The last we heard about Angelina Jolie and the "Cleopatra" project that surfacedearlier this year she said, "....if we can get the story right and do the real story — there's a lot her that's never been covered yet, if we can do something original, we will." And it looks like they've found a way.
Deadline reports that serious talks are underway for James Cameron to direct Angelina Jolie in a 3D "Cleopatra." The impetus for the sudden movement on the project? Brian Helgeland's adaptationof Stacy Schiff's recently published "Cleopatra: A Life" is being described as a "brilliant script deserving of epic treatment" all about "what the Romans took from Egypt." Sony co-chair Amy Pascal is eager to get this one going, well aware of the cost of such an undertaking, but willing to dive in if only to "own" the franchise that is Angelina Jolie herself (remember, the studio also released "Salt" earlier this year). As for James Cameron, while he does have a handful of projects on his plate (including the long gestating "The Dive"), this is apparently the only project he's taking a hard look at other than the developing "Avatar" sequel. Producer Scott Rudin, who acquired the rights to Stacy Schiff's book, has been working with Jolie in developing the project.
If it goes forward, plans are to get it in front of cameras in 2011. And if it does, it mostly likely means Steven Soderbergh's adventurous, musical "Cleopatra" will have to be shelved for a long while (it was nearly made in early 2009 before Hugh Jackman pulled out causing the production to come apart like a house of cards). While dueling projects are not rare in Hollywood, Steven Soderbergh is not likely to play chicken with James Cameron (and the two are sort of buds anyway, with Cameron producing "Solaris").
So, the next great 3D achievement by James Cameron or another hugely expensive, cautionary tale (let's not forget the lurid story of Liz Taylor's "Cleopatra" which nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox)? Guess we'll soon find out.
The Pixar short "Presto," which first unspooled in front of "Wall-E," is in this writer's opinion, one of the finer shorts ever produced by the studio. The Oscar and Annie nominated short was a hilarious tale about a magician and his rabbit that had a distinctly old school, Looney Tunes sense of humor.
Well, the director Doug Sweetland has moved over -- after a sixteen year stint at Pixar -- to Sony Pictures Animation where he will make his feature animated debut, "The Familiars." Based on the book by Adam Jay Epstein and Andrew Jacobson, the film will follow "three young wizard apprentices who, after being whisked away by an evil queen, must rely on their animal companions, or familiars -- an alley cat, a blue jay and a tree frog -- to escape." Sounds like a very fun concept, and we're eager to see how Sweetland tackles the material. Epstein and Jacobson are writing the screenplay.
Sam Raimi and Josh Donen are executive producing the project, but no start date has yet been announced (probably waiting for the screenplay to be finished). It's one of a number of projects Raimi is shepherding, including three vehicles for the small screen and the alien invasion flick, "EDF." [THR]
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.”
Looks like speculation has ended, with "Easy A" star Emma Stone looking to step into the massive shoes of Kirsten Dunst asSpider-Man's redhead love interest Mary Jane Watson for Sony's untitled "Spider-Man" relaunch. Deadline Hollywood has announced that Stone should be expecting an offer very soon to star alongside Andrew Garfield in Marc Webb's "re-imagining" of the Spidey mythos. Stone has made some good money for Sony with both "Zombieland" and "Easy A," so it's no surprise they would pick someone so prominent on their Rolodex.
We like Stone, but it's hard to say anything positive or negative about what is such a secretive project. Though there is fresh talent all around, how much pressure will Sony feel to adhere to the formula that led the "Spider-Man" franchise to become a billion dollar extravaganza? In other words, will Stone being doing the damsel-in-distress BS that Dunst visibly grew bored from, or will she have a chance to utilize her comedic talent and make Mary Jane a fully-functioning character that might convince girls these movies are worth watching on their own?
Sony remains on the hunt for a Gwen Stacy character as well, revisiting the love triangle/square that helped the maligned "Spider-Man 3" to almost $900 million in worldwide theatrical gross. Adding Stone, who's appeal isn't exactly va-va-voom but more bubbly and warm suggests they might go in another direction for the Stacy character, but it's hard to say what's going on in Sony offices regarding this massive gamble, even with names like Mia Wasikowska and Dianna Agron being tossed around. But we're still bitter about not getting Oded Fehr as Kraven in Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man IV: Keep On Webbin'" so maybe we're not the ones best suited to speculation.
Frankly, these contender stories are boring so let's get to the good stuff. Buried in Deadline's story about who has joined the list of female leads for "Spider-Man" is a much more intriguing little nugget: Sony wants to bring back Venom and wants Philip Seymour Hoffman to play him.
Bear in mind, it's who they want, not who they're gonna get, and we may have laughed at this suggestion in the past, but with the likes of Mark Ruffalo cashing in their indie cred to play The Hulk, it's not so far-fetched. And let's not forget than Hoffman is no stranger to tentpoles, playing the villain in "Mission: Impossible 3." Hoffman wasn't the first name to be rumored for the villain, as Christoph Waltz's name cropped up late in the summer, but it's the first we hear of Venom which makes us wonder if more than one baddie will be in store (though Venom in the "Spider-Man" origin story seems to make no sense and is far too soon). But Hoffman as a baddie in "Spider-man"? That's the most exciting news about this film since Andrew Garfield signed on.
Onto the more boring news, which starts with the question: who, who and who? If you didn't think Sony and director Marc Webb were casting a huge, wide net for the female leads for Peter Parker in the forthcoming "Spider-Man" reboot, this should be an indication. The upcoming/unknown Dianna Agron ("Glee," sorry we don't watch the show), Georgina Haig ("Wasted On The Young") and Dominique McElligott (Sam Rockwell's wife in "Moon") are in consideration for the roles of Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson. Agron actually tested last night, and we would imagine Haig and McElligott will be shortly.
According to Deadline, Agron, Haig, McElligott and the previously revealedEmma Stone and Mia Wasikowska are the final five candidates, but also adds the caveat that more may be added, so basically, this thing is not quite over and don't be surprised if more names crop up next week.
Director Marc Webb is getting closer to finding Peter Parker a leading lady or two for the upcoming "Spider-Man" reboot. After Andrew Garfield was announced as have secured the lead, there has been muchspeculation on who would be jumping into the role of Mary Jane Watson. But sources close to the production say that is not the only lead female role Webb has been testing actresses for, so comic book fans rejoice as it seems Gwen Stacy will also be making an appearance. With that in mind, a few new names have entered the mix for these highly sought after roles.
Emma Stone, whose latest film "Easy A" opened at number two at the box office this past weekend, was reportedly reading for the role of Mary Jane with Garfield earlier this month. A natural fit for the role, we laid out the case for her casting back in January, she would be able to play opposite Garfield's Parker and would bring a spunky comedic talent and presence to the role. Stone's reportedly "great relationship" with Sony head Amy Pascal couldn't hurt her from getting the part, but with her upcoming slate filling up quickly, she'd have to weigh how starring in a superhero blockbuster would fit into her career.
And for the role of Gwen, it seems Webb and Sony are smitten with "Alice in Wonderland" star Mia Wasikowska, who they recently flew in from New York to meet with. While Wasikowska has received rave reviews for her recent film "The Kids Are All Right," as part of 'Alice' she proved herself capable of being an anchor to a tentpole film. But if you're worried like us that Wasikowska's talents will be wasted in a comic franchise, you can sight a breathe of relief as she is apparently "ambivalent" about the part. Of course, that could also be a ploy for more cash, as even the Mark Ruffalos of the world eventually succumb to a franchise project at some point in their career. Finally, Lily Collins, who co-starred in last year's surprise hit "The Blind Side," has reportedly met with Sony for the film as well, but no word yet on which role.
With "Spider-Man" slated to begin filming later this year, Sony and Webb are likely to start making some hard decisions soon. With Fox stacking "X-Men: First Class" with a host of young, up-and-coming talent, it seems that Sony is taking the same the approach. Let's just hope this time they think bigger than Kirsten Dunst.
The last we heard about Angelina Jolie and the "Cleopatra" project that surfaced earlier this year she said, "....if we can get the story right and do the real story — there's a lot her that's never been covered yet, if we can do something original, we will." And it looks like they've found a way.
