mike newell Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Tuesday afternoon at no less than the offices of Jerry Bruckheimer himself, Cinematical joined a small group of reporters from other online entertainment and gaming sites to screen the forthcoming theatrical trailer for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Mike Newell's adaptation of the popular video game series of the same name. Following two screenings of the trailer, which runs approximately two and a half minutes, Bruckheimer and game creator Jordan Mechner answered questions from the group and discussed the development of the film.

While I'm no video game aficionado, the trailer seemed to have the right kind of quasi-interactive action that most modern games do – the "Prince," played by Jake Gyllenhaal, breezily navigates several death-defying scenarios in the short clip, including dodging an avalanche, diving off of a precipice into a swordfight, and fighting off the attention of the comely Gemma Arterton. According to dialogue and voiceover narration, the film essentially follows the Prince as he discovers and protects a sword that can literally turn back time; after several bullet-time sequences where Gyllenhaal transforms into a golden statue (well, more golden than normal), villain Ben Kingsley confesses that he wants to take control of the weapon in order to destroy the world, or control it, or something.

I was just watching Monsters, Inc this past week, and wondering why it belonged to Pixar's no sequel club ... and guess what's in the works now? Dedicated Disney blogger Jim Hill visited this year's Licensing International Expo, and talked to the fine people who were representing Disney and Pixar, and buying up licensing rights.

Reportedly, Pete Docter (fresh off his success with Up) is planning to return to Monstropolis and helm a sequel to his previous Pixar effort, Monsters, Inc. Obviously, story details are shrouded in secrecy, but they've got Cars 2 and Toy Story 3 in the works, it's not much of a stretch to believe they'd revisit Mike and Sully. While it's a delightfully complete film, it's also a wonderful world, and I'd like to go there again.

Hill also reports that Disney is really focusing its efforts on The Lone Ranger, and are hoping to have it in theaters by Summer 2011. As you may remember, Mike Newell was hired to direct, and Johnny Depp is set to play Tonto.
Intent on launching a Ranger franchise, they've pushed back Jack Sparrow's, and are now planning to release the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean installment to a tenative date of Summer 2012. Both franchises offer a dose of Depp, so the Pirates fanbase should be pretty happy with that. Frankly, I'm willing to trade tricorns just to know just who they cast as that masked man ....

It's been a long time since we had any buzz or movement on The Lone Ranger. For a movie that reunites Jerry Bruckheimer, Johnny Depp, and Pirates' scribes Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott ... it's just kind of sitting there. But that's probably a good thing -- we want them to take their time.

At last though, they might have a director. Production Weekly Tweeted that Mike Newell is "in talks" to direct The Lone Ranger for Disney. Yes, the British director of Four Weddings and a Funeral, High Fidelity, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and perhaps most importantly, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Clearly, Bruckheimer is hiring from within the "family," but let's look at it as a sign that Disney and Bruckheimer might really dig what Newell did with Prince of Persia. (Erik Davis liked what he saw too, for the record.)

It's not official, but let's talk about it like it is. I thought Newell did a pretty bang-up job with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and directors from Across the Pond tend to do a pretty good job tackling Western mythology like The Lone Ranger. Do you think he'd be a good pick?

Well, for all of us out there waiting for Jake Gyllenhaal to don the infamous puffy pants for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, it turns out we are going to have to wait a lot longer than we thought. Variety announced yesterday that Disney has scrapped their original release date of June 19, 2009 for the big-screen adaptation of Ubisoft's best-selling game, and has pushed the release back to May, 2010 (that's right, almost a full year later). Disney has a lot riding on the production, and are hoping to turn it into their next big franchise -- so why the delay?

The official word from Disney was that the change was required to "to allow plenty of time for post-production considering that the tent pole will require extensive special effects to create its fantasy world and set pieces." Not to mention that the delay gives producer Jerry Bruckheimer and Disney some wiggle room in the event of an actor's strike. But the more logical reason for the delay was that if Persia kept its original release date, it would be going up against Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen -- and I think we all know who would win that box-office battle.

So what 'summer behemoth' will Persia battle instead? The lucky winner is Shrek Goes Fourth; which will probably prove to be an easier opponent for the video game flick at the box office. Director Mike Newell just started shooting on location in Morocco last week, and then will head off to London to finish the film. Now, if we can just get the film into theaters, we are all set.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time will now open in theaters on May 28th, 2010.

Despite all the awards attention it received, Joe Wright's Atonement still sounds too much like a lushly romantic period melodrama for my personal taste. Still, it's one of those movies you probably need to experience yourself before deciding if the praise was too lavish (Ryan Stewart thought it was a "stunning achievement") or the criticism too harsh. The DVD from Universal Studios includes deleted scenes, two "making of" features, and an audio commentary by the director.

From all that I've read, Southland Tales sounds like an astonishing train wreck. Nick Schager began his review for Cinematical by writing: "Let me present Exhibit A in the case against granting talented young filmmakers extensive creative autonomy." Given my perverse nature, that makes me want to see Richard Kelly's futuristic epic even more. The DVD from Sony Pictures includes a "featurette" and an animated short.

Steep presents thrilling footage of big mountain skiers who swoosh down incredibly steep slopes. As I noted in my review, though, I felt it raised more questions than it wanted to answer. The DVD from Sony Pictures includes an audio commentary by director Mark Obenhaus with some of the skiers, photo montages, and an additional interview with one of the sport's masters.

Though it was ignored during last fall's awards season, Mike Newell's Love in the Time of Cholera might be ripe for discovery. (On the other hand, Jeffrey M. Anderson really didn't like it.) Javier Bardem and Benjamin Bratt star in an adaptation of the novel by Gabriel García Márquez. The DVD from New Line includes an audio commentary by Newell, a "making of" feature, and deleted scenes.

Since way back in 1897, Morocco has been a popular location for movies looking for a little 'exoticism' in their backdrops. Variety reports that the next big-budget Hollywood flick to land there will be the big-screen version of The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Director Mike Newell signed on back in November, and will be shooting from a Jeffrey Nachmanoff (The Day After Tomorrow) script starting early this June. Persia is based on the best-selling franchise from Ubisoft about a royal son with the power to control time -- with the added bonus that he is responsible for unleashing the mother of all curses on his kingdom.

Back in December, producer Jerry Bruckheimer had confirmed that a script was in the works. Other than some info that they would be using plot elements from the game Sands of Time, nothing had been finalized. In fact, there are still a lot of question marks hanging over the film, including who was going to be donning the hero's puffy pants. Earlier this month, there was a quick glimpse of concept art, but let's just say you aren't going to learn much about the flick by looking at a few title cards. Bruckheimer and Disney are eyeing a summer release in 2009 so they are going to have to get to work if they want to meet the deadline. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is tentatively scheduled for release on June 16th, 2009.

Collider recently caught up with blockbuster producer Jerry Bruckheimer during a press junket for National Treasure 2, when the subject of the big screen version of Ubisoft's Prince of Persia came up. Bruckheimer tells Collider that Persia is set to begin shooting this June. Unfortunately it all hinges on whether the writer's strike has been resolved, since Bruckheimer admits that the script is far from complete, saying, "we have a screenplay, we're just starting to develop the look of it" -- which roughly translates to "my assistant has made some notes while playing the game," I'm guessing. The original plot of the game centered on Prince Shahraman, who is tricked into unleashing a plague on his land and gains the power to control time. Of course, there is also the usual video game goal of rescuing a princess.

Back in November, Chris had reported that Harry Potter director Mike Newell had been offered the job. Well, it seems that Newell is officially on board since Bruckheimer told the site, "We hired a very interesting director, Mike Newell, who did one of the Harry Potter's and also did Donnie Brasco and he's a very inventive, ingenious director and I think he's going to bring something really special to it." The film is expected to work in some of the plot elements of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.

The third person action game released by Ubisoft back in 2003 was a huge fan favorite. Combined with the outright suckiness of most video game flicks, there is a lot for Newell to overcome if he wants to make sure that audiences are happy with the final product. Two more sequels to the game were released in '04 and '05, so there is plenty of opportunity for additional films. Considering Bruckheimer's fondness for franchises, there is a real possibility we will be seeing more of the Persian Prince in the years to come.

Not only is playing a Harry Potter character one of the most sought after jobs for British actors, it apparently is a gig some of them wish they could keep. In an interview with MTV, Kenneth Branagh, who played Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor Gilderoy Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, revealed that he was hoping to see his character's name prominently featured in the seventh and final book, Deathly Hallows. That way he could return to the movie franchise, something he had also hoped for with the making of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (the character appears briefly in that book). But Branagh didn't simply want a little cameo in the final movie, he jokes that he should have been revealed to be Harry's dad. At least, I think that's what he meant. I'm not sure how that plot revelation would have worked out, but I guess since the actor-director was kidding, it doesn't matter.

Branagh did also reveal that he was considered to direct Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, but it ended up going to Alfonso Cuarón. He said the main reason he wanted to direct an installment was because of the kids, who he liked working with a lot. He thought they had more potential than they were exhibiting -- perhaps he can cast some of them in one of his Shakespeare adaptations down the line? I think Emma Watson would make an excellent Viola/Cesario -- which I personally think they finally got to show in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, under Mike Newell's direction. However, when asked whether or not he'd like to helm the adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Branagh said he thinks Warner Bros. will likely choose one of the series' previous directors (Columbus, Cuarón, Newell or Yates), any of whom he thinks would do nicely. Anyway, Shawn over at MTV Movies Blog put out the question of what character the fans most wanted to see reappear in the movies. You could leave him a comment about that over there, or feel free to tell us below.

Cholera has been defined as ... nope, I'm not going to spell it out -- I've got a weak stomach -- but if you don't know, here's the Wkipedia entry that will tell you more than you probably wanted to know about this particular affliction. Is the thought of cholera what's keeping people away from the new film by Mike Newell? Anne Thompson of Variety theorizes that Love in the Time of Cholera has not been helped by its title, which, when shortened, tends to be a word that "is not exactly a box office lure." The film opened this past weekend and earned $1.9 million, or about $2,247 per screen, according to Box Office Mojo.

Love in the Time of Cholera is an English translation of the original title of Gabriel García Márquez's novel "El amor en los tiempos del cólera." My Spanish isn't very good, but I'm pretty sure that's an accurate translation. Producer Scott Steindorff worked for more than two years to secure the rights to the book and the blessing of the Nobel Prize-winning García Márquez, according to the film's official site. After the first draft was completed, Steindorff and writer Ronald Harwood consulted with García Márquez, who reportedly told them: "The problem is that you and the writer have done too true of an adaptation -- you need to depart from the book." Steindorff says that García Márquez has "a great sense of humor," so they all laughed.

No one's laughing now, though the poor critical reception probably hurt as much or more than the title. I wonder if Steindorff ever brought up the idea of changing the title with the author? I'm certain somebody did at some point -- it's too obvious a potential marketing problem to ignore. Cholera may not be well-known today, but it's like smallpox or polio; it simply doesn't sound good, at least to me and, evidently, many other people. Yet the full title does have its supporters, like Cinematical's Erik Davis, who says it's one of his "favorite titles of all time for a number of reasons -- love is but a disease, after all." Did the title keep you from seeing this movie?