Burning Questions: Broadway's Cinematic Potential?

Michael C. here in the aftermath of the Tony's to return the focus to where it belongs: Movies.

The film version of Porgy & Bess (1959) is rarely seen. Audra McDonald & Norm Lewis in the Broadway show, with movie star looks and thrilling voices, suggest its cinematic potential

As I've written before in this column, as a rule I don't go in for the sort of rose-colored nostalgia that assumes pop culture is on some kind of inexorable decline into the sewer and if only we could return the Golden Age of the 30's or the 70's or whenever then we would experience some kind of artistic renaissance. It is now as it ever was - a little quality, lots of junk.

But one trend I do resist, one that I mark as the undeniable decay of the natural order of things, is the movement toward reverse-engineering successful movies into Broadway shows and away from the reverse. I will fight this trend to my dying breath, or at least I will stand outside the stage production of Ghost and shake my old man cane at it like Carl from Up. 

Yet there is hope. With Les Miserables finally landing in theaters this December, and August: Osage County getting the Streep treatment as we speak, maybe there is still a chance to return to the glory days of stage to screen transfers the way that Thespis intended. But with only so many big Broadway titles left unfilmed that brings me to this week's Burning Question: Are there any current Broadway shows that deserve the big screen treatment? 

Click to read more ...

Yes, No, Maybe So: The Great Gatsby

Jose here. The summer not only brings us cheesy special effects movies and superhero blockbusters, it also announces the start of something else in movie theaters: the arrival of Oscar season trailers! Yesterday we got our first glimpse at Baz Luhrmann's take on F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby which, no surprise, showed us Baz at his Baziest.

Those of you who were expecting him to show some restraint will be highly disappointed (although didn't you learn your lesson with Australia?) while the rest will rejoice in the way he flahses his unique visual style. Anyway, before you pick a team, let's do our usual Yes, No, Maybe So...

Click to read more ...

Cronenberg. Cosmopolis. Can't Wait.

Since I neglected to share the Cosmopolis teaser when it first hit the net and we'll wait for the full trailer for our Yes No Maybe So treatment (obviously I'm an orgasmic yes... Cronenberg. Duh) so I thought I'd share my 9 favorite images from the teaser in sort of chronological order...though I lost track of them as they exploded orgasmically over my terrified/turned on eyeballs.

If anyone can make a Don DeLillo novel which takes place solely in the back of a car cinematic, isn't it David Cronenberg?

Robert Pattinson is painfully attractive ... which is painful to admit. Damn you, RPattz!

7 more increasingly freaky shots after the jump...

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: To Read Or Not To Read

Michael C. here to tackle a major philosophical issue. No poking fun at Ghost Rider this week. There are some questions a movie lover ponders for a lifetime. The big questions like where to sit in the theater (close enough to fill my field of vision but not so close I crane my neck) or Godfather Part I or Part II (Part I. You Part II people can have at me in the comments)

This week I thought I’d dive into one such big question the imminent release of Hunger Games has me contemplating. Is it better to read the book first or watch the movie?

For the purposes of this discussion let us assume that both book and movie are excellent. When one is clearly superior then the call is obvious. Better version first. Read I, Robot, The Road, Breakfast of Champions. Watch Jaws, Sideways, Wonder Boys. The lesser version can be an interesting bonus at best, a horrible afterthought at worst.

The real dilemma is when both versions promise to be excellent and one experience will inevitably compromises the purity of the other. I’ll state right up front that when put to it I’m a movie first guy. I watched the entirety of the Lord of the Rings not knowing if Frodo would make it back alive (I had read The Hobbit, which was made for an ideal balance of acquainting myself with the world and preserving suspense. I recommend it)

So in the interest of fairness let me play Devil’s Advocate and make the case for book first to see if I can shake my position.

Books provide context

Book to film adaptations inevitably lop off huge chunks of backstory on the trip to the screen. When entire chapters of family history are reduced to a five seconds of Lisbeth Salander scrolling through pics on a laptop, having read the book becomes invaluable.

My response:  A movie should stand on its own. “That was explained in the novel” is not a legitimate defense as far as I’m concerned. Also...

Click to read more ...

Overheard @ Box Office: "You can't go wrong with Dr. Seuss"

Overheard on Friday:

Woman#1: (Defeated sounding) I have to take my son to see The Lorax. 
Cheerful Female Friend: Ohhh, you can't go wrong with Dr. Seuss!"  

Cheerful Female Friend has clearly not registered the atrocities Hollywood has often made from the good doctor's work. And when one thinks of the colorful wit and profound whimsy of Dr. Seuss surely mainstream heartthrobs like Zac Efron and Taylor Swift pop immediately to mind! What a, uhhhh, perfect vocal match.

But Cheerful Female Friend speaks for all of America. So testifies the box office!

BAKERS DOZEN (Estimates)
01 THE LORAX  $70.7 new  
02 PROJECT X  $20.7 new  
03 ACT OF VALOR $13.7 (cum. $45.2)
04 SAFE HOUSE  $7.2 (cum. $108.2)
05 TYLER PERRY'S GOOD DEEDS $7 (cum. $25.7)
06 JOURNEY 2 THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND $6.9 (cum. $85.6)
07 THE VOW  $6.1 ($111.7)
08 THIS MEANS WAR  $5.6  (cum. $41.6)
09 GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE $4.7 (cum. $44.8)
10 THE ARTIST $3.9 (cum. $37)

11 WANDERLUST  $3.8 (cum. $12.4)
12 GONE $3 (cum. $8.9)
13 CHRONICLE  $1.9 (60.8)

Talking Points

Reese, Amanda, and Jen have seen better box office days

• BLONDE BUT BANKABLE? Reese Witherspoon's movies are generally expensive to make but that return on investment these days. Yikes. This Means War is still a long way from recouping its budget. Jennifer Aniston movies have always had schizophrenic box office performance but Wanderlust is definitely on the weak side of her ticket-selling. How on earth was that sperm-switching comedy more attractive to moviegoers than this one? Meanwhile Amanda Seyfried hasn't been able to scare up crowds from Gone which is weirder. It's a genre flick and can't those usually open even without a name? $8 million for a serial killer picture after two weeks? Ouch. I'm sure it doesn't help that the ads totally make it seem like something Ashley Judd was making in the early 90s.

• EXCUSE ME, BUT WHO IS PAYING TO SEE GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE? I mean, besides our masochistic Michael C. It's already made more money than 2011's "Best Picture"... which had a big uptick post Oscar of course (The Artist's co-nominees took falls but Hugo fell only 14% despite also debuting on DVD so maybe its constant name-checking on Sunday night convinced some holdouts?)

• A SEPARATION more than doubled its screen count and had its first million dollar weekend, bringing its total to $3.7 million at the US box office. That there is a big big number for a non-genre subtitled picture.

What did you see this weekend? Was it worth the money? I was having an offline recuperation weekend so I went to see a Norwegian band at The Bitter End that one of my friends recommended called Mhoo. They're so good. Have a listen! 

They told me they're going to SXSW so if you're heading to that festival check them out.

Even when I'm at non-film events I can't stop thinking of movies. While the girls were singing I kept thinking "Kiki Dunst and Leelee Sobieski should play them in a movie!"