Gary Ross Will Not Return to Direct "Catching Fire"

Andrew: Hello readers! There's a story that's been percolating around the entertainment industry the past week or so that we've wanted to touch on here at Two Tickets For..., but we wanted to wait until the rumors had ceased and something official had been announced before talking about it (just so we don't waste your time, or ours for that matter).

And we officially have our confirmation, and that news is that Gary Ross, director of this year's smash blockbuster The Hunger Games, will NOT return to direct the sequel, Catching Fire.

Lionsgate, the studio that produced The Hunger Games, has released two statements - one from Ross and one of their own. Ross' statement says:

Ross behind the camera while filming The Hunger Games

"Despite recent speculation in the media, and after difficult but sincere consideration, I have decided not to direct Catching Fire. As a writer and a director, I simply don’t have the time I need to write and prep the movie I would have wanted to make because of the fixed and tight production schedule."

Lionsgate's statement followed that one up with:

"We’re very sorry that Gary Ross has chosen not to direct Catching Fire. We were really looking forward to making the movie with him. He did an incredible job on the first film and we are grateful for his work. This will not be the end of our relationship, as we consider Ross to be part of the Lionsgate family and look forward to working with him in the future."

Personally I'm a little bummed that he won't be coming back to direct because I was a fan of his vision of Panem and his directorial choices. Sarah, are you as bummed as I am or no?

Sarah: Well, here’s the thing that always makes me nervous about bringing in a new director for another book series that has reached mega-fame just like Harry Potter and Twilight - when they change directors, the feel of the movie changes. With Twilight it was a much needed change. The first one was so awful. But with Harry Potter, it wasn't as much of a seamless transition.

With the Hunger Games series the first one was so good and about as close to the book as you can get. So to answer your question, no, I'm not bummed, I'm nervous. If this just becomes another book series jumbled up because they couldn't hold on to a director, then I'm going to be pretty upset.

Why couldn't they just lock the guy down like they did for The Lord of the Rings? I know, they were filmed all at once versus split-up, but c'mon, who WOULDN"T want this gig on one man's shoulders for a little bit?

A: I think the answer to your question lies in Ross' statement - the turnaround between writing the script for the sequel, doing pre-production for it and then filming it this fall is all really quick. But I don't know how that's going to be any better for a new director to come in and do the pre-prod and film it this fall. I think money WAS a factor and the schedule of it all is just a nice excuse.

I like your point about new directors in film series. A new director, in most cases, does mean a change of the feel and/or look of the subsequent films - for better or worse. But I think there have been some examples where new directors made the better films, most notably all the directors who followed Chris Columbus in the Harry Potter series, and Irvin Kershner directing The Empire Strikes Back after George Lucas directed A New Hope.

S: Well I would argue with you on the Harry Potter movies, but that's for another blog and the time for that has probably already passed (since the movies ARE done). But you are right; there have been other instances where it has turned out for the good.

Any leads on who will take on the challenge since it won't be too long before they start to film the second one?

A: From what I can find online there aren't any official leads, but Mr. Beaks from Ain't It Cool News tweeted the other day that Paul Haggis (Crash, The Next Three Days) could be the lead to direct, saying, "Mildly informed guess: Paul Haggis will direct Catching Fire."


Haggis holding his Best Picture and Best Screenplay Oscars he won for 2005's Crash


But your question brings up a nice discussion point real quick: Who do you want to see direct Catching Fire?

S: Hmm well those were both great movies, so that could be a good choice. I'm not sure who I would want directing it, but I just really hope they don't drag up a kid's movie director. These are pretty violent books and they should be treated as such. They deal with a lot of dark themes and if they decided to put a "Disney" twist on things, I would be seriously disappointed.

A: Agreed, they need to keep the grittiness and violence of the first one because that's what this series is - gritty and violent. And it only gets more so in the next two books. I hadn't thought of Haggis, who would be a good choice, but the two names that popped in my head when thinking of a replacement for Ross were Martin Campbell and David Yates.

Campbell's most recent film wasn't that great (Green Lantern) but he's also directed two of the best films in Hollywood's 2nd highest grossing franchise - the James Bond films - with GoldenEye and Casino Royale. Along with directing The Mask of Zorro and The Legend of Zorro, I feel Campbell would be able to keep the gritty part intact and superbly handle the action pieces.


Campbell (center) directing Daniel Craig on the set of Casino Royale


Yates, on the other hand, is best known for directing the last four films in the number ONE ighest grossing franchise in film history - the Harry Potter films. Yates directed the last four films, so there's clear evidence that he's more than capable of handling a gigantic book-to-film franchise, young actors, and action pieces. If there's a director that Lionsgate should go after to helm one or both of the next two Hunger Games films, it's Yates.

Yates (left) directing Daniel Radcliffe and Bonnie Wright on the set of HP and the Half-Blood Prince

S: I agree with you on that one. If we went by resume, his last Harry Potter movie would win him the job. With all the deaths and destruction, he would be a good choice. Campbell might not be the right choice simply from looking at his resume because I think his movies are a little campy. They just don't have the right feel.

I guess we will just have to wait and see though. It's going to be a job that several people will surely want!

A: What do you think, readers? Who should be hired to direct Catching Fire? Hit us back with your comments below! And as always, thanks for reading!

Photo Courtesy: Lionsgate, E! Online, Forces of Geek, Harry Potter Wiki

Titanic Rises Again: Our Review of "Titanic 3D" (2012)

Directed By: James Cameron

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Bill Paxton, Billy Zane

Rating: PG-13 for disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language

Synopsis: The tale of star-crossed lovers, the rich Rose DeWitt Bukater (Winslet) and poor Jack Dawson (DiCaprio), who meet and fall in love while on the maiden voyage of the doomed H.M.S. Titanic, told through the eyes of an older Rose 84 years after the tragic sinking.

REVIEW

Sarah: Good evening readers! On this Easter Sunday, Andrew and I thought that it would be a great opportunity for us to go and check out Titanic in 3D! So many people have seen this movie already. I mean, it HAS been out for 15 years so if you haven't seen it, shame on you. 

But what did you think Andrew? Was it worth the afternoon?

Andrew: It was absolutely worth the afternoon (and we do mean afternoon - got to the theatre at 2:45, got out at 6:45). Titanic is without a doubt one of the greatest films in history; I mean, it did win 11 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director.

But what made it worth it wasn't that it's a great film - that's a given. What made it worth the afternoon was getting to see it on the big screen again after 15 years, and to get to see it in 3D at that.

S: The 3D blew my mind. When a movie can literally make you forget that you are in a theatre it really is amazing. I have said before in this blog that I really don't like 3D movies. I don't know if it's because it hurts my eyes or the fact that I have to wear sunglasses in a theatre but I just don't usually like them. The way that James Cameron does 3D is the exception to the rule. The pictures literally fall away from you, giving the movie depth and transport you into that fateful trip. 

It has been said that Titanic is one of those movies that when you pass by it on the television, you usually stop and watch it no matter what part of the movie it is. This re-release solidifies that tradition even more. The suspense and beautiful story of the passengers on the Titanic is still as powerful today as it was 15 years ago.

A: Amen. I've seen the film numerous times but I usually come in somewhere after it starts. This is only the third time I can think of that I've seen it from start to finish and I was totally engrossed in the story and how the film looked. James Cameron absolutely deserved his Oscar for this film because it's amazing from top to bottom.

I'm a sucker for knowing how films are made and I would love to watch a behind-the-scenes documentary on Titanic because the sheer scope of the film is impressive. I'm sure most of our readers have seen the film at home or when it first came out, but I HIGHLY recommend that you see it again while it's in theatres and in 3D.

This is the best 3D I have seen for a movie since Toy Story 3 and I list it third behind only Toy Story 3 (2nd) and Cameron's Avatar (1st). The fact that this film was post-converted into 3D and looks so fantastic speaks to how well Cameron knows how to use the technology and that it wasn't just a hack-job like the 3D was for Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans (so I've read).

S: Titanic is the only movie that makes me consistently cry. When the old couple is in bed together while the water swirls up around them and when the mother is tucking her daughter and son into bed with a nighttime story are two of the most touching scenes. It really just brings that feeling of complete resolution to death that I 'm sure so many felt that night. The other scene that always gets me is the VERY end when Rose goes back to the ship after she has died and everyone that went down with the ship is waiting for her. And there is Jack at the top of the stairs. *sigh* So romantic!

And this film is what shot Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet to stardom. Even though neither one took home the Oscar for Titanic, they have both been nominated since, and Winslet has taken home the golden statue twice. I think they can thank this movie for bringing them to the forefront of Hollywood heavyweights.

A: I'm man enough to admit that both those scenes you just mentioned also made me tear up. I attribute that to being married now (that's my story and I'm sticking to it!)

I will say, after all these years, I have a larger appreciation for this film. From the special effects to the script to the acting, I feel that it's all top-notch. For years I felt that Leo's performance wasn't very good, but something hit my today in the scene where Jack dines with Rose and the other rich people where I was quite impressed with DiCaprio's performance. It was more reminiscent of what he's done in The Aviator and Inception.

So yeah, in summary, I definitely think it was worth our Easter Sunday afternoon to go see Titanic in 3D. Think we need to go out and get this one on Blu-Ray some day soon, my dear?

S: I do think that we will have to purchase this one for the collection! It’s pretty interesting that for a movie such as this, neither of us own it yet. Especially considering we have to give it:

(Out of Five)

Welcome Back, Class of 1999!: Our Review of "American Reunion" (2012)

Directed By: Jon Hurwitz & Hayden Schlossberg

Starring: Jason Biggs, Alyson Hannigan, Sean William Scott, Eugene Levy

Rating: R for crude and sexual content throughout, nudity, language, brief drug use and teen drinking

Synopsis: It's been 13 years since Jim Levenstein (Biggs) and his best friends spent their senior year in high school trying to lose their virginity. Now, in their 30's and attending their high school reunion, we discover just exactly what the whole American Pie clan has been up to these last ten years as they've moved away from home and hit adulthood.

REVIEW

Andrew: Hello readers! This afternoon we caught a matinee showing of this week's big "new" film, American Reunion, the fourth installment in the American Pie series (the National Lampoon-esque spin-offs notwithstanding). Reunion brings back all the main characters from the original movie - Jim, Michelle, Stifler, Kevin, Vicky, Oz, Heather, Finch and, yes, Jim's Dad - but the question is: was this film necessary after 10 years since the last one?

Sarah, what are your thoughts on that question?

Sarah: Oh it was most certainly necessary! With the same amount of raunchiness and humor, the newest installment to the series showed its soft side. There was a lot of heart in this movie and that made it not only a great comedy to go see but also made it a great date-night movie. It was great to see all of the old cast come back together and how much they have all changed over the years and actually have gotten better looking! 

What did you think?

A: I'll be honest, when I first heard that they were making this film I was skeptical because it had been so long. But the more I thought about it the more excited I became, and that excitement was well rewarded. The cast was still as funny and affable as ever, particularly Jason Biggs, Sean William Scott and Eugene Levy. It was nice to see all of the main players from the original film come into play, even if only for a small cameo.

Most importantly though, I felt that American Reunion had an excellent blend of it's style of humor and heart. You had your gross moments, you had your dirty talk, your token nudity (and some NOT so token nudity), but it also dealt with the issues that thirty-something characters SHOULD be dealing with and handled them well. It's not often that the American Pie movies make me go "awwww" but this one did on a few occasions.

(From left) Ian Thomas Nicholas, Jason Biggs, Sean William Scott, Chris Klein and Eddie Kay Thomas reprise their roles as Kevin, Jim, Stifler, Oz and Finch in American Reunion

S: Agreed! I said this yesterday in our preview but I will say it again - the characters in this movie have grown up with their audience. We are going through some of the same experiences now that the American Pie crew is going through now. 

But let's be honest, although there were some "awww" parts to this movie, there was still all the sex, drinking and drugs that the originals have.

A: One of the few downsides I had about the movie was that it runs a little long. It dragged a bit at times, or there were some parts of certain subplots that could have been cut out altogether to make it more of a 90 minute run time instead of the 113 minutes that it is. Did you feel the same way?

S: Yeah, I would agree with that. It was a little slow and I think they could have gone into a little more of the Jim/Michelle story. But just like the last movies, they have to show some of the other character's stories too. That was really the only thing that I would say is a complaint of the movie. But I suppose it would be a criticism of all the American Pie movies, and I think they speak for themselves on how successful they have been. (The originals at least)

Former high school flames Kevin (Nicholas) and Vicky (Tara Reid) catch up after many years

A: Not a bad point - Hannigan's character seems to fall off the map for a while at parts of the film and she's really supposed to be one of the main characters. Maybe it had something to do with her schedule for How I Met Your Mother, or something else, but I could have used more of her, too.

Some other positives I found for this film:

- The chemistry between Levy and Biggs as father and son. It's probably that both have gotten older, and Biggs is a better actor than he was 13 years ago, but I really enjoyed the scenes that had together. They play off each other well and could really be father and son.

- The soundtrack to the film was amazing. I need to look it up on iTunes as soon as we post this.

- Last but not least, the cameos. There are two in particular that I enjoyed VERY much and I don't want to spoil them here.

Anything that I might have missed that you liked or disliked in particular?

S: My favorite part of the movie was seeing everyone again. All the cameos and quick shots of characters really give the movie that true nostalgic feel. We will definitely own this one when it comes out on Blu-Ray.

(Our of Five)

Our Preview of this Week's New Releases (For Friday, April 6th)

Andrew: Hello readers! We have been really busy lately so we've been absent from the theatres, but we're really hoping to change that this week. However, we're still bringing your our weekly preview as we take a look at which new movies we're most likely to see.

It's not THE biggest film coming out this week (we'll get to that one later) but American Reunion is the most anticipated new film coming out this week. The third sequel to the 1999 hit American Pie, in Reunion we see all the main players from the original trilogy coming back for...well...a high school reunion. Duh.

Sarah, what are your thoughts on American Reunion?

Sarah: I think this looks really funny. It could be because the hometown of the Pie-ers is based on a town close to my hometown in Michigan, it could also be because I love Alyson Hannigan, or it could just be because it looks hilarious! It's been so long since the gang was together. I think it will also be kind of cool because the gang has grown up with their audience so it will be relatable. What do you think?

Official Trailer for American Reunion

A: While I was skeptical at first, because of the length of time between American Wedding and this new one, I came around to being excited because all the main actors are back and it's being directed by Adam Hurwitz, who has a writing credit for all the Harold & Kumar movies, as well as having directed Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay. The trailer looks funny, and of course, we both love Hannigan. Count me in.

S: OK, now on to the BIGGEST movie that has come out this week. Or should we say has re-come out. Titanic! Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 3 months, you've known that this one was coming out in order to commemorate the 100 years since the sinking of the ship. What are your thoughts on this one Andrew?

Official Trailer for Titanic 3D

A: My primary thought is: I know how this one ends. But I'll let that slide. My second thought is: I hope the post-conversion 3D James Cameron did on it is good. And from what I've read, this is supposedly the best 3D for a film since Avatar, and at least on par with Hugo.

I do want to see Titanic during it's re-release and that's mainly because it's a movie that NEEDS to be seen in theatres on a big screen. It's the definition of a blockbuster. For the sinking of the ship scene alone this needs to be seen in theatres. So count me in.

S: I will be seeing this one as well because when it originally came out, I was in third grade and my mother WOULD NOT let me go see it! Even though ALL of my other friends got to see it! In hindsight, it really wasn't that risque at all but whatever, I was an only child then, with protective parents.

So the main movies coming out this weekend are sequels or re-releases. But let's be honest, it will probably be a HUGE weekend for the movies.

A: Yeah, for the most part these are the two big films. I don't know if that had to do with it being the weekend of The Masters or Opening Weekend for baseball, but there's not much coming out tomorrow.

Next week looks to be a little more jam-packed when we get The Cabin in the Woods, Lockout and The Three Stooges. In the mean time, I can guarantee that we will be seeing Titanic and American Reunion. So be on the lookout for our reviews!

Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels Confirmed For "Dumb & Dumber" Sequel!

Hello readers, Andrew here. To be technical, yesterday was my actual birthday, but this news is one of the best belated birthday gifts ever!

In what has to be one of the greatest pieces of movie news I've ever heard, ComingSoon.net broke an exclusive story yesterday that Bobby and Peter Farrelly confirmed that Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels will be reprising their roles as Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne in a sequel to 1994's Dumb & Dumber!


Carrey (left) as Lloyd Christmas in one of his breakout roles in 1994's Dumb & Dumber, with Jeff Daniels


The Farrelly Brothers are out promoting their new film The Three Stooges (which, in my opinion, looks absolutely horrible) and must have decided it was the best time to make their announcement for the long-awaited sequel.

After Peter Farrelly made it clear he and his brother had nothing to do with the atrocity that was Dumb & Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd, saying, "We did not do 'Dumb & Dumberer'. That was a studio thing," he explained why now was the time to make their sequel:

"(W)e've always wanted to do a sequel and finally Jim called up. Jeff always wanted to do it. We always wanted to do it. Jim was busy, but he called and said, 'We've got to do this thing again.' He had just watched 'Dumb & Dumber' and he said, 'This is the perfect sequel. Let's do it.'"

To further add to the awesomeness of this news, Farrelly added that production on the film starts later THIS YEAR, which means we could have the finished product as soon as 2013!

We'll continue to bring updates as we learn more about the production of this film, right here on Two Tickets For!

Editor's Note: Speaking of Jeff Daniels, he's starring in Aaron Sorkin's new HBO show The Newsroom, and the trailer for it hit the web yesterday. Daniels plays a news anchor who goes into a downward spiral and it looks exactly how I'd imagine an Aaron Sorkin show on HBO would look. Which is to say, pretty darn good. Check it out:



Fun Fact: Considering I have the original film as one of my Top Ten Favorite Films, that makes it TWO of my favorite films to have an official sequel announced within the last 4 days (Anchorman being the other)!

Jeff Can Come Live With Us Anytime: Our Review of "Jeff, Who Lives at Home" (2011)

Directed By: Jay & Mark Duplass


Starring: Jason Segel, Ed Helms, Susan Sarandon, Judy Greer


Rating: R for language including sexual references and some drug use


Synopsis: Jeff (Segel) is a slacker who lives in his mother's basement. One day he receives a wrong-numbers phone call for someone named Kevin that he takes as a sign. When his mother (Sarandon) sends him on a simple errand, he ends up following his "sign" instead and runs into his brother, Pat (Helms). Together they try to figure out if Jeff's destiny truly does lie with "Kevin" and whether or not Pat's wife (Greer) is cheating on him.


REVIEW


Andrew: Hello readers! Tonight the wife and I decided that we would face the treacherous Friday night middle school/high school crowd to see a movie at the theatres. But we felt comfortable enough that we wouldn't have to deal with a crowded theatre because tonight we saw Jeff, Who Lives at Home, which is decidedly NOT a big movie like The Hunger Games or Mirror Mirror.

No, we wanted to see Jeff, Who Lives at Home for basically one and only one reason. Sarah, would you like to explain to our readers what that reason was?

Sarah: Andrew and I really love Jason Segel! We both loved Forgetting Sarah Marshall and I Love You, Man, both of which Segel is so good in combining humor and heart. But, our love truly grew when we became hooked on How I Met Your Mother and just continued with his turn as the villain in Despicable Me. We are really looking forward to his upcoming films The Five-Year Engagement and This Is 40 (the sequel/spin-off to Knocked Up). 

So that's why we wanted to see this movie. Andrew, what did you think of Jeff, Who Lives at Home?

Jeff (Jason Segel) receives a phone call that might change his life

A: To be honest I didn't really know what to expect going into it. I knew from the trailers and what I had read about the film that Segel played a lovable stoner (when DOESN'T he play a lovable character?) and he happened to run into his brother while out and about one day. Besides that I was going in blind.

So I'm happy to say I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed Jeff, Who Lives at Home. Segel and Helms are genuinely funny guys on their own and played off each other well in this film playing brothers. They usually both play characters that are lovable or are good-natured, but I was caught off guard by how much I disliked Helms characters for most of the movie. Did you get the same vibe?

S: You're right, I was a little surprised too, but I must say that the characters just seemed lost in their own ways. A major plot point is that they all still seem to be dealing with the loss of their Jeff's and Pat's father, even though it had almost been 20 years since he passed. Jeff, especially, seems to be going along with life hoping to bump into his destiny or at least follow a sign that will lead him to it.

Ed Helms (center) and Jason Segel (right) play brothers in Jeff, Who Lives at Home

What I really liked about this movie is that it starts with literally nothing. A couple lines, a water bong and a wrong number. That's it.  From there the film grows so organically that it is almost beautiful.

A: I like the way you put that. It really is organic. For a film that clearly makes "destiny" or "fate" a big part of the characters' plot lines, it could have easily felt forced and I don't think it was forced at all. In fact, even though I felt that Susan Sarandon's sub-plot was pretty useless for most of the film, I like how it all tied together really neatly in the end.

I wanted to point out another part of the film that I really enjoyed, and that was the camerawork. It was all hand-held and at times it could be a little shaky, but I enjoyed the times when the camera would focus in real tight on Jeff's eyes or Sarandon's face when she smiles. It was the little things I noticed about the film that maybe raised the film up from being just an okay film to a good one.

S: I agree with you on Sarandon's plot and the camera work. I usually don't like the hand-held look, it's usually too shaky for my taste and up in the actors face, but this really worked for me. 

I also liked how there were funny parts that had me laughing for a little bit but for the most part it was kind of serious with some deep story plot points. I definitely left the movie thinking.

Pat and Jeff argue while visiting their father's grave.

A: The script does do a good job of making the humorous parts come out of the natural progression of events, or how the characters would really react to a certain situation.

That said, I think that's a great opportunity to say that the film was pretty slow at times, so if you're the kind of moviegoer who fidgets and gets restless when there's not a whole lot going on, this may not be the film for you. This movie is very deliberate in what it's showing. It's actually a pretty short film, too, but it still may linger a little long on unimportant things for some viewers.

Ok Sarah, when all is said and done, what's our final verdict on Jeff, Who Lives at Home?

S: While this was a nice movie to see in the theatres on a Friday evening we really think that you could Netflix it on a rainy weekend.

(Out of Five)

Picture Courtesies: Time, Flicks and Bits, Movie Fanatic