Furious on Film Movie News Report 09.03.08

Posted by Arnold Furious on 09.03.2008

The Battle for Watchmen, Mark Millar on the Superman re-boot, Brothers Bloom delay, Palahniuk adaptations update, Johnny Depp open to The Riddler, three reviews and more Jane Fonda than you can shake a stick at. Unless you have several sticks and plenty of spare time.

Issue 151

Bad news everyone! Or perhaps not depending on how much you enjoy reading my stuff. I'm once again summoned away on work starting from next week. Then I'm on holiday. So basically I'm gone until October 15th. Which is quite a long time. Apologies if you'll miss me. Movie head honcho Chad Webb has someone lined up to fill in and I'm sure they'll provide suitable coverage. In the meantime here's my final column for over a month…unless I get time to do a Series Link. The one for Jaws is up this week. Watch out for another one of those popping up if I get the time to write it between now and my holiday.


HERE IS THE GNUS



The Battle of Watchmen continues

Credit: New York Times.

Lawyers for Warner Brothers, which has already shot a movie of this graphic novel about the seamier side of superhero life, and lawyers for 20th Century Fox, which claims it owns the rights to the material, laid plans for a frenzied fight in a joint report submitted to the federal court here on Friday.

Fox has said it will seek an injunction blocking Warner's planned release of the film next March. Warner has argued that Fox should not be allowed to stop the movie, after standing by while Warner and its partners on the film, Paramount Pictures and Legendary Pictures, spent more than $100 million on the production, directed by Zack Snyder ("300").

In a summary of its position in Friday's report, Warner said Fox "sat silently" as one of the producers of "Watchmen," Lawrence Gordon, took the project "to studio after studio with Fox's express knowledge."

Fox, which filed a lawsuit in February, has claimed in its own filings that Mr. Gordon did not keep the studio apprised of his plans, as required by a 1994 agreement. That deal granted Mr. Gordon rights to "Watchmen" in "turnaround" — an industry term for arrangements under which producers can move a project from one studio to another under certain conditions.

In Warner's version of events, Mr. Gordon, who is not named as a defendant in the Fox suit, actually offered the project to Fox in 2005, shortly before bringing it to Warner after years of trying to make the movie with Paramount. "Fox simply rejected it," Warner said in the Friday filing.

On Friday Warner said Fox had gone so far as to grant it rights to the title "Watchmen," which Fox had earlier registered with the Motion Picture Association of America.

Fox, moreover, was paid $320,000 by one of Mr. Gordon's companies for rights to "Watchmen" as early as 1991, Warner lawyers said in the report. Fox has said that agreement was superseded by a later deal, under which Mr. Gordon was supposed to deliver a much larger buyout price that has never been paid.



Fox are just complete pricks. It seems like every news item that comes out regarding the way they run their business makes them look worse and worse. If they wanted to make Watchmen, they had a chance to. They just don't want another studio to have success with it. Just let it go guys. If you spent half as much effort on your own productions, Babylon AD cough, maybe they wouldn't suck so bad? Besides all Fox is doing is making a rival studio's picture get more press than it would have done. They're creating buzz for a rival studio's picture. How fucking dumb is that?

Superman Returns…again

Credit: G4

Mark Millar is hoping to oversee the reboot of the Superman franchise after making his pitch to Warners. Millar: "I've had this plan for like 10 years for a big three-picture Superman thing, like a Lord of the Rings epic, starting over from scratch again with a seven-hour Superman story. One to be released each year." Millar said.

Millar says there's nothing firm yet, but he hopes to get word over the next few weeks. If everything goes perfectly, they'll be shooting next summer.



I like the idea in the comic strip above. After all; if you're going to re-boot the franchise you might as well do something different. Of course a red Supes is unlikely to sell to the key demographic…Americans. I don't see what was so awful about Bryan Singer's Superman Returns that they feel the need to re-boot again. Yeah, it had its flaws and some of it was downright stupid but it is a comic book movie. The standard may have been set pretty high by Chris Nolan of late but Superman isn't that same dark character that Batman is, and should be, and any attempt to push that may not be the best of ideas. Of course once a studio is convinced they know the reason a film made a tonne of money there is no telling them otherwise. I've never been a big Superman fan personally. If I have to sit through 3 more Superman films I guess there are far worse people than Mark Millar to be involved in it. Comic book writers over the last 10-15 years have dramatically improved. Hey, if Watchman is a hit; how's about a big screen conversion for Kurt Busiek's Astro City? Or is that hoping for too much? Hell, they followed my last piece of advice and shot Whiteout.

Brick fans must wait longer for Brothers Bloom

Credit: Rian's Forum.

Director of Brick and upcoming release Brothers Bloom commented on the delays behind the release of BB; recently pushed back from October to January 2009.

There were a few reasons for the move: October and November are crowded as hell, it's a tough tough market, especially for a smart unique film like ours, and we'd have a week or two at the most to sink or swim. Whereas concentrating on a couple markets for awards consideration in December, then pushing the wide in the more open January slot just seemed like a better use of resources.

Mostly though, what convinced me it was a good idea was that it gives us more time to get more awareness of the movie out there. There are a lot of films competing for attention, the more time I have to travel around to film festivals, do interviews, show and talk about the film, the better.



I thought Brick was great. You don't get many modern noirs these days. None set in high schools. His follow up involves a pair of conmen, the titular brothers, and stars Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel Weisz. Colour me excited. The plot sounds fairly generic but then aren't all films these days. Almost everything has already been done. I have a degree of trust in Rian Johnson's vision. I'll be watching this when it comes out.

Chuck Palahniuk's film adaptations continue!

Credit: Film School Rejects.

No news on Invisible Monsters. No real news on Survivor - Francis Lawrence is still planning on giving his I Am Legend skills to that project. Palahniuk said he's already read the script for it and sounded really happy with it.

What came out of left field, though, is that Lullaby, an adaptation that hasn't been tracked nearly as closely as his other works, is already at the casting stage. The financing is in place, and even though the production won't tell Palahniuk who they are looking to cast, he believes they are waiting for a concrete production start day to make the announcement. Or at least to let Palahniuk in on the info.

As for who's directing, our super bestest friends in the whole world over at JoBlo broke the shocking news that they have no idea who's directing despite hearing his name in the interview. So the news is that if you know who it is, you can tell them. To be fair, it's a Swedish name, and it's really difficult to find any information online about him…or her.



I'm suitably jazzed about the sheer number of Palahniuk's books that have been optioned but hearing about Lullaby reaching casting is great news. With Choke coming out this month it seems as if Hollywood has finally realised the potential in Palahniuk's back catalogue. Bout time! Only took 9 years after the release of Fight Club for them to figure that one out. Invisible Monsters is set for 2010 but you'd think Lullaby might be out before that. Or perhaps in the same year depending on how fast they move with the process. I mean Invisible Monsters has no one attached to it and once you've cast you're not far off filming. I'm sure given the right direction all these films could be excellent. Good time to be a Chuck Palahniuk fan. Even if his name is a pain in the ass to type.

Johnny Depp is quizzed about the Riddler rumours

Given the amount of online scuttlebutt about the possibility of Johnny Depp playing the Riddler in the 2011 follow up to Batman Begins & the Dark Knight he was asked if he'd was interested in a recent radio interview in South Florida. His reply; "seems like it'd be a fun gig for a while". And anyone who came back to play Captain Jack Sparrow three times is clearly open to playing a larger than life character like the Riddler. I immediately dismissed the Riddler as a potential bad guy based on Jim Carrey's entertaining but goofball turn in Batman Forever. While I enjoyed his performance, like I enjoyed Jack Nicholson's Joker, the world has re-opened for these characters from the past. The interpretation doesn't have to be the same. And if Nolan likes the Riddler and wants to do something new with him then there wouldn't be many better choices for the role than Johnny Depp. It'd certainly provide the franchise with one more entertaining villain.



An interesting and distinct possibility. Although Nolan tends to keep his cards close to his chest and likes to surprise with his selections. I trust him. I believe in Christopher Nolan.


That's the news for this week.


What do you mean you've never seen…?

This section has been suitably buggered by a lack of time this fine evening. I was two hours late back from work courtesy of some hardware installation. 3-5 hours my ass! I was suitably unimpressed. Seeing as I'm now away for 5 weeks I'll have probably forgotten what I was going to talk about here anyway. Life, ladies and gentlemen, is full of these little buggerations.


THIS WEEK'S REVIEWS

Cloverfield, Man of the Year, Control

Cloverfield (2007)



EXPECTATIONS – Like most folks I was caught up in the hype for Cloverfield and impressed by the trailer. Unlike most however I didn't see the film at the cinema. Made for a paltry $25M (chicken feed for a sci-fi action movie) it grossed $80M at the box office based mainly on a hugely successful viral campaign and an incredible trailer. After all it had no star names and no name power at all bar producer JJ Abrams of Lost fame. Reports from most people came back positive with the only negative reports comparing it to Blair Witch Project, which I actually enjoy. Especially alone in the dark. It actually plays out as a great scary movie. In the cinema it really wasn't. But then nothing is. You're surrounded by people.

TRAILER –



PLOT – Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) is due to leave New York for Japan when his friends throw him a going away party. In the midst of it a monster attacks Manhattan and Rob and his friends have to run for their lives.

OPINION – Cloverfield is a ballsy movie. It pulls no punches and visually never compromises. The cast of unknowns (Mike Vogel had a role in Poseidon but that's about it) and the director Matt Reeves likewise. The only part of this that makes sense is writer Drew Goddard who's penned episodes of Buffy, Alias and Lost. The lack of stars keeps the budget down certainly and everything goes into the startling visual effects. And it's made all the more startling for the first person POV that the whole movie is shot in. Comic relief Hud (comedian TJ Miller) holds the camera for much of the movie and we see what he does. The unfortunate downside of this approach is that I'm reminded of various computer games I've played that look fairly similar. But it also has the bonus of making you feel like you're in the movie. And I noticed several times that being that close to the action really amped up the tension. I caught myself holding my breath a couple of times (Brooklyn Bridge & helicopter) and I was actually concerned for the safety of the characters. Which I didn't think would be the case because Cloverfield starts out as Hud filming people at a party. Everyone is obnoxious, irritating or self-absorbed. When the monster attacks it's almost a relief. But Matt Reeves knew his strengths when he made this movie. He knew you needed characters in order to care about them and spends 17 minutes working with his leads before we get underway. Very shrewd as there are few opportunities to work with them once the monster's attack is underway. It's more running and screaming. But the first person POV makes even the most basic of fleeing exciting. The lack of stars made you feel like everyone was vulnerable. And the use of New York to tell the story brought back chilling images of 9/11. The running and screaming at the beginning is merely accompanied by dust clouds and buildings collapsing. Eerily reminiscent of 9/11. Reeves was also smart in keeping Cloverfield short (at about 75 minutes) because any longer and the concept would have worn thin and lost any sense of lingering believability. The eventual daylight reveal on the monster isn't quite what you'd want from a conclusion and the post-credits sequence message hints at a needless sequel but these are small flaws compared to the overall thrill ride that Cloverfield is. I heartily recommend the same treatment that makes Blair Witch viewable; a darkened room and no company. Also watch for the object falling into the ocean during the shot at Coney Island. It took me three viewings of the scene to actually spot it. There's an interesting concept for a follow up to Cloverfield though; other videos taken of the same attack. New York is after all a city of a million stories. Who says that one covers such an event in its entirety? Now that would be a film I'd be interested in seeing.

BEST BIT – Brooklyn Bridge.

RATING - ****. I can understand why some people don't like Cloverfield. The acting isn't great. The camera movements sometimes miss key moments and probably cause nausea in some people. But for me at least Cloverfield is about the viewer being right in the action. The pacing is breakneck and the intensity of Cloverfield is gripping. I really felt like I was caught up in the film and I'm sure that was the aim. So mission accomplished.

Man of the Year (2006)



EXPECTATIONS – I almost skipped this completely but then I realised I'd be missing out on Christopher Walken and I will watch ANYTHING with Christopher Walken in it. Not such a fan of Barry Levinson. Wag the Dog aside he's not really hit any high notes for me since Good Morning Vietnam & Rainman. Of course quality is forever but every time he makes another Toys or Sphere or Jimmy Hollywood you wonder what the hell he's thinking.

TRAILER –



PLOT – Political talk show host Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) decides to run for president to try and shake the system up a bit. When the Delacroy computers designed to run the election malfunction he finds himself on his way to the White House until mid-level Delacroy employee Eleanor Green (Laura Linney) contacts him about his actual shortcomings.

OPINION – Man of the Year is incredibly hit or miss. Robin Williams' is patchy at best but does very well with some of the stand-up material. His monologues, including one in the middle of a presidential candidacy debate, are more often than not spot on. The pacing from Levinson is all over the place though. We start out with a 3 minute Q & A session/monologue that launches his candidacy. Then 30 minutes into the film it's election day. Doesn't that strike you as rushed? And when we move past the election into the conspiracy territory the film falls flat on its face. Who honestly wanted to see a movie about a half-baked election fraud scandal where the good guy wins? And Jeff Goldblum is portrayed as some sort of evil genius mastermind? Christopher Walken is surprisingly touching as Dobbs' long serving manager and Lewis Black is also entertaining as his producer but all the performance in the world can't hold together the messy plot. After half an hour I was wondering where all the negative reviews had come from for this movie. After an hour I was well aware and 30 minutes later I was just praying for some kind of satisfying conclusion. Which Man of the Year just about conjures up after a blundering conspiracy theory that makes not on iota of sense. So the computer systems got confused because of the candidate's names? How in the fuck did this company get the contract in the first place? Because the entire plot is a reach it breaks a rule that it even references during the run time; "for fiction to work it has to be believable". The events portrayed in Man of the Year cannot happen. From the voting machines being the same across the US to the faulty technology to doing the election over again. None of it could happen. It's all just a nonsensical mess. And the weak attempts at making Man of the Year into a rom-com-thriller in the final act are even more rushed than the promising opening act. Man of the Year does have its moments; many of them coming from a Robin Williams flashbacking at times to his stand-up career but they're too few and far between. His performance deserved a better script, even though it took him a little time to work his way into the role and eventually becomes insipid in it. Walken and Black do their best with what they're given as does Laura Linney but they can't save a directionless and messy second half.

BEST BIT – The scene where Christopher Walken talks about how he used to shave elephants in the circus.

RATING - **. There are things to like Man of the Year but it's not the laugh riot that was predicted beforehand. There are funny things in there and Robin Williams does a good job for the most part but it's a weak script and weaker direction that lets the film down. It can't be itself as it's pulled in three separate and diverse directions (there's really no place in a comedy for a half-assed conspiracy theory) and ends up falling flat.

Control (2007)



EXPECTATIONS – Here is where I talk about the music. I was never a big fan of Joy Division. To be brutally honest; I prefer New Order. That might seem like an outrageous comment to some but I quite enjoy hearing vocals. Of course Joy Division did come out with one of the best songs of modern times with "Love Will Tear Us Apart", which is better than anything New Order have done including their best track "Blue Monday". But honestly, if you're a fan of Joy Division you'd have already seen this flick. So I'm here to give a non-fans perspective.

TRAILER –



PLOT – Based on the book written by his widow Debbie (Samantha Morton) Control follows the career of Joy Division lead singer Ian Curtis (Sam Riley). From his high school days to the heady heights of Joy Division breaking into the charts. Ian however chose to hang himself aged just 23 in 1980.

OPINION – The story may sound familiar. Young, talented song writer can't cope with the pressures of success and medical issues away from the music drive him to the brink. It sounds like a Kurt Cobain movie. But Ian Curtis was his forerunner. An innovative front man and gifted song writer Curtis' Joy Division swiftly rose in popularity in the late 70's and would probably have cemented their name worldwide given another couple of years. But Curtis wasn't interested in fame and fortune. In the movie 24 Hour Party People, which is a story about Factory Records boss Tony Wilson (played by Steve Coogan in that film and here by Craig Parkinson), Ian Curtis is more of a cameo. A tragic bit part. Here they strived to tell Ian's story. And the first piece of that jigsaw was having a guy that looked and sang like Ian, which is Sam Riley. It's a remarkable impression. At times it feels like actually watching Curtis. Anton Corbijn has done a solid job on his first real feature film. He's better known as a video director who worked with U2 and Depeche Mode. I guess the best place for him to start into film was a biopic of a musician. And he's certainly made a film of great beauty in Control. But like Sean Penn's Into the Wild I have huge issues with the central character. I just can't relate to him at all. Curtis may have suffered with epilepsy and perhaps wasn't all there mentally but he still had a loving wife and daughter. He still had a great band that was going places. Why would he feel the need to kill himself? Because he'd lost control over his life? Who hasn't felt that feeling? But we don't all go hanging ourselves because of it. I just didn't feel like he had sufficient provocation to commit suicide. And because I couldn't connect with the central character I had a hard time with the film. I'm not disputing that it's a beautiful looking film and the actors are all very good, Sam Morton in particular, but without that connection it's just a pretty flower in a garden that I'm walking past. Maybe it would have helped if I was a fan of the music but I didn't go into Once as a fan of Glen Hansard and yet he won me over during the course of the film. Not by moping around and being melodramatic but by being real. Maybe if I had played in front of a crowd I'd understand the pressure Ian felt and yet almost every musician I've ever spoken to has said what an amazing buzz it is playing in front of an audience. I'm sorry, but I just can't relate to Ian Curtis. And that means I didn't enjoy Control as much as most.

BEST BIT – Ian going mental during a set before collapsing and having a fit. Bernard Sumner steps up in his place as the gig ends. "We're Joy Division and you're the crowd. Good night". The crowd erupts. Rock n Roll.

RATING - **1/2. While I recognise the technical strength of Control and I think it is a very good movie I couldn't connect to Ian Curtis and therefore I can't give the film a higher rating. I think a lot of non-fans will probably feel the same way.

HOLLYWOOD WHORES

Jane Fonda. Klute.



Jane Fonda has never had a wholesome image. One of her earlier hits being sci-fi sex romp Barbarella. I'm sure you've all seen that one.



She emerges from her spacesuit over the opening credits giving us some rare credits nudity. In the credits are all she's wearing before we get a tasteful glimpse of butt for those viewing at home and that's your opening 8 minutes. Best. Movie. Ever. Well, first 8 minutes anyway when I was 14. In fact that was Fonda's 4th film containing nudity (thank you, Mr Skin).



So by the time Klute came around in 1971 it was old hat and she peeled them off again as New York hooker Bree Daniels. It was shortly after this that Fonda's impressive career went down the toilet after her little visit to Vietnam in 1972. She visited with the Vietcong and upset many in the US with her comments about veterans. She was dubbed "Hanoi Jane" and any chance she had of dominating the 1970's went down the crapper.




Jane Fonda, ladies and gentlemen.



You stay classy…Planet Earth.