Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf took a lot of hits for its perceived silliness, a verdict I could never quite sign on to. First of all, silly compared to what? Have these people seen the 1999 space opera Beowulf starring Christopher Lambert? Compared to that, Zemeckis's Beowulf is a sober meditation on the human condition. Have they seen the Gerard Butler clunker Beowulf and Grendel? Come on, guys: considering what the movies have done to this story in the past, last year's high-tech effort seems like serious business to me.

What about the source material – the ancient Old English epic poem upon which these movies purport to be based? If you've ever read it (or tried to read it), the perversions of the adaptations shouldn't surprise you. It's both begging for action movie treatment and impossible to faithfully adapt into anything resembling a compelling action movie. The story is credited with generating many of the archetypes we see in our fiction, and indeed, it's so archetypical that by modern standards, it's a skeleton; there's nothing there.

Seriously – you know how people complain about movies whose plots can be fully described in one sentence? A faithful Beowulf would take this phenomenon to new heights. A synopsis would read something like this: Beowulf beats up Grendel, Grendel's mom, and a dragon, and dies. The end. Some complained that the Zemeckis version distorted Beowulf, but I'd have liked to see their reaction to an undistorted adaptation. Trust me, it wouldn't work. There's a reason that all these screenwriters have scrambled to add elements to the story.

When it comes to fantasy, I'm all for putting the unexplainable in otherwise 'normal' situations -- I could go on and on about the work of Neil Gaiman for this very reason -- so you can probably understand why I'm already sold on WB's latest acquisition. Variety reports that Warner Bros. has purchased a yet to be titled fantasy pitch about a mystical world hiding out in the middle of Central Park -- although, when it comes to urban fantasy, it's going to be tough to top The Earl's Court.

The untitled story would center on "two brothers who, while visiting their grandfather in Gotham, meet a man who shows them a mystical realm in Central Park that is in danger." The original idea came from Warner Senior VP, Joe Berg, and Bryan Schulz and Neil Uliano have already been tapped to write the script. Schulz and Uliano are relative newcomers to the business, but, the two seem to have a knack for fantasy as this marks the duos second sale in the last six months (the two also sold another fantasy spec-script called Imaginary Friends to Dreamworks back in March).

WB has been hard at work building an impressive fantasy slate for the next few years. Obviously, The Hobbit and the latest installment of Harry Potter are at the top of their list of priorities -- but it couldn't hurt to have another shot at those box-office dollars.

I'm a grown woman that has been a fan of Neil Gaiman for many years; and still, Coraline manages to freak me out every time I see those little button eyes. The first teaser for the big-screen version of Gaiman's fantasy is now over at MovieWeb. Granted, it would probably be a lot more exciting if it was actually in 3-D (the trailer tells you to put on your glasses, so this must be the one that will screen in theaters), but for anyone who is a fan of Gaiman's dark fairy tales, you'll be glad to know that the film seems to have gotten the tone of Gaiman's work pitch perfect.

Coraline is the story of a small girl who travels into a fantasy world where everything is familiar but nothing is quite right. There is an 'Other Mother' who is the spitting image of her own, but with the frightening distinction of having buttons for eyes. Coraline's adventure leads her to become the savior of her family and the other children trapped in this world, while hopefully getting them all back to the real world.

Teri Hatcher voices the 'Mothers', Dakota Fanning is Coraline. The cast also includes Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, and John Hodgeman (also knows as 'The PC'). Stop motion master Henry Selick directed the flick based on Gaiman's novella. Last December, Gaiman had posted a short clip on his personal site, but this is the first official trailer I've seen so far.

So, could it be a little too creepy for kids? (The tag line sounds like something from a supernatural thriller.) Maybe, but I miss the old days when children's entertainment had a little more 'bite.' Coraline is scheduled for release in 3-D format on January 18th, 2009.

Any time I hear news about a new project from director David Fincher, I get a little excited. Barring his debut, the studio-monkeyed Alien 3, Fincher has had a remarkably impressive run as a flick helmer: Seven, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room and Zodiac, with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button on the way. So even though he already has a few projects in development, Mr. Fincher has signed on to direct an adaptation of Charles Burns' graphic novel Black Hole. Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, who last collaborated on Beowulf, will bang out the screenplay for MTV Films and Paramount Pictures.

The Hollywood Reporter offers this as a plot synopsis: "The story follows a group of high school students whose lives are altered drastically when they come in contact with a sexually transmitted disease called the "teen plague" or "the bug." But if you head on over to the publisher's site, you'll find a much more thorough breakdown. To me it sounds like John Hughes meets (early) David Cronenberg ... and obviously that'd be just fine by me. Here's hoping Fincher makes Black Hole his very next project.

One thing that has always impressed me about the work of Neil Gaiman -- even though the man writes fairy tales, he never sugar-coats it for the kids. Case in point: the author is now hosting a clip from the upcoming adaptation of Coraline on his personal web site, and it can probably be summed up in one word -- creepy. Based on Gaiman's Hugo award winning novella, the story focuses on a young girl who discovers an alternate world with very twisted versions of her home and family -- for starters they all have buttons sewn over their eyes. The young heroine is then charged with rescuing her family and freeing the souls of trapped children from the clutches of the "other mother."

Coraline stars the voice talents of Dakota Fanning, Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French (or as I like to call them: one of the funniest comedy duos of all time), and Teri Hatcher (Desperate Housewives) as the "other mother." The film was directed by Henry Selick, who is a stop-motion animation vet and is probably best known for directing Tim Burton's A Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. Stop-motion animation is probably one of the most painstaking processes around, so I can only imagine how long it took to create the clip on Gaiman's site. Not to mention the fact that this film will be the first to use stop-motion animation in a 3D format. It almost makes you forgive the fact that it's going to a full year before Coraline finally hits theaters on January 16th, 2009.

[via ComingSoon.net]

With Beowulf, the latest motion-capture film from director Robert Zemeckis, one of mankind's oldest tales is hurled up onto the movie screen using the cutting edge of new technology. As in The Polar Express, Zemeckis's first foray into motion-capture animated moviemaking, the actors are first shot on a soundstage, wearing motion-indicating elements that allow computers to turn their movements and facial expressions into sets of data; then, that data is animated by computers and artists, so that real motion and facial expressions can be re-cast in fantastic settings and melded with wild imaginings. As if that weren't enough, the resulting movie in this case has also been enhanced so the theatrical experience is 3-D; swords, dragons and flame leap from the screen, hovering right before your very eyes. It all sounds wonderful.

But, as so often happens in life, the execution falls somewhat short of the expectation. I know it seems like a betrayal of the critic's job -- to look deeper, to see beyond the obvious -- to begin with complaints about the animation in the film, but it would be even more of a betrayal of the critic's job to not point out the most obvious and glaring fact about Zemeckis's technique. Namely, that it looks horrible. A scientist working in the burgeoning field of the human perception of virtual simulacra would talk Beowulf's animation in the context of the "uncanny valley," the phenomena where, when confronted with a robot or virtual avatar that has a high degree of match to human movement and appearance, the human mind flip-flops and instead obsesses about the smaller elements of mis-match, jarred by the mistakes in the image instead of thrilled by the accuracies. (Confronted with a 98% accurate simulacra, for example, most people instead fixate on the 2% difference.) But I'm not a scientist working in the burgeoning field of the human perception of virtual simulacra; as a layman, I can only offer that in Beowulf (as in The Polar Express), Zemeckis seems to have created a world peopled by drowning victims brought back to life after a three-week soak: Pale, puffy, slow-moving revenants with no light in their eyes.

We could really use a new adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. It could be a faithful film, which would have certain relevance in a time when genetic research and other culturally debated scientific progresses, medical or not, continue to mark us as a God-aspirant species. Or it could be an updated or altered adaptation, to make the relevance more obvious. I think James Whale's films about the doctor and the monster are terrific, and we already have the greatest variation -- Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein -- but I'd personally like to see a new take on the original novel. Well, according to JoBlo, the guy who would most like to take the reigns on that idea is Guillermo Del Toro. During a visit to the set of Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, JoBlo's Jason Adams quoted Del Toro as saying he "would kill to make" a faithful "Miltonian tragedy" version.

Apparently when Kenneth Branagh tried to do this 13 years ago with his Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, there was an unshot version of the script by Frank Darabont. Del Toro claims that draft was, according to Adams, "pretty much perfect." I admit I never bothered with Branagh's film. I'd rather watch "Johnny 5" play the monster than Robert DeNiro (or at least watch the robot read the book, as he does in Short Circuit 2). So, I can't directly say what didn't work about the adaptation. All I know is that it seems to have been pretty much disregarded by everyone. That said, I'm also not the biggest Del Toro enthusiast in the world. I'm not going to exclaim that he needs to make this and that he would deliver the best Frankenstein ever. I would, however, love to see him make the attempt.

I've always gotten a kick out of creepy children's rhymes and tales -- whether you peel back the layers of Disney-like storytelling and find the wicked, creepy center, or you actually pay attention to the cheerily-delivered words and find out what they mean. Most of the time, the stories get white-washed into a fairy tale where Rapunzel wasn't getting it on with the Prince, and Little Red Riding Hood wasn't unknowingly eating her own grandmother. Obviously, they weren't quite the kiddie fare they are these days.

And that's why Neil Gaiman just wrote a great piece for The Guardian, explaining how he came to write the adult fairy tale, Stardust, which came out last month and is being released on DVD just in time for Christmas. The article starts with the history of fairy tales and how they went from adult fantastical fare to kid stories, and the many manifestations they have taken over the years. It's pretty cool to read how he went about writing the tale -- trying to channel the mid-1920s: "All I was certain of was that nobody had written books on computers back in the 1920s, so I bought a large book of unlined pages, the first fountain pen I had owned since my schooldays and a copy of Katharine Briggs' Dictionary of Fairies. I filled the pen and began." In the days where we can write and rewrite without the least scribble, I find it impressive when people go back to writing's roots and do it by hand -- especially when most hands aren't conditioned for it any more.

Gaiman also discusses the changes to the story once Matthew Vaughn penned the script. While the film takes a number of liberties, some of which the author mentions, he points out that this is what they're meant to do -- every story is weaved through a cycle of records on paper and retelling. "I would, of course, be happy if Stardust met with a similar fate, if it continued to be retold long after its author was forgotten, if people forgot that it had once been a book and began their tales of the boy who set out to find the fallen star with 'Once upon a time,' and finished with 'Happily ever after.'" If that happens, someone else will come around and recreate an adult fairy tale and the cycle can continue.

Aside from the long-in-the-works adaptation of Good Omens, Neil Gaiman would like all of his works made into movies by Terry Gilliam. He told Empire last week that he would "always give anything to Terry Gilliam, forever." That includes Sandman, which the writer said should be Gilliam's if he wants to do it. Currently, though, Gilliam is shooting an untitled movie about the "band" The Gorillaz, and then he's back to familiar territory with The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, about a travelling theater production, which reunites him with screenwriter Charles McKeown (Brazil; The Adventures of Baron Munchausen) and stars Heath Ledger, Tom Waits, Verne "Mini Me" Troyer and Lily Cole. But according to Gaiman, Gilliam is still trying to make Good Omens, based on the hilariously comic fantasy novel by Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. Gilliam is having trouble getting financing for the project; Gaiman said he needs about $70 million, if anybody is interested.

It is great to see Gaiman have so much faith in Gilliam. After the barely tolerable (I did enjoy it) The Brothers Grimm and the barely watchable (I hated my first Gilliam film!) Tideland, I'm a bit worried about my longtime favorite filmmaker. But I must agree with Gaiman that Gilliam would likely be a better choice to adapt his works than anyone else in Hollywood. Certainly better than Joel Schumacher. Gaiman told Empire that he wants the person directing Sandman to have the same passion that Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi had with The Lord of the Rings and Spider-Man, respectively. And that Zach Snyder seems to have with Watchmen. Would Gilliam have that passion? Is he a huge Sandman fan? Who knows? I guess Gaiman, who also said he'd rather have no Sandman movie than a bad Sandman movie.

If you've ever seen a film at NYC's Angelika Film Center, you know the auditoriums are in its building's basement, down where you can feel and hear the 6 train beneath you. But what you probably didn't see -- unless you worked there like I did -- is the hallway that leads from the basement lobby to the concession stockrooms and beyond, to the secret passageway that leads to an underground world. OK, I don't know where the passageway really continued; it likely could take you to the subway tracks, but with my imagination and my intrigue for NYC folklore, I assumed it led to the mythically legendary subterranean community. Maybe I read too many X-Men comics, or saw Ghostbusters II (no community, but there are secret tunnels of goo!) too many times. Surprisingly, I still haven't yet seen Dark Days, the documentary about NYC's underground squatters.

Anyway, I would love to go on and on speculating about who or what might be living far beneath the sidewalks, but instead I'll tell you what got me all excited about the topic: The Night Tourist, a young adult book that Universal has just bought the rights to. Written by Katherine Marsh and released last month, the book is about a ninth-grade prodigy from Connecticut who, during a visit to the city to see a doctor, is introduced to an underground world beneath Manhattan, which is reached by way of Grand Central Station. From what I can gather, the dwellers of this underground place are the ghosts of all the city's dead, including the kid's mother. According to Variety, The Night Tourist will be produced by Universal's new animation and family banner, which plans to make two to three animated and live-action films a year. However, the trade doesn't specify in which medium this adaptation will be. Either way, the most important issue is whether or it will have to compete with the in-works adaptation of Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere?