Archive for January, 2010

Publicity photo for Johnston's "The Wolfman"

Director Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, October Sky, Hidalgo) spoke with FilmJournal.com about his upcoming movie The Wolfman starring Benicio Del Toro, Emily Blunt, Anthony Hopkins, and Hugo Weaving, which opens February 12th, as well as some ideas regarding is next movie The First Avenger: Captain America.

Regarding The Wolfman: Johnston had only three weeks of pre-production, he says, because the studio “had already spent so much money and had gone down this road with Mark Romanek, and said, ‘We have to start shooting the movie at this point.’ I think a lot of it involved possibly actors’ contracts and a release date. Fortunately for me, Mark Romanek [the film's original director] made a lot of good choices. He cast some great actors”—the three leads were all aboard by this point—“I was able to cast a few more good ones, and I was able to change a few of the locations that I didn’t think were great.”

Concerning Captain America: “We’re in prep,” Johnston says. “Rick Heinrichs is production-designing and we’re set up down in Manhattan Beach [California]. It’s the part of the process that I love the most,” he enthuses. “We have eight or ten really talented artists, and we all just sit around all day and draw pictures and say, ‘Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if we could do this?’ It’s that phase of the production where money doesn’t matter: ‘Let’s put all the greatest stuff up on the wall and [then later] see what we can afford.’” The film, he says at this early stage, will begin “in 1942, 1943″ during World War II. “The stuff in the ’60s and ’70s [comic books] we’re sort of avoiding. We’re going back to the ’40s, and then forward to what they’re doing with Captain America now.”

To read more (which we recommend) see the full article.

"Flight of the Conchords" actor Bret McKenzie, actor Jemaine Clement, and co-creator/executive producer James Bobin

“Flight of the Conchords” co-creator James Bobin has signed on to direct the next Muppet-starred movie from Disney after original directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) backed out to direct 21 Jump Street with Sony. Bobin had the choice to direct either the Muppets movie or a Judd Apatow comedy titled Bridesmaids.

Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller wrote the script for the Muppet movie, Segel being a confessed Muppet fanatic.

Source: Hollywood Reporter

According to Variety.com’s Todd McCarthy, this year’s apparent running theme of the Sundance Film Festival is to rebel. This theme, he expresses, spans across many of its meanings and hidden meanings (from the social, to the political, to the philosophical, etc.), however an irony presents itself when he finds a film that he believes truly does rebel against many norms but hasn’t garnered much praise for it. From the program booklet to festival director John Cooper, everyone and everything at the festival is calling for rebellion. It’s a shame then, insinuates McCarthy, that what is really rebellious isn’t credited much for being so.

McCarthy seems to look upon the Sundance Film Festival as a place where liberalism pats itself on the back and preaches continuously for better environmental care, better treatment of “different” people, etc. No one is really against such things. McCarthy suggests, however, that what would really be daring and rebellious is if a film were to challenge the festival’s liberal partiality. This is just one suggestion.

Two films that McCarthy mentions stuck out to him actually seemed rather non-partisan: A documentary titled Waiting for Superman (which is about the failing American school system and how both democrats and republicans have both failed to improve it over the years) and Obselidia (which takes place in the 1930s and is about a young female movie projectionist and her male companion sharing intellectual conversations, many of which orbit topics about life). He claims that Obselidia stood out not so much because he thought it was “great art,” but simply because it was so different from everything else at the festival. Its differences, apparently, are not so much in its content but its conveyance. To sum up his words, the visual details in the film say just as much as its explicit messages, and shares a temperamentality similar to the French New Wave and Robert Bresson. These elements, McCarthy claims, make Obselidia one of the more truly rebellious films at Sundance this year.

Read the full feature article here.

In Other News…

In another Variety.com feature article, this one by Timothy M. Gray, the topic of awards and award snubs is introduced yet again. Gray makes a case that some films like, say comedies, don’t get the recognition they deserve by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and other such organizations, and that actors like Paul Rudd (for I Love You, Man) aren’t getting the credit they deserve for contributing complex and layered character portrayals, and in Rudd’s particular case it might be because such a performance is within the parentheses of humor and farce.

Quick Opinion: Concerning the Sundance Film Festival, I’ve heard many similar opinions floating around places like film school classrooms and other film-related publications. McCarthy makes a solid point, however in relation to the United States subjects like the environment and homosexuality are still volatile issues that continue to polarize a number of people. Because these issues are volatile, institutions like Hollywood like to more or less steer clear from them – if for no other reason than because the U.S. recession is still ongoing and studios aren’t convinced that controversy will sell better than formulas and franchises. So in a sense, because films that tackle “important” issues are still far more rare than special effects extravaganzas, they can still easily be considered “rebellious” (regarding the U.S. that is). Personally, I find torture films to be far more “rebellious” than documentaries warning us that we’re destroying our planet.

Concerning awards and award snubs and the people who continue to bicker about who or what isn’t getting the credit it deserves, I’m loosing my patience. People need to realize that there are only so many awards to give out. There are only a few of them, which is why winning one is supposed to be an honor. If every notable job or performance was given an award, there would be so many given out that receiving such awards would cease to mean much except to those who might profit from including such an accomplishment on their résumés. Audiences appear to be caring less and less about awards in general, relenting to the already known fact that artistic awards, in the grand scheme of things, don’t mean much – if anything. There are plenty of great movies throughout history, many of which were not “recognized” for their quality at the time of their release. Citizen Kane is considered by an overwhelming number of critics and film historians to be the greatest movie ever made, yet it did not win 1941′s Best Picture Oscar. Orson Welles is considered by almost all critics and historians to be one of the best film directors ever, yet he never won one directing award throughout his career. Awards don’t make careers, and they certainly don’t guarantee memories. Being fondly remembered is the highest award/reward that a work of art and/or an artist can receive, and audiences need to realize that one award snub here and there isn’t going to prevent such an honor from occurring.

Short Take: The writing is vague and unpolished, but the ambition is evident

Director: Scott Stewart (feature debut)

Screenwriters: Peter Schink (Gotham Café) and Scott Stewart

Cast: Paul Bettany (The Da Vinci Code), Adrianne Palicki, Lucas Black (Jarhead), Charles S. Dutton (Rudy), Kate Walsh (TV’s Private Practice), Dennis Quaid (The Alamo), Tyrese Gibson (Transformers 2), Willa Holland, Kevin Durand (3:10 to Yuma)

Length: 1h 40m

Synopsis: After many years of violence, tyranny, apathy, and greed, God has decided to exterminate the human race for a second time. But instead of a flood, this time he sends his army of angels to possess the weak-willed and kill the would-be savior of men – an unborn child. The archangel Michael, though, refuses to give up on mankind and refuses to carry out his orders to destroy it. Instead, he takes it upon himself to be the protector of the unborn savior, in the process accepting the help of a handful of strong-willed, albeit unprepared, individuals.

Warning: This review contains material that might be considered “spoiling.” Read the rest of this entry »

Short Take: Full of potential, but ultimately indecisive

Director: Jason Reitman (Juno, Thank You for Smoking)

Screenwriters: Jason Reitman (Thank You for Smoking, Consent), Sheldon Turner (Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, The Longest Yard); Walter Kirn (novel)

Cast: George Clooney (Michael Clayton, Ocean’s 11), Vera Farmiga (Orphan, The Departed), Anna Kendrick (Twilight Saga, Rocket Science)

Length: 1 hr 49 mins

Synopsis: Ryan Bingham (Clooney) is constantly on the move as a man who fires people for a living.  He seems at home in a world of frequent flier miles and few meaningful human connections.  During his travels, he meets Alex (Farmiga) who enjoys a similar lifestyle.  However, his way of life is threatened when ambitious new employee Natalie suggest a method of cutting costs by firing people through videoconferencing.  Bingham’s boss insists Natalie learn the business by travelling with Bingham.  At first, they don’t get along, but as they spend more time together they both influence each other for the better.  As human connections become increasingly important to Ryan, he begins to question his solitary lifestyle. Read the rest of this entry »

Geeta Anand

Movie-Thoughts.com was fortunate enough to hold an interview with Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Geeta Anand, who works as an investigative journalist for The Wall Street Journal and is the author of the book “The Cure.” Her book was the inspiration for the new movie Extraordinary Measures starring Harrison Ford and Brendan Fraser, and details the incredible story of how John Crowley, a husband and father of three, was able to help find a treatment for his two youngest children Megan and Patrick, who suffer from a deadly muscular disorder called Pompe disease. Geeta herself is a devoted wife and loving mother of two young daughters.

1) How did you come across the Crowleys and their story, and how and when did you become so involved?
I came across the story in 2001 when I was covering the biotechnology beat as a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. A person representing Novazyme, John Crowley’s biotech firm, called me and asked if I’d be interested in telling the story of a father’s quest to develop a medicine to save his kids. I was interested in the human drama and decided to look further.
2) Can one assume that your intense interest and involvement with the Crowleys’ story is somewhat due to you having two children of your own? And if so, in what ways if any did this affect your research or writing?
We are all influenced by the stories of our own lives, so I am sure that having children similar in ages to Megan and Patrick influenced me. But at the same time, I think that the story of a dad moving mountains to save his kids resonates with all ages so I would probably have been interested if I were younger, or older, or childless!
3) What is your current relationship with John and the family? Do you still stay close?
Yes, I am still in close touch with the Crowley family. We have become friends in the course of my writing about their lives.
4) What is the status of Megan and Patrick nowadays?
Megan and Patrick’s hearts are much stronger because of the drug they take that their dad helped develop. This drug doesn’t get into the skeletal muscle cells in a big way so the children’s muscles haven’t gained strength. They are still in wheelchairs and on ventilators, but they continue to lead very full lives by going to the public schools in Princeton, having playdates and sleepovers, and seeing the latest movies.
5) What kind of snags did you run into during your research of the Crowley’s story, if any?
I can’t think of any, or recall any snags if I had them. My biggest challenge was fairly and completely representing Aileen in the book. She’s the mom who dedicated herself to making her children’s lives fun and full at home. In the book, I show the tension between John and Aileen as they pursue very different approaches to trying to save their kids – John going out and trying to build a company, Aileen staying home with the kids day after day and organizing birthday parties and trips to the mall. Showing the struggle of a mom at home with the kids is much harder than showing the drama in the science lab or at a business meeting. Aileen also doesn’t like to talk about herself, where John does so with ease. So I had to work hard with Aileen and her friends and relatives to get them to describe the times when she struggled at home (the times when she was despondent) or else the book wouldn’t have resonated with her struggle and her suffering, and her ultimate joy in her children getting treated.
6) Considering it must have been very emotional for John and Aileen to tell their stories to you so vividly, what was it like witnessing their relationship as you interviewed them?
It was very emotional for them to tell their stories to me. John would look completely wiped out some days after spending a few hours telling the story of Megan nearly dying in a hospital ICU or his venture capital board wanting to fire him. Aileen, too, who is an incredibly upbeat person, broke down once when describing a particularly trying time. I felt badly making them relive such an incredibly tough time in their lives, but it was critical that they do so for me to write a powerful, detailed narrative. By the time I was writing the book, they had overcome the most strained time in their marriage and learned to appreciate each of their very different roles in the family.
7) Early in your book you briefly explain John Crowley’s motivation for wanting to teach his children to have great respect for those who serve in the armed forces, being that John attended the Naval Academy and his father was a Marine. Do you think this message serves to say more about John as a person or as a relevant, albeit tangential, suggestion concerning the time Americans currently live in?
I think both of these things you mention are true – John has great respect for the military, being the son of a Marine and being in the Naval Reserve. And in the times we live in, people don’t always show respect for those who are sacrificing their lives elsewhere and John wanted to be sure his kids understood and appreciated the sacrifice soldiers are making.
One quote in your book that I feel sums up the Crowley’s predicament is when John recalls someone saying that “nature isn’t cruel, it’s just brutally random.” Could you elaborate on your personal feelings regarding these words?
I couldn’t agree with this more, and the fact that the Crowleys ended up with two children who suffer such serious disabilities illustrates the truth in this quote. It is just by chance that the parents, two people with the same genetic mutation, had kids – which gives each child a 25% chance of having Pompe. I don’t believe the hand we are dealt has anything to do with making up for sins in a past life, as Hinduism would suggest, or God in heaven deciding that we need to be given a particularly hard or easy ride, as other religions might suggest! I believe our role as human beings is to try to bring happiness into the circumstances we are randomly dealt. This is where religion comes in for me – in telling us how to find meaning and joy in the hand we have been dealt, however easy or hard that may be.
9) At times throughout the book, John notes the ease with which he and his wife are able to communicate with other parents with kids who have severe illnesses. With knowing the Crowleys as well as you do, can you maybe give us your own explanation for this strange connection?
I may have missed the real reason for this connection since I don’t have disabled kids, but the way I saw it people are often connected to others who have similar experiences. Because of their similar experiences, they can more easily empathize with the other person’s predicament and jump in to help.
10) John Crowley seems to have been lucky that he had so many useful connections in his efforts to raise money for research and move his family all over the country. Although I would say you allude to the idea of such coincidences being part of some divine plan, what is your take on John’s fortuitous ability to have a hand in saving his children?
There are so many reasons, as I see it. John has an expansive personality – he reaches out and touches a lot of people around him, so a lot of people in the many places he lived and studied felt a personal connection to him. He’s also smart and hardworking and ambitious, and so he studied at the top academic institutions in the country. In these institutions, he reached out to a vast number of people, many of whom rushed in to try to help when they learned of his enormous struggle.
11) Pharmaceutical companies are often scolded for their focus on the bottom line and viewing their human test subjects so objectively as to convey a coldness regarding their sometimes dire situations. Meanwhile surgeons, say, are relied upon to view their patients objectively because it allows them to focus and deal with pressure. In your opinion, do pharmaceutical companies get too much flak or do you think that their bad PR is more or less deserved?
Sometimes, their bad PR is deserved, sometimes it isn’t. I don’t think it’s possible to generalize.
12) John often reiterates his motto that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission, and this stance explains many of the things he does in your book. Can you put into words how valuable this credo turned out to be for John and his family? What are your personal thoughts on living by such a cavalier dogma?
Living by that motto worked for John because it meant he was extremely pro-active. I think it was the fact that his kids were dying that gave this motto special resonance. I don’t want to make any particular judgment on this dogma. When people are fighting for survival, I think this dogma becomes life-defining-and sometimes life-saving, as it was for Megan and Patrick.
13) In your Afterword you make the claim that “As human beings, we are defined at our core by how we respond to hardship.” When exactly did you come to this conclusion and, considering it true, how would you define yourself?
This thought occurred to me as I wrote this “afterword,” striving to understand the larger meaning of the book I had just written. My life has been far less difficult than the Crowley’s, but I think this conclusion still applies to me. I don’t have any interesting enough hardship to briefly describe here, but my experience in meeting and interviewing people is that those who are spiritually and emotionally more developed are those who have encountered and somehow managed to overcome extreme hardship.
14) With your book being adapted into a major motion picture titled Extraordinary Measures, what would you like to say to film audiences who are wondering what makes this story either as or more inspirational and incredible than this year’s earlier popular releases The Blind Side or Invictus?
Alas, I haven’t seen these two movies so I don’t know whether Extraordinary Measures is more or less inspirational. I have now seen Extraordinary Measures twice and I think it is truly inspirational in illustrating a family’s struggle in the face of extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

———————————————————————————————————————————-

“The Cure” has grown into a bestseller, which you can find at your local book store.

You can read more of Geeta Anand’s work by going to The Wall Street Journal’s website www.wsj.com. Extraordinary Measures is in theaters now.

Short Take:Â The emotional inspiration is there, but isn't enough to hang your hat on

Director: Tom Vaughan (What Happens in Vegas)

Screenwriter: Robert Nelson Jacobs (Chacolat); based from the book “The Cure” by Geeta Anand

Cast: Harrison Ford (What Lies Beneath), Brendan Fraser (Crash), Keri Russell (Mission Impossible: III)

Length: 1h 45m

Synopsis: John Crowley, a husband and father of three, is searching for a miracle treatment that will give hope to his daughter Megan and son Patrick who have been diagnosed with a rare muscular disease. This disease, called Pompe, is the topic of research for scientist Robert Stonehill (Ford) who has been working for years on such a treatment. The two begin to work together, with John in charge of raising money and Bob in charge of the science, and through a myriad of personal difference get closer than anyone ever come to accomplishing their goal. Read the rest of this entry »

Martin Scorsese

Renowned director Martin Scorsese is reportedly trying to helm the film adaptation of “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” an award-winning children’s book.

“Story centers on a 12-year-old orphan named Hugo, who lives in a train station and must finish what his late father started by solving the mystery of a broken robot. Project would mark Scorsese’s first foray into kid lit — a genre that is attracting a number of high-profile directors including Wes Anderson (“The Fantastic Mr. Fox”) and Spike Jonze (“Where the Wild Things Are”), whose films are resonating with adult audiences.” – Variety

The book won the Randolph Caldecott Medal for distinguished children’s literature in 2008 and consists of 533 pages. The screenplay was written by John Logan, who also wrote the screenplay for Scorsese’s Aviator.

Source: Variety

Short Take: A good mix of what is traditional with what is new

Directors: Michael and Peter Spierig (Undead)

Screenwriters: Michael and Peter Spierig (Undead)

Cast: Ethan Hawke (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead), Sam Neill (Jurassic Park), Willem Dafoe (Fantastic Mr. Fox), Claudia Karvan

Length: 1h 38m

Synopsis: In the year 2019 most of the world’s population consists not of humans, but of vampires. Like a plague, the supernatural makeup of these undead has spread to all corners of the earth, dropping humanity from #1 on the food chain down to #2. Vampires soon overgrazed on their primary food source, reducing the human population to less than 5% of what it once was. If starved for human blood long enough vampires are transformed/deformed into nothing but wild animals, which is a change the vampires want to avoid at all costs. A small number of humans continues to fight for their lives with the help of certain sympathetic vampires, and together their goal is to find a cure that will re-humanize the earth. Read the rest of this entry »

Short Take: A film of conviction and faith whose statements about religion are rife with controversy

Directors: Albert and Allen Hughes (From Hell, Dead Presidents)

Screenwriter: Gary Whitta (Debut)

Cast: Denzel Washington (Training Day), Gary Oldman (The Dark Knight), Mila Kunis (Extract)

Length: 1h 58m

Synopsis: In post-apocalyptic America, decades after a natural disaster involving the sun and a subsequent war destroyed almost all life on earth, a man treks west in search of a civilization that will put what he has to good use in order to save mankind. What he has there is only one of anymore, and that is a copy of the King James Holy Bible. On his way west he finds a town that’s run by a very dangerous man who seeks to find his own copy of the bible and use it to control the minds of the ignorant and desperate. When the two men meet it ignites a struggle between good and evil that could alter the face of human civilization forever. Read the rest of this entry »