The Screengrab

By now me and you and everyone we know is aware that Guillermo del Toro has been tapped to direct not one but two new hobbit movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. (Initial reports indicated that the second film would span the period between the end of the book and the beginning of Lord of the Rings, but now that appears not to be the case.) Now that years of accounting disputes between New Line and Peter Jackson are finally resolved, the AP reports that del Toro “will move to New Zealand for four years to make the films back-to-back with executive producer Peter Jackson.”

Seems like a perfect match, right?

Read More...

"I think there is something that has brought maths to the fore...I think probably because we live in a world with so many lies, and so much lack of truth, that it has become quite sexy to think of the one thing we have which is the only language that is truthful. There's no way of disproving that two plus two equals four, and therefore, take that to the ultimate, much more complicated areas, and you're dealing with something which is truthful." That's one of the world's greatet character actors, John Hurt, talking to the BBC about his role in the new "mathematical detective story" The Oxford Murders (in an interview that the Beeb headlined, "John Hurt Explains Why Math Is Sexy"), and if you had no excuse for linking to it besides the chance to show the words "math", "sexy", and "John Hurt" in the same tight space, you'd jump at it too. Actually there are other reasons to bring Hurt's name up, now that he has three high-profile films on the horizon.

Read More...

As we gear up for another spring full of rampaging monsters and psychopathic serial killers, Desson Thompson in the Washington Post wonders if something elemental to the whole concept of the horror movie isn't missing:  the victim.

After the usual handwringing over the 'torture porn' generation, the artist formerly known as Howe goes on to make some pretty compelling points:  the horror films of today — even the stylized, artsy ones influenced by or coming from the J-horror movement — tend to focus entirely on the means by which the victims are dispatched:  intricate traps, complex schemes, gruesome tortures, gigantic monsters.  Very little attention, on the other hand, is given to providing the audience with an identification figure:  while in previous horror films we were at least able to identify with the person going through such terrifying treatment (as in Rosemary's Baby) or with the person doing the terrorizing (as in Psycho), the modern-day horror film has lost its focus, one way or another, on humanity and gives us precious little to care about beyond the novelty of learning how the next victim will snuff it.  "When we think of the horror classics", says Thomson, "we don't recall the gruesome acts so much as the people who weathered them. Think of Rosemary Woodhouse, the determined mother in Rosemary's Baby, who faces the prospect her baby has been fathered by the Devil. Remember Regan MacNeil, the sweet pre-teen of The Exorcist, whose satanic transformation forces heroics from two soft-spoken priests. Even Jack Torrance, the demented murderer at the heart of The Shining, affects us because he's a husband and father gone horribly awry, not some abstract ax wielder."

Read More...

I enjoyed the original Hellboy movie well enough, but I wasn't exactly clamoring for a second installment, even with the return of director Guillermo Del Toro. However, seeing the trailer I've got to say- Hellboy II looks pretty darn cool. Not incidentally, it also looks more like a Del Toro film than the original film, with more creepy-crawlies and dreamlike imagery. And I find it sort of amazing that Universal is actually playing up the Pan's Labyrinth connection- who would have guessed that a studio would be using a subtitled movie to sell one of their big summer blockbusters? Also, if this trailer is any indication, the boring-ass agent from the original won't be returning for the sequel, which would be an improvement. Not sure if it's actually true, but I can hope, can't I?

In the L.A. Weekly, two staffers take decidely different approaches to the presence of children in film:  looking back at the history and the development of the on-screen child, from The 400 Blows to Little Miss Sunshine, Ella Taylor notes a reflection in contemporary cinema of our curious blend of overprotectiveness and overpermissiveness, and wonders why Hollywood has, unlike other countries, had such great difficulty promoting the development of a great director who makes films primarly for kids.  In the same issue, John Anderson, taking a very different tack, notes that increasingly, children have a shorter and shorter life expectancy -- on screen, at least.  Citing a recent crop of movies from Pan's Labyrinth and Planet Terror to 1408 and Lonely Hearts, Anderson points out that it's becoming even more dangerous to be a child on screen than it is to be an adorable puppy or a wise-cracking black sidekick.

LEONARD PIERCE: Unlike our last Face/Off, when we discussed Children of Men (a film which you will be marrying next summer in a small private ceremony at the Film Forum, whereas I view it simply as the most overrated movie by one of the Three Amigos prior to the release of Pan's Labyrinth), today, we're going to talk about a movie we both really liked, albeit possibly for different reasons — Fargo by the Coen Brothers.

Specifically, we're going to talk about how the movie feels about Marge Gunderson, its main character and moral center. One of the most common critiques of the Coen Brothers as filmmakers is that, while they're technically gifted and skilled synthesists, they lack heart, soul and feeling — the humanistic qualities of the directors they choose to ape. I don't believe this is true, necessarily; while I don't think the Coens will ever be accused of Capraesque oversincerity, I think they believe, more or less, in the message as well as the medium. But I do think that the Coens are very cynical filmmakers, not calculating or phony, but with a pretty jaundiced view of humanity. I don't, in short, think they really like their characters very much.

I won't go as far as to say they hate Marge Gunderson; she is clearly a decent human being for the most part, and they don't reserve for her the contempt with which they treat Jerry Lundegaard, who doesn't even have the courage to be a bad man, or Wade Gustafson, who treats the kidnapping of his daughter like a business deal only he is competent enough to close on. But I think Marge is meant to be yet another manifestation of the dull, unimaginative "Minnesota nice" of their childhood, which they sought to exorcise in Fargo just as surely as Todd Haynes did the wealthy Southern California of his youth in Safe.

Read More...