Same jaunty home-made aesthetic as the trailer. And hey, who knew Jonathan Franzen was playing romantic leads these days? Oh, wait.
Anyway, I like it, but I’m still having trouble squaring such imagery with the tag of “from director Sam Mendes.” Is this coming from a genuine place inside him, or did he think, “Hmm, I think I’ll try my hand at one of those gentle indie comedies that have done quite well lately?” Nothing wrong with that. Kudos for the change of pace, either way.
Remember when, a few weeks ago, Freida Pinto was automatically declared Woody Allen’s new “muse” simply because she had committed to his next film?
Well, it seemed premature then — and now that none other than Nicole Kidman has been added to a cast that already included Naomi Watts, I think it’s fair to say the focus (not to mention the pressure) is off Pinto.
Even by Allen’s own lofty casting standards, Kidman is quite a coup. As usual, we have no other details of the project, but I would love to see Kidman let loose in a comedy for a change. With Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins and Antonio Banderas also in the mix, it’s certainly an attractive line-up. But then, when does one of Woody’s films not look good on paper?
(UPDATE: Thanks to diligent commenter Billyboy, I can inform you that the film is “a dramatic comedy which is set in London (and) revolves around the romantic intrigues, sexual desires and ambitions of a group of people.” Business as usual for the man, then — not that we’d want it any other way.)
From the big guy’s four-star review of the film, right at the top:
“Knowing” is among the best science-fiction films I’ve seen — frightening, suspenseful, intelligent and, when it needs to be, rather awesome. In its very different way, it is comparable to the great “Dark City,” by the same director, Alex Proyas. That film was about the hidden nature of the world men think they inhabit, and so is this one.
I have no comment yet. Still haven’t bothered to see it. But I admit to this weird sense deep inside that all the belly-aching might actually be knee-jerk and that there’s a good movie out there with Nicolas Cage and the end of the world waiting for me. Maybe it’s just my contrarian style. After all, my senior yearbook quote was right out of Mamet: “I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion. If everyone thinks one thing I say bet the other way.”
Why does this project look like an absolute failure waiting to happen? And strangely, only Penn seems to fit here. Del Toro really doesn’t work for me in the role of Moe and there’s something, I don’t know…off about Carrey as Curly, but we’ll see what they come up with.
Variety reports the casting news here. Brad from Rope of Silicon has slapped together a nice Photoshopped image of the actors in character here:
Great call using Arcade Fire in this thing. It looks absolutely AMAZING:
See it in HD at Apple.
I’ve been hearing a lot of folks over the last few years tell me they think the Oscars should move back to March. I’m not entirely sure why, but there is support out there. You’ll recall, 2005 marked the first year the ceremony was pulled a full month back from the end of March to the end of February, drastically (and for some, thankfully) shortening the season.
Well, good news for those who want things expanded. It seems the show will move two weeks to March 7 next year. The brief from the AP:
The Oscars will be presented a little later in 2010.
Sid Ganis, president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, says the 82nd Annual Academy Awards will air live March 7 on ABC television from the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles.
This year’s telecast aired Feb. 22. The sleeper hit “Slumdog Millionaire” won best picture, Sean Penn won best actor and Kate Winslet scored the trophy for best actress.
Of course, this is actually pretty good news for entertainment outlets like Variety, The Envelope and The Hollywood Reporter, which depend on studio advertising during the awards season to stay afloat. An extra two weeks can mean a lot of dough to them. But this will be a one year deal to avoid the Winter Olympics, “Peter” tells us in the comments below.
The seemingly endless awards season will be a little longer next year. Buckle up.
UPDATE (3/27): I figured I’d include the latest here, so this entry is up to date. /Film has the following today:
Earlier this week we reported that Slumdog Millionaire screenwriter Simon Beaufoy had mentioned during an appearance at the Bradford International Film Festival that he had been offered and accepted an offer to write a sequel to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Hours later our friends at FirstShowing heard back from 20th Century Fox who claimed that “the executives haven’t talked with any writers” for the project. Now Entertainment Weekly confirms that “Beaufoy was approached by Wolverine producer Lauren Shuler Donner to gauge the writer’s interest in W2, but no formal offer was made.” So that’s the final word on the story — there was some truth to the story after all.
EARLIER: Peter Sciretta at /Film landed a pretty interesting scoop this afternoon. It seems Simon Beaufoy, the Oscar winning screenwriter of “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The Full Monty” has been tapped to pen the sequel to May’s “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” Can anyone say paycheck?
Honestly, I don’t see how this fits but I’ll give Beaufoy the benefit of the doubt. I’m still heavily anticpating Gavin Hood’s film, though I’ve heard terrible things ever since negative word-of-mouth on David Benioff’s script was making the rounds a few years back. And let’s face it. Benioff hasn’t offered a suitable script since his debut, “25th Hour,” seven years ago. Troubled production, late re-shoots and a general cloud of doubt around the Wolverine film haven’t broken my spirit…yet. But if there’s a new project in the pipeline, maybe there’s hope. Maybe.
Here’s what Sciretta’s tipster had to say:
alright guys, im currently working at the bradford international film festival in the UK, and tonight we had simon beaufoy, screenwriter of slumdog millionaire doing a screentalk. anyway he dropped a bit of a scoop, hes been employed to write the script for “wolverine 2″ a film i didnt actually realise was even in the pipeline. he commented that while he was apprehensive about the project (claiming to not even know what a wolverine was!) his agent pursuaded him to take it on.
The bold is mine. Like I said, paycheck. Agents make bank in this town when their clients do, after all. And kudos to Peter for at least trying to double source the story before just posting it up, since he’s been hanging onto the scoop for a day now. AICN has different standards, which forced his hand, but there we are.
Here’s the latest trailer for “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”:
Here’s an, um, interesting addition to “Slumdog Millionaire’s” long list of accomplishments: how many Best Original Song winners are treated to a Pussycat Dolls remix? Words fail me.
(Memo to Ms. Scherzinger: it’s pronounced “jye,” not “jay.”)
You can’t lose much by making “star is born” pronouncements. If you’re right, you get to brag about your stunning foresight, and if you’re wrong — hey, nobody remembers anyway.
But back in October last year, as I watched stunning young French ingenue Léa Seydoux illuminate Christophe Honoré’s lovely, woozy teen romance “La Belle Personne,” I was convinced there and then that I was seeing a major talent in the making. The César voters agreed, nominating her for Most Promising Actress. (The film, which you may remember I liked a great deal, got a limited U.S. release over a fortnight ago — catch it if you can.)
So I was excited to see her name pop up on yesterday’s press release for Ridley Scott’s as-yet-untitled Robin Hood venture. My guess is the role won’t amount to much — but hey, Marion Cotillard did her time as eye candy in a Scott film (let’s not name it, shall we?) a little over two years ago, and she’s doing all right for herself these days.
Seydoux will also be seen shortly in “Inglourious Basterds.” The girl’s going places, I tell you.
I go back and forth with Lars Von Trier. Lots of respect for “Breaking the Waves,” hated “Dancer in the Dark,” “Dogville” topped my list in 2004 (though shamefully I’ve yet to see “Manderlay”), etc., etc. But I can’t wait to see “Antichrist.” This new still from the film totally freaks me out but I can’t look away. What’s most striking, however, is how classy the composition is. I thought about linking rather than posting, since “NSFW” is arguable, but I figured screw it (no pun intended):
(Courtesy: filmz.dk)
Kudos to Peter Sciretta of /Film for pointing us to this video of Kevin Smith dishing the Internets, a somewhat timely discussion with all the poo-slinging going on this week. Like Sciretta says, “It’s interesting to hear about this world from the side of a filmmaker.” Have a look:
Fingers crossed for this one. Sue me, I still love “Prince of Thieves.”
Anyway, Universal rolls out the red carpet with a big ole’ announcement today:
Joining Crowe and Blanchett for the film are Oscar® winner Vanessa Redgrave (Julia, Atonement) as John and Richard’s mother, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine; Mark Strong (Body of Lies, Stardust) as King John’s vicious henchman, Sir Godfrey; Oscar Isaac (Che, Body of Lies) as King John; and Léa Seydoux (13 French Street, upcoming Inglourious Basterds) as the woman who will become queen, French Princess Isabella. Playing key members of Robin’s band of men are Scott Grimes (television’s ER, American Dad) as Welshman Will Scarlet; Kevin Durand (upcoming X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 3:10 to Yuma) as Robin’s right-hand, Scotsman Little John; and newcomer Alan Doyle as their troubadour, Irishman Allan Adayle.
(Full press release after the jump.)
There’s no real reason to pay attention to the Chlotrudis Awards,which took place on Sunday. After all, they’re a casually organised set of honours determined by an enthusiastic group of Boston-based film lovers — that apparently get mentioned on IMDB and precisely nowhere else.
But hey, when their taste is this exemplary, they deserve a bit of notice. After all, in the thick of awards season, people actually bother with the innumerable, obscure regional critics’ awards and their largely yawnsome copycat choices. The Chlotrudis Awards, by contrast, go commendably against the grain.
Any organisation that singles out the exceptional, Oscar-snubbed work of Kristin Scott Thomas and Elsa Zylberstein in “I’ve Loved You So Long” is in my good books, while “The Edge of Heaven” is a pretty fresh, adventurous choice for Best Picture of 2008. “Happy-Go-Lucky,” meanwhile, continues to generate affection, taking Supporting Actor kudos for Eddie Marsan and half a Best Director award — in another inspired move, Mike Leigh and Guy Maddin (“My Winnipeg”) tied for that honour.
OK, so nobody really notices or cares about these awards, but it’s the principle that counts. I applaud them. Check out a full list of winners and nominees here, if you’re so inclined.
Given that Kris’ recently declared love for the 45-year-old-and-still-sexy-thank-you-very-much actress Hope Davis seems to be shared by a few of you out there, you may be tickled by this extract from a Guardian piece, in which Hadley Freeman tackles the eternal issue of Hollywood’s double standards of gender and age:
It is all too easy for a female actor to find herself cast as the mother of someone who once played her boyfriend as soon as she blows out the candles on her 35th birthday cake. This has long been an accepted fact of Hollywood life, and one that most women keep schtum about as they know they should be grateful to get any roles at all in their decrepit post-30s.
But last weekend, Hope Davis finally broke ranks to admit she was somewhat “peeved” when she was recently offered a role playing the mother of Johnny Depp, a concept that would have tested the skills of the most talented special effects department, seeing as Davis was actually born the year after Depp.
Heh. I have no idea what film Freeman is referring to, but that’s a pretty hilarious tidbit. Suggesting that Hollywood views the man-to-woman age ratio as roughly akin to that of man-to-dog, Freeman goes on to list other familiar examples of the trend, such as Glenn Close playing Gertrude to Mel Gibson’s Hamlet, and the bizarre spectacle of seeing Angelina Jolie mother Colin Farrell in “Alexander.” By comparison, Taraji P. Henson’s playing opposite a shrunken, digitised version of Brad Pitt seems positively conventional.
You may recall that a few weeks ago, I mentioned that Harvey Weinstein had a Judy Garland biopic in the works.
Back then, I contemplated the potentially perfect Oscar storm represented by the lead role: a biopic of a showbiz icon, covering substance abuse and mental instability, requiring song-and-dance skills, all backed up by the mighty campaigning power of Weinstein.
Wondering which actress might be lucky enough to nab the opportunity, I suggested that Anne Hathaway could be a neat fit for the part.
Well, if Jeff Wells is to be believed, it seems that Weinstein is of a similar mind: Hathaway is “officially attached” to the project. I wonder if her game Broadway-style hamming at last month’s Oscar ceremony helped her cause at all?
Seriously, though, this is perfect timing for the starlet: if “Rachel Getting Married” served as a sketchy but intriguing blueprint of what talents she had stored up, this is the kind of expansive, weighty mainstream project that would solidify her arrival as potentially the go-to leading lady of her generation. If she pulls it off, I maintain that it’s hard to imagine the Academy resisting.
