The Film Experience™ was created by Nathaniel R. All material herein is written by our team. (This site is not for profit but for an expression of love for cinema & adjacent artforms.)
Colin Farrell has something of a wolf's reputation as a celebrity and it serves him well in Fright Night, a remake of the 1985 vampire comedy, while playing a shameless monster. Yet, for all his rabid dog violence as vampire Jerry -- "a terrible name for a vampire!" -- the most adorable moment in his performance is positively kittenish. While stepping around a beam of sunlight during one action setpiece he hisses at it with instinctual annoyance. You can't scare sunlight away, dumb Jerry! It's a silly bit of actorly business but the new Fright Night soars whenever the cast or director are having a bloody good time. Good times at the movies are as infectious as vampirism, though thankfully more common.
Willow Smith: Daughter of WILL SMITH in case you forgot!You guys...
I was going to talk about this last week but decided against it under the umbrella "if you don't have anything nice to say..." But now Willow Smith had to go and remind me by wearing her dad when she hit the red carpet for the BET Awards. Just in case you forgot why you should care about her!
It wasn't enough for Will Smith to foist his son upon the world by way of co-starring roles when he was 9 (Pursuit of Happyness) and a leading gig (The Karate Kid) by the time he was 11. Now, he wants his daughter to be equally famous: cue record deals and movie contracts; she's 10.
♫ The fame'll come out tomorrow Bet Will's billion dollars, that tomorrow there'll be fame. ♪
How long before we start hearing disturbing things about this family? His kids just seem awfully young to be pushed so aggressively towards global fame. There are many famous Hollywood dynasties of course -- nothing wrong with following in your parents footsteps -- but how often does the second generation get this big a push this early?
Okay, maybe I did just spend way too much time watching Ryan O'Neal talk up Tatum O'Crazy the other day. But believe me when I say that if Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie suddenly decided that they needed to produce movies to star each of their children before they hit puberty, I'd worry about that family, too.
Carol Burnett as Miss Hannigan in "Annie" (1982)Or maybe I'm just annoyed that one of the great actresses of the past century -- that'd be Emma -- has been relegated to behind the scenes scripting duties for the vanity projects of another star's offspring. Vulture suggested last week that Emma would make an awesome Miss Hannigan (played by Carol Burnett in the last movie version and Kathy Bates in a telefilm) and we concede that if that happened, we'd totally be interested. I hope Will Smith is going to pay Emma very very well but the thing is ...I'm starting to think that we should get compensation pay from someone for every year that we don't have Emma Thompson on our movie screens (sans Nanny McPhee makeup, I mean).
Hopefully Emma's "Oh" character in next summer's Men in Black III is a fun one.
Striiiiike. I forgot to sound off on the trailer for Moneyball. And then there's Footloose what shuffled by us, too. It's been a long week. TGIF and all that... only it's already Saturday. What? Okay, here we go. You know how we do here. We manage expectations with the patented Yes, No, Maybe So breakdown. How excited are we/should we be for each new movie?
First up... Brad Pitt in the baseball stats dramedy Moneyball.
YES Brad Pitt. And there's something mellow but casually exciting about the presentation overall... which is rather like the sport of baseball come to think of it, wherein nothing much happens until it does. NO All behind-the-sport dramas made after 2006 are always going to come up short on account of Friday Night Lights (2006-2011). That's just the way it is. It's like trying to envision what the future will look like after Blade Runner or trying to do a porn drama after Boogie Nights or somesuch. Several of the shots of Brad Pitt here instantly recall Coach Taylor for example even though they're probably not trying to. Plus the topic just seems so dry, right? True stories also have the disadvantage of inevitable and therefore (sometimes) anti-climactic finales.
MAYBE SO The trailer doesn't get all obsessed about Philip Seymour Hoffman being in it which is a considerable relief. If the trailer is true it looks like Jonah Hill is the one to watch IF (and I still think it's a big IF) the film gets any sort of Oscar traction. I liked Hill in Cyrus and though heseems a bit limited in the range department, choosing the right projects can really help to shift perceptions about that or at least maximize what can happen within the confines of any actor's range. The script is by Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian, both strong writers, and though that's not an automatic yes (must we invoke the name of Charlie Wilson's War? for example), it's a good sign that it'll be lively and smart.
Me, I'm a maybe so and I'll lean whichever way the Oscar buzz does. But then it does star Brad Pitt so chances are very good that I'll see it.
The other night while I was out at a party and my friend Kenneth totally got in my face about how Brad Pitt is a terrible actor and I'm like no-no-no. Brad Pitt is... well he's Brad Pitt! ♥. He's been continually underrated his whole career despite being a huge star with the exception of that highly unnecessary Oscar nomination for his Benjamin Button turn, the equivalent of Depp's Neverland nomination surely ("Yes, you're totally boring in this but WE JUST LOVE YOU ANYWAY!"). So maybe whether or not you're a yes, no or maybe will come down to Brad?
UGH. FOLLOWING IN KEVIN BACON'S FOOTSTEPS IS HAAARD.
YES Miles Teller in the Chris Penn role?That could be fun. And though it pains me to say it... when an original isn't sacred -- and Footloose is only sacred in the nostalgic sense not in the "movie" sense -- it's sometimes fun to watch how they reinterpret key moments. Like, when Kenny Wormald crazydances in that empty warehouse, they won't have to go all silhouette body double right?
NO The most annoying bit in the trailer is surely the "It's OUR time" town hall righteous speechifying since the movie looks as generic as can be and anything but generation-defying... unless today's generation prides themselves on being super lame Frankenstein's monsters stitched together by their parent's nostalgic parts. Also in its insistence on looking like both a hip-hop movie AND a remake of "Dirty Dancing" AND the original "pop" film AND a country and western joint, it's clearly trying to be all things for all people and will subsequently have no identity of its own.
Plus (by which I mean minus): exploding trucks.
And a lead female star so bratty you want Dennis Quaid to give her a good spanking and ground her. Where is Lori Singer's weirdly comatose sensuality... the believable byproduct of a stifling home environment (with or without the cello)
MAYBE SO Craig Brewer wrote and directed it and though I can't for even one frame spot the brave provocateur behind Hustle & Flow or Black Snake Moan, maybe you can? Or maybe the trailer is just a bad lie and the film will be interesting?
"No" unless reviews by nearly every trustworthy critic surprise.
Let's talk about Johnny Depp for a moment. Is anyone busier?
Depp sneaking away from all original movie ideas.
He seems to be rivalling Michael Fassbender (rising star division) and Leonardo DiCaprio (first dibs 30something division) on "most films in the pipeline". Aside from signing on for endless Pirates of the Caribbean films (we thought one was enough but oh how we loved it at the time), there's Tim Burton's Dark Shadows adaptation (I almost typed Dark Habits there are no druggy horny nuns in that one) and The Lone Ranger (which Depp says will be significantly rework the Tonto/Ranger dynamic), he and Rob Marshall are prepping a remake of the 30s classic The Thin Man for 2013.
What is with Depp's weird insistence on only doing remakes and sequels? That such an original performer would give himself over so completely to repetition and revisions is eerily similar to the "no more original material!" edict that seems to have consumed his once very original favorite collaborator as well (That's right, Mr. Burton, we're talking to you!)
A remake of The Thin Man (1934), one of the first feature "franchises" is a pretty terrible idea for a number of reasons and not just for the totally norm reason that the original is just fine the way it is.
There are two enormous hurdles to surmount in relaunching that franchise and the unbeatable William Powell / Myrna Loy chemistry is numero uno. Depp is a wonderful actor but when has he ever had chemistry that fine with a co-star? Think hard. Yep, he's something of an island actor. Problem dos is that though the 1930s should technically have been more backwards in terms of gender equality, it's pretty tough to beat the leading ladies of the 1930s in terms of gender equality starpower. Loy was a real lulu and who the hell will ever be able to top her impressive juggling of loving wife, comic sparring partner and elegant diva?
You're going to need an actress who can keep Depp on his toes whilst staring him straight in the eyes and simultaneously never dropping the witticisms from her lips. As much as Hollywood will want to cast a 20something woman in the this role, Johnny Depp will be 50 when the movie comes out so the Nora to his Nick should at least be in her 30s, but hopefully early 40s. (To be anal about it, there was a 13 year age difference between the original Nick and Nora Charles so we'll allow for an actress as young as 35. We're generous that way.) Remember you're looking for an equal in every way.
The last woman to hold her own opposite Depp with enough force to suggest that she absolutely did not believe she was billed below him was Anne Heche in Donnie Brasco (1997). But we all know that they're not going to cast Anne Heche. Who would you go with?
Since I very recently saw Arthur (1981) on Netflix Instant Watch, I had a bit of a trouble disconnecting myself from the original while watching the new version 30 years later.
Dudley & Liz vs. Russell & Greta
The more things change the more they stay the same? The comedy Arthur (1981) opened during a recession and high unemployment rates. Here we are again in 2011 when all but the richest are hurting and that drunken millionaire is rearing his head again. He's hoping you'll laugh with him or at him -- either will do as he has no shame. The first time around audiences did just that. They embraced Arthur's reckless entitlement and threw millions more into his seemingly bottomless coffer, turning the film into one of the biggest blockbusters of early 80s cinema.
The remake, also named ARTHUR (2011) is in some ways a recreation with virtually the same character in a nearly identical plot. The few changes are cosmetic. Even Arthur's net worth hasn't changed all that much...
Friday, August 19, 2011 at 7:26PM 
Colin Farrell has something of a wolf's reputation as a celebrity and it serves him well in Fright Night, a remake of the 1985 vampire comedy, while playing a shameless monster. Yet, for all his rabid dog violence as vampire Jerry -- "a terrible name for a vampire!" -- the most adorable moment in his performance is positively kittenish. While stepping around a beam of sunlight during one action setpiece he hisses at it with instinctual annoyance. You can't scare sunlight away, dumb Jerry! It's a silly bit of actorly business but the new Fright Night soars whenever the cast or director are having a bloody good time. Good times at the movies are as infectious as vampirism, though thankfully more common.
