Call Sheet: Zach Galifianakis in REPLY ALL, Tina Fey with Meryl Streep, Rhianna in BATTLESHIP and Nicolas Cage has promotion sickness
Aug 02
Call Sheet: A weekly run-down of movie casting news and rumours from around the web.
Zach Galifianakis, that chubby, hairy guy from The Hangover, keeps getting work in increasingly interesting roles. Deadline reports DreamWorks has purchased the comedy pitch Reply All, being written by Phil Johnston as a star vehicle for Galifianakis who will play a guy who hits the “reply all” button to an indiscreet e-mail and then has to deal with the repercussions. Take that, You’ve Got Mail!
Who can keep track of what the fuck Guillermo Del Toro might be developing next? There’s talk of a Van Helsing project, then there’s The Haunted Mansion, and he walked out on The Hobbit… Well, Deadline thinks that he will finally get to make the adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft‘s At The Mountain Of Madness with producer James Cameron. Yes, that sounds exciting… and almost too good to be true. Or any good.
Liam Neeson revealed to DigitalSpy that he’s too old to play Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg’s biopic about the former U.S. President’s life. Neeson was attached to star but is currently about 58 years old and Lincoln was 46 when he was assassinated in 1865. Too bad, it would have been nice to see a Schindler’s List reunion between Spielberg and Neeson.
24 Frames reports that the little girl who swears in Kick-Ass, Chloe Moretz, will star in The Rut for director Karyn Kusama (Jennifer’s Body). You can next see darling Chloe in Matt Reeve’s Let Me In.
Sylvester Stallone has open said there will be no more Rambo sequels, however, he admitted to AICN that the idea of a prequel might be interesting. In answering a fan question about a possible Rambo prequel, he said:
I certainly think this is worth pondering because it’s intriguing to find the whys and wherefores of how people have come to become what they are. The traumas, the loss and the tragedy of being in Vietnam would certainly be a great challenge for a young actor and it would be ironic that Rambo directs younger Rambo after having played it for 20 plus years.
Speaking of Sly, a new take on Judge Dredd (in 3D, of course) will begin filming in a few months with Karl Urban starring as ‘The Law’. He revealed it on 3News over the weekend.
Lars Von Trier‘s psychological thriller Melancholia is currently in production, starring Kirsten Dunst, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlotte Rampling, Alexander Skarsgaard, Stellan Skarsgaard, John Hurt and Udo Kier. While exact plot details have been kept under wraps, The Playlist has learned it has something to do with “an enormous planet that evidently looms threateningly close to Earth”. Cool. Send Bruce Willis—he’ll know what to do.
THR reveals adult starlet Sasha Grey will join ‘real’ actors Thomas Jane, Rob Lowe and Jeremy Piven on the film I Melt With You, being directed by Mark Pellington. You might remember him from that U2-3D concert in 2007. No?
THR better not be teasing! They report that Meryl Streep will collaborate with comedy-queen Tina Fey in the Mommy And Me, a comedy being directed by Streep’s Julie & Julia co-star Stanley Tucci.
Movieline reveals via a reliable source that Darren Aronofsky’s reboot/remake of Robocop is officially dead. Thank Christ.
The hilarious Old Spice guy, Isaiah Mustafa, told Hollywood Reporter he’s joined the cast of Seth Gordon’s Horrible Bosses. While only a small part, he’ll share the screen with Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Day, Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston. I’m on a horse!
RiskyBusiness revealed DreamWorks have bought the original comedy Raised By Wolfs from writer Les Firestein, with comedian Steve Carell already attached to star. The plot is still under wraps. I’m sure Steve will do some yelling in it at some stage. Perhaps that’s built into the contract?
Deadline reports Justin Timberlake has been offered the lead male role in I’M.MORTAL alongside Amanda Seyfried. Does Hollywood realise this guy sings songs? He must be doing something right. I’m looking forward to seeing how he does in David Fincher’s The Social Network. Until then, I feel for the actors who have struggled for years watching roles get swooped up by that kid from N’Sync.
While we’re on singers trying to be actors, Variety reports pop star Rihanna will make her feature debut with the big budget Universal-Hasbro toy-tie-in movie Battleship. The film has been described as a contemporary story of an international five-ship fleet engaged in a very dynamic, violent and intense battle. So, no giant pegs plummeting from the sky and bombing boats. Shame.
Variety also reports director Asger Leth is in talks to direct Sam Worthington in the cop thriller Man On A Ledge for Summit. Something tells me it’s all about a guy threatening to jump. From a ledge. And someone will have to, you know, save him… and themselves.
THR reveals Jordana Spiro (from TV’s My Boys) has joined the cast of Joel Schumacher’s Trespass with Nicolas Cage and Nicole Kidman. It’s about a married couple taken hostage by four brutal thieves seeking easy cash. Hey, what more do you expect? It’s a Schumacher film.
Speaking of good ol’ Nicolas Cage, here’s a wonderful video revealing some his craftier promotional techniques used while doing the rounds for his latest, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice:
That’s about all for this week’s Call Sheet, thanks for reading!
Top 10 reasons why I didn’t like AVATAR
Jul 13
I reviewed Avatar on opening day. Fresh from watching the film, my mind had a tendency to focus on the trees rather than the woods, and, while the review still holds up, it could use some clarification.
Eight months have passed since then, the dust has settled, everyone’s absorbed Avatar into their consciousness, and the film’s due for re-release in six weeks’ time. What better time to reflect on the cultural phenomenon than now?
Here follows a list of the ten main reasons why I – me, myself, and only I – couldn’t appreciate Avatar like everyone else (and their dog) seemed to.
10 – The 3D Doesn’t Really Help
Avatar is a visually busy film. Vibrant colours, eye-catching character designs, constant movement, and a lush aesthetic already do enough to overload the visual centre of your brain; putting it all in 3D didn’t help clarify it for me, it just helps to make it even busier.
Plus I wear glasses in everyday life already; having to wear another layer of plastic in front of my face for two-and-a-half hours gave me uncomfortable eyestrain.
9 – The People vs Pandora
Sometimes I felt like the people in the movie were dwarfed by the planet. I don’t mean visually; I mean thematically. I understand that James Cameron really wanted to immerse us in the world of Pandora, but the way to do that is to set the action against a detailed and fascinating backdrop. I’m not stupid. I can see that the backdrop is interesting. You don’t need to constantly derail your scenes just to rub this in my face.
8 – Science Fantasy
In my review I went to great lengths to bemoan things like the blue skin and red blood of the na’vi, the four-eyed faces of the native fauna, the breathing holes on the creatures’ chests, and the na’vi’s distinct separation (physiologically) from every other species on Pandora.
Basically what I was trying to say was that Cameron was blending science fiction with fantasy, two incompatible systems. Either you go for realistic plausibility (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey), or you throw realism out the window (Star Wars); trying to marry both disappoints me for some reason.
7 – The Uncanny Valley
Motion-capture bugs me. It’s not so bad when it’s aliens that are being rendered, as in Avatar, but the uncanny, rubbery faces still hurt the characters for me. I was aware that what I was watching wasn’t a human performance, but a computer-enhanced one. This annoys me for the same reason Justin Bieber’s hideously auto-tuned voice annoys me: it’s disingenuous., and it puts up a barrier between me and the characters on the screen.
6 – Meanwhile, Back On The Earth
All the way through Avatar, I wanted to see Earth as it was in whatever year the plot’s set in, because even a glimpse of the world at that time would have helped shape the universe as a whole. Where does Cameron see us going in the future? That’s important information in service of shaping the thematic content of the film. We hear mention of an Earth overcome by pollution. Could we please see that for some perspective, please?
5 – The Misanthropic Principle
Reading between the lines, Avatar wants you to believe that all humans are incapable of controlling their destructive urges, and that the only way to become a better human is to stop being a human, and turn yourself into an organism from a different species altogether.
The na’vi are presented as perfect beings, happy communities with nary a care in the world, while we are presented as bull-headed rednecks with barely a skerrick of common sense between us. This nastiness pervades the film and offended me, denting my appreciation of the story. Plus the only humans who stand up for the na’vi – Sigourney Weaver’s and Michelle Rodriguez’ characters – get killed at the end. Thanks.
4 – Upping The Ante
Following on from #5, what’s the biggest thing the na’vi stand to lose in the plot of Avatar? It all boils down to that big tree that provides the basis for their neural network with the world. The only thing that separates us from the na’vi – hence, the only thing that stops them from being human – is that link with the past, that shortcut to empathy. If you removed that link – horror! – the na’vi would become just like us, only able to generate empathy through force of will. And this is presented as the worst possible thing that could happen to the na’vi – that they might end up like us. Ouch.
3 – Too Long By An Hour
I probably wouldn’t have had time to think of complaints to throw at the movie if only it had breezed along at a steady clip, aiming for a 100-minutes-and-change run-time. The biggest problem here is the Rocky / Karate Kid-esque training montage in the middle of the movie, which goes for about 45 minutes straight. That could easily have been condensed and my butt could easily have been saved the unnecessary en-numbing-ment it unhappily underwent. I know Cameron had to establish the characters and the universe in a limited time, but if George Lucas could do it in two hours in 1977 you can sure as hell do it just as fast in 2009.
2 – Cartoon Villains And Cardboard Heroes
Ultimately, who is Jake Sully? He’s a wheelchair-bound ex-marine with an incongruous Australian accent. That set-up serves the dual purpose of generating sympathy for the character and conveniently proving his suitability for the Avatar Program, but it does little to help define him as a character. He’s stubborn and takes good initiative, sure – but this is generic hero stuff. What really makes Jake Sully who he is?
How about Quaritch and that character Giovanni Ribisi plays? They’re just personal manifestations of nastiness, nothing more and nothing less. (For the record, I actually enjoyed Ribisi’s performance, even at the same time I questioned his relevance to the movie as a whole.)
1 – Everything Is Pixels
Avatar may blend live-action with animation better than something like Mary Poppins, but unlike Mary Poppins it doesn’t have a stylistic justification for flip-flopping between real people and pixellated creations.
The world is presented as being real, but my eyes tell me otherwise. I’m not a fan of animated films to begin with, so that predisposition probably coloured my reaction to Avatar which is, technically, about 80% computer-generated. If it had focused more on the real people I probably would have enjoyed it a hell of a lot more.
Ultimately, watching Avatar for me became akin to looking over someone’s shoulder as they played a beautifully-rendered videogame. The blank slate hero was there, the wish-fulfilling empowerment was there, even the alien sex scene was there (kind of). It was like playing a non-interactive videogame, which is obviously the worst kind of videogame there is.
James Cameron’s big blue baby is by no stretch of the imagination a bad film; I just didn’t like it. I applaud Cameron’s success in tapping into something universal, something that touched a lot of people, and brought a unique cinematic experience to the lives of millions. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
There’s no denying that Avatar came at precisely the right time in history: everyone’s rightfully worried about the environment, and are looking increasingly to technology for escapism from a cruel world full of death, destruction, horror, and electricity bills. The idea of stepping into someone else’s shoes and solving the world’s problems satisfies us on a fundamental level, now more than ever.
I’m thrilled for Cameron’s success, but I think it’s born of good timing rather than masterful storytelling. That isn’t meant to belittle the film’s success in any way, but hopefully I’ve given you food for thought to chew over as you watch Avatar on DVD for the umpteenth time, or go to catch it in its re-release in August.
As always, I’m keen to hear your thoughts on this – comments are welcome and appreciated.
Hey Jim, buy me a house: James Cameron set to earn $350m from AVATAR
Jul 10
In an ironic twist on the Hollywood accounting nonsense I recently wrote some words about, James Cameron is set to rake in $350 million from the success of Avatar. That’s a lot of dollars.
How come he gets so much? Because he wrote, directed and produced the film; each one of those jobs probably came with a cent-per-dollar contract, and, being in control of the project in every meaningful way, he must have stipulated that he got a percentage of the profit before expenditures were subtracted. See kids? That’s the right way to go.
Apparently the majority of the third-of-a-billion personal payday (bigger than Oprah’s annual earnings) came from DVD sales (of which you reportedly bought a metric shitload). Who knows how much more he’ll make from the August re-release, or the DVD double-dip due later this year?
See Avatar again in August if you want James Cameron’s wallet to explode; Avatar 2 is in the works but James Cameron has to finish saving the world first.
AVATAR being re-released to 3D cinemas worldwide in August. No, really.
Jul 09
Did you see Avatar in the cinema? You know, with the silly 3D glasses on and hundreds of sheep people looking on in awe? Chances are you did… we all did. And if you didn’t see it in cinemas you most likely got the DVD or Blu-ray the day it came out or soon thereafter. Numbers indicate we all saw Avatar at some point. The big question is: would you pay money to go see it in the cinemas again, if you had the chance? Fox thinks you will. Fox are probably right.
The wise and powerful Mr. James Cameron has mistakenly thought he could fix/improve Avatar by adding eight whole minutes of never-before-seen extra footage that didn’t make it into the original cut and re-release the entire film to 3D cinemas across the globe– less than a year after it was originally released.
In some cities (like Sydney), the original film is still running. Avatar is already the highest grossing film of all time, who knows when it will stop making money. I should be baffled, disgruntled and scratching my head in confusion, but this makes sense. Heck, even I’m considering seeing it again, and I didn’t enjoy it like most people did.
If you’re a fellow Australian, you can catch Avatar in 3D again on 26 August 2010. The other international re-release dates, announced by Fox today, are listed below.
- Belgium – 8 September 2010
- Russia – 26 August 2010
- Spain – 17 September 2010
- UK – 27 August 2010
- India – 27 August 2010
- Japan – 16 October 2010
- South Korea – 16 September 2010
- Mexico – 15 October 2010
- Argentina – 16 September 2010
Would you pay to see TITANIC again, in 3D this time?
Jul 06
The LA Times confirms James Cameron is taking on the long task of converting Titanic into a 3D film for Fox, ready to be re-released in April 2012. That date marks 100 years since Titanic’s tragic sinking, and they seem to think re-releasing the film in 3D and selling even more tickets to see it would be a fitting way to capitalize on the occasion. I mean, why not?
The majority of the 3D films you see in cinemas were actually shot using standtard 2D cameras and then digitally altered for those uncomfortable 3D glasses to. Only a handful of films, likeAvatar, have been shot using the Fusion3D camera that shoots ‘true 3D. Obviously, being a 1997 release, Titanic would have to be converted to 3D. Apparently, if you spend enough time carefully rendering each frame, converted 3D can turn out OK. The quick, fast, cheap way looks horrible and is happening on so many movies it’s becoming hard to keep track.
I’l only willing to sit through Titanic again for three reasons:
- Seeing it on the cinema screen again would be a blast
- That guy hitting the propeller in 3D might be cool, and
- Well… Kate Winslet topless in 3D. That could be worth the price of admission alone! Even if it does mean sitting through Titanic all over again.
OPINIONS COUNT