'Black Swan' writer pens 'XOXO,' a social media thriller

I love movies that take advantage of new technology. Remember Sandra Bullock in 1995's The Net? The Internet-induced identity theft in that movie felt very cutting-edge. More recently, The Social Network actually pulled off a scene that made an all-night coding session feel just as thrilling as it must have for Mark Zuckerburg. Most cell phones in horror movies go bust, but in the summer release Paranorman, a character uses his cell phone while being chased by zombies, enlisting a friend to help find out how to beat the undead. That's exactly the kind of innovation that should be more present in movies, but when scripts sit around for years on end, perhaps screenwriters either
don't want to date their script by inserting a soon-to-be-outdated technology, or their technology inclusions seem old by the time the movie comes out. When it comes to using new technology in movies, two things are important. The technology should be used correctly, and it should be current. Both of those things are incredibly obvious, but it's so easy for screenwriters to fall back on answering machines and outdated equipment when they don't want to think their way out of a plot hole in an original way.

The screenwriter of Black Swan, Mark Heyman, has decided he's up to the task of a technology-focused movie. He's written a screenplay titled XOXO. It centers on an engaged, successful man who also likes to flirt online. He hooks the wrong girl and the online relationship turns into a threatening offline one. The script apparently has similarities to the famous 1987 Glenn Close-Michael Douglas pic Fatal Attraction. Now Lionsgate has hired George Nolfi (The Adjustment Bureau) to rewrite and direct the picture, a sign that it's revving up to enter production--provided the script tweaks go well.

Even if the project is a bit campy (I heard an earlier version of Black Swan was purposely more over-the-top), and maybe even because it sounds so juicy, I'll be adding this to my look-out-for list. Lionsgate should take a note from Sony, which had a lightning-quick turnaround with The Social Network, and greenlight the project fast. In three years, the time it takes many fast-moving projects to go from development to release, technology changes so much. Facebook's interface could be completely different. New Internet security measures could be in place that need to be addressed in the plot. All the more reason to get moving and give us a fictional, more deadly version of Catfish.

 

Who exactly will be buying tickets to 'What to Expect When You're Expecting'?

I don't have particularly high hopes for the box office of What to Expect When You're Expecting, a comedy based on the pregnancy how-to book. It looks funny-ish, but I predict it will do its biggest business on Netflix and DVD, not at the box office. Why? The people who will find the most humor in the situation are probably young parents, exactly the people with the least amount of time, energy, and money to hire a babysitter to see the latest movie. They are television's favorite audience, not exhibitors' favorite audience. Look how badly the Sarah Jessica Parker movie I Don't Know How She Does It bombed. The movie was about a busy corporate mom who has no time to make something for her child's bake sale. Is that the kind of person who has time to see a movie with her fellow moms in order to laugh at their lot? No.

Lionsgate just released a new trailer for What to Expect that focuses entirely on the dads, hoping to draw in the male audience. That doesn't seem like much of a stretch, but I'm worried about the majority of moviegoers, who have only a tenuous connection to or interest in parenthood.

There are so many demographics that won't want to see this movie. Teens, I hope, unless they're unhealthily obsessed with "16 & Pregnant." Singles. Parents of older children. Empty nesters who feel alienated by the talk of competitive parenting and the most recent declarations of what modern pregnancy is supposed to be like. And for couples without children, doesn't this sound like the worst possible date night movie?

Thinking about movies about parenting young children that have done well with a broad audience, my first thought was Look Who's Talking. I actually saw that quite young, enchanted by the talking baby concept. This was a movie that made almost $300 million in 1989. It had some of the parenting young children moments, but also a romance, and, of course, the talking baby gimmick. It appealed to parents, but it wasn't a "parents" movie, which is exactly what What to Expect is trying to be. It's possible that the upcoming release's ensemble cast of diverse, popular stars will draw audiences despite the subject matter. But this is a movie commenting on a pretty stage-specific event that doesn't seem to have much to offer to people who haven't gone through this life stage or said good-bye to it a long time ago. If Lionsgate manages to pull off the marketing of this May 18th release, I will be very, very impressed.

 

Lionsgate sets its sights on Toronto selection 'Friends with Kids'

By Sarah Sluis

After the success of Bridesmaids, it's no surprise that Lionsgate is considering buying Toronto selection Friends with Kids. The parent-centered romantic comedy includes four cast members of Bridesmaids and channels its eye-raising humor. The story centers on two best friends (director/writer Jennifer Westfeldt and Adam Scott) who decide to raise a child with each other while pursuing their own romantic interests. Both Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have come out generally in favor of the film, but their praise is slightly muted--and not always in agreement.

"Although the comic riffs about parenting and alternative families easily rep the pic's sharpest dialogue and strike a chord with more mature audiences, they co-exist uneasily with Westfeldt's inclusion of a more crude brand of humor," Variety reports. In contrast, THR notes that "the film also borrows from the Bridesmaids playbook with its mild smattering of raunch, which won't hurt its commercial chances."

The movie's also drawn numerous comparisons to sitcoms, though no one can agree exactly what kind.

"Unfolding in a glib, familiar sitcom universe" the movie is a combination of "Friends," "Seinfeld" and "Judd Apatow crass patter" according to Variety. After calling the movie a "successful sitcom," IndieWIRE situates the movie among the "progressive families" featured in the sitcoms "Will & Grace" and "Modern Family." Apparently the humor is original enough to elicit more than one comparison.

The criticism that most makes me want to see the movie is THR's mention that Westfeldt finds "fresh insights" about parenthood and "nuanced consideration of the many ways in which having children changes adults' lives, going beyond the standard comedy terrain of sleep deprivation, frazzled nerves and diaper disasters." Variety hints at this as well, mentioning one instance that's "beautifully evocative of what it means to be a parent." I hate seeing comedies that are stuffed full of tired clichs and sterotypes. The funniest things in life are true, so the best comedy in my book draws from everyday life.

In addition to Westfeldt and Scott as the lead characters, Jon Hamm (Westfeldt's longtime romantic partner), Kristen Wiig, Chris Dowd, and Maya Rudolph (all from Bridesmaids), along with Megan Fox and Edward Burns, round out the cast. Because of its rising-star actors and friendly, easy-to-digest plotting, Friends with Kids could be one of the festival's top-dollar acquisitions.

Lionsgate greenlights a trio of low-budget films

By Sarah Sluis

Most better-known low-budget films have traveled a common path: independent financing followed by a festival debut, where the movie is picked up by a specialty distributor like Fox Searchlight, Focus or the Weinstein Co. Now Lionsgate is actively pursuing the low-budget market, but not by increasing the number of films it acquires at festivals. Instead, Lionsgate is commissioning its own low-budget films in the comedy and horror genres, which it describes as "historically driven more by concept and execution than budget."

True, the three films kicking off the initiative will have budgets under $2 million, but they will enjoy the infrastructure and support of the studio system. What sets these films apart? Instead of aiming for the lowest common denominator (another dumb teen comedy), they have embraced edgy subjects that give them niche, not universal, appeal. I'm intrigued. Here's an outline of the first three films.

Rapturepalooza has been described as The Big Lebowski meets Zombieland, a quirky horror-comedy that takes place in the aftermath of a religious apocalypse. The cast and crew won't be unknowns; Craig Robinson (Pineapple Express, "The Office") stars, a commercial director will make his feature debut, and one of the producers worked on The Other Guys.

Gay Dude is one of those high school lose-our-virginity-before-graduation movies, but with a twist: One of the two guys making the pact confesses he's gay, complicating their goal, testing their friendship and exposing prejudices...in the context of humorous situations, naturally. The script by Alan Yang ("Parks and Recreation") made the Black List of best unproduced screenplays.

6 Miranda Drive is a horror film, plain and simple. Writer/director, Greg McLean helmed the successful Australian horror film Wolf Creek, loosely inspired by a local serial killer who preyed on backpackers. Miranda centers on a family who brings back an object from vacation that preys on their fears.

Of these three projects, Gay Dude feels the most risky, followed by the comedy-out-of-rapture Rapturepalooza. 6 Miranda Drive sounds conventional, but that doesn't mean it won't be good or groundbreaking like Saw and Paranormal Activity. Lionsgate has pledged to cast more minorities, continuing the studio's trend of serving urban markets (Lionsgate distributes the Tyler Perry movies, for example, and partnered with Pantelion films to serve the Hispanic market.)

I still have many questions about Lionsgate's plans? Will the studio give these movies wide releases, or targeted ones? Will it platform release some of them? If one of the films flops, will studio cut its losses and send it straight to DVD? I applaud Lionsgate for not only going low budget, but being independent-minded in their subject matter. Let's bring indie movies to the masses.

Icahn and Lionsgate CEO exchange open letters in wake of hostile takeover bid

By Sarah Sluis

Forget Twitter fights and Facebook flame wars. As Carl Icahn attempts to take over Lionsgate, the duo has resorted to an old school trick: the open letter.

Icahn released a letter, posted on Variety, criticizing Lionsgate's strategy. Referring to CEO and Co-Chairman Jon Feltheimer, he argued that "hand-picked boards let self-proclaimed 'visionary' CEOs chase their vision indefinitely, even when years pass and their vision is clearly a delusion." Ouch. Lionsgate's stock has remained stagnant for the past several years; therefore Icahn believes the CEO needs to be replaced.

It gets better. Feltheimer wrote back, calling the attack an attempt to divert from the fact that Icahn offered a lowball stock offer, explaining the company's corporate strategy, and pointing out their big movie hits and 70% profitability rate.

Both sides have convincing arguments but the complexity of the situation makes it hard to know who is right. Icahn has access to the company's financial information, as well as whatever strategy the company reveals at shareholders meetings. He's been particularly critical of Lionsgate's attempt to buy MGM, citing declining DVD sales as a reason to get out of the film library business. I'm also curious about the details of Lionsgate's deals. Does the company drive as hard of a bargain as other studios? For example, the studio co-produces and distributes Tyler Perry's movies, but he retains full copyright ownership of his product. Maybe that's what it took to make the deal, but I bet Lionsgate wishes it had just a little more of Perry's purported $400 million movie fortune, which makes him one of the wealthiest people in Hollywood, out of proportion, I would argue, to the overall box office he has created. Then there was all the drama last year with Lionsgate actually driving a hard bargain with "Mad Men" creator Mathew Weiner. Rather ominous rumors circulated about the creator's potential departure before it was reported that Weiner would be returning for another season. Was the talent or the studio making an unusual demand? Was Lionsgate trying to drive a hard deal since it had given too much to talent in the past? Neither of these instances is necessarily a red flag, but maybe they offer hints into what Icahn has sniffed out.

Whatever the outcome, this fight over Lionsgate is turning out to have all the drama of the characters in Wall Street or Pretty Woman (the hostile takeover part). Quick, someone grab the film rights!