Yesterday brought the announcement that Mark Romanek had dropped out of Disney's new "Cinderella" adaptation, the one where Cate Blanchett is playing the evil stepmother. Mark Romanek previously directed "Never Let Me Go" and "One Hour Photo," as well as several well-regarded music videos, and is known for his strong visual style and edgy aesthetic bent. It's no mystery why Disney would want to work with him. However, the director's vision was apparently darker than what Disney had in mind, and the general reaction of most observers has been, well, of course it was. I think I'm in the minority in that I'm genuinely disappointed that Disney and Romanek couldn't come to terms. I wanted to see what that "Cinderella" would have looked like. Pairing up a more artistically daring director with mainstream material can yield some interesting results. Sure, Tarsem Singh's "Mirror, Mirror" was pretty weightless fluff, but it was more visually interesting and thematically sound than that other Snow White movie that came out last year. And I continue ot defend Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" for the voluptuous art design at least.
Directors have a tendency to be pigeonholed more than anyone likes to admit, and much more in modern times than they were in the old days. It used to be that directors had their specialties, but it wasn't that odd to find John Ford directing a comedy or Howard Hawks directing a musical. I've often wondered what would happen if some of our celebrated directors of action movies and heavy dramas had to work with something a little lighter and frillier and more... Disney. So as the Mouse House searches for someone to replace Romamek, I've been pondering over what "Cinderella" might look like if some more unorthodox names were under consideration:
Wes Anderson's Cinderella - Stars Kara Hayward as Cindy, an awkward preteen with a penchant for David Bowie songs, sweater vests, and philately. In order to spend time with her one true love, Fred Charming, during her spring break, she has to infiltrate his private school in the guise of a French foreign exchange student. One thing leads to another, and Cindy ends up competing in a junior jitterbug dance competition against Fred. Angelica Houston plays the stepmother, a complicated soul, whose meanness is really only a defense mechanism.
Christopher Nolan's Cinderella - Stars Ellen Page as Alice Rendl, a brilliant young software designer caught in a web of corporate espionage and intrigue. Joan Allen plays the stepmother, the icy CFO of a major international conglomerate that is trying to get their hands on a new virtual reality program, "Glass Slipper," that has fallen into Alice's lap. Can she unlock its secrets and uncover the secret identity of the hacker Charming before the police come to arrest her at midnight? Will she finally be able to face reality? What is reality?
David Lynch's Cinderella - Stars Amanda Seyfried as Rella, a sweet girl in a small town yearning to fall in love. Unfortunately she's under the strict employ of her unhappy, repressed stepmother, played by Laura Dern, proprietress of a small nursing home for retired circus performers. Rella's only friends are seven dwarf brothers who used to do a tumbling act. One night she has disturbing dreams of a man with a pumpkin for a head, giant mice acting out scenes of suburban domesticity, and lizards speaking backward. Then the universe collapses in on itself with disturbing elegance.
The Coen Brothers' Cinderella - Stars Hailee Steinfeld as Ellie, a stubborn young woman who decides she's destined to marry the boy next door, and plots to run away with him. Alas, he mysteriously disappears before they can depart. Frances McDormand plays the stepmother, who spends the first act threatening Ellie with bodily harm when she ducks out of helping with the decorations for the annual cotillion. In a twist, she turns up murdered, so Ellie must sets out on a journey into the seedy depths of suburban Ohio to find the killers, encountering one colorful character after another in her search.
Quentin Tarantino's Cinderella - Stars Chloe Moretz as Cinders, a teenage assassin out for revenge. Her mission is to kill the evil stepmother played by – who else? Uma Thurman – the secret leader of an international organization of neo-Nazi supervillains. The ball is merely a set-up, and Cinders is really there to rescue Prince Charming, fulfilling an old promise to her mentor in the killing arts, the Fairy Godmother. This requires dueling her stepmother to the death using shards of the glass slippers, and her mother's heirloom Hattori Hanzo sword.
Michael Bay's Cinderella – Stars Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Cinderella Johnson, personal assistant to a brilliant industrialist named Mr. Charming, who is secretly a government agent. His identity is compromised and terrorists take Cinderella hostage, just as aliens attack the earth and all machines become sentient and turn on humanity. Cinderella and Mr. Charming spend three hours running for their lives, crashing expensive cars, and blowing up anything that moves. Cinderella is in a negligee and glass high heels the entire time, but her lipstick never gets smudged.
Lars von Trier's Cinderella - Actually, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that was "Melancholia."
---
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Monday, January 7, 2013
On Historical Accuracy
The airport sequence of "Argo" has been pointed out as one of the most thrilling climaxes of any movie released in 2012. Most of it was also completely made up. In real life, Tony Mendez and the American Embassy workers he helped to surreptitiously leave Iran, simply bluffed their way through security at the Tehran airport, got on the plane, and left. They were not detained and questioned. Their identities were not discovered at the last minute, and no one sent police cars to chase after the airplane as they were taking off. These were total inventions, created to make "Argo" more thrilling for a paying audience. What we saw on screen clearly wasn't the way it really happened, but nobody seemed to mind very much.
Then you have Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln," which also took a lot of dramatic license with the events surrounding the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery at the end of the Civil War. Omissions seemed to cause the most consternation, particularly the role of black abolitionists like Frederick Douglass. Surely with the all-star cast of character actors, Spielberg could have found room for Douglass, maybe played by Morgan Freeman? However, these concerns were largely dismissed. After all, the movie was called "Lincoln," and it made sense the Spielberg would prefer the keep the action focused on his title character. "Lincoln" has been a modest hit in theaters, and thought the inaccuracies have been acknowledged and discussed, nobody seems to mind them very much either.
Now we come to "Zero Dark Thirty," depicting the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, and a massive storm of controversy over the film's accuracy. There's the claim that the film condones torture. There's the claim that it's thinly veiled propaganda. Few people actually had the chance to see the film before last week because of its limited release schedule, but that hasn't stopped the rampant accusations, speculation, and all kinds of conspiracy theories. There have been allegations for months that director Katheryn Bigelow and her crew had improper access to confidential CIA and Department of Defense information. The Senate recently opened up an official inquiry into whether there were improper contacts between the filmmakers and the CIA. "Zero Dark Thirty" has been getting great reviews and winning plenty of accolades, but for many potential viewers, the quality of the film seems to be of lesser importance than its accuracy.
Why the discrepancy in the treatment of "Zero Dark Thirty"? The most obvious reason is that the events are more recent and politically charged. As upsetting and contentious as the Iran Hostage crisis was, it's been over thirty years since the events of "Argo," and the country has had the time to absorb and process what happened. The recent wars in the Middle East and the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, are still very much a part of current events. And instead of celebrating a feel-good victory, the filmmakers chose to tackle some of the most difficult aspects of the War on Terror, including the deeply controversial use of torture as a method of intelligence gathering. Many of the primary players are still employed by the government, and the political ramifications of many of the film's events are still playing out. This is far more sensitive and prickly subject matter than the other historical dramas of 2012 have chosen to deal with.
However, it's important to remember that this is a historical dramatization of events, not a documentary. We know that the filmmakers used dramatic license much in the same way that "Argo" and "Lincoln" did. Some characters are amalgams of multiple real life people. The film covers the span of ten years, so many events had to be condensed or omitted to fit within the confines of a two-and-a-half-hour movie, while others were highlighted for dramatic emphasis. Part of me wants to take the most vocal critics, sit them down, and explain that while accuracy is important when looking at films based on real life events, at the end of the day a film is a piece of art, and it's the message - what the director is trying to convey by showing you these events - that ultimately matters.
I will not be seeing “Zero Dark Thirty” until next week, and I know enough not to draw any conclusions before I see it for myself. However, I don’t think it's going to be very accurate, just as "Argo" and "Lincoln" weren't very accurate, but that's really beside the point. I don't think that most of the people arguing about "Zero Dark Thirty" are really worried about whether it shows what actually happened either. They're worried about whether the film frames those events in a way that confirms or counters their own value judgments regarding what happened. The power of a film isn't in recreation, after all, but in the context it provides. It's still very much up in the air how history is going to look pack on this period of American history, and everybody wants the last word.
---
Then you have Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln," which also took a lot of dramatic license with the events surrounding the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery at the end of the Civil War. Omissions seemed to cause the most consternation, particularly the role of black abolitionists like Frederick Douglass. Surely with the all-star cast of character actors, Spielberg could have found room for Douglass, maybe played by Morgan Freeman? However, these concerns were largely dismissed. After all, the movie was called "Lincoln," and it made sense the Spielberg would prefer the keep the action focused on his title character. "Lincoln" has been a modest hit in theaters, and thought the inaccuracies have been acknowledged and discussed, nobody seems to mind them very much either.
Now we come to "Zero Dark Thirty," depicting the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, and a massive storm of controversy over the film's accuracy. There's the claim that the film condones torture. There's the claim that it's thinly veiled propaganda. Few people actually had the chance to see the film before last week because of its limited release schedule, but that hasn't stopped the rampant accusations, speculation, and all kinds of conspiracy theories. There have been allegations for months that director Katheryn Bigelow and her crew had improper access to confidential CIA and Department of Defense information. The Senate recently opened up an official inquiry into whether there were improper contacts between the filmmakers and the CIA. "Zero Dark Thirty" has been getting great reviews and winning plenty of accolades, but for many potential viewers, the quality of the film seems to be of lesser importance than its accuracy.
Why the discrepancy in the treatment of "Zero Dark Thirty"? The most obvious reason is that the events are more recent and politically charged. As upsetting and contentious as the Iran Hostage crisis was, it's been over thirty years since the events of "Argo," and the country has had the time to absorb and process what happened. The recent wars in the Middle East and the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, are still very much a part of current events. And instead of celebrating a feel-good victory, the filmmakers chose to tackle some of the most difficult aspects of the War on Terror, including the deeply controversial use of torture as a method of intelligence gathering. Many of the primary players are still employed by the government, and the political ramifications of many of the film's events are still playing out. This is far more sensitive and prickly subject matter than the other historical dramas of 2012 have chosen to deal with.
However, it's important to remember that this is a historical dramatization of events, not a documentary. We know that the filmmakers used dramatic license much in the same way that "Argo" and "Lincoln" did. Some characters are amalgams of multiple real life people. The film covers the span of ten years, so many events had to be condensed or omitted to fit within the confines of a two-and-a-half-hour movie, while others were highlighted for dramatic emphasis. Part of me wants to take the most vocal critics, sit them down, and explain that while accuracy is important when looking at films based on real life events, at the end of the day a film is a piece of art, and it's the message - what the director is trying to convey by showing you these events - that ultimately matters.
I will not be seeing “Zero Dark Thirty” until next week, and I know enough not to draw any conclusions before I see it for myself. However, I don’t think it's going to be very accurate, just as "Argo" and "Lincoln" weren't very accurate, but that's really beside the point. I don't think that most of the people arguing about "Zero Dark Thirty" are really worried about whether it shows what actually happened either. They're worried about whether the film frames those events in a way that confirms or counters their own value judgments regarding what happened. The power of a film isn't in recreation, after all, but in the context it provides. It's still very much up in the air how history is going to look pack on this period of American history, and everybody wants the last word.
---
Sunday, January 6, 2013
"Django Unchained," Tarantino Indulged
One thing I've got to say I appreciate being about being an Asian-American movie lover is that I don't have any kind of personal baggage when it comes to the touchy subject of the historical persecution of African-Americans. From my perspective, "Django Unchained" is just Quentin Tarantino paying homage to the Western genre, particularly the more violent, more stylish, and more morally unequivocal Italian imports nicknamed the "spaghetti Westerns." It is also another revisionist tale, like "Inglorious Basterds," that allows the audience to enjoy in the catharsis of watching a historically persecuted group to take revenge on their oppressors.
In this case, the plight of the black slaves in the pre-Civil War South are embodied by Django (Jamie Foxx), who we first encounter after he and his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) have been punished for trying to run away by being sold at auction to different buyers. Django is soon rescued by Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a German bounty hunter who needs Django's help to identify his next targets. Schultz and Django eventually become friends and partners after Django proves to be a natural at bounty hunting. They discover that Broomhilda has been purchased by a Mississippi plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a colorful sadist with a particular interest mandingo fighting slaves.
"Django" takes place in a ludicrous, almost cartoonish universe filled with wild, larger-than-life characters and endless references to other films. For fans of Tarantino, it will not be unfamiliar. As you might imagine, the violence is brutal and graphic, the villains are vile and despicable, and nothing is held back in the name of good taste or racial sensitivity. Could this be a Quentin Tarantino film if anything were? You might be aware of the controversy over the abundant usage of the N-word in the script, or the gruesome scene of a man being torn apart by dogs, or the appalling Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), Calvin Candie's loyal head slave. Does the context of an alternate history Tarantino-ized version of the American South make a difference?
The trouble is that this time out, the shocks and the splatter have largely become expected. The occasional use of contemporary music on the soundtrack doesn't come across as particularly daring or original. Django's sentiments toward "white folk" don't sound as subversive as they may have in the past. Even the homages are easy to see coming, and feel compulsory to some degree. Franco Nero, for instance, played the title character in the original 1966 "Django," and he shows up for a scene where it is obvious that he's only there as a hat tip to older film for the cinema nerds in the audience. Tarantino's references have generally been more creative than this, or at least a little more subtle.
What's worse, "Django Unchained" has more fundamental flaws. The 165 minute running time easily could have lost 30 minutes of material. The pace is uneven, losing a lot of momentum after the first hour that follows Django and Dr. Schultz's early adventures together. Never have the random cameos by actors like Jonah Hill (as KKK Bag Head #2) and Zoe Bell (as one of six "Trackers") stuck out so oddly. And never has it felt like some of Tarantino's stylistic choices were made simply to satisfy particular longstanding habits. His usual pairing of horrific violence with farce and humor doesn't work as well or as often this time, because some of the content is simply too thematically dark and viscerally cringeworthy to overcome.
On the other hand, "Django Unchained" is extremely strong as a revenge narrative, and the characters are wonderful. Tarantino does a great job of getting us invested in Django's quest to rescue his wife, his friendship with Dr. Schultz, and his transformation from helpless slave to righteous man of action. The performances are very good, and I expect to see Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio in contention for trophies at awards time. Maybe Jamie Foxx too, based on the strength of his final few scenes. When you take the high voltage nature of the director into account, Tarantino's constant focus on the most depraved aspects of slavery do not seem especially egregious. I can understand the sensitivity to seeing some of the bloodier and more racially charged events up close, but I never thought that Tarantino went too far at any point. The more extreme content served to make slavery look more perverse, and not in any kind of fetishistic or degrading way.
Of course I'm not black and couldn't possibly understand the African-American viewpoint, but I'm not looking at this from the white perspective either, so I'm as close to a neutral POV as you're likely to get. What I am is a Tarantino fan, and I'm sad to say this is not one of his better films. And yet, there's no denying that "Django Unchained" is frequently entertaining. As always, it is deeply satisfying to see all the baddies get their comeuppance in the end with maximum force. Even if I don't think it works on a more highbrow level, it's perfectly true to the B-movie spirit that spawned it. And at its core, it's a bloody good time, and that's what I've ultimately decided to treat it as.
---
In this case, the plight of the black slaves in the pre-Civil War South are embodied by Django (Jamie Foxx), who we first encounter after he and his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) have been punished for trying to run away by being sold at auction to different buyers. Django is soon rescued by Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a German bounty hunter who needs Django's help to identify his next targets. Schultz and Django eventually become friends and partners after Django proves to be a natural at bounty hunting. They discover that Broomhilda has been purchased by a Mississippi plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a colorful sadist with a particular interest mandingo fighting slaves.
"Django" takes place in a ludicrous, almost cartoonish universe filled with wild, larger-than-life characters and endless references to other films. For fans of Tarantino, it will not be unfamiliar. As you might imagine, the violence is brutal and graphic, the villains are vile and despicable, and nothing is held back in the name of good taste or racial sensitivity. Could this be a Quentin Tarantino film if anything were? You might be aware of the controversy over the abundant usage of the N-word in the script, or the gruesome scene of a man being torn apart by dogs, or the appalling Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), Calvin Candie's loyal head slave. Does the context of an alternate history Tarantino-ized version of the American South make a difference?
The trouble is that this time out, the shocks and the splatter have largely become expected. The occasional use of contemporary music on the soundtrack doesn't come across as particularly daring or original. Django's sentiments toward "white folk" don't sound as subversive as they may have in the past. Even the homages are easy to see coming, and feel compulsory to some degree. Franco Nero, for instance, played the title character in the original 1966 "Django," and he shows up for a scene where it is obvious that he's only there as a hat tip to older film for the cinema nerds in the audience. Tarantino's references have generally been more creative than this, or at least a little more subtle.
What's worse, "Django Unchained" has more fundamental flaws. The 165 minute running time easily could have lost 30 minutes of material. The pace is uneven, losing a lot of momentum after the first hour that follows Django and Dr. Schultz's early adventures together. Never have the random cameos by actors like Jonah Hill (as KKK Bag Head #2) and Zoe Bell (as one of six "Trackers") stuck out so oddly. And never has it felt like some of Tarantino's stylistic choices were made simply to satisfy particular longstanding habits. His usual pairing of horrific violence with farce and humor doesn't work as well or as often this time, because some of the content is simply too thematically dark and viscerally cringeworthy to overcome.
On the other hand, "Django Unchained" is extremely strong as a revenge narrative, and the characters are wonderful. Tarantino does a great job of getting us invested in Django's quest to rescue his wife, his friendship with Dr. Schultz, and his transformation from helpless slave to righteous man of action. The performances are very good, and I expect to see Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio in contention for trophies at awards time. Maybe Jamie Foxx too, based on the strength of his final few scenes. When you take the high voltage nature of the director into account, Tarantino's constant focus on the most depraved aspects of slavery do not seem especially egregious. I can understand the sensitivity to seeing some of the bloodier and more racially charged events up close, but I never thought that Tarantino went too far at any point. The more extreme content served to make slavery look more perverse, and not in any kind of fetishistic or degrading way.
Of course I'm not black and couldn't possibly understand the African-American viewpoint, but I'm not looking at this from the white perspective either, so I'm as close to a neutral POV as you're likely to get. What I am is a Tarantino fan, and I'm sad to say this is not one of his better films. And yet, there's no denying that "Django Unchained" is frequently entertaining. As always, it is deeply satisfying to see all the baddies get their comeuppance in the end with maximum force. Even if I don't think it works on a more highbrow level, it's perfectly true to the B-movie spirit that spawned it. And at its core, it's a bloody good time, and that's what I've ultimately decided to treat it as.
---
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Bring on the Movie Musicals!
I expect I'm not the only one hoping that the recent success of the film version of the "Les Misérables" musical will lead to more adaptations of Broadway hits. There have always been a lot of musical projects knocking about Hollywood in development hell. Gestation times are usually long, because musical films can be very expensive. It took the "Les Misérables" musical over twenty years to finally reach cinema screens. But what will be the next title to follow in its footsteps? Let's look at some potential contenders.
Miss Saigon - A film version has been buzzed about since 2008, to be produced by Paula Wagner. Lee Daniels has expressed interest in directing. The "Les Misérables" team of Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schönberg were responsible for the music and lyrics, so that would be an easy marketing point. However, I don't know how appealing the film would be to mainstream audiences considering the Vietnam War subject matter, tragic heroine, and very R-rated material. Also, the majority of the characters are Vietnamese, and Hollywood still has reservations about casting Asian leads.
American Idiot - This one is coming along pretty well. Universal is in early negotiations, producers are being lined up, and Dustin Lance Black is rumored to be working on a script. Green Day isn't the band of the moment anymore, but their music is by far the most current and appealing to younger audiences compared to other recent jukebox musicals like "Rock of Ages" and "Mamma Mia!" Moreover, "American Idiot" has some real verve and depth to it, and the original concept album was one of the few pieces of pop culture from the post 9/11 era that truly captured the country's apocalyptic mood.
The Book of Mormon - The biggest Broadway hit in recent memory won a heap of Tonys and the admiration of all the critics. Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have a reputation for incendiary material in "South Park" and their previous features like "Team America: World Police," but those who follow the Mormon faith don't seem to have taken much offense to "The Book of Mormon." That bodes well for a film version's commercial prospects. Parker and Stone have all but confirmed that they're working on a big screen adaptation, but no timeline is currently in place, and they'll probably wait until the show's current run is over.
Wicked - Universal has been trying to push this one along since at least 2004, but it hasn't been able to get much traction. The "Wicked" musical is a subversive retelling of "The Wizard of Oz" from the witch's point of view, and has become a proven crowd-pleaser. One reason for all the foot-dragging may be the plethora of other Oz projects vying for attention in recent years. This includes Disney's new film about the Wonderful Wizard, "Oz The Great and Powerful." Whether a success or a failure, hopefully it won't have too much of an effect on "Wicked's" future chances to become a movie.
Annie - This is the project conceived to star Will and Jada Pinkett Smith's daughter Willow, a burgeoning wannabe pop singer. I like the idea of an African-American version of "Annie," and I think there's some real potential to shake up and invigorate an old stage perennial. But aside from the possibility of new music provided being by Jay-Z, there hasn't been much news about the project since it was announced back at the beginning of 2011. There's a real possibility that Willow will outgrow the role if they wait much longer to get the show rolling. Does anyone know if Quvenzhané Wallis can sing?
Into the Woods - Many great talents have tried to turn this Stephen Sondheim musical into a film over the years, but with the recent popularity of fairy-tale themed projects, it looks like now may finally be the right time. Walt Disney Pictures and Warner Brothers are mounting the latest attempt, with Rob Marshall directing. There was a script reading a few months ago with potential cast members, and rumors that Meryl Streep had been approached to play the Witch. Marshall's been very hit or miss lately, but he seems like a good fit for this material. Keep those fingers crossed everybody.
Sunset Boulevard - Finally, I'm going to indulge in a little wishful thinking. It would not do to have a list like this without at least one entry from Andrew Lloyd Webber. The "Sunset Boulevard" musical was plagued by a mess of lawsuits and casting drama, which makes it incredibly unlikely that a film version of the musical will ever be made. However, "Sunset Boulevard" remains one of my favorite films, and I was pleasantly surprised by how well the musical version adapted it. I'd love to see Norma Desmond back on the silver screen again, paying tribute to the movies and singing her heart out.
---
Miss Saigon - A film version has been buzzed about since 2008, to be produced by Paula Wagner. Lee Daniels has expressed interest in directing. The "Les Misérables" team of Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schönberg were responsible for the music and lyrics, so that would be an easy marketing point. However, I don't know how appealing the film would be to mainstream audiences considering the Vietnam War subject matter, tragic heroine, and very R-rated material. Also, the majority of the characters are Vietnamese, and Hollywood still has reservations about casting Asian leads.
American Idiot - This one is coming along pretty well. Universal is in early negotiations, producers are being lined up, and Dustin Lance Black is rumored to be working on a script. Green Day isn't the band of the moment anymore, but their music is by far the most current and appealing to younger audiences compared to other recent jukebox musicals like "Rock of Ages" and "Mamma Mia!" Moreover, "American Idiot" has some real verve and depth to it, and the original concept album was one of the few pieces of pop culture from the post 9/11 era that truly captured the country's apocalyptic mood.
The Book of Mormon - The biggest Broadway hit in recent memory won a heap of Tonys and the admiration of all the critics. Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have a reputation for incendiary material in "South Park" and their previous features like "Team America: World Police," but those who follow the Mormon faith don't seem to have taken much offense to "The Book of Mormon." That bodes well for a film version's commercial prospects. Parker and Stone have all but confirmed that they're working on a big screen adaptation, but no timeline is currently in place, and they'll probably wait until the show's current run is over.
Wicked - Universal has been trying to push this one along since at least 2004, but it hasn't been able to get much traction. The "Wicked" musical is a subversive retelling of "The Wizard of Oz" from the witch's point of view, and has become a proven crowd-pleaser. One reason for all the foot-dragging may be the plethora of other Oz projects vying for attention in recent years. This includes Disney's new film about the Wonderful Wizard, "Oz The Great and Powerful." Whether a success or a failure, hopefully it won't have too much of an effect on "Wicked's" future chances to become a movie.
Annie - This is the project conceived to star Will and Jada Pinkett Smith's daughter Willow, a burgeoning wannabe pop singer. I like the idea of an African-American version of "Annie," and I think there's some real potential to shake up and invigorate an old stage perennial. But aside from the possibility of new music provided being by Jay-Z, there hasn't been much news about the project since it was announced back at the beginning of 2011. There's a real possibility that Willow will outgrow the role if they wait much longer to get the show rolling. Does anyone know if Quvenzhané Wallis can sing?
Into the Woods - Many great talents have tried to turn this Stephen Sondheim musical into a film over the years, but with the recent popularity of fairy-tale themed projects, it looks like now may finally be the right time. Walt Disney Pictures and Warner Brothers are mounting the latest attempt, with Rob Marshall directing. There was a script reading a few months ago with potential cast members, and rumors that Meryl Streep had been approached to play the Witch. Marshall's been very hit or miss lately, but he seems like a good fit for this material. Keep those fingers crossed everybody.
Sunset Boulevard - Finally, I'm going to indulge in a little wishful thinking. It would not do to have a list like this without at least one entry from Andrew Lloyd Webber. The "Sunset Boulevard" musical was plagued by a mess of lawsuits and casting drama, which makes it incredibly unlikely that a film version of the musical will ever be made. However, "Sunset Boulevard" remains one of my favorite films, and I was pleasantly surprised by how well the musical version adapted it. I'd love to see Norma Desmond back on the silver screen again, paying tribute to the movies and singing her heart out.
---
Friday, January 4, 2013
The State of Racebending
I think this is a good time to take stock of the current state of race-based casting practices in Hollywood again, since the subject has come up in a few recent releases. First, I want to point out that I've noticed a growing level of sensitivity to the issue, and there have been some significant bullets that have been dodged in recent months. Looking at the list of potentially problematic projects, mostly anime and manga adaptations, almost none of them have moved forward. Notably, the big budget "Akira" project has been all but quashed, while Spike Lee's new version of "Oldboy" is transplanting the story to America instead of trying to revisit the Korean characters.
Two recent prestige pictures have taken some heat for changing the ethnicities of real life people so that the parts could be played by Caucasian actors. I feel that "Argo" was the more egregious case, because director Ben Affleck touted the film's authenticity, yet cast himself as the film's hero, CIA operative Antonio Mendez. And then there's "The Impossible," which got a lot of flack even before its release for choosing to focus on a rich Caucasian family's experiences during the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. It turns out that there was a real family who the main characters were based on, the Belons, who are Spanish. Notably, "The Impossible" is a Spanish production and has a Spanish director, Juan Antonio Bayona. However, his lead actors are Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor instead of Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz. No one has denied that the characters were anglicized in order to make the film more appealing to wider audiences, but the move was so blatant that "The Impossible" has sparked an outpouring of commentary, including this critical Guardian article.
Another film that prompted considerable discussion was "Cloud Atlas," which had a multicultural cast, and the actors played multiple characters in six different stories, including characters of different ethnicities and genders. This is a problematic one on several levels, but I'm inclined to give the movie a pass because all the racebending and genderbending was handled with balance and consistency, so we had a Korean actress playing a Caucasian woman in one sequence, and then an African American woman playing an Asian man in another, and Hugh Grant done up like a cannibal in tribal war paint in a third. The execution wasn't great, but I can't find fault with the filmmakers' artistic choices since they went to such extremes to pull this off, and the decision clearly wasn't made because they were trying to make the film more marketable or because it was a matter of convenience. In this case the good intentions, even if they were somewhat misguided, alleviate some of the sting. However, I still think the segment that had Jim Sturgess, Hugo Weaving, and others made up to look like Koreans is so off-putting, I'll be using it as a good example of why yellowface makeup is almost always a terrible idea.
The important thing to take to heart is that people are talking about the issue. Directors have had to address casting grumbles months in advance, and to take racial sensitivities into greater account. There are watchdog groups specifically keeping tabs on casting issues, and the audience has gotten more clued in too. I wrote a little about the "Hunger Games" casting controversy, but the real fireworks happened after the film's release, when there was an uproar over insensitive Twitter comments made about the film's African-American characters. I think we are seeing the culture shifting, and the greater awareness of some of these problematic casting practices, even if we're not at the point of widespread rejection yet. However, I'm optimistic that things can continue to improve.
I expect the biggest potential controversy on the horizon is Johnny Depp playing Tonto in "The Lone Ranger." Depp has long claimed Native American heritage and went and got himself adopted by a Native American tribe in a sign of good faith, but I don't know if that's going to be enough to stymie criticisms. His Tonto in the "Lone Ranger" trailers looks awfully stereotypical. Otherwise, I'm hopeful about this summer. Will and Jaden Smith will star in M. Night Shyamalan's "After Earth," "Fast Six" will feature its usual multicultural cast, and the giant robot v. giant monster movie "Pacific Rim" put out a teaser trailer that features Idris Elba and Rinko Kikuchi.
This upcoming awards season will also celebrate the success of films like "Django Unchained," "Beast of the Southern Wild," and "Life of Pi," all featuring non-white lead characters. It would have been nice to be able to add "Argo" and "The Impossible" to that list, but, well, bygones. It's enough for me that the whitewashing of the Spanish and Latino characters did not go unnoticed this time around. And maybe next time, the filmmakers will think twice before writing off non-white leads.
---
Two recent prestige pictures have taken some heat for changing the ethnicities of real life people so that the parts could be played by Caucasian actors. I feel that "Argo" was the more egregious case, because director Ben Affleck touted the film's authenticity, yet cast himself as the film's hero, CIA operative Antonio Mendez. And then there's "The Impossible," which got a lot of flack even before its release for choosing to focus on a rich Caucasian family's experiences during the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. It turns out that there was a real family who the main characters were based on, the Belons, who are Spanish. Notably, "The Impossible" is a Spanish production and has a Spanish director, Juan Antonio Bayona. However, his lead actors are Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor instead of Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz. No one has denied that the characters were anglicized in order to make the film more appealing to wider audiences, but the move was so blatant that "The Impossible" has sparked an outpouring of commentary, including this critical Guardian article.
Another film that prompted considerable discussion was "Cloud Atlas," which had a multicultural cast, and the actors played multiple characters in six different stories, including characters of different ethnicities and genders. This is a problematic one on several levels, but I'm inclined to give the movie a pass because all the racebending and genderbending was handled with balance and consistency, so we had a Korean actress playing a Caucasian woman in one sequence, and then an African American woman playing an Asian man in another, and Hugh Grant done up like a cannibal in tribal war paint in a third. The execution wasn't great, but I can't find fault with the filmmakers' artistic choices since they went to such extremes to pull this off, and the decision clearly wasn't made because they were trying to make the film more marketable or because it was a matter of convenience. In this case the good intentions, even if they were somewhat misguided, alleviate some of the sting. However, I still think the segment that had Jim Sturgess, Hugo Weaving, and others made up to look like Koreans is so off-putting, I'll be using it as a good example of why yellowface makeup is almost always a terrible idea.
The important thing to take to heart is that people are talking about the issue. Directors have had to address casting grumbles months in advance, and to take racial sensitivities into greater account. There are watchdog groups specifically keeping tabs on casting issues, and the audience has gotten more clued in too. I wrote a little about the "Hunger Games" casting controversy, but the real fireworks happened after the film's release, when there was an uproar over insensitive Twitter comments made about the film's African-American characters. I think we are seeing the culture shifting, and the greater awareness of some of these problematic casting practices, even if we're not at the point of widespread rejection yet. However, I'm optimistic that things can continue to improve.
I expect the biggest potential controversy on the horizon is Johnny Depp playing Tonto in "The Lone Ranger." Depp has long claimed Native American heritage and went and got himself adopted by a Native American tribe in a sign of good faith, but I don't know if that's going to be enough to stymie criticisms. His Tonto in the "Lone Ranger" trailers looks awfully stereotypical. Otherwise, I'm hopeful about this summer. Will and Jaden Smith will star in M. Night Shyamalan's "After Earth," "Fast Six" will feature its usual multicultural cast, and the giant robot v. giant monster movie "Pacific Rim" put out a teaser trailer that features Idris Elba and Rinko Kikuchi.
This upcoming awards season will also celebrate the success of films like "Django Unchained," "Beast of the Southern Wild," and "Life of Pi," all featuring non-white lead characters. It would have been nice to be able to add "Argo" and "The Impossible" to that list, but, well, bygones. It's enough for me that the whitewashing of the Spanish and Latino characters did not go unnoticed this time around. And maybe next time, the filmmakers will think twice before writing off non-white leads.
---
Thursday, January 3, 2013
"The Hobbit," The Overextended Edition
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" feels like watching one of the extended editions of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. These were the cuts that contained all the extra little scenes and digressions from the original books that were too unwieldy to be included in the theatrical releases. On DVD these additions were tolerable because watching the longer versions at home was considerably easier on the viewer than watching them in the theater. Also, by and large the audience had already seen the trimmer, leaner theatrical cuts and were already invested in the story and characters. The trouble with "Unexpected Journey" is that Jackson skipped over the version meant for general audiences, and went right into a longer version with all the callbacks and fanservice you'd expect in an extended edition. Thus what probably should have been a brisk, ninety minute action adventure is instead a gargantuan 169 minute slog.
When it was announced that "The Hobbit" was going to be broken up into multiple films, I was immediately apprehensive that there wouldn't be enough material to pull it off. Unlike "Lord of the Rings," "The Hobbit" is a much simpler and more straightforward tale, following the journey of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who is recruited by wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellan) to go on an adventure. They join a company of thirteen dwarves, led by warrior Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), who are traveling through the vast fantasy world of Middle Earth to reclaim the dwarf city of Erebor in the Lonely Mountain, which was conquered long ago by the dragon Smaug. "The Hobbit" is a shorter book than any of the individual volumes of "Lord of the Rings," and meant for younger readers. However, "Unexpected Journey" covers less than half of it. Peter Jackson expands the story by going outside of the book, extrapolating scenes from supplementary material. "The Hobbit" is also handled very much as a prequel to the "Lord of the Rings" films, including several cameos and other references that only work in the context of the previous films.
All the extra complication and worldbuilding do not do "Unexpected Journey" any favors. Though it follows roughly the same structure as "Fellowship of the Rings," "Unexpected Journey" doesn't have the same sense of urgency or momentum. Far too long is spent on introductory scenes with Bilbo and the dwarves, and several lengthy expository scenes setting up future events slow things down even further. The first half of the film feels interminable. Various new characters who did not appear in the book have been added to mixed success. There's one a major villain who is totally invented, Azog the Defiler (Manu Bennett), an orc warlord who is becomes a primary antagonist to Thorin. I don't object to his inclusion, since he helps to build up Thorin's character and keep the film's energy high. However, Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), one of Gandalf's fellow wizards who briefly crosses paths with the company, probably should have been left on the cutting room floor with Tom Bombadil. The character doesn't translate well to film, and he feels oddly shoehorned into the proceedings.
After cutting away all the unnecessary bits, I do think there is a very good version of "The Hobbit" here. Martin Freeman makes a fantastic Bilbo, capturing his initial reluctance and doubt, and then his gradual transformation into a hero. The return of Ian McKellan as Gandalf the Grey is a delight, even if he doesn't get the strongest material for this outing. Jackson tries too hard to make Thorin into a idol figure, but I did like the way that his history was expanded to get the audience more invested in the plight of the dwarves. It wouldn't have been possible to individually spotlight and develop all twelve of the other dwarves in the company, and I'm glad Jackson didn't try. By the end of the film I could only pick out and name about six of them. However, we do get a good sense of how they operate collectively, and how they relate to Bilbo and Gandalf. They're also very important sources of comic relief, in a film that has a tendency to get too dark and glum.
Once Jackson does get past all the introductions and the detours and becomes a proper road picture, I was happy with it. The action scenes are a blast, the CGI creatures are properly menacing, and Middle Earth never looked better. In the opening scenes, it was a thrill to see the greenery of Hobbiton again, and to be able to peek into the familiar, cozy interiors of Bag End. The makeup and hair on the dwarves often say more about them than their dialogue. In spite of the issues I had with the film, it is abundantly clear that Jackson knows and loves Tolkien's world like no other. One section I was glad he didn't shorten was the famous riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis), featuring an astonishingly tactile, expressive Gollum. I didn't think it was possible to improve much on the Gollum we saw in "Two Towers" and "Return of the King," but Jackson and Serkis and the folks of WETA really went above and beyond to make that famous confrontation something special.
But as lovely as many of the visuals are, I have to take issue with the adjustments Peter Jackson made in order to shoot "Unexpected Journey" in 48 fps HFR. I didn't see the film projected in this format, because it was only available in the 3D showings, but I did notice the occasional overexposure of the lighting, certain changes in the color palette, and other little telltale adjustments that were made to accommodate the new technology. They weren't overly noticeable, but I did find them distracting, and that indicates that the HFR revolution is still very much a work in progress.
Ultimately I liked the first "Hobbit" movie and I'm glad it was made, but I was also frequently frustrated with it. Some of Jackson's changes to "The Hobbit " story worked well, but he pushed too far, forgetting that much of the charm of "The Hobbit" was in its child-friendly simplicity. I'll happily go see "The Desolation of Smaug" next Christmas, but it's not a title I'm looking forward to with nearly as much anticipation as I had before I saw "An Unexpected Journey."
---
When it was announced that "The Hobbit" was going to be broken up into multiple films, I was immediately apprehensive that there wouldn't be enough material to pull it off. Unlike "Lord of the Rings," "The Hobbit" is a much simpler and more straightforward tale, following the journey of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who is recruited by wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellan) to go on an adventure. They join a company of thirteen dwarves, led by warrior Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), who are traveling through the vast fantasy world of Middle Earth to reclaim the dwarf city of Erebor in the Lonely Mountain, which was conquered long ago by the dragon Smaug. "The Hobbit" is a shorter book than any of the individual volumes of "Lord of the Rings," and meant for younger readers. However, "Unexpected Journey" covers less than half of it. Peter Jackson expands the story by going outside of the book, extrapolating scenes from supplementary material. "The Hobbit" is also handled very much as a prequel to the "Lord of the Rings" films, including several cameos and other references that only work in the context of the previous films.
All the extra complication and worldbuilding do not do "Unexpected Journey" any favors. Though it follows roughly the same structure as "Fellowship of the Rings," "Unexpected Journey" doesn't have the same sense of urgency or momentum. Far too long is spent on introductory scenes with Bilbo and the dwarves, and several lengthy expository scenes setting up future events slow things down even further. The first half of the film feels interminable. Various new characters who did not appear in the book have been added to mixed success. There's one a major villain who is totally invented, Azog the Defiler (Manu Bennett), an orc warlord who is becomes a primary antagonist to Thorin. I don't object to his inclusion, since he helps to build up Thorin's character and keep the film's energy high. However, Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), one of Gandalf's fellow wizards who briefly crosses paths with the company, probably should have been left on the cutting room floor with Tom Bombadil. The character doesn't translate well to film, and he feels oddly shoehorned into the proceedings.
After cutting away all the unnecessary bits, I do think there is a very good version of "The Hobbit" here. Martin Freeman makes a fantastic Bilbo, capturing his initial reluctance and doubt, and then his gradual transformation into a hero. The return of Ian McKellan as Gandalf the Grey is a delight, even if he doesn't get the strongest material for this outing. Jackson tries too hard to make Thorin into a idol figure, but I did like the way that his history was expanded to get the audience more invested in the plight of the dwarves. It wouldn't have been possible to individually spotlight and develop all twelve of the other dwarves in the company, and I'm glad Jackson didn't try. By the end of the film I could only pick out and name about six of them. However, we do get a good sense of how they operate collectively, and how they relate to Bilbo and Gandalf. They're also very important sources of comic relief, in a film that has a tendency to get too dark and glum.
Once Jackson does get past all the introductions and the detours and becomes a proper road picture, I was happy with it. The action scenes are a blast, the CGI creatures are properly menacing, and Middle Earth never looked better. In the opening scenes, it was a thrill to see the greenery of Hobbiton again, and to be able to peek into the familiar, cozy interiors of Bag End. The makeup and hair on the dwarves often say more about them than their dialogue. In spite of the issues I had with the film, it is abundantly clear that Jackson knows and loves Tolkien's world like no other. One section I was glad he didn't shorten was the famous riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis), featuring an astonishingly tactile, expressive Gollum. I didn't think it was possible to improve much on the Gollum we saw in "Two Towers" and "Return of the King," but Jackson and Serkis and the folks of WETA really went above and beyond to make that famous confrontation something special.
But as lovely as many of the visuals are, I have to take issue with the adjustments Peter Jackson made in order to shoot "Unexpected Journey" in 48 fps HFR. I didn't see the film projected in this format, because it was only available in the 3D showings, but I did notice the occasional overexposure of the lighting, certain changes in the color palette, and other little telltale adjustments that were made to accommodate the new technology. They weren't overly noticeable, but I did find them distracting, and that indicates that the HFR revolution is still very much a work in progress.
Ultimately I liked the first "Hobbit" movie and I'm glad it was made, but I was also frequently frustrated with it. Some of Jackson's changes to "The Hobbit " story worked well, but he pushed too far, forgetting that much of the charm of "The Hobbit" was in its child-friendly simplicity. I'll happily go see "The Desolation of Smaug" next Christmas, but it's not a title I'm looking forward to with nearly as much anticipation as I had before I saw "An Unexpected Journey."
---
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
My Least Anticipated Films of 2013
2013 will be a year of good films, but it will also be a year of bad, lazy, awful films. It's inevitable, with a schedule full of more remakes, sequels, and unnecessary adaptations. Now, before we get into specifics, I add the caveat here that you can't always judge a film by its tagline and cast list. Last year, there were some real surprises among the films I'd initially written off, like "21 Jump Street" and "Madagascar 3." However, by and large the films that looked like dreck proved to be dreck. So this is the last time you'll likely see any of the following films mentioned on this blog.
The Horror, The Horror - As usual, the horror genre has some of the worst of the worst offenders. "Texas Chainsaw 3D," is the seventh film in the "Texas Chainsaw" series, and if you can figure out whether it's a sequel, remake, reboot, or all three at once, good for you. "Scary Movie 5" resurrects a franchise that nobody wanted to see resurrected, seven years after the last installment. And to add insult to injury, there's a competing horror spoof, "A Haunted House," coming in January, starring former "Scary Movie" writer/star Marlon Wayans. And not unexpected, but still completely superfluous are sequels "Insidious Chapter 2," "Paranormal Activity 5," and "The Last Exorcism 2." Finally, I am trying to hold out some hope for the reboots of "Carrie" and "Evil Dead," but that hope is fading fast.
The Leftovers - More than a few observers noted that 2012 was unusual for the number of releases that were pushed back to 2013. "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" was delayed from last March, to the dead of January, which is never a good sign. "G.I. Joe: Retaliation," of course, was scheduled for last summer and delayed so it could undergo some reshooting and a 3D conversion. Rumor is that the original version tested so badly, the studio took the unusual step of pulling it barely a month before its old release date. "Jack the Giant Slayer" has a lot of good talent attached, including director Bryan Singer, so there's a chance that it could be decent. However, Warner Brothers decided to push it back to March from last summer too, and all the previews so far have looked absolutely terrible. Finally, Marc Forster's "World War Z" with Brad Pitt was supposed to be released during the holiday season, but it was delayed to this June to allow an extensive rewrite of its third act.
Mind the Gap - Among the plentiful sequels and prequels this year are a couple of real head-scratcher follow-up films. Why are we getting a third "Riddick" film now, nine years after "The Chronicles of Riddick" only did so-so at the box office? And sure, "300" was a hit, but how does a barely related prequel released six years later make any sense? "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For" comes eight years after the original, and if it had been made a few years earlier I might be anticipating it. However, the output of Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller has been so underwhelming in the interim, I can't work up much enthusiasm. I may despair of "Fast and Furious 6," "The Hangover Part III," and "Grown Ups 2," but at least I understand why those sequels exist – they're following up recent films that made obscene amounts of money at the box office. "Riddick"? Not so much.
The Kids Deserve Better - Finally, we come to the movies aimed at younger audiences. Parents can look forward to dreading "One Direction Concert Movie 3D," "The Smurfs 2," and the "Percy Jackson" sequel, which was handed off to the director of "Diary of a Wimpy Kid." However, the year's biggest disaster in the making may be The Weinstein Company's "Escape From Planet Earth," an animated film which is currently the subject of a lawsuit between the producers and some of the primary creative talent that was fired from the project. The production, according to various court documents, was a disaster of epic proportions, and the lawsuit and the surrounding gossip will almost certainly more entertaining than the finished film is going to be.
Now in 3D - Among this year's 3D rereleases will be "Top Gun" and the second and third "Star Wars" prequels. I found all the fighter pilot sequences in "Top Gun" extremely underwhelming when I watched the film a few years ago, and it's pretty obvious that the actors are never anywhere in the same vicinity as the planes. I don't know how 3D is going to help matters. As for the "Star Wars" films, I suspect the releases are only happening because the conversions were already underway by the time the mediocre returns for the 3D "Phantom Menace" came in.
Brace for impact kids. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
---
The Horror, The Horror - As usual, the horror genre has some of the worst of the worst offenders. "Texas Chainsaw 3D," is the seventh film in the "Texas Chainsaw" series, and if you can figure out whether it's a sequel, remake, reboot, or all three at once, good for you. "Scary Movie 5" resurrects a franchise that nobody wanted to see resurrected, seven years after the last installment. And to add insult to injury, there's a competing horror spoof, "A Haunted House," coming in January, starring former "Scary Movie" writer/star Marlon Wayans. And not unexpected, but still completely superfluous are sequels "Insidious Chapter 2," "Paranormal Activity 5," and "The Last Exorcism 2." Finally, I am trying to hold out some hope for the reboots of "Carrie" and "Evil Dead," but that hope is fading fast.
The Leftovers - More than a few observers noted that 2012 was unusual for the number of releases that were pushed back to 2013. "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" was delayed from last March, to the dead of January, which is never a good sign. "G.I. Joe: Retaliation," of course, was scheduled for last summer and delayed so it could undergo some reshooting and a 3D conversion. Rumor is that the original version tested so badly, the studio took the unusual step of pulling it barely a month before its old release date. "Jack the Giant Slayer" has a lot of good talent attached, including director Bryan Singer, so there's a chance that it could be decent. However, Warner Brothers decided to push it back to March from last summer too, and all the previews so far have looked absolutely terrible. Finally, Marc Forster's "World War Z" with Brad Pitt was supposed to be released during the holiday season, but it was delayed to this June to allow an extensive rewrite of its third act.
Mind the Gap - Among the plentiful sequels and prequels this year are a couple of real head-scratcher follow-up films. Why are we getting a third "Riddick" film now, nine years after "The Chronicles of Riddick" only did so-so at the box office? And sure, "300" was a hit, but how does a barely related prequel released six years later make any sense? "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For" comes eight years after the original, and if it had been made a few years earlier I might be anticipating it. However, the output of Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller has been so underwhelming in the interim, I can't work up much enthusiasm. I may despair of "Fast and Furious 6," "The Hangover Part III," and "Grown Ups 2," but at least I understand why those sequels exist – they're following up recent films that made obscene amounts of money at the box office. "Riddick"? Not so much.
The Kids Deserve Better - Finally, we come to the movies aimed at younger audiences. Parents can look forward to dreading "One Direction Concert Movie 3D," "The Smurfs 2," and the "Percy Jackson" sequel, which was handed off to the director of "Diary of a Wimpy Kid." However, the year's biggest disaster in the making may be The Weinstein Company's "Escape From Planet Earth," an animated film which is currently the subject of a lawsuit between the producers and some of the primary creative talent that was fired from the project. The production, according to various court documents, was a disaster of epic proportions, and the lawsuit and the surrounding gossip will almost certainly more entertaining than the finished film is going to be.
Now in 3D - Among this year's 3D rereleases will be "Top Gun" and the second and third "Star Wars" prequels. I found all the fighter pilot sequences in "Top Gun" extremely underwhelming when I watched the film a few years ago, and it's pretty obvious that the actors are never anywhere in the same vicinity as the planes. I don't know how 3D is going to help matters. As for the "Star Wars" films, I suspect the releases are only happening because the conversions were already underway by the time the mediocre returns for the 3D "Phantom Menace" came in.
Brace for impact kids. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
