The Mayans, the wise race of ancients who created hot cocoa, set December 21st, 2012 as the end date of their Calendar, which the intelligent and logical amongst us know signifies the day the world will end, presumably at 12:21:12am, Mountain Time. From now until zero date, we will explore the 50 films you need to watch before the entire world perishes. We don’t have much time, so be content, be prepared, be entertained. The Film: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) The Plot: When the Nazis threaten to find and unleash the power within the Ark of the Covenant, the US Government turns to the only place that can save them: Academia. Back in the 1930s, Professors and Archaeologists were made of a lot tougher stuff, and were far more attractive to co-eds than they are today. The manliest among them, Indiana Jones, fresh off a disastrous trip to a South American jungle, embarks on a global quest to find the Ark first.

According to Deadline Arish, Steven Spielberg is close to signing on to make a film where a brave man helps save a lot of Jewish people from incredible persecution. Sadly, it’s the Schindler’s List: Electric Boogalo sequel we’d all hoped for. Unsadly, it’s Spielberg making a biblical epic on a massive scale with Warners. If the deal goes through, the goal is a shooting date in early 2013. Gods and Kings has been likened by their insider to Braveheart, and it tells the story of Moses from his birth down the river on down to Revelation probably. We’d previously reported that Spielberg was interested, but this news story almost assures that he’ll be taking this project on. And why not? It’s absolutely in his wheelhouse both in subject matter and scope. The question is whether this kind of story can still be a blockbuster moneymaker and a prestige film at the same time. It’s not the 1990s anymore. The other question is whether you want to see what essentially sounds like The Ten Commandments re-done by Spielberg.    

As much as I admire the incomparable films made during the era, New Hollywood (the term referring to innovative, risk-taking films made funded by studios from the mid-60s to the mid-70s) is a title that I find a bit problematic. The words “New Hollywood” better characterize the era that came after what the moniker traditionally refers to. Think about it: if “Old” or “Classical” Hollywood refers to the time period that stretches roughly from 1930 to 1960 when the studios as an industry maintained such an organized and regimented domination over and erasure of any other potential conception over what a film playing in any normal movie theater could be, then if we refer to the time period from roughly 1977 to now “New Hollywood,” the term then appropriately signifies a new manifestation of the old: regimentation, predictability, and limitation of expression. Where Old Hollywood studios would produce dozens of films of the same genre, New Hollywood (as I’m appropriating the term) could acutely describe the studios’ comparably stratified output of sequels, remakes, etc. What we traditionally understand to be New Hollywood was not so much its own monolithic era in Hollywood’s legacy, but a brief, strange, and wonderful lapse between two modes of Hollywood filmmaking that have dominated the industry’s history.

We all know the story. In a panic to find a spectacle that could provide a bit of magic and a higher ticket price for the cinema, the studios turned again to 3D. Thanks to technological advances and a long vacation from the third dimension, it all seemed fresh and new again (even if the bulk of it was put together with rushed post-conversion). Whether you believe it’s just a fad that’s on the way out or believe it to be grand revolution of the art, time is the only one who has the final word on it, but for now the truth (like in all things) probably lies somewhere between those two extremes. And it’s a lack of extremes that make Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese the wisest public speakers on the subject. Here’s Spielberg at Comic-Con last year: “I’m certainly hoping that 3D gets to the point where people do not notice it, because once they stop noticing it it just becomes another tool and an aid to help tell a story. Then maybe they can make the ticket prices comparable to a 2D movie and not charge such exorbitant prices just to gain entry into a 3D one, with the exception of IMAX, where we are getting a premium experience in a premium environment, but to show a 3D movie in a similar theater in a multiplex next to another similar theater showing a 2D movie. I’m hoping someday there will be so many 3D movies that [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Usually I’m quite cynical about end-of-year lists, as they demand a forced encapsulation of an arbitrary block of time that is not yet over into something simplified. I typically find end-of-year lists fun, but rarely useful. But 2011 is different. As Scott Tobias pointed out, while “quiet,” this was a surprisingly strong year for interesting and risk-taking films. What’s most interesting has been the variety: barely anything has emerged as a leading contender that tops either critics’ lists or dominates awards buzz. Quite honestly, at the end of 2010 I struggled to find compelling topics, trends, and events to define the year in cinema. The final days of 2011 brought a quite opposite struggle, for this year’s surprising glut of interesting and disparate films spoke to one another in a way that makes it difficult to isolate any of the year’s significant works. Arguments in the critical community actually led to insightful points as they addressed essential questions of what it means to be a filmgoer and a cinephile. Mainstream Hollywood machine-work and limited release arthouse fare defied expectations in several directions. New stars arose. Tired Hollywood rituals and ostensibly reliable technologies both met new breaking points. “2011” hangs over this year in cinema, and the interaction between the films – and the events and conversations that surrounded them – makes this year’s offerings particular to their time and subject to their context. This is what I took away from this surprising year:

What is Movie News After Dark? It’s a nightly movie news column desperate in its search for the insanely cool links of the day. It will also take movie related news, things about Community and Doctor Who, as well as, on occasion, updates on The Dark Knight Rises. Although after last night’s entry, it’s not sure there is any TDKR news left to report. We begin tonight with some incredibly cool animated work from an artist named Otis Frampton. On his Deviant Art page, found via Popped Culture, he envisions what a Battlestar Galactica animated series would look like. I would watch this show, and not just because I’m a die hard BSG fan, either.

War Horse is a sprawling war epic that’s so old-fashioned it belongs in a museum. Not only has director Steven Spielberg painstakingly recreated the look and feel of a classical picture of this scope, imbued with a heavy dose of mid-century British formalism, he’s essentially made a carbon copy of a David Lean movie. Such a nostalgic enterprise would be welcome if it told a story worth telling, with the strong, determined characters and bold cinematic brushstrokes of a Lean picture. Spielberg’s film does nothing of the sort — it’s a stodgy, ridiculous movie with a horse that simultaneously serves as an allegory for the bond that unites all mankind and a symbol of profound, idealized purity.

This week, Fat Guy Kevin Carr pulls out his screening schedule, which looks like a gambling addict’s racing form. He bounces from huge, mainstream releases to minor indie award contenders. Facing motion-capture CGI, tattooed bisexual investigators, cross-dressing waiters, silent film actors, and a lead star who is literally hung like a horse, Kevin tries to make sense of the seemingly countless releases this holiday week. Exhaustion from this process makes it impossible to buy a zoo or face the 3D end of the world, but his movie stocking is full, nonetheless.

The Adventures of Tintin had always been a bit of a sure thing. With Steven Spielberg behind a camera he can put wherever the hell he wants, which he does indeed do, while adapting adventurous source material that couldn’t be more up in his wheelhouse, what could go wrong? Plus, he’s got a script from a dream team of writers — Joe Cornish, Edgar Wright, and Steven Moffat – and with Peter Jackson producing. I say it again, what could go wrong? As expected, not much. This is the high flying, energetic, and playful action film that we all hope and expect from Spielberg. As nearly everyone will unanimously point out, this is what we all wanted from Indy 4. This is Spielberg at his most indulgent, and it’s fantastic seeing him working at such a level. Spielberg embraces motion-capture in a wondrous way, and he pushes every gizmo and tool he’s got to its fullest extent. If anyone oddly questioned why Tintin was done in mo-cap — besides how silly Tintin’s hair would look live-action and the logistics of having Snowy doing crazy stunts — you’ll shut up after seeing the magic on display here.

It’s been understood for a while now that there was already a sequel to Steven Spielberg’s The Adventures of Tintin in the works, one in which Spielberg was meant to trade producing and directing duties with Peter Jackson; and that’s all still a go. Before the original had opened anywhere, work was already being done on the sequel, and now that it’s become a financial success in several overseas markets, a second Tintin adventure is all but guaranteed. What has changed, however, is Spielberg and Jackson’s original plans of where the story for the sequel will actually go. We reported a while back that the sequel was tentatively titled The Adventures of Tintin: Prisoners of the Sun, and that the story they were planning to tell would be an amalgamation of two classic Tintin stories “Prisoners of the Sun” and “The Seven Crystal Balls.” Well, that’s no longer the case, because while doing an interview with The Playlist, producer Kathleen Kennedy has confirmed that they have a different plan. “‘Prisoners of the Sun’ was a very, very early discussion, and it isn’t under discussion anymore,” she said. “We’ve still got Anthony Horowitz working on the second movie, and we don’t know what we’re doing with the third movie yet.” Despite no current plans for the third, there does seem to be an idea of where Horowitz is currently going with the second. Kennedy said of the first film, “We knew that we needed to introduce Tintin, we needed to introduce [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

It’s one thing when we’re talking about Alfred Hitchcock having a walk-through in every single one of his films, including one that exclusively takes place on a lifeboat (he appears in a newspaper ad for that one). Sure it’s eccentric but it’s not surprising because, well, they’re his films and he can appear in them as he pleases. What does strike me as weird is when a director shows up totally unexpected in someone else’s film. Usually there is a good reason – either they are producing the film or friends with the cast. However despite the later explanation, it’s still a bit jarring to see, say… the director of Kill Bill in an Adam Sandler comedy…

Back in ’82 this little movie came out about a boy who found an alien in his backyard. It was called E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Ever heard of it? He phoned home and whatnot? This was basically the movie that solidified Steven Spielberg as being not just a guy who was making great movies everybody liked, but as being the most important director in the world: the guy. When you see that Amblin Entertainment logo you know you’re in for a certain kind of movie designed to appeal to everyone, and it’s an image from E.T. that gets the job done. Russkies came out in ’87, when the outbreak of Spielberg imitator movies about kids going on adventures was in full swing. This one is about a group of kids who find a Russian naval officer who has washed up on the coast of their Florida town. Even Spielberg knockoffs as bad as Mac and Me still get mentioned when people start talking about the good old days of the 80s, when family programming was king, but I’ve never in my life heard anyone bring up Russkies. Considering two of the main three kids in this movie are a young Joaquin Phoenix (pre-hobo beard) and Peter Billingsley (pretty much the king of 80s nostalgia), how is this movie completely forgotten?

Steven Spielberg seems hellbent on casting just about every talented actor he can in his long talked-about and finally-upcoming Abraham Lincoln biopic, Lincoln. Beyond Daniel Day-Lewis as the brilliant and ill-fated American president, the rest of the cast listing for Lincoln gives new meaning to the term “star-packed,” as it currently includes Sally Field, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tommy Lee Jones, John Hawkes, Hal Holbrook, James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, Bruce McGill, Joseph Cross, David Strathairn, Walton Goggins, Lee Pace, Jackie Earle Haley, and David Oyelowo. At this rate, I’m not entirely unconvinced that I haven’t been cast in this project. But Spielberg has now added another British actor to this most American of stories, casting Jared Harris as Ulysses S. Grant. As Spielberg’s film will focus on “the road to abolition,” the inclusion of Grant is a no-brainer, as the general was an essential part of the Civil War, and he is regarded as the war’s most successful general for the Union side, thanks to his big wins at battles such as Shiloh and Vicksburg. Grant, of course, later became president himself, following Lincoln’s vice-president, Andrew Johnson, who assumed Lincoln’s position after his assassination.

It looks like some hardcore cinephiles will have less worry when it comes to choosing a film outing this Christmas, with DreamWorks announcing today that they’re set to hold “special word-of-mouth screenings” for the upcoming Steven Spielberg epic, War Horse, over Thanksgiving weekend. The film is scheduled for a nationwide opening on December 25, but these special sneaks have been crafted to build buzz for the film with almost a month of lead time. Just last week came news that 20th Century Fox was launching a massive sneak peek for their own Christmas release, We Bought a Zoo, over the Thanksgiving holiday, rolling the Cameron Crowe film out to 800 theaters around the country on Saturday the 26th. But this Spielberg sneak will be a decidedly more quiet affair, with screenings taking place on Sunday the 27th in just ten cities.There’s no news yet on how the public will find out about these screenings, but it’s probably best to hang around the film’s Facebook page or its Twitter feed for a hint or two.

There have been hushed whispers going around the Internet for a while that Warner Bros. was interested in getting Steven Spielberg to direct a movie about Moses called Gods and Kings. It’s apparently an epic movie that spans the whole life of Moses, from the slave freeing, to the plagues, to the ten commandments, to all of the rest, and it comes from a script by Michael Green and Stuart Hazeldine. It makes sense that Warners would be looking to Spielberg for a project like this for a couple reasons. Primarily, a film of this scope is going to need a huge budget, and that’s something Spielberg has a history of handling well and getting a return on. Also, Spielberg is a filmmaker who has a history of making projects that explore his Jewish heritage, and when he dealing with that sort of subject matter he ends up making movies as awesome as Schindler’s List and Munich; so who better than him to explore the life of Moses, one of the most badass Jews ever? Probably no one, so it’s good news for Warners that they are reportedly now in official talks with the legend to sign on to direct. According to Twitch, the talks between the two parties are “formal,” so take that as you will. Is that the difference between sitting down face to face in a boardroom instead of just chatting on the phone? Or does it just mean everyone is in fancy dress and slapping each [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Based on the comics by Belgian artist Hergé, The Adventures of Tintin follows a young reporter as he (along with his trusty dog Snowy) end up on a series of adventures in pursuit of his next story. Brought to the screen by director Steven Spielberg and producer Peter Jackson, this may be the first time many audiences in America will be seeing and experiencing the world of Tintin (as the comic was first made famous overseas), but the series should have little trouble finding new fans this holiday season. Jackson’s skill with motion capture technology (as seen in his films like The Lord of the Rings and King Kong) is well-translated in Spielberg’s first animated project, creating an immersive world you can easily escape into, while the director’s love of telling an adventure story (and the series itself) bursts through each frame. The film begins with a series of animated scenes which work as a nice recall to the comics from which the story originated – even including a slight reference to newspapers as a nod to Tintin’s (Jamie Bell) job as a journalist and the format through which the comic first ran. The transition from to this the more standard style of animation into the full scope of the film’s 3D motion capture sublty helps audience realize just how impressive and vibrant this new technology truly is. Tintin may not look exactly as he does in the comics, but a clever wink at that iconic image is given early on, making it [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

In an interview with Empire Online, legendary director Steven Spielberg talked about the development of future sequels for two of the biggest properties he has ever launched, Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones. While both of these franchises are huge name brands, and future sequels will probably rake in boatloads of cash no matter what, they’ve also both had some less than stellar installments already. So, artistically, if Spielberg is going to get us movie geeks to buy into the fact that more movies in these series are necessary, he’s got some explaining to do. Spielberg seems to readily admit that Jurassic Park 3 was a B-level film unworthy of carrying his weighty name in its credits, because he comes right out and assures us that a fourth installment won’t resemble that film in any way. He said, “The screenplay is being written right now by Mark Protosevich. I’m hoping that will come out in the next couple of years. We have a good story. We have a better story for four than we had for three…” Protosevich has been the writer on films like Thor, I am Legend, and the remake of Poseidon, so probably you can judge how much you trust Spielberg to get his story told correctly based on how you feel about those films.

Steven Spielberg’s upcoming motion capture adventure film, The Adventures of Tintin, hasn’t yet opened yet in theaters, but the people behind the picture are already hoping that it can become a franchise. Early positive buzz and the attachment of Spielberg’s name leads me to believe that their hopes are probably not unfounded. So what’s the plan that’s been put together for a second Tintin movie? Will Spielberg come back to direct? Well, no, but the news of his replacement is pretty exciting. The Playlist has reported that The Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson has confirmed in the most recent issue of The Hollywood Reporter that he is on board to direct a Tintin sequel, as long as the first makes enough money to warrant one. This plan isn’t all just hypothetical either, pre-planning has already been done on the film so that they can get things started as soon as possible after the box office reports come in for this first. Spielberg explains, “[Sony and Paramount] were willing to do one movie with us and then give us the financial werewithal (sic) to develop a script, do all the visual storyboards and get it really in launch position. So we can launch pretty quickly on a second movie. The script is already written.”

Almost two decades after the first film was released in theaters, Jurassic Park is getting a new Blu-ray release, packaged with its two sequels. The original film helped revolutionize the use of CGI effects (for better or for worse), and it still holds up today. Forget about that awful wig on Laura Dern’s stunt double or the shifting geography of the park, these films are still fun to watch. Tap into the dinosaur-loving kid in all of us, and tap into a fresh case of beer. Or choose some wine that’s been fermenting for the last 65 million years. All three films will take the entire day to watch, and by the end, you should be seeing dinosaurs if you play the game right.

What is Movie News After Dark? It’s all about movies, and television, and comics, and literature, and photos of hot women. Such as Miss Piggy, yo. We begin tonight with perhaps the most interesting twist of the fall movie season. In recent interviews, the likes of Frank Oz and other original puppeteers and writers from the Jim Henson school are speaking out about how The Muppets might not respect the characters they helped create. “I wasn’t happy with the script,” Oz told Metro. “I don’t think they respected the characters. But I don’t want to go on about it like a sourpuss and hurt the movie.”