Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      Kevin Costner’s Next ‘Horizon’ Film Release Is Canceled

      by

      The film was supposed to hit theaters on Aug. 16, but that plan was scrapped after the first chapter of the Western saga disappointed at the box office.Kevin Costner’s audacious experiment seems to have failed.Mr. Costner tried something rare this summer, releasing the first chapter of his western saga “Horizon” — which he directed, starred in, co-wrote and partly financed — in theaters across the country on June 28. The plan was for the second chapter in the sprawling story to be released six weeks later.But thanks to paltry box office returns, that plan has been scuttled. On Wednesday, New Line Cinema, a subsidiary of Warner Bros., said it was canceling the theatrical release of “Horizon: An American Saga — Chapter 2,” which was scheduled to debut in theaters on Aug. 16.The first chapter, which cost $100 million, made $11 million in its opening weekend and has generated just $22.6 million over all. Mr. Costner planned for the saga, about the settling of the West after the Civil War, to consist of four chapters, and tickets to the first two chapters were made available at the same time. Those who bought tickets to the second “Horizon” film would be able to receive a refund.“Horizon: An American Saga — Chapter 1” will now be available via premium video on demand on Tuesday, “in order to give audiences a greater opportunity to discover the first installment of ‘Horizon’ over the coming weeks,” a New Line spokesman said in a statement. It will also be available on Max, the streaming service from Warner Bros. Discovery, though no date has been set for that. It is not clear when or how the second chapter will be released.Mr. Costner, who invested $38 million of his own money in the project and left his lead role in the hit television show “Yellowstone” because of scheduling conflicts over “Horizon,” declined to comment. He began filming the third chapter in May.“Kevin made this film for people who love movies and who wanted to go on a journey,” Territory Pictures, Mr. Costner’s production company, said in a statement. “The support that we have received from film fans, and the theater owners, as they experience the first chapter of this saga only serves to reinforce our belief in them and the films that we have made, and we thank them for coming on board for the ride. We welcome the opportunity for that window to be expanded, as we know it will only serve to enhance the experience of seeing ‘Horizon 2.’” More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      How ‘Kill’ Slices Bollywood Open

      by

      Five questions for the director Nikhil Nagesh Bhat about his Indian action film, which takes an ultraviolent step away from Bollywood conventions.The writer-director Nikhil Nagesh Bhat bristles whenever someone labels his claustrophobic action film “Kill” as Bollywood. In “Kill” (in theaters), the characters rarely break out in song and there are few colorful sets — just the mundane cars of a train on which the bulk of the movie takes place.According to Bhat, in fact, “Kill” was inspired by a real-life train robbery he experienced in 1995. That memory is respun here into a story involving a lean commando named Amrit (Lakshya), who is working to save his girlfriend, Tulika (Tanya Maniktala), from a team of working-class bandits led by the spiteful Fani (Raghav Juyal). Amrit’s gory, swinging, kicking barrage through tight train corridors — propelled by a muscular exterior yet an emotional vulnerability — is an action extravaganza accomplished through sharp technical execution.In a Zoom interview, Bhat spoke about crafting fight sequences in tight spaces and his love of James Cameron’s “Aliens.” Below are edited excerpts from the conversation.How did you shape the fighting styles here?It comes from the story itself. Amrit is highly trained in commando warfare, which is a kind of martial arts. They’re fighting these goons, who are robbers, who do not have any kind of training. They’re street fighters. And we trained like that. We purposely made sure that it looks very raw and visceral, and it looks uncoordinated because the film is very emotional. I wanted every action sequence to be preceded by some kind of emotional upheaval or turmoil. It could not be one set piece of action after the other. It’s being driven by the characters and their relationships, which are being tested throughout this journey.Bhat, center, standing, with the actors Raghav Juyal, left, and Mohit Tripathi, right, on the set of “Kill.”Ketan MehtaWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      The Key Players in Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ Shooting Manslaughter Trial

      by

      ‎ The actor Alec Baldwin was filming the movie “Rust” in New Mexico in 2021 when the gun that he was rehearsing with, which was not supposed to contain live ammunition, went off, firing a bullet that killed the film’s cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins. The film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was responsible for weapons and ammunition on the set, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Now Mr. Baldwin is going on trial for involuntary manslaughter; he has pleaded not guilty. Opening arguments begin on Wednesday. Here are some key players.The ‘Rust’ ProductionAlec BaldwinRoss D. Franklin/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesActor and producerMr. Baldwin, who was playing a grizzled outlaw in “Rust,” has vehemently denied responsibility in the fatal shooting on Oct. 21, 2021, saying that he was told that the old-fashioned revolver he was handed on the set that day was “cold,” meaning that it was not loaded with live ammunition, and adding that it was unthinkable that any live rounds would be on the set. Mr. Baldwin has also said he did not pull the trigger when the gun discharged, but had merely pulled the hammer back and let it go; prosecutors have said that forensic examinations have suggested that he must have pulled the trigger.Hannah Gutierrez-ReedPool photo by Luis Sanchez, via Saturno/EPA, via ShutterstockArmorerAs the armorer, Ms. Gutierrez-Reed was responsible for weapons and ammunition on the “Rust” set; even though there was not supposed to be any live ammunition on the set, she loaded a live round into the revolver that day and failed to catch it when she checked the weapon. She stood trial this year, and a jury convicted her of involuntary manslaughter. Prosecutors argued that she had brought the live rounds onto the set, which she denied. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison — the same maximum sentence that Mr. Baldwin would face if he is convicted. She is appealing the conviction.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      David Ellison Poised to Become a New Mogul in a Diminished Hollywood

      by

      David Ellison is poised to soon run Paramount Pictures, among other entertainment assets. But what does that mean in a fractured cultural landscape?In 1994, when Sumner M. Redstone bought Paramount Pictures for about $10 billion, the equivalent of about $22 billion today, he did more than just take over a company. He ascended a cultural throne.Studios like Paramount — founded in the 1910s, operating soundstage complexes and controlling vast film libraries — were valuable businesses on the verge of hitting a mother lode: the DVD. Perhaps more important, however, they gave their owners a precious identity as certified members of the cultural elite.Movies still towered above everything. Top ticket sellers in 1994 included touchstones like “The Lion King,” “Schindler’s List,” “Interview With the Vampire,” “Mrs. Doubtfire,” “Philadelphia,” “Speed” and “Pulp Fiction.” In 1995, when “Forrest Gump” — a Paramount release — won the Oscar for best picture, more than 48 million Americans tuned in to watch.Those days are over.On Sunday, the Redstone family reluctantly relinquished Paramount, passing the studio to David Ellison, the tech scion behind a 14-year-old entertainment company called Skydance. If the complex deal closes, Mr. Ellison and his backers, which include RedBird Capital Partners, will spend roughly $8 billion on a collection of assets that include Paramount, CBS, two streaming services and a portfolio of cable networks, such as MTV, Nickelodeon, BET and Comedy Central.Considering the movie studio alone was worth $22 billion in 1994, it was not exactly a celebratory moment in Hollywood. Rather, it was another example of harsh reality intruding on a world that still likes to fantasize about recapturing its golden age. (Universal recently renovated its lot, adding a sign over one of its entrance gates that reads, “Welcome all who change the world.”)Sure, Mr. Ellison, 41, now ranks as a bona fide Hollywood mogul. But what does that even mean in 2024? His ascendance bears no resemblance to the robber barons like Mr. Redstone who came before him, partly because there is precious little left to rob.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      Alec Baldwin’s Role as a Producer Ruled Not Relevant to ‘Rust’ Trial

      by

      The ruling was a victory for the actor, who is set to stand trial this week on a charge of involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer. He has pleaded not guilty.A judge in New Mexico ruled on Monday that Alec Baldwin’s role as a producer of the film “Rust” was not relevant to his upcoming trial for involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of its cinematographer in 2021, dealing a setback to the prosecution.Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer of the First Judicial District in New Mexico ruled that prosecutors could not argue that Mr. Baldwin’s role as a member of the film’s production team — he was one of its producers in addition to being its leading man — had made him more culpable for the death of the film’s cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins.It was a blow to the prosecution, which had sought to make Mr. Baldwin’s role as a producer part of their case. “As the producer he has the power to control safety on set, and there was a tremendous lack of safety on this set,” one of the prosecutors, Erlinda O. Johnson, argued in court earlier on Monday.Mr. Baldwin’s defense has disputed that, saying that as a member of the production team he was involved in creative matters, but that others had authority over hiring and budgets.The judge ruled that the prosecution could not present evidence about Mr. Baldwin’s position as one of the film’s producers.“I’m having real difficulty with the state’s position that they want to show that, as a producer, he didn’t follow guidelines and therefore, as an actor, Mr. Baldwin did all of these things wrong resulting in the death of Ms. Hutchins because as a producer he allowed these things to happen,” Judge Marlowe Sommer said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Movies

      Alec Baldwin Heads to Trial in ‘Rust’ Movie Shooting: Here’s What to Know

      by

      The trial, scheduled to start with jury selection on Tuesday, will examine whether the actor committed involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of the movie’s cinematographer.The winding prosecution of Alec Baldwin over the fatal shooting on the “Rust” film set is set to arrive at a trial this week in New Mexico, where a jury will be asked to decide whether his role in the death of the movie’s cinematographer amounts to involuntary manslaughter.The case revolves around the events of Oct. 21, 2021, when the gun Mr. Baldwin was rehearsing with discharged a live bullet that killed the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, and wounded the movie’s director. The weapon was supposed to have been loaded with inert rounds that could not fire.The initial announcement that prosecutors were bringing a criminal case against Mr. Baldwin was met with shock from Hollywood, where many consider on-set gun safety the responsibility of a production’s weapons experts and safety coordinators, not its actors. (The movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, has already been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 18 months in prison.)The movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and is not expected to be a cooperative witness in Mr. Baldwin’s trial.Pool photo by Luis Sanchez Saturno/EPA, via ShutterstockThe case has put those Hollywood norms to the test and the conduct of Mr. Baldwin, a fixture of the television and movie industry for decades, under a microscope. The proceedings are expected to be highly contested by his lawyers, who have argued for months that the prosecution is a misguided bid to secure a high-profile conviction of a celebrity.The trial is expected to last about two weeks at the Santa Fe County District Courthouse, where the proceedings will be livestreamed. Jury selection is scheduled to begin on Tuesday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      ‘MaXXXine’ Director Ti West Is Turning Hollywood Into a Horror Show

      by

      The Vista is a 101-year-old single-screen movie theater, one of the last of its kind in Los Angeles. A few years ago, midpandemic, Quentin Tarantino bought it, fixed it up, even opened a coffee shop next door and named it after the Pam Grier film “Coffy.” When asked why he bought the Vista or the New Beverly, another single-screen he owns, Tarantino has said: “I’ve got a living room. I want to go to a movie theater.” A few weeks ago I went to a sold-out double feature at the Vista: the film “X” and its prequel, “Pearl.” Both came out in 2022, both were released by the art-house mainstay A24 and both were directed by Ti West, a filmmaker sometimes compared with Tarantino — not least because both have made movies that are obsessed with the process, history and mythology of moviemaking itself. For Tarantino, that film was “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” in which two working actors stumble through the Hollywood of 1969, as one film era crashes into another. For West, it is “X” and “Pearl” and the trilogy’s final film, the newly released “MaXXXine.” These are, like most of West’s films, nominally horror movies. But they are also much stranger and more slippery than that label might suggest. In all three films, the horror stems from the characters’ drive toward stardom and their ruthless, sometimes psychotic ambition, which is fully unleashed by the possibilities of the silver screen.Martin Scorsese, a fan of West’s, wrote to me that he thought each film in the trilogy represented a “different type of horror, related to different eras in American moviemaking.” The first, “X,” is “the ’70s, the slasher era”; “Pearl” is “’50s melodrama in vivid saturated color; “MaXXXine” is “’80s Hollywood, rancid, desperate.” They are, Scorsese wrote, “three linked stories set within three different moments in movie culture, reflecting back on the greater culture.” By smuggling thoroughly modern ideas into films that were also steeped in the aesthetics of the past, Scorsese thought, West had done something bold and thoroughly cinematic.That night at the Vista, after “X” played, West sat onstage with the actress Lily Collins, who is in “MaXXXine,” and they talked about the making of the trilogy. Weeks earlier, over breakfast, West had shared with me an idea he was considering for the event: He wanted to surprise the audience by screening the new film instead of “Pearl.” It would be the first time he put “MaXXXine” in front of a real, live, movie-loving audience, as opposed to critics and press and industry types. The director Ti West, left, on the set of “MaXXXine,” the final installment in a horror trilogy that began with “X” and “Pearl.”Eddy Chen/A24Mia Goth in “MaXXXine.” She plays multiple roles across the course of the trilogy.Justin Lubin/A24The idea delighted West, he explained, because he was always interested in the process of leading an audience to that place where they know something is coming, and they probably have an idea of what it might be, but they find when it arrives that it is not at all what they expected. One of his favorite movie moments that does this is in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” at the end of the bazaar chase, when the crowd separates and a swordsman steps out. Indy looks at him for a beat, and you think to yourself: This is really exciting — he’s going to have a big battle against that guy with the sword! But instead, Indy simply pulls out his gun and shoots the guy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      The Best Documentaries of 2024, So Far

      by

      “Spermworld,” “Onlookers” and “32 Sounds” are worth watching for the different ways they allow us to see the world.Now that 2024 is half over, I’ve started collecting candidates for my list of the year’s best films — and that, of course, includes documentaries. I’ve written about many great nonfiction films already this year (including some favorites like “Songs of Earth,” “Ryuichi Sakamoto: Opus” and “Art Talent Show”). Yet plenty fly under the radar, so I wanted to highlight three documentaries I haven’t written about that are worth your time.The first is “Spermworld” (Hulu), directed by Lance Oppenheim (who also made the recent, amazing HBO documentary series “Ren Faire”). Oppenheim’s singular style is dreamlike, heightening reality so it becomes poetic and unworldly. In this movie, he follows several “sperm kings,” men who connect with would-be parents looking for sperm donors via the internet, rather than at a sperm bank. The movie illuminates the reasons they choose to donate as well as the reasons people seek donors in this unconventional way. That premise could be cheesy, exploitative or salacious. Instead, it’s gripping and empathetic and unlike anything you’d expect. (The documentary is based on a 2021 New York Times article, and is a New York Times co-production.)I also loved “Onlookers,” Kimi Takesue’s unusual film about tourism in Laos. You can imagine a journalistic approach to this topic, which might involve interviews and investigative work, or perhaps a first-person travelogue approach. But Takesue eschews all those tools for something entirely different: a series of long takes, set up as locked, wide camera shots. Tourists and locals amble through the frame, taking pictures, talking to one another, buying items and going about the activities typical of tourism in the region. What you slowly realize you’re watching is the way that constant observation creates a certain sort of performance as well as disruption. Tourists are there to look at locals, and locals look right back at them, watching their behavior as well. But there’s an extra layer, because here we are as viewers, watching people be watched. So who is the real onlooker?A final film worth seeking out is Sam Green’s “32 Sounds” (Criterion Channel), an immersive sound documentary that Green has toured as a live performance throughout the world over the past few years. Now it’s available for home viewing, and the good news is that the experience is just as excellent through your headphones as it might be in a theater. That’s because “32 Sounds” aims to make you aware of the world of sound literally vibrating around you, and it’s designed to make you feel as if you’re inside the documentary rather than just watching it. Green narrates the film, which is both funny and full of ruminations on how sound creates meaning in our lives. Sometimes onscreen text instructs you to close your eyes so you can pay fuller attention to what you’re hearing. It’s the sort of movie that can change the way you live, and that’s what the best films do, isn’t it? More