As far as I know or have heard, John Chu‘s Crazy Rich Asians (Warner Bros., 8.15) is the first major studio release with an all-Asian cast since 1993’s The Joy Luck Club. That in itself means that a certain portion of the critics will bend over backwards to give it a pass, given that representation is an important consideration these days. HE’s opinion — quality is quality, regardless of this or that stamp or attitude — remains unchanged. If a movie is great, it’s great. If it’s good, it’s good. And if it kinda sucks then it kinda sucks. The trailer makes it look like “Meet The Parents in Singapore,” with Constance Wu in the Ben Stiller role. A friend who’s seen it calls it a “very by-the-book romance. It didn’t feel like Meet the Parents but more like a very tame, politically correct version of Wedding Crashers. Nothing blazingly original except for the casting.”

There’s a link between Alfred Hitchcock‘s The Birds and “A Stop at Willoughby,” a noteworthy Twilight Zone episode that first aired on May 6, 1960. Patricia Donahue, who played Jane Williams, the cold-bitch wife of James Daly‘s Gart Williams, is a dead ringer for Tippi Hedren‘s Melanie Daniels, at least in terms of her business-appropriate apparel and hair style. On top of which Daniels and Williams have the same kind of dry, curt, somewhat chilly manner of speaking.

The reputation of Gone With The Wind began its decline a little more than three years ago. The campaign began with former N.Y Post critic Lou Lumenick calling its “undeniably racist” attitudes no longer tolerable in our current socio-political climate. This was reiterated last August when the Orpheum theatre in Memphis said it would no longer show Gone With The Wind after receiving complaints about the 1939 film being “insensitive”, etc.

Now a Reddit piece offers further proof of how yellowed and moth-eaten Gone With The Wind is by the current calendar. With Margaret Mitchell‘s story spanning the years 1861 to 1873, David O. Selznick‘s film is now slightly closer to the Civil War era it portrays than to the present day. The film opened 78 and 1/2 years ago (i.e., December 1939) while the timeline of the film (which begins in April 1861) began just shy of 79 years before that event.

The author of the eight-day-old Reddit piece, “u/RespectMyAuthoriteh,” goes on to explain in detail how phenomenal the popularity of Gone With The Wind was, considering the intense competition from other films. Example #1: “From the ’20s to mid ’50s seven major Hollywood studios were grinding out 25 to 40 movies per annum,” etc. Example #2: “Gone With The Wind finally left theaters in late 1941. But it was such a huge hit, it was already resurrected for a revival run in March 1942, just three or four months later. It ran on Broadway for two years straight. That’s why GWTW‘s run is so impressive. There has never been anything like it before or since, with the possible exception of Star Wars.”

I was in a negative-attitude place with Robin Williams at the time of Joe Johnston’s Jumanji. I’d loved Williams’ genie in Aladdin but half-hated his overly precious acting in The Fisher King, and I really despised him in Hook, Toys and Mrs. Doubtfire. But man, I sure do miss that mid ’90s Williams now. He was around 43 when he made Jumanji, and had another seven years of good career traction ahead of him. Things started to go downhill after his performance in Chris Nolan‘s Insomnia (’02)

Last December’s Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle was a huge hit, of course — $404 million domestic, $962 million worldwide. I avoided it like the plague, mostly due to the presence of Dwayne Johnson. So I’m in no position to compare it to Johnston’s 1995 original, which brought in $100 million domestic and $262 million with overseas revenue. I can report, however, that Detroit News critic Adam Graham wrote last December that Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle “makes the original Jumanji look like a towering cinematic achievement.”

The general consensus was that Johnston’s film was (a) far from classic but (b) not too bad. I remember loving David Alan Grier‘s performance as an easily flustered local cop.

Upmarket screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson (The Girl on the Train, Men, Women & Children, Secretary) will pen a Paramount remake of Adrien Lyne‘s Indecent Proposal. Collider‘s Jeff Sneider reported it first.

The 1993 drama, adapted by Amy Holden Jones and costarring Robert Redford, Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson, was basically a chick flick that flirted with the double-edged fantasy of a woman being paid a million smackeroos for a single night of sex with a suave, good-looking billionaire. Lyne’s film won three Razzies (Worst Picture, Worst Supporting Actor, Worst Screenplay) but earned $266 million.

I saw Indecent Proposal once a quarter-century ago, and have never even flirted with a re-watch. I recall flinching in my theatre seat when Moore used the term “dream house” in a voice-over narration. But this clip is pleasing. The 81-year-old Redford was 55 during shooting, and seemed a good five years younger. Harrelson had hair back then, and looked around 24 or 25 — he was actually 31. The 30 year-old Moore was peaking (A Few Good Men, Disclosure), but her fortunes plummeted after Striptease (’96) and G.I. Jane (’97).

For the record, collusion means illegal cooperation and/or conspiracy. Keep moving those goal posts regardless.

Cary Fukanaga‘s Maniac costars Emma Stone and Jonah Hill as two strangers participating in a clinical trial for a new mind-altering drug. The “darkly comic” miniseries is based on a Norwegian show of the same name. Producer/writer Patrick Somerville (The Leftovers, The Bridge) wrote and created this, a Netflix version of the series. Premiering on 9.21. Sally Field and Justin Theroux costar.

I’m recalling a David Poland tweet from two or three days ago, one that predicted that the CBS board of directors wouldn’t oust chairman, president and CEO Les Moonves over the sexual harassment complaints contained in a recently published article by The New Yorker‘s Ronan Farrow. Or suggest a leave of absence or anything.

The thinking was that the alleged incidents (Ileana Douglas, et. al.) all happened in the ’90s and ’80s. Not to mention that Moonves, married since 2004 to Julie Chen, has been contrite, apologetic and diplomatic. There is irony in the fact that Moonves is a founding member of the Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace, formed in late 2017 to “tackle the broad culture of abuse and power disparity” but whatever.

The feeling among the board of directors, apparently, is that what happened in the ’80s and ’90s is distant water under the bridge.

I don’t know who “Jake C.” is and I’ve never visited discussingfilm, but he’s posted an “exclusive” about Baz Luhrmann having “officially signed” to direct an Elvis Presley biopic, and to revise a script that Kelly Marcel and Jeremy Donner have previously worked on.

Production is expected to begin in March 2019, according to this report. Collider‘s Jeff Sneider first reported about a possible Luhrmann/Presley biopic four years ago, and apparently the story is half-legit “Jake C.” reports Luhrmann will also produce with Catherine Martin, Lloyd Braun and Gail Berman.

He adds that casting director Kristy Carlson is “looking for two guys to play Presley, one between 18-22 and another around the age of 35.” ATROCIOUS IDEA! Hire one cool dude to play young Elvis and then age him up slightly, which is beyond easy to do. Remember that Elvis didn’t really get fat until he was 40 or thereabouts (i.e., ’75), and that he was reasonably slender and undessicated before that. Elvis turned 35 in 1970, during the peak of his Las Vegas white-jeweled-jumpsuit era. An 18 year-old actor could easily be made to look 17 years older without anyone blinking or doing a double-take.

What’s the point of making a movie about Elvis in his late teens to early 20s (’53 to ’57), or from his Sun/Memphis years to his peak period as the king of RCA Victor ’50s sideburned bop-rock, and then fast-forwarding to the beginning-of-the-end period when he first started to perform in Las Vegas but before he became fat and drugged out and wound up dead on a bathroom floor in Graceland? Who cares?

What is there to say about Presley, really, that hasn’t been said over and over for decades? The man died nearly 41 years ago. Fame comes early to a conspicuously gifted fellow, too early for such a sensitive soul. The pressure warps the frail creative vessel, resulting in seclusion, addiction and early death, blah blah.

Eugene Jarecki‘s The King says it all, knows it all.

11 days after Disney fired James Gunn off the third Guardians of the Galaxy installment for having posted vulgar tweets a decade ago, the cast — Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Bradley Cooper, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Sean Gunn, Pom Klementiff, Michael Rooker and Karen Gillan — has issued a statement that basically says they have Gunn’s back.

As I understand it, the cast is telling Disney they might not be willing to appear in Guardians of the Galaxy 3 unless Disney reconsiders and hires Gunn back. They’re not saying this in so many words, of course, but what’s the point of standing by Gunn unless they’re prepared to back this up with deeds?

“We fully support James Gunn,” the statement says. “We were all shocked by his abrupt firing last week and have intentionally waited these ten days to respond in order to think, pray, listen, and discuss. In that time, we’ve been encouraged by the outpouring of support from fans and members of the media who wish to see James reinstated as director of Volume 3 as well as discouraged by those so easily duped into believing the many outlandish conspiracy theories surrounding him.”

“His story isn’t over, not by a long shot,” the statement declares. If I’d had a hand in the writing of the statement, I would have said “not by a damn sight.” That sounds more Ving Rhames.

Five and one-third years ago Woody Allen saved George Stevens‘ Shane from an aspect-ratio slicing that would have rocked the classic cinema universe and resulted in a great hue and cry from the Movie Godz. When all is said and done and the Chalamets of the world have all been put to bed, this is one of the events that will burnish and solidify Allen’s legacy.

On 3.16.13 I revealed that George Stevens, Jr. and Warner Home Entertaiment restoration guy Ned Price were intending to release a Bluray of the classic 1953 western using a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, which would have cleavered the tops and bottoms of the original 1.37 photography by dp Loyal Griggs. I howled and screamed in my usual way, but nothing seemed to change until Allen, the only top-dog, world-class director to step into this fray, shared his opinion on 4.4.13.

On 3.29 I appealed for help from Martin Scorsese in an open letter. On 4.4 I posted the Allen letter. 13 days later Joseph McBride’s letter to Stevens, Jr., deploring WHE’s intention to present the film within a 1.66 a.r., was posted. Later that day Price threw in the towel and announced that WHE’s Shane Bluray would be released in the original 1.37 aspect ratio. I’ve long believed that Allen’s opinion was the crucial factor in rectifying this situation.

Three versions of Shane were included in a 2015 Masters of Cinema Bluray (Griggs’ original 1.37:1 capturing on disc one + 1.66:1 theatrical presentation + an alternate 1.66:1 framing optimized for this ratio, supervised by George Stevens, Jr., on disc two).

Below is Shane‘s bar fight scene in the original 1.37 a.r.; further below is the same scene sliced down to 1.66.