• Spike Lee has spent his own money to acquire Time Traveler, “a memoir by Ronald Mallett, one of the nation’s first African-Americans to earn a Ph.D in theoretical physics.” He’ll co-adapt and direct.
• David Gordon Green’s The Pineapple Express will screen at the Just For Laughs Film Festival on July 19, three weeks before Sony opens the stoner comedy wide.
• Passchendaele, a Canadian WWI drama about the famous muddy battle, will open the Toronto Film Festival.
  
• Universal will release the second Da Ali G Show theatrical spin-off, Bruno, on May 15, 2009, a date already occupied by the sequel to The Da Vinci Code.

Two big movies arrive in theaters this week, The Incredible Hulk and The Happening, and each has had its share of bad buzz. From what I can tell, though, the former is recuperating quite nicely with mostly favorable early reviews. And it’s sure to gross in the hundreds of millions, just like its big brother, Ang Lee’s Hulk, did a few years back. The latter, however, is still struggling through the muck, with writer-director M. Night Shyamalan doing everything he can to assure us that his film is merely a B-movie and shouldn’t be the victim of high expectations.

If The Happening bombs, though, 20th Century Fox won’t be able to blame its bad buzz. Especially if The Incredible Hulk comes out a big winner this weekend. When a movie is good, or at least has some goods that audiences actually crave, it can overcome bad buzz. The list of films after the jump is evidence of this, although it’s possible that some of the older titles might have been less successful in the globally conscious age of blogs.

1. Titanic - James Cameron’s romantic disaster film arrived in the early days of mass internet usage, but it didn’t need high-speed gossip to spread word of its troubled production. Any reader of entertainment news learned of the drug-induced food poisoning, the crew illnesses and injuries that came with filming in cold waters and the other problems that put the shoot way over schedule and way over budget. Then there was the matter of its release date being pushed back from July, 1997, to December. Yet Titanic had the goods, and it went on to become the highest-grossing film of all-time and win 11 Oscars, including Best Picture.
   …Read more

One of the hardest things about being a young film critic is that it’s impossible to catch up to the older guys in terms of how many films I’ve seen. To think Roger Ebert was already reviewing films at the Sun-Times for ten years before I was born. And gee whiz, Andrew Sarris has been doing this forever. I mean, it’s hard enough seeing every significant film released in a year, let alone every significant film released in the 8 decades before my lifetime. But while it’s certainly in my best interest to see all those Ingmar Berman films I’ve avoided, and see everything else on all those “all time best” lists, and maybe watch Turner Classic Movies 24-7 for the rest of my life, there’s just no way I’ll ever be complete in the eyes of some of my peers or, more importantly, of my readers.

Last Sunday, SF Chronicle critic Mick LaSalle confessed to having never previously seen some “classics”, including 2001: A Space Odyssey. But he had finally just watched them and proceeded to review them. Some bloggers have responded, including Kevin Lee, who is disappointed in LaSalle’s low-level insight, and Jeff Wells, who admitted to his own unseen, none of which seemed too embarrassing. But then LaSalle ponied up a response to the responses:

“Of course, since I’ve written that article I’ve heard from people telling me that I’m an illiterate for not seeing the movies they’ve seen (although I’ve seen them NOW). Needless to say, I could name hundreds of worthy and significant films that probably none of them have seen. But hey, people need something to make them feel good about themselves, and they’ll find any excuse.

But that’s neither important nor interesting. However, the larger point this brings up, though, does interest me. Movies have been around now for about a century. Fifty years ago, we might have reasonably assumed (it wouldn’t have been true, but it would have been a reasonable assumption) that every film critic of significance had seen all the major movies.

But after a hundred years, do we really want our film critics to be generalists, all familiar with the same batch of pre-digested movies that everyone agrees are good? By now, you really can’t see everything, so do we want critics all to have seen the same narrow basic repertory?”

…Read more

I was one of the many who enjoyed Morgan Spurlock’s debut feature documentary, Super Size Me, but mostly only because it came at the tail end of an anti-fast-food kick for me that began with Eric Schlosser’s 2001 book Fast Food Nation. By the time Spurlock showed up on the big screen with his silly McDonalds-only diet/experiment, I had already given up fast food two years prior, had lost 65 lbs. over the course of a summer (only partially as a result of not eating fast food, of course) and wasn’t exactly in need of convincing. But I was in the mood for some comedy, and Spurlock entertained as needed. Did he deserve the Oscar nomination? Not at all.

This time around he’s even less of a pioneer. In fact, I think the Where is Osama Bin Laden? jokes were already dated when Super Size Me hit theaters. This isn’t to say that I think the search for the terrorist should be over, nor that I think we should shrug off the topic of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda just because it’s been more than 6 years since 9/11. I just don’t see how a feature-length documentary, which from watching the trailer appears to consist of nothing more than Spurlock annoying people with his query, can keep the issue funny enough throughout its whole running time. Actually, thanks to the trailer I now have doubts that Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? is even funny for a minute of the film’s length. Of course, it received mixed reactions from Sundance last month, where Karina Kevin reviewed it somewhat favorably, so perhaps my doubts aren’t completely justifiable. Maybe this is just a failed trailer. Or maybe, judging by the little (also dated) joke on The Da Vinci Code (or is it on National Treasure?), this trailer is simply aimed at a broader audience with a broader (and simpler) sense of humor.

As of yet, The Weinstein Co. has not set a U.S. release date for the film.

For those of us who are still completely enamored with Audrey Tautou in Amelie, seeing the actress in Pierre Salvadori’s Priceless (original title: Hors de prix) could possibly be unsettling (the old international trailer is embedded above, but you can find the new American-release trailer on Moviefone). In the film she plays a character who is the very opposite of Amelie. She’s a shallow gold digger rather than a selfless romantic, the whore rather than the Madonna. She’s also sexy rather than cute, which is only a matter of antithesis in the movies.

Is this going against type? Or does she not necessarily have a star persona to begin with? After falling in love with Tautou in Amelie, I watched every one of the actress’ films available in the States, and I quickly realized that she rarely resembles Amelie. Only in Happenstance, which was sold in some markets as Amelie 2, was she close to acting like that beloved, iconic character. And she certainly wasn’t all whimsy and sainthood in either of her English-language films, The Da Vinci Code and Dirty Pretty Things. So why do I still have this idea of Tautou being Amelie in the same way we think of Chaplin as the Tramp or any of the other many movie stars who consistently play(ed) themselves and/or a recognizable persona throughout their career? Why do I expect her to be a sweet, innocent type in every new role?

…Read more