Мама Мия, Санта Лючия!!!!

ну так, я ужастики не особо жалую, но этот посмотрю(ваще без разговоров  )

А как говорит, не голос, а бальзам для ушей моих!!! g i l

музыка в фильме просто   представляю какой будет саундтрек я сейчас уже Мьюз просто весь записала  у них такое видео /но это уже другой топик/

Уррррряяяяя! А "Воскрешая чемпиона" нам покажуть? 

Еще одно интервью с режиссером фильма "30 дней ночи"  Дэвидом Слейдом :

David Slade Interview
By Reg Seeton
There is a gritty reality to the film so when you see the horror, we don't shy away and it is not pretty.
After directing music videos for such cool names as Stone Temple Pilots, Tori Amos, and Aphex Twin, David Slade went on to bigger heights as a director in 2005 with the release of his first feature film Hard Candy. Now David Slade has the task of adapting one of the most popular graphic novels to the big screen with the upcoming release of 30 Days of Night, starring Josh Hartnett and Ben Foster. As the vampire frenzy kicks into high gear, we tracked down David to get the early goods on how the film is shaping up, how he approached the movie in relation to the comic, and why more graphic novels haven't turned up on the big screen.
UGO: What was it about Steve Niles' work that resonated with you?
DAVID SLADE: I like Steve's writing, he has the knack of finding the ideas that should have been around for centuries, and crafting them into these beautifully compact narratives. He's also in touch with fear, with the visceral. 30 Days was a scary graphic novel, and there's the challenge. If you can scare someone on paper, then you'd better damn well make a scary movie. But overall Steve has the knack of finding the ideas that should have been around for centuries, and crafting them into these beautifully compact narratives. Amongst others, I love his Cal Mcdonald novella "Drugs, Guns and Monsters." I think it would translate to the screen.
UGO: Can you talk about how you approached the gore in 30 Days from both an organic need and then from a ratings standpoint?
DAVID: Ratings were never an issue. We had a hard R rating agreed very early on; it's a movie about vampires feeding, blood and flesh prevalent. This could never be a PG-13, so I never gave the rating a second thought. I just went about constructing the language in which the violence that was necessary in the telling of the story would work, in a terrifying, shocking way while making sure each frame of glistening red would be justified in story and character terms. In short, the violence had to make sense, not be gratuitous.
Gratuitous violence, to me, varies between a crowd getting shot down and you don't see a drop of blood because the filmmakers wanted a PG-13, to the kind of film that has always been with us that celebrates the act of human malevolence in a less than subtle manner. I heard the term the other day "gorno," that's really not us.
At the same time, nothing is candy coated, there is a gritty reality to the film so when you see the horror, we don't shy away and it is not pretty. We found organic ways of doing our special effects that looked wholly real, and that was really important to the believability of the film. We found a lot of new ways of doing things that allowed a greater degree of freedom, say in the expressiveness of our vampires, fewer prosthetics, less visible effects.
UGO: How easy was it to capture the right balance of gore given the creative freedom within the graphic novel?
DAVID: The test was more in trying to stay within a believable, gritty reality while being faithful to the artwork, making horrific acts look real, vampires look different and real. There was a certain path we chose not to take, and had we done so the film may have been more stylized and slick, but not as scary.
UGO: What was the biggest challenge you faced with the vampires in crossing over to film? What were you afraid of losing?
DAVID: You know, that was conceptually the hardest thing. One of the great premises of the comic was that, vampires had hidden behind a superstitious myth, and what they are is actually something real and tangible, and that something looks nothing like you are used to. Ben Templesmith did a fantastic job of re-interpreting the vampire physicality and it was my job to find a way that set a fine balance between believable reality, and Ben's beautiful illustrations. I knew exactly how I wanted to do it, but it had never been really done in cinema to this extent before, so it took a lot of conceptual artwork and testing before the studio was convinced. But once they bought into it, we had a lot of fun creating these photo real creatures.
UGO: What was your approach to figuring out how to make Ben Templesmith's foundation so convincing for film?
DAVID: One aspect of the overall aesthetic of the film that is relevant here is that I wanted to set the look of Barrow Alaska on Ben's drawings as oppose to the real place. It was a conscious decision, not to be disrespectful to the town of Barrow, there was even talk - for about ten seconds - about changing the name of the town, but it didn't make sense to me. Ben's depictions of the landscapes were so much more desolate and foreboding. Then as we researched the actual town of Barrow we found things that were really aesthetically interesting and unusual. It takes a lot to get cars and so on so far north, so there is very little disposal, it's too much effort to send things back, so the whole place seems to be littered with junk, a lot of which is stored under 'crawl-spaces' under buildings. The buildings are built on short stilts to stop the ice from melting and spreading storyboarded and you know precisely the lens you are going to use disease, both perfect for our landscape.
UGO: How did you manage to keep the film and comic separate but still remain faithful to what it was all about?
DAVID: Well, that was a series of early decisions about what we were and were not going to do, largely based on how the cinematic forms differs from the form of the graphic novel. For instance, Marlow and Vicente had to be one and the same character, as while in the graphic novel Vicente is the perfect deus-ex-machina in the classic traditional theatrical sense of the final voice that comes and sums up the story. We could not afford to take that route due to the significantly differing lengths of the writing.
In 30 Days, the comic, things are beautifully compressed, so Vicente showing up at the end feels perfectly timed, but, no matter how we wrote it, a new character turning up on page 90 that was meaner than Marlow always seemed to undermine the fear we had for him, and he seemed like a cinematic invention, an exposition device. In retrospect, in the end the best solution, particularly with Danny Huston on board, was to combine actions of both characters and the ethics too. Also with that went away the expositional nature of the character, and says very little and is more enigmatic for doing so.
We did, however, stick as closely as we could to the graphic novel, for no other reason than it worked. Why go off and change the story? It's how so many comic book adaptations fail. If it's not broken, then don't smash it into smithereens. Throw it away and re-build it to look nothing like the thing you originally started with?
UGO: What is it about Josh [Hartnett], Ben [Foster], and Danny [Huston] as actors that works so well for the film?
DAVID: They are all powerhouse actors, and they all understood quite quickly that there was nothing camp, sensationalist or stylized about what we were setting out to do, despite the genre premise. We approached it as a drama. The casting was designed to reflect an aesthetic of real world not a glamorous movie beauty myth aesthetic. But that's a rather long-winded way of putting it simple really - they are all just phenomenal actors that committed completely to the roles.
UGO: What was the challenge to keeping everything relatable for film audiences without going too far into the "unknown" or the fantastical?
DAVID: That's kind of an easy one in terms of relate-ability. Again, I went for character actors, not the kind of actors with perfectly symmetrical faces. Then, with the vampires, I set down ground rules with everyone about what being a vampire meant, and we tried not to break the laws of physics. I worked with an amazing stunt coordinator in Allan Poppleton (Kingdom of Heaven, Narnia 1 and 2) and went to him with a very specific plan: No wire harnesses, a specific signature to the movement and the attacks, and keeping everything as real as possible.
I did actor workshops with the vampires to get the basic attitudes, behavior and movements down and then they policed each other, and they were brilliant. We devised a number of rule sets and Allan would have them printed on cards that he would give out. Other than that, it was again about going into the film as a drama rather than a fantasy, a really horrific red soaked drama.
UGO: How is everything different now as compared to your early conversations with Sam Raimi about the initial direction you guys wanted to go in?
DAVID: Film is a living evolving beast, and its best when it does that. You get into a scene and it's all perfectly and why and what each camera movement means, and an actor changes a line or improvises a moment and you realize that this moment of inspiration beats your months of preparation hands down. You follow that for a while and it makes things better, truer. Then you go and you write new scenes based on these ideas.
It's not often that this is the best thing to do, and it's truly not often you can even afford the luxury to do that in a studio movie as everything has to be planned and accounted for. However we did expand certain ideas that really improved the film and gave greater depth to the characters, and that is the joy of working with great actors. That said we did set out with a specific plan for everything and didn't really deviate that much except to enrich character. I think we all knew what we were getting into, and we got lots of it.
UGO: Why haven't more graphic novels been adapted into films?
DAVID: One of the reasons I think is that in a graphic novel you can draw anything, and you really should. Production budget is not an issue. Of course, then the downside is that producers quite rightly look at the comic and go, "This is going to cost $200 million dollars." Then the downside again in the comic world is that people are beginning to write comics almost as movie pitches and this is where I lose interest. A graphic novel should be exactly that great idea that you set out to do. Publishers may want hits, but it's nothing like the pressure of a studio film.
Also the best graphic novels deal with subject matter that is darker and more interesting than a mainstream movie. Look at Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. I am so grateful as a comic book and a movie fan to Christopher Nolan for slowly taking Christian Bale's Batman in that direction, getting darker and closer, but a faithful adaptation of Dark Knight Returns. As fantastic as that may be, it's just not in keeping with a mainstream movie in the eyes of most Hollywood producers today.
The industry is changing. In fact, it has changed and those darker more risky films are difficult to get financed. That said, I believe there is always hope. Take, for instance, an astonishing film like Linklater's A Scanner Darkly being made with a modest budget and independently financed. It's not a graphic novel adaptation, but you can see in that film, the DNA for films that might be outside of the cost of an independent financier being brought to the screen within a modest budget for a sci-fi movie. Also there is the issue that the two forms have significant differences and often that will lead to mutual destruction in film form. The use of expositional inner monologue, or written description to sum up - the "offscreen" plot. Then again, lets not forget that A History of Violence came from a graphic novel and Old Boy was originally a Manga. Two brilliant movies showing that graphic novel adaptations don't have to cost the earth.
UGO: Can we expect to see "Dark Days" or "Return to Barrow" turned into the big screen sequel?
DAVID: That would come down to the pure economics of how well the first film performs at the box office. There is certainly a great deal of willingness on a creative level to do a sequel, but studio films need to justify their costs and that is out of my scope. If there was a sequel I don't know whether it would be Dark Days or a straight leap to Return to Barrow, it has not really been talked about yet in any great length. I am just concentrating on getting the first film in the best shape possible for now.

мне нравицца