Remake Mania: Are there NO original ideas left in Hollywood?

The news this week that came pouring out of Hollywood made me seriously concerned about the amount of creativity left in Hollywood. Story after story told of yet another remake to be made. First Gore Verbinski announced he wanted to do a new version of Clue. Then Guillermo del Toro, the man with more projects then he has fingers mentions in passing he'd like to redo The Count of Monte Cristo, which was made into a film as recently as 2002. Total Recall, The NeverEnding Story, and Damn Yankees round out the line-up of films announced this week to be getting a new spin. Five movies in one week. I think that's something to be concerned about.

While the original of many of these movies were not very good, they do have something of a cult status. The NeverEnding Story in particular is renowned for having terrified little children for years. Why ruin a good-bad thing? We should count our blessings, I suppose, that studios haven't started cannibalizing classic films. But with rumors swirling last year about a rewrite of Poltergeist being worked on. That's getting dangerously close to genuine classics. I know that a work of art is always supposed to be a work in progress, and these directors think they can improve on what has come before, but sometimes the big wigs in Hollywood need to learn to let sleeping dogs lie.

The Theme is Green: Superhero News

A nice chunk of superhero news has come out of the wood-works, and the Vault has it for you here in a nice neat post. First off, The Green Hornet, the project I fear will never die, has had a new director assigned to it by the name of Michel Gondry. Also a screenwriter, Gondry has only directed a handful of films that have been released in theatre, but he does have Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind under his belt, not only directing but winning an Oscar for writing the Original Screenplay as well. Eternal Sunshine is also one of the 400 movies nominated for the top 100 films of all time; that being said, Gondry also directed Be Kind, Rewind, a film starring Jack Black that was released last year. Given the lesser quality of that movie, it's easy to worry that Gondry may be a one-hit wonder who will fail to deliver. Readers will know that I have been fairly unsupportive of this project for a while now and the directing choice has done nothing to assuage any of my fears.

Keeping on the "green" bent of the post, a currently untitled Green Lantern film has had its release date set for December 17, 2010. Considering that the only solid info on the film is the writers, the basic plot (possible spoilers in link), and a rumored director (Martin Campbell of Casino Royal), this date may be optomistic. No names have yet been announced as to who will play the Green Lantern, a superhero with a power ring given to him by a dying alien.

And for some interesting musings on superhero films, turn to Joss Whedon, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, who speculates on why DC superhero movies fail to connect with audiences. Whedon may have some insight, especially given the fact that he has penned two different scripts for a potential Wonder Woman movie, neither of which were given the green light to proceed to production. The basic difference, Whedon argues, between Marvel and DC is the difference between ordinary people and gods. Whedon has a point. DC superheros tend to be much more epic, much more invincible then Marvel characters. How do you make Superman, the alien who is virtually indestrucible, relatable to us average mortals? Even Batman has a bit of mystique about him, being a billionaire who can afford or create any gadget he'd like.

Marvel characters, on the other hand, tend to be average joes who are just trying to make ends meet while saving the world in their spare time. Spider-man and X-men run along this vein. Of course, neat categories never work out; Tony Stark in Iron Man also fits the billionaire prototype; and what could be more god-like then an actual god, embodied in Thor? And Marvel superhero films are not infalliable: see Nicholas Cage in Ghost Rider if you have any doubts, or Jennifer Garner in Elektra. Still, Whedon may be on to something, as Marvel has been turning out one superhero movie after another these last few years, while DC has been much slower to the get-go.

Emily Blunt Most Likely Will Not Appear in Iron Man 2

Sad news for Iron Man fans. Slash Film is reporting that Emily Blunt will probably not appear as the Black Widow in the upcoming sequel. Contractual obligations to 20th Century Fox are rumored to have forced her to drop Iron Man in favor of Gulliver's Travels which is due to begin shooting at the same time as the comic book film. If this news is true, and it looks to be fairly solid, then Marvel will be losing a talented actress who would have done an excellent job in their movie, and fans may be forced to live with Scarlett Johansson instead. Casting news is always iffy until the contract is sign, but I had my hopes on this one and am sad to see Blunt have to part ways with the metallic crusader.

Oscar Night: A Review

I return from my week and a half vacation to bring you a review of last night's Academy Awards. It was a night full over very few surprises: Slumdog Millionaire took home Best Picture and Director, Heath Ledger got Best Supporting Actor, Kate Winslet finally got her Oscar, and Wall-E walked away with Best Animated Feature. The only bone I have to pick with the awards themselves is that Wall-E should have received an award in at least one of the sound categories; the first half of the film has almost no dialogue, and the robots have a unique language of whistles and boops that was impressively brought to life, and Wall-E should have been recognized for that.

But what of the show itself? Like the winners, there were few surprises, and overall, it was a lackluster performance. Hugh Jackman did what he could to keep the night moving, dancing and singing the night away, an experience I would have enjoyed more if I didn't feel that it was utterly pointless. The opening number was to be expected, to help people get into the mood and welcome viewers to the Oscars, but was there a real need for the tribute to the musicals routine? Likewise, the montages of animated features, romances, comedies, and action flicks felt pointless, particularly the animated feature montage, as there were no more than five films to take clips from. Such things should be done away with, as it only serves to drag on the show, not heighten any excitement. The one montage I feel they should keep is "In Memoriam" which I always find a touching tribute to those in the profession who have passed away, from cinematographers to actors to screenwriters.

I did like the concept of arranging the awards in the order they come in the production of a film. I honestly can't remember if this just happens to be the way they are always handed out, but even if that is so, attention was drawn to the fact this year, and it was a neat way to help the audience connect with the movie-making process. The idea of having five actresses/actors present the acting awards, however, was an idea that may have looked good on paper but didn't seem to work on screen. Having someone stand on stage and give a lengthy speech about why you should care about a particular performance was not very interesting or inspiring and again lengthened the show more than necessary.

All in all, the Oscars were particularly lackluster, despite attempts to shake things up. Unimaginative montages and slow pacing are sure to have driven many to reach for their remotes, especially since there were few big name films to keep them interested. Ratings were up, however, which indicates that there were those who were interested to see how the Oscars had changed, or perhaps that last year's record lows had more to do with the writer's strike than the programming. The Oscars still have a way to go to connect with audiences, and there's a long road ahead.

Oscar Watch: Doubt

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

Today's review deals with multiple-Oscar-hopeful Doubt, an intriguing drama about a nun who is steadfast in her belief that the priest at her church has committed a dreadful sin and must be brought to justice, even if no one else believes her. Starring a strong cast of Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Viola Davis, the film has had every one of its top-billed performers nominated for acting Oscar: Streep for Best Actress and the rest of the cast in the supporting acting categories. The film has also been nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.

The thing that I loved about this film is its ambiguity. There is no clear cut black and white in this film; the audience mainly has to rely on hearsay to piece together what might have happened, and in the end, you are not really sure who was right and who has wrong. It's designed to make the audience think: only by thinking can you get any satsifaction from the film. Is it right to stand fast in your conviction if there is no evidence? How far should one go to bring a person to "justice"? Who decides what "justice" is? Is a tiny suspicion enough of a reason to accuse someone of a crime? The big questions come in the last minute of the film, when Streep breaks down to Adams and says (I'm paraphrasing) "Sometimes you have to go away from God to catch wrong-doers. But there is a price to pay. Sister James, I have such doubts!" What are these doubts? Does she fear that perhaps she was wrong about Hoffman's priest? Or by straying from God, has she opened her eyes to things that have shaken her beliefs? Doubt is an open-ended text that can be debated 'round in circles without ever getting to a resolution, short of asking the writer himself for a straightforward answer. That's what the film is about: based on what little you know, can you really make decide Hoffman's fate?

The film is an adapted stage play, and it shows in the pacing of film, which is roughly broken down into several long scenes between two or three actors. This does not detract from the film; indeed, it allows the actors a good chance to get into the material and lets the audience sit back and watch some of the best in the trade do what they excel at. Will this translate to Oscar success? Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep have been fighting back and forth for Best Actress in several different critic pools and other awards, and there is a good probability that the award will go to one of these two fine ladies. Hoffman is unfortunately competing against Heath Ledger for Supporting Actor, so his chances of winning are not particularly good at the moment, though he did give a fine performance. Adams and Davis will go head to head against each other in the Supporting Actress category. This category I'm the least certain about; in my mind it really could go anyway. For outside opinion, Gold Derby blogger Tom O'Neil has an interesting analysis of Adams's chances that is worth a read.

Doubt's Oscar chances may be slim, but that does nothing to detract from a solid film which will have you ruminating as you leave the theatre.

3-D on TV: Reviews

During Superbowl weekend, two 3D spectacles hit the little screen in living rooms across America. The first was the Monsters vs. Aliens 3D trailer that aired during the Superbowl game; the second was a special episode of Chuck that was filmed in 3D format.

I was unable to watch the Monsters vs. Aliens trailer during the Superbowl, but the review over at First Showing indicates that my fears about the the promotion were right. The quality of the commercial was low, especially since it required the use of the more retro and cheap two-color glasses that are a step backwards in 3D technology. What's more, despite the supposed huge campaign to hand out these glasses, many people had trouble finding them before the game, meaning that a good chunk of the audience was stuck watching a blurry picture on the screen for the duration of the trailer.

Chuck, while still handicapped by the lack of glasses, seems to have done a bit better, though the strong material of the show probably helped carry the technology. I was glad to see that the format of the picture was still watchable without the glasses, so that those who were unable to obtain glasses weren't unable to watch the show. Chuck, aside from opening the episode with a scantily-clad Sarah in Chuck's dream, made fairly good use of the 3D format, only once throwing the obligatory knife at the screen and instead using the technology to add some depth to its Intersect-flash moments and rock concert scenes. Still, the glasses provided were only as good as one can possibly get with free technology. The days of regular 3D programming are far from here.

The Current Hot Property in Hollywood? PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES

I got a laugh out of this news item as I was doing my daily perusal of blogs. Slash Film reports that Hollywood studios are currently duking it out to obtain the rights to a novel called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, a novel which keeps a good deal of the original text of Pride and Prejudice and spices it up with a few twists that add a zombie invasion to the plot. I actually think that this film could be some fun, especially given the popularity of the last Pride and Prejudice movie. The premise of original book is so well-known that it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to reengineer it into an amusing horror flick.

The original Times article that broke the story has some interesting tidbits about other literary classics that have gotten a horror remixing, including Wuthering Heights, where the ghost of Catherine does quite a bit of terrorizing. And of course, as Slash reminds us, Jane Eyre already got the zombie rewrite over 60 years ago in the form of I Walked with a Zombie, a slightly creepy Val Lewton film that takes the original concept and adds Jamaica and a little voodoo.

I'm strongly considering buying the book when it comes out in May, if only to see how author Seth Grahame-Smith pulls it off.

Revolutionary Road: The Oscar Performance that Wasn't

When the Oscar nominees came out, there was a great deal of shock at the snubbing of The Dark Knight which failed to edge its way into the race for Best Picture or Director. But among all the hubbub, there was another film that failed to make the list in a category it should have: Revolutionary Road should have gotten Kate Winslet nominated for Best Actress. This is old news by now, but as I have just had a chance to see the film, I wanted to throw in my two cents. Now, I know that Winslet did get a Best Actress nod this year for her film The Reader. From what I hear, however, her performance was at the most, a supporting one, and while still good, not as good as her role in Road. After seeing the film, I'm still stunned that the Academy did not follow suit with the Golden Globes and nominate Winslet for Best Actress in Road and Supporting Actress in Reader. Her performance as trapped housewife April was heart-breaking. In the last fifteen minutes of the film, you can see that she has become emotionally broken, that the life has snuffed out of her. All her glow and vibrancy is gone. It takes skill to portray an empty character that isn't over the top; anyone can stare blankly around, but a real actress can make her character go through the motions of normality and convey that beneath the calm, banal exterior, something is dreadfully wrong.

While Kate Winslet's performance was Oscar-worthy, the rest of the film was lacking, explaining its inability to nab a Best Picture nomination. The transition between naive young lovers and a suppressed young couple in the American dream was literally split second; there was no watching Di Caprio (who also makes a fine performance as a man struggling to choose between a life of comfort and a life of adventure) and Winslet evolve into the people they vowed they never be. The contrast was too abrupt for me to be able to get my bearings with any ease, and I kept feeling like I had missed a scene somewhere along the way. A smaller detail that made things feel a bit off was the continuing absence of the children in the film. Although introduced early on as part of the kit and kaboodle of the American Dream, they only minorly figured into the plot and were conviently never around during the parents multiple arguments. They were there more as props then as characters.

Revolutionary Road is definitely a film worth seeing, even if it is a bit rough. Kate Winslet may not have gotten the Oscar nod she deserves, but hopefully she will at least walk away with a long overdue statue at the upcoming Academy Awards.

Can Oscars Pull it Together Without Household Names?

An interesting column was posted on Variety's Award Central on Friday about the potential ratings success or failure of the upcoming Academy Awards broadcast. Last year saw ratings hit an all time low (see my last post on the Oscars) and there is considerable worry that this year's ratings may plunge even lower. It's sure that the execs responsible for the show were beating their heads when they discovered that The Dark Knight was snubbed in the top categories, as popular opinion agreed that the film was guaranteed to have viewers turning in to see if the movie could walk away with some of the more prestigious awards. People may still watch to see if Heath Ledger can win posthumously, but with Best Picture restricted nearly exclusively to less well-known titles, there is considerably less interest in who wins.

Producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark are doing their best to put some spice into the show, starting off with hiring Hugh Jackman to host the Oscars. Now rumors are coming around that they are finding new ways to present the categories and trying to shake up the formula of what is announced when, in order to create some new interest. I'll admit my interest is certainly piqued, and as I've watched the past Oscars on tape-delay with my hand continuously hovering over the fast-forward button, I am intrigued to see if this supposedly new format can hold my attention longer. Admittedly, last year's show was hampered by the writer's strike, but that airing may have negatively affected the public's opinion of an already overlong extravaganza. The film gurus are desperately trying to save a sinking ship and even if they don't succeed, it should be entertaining to watch them try.

Super Franchise: Why it's NOT a Good Idea

In what may be a less than surprising announcement, Warner Bros. declared today their desire to spawn several more Batman movies in the near future, as well as expand other franchises like Superman and Sherlock Holmes. Its not hard for the execs at Warner Bros. to do the math: The Dark Knight was the second-highest grossing movie of all time, second only to Titanic. If they can replicate even half that success, the studio would be rolling in dough, which is why they are most definitely keeping the possibility of a sequel open. But while the concept may be good for the bottom line, is it good for the franchise? The answer to me seems to be no.

First off, these movies that are such great success, like Dark Knight, are often because all the right players both behind and in front of the camera came together and almost magically clicked into place. Its rare to continue duplicating that success, as anyone can tell you who's watched a series play out its life. Look at the life of the Spider-Man films. The first one was pretty good, the second one was amazing...and then came number three. I had such high hopes for that film, that came crashing down around my ears. Overdone special effects, bad writing, and too many villains made for a colossal train wreck. Perhaps it was not as bad as it appeared to me, but because expectations for myself and the rest of the public were so high, we were greatly disappointed when the film failed to be merely adequate. And that was a sequel that had all the principle players still in line. The longer these film franchises go on, the more people will start drifting away. Actors often don't want to be type-cast, and sticking with one string of films is a surefire way to get locked into a stereotype. Will Christian Bale want to keep playing Batman? Will Michael Caine stick with Alfred, or will he perhaps retire from acting? As people leave, they'll need to be replaced, and the odds are that the chemistry will be lost. All it will take is for one failure of a sequel to drag the name of the original films into the mud.

Of course, series of films have been done in the past with some success. But when I say "the past," I am referring to the 1940s and '50s, when the studio system ruled and B-films were in fashion. Then it was easy to keep a tight control on talent and ensuring they went to the projects you wanted. It was also the heyday of the B-film, the acceptably low-budget picture that could be made quickly and easily. It was during this time period you got Hopalong Cassidy, Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, and other series films that starred the same actor getting into a new scrape every few months. Nowadays, the B-film is dead, and everything has to be big budget or not at all. It also follows that a film has to make good money in order to cover the expenditures.

Will these franchises succeed in getting the go ahead? Spider-man has already gotten the green light for pictures 4, 5, and 6. Despite luke-warm reviews, the film made out big at the box office, and the same movie-goers will most likely turn out in droves for the fourth film because it has name recognition; it may be hypocritcal of me, but I most likely will see it as well, in the hopes that the third film was a fluke. But Hollywood doesn't seem capable of keeping a storyline fresh and creative for more than a few films. A franchise is either enormously successfull in its initial run and bombs in its second, or it starts strong in the first film, peaks in the second, and crashes in the third. As Christopher Nolan once asked a reporter, how many good third movies can you name? Very very few. In fact, there are barely any film franchises that have lived beyond three films beyond the horror genre, though that trend is starting to reverse; besides Spider-man, Pirates is making a run at a fourth movie as well.

I would love for Hollywood to be able to successfully create these movie franchises. It would give me great moving-going pleasure. But I am cynical enough to doubt that Hollywood is capable of turning out anything other than less-than-adequate sequels which will quickly become a joke. What do you think readers? Do I need to find faith again in Tinsel Town or am I justified in my skepticism?

Oscar Watch: Slumdog Millionaire Review

Last week I began my quest to track down and watch Oscar nominated pictures that I had not gotten around to seeing, in order to be more fully informed in my Oscar commentary. On Sunday I took a step forward and watched Slumdog Millionaire, the odds-down favorite to win Best Picture this year. The film is being touted on posters as "The feel-good movie of the year," a phrase I initially took issue with in the first few hours after seeing the picture. In order to get to the "feel-good" part of the plot, one has to sit through scene after scene of depressing trials and tribulations. But the more I recounted the plot, the more I remembered little moments that had made me chuckle. Slumdog is like watching the sun trying to peak through the clouds: fort he most part, it's dark and unfriendly, but the longer you wait, the brighter the rays get. And as the film is about life in the slums of India, I perhaps should have braced myself a little more for the brutality that awaited me.

What of its Oscar chances? Very good. According to IMDb, the film currently has 42 wins and 36 nominations from other awards handed out around the world. Most notably, Slumdog won Best Motion Picture- Drama at the recent Golden Globes. That doesn't make a Best Picture Oscar a done deal however; last year Atonement won at the Globes while No Country for Old Men walked away with the Academy Award. But given how well Slumdog is doing racking up awards, there should be little problem (then again, The Dark Knight seemed like a forgone conclusion for a Best Picture nod, and we all know how that turned out).

Awards aside, Slumdog seems to have the right ingredients for Best Picture. The camera work is certainly not run of the mill, using hand-held movement and rapid cutting to capture the confusion of slum life, which at times was a bit too disorienting for me. The film exposes societal problems in India which are sure to pull at the conscientious heart strings of Academy voters (but has caused a backlash of criticism by people who say the film is exploiting the impoverished setting in order to make some easy dough). The structuring of the film becomes a bit dull after a while, however. The flashbacks are structured around hero Jamal explaining how he knows the answer to a particular "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" question; once the novelty of looking for the answer in the flashback wears off, you are left with the repetition of waiting for the next inevitable clue to pop up in the plot.

To conclude, Slumdog Millionaire has all the signs of this year's Best Picture winner. Although perhaps a tad overrated, the film is still quite good and shows innovativeness that the Academy is sure to reward.

And for some interesting casting news about Dev Patel, check out this recent post at the Vault.

Mysterious Iron Man 2 Casting Update

Word has been tossed about lately over the potential casting of Mickey Rourke as a villain called Crimson Dynamo in the upcoming Iron Man 2. But in an interview with MTV, star Robert Downey Jr. has partially denied those reports. The consensus seems to be that Rourke is still on track to be cast in the film, but in a much more hush-hush role. Nothing is set in stone yet, but it overall seems to jive with the latest Internet buzz.

One issue that has yet to be resolved is whether Emily Blunt will be able to appear as Black Widow in the Iron Man sequel. Last week it was announced that Blunt had signed up to appear in Gulliver's Travels, which will be shooting around the same time as Iron Man 2. The Vault will post the resolution to that problem as soon as it is resolved.

Last Airbender Casting Change

When the major casting choices were revealed for Avatar: The Last Airbender (now officially truncated to The Last Airbender) movie last December, director M. Night Shyamalan drew considerable heat for his decision to use an all-white cast. Fans of the show didn't understand how a film based on a TV show with heavy Asian overtones (philosophies of the setting parallel Buddhism, and the "magic," if you will, is used through martial arts-style moves) could merit not a single Asian actor. While I agree with fan outrage over the casting, I also have much simpler concerns about casting decisions, which simmer down to one point: Jesse McCartney as Prince Zuko?!? Really? A character who over the course of the show undergoes a complex and tormented character development is going to be played by a teen pop idol?? I gave up the game right then and there, seeing no hope at all for the movie.

Now I see a tiny glimmer of light in the darkness, however small. Jesse McCartney has been dropped from the film, supposedly due to tour conflicts with shooting schedules. In his place is Slumdog Millionaire star Dev Patel, who is currently doing quite well being nominated for and winning awards for his performance in that film. I think Patel will have a much better shot at nailing the arrogant and angry Zuko. What's more, he is most definitely not caucasion, a fact that will hopefully bring down the blood pressures of fans across the nation. Regardless, this film still has a long way to go to dig itself out of the pit it fell into. Shyamalan blundered right of the gate with his casting choices, and although he claims in his interviews to understand the Buddhist influence on the material, I fear that his time in Hollywood is interferring with the director's ability to look beyond the blockbuster concerns of the film and look at the story beneath. To paraphrase movie lore, if you build a good movie, the audience will come. Shyamalan put the cart before the horse when casting this film, and now he'll need to pick up some serious ground to prove to fans that he knows what he's doing.

Stay tuned for further developments in the tale of The Last Airbender.