Coming Soon reports that Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro are looking to reunite in a film that will focus on the “mobster world.” Scorsese was asked about this during Saturday’s premiere of Shutter Island in Berlin, and this is what he had to say: Read the full story

It’s a question with no precise answer and no particular set of rules attached to it. Loosely, a biopic tells the story of life, usually one of both triumph and failure and, of course, accomplishment.

Think Chaplin or Ray, standard bio-films that follow the life of their “great” subjects from childhood to death, going over all of the big moments while sure to add a couple “poignant” small moments many viewers didn’t already know about. Sometimes these films bookend their subjects’ lives with elderly collections of the past or last will and testaments (remember Milk, if you can).

Others work are framed in a similar fashion, only under a thinner scope, i.e. the significant event/achievement said subject lead/started/was part of. Think Patton, which begins with his victory in North Africa than Sicily than Normandy, charting his WWII command as a filter through which to study his life. In a (slightly) similar way does Lawrence of Arabia unfold, quickly checking off the historical moves in which he becomes a British military officer so as to concentrate on his brilliant tactical leadership of the Arab Revolt of 1916 and its aftermath. Sticking with the war hook, another easy example (from a much more complicated angle) is Schindler’s List.

All this to reiterate the titular question: what is the art of telling the story of a true life? How can one capture the awe of something, and someone, that really happened?

Read the full story

Remember that time when you were sitting around talking movies with a few friends, and then suddenly that movie comes into the dialogue? You know, that movie. It’s the movie that the rest of your cohorts begin to laud or defame as either a “cinematic milestone” or “hugely overrated,” while you sit there, clueless, and soak up their opinions because you’re supposed to have seen it. Well no worries, we’ve all got that movie, if not more, and what follows is a dedication to those movie buffs who are a bit too proud to admit that they’re not as up on the coveted classic film canon as most would expect. On the other hand, you could just be one of many average film goers who couldn’t care less what movie snobs said if you hadn’t seen a film, and that’s just peachy too.

In no particular order:

Citizen Kane (1941): First off, I’ll admit that this film’s presence on this list is entirely dependent on the kind of film goer you are. One might not lie about having seen this film if attending (or having attended) film school, or any film class for that matter, simply because there’s an extremely high probability that they’ll wind up seeing it in that environment at some point or another. However, given the film’s legendary status among most other movie buffs, there also exists a rather high probability that anyone who hasn’t seen it wouldn’t like to admit otherwise.

Check out the rest of the list >>

I’m willing to bet money you can’t find a person that agrees with all the Best Picture wins in the last 10 years, even 5 years. Everyone has favorite films each year that don’t win, let alone get recognized (see Children of Men, The Third Man, Vertigo). Then there are films fortunate enough to get nominated but couldn’t secure a win. These are not snubs in all cases, sometimes the winners are well deserved (see The Godfather Part II, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest and No Country For Old Men). Here are the Top 25 Best Picture Nominees That Didn’t Win:

25. There Will Be Blood (2007) (nominated) - No Country For Old Men (winner)

Paul Thomas Anderson’s adaptation of an Upton Sinclair novel about a greedy oil prospector does more than just retell the story. It paints a sprawling, vivid image with much credit going to Daniel Day-Lewis and his flawless performance.

Read the rest of the entry >>