"Tanner Hall": Or, that one movie Rooney Mara was in before "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" (no not "The Social Network")

Rooney Mara in "Tanner Hall"

There’s a saying that everyone has at least one book in them, and I suppose that’s probably true for (most) people and films too. Everyone has at least one story they could make into a movie. But, as the late Christopher Hitchens once said, “everybody does have a good book in them, but in most cases that’s where it should stay.” And that statement is certainly even truer of people and films. You might have a story to tell, but will anyone besides you and your best friend—who you wrote the script (and co-directed; and co-produced) with—want to watch it?

“Hugo” is Marty’s magnificent, magical masterwork

Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz in Hugo

"Come, and dream with me."

Between 1896 and 1914 French filmmaker George Méliés directed more than 500 films. At one point—because Méliés, like many early film pioneers, failed to adequately preserve his work—nearly all of them were thought to be lost (many of the film negatives were melted down during World War I to make rubber heels for the boots of French soldiers). A magician by trade, Méliés was fascinated by the advent of motion pictures, which allowed him to further hone his craft through time lapse photography, stop-start editing, and other forms of cinematic trickery like double exposure. While inventors Auguste and Louis Lumiére saw movies as little more than a passing fad—and were merely interested in producing short documentaries like the 50-second The Arrival of a Train at La Coitat Station (1895), which, as the title tells the viewer, showed nothing more than a train pulling into a station—Méliés understood that movies could entertain and delight through their ability to manipulate reality.

Criterion Crazy: Jesus & Scorsese, Lean & Coward, and Titanic & Not James Cameron among March wave

The other Titanic movie is making its way to blu-ray
via Criterion, March 2012

Criterion have announced their March wave, which is set to include blu-ray upgrades of Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) and Roy Ward Baker's tragic titanic epic A Night to Remember (1958), and an impressive 4-fim boxset of director David Lean's collaborations with playwright Noël Coward.

Of the eight titles announced for March, three--The Last Temptation of Christ, A Night to Remember and David Lean's Brief Encounter (1945)--were previously released on DVD by the Criterion Collection. The other five--D.A. Pennebacker and Chris Hegedus' documentary The War Room (1993), Mikhail Kalatozov's Letter Never Sent (1959) and the three other films in the Lean-Coward boxset, In Which We Serve (1942), This Happy Breed (1944) and Blithe Spirit (1945)--are new to both the Collection and Region-A blu-ray (and will also be available on DVD on the same date).

Criterion Crazy: Upcoming in January and February 2012

Criterion Crazy is a monthly column here at the Film Blah-g--er, blog--where we cover all things Criterion Collection related, from upcoming releases to the latest Fake Criterion covers found on the web.

Gojira (1954) on Criterion? Oh hell yes!

Because I'm lazy, crazy and a little bit OCD, I'm planning on making Criterion Crazy a month column. In most months, anyway. December is a little different.

Because I'm lazy and etcetera, I waited until the last month of the year to start this blog. And that means I already have a horrible backlog of certain news items and releases to discuss before everything can go on as planned.

Case in point: the Criterion release schedule.

The specialty distributor has 11 planned releases in the first two months of 2012, including the long rumored blu-ray upgrade of Steven Soderbergh's Traffic (2000), the even longer awaited induction of the grandaddy of Kaiju cinema into the Collection, and an Elipse boxset... and that's just in January.

Criterion Crazy: An Introduction (and the December releases)

Criterion Crazy is a monthly column here at the Film Blah-g--er, blog--where we cover all things Criterion Collection related, from upcoming releases to the latest Fake Criterion covers found on the web. 

First, I think a little explanation may be in order for those who don't know what the Criterion Collection is. Let's see what Merriam-Webster's has to say:

Also, see: awesome

And so, Criterion is a fitting term for the Collection, a boutique DVD and Blu-ray label that strives to bring the greatest examples of film to home video in the finest packages available.

Back in the early days of home video, specifically the dark Medieval days of LaserDisc, Criterion licensed films from companies that were uninterested in releasing classic or foreign titles on the format. Criterion was founded in 1984, and cater to a high(er)-brow film enthusiast crowd. Their moto is to deliver "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films."

2012 already looking like a good year for blu-ray catalog

It's not even the New Year, but with the announcement of certain titles in past couple of weeks, 2012 is sure looking to be a great year for blu-ray, especially on the catalog front.

Several academy award winners, special anniversary editions of a few classic and several films from directors Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Allen and Steven Spielberg are expected to debut next year.

The big news is that both Universal and Paramount are celebrating their 100th anniversary's in 2012. As part of their centennial celebration, both studios are planning to release elaborate blu-ray (and in certain cases, DVD-reissue) editions of some of their most award winning and beloved films.

Sony releases "Men In Black 3" teaser trailer

10 years after the theatrical debut of (the frankly god-awful) sequel Men in Black II (2002), and almost 15 years since the Barry Sonnenfeld-directed original, today Sony released the first official trailer for the upcoming Men in Black 3.

Rewind Review: "Piranha" Bites

I’m thinking about offering a number of weekly themed posts, and I originally intended this to be the first of what I was going to call “Saturday, Splatter-day”… but that just seems too overly cheestastic, even for me.

And, honestly, I’m not too keen on viewing or reviewing—in any critical sense anyway—a super-violent, uber-shlocky B-movie each week. (Although, quick note: I reserve the right to make “Saturday, Splatter-day" a real thing at a later date).

But, while I think a little harder about a few possible themes, I’ve decided to make this post the first in a larger series called “Rewind Review”, the idea being that I take a film off of my shelf—either something I own, and have yet to watch, or a rental that recently came in, or even a recording that’s been sitting, neglected, on my DVR—finally watch it, and write about it.

So, without further ado, I give you: Piranha (2010). 

- Ethan

Universal reveals new trailer for "Transformers 4", er, I mean, "Battleship".

The idea that something like Peter Berg's upcoming Battleship exists is kind of baffling, if at the same time not at all surprising.

That a studio actually followed through on the threat of making a film based on a board game, or that they spent a rumored $200 million to bring it to the big screen, is bad enough.

But, Hollywood making a game into a film isn't really that shocking. It hasn't been for some time; not since they made Clue (1985). It's even less surprising in light of the current state of remake and reboot-heavy Hollywood. For instance, they're remaking Clue, currently set to be released sometime in 2013.

It's just... Battleship looks completely awful. I have no interesting in seeing this, especially after watching the new trailer released today by Universal.

Lionsgate remaking "American Psycho." Why? Because, that's why.

Earlier today news broke that Lionsgate has hired Nobel Jones, a second unit director on part of David Fincher's The Social Network, to write (and possibly direct) a remake of American Psycho.

The big question is why?

Mary Harron's adaptation of the Bret Easton Ellis novel of the same name, released in 2000 somewhat famously with an NC-17 rating, is respected but not exactly acclaimed. The original American Psycho is mostly known to the masses for star Christian Bale's excellent performance as the psychotic yuppie (with a love for Huey Lewis and the News) Patrick Bateman.

And, perhaps even still more specifically, it's known for a few of his choice lines--like, "I have to return some video tapes," which has entered the geek lexicon through the urban dictionary.

Harron's film is passably known, popular largely only in cult circles, and made a very modest $34 million worldwide, off of an $8 million budget. A success, but not a big one.

Also consider that Lionsgate, who merely owns the rights in the United States, saw only a fraction of that profit, so while their remake might bring them a larger share, it's not like they made a truckload on the original either (a part of the reason for this remake?). The film received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics upon release--it has a 67 percent "Fresh" rating on RottenTomatoes.com (and since when has the general public cared about reviews, anyway? But I digress...).

But reviews notwithstanding, American Psycho isn't, and wasn't, some widely seen, mega-blockbuster. And it isn't ripe for a retelling either. Harron's film is well written, directed and acted (it is still, I think, my favorite performance from Bale and that's saying something considering his filmography).

When a psuedo-sequel, starring Mina Kunis and William Shatner, was quickly given the green light, it was released direct-to-video and... well, it went direct to video. (The sequel has an abysmal 11 percent on the Tomatometer, by the way.) Lionsgate has already tried to make lighting strike twice. I didn't. Do we really need to try a third time?

Yeah, Lionsgate brass can't possibly think this will make money. Oh, but they do. And, oh, but it probably will on name recognition alone (which is, I assure you dear reader, the sole reason plans for this "remake" exist). But then, the original's fans--me, and others--are already marking our calendars to not see the remake when it comes to theaters. So, maybe not?

The more I read about it today, the more I'm sure: the new American Psycho is the worst kind of remake. Because it's pointless. And proof-positive that Hollywood is broken. They'd rather throw money--even a little money, as this remake is being touted as micro-budget; what that means is anyone's guess--at something people will recognize on the theater marquee than finance an original film.

But it's been known that the studios are largely allergic to originality since, really, the beginning of time (in the context of movies anyway). John Huston's seminal film noir The Maltese Falcon (1941) was a remake, as was, wouldn't-ya-know it, The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was first adapted to film in 1910 and even made into a movie in 1914 by original author L. Frank Baum.

But Jones' new American Psycho is a new low. Especially so because it appears that his script resets the events to MODERN DAY.

Again, I ask why?

Reportedly, the filmmakers want to explore Bateman and his actions in the context of a post-9/11 New York City... or some shit. (Also, because, I guess no one likes the 80s anymore? When did that happen?)

But if rumors of the "update" are true, then the remake kinda misses an essential point of the novel and original movie, doesn't it? Ellis' book and Harron's film are both satirical critiques of the 80s--an era of excess and ridiculousness. Part of the "charm"--for lack of a better word--of the original film is the cynical wall street aesthetic and Bale, as Bateman, vomiting up chunks of the decade's most ironic and head-scratchingly popular staples of pop culture.

Now, could the new American Psycho actually end up being good?

I suppose so.

I like both Scarface (1932) and Scarface (1981) just fine. A three Thing's stand on their own. Howard Hawk's The Thing From Another World (1951) is a slice of beautiful 50s B-movie cheese. Carpenter's The Thing (1981) is a near masterpiece of horror. And the newest, decent-but-forgettable prequel-sequel-reboot-remake-whatever The Thing (2011) somehow wasn't awful. Sure, one True Grit--the more faithful-to-the-source, Coen Brothers directed one--was better than the other, but both are good movies, whether Wayne or Bridges was Rooster Cogburn.

Again, I suppose this remake may not be horrible. It may also not be as good as the original, but there's a chance that Nobel Jones' American Psycho will be more like The Magnificent Seven (1960) and hopefully a lot less like Gus Van Sant's pointless Psycho (1998). Truthfully, anything is possible. It depends on the cast, the tone of the script, the abilities of the director...

But, seriously, the original came out 11 years ago. And news of this remake makes me want to drop a chainsaw down a flight of stairs.