That cufflink-speeding train move ? Just the tip of the bespoke iceberg when it comes to deconstructing Daniel Craig’s Bond through his fashionista sensibilities. But what do Skyfall ‘s style choices tell us about 007’s frame of mind? From the sharp-eyed folks at Clothes on Film , dapper deconstruction of Skyfall : “For the man himself a modern cut of single breasted, two and three button Britishness. In context these costumes feel real. Silva’s (Javier Bardem) long leather coat might be a villain’s indulgence, but Bond looks immaculate and attainable; far from Savile Row though instilled with the swagger of 1960s cool. Even if Craig – here at his broadest – is in danger of bursting from the fabric on occasions, the vents always hang straight and providing he remembers to breathe in, the top button closes comfortably.” And: The stubble (and island casual outfit) say it all… “Costume tells Bond’s tale just as much as the stubble that appears then disappears from his chin. Pre-credits he wears a grey sharkskin suit (actually ill-advised for Craig’s pale complexion), then hits the bottle in baggy leather flight jacket and untucked island shirt. For Bond this is as bad as Superman losing his cape – he is almost unrecognisable. Back in London, an unseen trip to Selfridges then stop off at Crockett & Jones and everything is okay again.” Read the full review here . [ Clothes on Film via Movie City News ]
With the first Iron Man 3 trailer premiering on Tuesday, Disney whet franchise fans’ appetites by releasing a 17-second teaser trailer and poster for the latest installment of the metallic Marvel superhero saga. The trailer is one of those blink-and-you-miss-it deals that raises more questions than it answers, but, based on the movie-trailer-foreshadowing course I took in college, Pepper Potts ( Gwyneth Paltrow ) will be in some definite danger come May. Next to Downey, Potts’ character gets even more attention than what appears to be a from-the-rear shot of super-villain Mandarin, who will be played by Ben Kingsley . The weird thing is that when I first saw the Potts scene, I thought Paltrow was laughing. I figured this was trailer shorthand for establishing Potts/Paltrow as such a heart-lifting force in cynical Tony Stark’s life that, well, something bad has to happen to her. Turns out the teaser trailer is way more direct than that. Judging from Paltrow’s sweaty appearance and confinement in some weird restraining device that looks like it was borrowed from a Six Flags roller coaster, Pepper’s in a world of pain. Could it be [cue ominous music]…torture at the hands of the dastardly Mandarin? (More about him in a later post.) Either that, or maybe Paltrow’s character is undergoing some kind of state-of-the-art psychological treatment in which she’s just learned that Goop was seriously jank idea. Regardless of the interpretation of Gwynnie’s facial expression, my conclusion remains the same: She’s going to be in harm’s way in Iron Man 3 , which jibes with the this-time-it’s-personal synopsis that Disney released on Thursday. In case you’ve forgotten: Marvel Studios’ “Iron Man 3” pits brash-but-brilliant industrialist Tony Stark/Iron Man against an enemy whose reach knows no bounds. When Stark finds his personal world destroyed at his enemy’s hands, he embarks on a harrowing quest to find those responsible. This journey, at every turn, will test his mettle. With his back against the wall, Stark is left to survive by his own devices, relying on his ingenuity and instincts to protect those closest to him. As he fights his way back, Stark discovers the answer to the question that has secretly haunted him: does the man make the suit or does the suit make the man? Here’s the teaser trailer. I hope tomorrow’s longer version reveals more. Follow Frank DiGiacomo on Twitter. Follow Movieline on Twitter.
Dutch actress Sylvia Kristel, who passed away overnight at the age of 60 after battling cancer, defined the character of Emmanuelle as much as it defined her four-decade film career. With her first appearance as the doe-eyed sensual adventuress and 1970s softcore icon in 1974’s Emmanuelle , Kristel became synonymous with the character, which, in turn, became shorthand for an entire genre of art-house erotica: gauzy, softly lit tales of women exploring their own sexual curiosity in exotic lands and pushing the boundaries of social conventions. Without Emmanuelle and Kristel, would we even have EL James’ 50 Shades of Grey ? [ GALLERY: Images of Sylvia Kristel in 1974’s Emmanuelle ] Kristel’s career began as a model at the age of 17. She won the Miss TV Europe contest at 21 and the following year made her acting debut in Emmanuelle , which also marked the first film of director Just Jaeckin, who pioneered the soft-focused “arty” look of the series and its many imitators. (Jaeckin and Kristel both went on to enjoy successful careers in the world of erotica and later reunited for 1981’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover .) While the later films featured amazing score contributions by Francis Lai , composer/musician Pierre Bachelet enjoyed one of his earliest hits with his theme song to Emmanuelle , which Lily Allen sampled in 2006. The tale of a bored diplomat’s wife in Bangkok learning to embrace her carnal desires, Emmanuelle was adapted from the 1967 French literary phenomenon of the same name. Credited to writer Emmanuelle Arsan, the book and its film adaptation detailed its heroine’s sexual exploits in the Far East with men and women, strangers, lovers, and assorted hedonistic expats. (The real behind-the-scenes saga of who exactly wrote Emmanuelle is dramatic in itself: French diplomat Louis-Jacques Rollet-Andriane is said to have been the original writer although his wife Marayat Rollet-Andriane accepted credit as “Emmanuelle Arsan,” supposedly to protect her husband’s public service position and, probably, to advance her own career. Similarly juicy ground was explored in last week’s 50 Shades of Grey -style episode of Law & Order: SVU .) Despite attempts by French President Georges Pompidou to ban Emmanuelle — his predecessor Charles De Gaulle attempted to do the same for the book, which became a bestseller — the film was a hit; Columbia Pictures picked it up for distribution stateside on the strength of its popularity with female audiences and the sexploitation hit went on to gross $100 million worldwide, according to IMDb, spawning six sequels, made-for-television spin-offs, and numerous knock-off films. What Emmanuelle did for erotic cinema then was akin to the recent 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon: It made sexual fantasy an acceptable indulgence for mainstream and female audiences through its hazy, dreamlike, and (mostly) non-sleazy scenarios in which lust was unabashedly embraced as an utterly human impulse. Significantly, it told the tale from a woman’s perspective, one in which sexual teachers were almost as often other sexually experienced women as they were men. Kristel starred in four Emmanuelle films, returning to the series in later years in supporting roles. Emmanuelle IV (1984) marked the passing of the torch and the series’ decline into full-on camp, as Kristel’s signature character underwent surgery to emerge with a new look, portrayed by newcomer Mia Nygren. A series of Italian knock-off films under the Black Emanuelle (note the single “m” spelling differentation) moniker starred Laura Gemser, and the official Emmanuelle series devolved into the bizarre Emmanuelle in Space sequels starring Krista Allen. But Kristel remained the prototypical Emmanuelle, and the series’ best — and she’ll forever be the iconic face of its legacy. Follow Jen Yamato on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
Bond isn’t bi. At least that’s what I took away from Daniel Craig and Javier Bardem’s separate but equally vague responses to the erotically charged scene they share in Skyfall . On Monday, the actors took part in separate press conferences to promote the latest installment of the Bond franchise and, in both cases, questions about sexuality arose. In a piece I posted earlier this morning offering my early reaction to the picture , I noted that in the scene where Bond and the villain Silva meet, the latter caresses the bound MI6 agent’s chest. In response to Silva’s attentions, 007 replies, “What makes you think this is my first time?” Since there’s been speculation on the web for a years now now about whether Bond will ever pump more than hot lead into another man, I asked Craig at the press conference if his character was bluffing when he used this line with Bardem’s Silva. “What are you going to do?” Craig replied breezily, getting a nice laugh from the crowd, but then he added: “I don’t see the world in sexual divisions.” He then changed the subject from Bond to to Bardem’s wonderfully flamboyant character, Silva. “Someone suggested that Silva may be gay,” Craig said with a big smile. “And I’m like, I think he’ll f*** anything.” As Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson sat silently onstage with Craig, the actor, natty in a form-hugging suit and skinny tie, then downplayed the scene as “a great flirt. It’s a game of cards,” adding: “It the right thing to say, and that way that Javier plays it is so great. He plays it for real, and he plays it to the limit. He never forgets that he’s playing a Bond villain.” Finally, Craig offered his final assessment: “I love that scene,” he said “It makes me laugh. I hope it makes you laugh.” Earlier in the day, Bardem dropped some hints about his character that may shed a little more light on the scene. Asked how Silva’s “sexuality informed [Bardem’s] interpretation of the character, the actor responded; “It was part of the game, but it’s not entirely the game.” Bardem explained that his “main goal” as Silva was creating “uncomfortable situations” for anyone who crossed his path. “Within that, you can read anything that you want or wish,” Bardem said. “But it was more about putting the other person in a very uncomfortable situation where even James Bond doesn’t know how to get out of it.” In other words, that scene between Bond and Silva isn’t about sex. It’s about power. Right? Follow Frank DiGiacomo on Twitter. Follow Movieline on Twitter.
While Think Like A Man may have conquered the domestic box office two weekends in a row – an impressive feat for what Hollywood execs refer to as an “urban comedy” – there’s no question that the film’s success is as much due to the popular self-help book on which it is based as it is to its comedic merits. Roger Ebert hit the nail on the head in his review , remarking: “The movie’s mistake is to take the book seriously. This might have worked as a screwball comedy or a satire, but can you believe for a moment in characters naive enough to actually live their lives following Steve Harvey’s advice?” The funny thing is that the screwball version film Ebert would have liked to see actually exists — and is infinitely superior to the more dramatic, contemporary incarnation. That film is Two Can Play That Game , Mark Brown’s hilarious entry in the battle-of-the-sexes subgenre. A distant descendant of true screwballs (most notably The Awful Truth , which depicts a recently divorced couple’s attempts to derail one another’s new romances), Two Can Play That Game is, like Think Like A Man , anchored by a character explaining dating rules and philosophy to the audience. However, in this film that character actually has skin in the game – in fact, she’s its heroine: Shante Smith (Vivica A. Fox) is an ad agency exec who dispenses advice to the audience (and her girlfriends) about her seemingly perfect “Ten Day Program” for keeping a straying boyfriend in check; when her own boyfriend Keith (Morris Chestnut) begins to stray, a battle of wits ensues. The Kevin Hart comedic-sidekick role is played here by Anthony Anderson, as Keith’s relationship consigliore. Anderson knocks the role out of the park, with a performance that easily steals the entire film. It’s true that the most dramatic moments of Think Like A Man – when the characters try to level with each other and Own Up To Their Mistakes – are the moments in which it feels the most deadened. Two Can Play That Game , alternatively, embraces its absurdity; like its finest performance, it doesn’t take itself too seriously. In one scene, when Anderson seconds the points Keith makes by shouting as if he’s at church, an organ and chorus suddenly appear on the soundtrack to emphasize the revelations the men are coming to about women. The film, at various points, informs us that the first law of thermodynamics explains how best to manipulate your partner; has Vivica A. Fox punch Gabrielle Union in the face; and, in the funniest scene, puts forth the theory that church is a better place to pick up promiscuous women than a nightclub. And while the film understands that it’s a light comedy, it’s not lacking for bombast. “This is way bigger than you,” Anderson tells Chestnut late in the film. “You’re doing this for all men across the country. You’re doing this for men all around the world!” With increasingly deranged anxiety, Anderson goes off the rails: “Pretty soon women are gonna be pulling these head trips on us, dog, and you know what’s gonna happen? We’re gonna be the ones cooking dinner! We’re gonna be the ones changing the diapers! We’re gonna be the ones washing the dishes! And you know what they’re gonna be doing? They’re gonna be sitting on our couches, watching football on our Sunday!” Between putting forth the misguided belief that people need to engage in psychological warfare to keep their partners in line and the propagation of all kinds of stereotypes and clichés, no one’s going to accuse either of these movies of responsibly depicting gender relations. But when choosing one to watch, a viewer is well-advised to pick a film that is fully aware of – and complicit in – its own absurdity. Zachary Wigon is a writer based in New York. His work has appeared in the New York Press, NYLON, and Filmmaker Magazine, among many other outlets. He tweets @zachwigon .
” By 2013 , film will slip to niche status, shown in only a third of theaters. By 2015, used in a paltry 17 percent of global cinemas, venerable old 35 mm film will be mostly gone.” The epic life and death struggle between film and digital rolls on, and in LA Weekly’s cover story must-read Gendy Alimurung details the sobering — and imminent — sea change in film production and exhibition with insights from figures at every stop on the cinematic food chain: Filmmakers, arthouse/rep theaters, film curators, projectionists, preservationists, and even the cold, lonely (and increasingly studio-blocked) vaults that house the dwindling ranks of cinema’s remaining 35mm prints. “Digital is the future!” you might say. “It’s cheaper and looks just as good as film!” Great taste, less filling, etc. Many a sentimental plea has been made on behalf of 35mm: The way things are going, repertory houses will find their programming options limited to the smattering of popular titles studio vaults make available. There’s that distinguishable living quality to film, with its pops and hisses and beloved imperfections, that digital prints just can’t replicate. Or, as Edgar Wright suggests, shooting on costlier film changes the relationship a director has to the process itself: “Because when you hear the camera whirring, you know that money is going through it. There’s a respectfulness that comes when you’re burning up film.” Most of that’s already been argued, but Alimurung takes pains to appeal to the pragmatic side of digital cheerleaders by pointing out what many proponents of digital film and its many admitted benefits (lower cost, ease of production, cheaper distribution methods) seldom have an answer for: the long-term hazards of going exclusively digital. “The main problem is format obsolescence. File formats can go obsolete in a matter of months. On this subject, [UCLA Film & Television Archive director Jan-Christopher Horak’s] every sentence requires an exclamation mark. “In the last 10 years of digitality, we’ve gone through 20 formats!” he says. “Every 18 months we’re getting a new format!” So every two years, data must be transferred, or “migrated,” to a new device. If that doesn’t happen, the data may never being accessible again. Technology can advance too far ahead.” But the demands and costs of constant technological upgrades aren’t the only issue with the industry moving exclusively to digital. “In the digital realm, the archivist’s mantra, “Store and ignore,” fails. If you don’t “refresh,” or occasionally turn on a hard drive, it stops working. You can’t just stick it on a shelf and forget about it. As restorationist Ross Lipman says, ‘You’re shifting from a model focused on a physical object to data. And where the data lives will be constantly changing.'” What’s saddest is that there isn’t an easy solution to be offered other than appealing to the studios (and, it’s worth noting, the vast majority of allied theater chains represented by the National Association of Theater Owners) to leave room for niche 35mm film culture to live on while their charge into the digital future continues. Major changes are in store for everyone — not just the studios, or the theater owners, or the increasingly obsolete ranks of actual trained projectionists, or the ticket-buyers. So yes, a storm’s coming. What can be done about it? Discuss. [ LA Weekly ] Photo: Julia Marchese of the New Beverly Cinema, Jennie Warren for LA Weekly
With Lionsgate’s big screen adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ teen-centric sci-fi survival-adventure The Hunger Games hitting screens this week, it’s kind of impossible not to draw comparisons to that other YA juggernaut series, which concludes its billion-dollar run on pop culture this fall. So how does The Hunger Games measure up to Twilight ? Some spoilers follow. THE BOOKS Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight , first published in 2005, spawned a total of four books (and one spin-off novella) that were adapted into five movies ( Breaking Dawn Part 2 hits screens this November), with over 116 million copies in print. Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games , first published in 2008, spawned a total of three books set to be adapted into four movies, with over 26 million copies in print. Advantage: Twilight THE HEROINE Twilight : Bella Swan is a 17-year-old girl who moves to gloomy Forks, Washington and falls in love with a vampire. Unassuming and average, she finds her inner strength after four novels’ worth of being imperiled by embracing her destiny and starting a family. Hunger Games : Katniss Everdeen is a 16-year-old girl who lives in gloomy District 12 in the fascist future world of Panem and must fight for her life in a televised battle royale. A skilled huntress, she finds her inner heroine after three novels’ worth of being a pawn in the Capitol’s games by embracing her destiny and becoming a symbol of the resistance. Advantage: Hunger Games SUPER POWERS (AND SUPER WEAKNESSES) Twilight : Left at the mercies of other people’s protection, Bella’s the lame duck for most of the saga, until she discovers that her secret power is, literally, the ability to protect her loved ones. Seriously. Meanwhile, her love for Edward keeps threatening to ruin everything – prom, her sex life, the future of all vampirekind. Hunger Games : Empowered at an early age thanks to her father’s untimely death, Katniss is the provider in her family for most of her life, until she enters the Games and discovers that compassion for others, and the newfound ability to trust in Peeta, is the key to survival. Her only weakness, it could be said, is that her personal drive to survive is so strong she has trouble seeing the big picture, and her place in it. Advantage: Hunger Games THE LOVE TRIANGLE Twilight : Bella must choose between two suitors – Edward Cullen, the sparkly vampire, and Jacob Black, her werewolf BFF. Heated tent scenes, make-out sessions, and torrid glances ensue. Hunger Games : Katniss must choose between two suitors – Peeta, the golden baker’s son (and her fellow Tribute in the Hunger Games), and Gale, her earthy BFF. Play-acted cave scenes, tender kisses, and internal struggles ensue – that is, when Katniss isn’t busy, you know, fighting for her life. Advantage: Twilight THE THEMES Twilight : Love, lust, abstinence, teen pregnancy, motherhood, sexuality vs. sin. Hunger Games : Fighting injustice, taking a stand, trusting others, personal responsibility. Advantage: Hunger Games. THE ONSCREEN PG-13 ACTION Twilight : Speed-ramped vampire running, bad wirework, CG werewolf-vampire melees, non-gory limb-shattering/ripping/beheadings, and one vivid, suggestive C-section by vampire scene. Hunger Games : Training exercises, arrow-shooting, hand-to-hand combat, bladed weapons, Tracker Jacker (i.e. hallucination-inducing poison bee) attacks, and one vivid, suggestive shaky-cam Cornucopia melee. Advantage: Hunger Games FILM PEDIGREE Twilight : Installments directed by Catherine Hardwicke ( Twilight ), Chris Weitz ( New Moon ), David Slade ( Eclipse ), and Oscar-winner Bill Condon ( Breaking Dawn Parts 1 & 2 ). Top Rotten Tomatoes score: Eclipse , at 49%. Hunger Games : The Hunger Games directed by Oscar-nominee Gary Ross, who is set to direct the next sequel, Catching Fire . Current Rotten Tomatoes score: 100% (with 17 reviews in). Advantage: Hunger Games — Seems like The Hunger Games has the edge over Twilight by most of the above criteria, stemming from its more complex and stirring lead character, story, and themes. That said, Twilight fandom outpaces Hunger Games fandom by the millions, circulation-wise. Will solid critical reviews and stellar pre-release ticket sales help bump The Hunger Games to Twilight -level box office returns — and convince non-fans to give it a shot? Sound off below, Movieliners!
“Sony Pictures Classics announced that on June 22 it will release Woody Allen’s latest film, the newly titled To Rome With Love . To Rome With Love was a name selected as an homage to the eternal city of Rome where the film was shot on location last summer. This will be used for its worldwide release. The film’s former title, Nero Fiddled , while an appropriate and humorous phrase in the U.S., is not a familiar expression overseas and many international territories preferred a more globally understood name.” [ SPC ]
For an independently produced comedy that mostly revolves around adults talking to each other — sometimes with child accessories — in varying degrees of inebriation, Friends with Kids is finding a modest amount of success. It’s not perfect , but somehow it manages to be funny without any accidental drug trips, grandmas shooting guns at the dinner table, or Tom Cruise rescuing Cameron Diaz from a crashing plane. Writer-director-co-star Jennifer Westfeldt has returned us a bit to the days of comedies of manners, instead of the awful dichotomy between shrill “romantic” comedy and Apatovian gross-out comedy where Hollywood seems stuck these days. In that spirit, here are four lessons future adult comedies should take from Friends with Kids . [Spoilers ahead.] 1. Skip (most of) the bathroom jokes. Bridesmaids it isn’t. While there is one major on-screen poop joke in Friends with Kids, it actually made me breathe a sigh of relief, because at least we didn’t have to see the bodily function in action. As soon as Megan Fox walked across from a baby with “explosive diarrhea” — diaper ominously absent — I started dreading seeing an explosion in her direction. Hence my gratitude, and surprise, when it never came. (This is an admittedly low bar — eventually I’d love to see Adam Scott or Kristen Wiig in a romantic comedy that ignores the bathroom altogether — but hey, small steps.) 2. Write romantic comedies about the occasional decent human being. Sure, Scott’s Jason spends most of the movie as a Barney Stinson-like asshole, but the story ultimately hinges on his growing up. I wish Westfeldt had given her Julie a little more to do, but she’s at least a relatively sensible woman who, when rejected by the person she loves, moves away and tries to move on. Even the protagonists’ respective Ms. and Mr. Wrong, played by Fox and Edward Burns, are written with a bit of sympathy. Compare that to most of the romantic comedy heroes in recent memory — Natalie Portman’s poorly characterized commitment-phobe in No Strings Attached and the all-around loathsome denizens of Something Borrowed and How Do You Know come to mind, not to mention anyone played by Katherine Heigl – and it was a pleasant change to actually understand and sympathize with the characters of Friends with Kids. 3. Sex can be funnier off-screen. For a story that revolves around adults trying to procreate while maintaining their recreational sex lives, most of Friends with Kids ’ sex was more heard about than seen. Which was great. Sure, there are ways to make sex funny on-screen, and I laughed at the awkward bedroom machinations when Jason and Julie tried to conceive their child. But my apparently universal Adam Scott crush aside, I didn’t feel cheated by the lack of nudity. That scene and other references to sex in Friends with Kids were funnier, sharper and more adult than most of the shenanigans in last year’s dueling sex-friends rom-coms, No Strings Attached and Friends with Benefits . 4. All you need is a good dinner party or two. As you may have read , Friends with Kids is not the much-marketed Bridesmaids reunion, but the returning cast plays a great collective supporting role. The actors have good chemistry as a group of friends, with all the tensions and alliances therein, and some of the best parts of Friends with Kids depict their various gatherings, including a climactic, verbally-explosive dinner party during a group vacation. Westfeldt’s characters argue like real people, and the drama of those arguments powers her story – no need for rogue hot-air balloons , incompetent bounty hunters, or even spy partners fighting gun battles over Reese Witherspoon. PREVIOUSLY : What Wanderlust — and Hollywood — Just Can’t Get Right About Women Maria Aspan is a writer living in New York whose work has appeared in The New York Times, Reuters and American Banker. She Tweets and Tumbls .
As the big night fast approaches, it’s time for another of Movieline’s virtual awards roundtables. Our Oscar nominees this time are up for Best Costume Design. They are (in alphabetical order):
