Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      How Horror Movies Solve Their Cellphone Problem

      by

      When one quick call can eliminate danger and undermine screams, filmmakers have to figure out a workaround. Sometimes it can even deepen a story.A cellphone lies in a rustic Airbnb, smashed by an intruder. Then, when another is procured, a faulty connection interrupts a call to 911.A navigation map on a smartphone glitches as a driver plunges deep into the woods.Criminals on a kidnapping job are ordered to surrender their phones “to be completely certain that you can’t be tracked.”An exasperated partyer in rural Ontario wonders aloud to a member in his group, “How long is it going to take for you to realize there’s no reception out here?”These are some of the ways that recent horror movies have gotten around what is at this point an age-old problem: the cellphone. In working order, they can render predicaments more solvable and certain situations easier to escape — potentially. Before the late ’90s, there was little need to make such a show of connectivity failure. Lines would go down or get cut, sure, but isolation in the age before mass cellphone usage was easier to come by and therefore easier to believe onscreen. Back then, the tropes didn’t have to trope so hard.Then came the cell, and movies like “House on Haunted Hill” (1999) and “Jeepers Creepers” (2001) featured characters realizing they were holding useless plastic flip-bricks as their situations grew hairy. (In the former, the possessed house kills the signal before any of its inhabitants; in the latter, young adult siblings bicker over a low battery notification after witnessing what turns out to be a winged demon.) With smartphones, there was even more to neutralize, like GPS maps and internet searches. Movies taking pains to explain away cellphones were so prevalent that by 2009, I could collect more than 40 clips for a supercut exploring this development in the previous decade or so.In “The Watchers,” a navigation app becomes glitchy.Warner Bros.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 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Review: Reynolds and Jackman Return

      by

      The wisecracking semi-hero is back, but now he’s part of a bigger universe.“Disney’s so stupid,” Deadpool declares trollishly at the beginning of “Deadpool & Wolverine.” It’s the sort of jab — in this case, at the studio distributing the film we’re watching — that we’ve grown used to from this dude, a potty-mouthed exterminator in a face-obscuring suit vaguely reminiscent of Spider-Man. Not quite a hero, not quite anything else, Deadpool is an answer to the conflicted but upstanding superheroes of 21st-century Hollywood. He kills messily, he makes a lot of inappropriate jokes and, in an industry that practically decrees a profit-boosting PG-13 rating, his movies are always rated R.Despite first appearing in Marvel comics, Deadpool (played by Ryan Reynolds), a.k.a. Wade Wilson, also used to stand slightly outside of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But in the six years since his last big-screen appearance in “Deadpool 2,” the Merc with the Mouth has been shoehorned into the M.C.U., along with the X-Men, for reasons involving Disney’s 2019 acquisition of 20th Century Fox. (Which was promptly renamed 20th Century Studios, and you can be sure Deadpool will joke about that too.)Deadpool explains all this very quickly at the beginning of “Deadpool & Wolverine,” just to catch us up. He has a lot of expositional ground to cover, since he also has to clarify how this movie will avoid desecrating the memory of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), a.k.a. Logan, who was laid to rest in the excellent eponymous swan song from 2017. “We’re not,” Deadpool announces. Deal with it.The first two Deadpool movies set out to skewer the conventions of superhero cinema, with “Deadpool” (2016) scrapping conventional opening credits for alternate text jabbing at tropes: “A British Villain,” “A Hot Chick,” “A Moody Teen,” “A C.G.I. Character” and also some words we can’t print here. Deadpool broke the fourth wall constantly, remarking to the audience about what was happening or about to happen, as well as the paltry budget of the film and the silliness of him, a minor and ridiculous character, being in a movie at all.But times sure have changed, and not just because those movies made a whole lot of money. Yes, “Deadpool & Wolverine” still features quips about residuals and digs at characters in DC’s rival comics universe, and a bunch of them made me chuckle. It still features Reynolds making fun of himself; it has some fun set pieces, clever sight gags, amusing surprises, left-field references and adoring pauses to admire Jackman’s biceps and abs.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

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      30 Classic Horror Movies to Stream

      by

      From silent monsters to digital-age demons, these scary-movie cornerstones are available to scream — sorry, stream.The horror movies that endure understand that panic and peril are best served through universal stories and singular monsters. That can be a child on a tricycle, a masked figure standing still across the street or a knock from down the hall at midnight.Here’s a streaming guide to some of the best and most beloved scary movies that will knock both socks and pants off, whether for the first or umpteenth time.‘The Shining’ (1980)Stream it on Shudder.Jack Nicholson stars in Stanley Kubrick’s masterful psychodrama as a struggling writer who takes a job as a grand hotel’s off-season caretaker. (The film is based on Stephen King’s 1977 novel of the same name.) A snowstorm cuts him and his wife (Shelley Duvall) and son (Danny Lloyd) off from the world, and with that disruption comes spectral twins, a blood tidal wave and other horrific happenings that turn the hotel into a hellscape. Duvall gives an indelible, visceral final-girl performance — one of horror’s best — most memorably in that scene when Nicholson comes at her with an ax through the door and births horror’s unforgettable epigram: “Here’s Johnny!”‘The Omen’ (1976)Stream it on Hulu.Richard Donner’s supernatural thriller is fueled by one of my favorite kinds of horror movie villains: the evil kiddo. The moppet here is Damien (Harvey Spencer Stephens), the naughty church-hating son of a wealthy American couple (Gregory Peck and Lee Remick). After a series of deathly happenings including a suicide, the well-meaning parents come to realize that their terrorizing little one might be the Antichrist. The film was a box office hit that kicked off a franchise actually worth completing. It also turned Damien into a synonym for a devil child.‘Hellraiser’ (1987)Stream it on Amazon Prime Video.A magic puzzle box, skin-ripping hooks and a monstrous entity named Pinhead: These are just some of the ominous and oddball elements in Clive Barker’s fantasy-forward, supernatural melodrama. Based on one of Barker’s own novellas, the film draws a joyously kinky sensibility around a darkly romantic story that asks this central question: What’s the difference between pleasure and pain? While not as much of a household name as Michael or Jason, Pinhead is a one-of-a-kind villain: grandiose, sensuous, sinister and, for some horror fans, decidedly queer.Donald Sutherland in the 1978 remake of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”United Artists, via Everett CollectionWe 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 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      Robert Gottlieb’s Books Go Up for Sale

      by

      Robert Gottlieb didn’t just edit books. He voraciously read and collected them.On Saturday, a portion of his personal library — his books on show business — were sold at a fair in the lobby of the Metrograph theater on Manhattan’s Lower East Side.When Mr. Gottlieb, who died last June at 92, wasn’t heartlessly lancing thousands of words out of Robert Caro’s biographical volumes or marking up the manuscripts of Toni Morrison and Salman Rushdie, he loved watching movies. Along the course of his career, he built a vast collection of books on Hollywood’s golden age.His family was unsure what to do with the collection until earlier this year, when they started talking with Metrograph, a two-screen cinema that is a pillar of the downtown art house scene.Visitors lined up to buy “My Life with Chaplin,” “Fasten Your Seat Belts: The Passionate Life of Bette Davis,” “Little Girl Lost: The Life & Hard Times of Judy Garland” and hundreds of other books. When they opened them, they found a stamped seal reading “From the Library of Robert Gottlieb.” The books were priced around $15 to $40.Reinaldo Buitron, 28, a documentary filmmaker, flipped through a book about the Italian director Roberto Rossellini.“Being able to touch the same books Gottlieb had in his own home is surreal,” he said. “I see we admired the same films, and that makes me think we might have gotten along. That we could have sat for dinner and talked cinema and about his opinions on semicolons.”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

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ to Compete at Venice Film Festival

      by

      Pedro Almodóvar’s first English-language feature and new movies from Luca Guadagnino and Pablo Larraín will also debut at this year’s event.“Joker: Folie à Deux,” Todd Phillips’s comic-book sequel starring Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga, will compete for the Golden Lion at this year’s Venice International Film Festival.The movie’s participation, which festival organizers announced during a news conference on Tuesday to reveal the lineup, comes five years after Phillips’s “Joker” — which told the Batman villain’s origin story — won the same prize at Venice’s 76th edition, paving the way for its two Oscar wins.Phillips’s movie will face starry competition for the Golden Lion, including from Pedro Almodóvar’s first English-language feature, “The Room Next Door,” starring Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton, and Pablo Larraín’s “Maria,” a biopic of the opera singer Maria Callas with Angelina Jolie in the lead.Also in competition will be Luca Guadagnino’s “Queer,” an adaptation of a short novel by William S. Burroughs that follows a drug addict (Daniel Craig) as he undergoes withdrawal in Mexico City and becomes infatuated with an American drifter (Drew Starkey); Halina Reijn’s erotic thriller “Babygirl” starring Nicole Kidman as a manager who starts an affair; and Justin Kurzel’s “The Order,” with Jude Law as an F.B.I. agent investigating a white supremacist terrorist organization.Altogether, 21 movies will compete for the top prize at Venice’s 81st edition, which is scheduled to run Aug. 28 through Sep. 7. A nine-person jury led by Isabelle Huppert, the French actor, will choose the Golden Lion winner, which is announced on the festival’s final day.This year’s competition will include, from top left, “The Room Next Door,” “Maria,” “The Order,” and “Queer.”Iglesias Más; Michelle Faye; Yannis DrakoulidisThis year’s star-studded lineup suggests the impact of last year’s Hollywood strikes on the movie industry’s schedules is waning. Those strikes wrought havoc at last year’s festival, with the MGM studio pulling Guadagnino’s tennis drama “Challengers” from the lineup, and many actors and directors staying away to avoid breaking strike terms.At Tuesday’s news conference, Alberto Barbera, the festival’s artistic director, said that “Joker: Folie à Deux” showed Phoenix and Lady Gaga’s characters stuck in an asylum awaiting trial.“Nobody can imagine what Todd and his screenwriters have imagined,” Barbera said, adding that Phoenix’s performance was “incredible.”Venice’s organizers had announced some of this year’s lineup before Tuesday’s news conference, including this year’s opening movie, which won’t compete for the Golden Lion: “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” Tim Burton’s sequel to his 1988 comedy horror. The new movie has Michael Keaton return to play the title role, and also stars Winona Ryder and Catherine O’Hara.Another high-profile movie appearing out of competition is Jon Watts’s comedic thriller “Wolfs,” starring George Clooney and Brad Pitt as professional fixers who are hired to cover up the same crime. There are also movies by directors less familiar to Western audiences, including the Japanese director Kiyoshi Kurosawa, with “Cloud,” and the Georgian filmmaker Dea Kulumbegashvili, who is showing “April.”In recent years, the Venice Film Festival has gained a reputation for debuting Oscar contenders. Last year, Yorgos Lanthimos’s “Poor Things,” starring Emma Stone, won the Golden Lion for best film and Stone went on to win best actress at this year’s Academy Awards. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar’ Deserves a Second Chance

      by

      “Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar” has been woefully neglected. Maybe it was the culottes? But it will fill the “Barbie”-size hole in your summer.Three years ago, deep in the bleak pandemic winter, we were blessed with a strange, movie-shaped gift. Starring and written by two of our most talented comedians, it was at once satirical, sincere, good-hearted and neon-colored. It took place mostly on a Florida beach. There were some dance numbers, a remix of “My Heart Will Go On,” a bunch of colorful sugar-bomb cocktails and an obsessive attention to culottes. The jokes came fast and furiously. A crab talked in a voice that sounded like Morgan Freeman. It was, in a word, perfect.I’m writing, of course, of “Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar,” one of the more criminally underrated films in recent years. That fate was mostly inevitable; theaters weren’t open in many markets in February 2021, and matters like “time” and “release schedules” were nebulous, mushy concepts. The fact that “Barb and Star” was written by its leads, Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, the same pair of friends who wrote the paradigm-shifting “Bridesmaids” 10 years earlier, somehow didn’t propel it into the spotlight. (We were all too busy obsessing over “WandaVision.”)But I’ve found myself thinking about “Barb and Star” (available to buy or rent on most major platforms) in the years since, in part because of last year’s megahit “Barbie.” That movie’s greatest pleasure was its tone: zany, bright, heightened, self-aware, a little meta and very sweet. It had winking jokes and magical realism and a heartfelt message, and that made it feel fresh and unusual which, indeed, it was.Crank up the “Barbie” tone by a factor of five, toss in a bag of glitter and a blue cocktail in a huge fishbowl, add just a tiny touch of raunch, and you get “Barb and Star.” The tale concerns the titular middle-aged Midwesterners, played by Mumolo and Wiig, best friends who live in Soft Rock, Neb., and work at Jennifer Convertibles — the couch store. Barb is a widow, and Star (short for “Starbara”) is divorced. They have identical poofy haircuts and they sleep in twin beds; they belong to a Talking Club run by an imperious woman (Vanessa Bayer) and have never really left their hometown.A transcendent Jamie Dornan stars alongside Wiig and Mumolo.LionsgateBut after an unfortunate layoff at Jennifer Convertibles, Barb and Star are inspired to do something unexpected to get their shimmer back. A chance encounter with a tanned acquaintance leads in one direction: a week in Vista Del Mar, Fla. What they don’t know is that Edgar (Jamie Dornan, transcendent) will be there too, at the behest of a villainess named Sharon Gordon Fisherman, also played by Wiig. He worships her; she barely tolerates him, but has promised that if they can pull off her evil plot, they can be an “official couple.” Which is all he wants in all the world.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

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Barbie’ Was Supposed to Change Hollywood. Many See ‘No Effect.’

      by

      The film was a global phenomenon and seemed to herald a new era of embracing stories by, about and for women. What happened?When “Barbie” was released in 2023, it quickly became a phenomenon. It was the top box office film of the year, earning $1.4 billion worldwide, and it became Warner Bros.’s highest-grossing film ever, outpacing both “Dark Knight” movies, “Wonder Woman” and every chapter in the “Harry Potter” franchise.It was a DayGlo-pink rebuttal to decades of conventional Hollywood thinking, and its success seemed to herald a new paradigm for the film industry. Movies written and directed by women and focused on female protagonists could attract enormous audiences to multiplexes around the world.Yet in the 12 months since the movie’s release, little has changed in Hollywood. Buffeted by dual labor strikes that went on for months and a general retrenchment by entertainment companies trying to navigate the economics of the streaming era, the industry has retreated to its usual ways of doing business.The box office is down 17 percent from last year at this time, and studios spooked by a fickle audience (yes to “Twisters,” no to “Fall Guy”) are again questioning the reliability of the theatrical marketplace. Films released in 2023 featured the same number of girls or women in a leading role as in 2010, according to a report from the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative. Ask around Hollywood and the consensus seems to be that “Barbie” is a singular success, a gargantuan feat helmed by particular talents, the writer-director Greta Gerwig and the star Margot Robbie. Translation: Don’t expect a lot of movies like that in theaters anytime soon.“‘Barbie’ had no effect,” said Stacy L. Smith, the founder of the inclusion initiative, which studies inequality in Hollywood. “It’s perceived cognitively as a one-off. They have individuated the Margot Robbie, Greta Gerwig success and haven’t thought about how their own decision-making could be different and inclusive to create a new path forward.“Like most things with this industry, they’re like, ‘Oh, this is neat and shiny,’ and then they go right back to the way they’ve always been.”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 Television

      What’s on TV This Week: The Olympics and ‘Surreal Life: Villa of Secrets’

      by

      The opening ceremony airs on NBC. MTV reboots a reality show.For those who still enjoy a cable subscription, here is a selection of cable and network TV shows, movies and specials that broadcast this week, July 22-28. Details and times are subject to change.Monday61ST STREET 9 p.m. on the CW. The second season of this series follows a high school athlete, Moses Johnson (Tosin Cole), who is Black, as he navigates the corrupt Chicago criminal justice system when he is arrested as a supposed gang member. The show originally aired on AMC in 2022 but was canceled. The first two seasons were shot back to back, though, and the CW bought the show and is debuting Season 2.GYPSY ROSE: LIFE AFTER LOCK UP 9 p.m. on Lifetime. Since Gypsy Rose Blanchard was released from prison late last December, she has rarely been out of the headlines. This reality show has followed her as she manages parole, reconnects with her family and navigates her marriage with Ryan Anderson. Since the show has begun airing, she has filed for divorce from Anderson and is expecting a baby with her ex-fiancé, Ken Urker. On an episode of “The Kardashians” that aired last week, Blanchard met with Kim Kardashian to discuss potential prison reform efforts, so who knows what Blanchard will be up to after this show wraps.TuesdaySURREAL LIFE: VILLA OF SECRETS 9 p.m. on MTV. One thing that MTV loves to do is reboot a show. “The Surreal Life” originally aired on VH1 from 2003 to 2006. (It came back in 2022). It follows celebrities as they share a house together for two weeks. This reboot has a similar premise but with higher stakes: The celebrities — including Tyler Posey, Macy Gray and Johnny Weir — will participate in challenges that lead them to be vulnerable and divulge secrets.WednesdayA scene from “Charlie Hustle & the Matter of Pete Rose.”Courtesy of HBOCHARLIE HUSTLE & THE MATTER OF PETE ROSE 9 p.m. on HBO. Pete Rose played in the M.L.B. starting in 1963 and was most prominent when he played for the Cincinnati Reds. Throughout his career, he became a record-holder for career total of 4,256 hits, most games played (3,562) and most times at bat (14,053). In 1989, Rose had retired from playing and was the manager for the Reds when the commissioner, A. Bartlett Giamatti, banned him from the League over reports that he had engaged in sports betting — even for games involving his own team. This documentary features Rose himself as he reflects on his career.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