By GENRES
By FEATURES
- Celebrities Gone Wild!
- Movies We're Thankful For
- 12 Days of Cinematicalmas
- After Image
- Best/Worst
- Bondcast
- Cinematical Indie Chat
- Cinematical's SmartGossip!
- Coming Distractions
- Critical Thought
- Eat My Shorts!
- Festival Reports
- Film Clips
- Friday Night Double Feature
- From the Editor's Desk
- Geek Report
- Guilty Pleasures
- Interviews
- Movie Games
- Podcasts
- Retro Cinema
- Review Roundup
- Scene Stealers
- The Write Stuff
- Trailer Trash
- Unscripted
- Vintage Image of the Day
By NEWS
- Celebrities and Controversy
- Columns
- Distribution
- NSFW
- Oscar Watch
- Politics
- Polls
- Posters
- Scripts
- Tech Stuff
By FESTIVALS
Critical Thought
Discuss: Why Are Movies Like '2012' So Interesting?
Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:02:00 EST
Filed under: Action, Drama, New Releases, Sony, Critical Thought, New in Theaters
I dislike adding "porn" or "-sploitation" to descriptive phrases (torture porn, poorsploitation, etc. etc.), but if anything could be called an exploitation of our natural fear of an upcoming worldwide crisis, it would be 2012. Eerie shots of crowds praying en masse and major landmarks crumbling are juxtaposed with smaller stories, like the family struggling to stay together, a personal crisis set off by an ethical conundrum, and, of course, the prophet-kook in the woods who's happy to see his greatest suspicions verified.
Orson Welles's radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds sent Americans running for their bomb shelters in 1938, and once everyone realized it was just a radio show (and recovered from their terror), a new type of horror was born: the fear of massive worldwide destruction.
Every US generation thinks it's going to be the last. If it's not the Cold War, it's the Middle East, and if it's not aliens, it's the ice caps. But it's also a reality; it's mind-boggling to turn on the news and see footage of a tsunami that's killed about 230,000 people and injured and displaced so many more.
Continue reading Discuss: Why Are Movies Like '2012' So Interesting?
Villains: The Highs and Lows of Recasting
Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:32:00 EST
Filed under: Drama, Horror, Critical Thought, Fandom
Why recast the relatively small role of a doctor in a thriller? Michael Mann's Manhunter was an excellent thriller, featuring Brian Cox in a small role as the imprisoned, chillingly cold cannibal Dr. Hannibal Lecktor. When the time came to adapt another one of Thomas Harris' bestsellers, Jonathan Demme went in a different direction, casting Anthony Hopkins as the good doctor. The character's family name was restored (Lecter, not Lecktor) and a whole new set of tics and tricks were placed on display. Hopkins may have been the only actor alive who could have hammed it up to such extreme levels and yet, somehow, made Lector creepy rather than campy, unnerving rather than unbelievable. For his memorable efforts in The Silence of the Lambs, Hopkins won an Academy Award.
Recasting villains is a tricky business. Everyone needs to love, identify with, and cheer the hero or heroine, but if the villain doesn't provide the requisite level of opposition, the picture runs the risk of becoming unbalanced, leaving a gaping hole that cannot be filled in with special effects. And if an actor has established the character in the public's mind, it's difficult for anyone else to measure up.
So Dylan Walsh has an advantage in The Stepfather, which opens tomorrow. Terry O'Quinn originated the title role in the 1987 original, and was a truly memorable monster. Yet the film is not steeped in the public consciousness to a high degree, and O'Quinn has become much better known from playing John Locke in Lost. Walsh's fame, such as it is, comes from the lesser-seen TV series Nip/Tuck. Walsh has a shot of creating his own distinct brand of villain.
Continue reading Villains: The Highs and Lows of Recasting
Discuss: Are There Too Many Film Festivals?
Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:32:00 EST
Filed under: Critical Thought, Fandom, Exhibition, Movie Marketing
As time has passed, the fests have become more than venues for movie buyers and sellers to haggle over movies or arbiters of taste in the finest of arthouse flicks. Along the way, critics and journalists have gotten into the festival circuit, which is a win-win for the movies and the writers; small films get the buzz that's sometimes a good push for them to get picked up by distributors, and the writers get access to films before they get hot, making them tastemakers and generally ahead of the curve when it comes to Oscar season, film trends, and insider-y scoops that can only occur when you find yourself sharing an elevator with a Weinstein. Festivals can be great litmus tests for movies that take forever to get picked up - you can pretty much guarantee they're gonna be a stinker by the time they arrive in theaters for a weekend and disappear after that.
Continue reading Discuss: Are There Too Many Film Festivals?



