Yes, No, Maybe So: "Moneyball" and "Footloose"

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 he seems 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?

And the remake of FOOTLOOSE (2011) [see trailer here]

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.

Where are you with these two pictures?

Cast This: Johnny Depp's "The Thin Man" Remake

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?

Review: Arthur (2011)

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...

READ THE REST @ Towleroad

What do you make of this Arthur or the earlier one?

Gotta Rant! Men (and Women) in Tights.

Gotta Sing....
A few days ago I read over at A Socialite's Life that Hugh Jackman is talking to Bollywood producers about work. You know... I like Bollywood just fine, sometimes quite a lot more than that, and I don't mean this as a slight but Hollywood is a crappy crappy please if one of its biggest stars has to actually leave our movie industry for another to show off his skillset. Grrrr. And, also: grrrl. (I'm fuming). I guess Hollywood only wants him to Wolverine but he has so much more in him.

Where is his big screen musical? If ever a modern male star could be a big deal singing and dancing on the screen it's him. He was amazement in The Boy From Oz on Broadway and he was thisbig. I saw him from the last row of the house with my head touching the wall in the far left corner (truth), the worst seat I've ever had for a show, and I was totally mesmerized. I think seeing him blown up on the big screen doing that same thing might kill me. But I'd die happy.

Amy Adams is another huge bankable star whose musical talent is in danger of being wasted. Lois Lane? Really? A role that any feisty actress could do in her sleep and also another "girlfriend" part to the true star. You'd think after hit movies and multiple Oscar nominations, she could get another good leading role.

The only way I want to see Amy Adams, who is so dynamite in comedy (Enchanted) and dramedy (Junebug) and in the right dramatic role (The Fighter), in a superhero movie is if she's the superhero.

The rest of the negativity must be confined to the jump. Click ahead for more on superheroes, Batman's eventual reboot and that weary-limbed Natalie Portman dancing controversy.

Click to read more ...

Akira Redux

You've heard that they're making a live action American version of Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira (1988), right? That's the sci-fi cartoon that really opened the Anime floodgates here in the States. I have a faint memory of seeing the movie in the theater when it arrived in the States -- I think 1990? -- and that memory involves two things: my jaw was mostly open throughout from the epic violent craziness, and my best friend at the time who I went to every movie with (hi Kevan!) turned to me during the climactic battle when Tetsuo transforms hideously into this blob like creature and said something silly like "quivering mounds of blubbery goo" in a dramatic but silly voice. We started giggling and a rather, um, large patron in front of us turned around to give us hateful looks. Embarrassing! But we were just reacting to the visuals on screen, I promise.

For those of you who are unfamiliar, the film is about a gang member biker Kaneda and his efforts to stop his powerful psychic friend Tetsuo from destroying Neo-Tokyo, an artificial city of sorts built after the destruction of the real Tokyo by another psychic boy named Akira who is still alive but imprisoned. (It takes place in 2019.) The new version will be directed by Albert Hughes (The Book of Eli) and the adaptation was done by Steve Kloves (The Fabulous Baker Boys, the Harry Potter franchise).

Though it was to be expected that the American remake would Americanize the story (it'll now take place in a futuristic New York City. Will they call it "New New York"?), some of us were stupid enough to hope that they'd realize that America does not equal caucasian. When your movie is based on a famous Japanese movie, it's not like you couldn't win lots of street cred and fan favor by casting Japanese Americans in the lead roles. Hell, even just Asian Americans of any type would win you non-racist points, as you'd still be acknowledging that people of color should maybe lead properties that are non-white in origin. Oh sure, you can say "there are no bankable Asian American actors" but how will there ever be if they're never given opportunities? And here's a thing Hollywood often forgets in their risk averse decisions: remakes of famous movies as well as virtually all genre titles, are sold primarily on their brand awareness and on their genre. This may be an unpopular theory but even something like Inception. Consider: What sold more opening weekend tickets? The folding city in the trailer or Leonardo DiCaprio's name in the trailer. The latter cost them 8 figures. This is why I've never understood why Batman in his multiple incarnations always requires an expensive leading man; BATMAN IS THE STAR, not the actor. Movie producers used to understand this. Christopher Reeves was not famous when he signed on for Superman and it sure didn't hurt that film's box office. District 9's box office wasn't hurt by using an (excellent) unknown in the lead role. With certain genres (mostly the "geek" genres: superhero, sci-fi, horror) the genre and the concept is the star.

My points is this. New York City is not lacking for diversity. I am white and I am most definitely a minority in my neighborhood. So why do movies set in NYC always seem lily white? And surprise: Actors come in all nationalities and skin colors, not just American/British/Australian and white.

illustration by taka0801

The actors being discussed for the lead roles of Kaneda and Tetsuo, who'll obviously have to be renamed Ken and Todd, are the following: Robert Pattinson, Andrew Garfield, James McAvoy, Garrett Hedlund, Michael Fassbender, Chris Pine, Justin Timberlake and Joaquin Phoenix. That's a lot of different acting styles and accomplishments and types and even ages. So basically, once again, we see that casting has nothing to do with what's required for roles or what tone a film is aiming for, it's just "whoever is on the studio's lips" each time. Sad. Casting is an artform, too. I really wish we'd see some acknowledgement that it is.

If The Film Experience were a massive site with millions of readers I'd demand a casting call right here. I'd be asking for all unknown or 20to30something Asian actors with excellent English skills, physical action film aptitude, and movie star good looks to send in their headshots and reels and I'd be packaging it all up with the top 20 and sending it Warner Bros way. Freelance casting director for hire!

Daniel Henney, Won Bin, Chang Chen, Masahiro Motoki, Takeshi Kaneshiro, Dennis Oh, Matsuyami Kenichi and Hiroshi Tamaki

Seriously, I don't understand why I can spend (literally only) 15 minutes brainstorming and come up with a couple of handfuls of Asian actors that might be cool to think about / test / consider for these roles (even allowing for the studio's random age ranges and no discernable "type") if they spoke English well -- surely some of them do, especially the American ones! ;)  -- but Hollywood studios with all of their casting resources and their budgets and their months of pre-production work don't ever even consider meeting with any of them? Do they even look at headshots? Do they even know that male actors of Asian descent exist? I'm beginning to wonder.

I suppose the most we can hope for at this point is that they deign to let Ken's (née Kaneda) love-interest Kei keep her Asian-ness. Every once in awhile the studios will let an Asian actress play a girlfriend. But Asian men? Forget about it. Shame.

Need More Akira? We'll be celebrating again in April in our "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" series. It's collaborative so join in.

Are you a new reader? Welcome. Please consider subscribing or bookmarking - some more pieces on animated films and Asian cinema coming up. We've been in the mood.

Another article addressing this problem -- though not Akira related:
Asia Pacific Arts "Hot Asian Actors Hollywood Doesn't Yet Realize It Needs"