Ratner's "Boys"

email this story
read comments (24)
post a comment

Being a big fan of Ira Levin's "The Boys From Brazil", which works extremely well on the page, I was more than a little disappointed with Franklin Schaffner's film version, which (I don't believe this) opened 28 years ago. And now New Line is financing a remake of the Shaffner film to be directed, God help us all, by Brett Ratner, who just keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper with each new film. Has Ratner nudged aside McG, Michael Bay, Roger Kumble and Stephen Sommers for the title of the most despised commercial director on the planet? I don't know. I'm asking.

New Line reportedly has the idea of Boys being Ratner's immediate followup to Rush Hour 3, with (I'm guessing) a possible '08 release.

It's not just that Ratner's The Boys from Brazil will probably eat shit on a stick; it's that a reconstituted Adolf Hitler (brought back through cloning) doesn't mean all that much to the I-Pod-ers. Baby boomers, whose parents fought World War II, were the last generation to have Hitler's evil impressed upon them first-hand. And I wonder how much the Hitler brief impresses in the shadows of 9/11, Middle East suicide bombings, Islamic fundamentalism , ethnic cleansing killings, poison-gassings and all the other horrors that have manifested over the past 25 or 30 years. He's not the superstar he used to be.

Michael Fleming's Variety story says Richard Potter and Matthew Stravitz's script "pitched a take that sticks close to Levin's novel but sets the action in the present day" -- in other words, they seem to be sticking with Adolf. I really don't get it. Ratner told Fleming that Schaffner's version "was a flawed film with a brilliant concept...you no longer have to spend time explaining cloning as you did then." Cloning wasn't a problem with the Schaffner version at all, trust me.

(Personal disclosure: I was fairly friendly with Jeremy Black, the kid who played all the Little Hitlers in the Schaffner film, back in the mid '70s. He comes from Wilton, Connecticut, as I do, as is the son of B'way producer David Black and kid brother of poet Sophie Black.)

Lt. Dan in Iraq<< previous | next >>Another "Superman"?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM

comment #1

vjp666 says ...

Come on, Brett Ratner is a small step up from Stephen Sommers. I think.

Posted by vjp666 at August 14, 2006 1:39 PM

comment #2

sutter kane says ...

I don't know, Sommers at least has fewer credits than Ratner. And I know not everyone feels this way, but I think he really screwed the pooch with x-men. Lots of special effects, but no action, and killing off all those characters to whom comic fans have such an attachment without generating an ounce of genuine emotion is just incompetent. Sommers, McG, and all the others never dropped the ball so badly after having so much handed to them. I think Ratner tops my list, and as a fan of the book, I'm dreading a BFB remake with his name on it.

Posted by sutter kane at August 14, 2006 2:01 PM

comment #3

Dan Revill says ...

Still, everyone knows Hitler, even if the threat of Hitler is no longer one that resonates...we're much more concerned with our iPods shorting out on us, than some meglomaniac (that was sarcasm btw)...it'll have to be something special for it not to flop with the under 30 crowd I think.
I'm a fan of WWII films in general, but a cloning Hitler film? Sounds ridiculous. I understand fully the costs of WWII to many people - I'm worried that my own children won't really understand the full scope of what when on over 60 years ago. There are people around my age that haven't got a clue anymore.
I don't know how you could change it up to be any more interesting. I'd like to read the book though.

Posted by Dan Revill at August 14, 2006 2:03 PM

comment #4

le corbeau says ...

"Sommers, McG, and all the others never dropped the ball so badly after having so much handed to them."

I have always suspected, though, that Sommers' The Ghost and the Darkness was saved in the editing room. My suspicion is that there was a lot more animatronic-lion stuff in it originally, but test audiences laughed at it rather than being scared, and the editor came up with doing it all Val Lewton/Jaws-style, ripples in the tallgrass getting closer, that sort of thing.

As for McG, it's true that being handed Charlie's Angels isn't on a par with being handed X-Men, but on the other hand, could those movies possibly be any worse?

Posted by le corbeau at August 14, 2006 2:12 PM

comment #5

Patrick says ...

Brett Ratner is this generation's Frank Oz! Why
do people keep giving him jobs? 'Rush Hour' IOU's
I guess.

Anyway, A MUCH MORE interesting story would be
detailing Hitler's family that moved to the U.S.
and changed their names. Now, THAT would make a
good story.

Posted by Patrick at August 14, 2006 2:16 PM

comment #6

MASON says ...

Sommers didn't direct "The Ghost and the Darkness" -- it was Stephen Hopkins.

Posted by MASON at August 14, 2006 2:21 PM

comment #7

insidah says ...

The problem with Ira Levin is this: he was good at coming up with high concept anatagonistic forces, but these concepts were simply too far fetched and never fully developed enough to work as anything more than pulpy entertainment. The Stepford Wives was doomed to never work as a film because you never really get a clear understanding or a really believable, human reason why a community of men would actually kill their wives. In Sliver, you have a madman who spies on the tenants of his apartment building, but again, you never understand what makes this guy tick. Rosemary's Baby only really worked because, when it comes to the devil, I guess you don't need to have too much understanding. But this Adolf idea sounds dumb. Aren't we at a point in history where we should examine his twisted humanity rather than be entertained by the concept of crystalized, cloneable evil? Actually, you know what? The whole thing sounds dumb enough that Brett Ratner is actually the perfect guy! Cheers.

Posted by insidah at August 14, 2006 2:23 PM

comment #8

le corbeau says ...

"Sommers didn't direct "The Ghost and the Darkness" -- it was Stephen Hopkins."

Oops! You are so right. Not that there's that much difference, but you are so right.

Posted by le corbeau at August 14, 2006 2:30 PM

comment #9

KAM2112 says ...

nuffs been said about Ratners inablity to make Art. he's just one of those anomalies that plague the world like you know AIDS.

Posted by KAM2112 at August 14, 2006 2:38 PM

comment #10

Pelham123 says ...

Consdering that just the trailers for the two "Charlie's Angels" movies drive me near homicidal I can't imagine anyone worse than McG. But, then, can you say "Charlie's Angels I & II" were even movies? So, maybe McG doesn't even qualify. That said, Ratner screwed the pooch with "X-Men 3".

Posted by Pelham123 at August 14, 2006 2:41 PM

comment #11

Edward says ...

Give me Bret Ratner over Stephen Sommers or McG any day. "The Mummy" was passable fun, "The Mummy Returns" was horrible and "Van Helsing" was abominable." Both "Charlie's Angels" were close to unwatchable. While he's not great cinema, The "Rush Hour" films were mindless fun and "X-Men III" was a decent, if not memorable summer entertainment.

Posted by Edward at August 14, 2006 3:01 PM

comment #12

MPNeeb says ...

Why do they need to clone Hitler in a world with George Bush 2 or FOX news?
The actions of both would get Hitler's stamp of approval in any era.

Posted by MPNeeb at August 14, 2006 3:34 PM

comment #13

Dixon Steele says ...

OK, Bay, McG and even Sommers I get. But Roger Kumble?

Now I hated The Sweetest Thing too, but Cruel Intentions was quite good and Just Friends a legit Guilty Pleasure.

So why the Kumble hatin'?

Posted by Dixon Steele at August 14, 2006 4:04 PM

comment #14

le corbeau says ...

You know what somebody needs to remake?

The Heroes of Telemark. A fairly lame 60s action movie (despite being directed by Anthony Mann) with a bad case of imitation James Bond-itis, but based on an ass-kicking true life action story, guys have to ski into a narrow valley and blow stuff up, then they have to blow up a ferry with a bunch of their own people on it, just because British Intelligence tells them it's really important but won't say why. (The why was, because they were sabotaging the Nazi atomic bomb program, but they didn't know that.) Nazis, nukes, skiing action, blonde babes, a moral dilemma with kids and grandmas and puppies in danger-- it's got everything!

Posted by le corbeau at August 14, 2006 4:56 PM

comment #15

addison says ...

Anybody ever read Siegfried by Harry Mulisch? This would make a great "neo-Hitler" movie. Tells the basic story of Hitler's housekeepers having become "parents" to the Adolf/Eva offspring so that no one would know about Hitler having a kid. The book traces the story of Siegfried. Just keep McG away from it....

Posted by addison at August 14, 2006 4:57 PM

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

More Ratner-bashing, huh? Why not let your beloved Singer do a nazi movie, then, huh? Oh wait, he did, and no one noticed.

"It's not just that Ratner's The Boys from Brazil will probably eat shit on a stick; it's that a reconstituted Adolf Hitler (brought back through cloning) doesn't mean all that much to the I-Pod-ers. Baby boomers, whose parents fought World War II, were the last generation to have Hitler's evil impressed upon them first-hand."

That would explain why The Pianist was a critical and box office flop, right, Jeff?

sutter: "Lots of special effects, but no action, and killing off all those characters to whom comic fans have such an attachment without generating an ounce of genuine emotion is just incompetent."

They kill characters all the time in the comics. In fact, in the last marketing gimmick, Marvel killed Professor X before he started the school so that it would be an alternate future. And there wasn't exactly any action in the other two films, either.

Patrick: "Brett Ratner is this generation's Frank Oz! Why do people keep giving him jobs?"

Because his films make money?

insidah: "Aren't we at a point in history where we should examine his twisted humanity rather than be entertained by the concept of crystalized, cloneable evil?"

They tried it with Downfall and the critics ate it up, but no one here cared.

Pelham: "So, maybe McG doesn't even qualify. That said, Ratner screwed the pooch with "X-Men 3"."

Yes, why can't he make a bloated $250 superhero movie which flopped?

Posted by D.Z. at August 14, 2006 5:00 PM

comment #17

Nate West says ...

Don't you all see it? The story of Hitler's "secret kid" is the flipside of the Da Vinci Code! Why not have a third film in which the secret descendants of Jesus do battle with the vicious progeny of Hitler and Eva Braun? You could even have one of Jesus's girls with a little crush on a Hitler boy--before he fully germinates into a fountain of evil, of course. Then, add a song, and you have a wonderful reprise of one of the subplots from the Sound of Music!

Sadly, Hollywood just doesn't carry preposterous far enough.

Posted by Nate West at August 14, 2006 5:09 PM

comment #18

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

RATNER: Okay Patrick, I want you to get in the chair and roll on into Cyclops' room. He's going to be in the shower singing "Eyes Without a Face," unaware that you can hear him. This scene will blow the roof off the first focus-group screening.

STEWART: Well Brett, that's not really funny, and it's not in the script.

RATNER: Script?? You sound just like Keitel when I did RED DRAGON, always harping about scripts. Do you think Ratner had a script when I made MONEY TALKS? The closest thing to a script I used on that shoot was a synopsis of 48 HRS. I clipped out of TV Guide. Now get in the damn chair, before I call Woody Harrelson and tell him to shave his head!!

Posted by The Bandsaw Vigilante at August 14, 2006 5:10 PM

comment #19

le corbeau says ...

"Sadly, Hollywood just doesn't carry preposterous far enough."

It's true. I have to admit, when Peter Jackson did that gag thing about making three King Kong movies, the one where Kong battled Nazis with machine guns mounted on his shoulders actually kind of sounded good to me.

Posted by le corbeau at August 14, 2006 5:23 PM

comment #20

berg says ...

wby stop at Adolph Schicklgruber ... clone Henry Ford and Ghengis Khan and have that trio whoop ass until they can be stopped by Harrison Ford...

Posted by berg at August 14, 2006 6:08 PM

comment #21

Terry McCarty says ...

As far as Ratner's concerned, X-3 was at least an improvement over RED DRAGON.

Maybe Brett's planning on youthing the Weisenthal character to attract someone like Jake Gyllenhaal, but the updated Mengele will likely stay age-appropriate with Anthony Hopkins to be a sure casting consideration.

Posted by Terry McCarty at August 14, 2006 11:57 PM

comment #22

le corbeau says ...

"the updated Mengele will likely stay age-appropriate with Anthony Hopkins to be a sure casting consideration."

Age appropriate? Mengele was born in 1911. Kirk Douglas (b. 1916) would be age appropriate. Or Charles Lane.

Posted by le corbeau at August 15, 2006 6:24 AM

comment #23

Dixon Steele says ...

Insidah,

Try actually reading Levin's novel before commenting on its shortcomings.

I did and I can tell you, it's superb.

Yes, the movie was mediocre, partially becuase the pivotal Mengele character was miscast with Gregory Peck.

Most of Levin's work is excellent (ok, maybe not Sliver), but movie adaptations are always hit and miss. As a book, Stepford Wives worked (didn't read that one either, did you?).

Posted by Dixon Steele at August 15, 2006 8:36 AM

comment #24