Brett Ratner to Direct 'The Wolfman?'
Filed under: Drama, Thrillers, Deals, RumorMonger, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom
I always love it when Brett Ratner's name gets tossed into the pot with regards to a new, hip fanboy-ish project, because the fanboys run out to cry foul. It hasn't seemed to hurt his career, though, since moviegoers still flock to his flicks because the studios tend to sell them well with flashy trailers and whatnot. The latest flurry of Ratner rage was brought on by a story over at AICN which claims the director is Universal's choice to replace Mark Romanek on The Wolfman. Harry Knowles, who broke the news (and says it comes from a very reliable source), makes a pretty good argument as to why the studio should let Ratner's name go in one ear and out the other.
Knowles says, "Brett Ratner makes watchable films. Movies that go through your system as if consumed off a soapy plate. They're empty - hollow works. He's a terrible ACTOR's director. His basement is a disco, and the Wolfman has no disco in his soul. This is a PERIOD film - to make a convincing period film you need a director for an eye for details... Someone that knows this world and period. X3 was a financial success - but that was based on an incredibly successful franchise by Singer. Ratner killed it." Although I'm not as attached to The Wolfman as others are, I completely agree with Knowles opinion of the guy. Ratner's a joke -- he'll make your film look pretty, like the last girl left in the bar after six hours worth of vodka shots. But when you wake up next to her the next morning, the guilt -- coupled with a massive hangover -- leads to regret. Why, exactly, did I pay $10 bucks to watch that piece of sh*t? Oh yeah, the trailer looked good.
While the news is not official yet, there's definitely enough here to hurt your ears. Here's hoping Universal listens to the cries and goes in a different direction. What do you think?
'Ridgemont High' Inspirations Are Now Protective Parents
You Say 'Twilight,' Taylor Swift Says 'Firelight'
Robert Pattinson Talks 'Breaking Dawn' & 'Unbound Captives'
Gwyneth Paltrow Joins Nicole Kidman in 'The Danish Girl'
Discuss: The Movies That Haunt You
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-31-2008 @ 10:45AM
DAVID F said...
What do I think?
I think they should change it to "The Ratman" and have Ratner direct himself as the title character. See how he likes being in a Ratner film!
Reply
1-31-2008 @ 3:06PM
Toni said...
I was watching a 2nd season episode of Dexter last night on On Demand, and thought how perfect he'd be to play The Wolfman. More accurately to play the main character in a re-make of The Curse of the Werewolf which originally starred Oliver Reed. Michael C Hall has that same virile intensity that Reed brought to the part and which scared the holy living hell out of me when I saw the movie as a teenager.
Reply
1-31-2008 @ 1:59PM
Midnight13 said...
Ratner makes popcorn films. He doesn't do character driven, thought-provoking, acting oriented films. I haven't heard Brett Ratner considered a bad director UNTIL he was picked to do "X-Men 3". Are "X-Men" fans going to tell me that that was a character driven story, and not a special effects laden popcorn film? Nothing wrong with popcorn films, we've given them their own season, summer. So would people rather "Wolfman" have half the budget to make it, hire Micheal Pitt, and let Paul Tomas Anderson direct it?
Reply
1-31-2008 @ 2:31PM
Emily said...
I think Ratner's fine at what he does. He's no Cassavetes, but he's not supposed to be. I agree with Midnight13--despite the nature of his CV, I never heard him get any hate until X-Men 3. I find him likeable enough in interviews...
Considering that Wolfman is supposed to go in a month (or maybe a little more now), and that there was already a strong cast working on this with Romanek, I wonder how much effect the director will really have on how it turns out. Del Toro is well-known for being a strong and helpful collaborator anyway.
Reply
1-31-2008 @ 3:11PM
Benjamin said...
I wrote this comment about the original story of Romanek's departure...
"Regarding who can fill; I don't think you can do that; not have prepped a movie yourself and then shoot it and expect it to be anything other than a hack job. No way would Cunningham or Glazer or anyone else the internet talkbacks are calling for do it because they would want to make their own prep decisions I'm sure; they didn't become highly distinctive film makers without doing that.
Romanek was the draw for me on this one. I probably won't see it now. Although I too am shocked that you can't make something for $100 mil these days; what on earth did he want to do with the film?"
Haven't eaten a single one of those words yet I'm pleased to report.
Reply