criterionforum.org

"Eastern Promisesfollows the mysterious and ruthless Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), who is tied to one of London's most notorious organized crime families. His carefully maintained existence is jarred when he crosses paths with Anna (Naomi Watts), an innocent midwife trying to right a wrong, who accidentally uncovers potential evidence again the family. Now Nikolai must put into motion a harrowing chain of murder, deceit, and retribution."

I just noticed on IMDB that this film entered post-production and will apparently premiere at the Toronto Film festival in September. Not a lot of information yet but the cast looks promising, looking forward to this one.

I thought that Steven Knight's script for Dirty Pretty Things was very good but hamfistedly directed by Stephen Frears (thought maybe I'm just bitter because it forced me to break my ban on Audrey Tatou DVDs entering the house). The cast for Cronenberg's film, though, is peerless.

This sounds like a relatively workmanlike project, and the one listed after it on IMDB (Maps to the Stars) even more so (a 'Hollywood-themed comedy' with a script by the author of Nightmare on Elm Street 3).

Cronenberg hasn't written an original script himself since eXistenZ. Even the earlier Burroughs and Ballard adaptations had Cronenberg-penned screenplays. Why this departure from auteurism? Can we expect a return to something more interesting before he retires?

Really looking forward to this. Sometimes Cronenberg's "workmanlike" projects are his most successful: HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, THE FLY, THE DEAD ZONE, etc.

Gropius wrote:This sounds like a relatively workmanlike project, and the one listed after it on IMDB (Maps to the Stars) even more so (a 'Hollywood-themed comedy' with a script by the author of Nightmare on Elm Street 3).

Cronenberg hasn't written an original script himself since eXistenZ. Even the earlier Burroughs and Ballard adaptations had Cronenberg-penned screenplays. Why this departure from auteurism? Can we expect a return to something more interesting before he retires?

I think a director can choose projects written by others that fall into their interests just as well as they can write those projects

Writing credits for recent Cronenberg films are very deceptive. He takes no screen credit for it, but the original screenplays for Spider and A History of Violence were completely overhauled by their respective writers in close collaboration with Cronenberg. I remember recently reading or seeing an interview with him in which he talked about how he will probably do another original screenplay soon, but for now he is interested in working his obsessions into already existing frameworks. It's actually a very Cronenbergian project, if you think about it.

I'm absolutely thrilled about this. History Of Violence is very nearly my favorite Cronenberg (Dead Ringers is a bit more impressive and as a film I appreciate it more, but it's not exactly as entertaining as Violence) and obviously the cast is really promising.

And I love Cronenberg's approach into scripts he hasn't written, the way he makes them so unmistakeably his in the end. If the end results are stuff like Spider and History Of Violence, I'm perfectly happy with him pursuing more projects like these.

There's a trailer included with prints of A Mighty Heart. It will no doubt turn up online soon.

Matt wrote:for now he is interested in working his obsessions into already existing frameworks. It's actually a very Cronenbergian project, if you think about it.

for some reason this conjured up grotesque images in my head of parasites, but in a good way.

Here is a tiny trailer...it's at 00:50.

Hai2u wrote:Here is a tiny trailer...it's at 00:50.

On the flimsy basis of those 10 seconds, I remain sceptical. It may be up to the standard of A History of Violence, perhaps even slightly better, but it still seems too generic to be 'classic' Cronenberg.

I really hope he turns out something to rival Videodrome or Naked Lunch (or even eXistenZ) during the remainder of his career.

I had to laugh when I saw the cast for this, all the way through A History of Violence I kept thinking that it seemed as though he wanted Naomi Watts to play Edie but ended up with Mario Bello instead. Not that she does a bad job at all, but I couldn't shake the feeling.

Looks good.

I can't believe a diary is a plot device, but obviously Cronenberg knows what he's doing. It's not just about the diary, of course, but the trailer sure does lay everything out, huh? I'm sorry I saw it, actually. Better to go in cold to a Cronenberg film...

exte wrote:I can't believe a diary is a plot device, but obviously Cronenberg knows what he's doing. It's not just about the diary, of course, but the trailer sure does lay everything out, huh? I'm sorry I saw it, actually. Better to go in cold to a Cronenberg film...

I agree. The trailer actually managed to lessen my excitement in the film (which isn't to say I'm no longer excited to see the film), if that was even possible. Still psyched to see this though.

On the other hand, has a Cronenberg film ever been sold well? or accurately?

The only one i can even remember seeing trailers for was A History of Violence, and even that was chopped up as some sort of action movie.

Trailers for Cronenberg's films are almost always awful. I take that as a good sign, that the movie cannot be distilled into two minutes of "exciting shots" and "ominous voiceover."

Matt wrote:Trailers for Cronenberg's films are almost always awful. I take that as a good sign, that the movie cannot be distilled into two minutes of "exciting shots" and "ominous voiceover."

What!?!??!?!? I @#^&ing love the trailers to Videodrome and Naked Lunch. In fact, they are probably two of my favorites of all time.

At least Vincent Cassel is in it.

Matt wrote:Trailers for Cronenberg's films are almost always awful. I take that as a good sign, that the movie cannot be distilled into two minutes of "exciting shots" and "ominous voiceover."

One of the reasons why I like Dead Ringers so much could be illustrated by two different TV listings magazines I read, one of which described the plot of the film and gave it one star calling it exploitative, and the other which gave it five stars focusing on the way the gynecological and twins sharing a woman themes were handled with depth and sensitivity. Just describing the plot often can't fully describe the sensibility behind a film. Of how successfully a film deals with promising material, or how terrible sounding premises can become great films in the right hands (and vice versa!).

The same applies with trailers - condensed into a short time they work on action, spectacle and huge emotions (people shouting, arguing, kissing, having fights) out of context. They might be interesting but they still say little about the film itself, about where scenes shown come in the film. They can't deal with some of the most exciting elements of cinema - slow, building scenes; intense dialogue sequences; even the techniques of cinema as zooms, tracking shots, long takes don't come through in a trailer which involves editing patterns relatable more to other trailers than the film itself because of the short time which they have to work in (and of course often use music cues not used in the film for greater impact in the trailer!).

This might be responsible for the trend away from narrative in modern cinema. Special effects films are easier to sell because the pleasures of narrative films cannot be quickly conveyed in an exciting and innovative manner. After all Transformers, Spiderman or Pirates of the Caribbean will be different from the trailer in their full forms, but most of their pleasures are immediately apparent from the trailers - the spectacle is right there and the audience is led to believe that if they see the film itself they'll get even more of the same (though this is supposing that not all of the best and most spectacular scenes were used in the trailer!).

Anyway, I'll take the advice above and not look at the trailer - there's no way I'd be skipping a new Cronenberg film whether I saw it or not!

colinr0380 wrote:One of the reasons why I like Dead Ringers so much could be illustrated by two different TV listings magazines I read, one of which described the plot of the film and gave it one star calling it exploitative, and the other which gave it five stars focusing on the way the gynecological and twins sharing a woman themes were handled with depth and sensitivity.

You should read the reviews for his Crash on the Flixster part of Facebook, they're hilarious. Most of the negative reviews came from people who it was that "other" Crash, and they go on about how repulsed they were by the sexuality in the film.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:You should read the reviews for his Crash on the Flixster part of Facebook, they're hilarious. Most of the negative reviews came from people who it was that "other" Crash, and they go on about how repulsed they were by the sexuality in the film.

Oh, I love that people are seeing the "wrong" movie. I bet in circumstances like these, Cronenberg couldn't be more pleased that his film shares a title with a notorious piece of Oscar pabulum.

dadaistnun wrote:Poster

It's like a scroll-down fug. The top 2/3 is perfect and then you look down and see the distributor's pathetic need to put those recognizable faces on the poster.