The Golden Compass Tagged Articles at Cinematical

According to a source over at Deadline Hollywood, Golden Compass director Chris Weitz has been offered the directing gig on New Moon and possibly Eclipse, should both films shoot back-to-back. Nikki Finke's source says Weitz, who's apparently "still considering" the offer, was chosen because Summit Entertainment "liked the look" of Compass, even though it bombed at the box office, and also because Weitz is buddies with Summit's president of production, Eric Feig.

Apart from Compass, Weitz had a big role in the original American Pie (as a producer and uncredited director); he also co-wrote and directed the excellent About a Boy adaptation, and served as producer on flicks like Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, In Good Company and American Dreamz. Personally, I'm a fan of Weitz (and his brother Paul), and blame the domestic failure of Compass more on some folks' inability to wrap their heads around the story's vast universe. However, he is a boy ... and last I checked, boys might not be allowed into the Twilight clubhouse.

What do you folks think of Weitz? Is he a good replacement?

At least not any time soon. That's from this article in The Independent, which quotes author Phillip Pullman as saying that following the disappointing box office returns for The Golden Compass, no one has talked to him about adapting The Amber Spyglass (or, obviously, The Subtle Knife). Director Chris Weitz, who had been determined to make a sequel happen, is staying mum, as is New Line, now part of Warner Bros. At this point, the age of star Dakota Blue Richards -- already 14 -- is going to be a problem for any big plans to continue the franchise.

The Independent article is a little annoying, since it insists on blaming (crediting?) the Christian protests against The Golden Compass for the film's commercial failure in the US. That seems a little facile, though even Pullman seems to believe it. The source material didn't turn out to be much of a brand name, the marketing was a bit generic, and I think the movie just never caught on as a must-see holiday blockbuster. I'm not sure the protests had that much pull.

No regrets here, since I think the first film was a bit generic, not doing justice to the book. Though I guess now I really wish Weitz hadn't decided to move the first book's ending to the then-envisioned sequel. Oh well.

Fantasy may have the most rabid and obsessive fans, but it also has the staunchest detractors of any mainstream genre. We all know people who simply refuse to watch fantasy films or read fantasy books of their own volition. They may have sat through The Fellowship of the Ring grudgingly, but didn't bother with the rest of the series. They probably associate the genre with asocial nerds, fan conventions, and Dungeons & Dragons. They can only shrug at the exuberance of the devotees. Fantasy is "not their thing."

Why are fantasy movies (and the genre in general) so polarizing? I've long thought it has something to do with viewers' relative affinity for cinematic worlds. Some people go to the movies to see something that directly relates to their own lives, something that takes place in the universe they live in and know. Others – myself among them, if you haven't figured it out – flip for new, self-contained worlds that could exist independently of the movie; wonderful and strange places we feel like it's possible to actually inhabit. This might explain why those who like good fantasy also tend to enjoy good science-fiction.

I'm going for a highly praised film this week, rather than the big buzz, but you can check out a couple of other big releases after the jump.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
In 1996, Julian Schnabel directed Basquiat. Led by the charming and unforgettable performance of Jeffrey Wright as the famous artist, the film laid out the art world of 1980s New York City with heart, and it showcased many of today's top names. It was the straightforward film.

Now there's Golden Globe winner Le Scaphandre et le Papillon, a feature that has taken Schnabel out of the straight-forward and into a world of tragedy and eye-opening imagination. It's a move similar to David Lynch taking on The Straight Story, but switched. Instead of strange complexity to charming simplicity, it's the other way around.

Diving Bell is the true story of what happened to Jean-Dominique Bauby, a man who had been the editor-in-chief of French Elle, until a sudden stroke has left him still -- only able to move one eyelid. It's like taking the thought of paralysis and upping it -- no legs, no arms, no lips. But it isn't just a sad story of despair. After being forced to adapt to his condition, he write the memoir that becomes this film, all with the simple, blinking eye.

When evaluating new movies, sometimes a critic will try to envision their staying power. It goes without saying that most movies have no shelf life; they're designed for one opening weekend, or perhaps a few months of buzz leading to an award, but that's it. A year from now, people will be ignoring them on airplanes and then they'll be on sale in the DVD bargain bin. Only a very few titles enter into the general zeitgeist forever, becoming a "cult film." A cult film can be a resurrected flop, something like The Wizard of Oz or Donnie Darko, or it can be a beloved hit, such as Casablanca or the Star Wars or Lord of the Rings films. The only constant is that it's impossible to predict. When I first reviewed Joel and Ethan Coen's The Big Lebowski (1998), I thought it suffered in comparison to Fargo, but now it has become a cult classic even bigger than its predecessor. Regardless, I thought I'd look at some of the movies currently playing on less than 400 screens and guess their fates.

I'll start with an easy one: Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd (316 screens). This is Burton and Johnny Depp's sixth film together, and they bring out the very best instincts in one another. They remind me of no less than Tod Browning and Lon Chaney's sinister collaborations during the silent era. (Their 1927 film The Unknown needs to be seen by everyone.) Depp gets to indulge in his taste for disguise (and funny voices) while Burton taps into his childlike nightmares for new images and ideas. Sure, they will probably never really make a grown-up movie, but several of their collaborations have already stood the test of time, and at least two: Edward Scissorhands (1990) and Ed Wood (1994) have cracked the edges of cult status. In fact, I'd go so far as to add Burton's Pee-wee's Big Adventure and Depp's Dead Man and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to make a great cult film festival.

A lot of my colleagues seem to be practically empurpled lately over the fact that Juno is being feted as not merely a success, but an indie/crossover success. This seems like a moot argument to me -- more on that in a second -- but first I will say that whether you think it is or isn't, you shouldn't overstep and give the PR machine too much credit here. Any studio shingle PR team worth its salt obviously has a 'media manipulation/other shenanigans' Trapper Keeper ready to be opened at a moment's notice if the clouds part and a movie actually connects with the public, but that's the point -- it has to connect first. Juno is a quadrant pimp and Once isn't -- that's why EW isn't piling on the plaudits for Once, even though it's currently enjoying 98 percent positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. If your response to this is "Um, yeah, I'm sure Once would love to have Fox Searchlight's Scrooge McDuck-swimming pool of money to buy some ads with" I would say, first, it does, and second, I'm increasingly of the opinion that most of that money is wasted on an ad-saturated public anyway.

All the marketing in the world and a bevy of A-list stars couldn't push a big movie like The Golden Compass even to $70 million, nor keep a crazy-hyped film like Cloverfield from swan-diving in its second weekend, so Juno clearly has legs, which is a rare commodity these days for any film, big or small. And to suggest that Juno's success rests on its popularity with teens, as some have, is wishful thinking. The scary reality is that today's 16 year-olds would probably like to see Step Up 2 in the Oscar race, not a Jason Reitman movie.

As my wife said, it's just not the Oscars if there's nothing to complain about. However, I was impressed that two of the year's toughest films, Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood (389 screens) and Joel and Ethan Coen's No Country for Old Men took the most nominations. Typically, the Academy is attracted to much less challenging and easy-to-categorize films (like Atonement). Both films are fairly bleak in their vision, but I suspect There Will Be Blood will sneak out ahead for two reasons: it's an epic, and epics almost always win. And, to quote a character from Sunset Boulevard, it "says a little something" about the current sociopolitical climate.

One of the biggest controversies cropped up over the foreign film category, which came up with five nominations that no one has ever heard of. (The Counterfeiters opens sometime next month and Mongol opens in June.) Not to mention that they ignored top contenders like 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (opening this week) and Persepolis (30 screens). Thankfully the outrage has begun discussions on changing the stupid, ancient rules for the category. Currently these rules require each country to submit one film, and multi-national films, such as The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (107 screens), to be disqualified. A small group of "specialists," rather than the Academy as a whole, votes on the small list of films. The documentary category was less obscure, and although I saw 19 documentaries in 2007, I only managed to see two of the five nominees, No End in Sight and Sicko. I have an Academy screener for Operation Homecoming that I hope to catch soon, and Taxi to the Dark Side (1 screen) is screening for Bay Area press next week.

Here's a strange twist to the writer's strike, and a postponement excuse we haven't heard before: New Line has pushed back Inkheart from March 2008 to January 2009 because of what the strike is doing to the television industry. Huh? According to Variety, the studio figures that without first-run programs on TV, it can't reach enough viewers through commercials, which is apparently the only way to market a movie these days.

OK, I kind of get it, but I hardly ever watch TV, and I've seen about 1,000 TV ads for Cloverfield this week, so there has to be a way to reach an audience by the original release date of March 18. They could have bought some time during the Super Bowl or the Oscars or, since its a family fantasy, any children's program. Seriously, kids don't care if their show is in repeats or not. I'm not going to go the usual route and accuse Inkheart of having production troubles. Judging by the trailer and Erik's visit to the film's set last year, the movie looks and sounds like it's a lot of fun, and anyway, it's reportedly all finished and ready to deliver to theaters. But since the TV marketing excuse seems odd, I'll assume that New Line is simply trying to figure out how to market a movie that could be accepted as just another fantasy movie and go mostly ignored by the same public that didn't go to see The Golden Compass or The Seeker: The Dark is Rising.

Those of you who need your Brendan Fraser fix need not cry for too long. The actor can still be seen in New Line's Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D, which comes out July 11, and Universal's The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, out August 1.

In other release date news, New Line has also pushed back Pride and Glory, which stars Edward Norton and Colin Farrell (which I remember them filming in Brooklyn back in Summer 2005), from March 14 to sometime in 2009, though the reasoning behind this one may have had more to do with Norton and Farrell having other new releases coming out soon, than it had to do with the writer's strike effect on TV ads. Meanwhile, Universal has moved up its Judd Apatow-produced comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall so that it doesn't have to go up against Sex in the City (which New Line will have no problem advertising on television) and Starship Dave (which I can't imagine really being a threat to anyone). Forgetting Sarah Marshall will now bow on April 18, which should perfectly fit in with some college kids' spring break. The same studio also pushed back its Baby Mama one weekend, from April 18 to April 25.

Quick: Name the last live-action film starring Nicole Kidman that absolutely rocked the box office? Okay, that's a tough one, I know, so how about the last live-action Nicole Kidman film that was any good? Hmm, that's also pretty tough. Fine, how about you just name the last live-action film that starred Nicole Kidman. That's pretty easy. The Golden Compass. It debuted last month. Yes, it's pretty clear that Kidman's appearance in a film is not all that it used to be, and fans aren't exactly flocking to the theater just because a film includes her name in the credits. Straight off filming the latest Baz Luhrmann epic, Australia, comes word from the sometimes-reliable Page Six that Kidman has dropped out of her next flick, The Reader, which was due to begin filming this month.

The reason? Well, they claim it's because the gal is pregnant, and she doesn't want to take on any work that could potentially harm her unborn child. Of course, Kidman, nor her reps, have confirmed that she is pregnant, and so I wouldn't go and take this news as official word. Page Six describes The Reader as being about "a man who carries a longtime sexual obsession for an older woman who's later prosecuted for war crimes after it emerges she was a member of the SS and a guard at Auschwitz." The film is based on Bernhard Schlink's book, and it co-stars Ralph Fiennes and Bruno Gatz. A rep for The Weinstein Co. said the "status on The Reader has not changed," so who knows what the real truth is.

As Page Six points out, perhaps now is a good time for Kidman to take a much-needed break. Her last three films, The Invasion ($15 million), Margot at the Wedding ($1.8 million) and The Golden Compass ($59 million) didn't exactly break any box office records, and so some time away to nurse that bun in the oven might be the appropriate move.

On the same day filming on Baz Luhrmann's Australia wrapped, the production released the first three official stills from the movie. Of course, clever photographers haven't been sitting around on their hands waiting for anything official -- they've been shooting candid photos all along, of everything from action shots of Nicole Kidman on horses and riding dinghies at sea to detailed photos of the set. But there's something to be said for photos that the director actually wants you to see. After looking at these three pictures, I can't say I'm discerning anything special though, except maybe for the one of Kidman seemingly about to twirl around while standing on a gazebo of some kind. It looks very 'Gone With the Wind' if you ask me. The other two are just a double headshot of the two leads and one gentleman who I'm going to guess is playing a native.

Meanwhile, perhaps sensing that The Golden Compass wasn't going to be all it was cracked up to be, Kidman was recently circumspect when talking to journalists about why she chooses her film roles. "I just choose off the cuff a lot of times, but primarily this was because Philip Pullman wrote me an amazing letter telling me that when he was writing the novels, he had me in mind," she said. "So that's hard to turn down. He's such a good novelist." Oh, so it's all his fault, huh? Let's hope she has a better answer for the studio bosses, next time they ask why they should continue forking over $15 mil per film.