Yet another peice of depressing news about the Neuromancer film in development. And I was just getting over the fact that Kahn is the director. (I've come to the opinion that people should be giving Kahn a break. He has enough talent to make this film work.)

From 7artspictures.com

"Based on William Gibson’s seminal cyberpunk novel, Hayden Christensen stars as Cage, a petty future Tokyo thief whose trade is jacking his brain directly into computer systems. When this skill is taken away from him, it seems his life is destined to end in an explosion of violence and drugs… until the mysterious Armitage offers redemption – at a price. Revelation follows revelation as Cage discovers that no one is in control of his or her own destiny and a new form of sentient technology is taking over. It’s down to Cage to face Neuromancer and do something he never has before: make the right choice."

This is depressing. Before I even begin with Christensen –

"Cage"? If that isn't a typo, Gibson will be turning in his figurative grave.

"Cage discovers that no one is in control of his or her own destiny". That sound you hear is me flicking through my copy of Neuromancer, I'm bound to find this somewhere.

"It’s down to Cage to face Neuromancer". Yep, I can hear it now. In an epic battle coming to cinemas this summer …

"Make the right choice". Oh, great, a shoe-horned in moral dilemma.

Did they read Neuromancer? Whoever wrote the above paragraph is being paid too much.

—

Hayden Christensen.

I admit, I haven't seen the guy in anything other than Star Wars, and his part did suck - but at the end of the day, he … just doesn't look the part.

Is that to be the face of Case Cage, a washed out computer hacker, since turned to drugs and crime? I would much prefer a no-name actor, rather than what seems to be a teen-idol who will draw hoards of fans that don't even know what SF stands for.

Who we're going to get playing Molly is a mystery I don't want solved. Or is that name not cool enough for this kind of flick? Maybe they should call her Razor?

Hell. Maybe this could work. But I doubt it.

This is the second film, the first being The Fountain, that I've watched recently which tackles the question: "What if you could live forever?" Despite the similar premise, the two films do not share much in common and they look at the question from two very different perspectives. The Fountain is an arty, elegant and elaborate story while The Man from Earth is a low-budget (though the Fountain didn't exactly break the bank), independent film which is inherently simple yet incredibly intelligent.

The Man From Earth has an uncomplicated story, though there are a few twists as the film progresses, which doesn't distract from the intellectual debate which is the focal point of the film. It begins by introducing a college professor who is leaving his job after 10 years. His impromptu farewell quickly turns into an emotionally involving debate when he, almost casually, reveals that he is 14000 years old. With characters from varying fields of science (such as a Biologist, Anthropologist, Archaeologist, Christian Literalist, and Psychologist) the discussion covers all the issues about a potential immortal man, from the science of it to the religious implications.

The film is almost intentionally controversial in some of the views, with some challenging ideas on the subject of religion (this isn't really a film for the easily offended religious types) that lead to some on-screen tension between the religious character and the main character, who has ironically titled himself John Oldman.  Save for a brief interlude or two to develop the relationship between John and Linda, the film is all talk and no action, and takes place in a single location - which is in no way a bad thing when you have such an clever and thought-provoking script to work from. The film does not try to be a thrill ride, but it manages to be suspenseful and captivating and with an ideal running time of 90 minutes, it doesn't drag on.

The acting is exceptional for an independent film, with David Lee Smith giving an excellent performance as the central character. The presence of John Billingsly, one of the better known members of the cast, is one of a couple of Star Trek references that act as a tribute to the late writer Jerome Bixby, who was best known for his work on Star Trek.

This is a great film, minimalist in the best sense of the word. The filmmakers have not attempted to make this into a thriller, yet they have crafted a film which was as entertaining to me as many of the best action films of recent times. One of the reasons being that The Man From Earth manages to do what so many high budget sci-films couldn't dream of doing; the scientific explanations actually make the story seem plausible. It is often said that a good film leaves unanswered questions, and this film leaves quite a few, but that was to be expected from such a theoretical story. Obviously, I can't guarantee that you'll enjoy it, but if you have any interest at all in the subject matter then you'll find something to like about this film.

The first film to be based on Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. This was produced by New Line Cinema, who also made the Lord Of The Rings films, and they are obviously hoping to repeat that success with these films.

Set in a parallel world, where humans have external souls or 'daemons', usually in the form of animals. A young girl, Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards - great name!), living in an alternative Oxford, embarks on series of adventures which take her to the island of Svalbard in the arctic ocean.

On the way she encounters a Texan airship captain, Sam Elliot, and hires the services of an alcoholic armoured fighting polar bear, voiced by Ian McKellen. Daniel Craig, the latest Bond,  plays an Indiana Jones type adventurous scholar and his co-star from Casino Royale, Eva Green, plays the queen of the witches.

Derek Jacobi and Christopher Lee head up the sinister Magisterium, a thinly disguised take on the Catholic Church, assisted by Nicole Kidman as the morally ambiguous Mrs.Coulter. And can I put in a good word for the always excellent Jim Carter as the King of the Gyptians, a much underrated actor in my opinion.

The anti-clerical, pro-atheistic elements from the books, don't come over very strongly here. I suspect they have been deliberately down played. There are brief references to "The Authority", and the Magisterium's costumes bear a strong resemblance to those of a certain universal church, but that's about it. It will be interesting to see how it's handled in the next films.

I enjoyed this film greatly, but then I had read the books and was familiar with Pullman's worlds. I'm not so sure how well it works for anyone who hasn't read the book. There is a lot of hurried voiceover explanation at the start of the film, which indicates they haven't had time to let the often complex themes develop and come across through the natural flow of the plot. To me it sometimes felt like the film served more as an (extremely well done) illustration of the  book, rather than a free standing work to be enjoyed in its own right.

Hopefully it will all make more sense to viewers, when the second and third films are released, which will depend on the success of this one.

Overall, I liked and would recommend this film. But do read the books too - they're well worth it!

I'd be interested to know what anyone else thinks.

Beowulf is a new film version of the Anglo Saxon epic poem, which as every schoolboy knows is the oldest poem in the (Old) English language.It tells the story of the hero Beowulf in his battles against the monster Grendel, then Grendel's mother, then finally in his old age against a mighty dragon.

This is an animated version, with a lot of clever CGI trickery, though all the actors are quite recognisable. Ray Winstone plays Beowulf, a real hero though given to boasting and lying. Anthony Hopkins is old King Hrothgar, complete with Welsh accent, as indeed all the Danes seem to have funnily enough. And Beowulf speaks cockney - gor blimey! John Malkovich is also on good form as the slimy and devious councillor Unferth.
Grendel and his mother, on the other hand, speak Old English (aka Anglo Saxon). Which is pretty hard to understand but sounds cool! Grendel's mother is played by Angelina Jolie. Wearing nothing much but some gold paint. She's got the same hairstyle that she had in Tomb Raider, though the plait has grown much much longer and is now prehensile!
Great scenes of wenching, feasting and fornication in the mead hall of Heorot. Great gory action scenes of monster fighting. Excellent intelligent script from Neil Gaiman (see Stardust review)

It varies from the original story in that several new elements have been added in to expand and explain the motivation of the characters, but I don't think that hurts. To me it captures the whole spirit of that lost heroic age perfectly. I loved it. (But then I do like this kind of thing, if done well.)
Highly recommended. Eleven stars from me!

I was hoping to actually type a review of Hitman, but I changed my mind after watching it and instead I've decided to make a list of why the film is so crap:

• This film totally fails to capture the essence of the game. If you want to see a Silent Assasin style Hitman, this is not it. This is the Hitman who runs through the levels just shooting everyone. A classic example is when 47 slips an unknown substance into his quarry's drink. Something lethal? No, it's a laxative so he can go to the bathroom and shoot him and three of his guards in the head.  Sadly, this is also the closest thing to the game you'll get in the film. All his other assasinations are done with gunshots to the head, or a pointless and tacky swordfights. In fact, the very next scene in the film involves 47 gunning down an entire bar full of people. Two guns, point them in opposite directions, spin round and evreyone is dead.
• I knew from the start when it kindly informed us that London is in England that this was not going to be a film for the thinkers among us.
• I do not want to see 47 slagging off some Russian girl. Isn't he supposed to be a stoic and sincere assassin? I could understand if they gave him some emotion, but they're trying to turn him into a bald James Bond.
• The entire film is a 100-minute long cliché. You could basically make this film out of stock footage from all this years other action films.
• Timothy Olyphant is crap, as is Olga Kurylenko, despite having a mild aesthetic appeal. Dougray Scott has the easy job as the antagonist, and is probably the lesser of three evils/ However, he still wasn't any good.
• Humour. They try far too many times to pull off ridiculously awful one-liners and comic dialogues, and they fail miserably. Seriously though, when they bring in transvestites to try and make the film funny, you know it's a crap film.
• Uwe Boll could have done a better job directing the film than Xavier Gens.
• Uwe Boll could have done a better job writing the film than Skip Woods.  They could have just stolen the story from Hitman: Blood Money. That would have been a great film.

 This is just another in a series of terrible video game adaptations. While it's fine to have an emotionless droid as a lead in a game, it doesn't work in a film. You need a protagonist that has character. I found myself rotting for 47 out of compulsion, not because I liked him - which I didn't, all he does is kill people. Even if the write had produced a sublie story, and believe me he has not, this film would have failed on account of the central character. I can criticise Olyphant incessently for one of the most feeble performances of the year, but I have a degree of sympathy for the lad. He's working with a novice director and an incompetent screenwriter, and I have strong doubts about whether any of them have actually played any Hitman games, so Olyphant probably did the best he could in a role he was not meant to play. Vin Diesel would have been a much better choice for an impassive 47.

The film does not have many good things going for it. If you don't care about stories, have never played a Hitman game, like explosions and endless gun fights, then you may enjoy this film. It does have its moments, just not enough of them, in fact take away the gun fights and there really isn't anything going on here.  This film could have been so much more. I'd give it 3/10, 1 for the explosions, 1 for Olga, and 1 for Ave Maria.  This is 47's first outing on the big screen, and dear god I hope it's his last.

Buy from Amazon

Stardust is a film is based on the book of the same name by Neil Gaiman. I've been a big fan of Gaiman's work for a few years now, especially the epic "Sandman" graphic novel series, also other works like "American Gods".

Stardust was a nice little book, slightly different from Gaiman's other work. An almost whimsical fairy tale, but with plenty of his usual dry humour. Clearly inspired by Lord Dunsany's "The King Of Elfland's Daughter", it starts off in a quiet English village near a Wall, which separates our world from Beyond, and tells the story of what happens to a mortal who happens to cross the Wall.

When I saw they were making it into a film, I had the usual mixed feelings. Would they ruin it completely or would it retain some of the charm of the original work?

The answer is they haven't done too badly. Big budget. Big star cast, including Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfieffer, Claire Danes, Sienna Miller and even Ricky Gervais (playing himself, as far as I can see). It's got witches, ghosts, a talking star, and a good goat.

Lots of special effects. Maybe a bit too glossy and in your face, at the expense on missing out on some of the subtleties of the book, but I guess that's inevitable. And the humour a bit more obvious than it needed to be perhaps. Minor gripes though.

On the whole, a very enjoyable, light hearted fantasy I would say. Good fun, with lots of originality.

I'm now curious to see what they'll do with Philip Pullman's "The Golden Compass", when it comes out in December. The armoured polar bears looked good in the trailer I saw. I'll post a review when it comes out. Meanwhile, I'm hoping to see Beowulf this week. Watch this space…

I'm not usually enticed into watching artful films, but I made an exception for this after several rave reviews from friends. I loved it. It's truly unique, not just in its story, but it is one of the most beautiful films I have ever watched. Immensely thought-provoking, at times dark and mysterious and with more themes than I can communicate in this article, it is truly a film that will live with me forever.

It has three beautifully interwoven narratives, each set in a different time period but focusing on the same two characters. The first narrative we see takes place in 16th century Spain, and is the darkest of the three stories. The narrative set in the present day forms the basis of the film, while the third narrative, set in 2500, is far more surreal and features an incredible array of artful visual effects.

The relationship between the two central characters, portrayed magnificently by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, is present in all of the narratives. It is their relationship, along with the Tree of life and the Mayan underworld Xibalba, which provides the grounds for the many themes in the film, such as immortality, knowledge, enlightenment

The film premièred at the Venice Film Festival, and was screened twice. It was booed off by critics on the first screening, and received a 10 minute standing ovation from the public on the second. Critics seem perfectly divided, if the films 50% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes is to be believed. It fares better on IMDb, with a score of 7.6 from 36,000 votes. As much as I love the film, I can understand the criticisms. It isn't the easiest film to understand, it requires an open mind to fully enjoy it, and there are times when the director, Darren Aronofsky, almost tries too hard.

Even the effects leave people decided. They are wonderfully crude. Light is used fantastically in the film, and is was one of the highlights for me. The music and the lighting really steal the show at some points, especially in the future narrative. It was a refreshing change to finally get away from films which believe that having dark shots, so you can't see what is going on, is more enjoyable.

The Fountain is out on DVD now. Love it or hate it, it really is one of a kind, and you won't regret watching it.

Perhaps I am just bitter because Whedon once claimed that he would never work with Fox again (which at the time seemed the primary reason why we would never get anymore Firefly), or maybe it is because I’m not a huge fan of Eliza Dushku. Anyway, Joss’ new show is called Dollhouse and stars, as you may have guessed, Eliza Dushku. It has been given a seven episode commission by Fox, who are looking for a Spring 2008 premiere. I’m not saying that I won’t watch it, I’m just not as optimistic as I expected to be. Then again, it is Joss and the best news is that Tim Minear will be back, so I have faith that they’ll make it into something fantastic.

Maybe another reason for my pessimism is the description of the show from Fox:

Echo is a young woman who is literally everybody's fantasy. She is one of a group of men and women who can be imprinted with personality packages, including memories, skills, language—even muscle memory—for different assignments. The assignments can be romantic, adventurous, outlandish, uplifting, sexual and/or very illegal. When not imprinted with a personality package, Echo and the others are basically mind-wiped, living like children in a futuristic dorm/lab dubbed the Dollhouse, with no memory of their assignments—or of much else. The show revolves around the childlike Echo's burgeoning self-awareness, and her desire to know who she was before, a desire that begins to seep into her various imprinted personalities and puts her in danger both in the field and in the closely monitored confines of the Dollhouse.

I’m sure there is much more to the show than shown here, but the description seems to focused on the main character. One of the things I loved about Firefly, Buffy and Angel, was the ensemble cast, so I really hope that they can get a good cast here, and don’t make the show focused entirely on the main character. I also hope that they don’t try and rush things. Seven episodes is not that much time, so I hope they don’t force “burgeoning self-awareness” into the first half of the series.

The Matrix

1. Neo is a washed up hacker, in danger of losing his job and with few prospects - he leads a double life and is introduced to the ‘Matrix’ by a leather clad woman named Trinity.

2. People exist in the The Matrix, a virtual reality designed to mimic real life, where sensory perceptions are simulated yet indistinguishable from those in the real world.

3. The biggest problem is Artificial Intelligence; humanity is enslaved by it and those who are free actively resist it.

4. Trinity is a trained killer, a warrior with trained reactions and experience with weaponery; she is romantically involved with Neo, the protagonist. She dresses in black and often wears leather and mirror shades.

5. Bullet time is used to show percieved time and almost instantaneous reactions.

6. Zion is the last human city - the refuge of the only humans not enslaved by artificial intelligence.

7. Neo makes a deal with the Artificial Intelligences - to end the life of Smith in return for the freedom of humanity.

8. Neo dies while in the Matrix, but miraculously comes back to life.

9. ‘Agents’ are artificial intelligences coded specifically for the purpose of protection against freed humans, inside the matrix

Neuromancer

1. Case is a washed up hacker, whose former employers burned his ability from him with a Russian Micotoxin. He meets a leather clad woman named Molly, who introduces him to a man who can repair the damage to his nervous system.

2. Users jack in to a sensory representation of cyberspace; they interface with it in a percieved physical sense. ‘Simstim’ allows users to jack into the sensory system of another individual, experiencing the world through their eyes (and ears, and touch…)

3. AIs are not trusted by society, and are restrained heavily by the ‘Turing Police’ - they are one of the main causes of death in cyberspace.

4. Molly is a razorgirl - a street samurai with artificially souped-up reactions. She is a trained killer and dresses in black leather, and she has mirror shades surgically inset into her eyes. She is sexually involved with Case - and a love interest is suggested towards the end of the novel.

5. The view from Molly’s eyes is described as being as if in slow motion.

6. The Zion Cluster is a refuge of Rastafarians, from which Case - the protagonist - performs various runs in the Matrix.

7. An artificial intelligence hires the help of humans in order to free itself from human constraints.

8. Case frequently suffers ‘braindeath’ whilst in cyberspace, and flatlines - only to miraculously emerge back into life moments later.

9. Assassins are vat-grown for the protection of people of elevated rank.

The matrix has its roots in primitive arcade games…Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts… A graphic representation of data abstracted from banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding into the distance…

If you’re a fan of The Matrix and haven’t read Neuromancer - do so now. It’ll be one of the best books you ever pick up.

The first thing to note is that he has a lot of videos under his belt. Even if his only feature length film is Torque, he's hardly lacking in experience - and whether Torque is bad because of the director, or for other reasons (the concept for one…) I've yet to find out; I'll post a review just as soon as I get round to watching it. Heck, I may even enjoy it, in some bizzare attempt to persuade myself that Neuromancer is going to be the best thing since Serenity. Expect my biased, subjective opinion soon.

The videos: (in chronological order)

Widowmaker - Long Gone

Not a bad start. This video perfectly compliments the music.

Onyx - Last Dayz

Weird, but I like it. The man knows how to do a good rap video.

Public Enemy - So Whatcha Gone Do Now

Sublime. And not just because I like the track.

(more…)

William Gibson's Neuromancer is due to hit the big screen in a few years. Sounds too good to be true - which it might be. There isn't much yet, but IMDB lists the year of release as 2009 and the director as Joseph Kahn.

Neuromancer Coming to the Big Screen

William Gibson's prescient sci-fi bestseller from the '80s, Neuromancer, will get the big screen treatment from veteran producer-distributor Peter Hoffman, reports Variety.

The $70 million pic is essentially being fast-tracked to replace the Paul Verhoeven project The Winter Queen. The latter is being pushed back until at least next spring because leading lady Milla Jovovich is pregnant.

Joseph Kahn, a Korean-American commercials director who made Torque for Warner Bros., has signed to direct.

- comingsoon.net

Even though I'm a huge Gibson/Neuromancer fan, it's slightly hard to get excited about Kahn directing it. He's definitely done some questionable stuff - so, I'm reserving judgement, even though I want this film to work so badly. I mean, every good director has a break somewhere, right? A good Neuromancer would make this man's career. Naturally he could end up just dropping it, like Cunningham did…

Here's an interesting post from Kahn's MySpace Blog:

Variety blew my cover over the weekend. This is the screenplay I've been working on for the last two years.

As to the backlash.

There's going to be a backlash. You have to be nuts or stupid to take on a monster like this. I knew what I was getting myself into. Stanley Kubrick could take this on and he'd have a 14 year old in Iowa blogging on how wack the cgi effects were in 2001, and then on the otherhand a 45 year old child molestor completely insistant nothing will ever look as good as the visuals in his own head.

And they'd both hate Torque.

I could see how the combination of the Britney Spears director with William Gibson is a controversial choice. But the problem is, the summation of my career is not Britney Spears. I've done plenty of "cred" videos: Moby, Chemical Brothers, Korn, U2, Muse to name a few. The headlines sound attractively pessimistic to slap the successful pop example of my work to a supposedly nihilistic work like Neuromancer. It really just demonstrates how little most people know of the music video world and how it pertains to filmmaking.

For instance, before David Fincher became the dark auteur that fanboys salivate over, he made his name doing…Paula Abdul videos. And hard core Michael Bay with his rumbling guns and explosions made…Meatloaf videos, as well as…The Divinyls "I Touch Myself." Those of you in the music video business know the score and understand why this is.

I guess this is turning into a defense of myself, so I will defend myself.

The other complaint lodged at me is that my movie Torque basically sucked. It's either a sell out piece of commercial crap, or an incompetant long form music video, or both, and it's a sure sign I'm clueless as a filmmaker. And to all of this, I'll say: they're wrong.

Making your first movie under the Hollywood studio system is hard. It's the hardest thing I've ever done. I'm telling you honestly with no exaggeration: you have no clue what it's like to be put through that studio grinder and retain any sort of authorship. The politics, the pressure, the scapegoating, the interference, the pure physicality of an intense 70 day shoot, the budget hysterics, the permeating sense of fear and negativity from everyone. Torque is not 100% of what I wanted, but I'm proud of what it is, because at the end of the day, after going through this studio machine that blends movies together into mediocrity, it split people. Some hated it, others loved it. Some actually had both reactions at the same time. Whatever it was, it wasn't safe. The ice cream on the cone couldn't be digested without a strong opinion. That's a tall order for an Ice Cube biker flick. Your welcome.

So that's one of the reasons why "they" hired me to do Neuromancer, and make no mistake, Gibson is one of "them." There's no way in hell I'm on this without at least a half disinegnous grunt of approval from him. Yes, Chris Cunningham was attached to this years ago and you may think him as a far cooler director than me, but he quit. HE QUIT. Understand? Sorry. He abandoned the baby on the doorstep, and it will never come to daddy again.

I'm on it because I am nuts, and I am stupid, and I will throw everything I have at making a book that's been ripped off left and right and considered impossible to adapt…work. I've spent my whole life making things. People who don't know me seem to dismiss me as some cliché blinged out music video director, and even if that jealous perception were true then remember this - I started with nothing. No contacts in Hollywood, no money, nothing. All I've ever had to survive is the dedication to my craft. All I know how to do is make things, and if Neuromancer is on my plate, I am going to make it. That's why this film finally has a chance at getting made.

Now here we are and all I know is this: the movie in my head rocks. I've already watched it, I just need to execute. Is it Gibson's vision? Not quite. There's no way this film can ever achieve what Gibson did. He practically changed the world and how we imagined ourselves growing up into it. The novel is always going to be the superior work of art. The book's a legitimate work of genius in a millenial way, not the Richard Roeper thumbs up way. I'm working on a two hour movie, so it's my distillation of his vision into a much shorter form. Compomises and interpretation will be required, and the personal issues I chose to focus on will be the things that turn me on about the book. So at the end of the day, there's wiggle room: the good shit is his, the bad shit is mine.

But when it gets made, maybe on some level, everyone will be ecstatic to see some version of it moving on a movie screen, like when a parent is happy to see their toddler draw a crayon of the sun. If I'm lucky, maybe even Gibson himself will dig it.

So there it is.

I only have one more thing to say.

When Variety broke the story, this is how they described me:

Joseph Kahn, a Korean-American commercials director who made "Torque" for Warren Bros., has inked to direct.

What the fuck does my race have to do with directing Neuromancer?

- Joseph Kahn

Anyway I'm excited, even if I am slightly sceptical. More as it comes.