'Daily Show' host Jon Stewart plans to take time off to direct his first feature

Jon Stewart will be gone for eight weeks this summer in order to make his movie directorial debut. Fans may miss the host as John Oliver will take over hosting duties for  "The Daily Show" for eight weeks, but they'll have another reward: checking out Stewart's movie, Rosewater, once it hits theatres.

Fittingly, the comedic news anchor will direct from a screenplay he wrote based on the experiences of one of "The Daily Show"'s recurring guests, Canadian-Iranian journalist Maziar Bahari. In 2009, Bahari was accused of conspiring against the Iranian government and held in prison in Tehran for four months. A "Daily Show" segment he did in
which correspondent Jason Jones posed as a spy was used against him. Bahari co-wrote a book based on his experiences, Then They Came for Me: A Family's Story of Love, Captivity and Survival, which Stewart used to write his screenplay.

In the book, which made the Times bestsellers list, Bahari talks about how he was in the country covering elections when he was captured, held, and tortured for 119 days. It's heavy stuff, but there may be a market for it--and even awards prospects. The Oscars this year featured two Middle East-set dramas, Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. For a long time, movies set in the region were
considered box-office poison, but that's clearly no longer the case. Plus, Bahari was eventually released from prison, so a happy ending is also guaranteed. OddLot Productions and Scott Rudin are among the producers. Rudin has produced a number of prominent awards winners, so his touch could be valuable.

While Stewart is best known as a TV host, he's also an actor with a fair amount of comedy credits. That experience will prove valuable on set. When it comes to the box office, beloved TV stars can rally their audiences and drive them into the theatres. 2010 surprise hit Date Night, which had a particularly long run in theatres, starred "The Office's" Steve Carell and "30 Rock's" Tina Fey, a potent combination that translated to just under $100 million at the box office. If the movie's good, Stewart has many opportunities to promote his work on "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" and mobilize audiences. Stewart, you have our faith with Rosewater.

Trailer for 'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close' goes for mainstream audiences

By Sarah Sluis

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has "prestige Oscar picture" written all over it. Most of the creative team has multiple Oscar nominations under their belt, with a couple wins. That includes director Stephen Daldry (The Reader, three nominations), producer Scott Rudin (four nominations with one win), and screenwriter Eric Roth (four nominations with one win for Forrest Gump). The source material, a novel by literary wunderkind Jonathan Safran Foer, has received numerous accolades. Anyone who's into indie, arty films has probably also heard of the book.

Yet the trailer for the movie, which is set for release on Christmas, goes for mainstream audiences, not art-seeking ones. Given the touching subject matter, it's not too much of a surprise. This is a story about a boy mourning his father, who he lost on 9/11. He finds a key in his father's closet and goes on a search for the lock. The book was known for its innovative writing style, use of graphics, photographs, and textual play, but all that subtlety doesn't appear in the trailer. Instead, it goes for tears set to a U2 soundtrack. I wouldn't be surprised if people are heard sniffling after the trailer.

There could be an explanation for the mainstream feel of the trailer. The movie is targeting a wide release come January and certainly Paramount wants as many people as possible to see it. Perhaps they decided to go for the heartfelt bits that would most appeal to audiences unfamiliar with the text, and trust that fans of Foer's book would turn out anyway. Or the movie has been diluted from the book. As someone who isn't the biggest fan of Foer's writing style, I'd rather see the movie. If Daldry ends up with the same comedy-drama tone of his 2000 film Billy Elliot, I will be thrilled--and I won't call it schmaltzy.

Angelina Jolie as Cleopatra?

By Sarah Sluis

Making a movie version of Cleopatra is a dicey proposition. The 1963 film starring Elizabeth Taylor is famous for being an extravagant, way-over-budget flop. Could Cleopatra as a subject be cursed?

Enter Angelina Jolie, who has almost as many kids as Elizabeth Taylor had husbands (Jolie has six children, Taylor had eight marriages to seven husbands). Like Taylor, she's a larger-than-life tabloid
figure with the kind of star persona that easily lets the public cast her in the role of a queen. Jolie's done some swords-and-sandals work before with Alexander, though this role would take her in a different, more Evelyn Salt direction: Paul Greengrass (the Bourne series) is one of many in contention for the directing spot. James Cameron reportedly expressed interest at one point, but he will be busy with the Avatar sequels unless this project is put on hold for another five years or so.

The change comes from the source material. The biography Cleopatra: A Life, written by Stacy Schiff, recasts Cleopatra as a woman who wielded her power through strategy and politics, not sex appeal. Jolie has distinguished herself by turning herself into something of an action hero through such roles as Salt, originally written for a male actor, Wanted, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and her breakout role Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. I doubt she would be interested in the part unless this Cleopatra displayed some meatiness and intelligence along with her seductiveness. The Sony project also has Scott Rudin on board as a producer, someone who's known more for arthouse award winners than big-scale action. Could Cleopatra (gasp) mix battles and political intrigue with characterization and drama? A clue: Brian Helgeland, who has written screenplays for projects both mediocre (Robin Hood, Cirque du Freak) and fantastic (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River) worked on the script. He's frequently an adapter, so if the source material is as good as everyone's saying, the project should be in good shape.

A friendly discussion of 'The Social Network'

By Sarah Sluis

In case you haven't heard, "that Facebook movie" is coming out in two days. It seems like every critic is raving about the movie, currently rated 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, and every magazine has a Mark Zuckerberg story on its cover, but my advice is this: If you want to enjoy a good movie (not a great movie, mind you, a good movie), don't believe the hype.

While The Social Network is a perfectly competent and enjoyable film, it didn't awe me as much as I expected. When I watch a movie, I expect to be taken on an emotional roller coaster, but this one had the highs and lows and emotional arc of a television show. I was entertained, but not stunned. When I start hearing "Best Picture at the Oscars," my expectations get raised. When I see an awesome trailer, I expect the film to deliver. While living up to those kinds of predictions can be hard, there are definitely films (like Avatar) that live up the buzz.

The Social Network goes by very fast, but doesn't really ever rest on anything. Citizen Kane (which people are unfortunately comparing this movie to) also covered a lot, but it didn't feel rushed the way this does. One technique I didn't think added much was cross-cutting between Zuckerberg's Facebook-related lawsuits and the rise of Facebook. There wasn't a significant difference between Zuckerberg the rising star and Zuckerberg the defendant. If they were going for that stark contrast that you get with a "before/after he was behind bars" kind of movie, they failed.

The writer (Aaron Sorkin), director (David Fincher), and producer (Scott Rudin) of this film are immensely talented, and all have works on my "best" list. I saw bits and pieces of their trademark strengths, but everything didn't add up. Fincher was at his best at showing off Harvard's in-groups, creepiness, excess and conspiracy, hearkening back to his work on Fight Club, Se7en and Zodiac. I loved Sorkin's use of technical dialogue (hello, he is an offspring of Howard Hawks, although I prefer him when he's channeling the geekiness of Ball of Fire, not that His Girl Friday opening sequence).

I'll gladly see the movie again to find out if the Emperor really is wearing clothes, but in the meantime I'll keep my lonely position and set my sights on another film for Best Picture--True Grit.