Why things look better at a distance

Jan 12, 2011 09:55

I admit to being totally excited about Captain America, definitely more than that dated comic character's movie update deserves. I know it won't be "good," but I've been more excited about other movies before with bigger letdowns than Captain America could ever have. ::Sobs over Tron Legacy some more::

Point is, excited as I am, I'm not stupid. I'm also not really going into it thinking "This could be the next Iron Man!" Imma gonna get me sommathis:


Am I shallow? FUCK YES. But I know what I'm in it for. I'm not in it for good. I'm in it for beefcake. (Ooh, and 1940s lady hair. I love me some victory rolls!)

But even with my shallower-than-a-drop-of-water-hitting-a-high-mountain level of interest, I had to pause when I realized that the man directing Captain America directed last year's lamentably bad The Wolfman. Now, I can forgive a lot of what was wrong with that movie because it was clearly a case of studio meddling and delays leading to disaster. Fifteen different people walked out on that thing (and I'm not just talking about audience members)--people who were supposed to do pretty major things, like direct, act in, or score the damn film. Still, a film that manages to waste Hugo Weaving in what may be the only time he and Anthony Hopkins could have had a Ham-Off (TM glvalentine ), is doing something seriously wrong. That someone has to be the director because the Wachowski brothers couldn't direct the third Matrix movie to save their lives, but Hugo Weaving still managed to rampage the shit out of that funk. The only one stopping Hugo Weaving from EPIC HAM is someone other than Hugo Weaving. (Because Hugo Weaving, dramatic actor, was long banished to indie cinema of Australasia by Hugo Weaving, Actor Capable of Set Demolition Even When Only Present As Voice Actor.)

This interview about why The Wolfman isn't The Wolfman's director's fault IS NOT HELPING. Basically, he says that whatever Captain America is or is not, it is not The Wolfman, which is like saying while your movie may not be Citizen Kane, it is still better than those commercials Orson Welles did at the end of his life. "I only did The Wolfman 'cause I was 'po. Now Marvel has showered me with money to make this movie, iz allllll goooooood, baby."

This would be the same Marvel Studios that paid Robert Downey Jr. less than a million dollars (reputedly) for the first Iron Man. That balked at paying Jon Favreau any more money for Iron Man 2 despite the fact that he delivered them a hit that cost them next to nothing. Whose continued refusal to pay talent what it's worth has led to Favreau being ousted as director of Iron Man 3. (And led to the replacement of Terrence Howard by Don Cheadle, but that's fine 'cause I loves me some of the Cheadle.) The studio that almost wouldn't take JOSS WHEDON, HE OF THE INCREDIBLY RABID AND LOYAL FAN BASE, for The Avengers because of his price.

Either this director got $5 to make The Wolfman, or the previously tight-fisted Marvel got an accounting sphincter-loosened. And I'm not going to lie--I could believe that The Wolfman was made for $5. They could have just filmed Anthony Hopkins drunk on his weekend in his dirty old mansion, for all I know. Judging by the state of Benecio del Toro's eye bags, ditto. Hugo Weaving, it is assumed, shows up places in period or fantasy costumes all the time. It's not inconceivable that he raided Hopkins' place dressed like a Victorian dandy.

That means this Joe Johnston person is, like, SUPER PSYCHED about his budget of $15. Must remind myself: beefcake. As long as there is beefcake...

epic fail, surprise i am a slut, comics, movies

Previous post Next post
Up