I didn’t bother reading any of the premature Lovely Bonesposts 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 Jacksonto return to something more Heavenly Creaturesthan 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:
Yesterday I wrote of the news that Wanted director Timur Bekmambetov is helming an effects-heavy adaptation of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. It’s not entirely shocking, but it does still seem like a cruel joke. More specifically, it sounds like something Jasper Fforde would jest about in his Thursday Next novels. Of course, the news came just as I’m in the middle of Fforde’s latest, First Among Sequels, in which Pride and Prejudice is turned into a reality TV show.
Although I’m not exactly well read as far as literary classics go, I’ve been wondering what other revered books (particularly those in the public domain) could be reworked as potential summer blockbusters. Obviously, there are certain sci-fi, fantasy and adventure novels that work, yet the fitting fictions of Verne, Wells, Burroughs, Dumas and others are already fodder for cheap movies with lots of action and/or special effects. Therefore, I’ve tried to limit my choices to those books that aren’t such easy candidates for a Memorial Day weekend opening.
1. The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
Dante’s epic poem has inspired a few films over the years, including the hugely successful 1911 silent L’Inferno, but it’s about time for Hollywood to bastardize the otherworldly tale with lots of computer-generated visuals. Maybe you’re thinking that What Dreams Come already made some attempt at this, and it failed at the box office. Sure, but it was still an awesome spectacle of a film. Now, think of something similar starring Will Smith as Dante. And some rewrites to allow for more fight scenes (yes, even in Heaven). The poem will be divided into a trilogy of films, of course.
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 Universearound the web).
Mick LaSalle asked us last week what movie we would like to be inside (instead of Beowulf, which we can sort of feel like we’re in). Personally, I think being inside The Wizard of Ozwould be awful. I might even prefer The Wiz, and I’d hate to be in The Wiz. I’d even prefer to hang out with Fred Savage in The Wizard, and I don’t play video games. My answers: anything Capra (well, almost anything — no Why We Fight docs); anything Marx Brothers; anything Muppets; anything Miyazaki; Amelie; Close Encounters of the Third Kind; The Goonies (why not?); and What Dreams May Come (the movie was bad; the setting was beautiful).
In honor of me writing more about Enchantedthan Karina ever would dream of, I present Rob’s review from his I don’t like Renee Zellweger blog, to show I’m not the only blogger addressing such mainstream fare. Like me, Rob found the movie to be “uninspired,” though he was apparently “disappointed” (I had a low expectation to begin with) and even notes that Amy Adams might have another chance at an Oscar (she’s cute, but ultimately annoying — though differently than she was in Junebug). Anyway, shockingly, the movie currently has a 100% approval on Rotten Tomatoes. We’ll see if that lasts. If only more of us bloggers were writing about it …
Apparently if you have a video clip of yourself negatively reviewing a 20th Century Fox release, the studio will have it removed, despite it being neither illegal nor their place to do so.
Are long movie titles bad for box office? Only when they’re abbreviated as diseases. “Cholera” = bad. “Pirates”; “Narnia”; “Harry Potter” = good.
iTunes seems to have screwed up its exclusive release of Ed Burns’ Purple Violets. It seems available now, though, so I can’t verify the blunder. Scott at CinemaTech shares his experience, at least.
I love t-shirts, and I love this design, but weren’t there movie adaptations before 1920?
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Mick LaSalle asked us
