Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Sing Sing’ Review: Divine Interventions

      by

      A deep-tissue turn by Colman Domingo and a breakout performance by Clarence Maclin lift this moving drama about a prison theater program.Spoken by the two key characters in the prison-set drama “Sing Sing,” the word “beloved” is as moving as it is unexpected. It uplifts and gently shatters. It makes a case for the deep respect and deeper amity forged in a theater program set up at the eponymous maximum-security facility.Colman Domingo imbues his character John Whitfield, a.k.a. Divine G, with a steadfast compassion but also the tamped-down frustrations of a man convicted of a crime he says he didn’t commit. And Clarence Maclin — a formerly incarcerated newcomer whose story, along with that of the actual Whitfield, the film is built upon — burrows into his former self in a finessed and fierce performance as Divine Eye, the prison-yard alpha who auditions for Sing Sing’s Rehabilitation Through the Arts theater program. That program is the movie’s other star.The film, directed by Greg Kwedar from a script written with Clint Bentley, orbits the prickly relationship between G, a much-respected member of the R.T.A. ensemble, and Eye. We first meet Eye shaking down a wan mark and conducting his drug business in the prison yard. G and his best friend, Mike Mike (Sean San José in a poignant turn), watch, waiting to gauge Eye’s genuine interest in the acting program. There’s a long wait-list.A published writer, G spends his time away from the rehearsal room in the library or at his typewriter building his clemency appeal or researching the cases of fellow inmates. Eye, possessing a gap-tooth smile he’s slow to reveal, is a psychological pugilist looking for the soft spot to land the hurtful punch.From the jump, Eye challenges G’s standing. He’s the prince of the hard gaze. Nothing sits right with him. He thinks the warm-ups are goofy. (They are until they aren’t.) When a fellow actor crosses behind him during the blocking of a scene, he’s ready to pummel.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 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Eno’ Review: Creativity, 52 Billion Billion Ways

      by

      A new documentary about the groundbreaking artist Brian Eno breaks its own ground, too.The key to “Eno” comes near the beginning of the film — at least, the beginning of the first version I saw. The musician Brian Eno, the documentary’s subject, notes that the fun of the kind of art he makes is that it’s a two-way street. “The audience’s brain does the cooking and keeps seeing relationships,” he says.Most movies are made up of juxtapositions of scenes, carefully selected and designed by the editor. But “Eno,” directed by Gary Hustwit, turns that convention on its head. Writ large, it’s a meditation on creativity. But every version of the movie you see is different, generated by a set of rules that dictate some things about the film, while leaving others to chance. (I’ve seen it twice, and maybe half the same material appeared across both films.)Eno, one of the most innovative and celebrated musicians and producers of his generation, has fiddled with randomness in his musical practice for decades, often propelled along by new technologies. He agreed to participate in “Eno” only if it, too, could be an example of what he and others have long called generative art.The word “generative” has become associated with artificial intelligence, but that’s not what’s going on with “Eno.” Instead, the film runs on a code-based decision tree that forks every so often in a new path, created for software named Brain One (an anagram for Brian Eno). Brain One, programmed by the artist Brendan Dawes, generates a new version of the film on the fly every time the algorithm is run. Dawes’s system selects from a database of 30 hours of new interviews with Eno and 500 hours of film from his personal archive and, following a system of rules set down by the filmmakers with code, creating a new film. According to the filmmakers, there are 52 quintillion (that is, 52 billion billion) possible combinations, which means the chances of Brain One generating two exact copies of “Eno” are so small as to be functionally zero.This method is unusual, even unique, among feature-length films. Movies are linear media, designed to begin at the beginning and proceed in an orderly, predictable fashion until the end. The same footage appears in the same order every time you watch.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

    • 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