The Furious on Film Movie News Report 03.05.08

Posted by Arnold Furious on 03.05.2008

A special Jack Nicholson edition with triple Jack reviews. Plus all the latest news from Tinseltown featuring Bob Marley, Ellen Page and the Coen Brothers and a photographic look at one of Hollywood’s famous whores; Inara Serra.

Furious on Film Movie News 03.05.08

A special Jack Nicholson edition with triple Jack reviews. Plus all the latest news from Tinseltown featuring Bob Marley, Ellen Page and the Coen Brothers and a photographic look at one of Hollywood's famous whores; Inara Serra.

Issue 129

Ok, so last week saw my first movie news column under the Furious on Film banner and boy did I make a catalogue of errors. I managed to get the date and title wrong for starters (praise the maker for editors). Then, as pointed out by Rob, Joel and Anon, I got my first Oscar winner wrong. Naturally it was Elizabeth: The Golden Age that won for best costume design. I'd marked off how the evening went on my Chase.com Oscar ballot and Costume Design was right below Art Direction and for some reason I managed to read the Art Direction results instead of Costume Design. So there we are. The paragraph into the lead piece of news and I'd already fucked something up. At least it gave you folks something to comment on! But I really did watch the ceremony. I was up until about 5.30am doing so, because I live in England yadda yadda yadda, and stayed through right until the very end. Not as bad as the time I stayed up all night watching the Oscars then had to go to college (1998, I think). Yeah, I called in sick. Or rather my buddy who stayed up watching it with me actually went and pointed out I was sick. Or rather I'd been up all night watching the Oscars and was knackered. Hey, it was a media course. Other errors in the first movie news column; 1) neglecting to point out Javier Bardem also used to be a stripper when debating the pros and cons of Diablo Cody. Well to be fair actors and actresses are more likely to be involved in the ‘performance arts' than Oscar winning screenwriters. Bit of a difference. 2) Short films have their own special screenings and you need to go to those OR you need to be a member of the short film branch of the Academy, and prove you've seen the films, to vote on them. I was not aware of that but I went digging around on the Oscars official website and it is indeed true. So there goes my "best name" theory. And yet I still got them right on the predictions using that theory. So perhaps I'll retain it for next year. And finally 3) Eddie Vedder's "Hard Sun" wasn't an original song. Although "Guaranteed", also from Into the Wild, was and could have been nominated. The problem there seemed to be that the two most popular tracks (Hard Sun & Society) were both covers. Hence the lack of nomination. I'd have been happy just to see him play so why have three songs from Enchanted? Mix it up a bit.

JACK NICHOLSON WEEK



I figured seeing as I saw Five Easy Pieces last week and a load of Jack Nicholson rentals happened to come through this week that I'd do something for Jack. After all he's one of the leading actors of the past 40 years or so. He's recognised by the host of the Oscars every year. Even trend bucking Jon Stewart quite happily made a Jack Nicholson joke. After all he has won three acting Oscars (from 12 nominations) and probably deserved a few others. Let's take a look at the career of Jack Nicholson before checking out a few movies I've seen him in this week.

ONCE UPON A TIMELINE…the living legend that is simply Jack

• 1937. Born in Manhattan, New York. The son of a showgirl Nicholson was never one hundred percent sure who his father was.
• 1954. Nicholson was voted "Class Clown" on completion of high school. Clearly he already had a mind to misbehave.
• 1958. Film debut in the "Cry Baby Killer". A juvenile delinquent who goes from rebel to murderer and struggles to cope is Jack's first film role and it's a lead. Start as you mean to go on, I guess.
• 1960. Jack started to work with Roger Corman, the famous small budget filmmaker, and got himself a series of guaranteed work with Corman's films. Their first work together featured Jack as a masochistic dental patient in Little Shop of Horrors, the role taken by Bill Murray in the re-make. Corman & Nicholson would work together for much of the 60's including on The Raven and the Terror.
• 1962. Jack was married to his only wife Sandra Knight. They divorced in 1968 just as Jack was hitting the big time.
• 1960's. Nicholson also had an interest in writing and during the 60's experimented in that direction. He wrote three films before penning 1967's The Trip, which starred Peter Fonda. This provided him with an important opening a few years later. He also wrote the Monkees feature film Head. Also during the 60's Nicholson spread his wings somewhat and appeared in television most notably on the Andy Griffith Show.
• 1969. Easy Rider. Originally Rip Torn was to play George Hanson but the role came to Jack Nicholson when he dropped out after fighting with Dennis Hopper. Nicholson's career was made by this movie. The radical Fonda & Hopper knew Nicholson had a mind for the radical because of his screenplay for The Trip.
• 1970. Five Easy Pieces. This film earned Jack his second Oscar nomination, Easy Rider being the first, and confirmed his arrival in the world of serious acting. It was the first vehicle for Jack Nicholson. Playing a former concert pianist who had drifted into bar hopping Jack landed all the right notes. Being a hit in one film is no guarantee of a career in Hollywood. Delivering the goods in consecutive years on the other hand meant he'd officially arrived in Hollywood.
• 1971. Carnal Knowledge. Studios had a habit of casting Jack in dark roles where he schemed and manipulated and generally acted superior to those around him. Carnal Knowledge was another of these. While he didn't get the Oscar nod this time around, probably due to the similarity between this performance and the one in Five Easy Pieces, the film was still very popular. It actually made more money than Five Easy Pieces and confirmed Jack's rising star status. I have a full review of this coming up.
• 1973. The Last Detail. A surprisingly touching performance from Jack as a more rounded character. His job to escort a young soldier to a jail across the country. The young soldier none other than a young Randy Quaid in probably his best performance. Once again Jack was Oscar nominated.
• 1974. Chinatown. If Easy Rider was Jack's breakthrough into the Hollywood mainstream then Chinatown was the confirmation of his acting talent. Polanski's film noir detective story is one of the best films made in Hollywood…full stop. And it owes a lot to the talent of Jack Nicholson. His is the most notable performance. And instead of taking the usual route of imitating Humphrey Bogart, as most private eyes had over the years, Jack gave it his own spin. Giving the role a little more personality. Once again Jack was Oscar nominated. Don't worry, he'll win one soon!



• 1975. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest. Following a collaboration with Polanski he teamed with Milos Forman. His lead performance as Randall McMurphy garnered his first Oscar win. Over these couple of years Jack moved up from a hit in Hollywood to a movie icon. Regardless of what he was doing Jack Nicholson was now famous for being Jack Nicholson.
• 1976. Jack started to take more varied roles before taking some downtime at the end of the decade. In 1976 he specifically took on a role in the Missouri Breaks, another film I'll be covering this week, just to work with Marlon Brando.
• 1980. The Shining. Jack got his chance to work with Stanley Kubrick on this Stephen King horror film. It provided him with one of his most memorable moments in his film career; breaking through a door with an axe and ad libbing "here's Johnny". The demented janitor role cemented Jack as a cinematic icon. It placed him among the elite in the acting world during the 1980's. Growing up in the 80's Jack Nicholson was a law unto himself. He was simply Jack Nicholson. The Shining allowed him to show off just how BIG a performance he could do. This would lead to Jack in the 80's and beyond where he had two levels; big Jack and normal Jack. If you look back his performance in Cuckoos Nest isn't even THAT big but now he'd pushed it as far as it'd go he'd be staying there.



Here's Johnny!

• 1981. Reds. Jack has never been afraid to take on smaller roles to get the parts he wanted. In this case taking a supporting role to Warren Beatty to play a more interesting character; the jaded playwright Eugene O'Neill. I'll be covering this film in full later too.
• 1983. Terms of Endearment. Continuing the thread of taking smaller roles to be more interesting Jack won a best supporting actor Oscar for this film where he played a retired astronaut. I'll never forget the scene where he's hanging out of the car on the beach. Wind in the hair, lead in the pencil! That was Big Jack. In a movie plagued with sadness Jack played comedic relief and stole every scene he was in with aplomb.
• 1985. Prizzi's Honor. Once again Jack is nominated for best actor. I saw Prizzi's Honor when it came out so I must have been about 10-11ish at the time. No wonder I have sketchy memories of the flick. I may have to revisit.
• 1987. The Witches of Eastwick. This would be more Big Jack. He's essentially playing the Devil in the film as he courts three different women. Totally over the top performance. Wonderfully done. The thing with Jack Nicholson is that scene-chewing Jack is SO much fun that's hard not to like him as much as normal actor Jack.
• 1989. Batman. If Witches of Eastwick was a big performance it had nothing on this. Jack lets it all hang out playing a comic book bad guy in Tim Burton's reinvisioning of the Batman franchise. Sadly Burton didn't read comics so he kind of missed the point but Jack's crazy performance is enough to keep this memorable. He also made some crazy demands pay-wise and made himself a small fortune ($60M…yeah). Allegedly he was to reprise the role in a film called Batman Triumphant, which had a script penned. Supposedly he'd not come back from the dead but rather be a figment of Batman's imagination caused by Scarecrow's fear gas. Considering Joel Schumacher was still attached to direct it's probably for the best this never happened.



• 1992. A Few Good Men. Another Big Jack performance this time as an army base Colonel who's forced to testify in court by hot shot lawyer Tom Cruise. The "You can't handle the truth" line has been recycled many times. Nicholson was Oscar nominated once more although there was a feeling this performance was a little too big to be Oscar worthy.
• 1997. After a relatively quiet 1990's Jack returned to form in epic fashion as the obsessive compulsive novelist Melvin Udall in As Good As It Gets. While this was another Big Jack performance it was layered. He had the compulsive disorder and the rudeness that came with it but it was layered over some dedication and drive that allowed him to be a great writer and layered again over some sentimentality that allowed him to become attached to a dog. And somehow Jack managed to do all this sometimes in the same scene showing the character's mental state. Rightfully awarded the Academy Award for best actor. His third and to date final acting award from the Oscars.
• 2002. About Schmidt. Having taken 4 years off after his Oscar win Jack readjusted with The Pledge and Anger Management, a really lightweight film for a heavyweight actor, but then he returned to business as usual. About Schmidt allowed Jack to finally be realistic about his age. About Schmidt was his first turn as an old man and it was mightily powerful. Oscar nomination ensued.
• 2006. The Departed. And just when you thought it'd never happen; Jack meets Scorsese. The match made in heaven. Once again Big Jack was back and Scorsese had a dream cast. Of all the big time actors Scorsese landed for The Departed, and there were at least 3 lead actors, Jack revelled in the spotlight. He was the star. He was the big name. He improvised a lot and just dominated the screen. It's at times like that when you realise just what a huge figure Jack Nicholson really is. He doesn't always do a great acting job but he's always got a presence about him that you can't replicate with acting.

Reds (1981)



EXPECTATIONS – When I was attempting to fill in some holes in my Jack Nicholson viewing history I purposefully searched out roles he's had that would be interesting to check out. Most of Nicholson's more recent roles I've seen. So I had to go back in time and this is the latest of his roles that'll be appearing this week. It's a vehicle for star Warren Beatty however. It would be fair to say that I don't like Warren Beatty. Any film he's been in that I liked (Bonnie and Clyde, Bugsy, Parallax View) I would have liked them regardless of who was in the lead role. When Beatty is bad, which is frequently, that's even worse news. I don't think I have to point out how bad Dick Tracey was. Unless you've never seen it of course. Terrible film. Even made Al Pacino look incompetent. Last we saw him back in 2001 Beatty was blowing $90M on a small comedy piece called Town & Country. He's not returned since. Beatty has issues with how he wants to be the star and if he's not the star then he'll take his ball and go home. Well, I never liked his movies anyway so I figure it's no big loss. Reds provides a somewhat excruciating promise of a 180+ minute run time. Yes, over 3 hours.

TRAILER – Can't find one. Best I can do is this clip from the film.



PLOT – John Reed (Warren Beatty) is a radical journalist in New York during World War 1 when he meets married writer Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). He charms her with his lifestyle but she soon discovers that Reed will never limit himself to writing about revolution. Soon he's off to Russia to play an actual part in the Bolshevik Revolution. This leaves Louise pining for him but also attracted to jaded playwright Eugene O'Neil (Jack Nicholson).

OPINION – I think Reds would have benefited from a little selective editing. There's really no need to make it 194 minutes long. The relationship between Reed & Louise is interesting enough but probably tops out around 2 hours. After that they're just repeating themselves. There are also many minor characters that never get to do anything or go anywhere even including Jack's Eugene O'Neill. The focus is entirely on Warren Beatty and I think he knew that going in and looked at it that way coming out. Which is fine if you like Warren Beatty but I find most people don't, which is why he's not a movie star anymore. But then Reds is the film he always wanted to make and the film he felt would become his legacy to the world. After all John Reed had left his own legacy thanks to his role in the Bolshevik Revolution. He wrote a book called "Ten Days That Shook the World" showing the Russian side of things during the Revolution. Beatty wanted specifically to showcase Reed's work in Russia but knew that the film wouldn't work without a central theme so made it a romance with Reed's wife Louise playing the second largest part in the film. He always envisioned his long time companion Julie Christie playing the role but she turned it down claiming only an American could play the part. Diane Keaton was an excellent choice to take the role and she's easily the best thing on the acting side of Reds. Even the nuanced turn from Jack Nicholson and the heartfelt performance from Maureen Stapleton (an Oscar winning one) could compare. The downside for Beatty is he's unable to find chemistry with her and she acts him off the screen at will. I've always found Beatty to be very shallow in terms of what he can deliver emotionally and this is no exception. Sadly he's the principle character and appears in most of the film. At over 3 hours I found this pretty hard going despite my love of history. What it comes down to is whether or not you like Beatty as an actor. If you do then you must see Reds because it's probably his best work. I struggle to think of any film where Beatty looked like he was out to make a difference. Hell, Reds is probably the most ambitious film ever to come to fruition. It would probably be odd of me to praise George Clooney for attempting such films one week then complain about Beatty doing the exact same thing in the 80's when it was a much tougher accomplishment. The difference being that I personally like George Clooney a great deal more than Warren Beatty. I think he has more presence and I think he has slightly more range. But this film was a huge risk. An enormous potentially career ending one. Hell, this could have easily become Beatty's Heaven's Gate. While the film lost money it won awards and it didn't lose a huge amount of money. Which is evident in the shooting of the film where the period detail isn't as strong as it is in Dr Zhivago for example. Another far reaching epic that perhaps had less in the way of politics while still admitting the same flaws in Communism. I like that Beatty plays Reed as flawed as well although that makes it all the harder to understand Louise's dedication to him. He makes some foolish decisions and if it was me, personally, and I said I might not be there when someone came back I wouldn't then go halfway around the world looking for them afterwards. Especially not when I could go and live with Jack Nicholson. Oh yeah. Ultimately then Reds is a great film, far better than I expected, but it's still a Warren Beatty project and that sours me on it somewhat. If it was any one of a number of other actors I'd have probably enjoyed the film more. But as far as Beatty goes he's not going to get any better than this.

BEST BIT – Reed is asked to speak about the World War in front of a club full of people. He's asked what the war is about? He replies "profits" and sits back down. That set the mood for the film.

RATING - ****. Arguably Beatty's finest work but he needs help from Nicholson and especially Diane Keaton in one of her better roles. Reds is one of the most ambitious pictures ever realised. An American film about the Bolshevik Revolution that runs over 3 hours and is a complete downer and is almost entirely about politics. Try pitching that film without a track record and see what happens. A fine achievement although it's a tough pitch and not an easy watch.

Carnal Knowledge (1971)



EXPECTATIONS – As part of my mini-Jack Nicholson season I next checked in with one of his early leading roles post-Easy Rider. This was directly after Five Easy Pieces. Here he collaborates with director Mike Nichols, most well known for the Graduate. Most recently he directed Charlie Wilson's War. I've never really been a big Mike Nichols fan. My favourite movie of his is Biloxi Blues. Given Nichols' decent ability as a filmmaker combined with Nicholson's acting appeal at the time this should work out quite well. Hopefully.

TRAILER –



PLOT – College roommates Jonathan Fuerst (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel) both woo the same woman, Sandy's girlfriend Susan (Candice Bergen). The film then follows the duo as they fail to settle down over the next 30 years.

OPINION – I had a hard time dealing with the passage of time in Carnal Knowledge. Well, I had a problem accepting that a 34 year old Jack Nicholson could pass as a college student to begin with but the lack of makeup throughout the rest of the film makes everything about the passage of time to be a real stretch. The most shocking thing about Carnal Knowledge is that musician Art Garfunkel isn't out of his element opposite Jack Nicholson. It's almost a surprise he didn't make acting a regular thing. This was his last acting gig until appearing in an episode of Laverne & Shirley nine years later. Playing with Jack requires a degree of competency or you're going to get outshone quite easily. Garfunkel manages to hang with Jack for the most part although Jack is visibly working harder when he has something more tangible to play off in his scenes with Candice Bergen and later Ann-Margret playing Nicholson's lover after his college graduation. But Nicholson's Jonathan never grows emotionally as he ages. In particular he continues to maintain that breast size and ass size be crucial to finding the right woman to marry. Whether his character really is that shallow is debatable. I just think he never grows up. So it makes the 30 year time span that much harder to swallow. The difference between 18 year old Jonathan and 48 year old Jonathan is not only invisible because the actor never ages but also in terms of personality there's little change. Jack seems partially stuck in his role in Five Easy Pieces. The jerk bubbles under throughout and his approach to the role is very similar. Dustin Hoffman was far more loveable doing the Mike Nichols thing. Jack really wasn't a loveable person during the 1970's. That whole decade was tinged with darkness and his performances seem to reflect that. In Carnal Knowledge his role is particularly superficial as are those around him. I think it was the aim of Mike Nichols to make a picture where everyone's personality only came across on the surface. There's no depth here. There isn't meant to be. Nicholson isn't a loveable rogue. He's just a rogue. Should we hate him for that? Thanks to the passage of time we don't just see the Nicholson of 1971 but all the roles he's played since, which makes it easier to forgive him for his male chauvinist approach to life.

BEST BIT – When Sandy comes over with his new girlfriend Jennifer (a young Carol Kane). Jonathan shows them a slideshow of all the women he's "loved" commenting on the slideshow as it progresses. My favourite being the last one he describes as "a young woman I paid $20 for sex when I was drunk in Brooklyn". The look of silent horror on Carol Kane's face says it all.

RATING - ***. Like the characters Carnal Knowledge is superficial but it is Jack Nicholson and his occasional moments of excellence make this worthwhile.

The Missouri Breaks (1976)



EXPECTATIONS – Hey, it's Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando! Nicholson's last movie before this was One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Brando hadn't made a film since Last Tango in Paris. Director is Arthur Penn who shot Bonnie & Clyde and Little Big Man. It really has a lot of the right elements for a good movie.

TRAILER – No trailer but here's a 2 minute clip from the film featuring Jack robbing a train. It's in Spanish but the punch line survives regardless.



PLOT – Horse rustler Tom Logan (Jack Nicholson) has somewhat upset the local folks near his rustling operation. So much so that when one of his men is hung in retribution for the hanging of an outlaw, ranch owner David Braxton (John McLiam) brings in an outlandish regulator by the name of Robert E. Lee Clayton (Marlon Brando) to restore the peace and hunt down the horse thieves. Meanwhile Logan has set himself up as a legitimate rancher next door to Braxton and has begun to romance his daughter Jane (Kathleen Lloyd).

OPINION – There are times when Marlon Brando does everything in his power to try and scupper his reputation as a good actor. This is one of them. Arthur Penn reportedly gave up on his performance after a few days and let Brando do whatever he wanted. The result is one of the most uneven performances in his entire career. Perhaps the worst of an illustrious run at the top in Hollywood. And yet it's strangely captivating. He adopts a faux Irish accent for no apparent reason and then saunters all over the set dressed in the most bizarre way he possibly could and starts waxing lyrical about life while Jack Nicholson just looks at him funny and thinks "why in the hell did I ever want to act with this guy?" In fact I'd go as far to say that Brando deliberately played the film in the most wild and peculiar way he could to see what he could get away with. Jack Nicholson is, by comparison, the absolute professional. While Brando waves ham around like it's going out of season Nicholson is restrained and does the best with a weak script. One that can't really decide if Missouri Breaks is a comedy or a drama and Brando just makes matters worse. That's not to say there aren't plenty of fun things about Brando's turn. Sometimes a performance is so bad it goes all the way back around to good and there are times when Brando does just that. His incessant humming and general insanity are captivating. Maybe that's the mark of a really good actor. That even when they turn in a bad performance they do so in such spectacular fashion that it's at least interesting. Ultimately because Arthur Penn had no control over his star the film suffers. At least getting some kind of consistency on the accent would have been a start. So the match up of the super heavyweights of acting ends up a scoreless draw with Jack finding more fun in teaming with Kathleen Lloyd. Several of their scenes are quite excellent as the gruff Nicholson loves playing the scoundrel. Elsewhere Brando has his best moments with the supporting cast in particular Randy Quaid. Jack & Brando's scenes feel very bitty. Apparently Jack found Brando's style somewhat distracting and as they only filmed together for a day he had no time to work it out. And by means of conclusion could someone tell me why Brando is dressed in drag when he burns down the cabin? "Grandma is getting tired" he moans before musing "I'd like almost anything better than being burned
up". Um…

BEST BIT – Brando's arrival where he confuses Jane by hanging off the side of his horse and hiding. A bizarre debut from a bizarre character.

RATING - **1/2. It's impossible to hate this because Brando is just so weird in it that it's like a car wreck. You can't look away. But he's not in it for the opening 35 minutes and the rest of the film is an uneven effort from Arthur Penn. At least Jack Nicholson's charisma keeps things ticking over but the pacing isn't good enough for a big time film and its easy to see why many critics hated it on release.

SHILL – This week, the Big Lebowski told in 2 minutes 14 seconds attempting to retain as many of the 281 swear words as possible. Enjoy!



HERE IS THE GNUS



The following stories courtesy of HollywoodReporter.com.

Bob Marley biopic on

Rita Marley is executive producing the first-ever biopic of her late husband Bob Marley, and if she has it her way, the reggae icon's daughter-in-law Lauryn Hill will portray her onscreen. The musician will be played by two actors, one portraying him at age 15 and another as an adult, with the option of the original songs, covers sung by an actor or a "Ray"-style blend of the two all possible for the soundtrack. Marley says her grandson Stefan is "the spitting image" of the singer and would be perfect for the role. Langlais adds that while the project will not necessarily be star-driven, all casting decisions will be made late in the year.

Keeping it in the family eh? I don't see that as a bad thing necessarily. The Marley family has always been very musical. Bob himself is a legend and deserves some sort of biopic treatment. So this project is long overdue. After all he's one of those very few recording artists that everyone seems to like. I've got a couple of Bob Marley CD's myself. I'm particularly fond of Redemption Song, Buffalo Soldier, Roots Rock Reggae and Exodus. This would have every chance to succeed due to his wide reaching appeal. Much like the Johnny Cash biopic "Walk the Line". That made over $100M. So if Hollywood thinks they can make a lot of money they'll support it and the nagging link was the lack of family support. Now Rita is involved we might actually get to see this. I support this move.



Rose Byrne joins the cast of Knowing

Rose Byrne has landed the lead role opposite Nicolas Cage in the sci-fi thriller "Knowing" for Summit Entertainment and Escape Artists. Byrne will play the daughter of a woman who buried a 1962 time capsule bearing the dates of the assassinations of historical figures, the hotel fire death of the wife of a professor (Cage) and an imminent world apocalypse. After the professor discovers its contents and alerts her, the initially sceptical Byrne begins remembering strange incidents from her childhood. Alex Proyas ("I, Robot") will direct the screenplay by Ryne Douglas Pearson, with script revisions by Juliet Snowden, Stiles White, Stuart Hazeldine and Proyas. Escape's Jason Blumenthal, Todd Black and Steve Tisch will produce with Topher Dow. Norm Golightly and David Bloomfield are exec producers.

This sounds interesting. I'm big on Alex Proyas. He picks and chooses his projects and only makes things he believes in. So his catalogue of films reads like this: The Crow, Dark City, I, Robot and now Knowing. Making a film every 4-6 years keeps him fresh and able to follow a project from its roots to its eventual conclusion. Although if he scores another massive box office hit like I, Robot Hollywood will start throwing money at him to make more frequent appearances. Meanwhile Rose Byrne is becoming a bit of a sci-fi babe, which means she'll be pestered at sci-fi cons for the remainder of her life. On her resume already are 28 Weeks Later and Sunshine. Not to mention an appearance in Attack of the Clones. This one might just throw her over the edge. She'll be followed home by nerds for the next 40 years. Nic Cage is always good to hang around with too. The National Treasure franchise has been very successful and he continues to be a good draw.



Lohman takes Ellen Page's spot with Raimi

Alison Lohman will replace Ellen Page in Sam Raimi's horror film "Drag Me to Hell" for Ghost House, Mandate Pictures and domestic distributor Universal. Lohman will play a woman who is the unwitting recipient of a supernatural curse in the story written by Raimi and his brother, Ivan. Principal photography begins March 31 in Los Angeles. The "Juno" Oscar nominee dropped out of the film last week, facing a scheduling conflict after "Hell" was delayed from its March 17 start date because of a protracted preproduction period

Looks like Ellen Page has gotten a little busier after appearing in Juno. Seems this film collided with his existing commitment to Drew Barrymore movie "Whip It". And that's Drew Barrymore as in Drew Barrymore directing. Could be another quirky little hit for Ellen if its played right. Meanwhile Raimi wants some time away from the massive budgets and pressure of Spidey. He just wasn't enjoying himself during the 3rd film. At least not like he was during the first two and the result was a bit of a mess. But then we've all throw our two cents in on Spidey. I still hope the franchise continues and Raimi should still be in charge of it. Just don't go forcing him into stupid moves like Venom again please fanboys. He had a nice old school feel to the Spidey films right up to Venom's inclusion. As for Lohman you might know her as Nic Cage's daughter in Matchstick Men, which she did a great job with. This film marks another of those writers strike issues where preproduction got drawn out. I assume it was the writers strike. That generally seems to be messing everything up these days.



As if anyone cares…

Sarah Polley's "Away From Her" and David Cronenberg's "Eastern Promises" were the big winners with seven trophies each as Canada's top film honors, the Genies, were handed out Monday night in Toronto. Polley's Alzheimer's drama, which earned Julie Christie an Oscar nomination for best actress, took Genies for best Canadian film and best director. "Away From Her" also dominated the acting categories, as Gordon Pinsent won for best actor, Christie earned the best actress crown and Kristen Thomson won for supporting actress. Cronenberg's "Eastern Promises," a portrait of the Russian mafia in London, generated trophies for best original screenplay for British playwright Steven Knight and a supporting actor honor for German actor Armin Mueller-Stahl.

Now the Oscars are in the books we're into minor awards season. Yes, its nice to honour some of the films that Oscar overlooked but is anyone outside of Canada really paying attention? Well, I guess I am because I'm writing about it but I'm doing so to make the point that I don't really care. Anyway, congratulations to Away from Her and Eastern Promises. I'll be watching the latter this week and I'll check in with my thoughts in 7 days time in the review section. And I have to review it too. Or Viggo Mortensen will stab me up good.



Sorry Mr Mortensen sir!

Coens back for more

Moviegoers won't to have wait long for their next film from the Coen brothers, triple Oscar winners at this year's Academy Awards. Focus features has just set Sept. 12 as the domestic release date for "Burn After Reading," a dark comedy about the spy business starring George Clooney, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt and Tilda Swinton.

Wow, check that cast out! See you at the Oscars again next year chaps? Clooney & Pitt already have decent chemistry thanks to the Ocean's movies. Tilda knows George from Michael Clayton and the others are capable of working with anyone anyway. The Coens already have a rich history of quality film making and deserved their Oscar for No Country for Old Men. Hell, I've already referenced them this week with the Big Lebowski video. The Coens like to keep busy and have another film in the works after "Burn". Dubbed "Hail Caesar" it follows a theatre troupe in the 1920's with their travelling version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. In time I might even forget that remake of the Ladykillers. Maybe.

Here ends the news…

HOLLYWOOD WHORES

It's the oldest trade in the world and a surprising number of actresses have played hookers onscreen. This week's Hollywood Whore…



Morena Baccarin! She played Inara Serra in Serenity a "companion" in Joss Whedon's futuristic world where prostitutes are treated with respect. She doesn't suffer the usual humiliation and degradation of your common prostitute and doesn't suffer much in the way of unpleasantness. While skimming through her first scene in Serenity I noticed she did get punched in the stomach though.



WHAMMY! She folds like a hooker punched in the stomach by a fat man with sores on his face.

She also benefits from being in one of the best TV series, ever. Albeit prematurely cancelled. Here's to this week's Hollywood Whore!



That's it for another week. Next time out I'll be taking a look at Eastern Promises and forum recommended flick Tony Hancock's the Rebel. See, we do listen!



You stay classy…the World.