film

the last film directed by one of the greatest masters in the history of cinema

by

Clint Eastwood turned 96 on May 31. And a bit of coincidence, with a statement from his son, jazz musician Kyle Eastwood (saying that “he’s retired now, but I’ve been very lucky to be able to work with him on quite a few films”), we’ve learned that Eastwood is no longer going to make any more films. There have been no official statements, but the retirement of the person responsible for ‘Unforgiven’ or ‘The Pale Rider’ leaves us with a filmography full of great films, of all genres and intensities. Let’s celebrate by remembering the last of them, ‘Jury Nº 2‘, released in 2024 and which you can see in Movistar Plus and HBO Max. ‘Jury No. 2’ is a judicial thriller with a moral dilemma on board, as Eastwood likes them: Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) is called to serve on a jury in a high-profile murder case, and discovers that he himself could be more involved in the crime than he thought. The cast is completed with a veritable array of heavyweights such as Toni Collette, JK Simmons and Kiefer Sutherland. The film is Eastwood’s fortieth as a director. ‘Jury No. 2’ was conceived originally as a direct streaming premiere. The change to a limited theatrical release It arrived after some internal passes that yielded very favorable opinionsbut he barely received advertising coverage from the studio, which was said to have resented the author for the poor box office results of ‘Cry Macho’. It was finally released, as was later learned, not only out of respect for the director’s advanced age, but in recognition of his 50-year relationship with Warner Bros. This stimulating thriller closes an absolutely exemplary career, always halfway between popular genres and auteur cinema, since the time of his international fame aboard some of Sergio Leone’s most significant titles. Between those first successes and his recognition by critics starting with ‘Unforgiven’ in 1992, there was the creation of milestones such as Dirty Harry and a series of absolutely superb westerns and thrillers, often directed by himself. He has spent this entire century praised by critics and the public thanks to films like ‘Million Dollar Baby’ or ‘Mystic River’. In Xataka | Rafa Nadal won 22 Grand Slams and lost 18 more due to injury: the documentary that explores those last ones arrives on Netflix today

Tom Hanks refuses to participate in the remake of this classic Hollywood film

by

In 2000, during the promotional tour for ‘Náufrago’, a journalist asked Tom Hanks If you would be willing to put yourself in the shoes of the protagonist of a remake of ‘The Invisible Harvey’, the 1950 fantasy comedy whose cast already led James Stewart and a rabbit that doesn’t exist. The response was blunt: “It’s like saying that we are going to make a new version of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life!’ For what? Leave her alone. ‘Harvey’ is perfect as it is, thank you.” Harvey: Origins. Before being a movie, ‘Invisible Harvey’ was a play. Its author, Mary Chase, took two years to write and premiered it on Broadway on November 1, 1944. It lasted 1,775 performances, until 1949, and in 1945 it won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. In it, Elwood P. Dowd is an affable, bar-loving man who finds a good friend in Harvey, a six-foot white rabbit-like pooka (creature from Celtic mythology) that only he can see. His sister tries to put him in a clinic in a play that asks what exactly it means to be sane. The movie. When Universal bought the rights, James Stewart was the natural choice for the lead. The film hit theaters in December 1950 and performed reasonably well: around $2.6 million in revenue, but insufficient to cover the high rights costs for the work. Josephine Hull won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress and Stewart was nominated, but the memory of the film eventually faded in time, recovering decades later as a piece of unintentionally lysergic friendly fantasy cinema. Other remakes… by Tom Hanks. Hanks rejected the project in 2000, but it cannot be said that the actor is opposed on principle to updating stories from the past. Or at least it wouldn’t be in a short time: in 2004 he starred in ‘The Ladykillers’ by the Coen brothers, a remake of Alexander Mackendrick’s 1955 British crime comedy ‘The Quintet of Death’. In 2022 he made ‘The Worst Neighbor in the World’, directed by Marc Forster, a direct adaptation of the Swedish ‘A Man Called Ove’ (2015) by Hannes Holm. A remake that has a tail. ‘The Invisible Harvey’ has been on the verge of materializing on numerous occasions, without ever coming to fruition. Don Gregory acquired the rights in 1996 and ended up selling them to Miramax, which He didn’t do anything with them either.. In November 2003, John Travolta was in negotiations to star in a remake co-produced by Dimension Films and MGM, which also fell through. The most serious attempt came in 2009, when Steven Spielberg he was interested in directing the film under the umbrella of Fox and DreamWorks. Spielberg’s first choice for Elwood was his frequent collaborator Tom Hanks, but when Hanks turned down the role, Spielberg shelved the project. Later the names of Robert Downey Jr. and other actors such as Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler circulated, without any of those names reaching beyond speculation. In December 2018, Netflix announced that it had picked up the rights to the project, with the writers of ‘Shrek 2’ and ‘The Smurfs’ on board. But since that announcement no progress has been made. The versions that did exist. Although the film remake was never made, the film does have history on television. The first remake came in 1958, with Art Carney in the title role. It was well received at the time, but without leaving too much of a mark. In 1972 it was James Stewart himself who returned to the character, in a Hallmark Hall of Fame production for NBC. Stewart accepted this second opportunity because he was dissatisfied with his performance in the original film: the result was a darker version and more faithful to the play than to the film. In 1996 the most forgotten version arrived: an adaptation for CBS with Harry Anderson as Elwood, and with Leslie Nielsen in the cast, with added scenes and a change of tone that was not very convincing. That same project was the one that Don Gregory ended up selling to Miramax when the rights to the film remake continued to float around. Header | Dick Thomas Johnson In Xataka | Originality is dead in Hollywood: ‘Moana 2’ culminates a year where only sequels triumph at the box office

The day Spain wanted to be Spielberg doing science fiction. It was such nonsense that Tarantino ended up claiming the film

by

In 1982, during the filming of Fitzcarraldo In the Amazon jungle, Werner Herzog heard a completely real proposal from several local indigenous people: they offered to kill Klaus Kinski to put an end to the problems he was causing on set. The German director rejected the idea, but years later he would admit that for a few seconds he seriously considered accepting the offer. The impossible movie. In the mid-80s, Spanish cinema was still very far from Hollywood. Science fiction blockbusters seemed to be the exclusive territory of Spielberg, George Lucas or Ridley Scott, while comedies and much more modest films in terms of media predominated here. Then the director Fernando Colomo appeared and decided do exactly the opposite of what seemed sensible: raising a medieval science fiction epic with aliens, castles, special effects, international stars and the largest budget in the history of Spanish cinema up to that point. The result was so enormous, chaotic and Martian that it ended up becoming a symbol first of absolute failure…and decades later in a cult film claimed even by Quentin Tarantino himself. movie poster Spain in Hollywood style. The dragon knight was born as a completely improbable idea: mixing the myth of Sant Jordi with Encounters in the third phasemedieval fantasy, absurd humor and romantic science fiction. The story began with a spaceship mistaken for a dragon in the middle of medieval Europe and a silent alien (played by Miguel Bosé) falling in love with a princess after accidentally kidnapping her. Colomo came from triumph with the comedies of the Madrid Movida, but decided to launch into a gigantic project by Spanish standards. The budget is over exceeding 300 million of pesetas, a crazy figure for the time. Huge sets were built, models and storyboards that were unusual in Spain were designed, and some of them were experimented with. the first digital effects of national cinema. The problem is that Spanish cinema in 1985 simply did not yet have the necessary industrial infrastructure to build something like that without everything exploding into the air. Martian Bosé, Keitel sunk and Kinski unleashed. The casting seemed like an international frenzy. Harvey Keitel accepted the project at one of the lowest moments of his career after working with Scorsese. Miguel Bosé finished turned into an alien because Imanol Arias “did not have the face of an alien,” according to Colomo himself. And then there was Klaus Kinski. The German actor arrived at the filming as a ticking bomb human. He constantly insulted the team, shouted “What a shitty movie!” During the days, he demanded more money, disappeared when he wanted and turned any technical delay into an attack of fury. Apparently, he only respected Miguel Bosé (and for being Picasso’s godson) and the gypsy animal caretakers on the set. To give us an idea, Keitel even offered to pay out of pocket to settle one of Kinski’s contractual tantrums. The atmosphere was so unbearable that Colomo tried to film all the German scenes before meals so I can have a quiet lunch without him. History left the moment when Kinski finally finished his sequences and left the shoot, when the team celebrated his departure. opening bottles of champagne All wrong. The film was shot amidst constant rain, delays, cost overruns and situations almost surreal. An extra was about to drown during a sequence on a lake because the armor was too heavy and he couldn’t stay afloat. An electrician managed to rescue him at the last moment and then used that anecdote for years to demand work in new Colomo films. Not only that. The castle where they were filming was so poorly located that the crew had to upload loading material on exhausting days every morning. Miguel Bose I could barely breathe inside his spacesuit and diving suit it continually fogged up. Meanwhile, money was disappearing at breakneck speed. What had started as an ambitious fantasy ended up becoming something of a kind. suicide expedition where every day seemed to bring a new logistical disaster. The final failure. When The dragon knight It hit theaters in 1985, the reaction was brutal. Part of the criticism destroyed her describing it as a botched, absurd and inoperative fantasy. Although the film was relatively seen and became the seventh highest-grossing Spanish production of the year, that it wasn’t enough to recover such a crazy budget. To make matters worse, the American distributor broke agreements due to delays in the delivery of the material and Colomo lost a trial in Hollywood that left him without international rights. The director finished in debt with 50 million of the old pesetas and, according to would count Years later, he only kept “a Renault 5.” The experience was so traumatic that he thought he was going to have a heart attack. In fact, to survive financially he wrote almost as an emergency The joyful lifewhose subsequent success allowed him to pay off the debts accumulated by that medieval space madness. From disaster to cult movie. For decades, The Dragon Knight was remembered as one of the big hits of Spanish cinema. But over time something began to happen that has been repeated in many other celluloid productions: many people began to see it with fascination. Its impossible mix of genres, its naive tone, its disproportionate ambitions and the chaos that each scene gives off transformed it into a unique rarity. Festivals like CutreCon They claimed it as a cult work and the film ended being restored in 4K forty years after its premiere. The definitive turn came when Colomo remembered a conversation in Sitges with Quentin Tarantino. The American director, always obsessed with strange and failed films, immediately recognized Star Knight (his international title) even before Colomo himself remembered what it was called in English. It turned out that that martian medieval that almost ruined half the world ended up surviving in the most improbable way: converted into a delirious relic of a moment in which Spanish cinema believed, … Read more

Today the sequel that took 24 years to film and ended up failing at the box office after spending a huge budget arrives on Netflix

by

It took Ridley Scott 24 years to return to the Coliseum. When he did it with ‘Gladiator II‘, a cast that was breathtaking was brought in, with Paul Mescal, Denzel Washington, Pedro Pascal and a budget that, depending on who you ask, exceeded 310 million dollars with the expectation of repeating the magic of its predecessor, which had won five Oscars in 2000. It didn’t quite succeed, but in streaming it has a second chance: you have it starting today Tuesday, April 28 on Netflix. The first announcement of a sequel to ‘Gladiator’ It dates back to June 2001, just a year after the release of the original. And Russell Crowe was on board even though his Maximus had died on screen. For years, Scott toyed with crazy ideas that included the resurrection of the character or a plot about the afterlife. The project stalled when DreamWorks sold the rights to the franchise to Paramount Pictures in 2006. What got the sequel out of limbo was that Scott saw Paul Mescal in the first few episodes of ‘Normal People’ and wanted to work with him. Scott also wanted to resolve the plot of Lucius Verus, then a child, now sixteen years after Maximus’ death. He lives under another identity in North Africa, until the Roman army invades and destroys his home, kills his wife and enslaves him. Brought to Rome as a gladiator, Lucius falls under the control of a former slave turned arms dealer, who uses him in the arena of the Colosseum while he secretly weaves his own plans to seize the throne from the corrupt twin emperors Caracalla and Geta. And so began an eventful filming, interrupted by the screenwriters’ strikes, which sent costs skyrocketing, according to some sources, beyond $300 million. With a final collection of 462 million worldwide, the business was somewhat lame. However, with its passage through platforms (in the United States it is exclusively on Paramount+, and has been on VOD for months), it is very possible that ‘Gladiator II’ can boast more comfortable profits and thus give rise to the already planned ‘Gladiator III’ in which Mescal has already expressed his interest. In Xataka | Today the animated spin-off of the platform’s only powerful franchise premieres on Netflix: ‘Stranger Things’

Stanley Kubrick’s brutal trick to film one of the most terrifying scenes in ‘A Clockwork Orange’: making it real

by

In the 70s, the world of cinema experienced a period in which some directors pursued realism in ways that are unthinkable today: scenes were filmed without doubles, with extreme practical effects and with days that dozens could be repeated (or even more than a hundred) times until the desired result is achieved. That obsession with authenticity left unrepeatable moments… and also stories that are difficult to believe today. Real pain. At that time in history, the sector was going through a period of radical experimentation where some directors were willing to take its actors to the limit in order to capture something authentic on the screen. In that context, one of the most disturbing scenes of modern cinema, a sequence that not only sought to make the viewer uncomfortable, but ended up transferring that suffering directly to the body of the leading actor. Thus, what should be a representation of control and violence ended up becoming a extreme physical experience that would forever mark the person who played it. Along the way, he would extend the legend of a director: Stanley Kubrick. When perfectionism is risk. Stanley Kubrick was already known for his obsession with detail, but in this case he crossed an extremely dangerous line. As? Instead of simulating the most famous scene of Clockwork Orangedecided to make it as real as possible: the devices that kept Alex’s character’s eyes open They were not propsand the medical procedure wasn’t a cinematic illusion either. In other words, the search for absolute authenticity led to a situation in which actor Malcolm McDowell’s security was compromised. in the background compared to the final image, reflecting a way of directing where the result justified practically any means. The impossible scene: hours of open eyes. Yes, McDowell was literally tied to a chair with his eyelids forced to remain open while he watched violent images during long days of filming, exactly as happened to the character he played. a real doctorin charge of keeping his eyes hydrated, had to constantly apply drops to avoid irreversible damage. However, the situation became complicated when that same doctor received instructions to act on the scenedividing his attention between his medical function and his improvised role. The result was a disastrous environment where control was diluted just when it was needed most. An avoidable injury. The failure was as simple as it was disturbing: while the instruments kept the actor’s eyes open, the eyelids began to slide out of their position. directly scrape the cornea. Plus: under anesthesia, the actor could not feel the damage at that moment, which made the situation even more dangerous. When the effect wore off, the pain was immediate and extremeto the point of requiring urgent treatment with morphine. The most shocking thing was not the injury itself, that too, but its character completely avoidable: it was enough that the doctor had been focused on his role or that the scene had been filmed with simulated effects. The price of perfection. Far from stopping, filming continued. The director, dissatisfied with some plans, demanded to repeat the sceneforcing the actor to once again face an experience that he already knew was painful. That decision turned an accident into a conscious process of sufferingone where the anticipation of pain was as harsh as the physical damage itself. In short, if the scene that the viewer perceives was uncomfortable, it was because, to a large extent, he was not alone in front of a sublime performance (which also, of course), he was in front of a real reaction in an extreme situation. Kubrick and his actors. The truth is that the episode was not an exception, but part of a pattern. Kubrick’s method was based on countless occasions in repeating takes until the actor’s emotional defenses are broken and more authentic reactions are obtained, as also happened in another case famous with actress Shelley Duvall in The Shining. His way of working has been celebrated for the results, but also questioned for the human cost which it implied. In this case, the line between demanding management and unnecessary risk became especially blurred. The final paradox. For years, McDowell himself came to resent the film for what it had cost him, physically and emotionally. Over time, however, ended up accepting that had been part of an unrepeatable work. The great irony here is that one of the most iconic scenes in modern cinema owes part of its force to a suffering that should never have happened. If you will, it is also an uncomfortable reminder that, sometimes, behind cinematic perfection there is not only talent, but also errorsrisks and decisions that today would be difficult to justify. Image | Warner In Xataka | The wildest race on the Olympic tracks in Cortina was in 1981. A man launched himself dodging bullets and assassins on a motorcycle In Xataka | One of the best comedies in history turned this simple scene into the most expensive. 9/11 and a highway were to blame

The trailer for the ‘Harry Potter’ series innovates zero things with respect to the film. Just what millennials want

by

HBO has just released the first trailer for its television adaptation of ‘harry potter‘, and the most widespread reaction is neither enthusiasm nor rejection: it is that of a certain déjà vu uncomfortable. The series premieres on Christmas 2026 and already raises the question that has been floating for two years without an answer: what does this contribute that the film saga that started in 2001 and that marked the generation does not have? millennial? The trailer. The first season of this series based on the saga of children’s wizards by JK Rowling, titled ‘Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone’ (that is, everything indicates that it will focus on the first volume), will premiere on Christmas 2026 with eight episodes. Earlier than expected, since the calendar pointed to early 2027. The trailer presents the new leading trio: Dominic McLaughlin as Harry, Arabella Stanton as Hermione and Alastair Stout as Ron, along with a gallery of strong secondary actors: John Lithgow as Dumbledore, Paapa Essiedu as Snape, Janet McTeer as McGonagall and Nick Frost as Hagrid. Everything the same. “I don’t know how to explain it, but this looks like the live-action version of a live-action movie,” he wrote. a Reddit user a few hours after the trailer was published, and there are those who consider that phrase a perfect summary of the most widespread reaction. Another noted: “I feel like I woke up in an alternate reality where the series looks and sounds the same, but the characters have other faces.” The same suits, the same reference planes, the same spaces, but different faces. They had already warned. It can’t be said that we didn’t know. In August, Chris Columbus (director of the first two films and largely responsible for the aesthetic representation of the books on screen) declared that, upon seeing photos from Hagrid’s filming, the character was wearing “the exact same costume we designed. Part of me thought, what’s the point of this? I thought everything was going to be different, but it’s more of the same.” The trailer gave shape to their fears with absolute precision. The amusement park variable. There is an economic variable that is rarely mentioned, but that is decisive. Since Universal opened the first Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando in 2010, the parks’ annual attendance has doubled and revenue grew by 109% between 2010 and 2015until reaching 3,340 million dollars. Today the ecosystem extends to Japan, Hollywood, Beijing and, in the coming years, an ambitious resort in Bedford, United Kingdom. All that framework (castles, costumes, interactive elements, stores) visually replicate the movies, not the books. TO JK Rowling It is also good for you to maintain that consistency. The second largest source of income for the author It is her participation in the profits of the theme parks, which makes her an interested party in ensuring that the aesthetics of the franchise remain stable. Rowling, who is also listed as an executive producer on the series, stated that worked closely with the scriptwriters in adaptation. Everything under control. Not all bad. There have also been positive reactions: some fans they perceive details of the books that the movies left out: these encyclopedic fans have been waiting for decades for a version that does literal justice to Rowling’s original, and as Columbus recognizedbeing able to adapt each book in ten hours allows us to include many aspects that were left out in the movies. The trailer, of course, has to focus on what is recognizable, on what the millennials They expect to see, and hence the mirror effect has been sought. The series, when it premieres, will have to find the balance between surprise and predictability. In Xataka | A Harry Potter fan fiction was so successful that it changed the names of its protagonists. And thanks to this he earned 3 million dollars

Marlon Brando rejected an Oscar in 1973. His authentic story is worthy of the best thriller film

by

On March 27, 1973, Marlon Brando rejected the Oscar for Best Actor for ‘The Godfather’ as a protest against the treatment of Native Americans. What no one knew then is that the statuette would not disappear, but would tour through some very famous hands in Hollywood, among others Roger Moore and Charlie Chaplin. This is the story of a prize that never existed and, even so, was doubled The rejection. On March 27, 1973, before an audience of 85 million viewers, Sacheen Littlefeather took the stage at the 45th Oscars ceremony and rejected the Best Actor award for ‘The Godfather’ on behalf of Marlon Brando. The gesture was historic: it was the first live political speech at the gala, although not the first time that someone rejected the statuette (Brando was preceded by screenwriter Dudley Nichols in 1936 – out of solidarity with the Writers Guild – and actor George C. Scott in 1971 – who called the ceremony “a two-hour meat parade” -). But what happened to the statuette after that night was a mystery that lasted decades. What no one saw. Sacheen Littlefeather never touched the statuette. Roger Moore (a few months away from debuting as James Bond, but already famous for his television role as The Saint) supported her throughout the speech. When Littlefeather left the stage, Moore followed her with the trophy in her hand and verified that no one had devised any protocol for collecting a rejected Oscar. So he took it with him. The 1616. As reconstructed by Bruce Davis, former executive director of the Academy, the statuette (serial number 1616, not 1601 as was believed for years, a failure whose explanation we will now see and which still contaminates multiple chronicles of the journey of this award) accompanied Moore to several parties after the gala. In this way, he presided over tables full of food and drink and received “almost Bondian attention from a good number of women” before stopping for two weeks at the mansion of producer Albert Broccoli. Eventually, Moore’s publicist, Jerry Pam, returned her to the Academy. Jump to 1995. The story seemed closed until, in 1995, the actor turned agent Marty Ingels called a press conference with an explosive statement: a client of his owned the Oscar rejected by Brando and was willing to auction it to benefit a charitable cause. The Academy responded bluntly: that Oscar did not exist. And technically, the Academy was right. Or not at all. Two 1601s. Ingels revealed the trophy’s serial number: 1601. Academy records indicated that number corresponded to a statuette on loan at an exhibition in New York, and a phone call confirmed that it was still there. But then Ingels sent a photograph of the trophy in his possession and indeed, it could be seen that the engraved number was 1601: there were two statuettes with the same number. Something that had never happened since the Academy began recording serials on the trophies in 1950. The explanation for the mess appeared in a record book prior to the computerization of the archives. Above the entry indicating the loan of the 1601 statuette was another line erased with white concealer. Viewed against the light, the page revealed the original text: “1601 — missing during the 45th Oscar ceremony.” The most likely hypothesis, according to Davis, is that the person responsible for the inventory of figurines that night had a duplicate made of the number 1601 and quietly returned it to the archives. But… why? What else happened in that ceremony that led to a duplicate being made? First robbery. The 1601 that Ingels had was not Brando’s Oscar. It was the duplicate of another trophy stolen that same night: video images of the ceremony show that one of the statuettes for the best documentary award, ‘Marjoe’, was left forgotten on the podium when the lights went out for an advertising break. It is, according to Academy records, the only theft of an Oscar directly from the stage in its entire history. Now, Chaplin. While the riddle of the 1601 was being solved, the fate of Brando’s authentic Oscar (the 1616 returned by Moore) took another turn. Charlie Chaplin had won his first Oscar that same year for the soundtrack of ‘Footlights’, a 1952 film that, due to a regulatory loophole already resolved the following year, was eligible twenty years after it was filmed. The Chaplin figurine was mailed to Europe and arrived damaged. Chaplin’s family returned it to the Academy asking for a replacement, and the Academy engraved Chaplin’s name on Brando’s Oscar and sent it to London. Fifty years later. In August 2022, Academy President David Rubin issued a formal apology to Littlefeather in which he called the treatment received for his statements on Brando’s behalf (boos and stamping from the Academy’s leading men) “disproportionate and unjustified” and acknowledged that the damage to his career was “irreparable.” Littlefeather replied wryly.: “It’s only been 50 years. We have to keep our sense of humor; it’s our survival method.” He died on October 2 of that same year, a few weeks after the tribute ceremony that the Academy held in his honor. The trophy marked 1601(A), the duplicate manufactured to cover the theft, never appeared in public again. In Xataka | The 30 best gangster movies: gangsters, triads, camorra and yakuza show the guts of organized crime

‘Heat’ has become a cult film for many men. Now they get what they have been waiting for for years.

by

Michael Mann has officially announced ‘Heat 2’, the sequel/prequel to the 1995 film that, over the years, has become much more than a police thriller: it is a cultural code, a cult film that defines a certain masculine sensibility very attached to its time. Its arrival just now and with this cast is not exactly a coincidence. A cult process. ‘Heat’ it was notat its premiere, the film loved by everyone that it is today. When it hit theaters in 1995, it received good reviews but also had a modest commercial reception: it grossed $67 million at the domestic box office against a budget of $60 million. It was in international markets (where Michael Mann was better regarded) where the film doubled those figures. From there, ‘Heat’ grew, gaining fame as one of the great American thrillers of recent decades, at a time when, on the verge of the bombing of ‘Matrix‘, the pyrotechnic spectacle was going to become a priority in action cinema. The origin. Everything that surrounds the film has ended up acquiring a special aura. For example, its origin. Mann wrote the original screenplay in 1979, based on Chicago detective Chuck Adamson’s real-life manhunt for professional thief Neil McCauley. The two men met face to face in a parking lot and instead of shooting each other they went to have a coffee. McCauley died in a shootout with police in 1964. Mann it took fifteen years in being able to bring it to the big screen with the budget and cast that he considered appropriate. The Pacino-De Niro clash. The most iconic scene of the film has done a lot to give it a special packaging. The coffee scene between the two actors was the first in history in which both actors shared a shot, since in ‘The Godfather II’ their characters existed in different timelines and never interacted. Mann built the entire narrative of ‘Heat’ as an inevitable path toward that moment, and when it arrives, the encounter is neither a fight nor a chase: it’s two men talking about mundane topics. And it has remained an idealized model of male conversation in which things are not said directly but are understood. That masculinity (contained, professional, stoic) is one of the keys to the cult that ‘Heat’ has earned. As it has been saidwhat Mann explores is not crime but its cost: the loneliness of men who don’t know how to live outside of their work, who come to love too late or with too much baggage. That tension between the professional world and personal life resonates with a certain generation of men, and explains the devoted following he has gained over the years. From that point of view, that films like Christopher Nolan’s trilogy of Batman films, Mann’s own ‘Collateral’ or Ben Affleck’s ‘The Town’ owe so much to ‘Heat’ and generate follow-ups with comparable audiences explains everything. Work for men. Mann described his own film as a “symphonic drama.” That operatic tone (a “nothing” of passion: men who do not tell what they feel, who channel their entire emotional life into work, who arrive late or do not arrive at love) is combined with the definition that Mark Kermode made Man’s cinema: hypermasculinity that tends towards implosion, destroying the social relations around it not out of malice, but out of inability. The theme of the film is male alienation, and it is what has resonated with so many men. McCauley’s code (don’t tie yourself to anything you can’t get away from in thirty seconds) is self-help in reverse, and also a fantasy of radical autonomy that a certain sector of men has been claiming for years. He totem paper of ‘Heat’ makes all the sense in the world: these men in one piece, which Mann describes without judging, had not yet been deactivated by the irony of post-heroes like The Rock or the fragile Marvel characters, full of flaws and nuances. Only with films are experiments like the podcast possible’One Heat Minute’which dissects the film minute by minute. And now, ‘Heat 2’. The sequel carries a gestation process which promises to be comparable to its predecessor. It has taken more than three years to find financing, it has changed studios in the midst of budget negotiations and it has seen how the director reduced the budget from an initial $200 million to $150 million that United Artists (a division of Amazon) has approved. The starting point is a novel that Mann published in 2022 with Meg Gardiner. It works as a prequel and sequel, with a non-linear structure that jumps between 1988, 1995 (immediately after the first film) and the year 2000. Although McCauley has been dead since 1995, the novel goes back to his formative years and moves forward with the survivor played by Val Kilmer. Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale have been confirmed in the cast, and this is also a declaration of intentions: there are few actors as loved and respected by the male audience as them (among other things, for the devotion that manosphere towards films as ridiculously misinterpreted as ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ and ‘American Psycho’). Filming will begin in August of this year and the premiere is scheduled for 2027. Great expectations. Since 2004’s ‘Collateral,’ Mann has had a few punctures at the box office: ‘Blackhat’ cost 70 million dollars and grossed 19.6, and ‘Ferrari’ cost 95 and barely made it to 16. It is an opportunity to make amends and also to meet his audience: the one at the center of a cultural debate on masculinity that has charged the original film with a meaning that it did not have in 1995. All this, if we season it with the inevitable nineties nostalgia, there we have it: one of the possible next box office phenomena. In Xataka | On TikTok there are men shaving their eyelashes to look more masculine. Science has bad news for them

The director of Sirat criticizes commercial cinema. But meanwhile, four out of ten directors film once a decade

by

Oliver Laxe’s statements comparing commercial cinema to “bimbo bread”, especially pointing out the contradiction of making films for Netflix. have generated an unexpected controversy in the Spanish audiovisual sector, relativizing the extraordinary career of ‘Sirat’. The film not only got five statuettes at the European Film Awardsbut it has also received eleven Goya nominations and two Oscar nominations. The debate arises at a significant moment: a study by the European Audiovisual Observatory reveals that four out of every ten European directors and screenwriters who released a feature film in 2015 did not sign another one during the following ten years. A complicated metaphor. Oliver Laxe conceded an interview with The World in which offered his diagnosis on the crisis of youth attendance at the theaters: “It is our fault and our responsibility that young people do not go to the cinemas. They have been given fodder, bimbo bread and their palates are accustomed to sugar and processed foods.” The food metaphor did not stop there. Laxe went on to argue that when these viewers are offered “a rye bread or a pure cereal,” the palate is not prepared, although he insisted that “the sensitivity is there.” The filmmaker, whose film has exceeded three million euros at the Spanish box office and has attracted precisely a young audience, closed his reasoning with a resounding statement: “Having very political proclamations, but then making a movie with Netflix seems like a pure contradiction to me that nullifies your speech.” The accounts don’t work out. The answer did not take long to materialize. Jota Linares, a filmmaker from Cádiz who has often filmed for Netflix, replied in the SER questioning Laxe’s analysis. Linares challenged the simplification of the problem: “I will tell you what allows me to continue maintaining political ideas and express them freely despite having directed series and films for Netflix: my social class.” And he added: “I assure you that, due to my social class, I would be incapable of supporting myself by making only auteur films spaced over time for about two or three years. It doesn’t work out for me, although I see that it does for you.” Finally, he concluded that “you don’t hack the system from within with a six million euro movie with thirty publicists working at your feet. No, dear Oliver. That’s being at the top of the mainstream.” ‘Sirat’s’ money. The contrast between both positions reveals broader tensions in the sector. Laxe speaks from a relatively privileged position, since his film had the financial backing of Movistar Plus+ and is now enjoying an international campaign that has taken him to the Oscars. Linares, for his part, represents a silent majority of filmmakers who fight to get each new opportunity. Precariousness as a backdrop. The debate takes on a more urgent dimension when confronted with the data that published El País based on the study of the European Audiovisual Observatory. The research, which analyzes the careers of 38,762 professionals, covering some 30,000 projects, provides revealing figures: 40% of those who released a feature film in theaters during 2015 did not sign another film again in the entire subsequent decade. At the same time, more than half of the films released each year are debut films. The report’s conclusions leave no room for doubt: there is “an impressive turnover and great precariousness.” Cinema versus television. The document also shows a growing separation between film and television. Only 11% of directors and scriptwriters worked in both formats between 2015 and 2024, dismantling the idea of ​​fluid transfer between screens. On television and platforms, 85% of screenwriters and 91% of directors active in 2015 continued working later, compared to the 60% that disappear from theatrical cinema. “The majority survive poorly. Those who endure have family financial support behind them,” explained director Cristina Andreu in 2021. Little seems to have changed since then. Structural contradiction. Can the industry demand “rye bread”, as Laxe says he does, when the system expels 40% of its creators after a film? Is it fair to hold the public responsible for having a palate “accustomed to processed” in an ecosystem where professional continuity is more the exception than the norm? Laxe himself acknowledges that ‘Sirat’ was considered “a suicide” during the search for financing. If even an ultimately successful project faced that initial diagnosis, what happens to proposals from filmmakers without a safety net? The tension between the discourse of cinematic quality and the precarious reality of European production raises uncomfortable questions about who can afford to cultivate discerning palates. When, furthermore, the system itself does not guarantee anything. In Xataka | Many agree that ‘Stranger Things 5’ lowers the quality of the series. But that doesn’t change Netflix’s ambitious plans.

The film industry has been stagnant for more than a century. Netflix wants to change it: Crossover 1×34

by

Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack, all brothers, decided to open their first movie theater in Pennsylvania in 1903. Considering that the movie industry was in its infancy at the time, the bet was risky. Those brothers ended up being the most famous in that industryand in fact they made it clear in the name of their company: Warner Bros. They would soon buy more theaters and, over time, discover that distribution was important, but content was even more important. They ended up becoming a film producer that managed to be a pioneer with the famous ‘The Jazz Singer’, the first talking film. More films would arrive, and a 1948 ruling in the US meant that she and other production companies had to dedicate themselves only to generating content. It wasn’t a bad deal, and for more than a century the film industry has done really well and has strengthened that idea that content is king. Netflix also discovered it over time. Although it was also born focusing on distribution – with its famous DVD rental service by mail – its leap into the world of streaming caused it to even take steps from Warner Bros. and decide to create its own content. This is how series like ‘House of Cards’ or ‘Stranger Things’ were born, which have turned it into a true steamroller in the field of audiovisual content. So much so that after more than 100 years without major changes, Netflix could fully enter the “traditional” industry if he manages to buy Warner Bros.. The recent offer to have options to get ahead, but everything is to be decided. What is clear is that if that happens there will be a change of direction in this gigantic industry. We talked about all this in the last installment of Crossover, we hope you enjoy it! On YouTube | Crossover In Xataka | Netflix promised them very happy with their huge purchase of Warner. Until Paramount and Saudi Arabia appeared

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.