A few months ago, I saw two new sci-fi movies at the San Francisco International Film Festival, and now both are in limited release: Duncan Jones's Moon (21 screens) and Aristomenis Tsirbas' Battle for Terra (2 screens). And it got me thinking. These two movies couldn't be more different, and the main distinction between them is this. Moon is sci-fi based on an actual sci-fi idea. That means that science actually figures into the fiction somewhere. And Battle for Terra is the perfect example of a war film decorated with sci-fi trimmings; its big "twist" is that the humans are the bad guys and the aliens are the good guys, but aside from that the story unfolds exactly like a regular war film. The aliens, spaceships and other gizmos don't really figure into the major themes or plot.

It got me thinking about how many science fiction movies are really just war movies in disguise. (The current Terminator Salvation is another one.) It's very easy to transform the combatants of a war to alien races and make the cause of the war something fictitious, like the "spice" in Dune (1984). It's much easier to explain why people are fighting over that powerful stuff than why they're fighting over differences in religions or beliefs. And it's much nicer to justify battling alien invaders than it is to justify humans fighting humans. Frankly, I'm all for this little bit of deception, provided the sci-fi movies have three things. Battle for Terra has none of them.

A new international trailer has hit for Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, and the consensus from those who managed to catch a screening of the film back at Cannes is that, while the Weinsteins (or whoever cut this) managed to really make the flick look enticing and vintage Tarantino, it's still a complete misrepresentation of the actual film, which some say is quite boring. As Variety noted back in May, "Inglourious Basterds is great fun to watch, but the movie isn't entirely engaging. And it is defiantly an art film, not a calculatedly mainstream entertainment. Tarantino throws you out of the movie with titles, chapter headings, snatches of music. You don't jump into the world of the film in a participatory way; you watch it from a distance, appreciating the references and the masterful mise-en-scene."

Great fun to watch? I'll take it! That's why I go to the movies in the first place -- and that's what I expect from Tarantino as a filmmaker. Watching one of his films is like going to Cold Stone Creamery and getting a pint of ice cream mixed with all kinds of ridiculous toppings; stuff you'd never expect to be on there to begin with. That's Tarantino, that's what I hope to get out of Basterds, and this piece of movie marketing actually has me excited to sit down and watch whatever final cut (be it two-and-a-half-hours or less) Tarantino and The Weinstein Co. manage to shove into theaters this August 21. Period. Exclamation mark. Smiley face.

Watch the trailer after the jump

By: James Rocchi (reprinted from The Toronto International Film Festival, 9.13.08)

Based on journalist Mark Boal's real experiences following bomb disposal experts in Iraq, The Hurt Locker isn't just a welcome return to big-screen action from director Kathryn Bigelow (who has wrung both fame and infamy from her art with Near Dark, Strange Days and Point Break). It's an assured, confident, swaggering piece of moviemaking that manages to not only evoke every war of the 20th century but also, despite the claims by makers and some reviewers that it's an 'apolitical' film, speaks very specifically to the Iraq war. Even so, plunging us into the thick of things alongside the highly-trained men (and they're all men here) who defuse bombs for the Army, Bigelow and Boal avoid the speeches and postures and long, contemplative talks of home front films like Stop-Loss and In the Valley of Elah by staying in Iraq, and they shun the loopy, loony formal experiments of Brian De Palma's Redacted. Boal and Bigelow stay laser-focused on one group of men with a singular mission, and make us live in the constant possibility of death. Viewed from half a world away, a bomb is a political concern; viewed from less than a foot away, a bomb's just a high-stakes exercise in problem-solving, where making a mistake means a final, terminal education in the physics of expanding gases.

(By James Rocchi - reprinted from the Toronto International Film Festival, 9/10/08)

The Hurt Locker sees director Kathryn Bigelow craft a big, booming tale of tension based on journalist Mark Boal's experiences and interviews with bomb disposal experts in the streets of Iraq. Toronto didn't just see The Hurt Locker earn raves from many critics; it also saw the film get picked up by Summit Entertainment for distribution. Cinematical spoke with Bigelow and Boal in Toronto about breaking the audience's unconscious link between an actor's salary and a character's destiny, whether or not their film is really apolitical, the fun and excitement of blowing things up on-set, how making the movie yourself is the best way to be sure you make the movie you want to and much more.Cinematical's podcast content is now available through iTunes; you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:



As ever, you can download the entire podcast right here -- and those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.

Well, this looks like fun. I really like Duncan Jones' directorial debut Moon -- coming soon to a discerning theater near you! -- but I really like submarine movies. Who doesn't? Only fools.

Jones -- a commercial vet, and David Bowie's son! Did you know that? I totally didn't know that. Next you'll be telling me Freddie Mercury begat Sofia Coppola -- will be moving on to Escape from the Deep, the true story of a World War II submarine that trapped itself at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, 180 feet below the surface, where it proceeded to be assaulted by enemy charges.

I'm pretty sure Escape from the Deep will rule, as I'm not sure I've ever disliked a submarine movie. Das Boot? Duh. Crimson Tide? Yeah. The Hunt for Red October? Gimme gimme gimme. Those are non-controversial. How about: U-571? Yep, McConaughey be damned. K-19: The Widowmaker? Never understood the widespread dislike for that terrifically suspenseful little action flick. And if you want to go a bit more obscure, try the underseen Below.

And spawn of Bowie or no, Jones is a talented chap. Moon is terrific science-fiction, in a confined space, on a shoestring budget -- and that's hard. Oh, and here's to hoping Jones is able to recruit Clint Mansell for both Escape from the Deep, and his other new project, the sci-fi thriller Mute. If you want to get a sense of Mansell's typically awesome work on Moon, give this trailer a look and listen. Suffice it to say the score is a large part of the reason I can't wait to see the movie again.

The version of Inglourious Basterds that played to mixed reviews at Cannes won't be the version we see, for better or for worse. Quentin Tarantino is heading back into the editing bay next month, and giving the film an extra scene or two. (And nothing is harder to write about than a film you and the rest of the moviegoing world hasn't even seen, so bear with me here.)

The director admitted to Variety's Anne Thompson that he felt overfiddling had hurt Death Proof, so he deliberately put Basterds on a Cannes deadline -- but it was one that was so tight that he had to rush "a dripping-wet print" to the festival. As a result, Basterds was 19 minutes less than he needed to retain final cut.

So, he's adding footage back in. One is a scene that he filmed, but hasn't yet assembled that introduces the characters of Michael Fassbender and Diane Kruger's more thoroughly. For those of us who didn't get to see the film at its Cannes debut, that means little. But if you read the script, it comes before the La Louisiane sequence. However, if you're hoping to see Maggie Chung as Madame Mimieux, you'll be disappointed. The scenes between Mimieux and Melanie Laurent's Shoshanna Dreyfuss won't be restored as Tarantino feels they don't add to the narrative.

But the final edit might rest on audience approval. Tarantino's going to be doing some test screenings "outside of California" to see how the film plays to the people, and will fine tune it from there -- but hopefully not to the point of Death Proof fiddling ...

Let's begin by saying that Josh Brolin can do no wrong, and if there's one man who could be trusted with a John Brown biopic, it's the man who didn't shy away from playing George W. Bush or Dan White. Cinematical caught up with Brolin on the set of Jonah Hex, and he revealed that one of his next projects may be producing and starring in a biopic about the radical abolitionist.

"It's a great, great project. The script was already out there; I read the script, I loved it. It would be a very tough character for me to play. We're going to do some tests once I'm done with this, but it's a great script and story. Somebody who I know, because of Howard Zinn's thing [The People Speak], and I know the character really well. Mark Gordon and I had a conversation, and we said, 'Let's do this, let's get this done.' People have been wanting to do it forever and there's a lot of directors who'd love to be involved, so I think now's the time."

Hopefully, you didn't sleep your way through American history and remember that John Brown was the man who launched a violent raid on Harper's Ferry in a bid to start an armed slave revolt. That was only one of many violent skirmishes he was involved in, and he remains a controversial figure to this day. It's the kind of story just begging to be told on the big screen (why Hollywood continues to reboot and remake the 1980s and 1990s instead of digging up stories from the previous century, I'll never know), and frankly it touches on a historical era that has had a lot of relevance this year. Let's hope it happens.

[via Edward Douglas at ComingSoon for transcribing the quote before the rest of us could get to a computer]

Depending on who you read today, Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds was either a total win or a total bore (read our earlier review recap). The film, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival yesterday, wasn't as well received by critics as we might have hoped for -- and, instead, we have folks like The Guardian calling it a "turkey" and "Gott-awful," while Variety (who just recently released their official review) said this: "By turns surprising, nutty, windy, audacious and a bit caught up in its own cleverness, the picture is a completely distinctive piece of American pop art with a strong Euro flavor that's new for the director."

We get it: Some people liked it more than others, and it'll be interesting to see how (or if) Tarantino fine-tunes the film prior to its August release, especially if the Weinstein Co. is counting on this to be their big, squishy, box office teddy bear come late summer. In the meantime, though, you at home can now own the special coat Brad Pitt's character wears throughout the film. Not the actual coat, mind you, but the version of the coat that was specifically created for the film and for Pitt's Lieutenant Aldo Raine.

The coat comes from Belstaff, who also helped create the look for Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and it's "made from Belstaff's genuine Antique 10 wax cotton, known for its' strong and protective design against the elements." Additionally, "the distinguished sheepskin shawl collar adds to the comfort of the jacket and completes the look," so says the Belstaff website. Unfortunately, this sucker comes with a pretty hefty $1700 price tag ... though some would argue that having the chance to dress like Brad Pitt is priceless. Check out a larger image of the coat below.



[via TheAwesomer]