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

  • The SmartBuster. BlogNosh 06/11/06

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

    Control  (2007)

    • Glenn Kenny considers that “instant hit”, The Incredible Hulk. “If Edward Norton’s idea, if your idea, if my idea, of an intelligent mainstream genre picture won’t play with the money people, where the hell does that leave anybody’s idea of an intelligent mainstream picture, period?” He raises the issue to Norton himself, but ultimately comes closest to an answer via Jay-Z.
    • “It’s not just that there were a lot of black and white movies last year — it’s that most of them were fucking awesome,” writes Rich at FourFour. “Among them: Perspolis, Guy Maddin’s Brand Upon the Brain!Killer of Sheep (a 30+ year-old bit of brilliance that didn’t see official release till last year), I’m Not There, in part (and, my opinion, the b&w parts were the only ones worth watching), and Frank Darabont’s preferred cut of The Mist. But my favorite black-and-white flick of ‘07 and possibly of all time is Control.” What follows is a short treatise on that film’s humanity through black and white cinematography; there are a lot of screencaps.
    • “When a filmmaker tells a story in such broads strokes, he or she does so because it allows certain ideas to be explored without exposition; when the scope of a story is already understood, already deeply seated in the audience’s understanding of narrative, those audiences are more perceptible to the details and nuances the filmmaker is able to explore and play with within that structure.” David Lowery considers Silent Light at /Hammer to Nail.

    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Carnivalesque To Distribute DVDs

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

    Orphans  (2007)

    Kamp Katrina  (2007)

    Intimidad  (2008)

    Exciting news from David Redmon and Ashley Sabin, co-directors of a couple of our favorite recent docs, Kamp Katrina and Intimidad: they’re expanding the purview of their production company, Carnivalesque Films, in order to start distributing DVDs. Their first release will be their own film, the 2005 Sundance premiere Mardi Gras: Made in China, and it’ll be available, to quote David, “everywhere,” on July 29. In the coming months, Carnivalesque will distribute two festival favorites: Ry Russo-Young’s SXSW Special Jury prize winner Orphans, and The Holy Modal Rounders: Bound to Lose. The Mardi Gras trailer is embedded above; we’ll pass along more details on Carnivalesque’s upcoming releases as we get them.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • 15 Cartoons Calling for CGI/Live-Action Treatment

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

    I don’t know what is the worse idea, an all-CGI 3-D Smurfs movie, as Paramount had planned, or a CGI/live-action mix, as Sony Animation is now planning for our beloved blue communists friends. I guess if we only think back to Alvin and the Chipmunks and Underdog, it’s easy to think Sony’s new plan for The Smurfs is a terrible idea. But I think the second Scooby-Doo movie worked pretty well as far as cartoon adaptations go, and there’s a chance Hollywood could do a good job again, despite the majority (including Garfield: The Movie, The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, the first Scooby-Doo) being on the bad side.

    That said, I’m still no fan of the trend. However, if it must continue, I think it would be interesting to see any of the following 15 animated series, all of which feature the necessary mix of talking animals (or inanimate objects) and humans, turned into live-action movies with CGI characters:

    1. The Yogi Bear Show - I feel it’s inevitable that we’ll be seeing this one soon enough. And if Hollywood is feeling lazy enough, the plot can be a remake of the animated feature Hey There, It’s Yogi Bear! Steve Carell will play Ranger Smith, of course.
    2. Help!…It’s the Hair Bear Bunch! - Few people remember this Yogi Bear-like series starring three hippie bears, one of whom had a straggly afro. The movie would involve the usual plot in which the bears escape from the zoo and are chased by the human zoo-keeper and his fat assistant. I’d love to see the sweet production design that goes into the bear’s bachelor pad cave. And aside from the fact that CGI bears would make the invisible motorcycle easier to work with, live-action bears have been proven to be a much worse idea (see The Country Bears).
    3. The Great Grape Ape Show - This would be kinda like Peter Jackson’s King Kong, only without the intention of making the CGI look realistic. I’m not sure what the plot would be, but going with the King Kong idea, they could probably just have Grape Ape and Beagle Beagle visit New York (or another city) to allow for plenty of accidental destruction (isn’t that the only reason Transformers‘ last act was in a city?).
    4. Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a caveman instead of a talking dog. They could probably just have a guy dressed up in a very hairy costume for the prehistoric superhero, but as long as CGI characters are bringing Hollywood so much dough, they might as well render him on a computer, too.
    5. Speed Buggy - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a talking car instead of a talking dog. And I bet audiences will be more comfortable with a CGI talking car than with a CGI talking dog.
    6. Dynomutt, Dog Wonder - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with superheroes. Hey, I hear superheroes are big at the box office this century. Actually, I’m really, really surprised we haven’t heard about this one yet.
    7. Jabberjaw - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with…. wait, I’m starting to see that most of these Hanna Barbera cartoons are a lot alike. But even more than Scooby-Doo, this would be like the live-action Josie and the Pussycats, except with the benefit of having a CGI shark who plays drums for the group. Because most of the action would take place under the sea, there’s a good chance this would be too expensive to produce.
    8. Fangface - It’s like Scooby-Doo but not made by Hanna Barbera (however, it was produced by Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, who also created Captain Caveman, Jabberjaw, Dynomutt and others on this list). Instead of a talking dog, here one of the mystery-solving teens is a werewolf. And despite everyone’s love for Lon Chaney Jr. and the Teen Wolf movies, Hollywood can rarely make a werewolf these days without CGI.
    9. It’s Punky Brewster - They could always just base a movie off the original sitcom (though I doubt they ever would), but wouldn’t it be much cuter if there was a CGI character? Fortunately the cartoon series had that leprechaun-gopher thing named “Glomer.”
    10. Snorks - I guess there were no humans in this cartoon, but knowing Hollywood’s ability to mess with things, some could surely be added. Either the Snorks somehow venture out of the sea or a friendly scuba diving kid finds them. Though for the latter, the budget could be too high. I wonder if the Snorks could survive out of water…
    11. Ghostbusters - Would be allowed for there to be a feature film version of Filmation’s Ghostbusters — you know, the one that wasn’t based on the REAL Ghostbusters? The one that was actually based on a TV series that came before the movie Ghostbusters? Hmm. I guess this one should really go in the list of live-action series calling for CGI/live-action treatment (like ALF…)
    12. The Archie Show - Obviously this one could be completely live-action. But that’s no fun. And that TV movie from 1990 was extremely disappointing. Solution: CGI Jughead!
    13. Rainbow Brite - Hey, I really liked Rainbow Brite when I was a kid. Is that OK to admit yet? I may have even wanted a plush toy of Twink. Or maybe I did have a plush toy of Twink. Either way, I’d be the first heterosexual male in line at the theater for this one.
    14. Rugrats - This one will only be kinda CGI. It can star real kids with CGI mouths, like what they do with animals in the Babe and Dr. Dolittle movies. Oh yeah, and what they do with babies in the Baby Geniuses movies. Of course, the animated Rugrats movies each made significantly more money than the Baby Geniuses movies, so anyone who’d actually take on this idea is an idiot.
    15. The Herculoids - I really don’t care if they make it all CGI, mixed CGI/live-action, all 2D animation, or what; all I care about is that I get to see Tundro on the big screen one day before I die. Back when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time, I thought the triceratops was really lame. But it wasn’t because it was obviously animatronic. It was because it couldn’t shoot rocks out of its horn like Tundro. The rest of the Herculoids, especially Igoo and Gloop & Gleep, would also be awesome to see in a movie. In fact, to be honest, I mostly just made this list in order to profess my desire for a Herculoids movie.

    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Judd Apatow, Keith Gessen, Girls & Boys

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

    At This Recording, Tyler Coates reviews Keith Gessen’s All The Sad Young Literary Men, a book that I’m admittedly curious about, but absolutely refuse to read in hardcover unless someone gives me a copy. It is one of those new fangled novels that wants to tell people in their late 20s and early 30s who live in New York and have creative aspirations and complicated desires what it feels like to be a person in their late 20s and early 30s who lives in New York and has creative aspirations and complicated desires. It is sort of related to movies, by several degrees: Keith Gessen co-founded the literary journal N+1, the latest issue of which I read on the way back from Cannes; the co-founder of N+1, Benjamin Kunkel, wrote the novel Indecision, which Andrew Bujalski is allegedly adapting for Scott Rudin, to some chagrin from those of us who like Bujalski but hate that novel.

    Anyway. Towards the end of his (largely negative) review, Coates brings up a blog post written by Gessen’s former girlfriend, Emily Gould. If you live in the world New York on the internet, you’ll know that Emily Gould used to write for Gawker and was recently eviscerated by that site for writing an extremely long cover story for the New York Times Magazine about dating another person who used to write for that site. Less press was given over to an earlier evisceration of Emily by Gawker, in which publisher Nick Denton basically accused his former employee of sleeping her way to the top (of what? The Gawker hate list?) by sleeping with Gessen. I thought that Denton’s post was really, really gross. I thought the NYT Mag piece was just unnecessary––although I applaud anyone who can make five figures off of blogging.

    Okay, but seriously: this is a blog post about movies. Here it comes:

    In her “review” of her ex(?) boyfriend’s book, Gould noted that after finishing it, she text messaged the author and made a snide comment about it being appropriate for a Judd Apatow adaptation, I guess primarily because a main character “finds himself” when he accidentally knocks up a girl and the happy couple decide to keep it. To which Coates (apparently no fan of either Gould or Gessen) responds, “It’s a valid point, though; if made into a film, wouldn’t we find our three literary heroes played by Seth Rogan, Jason Segel, and Paul Rudd?” I’m not sure it *is* a valid point––although I probably should have no opinion on this, having not read the book, it’s hard to imagine any of those three actors in any kind of contemporary literature adaptation. But I was more interested/troubled by the parting snark that wrapped up Gould’s post on the book and its character’s Apatow-like weaknesses:

    For these men, women are a category problem, an enduring mystery, a species apart, given to fits of inexplicable hysteria and whimsical, merciful lowerings of standards. They might be unhappy but they could never have the problems these men do; they just wouldn’t even understand how to have such complicated problems. There could never be any point in writing an entire book about the sad young literary women.

    Coming from a writer who has endured more than her fair share of shit for making her own sadness and youth the subject of her literary ambitions, it seems like the implication is, “Boys are getting away with something that I’m not getting away with. No fair.” And maybe that’s a fair point. And I don’t know much about books, or who buys them or reads them. But I do know about movies, and why they’re made and who pays to see them, and I have Something To Say about why there can be an entire of genre of (essentially) gross-out comedies that take the neuroses (or, “complications”) of young men seriously, and why there isn’t a parallel filmic genre for women. Are you ready? Here it comes:

    We keep saying we don’t want it

    Yeah, okay, maybe…except that young women spend a lot of time and money telling Hollywood that we don’t actually want anything complicated at all. We are responsible for turning 27 Dresses into a hit, thereby reverse validating the gender depictions of Knocked Up (which I’m on the record of not thinking were THAT bad) and tacking at least a year or two on to the Katherine Heigl reign of terror. We are the ones who, whether proudly or guiltily, sucked up the quick carb binge of Sex and the City, pretended it was a political triumph for five minutes, and then immediately turn the box office back over to man children and, well, children children. When distributors do take a chance on actual films that actually treat women as though we’re, like, complicated human beings who actually, like, think about stuff, we don’t show up.

    I know it’s easier to blame our lack of representation on our ex-boyfriends and the super-producers who are getting rich off them. But I don’t buy it.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Peter Bart vs. The Dweebs

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

    Peter Bart now has a blog, but that’s no reason for him to play nice with the blogosphere. In a post from earlier this week, he did his best to discredit any opinion about this impending Hulk movie that is not his own:

    The dweebs may not like the effects. The star, Edward Norton, may not like the cut. And the blogosphere is steeped in bad buzz. So here’s what Universal decided to do about it Sunday night: Throw a party, invite 5,000 folks to a screening and celebrate The Incredible Hulk as an instant hit…The audience roundly applauded the set-pieces of CGI mayhem, as if to tell Comic-Con-ish doubters, “Get a life.”

    Because of course, it’s better to manufacture the illusion of “an instant hit” than to actually make an attempt to appeal to the “Comic-con-ish” built-in fans of the brand. I could go on and on about how to claim that the reaction of an invited audience (probably predominantly made up of people on the Marvel, Paramount or associated payrolls) is more valid that the worries of a film’s core ticket buyers is unforgivably solipsistic and probably not in line with Variety’s ostensible mission to couch all value judgments in assessments of commercial viability. But instead, I’ll just quote at length from one of Bart’s more articulate commenters, Shawn Bowers, after the jump.

    I suppose I”m one of those that finds this article a little difficult to swallow, if only because of the ongoing “battle” between the “geeks” and “everyone else.” I don”t mean to use so many quotes there, but I feel like we should be past the idea that there’’s actually any difference between these groups of people. Everyone is a geek or a dweeb about SOMEthing…Peter, you”re just as big a geek about movies and the entertainment business as some people are about comic books or genre pictures or whatever. To insult the others just reflects poorly on the actual depth of your cultural awareness…which is frustrating, because someone in your position should be more open-minded to the different forms that fandom takes these days…

    It just happens to be that the fanbase for these properties is more vocal in their active participation through the development stages than, say, someone waiting anxiously for their Kite Runner movie and screaming on the message boards about whether or not it’’s faithful to the book. It’’s a vocal minority, as you well know, and still…many of those people don”t actually WANT a movie to be bad, they just want to ensure a decent representation on the big screen of a favorite story or character…

    I like you Peter, I’ve always been a reader, but opinions like this don”t bolster your credibility. They just come off as elitist.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • What Just Happening. Trade Roughage 06/11/08

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

    • It’s been all-but-confirmed for awhile, but thisVariety story nails it: Magnolia will self-distribute What Just Happened?, Barry Levinson’s Hollywood satire which the studio produced through 2929 Entertainment but were hoping to unload at either Sundance or Cannes. “There were offers,” Eamonn Bowles told Anne Thompson, “But we can make more money doing it ourselves.” They’re planning a platform to medium-wide release for October.
    • Brazillian novelist Paulo Coelho is a MySpace addict! But at least the one-hour-a-day user has found a way to funnel his obsession into something productive: he’s planning to “‘curate’ a Web-generated film based on The Witch of Portobello from MySpace video and music submissions.”
    • Warner Brothers says Speed Racer wasn’t *that* much of a disaster after all––toy sales have apparently been “comparable to the last Batman.”

    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog