Ghostbusters 3: Feminist Revolution or Distaff Counterpart?

There were a few big announcements in the upcoming movie world yesterday - the first was a long-awaited trailer for Fantastic Four (2015), which is a franchise no one really cares about (and Fox looks like it's going the DC self-serious spandex route rather than the Marvel doofy route...rough choice for this brand), but much more important was the casting announcement for Ghostbusters 3: Vaginathon. That's really only a working title, my guess is that the final title gets rid of the "3," because it doesn't seem to actually be a direct sequel.

This is one of those projects that I'll only really believe is happening when I sit down in the theater. Actually I probably won't believe it until the movie is over - I'll always have some part of me waiting for Dan Aykroyd to walk into my theater and announce that they didn't actually finish it halfway through its premiere. All signs, however, point to this headed in a great direction, with director Paul Feig injecting some much needed life and energy into the project and the casting of four very talented comic actresses to inhabit the lead roles.

Somehow most of the Internet has avoided this, but I totally want to pair up each of these four ladies with the original leading men. I thought about this long and hard and eventually couldn't really do it, which is a good sign of strength for the project. Feig isn't grafting women onto the original roles, he's creating new ones (hopefully) based on their own comic personas. At this point it should be said that I am kind of against the all-female casting simply because I don't think it's really pushing feminism to just do a girl version of a guy thing. That's not really innovative. Why can't we have an entirely new property centered around women and just have that be popular? This has really happened with Feig's other work, even if it didn't quite turn out to be true. Bridesmaids (2011) was seen largely as the female Hangover (2009) and The Heat (2013) was the female buddy cop movie.

See the problem here? Female buddy cop movie is a really cool idea and The Heat worked better than it should have, but when will we reach the point where we call that "buddy cop movie?" Probably never, simply because the formula had been created and done to death with dudes for like thirty years. So, that's my major gripe with just casting women to fill in for men. I may have actually been more okay with a mixed cast that didn't seem so obvious in creating a gender flip.

The counter-argument is, of course, the fact that none of this should matter if the film is actually funny, well-made, and provides roles and launching points for funny women, which in the case of Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, it ought to do. That's really what Bridesmaids was about - it was billed as the female Hangover but is really its own movie. I'm not sure you can do the same with a big franchise, especially one whose tone is as tricky as Ghostbusters, but I have the kind of confidence in Feig that I have in Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who have an uncanny ability to turn any terrible-sounding property on its head.

Getting back to the casting, with the knowledge that this isn't really a perfect mix, I want to establish those distaff counterparts more directly. This runs counter to everything I said above, but it is a nice character exercise and it ought to help us understand the range and roles of these women. Let's try to take it from that angle. Let's begin with a review of the original cast:

Harold Ramis as Egon Spengler: The straight man, although his esoteric nature is played for laughs. The brains of the group who can make their gadgets.
Dan Aykroyd as Ray Stantz: The heart of the group and the most filled with hope, wonder, who believes in ghosts more than anyone.
Bill Murray as Peter Venkman: The player, the smartass, the cynical sardonic breakout star, and the only one given a love story.
Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddemore: Mostly used as the audience stand-in, the guy other characters can explain things to. He's also the only non-scientist, so more of a blue collar working dude.

Time to a take a whack with these ladies:

Kristen Wiig as Egon Spengler: For some reason Wiig is the only one I can picture doing totally straight-faced line read and inventing gadgets. She has an ability to go really really big, but is also probably the best actual actor amongst the lot and can do stoic really well while still being funny. She's obviously not Harold Ramis (who could also play real loose, such as in Stripes [1981]), and should add a bit more flair to the role.
Melissa McCarthy as Ray Stantz: There's no one else in this cast with more heart than McCarthy, who also filled this kind of role in Bridesmaids. She can also do outrageous, which is more Venkman, but Ghostbusters isn't really known for its fecal humour or potty mouth. Rough. There's no telling if this will be an R-rated Ghostbusters (we can only hope...no, there's no way in Zuul that's happening with this tentpole), but she ought to be dialed down. If that makes her more of a Mike & Molly McCarthy, I can see her being the Ray-type gullible innocent soul more than anyone else.
Leslie Jones as Peter Venkman: These last two were pretty tough because neither really has many roles to observe other than bits from SNL. While it's really obvious to pick Jones as Zeddemore (c'mon, people), I can see her more as a fast-talking skeptic than the blue collar audience surrogate. Like this as a matter of fact. Bill Murray and Leslie Jones seem like really strange comic siblings, and Murray has always been far more subtle and sly than the boisterous Jones, but I think she can pull it off. Although I like to think of Venkman another way - after the Stay Puft Man explodes, who is going to emerge looking perfect and not covered in goo? I can see Wiig doing that, but no one is a better Spengler.
Kate McKinnon as Winston Zeddemore: Here's a real oddball choice. McKinnon could slide easily into either Venkman the brash young, quick-witted sarcastic scientist or Spengler the stoic brain, but she also randomly excels on SNL by playing old down on their luck but extremely positive women, which is really Zeddemore-like, in a way. He's a hard-working dude but he's also really open-minded and a true team player. That's surprisingly McKinnon-like.

So, what do you think? Am I encouraging the lens of distaff counterparts over true original feminism? Or was that something that the new Ghostbusters was always doomed to face? I'm kind of curious about everyone's opinion, to be honest. And do you think I have these characters nailed down or will they be totally new? I do lean towards totally new because no one quite fits into a mold. At all. That's actually the most encouraging sign when you get down to looking at this, to be honest. It will be a whole new property because no actress here can fit snugly in the shoes of the 'Busters who came before.

Or they'll try to force it and this movie will suck hard.

We're waiting something outrageous like July 2016 for this one, so sit tight.

A Closer Look at the 2015 Oscar Best Acting Nominations

With the SAG Awards in the can we ought to take a glance at the folks who are up for the big ones on February 22nd. It's always interesting to examine why these people were nominated and how the politics ought to play out to get them their win. It really boils down to who is down to grovel the most along with which producer can most aptly position their films in front of the right people. By now there doesn't really seem to be any heat in any of the major acting races, except for Best Actor, which has suddenly been thrown for a loop. Let's dig in:

Best Actress

Marion Cotillard, Two Days, One Night 

So we'll take this thing from least likely to win to most likely. And as much as we're fans of everything Marion Cotillard could ever do, this is a really low profile film that's more of that interchangeable fifth slot than anything that can really contend. This could have been Jennifer Aniston's place for Cake (2014), which she nabbed for the Golden Globes and SAG awards. I really know nothing about this role or this film, but that just further proves she ain't gonna win.

Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl

This was my favourite performance of any of these ladies, but I feel like Gone Girl has been off the Academy's radar in a big way this year. Outside of The Social Network, the Academy hasn't really realized the genius of Dave Fincher, and even then Best Picture eluded him. I kind of get a Rooney Mara Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011) vibe, which was also a great performance by an aggressive woman in a Fincher film ignored at the ceremony. A few months ago Pike was all over this race, but lately all the vibe has just been with other people.

Reese Witherspoon, Wild

Reese Witherspoon was also a producer on Gone Girl, so she should be happy with a Rosamund Pike win, right? If only that was up for Best Picture, she could save face here. She of course is a previous winner from Walk the Line (2005), and quietly had a pretty awesome year between this, Gone Girl and reuniting with Johnny Cash himself, Joaquin Phoenix in Inherent Vice (2014). She's on a lot of minds and Wild is great in a "see-it-with-your-mom" sort of way so there's certainly some buzz here. In the end though, this simply isn't her year, mostly because there's a big name ahead who has never been honoured.

Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything

This is sort of a bold call over Reese, but The Theory of Everything is peaking a big way right now and honoring young cute talent that does competent work in a safe historical picture is right up the Academy's alley. If only she was disabled! This is certainly not the last we'll be seeing of Felicity Jones, either - she may turn into a perennial like Amy Adams that's never honored or someone who gets her due sooner or later. But she'll be back.

Winner: Julianne Moore, Still Alice

I know nothing about Still Alice except for the fact that Julianne Moore is in it and that she's going to win the Oscar. That's partially true because everyone on earth is okay with that, except for maybe Jennifer Aniston. This is very much a way of honouring a lot of her past work in much better, more notable films, especially some that have slipped away from the Academy in the past. I'm just curious at this point whether or not Seventh Son (2015) gives her a little Norbit (2006)-effect and destroys her acting credibility the same way it supposedly did for Eddie Murphy a few years back. There's a bit of that going around this year. Stay tuned.

Best Actor

Steve Carell, Foxcatcher 

Here's another performance that I really digged, if only because he was so against type and Carell pulled it off so well. It's always exciting to see comic actors actually act and Carell has been walking this line ever since Little Miss Sunshine (2006). While a few months ago Foxcatcher looked to be a lock for a lot of acting nominations and wins, even possibly for Channing Tatum (leading to the incredible billing of 22 Jump Street [2014] starring two Oscar-nominated actors). Mark Ruffalo did get nominated, showing a bit of love, but there's not much other buzz for this beyond Carell's prosthetic nose. Hey, it worked for Nicole Kidman.

Bradley Cooper, American Sniper

American Sniper ought to benefit tremendously from its recent box office success - it's certainly the most prominent in voters' minds. This is also Brad Cooper's third nomination in three years, so it's clear the Academy is in love with this guy. He's also really transformed in a role that's perfect for him. So what's the problem? This movie, although popular, is dividing the damn country, and even though it has plenty of fuel for both liberals and conservatives, its inherent conservative leaning ought to bug the typically liberal Hollywood. Then again, the Academy tends to side conservative. Who knows how this will play out, actually. Ultimately there's a lot of buzz in this race, just not for Cooper.

Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game

Historical persecuted dream role for an up-and-coming hot actor who was just cast in a Marvel movie? This should be a lock more than Bradley Cooper! The Imitation Game got a ton of nominations but I actually haven't predicted it to win anything. That sucks. It's a super-Oscar-baity kind of film, though. It's like The King's Speech 2: Way Gayer! Despite that seeming stumbling block, it's also a great film for the family because of all that historical inspire-your-life crap. It may do better than I give it credit for, and the timing is good, but there has just been such a battle between the other two guys here I hesitate to give the Golden Man to Cumberbatch.

Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything

Okay. Eddie Redmayne could very easily win this whole thing. Which is nuts, because he seems like the total opposite of Mike Keaton. It was fair when they split the Golden Globes, but after that SAG win, I don't know. Redmayne could do it. It's pretty natural. Famous historical disabled figure playing pretty fairly against type (his heretofore most famous role was that jagoff in Les Miserables [2012]). I'm only really curious if he gets a little Norbit-izing from Jupiter Ascending (2015). Keaton is still the obvious choice, but there's a distinct possibility that the next three weeks are the biggest of Redmayne's life.

Winner: Michael Keaton, Birdman

Almost all of these actors have a classic Oscar Role that has a long history of being rewarded. Keaton, though, is highly regarded from a lifetime in the industry, has never been honoured for his work and it's the perfect marriage of role and actor. Seriously, this was built for him expressly. He is Birdman and Birdman is fantastic. It's also a true actor's movie and it's clear the acting guild liked the film from its Best Cast win at the SAGs. The Academy generally likes films about filmmaking or in this case, the industry itself, and although it crucifies the current Hollywood business model, it upholds the importance of acting as artistry, which is huge among this crowd. I just can't picture upstart Redmayne winning, although he'd actually be a doll. But how do you miss the opportunity to honor this modern picture in favor of some typical crap?

Best Supporting Actress

Laura Dern, Wild

I didn't really know that anyone other than Reese Witherspoon was in Wild. You know, at this moment going through this I've come to the realization of how little I know about most of these, but that should work in my favour, right? I'm a part-time movie blogger, if I haven't heard of you or your role, you're not getting the word out enough. I loved Laura Dern in Jurassic Park (1993). That's also my level of investment here. She does have a solid body of non-Dinosaur related work behind her and an award here could easily honor that. Too bad that's true for just about everyone here.

Keira Knightley, The Imitation Game

Remember all that stuff I said about Cumberbatch? The same mostly goes here except Knightley didn't play gay, so it's tough to imagine her winning here. I love that that's a thing. Why aren't gays honoured on screen for just being normal? Like Kieran Culkin in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)? That's the first normal gay role I can picture, actually. But just like African Americans it's tough to get noticed if you're not showing white people how they persecuted you. I should get back to Keira. She's gotten more into non-crappy roles, and to be honest, she's way more interesting in Laggies (2014), but whatever.

Meryl Streep, Into the Woods

It's not even fun anymore, really. Streep gets nominated because she's Streep, even upstaging people in her own movie who at least match her level like Anna Kendrick and Emily Blunt. It's tough to knock Streep because she is awesome and great here as usual, but it's getting to be like the New England Patriots. I want to see someone else in the Super Bowl. There isn't much buzz at all around Into the Woods (even though I picked it to win Best Costuming), and it was pretty well received in general and Streep in particular.

Emma Stone, Birdman

Emma Stone is loved by everyone on earth and she's made a nice name for herself with a ton of feel good roles in easily digestible flicks like Easy A (2010) and Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011), and even in tripe like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) she's pretty sublime. I'm also just happy that Superbad (2007) now boasts two Academy Award nominated actors. When will we come to our senses and honor McLovin? Not soon enough. This is a great role for Emma, who is able to add real-Emma Stone-ness to a character with more depth than she's been provided before.

Winner: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

Here's another long due acting award. Patricia Arquette doesn't have any real career-defining roles despite a lifetime of being in everything. Really this is honouring Medium. And Little Nicky (2000). It'll give some good momentum to Boyhood, and she does do an excellent job as mother of the boy in question. She's wrapped up every award she needs to, and with no one else in this category really in a classical position to earn this, there's no sense in choosing anyone else.

Best Supporting Actor

Robert Duvall, The Judge

Duvall is of course a living legend, who is rounding out his seventh Academy Award nomination. He won in 1983 for Tender Mercies, which seemed like a way to recognize him for the incredible work he was doing in the 60s and 70s. Still, it's been 31 years since that win, and this nomination makes him the oldest nominated actor. Of course he's most known for being more grizzled than Garth Brooks. Anyway, The Judge was somehow a terrible movie, despite having an incredible cast and this nomination is almost surprising considering Duvall has still been pretty awesome. I mean, Get Low (2009), people.

Ethan Hawke, Boyhood

I'm not sure why Arquette has caught on while Hawke hasn't, it's not like one is really better than the other in this movie. It probably has more to do with the fact that the Supporting Actor category this year is quite a bit tougher and is full of people more deserving of long-time honouring than the Supporting Actress. It would be cool if Hawke was given something for his oft partnering with Dick Linklater, but it won't be here.

Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher

I'm also given to buy into the Ruffalo train after the SAGs, because everyone there just seemed to love him for some reason. It's always a good indication that that branch of the Academy digs the dude. He's getting to be a more high profile, Hulked-out actor but like I was saying about Carell, Foxcatcher just doesn't seem to have caught on the way it seemed it would when it was first announced. It's possible it makes some last minute waves, but at this point it just seems like a long shot.

Edward Norton, Birdman

Here's our second Hulk on the list, which is fairly awesome. Ed Norton is the kind of guy you can't believe doesn't have an Oscar. In fact, he's only been nominated three times. He's also damned incredible in Birdman, which is made all the tougher because he is supposed to play a character who is a really good actor. The Academy ought to side with him pretty hard, or they might not like what they see in the mirror he's holding up to them. Like Keaton, it's also a perfect role for him, merging the fictional character with perceptions of his public persona to create a really memorable performance within and without the film. Ultimately it's just really really unfortunate that J.K. Simmons is in this race.

Winner: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

I still thin that Whiplash is an underdog for a lot of Awards come Oscar Night. This is a guarantee, though. While I mentioned that Patricia Arquette has been in everything, that's small shit compared to Simmons. I mean, let's start with Farmers Insurance - that's an incredible role. But if you've ever needed an aloof father, angry boss, or demolitions man with IBS, Simmons has been the man for the past twenty years. He's had a few incredibly articulate acceptance speeches on his way to winning every major award leading up to this, and is one of those "everyone-loves-him" kind of long-working actors. This category also loves the loud, boisterous villain, and that's exactly the kind of thing he pulls off in Whiplash. There's really no question in this one.

So, what do you think, folks? Will Redmayne upset Keaton? Is it even an upset anymore? What about young Felicity Jones, Brad Cooper, or Eddie Norton? Leave a comment below with your own thoughts and predictions!

The Worst Weekend Ever: Mortdecai, The Boy Next Door, and Strange Magic duke it out

I wanted to post some variant on our "Road to a Blockbuster" series that examines the critical, commercial, and cultural potential of every big movie coming out. Needless to say, there are many non-blockbuster films that create a lot of waves in these regards that are harder to predict. Then there are weekends like this which leave us in befuddlement. January is a typical dumping ground for the worst Hollywood has to offer, typically serving as no more than a "contractual obligatory release" month for a lot of properties. There are however, plenty of exceptions, especially this year, from small Oscar contenders getting larger releases to the Taken franchise doin' its thang.

This weekend isn't an exception to that rare, but growing more common, January upswing. This is what January is all about. Total, total shit. We have a legendary trio of films landing this weekend that seek to set a new standard in cinematic insanity. What's really nuts is that all three of these films look absolutely terrible, but they're all very different genres. One is a screwball comedy throwback (those never work, seriously), another is a psychosexual thriller, and the last is an animated fairy tale musical from George Lucas. That's something I thought I would never write.

Doing for moustaches what he once did for scissors.

So let's start at the top, which is probably the most high profile release this weekend, David Koepp's Mortdecai (2015), which is ostensibly an A-list ensemble comedy that has rubbed just about everyone the wrong way for its presumed franchise importance. There is this weird vibe from this flick that seems to want to be something that everyone already knows and is comfortable with, which is laudable, in a way. There's this "Hey it's your old buddy, Mortdecai!" kind of attitude, which is also totally off-putting because no one should be friends with Mortdecai. He's a bit of a cad. Or a #PartTimeRogue, as their Twitter handle puts it.

And what is up with that Twitter, by the way? Suddenly, this Mortdecai guy is co-opting every popular brand in an extremely overt vain attempt at self-promotion. Some of it is organic...in its own way. It's at least steeped in character. Even if that character is shallow, unfunny, and unwanted. It's this strange occurrence in social media where we're supposed to unironically follow and enjoy the jokes from this fictional character. It'd be a little more successful if every single tweet wasn't linked to self-promotion. Just let the handle freely make interesting comments on the world at large without ending everything with "See me in theaters January 23rd!" I mean, I guess it worked, I'm talking about it, but it's so obnoxious.

As far as screwball comedies go, it's always compelling to me that directors keep trying this genre. It hasn't really had mainstream popularity since the 30's. I think there is some sense that it ups the prestige of a picture and sometimes it works really well when it's modernized - look no further than The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), which  has shade of the genre coated in a modern minimalist style that mixes with its retro sensibilities and saved by gorgeous production design. Or take Intolerable Cruelty (2003), which is a fine enough film, just one that was completely ignored upon release. George Clooney in particular seems to dig this genre, bringing it back whenever possible despite it never gaining traction.

By all accounts Mortdecai, despite all its star appeal and 20,000 Twitter followers, will crash and burn this weekend. It's just so extremely stupid. A new Johnny Depp movie has inevitably brought up the fact that his career as of late has taken a bit of a turn for the shitty. He's devolved into a big budget cartoon character, choosing wonky over daring. It's not like he really does an awful job at these kinds of roles, but that extreme amount of goofiness in a short time span wears on you.

Did J.Lo write a song to go along with this movie?

Up next we have The Boy Next Door (2015), which looks awesomely, awesomely bad. The premise alone is insane, that J.Lo for some reason starts banging an impossible 19-year old High Schooler who lives next door and then is also in her class and then also starts going insane and stalking her and stuff. It's this ultimate twisted cougar fantasy. If early reviews are any indication, it's also totally terrible, which is thrilling.

How does this ever get made? It's kind of an interesting premise, and there's a lot of those kinds of thrillers out there, but who ever thought this combination of actors, plot, and direction would create a good product? The more likely answer, and I don't know why anyone ever places this concept as an explanation for the existence of bad movies, is that it's likely that no one involved in the production gave a shit. It's okay for people to phone it in once in a while. Not only that, but it's clear that everyone heard the idea coming down the pipe, stopped trying, and got paid anyway.

Lastly is probably the weirdest of the lot. Strange Magic (2015). This is somehow an animated fairy tale fantasy, which should be enough to sell a picture, right? But it's also full of pop songs, which gives it a Moulin Rouge (2001) feel, apparently. This is just an impossible creation in my mind. At to that the "from the mind of George Lucas" appeal and you get...I have no idea what you get. Evidently, Lucas has been working on this for some time, and really believes in it. This of course proves that George Lucas really is an insane person.

Oh no!

Seriously, was he editing Revenge of the Sith (2005) and just fantasizing about Strange Magic? Look at how this guy talks about this movie. This is a man who shaped the childhood of every nerdy kid in the country, and even some of the squares, too. And he throws his entire weight into Strange Magic? It's got the vaguest title in the history of animated musical fairy tales and looks completely bland and uninteresting. Oh yeah, Lucas. In forgot.

All three of these films have the potential to be the worst movie of the year or at least the weirdest. With that is of course also the ability for each to become notorious campy cult hits. It's all 2015's Winter's Tale (2014), which constantly and aggressively makes no sense at all. I for one, am looking forward for the sheer insanity Hollywood is unleashing upon our nation this weekend. In an age where everything seems to be franchised and there supposedly isn't an original idea to be found, isn't it nice to see that the studios can still produce wholly original crap as well?

Which of these disasters are you seeing this weekend?