While most of the film blogosphere is wondering why Sony hasn’t yet greenlit a District 9 sequel, our old friends at the Oscar blogs are addressing a potential awards campaign for the sci-fi hit. According to Peter Bart at Variety, an Academy screening of the film over the weekend was very well received (best applause in years? come on), and the news has sparked buzz of a possible Best Picture nod. After all, there are ten available slots this year.

Honestly, I enjoyed the movie very much, but if it’s being considered Oscar-worthy, I’ll be the first to begin the backlash (against the awards push; Armond White already took care of the general backlash). District 9 shouldn’t be nominated for Best Picture any more than Star Trek should. It shouldn’t even be nominated any more than Transformers 2 should. Regardless of how much better it may be.

And I don’t necessarily have anything against a sci-fi movie being up for the award. If Cameron’s Avatar is groundbreaking and brilliant, give it a nomination. I just want to make it clear that District 9 is very good, but it is not that good. And just saying that it deserves an Oscar campaign adds to the continued depreciation of the Academy Awards.

Read what other film bloggers are saying about the District 9 Oscar buzz after the jump:
…Read more

Let’s play that game where we compare quotes from two seemingly unrelated stories that happened to come out on the same day and thus seem to say something about the zeitgeist.

First, from an interview with District 9 producer Peter Jackson (via Scott Kirsner):

…Read more

I didn’t bother reading any of the premature Lovely Bones posts yesterday because I find the idea of a teaser for a trailer to be quite silly. But now that we’ve been able to see the whole spot (via Apple), let’s talk about it. Personally, I was really excited for Peter Jackson to return to something more Heavenly Creatures than LOTR with this adaptation of Alice Sebold’s best -seller, but I’m pretty disappointed with the afterlife stuff here.

Maybe it’s because of the Alice in Wonderland trailer. Maybe it’s because of the derivative premise of Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch. Maybe it’s because it looks a lot like What Dreams May Come. But I enjoyed that movie, at least for the visuals, so perhaps I should just accept that Jackson was unfortunately not going to do more clay people, a la the fantasy sequences from Creatures, and focus more on the real-world stuff.

Well, aside from thinking these scenes also don’t look that original or interesting (is it a spoiler that we’re shown the murderer?), I’ll probably see the movie for Stanley Tucci alone. Others may be concentrating on Mark Wahlberg’s wig, but I’m all about Tucci’s appearance here. Sure, I’m all about any actor who does the comb-over/mustache combo, but we all have our things that draw us into a movie.

See what the other film blogs are saying about the trailer after the jump:

…Read more

For a movie with no stars and no built-in audience, Neill Blomkatt’s District 9 is buzzing incredibly well. Sure, the Peter Jackson connection may have something to do with the interest and excitement, but I’d bet a lot of the traffic and talk being devoted to the film today is more due to how awesome it looks. And how well it’s being marketed, of course. But with the latest trailer, which arrived online yesterday, heating up the exposure and anticipation so immensely so quickly, could there be room for overkill? I actually don’t think so. This won’t be another disappointment a la Snakes on a Plane or Cloverfield, because it’s a more interesting premise, not just some cheap genre pic with heavy viral promotion.

Maybe I’m just allowing my expectations to get higher than usual, but I’m truly optimistic that this will actually be good. It’s dangerous territory for me to be getting in, and the film and its campaign are probably going to blow up in my face like that “can” of toxic material in the trailer. Oh well, what else do I have to look forward to next month? G.I. Joe? Inglourious Basterds? I gave up on my excitement for both of those long ago, and I want to be surprised by something out of nowhere. Unfortunately, modern movie distribution doesn’t allow for such complete surprises anymore, so this may be the closest thing I’ve got.

Let’s see what kind of buzz or buzzkill the blogs are inciting after the jump:
…Read more

Spanish auteur Pedro Almodovar recently announced he’s working on an American TV series based on his Oscar-nominated film Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. While it seems odd for Fox Television to be interested in adapting a 21-year-old foreign film to the small screen, the age of the source material is hardly surprising given the fact that both NBC and ABC are similarly working on new shows based the 1989 ensemble dramedy Parenthood and 1987’sThe Witches of the Eastwick, respectively, for the fall.

Is this the beginning of a trend? We hope so, and we’re even going to lend TV producers a hand by suggesting ten other 1980s movies that would make interesting shows. To make it a little less random, though, especially given how many appropriately sitcomish films were released in the decade, we have limited our selections to one per year. If you have any additional ideas, please pitch them in the comments section below.
…Read more

The reactions to the new G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra trailer are, as expected, pretty negative. But it’s almost as if bloggers had their write-ups pre-written, because the thing is not that bad. Maybe I just have low expectations and so therefore wasn’t expecting much to begin with, but considering all the crap that movie blogs get excited about on a regular basis, I’m dubious. Those criticizing this trailer so harshly are obviously just going along with the fashion of trashing on this movie. I’m not saying it looks good, but I might actually prefer to see this than, say, the new Transformers sequel.

And if District 9, which does indeed look amazing via its new trailer, is actually “this year’s Cloverfield, then I might also prefer to see G.I. Joe than that, too. Of course, if we go by trailers alone and not presumptions, the little-known-about District 9, which appears to be a faux-documentary sci-fi flick, completely wins the fight over our summer moviegoing dollars. And I’m certainly not alone in seeing the Peter Jackson-produced movie as the champion today. Let’s compare the responses to each trailer, from the usual suspects:

…Read more

Yesterday, for the second time in two weeks, In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley confessed to being done with 2008 and noted a bunch of anticipated 2009 films. These aren’t necessarily titles he’s looking forward to seeing, though; it’s basically a preliminary jump on next year’s Oscar season. Because apparently this year’s Academy Awards are all but handed out, the winners properly predicted and expected, and now it’s time to think about what will be up for what in 2010. Those titles Tapley lists are Rob Marshall’s Nine, Peter Jackson’s Lovely Bones, Michael Mann’s Public Enemies, Clint Eastwood’s “Mandela“ (formerly The Human Factor), Richard Curtis’ The Boat That Rocked, Scott Cooper’s Crazy Heart and the latest from Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life), Steven Soderbergh (The Informant), Paul Greengrass (Green Zone), Martin Scorsese (Shutter Island) and James Cameron (Avatar).

Oh, and then Jeff Wells had to go and hint that Spielberg’s Lincoln is likely to arrive by year’s end. What and who else is being foreseen as nominated this time next year? Check out the links after the jump.

…Read more

Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards.

Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works.

…Read more

• Peter Jackson, Frank Walsh and Philippa Boyens will collaborate with director Guillermo Del Toro on the screenplays for the latter’s two Hobbit movies. The original plan was to hire outside hands to produce a script, but in order to make the first film’s 2011 release date, Del Toro and Jackson apparently concurred that they needed a team of “people intimate with Tolkien’s world of Middle Earth.”
• Eon, the company that produces movies based on James Bond novels, has declined to buy the rights to the latest 007 book, Devil May Care. The book is set in 1967, and Eon is determined to keep this new wave of Bond films as contemporary as possible.
• Juliet Snowden and Stiles White, the team responsible for the script for Michael Bay’s remake of The Birds, have now been hired to write a do-over of Poltergeist.
• Kirk Kerkorian, who has already owned MGM three times and was responsible for extending the film studio brand into Las Vegas, is rumored to have made an offer to buy the company for a fourth time for a low-ball bid of $3 billion.

It’s been three months since the trades reported Guillermo Del Toro was in talks to direct The Hobbit (as two separate films). So why has it taken this long for the deal to be set in stone? Over at The Movie Blog, John thinks some of it had to do with Del Toro wanting to make sure he would have enough creative control, considering he’ll be working for producer Peter Jackson.

How much control will Guillermo del Toro have? I’ll be willing to bet this was one of the big issues delaying the official announcement of his agreeing to direct the projects. Peter Jackson helmed The Lord of the Rings… will he allow del Toro (a better director over all in my opinion… although both are insanely gifted) the freedom to make these films as he sees fit with modestly limited interference? Clearly del Toro should listen to the studio and to Jackson in particular… but these are HIS movies now, not Jacksons, and for the most part he needs to be the man in charge now. Will they let that happen?

…Read more

After finally seeing Spider-Man 3 the other day, I’ll be happy to never see another Sam Raimi movie again. So, when it was announced Monday that Guillermo Del Toro, instead of Raimi, was in talks to direct the back-to-back Hobbit movies, I was somewhat relieved. But now with Del Toro himself pretty much confirming he’s on board for the Lord of the Ring prequels (I know in the book world prequel isn’t the appropriate word, but in the New Line film series, and as far as mass audience is concerned, it is), I’m still a bit worried about the look of the films. Will Gollum suddenly have no eyes, like many of the creatures in Del Toro’s recent works? Will he be played by Doug Jones rather than a CGI Andy Serkis? Will Middle-earth now be a more stylized place?

One of the great things about Peter Jackson’s LOTR trilogy is that he made it look fairly straight-forward. There wasn’t much of the filmmaker’s personality in it. Sure, some of Middle-earth’s design had its influences (Rivendell looked painted by Maxfield Parrish, for example), but you couldn’t say the films necessarily or significantly reflected Jackson in any sort of a stylistic sense. Del Toro is much more of an auteur, though, and it’s easy to imagine his Hobbit duology bearing more a resemblance to his own films than to Jackson’s LOTRs (just look at how Hellboy II looks so similar to Pan’s Labyrinth). Of course, New Line couldn’t let too much divert from what the audience is used to, right? No way would anybody permit for Del Toro to do his own thing with Gollum or any other part of the franchise so that it would be unrecognizable to moviegoers. But then why not just hire some new, more malleable director to be Jackson’s Matt Reeves/James McTeague/Tobe Hooper?

I’m sure you heard about the announcement heard round Middle Earth the world yesterday: Peter Jackson has settled his differences with New Line and has come on board as executive producer of the studio’s two Lord of the Rings prequels. It wasn’t mentioned in the press release, but Jackson has decided not to direct either of the installments in New Line’s adaptation of Tolkien’s The Hobbit, though the news that he’s involved should be enough. Clearly, the studio simply needed to get some good news, any good news, out there — likely more for Time Warner shareholders than Tolkien or Jackson fans.

I wasn’t the only person to immediately assume the settlement between Jackson and New Line had something to do with the latter’s disappointment with the box office of The Golden Compass. Both bloggers and blog comments were quick to claim that, “The Golden Compass’s low box office was the best thing that could have happened for LotR fans” (said “E” on Cinematical) and pat themselves on the back, as if it was all planned: “Well done everyone for not turning up for Compass!!” (from “wildphantom07″ on AICN). The real question, then, is how much more in Jackson’s favor was the settlement? We’ll probably never know, but we can imagine. After a very bad year, New Line was possibly pretty desperate.

Of course, nobody at the studio would ever admit to such a suggestion. Entertainment Weekly has the denial:

New Line is quick to point out that The Hobbit resolution is in no way a reaction to disappointing domestic box office numbers for their most recent release, The Golden Compass, which they had hoped would launch a new franchise. “Absolutely not,” said Lynne. “This has been in the works for a while now. Golden Compass, by the way, overseas, is performing spectacularly. Obviously, we have been disappointed with its performance here, but I think overall it will do quite well.”

…Read more

• American Gangster managed “the highest opening for an R-rated crime drama in history” this weekend, earning $46.3 million to Bee Movie’s $39.1 million at the box office. The animated film opened on almost 25 percent more screens than Ridley Scott’s love letter to a 70s drug kingpin. Meanwhile, Sidney Lumet’s Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead added 40 screens and saw its weekend take rise 440 percent. Julien Temple’s doc Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten scored the highest per-screen average of the weekend, with $10,193 on each of its two screens.
• David O. Russell will direct a “risque political satire” called Nailed, which he’ll co-write with Kristin “Daughter of Al” Gore. Jessica Biel and Jake Gyllenhaal have already been cast, but the Hollywood Reporter story gives the impression that the script has yet to be written. Which might be a problem, because…
• Last minute talks were unable to head off a strike. Movie studios are not so worried … yet. Enough preparation was done pre-strike to ensure a more or less full release schedule for 2008; the immediate problem, is that with late night shows expected to shut down until there’s a new WGA contract, stars and filmmakers will have to find a new venue for cheap promotion.
• The American Film Market “has gotten off to its slowest start in recent memory.” The biggest deal of the event so far: Sony agreed to fully finance and handle most distribution for Peter Jackson’s District 9.

• Lions For Lambs is, according to Dade Hayes, a “remarkably strident political work that takes dead aim at the Bush White House and assails post-9/11 foreign policy.” It’s also the first project to see release from the Tom Cruise-controlled United Artists, and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that Cruise’s comeback is riding on its success. And yet, it seems as though Cruise the producer hasn’t given Cruise the star (who plays a right-wing senator in Lambs) talking points on how to package his own political views in relation to the film.
• Ryan Gosling gained 20 pounds and grew a beard for the job, and yet, a day before shooting was to begin, he was fired from Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones and replaced with Mark Wahlberg. Who wants to put money on what “creative differences” actually means in this case?
• Graphic novel adaptation 30 Days of Night barely squeaked past Why Did I Get Married? at the box office this weekend, earning $16 million to Tyler Perry’s $12 million. Michael Clayton, which has already been written off as a failure by some Clooney haters, held on to the fourth place slot for the second week in a row. Star-studded Oscar bait continued to bomb pretty hard: Rendition opened wide in ninth place, and Reservation Road managed just $2,630 per screen in limited release.