Cinematical

Here's a movie that's getting stranger and stranger the more details we get -- and I'm loving it. First, Mike Judge's Extract was simply a movie that "explores what it's like to be the boss when everything seems to be shifting around you." Then it became about a guy who owns an industrial flower-extract plant and has to deal with workplace issues and a cheating wife. Now, it turns out that one of the "workplace issues" is an employee who loses a body part in a freak accident, and that the wife is cheating on the protagonist with a gigolo. Awesome.

Jason Bateman plays the factory owner -- that, we already knew. We also knew that the amazing Kristen Wiig is playing the wife, and Mila Kunis another employee. The new info is that Clifton Collins, Jr. has joined the cast as the maiming victim, and Ben Affleck as an ambulance-chasing lawyer who, I'd imagine, wants to milk Bateman's character for all he's worth. No word on who's playing the gigolo.

I got pelted with poop for praising Mike Judge's last movie, the largely direct-to-DVD Idiocracy, the first time I wrote about this project, but I stand by comments. It would have been easy for Judge to do Office Space 2, but it's been gratifying to watch him go in some even more offbeat directions instead.

Maybe it's because this was my first summer writing for Cinematical, but it's felt like an exceptionally intense movie season: the event movies just kept coming, and many of them wound up having real traction. There was a lot to watch and a lot to talk about. It's barely ended, and in just a couple of weeks, Telluride and Toronto officially kick off the fall -- and "Oscar season". I'll sleep when I'm dead, I guess.

One of awards season's most formidable contenders -- already slated for the familiar December platform release -- is Ron Howard's Frost/Nixon, based on the acclaimed West End and Broadway play about journalist David Frost's famous televised interviews of post-resignation Richard Nixon; the ones where Nixon delivered the infamous line about how "if the President does it, it's not illegal." There's a well-crafted trailer for it over here, (trailer link removed at request of studio) and yep: we're in Oscar mode.

I saw the play with Frank Langella as Nixon and Michael Sheen as Frost, both of whom reprise their roles in the film. The show was great but very much a stage show, deriving a lot of its power from the foreboding set and the hugeness of Langella's Nixon impression which, from the looks of the trailer, remains very much intact. It worked great in the theater, but I'm worried it might overwhelm the film. I liked Anthony Hopkins' take on Nixon in the Oliver Stone film, where he basically said to hell with the impersonation and did his own thing.

You may have heard that spoof veteran David Zucker's newest project, An American Carol, is a takedown of Michael Moore. You can now have a look at the trailer, online at Yahoo!. And then you can riddle me this: Does An American Carol look like a clever parody of Moore's documentaries, or just a partisan attack on the filmmaker? Or, put another way, is the clip of Bill O'Reilly slapping around Kevin Farley's "Michael Malone" a commentary on the rivalry between the two, or right-wing wish fulfillment? One thing to note before answering is that O'Reilly appears in the film himself, while Moore does not.

Moore is obviously fair game; I've enjoyed his films, and sympathize with (some of) his politics, but I'd eagerly watch a skillful spoof of the pudgy, faux-working-class provocateur. I think parts of the trailer are pretty funny ("Here I am on the island paradise Cuba!"). But if the point is just to pile on the guy, with a rah-rah patriotic, stop-hating-America message at the end, then I'm significantly less interested.

The thing is, the trailer really doesn't make clear what's going on. On one hand, prominent conservatives like O'Reilly and James Woods appear to deliver literal and figurative blows. On the other, "Michael Malone" gets accused of being a slaveowner, which sounds more like a parody of conservative attacks on Moore than of Moore himself. And is Trace Adkins poking fun at his image here, or is he for real?

We know that Zucker is himself conservative, and that the movie is political -- which is fine. But is it political in an incisive, worthwhile way, or in the brainless beatdown mode of Ann Coulter et al? What do you think?

Ever since McG was announced as director of Terminator Salvation, he's taken on this rather endearing, apologetic, puppy-dog attitude, assuring fans that he takes the franchise seriously, and even apologizing for the absurdity of his trade name. It would have worked much better on me had I not sat through We Are Marshall, but it does make me want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, especially given how badly I want this sequel to be good.

The filmmaker's newest gambit: showing us just how seriously he takes the Terminator franchise. Just how seriously? So seriously, he says, that he distributed copies of Cormac McCarthy's arty, ultra-depressing The Road to his cast, hoping that the novel would help the actors understand the "existential detachment" that comes with living in a post-apocalyptic environment. MTV has a bit more from the director.

I wrote a column on The Road a while back; it's a powerful, upsetting novel, pretty un-Terminator-like in its depiction of an empty, decidedly cyborg-free post-apocalypse. It's hard to take seriously the notion that an entry in the Terminator franchise -- a PG-13 entry at that -- could really draw much inspiration from that book (which is, of course, getting its own bona-fide adaptation later this year), but again: it's endearing, and a bit heartening, to see McG trying so hard.

In a weekend glutted with new releases battling the aftershocks of The Dark Knight earthquake, Tropic Thunder debuted below expectations -- but well enough to steal the top spot from The Dark Knight in that film's 5th weekend. The R-rated comedy's $26 million weekend and $37 million 5-day was roughly on par with Pineapple Express' performance the previous weekend, but I think Tropic Thunder was predicted to have broader appeal. In retrospect, the advertising may have emphasized the film's inside-baseball aspects a bit too much.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars did okay in third place with $15 million -- weak for a purported Star Wars film, but not bad for a Saturday morning cartoon. The woeful Mirrors took in a relatively paltry $11 million, a wuss-out signaled by the 11th hour press screening cancellation. Contrast The Strangers, the summer's other major R-rated, non-Shyamalan horror film, which debuted to almost twice as much despite not having as nifty a high-concept.

The Dark Knight, meanwhile, continues to edge toward $500 million. Its 5-weekend total stands at $471 million, enough to top Star Wars' unadjusted numbers. Titanic still looks out of reach, even setting aside the apples-and-oranges aspect of comparing a 1997 release to a 2008 one.

Pineapple Express fell 57% in its second weekend, putting $100 million out of reach. On the other hand, Mamma Mia! continues to be popular, suffering drops of around 20% each week thanks to good word-of-mouth and likely repeat viewings.

Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona came in at #10, with $3.7 million on 700 screens, Woody's second-best opening ever. Two spots below that, the poorly-reviewed 3-D spectacle Fly Me to the Moon made $2 million on 450 screens.

The full estimates after the jump.

Some people hereabouts are psyched for Twilight. Others have set their sights on Quantum of Solace. As you may have noticed, I am currently obsessed with Outlander, the bizarre upcoming genre flick that pits 9th Century Vikings against a malevolent alien invader. Nothing about the film itself is ultra-promising, as I've mentioned before, but I'm so enamored of the concept that I can't help but be excited about the idea of it, if nothing else.

Last month we got a trailer for the movie. Now we have a two-minute clip, which you can view above. In it, the friendly alien, played by Jim Caviezel, is interrogated by a Viking chieftain named Wulfric (Jack Huston). The "outlander" tries to convince Wulfric that he was merely hunting dragons, when in fact we all know that he was hunting a badass monster from outer space!! The clip is pretty much of the goofy caliber I expected, though Caviezel doesn't cut a particularly extraterrestrial figure. Maybe that'll be part of the fun.

I am counting the days until the release of the "Sci-Fi Viking Epic" -- which is hard, since it doesn't have an American release date. On the other hand, if you're in Berlin on August 19th and 20th, you can catch Outlander at the German Fantasy Filmfest. Do let me know how it is.

The cover for the spiffy new movie edition of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button reads: "the inspiration for the upcoming major motion picture." Anyone who reads the famous 1922 short story, about a man who is mysteriously born a septuagenarian and begins to age backwards, will immediately realize that it can't be any more than that. My copy is about fifty small, large-print pages, and it takes no more than twenty minutes to read. There are only about four characters of any note, and each of their relationships is bitter and hollow; the whole thing is a quick, moody burst of melancholy, a high concept on which Fitzgerald had no interest in lingering.

The anxiously awaited movie is directed by David Fincher – his follow-up to Zodiac -- and written by Eric Roth (the IMDb doesn't list a credit for Fitzgerald), whose resume includes Forrest Gump, The Insider, and Munich. Compared to the source material, the film has virtually a cast of thousands. Benjamin's love interest is renamed Daisy – the story's "Hildegarde" just doesn't have the same ring to it – and is played by Cate Blanchett. "Daisy age 6" is played by Elle Fanning (a.k.a. Little Dakota), though it's hard to imagine what use the film will have for a Daisy age 6: do she and Benjamin now meet while the latter is an "old man" and she a toddler? President Theodore Roosevelt shows up, for some reason. And, at least according to this Ain't It Cool test screening review, the current incarnation of the movie clocks in at three hours.

As is usually the case when people and groups make a lot of noise over a film's perceived offensiveness, I suspect all the ruckus over a planned boycott of Tropic Thunder over its perceived treatment of people with mental disabilities has only served to give it additional publicity. Nonetheless, organizations such as The Arc are going ahead with plans to call for a boycott of the film. Slate has found the organization's instruction sheet for putting together protests of Tropic Thunder, a six-page bulletin suggesting techniques and talking points for mentally disabled self-advocates and supporters. Sample talking point: "Movies and media, like the movie Tropic Thunder, encourage disrespect of people with intellectual disabilities. We want that to stop!"

The whole thing is an interesting read. Ordinarily I'd say they haven't seen the film, but the organization claims that its leaders have had a chance to watch it and have concluded that "the film's depiction of people with intellectual disabilities is derogatory and demeaning." In that case, they've missed the point spectacularly. As others have argued, the film targets not the mentally disabled but Hollywood's infantile treatment of same. Simple Jack is a clever, incisive parody. And I say that as someone who thinks Tropic Thunder as a whole is pretty weak.

UPDATE: Cinematical has been given this brand new still from the film, which shows Cruise without the eye patch.

MGM seems to be trying to reverse the effects of the doomsaying that circulated about Tom Cruise and Bryan Singer's Hitler-assassination-attempt thriller Valkyrie in the spring, culminating in the announcement that the movie was moving from December 2008 to President's Day 2009. That was received as a surrender, a sure sign that the studio had no confidence in the film and was doing damage control by moving it out of harm's way. Now, following some successful test screenings, MGM has reversed itself and is moving Valkyrie back into the heart of Oscar season: December 26, 2008. Apparently, though, the studio still doesn't think it has awards potential, and is making the move because it thinks Valkyrie will do well in the Christmastime marketplace.

I'm sure positive test screenings did have a lot to do with MGM's decision, but I think it's a smart move because it's great spin control. The press loves to read the tea leaves of studio behavior, and will see this as a major vote of confidence. I suspect the buzz on Valkyrie will seriously improve now that it is no longer the subject of what was perceived as a February dump.

For my part, I don't care about Tom Cruise or his silly eyepatch, but I have a lot of trust in Bryan Singer. The man can make a good mainstream thriller, and I don't see why Valkyrie should be any exception. I think a lot of the "bad buzz" (such as Roger Friedman randomly attacking the film) is just Cruise-bashing, which may be justified but probably shouldn't extend to his movies.

Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time is one of those sprawling, elaborate fantasy book series that is only read by enormous dorks. In other words, people like me. Yes, I've read all 11 novels (plus the prequel novella) and nearly 10,000 pages. Many fans abandoned the series after book 5 or 6, when it became apparent that the plot was in a holding pattern while the number of notable characters approached three digits. Not me. The naysayers were right, to a point, but the world Jordan created was so rich, so interesting that I simply loved going back, even if nothing much was happening. Jordan swore that book 12 would be the last, but died before he could finish it; another fantasy writer has been tapped to complete it from Jordan's extensive notes.

The series has been optioned several times, with an eye toward movies or television miniseries. Nothing ever came of it -- the books are so long, the plots so intricate, the cast of characters so enormous, that each attempt hit a logistical wall. Now, Universal has staked a claim, shelling out seven figures for the rights to the series. Logically, they plan to start with the first book, The Eye of the World.

Good luck. It's hard for fans to get excited for something like this, because what we love about the series -- the vastness and incredible detail of the world Jordan creates -- is so unlikely to make it to the screen. I do hope to actually see a film adaptation at some point (I'm awfully curious to see what they'll do), but I have a feeling this might go the way of the previous attempts. If they're hoping for a Lord of the Rings-caliber franchise, the pressure will be on the eventual screenwriter to adapt the novels in a compelling and accessible way. Trust me: it'll be really, really hard.