July 15, 2003

Shorts, 7/15.

Battle Royale II Only two new reviews from Midnight Eye, but they're biggies. Jaspar Sharp asks, "Battle Royale II is bigger, bolder and bloodier than the original, but is it any better?" Ultimately, he decides that only another viewing can answer that one, but the train of thought getting there is worth the ride: "Whereas the intra-personal dynamics of the first film depended on what the individual viewer brought to the table, there's little such room for ambiguity in the sequel... The metaphor is lost in favour of more obvious allusions to the current global state of affairs."

And then Tom Mes reviews Juon 2, "the most strongly plotted entry in the series." Nonetheless, an update on the first one, by way of M. Signalstation: a fresh trailer.

Just a few more days and the Bandai Museum opens.

Manu Joseph reports in Outlook India on the bustling off-off-Bollywood scene: "In these spirit-stabbing ancient looms and other dark corners of Malegaon, there are boys in leather pants and cotton who dream of a life in the movies... It was inevitable that this Muslim-dominated town would recreate a few classics, meant entirely for its 14 small video halls. Like in Mumbai, here they watch other people's films and then make their own. But in Malegaon credit is given to the original."

In the Los Angeles Times:

  • Josh Friedman follows up on Civilian Pictures' plans to finance Billy Dead, starring Ethan Hawke, with an IPO. "'It's off-the-chart risky,' said entertainment lawyer Schuyler Moore," but even so, it'd be interesting to see, one, if shareholders could place their bets any better than studio execs, and two, what they might do, on a grassroots level or otherwise, to promote the movies they've invested in.
  • "Low-budget, R-rated horror flicks are making a comeback," reports Susan King in a nice, longish piece.
  • "For everyone from snobbish cinéastes to casual moviegoers, documentaries have gone from a dirty word to de rigueur," cheers Patrick Goldstein. (Why does he italicize "cinéastes" but not "de rigueur"?) Anyway, Robert W. Welkos reports on one of them, Horns and Halos, about the long, rocky road to publication for an unauthorized bio of GW Bush.
  • Jon Healey on the latest round in the ongoing Hollywood vs the EFF battles.
  • And then David Macaray admits that he's "always admired Hepburn's feminist philosophy and personal courage" but "her acting skills have never impressed me. In truth, I've never been able to watch her without cringing... A simple exercise: Picture Katharine Hepburn in every movie she ever starred in and ask yourself if she's not playing, essentially, the same part over and over." But wasn't that the very point of nearly every Hollywood star of her generation? Meantime, Richard Schickel reviews Kate Remembered and author A Scott Berg was a recent guest on Fresh Air.

    The dream of many a screenwriter has been to live in the San Francisco Bay Area and "commute" only when absolutely necessary to, you know, down there. You don't hear much about that anymore, but Pam Grady explains how the Bay Area has become a post-production... "paradise"? Well, she is writing for the SF Chronicle, after all. Via Movie City News.

    Wim Wenders is getting the rights to his own works back, reports Martin Blaney in Screen Daily; also: the Karlovy Vary winners and a six-hour-long hit in Italy.

    Another way to spend six hours: Watching Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, Mary-Louise Parker, Jeffrey Wright, Michael Gambon and James Cromwell in the HBO production of Tony Kushner's Angels in America, directed by Mike Nichols. Which you'll be able to do in December.

    Bits from the Guardian:

  • Abbas Kiarostami's debut in Rome as a theater director, interspersed with political commentary on the upheaval back home.
  • Martin Scorsese will executive produce The Twelve, a series for the Sci-Fi Channel.
  • The line-up so far for Tulip Fever: DreamWorks and Miramax, Tom Stoppard and John Madden, Keira Knightley and Jude Law.
  • Jim Jarmusch's next Coffee and Cigarettes short will feature The White Stripes.

    In the New York Times, AO Scott on "a new Hollywood subgenre, the summer-reading-list blockbuster," and Emily Yoffe on why kids want to see movies again and again and again. Speaking of whom, when they're a tad older, say eight to 13, they become tweens, a target group to reckoned with - and exploited, of course, reports Grace Bradberry in the Observer.

    Bryan Curtis reminds us why Pirates of the Caribbean is the exception that proves the rule: Pirate movies are often not only stinkers, they lose bundles as well.

    Hollywood sign Happy 80th to the Hollywood sign.

    Stephen Reid watches the trailer for Open Range.

    Online viewing tips. A few today. Rhizome's Rachel Greene points to BCC, Flash animations by Motomichi Nakamura: "The colors reference the influences of the Japan-born, New York-dwelling artist: Japanese manga, the Russian avante-garde, and 1920s Dutch design."

    Subscribers to the alerts already know: "4 Months. 300+ shots. 7 parts. 80 minutes. The finale to the saga of the saints is upon you. Turn off the lights... Unplug the phone... Lock the doors... Breathe. Word is Bond." Broken Saints.

    A Ping Pong match comes with the following incentive via Signal Station: "If I could grab your clothing, I would propel you bodily towards clicking on the above link." And Michael's got another one, too: Move Your Feet.

    Bookmark and Share

    Posted by dwhudson at July 15, 2003 8:42 AM

    • Comments

    Re: Horns and Halos
    The Oxford American has a fantastic piece in the new issue about Hatfield (author of the GW Bush bio, Fortunate Son) that makes the movie look anemic in comparison. It's a fascinating film, but the makers are either ignorant of Hatfield's extremely dodgy background or gloss over it for the sake of bolstering their own government conspiracy angle. The article, book and movie make quite a trilogy.

    Posted by: Tod Booth at July 15, 2003 4:22 PM

    Thanks, Tod. You know, I went to go look for that piece, and naturally (and quite understandably), found only a teaser, but - gulp - along the way, I also found this:

    Owners suspend publication of literary magazine Oxford American.

    It's not over til it's over, but I'm afraid it looks bad. Damn.

    Posted by: David Hudson at July 16, 2003 12:03 PM

    Doh! Not again! It's a terrific magazine -- what are they doing wrong? This is the second time they've suspended publication.

    Posted by: Tod Booth at July 17, 2003 3:44 PM