The Hush-Hush News Report 2.16.10: How Not to Make a Werewolf Movie

Posted by Jeremy Thomas on 02.16.2010

This week we look at the mangling of a werewolf horror classic and how one might avoid doing the same in the future! Plus news on Eli Roth's new exorcist film for Lionsgate, Meryl Streep in the Arthur remake, the pitfalls of Roland Emmerich using Avatar technology and more!

Welcome one and all to the Hush-Hush News Report! I'm your host Jeremy Thomas, and I hope you all had a romance-filled Valentine's Day (and possibly President's Day too). While you were, we at Hush-Hush Headquarters were busy collecting the latest in news and rumors, as well as enduring the mangling of a horror classic. But we'll get to that later…first, let's get to the news of which we have plenty! Let's move right into it, shall we?

Before you start reading, have you bookmarked 411Mania.com yet? It's the easiest thing in the world to do, and it'll get you your daily dose of entertainment news that much quicker! Typing the URL out in the address bar is such a pain, don'tcha think? Hell, make it your home page and it'll be that much easier for you!

Eli Roth Gives Lionsgate an Exorcism



Lionsgate has grabbed U.S. distribution rights to "The Last Exorcism," a verite-style horror picture produced by Strike Entertainment, StudioCanal and genre maven Eli Roth. The deal is said to include a high-six-figure advance and a $16 million P&A commitment.

Helmed by German director and AFI grad Daniel Stamm, the picture was originally titled "Cotton" and stars Patrick Fabian as a troubled evangelical minister who allows his final exorcism to be filmed by a documentary crew. "Mail Order Wife" helmers Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland scripted. (At an early stage, they also were attached to direct.)

The project, which shot in Louisiana, has had horror fan sites salivating for months at the prospect of a scary, shaky-cam-style film shepherded by "Hostel" helmer Roth. Lionsgate was presumed to be a front-runner for "Exorcism" from the get-go, given the distributor is a horror haven and released Roth's first feature, "Cabin Fever," as well as the "Hostel" films.

"It's always great to work with our friend Eli, who has played a key role in establishing Lionsgate in the vanguard of the horror genre," said Jason Constantine, Lionsgate's president of acquisitions and co-productions. "'The Last Exorcism' feels as close to a real exorcism as anyone would ever want to get -- audiences are going to find this movie scary as, well, hell."

"Exorcism" is scheduled to premiere at SXSW in Austin, Texas next month. But with a domestic release date yet to be set, Lionsgate could decide to bow the film at a later date.

And here I thought they hadn't started principal photography on Paranormal Activity 2. Yes it's a joke, but it's undeniably on the mark. This film wouldn't be given a second glance if not for two things: Eli Roth and the Oren Peli film that burned up the box office last October. Now to be fair, I obviously have not seen it yet and the promotional pictures so far do look rather creepy. Still, this is exactly what I hated about The Blair Witch Project; however good you may think it was or wasn't, you can't deny that it inspired a host of insipid films that followed. Found footage mockumentaries only work when they seem inspired and original, and this particular piece sounds about as unoriginal as it gets. In addition, Eli Roth has yet to prove himself as a filmmaker to me. I've enjoyed him as an actor well enough, but his directed works have all been lacking, from the overrated Cabin Fever to both Hostel films. He is only other credit is producing 2001 Maniacs which was also terrible. Thus, he has far from impressed me. I want to like this project but there's too much that makes me question it to really do anything but dread its release.


Refn Ready to Drive, But Not for Jekyll or Light



Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn ("Bronson," "Valhalla Rising") tells Empire Online that he's selected the adaptation of crime noir "Drive" as his next project, forcing him to drop out of two features he was previously involved with.

An adaptation of James Sallis' novel, "Drive" has Ryan Gosling playing a Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver for thieves.

Of the dropouts the first was "Jekyll", the new take on the Robert Louis Stevenson classic horror tale starring Keanu Reeves. Refn's withdrawal from that project is a straight up scheduling conflict.

The other is "The Dying Of The Light" penned by Paul Schrader and starring Harrison Ford as a CIA agent who becomes blind during his final mission. That withdrawal sounded more like a breakdown in negotiations, Refn telling the site that ""Unfortunately, it just didn't work out. It's a shame. The script was fantastic but things fall apart. It's one of those things that's difficult - I really like Harrison and I think we got along great."

After "Drive", Refn will film the western "Only God Forgives" in Bangkok, and then head to Miami to shoot "I Walk with the Dead" (it's unclear if this is the Gore Verbinski-produced heist project he's been previously linked with).

I have yet to see Bronson but I have heard remarkably good things about it, and it and Valhalla Rising have done a lot to build Refn's profile and awareness amongst the studios. Frankly, I think that Refn made the right choice here. If I were a filmmaker and I had a choice between doing a Jekyll & Hyde remake with Keanu Reeves and a falling-apart CIA thriller or putting together an action thriller with the talented Ryan Gosling, I'd bid Keanu farewell too. I'm actually at least a little bit interested in seeing all of those potential projects, despite the gimmicky nature of Dying of the Light and the likelihood of Reeves to overdo it with Jekyll. Hopefully those ones can get made so we'll have three projects, and I'm definitely intrigued to see what Refn can bring to the table in a major studio film.


Streep To Take On Hobson in Arthur?



Meryl Streep is the rumored favorite to take on the role of Hobson the valet in the remake of "Arthur" reports Showbiz 411.

Peter Baynham is penning a new script for this latest interpretation of the 1981 Dudley Moore comedy classic about a drunken millionaire playboy. No director is yet set.

Russell Brand remains cast as the titular character, though the female lead of the waitress he falls for has yet to be cast (Liza Minnelli played her in the original).

Acting legend John Gielgud played Hobson in the original and scored a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance.

Well that's certainly…uh…interesting casting. I guess this is proof that if there's a potentially Oscar-winning role out there, Streep will go for it. (Just kidding, Mrs. Meryl.) I have to admit that the idea of Russell Brand and Meryl Streep acting together is such a morbidly interesting idea that I half-hope this comes to fruition. The other half hopes it falls through, mostly because I think Brand works in small doses at best and that's exactly where he should stay. If anyone can lift his performances it might be the wonderful Mrs. Streep, and I certainly don't have a problem with her playing a previously-male role. I was never a huge fan of Arthur and that's tempering my opinion of this a bit; either way, I imagine we'll hear more of this only if Brand's Get Him To The Greek does well this year. And by the way, that's far from a given.


Welsh To Coach Scott, Bean In Magnificent Eleven



Trainspotting novelist Irvine Welsh will direct gritty UK comedy The Magnificent Eleven, a modern-day version of the classic 1960 western The Magnificent Seven in which the Cowboys are a local amateur soccer team, the Indians run a nearby Tandoori restaurant and the bandits are a group of menacing thugs run by a maniac called Blonde Bob.

John Adams and Angry Badger Pictures are producing the film which is set to star Sean Bean, Dougray Scott and Robert Vaughan, the veteran actor who is the last surviving cast member from the original Magnificent Seven. Stealth Media Group is selling the film in Berlin.

"Having worked with Irvine Welsh on his feature film Good Arrows, I am certain that the team we have assembled for The Magnificent Eleven can deliver a quality feature film with massive commercial potential," said John Adams in a statement.

Once again, Akira Kurasawa's legacy expands. I have not seen any of the short films Welsh has done, but I loved his story for Trainspotting and if he hits the right tone there could be a fantastic film buried in here. Sean Bean and Dougray Scott are both underrated actors who have made a lot of unfortunate career choices after their particular breakout films (Lord of the Rings for Bean, Mission Impossible II for Scott). Both men could use a hit and this kind of project could really hit the spot nicely. Adapting Magnificent Seven/Seven Samurai is no small feat and Welsh could easily find himself having drifted far too much away from the point of the film, but I'm willing to extend him a little bit of faith for now. This could be great.


Emmerich Moves From Destroying the World To Building a Foundation



Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy is a pillar of the science-fiction community, and director Roland Emmerich is planning to model his three-picture adaptation of the tome after the biggest movie in the history of cinema.

MTV News has exclusively learned from Emmerich himself that "Foundation" will be a 3-D epic using technology similar to the CG motion-capture techniques used in "Avatar."

"The 'Avatar' technology applies to 'Foundation,' " Emmerich said. "It has to be done all CG because I would not know how to shoot this thing in real."

When asked if that meant 'Foundation' would be in 3-D and mo-cap, Emmerich replied, "Yes."

Probed even further, Emmerich said he's looking forward to a new challenge at this point in his career. "Probably now all big movies have to be 3-D," he said. "It's not only the effect of 3-D, ['Avatar' has] just shown that if you do a movie in 3-D, you can ask for more money and that's the trick. I think now everybody who does bigger movies has to shoot them in 3-D. I think there's no way around it. I was on the set of 'Avatar' and I saw how it worked and I really thought, 'That's the ultimate way of making movies.' "

After working to develop a story with Robert Rodat ("Saving Private Ryan"), Emmerich said he expects to receive a draft of the script before the end of the week. "Rumor has it on Friday I get the script," he said.

A while back on the Podcast, we talked about the use of James Cameron's 3D performance capture and I likened it to opening (no pun intended) Pandora's Box. It's a great technology that needs to be put in the right people's hands and kept away from the people who don't know how to use it right. In my mind, Emmerich is one of the latter. He sees a new toy and he wants to play with it. Would Foundation be a movie that would require the technology? Quite probably, but that doesn't mean that Emmerich should make it just because he can now. The man loves his big-budget disaster and sci-fi films, but it is very evident here that he wants to use the 3D because of the bigger budget. But clearly, it's all about the story, right Roland? Frankly, the guy didn't do particularly great effects in 10,000 B.C. with the technology available then; I don't think he's going to have the artist's touch needed for something like this.


Genz is Terribly Happy Once Again



Henrik Ruben Genz's dark comedy "Terribly Happy", this year's Danish entry for the foreign language Oscar, is getting a $10-15 million budget English language remake reports Screen Daily.

The story is based on Erling Jepsen's novel about a troubled police officer dispatched to a mysterious community on a swampy peninsula. Howard Rodman ("Savage Grace") will adapt the script for the remake.

Director Genz and his producer Thomas Gammeltoft will re-team in the same capacities on the new version which has three times the budget and will allow them to approach the material from a new point of view.

"I felt I wasn't finished with the material and wanted to explore it further. When the opportunity for a remake came up I felt I couldn't let go of this curiosity and energy that bound me to the material" says Genz.

Gammeltoft says the new version will allow them to get the story out to a wider audience, and give them the money to do things they couldn't do in the original which hit US theatres in limited release last week.

I'm very intrigued to see Terribly Happy, which has gotten fantastic reviews and of course the Oscar nod. I love dark comedies and this sounds like it would be a lot of fun. That Genz is remaking his own film doesn't bother me; Michael Haneke did it most famously with Funny People and I enjoyed the remake though I have yet to see the original. The point here is that Genz knows his film won't be seen by most people, even as an Oscar nominee, because of the Danish language barrier. He also wants the budget to do the exact kind of film he wanted. If he wants to remake his own film than more power to him; at least we have someone making the film who understands the original unlike some remakes we've seen (see below).


Riddick Officially Rides Again



Vin Diesel is going back to the future to topline and produce a third chapter in the "Chronicles of Riddick" franchise.

Universal will handle domestic distribution on the sci-fi film, which is titled "Riddick." Lionsgate is selling international rights at the Berlin Film Festival. David Twohy -- who wrote and directed the first two films in the series, "Pitch Black" and "The Chronicles of Riddick" -- will helm from a screenplay he penned.

Plot details are being kept under wraps. But insiders say the third outing will hew closer in tone to the cult hit "Pitch Black" and will focus on the character of Riddick as opposed to the universe he inhabits, which was the case with the critically panned "Chronicles of Riddick." Still, "Chronicles of Riddick" earned $116 million worldwide and spawned a successful video game series.

Dates are being worked out for "Riddick" so as not to overlap with Universal's fifth installment of "Fast and Furious," which will shoot sometime this year with Diesel onboard to star and produce.

Diesel and Samantha Vincent are producing "Riddick" through their One Race Films banner. Radar Films' Ted Fields is also producing. Twohy most recently wrote and directed "A Perfect Getaway."

I've gone on record as being a fan of the Riddick films. Pitch Black was a surprisingly effective piece of sci-fi horror, while The Chronicles of Riddick was a silly, cheesily fun sci-fi adventure. The latter was not a good film per se, but it was one where you could just sit back and enjoy without worrying about silly little things like physics. I also enjoyed David Twohy's most recent film A Perfect Getaway, which was an effective thriller without a lot of pretensions. If they take the third Riddick film back down a few notches into the thriller/horror style then they could make another worthwhile entry in the genre. I've spoken about my interest in this film-to-be before and I'm happy with the things I've heard so far; Diesel and Twohy have been adamant about not watering it down to PG-13 and I'm very much down with that. And honestly, whatever keeps Diesel from making more Fast and Furious or xXx films makes me a happy camper, so more power to them.

---

Do you Twitter? If not, you should! And while you're at it, add these to your list of people that you follow so that you can get the latest updates!

Follow Me on Twitter!
411Mania.com
411's Wrestling Zone
411's Movies & TV Zone
411's Music Zone
411's Games Zone
411's MMA Zone
411's Boxing Zone

---

From Jim:
Crazies looks to be best movie out of that bunch. Wolfman looks to be a rental for me. No interest in anything else.

Super Bowl was lackluster all around. It was boring even though it was close. I didn't care Who won or Who played.

We'll get to Wolfman in a few, but there were some good films in that bunch even if they didn't all get good Super Bowl spots. But to each their own. I am very intrigued about The Crazies though and have been for a while.


From Todd Vote:
I get a creepy Transformers/ Transmorphers vibe from the Mr. & Mrs. Smith redo... Not a good thing. It's like this new one would be the direct to DVD movie created to cash in on the theatrical success of the real thing.

I can definitely see that, though I think the Dumb & Dumberer comparison is also a good one. Either way, I can't see this being a remotely good idea. Who could they get to play Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie? Maybe this is the chance for them to finally cast Megan Fox as a younger Jolie...which would be the end of any remote desire I would have to see it.


From The Great Capt. Smooth
"Crazy Beard" Jim Carrey gives me the creeps and I don't know why.

It ain't just you, Smooth. He has a bit of a Charlie Manson vibe in that pic, and it was a wee bit creepy. Which was, perhaps, part of why I used it.

---

No mini-reviews this week, as it's been a very busy week and I haven't had a chance to watch a lot of films at home. But in the place of our mini-reviews, we have a large one just down below…

---

The Hush-Hush Editorial Section: How Not to Make a Werewolf Movie

This weekend, after almost a year and a half of delays, Universal's remake of the classic 1941 horror film The Wolfman bowed in front of audiences. Starring Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blount and Hugo Weaving, the film had been notorious for its negative buzz, bad test screenings, revolving door of crew members and heavy delays. The film went through two screenwriters, two directors, two composers (with a third hired to re-adapt the first score, by Danny Elfman, when the second was fired) and a whole host of publicity tours to try and overcome the negative hype. The promotional work seems to have worked, as the film had a better-than-expected opening weekend with just under $36.5 million for the four-day weekend. The big question is whether it will make back its reported $150 million budget, which will depend on positive word of mouth and a relatively horror-free market in order to maintain good numbers. On the latter criteria, the Joe Johnston-directed film is not in luck, as it has the horror-esque Shutter Island releasing next week followed by The Crazies, and then the dark fantasy that Alice in Wonderland promises to be. And as for the former, positive word of mouth…well, let's just say that it better hope that Scorsese and the rest of the competition seriously strikes out.

I went to see The Wolfman this weekend, as part of a back-to-back feature with Valentine's Day. I was stunned to say that not only did I like the hyperlinked romantic comedy more than the horror film throwback, but I liked it far better. That's not a huge compliment to the Garry Marshall film, though I did enjoy it; that's rather a very scathing indictment of the period fright flick. Johnston put together what is perhaps one of the most inept horror remakes to date, as well as one of the worst werewolf films to boot. With performances that are mostly either sleepwalked through or hammed up to the nth degree—either way atrocious—terrible effects, a distinct lack of charm, idiotic plot twists, terrible dialogue and an overabundance of atmosphere in a pitiful attempt to make up for the rest of the shortcomings, this is a complete misfire from start to finish. While enduring the two hour film (which feels like it's closer to three), one ends up feeling sorry for Emily Blount, the only performer in the film who seems to think actual acting is required. The movie plays out like exactly how to make a horror film go wrong…and with that in mind, I thought this would be a good opportunity to lay out for any potential werewolf movie makers so they can avoid the pitfalls of this disaster of a feral flick.

Rule #1: Too Many Wolves Ruin the Pack: What was perhaps the biggest disaster of this project was the fact that there were so many people who left and then arrived on the project behind the scenes that there was no sense of development on the film. Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo) was originally signed on to direct, but he left due to creative differences. That brought on Joe Johnston, who brought in David Self to rewrite Andrew Kevin Walker's script. This was already too much of a revolving door, but then Danny Elfman's score was determined to be partially the fault of the poor test screenings and he was replaced by Paul Haslinger who came up with, of all things, an electronic score which was so out of line with the tone of the film that it was jettisoned at the last possible minute so that orchestrator Conrad Pope could modify the Elfman score to fit the new film. With this many people running in and out of the project, it isn't much of a surprise that the film is a jumbled, sloppy mess. Without one particular vision, or even one particular set of visions, there was no driving creative direction to the film. The way this project was put together seems as if the studio was just tossing things at the wall and seeing what would stick. That may be fine for spaghetti, but when trying to remake a horror classic it won't hold the muster and the lack of focus showed drastically in the badly muddled end result.

Rule #2: Understand the Beast: In adapting the story of the original film, the two writers—first Walker, then Self—made changes from the source material to make the story its own. That in and of itself is perfectly fine; no one wanted a shot-for-shot remake of the Lon Chaney Jr. horror film. (Well, some probably did, but no one had realistic expectations of it.) The problem came when the plot changes they made no apparent sense. Paul Monford, the constable in the original film, is replaced by Inspector Aberline as played by Hugo Weaving. There are only two apparent reasons for this. The first is to bring the police force in from London, so that they can be outsiders to the rustic village in which the Talbots live and to cast the role in a more adversarial light than Monford was. The second is to make reference to the real-life Inspector Aberline who was involved in the Ripper case. That role has been played on-screen before by Johnny Depp in From Hell, a film that The Wolfman seems to try to copy in mood but fails. Neither of these changes improves the film in any way; instead they just serve to make the town a more isolated, strange place and while that helps pile on the mood, it runs entirely contrary to the story.

In fact, the town itself is a big problem in how it is changed, and how it reflects the theme of the film. There is a very famous line from the original film, repeated often throughout: "Even a man who is pure at heart and says his prayers at night may become a wolf when the wolfsbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright." The theme is spoken quite clearly there about the nature of the werewolf and how it represents the monster in all of us; even the noblest man has a dark side. That duality, the idea that the best of men can become evil, is very interesting and it makes for the central conflict of the film. In the remake however, the town is a suspicious, paranoid lot. It doesn't trust outsiders, including Lawrence. And Lawrence himself is no saint either. He abandoned his home and fled to America where he became a famous actor. Yes, Lawrence has the torment and feels deep guilt, but guilt alone doesn't make one a good person. Instead of making a film that stayed true to the original, the writers made a movie that dressed itself in the trappings of the first film and ignored the spirit and point of it. That almost makes it a remake in name only, as much as it might follow the basic characters and very vague semblance of plot. The end result is something hollow, with intent to be frightening but being a complete failure at doing so.

Rule #3: Get the Pelt Right: One of the biggest justifications for remaking this film was that modern advances in technology could make the wolf transformation more real and frightening. Then why, I have to ask, do the effects feel so hollow? The answer is simple, and it can be found in a concern voiced by Rick Baker. Baker was the make-up designer for the film, and while he was enthusiastic about being able to update Jack Pierce's iconic work on the original he spoke about the CGI transformation in less-than-glowing terms.

"I saw, on my last day at Pinewood [Studios], some of the work they were doing – and I wasn't crazy about some of the direction it was going in. They had things right in front of me that they weren't seeing. For example, we have between our canine teeth four teeth; dogs have six teeth, and The Wolf Man has six teeth between his canine teeth. They had some illustrations they did, scans of the makeup and some transformation things, and they had the actual canine teeth drawn [in the wrong stage of the transformation]. It's like "Those aren't the teeth. The teeth are in here. And they said ‘Really? It doesn't look like it.' And I'm like ‘Well, 1,2,3,4, you can just count'."

Now, this may seem like a trivial point, and perhaps it is. Who cares how many teeth the wolf man form has? But it draws to a deeper point, which is that the make-up artists and CGI men were not on the same page. Baker is a six-time Oscar-winning artist whose opinion should be taken seriously in these things, and the effects crew and director seemed more interested in making things look "cool." The problem is, it doesn't look cool. It looks hokey, fake and generic. In one scene, two werewolves fight and they look so much like cheap copies of each other that one tears off its shirt just so that we the viewers can differentiate one from the other in the poorly-lit scenes—which seem poorly lit only to hide the flaws in the special effects. The make-up is good for the most part, but everything else that is effects-oriented just doesn't fly. Johnston has them toss in a few trippy effects as if he's trying to convince us that the movie is artistic, but it isn't. It's just a pathetic-looking mess that is poorly lit and shot, hidden in too much England fog to effective in any way.

Rule #4: Care About Your Film: One would think that this is a given, and initial word proved promising on this respect. Benicio Del Toro has long spoken about being a fan of the original film and seemed excited about taking on the role of Lawrence Talbot. One has to wonder then why he put so little apparent effort into the performance. His Talbot is certainly tormented like the Chaney version is, but whenever he isn't in pain, he seems bored. Many of Del Toro's lines come off as badly as one might possibly imagine from the otherwise talented actor; they seem more like cold script readings than anything resembling emotion. Del Toro seems to be flat-out bored throughout much of the movie and it sucks any life the film may have had out. Opposite him is Anthony Hopkins as Lawrence's father, and Hopkins has put just as little effort into his work. Instead of just tonelessly reading his lines though, Hopkins goes the other route and hams it up. It takes just as little effort to go overboard as it does to mumble one's way through the script, and that is the Oscar-winning actor's sin. But really, what can one expect when the director seems to have about the same love for the project? Johnston takes lazy decisions all the way through and just doesn't seem to care. Again Emily Blount seems to be putting the most effort into this, but her role is a token one at best and her Gwen is just as muddled as any other character. No one but her seems to care, and it clearly shows in every part of the film including an asylum-set portion of the second act where the whole thing bogs down into nonsense.

Rule #5: Get Out if the Getting's Good: This is what should have happened. At some point, someone had to realize that this movie was a lost cause, and if they had done the smart thing they would have convinced the financiers to jettison the whole project. This is one which should never have seen the light of day, but instead Universal soldiered on with the idea that they could possibly recoup some of the investment. They paid for a last-ditch Super Bowl spot, they promoted the film all over television and did everything they could to convince audiences to come out and see it. In the end they probably paid more in print and advertising than they will end up making over the first week, and that will mean terrible things for their pocketbooks. That will make the film's failure complete as it will fail on its financial, artistic and simply enjoyment merits. In the end, some projects deserve their own silver bullet to the head, and this was definitely one of them. Hopefully the next time someone at Universal has the bright idea to update a horror classic, wiser heads will prevail.

Oh wait. No, they're already working on a Creature From the Black Lagoon remake. Screw you guys, Universal. You'll never learn.

And now that we're done with that little rant, it's time for the Random Video of the Week. This week the trailer for the action-comedy Killers debuted in front of Valentine's Day, starring Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl. It looks to be a cross between Mr. & Mrs. Smith and the upcoming Knight and Day. If nothing else, Catherine O'Hara looks legitimately like she could be Heigl's mother. I'll say that much for it.

Until next week, this is Jeremy Thomas, off the record, on the QT…



…and definitely, "Hush Hush!"