Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

sex and the city 2 movie review

The second intallment of the Sex and the City movie franchise finds the lovely foursome of Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Charlotte (Kristin Davis), Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), and Samantha (Kim Cattrall) all back in New York City two years after the first movie ended. Each lady’s life has supposedly continued on status quo until–uh-oh! All four suddenly have huge issues happening all at the same time! Get out your warm water and honey, SJP, because it’s time for some voice-overs. Miranda has a new boss who is threatened by her as a successful woman, so she quits her job. Charlotte is reaching her breaking point as a mother with two toddlers. Samantha is going through menopause. And Carrie? Well, Carrie’s fairy-tale marriage to Big (Chris Noth) is becoming too dull for her, and she’s yearning for her single days. Just in time, Samantha has snagged a trip for four to Abu Dhabi–all expenses paid! So off the four fly to Abu Dhabi, where Carrie just happens to run into Aiden Shaw (John Corbett), an ex-fiance. Hijinx and melodrama ensue.

What I liked most and least about this film is the fact that it’s simply an extended episode of the show. The over-the-top nature of the first movie carried over to the second both in wardobe and setting. Not that one would expect anything less from the creators and stars of Sex and the City. As always, costume designer Patricia Field had the ladies decked out in the best, trendiest, and most unique digs that the world can offer. Filmed both in New York City and Abu Dhabi, the set locations were both familiar and strange, giving the viewers a new way to see their favorite characters. Everything that anyone can love about the show is there. The fabulous lives of four successful New York women as played out live, just like in every woman’s fantasies. And of course the shoes. Oh, the shoes. Any girl can appreciate that. It’s simply good entertainment.

On the downside is the predictibility. Within the first 10 minutes, Carrie makes a statement that tells everyone in the audience exactly what’s going to happen. It’s not even subtle. That made sitting through the rest of the movie kind of…boring. Aside from location, there’s nothing new or totally different to set the movie apart from the HBO series–nothing to make it a stand-alone movie. I think anyone who watched the first movie without watching the series was probably able to follow the story, but had no reason to care about any of the characters. The same is true for this one. Anyone can see it, but had I just walked into the franchise at this point, I wouldn’t find myself interested in the lives of these four women. It’s lucky for the studio that the show has maintained such a huge following, thanks in part to running in syndication on TBS.

Overal I give the movie a solid B. It is a fun, entertaining chick flick, enjoyable to any girl who has ever watched the series. It’s a fun popcorn movie to enjoy with all the girlfriends you haven’t seen in a while but don’t want to exert the energy to actually talk with. For diehard fans of the show, I would suggest waiting for the DVD release. Watch some reruns on TV in the meantime, and you’ll basically see the same thing.


Source :http://www.boomtron.com/2010/05/sex-and-the-city-2-movie-review/

Sex and the City 2 Review

Read More

Saturday, May 21, 2011

spn-castiel-god-pointy.jpgIn case there was any doubt remaining -- yes, "Supernatural" fans, our favorite feathery friend will be back for Season 7. Along with Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles, The CW lists Misha Collins as a series regular for the upcoming season, which will begin airing on Friday nights at 9 p.m. EST (its current timeslot) this fall.

EDIT [01:32 a.m. EST]: Though Collins was listed in The CW's press release, TVLine reports that he is not listed as a regular in Season 7. He will, however, return in some capacity.

He's not the little angel on Dean's shoulder anymore, though. Now that he's absorbed all of the souls in Purgatory, Castiel is officially a God. We're not sure whether he's the one and only, or if there's still another God hiding out somewhere... perhaps looking something like Chuck? What we do know is that for now, Castiel expects Sam and Dean to treat him a little differently.

"I'm your new God," he said coldly. "A better one. so you will bow down and profess your love unto me, your lord, or I shall destroy you."

We don't doubt it, either. Though Castiel ultimately beat Raphael, he kept Crowley around, making ominous threats about plans for him. He also proved his ruthessness in the episode when he nearly turned Sam into a vegetable in his quest for the ultimate power. Dean isn't likely to forgive Castiel for that move any time soon, and it's clear that Sam still has a lot of healing to do before he gets his bearings back.

One thing is for sure -- Castiel has changed, big time. We spoke with E.P. Ben Edlund recently, and he told us that the decision to "turn" Cas wasn't an easy one. "I had my hesitations," he admits, "because I like the fish-out-of-water, dumb jokes, and I like Cas. I like the thing on camera that Misha created that complemented this new strain of creature, this angel coming into our world and gave a body and character to it. That's a really great thing. But one of the rules of 'Supernatural' is loss, and losing things. You have to love something before you can feel its loss."

Showrunner Sera Gamble tells TV Line that though Collins is a regular, Castiel's role in the story was never intended to be as constant as Sam's and Dean's. "When it comes to 'Supernatural,' our philosophy is that everyone moves in and out and weaves in and out of the story, obviously with the exception of Sam and Dean," she says. "We love Misha. We love and adore the character of Castiel. His character developed to this extent and went in this unexpected direction because we were so inspired by him."

We're going to be counting down the days until autumn. In the meantime, let's recall the lighter side of the show -- check out our favorite quotes from all six seasons of "Supernatural" here.

Weigh in, "Supernatural" fans. What do you think is in store for Season 7? Is Castiel our new Big Bad? Are you going to miss our lovable angel buddy? Will Sam ever be the same? Will Dean bring himself to do the bowing and the love-professing Castiel demands? Let us know below in the comments section.
Follow Zap2it on Twitter and Zap2it on Facebook for the latest news and buzz

'Supernatural' Season 7: Misha Collins to return as your Lord Castiel

Read More

Friday, May 20, 2011

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

“Art is not the reflection of a reality; it is the reality of that reflection.”

- La Chinoise (1967, Jean Luc-Godard)

“In a violent and contemporary period of history, it is myth that invades cinema as imaginary content. It is the golden age of despotic and legendary resurrections. Myth, chased from the real by the violence of history, finds refuge in cinema.”

- Jean Baudrillard

“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

- The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962, John Ford)

Robert Altman’s Buffalo Bill and The Indians, or Sitting Bull’s History Lesson was made and premiered in 1976, when the country was celebrating its 200th anniversary of independence. Altman had already taken a stab at this bicentennial in his previous film Nashville (1975), where we are presented with a fragmented sketch of America as a nation at crossroads. Buffalo Bill is also Altman’s second western feature after the tremendous McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971), which was nothing less than a re-imagining of the Western myth as founding of industrial capitalism. It is interesting to think why writers Altman and Alan Rudolph embarked on this project of adapting Arthur Kopit’s play and resurrecting the figure of Buffalo Bill at all. If McCabe tried to clinically de-mythicize the archetypal Western hero, it didn’t do as much to question its own myth-creating properties. In Buffalo Bill, Altman’s everything-but-the-kitchen-sink method finds precise articulation in the text and the text, too, lends best to a stylistic that is as diverse and off-kilter as Altman’s. All his directorial techniques serve both aesthetic and thematic purposes in this film, especially the overlapping, conflicting soundscapes and imagery (used effectively in a film that is explicitly about conflict of narratives and ideological contestation) and the notorious zoom (altering, illustrating and mocking the protagonist’s persona). Utilizing sound and image in complex, inventive ways, Altman not only critiques popularly represented Western myths but also their modes of representation, especially when it comes to the film’s own. Throughout, the ceaselessly self-conscious film undercuts its own criticisms by questioning their assumptions and authority to such a successful extent that we begin to take everything that it claims with a pinch of salt. A searing portrait of the West (and the Western) as a deadly mixture of patriarchy, nationalism, entertainment and unbridled xenophobia, Buffalo Bill finds Altman at his caustic best.

In fact, self-critique begins right from the first frame as fanfare blares over a monochromatic United Artists logo, registering its own status as an entertainment product. The first image we see, likewise, is near-mythical and patently ‘Western’: a surreal landscape, out of focus, which the American flag being hoisted cuts through. The opening credits appear in a gaudy typeface and a faux title for the film reads: “Robert Altman’s Absolutely Unique and Heroic Enterprise of Inimitable Lustre!”. The message is clear: Buffalo Bill is no finer than the typical roadside fair or, as we would see, Bill’s own Wild West show in every aspect. As the bugle plays on tirelessly, as it would do throughout the film, the camera pans gradually to the ground as if establishing the scene and the history of the West. The first spoken words in the film are heard as the narrator announces:

“Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. What you are about to experience is not a show for entertainment. It is a review of the events that made the American frontier. In less than 15 years, this nation will celebrate the 20th century. We do not know what awaits us in the future but we do know the past that laid the foundation. And that foundation was not built from heroes but from the anonymous settler. Their home was but a shack roofed in with sod. One door shut out the wind and storm one window greeted the dawning day. These brave souls survived not only nature but the savage instincts of man, paving the way for the heroes that endured. So welcome to the real events enacted by men and women of the American frontier. To whose courage strength, and above all, faith this piece of history is dedicated.”

If we are to disregard the ironic stance that the film would take at the set of statements here, the opening scene so far plays out as the classic Western metanarrative, with the lone ranger conquering the savage frontier and building civilization from scratch. The attitude of the film, however, is akin to the opening ethnographic documentary of Ken Jacobs’ Star Spangled to Death (1957-2004), where we are shown and told the story of a glorious white couple teaching science, hygiene and table manners to kids and women of an African tribe. Given the year of both Altman’s and Jacobs’ films and the extent to which the portrayal appears caricatured, it is impossible to take the narrator’s words with a straight face. As a result, the film’s diegesis is split open, much like The Player (1992) -the one film that is closest to Buffalo Bill in terms of how it functions – where the possibility of cordoning off the narrative universe is thwarted right from the first shot.

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

As the “savage” natives raid on white women and children, moving around them on horses in circles, like a strip of film around a bobbin – serving a thematic function, which reaches apotheosis in the final scene, as well – we witness the film’s actual title being displayed: Buffalo Bill and The Indians, or Sitting Bull’s History Lesson, the subtitle in the title serving a special purpose. And as the cowboys turn the tables on the raiding Indians in a story justifiably without context or the specifics, the acting credits play on. Instead of an actor’s name being mentioned against the name of the character he/she plays, we see it alongside the “type” of the character – The Star, The Producer, The Publicist, The Indian, The Indian Agent, The Legend-Maker etc – calling to attention the film’s own myth-building. And suddenly, another voice different from the narrator (Altman? the show’s director?) shouts: “cease action!” and it is revealed that what we had so far seen was rehearsal for a Wild West show. Dead men rise to their feet and makeshift houses are moved by horses. Some corrections are suggested to performers to look more authentic. One native is hurt and men say it “looks real”. However, we are still not sure where performance ends and where reality begins. We are still dangling without a reference.

Cut to the Legend-Maker and Buffalo Bill’s ex-producer Ned Buntline – played by a legend himself, Burt Lancaster – who recites the tale of how he made Buffalo Bill out of a scrawny looking kid on the street. Flanked by a bunch of supporting actors and bracketed by two pillars of the bar and his voice mixed with a feeble version of the now-familiar fanfare, Ned is introduced already, with a gradual zoom-in, as a fiction maker and a piece of fiction himself. Almost immediately after this we are shown another minor Legend Maker – the old guard who works at The Mayflower fair where Buffalo Bill’s performs – who chalks his own story about Bill to a bunch of Indian kids. There might be a little gesture of humour here in how everyone claims importance with respect to Bill, but it also off-handedly establishes the film’s major theme: history as a contested territory. It is here that we see Altman’s typically chaotic collage editing of for the first time as we move from the Legend Maker, to the guard, to one-handed sharpshooter Annie Oakley (the beautiful Geraldine Chaplin, who carries a baggage of vaudeville, showmanship and entertainment along with her name), to her husband and moving target Frank Butler (John Considine) to The Producer Nate Salisbury (Joel Grey) and to The Publicist Maj. John Burke (Kevin McCarthy).

But not Bill. We haven’t met Bill yet, although we have an idea of his stature from second hand sources. When Frank goes to meet him in a hurry, we hear Bill for the first time, almost throwing a fit. Even now, he’s hidden behind a huge promotion banner containing his image. As we would see, Bill is always hidden behind his ‘image’. By prolonging both Buffalo Bill’s and Paul Newman’s introduction, Altman’s film reinforces the mythic nature of both these celebrities. As Frank fills two glasses of beer to take to Bill (multiple actions unfolding simultaneously is nothing new to Altman’s cinema), Nate speaks about his performance as a black American in shows with another troupe he was associated with, before going on to typecast a few other nationalities: “There were times when I was asked to play a colored. Now do I look like a colored? But when I had to play a colored, I was a colored. I thought like a colored. I drank like a colored. I walked like a colored. I was a colored”. Nate is not (intentionally) sending up method acting, but his decidedly irrational belief that he could play a black American with total authenticity puts him on par with some of our celebrated ‘actors’. Much of the outlook of Bill’s crew, himself included, towards Native Americans is derived from this sort of epistemological confusion, a notion that they can truly understand, decode, model and replicate the Indian psyche.

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

As Frank enters Bill’s room, we watch Burke vacating the room, assuring Bill about casting: “Everything historical is yours, Bill”. Soon, the word about his new story idea for the next season – “enemies in ’76, friends in ‘86” – spreads and Buntline figures that the foil for Bill would be no other than Indian Chief Sitting Bull (Frank Kaquitts), who would not be shot by the army until a certain Sioux treaty is signed, and would be humiliated and de-mythicized at the show. (“A rock ain’t a rock once it’s gravel”). When Bill’s nephew Ed Goodman (A stiff Harvey Keitel) doubts if Sitting Bull was interested in show business, one of the writers for the show replies, “If he wasn’t he wouldn’t have become a chief.”, betraying the group’s general inability to interpret the world outside of the parameters of entertainment business. This is followed by another legend from the old guard about Sitting Bill. We now have a bit of history about the Chief and some myths surrounding him before we get to see him at all, just like Bill. And this is the first of a number of instances where the film strikes an explicit parallel between the two “heads of clans”.

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

Buffalo Bill and the Indians

Following a surprise insert of a stunted zoom shot of Sitting Bull’s clan, Buntline talks about Bill’s dubious resolution to cut down on his drinks, after which the film cuts to a shot of the first of three opera singers who accompany Bill, as she passes by a triumphant painting of General Armstrong Custer, who Bill model’s himself after to an insane extent (that the painting could well be of Bill himself), on his white horse. (Arranged according to the scale of their singing, these three singers – The Mezzo-Contralto, Lyric-Coloratura and Lyric-Soprano played respectively by Bonnie Leaders, Noelle Rogers and Evelyn Lear – also form the thematic checkpoints in Bill’s self-delusive odyssey). It is only after this that we have the first glimpse of Buffalo Bill and Paul Newman – announced as America’s national entertainer by Nate – as he rides into a rehearsal show amidst heavy applause and fanfare, like a star. Another sequence with non-associative cross-cutting between Bill learning of Buntline’s return to the campus and of the hurt Indian’s passing and Nate welcoming the rest of the Indians around him to “America’s national family”. Nate gets instructions to have Buntline vacate the campus. He goes to confront Buntline. Nate is the one character in the film who acts most obviously as the writers’ mouthpiece, tossing off one provocative line after another. His lines would most probably be the ones to structure discourses surrounding the film. When trying to persuade Buntline to move out, he gives us this one out of the blue: “We’re gonna cody-fy the world” suggesting how he plans to make Bill a universal figure invading all imagination and the Manichean view of the frontier that that entails such a project.

Buffalo Bill And The Indians – An Analysis (Part 1/5)

Read More

Monday, May 16, 2011

While the foreplay between the Cannes Film Festival and Terrence Malick's complex rumination The Tree of Life has been going on for well over a year, it finally climaxed with this morning's 8:30AM press screening. There was such anticipation for this film that the cavernous 2300 seat Lumiere Theatre at the Palais was completely full a half hour ahead of showtime, unprecedented. Reactions afterwards seem to be mixed. There was a smattering of loud boos when the picture went to black at the end but then good (but not spectacular) applause once Malick's name came up on screen. One columnist immediately emailed a friend, "the film is terrible" while another critic rushed to print calling it "major". The movie splits its time between the lives of a family in 50's Texas with Cosmic images of how the Universe was created, a couple of dinosaur cameos and bigger metaphysical questions about our existence than anyone can answer in a two hour and 18 miinute movie, even Terrence Malick. It's not a traditional kind of narrative but rather an experience meant to inspire deep thought about our own lives in a greater context. For those special effects sequences detailing the beginnings of time alone the three companies whose logos appear at the top of the film (Fox Searchlight, Summit, River Road) should be doing everything they can to insure this gets booked on to every available IMAX screen. It's a visual stunner, as you might expect from a man whose four previous films were Days Of Heaven, Badlands, The Thin Red Line and The New World.

Four time Oscar nominated cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki was behind the camera and did a sterling job juxtaposing between small town Texas and the evolution of the world, no easy task. Certainly what's on display in this much delayed work is vintage Malick,the kind of auteur Cannes loves (he won Best Director here for Days Of Heaven in 1978) but it can't help but divide audiences the way many great art films do. It can be compared in ways to Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey which also split audiences at the time but now is regarded a true classic (not surprisingly 2001 special effects wizard Douglas Trumball consulted here too).

Some people have the patience and curiosity to endlessly explore movies like this like they would a great painting , others just want the normal popcorn fare. This is anything but that as principals , including star (and producer) Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, tried to explain at the press conference that followed the screening. Missing was co-star Sean Penn who is enroute from Haiti to Cannes for tonight's premiere (and the preem of his other film here later in the week, This Must Be The Place as well as Wednesday night's Cinema For Peace dinner at the Carlton where he is being honored for his humanitarian work) according to producer Bill Pohlad who also appeared on the panel with producers Grant Hill, Sarah Green and Dede Gardner (Pitt's producing partner). Most notably absent though was Malick himself, a highly unusual occurence at a Cannes press conference. This is a director-driven fest if ever there was one. Green explained away the absence of the ultra-reclusive helmer saying, "Mr. Malick is very shy. He likes to think his work can speak for himself," she said and when pressed further it was emphasized "he's really shy". The fact is Malick is here for the premiere and will be walking the red carpet tonight which is an easy thing in Cannes since at premieres directors just wave, pose for pictures and soak up the adulation. One thing they don't have to do is talk. Searchlight co-President Nancy Utley told me a few weeks ago Malick would be travelling to Cannes but likely unavailable while he was here. He never gives interviews, not even in the official press notes.

It really didn't matter since most of the questions were about Malick anyway, even with Brad Pitt sitting right there in the middle. Pitt explained how he loved Malick's directorial style. " I could go on about him for a couple of days. He was more interested in capturing what might be happening on that day (rather than what's in the script), waiting for the truth to come. There was only one light on the set, the rest was all natural and handheld. I don't know that I could do this a lot. It was exhausting but you see what you get," he said. Of this experience Pitt also added, "It's changed everything I've done since. For me the best moments are not pre-conceived or planned. I now try to go off script and see what happens".

Pitt said he and Plan B Entertainment partner Gardner jumped on board because they wanted to see Malick's script made. "I was surprised by the structure. It's quite ingenious merging the micro with the macro and finding parallel truths in it," he said.

As for the version that was meant to originally come to Cannes last year but was eventually deemed "not ready" compared to the version being debuted today Pohlad said "there isn't a huge difference but there were refinements."

The film is certainly stirring up talk here so Malick, the Garbo of directors, will get his wish. People will decide for themselves. As I mentioned in a piece yesterday , Chastain told me Sunday she likes to tell people "this is a movie that could change cinema". After seeing The Tree of Life I would say that would only be possible if studios start giving extrordinary visionary but eclectic directors like Malick big budgets to bring their personal art to the screen - and that ain't happening in Hollywood's corporate culture anytime soon. Bottom line is every now and then one slips through the system, gets made, even released with the director's vision intact. And that's why we've finally got this one to argue about up and down the Croisette today.

Before the fest started many in the media were predicting Malick , with his film sight unseen, could be the one to beat for the Palme d'Or. It's certainly possible but with so many of Cannes' favorite auteur directors still to come this week, the race for Sunday's top honors is just heating up.


Source :http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/tree-of-life-finally-debuts-in-cannes-to-mixed-reaction/

Tree Of Life FINALLY Debuts In Cannes To Mixed Reaction

Read More

Copyright © Breaking News Best Site News | Designed With By Blogger Templates
Scroll To Top