Lars von Trier’s sexual epic Nymphomaniac was split into two parts upon its initial release (as Nymphomaniac: Volume I and Nymphomaniac: Volume II), it was also edited for content. Though Von Trier gave his consent for that edit, he still held onto his plans to make a director’s cut of the film entitled Nymphomaniac: Director’s Cut. And it looks like he’s prepping that cut for release, if this teaser is any indication. Also, I need to tell you right now hat this teaser is NSFW. You may think you know NSFW by now, but you don’t. This kind of breaks both the NSFW barrier and my own brain when it comes to the amount of sexual content that can be crammed into 20 seconds
I have not read it yet, but my mother and wife both hated the ending of the book.
THR reports that John Hillcoat’s followup to “Lawless” will hit theaters next year on September 11th. Titled “Triple Nine,” the Matt Cook-scripted heist thriller will follow “a crew of dirty cops that [are] blackmailed by the Russian mob to execute a virtually impossible heist. The only way to pull it off is to manufacture a 999, police code for ‘officer down,’ but the plan is turned upside down when the unsuspecting rookie they set up to die foils the attack.” While the plot may sound like something straight out of the David Ayer playbook, the cast is nothing to sneeze at, encompassing actors like Chiwetel Ejiofor, Casey Affleck, Anthony Mackie, Woody Harrelson, Aaron Paul, Kate Winslet, Gal Gadot and Norman Reedus. As it stands right now, “Triple Nine” has September 11th, 2015 all to itself. That date certainly renders the film prime for festival programming: you can bet Telluride, Venice and TIFF are already on the phone trying to secure the film.
Screen Daily reveals that Park will direct an adaptation of Sarah Waters' novel "Fingersmith." It's a Dickensian tale of female thieves, but this Korean-language take will take place when the country was under Japanese rule.
I will also use this spoiler space to warn you that the film does get really weirdly grotesque. When I said before that things go badly for Wallace, that's an understatement. It turns out that Howe is a lunatic who lost his mind as a child and who has a very specific need that Wallace is meant to fill. He wants to turn Wallace into a human walrus. This involves amputations, surgeries, and a vicious round of conditioning, and the end result is revealed in a shot that will make most audiences audibly respond. It's that freakish, that deranged in both design and execution. If you're even remotely squeamish about that sort of thing, you're going to want to skip "Tusk," because once it starts to go there, it really goes there. It would be wrong, though, to try to lump this in with what people kept insisting on calling "torture porn," because Smith doesn't dwell on the procedure part. He's more interested in what it does to Wallace and in why Howe's doing it. The backstory to this particular perversion is oddly sad and damaged, and the more Howe talks about why he is who he is, the less he strikes me as evil and the more Smith paints him as a ruined person, someone who was so ****ed up so early that he never had a chance, and his pathology makes a sort of horrifying sense.
So the film goes along for a time, like a classic Gothic creeper. The old man is like a spider playing with his food, regaling Wallace with his stories while he waits for his moment to strike. For a writer/director who has always been better at the former, Smith manages to craft a great deal of tension in these early scenes. The flames from Howard?s fireplace flick shadows across the wall, evoking the countless haunted house pictures of yesteryear.
But Tusk is not ghost story. It?s a Creature Feature. And what a creature it is. Designed by special effects makeup artist Robert Kurtzman, Smith?s half-man, half-walrus belongs alongside Del Toro?s Pale Man and Cronenberg?s Brundlefly as one of the most repulsive movie monsters to ever writhe across the screen. The reason Howard wants to turn Wallace into a walrus is not really something that would make a great deal of sense in print (frankly, it doesn?t make much sense in the movie either).
However, the reason Smith wants to do it seems a hell of a lot more clear: because it?s really, really ****ed up. Any sense of convention is abandoned in the second
"Tusk" is being marketed as a "truly transformative tale," and by the end of the movie's briskly paced 102 minutes, you'll feel that it's Smith who has been reinvented most of all. He's using his skill set in a different genre, with a different agenda altogether, combining autobiographical elements, spooky late-night B-movie influences and a deeper thematic exploration of the nature of storytelling, to create something wholly unique and twisted. "Tusk" will be a lot of things to a lot of people (and we expect the reaction to the film to run the gamut from rapturous adoration to repulsed indifference), but at it’s best, “Tusk” is outlandishly unforgettable.