Get The Big Picture

Warner Bros., DC Comics Look to the Future of Superman and Batman

Colin Boyd — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:46:19 +0000

When it comes to comic book supremacy at the box office, it's still pretty clear that Marvel has done a better job manufacturing hits than has its rival, DC Comics. Even with the towering success of The Dark Knight, there have only been four DC films to ever gross over $200 million in the U.S., and two of those feature Batman and the Joker. Marvel, on the other hand, has four franchises that have posted a total of seven $200 million flicks since 1997, in the form of Spider-Man, X-Men, Men in Black, and Iron Man.

There has been some question for a while about what DC Comics will do moving forward; Superman Returns was not what everyone thought it could be, and that franchise may now be in for another retooling. Anne Thompson at Variety says that Warner Bros., which has enjoyed all of this Batman success, may want to similarly freshen up The Man of Steel. "Today I was told that it is a priority at the studio to find the right direction and if Bryan Singer is willing to do that, fine, but if he gets in the way, he may not stay on the project," reports Thompson. She also reveals that there are currently no writers attached to the project.

I'll say it now so I don't have to put up with a dozen comments later: What about Kevin Smith's script?

There. Happy?

Anyway, the point is Warner Bros. may want to take a mulligan on Superman, the same way Marvel did with The Hulk. Although you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that the New Coke version of the Hulk made a noticeably deeper impression with audiences.

Do you find it surprising that they can't figure out what to do with Superman? I don't.

I've been of the opinion since seeing the Bryan Singer flick that Superman is just not a contemporary hero. We don't like superhumans, or super-Kryptonians, or whatever the hell you want to call Clark Kent's alter-ego. We like 'em real, flawed, and dark these days. And Superman is not those things. His weakness is a rock. On the plus side, he can reverse the rotation of the planet. See? We don't respond as well to God in a cape as we used to.

Yes, there are dark corners in the DC canon for Superman to pursue, but will that please enough people? Maybe it's just best if DC bides its time with Superman and searches for another more complicated hero instead.

James McAvoy and Emily Blunt Lend Voices to 'Gnomeo and Juliet'

Colin Boyd — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:53:39 +0000

Remember how Kenneth Branagh helped lead a Shakespearean revival in the 1990s? We had his Henry V, Hamlet, and Much Ado About Nothing, plus a stylish Romeo + Juliet, a more stark Hamlet starring Mel Gibson, Othello (which co-starred Branagh as Iago), Twelfth Night, and A Midsummer Night's Dream, and that's just the literal adaptations.

There was also the Oscar-winning Shakespeare in Love and modernized versions of Bard classics with the Julia Stiles tandem of 10 Things I Hate About You and O.

But in the 21st Century, we haven't seen nearly as much light breaking through yonder window. There will be a King Lear next year, and that's exciting and depressing for alternate reasons, and we're now just a couple of years away from an animated Shakespeare.

The Hollywood Reporter says that James McAvoy and Emily Blunt - who I'd pay to see play the star-cross'd lovers in a live action version of the great romantic tragedy - are in negotiations for Gnomeo and Juliet, which is being described as a "loose and edgy" adaptation in which the stars would play garden gnomes from rival gardens. There's no indication if the Travelocity Roaming Gnome will pop up as Mercutio. Blunt will replace Kate Winslet, who left the project over scheduling conflicts.

The film will be co-produced by Miramax and Elton John's Rocket Films, and Captain Fantastic will also lend some of his better-known hits to the soundtrack.

Movie Trailer - Queen Latifah and Dakota Fanning in 'The Secret Life of Bees'

Colin Boyd — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:24:17 +0000

I'm still a big believer in Dakota Fanning's talent, and fortunately for her, she seems to be taking to her teenage years better than a lot of actors who become wildly successful before they're 12. She's an integral piece of the puzzle in The Secret Life of Bees, a new film adaptation of the Sue Monk Kidd novel.

It's 1964 and young Lily Owens (Fanning) is on the run from her cruel father (Paul Bettany). She and her caregiver, Rosaleen (Jennifer Hudson), stumble onto a group of sisters in South Carolina who give them refuge and don't ask any questions. The sisters are played by Queen Latifah, Sophie Okonedo, and Alicia Keys.

Now, because we mentioned that the movie is set in South Carolina in 1964, you can probably see where some of this story is headed since we have a white teenager living with four black women. Some folks in South Carolina still prefer the Confederate flag, so...

Anyway, it's hard not to take notice of the cast and the appearance of the Fox Searchlight studio logo has been a pretty good indicator of quality over the past few years. All in all, this looks like one you may need to take seriously. Take a look at the new trailer, courtesy of MovieWeb.

The Secret Life of Bees hits theaters on October 17th, where it will square off against W., Flash of Genius, and Max Payne.

Surprise: New 'W.' Posters Still Playing the Idiot Card

Colin Boyd — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:03:39 +0000

I don't remember if it was in an e-mail or in a comment attached to a previous article about the subject, but someone made the point to me that the ad campaign for W. is more in line with the short-lived Comedy Central show That's My Bush than a serious fact-finding mission by an Oscar-winning director. I'm increasingly inclined to agree.

There are two new posters, which we discovered at Worst Previews, that once again go for the obvious Bush-bashing punchline. I never voted for the guy, thought the Iraq invasion was a terrible, unlawful mistake five years ago, consider him the worst President since his distant relative Franklin Pierce, and I certainly am not trying to deflect criticism away from our absolutely inept leader. But I've been saying this about W. and Oliver Stone ever since we saw the first trailer: It's easy to make fun of George Bush, and I don't need your movie for that. I can just watch The Daily Show.

While there's nothing unfair about using a man's own words against him - as these posters do with "misunderestimate" - shouldn't the movie strive to be more than what looks like Inspector Clouseau in a president's clothing? I have yet to see a poster or a trailer that isn't just picking on Bush's obvious shortcomings. At this rate, those groups boycotting Tropic Thunder are going to have a busy couple of months.

Anyway, I just feel that there are more serious issues the movie could examine. And maybe it will. If it is more weighty and introspective, then the posters are incredibly misleading. If the posters are accurate to the tone and scope of the film, though, it is Stone who is misleading.

W. opens October 17th.

Watch Two New 'Burn After Reading' Character Featurettes

Colin Boyd — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:07:42 +0000

I'm taking comfort in the fact that even though we're entering the darkest time for new releases since January, it's only going to last three weeks. Then, on September 12th, we'll get Burn After Reading from Joel and Ethan Coen. Does that movie officially kick off awards season? I guess so. The Duchess, Blindness, and Appaloosa follow the next week, and I'm certainly interested in each of those for different reasons.

But even though I know Burn After Reading isn't very far away, it still feels like I'm going to have to wait a lifetime. That's probably because in summer, there are so many things on the wish list, and you usually only have to wait 14 days at the max for something you really want to see. So that extra week is going to be murder...

Anyway, Trailer Addict has two new character featurettes: Meet Osborne (John Malkovich) and Meet Linda (Frances McDormand). And so that you don't have to hop back and forth around The Big Picture to find the other featurettes that were posted a couple of weeks ago, we'll just give you all four now. The other two, of course, highlight Chad (Brad Pitt) and Harry (George Clooney).

Hurry, September 12th...hurry.

Tom Cruise, Sam Raimi Teaming Up for DC Comics' 'Sleeper'

Colin Boyd — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:51:20 +0000

There's bouncing back from adversity and then there's what Tom Cruise has managed to pull off in the past two weeks. In the middle of a fairly brisk period of headlines for the former top star in the world, his longtime friend and producing partner Paula Wagner bailed on their joint project of running United Artists. He has also seen his name scratched off above the title of the CIA flick Edwin A. Salt (only to see it replaced by the name Angelina Jolie), and his WWII film Valkyrie, which moved from late 2008 to early 2009 a couple months ago, has now moved back to 2008.

And then there's the matter of his borderline brilliant cameo in a recent comedy.

But the news keeps on coming for Cruise, who, separate from his deal with United Artists, has now expressed interest in three upcoming projects operating at rival studios. The Spyglass thriller Tourist was first, followed by the Universal/Working Title comedy Food Fight, and now there's the DC Comics adaptation Sleeper, which will be produced by Sam Raimi and his Star Road Entertainment.

The Hollywood Reporter has all the details, but we'll give you the highlights: Sleeper is a sci-fi comic that ran from 2003 - 2005. Should Cruise star in the film (and it's his interest that is reportedly moving the business end of the deal along), he would likely play "an operative whose fusion with an alien artifact makes him impervious to pain and allows him to pass it on to others through skin contact." That's right: He has Impervious Cooties. We all knew this day would come.

Here's another hot little detail: The film is the property of Warner Bros., which is in the news for its arm wrestling match with Fox over the rights to Watchmen. Because the studio may look at this as a franchise opportunity, they will probably be a lot more careful when it comes to the language of the contract.

The project sounds really interesting. Raimi has an eye for quality material, and frankly, the movies Cruise has chosen to do over the past few years all sound interesting at first; it's when you actually see a Lions for Lambs or a Vanilla Sky that things start to fall apart. Hopefully, the combo of Raimi and Cruise can attract a top-flight writer who understands the comic and how to transfer it to the screen, and then they can hope to find a director who can create the world that story needs to succeed. It's not enough to have a big name star wanting to do a movie anymore, particularly one with the names Marvel or DC etched on the side.

DVD Review - 'Gossip Girl: The Complete First Season'

Amparo Elizabeth — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:51:15 +0000

Welcome to the world of New York City’s young and privileged Upper East Side. From The O.C. creator Josh Schwartz comes Gossip Girl, based on the popular novels by Cecily von Ziegesar. Fortunately, you don’t have to be familiar with the books to enjoy the series; Gossip Girl quickly possesses you with its seemingly endless glitz and glamour, the traditional markings of Old Money.

The premise for this teen drama is simple enough: Notorious and anonymous blogger Gossip Girl, voiced by Kristen Bell, is our one and only source into the scandalous lives of Manhattan’s prep school elite. Think TMZ-style paparazzi made up of teenagers with camera phones and bad attitudes.

Spotted: former It girl, Serena van der Woodson (Blake Lively) is back from boarding school after being gone for a year. But why did she leave so abruptly and why has she returned? More importantly, why isn’t BFF Blair Waldorf (Leighton Meester) happy she’s back? Could it be that Blair’s long time boyfriend Nate Archibald (Chace Crawford) has always had a thing for Serena?

Then there’s lonely boy Dan Humphrey (Penn Badgley), the sensitive outsider who carries a constant torch for Serena, as well. Can the more genuine Dan exist in her material world? Of all the characters, Dan and the Humphrey family are the most easy to relate to for the audience, making them our way into this world.

And of course, Gossip Girl wouldn’t be complete without the brooding, pompous, you-know-you-love-to-hate-him bad boy Chuck Bass (brilliantly embodied by Ed Westwick).

The first season is filled with cat fights between frenemies Serena & Blair, Serena’s budding romance with Dan, the complicated on-again-off-again relationship between Blair and Nate, the infinitely mischievous exploits of Chuck and Blair, a pregnancy scare, a drug addiction, blackmail, and a wedding, just to name a few highlights.

Among the best episodes is The Handmaiden’s Tale, a beautifully filmed episode that centers on a masquerade ball; all masks come off in this story of mistaken identity. Victor Victoria is a brilliantly wicked hour, in which Chuck tries to persuade his millionaire father to purchase a burlesque club. As it often does on Gossip Girl, mayhem ensues.

Hi Society takes a look at the class system – a constant refrain within the show’s subtext - and the troubles it presents for Serena and Dan. It appears that history does in fact repeat itself since Dan’s father, Rufus (Matthew Settle), experienced the same struggles when he dated Serena’s mother, Lily van der Woodson (Kelly Rutherford), in their checkered pasts.

Sumptuous New Posters for Baz Luhrmann's 'Australia'

Colin Boyd — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:07:18 +0000

I was trolling for news on a fairly uneventful Monday night when I spotted three smallish posters for Baz Luhrmann's homeland epic Australia over at First Showing. Sport that he is, Alex Billington pointed everyone who saw the posters to Movies Online, which in turn pointed the way to Reel Suave. So thanks to all of them.

I know it's a recklessly hip thing to consider The Dark Knight a front-runner for every Oscar under the sun (it probably won't be come December), but there are a few movies that are already starting to distance themselves from what looks like a fairly average awards season crop of new releases. Certainly The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has to be high on everyone's list, and I would think if it's as good as it looks you might see nominees for Best Actor, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay, among other technical awards (makeup, visual effects, and cinematography leap to mind).

Australia may not have as good a chance to score in as many major categories, but you can't watch the trailer without recognizing how beautifully the film is photographed, and knowing Luhrmann and how he slaves over every detail, you can bet the costumes and production design, as well as the score, have a very good chance of being as close to perfect as we'll see this year.

This is all just rampant speculation, of course, but that's the sense I get, for what it's worth.

These new posters illustrate my point about Luhrmann, however. Look at how immaculately tailored they are. The saturated colors, the attention to the smallest little wrinkle. The posters are kind of an artistic DNA of the director. My only wish is that we had higher quality images to examine; I'm sure they're on the way.

Australia arrives in theaters on November 14th.

Warner Bros., Fox in Legal Wrangling Over 'Watchmen'

Colin Boyd — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:55:45 +0000

Warner Bros., which has been riding high this year thanks in large part to The Dark Knight, received some potentially bad news today, when a judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by rival studio 20th Century Fox over the rights to make a film adaptation of Watchmen.

Variety reports that, through a confusing set of circumstances, Fox has retained their original rights even after a 1994 turnaround for the project with producer Larry Gordon. At the time, Fox was to receive a buyout amount plus a cut of the profits if a movie was ever made. Fox has never received any cash, and this is where it gets dicey for Warner Bros.

One very messy solution is Fox attempting to block the release of the film in March of next year. They have, apparently, already filed a motion for an injunction to that effect. More than likely, though, Fox and WB will agree to a financial deal that would allow Fox to essentially sit back and let WB make the best movie they can, waiting for the truck of money to show up.

Cinematical points out that Warners was in a similar situation with The Dukes of Hazzard, although if they had played that one smart, the studio would have made the movie then forced people to pay them to keep it from being released. Not only would that venture have made them more money then, they'd probably still have some reserves to help pay off Fox now.

I'm not sure the release of Watchmen is really going to be threatened; studios tend to need each other from time to time and if there's a way to just siphon some of the profits - which I'm personally not sure Fox is entitled to at this point (the judge clearly disagrees) - then the lure of money will probably be enough to settle this.

Praise Be! Three New Clips from Bill Maher's 'Religulous'

Colin Boyd — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:10:17 +0000

I expect to have a great deal of fun watching Religulous, the new documentary from Bill Maher and Borat director Larry Charles. If there's an issue I have with it, it's that we already know Maher's thesis and he won't include much in his movie that could make a worthwhile counterpoint. In that sense, it's not really a "documentary," but a fun little exercise featuring real people in which Maher holds all the cards.

Again, I think it's going to be a lot of fun to watch - and I happen to agree with his argument, incidentally - but there's very little chance this movie will be any more objective than the pilloried Intelligent Design documentary, Expelled, which featured Ben Stein.

As you'll see from the following clips, Maher is choosing his targets to fit his arguments, not that that makes the videos any less entertaining.

Religulous angers your God beginning Friday, November 5th.