostali isti čak i u epohi koju krasi refleksija u odnosu na ranije strukture. EX MACHINA stoga nije važna kao SF film već kao svojevrsna potvrda da je noir moguć i u kapitalizmu bez frikcija.

Gleeson. Vikanderica i Isaac su odlični u tri glavne i jedini istinski razvijene uloge. Oni nose film, stvaraju atmosferu u saradnji sa Garlandom koji sve ovo izrazito estetizuje u ključu SFa sedamdesetih i na malom broju lokacija stvara utisak tech-glamura, ali i tech-noira koji je ključna referenca za ovo delo.

Gleeson i Vikanderica su noir par nove generacije. Ono što su nekada bili Fred MacMurray i Barbara Stanwyck, Jack Nicholson i Jessica Lange ili Pete Berg i Linda Fiorentino. U okvirima novog senzibiliteta, to su Gleeson i Vikander.

Specijalni efekti ne remete osnovni dramski tok priče i odnosa među glumcima prevashodno iskazanih kroz efektne glumačke role. Otud je dobro da je ovaj film kroz mudru distribuciju uspeo da se dokopa do solidnog komercijalnog rezultata. Ako imamo u vidu da je izvorna ideja da se isključivo snimi prestige film skromnog komercijalnog potencijala, rezultat koji je postigao pokazuje da ovakva koketiranja sa SFom mogu da mobilišu publiku za bioskope.

* * * 1/2 / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Kako smo došli od MAD MAXa kao nusprodukta australijskih poreskih olakšica do FURY ROADa, letnjeg blokbastera studija Warner
ili
Kako su pajkićevci prezirali Mela i Millera

http://beforeafter.rs/art/kultni-mad-max-domaca-kritika/

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam FURY ROAD u uzavreloj filmofilskoj atmosferi. Spontano se skupila mala All-Star ekipa ljubitelja i poznavalaca da pogleda film kako valja i trebuje na dan izlaska u prigodno apokaliptičnom ambijentu Tuckwooda. Varnice su krenule pred vratima sale kada se zapodenula rasprava o AEON FLUX a potom se ta diskusija ispostavila kao vizionarska jer Charlize Theron zapravo jeste zvezda novog Millerovog filma. Teško je oteti se osnovnom utisku da je civilizacija koju opisuje Miller kudikamo racionalnije otišla dođavola od ove u kojoj se film snimljen kao nusprodukt australijskih poreskih olakšica rekonstruiše sa budžetom od sto pedeset miliona dolara.

Naprosto, sa toliko novca na ekranu, kontekst cele priče se menja i to u pravcu koji je nepovoljan za FURY ROAD. Simpatije prema onome što je na ekranu na stranu, ali ovo sve izgleda kao skupa zajebancija nekolicine obesnih milionera. To sve ne znači da FURY ROAD nije dinamičan, iako ne nudi dva sata non-stop akcije kako je najavljeno, da nema moćnih prizora i majstorski režiranih situacija, a svakako najveće poštovanje zaslužuje Millerov pokušaj da se prikaže kao Warnerov Cameron, odnosno "autor" na polju blokbastera.

U pogledu strukture film ima nekih hrabrih iskliznuća u art, a imaginarijum nastavlja putem bliskim Emiru Kusturici koji je nagovešten u trećem delu a sada dobija svoje puno zaokruženje pričom o ženi bez ruke koja vozi kamion, nevestama u belom koje su u bekstvu i premijerom u Kanu. No, ono čega u filmu nema jeste Max koji je sveden na sporednog junaka i lišen mnogih osobina po kojima se izdvajao. Doduše u naslovu se pominje i put iako sve vreme voze kroz pustinju lišenu saobraćajne insfrastrukture. Charlize Theron je popunila tu rupu, nadam se da ovo nećete shvatiti pogrešno.

Miller ovog puta radi nešto slično ROAD WARRIORu, a to je reimaginacija onoga što je želeo da snima onomad samo sa novom tehnikom. I u tom pokušaju sasvim sigurno uspeva da realizuje neke ideje koje ranije nije mogao da ostvari, ali ne postiže jači efekat od onog koji je postizao.

MAD MAX kao serijal je upravo i funkcionisao zbog tog svog skromnog budžeta, želje Australijanaca da se dokažu, mladog glumca kog su otkrili i koji je pokazao da ima potencijala da napravi svetsku karijeru. Već u trećem delu, Miller i njegov sidekick Ogilvy pokazuju da će imati teškoće da snime film koji u startu polazi na globalno tržište. Tu su se upleli uvodeći "humanost", priči o spasavanju dece, jednom suštinski nekonfliktnom postapokaliptičnom svetu u kome negativci nisu potpuno negativni već se više radi o različitim životnim stilovima.

THUNDERDOME ima svoje protivnike ali kada pogledate FURY ROAD shvatićete da čak i ako ga ne volite, a ko ga zaista pa voli, to jeste ona vrsta glavinjanja u koju je MAD MAX morao ući kada je izašao iz svojih Ozploitation korena.

FURY ROAD je dvočasovni akcijaš koji u suštini rekapitulira ono što smo voleli u ROAD WARRIORu, ali pokušava da pronađe i neki "smisao" umereno koketirajuči sa onim što smo videli u THUNDERDOMEu.

Ovog puta nije reč o borbi na život i smrt koliko o pokušaju grupe mladih nevesti dementnog postapokaliptičnog vladara da se oslobode iz njegovog zatočeištva u kome im je posao da rađaju i da se nekako dokopaju "ženske kolonije". Samim tim, nema onog grćevitog pokušaja da se stigne do spasa kog zapravo nema iz ROAD WARRIORa, iako okolnosti ubrzo dovedu do toga da se sve svede na borbu na život i smrt.

Furiosa koju igra Charlize Theron je najzaokruženiji lik a Max je tu sveden na značaj koji ima na razmeđi drugog i trećeg dela. On ponovo biva uvučen u tuđe ludilo samo što ovog puta on ni kao lik, ni kao glumac koji ga tumači nije najharizmatičnija osoba na ekranu. Tom Hardy nema tu jednostavnost Gibsonovog psihotičnog underplaya. On je igra umesto da je spontano emituje kao Mel i sasvim sigurno potvrdilo se da je Hardy više karakterni glumac nego personality actor i zvezda prvog reda.

Charlize je s druge strane i jedno i drugo. Nicholas Hoult takođe nije loš kao "ničije dete", smrtno bolesni sluga dementnog gospodara, rođen da bi umro, koga "neveste" lako pripitome tokom jednog od interludija.

Utisak da u filmu neprestano ide akcije proističe iz toga što se u dramskim scenama kojih itekako ima naprosto ništa značajno ne desi, a skoro svaka transformacija junaka je očekivana. To ne znači da one same po sebi nisu vešto realizovane i dobro odglumljene, ali sasvim je sigurno da likova ima više nego što ima njihovih priča i odnosa.

Akcija je puna impresivnih prizora, mada u nekim ključnim situacijama CGI kvari sreću gledaocima, naročito u prelomnoj situaciji tokom peščane oluje. Jasno je da Miller pokušava da s jedne strane odvede ROAD WARRIOR korak dalje, a s druge da stvara stripovske tabloe, komponuje žive slike sa jarkim bojama kakve do sada nisu viđene i to je sve na mestu. Loma svakako ima više nego u ROAD WARRIORu ali se meni čini da je efekat tog loma pojedinačno svakako manji nego u tom filmu, plus nema tih sočnih momenata poslednje napetosti kao recimo kada se Vernon Wells pojavi ispod kamiona.

Demencije i ludila sasvim sigurno ima u dizajnu, ponašanju junaka, oblikovanju vozila. Akciju prati gitarista na vozilu sa timpanima koji izgleda kao zombifikovani član Slipknota (i da je savremeni film, svakako bi smisao tog rešenja bio da je otet pravi član tog benda i stavljen da svira, a Junkie XL koji je postao Warnerov go to guy na bazi tog detalja gradi energičan old school score), a najzanimljivije je to kako War Boysi vrše svoje žrtvovanje.

Frenetičnost prvog dela, Miller pokuava da postigne sa dosta quick-cuttinga što je u redu, ali u ponekim situacijama poigravanja brzinom filma deluju deplasirano. Miller unutar sekvenci bira da se naizmenično fokusira na celinu akcije ali i na detalje, koji su vrlo često potpuno kusturicijanski i te promene ritma ponekad dovode do dobrih driblinga, ponekad pokazuju da se Milleru "režira" sa velikim R, a ponekad otkrivaju rad koji bi se mogao postići samo CGIjem.

Kad je reč o tom kletom CGI, nije problem u tome što mi danas znamo da ljudi neće da se lome i ginu kako bi mi uživali u akciji, nije problem ni to što je u FURY ROADu očigledan, jer nije, ali svakako u pojedinim situacijama dovodi do određene artificijelnosti u kadriranju.

S druge strane, veći broj protivnika koje Furiosa i Max savladavaju dovodi do toga da svaki pojedinačno ima mnogo manji efekat nego u ranijim filmovima.

No, sve ove primedbe zapravo nisu nešto što bih u bilo kom trenutku prebacivao prvoj trilogiji. Ona je imala svoj low fi šmek, imala je svoj stil "kako znam i umem" i bila je obrni-okreni prilično sjajna, sa nekim padovima.

No, sada kada Miller polazi iz uslova u kojima se očekuju remek-dela, kada se posle bogate karijere i "oskara" vraća počecima, očekujem ipak nešto više.

U vremenu kada je FAST AND THE FURIOUS postao standard bioskopske akcije, ovo što snima Miller sasvim sigurno deluje kao Ingmar Bergman. U tom pogledu, Miller sasvim sigurno nadmašuje ono što se danas nameće publici kao vehicular mayhem i FURY ROAD je film koji će imati dug vek i nema razloga da se ne uvrsti u kolekciju MAD MAX DVDova jer je ipak bliže tome nego smeću koje se danas podvaljuje kao blokbaster. Međutim, sve to bi bilo bolje da je ponovo izraz vrhunske domišljatosti i snalažljivosti a ne mejnstrim.

Neill Blomkamp je George Miller našeg vremena. A Miller je svojevrsna cool verzija Spielberga koja verovatno misli da je Cameron. Činjenica da je FURY ROAD imao premijeru u Kanu, i to kao specijalna projekcija u programu a ne na marketu pokazuje koliko je Ozploitation stekao ugleda u svetu filma. S jedne strane lepo je što je umnogome ostao isti kao ranije, s druge strane šteta je što je komodifikovao staro a nije svoj sadržaj podigao na još viši nivo.

Cela histerija oko FURY ROADa danas je pre svega proistekla iz Warnerovog izuzetnog marketinga. Ako je ROAD WARRIOR pušten bez MAXa u naslovu, sada je stvar obrnuta, u FURY ROADu Max nije presudan ali se Warner potrudio da nas mesecima izdinsta pričama o staroj trilogiji, o tome kako je Gibson došao na premijeru, o ovome ili onome. Naslutili su da imaju dobar proizvod i zaslužuju hit. Ipak, ostaje pitanje da li je baš ovo film koji Miller treba da snima u sedamdeset godina i da li je ovo stvar koju on treba da nam pruži?

Mislim da nije. Ne zato što je FURY ROAD slab film, naprotiv, odličan je. Već zato što ako on ne može da snima nešto novo, nešto originalno, ko može?

Deluje ironično da danas pre možemo očekivati reboot filma od pola miliona dolara snimljen za petinu milijarde, nego nešto novo. Zavisnost od ranijih propertyja dovedena je do paroksizma. Zato svet u kome gledamo Millera deluje bolesnije od onog o kom on snima film.

* * * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam SLOW WEST Johna Macleana, vestern snimljen na Novom Zelandu čiju glumačku ekipu čine neamerički glumci, od lokalnih do britanskih kadrova, od Kodi Smit-McPheeja preko Michaela Fassbendera do Bena Mendelsohna. Maclean se opredelio da snimi indie vestern u duhu Braće Coen i sličnih vedeta ali ono što je snimio zaista je prilično slabo, početnički i naporno za gledanje čak ako imamo u vidu i prilično nežno trajanje od 83 minuta. I u 83 minuta, ovaj film uspeva da bude istovremeno dosadan, spor, prenatrpan i dosadan. Šteta zbog dobre podele, mada snimiti tako dosadan vestern sa tako dobrim glumcima ima u sebi određene atribute poduhvata.

* 1/2 / * * * *

[Meho Krljic]

Pogledao Fury Road. Svaka ti je ka u Njegoša, Kriple.

[crippled_avenger]

Hvala, sokole!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam THE LAZARUS EFFECT Davida Gelba. Blumhouse i Gelb su na jednom mestu okupili Marka Duplassa, Oliviu Wilde, Evana Petersa a tu je i Sarah Bolger koja možda i ponajviše postiže kao igrač sa klupe. Nažalost, mimo toga, ni scenario ni slick režija ne umeju da izdignu film iznad TV nivoa. Naprosto, Gelbov vizuelni prosede, iako kultivisan, ne uspeva da estetizuje tu kamernost, i film na kraju deluje kao televizijski, hendikepirani igrenjak. Slično je i sa scenarijem - koncept je viđen u nizu mnogo boljih filmova, a opet i sada je mogao biti osvežen, samo da je veštije koncipiran i prilagođen tim mikrobudžetnim okolnostima. Razvoj priče, uprkos jako harizmatičnim i dobrim glumcima naprosto ne nudi onu kaloričnost koju bi trebalo da iznese ovakav projekat. Sve u svemu, odlična podela je uzalud bačena u filmu krajnje slabog dometa. Šteta. Sa ovim glumcima, ovakvim tehničarima, i istom količnom love se ipak moglo postići više.

* * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

U prvoj ekranizaciji Laura Lippman nije imala puno sreće, ali ne bih rekao da je na bilo koji način potcenjena ili ponižena. EVERY SECRET THING, igrani debi poznate dokumentaristkinje Amy Berg najpre želi da se odmakne od Lippmanicinih korena u krimiću, odnosno da iskoristi njen bazični krimi zaplet kako bi prikazala likove umešane u jedan zamršen slučaj nestanka bebe.

U tom odmaku od krimića, leži i osnovni problem ovog pristojno realizovanog i ozbiljno glumljenog filma. Naime, fokus na karaktere i odmicanje od istrage dovodi do toga da film na kraju deluje besciljno u pogledu mehanike priče i kretanja prema raspletu. Što se više fokusira na karaktere, film počinje da stagnira u pogledu ritma, i uprkos tome što su pojedinačne scene dobro postavljene, dinamika celine naprosto ne funkcioniše.

Laura Lippman je međutim dobila tretman u kome je njen roman tretiran kao mejnstrim studija karaktera a ne žanrovsko ostvarenje, i to je pozicija koju mali broj pisaca krimića dobija. Tome je možda doprinela i činjenica da je ugledni scenarista David Simon njen životni saputnik.

EVERY SECRET THING nije dobio bioskopsku distribuciju, ali to je možda i pravedno jer mislim da će najbolje funkcionisati na televiziji. Međutim, kad je reč o malom ekranu, prepreka televizijskoj eksplataciji definitivno će biti prilično konfuzna završnica u kojoj opštu ambivalentnost Amy Berg ne uspeva da reši kako treba.

Ipak, ukupno uzev, na parče EVERY SECRET THING nudi dosta kvaliteta, šteta je što kao celina ne funkcioniše.

* * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Alternativna istorija u mejnstrim medijima...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1723&v=qCCV4YHihd8

Inače, evo kako ja to vidim,
Nisu u emisiji predvideli sledeći, verovatno najrealniji scenario koji se na kraju i desio.

Ima ona izreka da su Drugi svetski rat prelomili engleska lukavost, američka tehnika i ruska krv. Šta ako bi u Teheranu Jugoslavija bila data Zapadu ali Zapad odluči da je ne oslobodi. Imamo takav slučaj - Finsku.

Kvislinški režimi ostaju na vlasti i dogovaraju se da se raskusuraju slično onom grotesknom dogovoru Pavelić-Stojadinović. Oba režima se liberalizuju, Nedićev vraća Kralja i vremenom silazi sa vlasti. Hrvatski režim se takođe povlači i Pavelić daje vlast možda još ranije nekom pd predratnih hrvatskih političara. Seli se u Španiju da bi mogao da živi u punoj udobnosti.

Ipak ponešto ili ponešto više od Frankove Španije ostaje da živi u Nedićevoj Srbiji, pa se da zamisliti i situacija u kojoj se taktizira sa mladošću Kralja Petra II i čak možda čeka stasavanje Aleksandra za preuzimanje vlasti.

Opatrukcija Krune naravno dolazi zbog pretpostavke da Karađorevići ne bi tako lako dozvolili antirusku poziciju, da budem potpuno jasan...

Bitan faktor oslobođenja Jugoslavije bilo je raspoloženje Sovjeta da ginu.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Meho Krljic]

Da, meni je još zanimljiviji bio ekonomski element emisije i predviđanja kako bi se Srbija (partikularno) razvijala bez Brozovih reformi i uvođenja samoupravljanja itd.)

Nego, druga tema. Jedna hladnija analiza Avengers: Age of Ultron koja je dosta poštena:
Our second look at 'Avengers: Age Of Ultron' digs deeper into the film's flaws

During the heyday of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," I was an active advocate for studios to pick up on the wonder that was Joss Whedon.
Watching "Avengers: Age Of Ultron," it feels like that is exactly what we were asking for when we asked for him to be in charge of our pop culture. And I mean that in both positive and negative ways.
Joss Whedon has a great ear for clever dialogue, and that can be a wee bit of a curse. There is something about the way he writes that can make it feel like he's afraid to fully engage in some of the bigger emotion. When you're doing 22 episodes of a television series, you can take one episode to shift the tone to something darker, more somber, and it feels appropriate. In a 140 minute film, you can only find moments to downshift, and when it's surrounded by non-stop wisecracks, it can feel glib or insincere. That's also true when you have this many characters you're trying to serve. Characters who have had several movies worth of set-up can afford to be given less screen time, sketching in new details quickly. With new characters, though, growth can seem artificial or forced. Whedon knows how to create a character arc, but juggling seven or eight of them in one movie would be a challenge for anyone to pull off with anything approaching grace.
Also Read: How Superfans Prepare for Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron - 2Also, before we continue, a quick note about why I would publish this second look at something as gigantic as "Avengers: Age Of Ultron." When I read critics who I know are smart and reasonable people dismiss a film like this outright, it reminds me of how I've seen mainstream media treat genre my entire life. People refuse to engage with movies, and then they call those movies poorly written or shallow or somehow lesser.
It makes no sense, and it is one of the ways I know who I can or can't take seriously. If you won't engage any text fully, then you're not doing your job. If I sit down to see "Holy Motors" or "Pather Pachali" or "Thor: The Dark World," I approach every one of those films the same way, open to the experience and ready to engage the film on its terms. When something is as gigantic a cultural juggernaut as "Avengers: Age Of Ultron" is and there are critics who check out completely, I think it's even more important to make the case for what these movies do well.
"Is this a Code Green?"
Also Read: Part one of our in-depth second look at Joss Whedon's 'Avengers: Age of Ultron'
-- Bruce Banner
The storytelling in "Avengers: Age Of Ultron" is basically done in one of two modes. Either it's a set piece, or it's people standing around and discussing exposition. There is so much exposition in the film that they bring in characters who do nothing but help shovel through it. The moments in the film that work best are the ones where they manage to balance action, character, and story progress into one graceful whole.
There are two major set pieces that play back to back set in Africa. The first deals with Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis), who runs a highly successful black market out of a landlocked shipping tanker. I really like Serkis when he's allowed to actually appear on-camera as a real human being, and he makes a great impression in his extended sequence here. He deals with the twins first, and he seems like he rolls with the whole idea of super powers pretty well. His introduction to Ultron goes less well, and when he loses his hand, it's a shockingly funny accident. It's interesting that the most violent reaction to anything in the film by Ultron is when he is compared to Tony Stark. Very clearly, this movie deals with each of these characters at war with themselves, and none more overtly than Stark. Ultron and Jarvis are the two parts of Stark given physical form, and it's in-character for Ultron to be offended by the mere suggestion that he is part of Stark in any way.Also Read: Outrage Watch: 'Avengers: Age of Ultron's' Black Widow backlash continues
There's some pretty naked franchise seeding going on in this scene as well, with careful mention being made of the brand on Klaue's neck, the Wakandan word for "thief." When we meet T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman) in "Captain America: Civil War," I have no doubt he's going to be looking for the vibranium that Klaue surrenders to Ultron, and he's going to want answers about what happened to it. It's going to give him a really strong motivation during his introduction, and should make it interesting when Serkis shows up again.
The Twins hurt the Avengers here, and when people complain that Ultron's not a strong enough villain, they miss that he's not the only antagonist. At this point, Wanda is the one the Avengers should truly fear, since she seems to be able to pierce their defenses immediately and in a way that leaves them truly wounded. What I find interesting is how her attempts to hurt Steve Rogers only seem to clarify his place in the world for him. Yes, he missed his chance with Peggy (Hayley Atwell), and a "normal life" no longer seems to be an option for him, but if that's the worst thing Steve has rattling around inside of him, no wonder he's Captain Freaking America. I thought for sure his visions would have more to do with the way he failed Bucky, especially since I think that's going to play into "Civil War" in a very direct way.
The film's single greatest failure involves Thor, and it's a shame because Thor has one of the most interesting dangling story threads in the Marvel Universe right now. One of the things that is most clever about "Thor: The Dark World" is how Loki ends up on the throne of Asgard without anyone realizing he's done it, and that includes Thor. "We are all dead. You are a destroyer, Odinson." The basic thrust of these scenes involving Heimdal (Idris Elba) is that Thor's done something to doom all of Asgard, something he cannot name, and there's a way to pay that off. There should be something eating at Thor, something he knows is not right that he can't name. Yes, Loki looks like Odin at this point, but Thor should feel there's something wrong after their interactions. It should be nagging at him, eventually leading him back to Asgard for "Thor: Ragnarok." All of that is fumbled and lost in the actual execution of the Thor scenes, though, and I feel bad for Hemsworth. He is so perfectly cast that when he is given room to simply be Thor, he makes it effortlessly charming. His reaction in that moment where Captain America slightly moves Mjolnir is enormously subtle, but speaks volumes. I suspect that Hemsworth is a real actor who just happens to be wrapped in the body of a Norse god, and seeing him sidelined for this entire film, it becomes clear what a waste it is. It's fitting that this set piece ends when Hawkeye stops Wanda by hitting her in the forehead with an electrified arrow, preventing her from using her powers on him. "I've done the whole mind control thing," he says, directly referencing his own fumbled character arc in the first film. "Not a fan."
Wanda and Pietro limp away from the fight, just as dented by it as the Avengers are, but before they go, Wanda makes one last stop. Again... she's the one to fear here, not Ultron. "I want the big one," she says, and she gets him. When we see the Hulk, he is on a tear, heading for the city, out of control. This is the second big set piece in Africa, and one of the biggest action sequences in the entire film. One of the biggest gripes I've heard about this film, and this scene in particular, is that people simply don't care if they're looking at computer pixels punching computer pixels. I guess I can't argue if someone simply hates digital effects as a whole, but I also don't really understand. Yes, these scenes were accomplished using character animation on live-action plates, but you're still looking at a scene involving characters. And what happens between these two characters here is fairly pivotal. Tony calls in Veronica, the fail-safe that we heard him mention earlier, and it's clear that this is an option designed by Tony and Bruce to put the Hulk down. It is the worst-case scenario. One of the small things I found interesting was how quick Tony is to pull the trigger. It's clear that he takes the threat of the Hulk seriously, and when you see what a blind rampage looks like, it's clear that he should take him seriously.
This is a key moment in Ultron's plan, but the way the film moves, you'd never know that this is something Ultron did with purpose. He wants to make the world afraid of The Avengers. He wants to tarnish them. But why? If he's already planning to create an Extinction Level Event, why worry about what the world thinks of the Avengers? It's almost like Whedon thinks in terms of season-sized arcs, and trying to do that all in the space of two and a half hours means you do everything at a gallop. You ride by so fast that none of it sticks. I can see the idea of an evolving plan, but in two hours, it evolves at light speed. One of the reasons all of these films end with people running around and fighting over some glowing doodad on a roof or in the sky that's going to do some vague something that will be bad is because studios worry about complex storytelling on a spectacle scale. They need international audiences to be able to watch these films and absorb them without worrying about the fine points of language. When you're telling a story that moves as fast as these stories are required to move, it works "best" when it's simple. "There's a bad thing. If you put it on a roof and turn it on, bad things happen. So the bad guys want to do that. And the good guys want to stop it. The end."
"You don't think they need me."
"I think they do. Which is scarier."
-- Clint and Laura Barton
One of the most interesting notes in Joss Whedon's "Don't Blame Me" promotional tour for "Avengers: Age Of Ultron" was the notion that Disney was dead set against the entire detour to the farmhouse. Laura Barton (Linda Cardellini) is Hawkeye's big secret, his wife who lives off the grid and under the radar. She doesn't even exist in his official SHIELD paperwork, which is why Ultron doesn't know about her, making their farmhouse one of the few places he wouldn't know to look for any of them.
The real purpose of this scene is to show what it is that they're fighting to preserve in the movie. When your characters are billionaires and rage monsters and super soldiers and gods, it helps to sometimes introduce a bit of normal-scale humanity. While I love the Matt Fraction version of Hawkeye in print, I'm fine with the idea that Whedon went in a very different direction. Laura Barton knows the value of having a human being on the team because she knows that it connects the Avengers to human frailty, something that is important when you're fighting for us. Clint is the only one who gets seriously hurt in the opening fight, after all, and it was the death of Coulson in the first film that gave the Avengers their real push into the fight.
It's also important here to show that Natasha may have regrets or sorrows in her life, but she's not the walking wounded. She has a healthy relationship with Clint's family, and she has a place in the world. She is not alone. She is not a monster because she can't have children, something that people have misread in her conversation with Banner. What begins as a sort of playful joke about joining him in the shower becomes a conversation about whether or not they've missed their opportunity to be together. She's pushed gently before this, but this is the moment where they lay it out, no more vague flirting. Banner doesn't believe he can ever be part of a relationship. Natasha, perhaps moved by being close to Barton's family, is ready to run, ready to go claim her piece of normal. Of course, her piece of normal would be with a guy who is afraid he will turn into an actual rampaging beast if he ever lets his heart rate race too high. Whedon's had plenty of experience writing this dynamic before with Buffy and Angel, so maybe that explains why he's able to quickly make it feel like this really does matter to both of them.
"What did you dream?" Banner asks her.
"That I was an Avenger. That I was anything more than the assassin they made me."
"What are you doing?"
"Running with it." She wants to at least try. She believes they might find some way to be happy. She knows it won't be like anyone else's normal, though.
Bruce says something very important during the conversation. "Where in the world am I not a threat?" That phrasing is important when discussing the end of the film, so keep that in mind. He is equally precise when he tells Natasha why they can't have the same things that Clint has. "Do the math. I physically can't."
"Neither can I," she tells him, and the way she explains what happened to her after her graduation ceremony is dispassionate. Straightforward. She thinks of herself as a monster not because she was sterilized, but because of what that did to her, stripping her of the chance that she would ever care about something enough to put it before the job. There is plenty about this scene that is up for interpretation, but I don't believe for a second that either the character or the filmmakers are saying that people who can't or don't have children are monsters. This is about whether Natasha has done enough harm in her time to ever be able to balance that with doing good. It's about whether or not Banner can ever control himself enough to live, or if he's going to spend the rest of his life afraid of himself. It's the same thing Stark is wrestling with during his conversation with Steve outside. The thing that really rattled the Avengers is that they are having to confront the idea that they really may not be a good thing for this world, and that can't be easy for any of us to face.
"We're mad scientists. We're monsters, buddy. And we've got to own it."
-- Tony Stark
Oddly, as the film accelerates towards its ending, I find myself less and less engaged by it. One of the things I noticed about my own reaction is that the third act of this film feels like a reaction of sorts to "Man Of Steel" and the way that film's third act numbed audiences and frustrated audiences who wanted to see Superman saving people. I maintain that the fight in that film is a far less controlled thing than that, more about Kal-El realizing his own abilities than serving as the protector of mankind that the character eventually becomes. My biggest problem here is that this swings so far in the other direction that it renders Ultron almost toothless. The Avengers spend much of the film's climax saving people, and while that is admirable, there comes a point where it feels like we're going to see them load every single extra onto a bus.
The most interesting element of the final stretch of the film, by far, is The Vision. His physical form is initially created to hold Ultron's final consciousness, but because the Avengers manage to steal The Cradle during the process, he becomes something very different. Banner's incredulous question to Stark is a fair one when he says, "Ultron can't tell the difference between destroying the world and saving it. Where do you think he learned it?" Stark seems to be determined to be the one to clean up his own mess, and that focus is what keeps him pushing. None of them seem to anticipate whatever The Vision is in the end, and he raises way more questions than Ultron ever does. While they refer to Ultron as an artificial intelligence, it's important that Wanda can't actually read Ultron's mind at all, while she is able to read The Vision. It suggests that Ultron never makes the leap that the Vision does from being a trick of programming into being something else, something real. It's not just because of the Infinity Gem that is embedded in the Vision's head, either. The Vision almost seems like an already existing consciousness that was just looking for a host. He arrives with such a complex personality that he is able to do something no other Avenger can, easily lifting Mjolnir at a key moment in the action. And again... watch Hemsworth in every single interaction he has with the Vision. He is delighted by him, and it's such a real and funny response that I have to give him special praise.
Both Ultron and The Vision are birthed in the same place, and they are both birthed by the same parents. It is worth looking at how different the two of them are considering how closely their origins are entwined. The Vision is Ultron's idealized version of himself, but with a radically different mind driving things. It's interesting that Ultron would want to be so very human in his final form considering how naked his contempt is for humanity. I would think that something that truly hates humanity would want to create a form for itself that left behind all the things that define and limit us. Instead, it looks like Ultron was trying to turn himself into something that is like the most perfect version of what Tony Stark began with his first Iron Man suit. It feels like it's more an echo of Tony's dream than it is something that organically began with Ultron. After all, look at the colors in the Vision. He's got a real strong streak of Tony Stark Crimson running through himself. He looks like a human Iron Man suit, sleeker and more beautiful than any of the suits could be. His first moments alive are marked with a lovely haiku of a voice-over. "I'm not Ultron. I'm not Jarvis. I am... I am." The amount of thought that goes on between those two very different pronunciations of "I am" define what I like about the character. He is a dream, shared by a creator and a creation, that surpasses both of them.
It makes sense that even once all the fighting is done, things ultimately come down to The Vision and Ultron standing in a forest, quietly talking about the end of things. All of the physical violence that happens in that third act, all of the fighting and explosions and everything else, means nothing compared to what happens in that last hushed moment. Ultron tries to provoke The Vision, saying, "Stark asked for a savior, and settled on a slave," but The Vision is unflustered, unconcerned because he knows exactly who and what he is. As Ultron accepts what is about to happen, he tells The Vision, "They're doomed."
"Yes," the Vision agrees, "but a thing isn't beautiful because it lasts." Whedon might as well be talking about the Marvel Cinematic Universe itself, because he knows that this narrative juggling act can't continue forever. At some point, there has to be some sense of conclusion for this story, and that's part of what defines a story. The ending is part of the thing, and there will be an ending at some point.
But this film is not allowed to be a conclusion, and that's one of the things that I found dissatisfying about it. That sense of serving other ongoing stories can be a good thing, but it can also make this feel like a feature-length trailer instead of a story that works on its own terms. While I think there are many moments in the film where Whedon gets Hulk and Banner completely right, right in a way that only he has managed so far out of all the films the character's been in, I think there's a weird narrative gooch that takes place here, all in service of a surprise later on. Remember Banner's line earlier in the film? "Where in the world am I not a threat?" After the incident in Africa, the answer appears to be "Nowhere." The last time we see Hulk in the movie, he's sitting at the controls of a Quinjet, and he looks up, through the canopy, at whatever lies beyond the horizon.
In the early drafts of the film's script, it was made very clear that Hulk was trapped on a Quinjet that had been programmed to leave the atmosphere. He had a goodbye moment with Natasha, and their final contact here feels like a goodbye. Hulk is tired of worrying about what he is capable of doing, and he can't live his life that way any longer. People have read the end of the film as saying that Hulk definitely landed his Quinjet, but I think the opposite is true. The reason the Quinjet doesn't show up on radar anywhere on the planet is because it is no longer on the planet. The next time we see Hulk, he is going to be somewhere else. My theory is that he'll appear in either "Thor: Ragnarok" or "Guardians Of The Galaxy 2," and it will only be once we reach the next "Avengers" sequels that he will finally return to Earth. I don't believe they're going to do a full "Planet Hulk" movie, but I think they're going to cherry-pick elements of that larger storyline and use them in the midst of these other movies. The ending of "Age Of Ultron" is confusing, but I think intentionally confusing. They want you to be puzzle about where he is so that when we do see him again, it will be a jolt. I just wouldn't be too terribly shocked if that took place on a planet other than ours.
The film's final images are an announcement that the status quo is no longer the way things work in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and I wish Whedon had been able to drop even more characters into that image. You can almost see the spot where Captain Marvel could have landed, but he didn't have room to introduce her anywhere else in the film. If someone as gifted as Whedon had as much trouble as he did figuring out a way to use and fully serve each of his characters here while serving the individual franchises and also setting things up for stuff still to come, then that should be an indicator of just what a difficult task this is. Marvel plans in broad strokes, and in doing so, I think they set some pretty hefty challenges for their filmmakers. It will not be easy to make things all work together over the course of the next four years in a way that is satisfying both commercially and creatively. I admire the focus of their ambition now, even if I don't think the Thanos moment mid-credits makes any sense at all. Who is he talking to? What was his part in this movie's events? What would Ultron's victory have done to serve Thanos and his agenda? While I recognize that post or mid-credits scenes are big parts of the Marvel signature, I wish they'd either make sure they are genuine parts of the story or just drop them. There are several from the various earlier films that make no sense at all now, like the one in "The Incredible Hulk" or the one at the end of "Thor," scenes that are retroactively erased by things we see in the actual movies that came later.
When I spoke to my kids a few weeks after the "Age Of Ultron" screenings to see what stuck with them, they barely mentioned Ultron himself. They were fascinated by The Vision and The Scarlet Witch, disappointed by the death of Quicksilver,a nd still just as engaged as ever by the main Avengers and their various wants and fears. Marvel gets so much right, and there is so much talent involved, that even when I feel like "Age Of Ultron" gets lost, it's interesting. But it is also an indicator of just how unwieldy the story that's being told is becoming, and how hard it's going to be for the studio to pull it all together.

[Meho Krljic]

'Godzilla' Filmmakers Try to Stomp Out Anne Hathaway Monster Movie

A film being shopped to buyers in Cannes is causing a monster legal battle.
The rightsholders of the Godzilla franchise, the Japanese company Toho, have sued Voltage Pictures over the film Colossal, which stars Anne Hathaway playing a woman who realizes her mind is strangely connected to a giant lizard destroying Tokyo. It's described as Godzilla meets Being John Malkovich.
In fact, it is Godzilla, says Toho.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in California federal court, the company claims the filmmakers "are brazenly producing, advertising, and selling an unauthorized Godzilla film of their own."
The rightsholders point out an August 2014 interview with writer-director Nacho Vigalondo in which he says of his script, "It's going to be the cheapest Godzilla movie ever, I promise. It's going to be a serious Godzilla movie, but I've got an idea that's going to make it so cheap that you will feel betrayed." Vigalondo is a co-defendant.
The lawsuit focuses on the filmmakers' efforts to publicize Colossal, which Toho claims have included infringing content. The Godzilla rightsholders claim the filmmakers sent an email blast to potential investors, sales agents and distributors on May 9 pitching Colossal with a publicity still from the recent Godzilla reboot (the complaint includes pictures) plus a document of "Director's Notes" with numerous images from official Toho works.
"The Director's Notes also make clear that Defendants have not only taken the Godzilla Character as their own, but that they also intend to use the Godzilla Character in precisely the same way that Toho used the character in its initial film — attacking Tokyo," states the complaint.
Other infringements Toho claims include the line "Tokyo is under attack by Godzilla" in the company's Cannes sales booklet and a poster with an image from the Godzilla reboot.
"Toho is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants have knowingly used the Godzilla Character to attract interest and attention in their Colossal project so that it would stand out in a crowded field of competitors on the film sales circuit," states the complaint.
The plaintiff is suing for copyright and trademark infringements, trademark dilution, Lanham Act violations, unfair competition and unjust enrichment. It wants Voltage enjoined from producing Colossal plus unspecified damages.
The complaint was filed by Greenberg Glusker's Aaron Moss and Chuck Shephard, Toho's longtime litigators. "We've represented Toho for a long time, and this is about as brazen an act of infringement as we've encountered. It's hard to believe that an established Hollywood production company would conduct business this way," Shephard tells The Hollywood Reporter.
They point out in the complaint Voltage has a history of fighting infringements of its films, particularly through online piracy. The company led by producer Nicolas Chartier filed a huge lawsuit over piracy of the best picture Oscar winner The Hurt Locker in 2010. It lodged similar litigation four years later over torrents of the contender Dallas Buyers Club.

[crippled_avenger]

ЗВЕЗДА Nikolaja Lebedjeva, ratni je film koji pati od niza arhaičnosti, i u pogledu postavke likova i u domenu njihovog dizajna, pa i strukture u kojoj se smenjuju uzbudljive scene na terenu i bezrazložno razrađene scene u pozadini. Međutim, ono po čemu se ovaj film izdvaja jeste izvanredan, pre svega vrcav suspense koji Lebedjev uspeva da stvori u scenama osmatranja iza neprijateljskih linija. U pogledu samog suspensea i načina na koji ga tretira, Lebedjev se pokazuje kao mladi majstor. Prava je šteta što snalaženje u ovom fundamentalnom domenu filmskog izraza, u stvaranju napetosti, odnosa među likovima, objektima, povezivanja kretanja, izgradnje ritma itd. nažalost nije postigao u drugim elementima.

Vremenom se Lebedjev usavršavao i desetak godina kasnije nametnuo se kao jedan od vrhunskih ruskih mejnstrim reditelja.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Variety
Navigation Menu
HOMEFILMREVIEWS
Cannes Film Review: 'Love'

EMAIL
PRINT
+
TALK




MAY 20, 2015 | 11:15PM PT
Peter Debruge
Chief International Film Critic
@AskDebruge
The cast holds nothing back in Gaspar Noe's "Love," but it's the ever-provocative writer-director who exposes the most in his sexually explicit, semi-autobiographical Cannes scandal-in-the-making, a courageously personal account of an aspiring filmmaker torn between the mother of his child and the one that got away. The helmer of such transgressive pics as "Irreversible" and "Enter the Void," Noe resolved to make a relationship movie that was honest about human sexuality, and though the stereoscopic 3D result thrusts plenty of the old bump and grind in audiences' faces, it would be disingenuous to pretend that other directors haven't gotten there first — and to more revealing effect. Still, you've gotta hand it to Noe for leaving no taboo unturned, and for putting so much of himself into a film that's bound to leave titillation seekers resenting its creator during the long stretches of wallowing introspection between climaxes.

SEE MORE: Cannes Film Festival

Given the escalating ambition of Noe's oeuvre and the pornographic promo materials teased in advance of the pic's Cannes premiere, who would have thought that "Love" would ultimately prove to be Noe's tamest film? Like last year's "Nymphomaniac," this shocker is bound to test tolerance levels in every market it enters, further eroding the lingering Puritanism that exists toward onscreen depictions of passion. And yet, explicit (and evidently unsimulated) content aside, "Love" boasts a relatively soft core. Rather than coyly sidestepping the physical expression of its titular emotion, as so many films do, this one daringly explores the emotional foundation of coital acts, thereby fulfilling the lead character's ambition of making "a movie that truly depicts sentimental sexuality."

Whereas more than a century's worth of cinematic romances have delayed onscreen couples' chance to consummate their attraction — whether via innocent kiss on the cheek or vigorous fireside sex atop a bearskin rug — Noe defuses the suspense by opening with American film buff Murphy (Karl Glusman) and aspiring French artist Electra (Aomi Muyock) manipulating one another in bed. Using only their hands, the naked couple tease each other to completion in a scene we're meant to interpret as clear evidence of their sexual compatibility. Strange then that the very next scene shows Murphy waking up beside a completely different woman, blonde-haired Omi (Klara Kristin), while his son cries in the other room.

It is New Year's Day in Paris, a time to reevaluate one's life and priorities, and a voicemail from Electra's worried mother suggests that her daughter may have committed suicide. Two years have passed since Electra found the nerve to dump Murphy (whose eponymous law, emblazoned in big block letters across a red screen, dictates, "If anything can go wrong, it will"). More aggressively fragmented than Noe's notorious chronology-flipping "Irreversible," yet far calmer in Steadicam-style lensing, "Love" builds to a comparable fantasy of how things might have turned out differently.

But first, it has to establish how the relationship with Electra unraveled, leaping back in time to show Murphy cheating on her with Omi. The condom breaks (the camera helpfully reveals Glusman's still-tumescent member for the benefit of those upon whom the concept is lost), and a mere jump cut later, Omi is breaking the ominous news that she's with child. Murphy takes the information badly, though it's much harder on Electra, whom Noe clearly adores, mistaking her sex appeal for sufficient cause that audiences might love her, too.

At best, Electra becomes an object of lust, betrayed by the very neighbor she suggested that they invite to a threesome. Whereas one-on-one sex pairs the missionary position with old-fashioned romantic music, the hot-and-heavy session between Murphy, Electra and Omi inspires electric guitars and more adventurous framing: Horizontally entwined, the three lovers fill the widescreen frame, enjoying porn-star sex without the tacky XXX cliches. Noe shoots from above, maintaining an elegant distance, while sparing audiences the garish angles and gratuitous closeups of so-called "adult" fare. This menage a trois may not be "love," but it's something beautiful in Noe's eyes — an explicit marathon, not unlike the sexual initiation scene in "Blue Is the Warmest Color," but less incongruous with the highly stylized dramatic footage that surrounds it.

For this one blissful scene, Murphy manages to enjoy both women, but from then on, he must cope with the consequences of infidelity. Although the sequence of flashbacks is a jumble, Noe has carefully coordinated and timed how they will unspool in the film, locking himself into a certain pace (overlong at 135 minutes), the way Alejandro G. Inarritu did with "Birdman." Here, instead of appearing seamless, the shots have been choreographed in such a way that Murphy's position within the frame remains constant across the cuts — many of which work more like eye-blinks, snapping to black for a split-second either within or between the given shots.

In "Enter the Void," Noe experimented with direct subjectivity, peering through the characters' eyes. Here, he tends to stare at Murphy head-on, or else to study the back of his head, counting on 3D to amplify our sense of identification. The trouble is, we don't actually share Murphy's feelings. Though undeniably endowed with other assets, Glusman is not a good actor, nor a particularly compelling screen presence — and Muyock even less so (in some scenes, it's actually hard to distinguish between Electra and two other brunettes Murphy shags along the way).

An American in Paris, Murphy is constantly surrounded by heavy accents, whose difficulties with English impede their line readings, which will surely inspire snarky types to dismiss the acting as being no better than porn performances — and yet, this is not pornography. Noe didn't set out to arouse; rather, he intends to stress how sex is a vital aspect of the way humans connect (joining a crusade to demystify sex onscreen by such artists as Andy Warhol, Lars von Trier, Catherine Breillat and John Cameron Mitchell). Neuter these scenes of their prurient function, however, and they're no more engaging than watching someone play a videogame.

By focusing on the relatively banal rift between Murphy and Electra, Noe risks making the sex boring — which might explain why he resorts to gimmick shots (including a 3D-enhanced view of that in-utero eruption seen in "Enter the Void") and a dark descent into sexual experimentation. Though it's not clear where in their relationship these boundary-challenging encounters occur, Murphy finds himself exploring a Paris swingers club (somewhere between "Eyes Wide Shut" orgy and a Francis Bacon painting) and a second threesome, this time with a transsexual prostitute — both lighter versions of encounters that came drenched in homophobia in "Irreversible."

Whereas Noe over-amplified his own sex- and violence-related fantasies in his three previous features (beginning with the bloody "I Stand Alone"), here, the helmer strips away such hyperbole to reveal his naked soul. Barely disguised beneath a bad wig and anagrammatic pseudonym (Aron Pages), Noe appears as his own rival, a sleazy Paris art dealer named "Noe" (while Wild Bunch patron Vincent Maraval gamely plays a kinky cop who aptly admits, "I like watching"). Meanwhile, Murphy has a way of spouting the pic's own intentions, satirically doing so in the most unsophisticated way, surrounded by posters for the most controversial films in the history of cinema — "Salo," "Birth of a Nation," "Taxi Driver" — from an apartment lit like the hotel room in "Vertigo" where Jimmy Stewart fetishistically recreates Kim Novak in the image of the woman who couldn't save.

With overt references to past drug use, "Love" clearly functions as a sincere mea culpa to lover(s) Noe may have wronged along the way. Though extremely precise in its every composition, it feels less Kubrickian than the director's other work. Surprisingly, Noe seems to be channeling Terrence Malick for a change, offering up an atheistic (and X-rated) twist on "To the Wonder," with its hovering camera, gobbledygooky narration and melancholy choice between two women, neither of whom he deserves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crippled_avenger]

The last decade or so has seen Jacques Audiard establish himself as one of the best, and best known, French filmmakers currently working. He first gained international attention with 2001's "Read My Lips," and then with the terrific "The Beat That My Heart Skipped" in 2005. But it was 2009's prison epic "A Prophet" that really made his name: winning the Grand Prix at Cannes, picking up an Oscar nomination and becoming a cult hit worldwide. 

2012's melodrama "Rust and Bone" continued the trend, with stellar reviews and awards buzz, bringing him to his largest audience yet, thanks to the presence of megastar Marion Cotillard. His follow-up, however, marks something of a return to his roots, a lower-budget drama starring a cast of unknowns, while simultaneously feeling like new territory. Perhaps not coincidentally, it's also absolutely terrific, one of the strongest things he's made so far: a film that contains all Audiard's strengths and few of his weaknesses. At least until the last few minutes, anyway, but we'll get to that...

Co-written again with "A Prophet" and "Rust and Bone" writer Thomas Bidegain, along with Noé Debré, the film picks up in Sri Lanka, as Yalini (Kalieaswari Srinivasan) searches a settlement for a young girl without any parents. She eventually finds one, Illayaal (Claudine Vinasithamby), and brings her to a man she's just met, where they're given new passports and get on a boat to leave. They are all Tamils, an ethnic minority in the country who fought for an independent nation, only to be defeated in a war ending in 2009, and the man now known as Dheepan (Antonythasan Jesuthasan) was a top soldier in the militant group, the Tamil Tigers.

This makeshift family are granted asylum in France, where Dheepan, haunted by the war and the death of his real wife and child, finds work and accommodation as a caretaker in a rundown housing project dominated by drug dealers. Yalini gets a job too, as the carer and cook to the disabled uncle of the local ganglord Brahim (Vincent Rottiers), while Illayaal tries to adjust to a new school in a foreign country. They initially make strides in finding a new life, but when the bullets start flying, Dheepan decides to make a stand.

Audiard has never shied away from depicting multiculturalism, as "A Prophet" proved, but "Dheepan" marks the first time that he's directly confronted the immigrant experience, and it brings out something new in the helmer. We spend only a little time in Sri Lanka, but the characters' longing for home, and their hope for a new life, drive the film, and there's real detail and empathy in the way that the film tackles the journey of its protagonists.

The title's slightly misleading, in that the film's focus is on all three of its central characters (though we were a little disappointed that Illyayaal takes a backseat in the second half of the film, given the terrific performance by newcomer Vinasithamby). Dheepan is perhaps more eager to fit in and embrace French culture, because of the horrors that he's suffered, and perhaps perpetrated, while Yalini is more reluctant: younger than him at just 26 and struggling to pick up the language, she's suddenly dumped with a fake husband and child, and the character feels like a peculiarly original creation.

Both of the lead actors are superb (both are relative newcomers: Jesusathan is an acclaimed novelist, Srinivasan is an Indian theater actress in her first film role), and their fledgling, faltering romance, reminiscent of "The Americans" in its depiction of a sham marriage that leads to actual, complex feelings, is a tender highlight and vivid hearbeat of the picture. It's a far more successful love story than the one in "Rust & Bone," and while the film retains Audiard's trademark muscularity, it's also the most compassionate and humanistic thing he's made to date.

Post-screening buzz suggested that some critics have taken issue with the film's final act, which returns to more traditional genre territory for the filmmaker, as Dheepan makes his stand in defence of his family. We didn't have such an issue with it: it hardly comes from nowhere, Audiard bringing a sense of inevitable momentum as the film starts to wrap up, and the journey of Dheepan's character, standing up for the family he's accidentally found (who may not want the help) after he couldn't save his real one, makes sense.

Perhaps it's the extreme way in which Audiard films it (including an impressive long shot at calf-level) that people take issue with, but it again felt appropriate for the film and character: Dheepan has exchanged one war for another, and by heightening the sequence, it puts us further into his head. We'll acknowledge that the film's closing minutes were the film's major disappointment however, an over-neat coda that doesn't feel earned.

Obviously it looks and sounds great: the photography, by impressive newcomer Eponine Momenceau, results in some of the most memorable images of the festival, while the score from electronica artist Nicolas Jaar is excellent This really is Audiard operating at the top of his game, mostly dropping the contrivances of "Rust & Bone" for incisive character studies and a deeply humane, almost warm, worldview, and the result is certainly one of the highlights of the Cannes competition this year. [A-]

[crippled_avenger]

Jacques Audiard charts the lives of three Sri Lankan refugees in Paris in a well-acted and gripping but finally overwrought immigrant drama.
Scott Foundas
Chief Film Critic @foundasonfilm   

The more things change, the more they stay the same for the Sri Lankan refugees of Jacques Audiard's "Dheepan," who flee their war-torn homeland only to find themselves in a new kind of conflict zone in the housing projects of Paris. A typically unpredictable career move by the prolific and varied Audiard following the unabashedly melodramatic romance "Rust and Bone" and the searing crime drama "A Prophet," this almost entirely Tamil-language immigrant drama unfolds in solidly involving, carefully observed fashion for much of its running time, until it takes a sharp and heavy-handed turn into genre territory from which it never quite recovers. Commercially, this will be a far more specialized item than Audiard's other recent work, especially in the U.S., where the film was acquired by IFC in advance of its Cannes bow.

SEE MORE: Cannes Film Festival

There's certainly no disputing that one of the breakout stars of Cannes this year is Antonythasan Jesuthasan, a former child soldier with the Sri Lankan militant group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who fled the country in the late 1980s and eventually made his way to France, where he became an acclaimed playwright, essayist and novelist. "Dheepan" marks his first leading role in a film (after a supporting part in the 2011 Indian film "Sengadal"), but his commanding screen presence suggests it will not be his last.

Drawn partly from his own experiences, Antonythasan's character here, Sivadhasan, is a rebel fighter who finds himself on the losing side in the waning days of Sri Lanka's bloody and long civil war and resolves to make a new start of things in France. But in order to claim asylum, he'll need a convincing cover story (as one of the oppressed, rather than an oppressor) and a family in tow (having lost his own wife and child to the carnage). In a refugee camp, he's given the passport of a dead man, Dheepan, and paired with a wife, Yalini (Kalieaswari Srinivasan) and 9-year-old daughter, Illayaal (Claudine Vinasithamby), and placed on a boat bound for Paris.

Once they arrive, Dheepan and his new "family" are granted temporary visas and relocated to a large housing block in Le Pre-Saint-Gervais in Paris' northeastern suburbs, where Dheepan lands a job as the resident caretaker. Despite its name ( "the meadow"), Le Pre is more of a concrete jungle where shadowy figures keep watch from rooftops and congregate in alcoves, and Audiard (who co-wrote the film with his regular collaborator Thomas Bidegain and Noe Debre) does a fine job of conveying, cinematically, the characters' initial sense of displacement and disorientation as they navigate this not-quite promised land. Immigrant tales and portraits of banlieue life have been a steady subgenre of French cinema for decades now, but there's a freshness to Audiard's gaze here.

"Dheepan" is full of small but revealing details of language and other cultural barriers that make everyday life a struggle for the characters — a struggle that continues behind the closed doors of Dheepan's apartment, where he and Yalini dance awkwardly around the fact that they are merely pretending to be husband and wife and, at least initially, seem to harbor no real feelings for each other. Some of the sharpest scenes in the film concern the various ways in which even a fake couple are forced to contend with the problems of coupledom and (especially) child rearing, as the emotionally fragile Illayaal begins acting out at school, and craves the kind of unconditional love that neither of her "parents" know how to provide.

Audiard implies early on that there are dangerous elements afoot on the periphery of the housing block, but the exact nature of their dealings only becomes clear when Yalini goes to work as a home-health aid for Mr. Habib, an infirm senior whose living room seems to be ground zero for the Le Pre dope trade. It's there that Yalini first encounters Brahim (Vincent Rottiers, the French Edward Norton), a recently paroled lieutenant in Habib's operation who stirs something in her that her sham husband does not. Meanwhile, Dheepan, unaware of Yalini's new criminal cohorts, begins a crusade to clean up the neighborhood a bit, including the designation a no-conflict zone in the central courtyard, marked off with painted white lines.

It's around this point that "Dheepan's" tightly focused narrative starts to spiral a bit out of Audiard's control. There are so many stories competing for attention here that, in the end, they all get a bit short-changed, while the increasingly persistent allegory of Paris for Colombo — complete with Dheepan bumping into (and getting roughed-up by) a former Tamil Tigers colonel — feels labored in a way that's atypical of Audiard. But that's nothing compared with an abrupt action climax that feels like it stepped out of a 1980s Charles Bronson vigilante movie and which, despite hints that we might be headed in such a direction, feels mostly like an easy way of ending the show. Audiard supposedly came down to the wire to finish "Dheepan" in time for Cannes (where the print screened lacked final credits), and while the version shown here doesn't lack the director's typical technical polish (especially in the sleek widescreen cinematography by Eponine Momenceau), some additional time in the editing room might help to smooth over the movie's rougher patches.

What keeps "Dheepan" engaging throughout is the tremendous charisma of the performers — not only Antonythasan, whose brooding intensity suggests that Dheepan's real war is the one raging inside him, but Srinivasan, an Indian stage actress also making her film debut here, who is achingly tender as a young woman forced to become a wife and mother when she has barely figured out who she is herself.

[crippled_avenger]

POLTERGEIST je svakako bio rizičan izbor za povratak Gila Kenana filmskoj režiji, posle duge i potpuno nezaslužene pauze. Iako ovaj film nije producirao Spielberg, Gil Kenan dolazi kao njegov potrđeni kadar, potpisnik animiranog filma MONSTER HOUSE koji je po mnogo čemu čistiji Amblin od mnogih skorašnjih radova kanonskih autora. Otud, iako ovog puta Spielberg ne radi POLTERGEIST, Raimi je doveo pravog poverenika.

Kenanov film nije rimejk u pravom smislu te reči, neko bi čak mogao reći da je više nastavak nego rimejk, ali na svojoj strani ima niz aduta. Prvo, Kenan ne vrši nasilnu rekontekstualizaciju originalnog filma. Čak bih rekao da je Kenanov film u određenom smislu svesniji svog pulp elementa od Hooperovog, i u tom smislune suočavamo se sa izopačenjima kakvih ima u FURY ROADu.

To što je Kenan svestan šta snima, ne znači da u mnogim aspektima ne rekonstruiše kvalitetne tekovine Spielbergove poetike, pre svega kroz prikaz porodice koju muče nevolje i čiji se konflikt eksternalizuje kroz paranornmalna dešavanja. Sam Rockwell i Rosemarie DeWitt donose izuzetan kvalitet prekaljenih indie glumaca u uloge roditelja, a Kenan već ima jako dobro iskustvo u regrutovanju dece glumaca. Rockwell i DeWitt nude ne samo kvalitetnu glumačku igru već i malo onog reliefa za odrasle u nekim zanimljivo razuzdanim intimnim scenama. Kenan spaja karkaternu Rosemarie DeWitt i Sama Rockwella dosta uspešno i sa igrom dece-naturščika i sa igrom personality glumaca Jane Adams i Jareda Harrisa.

Polazeći od pretpostavke da publika zna zašto je došla, Kenanov POLTERGEIST se dosta brzo kreće u pravcu akcije, a Kenan tretira natprirodna dešavanja u ključu vrlo maštovitog, napetog i intenzivnog horora namenjenog deci. Dakle, nema krvoprolića ali ima dosta napetosti i dosta odlazaka u zastrašujuću iracionalnost. Kenan u pogledu kadriranja mnogo više koristi pokrete kamere nego Hooper, i pravi set-pieceove koji su više oslonjeno na ekspresiju akcije nego na atmosferu. I to sve radi na jako vešt i sugestivan način, ne gubeći likove iz vida.

POLTERGEIST nosi u sebi jednostavnost i nepretencioznost filmova osamdesetih, koju je Kenan usavšrio u MONSTER HOUSEu, i nešto od toga je preneo i u ovaj film. Jedan od značajnih aduta u vođenju ove priče je efikasnost i odlično odvajanje važnog od nevažnog, POLTERGEIST je montažno utegnut, bez praznog hoda, sa vrlo ekonomičnim odmorištima.

U određenom pogledu, Kenanov POLTERGEIST ima više atributa B-filma nego Hooperov, ali je njegova poruka danas možda još i relevantnija nego pre trideset godina jer sa pojavom socijalnih mreža, pitanje dece koje usisavaju telekomunikacioni talasi postaje još jača pretnja nego u vreme televizije.

Kenan je ponovo pokazao veštinu i kreativnost, od stvaranja hemije među junacima u porodici do raskošnih sekvenci napetosti i paranormalnih pojava. POLTEGEIST nije rimejkovao ni na nivou priče, niti na nivou rediteljskog postupka. U pogledu p9stupka osnovna razlikaje to što je ovo film reditelja kome je Amblin bio deo filmskog školovanja.

* * * 1/2 / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

35 godina Pac Mana...

http://wrd.cm/1K8RSCM

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam BIG GAME Jalmarija Helandera, jedan od najsimpatičnijih naslova u ovom aktuelnom talasu "povratka osamdesetim". Ovaj film je oslonjen na osamdesete ne samo po tome što je praktično reč o rimejku Carpenterovog ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK u kome ulogu Snake Plisskena preuzima Pinari iz RARE EXPORTSa, doduše ovde nazvan Oskar, ponovo u interpretaciji Onnija Tommile; već i po tome što Helander režira svoju karijeru po uzoru na Rennyja Harlina, kreće sa američkim uplivom u finski film i na bazi toga probija prostor ka američkim angažmanima, sa tom razlikom što Helander ima i priliku da se afirmiše kroz žanrovske festivale.

Helander se u samom filmu dosta oslanja na Harlina, pre svega na DIE HARD 2 i na CLIFFHANGER i u tom pogledu praktično nema sumnje da je ovaj film i svojevrsna posveta starom majstoru koji je omogućio da iz Finske stignu i neki drugi filmski glasovi. Uvodeći Harlina, Helander ne zaboravlja svoju uspešnu posvetu Amblinu koju je napravio u RARE EXPORTSu i uspešna rešenja iz tog filma prenosi i ovde.

U određenom smislu, Helander pravi ukrštanje poetike produkcija Joela Silvera i Stevena Spielberga i to rezultira dinamičnom, pomalo goofy, i vrlo duhovitom akcionom komedijom koja izvlači maksimum iz osam i po miliona dolara budžeta. Stvari koje ne može da uradi na savršen način, Helander fino smešta u off-prostor, ali najvažnije je da se ni najzagriženiji fanovi akcijaša neće osećati uskraćeno u odnosu na ono što je ostavljeno na ekranu.

Film je delom sniman i u berlinskom studiju Babelsberg i deo scenografije vezan za Air Force One je izuzetno efektan i odlično iskorišćen, te parira moćnim prizorima netaknute prirode.

BIG GAME je jedan od onih retkih slučajeva kada spoj lokalne evropske kinematografije u kreativnom i produkcionom smislu sa holivudskim zvezdama i globalnim ambicijama, zaista uspeva da profunkcioniše. U tom pogledu, ovo je poučan primer i za naše autore koji su često u prošlosti pravili ko-produkcije ovog tipa i promašivali.

* * * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam TOMORROWLAND Brada Birda, film koji je po mnogo čemu slabiji od FURY ROADa, pre svega zbog hrabrosti da ispadne glup usled pokušaja da sa velikim sredstvima ispriča veliku priču, da na neki način spoji veliku finansijsku podlogu, skup hardver i softver sa pretenzijom. Ipak, baš zbog te hrabrosti i ambicije, moram reći da ovaj film više poštujem, iako mnoge stvari u njemu ne bih mogao da branim.

TOMORROWLAND je žanrovski hibrid u kome se spajaju animatorski nerv za akciju sa trilerskim pristupom istoj, tvrđe SF postavke sa bajkom, rekonstrukcija i istovremena dekonstrukcija kako žanra tako i žanrovske scene. U ovom filmu bukvalno ima svega, i praktično sve to funkcioniše u jednoj ravni - kao podsticaj za rediteljske bravure Brada Birda.

U drugoj ravni, kad je reč o likovima, dramskim sukobima, pojmovima kojima film barata, a za to su bili zaduženi Damon Lindelof i Bird, rekao bih da stvari dosta škripe, ali taj škripa se javlja samo u onom domenu kada film svojom energijom otvori receptore gledalaca za drugi sloj, koji je ovde prilično tanak, meni lično umnogome gnjecav i sporan. Međutim, činjenica da Birdova rediteljska imaginacija dovodi gledaoca u stanje da od TOMORROWLANDa uopšte očekuje da se razvije u veliki film, može poslužiti kao prilično veliki kompliment, i to je nešto što se generalno retko sreće, a još ređe i zaokružuje na zadovoljavajući način.

Inicijalna kriptičnost rada na projektu sugerisala je da će ovaj film biti neko fino postmoderno tkanje i on to nije. Dakle, ne treba očekivati veliku dekonsrukciju Disneyevih snova, Areu 51, Teslino tajno oružje i sl. iako svega toga ima pomalo.

Claudio Miranda, direktor fotografije u poslednje vreme specijalizovan kako za vizuelno ekspresivni art house ili Oscar-bait tako i za glossy SF umnogome daje dobar ton Birdovom frenetičnom animatorskom kadriranju, i TOMORROWLAND uspeva da bude mnogo poetičniji od grafički moćnog MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL u kome je Birda više privlačilo slaganje figura u kadru. U TOMORROWLANDu akcenat je na pokretu, i na neprekinutim dugim kadrovima svojstvenim animaciji u kojoj ima manje smenjivanja planova nego u igranom filmu. Taj animatorski žar ne važi samo za akcione scene i tretman fizičke radnje u filmu nego i za samo pripovedanje. U filmu gotovo da nema paralelne radnje po čemu jako podseća na kratkometražne Looney Tunes crtaće.

S druge strane, teško je oteti se poređenju sa filmom kolege animatora i oskarovca Dušana Vukotića koji se na socijalistički i low tech način bavi istom temom, paralelnog progresivnog sveta kojim vladaju deca u paralelnoj dimenziji. Svesno ili ne, ali Vukotić i Bird pored sličnosti priznanja i korena dele i fascinaciju new agey narativima.

New ageyness je na kraju zapravo ono što bi kod velikog dela publike, naročito odraslih, naročito onih koji nisu sentimentalni moglo i ponajviše torpedovati ovaj film. I da, zbilja TOMORROWLAND se zaključuje kao priča u kojoj se "ono što je dovelo do nesreće" na kraju preokreće u izvor blagostanja. No, ako stupidnost može biti simpatična, onda je to na neki način ovde postignuto.

Marvelova konvencija da umesto ljudi ginu roboti, u TOMORROWLANDu dobija prilično simpatičnu primenu, mada gine i dosta ljudi, ali Bird definitivno pokazuje kako se takav vid akcije mnogo efektnije radi nego što smo navikli u AVENGERSima. Isto tako, box office obećava mnogo manje rezultate od maskiranih heroja.

TOMORROWLAND između ostalog zalsužuje podršku zbog toga što je originalna filmska ideja, nije adaptacija, iako u sebi nosi nešto one petparačke ortodoksije koja je krasila JOHN CARTERa. Međutim, sudeći po box officeu opet imamo slučaj originalne ideje koja ne nailazi na podršku kakva je potrebna da bi se pokazao zamor publike od adaptiranih materijala.

* * * 1/2 / * * * *

[Meho Krljic]

Hm, dvojim da li da to gledam u bioskopu... Podržao bih Brada ali se plašim razočaranja. Srećom, idem na put pa ću imati vremena za razmišljanje. 

[crippled_avenger]

Brad zaslužuje podršku. On te sam sigurno neće razočarati...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mac]

Ima li Ajn-randovštine?

[eddie coyle]

Neki ljudi vele da ima...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/brad-birds-objectivist-leanings-shine-brightest-in-tomorrowland/article24549785/

[crippled_avenger]

Pa Ayn Rand nema u eksplicitnoj formi da bi svet propao bez elite, naprotiv, elita dovodi do propasti, ali svakako da se implicira potreba za elitom koja živi u praktično doslovnoj kuli od bjelokosti. Ovo je svojevrsni realni aynrandizam. Dakle, nema elite bez plebsa, ali nema ni plebsa bez pomoči elita.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crippled_avenger]

Mehmete, izgleda da je tvoja dilema o Birdu bila masovna, kako stvari stoje TOMORROWLAND je write-off za Mouse House već posle prvog vikenda...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Meho Krljic]

Pa ja sam već iz trejlera imao teškoće da utvrdim kome je namenjen ovaj film. Opšti štimung je diznijevski femili frendli ali prvo se testosteronski džak u liku Džordža Klunija u to ne uklapa sjajno a onda kreće akcija koja je daleko krvoločnija od bilo čega što je Bred Brd uradio do sada. Ne znam koji mu je rejting (sad vidim da je PG) ali ovo je malo šizofrena kolekcija signala...

[mac]

To je film za decu koja žele da odrastu.

[crippled_avenger]

To je socijalistički pristup dečjem filmu, zabava, pouka, surovost. Nije slučajno poređenje sa Vukotićem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crippled_avenger]

evo, Variety razrađuje tezu

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/tomorrowland-box-office-failure-originality-1201504586/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Meho Krljic]

George Miller's Abandoned 'Justice League' Movie Getting Documentary

In the lore of comic book movies that never made it out of development, director George Miller's planned Justice League  is among the most buzzed about. After Miller's Mad Max: Fury Road became a commercial and critical hit, curiosity about his Justice League film has been renewed.
Titled Justice League Mortal, the film had a cast ready to go, with stars including Armie Hammer (Batman), DJ Cotrona (Superman), Megan Gale (Wonder Woman), and Adam Brody (The Flash) on board. Warner Bros. announced the film in 2007 for a 2009 release before deciding to pull the plug.
Read more Marvel Legend Reveals What Stan Lee Initially "Hated" About 'Age of Ultron' Breakout
Now a documentary is being planned to shed light on what the film would have been like.
Tentatively titled Miller's Justice League Mortal, the documentary comes from Australian director Ryan Unicomb and producers Aaron Cater and Steven Caldwell, who announced the project via Inside Film. They have investors on board and may turn to crowdfunding as well, which would make it follow in the footsteps of The Death of Superman Lives, the documentary about Tim Burton's aborted Superman movie.
"We wanted to get the story out there to help us to gauge interest," Unicomb told the site. "I have always been fascinated with project, which would be in the same vein as 2013's Jodorowsky's Dune and this year's The Death of Superman Lives: What Happened?"
Justice League Mortal was developed around the same time as Christopher Nolan's Batman films, with  the director reportedly not keen on two versions of the Dark Knight existing on film at the same time. The writers strike of 2007-2008, as well as a rumored to be rising budget, didn't help matters either.
The film also had cast  Common (Green Lantern), Santiago Cabrera (Aquaman), Teresa Palmer (Talia Al Ghul), Zoe Kasan (Iris Allen), Hugh Keays-Byrne (Martian Manhunter) and Jay Baruchel (Maxwell Lord).
In 2014, stuntman Greg Van Borssum posted a photo with Miller most of the cast together in 2007:Posted by Greg Van Borssum on Friday, March 21, 2014The documentary team didn't give a timeline for when their film might be completed.
While this version of The Justice League never hit the big screen, Warner Bros. has Justice League Part 1 slated to hit theaters in 2017, with Part 2 coming in 2019. Zack Snyder is directing both.
The doc would be the latest in a string of looks at films that were never made, joining this summer's Death of Superman Lives, 2013's Jodorowsky's Dune and the upcoming Doomed: The Untold Story of Roger Corman's Fantastic Four.

[crippled_avenger]

DC univerzum je porodična stvar...

Back in October came news that Warner Bros. Pictures and their new digital production branch Blue Ribbon Content were developing a live-action web series based on the DC Comics title "Static Shock".

In the comics, Static (aka Virgil Ovid Hawkins) is a high school student who gains a variety of electromagnetic powers and becomes a costumed crusader against crime. At the time of the report, it was suggested that "After Earth" and "The Karate Kid" star Jaden Smith was likely to take the role.

"The Walking Dead" actor Tyler James Williams has seemingly confirmed that decision in a recent interview with Flicks and the City. Williams was discussing the lack of young black superheroes in an interview when someone in the crowd suggested Static Shock and Spider-Man.

Williams said: "I don't know...What you're talking about. But yeah no, it's great to see Static Shock is happening with Jaden." There's no official confirmation from DC and Warner Bros regarding the casting and no further word from either on how far along the project is though producer Reginald Hudlin recently said the project is "moving very quickly" and is "very much on the fast track".

It would mark the third Smith family member to join a DC adaptation though following the recent work of his parents - Will Smith's currently filming turn in "Suicide Squad" and Jada Pinkett-Smith's role as Fish Mooney on the first season of FOX's "Gotham".

[Albedo 0]

jel moguće da neki film s Klunijem dobije visoku ocjenu?

nikad prorok u svom seulu

kako da te prihvatimo za proroka kad si nam ovo s Džesikom uradio?

[crippled_avenger]

Šta sam vam uradio? Vama ništa...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crippled_avenger]

Stari o oživljavanju osamdesetih u popularnoj kuturnih, pretklih par sedmica...

http://www.beforeafter.rs/kultura/hladni-rat/

[Father Jape]

Ja ću sad i na ovom topiku citirati DFW-a
(podsetio me onaj deo gde kažeš da Byrne i Gabriel nisu imali izbora, mogli su biti samo oni sami, odnosno nisu pratili program, imitirali nekog uzora, priklanjali se pravcu itd. što je ono što je DFW često ponavljao o Karveru i Hemingveju na primer i brojnim potonjim epigonima)

You get some bona fide artists who come along and really divide by zero and weather some serious shit-storms of shock and ridicule in order to promulgate some really important ideas. Once they triumph, though, and their ideas become legitimate and accepted, the crank-turners and wannabes come running to the machine, and out pour the gray pellets and now the whole thing's become a hollow form, just another institution of fashion. Take a look at some of the critical-theory Ph.D. dissertations being written now. They're like de Man and Foucault in the mouth of a dull child. Academia and commercial culture have somehow become these gigantic mechanisms of commodification that drain the weight and color out of even the most radical new advances. It's a surreal inversion of the death-by-neglect that used to kill off prescient art. Now prescient art suffers death-by acceptance. We love things to death, now. Then we retire to the Hamptons.

[Albedo 0]

Šta sam vam uradio? Vama ništa...

upravo tako, nama ništa, umjesto da Džesiku pretvoriš u vino!

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam triler Nikolaja Lebedjeva ФОНОГРАММА СТРАСТИ, zanimljivo koncipiran i sporadično vešto realizovan triler o amalitičarki privatne bezbednosne agencije specijalizovanoj za prisluškivanje. Sticajem dramaturški nevešto koncipiranih okolnosti ona stupa u strasnu vezu sa osobom koju posmatra i da stvari budu još neuverljivije postaje poslednja koja to shvata.

Između ovih neveština postoji nekoliko zanimljivo režiranih scena i ponešto zanimljivo osmišljenih zapleta ali film kao celina ne funkcnioniše. No, ako govorimo o materijalu za rimejk onda je baš ovo ona vrsta filma koja bi se znatno mogla unaprediti kroz preradu.

Lebedjev jasno referiše na BLOW OUT i CONVERSATION u manjoj meri, međutim u odnosima među likovima naprosto ne uspeva da konstruiše ono što je potrebno da bi bio na nivou drugog, niti u pogledu sirovog suspensea dobacuje do prvog. To je u određenom smislu neobično jer film ЗВЕЗДА pokazuje da je baš sirovi suspense Lebedjevljeva jača strana.

* * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam PROJECT ALMANAC Deana Israelitea, i moguće je da sam izlapeo ali ovaj film mi se prilično dopao. Reč je o nepretencioznoj priči o grupi klinaca koji pronalaze nacrte za vremeplov, konstruišu ga i onda malo po malo dovode do vremenskih paradoksa sa fatalnim posledicama. Ono što mi se dopalo jeste opredeljenje autora da film istovremeno sačuva svoj žanrovski kostur u kome se mora iskazati rizik putovanja kroz vreme i dovesti do nekih intenzivnih, dramatičnih situacija, ali da opet ne bude ceo film obojen nekim fatalizmom. Stoga ovde imamo itekakav "butterfly effect" proistekao iz "malih stvari", ali nemamo velike pretenzije.koje bi opterećivale film u celom trajanju.

Većim delom film je easygoing, zabavan, na granici da postane digresivan, ali to se srećom nikada ne dešava. Israelite se opredelio za found footage koncept ali ga koristi isključivo kako bi dao svemu jedan dodatni vizuelni štimung, baziran na nesputanom snimanju u opsegu od 360 stepeni, i glumci uspevaju da pruže žanrovski vrlo profilisane i u priličnoj meri stilizovane role uprkos tom found footage elementu. U određenom smislu, PROJECT ALMANAC i jeste na pola puta između mojih omiljenih found footage naslova CHRONICLE i PROJECT X.

Za razliku od CHRONICLE koji se direktnije bavi temom superherojstva i problematizuje život tinejdžera koji su došli do nadljudskih moći, PROJECT ALMANAC se pre svega bavi refleksijom na hronomociju iz vizure tinejdžera i sagledava njihovu maštu i potencijalnu reakciju na takav pronalazak. U tom smislu, PROJECT ALMANAC nije bitan doprinos podžanru filmova o putovanju kroz vreme kao što je CHRONICLE u odnosu na filmove o superherojima, odnosno PROJECT X u odnosu na party movie.

Međutim, ono što jeste nije zanemarljivo. Činjenica da je BACK TO THE FUTURE kao temeljni film o putovanju kroz vreme postavio već govorio o vizuri tinejdžera, otvorilo je Israeliteovom filmu prostor da se postavi iz kontre. S jedne strane, od samog naslova, jasno je da se junaci vodi uzorima o putovanju kroz vreme iz filmova, ali isto tako otvaraju fokus na mikro-dramu, na manje skokove u vremenu, i male intervencije. koje na kraju doduše dobiju i jedno jače sudbinsko zaokruženje jer se iskustvo ispostavlja kao neuništivo.

Dean Israelite uspeva da proizvede vizuelnu ekspresivnost "snimajući male stvari", i uspeva da proizvede vrlo vibrantnu atmosferu najdužeg leta između srednje škole i odlaska na fakultet. PROJECT ALMANAC ne nudi žanrovske prodore, niti velika iznenađenja, ali meni je bio izuzetno prijatan i efektan. 

* * * / * * * *

[Meho Krljic]

Bugarska poštuje:

[eddie coyle]

 

ova je stara ali najbolja

http://srbovanje.com/img/4f0a427bd5cddc791e0006e5.jpg

[crippled_avenger]

gratias magnas, domine praesidens

http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/kultura.71.html:550117-Srpska-trilogija-uskoro-na-filmu

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam SAN ANDREAS Brada Peytona. Taj film je onoliko glup koliko trejleri sugerišu, ali nažalost mnogo je manje simpatičan od onoga kakav je trebalo da bude. Pretposlednji Emmerichov disaster film DAY AFTER TOMORROW je zapravo bio prilično dobar, ako ikoga zanima, tako da SAN ANDREAS čak ne može da uđe ni u neko poređenje sa njim a prošlogodišnji film o vetorvima još uvek nisam gledao. Kako god bilo, SAN ANDREAS je prilično glup i nedovoljno simpatičan film u kome je dekolte Alexandre Daddario najvredniji prizor, tako da fanovi serije TRUE DETECTIVE mogu očekivati malo suptilnih nadražaja, a u sali je zabavno i kada publika počne da daje opscene sugestije kako bi se njen lik dao oživeti kada se umalo udavi.

Dimenzije razaranja u ovom filmu su toliko velike, da sve to dodatno gnječi ionako užasno naivnu i gotovo negledljivu ljudsku priču, i taj paradoks ide toliko daleko da filmu na neki način nedostaje političke korektnosti. Naime, priča glavnih junaka je toliko besmislena i tanka, da deluje deplsirano u odnosu na opšte razaranje. Prvi sam tu kada treba kritikovati spasavanje civila u superherojskom filmu, ali ovog puta, ispraznost glavnih junaka deluje uvredljivo u odnosu na ono sporedno što se dešava oko njih.

Pritom, ne mislim da je ono što se dešava ostalima u tragovima prikazano kao zanimljivo, ali izuzmemo li junake koji pretenduju da se dokopaju Alexandre Daddario, dakle toliko je nisko postavljena letvica, besmislena egizstencija glavnih junaka je toliko banalna da u gledaocu budi gotovo metafizički otpor prema ovom filmu. Odavno nisam gledao film koji je u tolikoj meri uspeo da me iziritira, a išao sam da vidim nešto glupo ali zabavno.

Razaranje nasuprot ispraznosti glavnih junaka, njihovih odnosa koji su mešavina stripa i parodije melodrame, ponovo prikazuje to razilaženje između A-egzekucije i B-esencije savremenog blokbastera. Kada se setimo disaster klasika Irwina Allena koji su redom bili ismevani, ponekad nezasluženo, iz ove vizure deluju kao klasici iz nekog boljeg vremena.

Kod Allena, struktura odnosa među likovima bila je bazirana na sapunskoj operi, dakle jednoj specifičnoj formi dramskog kiča u kome se bez prave podloge simuliraju dramatični sukobi i situacije. U SAN ANDREASu, odnosi su na nivou sub-B akcijaša, ali akcija nije obračun pozoitivaca i negativaca nego katastrofa biblijskih razmera prema kojoj je nemoguće nemati odnos a to ovi junaci uspevaju.

Scene razaranja su bezlične ali ima par duhovitih set-pieceova, recimo pokušaj bekstva od cunamija malim čamcem. Ima i jedna jako duhovita replika. I to je manje-više to.

* 1/2 / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Tri godine posle PROJECT Xa, vraća se Nima. Tri godine posle CHRONICLE vraća se Max.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2IzC7fqws3g

[andjusticeforall]

Jebiga, totalno neaktualno, ali zastarijelo,    cit. S. K.:


"Kad je reč o Hagu, njegova politička uloga u okrivljivanju Srba za sve što se desilo na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije, kako bi se ceo sukob sveo na sprečavanje zločina i potpuno depolitizovao, dobro je poznata. ."


Stanoviti antipod S. K. (odnosno obratno, po senioritetu, buuuu), isto nekoć drug, a sada gospon, ili kako već, H. H., kontam da je  i bio u SK , ali evo ga, cit.:


"Taj ispusni haaški čin u režiji francuskoga suda ima dimenziju (još jednog) aboliranja Srbije od krivnje, no možda ima i drugu dimenziju posebno suptilnu: zapad bespomoćno gleda kako ga Srbija vuče za nos, ispovijeda prisnost s Unijom i želi navodno ući, a s druge strane otvoreno šuruje s Rusima."




Zapravo, pitanje jest - što se desi ako se ti i Hitrec sretnete? El se samo tkanje postojanja sruši? Šta? Šta? Šta?   

[crippled_avenger]

Ne mogu reći da sam iznenađen, a opet ne mogu reći ni da nisam. Čudno je da Cavill nije iskoristio svoju poziciju producenta da spreči odlazak projekta u neželjenom pravcu...

EXCLUSIVE: Man Of Steel star quits production just days before shooting was set to begin.

Henry Cavill has pulled out of the leading role in Special Forces thriller Stratton, less than a week before shooting was set to begin on June 2.

Action director Simon West (Con Air, The Expendables 2) was due to start shooting in London and Rome from next week on the film, based on the first of a series of novels by Duncan Falconer.

GFM Films is providing finance and worldwide sales and was selling the film at Marché du Film in Cannes last week.

But GFM co-founder Guy Collins told ScreenDaily that it was now contacting distributors to inform them of the change.

"After securing many distribution deals ahead of the market, we had a really good Cannes and had closed more deals ahead of production next week," said Collins.

"But just before leaving Cannes last Friday we were informed by the production company that they wanted to push the start date back by around three weeks to finalise some additional casting and make some further fixes to the script.

"Then, during several meetings this week in London with both sets of producers including Henry Cavill, he told us he has decided not to shoot this script at this time. He had a different vision of what the film should be to us and the production team and wanted to delay production until September and shoot a different story and script."

The project was originally optioned and developed by Ileen Maisel and Lawrence Elman's Amber Entertainment Ltd, who are co-producers with Promethean Productions, the new production company created by Henry Cavill, his brother Charlie Cavill and producer Rex Glensy.

Cavill was to play Stratton a SBS (Special Boat Service) operative for MI5 as he and his team risk life, limb and national security to track down an international terrorist cell.

Shock

"It has been a shock for us and will be for our distributors," added Collins, whose GFM Films was most recently involved with upcoming Simon Pegg comedy Absolutely Anything.

"We want to keep the production team together and Simon West as director so we have no option other than to exercise our rights under our funding agreements and replace Henry – which is not an easy task."

When Cavill first came on board he said: "I've long wanted to tell a story about the British Special Forces and finally the opportunity has come around. Duncan Falconer's work is fantastic and we are incredibly fortunate to be working with him so closely.

"We plan to convert the books to cinema as accurately as possible while keeping them topical. Simon West is a perfect match for this movie with his ability to marry storytelling and action, both of which are essential to do this project justice."

The British actor will next be seen in Guy Ritchie's spy thriller The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice.

Cavill's representation had not responded to Screen at time of publication.

[Meho Krljic]

Izašo:


http://youtu.be/bS5P_LAqiVg

[crippled_avenger]

Reprizirao sam NACHTS WENN DER TEUFEL KAM Robera Siodmaka, film koji se srećom nije pojavljivao kao referenca kada su pisane kritike CHILD 44a i to ne zato što američki kritičari ne bi poželeli da ih dovedu u vezu već zato štoga po svemu sudeći nisu gledali.

Očekivao da bi se takvo poređeje moglo pojaviti zbog pokušaja da se izjednačne nacizam i komunizam, a oba filma govore o sličnoj temi - serijskom ubici sa čijim delima jedno društvo pritisnuto represivnom ideologijom ne može da se izbori. Kao što je CHILD 44 inspirisan slučajem Čikatilo ali je izmešten u Staljinovu epohu, tako je Siodmakov film fikcionalizacija slučaja Bruna Luedkea, čuvenog i nikada do kraja rasveljetljenog serijskog ubice. NACHT WENN DER TEUFEL KAM baziran je na knjizi koja okrivljuje Luedkea ali njegov slučaj donekle i fikcionalizuje, dočim ima savremenih studija koje dokazuju da je Luedke zapravo bio nevin.

Prva dva čina filma bave se haosom u koji je Nemačka zapala 1944. godine, društvom koje je ogrezlo u korupciju i defetizam, u kome ratni invalidi povučeni sa ratišta vode policiju i generalno čine mušku populaciju gradova sa ostalim škartovima. U tom stanju straha i smrti, Luedke nesmetano povremeno ubija žene jer policija ni ne stiže da poveže njegove zločine jedan sa drugim.

Međutim, u jednom trenutku, inspektor iz odeljenja za krvne delikte prepoznaje pravilnost, profajluje potencijalnog počinioca i lako hapsi Luedkea. SS se interesuje za slučaj kako bi ponovo pokrenuo svoj zakon o istrebljivanju invalida u koji se Luedke uklapao kao mentalno zaostala osoba. No, kako SS shvata da bi takav zakon bio nepopularan u tom trenutku, kao i da bi se narod uplašio zbog saznanja da je neko nekažnjen ubijao godinama, sve do cifre od preko pedeset država, kreće zataškavanje koje uključuje i osudu potpuno nevinih ljudi za ubistva.

Ugrubo, prve dve trećine filma govore o istrazi i iznose ekspoziciju, završna govori o zataškavanju, ali film iako je zanimljiv nikada ne uspeva da se nametne kao konzistentna priča. Deo problema leži u Siodmaku jer on očigledno ovoj priči više prilazi kao istinitom događaju nego materijalu jasnog žanrovskog usmerenja što rezultira čudnom mešavinom postupaka, u kojima se smenjuju suspense i melodrama. Ipak, u osnovi, ovaj film jeste kriminalisitička melodrama koja se pojednako bavi životom u korodiralom Trećem Rajhu i Luedkeovim zločinom.

Ipak, drugi deo problema leži u tome što je film smešten u Hitlerovu Nemačku i što su mi svi junaci osim jednog njegovi podanici kojima je u tom periodu teško i možda se ne identifikuju u potpunosti ali su sasvim sigurno deo tog sveta. Serijski ubica koji ubija narod čija vojska ubija sve ostale, naprosto ne pobuđuje isti onaj odnos koji se javlja kada se gledaju neke druge serijske ubice, na prihvatljivijim mestima. Otud je najnapetija scena upravo ona kada Luedke planira da ubije Jevrejku koja se krije, premda paradoks te scene je upravo u tome što bi ona bolje prošla u šakama maloumnika-ubice nego njegovih "normalnih" sugrađana.

U krajnjoj liniji, Siodmakov film se zaključuje pričom o reakciji nacističkog režima na izazov koji im je Luedke postavio ali Mario Adorf je napravio moćnu glumačku kreaciju kao maloumni ubica i zahvaljujući ovom filmu postao je zvezda. U manjoj ulozi nemačkog oficira pojavljuje se i "naš Nemac" Peter Carsten.

U slučaju ovog filma teško je razmrsiti pripovedačke greške od specifičnosti miljea koji odbija gledaoca, zato ovo možda i nije toliko dobar film koliko zanimljivo gledalačko iskustvo.

* * * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Pogledao sam SPY Paula Feiga, novu špijunsku komediju koja nažalost ne dobacuje do hypea koji je oko nje stvorila kritika. Nažalost, čini se da je Feig postao miljenik kritičara do tačke u kojoj ga afirmišu preko granice njegovih dometa. SPY je film koji je sporadično smešan, mnogo manje nego što je autor nameravao, a u pogledu delikatnog žanrovskog balansa između špijunca, akcije i komedije ne pravi apsolutno nikakav pomak i znatno je slabiji od mnogih filmova koji su se igrali tim elementima, a od malo kog je bolji.

SPY nažalost nema problem u kom je akcija bolje režirana nego komedija, kao što je recimo bio slučaj u GET SMARTu, a nema ni onaj nemilosrdan spoj kakav bi donosio KINGSMAN. Rezultat je mediokritetski realizovana akcija u kojoj je jasna aktivnost second unita koji je predvodio JJ Perry, bez pravog humora utkanog u ta dešavanja. S druge strane, ni komedija nešto nije briljantna. Humor je klasičan land grab, nabacuju se gegovi i fizički i verbalni i psovke i čudne fizionomije, pa šta upali. Tu sad ponešto pali, ali nedovoljno da bi ovaj film svojim duhom ili smehom koji izaziva učinio da se ne pomisli na celinu.

A celina je nažalost vrlo tanka. 2015. ima veliki broj parafraza bondovskog špijunca uključujući i SPECTRE Sama Mendesa, ima šanse da SPY bude među komercijalno najuspešnijim ali posle KINGSMANa ovakav žanrovsi derivat nema šta da traži.

* * / * * * *

[crippled_avenger]

Ken Scott je počeo kao kanadski reditelj čiji je mali filmovi rimejkuju u Holivudu, potom je i sam došao u Fabriku snova i snimio DELIVERY MAN sa Vinceom Vaughnom u glavnoj ulozi, pokazavši da je u stanju da napravi punokrvni holivudski film. U novoj saradnji sa Vaughnom, filmu UNFINISHED BUSINESS, nažalost ponovo pravi regresiju u kanadski kalibar filmova iako režira po scenariju relativno uglednog Steve Conrada.

Hvale vredan je Vaughnov pokušaj da svoju komediju obogati kaprijanskim tonovima i doda joj neki novi sloj, nažalost Scott u filmu UNFINISHED BUSINESS ostaje na nivou skice za neki bolji film, najpre predloška za rimejk u kome bi Vaughn mogao da se razobruči.

Kostur dobre komedije je tu, grupa poslovnih ljudi-autsajdera odlazi u Berlin, u danima kada se u tom gradu ukrštaju najveća LGBT parada i Oktoberfest, s jedne strane se gomilaju gegovi sa gloryholeovima, posetama umetničkim instalacijama, iniciranje phone sexa na speakerphoneu i slične psine, nasuprot porodičnoj nadogradnji u formi odnosa među supružnicima i roditelja i dece. Sve je tu, ali nekako nije postavljeno u pravi sklad, niti je Scott uspeo da bilo šta od ovoga podesi na pravi intenzitet.

Vince Vaughn nosi ovaj film i uspeva da ga izvuče do podnošljivog nivoa, taman dovoljno da stvori žal što ovaj materijal nisu razradili neki jači scenaristi i reditelj. Scottov senzibilitet je i ovog puta bio korak u pravom smeru ali nažalost, egzekucija je bila nedovoljna.

* * 1/2 / * * * *