If Shia LaBeouf feels like making his reparations to cinema — for abominations like "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and the "Transformers" series — by working with the likes of folks like Richard Linklater, apology accepted, dude.
Though as we pour into the details we might be getting ahead of ourselves, read on.
Evidently the young star is interested in "College Republicans," a comedy-drama about a young Karl Rove vying for the position of chief campus conservative under the guidance of one Lee Atwater, who's his campaign manager, according to the LATimes. Screenwriter Wes Jones' script is apparently hot and sounds like it may make the 2010 Blacklist at the end of the year. But as soon as we get excited, evidently Richard Linklater's name is just being tossed around as a possibility and it sounds like there's nothing concrete happening yet.
The LAT also mentions that LaBeouf's name has been mentioned in conjunction with aJohn Grisham legal thriller adaptation, "The Associate," but it's apparently been in development for two years, still has no director and doesn't sound like it's moving particularly fast. So file this one under: possibly gestating and nothing more, but we suppose one to keep an eye on. Shia if you're reading this and you do want to atone. Tell the producers involved that yes, Richard Linklater does need more work, you'll only do this if he helms it and then yes, you'd love to do it.
Meanwhile, Linklater — who was briefly looking like Terry Gilliam's counterpart in recent months after two films fell apart back to back — caught a break recently. His upcoming West Texas-set dramedy "Bernie" shoots this month and stars Jack Black, Matthew McConnaghey and Shirley MacLaine.
The wait is over. Michael Bay's third installment of the "Transformers" franchise now has an official title. Take a deep breath it's: "Transformers: The Dark Of The Moon."
Yeah, we have no idea what it means either. We'll leave it to the super geeks out there to try and decipher what the title might mean in the mythological world of Mattel toys, but it probably has to do the story revolving around Transformers activity on the moon (snicker, guffaw). We are mostly interested to find out what David Gilmour or Roger Waters think, having a movie about a bunch of smashy smashy robots being titled similarly to Pink Floyd's seminal album, "Dark Side Of The Moon." We kind of hope there is a lawsuit because reaction from all sides will be hilarious.
The 3D mess of metallic explosions is currently filming and stars Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, John Turturro, Alan Tudyk, Ken Jeong, Patrick Dempsey, and John Malkovich. It hits theaters on July 1, 2011. [Collider]
Reports peg “The Social Network” costing Sony $40-$60 million, which means this number one opening should be more than solid. But then you have to consider prints and advertising - a movie about angry nerds staring at computer screens and occasionally yelling at each other with maximum verbosity doesn’t sell itself. The picture might count as “relevant” and “important” but with a likely costly Oscar campaign coming, Sony’s going to pray this has enough legs to get to $100 million and not settle for $60m. In Facebook terms, this isn’t an Eduardo Saverin opening, but it is a Mark Zuckerberg opening. Sony was probably banking on a Sean Parker-type weekend.
The numbers suggest the film did extremely well on the coasts and weak in the Midwest, South, and various flyover regions*. There could be the nugget of a possibility that “The Social Network” is something more cerebral, even esoteric. Perhaps it’s the notion that this is a story where no one is really worth rooting for, and at heart, the film explores the complexities of truly godless individuals. Or maybe it’s the very real possibility that “Network” was snobbishly pushed harder on the coasts, while the rest of the nation was left to tune out from this movie about people tapping on their keyboards to create a waste of time website that serves no real, practical purpose. Let us not forget that sometimes, being a “good” movie isn’t enough of a hook for some viewers. Conventional wisdom says that kiddie flicks have legs, even when they aren’t heavily attended, and “Legend of the Guardians” won't buck that trend. Still, this thing has flop written all over it, whether it’s a $100 or $150 million expenditure, even if it was a Legendary Films/Warner Bros. co-production, and even if they paid the voice cast in trinkets and tchotchkes. Even though there's no relation between the projects, WB didn't gain any promotional traction by pushing this film a week after their own Ben Affleck bank robbing caper, something most studios usually know to avoid. It looked more nature-film than action picture, and those early ads, with laughably terrible guitar rock over the cuddly CGI images, probably turned off parents hoping they could take their kids to something a bit less somber-looking. “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” had a hearty fall from its perch, losing about half its audience. An expected fall for this type of film, this sequel is still projected to perform right at expectations, landing at $50-$60 million easily. You could have argued that all parties involved needed this to be bigger, but that case is dubious now - failing to become a zeitgeist grabber and, likely, an awards contender keeps Shia LeBeouf in the Brand Name sweepstakes, but not in the Real Actor department. And Oliver Stone likely buys himself some time and a chance to be director-for-hire yet again despite a serious declining Q rating based on diminished skill and reliance on hefty budgets. Of course, this sadly might be the last time we see Michael Douglas strutting his stuff on the big screen, and for a former box office lion like him, that likely carries weight for the people who have added to “Wall Street 2” tallies. At the WB, they reward success not with fruit baskets or gift certificates but with a chance to helm “Superman.” However, all reports suggest Ben Affleck would rather have the fruit basket, free massage and chaise longue that come with the success for “The Town,” which held remarkably well in week three and looks poised to challenge $90 million domestic. A movie that makes $100 million in the September-October time period has a serious effect on your cred, but it’s oodles better if the film has legs and benefits from what appears to be word-of-mouth. “The Social Network” and “Wall Street” may have topped the box office recently, but “The Town” still carries a lot of “I’ve gotta see that” heat from the general public.
“Easy A” continues to stick around, a stellar hold getting the film over the likely $40 million domestic target, with more ground to cover. $60 million isn’t out of the question, a number that can turn a bit player into a star. Emma Stone, this is your moment: don’t work with CGI owls. Screen Gems had a rocking summer, and with this sub-$10 million film generating significant theatrical profit (providing p&a wasn’t out of control - always a possibility), all parties involved could pull in serious dough by association. More than likely, director Will Gluck has now atoned in the eyes of studios for “Fired Up,” one of last year’s biggest flops.
When a film sits on the shelf for more than a couple of years, it’s a terrible sign for everyone. But Paramount knows when God gives you lemons, you make applesauce, and was able to get Paramount Vantage's leftover “Case 39” into a couple thousand theaters years after that boutique label closed. Most studios would treat a film like this as radioactive and it would go straight-to-DVD, but Paramount rolled the dice on a likely cheap ad campaign (and no press screenings) and will get the film to a potential $15 million gross. Overture have to be smarting that “Let Me In” was taken out by the knees partly because the horror dollar was being squeezed by not only “Case 39” and “Devil” but also “Hatchet II” and “Chain Letter.” The last two were quiet indie releases though, so Paramount, who could have shat out “Case 39” on any weekend to similar results, comes out looking like a dick. Viewers, meanwhile, had to be confused by the fact that Bradley Cooper no longer looked so buff and Renee Zellweger didn’t resemble a Shoggoth.
We don’t wish to hate on this decision, but what kind of Tranya does one have to sip to think that they would make serious money by remaking “Let The Right One In”? Overture somehow saw dollar signs in remaking a “beloved” recent horror classic that made $2 million domestically on the art house circuit, imagining they got brownie points for staying close to the source material. “Let Me In” is as alienating as major releases get, a dark, snowy, somber adult film starring kids and ostensibly featuring horrific violence. “Let Me In” had no recognizable faces, a hard-R rating and ads that (appropriately?) showcased vampirism as a disease, when audiences have already declared that they prefer their vamps with guns (“Underworld”), smoking hot (“Twilight”) and generally sans real tragedy. No matter how strong Matt Reeves’ vision for this remake was (and it's an excellent effort), it was DOA as soon as it was announced, and most of us are just stunned they got it into 2000 theaters. Of course, more people will have seen “Let Me In” than “Let The Right One In” by the time the dust settles, but this material just isn’t for everyone. Which is our condescending way of saying that lots of people have terrible taste.
In indie theaters, "Catfish" and "Waiting For Superman" remained the top attractions, with "Catfish" expanding to the tune of $607k on 34 screens and the Davis Guggenheim doc pulling in $407k with the week's best per-screen average ($11k per). While "Catfish" isn't showing the kind of breakout potential people expected, "Superman" could play pretty strongly if this expansion is managed the right way, and potentially it could be a rarity, the $1 million doc. "It Might Get Loud" and "An Inconvenient Truth," Guggenheim's previous, crossed that barrier with ease (particularly the latter), but "Superman" is a noticeably tougher sell. Still, the impetus behind a film like this is, as long as one person sees it, it has made a difference. Also, the people who made "Waiting For Superman" are already millionaires.
In a crowded indie marketplace, Woody Allen's "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" averaged $8k per-screen, with $232k on 29 screens. "Get Low" continues to bring in audiences, bringing its total to $8.6 million with a strong $204k in its tenth weekend, while super-doc "Freakanomics" barely made a dent with $33k on seventeen screens. The big loser for this weekend? The horror genre. In addition to "Case 39" and "Let Me In" bellyflopping, two smaller releases had debuts on the frail end of the spectrum. "Hatchet II" pulled in only $62k on 68 screens, while "Chain Letter" was one of the year's biggest tanks at 406 venues, pulling in $143k, a meager average of $352 per-screen. Pass this on - support your local indie theaters, folks.
1. The Friendster Lounge (Sony) - $23 million 2. Legend Of The Guardians: Owly! (WB) - $10.9 million ($30 mil.) 3. Wall Street: Money Takes A Knee (Fox) - $10.1 million ($36 mil.) 4. The Town (WB) - $10 million ($64 mil.) 5. Easy A (Sony) - $7 million ($42 mil.) 6. You Again (Disney) - $5.6 million ($16 mil.) 7. Case 39 (Paramount) - $5.4 million 8. Let Me In (Overture) - $5.3 million 9. Devil (Universal) - $3.7 million ($28 mil.) 10. Alpha And Omega - $3 million ($19 mil.)
*Bear with us; Hollywood considers anything that isn’t New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago “flyover regions.”
Shia LaBeouf never one to shy away from giving frank copy about his past work with legendary directors (regarding Steven Spielberg's work in "Indiana Jones 4 and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull": "He's done so much great work that there’s no need for him to feel vulnerable about one film. But when you drop the ball you drop the ball") and less than legendary ones ("[Michael Bay] went so big that it became too big, and I think you lost the anchor of [Transformers 2], ya know, human-on-human contact") shared a gem about his work with Oliver Stone in the upcoming "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps."
"We're in the Adirondacks, and Josh Brolin and I are shooting this bike scene," the actor told the press assembled at the Wall Street sequel's premiere. "And at one point I say to Josh a line — 'You should look at yourself in the mirror first and see yourself. It might scare you,'" recalled LaBeouf. "I looked at the line for a couple of months and thought I'd go to Oliver and say, 'You look at the mirror and look at yourself. It's sort of repetitive. Why don't we just cut one of those? Why don't I say, Look at yourself. It might scare you.' This is Oliver verbatim. He looks at me and goes, 'I like mirror. I wrote Scarface. Go fuck yourself.'" Ouch.
We presume that LaBeouf kept his comments to himself from there on in, and perhaps he should learn how to pronounce words first before trying to write them (see video below).
For more Oliver Stone, check out our retrospective of the director's films. "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" hits theaters this weekend.
In a lawsuit that we forgot was happening, a judge has ruled that "Disturbia," the film that made Shia LaBeouf a star, does not infringe on the copyright of "Rear Window."
The suit was brought to court by the very un-fun sounding people The Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust who argued that D.J. Caruso's film bore more than a striking resemblance to the plot of the Cornell Woolrich short story that inspired Alfred Hitchock's classic film.
But New York District Court judge Laura Taylor Swan is having none of that ruling, "The main plots are similar only at a high, unprotectible level of generality," with Swan adding, "Where 'Disturbia' is rife with sub-plots, the short story has none. The setting and mood of the short story are static and tense, whereas the setting and mood of 'Disturbia' are more dynamic and peppered with humor and teen romance."
This is probably the only case in history where the judge probably had to head down to Blockbuster and rent "Disturbia."
So there you have it. It's now legal and on the books: "Disturbia" is not a ripoff of "Rear Window." For all you budding filmmakers out there looking to make a name for yourselves, find a classic film, pitch it at a teen audience, throw in some junky subplots and your ass is covered. And who says Hollywood is out of ideas? [Reuters]
As soon as that dopey 75th Anniversary version of the 20th Century Fox logo dissipates, the first sounds we hear in "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" are of a prison gate opening, and someone shuffling through it. It's followed up by a good gag: Michael Douglas, as Gordon Gekko, the role that nabbed him a Best Actor Academy Award oh-so-many moons ago, collecting his personal belongings, having intoned to him gravely by a prison guard, things like "A money clip with no money in it" and a briefcase-sized cellular telephone.
It's when he walks out of the prison, though, that the current state of his character is really revealed: there's no one there to pick him up. The year is 2001 and Gordon Gekko is hopelessly alone; bridges burned, prestige squandered, his slicked-back hair has gone slack and gray, and he looks more like a teacher of comparative literature at Hampshire College than a wolf of Wall Street. And just as soon as we're introduced to shaggy Gordon Gekko, we leave him. We flash forward 7 years and are introduced to the real central character of 'Money Never Sleeps,' Shia LaBeouf, continuing his fine career path of being "younger versions of already established characters," as an enterprising trader named Jake Moore. Jake, unlike Gordon, has some moral bearing, at the very least: he's been tutored, affectionately, by the head of his firm, Lewis Zabel (Frank Langella), and has at least one earth-conscious venture he's trying to funnel money towards (it involves lasers; don't ask us). When it becomes apparent that the corporation is going under, Zabel makes a desperately plea to the Feds to be bailed out. Here he's met with resistance, chiefly from the film's villain, a smarmy hedge fund shark named Bretton James (Josh Brolin) who wears really well tailored-suits (you can tell by the sharp angle of his shirt collars). Devastated, Zabel takes his own life. If there is any emotional hook to hang the big, ungainly hat of "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" on, it's revenge. Jake wants revenge on Bretton James for killing his company and causing his mentor to commit suicide, and in order to exact said revenge, he makes a devil's bargain with Gordon Gekko. Gekko, it's revealed, wasn't imprisoned for the charges Charlie Sheen's Bud Fox lobbied against him as a result of the first movie, no, he was put away by somebody else altogether (who could it be? Oh right it's Josh Brolin, that was fairly obvious).
And what does Gordon want in return? He wants to reconnect with his daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan), who just so happens to be engaged to driven, determined Jake. But is Gordon actually ready to make amends for being a dickish, reptilian asshole? Or will he go back to his old ways again, with the slicked-back hair, and go-go Reagan-era ethos? This should be fairly obvious, too.
The first "Wall Street" was made before Oliver Stone made bold, splashy, big budget movies that often incorporated extremely experimental elements (at least editorially), and for all of its big talk about consumerism and greed it was rigidly formulaic, as square as anything else in Reagan's America. This film is happening after Stone has gotten his ya-yas out and gone back to making oddly mundane movies, like the toothless "W.," and it's good to see him having fun again. Stone adds some pretty embellishments (iris ins, split screens, overlapping images, camera movements that scale entire buildings) and the movie moves along at a clip, even if it is at least 20 minutes too long. Kudos should be also handed to composer Craig Armstrong, with a nicely atmospheric score (the less said about Stone's insistence on using some Brian Eno/David Byrne songs, the better). But "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is a mess; this much is certain. There's so much going on, both visually and plot-wise, that, coming out of the movie, you're not sure exactly what the thing was about. It's peppered with genuinely touching moments, but they often gets lost in a swarm of subplots and byzantine finance world mumbo jumbo that is rarely, if ever, explained. Was the movie a barbed critique of the current economic crisis? Was it a character piece about a reptilian alpha male who learns to become human again? Was it a revenge parable? A love story, maybe? Or a whirligig look at the way that the financial system works (visualized, gloriously, as glittery towers of information)? Maybe it's all of these things; or none. The raw power of "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is that it leaves you with the sensation that none of that really matters; that no matter how scatter-shot the film may seem it is unifying in one key way — it's really, really entertaining. And as good as greed is, for a big budget Hollywood confection, solid entertainment is even better. [B]
If Shia LaBeouf feels like making his reparations to cinema — for abominations like "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and the "Transformers" series — by working with the likes of folks like Richard Linklater, apology accepted, dude.
