Google
 

Quentin Tarantino casts Britney Spears in remake of Russ Meyer classic

August 7th, 2008 by Scott Marks

Separated at birth?

The only thing more disturbing than floozy Britney Spears appearing in another theatrical film is the fact that Quentin Tarantino has the nerve to remake Russ Meyer’s Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

QT has cast the white trash paparazzi whore in the same role Tura Satana played in the 1965 soft-core masterwork. Tura is a tough, empowered, kick ass vixen while Spears is a dependent, out of shape nutjob that spends what little time she does with her children blowing cigarette smoke in their faces.

According to The Telegraph, a source said: “Quentin is convinced Britney will be brilliant. She’s delighted. She thinks it could turn her career around. It is perfect Tarantino material. He wanted to get Britney first. She’s playing the most important character.”

Ms. Spears is no stranger to performing before a camera and she’s been in a few movies, too. Those fortunate enough to witness Britney’s breakthrough picture Crossroads will never forget her somewhat believable performance as a high school graduate.

Continue reading Quentin Tarantino casts Britney Spears in remake of Russ Meyer classic

Tags: , , , , ,

Filed Under Gossip

“Funny Games” earns jeers from critics and audiences

March 21st, 2008 by Scott Marks

funny-games.jpg
“I know it’s basically Xerography, but please come see my movie!”

The critics rave over Michael Haneke’s useless remake of his own Funny Games:

“The fact that it features fine performances, talented direction and some moments of genuine suspense only makes the end product that much more grotesque and appalling.” — Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper

“That this relentless barrage of psychological and physical torture is extremely well made and powerfully performed — Watts hurls herself into her physically demanding role with heroic conviction — somehow makes it worse.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Haneke’s assault on our fantasy lives is shallow, unimaginative, and glacially unengaged — a sucker punch without the redeeming passion of punk.” — David Edelstein, New York Magazine
“It’s one of the most repugnant, unpleasant, sadistic movies ever made. No matter what virtues of craft one can find within, no matter what themes lie beneath, Funny Games is aesthetically indefensible.” — Andy Klein, Los Angeles City Beat

“In addition to being borderline unendurable, Funny Games is inexplicable, and I don’t mean in any philosophical sense.” — Joe Morganstern, Wall Street Journal

“I would absolutely defend Haneke’s right to relaunch his broadside on our voyeuristic vices, but he’s not keeping up with the times; he’s behind them. “– Anthony Lane, The New Yorker

Michael Haneke’s attempt to re-trace his steps frame by frame seems to be infuriating just about all who see it, and it’s not just the critics. According to Variety, “audiences have been quick to voice their displeasure as well, loudly complaining during overtly manipulative portions at some screenings.”

America’s disgust delights the folks over at Warner Independent Pictures, the film’s distributor. “We always expected it would have a polarized response,” says WIP bigwig Polly Cohen, who admits she was both repulsed and compelled by the film. “It’s for a very specific audience.”

Is it? Certainly thugs like the ones depicted in the film won’t go near any art house playing this film. Nor will the promise of unrelenting nihilism likely attract the intelligentsia. The only audience Funny Games will draw is most likely to be comprised of curiosity seekers and completists.

The film, which was produced by it’s star Naomi Watts, opened to moderately respectful numbers givin its limited release, generating $520,000 at 289 theaters for a $1,799 per-screen average in its opening weekend. A patronizing Mr. Haneke said he remade the film because American audiences, too lazy to read subtitles, needed to heed it’s message that violence is bad. In spite of that, Ms. Cohen expects it to to do even better in Europe. “We realized with American tastes it could go either way,” she says.

Don’t hold a tag day for Mr. Haneke just yet. Another one of his films is set to be “reinterpreted” for unwashed American audiences. Plans are in the works at Universal studios for a Ron Howard remake of Cache. Let’s see how the director’s ego feels about remakes after Opie’s by-the-numbers version rakes in more money than all of Haneke’s European features combined.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Filed Under News

FUNNY GAMES / Michael Haneke (2007)

March 16th, 2008 by Scott Marks

funny-games-2007.jpg

Funny Games (2008)
Re-written & Re-directed by Michael Haneke
Starring: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet and Devon Gearhart
Running Time: 107 min.
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1

Rating: ☆☆☆☆☆

Imitation once again proves the sincerest form of failure, particularly when the bones being raped are still attached to the film’s writer/director.

Filmmakers “rethinking” the works of other has always been commonplace in Hollywood. (Remember, there were two versions of The Maltese Falcon before John Huston got his hands on the bird.) Occasionally directors have gone on to rework their own past projects, hopefully in pursuit of modification or stylistic amplification. Gus Van Sant should forever burn in hell for what he did to Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, but is it kosher for a director to trace their own frames?

Hitchcock, who many claim made the same film 53 times, went back and improved upon his British version of The Man Who Knew Too Much. (The Master noted, “the 1934 version was the work of a talented amateur, the 1956 version the work of a professional.”) The same can’t be said of Frank Capra’s Lady for a Day (1933) which, when given an expensive overhaul in 1961 and re-named Pocketful of Miracles, turned out to be little more than a skilled exercise in wheelbarrow economics.

Michael Haneke’s Funny Games is a virtual shot-by-shot, word-for-word, ten year anniversary American remake of his German original. Haneke wanted to do an American version because he felt the concept of violence as a form of entertainment more applicable to our culture. He failed to realize that the same message had already been hammered home in Halloween, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street and countless other unmotivated-psycho slasher films.

The story is as simple as the film is pointless: a pair of facund, well-scrubbed jocks hold a family hostage in their vacation home and proceed to brutally terrorize and sadistically humiliate them for 107 minutes. We first meet the designated victims on an opening credits drive to their Long Island retreat. Junior Georgie (Devon Gearhart) watches from the back seat as mom Ann (Naomi Watts) and dad George (Tim Roth) shuffle CDs and play “guess the classical music piece.” The mellifluous strains are quickly overtaken by heavy metal thunder meant to imply that somehow the media is at fault for what is about to unfold.

In their gleaming white tennis outfits one could hardly confuse Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet) with Freddie and Jason. As their future marks pull over to greet a neighboring family, Ann notices the two boys talking to what amounts to their current prisoners. From a distance they seem to blend in so well that when Peter eventually knocks on the door asking to borrow a neighborly couple of eggs it’s unlikely that Ann would refuse. Peter’s white cotton gloves should have been a giveaway. Only three types of people wear white gloves when not attending a debutante ball: vain septuagenarians, psycho killers not eager to leave fingerprints and those seeking treatment for mysophobia.

Dead family pets always make the perfect calling card for roving lunatics so it’s only logical that Lucky, the meddlesome golden retriever, is the first to die. Initially George refuses to side with his wife. After all, they are well-groomed collegiate types who appear friendly with Fred and Betsy down the road, how bad can they be?
Soon after dad is incapacitated due to wounds suffered from a golf club, mom is forced to strip (her captors have the decency to shield young Georgie’s eyes) and before it ends splattered blood will coat one entire wall of the family’s TV room.

SPOLIER AHEAD!

To add ambiguous baggage to the proceedings, Haneke has one of his characters pick up and click on a remote control to rewind (and rewrite) a murder for the audience. In order to make this third act burst of surrealism pay off, Haneke needed to subtly layer in more than just a dose of thrash metal or the pair of complacent killers zoning out before the TV.

In setting out to remake his own manifesto on violence as entertainment, Michael Haneke only exposed what many have unwittingly confirmed countless times before: violence isn’t entertainment.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Filed Under Reviews, Theatrical

Brace Yourself — They’re Remaking Fritz Lang’s METROPOLIS!

December 10th, 2007 by Scott Marks

metropolis.jpg

Former R.W. Fassbinder producer Thomas Schuehly has acquired the rights to remake Metropolis. Variety reports that Schuhly is teaming with producer Mario Kassar (First Blood, Terminator II, Showgirls) on an updated version of Fritz Lang’s visionary masterwork.

“With the overwhelming role technology plays in our daily lives, the growing gap between rich and poor, including the gradual elimination of the middle class, the story of Metropolis is a frightening reflection of our society that takes place in an all too possible not too distant future,” said Schuehly.

No director or cast members were announced.

Isn’t the future supposed to be limitless? Instead of retreading Thea Von Harbau’s somewhat simplistic cautionary fantasy why not concoct another story! Because they can’t. Besides, it’s easier to trace than it is to draw.

Reconstructing Lang’s Metropolis has long been a subject of controversy. According to the director, an “original” version has not existed since 1927. One of the most expensive films ever made, according to imdb.com, adjusting for inflation were the film made today, it would have cost $200 million. The film flopped on its initial release, almost sent its studio into bankruptcy and subsequently only an incomplete negative and various reissue prints survive.

Depending on who you ask, Lang’s original could have run as long as 210 minutes. After a disastrous preview the film was cut down to 159 minutes. For years, the only prints in circulation ran around 90 minutes. In 1984, composer Giorgio Moroder put his American Gigolo proceeds to work by restoring the short version to its original visual splendor complete with color tinting according to Lang’s specifications. Okay, so you had to put up with Moroder’s rotten rock score. It was worth it.

In the mid-90s, the Munich Film Archive compiled all available material, replaced missing scenes with stills or titles and released a 147-minute cut. In 2001, the Berlin Film Festival screened yet another version that restored the film’s original sequencing. This cut, probably the closest we will ever come to Lang’s original, is available on Kino Video.

Tags: , , , ,

Filed Under News