Casting Coup Tuesdays: The Mousetrap

It's Casting Coup Tuesday, where we dream-cast an imaginary adaptation of a beloved work. All month long, we're celebrating the work of Agatha Christie in anticipation of the November 10th release of Murder on the Orient Express. We've imagined adaptations of a Poirot, a Miss Marple, a Tommy and Tuppence, Witness for the Prosecution - and now, a real dream, that will probably never, ever happen....

Strangers find themselves snowbound with a murderer at a remote guesthouse run by inexperienced newlyweds. That's the gist of it, though of course, Christie employs a nursery rhyme motif, chilling on-stage kills, and enough twists to make another autobahn.

The Mousetrap is the longest continuously running play in the history of the theatre. Premiering in London's West End on November 25, 1952, its initial run is still going, and as of this year, has exceeded 26,000 performances. The cast changes annually, the set has had some alterations, they even moved venues, but the show goes on...and on...and on...

Christie herself thought the play wouldn't last a year, and gave all royalties to her grandson Mathew Prichard as a birthday present when he was nine years old (in regards to that arrangement, Christie later quipped that Mathew was "always lucky that way"). That longevity has led to some fascinating arrangements. For instance, while the play began first as a radio drama for Queen Mary's 80th birthday, then later adapted into a short story called "Three Blind Mice", neither of these incarnations have seen the light of day since the stage version's premiere. Indeed, Christie even asked that "Three Blind Mice" not be published in the United Kingdom during The Mousetrap's first run; luckily, the United States has no such condition. To maintain its West End production's profitability, only one other production a year may run in the United Kingdom. It's never played on Broadway.

And as for film? Don't hold your breath, honey. John Woolf - who would later win the Best Picture Oscar for Oliver! and brought classics like The Day of the Jackal and Room at the Top to the screen - bought the film rights back in 1956, under the condition that production would not begin until six months after the final performance. You don't need me to tell you the rest...

BUT!

If the play did close, and they were to make a film within the next six months, who would be best to play a part in the ensemble? I'm glad you asked - or rather, I'm glad I asked myself. Do feel free to comment with your own picks...after the jump.

Cinemaniacs Review: STOKER

Cross one item off my Top 25 Most Anticipated:

More Than Just "All Right"

I moved into a new apartment Friday, one where the internet won't be hooked up until August 22nd. Fortunately, I just arrived in my old hometown for a two week vacation, and my folks have their wireless up and running. Four days without internet almost killed me, I swear, and not just because I'm an addict who spends most of his time on this thing. No, I needed to get on my blog and talk about two great movies I saw this weekend.

First, I want to talk briefly about the more readily available one. Though in a limited release, The Kids Are All Right has the benefit of Recognizable Stars to up its chances of getting an audience. And thank goodness for that, because this movie deserves to be seen. The movie is light, but the performances are fully realized. It's strange, because this movie does bring out the ol' Hollywood tropes: big speeches, college looming, bad best friends, outsider charms way into a family. And a cynical person may be tempted to say that no one would praise this movie as much if it was about a straight couple who used a donor as opposed to being what some are calling a "lesbian issue film".

 Relevant cinema! The horror!

But what's wrong with gays having mainstream issue films? Everyone else gets them. And if they're as good as The Kids Are All Right, can we have more, please?  This movie deals with families and marriage and growing up and the trust between spouses and the bonds between parent and child. These are universal themes that any family can appreciate and relate to. The parents here just happen to be women. And thank goodness for that, I say, for otherwise we'd be deprived some stellar work from Julianne Moore and Annette Bening.

That's what this movie is about, people. There's great direction from Lisa Cholodenko, and an admirable script by her and Stuart Blumberg. But this film is about the performances! Subtle, likable performances across the board! Annette has a great moment in Act Three that...well, it's really the basis of her inevitable Oscar campaign, isn't it? Julianne Moore charts this heartbreaking and relatable arc that kills me. Mia Wasikowska finally emotes and Josh Hutcherson makes me sorry he's not going to be Peter Parker. Mark Ruffalo? Best performance he's given since Zodiac. A solid ensemble all around, and best of all: it comes with a believable family dynamic! Hurrah!

Yeah, I highly recommend it, and I stick to my earlier predictions for Best Actress and Best Picture nominations. The film's that good.

And as for that other film I saw...well, that deserves a separate post!

Casting Coup Tuesdays: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

When a book becomes a worldwide bestseller, it's only natural that Hollywood comes sniffing around to see what all the fuss is about. When the same book becomes a hit foreign film, Hollywood knows it can have better results without subtitles. And when David Fincher takes an interest, greenlight that baby, man, greenlight that!

I've never read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. It's 600-plus page count is a little daunting, and I only tackle tomes like that once in a while (it's been four years since Atlas Shrugged, though that's admittedly longer). I have seen the highly-acclaimed Swedish film starring Noomi Rapace and directed by Niels Arden Oplev. There's much to admire about the film, like the story -- though that comes from the novel. And the lead actor, Michael Nyqvist, is pretty good. But otherwise, this is a film that needs a remake by a director as talented and amazing as David Fincher. It's pretty murky, it jumps around a lot, and it's almost irritatingly on the nose sometimes -- the original title in Sweden is Men Who Hate Women. So, yeah, I'd welcome a remake by someone dependable, subtle and clear-headed.

But I started hearing rumors of Brad Pitt, Kristen Stewart, Ellen Page, Natalie Portman...and all I could think was, "No, no, no, no, no!" Mr. Fincher, if I may interject here: I have some ideas of my own. One of these has been heavily rumored as well, but I want to point out that I had the idea first (my cousin and my roommate can confirm). Let my other brainstorms be known:

INTERESTED PARTIES

DRAGAN ARMANSKIJ

Who is He: Lisbeth's boss. He assigns her to get info on Mikael for the Vangers. So it's really his fault that she gets involved in the muckedy-muck.

Originally played by:

Michalis Koutsogiannakis (All It Takes is a Miracle, The Girl Who Played with Fire)

My Choice:

Peter Friedman (I Shot Andy Warhol, Someone Like You...)

Dragan only has one scene in the movie, but he's in the full trilogy. With a regular, you want someone dependable, one who could believably play a middle-aged bossman/father figure. Oh, hey-hey-hey, if it ain't Mr. Friedman, one of the best character actors working today!

ERIKA BERGER

Who is She: Mikael's editor and sometimes lover.

Originally played by:

Lena Endre (Jerusalem, Day and Night)

My Choice: Indie Spirit Winner for Best Supporting Actress (Lovely & Amazing)

Emily Mortimer (Shutter Island, Harry Brown)

Very awesome, talented actress, one I've watched with great interest since Scream 3. She looks great in a pants-suit, and I don't mean that like, "ooh, sexy", I mean that she seems smart and looks like a pro. So, if you need to cast someone as an attractive newspaper editor, why not get the great Mortimer?

NILS BJURMAN

Who is He: I think he's the parole officer in charge of Lisbeth Salander, though I guess in Sweden they call them "guardians". Nils is the new guy, one is not as understanding of Lisbeth as his predecessor. He is a grasping, corrupt, evil man who takes power over women through abuse and rape.

Originally played by:

Peter Andersson (Zero Tolerance, Mouth to Mouth)

My Choice:

Harry Enfield ("Harry Enfield and Chums", "Skins")

Though a comedian, in Marple: The Moving Finger, he showed a skeezier side. I guess that's all the reasoning I have. It feels right.

PLAGUE

Who is He: A tech wiz who helps Lisbeth with her computer hackery. I'm pretty sure. He's also fat.

Originally played by:

Tomas Kohler (The Love Life of a Fat Thief, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest)

My Choice:

Jorge Garcia (The Good Humor Man, Deck the Halls)

He's large and a good actor. And, come on, he's going to need the work now that "Lost" is over. Could do worse than a Fincher-directed remake of a hit series.

HANS-ERIK WENNERSTROM

Who is He: A corrupt businessman Michael investigates. Nothing to do with the main story, but gives the investigation a "ticking clock" to work against after Wennerstrom manages to get Mikael convicted of something or other.

Originally played by:

Stefan Sauk (At Point Blank, Dear Alice)

My Choice:

Zeljko Ivanek (Dogville, Live Free or Die Hard)

Have you seen "Damages"? He's AWESOME on that show.


THE WOMAN
Who is She: The one who can provide the most important clue of all.

Originally played by:

 Ewa Froling (Sally and Freedom, Fanny and Alexander)

My Choice: Academy Award Nominee for Best Actress (The Contender) and Best Supporting Actress (Nixon, The Crucible), BAFTA Award Nominee for Best Supporting Actress (The Crucible), Golden Globe Nominee for Best Actress in a Drama (The Contender) and Best Supporting Actress (The Crucible), Indie Spirit/SAG Award Nominee for Best Actress (The Contender), SAG Award Nominee for Best Actress and Best Ensemble (Nixon)

Joan Allen (Pleasantville, Bonneville)
It's a small but important role, so it needs an actress par excellence. An actress with great gravitas. An actress who can deliver a solid performance without vanity. Joan Allen.

THE FAMILY

DIRCH FRODE

Who is He: Vanger attorney and Henrik's friend. He's the one who gets Michael involved in the investigation of the forty-year-old disappearance of then-teenager Harriet Vanger.

Originally played by:

Ingvar Hirdwall (Let's Play House, Daybreak)

My Choice: Academy Award Nominee for Best Supporting Actor (Chariots of Fire), BAFTA Award Winner for Best Supporting Actor (The Bofors Gun, Chariots of Fire), SAG Award Winner for Best Ensemble (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King)

Ian Holm (Henry V, Lord of War)

And now we get to the all-star aspect. Older gentleman, a real trustworthy type.


CECILIA VANGER
Who is She: Daughter of old hermit Harald Vanger, niece to Henrik, cousin of the missing Harriet.
Cecilia was close with Harriet, and the two of them briefly looked after Mikael. She seems to be attracted to Mikael, but he does not respond.

Originally played by:

Marika Lagercrantz (All Things Fair, I Wonder Who's Kissing You Now)

My Choice:

Kim Cattrall (Mannequin, The Bonfire of the Vanities)
I really liked her in The Ghost Writer. She's another well-known yet non-distracting actress. Right age and right talent.


HARRIET VANGER
Who is She: The sixteen-year-old favorite niece of Henrik who disappeared mysteriously forty years ago.

Originally played by:

Julia Sporre

My Choice: Indie Spirit Nominee for Best Supporting Actress (That Evening Sun)

Mia Wasikowksa (Defiance, Amelia)
Yeah, she'll do.


HENRIK VANGER
Who is He: The patriarch of the Vanger clan, he unofficially reopens the investigation behind the disappearance of his favorite niece. Henrik is a kind, old man, and the only one of his brothers not completely in love with Nazis. Now retired, he was the CEO of the Vanger Corporation.

Originally played by:

Sven-Bertil Taube (Jerusalem, London Voodoo)

My Choice: Academy Award/Golden Globe/Indie Spirit/SAG Award Nominee for Best Supporting Actor (The Last Station), SAG Award Nominee for Best Ensemble (A Beautiful Mind)

Christopher Plummer (The Sound of Music, Dreamscape)
When I saw the movie, I immediately thought of Holm, my two leads, and Plummer. Plummer can play the controlled emotions. He can play the great grief in the private moments. He's an old pro, but he's in great shape.


MARTIN VANGER
Who is He: Current president of the Vanger Corporation. Harriet's brother. He and Mikael warm to each other, and he tries to get the other family members to cooperate.

Originally played by:

Peter Haber (Sommarmord, All It Takes is a Miracle)

My Choice: Golden Globe Nominee for Best Supporting Actor (Far From Heaven), Indie Spirit Winner for Best Actor (The Big Easy) and Best Supporting Actor (Far From Heaven), SAG Award Winner for Best Ensemble (Traffic)

Dennis Quaid (Dreamscape, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)
A guy who always rocks when he stretches, and this role would put him through the wringer. And hell, I would see anything he's in.


THE SLEUTHS

MIKAEL BLOMKVIST
Who is He: Journalist for, and publisher of, Millenium. He gets into trouble after investigating corrupt tycoon Hans-Erik Wennerstrom. Now he finds himself sleuthing alongside Lisbeth when Henrik asks him to find the truth behind a forty-year-old disappearance.

Originally played by:

Michael Nyqvist (Day and Night, London Voodoo)

My Choice: BAFTA Award Nominee for Best Actor (Casino Royale), Indie Spirit Nominee for Best Supporting Actor (Infamous)

Daniel Craig (The Mother, The Invasion)
He's got what Mikael needs: smart, middle-aged, and sexy. Not ridiculously sexy, but you can understand why ladies would go for him. He's an action star and a dramatic actor, meaning you're going to get a great performance no matter what he's doing.


LISBETH SALANDER
Who is She: Bisexual computer hacker with a dark past. She helps Mikael find the truth behind Harriet's disappearance.

Originally played by:

Noomi Rapace (Bloodbrothers, Daisy Diamond)

My Choice:

Olivia Thirlby (Juno, Breaking Upwards)
Hear this. She's age-appropriate, but it wouldn't be creepy if she hooked up with Daniel Craig. She's beautiful, but you could totally see her doing the bad-ass thing without looking strange or acting mannered. And she's a phenomenal actress. She'd be my perfect Lisbeth Salander.

Burton's Blunderland

As far as movie go, the new Alice in Wonderland is about as lifeless as the decapitated heads in the Red Queen's moat.

Now, I'm sorry that I had to spoil that visual, because it's one of the only truly remarkable things about this lazy adaptation of/sequel to Lewis Carroll's popular children's books. While I understand that the source material is but a series of vignettes, this didn't stop Disney from making two -- TWO -- remarkable adaptations. One is the famous cartoon, of course, while the other is the made-for-TV movie with Tina Majorino and Martin Short. I guess the third time is not the charm.

Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors. From "Vincent" to Sleepy Hollow, and everything in between, I thought he could do no wrong. Then of course came Planet of the Apes, which I realized wasn't very good, but which kept me entertained throughout most of it. (Tim Roth's performance helped, of course, and I still feel that he was snubbed for a Supporting Actor nod) But next was Big Fish, which I think is only second to Edward Scissorhands in the director's oeuvre. It wasn't until the beautiful but clearly rushed Corpse Bride that I began to worry. I loved it, but I wished the movie had been fleshed out some more. Then came Sweeney Todd, an adaptation of one of my favorite musicals. Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I couldn't help but feel a little let down. Depp and Bonham-Carter were great, and the material is perfect for Burton...but I couldn't help being a little disappointed. Maybe if he had gotten, you know, singers...

And now there's Alice, which is the last straw. Paycheck grabs are all well and good, but shouldn't this, too, be in Burton's territory? Isn't he the obvious choice for an adaptation of Alice? Why is this so lifeless?

Perhaps the obviousness of the choice is part of the problem. I've seen the lawn figures, the creepy trees, the Colleen Atwood costumes, the Depp/Bonham-Carter pairing...been there, done that. But it really seems to be the only thing Burton wants. Every scene seems like it's just marking time until we can get back to The Red Queen or The Mad Hatter. The worst offense comes at the beginning, before Wonderland, when Alice is at a garden party outside London and meets all these characters who she'll have to FINALLY CONFRONT in the end. Yet these characters remain ciphers. I have no idea who Alice's sister Margaret is until she speaks to her at the end, yet she is constantly referenced. Actually, I don't even care.

The reviews I've been reading seem to praise Mia Wasikowska's performance as Alice. What what WHAAAAT? She's got a pretty face and a nice smile, but Mia's Alice is so apathetic and lifeless, it's no wonder I can't get into the story. I find her Alice obnoxious and difficult to identify with. Her line readings are insincere, though the script certainly doesn't help by flatlining her character arc. I mean, if one is going to make the Alice story into an actual story, shouldn't they try some dramatic tension, character development, a sequence of events that makes sense? Why, when the Mad Hatter starts a rebellion in the middle of the Red Queen's court, do the Queen, her knight, and the soldier cards just sit there, watching. It's like they're just waiting for their next line.

Which is odd, because generally speaking, Helena Bonham-Carter and Crispin Glover are the only things of note in this film. Certainly not Depp, whose "madness" amounts to sometimes doing a Scottish accent. Why? Because it's mad! Or...maybe it's because Johnny likes to do accents and his bff Tim doesn't know how to say no? That seems more likely. And after the haunting John Dillinger in Public Enemies, which is my favorite Depp performance, this same "bag of tricks" approach to the Mad Hatter is more than irritating, it's disappointing. Meanwhile, Bonham-Carter and Glover are actually playing mad characters, and doing so in such a natural manner that you completely buy into it. It's a shame we're supposed to root against the Red Queen, because Bonham-Carter actually brings some depth and sympathy to the role.

It reminds me of The Devil Wears Prada. Meryl's got all her people in the conference room, and the chick from Lost mentions doing something about flowers for the Spring issue. Meryl says dismissively, "Florals? For spring? Ground breaking." Then in comes Stanley Tucci, and he's already done the work he should do, to which she replies, "Thank God somebody came to work today." That's what this is like. We've seen these parlor tricks before, but it means nothing, it's unoriginal, it's dull. Christopher Lee cameo? In a Tim Burton film? Groundbreaking. Thank God Helena Bonham-Carter came to work today.