It's around here that a normal review would subtly transition to a summary of the plot. Unfortunately, Megalopolis is such a rambling, boring slog, I'm not sure I grasped the story writer and director Francis Ford Coppola actually had in mind.

...

Inaccessible to the point of satire, Megalopolis also tarnishes Coppola's legacy. This is no Godfather. It is not The Rainmaker. It's not even Jack. It is, however, among the worst big-budget productions ever made — a late-career echo of Heaven's Gate, the sprawling vanity project by The Deer Hunter director Michael Cimino that was so monumentally awful it ruined Hollywood's trust in auteur directors for decades.

With mostly his own money at stake, Coppola's latest may not have as big an effect on the future of film. But navel-gazey to the point of irresponsibility, sanctimonious to the point of insulting, Megalopolis is still a cautionary tale — though not about the entropic nature of empires and civilization. It's a warning about what too much money, too much self-seriousness and too little editing can do to an artist.

The Archival Producers Alliance (APA), a volunteer group of more than 300 documentary producers and researchers formed in response to concerns over the use of generative AI in nonfiction film, developed the guidelines over the course of a year, after publishing an open letter in the Hollywood Reporter demanding more guardrails for the industry. The guidelines, announced at the Camden Film Festival, are not intended to dismiss the possibilities of a technology that is already shaping all forms of visual storytelling, but to “to reaffirm the journalistic values that the documentary community has long held”.

“In a world where it is becoming difficult to distinguish between a real photograph and a generated one, we believe it’s absolutely pivotal to understand the ways generative AI could impact nonfiction storytelling,” said Stephanie Jenkins, APA’s co-director, in a statement.

Dozens of prominent documentary film organizations endorsed the guidelines at launch, including the Documentary Producers Alliance (DPA) and the International Documentary Association (IDA), as well as over 50 individual film-makers such as Michael Moore, Ken Burns and Rory Kennedy.

“Documentary is a truth-seeking art practice, but the nature of truth has always been mutable,” Dominic Willsdon, executive director of the IDA, said. “GenAI will bring all sorts of new and profound mutations, some fruitful, some harmful.” APA’s guidelines “can help the documentary field navigate this first phase of wider AI adoption”.

Rather than rejecting the use of generative AI outright, the group encourages consideration based in four overarching principles: the value of primary sources, transparency, legal considerations and ethical considerations of creating human simulations.

The People’s Choice Award from the just-wrapped 2024 Toronto Film Festival has gone to The Life of Chuck, first runner-up is Emilia Pérez, and second runner-up is Anora. The Documentary Award goes to The Tragically Hip: No Dress Rehearsal, and the Midnight Madness winner is The Substance.

Both runners-up Emilia Pérez and Anora were big winners at Cannes in May (the latter taking the Palme d’Or), but Mike Flanagan’s Stephen King adaptation The Life of Chuck was a TIFF world premiere and a surprise winner of this award.

Tom Hiddleston stars in the film based on King’s novella about three chapters in the life of an ordinary man named Charles Krantz. It is an unusual winner here for this award as it currently is looking for distribution and has no set release date, which means it could be the first People’s Choice winner in recent memory to not be currently considered a contender in the 2024 awards-season race. It has been called “an apocalyptic version of It’s a Wonderful Life,” and no doubt this award will speed up a distribution deal for the movie, which is atypical of King’s bread and butter but closer in spirit to the likes of movies like Stand By Me and The Shawshank Redemption, which both went on to Oscar nominations for Best Picture.

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/17484663

The 2020s have already been great for folk horror, but the current folk horror revival really got its start in the previous decade. The niche subgenre, which had been around since the 1960s and 1970s, didn't get a name until actor Mark Gatiss of Sherlock fame used the term "folk horror" in 2010 to describe a trio of influential films in his BBC documentary series, A History of Horror. Suddenly, a generation of writers and filmmakers who had grown up on the old British films and television programs were inspired to revisit the rural terrors of their youth.

Folk horror, which was initially recognized as a British phenomenon, became closely associated with imagery from the British Isles, such as stone circles, druids, and the green man. However, the modern folk horror revival has been more inclusive, as filmmakers from around the world draw inspiration from their countries' history and folklore. From Indonesia to Austria, these are the best folk horror movies of the 2010s.

1. Midsommar (2019)
2. Kill List (2011)
3. The Witch (2015)
4. The Borderlands (2013)
5. The Wailing (2016)
6. The Ritual (2017)
7. Impetigore (2019)
8. La Llorona (2019)
9. Hagazussa: A Heathen's Curse (2017)
10. A Dark Song (2016)

Warning: the image used dod The Ritual is a massive spoiler - go watch it first, it's worth going in blind.

See also:

• 10 best Folk Horror movies of the 2020s (so far)

With Hollywood budgets being what they are, a budget under $10 million is practically tiny. Despite this, many films have gone on to make a killing at the box office from budgets that barely scratch the surface of their competition.

So, here are 14 smaller-budget movies that made the big bucks at the box office:

1. Juno
2. Mad Max
3. Paranormal Activity
4. Little Miss Sunshine
5. El Mariachi
6. The Blair Witch Project
7. Annabelle
8. Super Size Me
9. Rocky
10. My Big Fat Greek Wedding
11. The Devil Inside
12. Halloween
13. Moonlight
14. Napoleon Dynamite

Following a group of small-town, DIY Indian filmmakers, Reema Kagti‘s “Superboys of Malegaon” is a moving crowd-pleaser that constantly reaffirms its importance through its central theme. Although the film, which is based on real events, often tries to cover too much ground, it continually circles back to the idea that people must see themselves reflected in art, not just out of want, but out of deep desire stemming from need, in order to live with dignity.

...

In adding years of context to each decision leading up to this superhero spoof, Varun Grover’s script also adds indelible (and tragic) context to the documentary, as well as the parody film it portrays, while transforming the film’s own tale of scrappy creativity into a spiritually moving look at the meaning of cinematic images, and the immortality they offer. Its shattering climax makes for a wonderful complement to Spanish maestro Victor Erice’s recent comeback, “Close Your Eyes,” which is no easy feat.

The 49th Toronto International Film Festival is winding down, and the audience winner will be announced tomorrow. What film will win the prize? My money is on either “Anora” or “Conclave.” Other possibilities include “The Life of Chuck,” “Emilia Perez,” “Saturday Night” and “The Wild Robot.”

Having seen close to 40 films in 7 days, I managed to find 10 that stood ahead of the pack and are worthy of being called one of the year’s best.

Of course, I’m not counting the essential titles I saw at Cannes, which also screened at TIFF, and they include Sean Baker’s “Anora,” Coraline Fargeat’s “The Substance,” Jacques Audiard’s “Emilia Perez,” “Alain Guiraudie’s “Misericordia,” Mohammad Rasoulof’s “The Seed of the Sacred Fig,” Boris Lojkine’s “The Story of Souleymane,” Ali Abassi’s “The Apprentice,” Leonardo Van Diji’s “Julie Keeps Quiet”, and Arnaud & Jean-Marie Larrieu’s “The Story of Jim.”

Having to cut it down to just 10 films wasn’t easy, I could have included Ron Howard’s “Eden,” far and away the darkest and most twisted film of his career. Paul Walter Hauser is great as a sad sack loser of a gameshow contestant in Samir Oliveros’ “The Luckiest Man in America.” I should also mention Morgan Neville’s Pharrell Williams doc “Piece by Piece,” which was a visually inventive treat.

It turns out that half my list is composed of films that premiered at Venice. Not a surprise. TIFF world premieres tend to be films that couldn’t get into Venice and/or Telluride. With that said, these are the 10 that stood out.

• “April” (Dea Kulumbegashvili)
• “The Brutalist” (Brady Corbet)
• “Conclave” (Edward Berger)
• “Queer” (Luca Guadagnino)
• “The Room Next Door” (Pedro Almodovar)
• “Babygirl” (Halina Reijn)
• “Hard Truths” (Mike Leigh)
• “Presence” (Steven Soderbergh)
• “Saturday Night” (Jason Reitman)
• “Friendship” (Andrew DeYoung)

Thirty years ago, Kevin Smith burst into the world of independent filmmaking in a blaze of glorious serendipity that nobody could replicate if they tried. Self-financed for less than $30,000 and shot entirely in the convenience store where he worked, the original “Clerks” was an electrifying mix of slacker wit and utter absurdism at a time when putting pop culture-obsessed male mediocrity on the big screen felt like a genuinely novel concept. Even after double digit viewings, the film still feels like a pitch-perfect punk rock farce that can make even the most discerning cinephile laugh out loud more than it has any right to.

None of Smith’s subsequent work caught that kind of lightning in a bottle, but quite a few of his early films were close enough to the original high to be watchable. “Mallrats” is a passable ’90s comedy, “Chasing Amy” is a clever character study anchored by a great Ben Affleck performance, and “Clerks 2” was a solid sequel. But for much of the 21st century, the pickings have been slim for Kevin Smith fans hoping for a renaissance. His body horror experiment “Tusk” was a great midnight movie, but it spawned the truly abysmal Nazi-sausage-centric spin-off “Yoga Hosers.” And while “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” was tolerable as fan service, “Jay and Silent Bob Reboot” was unwatchable drivel. Even the long-awaited “Clerks 3” amounted to little more than a trip down memory lane.

All of which is to say that nobody would blame you for tuning out Smith’s directorial output years ago. His brand as a cultural figure remains strong thanks to an empire of podcasts and comic books that left him perfectly positioned to ride the wave of 21st century geek culture, but his movies have increasingly felt like self-contained efforts that existed only for his diehard fans.

“The 4:30 Movie” could have easily been more of the same. It was filmed almost entirely at SModcastle Cinema, Smith’s childhood movie theater that he purchased and re-branded in 2022 — and the lack of external constraints could have permitted him to run wild with his worst impulses. But Smith has always done his best work when he’s forced to come up with an idea based purely on having access to a cool location, so maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise that his coming-of-age comedy is easily his best work since “Tusk” — and possibly even since “Clerks 2.”

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/17460727

SHOCKER: Napoleon: The Director's Cut is good! It may be longer, but it improves upon the theatrical version with better pacing, restoring scenes and moments that explain the historical and political reasons for the characters' actions and is also a more complete story that makes director Ridley Scott's true intentions, which is to make an anti-Great Man story as an utterly irreverent comedy. The main character is not a Great Man but a miserable jerk, and the message of the film seems to be "Don't trust the myth of any Great Men." This makes it the most subversive historical blockbuster epic of the 21st Century. If you watch it knowing this, it is actually very funny, even if some of that laughter turns bitter.

Ridley Scott seems to have a very strong point of view here, which is in opposition to the "Great Man of History narrative." It feels like he deliberately had Joaquin Phoenix play Napoleon Bonaparte as the most unlikable, uncharismatic, insecure, incel dweeb imaginable. He's petulant and uncouth, makes weird noises with his mouth to get attention, and is prone to tantrums. He's the epitome of every unhappy twelve-year-old boy you've ever had the misfortune to babysit, made even worse that he's a horny grown man, and even sex and love don't make him happy. It's hard for me not to laugh at every scene in which Phoenix does something, either physical or verbal, that just makes this guy utterly appalling and hilariously unappealing. Phoenix plays Bonaparte as if he didn't want to be here, and Paul Schrader's complaint about his lack of charisma might be the whole point. Bonaparte's military prowess or skill does not make him charismatic or glamorous here; he doesn't even take any joy from winning. Some viewers might have found the subversion of "The Great Man" story confusing since we've all been conditioned to treat historical biopics as respectful, but this movie is very funny. The casting of many British comedy actors who are normally familiar to British TV audiences seems to be a clue to Scott's intentions here.

...

The French still have a sentimental and romantic view of Napoleon and even his romance with Josephine, and Scott seemed to make it so toxic and horrible as if he really wanted to piss them off. The whole movie gets funnier when you start to think Scott spent over $100 million to piss off the French, which any Englishmen would love to do if given half a chance.

Producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura has revealed that writer Akiva Goldsman has put the finishing touches on the script for the sequel to 2005’s “Hellblazer” comic-to-film adaptation “Constantine”. Talk of the sequel has swirled around for many years but picked up steam almost two years ago exactly when it was announced actor Keanu Reeves and director […]

I really want this one to happen. I know there's a lot of hate for the original film, as it differs quite a lot from the original comic. Thing is, I never read or saw the comic, so I saw the film unaware of its origins and totally loved it!

Franchises are both the lifeblood and bane of Hollywood’s existence. When everything clicks, a series can keep consumers intrigued for years if not decades — James Bond, Batman, Star Wars, Mission: Impossible, Superman. But sooner or later, fatigue sets in and the complaints begin (i.e., what happened to originality?)

The 2024 summer box office was a rare exception. For the first time in recent memory, “franchise” no longer was a dirty word, says one top studio executive. Those big brands helped push year-to-date domestic grosses to more than $5.4 billion as of the weekend of Sept. 6-8, which is still down about 13 percent compared with a year earlier but better than expectations for this point in 2024.

The reversal in fortune began after a rough May that saw The Fall Guy, a potential franchise newbie, spin out at the box office, followed by the blowout of Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga ($172  million globally), which had followed the triumphant relaunch of the series with Mad Max: Fury Road ($380 million) in 2015. The one bright spot of May was Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, one of the numerous film properties Disney’s film empire inherited after the larger acquisition of Fox assets in 2019.

Apes was a crucial test in the post-Disney merger, and it passed; the movie grossed nearly $400 million globally, enough to fulfill filmmaker Wes Ball’s dream of a new trilogy. Alien: Romulus, released in August, was another successful test of the 20th Century-Disney marriage (the pic has grossed north of $300 million globally, the second-best showing of the franchise behind 2012’s Prometheus, not adjusted for inflation).

The overall box office rebound began in early June with Sony’s fourquel Boys: Ride or Die. The pic opened well ahead of expectations in a foreshadowing of better days to come. In mid-June, Inside Out 2 put Pixar back on the map with a record-shattering opening on the way to becoming the top-grossing animated film of all time ($1.675 billion globally) and the No. 8 biggest film of all time, sandwiched between Spider-Man: No Way Home ($1.926 billion) and Jurassic World ($1.672 billion). Paramount extended its Quiet Place franchise with Day One ($261 million), while Universal and Warner Bros. spun off Twisters with fresh stars to the tune of $366 million.

“Nearly every studio saw several summer releases over perform box office expectations across different ratings and genres throughout the rest of the summer,” says box office analyst Comscore Paul Dergarabedian. “Disney takes the headline with Inside Out 2, Deadpool & Wolverine, and Alien Romulus. Universal found success with Despicable Me 4 and Twisters. Paramount saw great returns from A Quiet Place: Day One and recovered from an iffy opening weekend for IF to see that title leg out to $100 million-plus. Sony bookended the summer with hits like Bad Boys Ride of Die, which fell just short of $200 million domestic, and the late summer hit It Ends with Us.”

Sir Ian McKellen dropped a stinker on the British talkshow This Morning earlier in the week so putrid that even Gollum himself might steer clear of it. The 85-year-old star of the Lord of the Rings movies was being asked about a return to Middle-earth in The Hunt for Gollum, which will see Peter Jackson (this time as producer) and Andy Serkis (director, and Gollum) heading back to JRR Tolkien’s high fantasy classic more than two decades after the former completed 2003’s Oscar-winning The Return of the King.

“There’ll be a script arriving sometime in the new year, and I’ll judge whether I want to go back,” laughed McKellen. “I would. I would love to go back to New Zealand, number one. And also, I don’t like the idea of anyone else playing Gandalf.”

But then he added: “I’m told it’s two films. I probably shouldn’t be saying that. But I haven’t read the script. So, I don’t know if it is.”

Is McKellen winding us up? For those who haven’t been keeping a close eye on The Hunt for Gollum, which was announced in May, it’s possible this doesn’t sound all that weird. After all, Jackson made trilogies out of both The Lord of the Rings (1,000 pages +) and the far more breezy, 300-page Hobbit.

...

And here lies the problem with The Hunt for Gollum, and in particular the prospect of it being stretched to two movies. It’s not a book at all, in fact it’s barely a few hundred words of high-end Gandalf-speak at the Council of Elrond, in Rivendell, before the quest to destroy the ring begins a-proper (though there are some background details in the Lord of the Rings’ appendices and Tolkien’s posthumously assembled Unfinished Tales). Yes, we’re told that Aragorn’s search for the wretched former ring-bearer, at the behest of the grey wizard, took many years. But while the future King of Gondor’s adventures in the period are well-documented in Tolkien’s writings, he definitely did not spend all this time trudging through murky pools in search of Middle-earth’s equivalent of the guy in the park who’s always talking to pigeons.

Fair enough, Gollum is essentially Middle-earth’s hide-and-seek champion, a creature with the ability to vanish into a rock crevice like a feral cat who owes you rent money. Tracking him would be like trying to follow lembas breadcrumbs through a hurricane on the peaks of the Misty Mountains, or chasing a hyperactive squirrel hopped up on pipeweed through Fangorn Forest. But two (probably two-hour plus) movies? Perhaps we’ll get 20 minutes of Aragorn thoughtfully stroking his chin while staring at some vague footprints, or a 45-minute subplot where Gandalf takes a quick detour to the Prancing Pony for a not-so-swift half or eight. Or maybe there will be huge detours away from the dead marshes in which Strider gets involved in something else entirely, just for a bit of a break from the tedium.

...

The only issue here, of course, is that Bloom will be approaching 50 when this thing eventually gets made, but will be appearing as a younger version of the character he played 20-plus years ago. But don’t panic, the film-makers are reportedly planning to overcome such issues – elves are supposed to be immortal, but they do not age backwards – via the magic of artificial intelligence. “I did speak to Andy [Serkis] and he did say they were thinking about how to do things,” Bloom told Variety. “I was like, ‘How would that even work?’ And he was like, ‘Well, AI!’”

No doubt 65-year-old Viggo Mortensen will also be pricking up his ears at this news.

One of the most prominent and successful trends that largely defined filmmaking throughout the 2010s was the massive rise of successful superhero films. While the genre certainly had its fair share of successes in previous decades, the 2010s saw a mass explosion of the genre, with new superhero films constantly being released with the rise of the MCU and the creation of DC's own cinematic universe. While many of the superhero films released during this era are still widely beloved and considered some of the best of their respective genres, such high quality is not shared by every superhero film released in the 2010s.

In the mass fervor and excitement to cash in on one of the hottest trends of the decade, many superhero films simply failed to stick the landing when it came to creating an enjoyable and fulfilling experience. Whether it was a disappointment compared to the source material or previous entries in the franchise, lacking in any originality or vision, or was forgettable to the point of boredom, there was no shortage of botched superhero failures during the 2010s.

They are:

1. Green Lantern (2011)
2. Fant4stic (2015)
3. The Amazing Bulk (2012)
4. Max Steel (2016)
5. Jonah Hex (2010)
6. Hellboy (2019)
7. X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019)
8. Justice League (2017)
9. Suicide Squad (2016)
10. Thor: The Dark World (2013)

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/17408334

On Sunday, the Toronto film festival will hand out its prizes and roll up its red carpet, a week after the Venice film festival did the same. This means only one thing: the start of Oscar season.

And, as the dust settles on these prestige launchpads, pundits have started to notice that there’s something remarkably similar about three of the key best actor contenders. They’re British. They’re former pin-ups now hovering around 60. And they’re all awards bridesmaids, so far unfeted by Oscar and long overdue for podium toasting.

Of the three, Ralph Fiennes looks the strongest bet. Now 61, Fiennes has won rave reviews for his performance as a troubled cardinal in classy pulp thriller Conclave, adapted from the Robert Harris bestseller and directed by Edward Berger, whose All Quiet on the Western Front won four Oscars from nine nominations two years ago (and swept the board at the Baftas).

Despite his status as one of the most acclaimed actors of the age, Fiennes hasn’t been on an Oscar shortlist for almost three decades. His nomination in breakout film Schindler’s List was unsuccessful, in part because of his youth, in part because the Academy is squeamish about appearing to actively celebrate Nazis. Then, in 1997, he lost out on the lead actor gong to Shine’s Geoffrey Rush (though The English Patient, in which Fiennes starred, did bag nine other Oscars).

“Fiennes has the perception of being overdue,” says Jenelle Riley, deputy awards and features editor at Variety. She believes he was particularly egregiously ignored for his mad chef turn in 2022’s The Menu; similar outrage met snubs for roles in The End of the Affair, The Constant Gardener, Coriolanus, A Bigger Splash and, especially, The Grand Budapest Hotel.

Awards expert Guy Lodge agrees. “Fiennes has the kind of IOU from the Academy that often translates into an overdue Oscar when the right vehicle comes along,” he says, “and the chewy, accessible dramatics of Conclave fit the bill.”