Johnston to direct "Wolfman"

email this story
read comments (28)
post a comment

By hiring Joe Johnston, a respected high-grade hack, to take over the direction of The Wolfman in the wake of Mark Romanek's sudden departure, producers Scott Stuber and Mary Parent have essentially announced to the industry and to fans that they're playing it "safe" and that no one should expect anything more than a slick, proficient, hack-level popcorn movie. Perhaps on the level of Mike Nichols' Wolf (which I liked until the end), and perhaps not. But definitely in focus! And with great special effects!

The plus in this equation is star Benicio del Toro, who always upgrades. The downside is the script, which allegedly needs work but can't be worked on until the WGA strike ends, which may be presently.

Johnston's two best films -- Jumanji and October Sky -- came out in '95 and '99. The notion of Johnston being a hefty-paycheck, Spielberg-aspiring slick operator began to take over with his direction of Jurassic Park III ('01) and Hidalgo ('04). No one despises Johnston -- he's "fine" -- but he brings a slight nod-off, good-enough factor to the project.

The truly ballsy move would have been for Stuber and Parent to hire John Landis (An American Werewolf in London, Schlock), the godfather of the modern ravenous biped genre.

Michael Bay parody ad<< previous | next >>Carr on N.Y. Post's Hillary snub

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 4, 2008 at 7:13 AM

comment #1

mutinyco says ...

Only he wasn't a biped in American Werewolf...

Posted by mutinyco at February 4, 2008 7:58 AM

comment #2

Rob says ...

I can't believe ultra-picky Del Toro is okay with this.

Posted by Rob at February 4, 2008 8:02 AM

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

And, fair's fair, Joe Dante's The Howling got there first and was much scarier.

Posted by Rich S. at February 4, 2008 8:02 AM

comment #4

christian says ...

But Rick Baker had already designed the effects for AMWIL when Dante called to ask him to do THE HOWLING. He stepped aside to let his protege Rob Bottin take over. Anyway.

Posted by christian at February 4, 2008 8:13 AM

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

Wells, I know it is the sport of gorilla rubes, but I am saddened to see a Jersey boy make no mention of the New York football Giants last night or this morning.

Posted by BurmaShave at February 4, 2008 8:18 AM

comment #6

Larry says ...

Johnston's a better director than Mark Romanek. (Landis is even better.) Of course, if the script's not there it doesn't matter.

I don't think much of Wolf, but The Wolfman simply isn't comparable--it's a different type of movie.

Posted by Larry at February 4, 2008 8:24 AM

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

Speaking of hacks, QT wants his own spy movie. http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080204b.php
Anyway, I don't get why this guy is ok for AICN, but Ratner is beneath Harry.

Posted by D.Z. at February 4, 2008 8:27 AM

comment #8

MickTravis says ...

It's dorky as hell and a tad too long, but I've always had a soft spot for Johnston's "The Rocketeer."

Yeah, Landis would've been a much more interesting wild card and Darabont would've been more faithful to the spirit of the original, but Johnston will work. Hey, they were talking Ratner for a while.

Posted by MickTravis at February 4, 2008 9:02 AM

comment #9

BurmaShave says ...

D.Z., Tarantino is one of the most talented and interesting people alive. It's that simple. Get a life.

Posted by BurmaShave at February 4, 2008 9:11 AM

comment #10

Sean says ...

"Anyway, I don't get why this guy is ok for AICN, but Ratner is beneath Harry."

Because you're a fucking idiot, you fucking idiot.

Posted by Sean at February 4, 2008 9:33 AM

comment #11

aaron says ...

Tarantino clearly states in that interview with "Sight & Sound" that this is hypothetical, that there's no real interest, and that he's just happening to be reading the novel presently and can't shut off his brain about how he would adapt it.

I'm beginning to wonder if this accruement of unrealized projects that people assign to Tarantino's name aren't just the products of interviewers who simply can't read between the lines.

Posted by aaron at February 4, 2008 9:55 AM

comment #12

corey3rd says ...

QT is developing "Barnaby Jones: The Early Years" with Jude Law.

Posted by corey3rd at February 4, 2008 10:00 AM

comment #13

bachelorcool says ...

Honey, I Shrunk the Cubs?

Posted by bachelorcool at February 4, 2008 10:31 AM

comment #14

MovieBob says ...

"Anyway, I don't get why this guy is ok for AICN, but Ratner is beneath Harry."

In the specifics, it might be because every single one of the Johnston's movies are better than every single one of Ratner's. Might. I'd have to agree - Johnston made "The Rocketeer," a damn-near perfect retro superhero movie, so as far as I'm concerned he's lifetime-exempt from being called a "hack." He's not a Nolan or an Aronofsky, fine - but not a hack. Bay is a hack. Simon West is a hack. Ratner is the God of Hacks.

In the abstract, though, it's all about the Geek Cred so far as AICN is concerned: The Ratner hate doesn't so much come from his awful filmmaking - it comes from the fact that he keeps getting signed to "work" his awful filmmaking on material Film Geeks are protective of. He neutered Jackie Chan, blasphemed against "Manhunter" and ruined the X-Men. Johnston, on the other hand, has made decent-to-good genre flicks about rampaging animals, dinosaurs, prewar superheroes and cowboys horse-racing against arab sheikhs.

This will be a good movie.

Posted by MovieBob at February 4, 2008 10:43 AM

comment #15

Dan Revill says ...

Johnston is not a hack...true he may not make visually inspired films, but he tends to make entertaining films. There's nothing wrong with that either.
I'm on The Rocketeer train too. I grew up with that film. It's still entertaining to me, which I can't say that about every film I grew up with.
Sure I won't ever be first in line to see one of his films, but I'd rather see him direct something like this than the aforementioned Ratner or West.

(Bay doing this would have been a hoot)

Posted by Dan Revill at February 4, 2008 12:23 PM

comment #16

christian says ...

THE ROCKETEER was a big disappointment. Not terrible, but not memorable. I refer you to Timothy Dalton's ever changing accent.

Posted by christian at February 4, 2008 12:47 PM

comment #17

MiraJeffAICN says ...

"In the specifics, it might be because every single one of the Johnston's movies are better than every single one of Ratner's. Might. "

MovieBob, three words. Jurassic. Park. Three.

There's no way you can tell me that was better than X3. No way. JP3 was a complete joke. A solid D.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at February 4, 2008 1:38 PM

comment #18

Sean says ...

Jurassic Park 3 was as bad as X3 (but not worse), but, unlike X3, the director who started the franchise had already screwed the pooch himself in 'Lost World'. 'X3' gets a worse rap than 'JP3' because there was only *one* good 'Jurassic Park' movie. There was one good X-Men followed by a great one, and then Ratner came along and... well, we know.

I don't actually think Johnston is much better than Ratner, but people like him more because he doesn't go around doing interviews about how great he is and how proud he is of his own mediocrity and how anybody who doesn't love him must just be jealous of his 19-inch dong.

Posted by Sean at February 4, 2008 3:05 PM

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

MovieBob: "In the specifics, it might be because every single one of the Johnston's movies are better than every single one of Ratner's."

Even Jurassic Park 3 and Hidalgo?

"He neutered Jackie Chan,"

Jackie Chan was doing American comedies long before he got involved with Ratner. Rather's the only one who gave him a leading role, though.

"blasphemed against "Manhunter""

From what I hear, his version of the recent Lecter "trilogy" is the best of the bunch.

"and ruined the X-Men."

His sequel to X men was fine. A helluva lot better than Schumacher's sequels to Batman.

Posted by D.Z. at February 4, 2008 3:08 PM

comment #20

Sean says ...

Shut the fuck up you stupid piece of shit.

Posted by Sean at February 4, 2008 3:25 PM

comment #21

jeffmcm says ...

Yes, even Jurassic 3 (which is very OK) and Hidalgo. Johnston means the movie will be fine, Ratner would have made something really fucking annoying, like a certain poster here.

Posted by jeffmcm at February 4, 2008 4:30 PM

comment #22

christian says ...

But by God, Johnston was a great visualist. I wish Lucas would have recruited him for the SW prequels.

Posted by christian at February 4, 2008 5:29 PM

comment #23

moviemaniac2002 says ...

Like others, I would have chimed into the criticism, except I also remember how much I
loved "The Rocketeer", a kinder, gentler summer
tentpole - with its great cast, almost witty
script and downright adorable James Horner score.

So Universal, after losing its "creative artist"
director, went looking for an efficient traffic
manager, basically a young Jeannot Szwarc (you know , corporate auteur of "Jaws 2" and "Santa
Claus-The Movie")..which is why Bret Ratner is
the go-to Szwarc of the new millenium. But I
think they at least a couple notches upward
with Johnston.

(Speaking of Szwarc, I look him up IMDB and lo and behold, he's been directing mass quantities
of episodic TV, none of which I watch. Anybody
have any views on his TV stuff? Any good?)

Posted by moviemaniac2002 at February 4, 2008 6:06 PM

comment #24

Terry McCarty says ...

D.Z. wrote:
blasphemed against "Manhunter""

From what I hear, his version of the recent Lecter "trilogy" is the best of the bunch.

Ratner's RED DRAGON at least had a fine cast going for their paychecks, but it was rather clunky compared to Mann's classic MANHUNTER and even Ridley Scott's somewhat-less-than-classic HANNIBAL.

Posted by Terry McCarty at February 5, 2008 1:47 AM

comment #25