AngLee Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Downsizing in Hollywood isn't the same as downsizing for you or me. Four A-list directors decided to downsize their latest productions by choice, according to Rachel Abramowitz in the Los Angeles Times. And to hear Sam Mendes (above, right), Ang Lee, Sam Raimi (above, left) and Steven Soderbergh talk, they made the choice in order to save their own artistic souls after working on creatively-draining big-budget projects for years.

• Sam Mendes (Away We Go): "I loved having to work fast again ... You can get into the habits when making bigger films where you sort of expect everything to be there for you. You don't have to work for it ... there was even less conspicuous consumption ... There aren't as many people, and you feel less guilty because you're not spending as much money." Estimated budget: $17 million.
• Sam Raimi (Drag Me to Hell): "I realized all these toys I'm used to are wonderful but not always necessary ... All I really need is the actress." Estimated budget: $30 million.
• Ang Lee (Taking Woodstock): "I faced a lot of pressure [making Lust, Caution] . . . It gets to be too much ... Spiritually and philosophically I was yearning to do something warm." Estimated budget: $30 million.
• Steven Soderbergh (The Girlfriend Experience): "Employing non-actors, by design you are building the piece around them ... It's a good way to work, you're constantly adapting to what's in front of you."Estimated budget: $1.7 million.

I loved Drag Me to Hell and enjoyed Away We Go, so maybe they've got the right idea. What other big-budget Hollywood directors should consider doing a downsized project for the sake of their own artistic souls? McG? Brett Ratner?

When I last posted about Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock, I called it a "gay-themed project" and speculated that the film might be about how the main character's involvement in Woodstock "served as redemption for giving up his own artistic ambitions and living most of his life in the closet." Now that I've seen the trailer, which you can watch below, that pompous description seems laughably wrong-headed. This won't just be "lighter" than much of Lee's previous work, as I also wrote; it's a full-on slapstick comedy, complete with a classic underdog storyline, and showdowns between hippies and uptight old fogeys.

Mainstream comedies tend to be under-directed. Even the Team Apatow films, while generally outstanding, don't exactly distinguish themselves formally or stylistically. But Lee is so damn deliberate and meticulous, with every shot and every cut calculated just so, that I'm really curious to see how he handles something this lightweight and apparently raucous. It certainly looks like a new Ang Lee mode; his last film that could be called a comedy was 1993's wistful Eat Drink Man Woman, and Woodstock seems to be worlds away from that film. Before that, Lee made a Taiwanese film called The Wedding Banquet that sounds like it might be closer, but I haven't seen it.

Anyway, I think Demetri Martin, who stars and introduces the trailer, is an extraordinarily funny guy (anyone seen his show on Comedy Central?), and how awesome is it to see someone other than Christopher Guest cast Eugene Levy in an actual movie as opposed to the latest direct-to-DVD American Pie "sequel"? This looks like fun; it's set to be released August 14th.

When Demetri Martin joined the cast of Taking Woodstock, it was set to begin production in late August. In a nice change of pace, the movie is still on schedule, and will begin shooting at the end of the month, SAG strike be damned. But that isn't the only reason to anticipate Ang Lee's project. Variety reports the ensemble cast has been set, and it's insanely good. Get ready for a film that includes the likes of Emile Hirsch, Imelda Staunton, Liev Schreiber, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Eugene Levy, Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Dan Fogler, Mamie Gummer, Henry Goodman, and Jonathan Groff.

Martin stars in the memoir adaptation as Elliot Tiber, a closeted gay man and aspiring interior designer who gives up his Big Apple dreams to run the family business in a Catskills motel. In 1969, he offered the hotel as home base for Woodstock organizers while his neighbor Max Yasgur (Levy) offered his farm. Staunton and Goodman play Tiber's parents, Groff will be festival organizer Michael Lang, Hirsch will play a Vietnam vet just back on American soil, Schreiber is in talks to play a transvestite named Vilma, Morgan will be a closeted married man having an affair with Tiber, Dano and Kazan play a hippy couple going to the concert, Fogler will be the head of a local theater troupe, and Gummer will take on the role of Lang's assistant.

I have a feeling this will be so very, very good.

As it stands right now, this year's The Incredible Hulk will most likely gross slightly more or less than Ang Lee's Hulk worldwide. The latter walked away with roughly $245 million, while the former is currently sitting at $220 million ... though it's still making the international rounds. In an article over at The Hollywood Reporter, they ponder why the new (and improved?) Incredible Hulk was considered a success when the 2003 Hulk wasn't (THR noted it was "widely dismissed as a commercial failure").

Both Marvel and Universal are saying they're happy with the way The Incredible Hulk performed at the box office, though there's been no word on a sequel and chances are we ain't gettin' another one. Critically, the two Hulk films aren't very far apart: Rotten Tomatoes has Ang Lee's Hulk at 61%, while The Incredible Hulk is currently sitting at 68%. Fan-wise, I feel it was fairly well-received because a) folks were still coming off the Iron Man high, and b) expectations for the new Hulk were pretty low. Thus, when the film turned out to be kinda, sorta pretty good, it gave us a reason to cheer ... finally ... for an Incredible Hulk live-action movie.

But now that we've had some time to step away from The Incredible Hulk (at least here in the states), what do you think: Was the film a success? And how do you define success? If they choose not to make a sequel, does that mean the film failed ... even though it took in well over $200 million at the box office? Sound off you green freaks ...

I thought the horror geeks were a pretty demanding lot, but they've got nothing on the comic book stalwarts. Give these guys safe, obvious, conventional superhero flicks like Elektra, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and The Punisher -- and they complain. Rightly so, in my opinion. But then a filmmaker comes along and tries to buck that trend -- by bringing a decidedly untraditional approach to such an oft-told tale -- and those fans still find a way to get angry. I'm speaking of Ang Lee's Hulk, of course, a film that seems destined to be considered a "failure" for all eternity. And I think that's just lame. People talk about Hulk like its one step above Catwoman, for crying out loud!

Yes, the movie most definitely has its flaws, its missteps, and its slow spots (and really, who thought "mutant poodles" were a good idea?) -- but I'm of the opinion that Mr. Lee struck a very engaging balance between his affection for the source material and his intent to try something ... different. So while Hulk does offer your standard "origin story" and requisite battle scenes (most of which are pretty spectacular), it seems pretty obvious that the director was shooting for something both playful and "artsy" at the same time. Perhaps I'm just being a little bit charitable, given that The Hulk is my all-time favorite Marvel character -- but I tend to think that would make me a little more critical, all things considered. And since I've seen Hulk at least four times now, I'm well aware of what I consider to be its flaws and its assets. Clearly I think the latter outweigh the former. (Plus it stars Jennifer Connelly, don't forget, and she's my Kryptonite. Seriously.)

With Ang Lee behind the camera, there are many possibilities for the upcoming adaptation of Elliot Tiber's memoir, Taking Woodstock, which Eugene blogged about recently. One of them is impending comedy. Variety reports that comedian Demetri Martin is currently in negotiations to star in the film as Tiber. The piece focuses on Tiber's life as a closeted gay artist who has given up his ambitions in the city to move upstate and help his old-world Jewish family run their Catskills motel. He becomes head of the Chamber of Commerce, and when he gets wind of the upcoming Woodstock, he does his part to make it happen.

The memoir details planning for the epic concert, as well as "side chapters" on Tiber, which include meeting artists like Robert Mapplethorpe and Mark Rothko, and getting through his closeted life to stand up to cops during a raid at a gay bar. It sounds like pretty meaty, yet potentially fun, material to me, and I'm curious to see why Martin was tapped for this part. He's got his Jon Stewart gig and some smaller acting bits under his belt, but this is a whole different sort of role. I'm also curious to see how this story all fits together without seeming too scattered. At the very least, it should have one very sweet soundtrack.

James Schamus is currently adapting the memoir, and Focus is looking to get it into production in late August.

It looks like Ang Lee isn't heading back into big-budget Hollywood waters any time soon. Variety reports that the Brokeback Mountain director will instead take on another gay-themed project: an adaptation of a book called Taking Woodstock: A True Story of a Riot, a Concert, and a Life. It's the autobiography of Elliot Tiber, an unassuming Catskills hotel manager and interior designer who wound up playing a pivotal role in making the Woodstock festival a reality. The point, I take it, is that Tiber's role in one of the greatest events in rock and roll history served as redemption for giving up his own artistic ambitions and living most of his life in the closet.

As readers of this blog have probably guessed, I'd watch a cheese sandwich if Ang Lee directed it. This project seems lighter than anything the filmmaker has done since at least Eat Drink Man Woman, and I wonder how (if at all) it will jive with the deliberate, supremely controlled style he's been nursing in his past few movies. It'll be interesting if Lee takes this opportunity to return to the much looser vibe of his early comedies.

Lee's longtime producing partner James Schamus is also on board for Taking Woodstock, and the fact that Schamus is the CEO of Focus Features conveniently takes care of distribution.

The first official poster for this summer's The Incredible Hulk has just arrived over at IGN (head over there for a larger version). As you can see from the image above, the Hulk is trying to capture Edward Norton using the muscles in his back. Personally, this is exactly what I imagined the poster to look like -- some sort of combo between the green monster and Bruce Banner, with a bunch of helicopters and tanks shooting in the background. I expect a few character posters (one with the Hulk, one with Abomination, etc) to follow in the coming weeks.

Despite its solid cast, The Incredible Hulk has enjoyed (or maybe not) its share of controversy since word of the film first hit the net. An obvious re-do (following Ang Lee's not-so-successful effort a few years back), rumors have spread about Norton's control-freak mentality; how Zak Penn was quietly replaced as writer and how studio folks have clashed with Norton over the final product. Me? I still think it looks pretty cool -- and dammit if Tim Roth doesn't rock out as the villain in this movie!

What do you think? Does The Incredible Hulk have the, er, strength to compete with this summer's other big whales?

Roger Ebert's January announcement that he was going in for another major surgery began a long and disquieting silence. As the reviews he had written in advance started to run out, with no updates on his health and more and more of the content on his website being contributed by its steadfast editor Jim Emerson, some people began to worry that something was very seriously wrong. March saw the announcement that Ebert would reappear for his annual Overlooked Film Festival in Urbana-Champaign, but there was still no word from the man himself.

Yesterday, much to my relief, a typically funny and self-deprecating message from Roger appeared on his site and in the Sun-Times. It confirms his planned appearance at Ebertfest in late April, and, better yet, announces that he will return to reviewing movies shortly afterward. The bad news is that the surgery didn't restore his ability to speak, which will for the moment preclude Ebert's return to his TV show where Richard Roeper has been valiantly trying to hold down the fort. (Is anyone still watching?) That aside, though, the dispatch is overwhelmingly good news.

I often wonder what studios look for in their hired guns. Case in point: Jeff Wadlow, director of the tolerable Cry_Wolf and the miserable Never Back Down, who, according to The Hollywood Reporter, has been tapped to direct The Tomb for Summit Entertainment. The Tomb is billed as a prison-escape movie with a MacGyver-like protagonist who uses smarts and ingenious devices to escape from a high-security prison that he himself designed. Summit hopes to make the action-packed film into a franchise cash cow.

I've seen both of Wadlow's movies (the first of which, Cry_Wolf, was made with the money he won in the Chrysler Million Dollar Film Competition), and his m.o. seems clear: slick, blandly good-looking, montage-heavy genre flicks. So in some ways it makes sense for Summit to pin its franchise hopes on him: when you're gambling on a movie, inoffensive competence behind the camera may be your safest bet. Like any cinephile, I wish studios would be a bit more adventurous (and thus cringe whenever a bold move -- putting Ang Lee in charge of Hulk, for example -- backfires at the box office), but as a business decision it's perfectly rational.