lost Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Stephen King's The Dark Tower series of novels are probably his most underrated, and that can mostly be attributed to the fact that it took him 22 years to finish the series. It's a sprawling epic story, starring The Gunslinger, Roland, and his companions as they are inexorably drawn towards the titular Dark Tower. Like The Lord of the Rings, it's a travel story, with all of the action happening during the journey itself.

If you haven't read the series, I can't recommend it highly enough. It's got gunslinging, swords and sorcery, time travel, interdimensional doorways, artificially intelligent monorails, and so much more. It also ties most of King's major novels together in bizarre ways, without getting boring. Either pick up the first book in the series and check it out, or listen to the audiobook during your commute. You won't be sorry.

Just do it before J.J. Abrams and his Lost crew begin making the movies. Wait, what's that? Abrams? Lost? The Dark Tower? Read on to see how all of these pieces will soon fit together to produce what some claim is destined to become the next Lord of the Rings.

At the beginning of this past summer, I finally caved and decided to check out Lost on DVD. A friend of mine had gone on some crazy Lost binge, watching all four seasons in, like, a week, and afterward the dude was a little dizzy, dirty and distant. So, instead of going the crazy route, I spread the sucker out over five months and just finished up season four last week ... itching for more, of course. With season five debuting in January, and season four arriving on DVD this December 9, series writers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse sat down for a roundtable discussion and answered questions about the show.

Collider has a great transcript, and I could spend hours chatting it up with you, but this is a movie blog and we're more comfortable sticking with things that may or may not end up on the big screen. Case in point: What about Lost? Sure, they've cut a deal to end the series in 2010, but will they surprise us with a finale in theaters? When asked this, Lindelof said, "No. At least not by us. We've always felt that the show should definitively end the same place it started... on television. To bring our characters to some sort of cliffhanger where the audience gets none of the answers that they really care about and then say, "Now give us ten bucks, buy some popcorn and we'll give you the rest!" would pretty much be the worst thing ever."

What do you think? Should Lost stick to the small screen, or would a theatrical finale be more fitting?

I don't know when exactly AMCtv.com's Sci-Fi Scanner blog came about, but after bringing us the news last week that Mathieu Kassovitz wasn't exactly happy over the final product that was Babylon A.D., they've continued their hot streak by landing an interview with "Lost" and Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof, who fessed up that he'd be just as eager to adapt Stephen King's series as he would be to see someone else do it.

"The Dark Tower is to me every bit as daunting an adaptation as the Lord of the Rings trilogy must have been for Peter Jackson, except we've got seven books we're looking at," said Lindelof, who then explained that doing that doing the films alongside the closure of Lost would be too challenging a task at the moment.

Not unlike Watchmen, King's series remains among the literary works that everyone else insists to me are positively OMG!-awesome and that I have yet to get around to (I know, I know). With any luck, I'll get to them before someone gets to the movies, which seems to be an inevitability with or without Lindelof's involvement.

[by way of Bloody Disgusting]

Remember serials? I don't, because I'm too young, and by the time I began going to the movies, it was already the practice for cinemas to stick to single, self-contained, feature-length fare. With the way screenings are arranged today, scheduled so that both theater owners and studios can get as much money from as many showings as possible, there's just no room for any accompanying shorts, especially the kind that don't end in a conclusive manner.

I'd probably be okay with being left out of that experience from the moviegoing past, but each time another Indiana Jones movie is released, I can't help but think I'm at least a little less appreciative of George Lucas' intent than some of the older folk in the audience. When Lucas thought up the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, he partly meant the film as homage to the serials he remembered from his childhood.

Yet Raiders didn't end with a cliffhanger, as most serials had on a weekly basis. And with the third sequel to that film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, arriving in theaters this week, I still wonder why at least two installments couldn't have been connected with the serializing device. Lucas had already somewhat shown us, through the uncertain ending of The Empire Stikes Back and continuation/resolution beginning of Return of the Jedi, that it could be done.

As a die-hard Lost fan, I'm going to miss "Charlie" (or as Claire says, "CHAHlee"), the character played by Dominic Monaghan. But at least I'll get to see the actor return to the big screen in Pet. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Monaghan has been cast as the lead in the psychological thriller, in which he plays a deranged animal shelter employee who kidnaps his teenage crush and obsessively holds her captive as his pet. The only other plot point provided by the trade is that the woman he's imprisoned is "not who she seems to be." That could mean anything, from her being an alien to her being a shape-shifter who turns into an actual animal to her being something more realistic, such as a female "MacGyver" who ends up escaping her cage and wrecking vengeance on "Seth", as Monaghan's character is called.

For Monaghan, Pet seems like a big step further into unlikable roles. Most of us became familiar with the actor as one of the lovable Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Then we fell for his flawed rocker on Lost, though except for in the very end, we were made to lose favor for "Charlie", as he continually lied, shot up heroin and acted like a spoiled little bitch. Then he frustrated many male Lost fans by becoming the unlikely boyfriend of his co-star Evangeline Lilly (I'm unsure if they are still a couple -- anyone know?). Now as a creepy "Buffalo Bill" type, he's sure to lose even more of his appeal -- at least on screen, anyway. Pet begins shooting sometime in the next few months under the direction of Irish filmmaker Edna Enda McCallion (at least I think she's the director, the trade doesn't make it entirely clear), who can be seen in this clip giving a behind-the-scenes look at the making of his music video for the Nine Inch Nails song "Deep".

According to Variety, Matt Reeves is "in early talks with Paramount" to direct a sequel to this month's smash Cloverfield. This should come as a surprise to exactly no one, as Cloverfield was made on the super cheap ($25 million) and scored a whopping $46 million in its opening weekend alone. From the way the announcement is worded, it looks like they want Cloverfield II underway ASAP, as soon as Paramount can complete discussions with Reeves, producer J.J. Abrams and writer Drew Goddard, who penned Cloverfield as well as episodes of Lost, Alias, and Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Reeves has also signed to direct The Invisible Woman, "a Hitchcock-style thriller" he wrote that "probes the mind of a former beauty queen who turns to a life of crime to protect her family."

It remains unclear which project will start production first, though the Variety article says there's a "good chance" it'll be Cloverfield. No word yet on the plot, but Goddard recently mentioned the possibility of showing you the fateful night of the attack from another cameraman's perspective. Much to my chagrin, I have yet to see Cloverfield. The night it came out I was assigned to review...Mad Money. You don't know humiliation until you have to purchase a ticket for a midnight showing of the new Diane Keaton comedy while surrounded by a huge mob of psyched Cloverheads. I'll check it out this weekend, but for those of you who've seen it -- are you excited for a sequel? And do you like the idea of watching events from another angle or would you want a whole new adventure?

Before I get started, I should probably warn you: I have a big soft-spot for Sarah Michelle Gellar. I'm a huge Buffy the Vampire Slayer nerd; I've even started buying the comics for season eight, for goodness sake. So I am a little predisposed to defend her choices -- and let me tell you, it hasn't always been easy. In an interview with RadioFree.com Gellar confirmed that she is still in the lead role for the big screen version of American McGee's Alice. Gellar told RadioFree, "unfortunately, it was the victim of regime change in the studio. And I'm not getting out. And contrary to what you may have read, it's still my project."

The film will be based on Rogue Entertainment's third-person shooter set in the world of Alice in Wonderland. The story centers on a pretty twisted incarnation of Alice -- her parents are killed in a fire, and after slipping into a catatonic state, she is institutionalized. "Years later, the White Rabbit summons Alice to aid a radically altered Wonderland, now under the despotic rule of the Queen of Hearts" (played by Jean Marsh). Marcus Nispel is attached to direct -- he is also at the helm for the Friday the 13th update slated for 2009. The Alice script has undergone a few re-writes over the years, but it looks like the final version is going to be the one written by Jon and Erich Hoeber (Whiteout).

Back in December, rumors began to surface that Maggie Grace (LOST) had taken over the role, but it would seem that maybe the gossips confused it with Grace's other project with Gellar, The Girls Guide to Hunting and Fishing. Alice has been kicking around since 2000, back when Wes Craven was attached, and hopefully this time around, Nispel and company will be able to make it into a reality. But fans need not worry; Gellar tells RadioFree: "...I'm not giving up. Because I believe there is such a beautiful, crazy, cool, twisted story to be told there. [jokes] And if I have to get down and write it myself one of these day [sic], I may have to..."

[via ComingSoon.net]

If you're one of the millions of kids who weren't able to snag (i.e. afford) tickets to see Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus in concert, you now have an opportunity to see the next best thing. For one week in early February, a film of one of the concerts will be shown at movie theaters nationwide. And to make it seem even more like you're attending the real thing, the film is in 3D! Compiled from three concerts in two cities from the "Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds" tour, the Disney-produced film is directed by Bruce Hendricks (Ultimate X: The Movie) and was shot using 3D digital cameras rather than shot with regular digital cameras and rendered in the format later (meaning sorry, no 2D versions of this one), as has been the case with most digital 3D movies so far. By the way: the cinematographer in charge of those cameras is Transformers DP Mitchell Amundsen.

Not only is this a big deal for Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus fans, but also it's a huge deal for theater owners and their continued attempts to offer substantial alternative entertainment at their cinemas. I'm sure you all know this isn't the first concert to be shown in theaters. There have been Rolling Stones concerts, drumline concerts, Metropolitan Opera performances, Dane Cook stand-up concerts, and many other events. Some of them have even been broadcast live to theaters via satellite. Many of them, such as today's (Dec. 2) live presentation of the St. Olaf Christmas Festival, are one-day-only events.

Can you believe it has been twenty-five years since the release of TRON? Since 1982, the sci-fi movie has turned into a cult classic for the geek and gamer sets, peaking (in my opinion) recently with an Adidas shoe design. And while the original is mostly appreciated for its ground-breaking yet dated special effects, Disney has decided to finally develop a TRON sequel, and it has just revealed its choice for director. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the studio is once again going with a first-timer, commercial director Joseph Kosinski. You may have heard that name before, though, because he's the guy also set to helm the remake of Logan's Run over at Warner Bros. Kosinski will be developing the sequel, in addition to directing; he will oversee the visuals and the script, which is being written by Eddie Kitsis and Adam Horowitz of TV's Lost (they wrote, among their many, the mostly insignificant, but entertaining episodes "Tricia Tanaka is Dead" and "Exposé") . The story is, of course, being kept secret, but Kosinski is said to be working on a Light Cycle (see the photo) sequence that will serve as showcase of his vision for the movie. The sequel, which will be produced by original TRON director Steven Lisberger, along with Sean Bailey (Matchstick Men) and Brigham Taylor, has also been described as "the next chapter" of the storyline from the original.

The first thing to wonder is whether or not Jeff Bridges will be involved. Disney will probably want a younger star, but they should at least allow Bridges to appear in some capacity (they must also give a cameo to this guy). The next thing, which is actually more of a concern than a wonder, regards the special effects. CGI has come a long way since debuting in TRON -- some (me) would often say a long way for the worse -- and any modern effects would lack the kitsch appeal of the original. Sure, many movies these days have CGI that resembles video game visuals, but that's a bad thing. THR reports that many effects people are vying for the chance to work on this project and that most of them have been heavily inspired by the original. So, hopefully the chosen effects teams and personnel will be able to pay homage, retain the style and also somehow update the look of the first movie without turning out something too realistic or modern.

I trust all of you out there had a wonderful Fourth of July; one that included catching at least one showing of Transformers, as well as a preview for that secret J.J. Abrams-produced Blair Monster Project Movie. I've written a couple posts about this mysterious project before ever having seen the much talked-about trailer, but that's now changed. I caught a screening of Transformers with a group of peeps for my friend's 30th birthday on Tuesday (yes, he wanted to see Transformers for his 30th, and I fully supported him in that decision). I thought the trailer (which followed a group of partygoers onto the streets of Manhattan -- via handheld camera -- as a bunch of explosions slowly begin to cripple the city) was pretty damn rad. And I'm impressed that more information about the film hasn't leaked online ... yet. Kudos to Abrams, his team and Paramount for keeping a tight lid on this thing -- the marketing on it thus far has been pretty damn entertaining.

And it continues today with a brand new teaser website for the film. 1-18-08.com will apparently be the flick's new home, and the domain was registered by Paramount wayyy back in March before anyone knew a thing about "Cloverfield" (or whatever it's called). Right now all that's up there is a photo of two awestruck faces and a time stamp in the lower right-hand corner that reads 01/18/2008 12:36A. I believe the two faces in the pic belong to females, and their mouths are open as if to say, "What the hell is happening right now" or "Did a giant robot really just take a piss on John Turturro?" I have a feeling they'll try to keep this one a secret for as long as they can, although there's a good chance we'll see some sort of promotion for it later this month at San Diego ComicCon. In the meantime, we do know that Abrams is producing, Drew Goddard wrote the script and, from what we hear, Matt Reeves is directing. Is it another Godzilla movie? Does it have something to do with Lost? Or, could it be entirely new ... and we're just conditioned to immediately think everything is either a remake or sequel?