Courteney Cox Scream 4

Courteney could've shot her scenes for the finale, right? I mean in the end it doesn't matter how a film's shot because it all is edited in the end. Court needed to go back to Cougar Town so it's obvious that she was probably shooting nonstop July-Aug.

Now, it's been hinted that they are filming the finale now, up until Sept 24th. She isn't there to shoot her part in the finale, but she's always been involved in all three. In 1, she pulled a gun on Billy and Stu; in 2 she was led by Mrs Loomis and finished off Mickey with Sid, and in 3 she and Dewey were trying to get in the secret room to help Sid (and eventually was successful).

People are predicting she'll die now, like Randy in Scream 2 (the returning player getting knocked off). Isn't it possible she shot her part in the finale before she left? Absolutely. We don't know what order certain shots (not even scenes) are filmed in. Wes could've filmed the section of Scream 3 when Gale and Dewey are running through the house trying to get into the room with Roman and Sid the first day of filming and shot the actual fight scene of Sid vs. Roman the last day.

Even so, I don't think they'd slash Gale off. Besides Drew, Courteney was the only really well-known star (Friends) to drive people to the theaters. Now, newbie teens who never heard of Scream before (trust me...there are sad people like that ), will say, "Hey Jules is this new scary movie. Let's go see it."

Courteney is going to have a BIG year this year. I just read the EW article for Cougar Town and their plans for it. Between that and the return of her biggest movie franchise, I'd say maybe this will be her career year.

Unfaithful

Diane Lane. Wow. She's magnificent! I just rewatched the film (which grew on me this time too), and I absolutely fell under her spell. She gave a two hour acting lesson on how to earn an Oscar nomination without any real Oscar scene. Something Vera Farmiga and Rachel Weisz have mastered with their nominated performances. I didn't think she deserved her nomination before, but now, she's my #3 in the best year for leading ladies of the decade, the two ahead of her in my all-time lineups, so that says a lot). She'd be my second choice for the Oscar, behind my actual winner, Kidman.

The film really is unique in the way it takes what was step up to look like a clichéd story and made it original. It's not really a thriller, it's a well-executed drama. The textured and dry photography made everything feel real, and that's what's great about it. This is a story, minus two huge flaws: Paul's death and the cop-out ending, is authentic and not dramatized and manipulated into (like I said before) a cliché. Roger Ebert describes it very well in his video review with Richard Roeper; she chooses to this lover not because she's forced or unhappy with her marriage, she and Gere have a happy marriage.

Gere was also very good, his best performance after Chicago and Pretty Woman, I'd say. His reaction, to his wife's affair, especially when he meets Paul is played very well by him. Both Gere and Lane show their range as the film goes on.

I also really was fascinated by the editing in the train station/after the first time they have intercourse. Lane adds a lot of power into it; it's probably her best scene in the film, but the editor really achieved something there. Very good pacing, too.

Through everything good, it has many flaws under it's belt, as well. The two I mentioned before stick out like sore thumbs. What I think the filmmakers were going for here was a realistic portrayal of an affair, but then when they killed off Paul....it broke it's perfect score, up until that point. It was horrible turn. I didn't believe for a second Edward would have killed him. After the play scene, where the body is in Edward's car, after all that, it's picks itself back up and continues with what it was aiming for in the first hour.

Now, the scene where Lane's burning the photographs was excellent and their conclusion of the situation. It should've ended with them dancing, the last shot before they were in the car driving home. It should've just faded out. The film would've been worth at least 9 if it would've just ended there, because the next scene was unsatisfying. Their final decision was pretty bad. It really leaves a bad memory in the viewer's mind of the entire film because it's the last thing they see from the film. It would've been so much more powerful if they would've cut that scene completely.

Still Lane is remarkable, and she's reason enough to see it. I gave it a 6 my first time through, now it's an 8-8.5

Lost in Translation

Ever see a film or read a book, have so many thoughts about it, but don't know exactly how to put your thoughts into words? That's how I feel about Lost in Translation. I liked it very much, and think highly of it, but just don't know how to describe my opinion of it. Lost in Translation is a mood piece, so isn't that how your supposed to feel after seeing one?

It's a very well put together film about two people lost from life and feel alienated. The story is intriguing, showing the audience the towering fears of staying in another country, as well as going through a mid-life crisis. I think it's safe to call this Sofia Coppola's directing and written mantelpiece, earning herself two Oscar nominations for it.

Bill Murray shows us his dramatic talents. His performance proves us that he can be more than just Bill Murray the comedian, he can also be Bill Murray the actor. There are a few moments in the script that give Murray the chance to be obnoxious with comedy, but he treats them with delicately.

Scarlett Johansson is a few bars above average actress who has never zapped me with a performance before. It seems like she uses the same character approach for each of her characters, except for Match Point and her work here. Both Oscar nomination worthy work. Johansson's role isn't as prominent as Murray's, although both are arguably lead. Scarlett is wonderful here. She has a scene towards the beginning that'll break your heart. It did mine.

The clever thing about this picture is that it's not conventional. People think Scarlett Johansson they automatically think of her sex appeal, and that she and Bill Murray are going to have a love affair, no. They are both extremely lonely and sad people, looking to connect with anyone in an atmosphere that's alien to them. Finely crafted mood piece; 8.5-9

3 Films

Pieces of April: 7.5/10-- Great performances from it's entire cast, especially Patricia Clarkson who would've won the Oscar if Zellweger wouldn't have been there, and Katie Holmes. Some flaws, but a fantastic and very original screenplay.


Sexy Beast: 5.5/10-- Ben Kingsly's best performance. He is dynamite here and is all-time worthy, though he doesn't break Ian McKellen's Gandalf for my win. The rest of the film is pretty bad, though. 


Don't Move: 4.5/10-- Perhaps the most disappointing film since "The Lovely Bones". I nominate Cruz now, the score is nice, and Castellitto is good too, but the rest of the film is messy and melodramatic. It's hard to believe my girl, Pe, learned Italian just to play this role.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Magical is the simplest way I can describe the finale to one of the greatest trilogies in film history. It's visually astounding with narrative focus, that's matched with masterful directorial effort. The Return of the King is the best of the three 'Rings' and turns the classic novel into something that will be treasured for years and years to come.

The film opens with a flashback to Gollum's past, it's a great move. We had an idea in our minds of how Gollum stole the ring, but we get a full-fleshed scene to how it happened. Great way to open the film.

The sets are amazing, the costumes are stunning, the cinematography is rich and stylish, the special effects will blow you away, the editing keeps everything alive. It's flawless. It's the most technically advanced film *ever* besides the recently released "Avatar". It's special effects create not only an adventurous fantasy tale, it's a completely different world. Peter Jackson takes you there and you have the time of your life.

Sean Astin really steps up his game for the finale, and deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Speaking of Oscars, Peter Jackson should've had his Best Director's speech written right after the editing was finished. It's his crowning glory.

The Return of the King is a grand film that should be celebrated not only for it's visual achievement, but also on acting and storytelling scales. It's emotionally powerful and has a sense of humor. It's too long like the past two films, which is a flaw, but I wouldn't lessen its overall grade because of it. It's such a landmark in film history, so authentic especially for a fantasy film. WOWZA! ; 10

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

It's not completely easy to sit through a 3 hour movie, with at least one-fourth being action scenes. But with Peter Jackson's signature touch it works magnetically. It's visually intoxicating, there are some moments where you're pushed back in your seat gawking at the screen trying to get the word "How?" between you lips.

It's the second chapter from the legendary trilogy novel, and it's a magically entry in the landmark series in film history. Though it's a filler between "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Return of the King", it stands by itself as a iconic film.

Like I've said before, you'll be wowed by what you see. Dazzling visuals here--especially Gollum. The sets are unbelievingly rich and detailed. The cinematography is so beautiful, the photography looks like it could be featured in an art museum. The costumes are wonderful, as they were in the first film. Special effects had never been put to better use anywhere else, than here. Oh my goodness are the only words you'll be thinking. It's incredible what happens here whether it's computer generated or not...it's believable. It's worth seeing for that reason alone.

Ian McKellen's well-known role of Gandalf is minimized from the Fellowship, but McKellen does what he can with what's given to him, as usual. Besides, it'd be hard to top his original portrayal. It's one of the best the cinema has ever had. Gandalf's fate from the mysterious and misleading disappearance from the first opens the film, and it's a great move to remind the audience what happened in the original. To catch up so that they can begin the next part of what seems like the never ending journey. He also his a great entrance to the film itself after his intro.

There's a great cast effort here. Andy Serkis, who maybe had 60 seconds of time in The Fellowship delivers a knockout performance here. Viggo Mortensen also shines here. The rest of the cast is also very good. You become emotionally attached to the great love story of Aragon and Arwen. There part of the film is one of the many highlights.

The Two Towers contains intense and exciting editing. It's masterful and would've been perfect if some of the final battle could've been cut. We didn't really need a half hour battle scene, in my opinion. The only flaw, I'd say, is that scene. It's way too long, which makes the already lengthly film longer. Only flaw in a near perfect sequel.

It ends on a fantastic and suspenseful note from first a monologue from Sam, then a shorter monologue from Gollum. Darker and scarier than the first, but all so visionary, it won't disappoint fans. Jackson's directing is continued with great class for the most part. Essentially, there are three story lines in this chapter because all the Fellowship has divided and split up, but the transitions are smooth and well-done, creating a marvelous adventure; 10

Craven talks Scream 4!!

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1647108/20100902/story.jhtml


The second project is "Scream 4." the long-awaited fourth chapter in Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson's hugely popular franchise, which not only reunites the original cast (David Arquette, Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox), but includes a slew of popular young stars, including Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Anna Paquin, Kristen Bell, Rory Culkin, Shenae Grimes and Lucy Hale.


When we caught up with Craven to discuss "My Soul to Take," we couldn't help but prod the man in charge for some "Scream 4" scoop, beginning with how he managed to assemble his original stars.
"Well, I could take credit for it, but it wouldn't be accurate," he said.


By the time Craven was asked to direct, Dimension studio head Bob Weinstein had already secured Cox, Arquette and Campbell.


"It was just a matter of me saying, 'Sure,' " Craven added.
For the director, the allure of rejoining the team to work on a good script was icing on the cake.


"I think all of us wanted to do something written by Kevin [Williamson] and to work together again," he said. "We all had such wonderful times on the first three. It has been a return to a great deal of fun — just the pleasure of working together again. We know each other inside and out. There's a lot of shorthand and a lot of fun memories from our past escapades."


Regarding the new additions to the franchise, Craven was full of praise for his young stars.
"The young cast is amazing," he said. "They're extremely bright and a very varied cast. ... They're just great to work with. It's fun to be doing that combination of the sort of classic actors of the first three and this new group of kids. [They] have very different and fresh personalities and great acting talent."


And what about the plot? How does it fit within the franchise, and how does it differ?


"It's a clear and/or pretty well-known [fact] that it's a return to Woodsboro for Sydney Prescott, who is Neve's character," Craven said. "Courteney and David have, as they did in real life, have gotten married and are living in Woodsboro, so it's the story of Sid's return to Woodsboro and the series of events that take place there where those three are thrown together in a wild and crazy way, and then a group of kids that get meshed in the plot." Speaking of that group of kids, Craven went on to say that managing the appearances of all his young stars — most of whom are speculated to be making quick cameos — has been a pleasure rather than a headache.
"Well, that's the great joy — it's fun," he said. "A lot of these actors I didn't know that well or have not worked with most of them, or any of them, as a matter of fact," Craven explained. "They always say, 'It's great working with you. I've wanted to work with you for a long time,' but it's wonderful working with actors like this that are very young and have a large following already because of their talent, and just to spend one or two days with them to do these kind of set/bit pieces is a lot of fun."


With regard to those one- or two-day roles, we tried to get Craven to reveal a few specifics about two recently announced "guests" in particular: Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell.


"I don't know what I'm allowed to say," he laughed. "They do have a very significant and exciting role in the film, let me put it that way."