Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Female Ghostbusters. Casting Call

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Aliens  (1986)

    Ghostbusters  (1984)

    Tropic Thunder  (2008)

    Ghostbusters 3  (2010)

    In a new interview with MTV, Bill Murray has called for the makers of Ghostbusters 3 to introduce a female Ghostbuster. My first thought was that hottie who models the sexy Ghostbusters Halloween costume, but seriously it is a great idea. As long as the concept is to pass on the proton packs to a new generation, there really should be an actress in the bunch. And I’m not talking just a hot young flavor of the month who Hollywood thinks will get the teen boys in the audience (it’s Ghostbusters 3; they’re already sold). I agree with Murray that the main requirement should be a funny female.

    However, instead of merely picking out one comedienne to appear in the sequel, SpoutBlog has decided to imagine a remake of Ghostbusters in which the entire team is made of women. So, here are some casting choices for a gender-reversed version:

    Elizabeth Banks as Dr. Petra Venkman

    There are only two comic actresses I can imagine pulling off the job of being a female equivalent of Bill Murray’s Peter Venkman. But I wouldn’t want to see Sarah Silverman in the role, so I choose Elizabeth Banks. She’s sexy, hilarious and talented enough to convincingly play a sleazy yet lovable, brillaint yet apathetic parapsychologist. And she’s also my pick for the actual female ghostbuster for Ghostbusters 3 if the filmmakers take Murray’s advice. Especially if the other Ghostbusters are from the Judd Apatow school.

    Anna Faris as Dr. Ramona Stantz

    You might think she’s a little too close to Banks in her looks, but as a comedic actress she’s a whole different sort. She kind of reminds me of a young female Dan Aykroyd, though she’s certainly missing the pudgy parts, and she can do the slight obliviousness thing perfectly, especially as a product of childlike wonder rather than lack of intelligence. And the character’s affinity for munchies could be explained by having her be a bit of a marijuana enthusiast since she lacks the chubby traits.

    Tina Fey as Dr. Elga Spengler

    Fey is funny, but she’s also better as the straight woman with a touch of deadpan, just like Harold Ramis’ Egon. She’s also a little older than the other ladies. And, of course, she wears glasses. Actually it’s the glasses that made her the obvious choice. The other things just fortunately worked out in her favor, too.

    Niecy Nash as Winifred Zeddmore

    Hollywood would probably prefer someone a little younger, like Jennifer Hudson, or hotter, like Gabrielle Union, but Nash is hilarious on Reno 911, and she’s about the same age as Ernie Hudson was in the first Ghostbusters film. Plus, just imagine how much more of an outsider she’d be as the new recruit. Also, think of how amazing that big booty would look in a Ghostbusters uniform.

    Adrien Brody as Dan Barrett

    For the role originated by Sigourney Weaver, I’ve been told by a friend to cast Oscar-winner Brody, because he’s a “hot ugly dude.” And Weaver is, well, let’s just call her a non-traditional beauty. I thought about going with Bill Paxton instead for the Aliens connection and the fact that he’d be really good during the possessed scene, but I ultimately went with my friend’s idea, because for some reason I can accept him as easily being turned into a dog-like creature.

    Zooey Deschanel as Louise Tully

    She’s the right combination of nerdy and adorable, especially if she lets herself go a little. Add some frump and a little more whine to the voice and she’s perfect as the accountant (and eventual Ghostbuster hopeful, originally played by Rick Moranis) who lives next door to Dan and who also gets turned into a hellhound.

    Jay Baruchel as John Melnitz

    This Tropic Thunder actor is a little young, but considering he’ll be filling the secretary role (originated by Annie Potts), he probably should be. Also, it would be great to see Tina Fey flirt with the little dweeb, if anything just for the callback to the “cougar” episode of 30 Rock.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Kiyoshi Kurosawa Interview, Tokyo Sonata

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Cure  (1997)

    Pulse  (2001)

    Doppelganger  (2003)

    Tokyo Sonata  (2008)

    Tokyo Sonata director Kiyoshi Kurosawa

    Kiyoshi Kurosawa (no relation to Akira) has mostly been known for Japanese horror films Cure, Pulse, and Doppelganger, but with his last few movies he’s been moving more into the dramatic. Tokyo Sonata explores a Japanese household, led by a father who is laid off from his job and is too embarrassed to tell his family. He leaves home every day, but instead of going to work he visits parks and libraries until it is time to return. Meanwhile, his rebellious older son wants to leave Japan and go to the United States to join the military, and his youngest son is secretly taking piano lessons, which he has been forbidden to do. It’s a stark look inside the family culture in Japan, and the rift between generations. We sat down to ask Kurosawa about the film, and learned that he’s pretty definitively left the genre with which he’s most associated behind. More after the jump.

    Tokyo Sonata feels similar to Bright Future, your other film, except the family members in Bright Future are much younger and this more revolves around the father, and to some extent the family as a whole. Is this an evolution from that film?

    I think your theory is probably more or less correct. In between the horror films, I have made several more or less what you would call “family” type films and different versions. I’m sure you remember License to Live. But this time what I did, I portrayed a super-duper ordinary family, at least in shape, at least in form. So in a sense maybe I’m going back before Bright Future, back in time when there is such a thing as a family, if just barely functioning.

    The attitudes of the family in the film, do you feel like that’s particularly Japanese, or could it apply to any family in the world?

    You know, I really wasn’t sure. What I did was really try to stay true to the problems that a typical Japanese family would meet up with. I had no idea or any intention to portray kind of universal problems, but based on the reactions that I got at Cannes, it seems like I had hit on something that seems to be fairly universal, or at least traveled outside the borders of Japan.

    Certainly it goes without saying that Japan is hardly an isolated country. Contemporary life in Japan today is deeply intertwined to that of the world. Also film, I really believe, has a universal power and has a universal impact. So as a medium, borrowing that power of film language, I felt really confident that I would be able to reach a large audience.

    The traditions of honor and shame seem to be inherent traits that the Japanese have embraced and continue to find to be strong, especially the older generations; the younger generations, maybe not so much.

    In this film there seems to be a disconnect between the father and the oldest son. The oldest son wants to go to the USA to join the military. The father is meanwhile concealing the fact that he has been let go from his job. The younger son is also concealing that he is taking these piano lessons. Are these all signs of a larger disconnect and problem within modern day Japan as a whole?

    Yes. I think in some ways they do symbolize Japan. But I think if anything, much more is always that I sort of tried to portray what has always been a family. In other words, if there are internal problems that have always been internal to the family, then each member of the family then has their own problems that are outside of the family. You can’t resolve those problems within the context of the family.

    So I think if anything, I was really much more aiming at the precarious balance that has always characterized Sonata.

    I think Bright Future was the first film that you shot digitally. Are you continuing to shoot digitally?

    This one I shot on film. I was intentionally wanting to shoot this movie on film because of the drama.

    Do you have a next project lined up? Are you thinking about ever returning to the horror and thriller genre?

    I doubt I will go back to horror. If I have a good idea I will go back to it, but probably not in my next film. But neither am I interested in another family drama. This film was something quite unexpected.

    If you were asked by an American studio to do an English language film, would you be interested?

    I am interested in making an English language film. I would be perfectly happy to, but I somehow doubt that the Hollywood system would allow me to make the kind of movie I want. So I think of them as two separate things.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Shia LaBeouf Inserted Into Old Spielberg Movies. Clip of the Day

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Whether you’re a South Park viewer or a reader of many film blogs, you’ve probably seen the disturbing (though not disturbingly funny) clip of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas raping Indiana Jones. As much as I too was disappointed with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though, I find the South Park thing more upsetting, and I’ll probably have a more difficult time getting the image of Indy in whitey tighties being mounted by Spielberg out of my head than I did erasing the memory of Shia LaBeouf swinging through the trees with a bunch of monkey friends.

    Speaking of LaBeouf, he’s the star of today’s Clip of the Day in lieu of the rape thing (which I don’t want to subject anyone to, if they’ve managed to avoid it so far). Because everyone knows Spielberg loves LaBeouf — as an actor; get the rape and other related thoughts out of your head — the site Spill.com has put together a little animated montage of what it would be like had LaBeouf starred in (or were he inserted into, via effects magic) Spielberg’s past movies. I like it mainly because I’m already obsessed with the Shia LaBeouf “no no no no no” thing (see this past Clip), which works perfectly in the old movies. The Close Encounters musical version is especially great.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • SLACKER on Hulu

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Slacker  (1991)

    In a post published today on Hulu’s official blog, Kevin Smith reminisces about his 21st birthday, which he spent driving from New Jersey to New York to see Richard Linklater’s Slacker. Inspired by J. Hoberman’s Village Voice review, Smith says, “the promise of a scene centered on a Madonna pap smear of questionable authenticity was bait enough to lure us from the Jersey ‘burbs into the wilds of Manhattan-after-dark.”

    17 years later, thanks to Hulu, no one will ever have to drive an hour each way for the Madonna pap smear scene again. Slacker is embedded above.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Movies That Live On As Video Games

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]


    In the 1980s it seemed like Hollywood hated everything that was going to compete with it: television, video games, books, comics, you name it. If it wasn’t being used as an ancillary product for a movie, then it was the enemy. Why would an executive want to embrace something like Spider-Man or Space Invaders and try turning it into a movie? Which, granted might be why so many movies from the 1980s were classic. Where’s our next John Hughes, already? If there was a video game announced tomorrow based on Ferris Bueller’s Day Off or Weird Science, I would retire this column for eternity. Unless the game sucked.

    But what about movies that came out years ago that still live on through video games? Games have single-handedly managed to keep some franchises flush with cash, long before the currently Hollywood trend of retreading, prequelizing, and refurbishing movie happened. Now, you’re just as likely to have a game coming out day in date with the movie, if not a few weeks before in an effort to hype the buzz. But what about those that came before? Here are a few examples.

    The most perfect example of this oddity in the concentric circle of Hollywood and video games is without a doubt, hands down The Goonies II. What, you don’t remember the movie? That’s because it never existed. There was a lot of a sequel to this movie, especially since it was one of the highest grossing movies of 1985, but it failed to appear. Although that didn’t stop the video game world from filling the gap.

    Games based on both the movie and the non-existent sequel came out. Sadly, they were mostly relegated to pizza parlors and the dimly lot back corners of arcades before fading into obscurity. What makes this even more ironic is that Goonies DVDs have been selling so well, Sean Astin is sure that a sequel will appear soon. Good enough for me.

    Although it hasn’t hit the shelves yet, Ghostbusters III is living on in video game form as Ghostbusters: The Video Game. Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson are reprising their roles as Ghostbusters in this game as voice talent, and Akryoyd himself has said that the game is essentially Ghostbusters III. Let’s just hope and pray that it’s better than Ghostbusters II.

    There have been several Ghostbusters video games out over the years, and I still remember playing the verison on buddy’s Commodore 64 back in the day. So am I excited for this one? You bet I am. Seriously, any game that Bill Murray contributes the voice to, as long as it doesn’t have “Garfield” in the title can take my money. And the fact that it’s Ghostbusters is just icing on the cake. It’s set in 1991 also, two years of Ghostbusters II, so you can both date yourself and have fun busting ghosts at the same time.

    George Lucas and his galaxy far, far away have been guilty of dipping into the well of video gaming more than anyone else in Hollywood history. Since hitting screens in 1977, there have been over 100 Star Wars games on multiple systems. Just recently, Lucasarts released Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, which is set inbetween the events of Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope.

    Darth Vader has taken an apprentice that he’s hiding from the emperor for reasons unknown, and while you play as this apprentice through most of the game, you start off the first level playing as Darth Vader, which is a first for the Star Wars games. What kid (or adult) hasn’t dreamed about stepping into that black cape and armor and just mowing things down with his lightsaber? Although the gameplay has taken several hits in reviews, the storyline is pretty intriguing… which is more than I can say for any of those Star Wars prequels. The game sold nearly a million units in its first week of release and will probably be in several stockings during the holidays.

    What does this all mean? It boils down to the fact that you might see Ben-Hur: The Video Game sometime soon, because the sky is the limit when it comes to the gaming realm, and studios are always eager to capitalize on old product by releasing a new “Special Edition” DVD, so why not a game? It might be sacrilege to think about a Casablanca “shoot the Nazis!” video game, but if it was a murder mystery, with the player trying to find out what happened in the role of Rick, then it begins to sound interesting. Just some food for your gaming thought.

    Kevin Kelly, a contributor to The Austin Chronicle, Joystiq, io9, Cinematical, Film School Rejects and countless other weblogs, will be weighing in on the intersection between film and video games every Thursday here on SpoutBlog. Please ask him personal questions, shower him with flattery and/or rip apart his argument in the comments. Game on.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • CHE: A Generational Divide?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Che  (2008)

    After Che premiered at the New York Film Festival last week, Glenn Kenny wrote two blog posts in which he criticized anonymous critics for their criticism of Che’s lack of “human drama.” I knew I was implicated in the complaint –– In his first post, Kenny directly quoted a phrase I used in my write-up of the film but didn’t link to said write-up; in the second, he said he found it “exasperating” to see such a complaint from “people who position themselves as new voices, with new perspectives, in cinematic discourse” –– but I didn’t intend to respond. Not only do I stand by my take on the film and have little else to say beyond what I’ve already written, but when somebody criticizes something I write on the internet without linking, that’s basically equivalent to talking behind my back, and I’m usually content to pretend like I don’t know the talk is going on until I’m invited to defend myself.

    But over the past few days, as reviews of the film far more considered than my own have started to stack up online, I’ve noticed something that I do think is worth commenting on. A number of writers, including Keith Uhlich, Michael Joshua Rowin, Nick Schager, Leo Goldsmith and Daniel Kasman, have written reviews which incorporate the criticism that Che is “dispassionate”, that Soderbergh has a “disposable, inconsequential attitude” towards his subject, that the whole thing amounts to a “prolonged and wearying exercise in disinterest.” I’m sure there are more examples out there, but I think the five of them plus me are enough for a focus group. All six of us not only write for what could be called “alternative” publications, but we’re all in our 20s or early 30s––evidence that the “new voices, with new perspectives” that Kenny cites are in fact almost completely united in our “exasperating” take on Che. Che’s key defenders, thus far, are Kenny, J. Hoberman and Amy Taubin –– all veteran critics, and our seniors by several years.

    Which is not to say that the old guard is wrong just because they’re the old guard, just as I hope no one is really shaking a fist in the air at “these kids these days.” But I do think there may be something significant to the fact that the divide is breaking down this way. Are younger critics frustrated (or just bored) with Che because for the most part, we don’t bring an emotional, historical or intellectual relationship to its subject to the viewing experience? Or are we just braindead children with the attention spans of infants? Or both?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog