Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares146 Views

      in Movies

      Watch Hiccup and Toothless Connect in ‘How to Train Your Dragon’

      by

      The director Dean DeBlois narrates a sequence from his live-action film, starring Mason Thames as Hiccup.In “Anatomy of a Scene,” we ask directors to reveal the secrets that go into making key scenes in their movies. See new episodes in the series on Fridays. You can also watch our collection of more than 150 videos on YouTube and subscribe to our YouTube channel.In the live-action version of “How to Train Your Dragon,” expressions can speak louder than words.That’s the case in this early scene from the film, in which Hiccup (Mason Thames) has caught a Night Fury dragon and is conflicted about what to do. He comes from a line of Vikings who kill dragons as part of their warrior tribe, but when Hiccup gets close to the Night Fury, he connects with the dragon (whom he later nicknames Toothless) and can’t muster the will to kill the creature.Narrating the scene, the director Dean DeBlois (who also directed the 2010 animated film), said, “This is one of the scenes that follows quite closely the animated movie. It’s a handful of scenes that I wanted to recreate almost shot for shot. But in this case we realized we didn’t need a lot of the dialogue that we gave Hiccup in the animated version. So much of it could be played on Mason Thames’s face.”DeBlois said he spoke with his actor about the emotional way to play the scene.“I remember on the day talking to Mason before we started rolling cameras, and I said, ‘Don’t forget, this is the moment you reference later in the movie when you looked into his eyes and you saw yourself.’ It seems like a moment of weakness but this is that strength in disguise that causes Hiccup to be a new thinker that can usher in an era of peace that nobody saw coming.”Read the “How to Train Your Dragon” review.Sign up for the Movies Update newsletter and get a roundup of reviews, news, Critics’ Picks and more. More

    • 50 Shares132 Views

      in Movies

      Never Quitting ‘Brokeback Mountain’

      by

      Now 20 years old, this love story about two sheepherders is being rereleased in theaters. Here’s a look at what it meant to pop culture, then and now.“I wish I knew how to quit you,” says a frustrated Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) to his secret lover Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) in a now emblematic scene from Ang Lee’s “Brokeback Mountain,” the celebrated gay-themed drama based on Annie Proulx’s 1997 short story.The film was originally released in December 2005, but is back in theaters this June for a 20th-annivesary Pride Month reissue.Jack’s sorrowful line came to synthesize the doomed love affair between the two rugged men for whom the majestic landscapes of Wyoming became a sacred romantic hide-out — the only place they were free to express desire and tenderness for each other.But that line, and the notion of two men who embody an archetype of American masculinity falling for each other, was both parodied and memed in pop culture — often reduced to “the gay cowboy movie” — even while the film received critical raves and Oscar nominations (eight, including best picture, a prize it lost to the movie “Crash”). Arriving at a political turning point in the United States, “Brokeback Mountain” struck a chord far beyond cinephile circles.For the film critic and author Alonso Duralde, who wrote a book about queer cinema history called “Hollywood Pride,” the film was a watershed moment for representation in mainstream Hollywood. It was distributed by Focus Features, the indie outfit of Universal Pictures, with a revered director and up-and-coming stars, which meant it could potentially have a wider reach and impact.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 Shares132 Views

      in Movies

      What to Know About ‘28 Years Later’

      by

      We catch you up on the “28” franchise, including the new movie, with commentary from the films’ screenwriter Alex Garland.This article contains minor spoilers for “28 Years Later.”Excitement has been building for Danny Boyle’s “28 Years Later,” in theaters June 20. Sure, the trailer, which uses a 1915 reading of a Rudyard Kipling poem to striking effect, is uncommonly exciting. And it’s been a while since we’ve seen actually scary zombies on a big screen. But for many viewers, the anticipation is further compounded by the history behind “28 Years Later.”The release is a new chapter in a franchise that began in 2003 with Boyle’s “28 Days Later,” now widely credited as creating a zombie revival, so to speak. Shot on a relatively tight budget, that film imagined a Britain taken over by ferocious, flesh-eating hordes. Some of the building blocks are familiar by now: Survivors band into small, often mismatched groups; scavenging expeditions loot empty stores; everybody runs from relentless pursuers of the fast-moving variety at one point or another. But “28 Days Later” still feels radical, thanks to Boyle’s inspired direction. The movie interspersed quickly edited close-ups of violence into much longer moody, melancholy scenes whose haunting power has not faded, and was often driven by the superb soundtrack. Tellingly, the composer John Murphy’s spooky instrumental “In the House — In a Heartbeat” has been reused (including in a Louis Vuitton ad) and recycled (including by Murphy himself in “Kick-Ass”) many times since.From left, Williams, Jodie Comer and Ralph Fiennes in “28 Years Later.”Miya Mizuno/Columbia Pictures and Sony PicturesNow Boyle has reunited with the “28 Days Later” screenwriter, Alex Garland, for what Garland has described as a trilogy. (The two men were executive producers on a first sequel, “28 Weeks Later,” that was directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo and released in 2007.)In a video interview, Garland said that while “28 Years Later” is a stand-alone film, a second has also been made, directed by Nia DaCosta. He explained that these two installments are narratively connected and were shot back to back. (DaCosta’s “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” is expected in January.) As for the third feature, Garland said, “the story is written. The script is not written.”Now that we are back in the “28” world, here’s what to know about the premise, the new film’s universe and what you might expect.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

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in Movies

      Be the First to Find Out the 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century

      by

      Movie fans, we have a treat for you! We’re getting ready to unveil our list of the 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century.We asked directors, actors, cinematographers, costume designers and other film professionals and movie lovers in Hollywood and around the world to pick the 10 best films of the last 25 years. It was up to them to decide what “best” meant: Favorite? Most rewatched? Most artistically ambitious?Next week you’ll be able to see how they defined it. Each day, starting Monday, we’ll reveal 20 movies on the list, beginning with No. 100. The rankings are full of surprises — even to the editors — so sign up for the Movies Update newsletter to make sure you find out about every installment, culminating June 27 in the big reveal of the No. 1 movie of the 21st century.If you already receive the Movies Update newsletter, you will automatically receive the updates, and will not see a way to sign up below. You can find out which newsletters you are signed up for here. More

    • 75 Shares87 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Elio’ Review: Pixar’s Fantastical, Familiar World

      by

      An orphaned boy is whisked away on a visually wondrous cosmic adventure, but he returns home with mostly reassuring lessons.Colors pop, lines flow and an alien world shimmers like the Vegas strip after dark in Pixar’s latest, “Elio,” a lackluster science-fiction adventure about a lonely boy and extraterrestrials who come in peace, except when they don’t. By turns appealing and drearily familiar, the movie offers the expected visual pleasures and characters who range from the gently exaggerated to the hyperbolic. Some have rubbery countenances and curious appendages; others have enormous eyes that water with emotion. Yours may glaze over in boredom.A morality tale with far-out friendlies and a glowering, growling Marvelesque villain, “Elio” has predictable Pixar bright spots, but the story is a drag. It tracks the title character (voiced by Yonas Kibreab), an 11-year-old who’s been recently and mysteriously orphaned. He now lives with his aunt, Olga (Zoe Saldaña), an Air Force Major who monitors space junk at the coastal California base where she’s stationed. Loving yet clueless, she is at a loss on how to raise a child, especially one who’s unhappy and feels out of place with her or anywhere. (Her parenting book is studded with a rainbow of sticky notes.) Less comically, Olga is especially ill-equipped to deal with a grieving child, a failing that she shares with the filmmakers.Orphans are a storybook staple — from Disney’s original “Snow White” to “Lilo & Stitch” — though not on Planet Pixar. Yet to judge by this movie’s at times abruptly fluctuating tones and eagerness to dry every tear, Elio’s greatest issue isn’t that his parents are dead but that the filmmakers are uncomfortable with his grief. Early on, while out with his aunt, he hides under a table and weeps. Soon, though, the story has revved up, and he’s humorously sending messages into space begging to be taken away from Olga, Earth, everything. “Aliens abduct me!!!,” Elio scrawls on a beach, before lying down and grinning hopefully at the sky.After some more narrative busyness, character development and scene changes, the filmmakers grant Elio’s wish and send him off on his hoped-for cosmic adventure. One evening, while Olga is at work and Elio waits for deliverance, he is pulled from the beach on a beam of light, an image of alien abduction with a suggestively rapturous religious undertone. Once he achieves liftoff, the movie starts to as well. It grows more vividly hued and nicely unbound, and Elio is soon careering through bursts of color and graphic forms, much like the astronaut in the oft-copied lysergic star gate sequence in “2001: A Space Odyssey.”Elio predictably exits our solar system and ends up in the Communiverse, a sparkly, kaleidoscopic alternative realm where the directors Madeline Sharafian and Domee Shi modestly cut loose. (The script is by Julia Cho, Mark Hammer and Mike Jones.) A jumble of landscapes rich in lightly phantasmagoric embellishments, it functions as a kind of hangout and otherworldly United Nations for extraterrestrials. There, Elio zips past terrains with an array of biomorphic and geometric forms. He also, via a translator, chats up others, including a talking, floating blue supercomputer, Ooooo (Shirley Henderson), a kind of A.I. Jiminy Cricket, if one that tends to look like a dialogue bubble with eyes and a mouth.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

    • 113 Shares73 Views

      in Movies

      ‘28 Years Later’ Review: Danny Boyle Revives His Monsters

      by

      The director returns to the postapocalyptic Britain he conjured in his 2002 movie “28 Days Later,” this time with a father and son running from flesh-eaters. Mom joins in, too.After more than two decades of dipping in and out of genres that have taken him from the Milky Way to Mumbai, Danny Boyle has returned to the juicily gruesome world of consuming violence, human and otherwise, with “28 Years Later.” Once again, flesh-eating creatures are wandering, crawling and, most worryingly, running amok, ravaging every conceivable living being. Humanity remains on the run with some souls safely barricaded in isolation. It’s a sensible precaution that — along with all the gnawed bodies, shredded nerves and broken relationships — makes this futuristic freakout seem as plausible as it is familiar.Pitched between sputtering hope and despairing resignation, the movie is a classic boys-into-men coming-of-age story updated for the postapocalypse and future installments. On a lushly green British island, a ragtag collection of adults and children are doing their best to keep the tattered remains of civilization intact. Inside a protected hamlet, they live and congregate much as their peasant forbears might have centuries earlier. They share precious resources; nuzzle sexily in the dark. There are threats and some provocative mysteries, like the figure who appears in a ghoulish mask that’s suggestive of Edvard Munch’s “The Scream.”This is the third addition to a cycle that opened with “28 Days Later” (2002), a violent parable also directed by Boyle in which humanity is stricken into near-oblivion. (The 2007 follow-up, “28 Weeks Later,” was directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo.) The 2002 movie opens in Britain with animal-rights activists set on freeing some lab chimps. Even after an on-site scientist helpfully explains that the animals are infected with rage, the activists keep blundering toward doom. As they restrain the scientist, he shouts, “You’ve no idea—” just before a chimp chows down on a would-be liberator in a flurry of blood-red imagery.Like the new movie, “28 Days Later” was written by Alex Garland and draws on different influences, most obviously zombie movies. (Boyle directed the screen adaptation of Garland’s novel “The Beach”; they also collaborated on “Sunshine,” a very different dystopian fantasy.) In interviews, Boyle readily discussed the inspirations for “28 Days Later,” realistic and otherwise, citing the Ebola virus as well as “The Omega Man” (1971), a thriller set in the wake of germ warfare. Even so, he pushed back against genre-pigeonholing “28 Days Later.” “See, it’s not a film about monsters — it’s a film about us,” he told Time Out. That our monsters are always us is as obvious as the all-too-human face of Frankenstein’s creature.Whether zombies or not, the infected in “28 Days Later” kill indiscriminately, much like the undead that George A. Romero first sicced on us in 1968 with “Night of the Living Dead.” One striking, nerve-thwacking difference between these generations of insatiable ghouls is their pacing. Along with Zack Snyder in his zippy 2004 remake of Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead,” Boyle popularized the now-familiar fast zombie. Romero’s tend to stagger and lurch with their arms raised like scarily ravenous toddlers, moving slowly enough for some of their swifter would-be victims to escape, though not always. Quickening the pace of the creatures added genre novelty, and it expressed the real world’s ever accelerating rhythms.The pace complemented Boyle’s filmmaking, which tends toward speed. That’s very much in evidence in “28 Years Later,” which opens with some pro forma background about the state of the world (it’s still bad) and a freaky episode in a house that echoes the opener in the previous movie. The scene here begins with a group of obviously terrified children shut up in a room watching “Teletubbies” on a TV. It’s an unsettling scene that grows all the more disturbing as noises from outside the room grow progressively louder. As the thumps and panicked voices rise, increasing and then converging, the editing rapidly goes into overdrive and grows choppy, finally becoming a grim churn of tots, Teletubbies and flesh-eaters.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 Shares73 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Shanghai Blues’ Review: Slapstick Fun in a 1984 Tsui Hark Picture

      by

      This newly restored screwball comedy is a buoyant romp. The director revisits and refines the techniques used here in his later work in other genres.By the time he directed “Shanghai Blues” in 1984, the protean Hong Kong cinema maestro Tsui Hark had demonstrated a consistently delight-inducing facility in any genre he touched — he had made a couple of impressive wuxia” (swordplay) films, each unusual; his “Dangerous Encounters of the First Kind” was, implications of its title notwithstanding, a harrowing crime picture; and he had even made a cannibal-themed feature.With “Blues,” Tsui found a slapstick comedy register that he would continue to refine and expand over his career, one that would inform even the more serious period epics he would make in the future. (And his splendid work continues; this year’s relatively unheralded “Legends of the Condor Heroes: The Gallants” is great fun.) “Blues” begins with a kiss under a bridge in the late 1930s and picks up again after World War II.Kenny Bee plays an optimistic songwriter who’s also a bit of a klutz (an early gag has him repeatedly crowning his bandmates with the bell of a tuba). Sally Yeh is the winsome and amiable character known as Stool, who’s living next door to the ambitious and tetchy songstress Shu-Shu, who’s both commanding and funny as portrayed by Sylvia Chang.“Blues,” playing now in a 40th anniversary restoration, is a constant charmer. Watching it is a buoyant experience even when the humor is a bit tasteless, including a bit involving mistaken sex partners during a blackout. Tsui’s affection for his characters rings as clear as his love for screwball comedy antecedents; while the film won’t commit to a “Design for Living” denouement, Ernst Lubitsch would recognize a few of his touches here, even if they’re delivered with cinematic exclamation points.Shanghai BluesRated PG. In Cantonese, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 43 minutes. In theaters. More