Exodus premieres at Venice, sans Margate

The Guardian‘s Peter Bradshaw on The Margate Exodus, the title of which was apparently trimmed to simply Exodus before it premiered at the Venice International Film Festival this week:

I was intrigued, but perplexed by another British film, Penny Woolcock’s Exodus; it’s a dystopian fantasy that parallels the Biblical story of the same name. Some time in the future, a firebrand fascist leader called Pharaoh (Bernard Hill) leads Margate as a secessionist city-state, and herds all the undesirables into a fenced-off zone on the site of the old Dreamland funfair. Part shanty-town, part concentration camp, it’s a Sowetànamo of boiling resentment. Pharaoh’s son Moses (Daniel Percival) winds up living there, and finds himself destined to lead the people into the promised land. The casting of up-and-comer Claire-Hope Ashitey underlines a resemblance to Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men, though, frankly, without any very convincing or exciting story.

FWIW, the Times of London has an article on the non-actors who were hired to play many of the parts in this film.

Canadian box-office stats — September 2

Here are the figures for the past weekend, arranged from those that owe the highest percentage of their take to the Canadian box office to those that owe the lowest.

Mr. Bean’s Holiday — CDN $4,400,000 — N.AM $18,992,000 — 23.2%
The Nanny Diaries — CDN $1,750,000 — N.AM $15,262,000 — 11.5%
Superbad — CDN $9,860,000 — N.AM $89,335,000 — 11.0%
Stardust — CDN $3,420,000 — N.AM $31,092,000 — 11.0%

War — CDN $1,710,000 — N.AM $16,979,000 — 10.1%
The Bourne Ultimatum — CDN $20,010,000 — N.AM $199,734,000 — 10.0%
Death Sentence — CDN $389,253 — N.AM $4,225,000 — 9.2%

Rush Hour 3 — CDN $9,070,000 — N.AM $120,416,000 — 7.5%
Balls of Fury — CDN $991,850 — N.AM $14,307,000 — 6.9%
Halloween — CDN $1,290,000 — N.AM $26,462,000 — 4.9%

The Simpsons Movie vs. Pixar, redux.

Last month, I noted that The Simpsons Movie had grossed more in its opening weekend than any Pixar film — indeed, more than any animated film that was not a sequel to Shrek (2001) — so I figure it is only fair to post an update on that film’s situation.

Put simply, it looks like The Simpsons Movie will become the first movie ever to gross over $70 million in its opening weekend and not gross over $200 million before it leaves North American theatres. Pixar’s Ratatouille, on the other hand, crossed the $200 million line in North America just this past weekend.

Ah, but here’s where things get interesting. Jim Hill reports today that Ratatouille is still seen as an underperformer, at least by Pixar standards. It took the film 65 days to cross the $200 million line, whereas every other Pixar film since 1999′s Toy Story 2 did it in 44 days or less. And whereas every previous Pixar film, going back to 1995′s Toy Story, was in the Top 5 for its year, it looks like Ratatouille might not even make the Top 10 for 2007.

Add to this the fact that Ratatouille is said to have cost twice as much to make as The Simpsons Movie, as well as the fact that The Simpsons Movie has done much, much better overseas than Ratatouille has, and… well… perhaps The Simpsons Movie really is doing better than Pixar after all, at least with respect to Pixar’s current offerings. Worldwide, The Simpsons Movie has earned $469.4 million so far, whereas Ratatouille has earned $373.4 million, and last year’s Cars came to a halt at $462 million.

Make of all that whatever you will.

VIFF 2007 — sneak preview already online!

The Vancouver International Film Festival starts in three and a half weeks, and the press conference for it is still two days away … but the “sneak preview guide” was distributed this weekend to various locations throughout the city, and a PDF file of the “film notes” portion of the guide is available here. Happy browsing!

Is it “epic” just because it’s biblical?

It’s a slow news day here at FilmChat, so for those who follow Bible movies as obsessively as I do — if not more so — here is an update on Promenade Pictures and its plans for a series of CG-animated Bible epics, beginning with The Ten Commandments.

If you go to Promenade’s official website and click on “Films”, the first thing that comes up is six paintings under the heading “Epic Stories of the Bible”, each of which is labelled like so:

  1. The Ten Commandments
  2. Noah’s Ark: The New Beninning (sic)
  3. David & Goliath
  4. Samson & Delilah
  5. The Battle Of Jericho
  6. Genesis

The first thing that occurs to me on seeing this list is that, with the exception of The Ten Commandments — which will reportedly include not just the Exodus but the 40 years of wandering that followed it — none of these stories is particularly “epic”.

“Genesis” might sound big, but the synopsis says it will concern the story of Adam and Eve — and apparently nothing else.

Every cinematic version of the “Noah’s Ark” story that I have ever seen is a short film or a mere segment of a larger film — with, I think, the single exception of that 1999 mini-series, which puffed the story up with a lot of nonsense, or with bits cribbed from other parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with Noah’s Ark.

“The Battle of Jericho” may be “epic” in scale, given that it concerns the conquering of a rather large city — but it is really just one episode in the considerably larger conquest of Canaan by Joshua.

And the lives of Samson and David might be “epic”, if they were depicted in their entirety — but the episodes involving Delilah and Goliath actually make up a small portion of their life stories.

If all of these films are supposed to be feature-length, then most of them will need to be padded out quite a bit — unlike The Ten Commandments, where we have so much data on the life of Moses that any movie about him has to leave some things out.

The latest Star Trek XI rumour.

As always, take this with a shaker full of salt, but Moriarty at Ain’t It Cool News posted this wild Star Trek XI rumour yesterday:

Okay, first thing that surprised me: I think Leonard Nimoy is sort of the star of the movie. I think a lot of this movie is about Spock. Nimoy-aged Spock, mind you.


Okay… you know the scene in BACK TO THE FUTURE 2? Where Doc Brown explains alternate timelines? Well, this is sort of… ummm… TREK TO THE FUTURE, I guess you would call it…

Picture an incident that throws a group of Romulans back in time. Picture that group of Romulans figuring out where they are in the timeline, then deciding to take advantage of the accident to kill someone’s father, to erase them from the timeline before they exist, thereby changing all of the TREK universe as a result. Who would you erase? Whose erasure would leave the biggest hole in the TREK universe is the question you should be asking.

Who else, of course, but James T. Kirk?

If Spock were in a position to change that incident back, and then in a position to guard that timeline and make sure things happen the way they’re supposed to, it creates…

… well, what does it create? Because evidently the plan is to use this second timeline as a way of rebooting without erasing or ignoring canon. These new voyages of the ENTERPRISE, they’re taking place in whatever timeline starts with this story. Maybe this timeline features dramatic differences. Like… say… if Vulcan were to be blown up. If the Vulcans in the series were suddenly the last of their kind, alone in the universe, it would change who they are and maybe even redefine their strict rejection of emotion in favor of logic.

You can introduce these Universe2 versions of classic TREK events and characters, and you can play with the audience’s expectation. Things have changed. Some things play out the way you expect… some don’t. It’s basically the same solution Marvel Comics has in terms of publishing, the way they use their ULTIMATES line to reboot continuity.

As a friend said when I was talking to him about this tonight, “Wait… so you’re saying they’re not just doing a square one reboot that would simplify everything, but that they’re actually making it… more complicated?”

Gadzooks. I think I’d prefer a simple, out-and-out remake.

No doubt there are other objections that one could make to this proposed storyline, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that, in Star Trek continuity, certain events in the 23rd and 24th centuries need to take place in order for the 19th and 20th centuries (among others) to take place the way they did. And erasing or revising the 23rd and 24th centuries as we know them could have huge ramifications for the entire timeline.

But I suppose this will leave the 22nd century, and thus Star Trek: Enterprise (2001-2005), more or less intact? Then again, that series was based, in part, on the movie Star Trek: First Contact (1996), in which Captain Picard and crew come back in time from the 24th century to battle the Borg in the 21st century.

Argh. This really sounds more complicated than it’s worth.