Article Text
You can call this post what it is — a snarky, sight-unseen prejudgment of something that just looks stupid on its face.
I'm talking about the making of "Red Riding Hood" into a Hollywood "thriller" starring Amanda Seyfried in the title role, and I think involving a werewolf.
Yes.
With any luck, the werewolf, if there is one (and I don't know that there is; I did NOT consult the Google on the Internets for a plot description), will be played by Taylor Whatshisface, in a crossover appearance from the Twilight franchise.
(And speaking of Twilight, why did they have to go and split the last book into two movies which I'll now have to sit through with my wife? Greedy Hollywood bastards!)
Hollywood is apparently so desperate for stories with name recognition that now they're plundering generic children's fairy tales to turn into PG-13 "horror" movies.
What I love (or hate, or something; whatever emotion is signaled by me laughing while shaking my head) is how the marketing campaign for this movie comes with lots of spooky atmosphere, Big Title Words like "SURVIVAL," and a stern, sinister-sounding announcer who says in a would-be Scary Trailer Voice: "RED RIDING HOOD. RATED PG-13."
Am I supposed to be taking this seriously?
Gary Oldman is in it. I'm absolutely dying to see the interview where he talks about how he was attracted to this project because of the script.
Coming this fall (must be read aloud in a Sinister Announcer Voice): GOLDILOCKS. RATED R. (*)
* For strong bloody violence and a scene of sexuality.
At least they're not making board games like "Battleship" into movies. Oh, wait...
Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.
11 comments on this post
Chris L.
Jammer, look on the bright side. At least they didn't make a movie based on the song (by Sam The Sham & The Pharaohs). :)
Brendan
I can see it being good, honestly, if they go in certain directions... something dark, something psychological, something bearing very little resemblance to the folk tale.
Brendan
I just saw the trailer that has apparently been out for months, and I take back what I said.
Minsc
What about Beauty and the Beast?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/2/28/
Alex
It do what it do. It'll appeal to children in the 10 year old range and to teenagers that want to make out at movies.
Not sure why you would slam this and praise 2012? Just cause you are sucker for spolsions doesn't make 2012 any better than a children's fairy tale coming to the big screen. They each appeal to a different audience.
Matt
I have no problems whatsoever with taking fairy tales that in their original versions are dark, troubling and bloody, with fairly obvious sexual overtones, and doing something interesting with them. (See for instance Neil Jordan's The Company Of Wolves, based on short stories by Angela Carter - some '80s cheese, but by and large an interesting take on fairy tales and their subtexts.) Arguably it's later retellings and Disneyfications that have turned these stories into "generic children’s fairy tales". (Nothing against Disney - they're good at what they do, but their versions are usually pretty far removed from the originals.)
This, however, seems such an obvious "Let's cash in on the success of Twilight," devoid of any interesting thought, with cute but gutsy female star and male cheesecake to get the teen audience to buy tickets.
O-Perez
Who knows? Maybe the audiences want darker and edgier versions of children's fairy tales. =)
Nic
Amanda Seyfried is a terrific actress (if you don't believe me, check out her work on Veronica Mars), but even her and Oldman's talents can't elevate a script that is this bad.
As for splitting the last Twilight in two, well, I can see the disadvantage for someone who's already married, but for us single guys it's a great way to skip a few dates ahead :)
Poltargyst
You know, I have to agree. The reviews on this site are FAR superior to those written by monkeys with typewriters.
Dimitris
Wait till you see the sequel: "Three pigs and the Big Bad Wolf". A horrific thriller that will make you shiver :)
Christina
Brendn wrote: "I can see it being good, honestly, if they go in certain directions… something dark, something psychological, something bearing very little resemblance to the folk tale."
Already been done, long ago.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087075/
The Company of Wolves (UK, 1984)
Although for today's tastes, the nudity and gore are pretty tame. It's more the surreal atmosphere that's creepy.
Submit a comment