After last week’s flurry of great big casting stories, we’re going to start small today. Paul Dano will appear in For Ellen, from director So Young Kim, who last made In Between Days. Dano will be “a struggling indie rocker who, after nearly wrecking his car during an overnight long-distance drive, arrives in a small Midwestern town to deal with his impending divorce.” I’m OK with all that, despite a logline that sounds like it covers such familiar and self-conscious indie ground, but less so with the word that Jon Heder will co-star. [Variety]
After the break, new stuff for Gerard Butler and a possible replacement for Keira Knightley in My Fair Lady. Read More »
Hot off of Quantum of Solace, Marc Forster is now set to direct The Chancellor Manuscript — an adaptation of the Robert Ludlum thriller of the same name. The film is a potential starring vehicle for Leonardo DiCaprio (who’s also producing), and Peter O’Brien has been tasked with adapting the screenplay.
The story concerns an author named Peter Chancellor who writes a novel about political types that are blackmailed into altering national policy. His manuscript is then discovered by operatives who mistakenly think he has uncovered their plot. Hijinks (of the violent variety) ensue.
Read More »
It’s nothing like the merry-go-round of screenwriters but it does sometimes seem that pretty much all studio pictures go through a few directors on their way to the screen. Very often a director will board a project, wrestle with it for months, if not years, then depart. Other times, a whole list of directors will have passed pretty much as soon as they close the script and a project can find some time to find somebody willing to commit.
The last we told you, Marc Forster was going to direct zombie epic World War Z from a script by Matthew Carnahan. Some rumours bubbled up in the summer that he was off the project, but died down pretty quickly, and now word is definitely that he’s very much still in the driving seat. On the other hand, our last report on Joe Wright told you that he would be directing Keira Knightley in a new version of My Fair Lady and that, it has now become clear, isn’t the case at all.
Read More »
What’s going on with the big screen adaptation of Max Brooks‘ book World War Z? J. Michael Straczynski wrote a screenplay, which seems like over a year ago, and Quantum of Solace helmer Marc Forster has been attached to direct. But aside from comments from Stazzynski or Foster here or there, we really haven’t gotten an update on the project in a long while.
Brooks, son of comedy legend Mel Brooks, revealed that Paramount Pictures has hired a new writer for the project, while making an appearance on Fangoria Radio. Who is the new writer? Matthew Michael Carnahan, brother of director Joe Carnahan, and writer of The Kingdom, Lions For Lambs, and State of Play. Brooks said that Carnahan is “one of Hollywood’s hot A-list writers, so if they went after him and paid him a mountain of gold, it definitely shows their confidence in this project.” Still no word an an updated production timeline.
Read More »
I have always loved concept art. Probably because it represents the absolute coolest a second of time could possibly look like. Everything after the concept art is a big compromise. It will never look that good. Even no so great films have cool concept art. I could look at the concept art for the Star Wars prequels all day long. That said, we have found some concept art for the upcoming big screen adaptation of World War Z.
Okay, that’s kinda a lie. We didn’t find it, IO9 did, and the intense artwork by Daniel LuVisi’s was only created as a tryout for the job. And while LuVisi isn’t saying if he got the job (I’m guessing yes), I’m 99% sure that The Battle of Yonkers, the piece of art seen above, won’t be used for the actual production itself. That said, it’s cool none the less.
“This was one of the most difficult images I’ve ever done. Incredibly challenging to the point where I wanted to quit. But through thick and thin I forced myself to complete it.”
LuVisi even through in a few Easter Eggs, including the Quantum of Solace billboard in the corner (the film Marc Forster directed before moving on to World War Z) and a homage to the zombies of Shaun of the Dead.
MTV had the opportunity to talk with J. Michael Straczynski about his upcoming adaptation of Max Brooks‘ World War Z. Straczynski says that it will be the first large scale zombie film.
“Most zombie movies to this point have been small, focusing on a few people in a house. And this has got real scare. You’re in India with hundreds of boats trying to get out of there with a tidal wave of zombies. The scale of what we’re doing here is phenomenal.”
Marc Forster recently signed on to direct, and Straczynski will be doing one more draft based on the filmmaker’s new notes. Straczynski calls the film “a thriller”, comparing it to the Bourne films. As cool as Straczynski makes the film sound, I’m a little nervous about the comparison to the Bourne movies, especially considering that Forster’s latest movie, Quantum of Solace, was heavily criticized for it’s disjointed action sequences.
AICN called Straczynski’s previous draft of the screenplay “a horror epic, a serious, sober-minded adult picture”, potentially “a genre-defining piece of work” with Best Picture potential (really?!). The basic premise of the book is that it is an oral history of the zombie war, compiled by an unnamed government employee. The movie follows this researcher, named Gerry Lane (possibly to be played by Brad Pitt, who is producing the project), as he travels the world conducting interviews with survivors, 10-years later. Forster told Variety that the story reminded him of “the paranoid conspiracy films of the ’70s like ‘All the President’s Men.”
The book was released in 2006, and is available on Amazon for $16.47. I’ve included the official plot description from the book after the jump:
Read More »
Posted on Saturday, November 15th, 2008 by David Chen
It’s impossible to talk about Marc Forster’s Quantum of Solace without first reflecting on how far the Bond franchise has come in recent years. When Martin Campbell’s Casino Royale debuted in 2006, it rebooted the franchise and heralded the age of a bold new Bond. The suave secret agent of previous years was replaced by a rough-and-tumble soldier, who relied more on fists, knives, and guns to get things done, rather than outlandish gadgets. The lifestyle of a double-O, which had seemed intensely appealing over the course of the last few decades, was suddenly transformed into one filled with self-sacrifice, self-reflection, and self-loathing. While the card game sequences might have been a bit hokey and some of the dialogue was a bit too Haggis-esque for my tastes (“I have no armor left. You’ve stripped it from me.”), make no mistake: Casino Royale was completely badass, filled with spectacular action set pieces and a brave portrayal of 007 by always-stellar Daniel Craig. Heck, Casino Royale was so good that it almost made us forget the filmic atrocity that was Die Another Day. Almost.
These are the expectations that Quantum of Solace steps into this weekend, even as it’s already well on its way to a critic-proof, record-breaking box office take. But does the movie live up to its promise?
Read More »
Paramount has hired Quantum of Solace director Marc Forster to helm World War Z, the big screen adaptation of Max Brooks bestselling novel World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. The 352 page book chronicles the aftermath of a great zombie-human war.
Changeling scribe J Michael Straczynski penned the screenplay, which AICN once called “a horror epic, a serious, sober-minded adult picture”, potentially “a genre-defining piece of work” with Best Picture potential (really?!). The basic premise of the book is that it is an oral history of the zombie war, compiled by an unnamed government employee. The movie follows this researcher, named Gerry Lane (possibly to be played by Brad Pitt, who is producing the project), as he travels the world conducting interviews with survivors, 10-years later. Forster told Variety that the story reminded him of “the paranoid conspiracy films of the ’70s like ‘All the President’s Men.”
The book was released in 2006, and is available on Amazon for $16.47. I’ve included the official plot description from the book below:
The Zombie War came unthinkably close to eradicating humanity. Max Brooks, driven by the urgency of preserving the acid-etched first-hand experiences of the survivors from those apocalyptic years, traveled across the United States of America and throughout the world, from decimated cities that once teemed with upwards of thirty million souls to the most remote and inhospitable areas of the planet. He recorded the testimony of men, women, and sometimes children who came face-to-face with the living, or at least the undead, hell of that dreadful time. World War Z is the result. Never before have we had access to a document that so powerfully conveys the depth of fear and horror, and also the ineradicable spirit of resistance, that gripped human society through the plague years.
Ranging from the now infamous village of New Dachang in the United Federation of China, where the epidemiological trail began with the twelve-year-old Patient Zero, to the unnamed northern forests where untold numbers sought a terrible and temporary refuge in the cold, to the United States of Southern Africa, where the Redeker Plan provided hope for humanity at an unspeakable price, to the west-of-the-Rockies redoubt where the North American tide finally started to turn, this invaluable chronicle reflects the full scope and duration of the Zombie War.
Most of all, the book captures with haunting immediacy the human dimension of this epochal event. Facing the often raw and vivid nature of these personal accounts requires a degree of courage on the part of the reader, but the effort is invaluable because, as Mr. Brooks says in his introduction, “By excluding the human factor, aren’t we risking the kind of personal detachment from history that may, heaven forbid, lead us one day to repeat it? And in the end, isn’t the human factor the only true difference between us and the enemy we now refer to as ‘the living dead’?”
Posted on Wednesday, November 5th, 2008 by David Chen
New York magazine’s Vulture has a piece (via Film Junk) that describes how Paul Haggis, a screenwriter for Quantum of Solace (and the writer/director for the Best Picture-winning Crash), almost created a child subplot for the next Bond film. According to Marc Forster, Solace’s director:
Haggis had an idea they weren’t fond of, and I didn’t know if it would work or not…The idea was that Vesper in the last movie, maybe she had a kid, and there would be an orphan out there. It wasn’t anything to insult the franchise. But they felt it wasn’t particularly Bond — him looking for the kid. I think Paul thought he just leaves the kid, he doesn’t deal with it. But [the producers] thought that would be really nasty, too, because Bond was an orphan himself. If he would find a kid, would he just leave it? They were so vehemently against it. That was the only time I saw, really, “No, we can’t do that.” They said, “Once he finds the kid, Bond can’t just leave the kid. It’s not right.”
Having spawned from the mind of Haggis, this idea doesn’t really surprise me, but it almost definitely would have been a horrendously executed. What possible positive outcomes could there have been for this scenario? As my /Filmcast colleague Devindra put it, either he keeps the kid and ruins the franchise, or he leaves the kid and is a much bigger asshole than we could have possibly imagined.
The franchise most fresh in my mind that played with this type of thing was Indy 4 and your feelings towards that film as a whole will probably inform how successful you feel that relationship was. But can we all agree that a James Bond Jr. would, as a general thing, be a terrible idea?
Discuss: Would you want to see a Bond film where he deals with his child? What action movies have dealt with father/son relationships satisfyingly?
The first reviews for the new James Bond film Quantum of Solace have begun to hit the interwebs. Critics seem to agree that the film lacks the narrative of Casino Royale. It is shorter, darker, less dialogue, more high-temp confusing action sequences, and some dull expository scenes. Oh, and everyone agrees that Daniel Craig is excellent as Bond (but was there any doubt after the first film?). Bottom line is people liked the film, but it’s no Casino Royale. Check out the excerpts below:
Times Online: “It’s James Bond, licence to bore. Quantum of Solace may be a sequel to Casino Royale but it lacks that movie’s panache and brio.” … “Bond is a boorish oaf who simply rushes from country to country with the manic speed of Jason Bourne, including sequences shot in Panama, Chile, Italy, Mexico and Austria, in a plot about holding a country to ransom over its water supply. Quantum of Solace lacks any wit, ironic or otherwise, which has been a strength of so many 007 films.” … “At around one hour 40 minutes, this Bond is shorter than most. Somehow it felt longer.”
The Guardian: “This didn’t excite me as much as Casino Royale and the villain is especially underpowered.” … “This is a crash-bang Bond, high on action, low on quips, long on location glamour, short on product placement.” … “I was disappointed there was so little dialogue, flirtation and characterization in this Bond: Forster and his writers Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade clearly thought this sort of sissy nonsense has to be cut out in favor of explosions. Well, perhaps that is what Bond fans want (not this Bond fan, though). But I was also baffled that relatively little was made of the deliciously villainous Amalric”.
The Telegraph: “…owes much to the quick-fire editing of the Bourne thrillers.” … “In this much darker film” … ” For half an hour or so after the pre-credits ‘teaser’, the film barely lets up.” … “And then, the pacing becomes more fractured. One wonders if director Marc Forster and screenwriters Paul Haggis and Neal Purvis haven’t tried a little too hard to distance the film from traditional Bond plots. The expository dialogue scenes can be dull, and cram in so many machinations and double-crossings that it’s easy to lose track of who’s duping whom. And yet, several times - just when you’re tempted to consult your watch - the movie suddenly surprises.”
BBC: “It’s a film that feels like the second part of a trilogy, with this being the bleaker second act.” … “The raw nature of the film may put off some who yearn for the days of gizmos, gadgets and Bond quips as he dispenses with faceless opponents.” … “But for the most part the villainy rightly takes a back seat to Bond’s emotional journey.”
Empire: “In an era marked by franchise bloat, it’s entirely admirable that Quantum of Solace is the shortest Bond movie to date – it drops a great many of the long-running series mannerisms (callous quips, expository lectures, travelogue padding, Q and Moneypenny)” … “Everything in this movie is edited as if it were an action sequence, which means that when the set-pieces come they have to go into overdrive to stay ahead of the game, with Bourne veteran Dan Bradley staging more brutal, devastatingly fast fights and chases.” … “we get less to latch onto emotionally since Daniel Craig became the complete 007 over the course of Casino Royale, and here just has to be set loose” … “while it’s exciting, it’s not exactly anyone’s idea of fun. To keep in the game, perhaps the next movie could let the hero enjoy himself a bit more.”
The Shiznit: “But Craig’s emotionless visage is so blank, the script so bereft of character, Quantum Of Solace feels like just another day at the office for 007.” … ” Craig, it must be said, is excellent.” … “High-tempo sequences, like the opening car chase and an extremely Bournian rooftop pursuit, are disorientating in the extreme: too fast, too sloppy and too ruthlessly edited. Often, things change in the blink of an eye – one second Bond is lying on his back, the next he’s jumping out a window, the next he’s swinging from a rope. It’s often impossible to keep up.” … ” Fight scenes often seem practiced and stagey” … “seems a little too far-fetched even for a Bond movie. All we ask is for some consistency – this isn’t Crank, this is Bond.” “Quantum Of Solace is a crushing disappointment. Try as you might, you’ll be unable to invest in any of the characters”
The Daily Mirror: “Quantum of Solace is a leaner, meaner animal, rammed with shoot-outs, a boat chase and even an aerial dogfight. And our hero is an angry, embittered man out for blood. Mostly it doesn’t feel like a Bond film at all. Not once does Craig say: “The name’s Bond. James Bond.” There’s no Q or his gadgets. Heck, we even see Bond in a cardigan. There are no risque quips or arched eyebrows.” … “It doesn’t disappoint - just don’t expect the brilliance of Casino Royale.”
