Inside Movies & DVD with Drew McWeeny
Plus a porno 'Batman' parody, Patton Oswalt joke theft, and more on JJ Abrams and 'Super 8'
Welcome to The Morning Read.
Over the weekend, it started to sink in. I am turning 40 this month. There's no way to spin that to feel like I'm young anymore. That is a number that used to make my skin crawl when I was young. I used to joke about making a pact with another friend with a birthday the same month that we would go on vacation and end things in a blaze of murder/suicide glory rather than face life after 40. Now, as someone with kids and a career that's nothing like what I expected or attempted, I am in such a different headspace that I can hardly believe that younger version of me was actually me.
It's made me nostalgic for the great movie going experiences I've had in my life so far and it's made me reflect on all the intriguing twists and turns that got me to this particular point. I consider the great movies in my life to be milestones by which I can trace my own development as a person. I know where I was and who I was when I saw things for the first time, and one of the reasons I revisit certain films is because I know I'll be different when I get back to them, and that difference is worth observing. When I was 19, I saw "Lawrence Of Arabia" in the theater for the first time, and it blew my mind. On May 30, the Aero theater is showing "Lawrence" in 70MM, and I think I'm going to see how many friends I can round up to join me for that screening. It's my favorite film, and it seems like a wonderful way to celebrate what is frankly a difficult birthday for me to internalize.
In the meantime, enough mopery... let's see what's going on out there...
The director of 'Iron Man 2' rocks the turntable for fun at the film's Austin premiere
Watching the director of one of the biggest films of the summer commandeer a DJ's gear so he could perform a full set at the Highball in Austin the other night, my wife leaned over to me and said, "I don't think he really wants to make movies. Look how happy he is right now."
Little wonder. Once "Iron Man 2" hits theaters on May 7, Favreau's going to be the man behind one of the biggest films of the year, so I think right now, he can afford to smile a bit. And while some people still seem shocked that Favreau has turned into an event movie filmmaker, I'd say that a close look at "Iron Man 2" and Favreau's earlier films would reveal that he's actually perfect for this series, and that the films wouldn't work with someone who works in a different style from Favreau.
To explain, one should look at both "Swingers" and "Made," movies that were well-scripted but which came to life on the set thanks to the chemistry of the performers and their willingness to play. When I recently spoke to Sean "P Diddy" Combs on the set of "Get Him To The Greek," he credited Favreau with preparing him for the sort of environment where lightning fast improv is not just valued but essential. With "Iron Man 2," Favreau has embraced this sort of loose and inventive on-set mood and the result is a blockbuster that's almost entirely personality-driven.
New mutant saga will hit theaters on June 3, 2011
Updated: 5:30 PM PST - Variety is reporting that Matthew Vaughn is now signed sealed and delivered to direct "X-Men: First Class." The studio has also set a release date of June 3, 2011 for the latest mutant adventure.
Bryan Singer will stay on board as producer alongside Lauren Schuler Donner and Simon Kinberg.
Singer told the trade, "I've been a fan of Matthew's since 'Layer Cake.' He has a deft hand with multiple characters and storylines, and a great love of the X-Men universe. I feel the combination of this story and his vision will make for an exciting and original X-Men film."
The trade also reports the film may not center on the young mutants Professor Charles Xavier recruited to become the X-Men, but instead, on the initial friendship between Xavier and Erik Lensheer who eventually became Magneto. The story will find them working together to stop a "global threat alongside other mutants (some familiar, some new)" until a rift lead to their eternal war chronicled in the first three "X-Men" films. What "familiar" mutants that could mean is unclear.
Production is expected to begin sometime this summer. Look for continuing updates on this story in Motion Captured and on HitFix.
- Gregory Ellwood
Original post: 8:30 AM PST
After the release of "X-Men 2: X-Men United," it seemed like a sure bet that 20th Century Fox and Bryan Singer would make a third film in the series and wrap up the story threads that the hugely successful sequel had so carefully laid out. Then things famously went south between Singer and the studio, and at one point got so bad that Singer was escorted off the Fox lot at the end of the one week by security, then working the following week on the lot directing a pilot.
Even better, want to know when the top secret trailer premieres?
JJ Abrams loves secrets.
By now, anyone who knows his work knows that he loves to play games with his audience, both onscreen and in the way he markets his movies. There's a brilliance to the way his game starts from the moment he releases a trailer, or even from the way he and his collaborators design their trailers. They shroud their productions in total secrecy and they try various ways to obfuscate what they're doing, and they're as good at it as anyone in town.
So what if I told you JJ Abrams had a mystery box called "Super 8" all gift-wrapped and ready for everyone to open this week, and there hasn't been a single word written about it online so far?
Impressive, don't you think?
And absolutely true. When audiences sit down for screenings of "Iron Man 2" this weekend, they're going to see trailers for other summer movies that they've already heard of, and then they'll also get their first look at a movie that Abrams is producing via a teaser trailer he directed, much like the teaser trailer that announced "Cloverfield" to an unsuspecting audience in front of "Transformers." That was almost a complete surprise when it happened, although someone did manage to pierce the veil of secrecy before the trailer showed up.
So what is this trailer? What, precisely, is in JJ's new mystery box?
Special guest Scott Swan discusses 'Human Centipede,' 'A Nightmare On Elm Street,' Roger Ebert on 3D, 'Armageddon' on Blu-ray and more
I have heard your repeated requests for an iTunes option for this podcast, and we're absolutely going to do it. It's a process on our end, and we're in the midst of it right now. Bear with me for another week or so, and we'll get it done. I promise.
However, if this week isn't the week that we end up on iTunes, don't sweat it. One of the things I'm going to have to learn to get used to in doing a podcast is that I can't revise and tinker and rewrite the way I do with my prose pieces. I don't think this is a bad episode, per se, but I think I was unnecessarily glib when recording it, and this is the first one that I felt dissatisfied with after I finished editing it.
"Yay!" I can hear you saying. "How fast can I download it?"
Don't get me wrong. I'm just a control freak, and one of the things I'm starting to realize is that when you recording something conversational, you have to be willing to let some of that control go. It's a hard thing to get used to, but it's made me more eager to get good at this. It is a radically different skill set than writing a review or building a narrative out of a set visit.
This week, James Rocchi (who can always find at MSN Movies) joins Scott Swan and I for a round of Movie God in which Scott makes choices that inspire James to label him "crazy." If you'd like to send in pairings for future games of Movie God, please do.
Plus JJ Abrams rumors swirling and 'Piranha 3D' gets a trailer
Welcome to The Morning Read.
Time to wrap the week up, and it's been a strange one.Â They all are these days, though, aren't they?
No matter what, they're making a "Smurfs" movie, and it's from the director of "Scooby-Doo" and "Home Alone 3," so you can count on it being of the highest possible quality.Â Especially when it features Hank Azaria looking like this.Â No, really.Â That's a good idea.Â I'm sure of it.
It's frustrating for studio publicists these days, because it seems like the game for movie sites is to run every piece of information they get the second they get it, no matter what.Â I've never been of that mind, personally, and in the overall balance of things, I've kept waaaaaay more secrets over the years than I've revealed.Â I don't think the role of a film reporter is to ruin everything they can simply to prove they can do it.Â Then again, I also don't think scoops are the main reason to do this.Â I've certainly run my share over the years, and there are times I've made certain filmmakers crazy, but IÂ try to strike a balance.Â There are certainly sites out there who have the attitude that everything is fair game and they don't owe anything to any filmmaker, and that's their choice.Â IÂ think in the end, I'm engaged in an ongoing dialogue with both the readership of this blog and the people I'm writing about, and it would be slightly suicidal for me to intentionally and repeatedly burn either end of that equation.Â
The most mercenary scoop site online right now is Latino Review, and I'm not using that word in any way other than descriptive.Â They genuinely don't care.Â Earlier this week, they ran a spy photo of a major villain from "Thor."Â Not the major villain, but certainly a key part of a major sequence of the film, and what they shot was a piece of a costume.Â It's a character that's going to be pulled off with a combination of techniques, and what they ran was a good indicator of just how close some of this movie's designs are going to be to things from the full history of the Marvel incarnation of the character.Â Whether it's The Warriors Three or certain weapons or sets, the filmmakers seem to be using key art from the entire history of Thor as reference.Â Although it's obvious from their response that Paramount is upset about the spy photo, they should count the general reaction to the image as a win.Â
Next summer's first big Marvel movie finally reveals its hero
Here's a case where a studio is taking back the conversation about a film of theirs after several online leaks, and in the best possible way. First the "secret ending" of "Iron Man 2," which may tie in to the larger Marvel Universe in some way, was spoiled by a bootlegged version of the scene, and then a spy photo showed up online this week of one of the major villains in "Thor." In an effort to shift the conversation, Paramount and Marvel have now offered up the first official still of Chris Hemsworth in costume as Thor, and it's a great, evocative first look at the character.
I sincerely believe "Thor" is poised to be a major surprise hit next year, and I say "surprise" even though this is a giant-budget Marvel Studios superhero movie because I think it's still a title that is under the radar for many people. "Thor" is in the same position now that "Iron Man" was a year before release. Many people predicted that the general public had no idea who Iron Man was, and that they wouldn't care. With "Thor," the question marks all seem to be about the way the studio plans to introduce Norse gods and mythology and magic into an onscreen universe that so far seems to be based in science, even if it is Marvel pseudo-science.
And unfortunately, Akiva Goldsman's charting his course
Stephen King's epic "Dark Tower" series would seem, at first glance, to be a natural source for a major film franchise. For a while, JJ Abrams, Carlton Cuse, and Damon Lindelof were attached to the material, and that was interesting... but even with them onboard, it's such a big and strange and slippery piece of work to turn into film.
But now, Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, and Akiva Goldsman are said to be signing on to produce the property together as a film (or films, depending on which source you read) as well as a television series. Ambitious. That's fitting for a piece of work like this. I'm not sure exactly what that means, and I'll bet they're not sure yet either. But at least they're thinking of something big and sprawling.
For "Dark Tower" fans, my question is this: can anyone really pull off the essence of what is "The Dark Tower" on film? For me, the experience of that story came from how it was told, over decades, as well as what was told, and being there to read it from start to finish felt special. It added an urgency to the last few books. I'm not sure someone starting with a finiite stack of books already done and easy to get can ever have the same "Dark Tower" experience as someone who read the thing as it came out, wondering if it would ever actually have an ending. And that's not to say that this team can't find a strong central storyline to tell in what King wrote. They probably can. I'm not sure if I buy that the general public really knows what "The Dark Tower" is, though, and even as a major King fan, I'm not sure his name carries the singular commercial clout it might have in other earlier moments.
Or did Paramount kill it today?
More and more often, Twitter is a place where movie news breaks even before a studio can put together a press release, and in some cases, things that are said on Twitter give us a glimpse of the corporate process that no press release would address.
Today, Adam McKay (who uses the handle @GhostPanther on Twitter) had this to say:
So bummed. Paramount basically passed on Anchorman 2. Even after we cut our budget down. We tried.
Now, he's only got 140 characters, so he doesn't really offer up any details, and he hasn't followed up when questioned today, so it's unclear if they're able to take the film anywhere else. I was actually surprised to see that this was a Paramount film, although maybe McKay had to offer it to Paramount first as part of his production deal for Gary Sanchez Productions. The first film was released by Dreamworks, and I wonder if they get a shot at it now that Paramount's passed.
[UPDATE: McKay just Tweeted the following at 4:15 PST -- To all who asked: no we can't do Anchorman 2 at another studio. Paramount owns it.]
As recently as a few months ago, when I spoke to Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell on the set of "Dinner For Schmucks," they seemed excited about what they were discussing as a follow-up, and a cast like this seems to be a studio's marketing dream come true. I'm a little puzzled how, in this climate of sure-things-only, Paramount just turned down a movie that would star Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell, Paul Rudd, David Koechner, Christina Applegate, and more, especially after the way the first film performed on home video and the way its grown a fairly substantial cult since its theatrical release.
A whole lot of slick can't hide the hollow center of this remake
I found this film deeply upsetting, but not in the ways the producers or the director intended.
"A Nightmare On Elm Street" has always been a franchise I've found deeply uncomfortable. I saw the first film theatrically. I was 14 at the time. I thought it was effective and inventive and stood out from the typical slasher fare that was being released by that point in the '80s. I still think it's one of the best things Wes Craven ever did. Beyond that first film, though, I find the franchise loathsome. Freddy Krueger is an uncommonly grotesque creation even in the world of movie killers, and if there's any flaw with the original Craven film, it's the way he sidesteps the nature of Freddy's real-world crimes. He was described as a "child killer" in the first film, and the idea of molestation was carefully avoided by Craven entirely. By softening the point in the first film, it made the character more palatable, and by the time there were Halloween costumes for kids based on the Krueger design, it was obvious that no one really understood the monster they were watching or releasing. The way they quickly turned him from a figure of fear into a bad stand-up comic with claws rendered pretty much every one of the sequels a gutless mess. I listened to someone at a press day recently explain which ones are the "good" sequels and which ones are the "bad" sequels, but I've never been able to get behind that idea. I think the entire notion of spinning him into a recurrent character robbed him of all effectiveness and led to incredibly mean-spirited and wrongly-silly films.