Now in Theaters
Now in Theaters: The Clone Wars Tropic Thunder Pineapple Express
  Traveling Pants The Mummy Dark Knight

Entries in Will Smith (17)

Paul Greengrass Not Directing 'Chicago 7'

pgreengrass10.jpgIt seems it was too good to be true. Last week, we were very excited about the prospect of Paul Greengrass directing The Trial of the Chicago 7, taking over the political drama for Steven Spielberg, who is still producing the film. Devin Faraci at CHUD sees eye-to-eye with me on this subject: "If you had to name a director perfectly suited to this material, it would be Paul," Faraci proclaims at CHUD.

But he had the inside track. Faraci e-mailed Greengrass, who said he thought it was a "wonderful project," but because of the film's schedule and his own, it simply wasn't going to work. (Word has it Greengrass is playing a Nazi hunter in Inglorious Bastards instead. OK, not really. But how unsurprising would it really be at this point?)

Greengrass does high politics and high drama as well as any director out there, and despite being British, his very American trio of The Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum and United 93 is about the best trio of mainstream films of their kind in a long time. He's currently working on another film in a similar vein, The Green Zone, which will star his Jason Bourne, Matt Damon.

Perhaps the flurry of heavy dramas thick with politics has something to do with him passing on Chicago 7, although Cinematical questions whether or not the fourth Bourne movie might not have Greengrass' eye instead.

It's hard to believe, though, that Spielberg's Chicago 7 is a film you don't hurry into production. In fact, it probably should have come out this year, if there had been enough foresight. After all, 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the notorious Democratic National Convention in Chicago, which sparked the riots and protests that led to the events to be depicted in the film. Certainly, it makes more sense to release this film on the eve of the most important election since 1968 rather than next year, or possibly all the way out to 2011.

Still, with a cast rumored at various times this year to include Will Smith, Sacha Baron Cohen, Kevin Spacey, and others, this isn't a project that can sit on the shelf very long. Soon enough, the cast will find other things to do, too. And then where will we be? Perhaps Spielberg should have made this in front of Indiana Jones. Where does it go now? And with whom?

Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2008 at 06:48PM by Registered CommenterColin Boyd in , , , , , | CommentsPost a Comment

Spielberg Out of 'Chicago 7'...Is 'Bourne' Director Greengrass In?

Great research by Neil Miller at Film School Rejects has uncovered some major news. Steven Spielberg is apparently taking himself out of the director's chair for The Trial of the Chicago 7, and in his place may just be Paul Greengrass.

The news was hidden away in Production Weekly, which Rejects just happened to check for an update and found something a bit more noteworthy. Less than two weeks earlier, producer Walter Parkes had kind of relayed to MovieWeb that Chicago 7 may be in a bit of a holding pattern until a director surfaced. So does the Greengrass news change things? If it holds us, yeah, I'd say it does.

The film will follow the infamous protestors during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I won't rehash that whole story here; if you're unfamiliar with it, get a history book. Or two, maybe. Anyway, it seemed like a good subject for Spielberg, who has become one of the better social commentators behind the camera, particularly for a film that could have this high a profile.

Then again, I can't think of a director who has been as good back-to-back-to-back lately than Greengrass, who bookended his superb United 93 with two Bourne movies, and his past two films are easily among the best of their respective years.

The cast is almost embarrassingly good, which would explain why you'd want to keep the project going; there's no telling when you could assemble Will Smith, Sacha Baron Cohen, Kevin Spacey, and Philip Seymour Hoffman again (and the cast will also include Adam Arkin, Colin Hanks, and Taye Diggs, although they're probably a bit more flexible). Does Greengrass make sense here? Perfect sense. Look at the approximation of cinéma vérité he used for United 93. That naturalistic feel is more than appropriate for a film of this nature, and again, he's clearly at the peak of his powers right now.

Let's hope that Production News listing wasn't a typo, or that even if it was, Spielberg catches wind of the idea and hires Greengrass on the spot.

Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2008 at 11:48PM by Registered CommenterColin Boyd in , , , , , , , | Comments1 Comment

Director Confirms 'I Am Legend' Prequel

There was a little anti-Will Smith backlash after I Am Legend started to amass huge numbers last winter. It wasn't as big as the Hancock backlash, but either way, I didn't get it. I thought I am Legend was taut, suspended our disbelief pretty well, and had a very good action movie performance by Smith.

It was a good blend of science and fiction and it was a smart re-telling of Richard Matheson's 1954 classic book. Yeah, it had differences, but part of that is just the passage of time and part of it is turning a great written work into a great visual. It's not as easy as just filming the novel.

Almost immediately after its release, there was talk of another film, be it a sequel or a prequel, which had to make those who railed against the film and its star grind their teeth. A sequel, while it would answer a few questions, just isn't as interesting as going back to the beginning, finding out how civilization declined so rapidly, as Smith explains in a speech he delivers to Sonia Braga late in the first film. And at Comic Con, director Francis Lawrence confirmed that a prequel is revving up and that Will Smith will return.

”Absolutely (there will be a prequel), we’re actually trying to crack that," said Lawrence, according to Shock Till You Drop. "We’re trying to figure out some ideas for it, but yes, it would be a prequel.”

Doesn't sound like there's much gray area there. The rule on sequels or prequels is simple: Is there more to the story? And while Dr. Robert Neville described some of the events that led to what he thought was the end of civilization (and it was also illustrated on a personal level in his dreams), I think the hysteria around an event like that would be pretty compelling stuff. But how would this new storyline sit with Richard Matheson?

"I'm sure we'll definitely keep him involved in the prequel just in terms of updating him and inviting him to read the script and see what he has to say. Matheson was very happy (with the first movie)," Lawrence said. As long as the author understands the changes that were made to his story and is happy with the outcome of that, I could only suppose that he wouldn't be opposed to the same creative unit using the book as a jumping off point to cover new ground.

Let's just hope Lawrence and the writers keep their eye on the prize and give us the prequel I Am Legend deserves and not some blowhard action movie that hangs onto the story by a thread. I'm confident it won't be that way, but stranger things have happened when follow-ups are involved.

Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 11:09AM by Registered CommenterColin Boyd in , , , | Comments3 Comments

Cruise, Smith, and the Saga of 'Salt'

tcruise5.jpgAt this point, I honestly don't know what to think about Tom Cruise's career. Is it rebounding? Is it headed into a smoking tail spin? Hard to say. What's easy to say, though, is the public really turned on the guy, for reasons we all know. Ever since then, Mission: Impossible 3 didn't do what it was supposed to (although I personally thought it was the best film in the trilogy), Lions for Lambs stiffed, and his Bryan Singer-directed Nazi movie, Valkyrie, has been beset with one problem after another.

Now there are conflicting reports about Cruise's future with another project, Edwin A. Salt, a thriller to be directed by Phillip Noyce. IGN has done a good job collecting the data on this, and it began with Roger Friedman at Fox saying Cruise is no longer in the picture, "and I'm told it's because of money. Apparently, Tom is unaware of the change in his status in the Hollywood community." A-ha. Well, that'll happen.

But the story had only begun to unfold. Apparently there was a rumor floating around that Will Smith would take over the role of a CIA agent accused of being a Russian spy (similar ground was handled very well in Breach, by the way. Dig that Chris Cooper performance). Now, if we know one thing about Will Smith it's that he can't hide being a good guy. And we know he's close with Cruise. So I seriously doubt he'd take money out of Tom's wallet. And it's not as if you're not going to pay Will Smith for that role, so if money's an issue, it would still be an issue if you wanted to hire Big Willie Style.

But Moviehole reports that nothing you've seen here is real. Cruise, according to their digging, is still going ahead with the project. Which would mean...his career is on an upswing?

See what I mean? You just can't tell with this guy anymore.

Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:02AM by Registered CommenterColin Boyd in , , | Comments1 Comment

Fearless Forecast - Raising Some 'Hell' at the Box Office

I'm not sure, if I had a movie, I'd want it to come out right in between a Will Smith movie and The Dark Knight. Call me crazy. But three big name films are gunning for your wallets this weekend, and only one of them will have any significant impact. Surprisingly, it's not the 3-D flick or the Eddie Murphy comedy.

Instead, look for Hellboy II: The Golden Army to narrowly defeat Hancock this weekend. The first Hellboy made $23 million in its debut four years back, and I don't think the new one will double that total, but the overall box office take for the sequel should be substantially higher. There's little doubt that the first film has gained fans over the years and the higher profile of director Guillermo del Toro is bound to bring in some bucks.

As for the other new releases, it will not be a big weekend for Journey to the Center of the Earth, but with a reported $45 million budget (how?), it doesn't really need much. I agree with the Village Voice that it's more a demo reel for the 3-D than it is an actual story, but the appeal of the live action 3-D should draw in families. Meet Dave, on the other hand, won't draw too many people at all. In fact, it seems destined to lose money, with its $100 million budget and lack of effective marketing. Combine that with the fact that people don't really like Eddie Murphy right now, he's not doing a lot of interviews to promote it, and the general impression that the trailers don't make this look funny, and you have a swirling failure in 3,000 theaters.

That brings us to the movies still in theaters. The only ones with significant punch left are Wall-E and Hancock, which has already made $204 million around the world in a week. We say that the Fourth of July is Will Smith's weekend, and it's true: Just looking at domestic grosses, his seven Fourth of July films have generated over $620 million...in their opening weeks!

The Top Five

1 - Hellboy II ($36 million)

2 - Hancock ($32 million)

3 - Wall-E ($20 million)

4 - Journey to the Center of the Earth ($18 million)

5 - Meet Dave ($12 million)

Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 01:52PM by Registered CommenterColin Boyd in , , , , , , , | Comments8 Comments
Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next 5 Entries