the la times Tagged Articles at Cinematical

First off, a little business: Yesterday morning, I wrote a post regarding Edward Norton's involvement (screenwriting-wise) on next summer's The Incredible Hulk. For certain reasons (which I can't really go into), I've had to pull back the post. Sorry for the inconvenience, and I promise to update you as soon as I can.

But speaking of people who like to crush and ruin things, Brett Ratner has a new movie coming out this weekend. Rush Hour 3, you may have heard of it. I've already seen Rush Hour 3 (my review will come later this week), and it's pretty much what you would expect from an installment in the Rush Hour series. Will it entertain the hardcore fans? Most certainly. But I'd expect most critics to chalk it up as yet another uninspiring, unoriginal Ratner gem. The LA Times recently ran a story (in which yours truly was asked to contribute -- plug! plug!) asking one simple question: Why does the web hate Brett Ratner? I provided them with an answer that had to do with Ratner's consistent need to sex-up his off-screen life and then share it with the world. I don't think anyone cares how many girls Ratner sleeps with, or how many times he's visited the Playboy Mansion -- all we want from the guy is a good movie. And when we'd rather look at Ratner's newest flavor of the week over watching his latest film, that's a problem.

When I asked Cinematical's Scott Weinberg what he thought of Brett Ratner and why "the web" hates the guy so much, he said: "I don't get the praise or the hatred either way. The guy's made a bunch of profitable, mainstream, pretty bad films. If that's a crime against humanity, Ratner should be punished in line behind another 45 directors I could name. Regarding his personal life, I couldn't care less. Make good movies and I like you." But why can't Ratner make a good film? Some liked The Family Man, but I thought it was just another one of Ratner's attempts at a genre he truly didn't understand. Has the guy simply mastered the art of fast food entertainment? Case in point: Twenty minutes after Rush Hour 3 ended, I was hungry again for another, more satisfying film. He's obviously a bankable director box office-wise, but shouldn't we expect more for our dollar? Shouldn't we expect more from our directors?

Note to Brett: Stop pimping yourself out on eBay as if you're a f**king collectible Star Wars figurine, and start figuring out a way to make a compelling motion picture. It's great that you're doing stuff for charity (although 70% is kind of lame -- why not make it a full 100%?), but how about doing something for your audience too? And no, Rush Hour 4 is not an option.

Although it was once a bizarre rumor, director Ridley Scott has confirmed his plans to work on a movie based off the popular board game, Monopoly. Speaking to The LA Times, Scott says: "Monopoly is still the most popular board game -- I might be misquoting! -- in the world. So it's really finding the universe for that game. Because clearly it ought to be humorous and for the family -- the funny way it brings out, particularly when your uncle suddenly gets Park Lane and -- in England, we have Park Lane, Mayfair and Barclay Square, what's it in America? Park and Madison? So you watch people change. You're witness to Jekyll and Hyde. Somewhere in that is a hysterically amusing and I think rather exciting film." I imagine he's referring to Park Place and Boardwalk -- two of the most expensive and lucrative spots in the American version.

Aside from trying to imagine what a Ridley Scott version of Monopoly would look like (keep in mind this is the guy who brought us Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and the upcoming, sure-to-be-Oscar-nominated American Gangster), I also wonder if there's a way to make this a family-oriented movie. Even the LA Times asks whether the film will focus on "our gilded age of greed," to which Scott replied: "That as well. Isn't that comical?" I have not played one game of Monopoly that hasn't ended in a fight (one came close to ending in a fist fight), so to bring this down to a level that kids and adults can relate to -- well, it could be tough. On whether Scott will look to the big-screen version of the board game Clue as a reference, he admits to not "really" seeing it, but at the same time says: "But I think it was quite clever." Personally, I think it will all come down to the characters. And no, I don't think the game pieces should be characters that talk. A thimble? C'mon. Do you think a Monopoly movie could work?

There may not be a Sopranos movie in the pipeline, but that doesn't mean Hollywood has officially whacked the Mafia. The LA Times reports that someone has finally landed the rights to produce a biopic on the life and times of infamous gangster, Lucky Luciano. Throughout the years, several Hollywood studios have tried to snag the rights away from Luciano's family, who have been reluctant to give them up. But now, producer Joseph Isgro (Hoffa) has somehow managed to land the goods, and he claims to have already approached a "specific A-list actor" to play the lead role. He's also said to be "wooing several actors from The Sopranos to join the cast." Considered the father of modern organized crime, Luciano was named one of the 20 most influential builders and titans of the 20th century. But he also helped orchestrate a number of gangland killings, as well as a massive international heroin operation, along the way.

According to Isgro (who's repeatedly denied his own ties to the Mafia), the film will cover all of Luciano's life, but focus mainly on his time in prison and the period after he received a presidential pardon for using the Mafia to help the government during World War II. Apart from actors, Isgro has also interviewed potential writers and directors; one of which is Charles Matthau, son of Walter Matthau. Currently, New Line is in talks to distribute. I'm not sure who they're going after to play Luciano -- hopefully it's not Christian Slater, who played the man in the 1991 flick Mobsters. There are a number of actors who could pull off the role; I guess it depends on whether they're willing to age-up a younger actor or age-down an older one. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say Alec Baldwin might be a good fit. What do you think?