



Speaking with Daily Telegraph (today's print edition, not yet online), the paper reveals "he is hoping to direct Cumberbatch again in a new film version of 'Frankenstein.' " Exciting stuff, but as fans know, the project has been one del Toro has been working on for years in fits and starts. Back in 2009, he was reportedly doing test shooting and had selected Doug Jones (who featured as creatures in "Pan's Labryinth" and the "Hellboy" movies) to play the freakish monster. And it's easy to understand why del Toro wants Cumberbatch.
The actor has already played both the monster and Dr. Victor Frankenstein to great acclaim, starring opposite Jonny Lee Miller in Danny Boyle's very well-received stage version that also screened in select theaters last year. All said, we'll have to see if this actually works out, but it seems del Toro is continuing to tinker with it, though it remains to be seen what Universal will do particularly considering Fox already has their "Frankenstein" starring Daniel Radcliffe already slated for a fall 2014 release.
Another long-gestating Universal project -- part of a four picture deal he signed in 2008 -- is a big screen version of Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five." Not much has been heard about this one recently, but del Toro has lined up a helluva writer to take it on. "Charlie [Kaufman] and I talked for about an hour-and-a-half and came up with a perfect way of doing the book," he told the Daily Telegraph. "I love the idea of the Trafalmadorians [the aliens of 'Slaughterhouse-Five'] -- to be 'unstuck in time,' where everything is happening at the same time. And that's what I want to do. It's just a catch-22. The studio will make it when it''s my next movie, but how can I commit to it being my next movie until there's a screenplay? Charlie Kaufman is a very expensive writer!"
"I"ll work it out," he added.
Vonnegut + Kaufman + del Toro? Goddamn. That sounds amazing, but let's not forget, even when all the pieces are seemingly in place, del Toro's initial experience at Universal hasn't exactly been roses. They kiboshed his R-rated "At The Mountains Of Madness." "I'll show you the art and your heart will break," he said of the movie, which he is still trying to seek financing for, along with his developing, darker stop-motion version of "Pinocchio."
So lot's of stuff on del Toro's plate....and let's not forget a possible "Pacific Rim 2" if it does the business Warner Bros. hope it will do. Which of these projects do you want to see move to the front of del Toro's busy schedule?
( SOURCE )
Cumbersnatch for ALL the fug monster roles, tbh. His busted reptilian Brit face could totes do it. I mean, when will your ridiculously attractive faves ever? First, Smaug in "The Hobbit", and now Frankenstein's monster. NO LIES DETECTED. I'll be screaming in horrific approval.
What say you, ONTD?
George Lucas and Steven Spielberg recently took part in a symposium in which they predicted an imminent “implosion” in the system as a result of the industry’s current obsession with blockbuster movies. Curious about whether or not this was simply exaggeration, Vulture’s David Edelstein got in contact with producer Lynda Obst, author of a new book titled Sleepless in Hollywood: Tales From the New Abnormal in the Movie Business. During their conversation, she grimly agreed with the two moguls, predicting, “If, say, four huge tentpole [movies] were to go down at the same time in the same season, it would be catastrophic.”
The Lone Ranger — a.k.a. Pirates of the Caribbean 4.5: Sparrow Goes West— is looking like it might be a huge tentpole movie (it reportedly cost $215-250 million) that goes down this weekend. It also happens to be a perfect example of almost everything that’s wrong with the current Hollywood blockbuster system. In addition to being massively expensive, The Lone Ranger demonstrates the industry’s franchise obsession, origin-story laziness, over-reliance on bloodless violence, and inability to prevent running-time bloat. These are not small problems, and there is no sign that they will be riding off into the sunset anytime soon.
1. The Franchise Problem
Last November, shortly after it was announced that Disney had acquired Lucasfilm and would make a new Star Wars trilogy, Vulture’s Kyle Buchanan posited that we were entering a phase in which we would begin to see films from the same franchises over and over and over. That’s because, as Obst writes in her book, studios need movies with “pre-awareness” — titles that are familiar enough to sell in both the U.S. and abroad. Whether it’s ready-made properties like Star Wars or surprise hits that studios can then sequelize until the properties burn out (see the Hangover series), franchises are, and will continue to be, the name of the game. Each studio has its own set of titles: Disney is basically a franchise machine these days— the studio is now in charge of the Star Wars, Marvel, Muppets, and Pixar brands; Paramount has Star Trek and Mission: Impossible; Fox has Ice Age, Planet of the Apes, and the X-Men films; Warner Bros. has Batman, Superman, and the Lord of the Rings series; Universal has the Bourne movies and the hit Fast and Furious series; Sony has Spider-Man.
But in addition to all those very recognizable properties, there is pressure to expand and find more. As a result, studios will glom on to practically anything that is even vaguely recognizable (hello, Battleship!), preferably one with a title that is the name of a person or a cartoon or a superhero. Disney tried this last year with John Carter and failed. Questions of quality aside (the film’s Metacritic score is split almost down the middle at 51 percent), John Carter was simply rejected by audiences. That might have to do with the fact that few were likely familiar or interested in a movie about a character from an early 20th century series of sci-fi adventure novels. The year before, Seth Rogen starred in director Michel Gondry’s film version of The Green Hornet, another pulp-era hero (the character is actually the grand-nephew of the Lone Ranger) who audiences had no interest in getting to learn about. In the mid-nineties, two films with similar comic strip/old-time radio heroes — The Phantom and The Shadow— were equally unsuccessful. Yet, as studios continue to plumb our pop culture past for any recognizable names that have yet to be made into a movie/potential franchise, we’re likely so see more films along these lines. (Even if The Lone Ranger flops, Hollywood has not been known to always learn from its mistakes.)
2. The Origin-Story Problem
This is a corollary to point number one. Don’t be fooled by the title. The Lone Ranger is as much a movie about sidekick Tonto as it is about the titular masked man. It’s a choice that makes sense, given that the Native American is played by Johnny Depp in full, mugging Jack Sparrow mode. You don’t pay Johnny Depp money and then shunt him to the side. As a result, the movie must make its way through not just one, but a pair of origin stories, as we learn both how lawman John Reid (Armie Hammer) became the masked avenger as well as how face-painted, dead-bird–wearing Tonto became the wandering outcast of this version. The Lone Ranger spends a good chunk of time marking off origin-story checklist items and very little time on the actual lone ranging. But, if you’re going to try to establish a franchise, the origin story must be told, especially with a character as obscure to current audiences as the Lone Ranger. As a result, there’s a heavy sense of obligation and Catch-22-ness to the entire task. Here’s a suggestion, Hollywood — try starting a series in media res. Give us a story that works and then, if you’re lucky enough to earn a sequel, you can give us flashes of an origin tale down the road, as opposed to weighing down your first movie.
3. The Rating Problem
The modern blockbuster’s primary responsibility is to deliver maximum profits and to perpetuate franchises. According to Obst, “If you make a movie that makes $200 million and you can’t make a sequel out of it, it's a dead property.” So in order to ensure sequels and appeal to the maximum number of people, it must be rated PG or PG-13. Good luck finding an R-rated summer blockbuster. By and large, raunchy comedies, like last month’s This Is the End or last summer’s Ted, are where the R-rating is to be found. Yet, in The Lone Ranger, an ostensibly family-friendly PG-13 movie, the following things happen: A man eats another man’s heart (off-screen), a Native American tribe is massacred, a group of Texas Rangers are all loudly shot to death, two men have their heads crushed by a giant block of wood. All these things happen and there is nary a drop of blood to be seen. The film shows us death and gun violence but brushes aside any sense of consequence. The same thing could be said about Man of Steel’s blasé destruction of an entire city or World War Z’s gore-free zombie apocalypse. Specifically to Lone Ranger, though, it’s likely why many negative reviews have focused on — as Vulture’s David Edelstein wrote in his review, in which he discusses its leaps between silliness and sadism— the movie’s wildly inconsistent “tone.” What that really means is that the Lone Ranger is trying to have it both ways, like many summer blockbusters, when it’s actually not possible.
4. The Length Problem
The modern blockbuster suffers from a bloat problem, a bagginess problem. Two-hour plus running times have long been a calling card of fall/Christmas releases. Last year, Les Misérables, Django Unchained, The Hobbit, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirtyall fell between two and a half and three hours in length. The modern summer blockbuster is slowly but surely following that example. The Lone Ranger is two and a half hours long. Star Trek Into Darkness, Iron Man 3 and Fast and Furious 6 all fall at about two hours and ten minutes while Man of Steel clocks in at nearly two and a half hours. Last summer’s two biggest movies, The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, came in at two hours, 23 minutes and two hours, 45 minutes, respectively. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies — summer releases all and featuring the same star, producer and director as TheLone Ranger— run anywhere from two hours, sixteen minutes to nearly three hours.
Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with long movies, of course. Roger Ebert once said, “No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.” But it’s hard to argue that summer blockbusters, as entertaining as the best ones can be, deserve to be as long as the generally more substantive fare of Oscar season. Do studios feel that, with less people going to theaters these days, movies need to be lengthy in order for a moviegoer to feel justified in spending both their time and money? It’s hard to imagine anyone leaving The Lone Ranger saying, “that movie was neither too long nor too short — it was just right!”
As of Thursday night, The Lone Ranger was projected to gross $45 million over the five-day Fourth of July weekend. (About a month ago, the Ethan Hawke horror movie The Purge made only $10 million less than that in its non-holiday debut weekend.) It has been critically panned, notching a 24 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and a 37 percent on Metacritic, and ever since production was halted to bring the budget down, the industry press has had its knives out. It’s hard not to feel sorry for the damned film. It’s a product of a system stuck in neutral. Hollywood happened to The Lone Ranger, not the other way around.
( SOURCE )
Where are the lies?
The shocking claims come in an exclusive interview with Michael Lohan, who reckons his daughter’s once glittering Hollywood career is over unless she sorts herself out, the New York Post reports.
According to Michael in an interview with the Sun, Lindsay’s first brush with drugs came when she was filming the rom-com Just My Luck in 2005.
A box office flop, it was Lindsay’s first movie role after Michael and her mum Dina legally separated - a break-up that hit her hard.
Armed and on his way to a confrontation, Michael crashed his car and was arrested for drink-driving, spending a year in prison. "After I was pulled from the car I couldn’t believe how stupid I had been," he says. "I was angry but I wasn’t going to shoot the guy. I am just glad that I did not get to New Orleans"
Michael's assertions are in conflict with Lindsay's own claim she has only used cocaine “four or five times”, although her struggles with substance abuse are undeniable.
She is currently in a rehab facility for the sixth time, fulfilling a 90-day court-ordered stretch after violating probation for a previous offence. In total, she has spent 250 days in rehabilitation, addressing her addictions to cocaine, painkillers and alcohol.
Michael Lohan, father of actress Lindsay Lohan, says she first overdosed on drugs aged 18. Picture: Damian Dovarganes
Michael says she is also abusing Adderall; a prescription drug for attention deficit issues.
"If Lindsay does relapse, then I think it will be over for her with Hollywood," he says. "There will be no more second or third chances. She has got to stay clean and sober this time."
Michael himself is a recovering addict and now works as a counsellor at a drug rehab centre.
"What is the point of making a movie that's just like the dopiest, broadest, and most reductive grade of guy-oriented comedy, except with women?"
That's the question at the heart of Salon critic Andrew O'Hehir's review of last week's Sandra Bullock/Melissa McCarthy buddy cop comedy The Heat— a movie he derides for its depiction of "women who have internalized the vicious, macho culture of police work." He questions the way Ashburn (Sandra Bullock) and Mullins (Melissa McCarthy) use physical threats on their quest to bring down an elusive drug dealer, and wishes that the movie had more "dramatic weight." He says that "gross misconduct" by police officers shouldn't be framed as funny, and thinks the film's "high body count" should "mean something."
Though hisreview frames these aspects of the film as negatives, O'Hehir's aggrieved response to The Heat is exactly the point of The Heat: Combating the idea that having a vagina requires an entirely distinct set of behaviors and expectations than having a penis.
The Heat was made to give women the opportunity to act in a completely male-dominated genre — and, in doing so, to show the genre's universality. Though the buddy cop genre has seen many interracial partnerships (Beverly Hills Cop, Lethal Weapon, 48 Hours) and even a few team-ups between men and animals (Turner & Hooch), Hollywood had never offered a buddy cop movie starring two women.The Heat isn't trying to reimagine an old genre trope with a new social consciousness like, say, Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. From the film's title sequence full of classic beats and retro fonts, director Paul Feig and Co. explicitly frame the comedy as a deeply traditional buddy cop film — but one that happens to star two women.
The Heat strives to level the playing field and abolish the notion that women are so different than men — which makes it a window to an audience still applying gendered expectations to women behind and on the screen. O'Hehir's discontent is not a critique of the buddy cop genre altogether; it's the result of his expectations about how women should act within what he describes as "guy-oriented comedy." He describes the screenplay as something "driven by a confused machismo," and is ultimately unhappy with a film that shows evidence "that women on the screen, and behind the camera, and in the audience can be just as morally reckless as men."
The many critiques leveled at The Heat are similar to the backlash received by director Paul Feig's last big-buzz, female-dominated comedy, Bridesmaids. The film's food poisoning scene not only evoked questions about whether women should partake in the same comedy as men, but questions about whether women could be gross at all— as if women who experience food poisoning go to the toilet to pass roses and rainbows. "Guys and gross make a better fit," asserted Peter Travers in Rolling Stone. "Who needs to see bridesmaids puking up lunch and shitting their pants?" In the New York Post,Lou Lumenick questionedthe idea that "women among themselves behave every bit as grossly as men. Maybe it's just the romantic in me, but I'd sure like to think this is not really true." (He must've read that old issue of Cosmo in which Kim Kardashian joked that she's never "gone #2 or passed gas.")
Feig directly addressed questions about women "acting like men" during an interview with Grantland. "It drives me crazy when people say that!" he exclaimed. "Both movies are vetted by women, written by women. I think it's the fact that women are treated one way in most movies — you know, this is what women are like, and they do this and they do that. But this is based on what women I know actually do."
The Heat questions the idea that a female version of a buddy cop film must be different than a man's, just as Bridesmaids questioned the notion that women wouldn't be felled by explosive bowels. Both comedies battle with and expand typical portrayals of women on the big screen, and act as a reminder that male and female experiences aren't diametrically opposed. The Hea talso challenges the assumption that women are inherently attracted to different genres and themes than men. The Heat's almost $40 million box office was made of 65 percent women, who gave it an A- Cinema Score. We can't forget that women generally have the same cinematic upbringing as men — raised to watch life overwhelmingly through the view of male protagonists and male creatives.
The Heat and Bridesmaids also contend with the problematic link between feminism and cinema — one that goes beyond our discussion of the "female filmmaker" label. In a world where Geena Davis predicts that it will take a whopping 700 years for gender roles to reach parity, feminism is needed to both speak to the imbalance and fight to change it. But it also comes with an unfair expectation of activism. For some, it's not enough for a film like The Heat to treat and display women equally; it must also infuse its story with added social responsibility — even though many actresses struggle to find speaking roles, let alone good characters, in Hollywood. In one fell swoop, a movie like The Heat is expected to transcend its genre, be a feminist icon, right other imbalances, and fix any perceived thematic weaknesses of the past.
Why isn't it enough that Bullock and McCarthy easily slipped into roles that have almost universally been held by men, expanded cinema's narrow portrayal of female cops, and turned The Heat into a financial success — all of which are significant wins for feminist filmmaking? (For a more detailed breakdown of the film's trope-busting, read Ashley Fetters' "The Heat's Subtly Radical Portrayal of Policewomen"at The Atlantic.)
Women are expected to do what men are not. Mainstream cinema is overflowing with massive destruction that rarely shows the consequences, and O'Hehir mentions such moments in his reviews of both Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel. He does not, however, ask for dramatic weight to balance the lack of "moral cost and consequence," and violence without "real acknowledgement of death or suffering." Those films offer far more potential for serious dramatic weight than a conventional buddy cop comedy, but there is "absolutely nothing wrong with Star Trek Into Darkness— once you understand it as a generic comic-book-style summer flick."
Cinematic equality is not just a matter of numbers — it's a matter of attitude. It's 2013, and it's time to stop expecting that women be paragons of etiquette, rising above the bawdy boys on the playground. Let's hope we can learn that lesson before Feig releases his next groundbreaking female-centric action spin— the James Bond-inspired Susan Cooper.
source
everyone should go see the Heat and support female leads, the movie is fun and y'all gonna have a great time
Look out, Big Apple.
Lindsay Lohan will be out of court-ordered 90-day rehab at the end of the month and her mom, Dina, has big plans for her.
For starters, a pool party.
Lohan turned 27 on Tuesday but wasn't allowed visitors at Cliffside Malibu (after switching from Betty Ford last month) because it was a weekday. She wound up having a "very quiet" birthday, Dina tells the Daily News, with "all the kids at rehab" who have become pals.
And when LiLo does leave the facility, the star will head back to New York to fulfill her court-ordered community service, Dina said Thursday.
"She's not going to live in Los Angeles," she told The News. "She will definitely start back home with all of us."
She added, "It's been a long road, and she's going to be fine."
Lohan was ordered to rehab in March after she pleaded no contest to reckless driving and lying to police about a car crash on a Santa Monica highway last year. The judge also sentenced her to 30 days of community service and 18 months of psychological therapy.