Candyman, Mangold, Moranis: Weekly Round Up. When the news first dropped about their being an Indiana Jones 5 I was very much in the “well, I guess if they have to” camp. Truth be told, Crystal Skull had left such a sour taste in its wake that any future instalment of the franchise was always going to be somewhat marred by its existence. There are moments in Crystal Skull that I genuinely like (the 50s setting is smart and interesting, and even the move to B-Movie style aliens in a fascinating concept) but for the most part the film is a dud, and there’s very little else I can really say about it without being mean.
Paramount have been trying to get their fifth outing finished for years now. In fact, it’s been in the pipeline since before Crystal Skull hit theatres. But, as time has worn on, and Spielberg has been busy with other projects, it was looking less and less likely that it would ever actually happen.
Or so we thought.
Turns out that Spielberg is out, he’s still busy focusing on his West Side Story remake, and I’m sure he’s got countless other movies ready to go as well. His replacement, as it currently stands, looks likely to be director James Mangold, perhaps best known for the pretty great Logan, but who also has last year’s Ford V Ferrari and the super dumb but lots of fun Identity under his belt.
The obvious reaction to this news would be for a collective groan of disappointment from fans the world over. How can we have an Indy movie without Spielberg at the helm? After all, it was Spielberg’s unique style and skill as a storyteller that made Indiana Jones what it was in the first place. But I actually, surprisingly even to myself, am kind of okay with this turn of events.
If Crystal Skull proved anything, it was that even Spielberg himself can’t save Indy from badness, and it could be that new blood is exactly what the Doctor (Doctor Jones, that is) ordered.
Mangold may not have been on the top of anyone’s list as a Spielberg replacement – and, let’s be honest, it’s not like we’re suffering a shortage of Spielberg inspired filmmakers ready to take on one of his most iconic and beloved properties (as Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World movies would prove, the third of which, we learned this week, will be titled Jurassic World: Dominion) – but he might just bring a unique outlook to the character that will inject the franchise with some much needed freshness. I mean, look, if they have to make this thing, then a new take isn’t the worst option.
At least it can’t be as bad as Crystal Skull? Am I right?
And now; a clunky connective paragraph.
It would take you sometime to work through the Indiana Jones franchise (even discounting Crystal Skull, if you’re so inclined), but, even with the admittedly pretty rubbish Young Adventures series of TV movies (yeah, remember those things?), Daniel Craig’s Bond looks to be giving runtimes the world over a, erm… run for their money.
Ever since Quantum of Solace – the shorted Bond film by a long way – I’m pretty sure each Craig Bond movie has been set to be the longest.
Following that trend comes No Time To Die. Turns out there’s plenty of time, since the runtime has been revealed as 163 minutes (which is just shy of 3 hours). Now, look, I love Bond as much as the next guy. Maybe even more. In fact, I’m actually quite a big Bond fan when it comes down to it, and I’ve enjoyed Craig’s run, even if Spectre was awful. But this feels just too damn long.
Not to get all nostalgic on you or anything, but does anyone else miss 90-minute movies?
I’ll be there in the cinema, enjoying every moment of Bond-ian goodness the film throws out, but my arse isn’t going to think me for it. It’s not like it’s Lord of the Rings, guys! What story are you telling us in a Bond film that requires close to 3 hours? Actually, I’m kind of curious.
And while we’re talking about strange curiosities (another poor connection. I’m tired, leave me alone), this week saw some casting news for the upcoming Little Shop of Horrors reboot, directed by Greg Berlanti, who directed last year’s Love, Simon.
In the excellent Frank Oz original, the voice of Audrey II (the person eating plant who forced Rick Moranis’ hapless florist into being its own person food fetcher) was performed memorably by singer Levi Stubbs. But Berlanti seems to be eyeing Scarlett Johansson for the role. It’s an interesting choice, although one I’m struggling to see in my mind. This could be a far more original take on the material than one was expecting.
And, as if that hadn’t already grabbed your attention, it seems that a couple more intriguing casting announcements have come our way.
Firstly, Taron Egerton is in talks to play the film’s lead, Seymour, meaning he will be taking over the Moranis role. Meanwhile, Chris Evens has been tapped to play sadistic dentist Orin Scrivello. For those of you living in a cave or something, Scrivello was famously played by Steve Martin in the 1986 version (and he is easy the best thing about that film), so Evans has some pretty big boots to fill.
Still, picture him in Scott Pilgrim and you might just get a sense of why that particular casting could work.
Now, Candyman is one of my favorite horror films, and that is, in no small part, down to the brilliant performance by Tony Todd. Whether or not Tony Todd is going to be reprising his role has remained a mystery, even after this week’s trailer drop. But it does seem, to me at least, that the film will act as a sort of sequel/reboot for the franchise.
Produced by Jordan Peele and directed by Nia DaCosta, on the basis of the trailer this new take on Candyman appears to be the perfect blend of old and new. There’s lots of creepy moments and some genuinely decent looking gory set pieces waiting to be unpicked when it finally gets released. I was already sold on the concept, but now I’m… well, sold on it twice? I dunno. Let’s all go see it, and maybe it can spawn a whole new iteration of the franchise!
We hope you're enjoying BRWC. You should check us out on our social channels, subscribe to our newsletter, and tell your friends. BRWC is short for battleroyalewithcheese.