children of men Tagged Articles at Cinematical

White Dog
Samuel Fuller's follow-up to The Big Red One was shelved by Paramount Pictures before its scheduled release in 1982 because of fears that its premise -- a white dog has been trained to attack black people -- would stir up more controversy than box office. Fuller was understandably outraged; in his autobiography, A Third Face, he wrote: "The studio has used me as a scapegoat for their lack of determination and courage." The film, co-written by Curtis Hanson (LA Confidential), with a score by the legendary Ennio Morricone, later received acclaim when it was released in Europe but never received a home video release in the US and has rarely been seen here. Kristy McNichol plays an actress who adopts the dog; Paul Winfield is as an anthropologist who tries to reverse the training. The Criterion Collection DVD includes a featurette with Hanson, producer Jon Davison, and Fuller's widow, plus a print interview with the dog trainer and essays by J. Hoberman and Armond White. I'm buying, but even if you're not a huge fan of Samuel Fuller, you'd want to check it out. Rent it.

Step Brothers
Combining Will Farrell, John C. Reilly, Richard Jenkins, and Mary Steenburgen under one roof, Step Brothers mines familiar territory with sharp timing and plenty of belly laughs. Mine is, admittedly, a distinctly minority opinion. Available on DVD (single-disc rated, single-disc unrated, two-disc unrated) and Blu-ray, with an audio commentary by Farrell, Reilly, director Adam McKay, and a score by Jon Brion. Other features include deleted scenes and alternate takes, a gag reel, 'making of,' and a couple of gag featurettes. Rent it.

Much more on Wanted, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian after the jump, plus Indies on DVD, Blu-ray Picks, and Collector's Corner.

In case you don't read Entertainment Weekly and didn't see this week's double issue on "The New Classics," or you didn't see my post last week about their list of the best movies from the last 25 years, here's a sad fact: only six foreign-language films made the list. They are: Wings of Desire (#28); Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (#49); The Lives of Others (#56); All About My Mother (#69); Y Tu Mamá También (#86); and In the Mood for Love (#95). OK, so 6% is not terrible for a mainstream entertainment magazine, but EW had to add insult to injury with an accompanying map labeled "Movies: Breaking Down the List," which points to a number of locations around the globe in which some of these new classics are set. The only continent on the map without any love is South America (Antarctica was not included in the visual aid).

Now, before I get into my love letter to new Latin American cinema, I have to note that no film produced in Africa made the list either. However, on the map the continent was at least given some minuscule bit of love via the filming locations for Casino Royale and Gladiator. Yet despite the fact that South America was definitely used as a location in a few of the 100 films, it's shown no respect. And on top of that, Central America isn't even included on the map. For some strange reason there's just a gap between Mexico and South America. Meanwhile, Latin America's sole representative on EW's list, Mexico's Y Tu Mamá También, is left off the map so that no location from this area of the world, from the Mexican-U.S. border to Cape Horn, receives any recognition.

One of my favorite films at this year's Philadelphia Film Festival, which is wrapping up now, was the Spanish time-travel thriller Timecrimes. (Yes, yes, I know, all of you saw it months ago at Fantastic Fest, or Sundance, or whatsuch. Bully for you.) We've known for a while that an American remake is in the works, courtesy of United Artists, and having seen the film, it's obvious why -- it's a brilliantly conceived, perfectly high-concept crowdpleaser. And now the remake seems to have revved up in earnest: The Hollywood Reporter says that Children of Men screenwriter Timothy J. Sexton has been hired to write the English-language screenplay.

The biggest pitfall here, as I see it, is that the original film is so simple, almost personal. That's part of its charm. The time travel is a matter of hours, not eons, and the main crisis implicates two guys, not the entire universe (though there are hints of possible larger implications). I hope that Sexton doesn't try to translate the epic scope of Children of Men -- more epic, as I understand it, than the P.D. James novel on which it was based -- to this very different project.

Sexton is also attached to the beleaguered Logan's Run remake, but who knows what's going on with that one.

After watching the stunning, and sadly under appreciated, Children of Men, I was hungry for two things. One, I wanted more movies with Julianne Moore and Clive Owen, as they have great chemistry together, and barely got to show it. Two, I wanted to see more of this world. It's a rich and interesting future landscape, one that is filled with tons of stories that we've never seen. Until now.

SciFi.com reports that the executive producer of Bionic Woman, David Eick, is writing a pilot script for a television series based on P.D. James' science fiction novel (the one that inspired the movie). Eick says: "It's really taking root more in the origins of the novels in that it will focus on the cultural movement in which young people become the society's utter focus." He goes on to make parallels between the obsession with LiLo's crazy tabloid lifestyle, and says: "it's about how, when you don't have a responsibility to the next generation and you're free to do whatever you want, where do you draw the line?"

If the success of Battlestar Galactica is any indication, this should be one great series. I've never been bugged to watch a show more than my friends pestering me to watch BG, which I will have to at some point, if for no other reason than my love of "frak" (as discovered on Veronica Mars). Obviously, I'll be anxiously awaiting this show, but how about you? Do you think the epic world of Children of Men will be good on the boob tube?

Every Friday morning, when I'm surfing the new movie reviews and I flip over to Ebert's site, I'm always a little surprised to see a new review for some movie that came out back when he was sidelined by cancer. Atop each of these retro reviews -- which I think I own the copyright on -- he affixes the following simple tag: "Doubling back to pick up some titles I missed while ill." This past Friday, he panned Spider-Man 3, giving it a weak two-star review. He cites his displeasure with the film's lack of a compelling villain and goes into detail about his problems with the symbiote, which he didn't enjoy at all. He also doesn't like Mary Jane anymore.

Children of Men and the Dixie Chicks documentary Shut up and Sing have both been retro-awarded high marks -- I agree with the latter verdict. The Fountain, a movie that was on my top ten list of that year, is mildly panned although what's most interesting about the review is that Ebert spends much of it musing on the concept of a retro review in itself. "Although as a doctoral candidate in English I was advised to be familiar with the existing criticism on a work before venturing to write my own, as a film critic I am usually writing before other reviews have even been published," he writes.

The Lives of Others and Zodiac get four stars -- Ebert's been a little too generous with the four star rating since his return, by the way -- while Grindhouse is panned for being "an attempt to recreate a double feature that never existed for an audience that no longer exists." I haven't pinned down the exact dates that Ebert was absent, so I have no idea how long his retro-reviewing will go on, but it's fun to read.

There's a pretty informative story about how, after getting the gig to adapt his own novel The Cider House Rules, John Irving sat down feeling fairly confident, thinking something to the effect that "Hey, all I have to do is re-type who people are, what they do and what they say -- this'll be a breeze ..." and, after doing that with his novel, found he had enough screenplay pages ... for a nine-hour film. Adaptations are tough: What do you leave in, what do you leave out? Is fidelity the only true measure of worth, or can carefully-made changes actually improve the film version of a book? Below are some of my picks for the best adapted screenplays of the past ten years; as ever, this list is wildly subjective, and our ever-hungry comments section awaits your picks. ...

1) Jackie Brown (1997)

A great example of how tweaking a good book can make it even better -- Quentin Tarantino's adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel Rum Punch moved the setting from one coast to another, changed the race of one of the leads -- and, by ignoring such petty details, wound with a film that completely nails the talky, criminal, human spirit of Elmore Leonard's amazing body of work. Leonard's work also gave Tarantino the first grown-up story he's ever worked with, and Tarantino stepped up to the plate and delivered -- as fond as I am of Pulp Fiction's incendiary inventions, I still think Jackie Brown is the better actual film.

2) Children of Men (2006)

Another case where the screenwriters modified much of the book to the improvement of the story -- P.D. James's novel takes place over a period of months, while Curaron's film speeds by over a few days like a fever-dream nightmare. There are other changes, too (Clive Owen's lead is no longer related to England's all-powerful Big Brother, but, instead, Danny Huston's minor functionary), but the decision to strip Children of Men down to a few nightmare days was incredibly insightful -- and made for an adaptation that works as an amazing film.

It's usually only a matter of time before any filmmaker makes a bad film, but early in many careers it is easy to think certain directors can do no wrong. Currently I feel this way about Tom Tykwer, who has been solid since his debut film, Deadly Maria. I have to confess I haven't yet gotten around to viewing the two films he made prior to his breakthrough, Run Lola Run, but I mean to really soon (if only watching movies was my first priority these days). The thing that is so special about Tykwer, though is, visible just with his last four features: He keeps improving upon his visual style while constantly changing things up a bit. Following last year's beautifully enchanting Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, I am very eagerly awaiting his next film.

That film has just been officially announced as The International, and it is set to star Clive Owen. And, from the sound of what little there is to know about the plot, it sounds like this is a film for anybody who still wishes Owen could play James Bond. It is an action-thriller about an Interpol agent (Owen, I assume) working on a case involving corruption and arms-dealing within a powerful banking institution, one which his own agency seems to be protecting. Tykwer is expected to begin shooting from Eric Singer's script this September.

This news is exciting because Owen's involvement could expose Tykwer to a bigger audience. Run Lola Run should have made the director a big name, but unfortunately too few people saw his even better subsequent films. Of course, we all saw recently with Children of Men that Owen isn't exactly the big draw that he should be either. Whether or not people see the film, though, is their own business. For me, I am only a bit worried about this film's script. It seems to be Singer's first screenplay, so it is hard to be prejudiced, but that doesn't mean I'm not wary. That said, though, the director's last two films were based on the work of others (he was fortunate enough to work off of Kieslowski on one of those) and were still great, so hopefully this won't be a problem.

Though he'll most likely be playing James Bond for the next several years, Daniel Craig has not stopped that franchise from letting him secure a slew of other roles to take on in between his adventures as 007. The actor currently has two pretty big films (The Invasion, The Golden Compass) coming out later this year, and is now in talks to star in Blindness -- adapted from Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago's novel -- and to be directed by Fernando Meirelles (The Constant Gardner). Also in talks to co-star alongside Craig is the very beautiful (and very talented) Julianne Moore.

Adapted by Don Mckellar, Saramago's book revolves around a blindness epidemic that sweeps through a contemporary city, paralyzing its citizens to a point where society is on the verge of breaking down. Craig and Moore will likely play book's two lead characters, a doctor and his wife. This whole "society on the verge of madness" storyline is familiar to Moore; the actress recently starred in Children of Men, which shares similar themes with Blindness, but on a much larger scale. Currently, there's no word on where the film will be set; the book takes place in an unnamed city in an unnamed country. Focus Features is handling all foreign sales, but there's no U.S. distribution deal in place as of now. Apart from Blindness, Craig is also set to reprise his role as 007 in the untitled Bond 22.

I just caught Philip Gröning's extraordinary documentary Into Great Silence (2 screens and opening wider), about Carthusian monks living in a charterhouse in the French Alps. It runs just past two hours and 45 minutes and I would wager that no more than two hundred words are spoken throughout. The film merely shows the monks going about their daily business: praying, chanting, caring for gardens, shoveling snow, sawing firewood, cooking, eating, etc. I have to admit part of my enthusiasm for the film stems from the fact that it contains no talking heads or clips; I was just about ready to scream if I saw one more documentary shot in that tired old PBS format. But I was also drawn to the film's meditative rhythm.

Or is it just slow? Already some of the reviews have trudged out the word "boring" to describe the film, and certainly it's a hard sell. But why? It's apparent that Gröning doesn't have any particular viewpoint about the monks; he's not trying to sell us on their dignity or righteousness, nor is he trying to uncover some secret, seamy underbelly. He merely wishes to show them to us. And in his great, quiet stretches, a viewer can easily get lost in his or her own thoughts. Indeed, I believe that Gröning actually prefers us to get lost in our own thoughts.

As far as the Oscars are concerned, the best way to get a handle on the year's best films is to look at the Best Screenplay nominees. The writers who vote for the ten films nominated in the Original and Adapted categories are the closest things to outsiders the movie community has. They're generally smarter and lower paid than anyone else, and they tend not to work on movie sets, hobnobbing with famous directors and movie stars. And so they have a more objective outlook on what's good and what's not.

The screenplay category has historically shown more foresight and flexibility than its fellows. After all, some of the past winners include filmmakers William A. Wellman, Orson Welles, Preston Sturges, Mel Brooks, Quentin Tarantino and the Coen Brothers, none of which ever had a shot as Best Director. Other nominees include Budd Boetticher, Andre de Toth, Nicholas Ray, Jacques Tati and Jacques Demy. Certain filmmakers such as Francis Ford Coppola, Oliver Stone and Bill Condon won Screenplay Oscars long before their careers as directors took off. And even some genuinely legendary writers have heard their name called: William Saroyan, James Agee, Tennessee Williams, John Steinbeck, Paddy Chayefsky, Vladimir Nabokov and Arthur Miller.