The international trailer for Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus arrived online last Friday, but most of us were too busy mourning John Hughes to notice. So, because I’m a diehard Gilliam fan and because most of the good reactions are hitting the web today, I’m going to just pretend this post is called “The Last Four Days in Bloggery.”

I am a huge defender of Gilliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchausen so I’m seeing a lot of similar stuff I like here, even if the visuals are a little too computer-generated to exactly have that Georges Méliès feel. But the hot air balloon really clinched it for me. And I’m definitely in agreement that this colorful, CG-rific Lewis Carroll-esque fantasy film looks better than that other one starring Johnny Depp (I’ll take a premature guess that I’ll like it more than that other one starring Parnassus‘ Lily Cole, too).

I can’t say I believe the trailer is going to bring too many people in. It’s very rushed, both in visuals and exposition, and even with the credits it should confuse unknowing viewers regarding the four-actors-in-the-same-role thing. Plus, with my appreciaition in the minority, I wonder if it’s going to be a bad thing that this looks like Gilliam’s biggest financial flops. Will “Academy Award Winner Heath Ledger” help fill seats?

Check out four days’ worth of film blogger responses to the trailer after the jump:

…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

I would title this Bloggery “Comic-Con 2009 Day 2,” but I’m going to reach back a little to the second half of Day 1 since yesterday’s post went up before the Avatar panel, plus people are still talking about that New Moon presentation more than 24 hours later. Unfortunately, there’s so much news and hype coming out of the Con today (Gary Oldman spills Batman 3 beans! Saw VII is greenlit!) that I may ignore some the stuff I care less about, like all the “awesome!!” responses to movies that will more than likely be commercial failures (like the ten listed here). Unless they’re really hilarious or profound.

Without further ado (I have little to say in this intro because I’m not at the Con), check out my favorite coverage from San Diego from the last 24 hours after the jump:
…Read more

With Comic-Con beginning tomorrow, there’s so much movie stuff being talked about today that I almost didn’t know what the biggest topic was/is. And really, the most discussed film-related news of the day was the Sam Raimi/World of Warcraft movie announcement. But WOW fans have apparently gone back to playing the game and aren’t hanging out on the web so much anymore, so it appears the teaser trailer for Alice in Wonderland has taken over as the most exciting thing for movie geeks to drool over right now. Even more than the hot photos of Freddy Krueger, Jeff Bridges on the set of Tron 2.0 and the Megan Fox Fangoria cover.

All I can say is that if you told me 15 years ago that I’d ever be this disinterested in something involving either Tim Burton or Lewis Carroll, let alone both, I would have called you a liar and then beat you with my Edward Scissorhands DVD (see, the joke is that I was such a big fan back then that I had the DVD before it ever existed). It doesn’t look as bad as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I guess, but it looks a whole lot duller than I expected. Maybe this is just too perfect and obvious a pairing that there’s no need for it, in the same way we don’t really need a Terry Gilliam-directed Good Omens or a Chris Columbus-directed Percy Jackson (doh!). I guess that’s the main reason I have no desire to see this movie, but the fact that it somehow looks both murky and meretricious has me turned off completely.

Let’s see what the rest of the film blogosphere thinks of the teaser, after the jump:

…Read more

Last month, a New York Times article focused on the Wall Street worries over Pixar’s Up. The film lacks commercial appeal, apparently, because it features a 78-year-old protagonist. This is no country for old men (on the big screen), claim the experts. “We doubt younger boys will be that excited by the main character,” says one analyst quoted in the piece.

Even if kids were that anti-elderly (and we don’t believe they are), we can point to many other accessible elements of the film, from talking dogs to a young co-protagonist who serves as an identifiable gateway for adolescent viewers, that allow the target demographic to enjoy the animated film in spite of the cantankerous codger at its center.

Chances are, though, the little ones will also enjoy the character of Carl Fredricksen (voiced by Ed Asner), maybe enough for them to seek out their own elderly person to assist (whether or not its for a merit badge). We’re hoping that it additionally leads to a greater cinematic appreciation of old men. But not just because, as Alonso Duralde writes at MSNBC, we have a shortage of realistic films about old folks. Rather, primarily because we think there’s a number of other old man protagonists that young audiences would like. Meet ten of them after the jump.
…Read more

In response to the leaked promo trailer for Werner Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant remake, some people are claiming the film doesn’t look like a Herzog work at all. This is surprising, especially since the scene with the old ladies reminds us of the Aguirre act-at-gunpoint legend. Plus, ever since we heard the news of this “reimagining” we thought it was too befitting for Herzog to rework Abel Ferrara. However, that had more to do with the idea that both filmmakers are batshit crazy, not that their films are really that similar.

Still, wouldn’t it be more exciting to see Herzog take on something even less appropriate for his style and taste? Inspired by the Twitter meme #wernerherzogremake, which began yesterday in connection with the Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans promo, we’ve selected ten films we’d love to see Herzog redo just to see what his warped perspective would bring to these stories. While most of them are slightly tied to something he’s made in the past, each is still a completely unlikely project for Herzog to take on. But hopefully he’ll only see such implausibility as a challenge and actually go with one of our suggestions.
…Read more

As long as X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a success this weekend (and despite all its “bad luck,” it should do very well), Fox will follow it with another X-Men spin-off, this one detailing the back story of Magneto. Outside of that project, which has been in the works just as long as the Wolverine film, there’s interest in solo movies for Gambit, Deadpool and Emma Frost (White Queen), as well as a spin-off about the original X-Men team as students.

Recently, in another list, we called for an Origins film focused on the shape-shifting villain Mystique, for which we even suggested Brian DePalma to direct. That spin-off is still our first choice, but since there are so many great mutant characters in the Marvel Universe, we’d like to pitch ten more X-Men origin movies to Hollywood (not just to Fox). To go along with the studio’s idea of hiring an unqualified filmmaker (Gavin Hood) for the job, we also recommend a barely appropriate director for each film.

…Read more

• It’s not being received well at all on Earth, but maybe the new remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still will get better reviews in Alpha Centauri, a nearby star system to which Fox is beaming the disaster sci-fi film. Despite the negative reaction here, it’s expected to gross at least $25 million, though that would be less than the last lame global warming-based sci-fi movie, The Happening, which opened to $30.5 million back in June.
• The beloved holiday classic A Christmas Story has been turned into a musical, which will have industry-only readings next week. As long as there’s a musical number titled “Fra-Gee-Lay” involving a giant dancing leg lamp, I might want to attend my first Broadway Christmas production in twenty years.
• Terry Gilliam, who is being honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Dubai Internation Film Festival this week, is looking at Dubai’s new studio and for local funding to potentially shoot his revived The Man Who Killed Don Quixote in the country. I’m still crossing my fingers that this film actually works out this time.
• Colombian filmmaker Andres Baiz (Santanas) will make his English-language feature debut with Babylon, a 3:10 to Yuma-like film set in Jamaica and starring Paul Giamatti as a British minister.
• Summit has pushed back Rian Johnson’s The Brothers Bloom to open next May instead of next week. The distributor claims the reason was merely to pull out of an overcrowded season.

io9 has confirmed an earlier report that Ridley Scott will direct an adaptation of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s classic dystopian future novel. Scott says that Leonardo DiCaprio approached him about adapting the book, and it looks like he will star in the film as well. This is exciting news; not only does it herald the return to science fiction for the director of Blade Runner and Alien, it also means that Leo, who is working on a live action adaptation of Akira, has two dystopian future projects in progress.

Brave New World is one of my favorite books, and Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies, for many of the same reasons, but I’m still having trouble getting excited about this news. Scott’s work on Blade Runner was amazing, but that was 26 years ago, and he hasn’t made a science fiction film since. I’d like to believe he can jump back in the saddle, but considering what he’s been up to for the past two and a half decades, I have my doubts. While the quality of Scott’s filmography is admittedly debatable, it’s safe to say he’s made some pretty terrible movies, Kingdom of Heaven and A Good Year come to mind. Even his films that have some potential end up falling short. American Gangster, while not a bad movie, felt like only like a sufficient execution of a script Scorsese would have passed over in the nineties.

Even if Scott can get his Blade Runner mojo working again for Brave New World, it could still be really bad. …Read more

“Even Heath Ledger Can’t Help Terry Gilliam Find a Distributor.” I’d like to state, for the record, that I object to the headline on this Guardian story pointing to a Hollywood Reporter piece on the uncertain release fate of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus — but it did get my attention, unlike the Reporter story itself, which was published late Friday.

The most interesting thing about both stories is the eagerness to use the Ledger angle to recast Parnassus as a film that should be commercial, but for some mysterious reason––and despite Ledger’s involvement––isn’t. The hysterical takeaway becomes, “Ahhh! Nobody wants to release Heath Ledger’s last movie! Whatever could be wrong with it?!?!??”

Nevermind the fact that, had its star not died, no one would have expected a new Terry Gilliam film to be a big lure for US buyers anyway. Nor the fact that the Reporter’s anonymous sources who say they don’t want to buy the film apparently haven’t seen it. Ahhh! Film buyers aren’t clamoring to exploit the final footage of a celebrity martyr sight unseen! Whatever could be wrong with them?!?!??“

Lists of movies within movies are fairly common on the internet, enough that I now realize I need to finally see Bowfinger simply because I’ve counted about a million list makers in love with something titled “Chubby Rain.” And the lists are likely to keep on coming thanks to this week’s hot release, Tropic Thunder, which actually features two movies within (the Vietnam War film “Tropic Thunder” and the festival-winning making-of documentary “Rain of Madness”), as well as the upcoming How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, which has spawned a popular fake movie trailer for an NC-17 film titled “Mother Theresa: The Making of a Saint” (previewed above). Yet until someone makes a Wikipedia page for “List of Fictional Films,” these blogged and forumed lists are necessary to keep us movie fans remembering those non-existent movies we wish existed.

Narrowing down to ten seemed to be difficult — fictional films have been at least nominally been created for tons of films about filmmaking, otherwise reflexive films, sketch comedies, spoofs, etc. — until I realized that a lot of these films within films are appropriately nominal or trailer- or clip-sized gags and would in reality be terrible (imagine actually watching the entirety of “Asses of Fire” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut). Even “Je Vous Présente Paméla” (”Meet Pamela”) from Day for Night and the sci-fi film being made in 8½ would probably be major disappointments in actuality if you expected from them the work of Truffaut and Fellini, respectively.

So, I went mostly with fictional films that would probably be bad, but would at least be amusingly bad — though I purposefully avoided fictional porns, including those from Boogie Nights and The Big Lebowski, of which there are literally thousands:

…Read more

If you’ve been on the Internet at all this past week, you’ve probably heard that Heath Ledger could receive a posthumous Oscar nomination for his performance in The Dark Knight. That’s with emphasis on could, because, after all, anyone could be nominated. Uwe Boll could be nominated for Best Director. He won’t be, but he could be.

And apparently Ledger probably won’t be nominated either. A Reuters article has collected quotes (not new) from the realists commenting on Ledger’s actual Oscar chances, which Los Angeles Times‘ Tom O’Neil says is a “long shot.” He also provided the following expert comment: “That’s how reluctant Oscar voters are to hug the dead. These awards are all about hugs and there’s something creepy about embracing the dead.” Meanwhile Leonard Maltin says the excitement is a “phenomenon of the Internet age” and is merely a “wish-fulfillment rumor.”

Does this mean the Internerds are over-hyping Ledger’s performance and in doing so are maybe actually ruining Ledger’s chance for that posthumous Oscar?

Certainly Terry Gilliam (who thinks the buzz originates from Warner Bros.) would again be grateful to the legions of movie geeks on the web, but is it only the bloggers and the even less respected geeks who are doing the worst damage?

Now that the real promotional appearances and actual reviews are out, it seems that bigger buzz is coming from people who typically receive more respect than those of us who are mere blog writers:

• TDK costars Michael Caine, who has championed for a nomination on such venues as The Tonight Show and The View, and Gary Oldman, who mentioned Oscar in an AP article.
• Filmmaker Kevin Smith, also quoted in the AP article.
• Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips, who called Ledger’s performance “Academy Award caliber” on At the Movies with Ebert and Roeper.
• Roger Ebert himself
• Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers
• Toronto Star critic Peter Howell, who also wants Oscar noms for Best Picture and Best Director and who acknowledges the death=Oscar junk by writing, “Ledger, whose incandescent performance would have attracted serious Oscar talk even without the actor’s untimely passing.”
• Non-”top critic” — but still non-blog critic — Gina Carbone of Seacoast Newspapers, who apologetically yet non-apologetically writes, “I’m tired of the early Oscar talk too, but when you’re talking the best performance in years, if not decades, it’s worth talking about.” She also wants an additional Oscar nom, for Best Makeup.
• Newswires like Reuters and AP
• And even O’Neil, who has at least carried the Oscar buzz into his own writings

For awhile there, I thought so much Oscar buzz would disappointingly influence a nomination for the wrong reasons. Now I think so much Oscar buzz could disappointingly influence a snub for the wrong reasons.

What do you think? Is Ledger’s performance really worthy of an Oscar? Or is it being overhyped? And either way, is it unrealistic or unhelpful (especially when considering the others deserving of posthumous Oscars) to continue championing him so far in advance?

Though I first buzzed about an Academy Award nomination for Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight more than a month before his death, I now want to take it all back. I feel all the talk of Ledger’s posthumous Oscar chances will cloud my mind when I finally do see it, and it will probably also cloud the Academy’s judgment, too. Six months from now, when the nominations are announced on January 22 (coincidentally the one-year anniversary of Ledger’s death), if Ledger is not recognized for his role as The Joker, there will surely be an uproar — actually, Hollywood might just up and self-implode.

I’m not the only one annoyed by all the Oscar buzz. Terry Gilliam, who directed Ledger in The Brothers Grimm and the upcoming The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, is calling “bullshit” on the whole thing, particularly against Warner Bros., which Gilliam accuses of exploiting Ledger’s death and chance of a posthumous Oscar for publicity purposes. Considering most Oscar campaigns for live actors are really just part of movie marketing, he has a good point.

…Read more

Call me crazy (again), but I really like Tarsem’s debut feature, The Cell. If I had any complaints, though, it would be that there wasn’t enough visual stimuli. I’m sure others would have preferred a better story instead, but I have a greater appreciation for those films that are primarily meant to be looked at, and not as much followed. Favorites include Terry Giliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Julie Taymor’s Titus and Zhang Yimou’s Hero, though I could probably go on and on. It’s an interesting affection coming from me, a guy occasionally inclined to criticize Hollywood’s spectacle-over-substance model of blockbustering. But I can’t help falling for a combination of beautiful cinematography and art direction. I shouldn’t, but I’ll even admit to enjoying What Dreams May Come – with my eyes wide open and my ears plugged shut, of course.

The problem, though, with filmmakers like Tarsem and the rest is that eventually their painterly visions may dry up or become repetitive or obvious, or they’ll simply fail to reach enough of an audience that they cease to acquire enough funding to adequately present their style believably. I’ve already grown bored with Taymor and Zhang (Gilliam hopefully still has some surprises), and I’m thinking it won’t take long for me to tire of Tarsem, too. As gorgeous as his sophomore effort, The Fall, looks, it also seems a bit cheap, as if it had only the budget of one of his music videos (he directed R.E.M.’s “Losing My Religion” and Deep Forest’s “Lullaby”). Yet perhaps it only feels like that to me now because I’m viewing the film as a short montage of shots. I’m willing to give any of these visionary filmmakers a chance until they disappoint me enough that I scream (figuratively, through criticism, that is — see any of my mentions of Taymor’s Across the Universe around the web).

…Read more