Does Jason Reitman have an authorial voice?
It's a fair question to ask at this point. After all, he's got a screenplay credit on four of the six feature films he's directed if you include "Men, Women & Children," which is in production now. When you look at the six films, though, I don't really see a common thread or see a common voice between them. Even "Juno" and "Young Adult," both written by Diablo Cody, have very different sensibilities. And "Thank You For Smoking" is about as far away from "Labor Day" in tone and content as possible.
Does he have to have a recognizable singular voice that we hear in each new project? Is that a requirement if we're going to treat him as a "serious" filmmaker? Or is the real mark of his talent his ability to bring a different voice to each story based on the story itself? After all, "Thank You For Smoking" started as a brutally satirical novel that is outrageous in a way that is totally at odds with the sort of wry sincerity of "Up In The Air" or the blistering anger that simmers just below the surface of "Young Adult." Reitman seems far more concerned with finding the best way to tell each story, and less concerned with making himself the main focus of things.
Does Jason Reitman have an authorial voice?
Marvel Studios must be a great place to work these days. They've got one of the best winning streaks in town, both creatively and commercially, and they're reaching a point where they can start to take more chances and try some things that would have been impossible earlier.
I kind of love that "Big Hero 6" image we've got at the top of this story, with Hiro Hamada and his robot Baymax sitting on top of a blimp looking down at the foggy San Fransokyo. Whether it's the fully-animated "Big Hero 6" or the Netflix experiment with "Jessica Jones" and "Daredevil," it's obvious that Disney is willing to try new things, and no project that they have right now better exemplifies that than James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy."
There's a new image that they've released today that gives us a good look at the five main characters in the movie. Zoe Saldana plays Gamora, a character who has some direct ties to the film's two main villains, Ronan The Accuser (Lee Pace) and the visually-arresting Nebula (Karen Gillan). Chris Pratt, poised to become a giant movie star to my kids and their peers thanks to this movie, "The LEGO Movie" and "Jurassic World" all in a short period of time, plays Peter Quill, aka Star Lord. Quill is the lead in the film, and as a human being who has been taken to the far side of the galaxy to grow up, he is very much in search of some sense of home.
In an age where hype is non-stop and films claim release dates two years away and viral marketing can sometimes eclipse the actual film it is advertising, what does it mean to say that a film is "anticipated"?
In many cases, there haven't even been official stills or images from some of the films that are on this list, and to the best of my knowledge, no one is preparing to camp outside for a month to be at the first show for any of them. We've seen moments in pop culture where the anticipation for something becomes an event all its own, almost always followed up by a moment where people realize the thing they waited for wasn't what they wanted after all, and it can be amazing to see the passions that anticipation stirs up in people.
Sometimes, it's a matter of a track record. If Bennett Miller is making a film, that's interesting to us automatically. There are two films on this list by the same team, Phil Lord and Chris MIller, and while they sound like totally different movies in the end, there are reasons in both cases for us to optimistic.
Sequels are often among the most anticipated films of the year because audiences grow attached to the things they love. People get excited to see Captain America again or the way Godzilla is coming back to the bigscreen because they have affection for earlier incarnations. That's the whole reason studios are in the remake and sequel business right now. They are building brands more than they're making movies more often than ever, so when we made this list, we tried to gauge just how excited people actually are about these films.
Tomorrow morning, we'll be publishing a piece about the 25 films we are most looking forward to in 2014, and it took quite a bit of back and forth before we decided on the final list. There are titles you'll immediately recognize on there, and a few you might not. Before we get to the main event, we thought we'd explain our thinking on a few high-profile films that you won't see on the list tomorrow.
A Million Ways To Die In The West
In Theaters: May 30, 2014
Director: Seth MacFarlane
Cast: Seth MacFarlane, Charlize Theron, Amanda Seyfried, Liam Neeson, Neil Patrick Harris, Giovanni Ribisi, Sarah Silverman, Wes Studi
Why we didn't include it: MacFarlane's certainly got his fans, and "Ted" was underestimated by everyone before it came out. There's a huge difference, though, between a film where you have a movie star and MacFarlane voicing a character a la "Family Guy" and a film where MacFarlane is the actual live-action lead. This is brand-new territory for him, and we remain unconvinced that audiences will buy him as the star. Westerns are difficult to do write even when playing them straight, and until we see a trailer for this, we have no idea what sort of tone they're even playing.
This is the second "old guys doing young guy stuff" that Robert DeNiro has starred in this year, and it is by far the weirder of the two. That may be because it feels like a studio movie caught somewhere between two very different schools of comedy. The script is credited to Tim Kelleher and Rodney Rothman, which could account for the split-personality of the film. Kelleher is the writer of "First Kid," credited as a staff writer on "The Arsenio Hall Show" and "The Pat Sajak Show," while Rothman is a frequent collaborator of Nick Stoller's, one of the major creative voices on "Get Him To The Greek" and "The Five-Year Engagement," the author of the sharp and funny "Early Bird: A Memoir Of Premature Retirement," and the writer/producer of the crazy science-fiction comedy "The Something," which is in development at Universal. And just in case the script wasn't already struggling to fit these two very different voices, the film is directed by Peter Segal, responsible for such uneven efforts as "Anger Management," "Naked Gun 33 1/3," "Nutty Professor II," and "Get Smart."
It is easy for casual audiences to make a surface connection between something like "Good Fellas" and "Casino" and "Wolf Of Wall Street" because of the overt connections between those worlds, the decadence and the crime and the excess. What people miss in those comparisons, though, is that Scorsese has made other versions of that same basic film, these dense social x-rays of the way communities work, in films as disparate as "Kundun" and "Age Of Innocence" as well. He is one of the keenest observers of the way systems function we have ever had in cinema, and "Wolf Of Wall Street" is a powerful reminder that at the age of 71, he is as vital and as ferocious a voice as ever.
It is, of course, inaccurate to say that "Wolf Of Wall Street" is "about" the financial crisis that America recently suffered. I'm not sure what a film "about" that would look like. It's such a broad topic that I don't really see how you could make any film that would encompass every angle of that story. Instead, using Jordan Belfort's book about himself, Scorsese does his best to show us exactly who it was who helped perpetuate the system that burned so many people, and the end result is a depraved, hallucinatory plunge into a truly ugly psyche. Scorsese's real gift when making one of these movies is showing us the small details of how things work, and one of the most interesting things about "Wolf" is how often Jordan Belfort starts to explain something, only to stop because he is convinced there's no way the audience is smart enough or interested enough to understand. That's what he says, anyway, but I think the real reason is because a good con man, like a good magician, never really gives away the trick. Belfort is a natural-born manipulator and liar, and anyone who believes that this is the "true" story of Belfort's rise and fall simply isn't paying attention.
If you hire Vin Diesel, you might as well just get comfortable with the idea that he's going to share things on his Facebook page, and he's going to do it on his timetable. He likes to share. He shares a lot. And at this point, he's worth quoting as a source because whether his information is "officially" confirmed or not, it is eventually revealed as correct.
Good example: how long now has Vin been teasing the idea that he's contributing the voice of Groot? And now, Marvel has officially confirmed that he'll be playing the character, contributing some motion capture as well. The other big project he's got brewing, made only bigger by the unfortunate recent accidental death of co-star Paul Walker, is "Fast and Furious 7," and there has been much conversation for the last few weeks about the film's release date.
Originally set for July 11, 2014, the film shut down production so that everyone involved could deal with the impact of Walker's death. These weren't just films that paid lip service to the notion of family, but were actually made by a group of tight-knit people who had gone through so much together, and it must be incredibly difficult for them to have conversations about how to proceed finishing the movie.
Sequels are, despite their omnipresence in Hollywood, actually fairly difficult to get right, and within that broad statement, I would say that horror sequels are even harder to get right, while comedy sequels may be the hardest to pull off with any degree of success.
Why is that? What makes it so hard to go back to the well? After all, if you hire the same people, shouldn't you get the same results? If you hire Adam McKay to direct again and you've got Judd Apatow producing, and you've got the same whole cast in place, shouldn't you get the exact same thing?
That's sort of the challenge. With comedy, I feel like so much of the success of something comes from surprise. A big part of what makes me laugh is when someone has some unexpected way of expressing an idea or reacting to something we all recognize, and one of the reasons I feel like Adam McKay is perfectly built to actually make good comedy sequels is because even when he's playing with familiar characters, his brain is just plain wired different than most people. The way he approaches anything, any line of dialogue, is grounded in the unexpected.
The entire notion of the Singularity is fascinating, and I am doubly intrigued by the fears that the idea seems to instill in people. I think the idea of being able to leave your body behind and live "forever" in a digital form is an amazing notion, but for some reason, whenever Hollywood deals with a major technological jump forward, they almost always do it in a horror film first.
While I'm not sure I'd call "Transcendence" a horror film, it certainly looks like they're playing the notion of digital life as a terrifying prospect. The film is about a famous scientist of some sort, like a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs, who is working on a process that will allow people to upload their consciousness when he is attacked and killed by someone looking to derail his research. In an effort to save his life, his wife uses his new process on him, and as his body dies, he makes the jump to a purely digital form.
At which point he appears to go crazy and try to take over the world.
We're about to start getting a flood of information on "The Avengers: Age Of Ultron" as they cast the remaining roles, and I'm curious to see how Marvel handles things. There are plenty of surprises left to be revealed, and major characters that haven't been mentioned at all yet in public, and I have no idea how they're going to reveal things. Will they say who they're casting these people to play, or are they going to be coy about it for as long as possible? And if they do try to play it low-key, how successful are they going to be?
For example, Latino Review just broke the news that Baron Von Strucker is going to be part of the film. In the Marvel comics, he's a leader of H.Y.D.R.A., which is sort of the evil version of S.H.I.E.L.D., and he's a particularly nasty ex-Nazi who has augmented himself to theoretically live forever. When David Goyer did that TV movie version of "Nick Fury: Agent Of S.H.I.E.L.D." with David Hasselhoff as the star, Baron Von Strucker was the bad guy. He also made frequent appearances in the animated series "The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes." He has a long history of facing off against the Avengers in the comics, and it makes perfect sense that he'd make his way into the Marvel Movie Universe eventually.