Exclusive: Ben Barnes Talks Prince Caspian
Summary
Narnia's newest member sits down with RT to tell us more about Prince Caspian - the film and the character - and what we can expect from the series as it continues. Back to Article
Narnia's newest member sits down with RT to tell us more about Prince Caspian - the film and the character - and what we can expect from the series as it continues. Back to Article
(1-44 of 44 posts) | Reply
on Mar 25 2008 09:51 AM What, is RT contracting with MySpace now?! I couldn't even read half the text because the background was too dark. Are we supposed to link to become 'friends' with this guy or something? I just can't work up too much of a head of steam over these books as a movie series, but I imagine I'll see most of them for the spectacle. They at least try a bit harder on these movies than they do the more flagrant also-rans like 'Seeker' and 'Eragon' et al. (Reply to this) |
on Mar 25 2008 10:56 AM I realize that the first one made a lot of money, but it didn't mean it was any good. It's second rate "Lord of the Rings" in every way. I mean, who can get excited about PG-rated battle scenes?? This is the only summer blockbuster I already know I won't be seeing. Junk. (Reply to this) |
on Mar 25 2008 11:37 AM Although I can't stand Walden Media and their not so hidden agenda, I didn't think the first was terrible although it was LoTR - lite. I was an avid fan of the Narnia books when I was young so I'm anxious to see how they interpret this one. My fav has always been Dawn Treader, so looking forward to that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 25 2008 11:52 AM Ahhh yes the usual knock of narnia from the adult persspective......Narnia was never meant to be like LoTR so why compare it? I thought narnia was great and am looking forward to the next ones, I am getting sick of all the hating on it! If you didn't like it don't go see the other ones, and don't compare it to LoTR cause that is just stupid. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 25 2008 11:58 AM I heard the Narnia movie has been used in church services (lion = Jesus). No matter how "good" the movies turn out, someone will love it and interpret it to fit their own ideologies. Not like there's anything wrong with that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 25 2008 12:15 PM Polycube.... For real? You even know who wrote the books and why? Research much? Not that there is anything wrong with that? (Like saying I'm not racist, before a racist statement.) (Reply to this) |
on Mar 25 2008 12:16 PM I enjoyed the first one, and look forward to Prince Caspian. As far as the religious question- Narnia can be interpreted however you want to. With movies about killing God like The Golden Compass being made though, it's nice to have a little balance. (Reply to this) |
on Mar 25 2008 12:31 PM Enough with the silly comparisons to LotR! Two totally different series, CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were contemporaries and friends. True, Tolkien was not enamored of Narnia, but the Narnia series was and is immensely popular with kids, and has always commanded the interest of a younger and more impressionable demographic. The descriptions in the Narnia books are spare and leave a great deal to the imagination; make no mistake, there's bloody battles and scenes that if fleshed out with further descriptive text would make folks think less about comparing LotR with The Chronicles. As for the Christian slant... Well, the books were pretty explicit in that sense to begin with. The fact is that the social climate in America is perfect for Hollywood Christian Propagandists. Hey, I don't like it, but they have the right to push their agenda just as much as the next idiot. I, for one, can see the propaganda for what it is, and being a thinking dude, can easily filter it out. When it comes down to it, "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" was a pretty damn good epic movie. The one comparison I make to the LotR is this: It was faithful to its source material in almost every way. Peter Jackson made some good films, but his progressive deviation from plot and character (Faramir, anyone? No resemblance whatsoever to the originally written character, to the detriment of Jackson's version of the story) kinda sickens me. Good films in their own right, but he needlessly revised what was essentially a perfect story, to my mind unforgiveable. At least CS Lewis would probably enjoy the movie based on his material. That said, it looks like Prince Caspian is going to be a far removal from the original story. Oh well. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 25 2008 12:38 PM In reply to this comment (#1652503) Yes, it really is a shame that Narnia is constantly being compared to LotR. They really are very different book series. The reason, though, that people compare the Narnia movies with the Lotr movies is because the first movie LOOKED like a wannabe LotR. I mean, the movie could have easily taken a totally different route from any type of fantasy movie that's been on the screen before. Narnia is more charming than Harry Potter, simpler and more fanciful than LotR, and could, if executed to their potential, wipe the floor with any of your 80s fantasy films. Instead they chose to go LotR-lite route, and, from the previews, it looks like they're taking the same direction with "Caspian." It's a shame because it really should be its own thing. But hopefully I'm wrong about the movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 25 2008 01:39 PM It's NOT LOTR! It doesn't try to be LOTR! Narnia books were written between 1949 and http Do Still, it's unfair... I haven't read the books, but I thought Narnia was a pretty good standalone movie in its own right! LOTR? not this movie! (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 25 2008 01:47 PM I don't think it helps that Weta did all the costumes for both LotR and Narnia, their stuff isn't very different movie to movie. I liked Narnia alright. It's more geared towards kids, which is fine. So were the books. Tolkien created something entirely different, and I enjoyed the movies based off his books too. I never read the books, couldn't get into them. Maybe I will though, the comment about Faramir being different in the books got my curiosity going. I still don't get why people equate PG ratings with a poor vision for filmaking. Can't someone make a PG movie that is respected? I don't think film is the medium that would be required to adequately represent what war is really like, so why complain about a rating? War is much worse than any rated R movie could possible show anyways. It is quite troubling to me that people enjoy the R rating so much to actually use the lack of an R rating as a critique of a movie. I don't get it. Sure, if the movie is titled "A History of Violence" and is rated G, you can question to motives behind the movie (or at least the title) and thus question the rating. I don't think that holds true for a movie whose message is different than a study of violence and it's effects on us. Hating on a movie because of a tamer rating is extremely superficial. (Reply to this) |
on Mar 25 2008 02:10 PM I certainly think the comparison is often made unfairly and taken too far, though I'd be hard pressed to argue that the green light wasn't given to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe without the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy playing a large part. Of course Disney want to emulate the success of those films, but I thought LWW went a long way towards defining its own identity and I think Ben Barnes says something here that is right: the Narnia books are, each of them, individually defined. That's why I'm curious to see the direction Prince Caspian takes and how that differs from the first movie. I have to hope that as a saga, Narnia will craft its own sense of identity and these comparisons will ebb. (Reply to this) |
on Mar 25 2008 03:13 PM Can't get excited about a PG-rated battle scene? Try these: Star Wars - Attack on the Death Star Empire Strikes Back - Battle of Hoth Raiders of the Lost Ark - Fight on the Truck Convoy Jaws - End fight with the shark Star Trek II - Enterprise vs. the Reliant Superman II - Fight with the three villans James Bond Films - Take your pick from dozens A lot of movies are rated PG-13 or higher because of their foul language or nudity, not because of their fight scene quality. A good writer or director makes the scene, not the rating. Narnia Fight scenes have been great. =) (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 25 2008 03:20 PM the scenes in lion tha were really cool were the part where teh lepercaun is playing that pan flute and when the witch is enticing edwin and when aslan destroys the witch at the end. it is and its intended to be a kids story but it is filled with christian imagery as that was c.s. lewis' intention. the truth be told LOTR was also filled with the christian imagery heard of "Retrun of the King" who do you think is symbolized there? but these narnia moviews will be going on for the another six series becasue of the books are seven. afterwars they will be sold as a set of whatever high tech movie storage sytmes they will have by then. the will be talking about these movies the way we talk about star wars. dude that makes me feel old. anyway somebody, quiet a few somebodys are going to get very rich. wish it was me (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 02:25 AM All that PG battle scenes you listed, Sputnik99, came before a PG-13 rating ever existed. So listing old PG movies that weren't rough enough to be R-rated is not exactly a valid argument. It was a different time with different standards. I realize why some are defending this horrible film as being not LOTR, but the bottom line is that it ONLY exists because of LOTR. Disney saw dollar signs and thought they could make a kid-friendly version of it by putting this on the big screen. They started hyping this thing around the same time that Return of the King was out in hopes of hooking the same audience. Unlike LOTR, the CGI is weak, there's lousy character development, uninteresting characters/actors, and a battle scene that has the violence of a giant pillow fight. It's not that I believe that LOTR and Narnia are similar stories/books/etc., but the films are of a similar genre and Narnia comes off as a sub par knockoff due to the timing and them being similar styles of the movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 06:05 AM Yeah, no question the battles in LWW were weak. The fight between Peter and the wolf captain should have been darker... or at least exciting in some way. Instead it was just a nervous kid holding a sword like a goober. I understand he wasn't Madmartigan (you ARE great) but c'mon, at least try. (Reply to this) |
on Mar 26 2008 06:39 AM Im looking forward to this, i thought the first was very good, and the sepcial effects were top notch, i hope they do this film justic. Talk movies at itsfilmtastic.co.uk (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 06:57 AM In reply to this comment (#1653615) Wow. A 'Willow' reference. A fellow old-timer on RT. You realize that movie is 20 years old, this summer? THAT was a fun movie with very little pretense and virtually NO religious connotation... aside from Val Kilmer in drag representing-- nah. Don't need to start another fight.. Are people REALLY passing stones over the comparison between LOTR and LWW?! Far Away landscapes: Check Mythical Creatures: Check Magical Creatures: Check Mythical Creatures who USE Magic: Check Epic Battle Scenes: Check Young and/or seemingly unassuming, childlike protagonists: Check Upper Class British Accents for most principal characters: Check Based on contemporary (with each other) 20th Century literature: Check Don't get me wrong- there are PLENTY of reasons to distinguish these books and movie series. But the people who are outraged about the comparison being made AT ALL should probably go take a yoga class or something. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 07:20 AM kissman24 - Are you honestly suggesting by your arguement that Star Wars would have been rated R? Otherwise, why make the point? It doesn't matter when the movies were made, just that their battle scenes wouldn't have warranted an R rating under today's rating system anyways. Also, arguing that one film wouldn't have existed without the success of the other, while probably true, is ultimately futile. How far back are you willing to go? LOTR might not have existed if it weren't for earlier epic films. Whatever, who cares? You're trying to validate your fondness for one film at the expense of another. In the end, they are different movies. Compairing them is fun when talking about why or what the movie going public likes to digest....but really is silly when talking about the value of the individual movies. Why waste your time? Liking one movie doesn't mean you have to dislike the other. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 07:20 AM or maybe get some action- lots of pent up hostility floating around here. (Reply to this) |
on Mar 26 2008 07:36 AM Great Interview! I loved the "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe". I am looking forward to "Prince Caspian". I have all of the "Narnia" books as well as the "Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy in my collection. I first read these books when I was 10 years old and have been a fan every since. Yes, there are Christian elements in C.S. Lewis's books but the same can be said of J.R.R. Tolkein. I thought the battle scenes in the first "Narnia" movie were very good. IMO you don't need to have a lot of blood and gore to have a good battle scene. It is unfair to compare "Narnia" with "The Lord of the Rings". While they are similar in their themes of good overcoming evil and the courage to overcome obstacles, they arrive at different conclusions. I happen to find the characters in "Narnia" quite interesting. The character Tumnus the Faun is my favorite in the first "Narnia movie. His character is conflicted about turning Lucy Penvensie into the White Witch. He attempts to abduct her but then changes his mind and instead helps her to escape. Of course he is caught and punished later. The themes of family, frendship, and loyalty are a subtext in "Narnia". I know these books are geared to children but as an adult I find them refreshing. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 11:55 AM In reply to this comment (#1652535) thelawnwrangler, I saw the movie as just a movie. An escape, and a product. But since you brought up race, what's with the lack of diversity in Narnia? (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 12:38 PM It's common knowledge that the lion in Narnia is meant as a Christ figure. That's how the character was written. Honestly, though, the first one was pretty bad. I suppose kids might have enjoyed it, but the effects/CG were poor and the cinematography bland and uninspired. Those are both necessary elements of a fine fantasy picture. Overall, it felt cheap and rushed. The mini-series version I watched as a kid was far superior to the new one. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 01:03 PM arendr - Haha, oh man, the bbc version? Is that the version you're talking about? That is hilarious, I remember seeing those as a kid. I don't know though, saying that grown men dressed as beavers is superior to the cgi in the newer version might be stretching it a bit. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 01:36 PM In reply to this comment (#1654035) haha, maybe it's just in retrospect then. I haven't seen it since I was a young 'un. I don't remember the beavers though. But the CGI beaver in the new one was awful. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 01:40 PM Where's the racial diversity in LOTR? please NOT the racial card.... the racial card (in this situation) is so pathetic. wouldn't it be retarded to have a black lucy, an asian edmund, a cherokee susan, and a white peter? lame! AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO PUT IN RACIAL STUFF cause they're the only HUMANS in Narnia, and lets not forget that the white witch is a narnia version of white-power HITLER! please... not the racist card. don't get me started....... (Read horse and his boy and last battle to find HUMAN races in narnia other than english boys and girls) (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 02:12 PM In reply to this comment (#1653555) Kissman, I thought about mentioning the first 2 Star Wars prequels, but I didn't want to sound repetitive with Star Wars movies. They aren't old. It is hard to find a PG movie nowadays with any action in it, I'll give you that. But IMO, movies going PG-13 is often just used as an advertising tool, not necessarily a truthful guage of the movie's intensity. 'Nuff said. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 26 2008 02:35 PM Racial diversity? Narnia is in a closet in England. It's not a portal to the Mekong Delta. And Lord of the Rings is meant as a myth for the native people of England. Whoever brought that up should do a little research. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 27 2008 06:38 AM In reply to this comment (#1654051) Bringing up the race card is so ignorant. I am a Black woman and I loved the "Narnia" books since I was a child and I really enjoyed the first movie. I am sick of all this "diversity" nonsense. I could care less about the race of the characters as long as a good story is being told. Look at the time and the context of when the story was written. Characters of different races just wouldn't work. There are a lot of non-human and half-human characters like fauns, centaurs, griffins, wolves, and dwarves in "Narnia". Yes, a people need to do their research before they make such stupid comments. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 27 2008 09:12 PM In reply to this comment (#1655231) KimmyCat24..... I LOVE YOU!!!!!!! live long and prosper! (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 01 2008 05:15 PM In reply to this comment (#1656558) Lewis was writing in early-20th century Britain which was pretty racially-homogenous... the Pevensie kids were white because they were 1940s-English, and Narnia was first colonised by (white) English humans, who were presumably the ancestors of all the 'native' Narnian humans (cf. Magician's Nephew). The Calormenes in The Horse and His Boy aren't exactly sympathetically portrayed, but I don't think they're ever actually described as non-white (in fact, a Narnian kid is brought up as Calormene and nobody seems to notice anything different about him) - though Lewis almost certainly drew from his perceptions of certain Earthly cultures in describing them... So yeah Kimmycat24 I agree, people should know what they're talking about first. And I loved the bbc version at the time - can remember asking my mum how she could be sure it wasn't a real lion - but went back and re-watched it and the effects are AWFUL. It was like re-visiting the cartoon version of LoTR (anyone remember that?) having remembered it as way better than the films... I think the kid cast in this Narnia film were just brilliant though. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 01 2008 06:22 PM I agree PG battle scenes suck and the first ones battl was both corny and bad hopefully this one will have people dieing for once. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 05:24 AM In reply to this comment (#1664927) ""The Calormenes in The Horse and His Boy aren't exactly sympathetically portrayed, but I don't think they're ever actually described as non-white "" There were numerous times, in the "Last Battle" at least, where the Calormenes were referred to as "Darkies" so I don't agree with this. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 05:31 AM In reply to this comment (#1664927) Also, to add, the god that the Calormenes workshipped was Tash. The word Tash is Turkish for Stone. I also came across a Middle Eastern figure in mythology that was named Tash. I don't have my books near me, but my point is, these characters were definitely Middle Eastern in origin. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 06:14 AM While the Calormenes could have very well gotten their roots from Middle Eastern culture, they were definitely not from the Middle East. They were actually from a place called Calormen, (which happens to not even be a part of this world). ;-) You must also remember that not all of the Calormenes were evil. They just happened to have some evil rulers. Most of the Calormenes were quite nice. Anyway, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the article. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 06:23 AM In reply to this comment (#1665547) Wow Shawnt2, thats pretty ****ing cool. Such a strong point; I too wish I could take the LWW movie seriously, but without Calmorenes of Middle Eastern origin, I think me and you are out of luck! To make up for the lack of a racially diverse british fantasy movie adaptation from the 1940's, perhaps in Caspian they'll have some East-Asian Pygmie crossbreeds butt-****ing each other In front of Susie Pevensie's long lost African-half sister transvestite with a possible politically correct Irish accent and a dead siamese twin sticking out of her neck. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 06:54 AM In reply to this comment (#1665565) "perhaps in Caspian they'll have some East-Asian Pygmie crossbreeds butt-****ing each other In front of Susie Pevensie's long lost African-half sister transvestite with a possible politically correct Irish accent and a dead siamese twin sticking out of her neck." Oh we can only hope! This would really set a nice atmosphere for the movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 07:35 AM Will you nerds shut up...it's a frickin' kids' book. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 08:40 AM In reply to this comment (#1664927) I do remember the Calmorenes from a the book "A Horse and His Boy". I vaguely remember they were called "Darkies". I don't think it was meant as a slur. Their culture did seem like it had some Middle Eastern parallels but the Calmorenes were a seperate Narnian race. I agree that the Calmorenes seemed nice for the most part except for their evil rulers. I watched the BBC version Of "The Chroinicles of Narnia" on PBS (Public Television). While I loved it then, I now realize how clumsy and antiquated the special effects are by today's standards. My fiance is from the UK and saw the BBC version too. He said he loved it back then too but now thought it looked really awful. He was commenting to me about it a couple of weeks ago after we saw the latest "Prince Caspian" trailer. Of course special effects have improved greatly since then. They had an awful "Narnia" cartoon version back in the 1970's here in the US but I can't remember what network it showed on. I didn't like the Rankin-Bass movie version of the Hobbit very much either. IMHO the LOTR movies were much better. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 08:48 AM In reply to this comment (#1664927) Oh, I forgot to add that I agree with you about the casting of the children in the first Narnia. The casting was fantastic. My favorite is actress Georgie Henley who playes Lucy Pevensie. I saw an interview with both her and James McAvoy(who played Mr.Tumnus the Faun)on YouTube when the movie first came out. They were giving each other high fives and joking during the whole interview. She was absolutely charming as Lucy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 03 2008 04:27 PM In reply to this comment (#1653555) I think that Kissman is missing the point here. LoTR is a complex story that was aimed quite deliberately at the college age adult. Narnia is a CHILDREN'S story and like many such is designed to teach morality in a way that will engage children's minds. It serves no purpose to rant on about how the fighting wasn't violent or bloody enough, it isn't supposed to be. It's a children's story and the director right decided that children do not require blood and gore to be excited about a battle scene. Did Disney jump on a band wagon with these movies, you bet! That is after all how it's done. Movies come to us in waves, some years there are slasher movies galore, Friday the 13th part however many, Nightmare on Elm street part however many. Some times it's the sappy romance flicks, Milk Money, Something About Mary, Pretty Woman. And sometimes it is the brainless comedy like Dumb and Dumber. Point is for every one of those movies there are 3 or more that came out in the same time period that are of the same genre because the boys with the money said "Hey! look how much the great unwashed loved that! Let's do it again!" (Reality TV shows are an excellent example of this as well.) Mainstream movies are about market, about the all mighty dollar, above and beyond all else. I personally thing all Chuck Norris films are garbage unworthy of the cost of popcorn, but they were wildly popular and made their studios a ton of money. Love the movie, hate the movie, be indifferent. But just because it's not your thing does not make it a bad film. It just means it's not your thing. So go rent a Chuck Norris flick and enjoy. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 13 2008 09:21 AM In reply to this comment (#1653555) I disagree with you. I think that the producers saw a chance to make money on a series that has been loved by generations. If you compare the number of people who have read LOTR with the number of people who have read the Narnia series, I think you would find that Narnia far outstrips LOTR. (Just because of the genra that LOTR is in, plus the fact that Tolkien's writing is not for the person who wants an easy read). There is something in these books that people identify with and have loved for many years. I won't disagree that the decision to make these movies now wasn't about money, but I don't think that LOTR has anything to do with it. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 12:08 PM In reply to this comment (#1652506) polycube, The funny thing about Narnia is that Christians did not simply interpret the movie to fit their ideology, it was WRITTEN to fit that ideology! C.S. Lewis wrote the series to intentionally mirror the gospels and other stories in the Holy Bible. The scene in which Aslan is killed and comes back to life is a metaphor for the crucifixion and resurrection. The stone table that cracked in half was meant to represent the temple curtain that was torn in half when Jesus died. If you need more understanding about C.S. Lewis's use of the Bible in his series, just take a look at "C.S. Lewis and Narnia For Dummies." It's all in there. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 18 2009 04:24 PM I, for one, loved the movie. I honestly don't care what others say. The Narnia movies are wonderful. They're thrilling and I love them!I can't wait for the next one. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Articles
- People's Choice Awards Winners Announced (0)
- RT Interview: Richard Taylor on the Weta Workshop and Prince Caspian (3)
- RT on DVD: Watch an Exclusive Clip from Wanted on DVD (22)
- RT Tours Weta Workshop and The Real Narnia - A Photo Tour (12)
- RT Interview: Ben Barnes on Taking on the Journey of Prince Caspian (1)
- RT Interview: William Moseley on His Last Narnia Adventure in Prince Caspian (3)
- RT Interview: Skandar Keynes on the Action Challenge of Prince Caspian (3)
- RT Interview: Anna Popplewell on a Different Side to Narnia in Prince Caspian (12)
- Box Office Guru Preview: Black vs. Sandler in Comedy Showdown (20)
- Box Office Guru Preview: Sex in the Multiplex All Weekend Long (35)
Most Discussed
- Total Recall: John Cusack's Best Movies (93)
- Five Favorite Films with Roland Emmerich (78)
- Critics Consensus: 2012 Isn't Quite Earth-Shaking (44)
- Weekly Ketchup: Rachel McAdams Reads for Spider-Man 4 (37)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Christmas Carol Tops, Precious Rocks (34)
- Five Favourite Films with Ang Lee (29)
- 10 Movies That Changed The (End Of The) World (28)
- Friday Harvest: Clash of the Titans, Kick-Ass, and more! (22)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (4)
- RT's Holiday Movie Preview -- Find Out What's Hot This Season! (0)
Latest News
- Weekly Ketchup: Rachel McAdams Reads for Spider-Man 4 (37)
- Friday Harvest: Clash of the Titans, Kick-Ass, and more! (22)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (4)
- Critics Consensus: 2012 Isn't Quite Earth-Shaking (44)
- Five Favourite Films with Ang Lee (29)
- 10 Movies That Changed The (End Of The) World (28)
- RT's Holiday Movie Preview -- Find Out What's Hot This Season! (0)
- Five Favorite Films with Roland Emmerich (78)
- Total Recall: John Cusack's Best Movies (93)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Christmas Carol Tops, Precious Rocks (34)
Latest Interviews
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (4)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (15)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (15)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (8)
- Wolverine Creator Len Wein Talks About the Film (28)
- Gavin Hood Talks Wolverine; Possible Sequel (28)
- Duncan Jones talks Moon, Sam Rockwell, and Mute (14)
- Emma Stone talks Zombieland - RT Interview (40)
- Michael Moore: The RT Interview (139)
- Andrea Arnold talks Fish Tank - RT Interview (4)
Latest Features
- Five Favourite Films with Ang Lee (29)
- 10 Movies That Changed The (End Of The) World (28)
- Ho-ho-horror! 10 Scary Christmas Movies (36)
- 12 Facts About 2012 (135)
- RT's Movie Location Guide - London as Elsewhere (0)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (15)
- Five Favourite Films with 24's Carlos Bernard (33)
- Six Horrible Part Sixes (32)
- Christopher Smith's Favourite Cult Horror Films (14)
- RT's Movie Location Guide - London as London (0)
IGN RSS Feeds