blogspot
visitor
Exclusive: An Update on The Birds Remake | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

the-birds-bw-face.jpg
Exclusive: An Update on The Birds Remake


Martin Campbell is Out; Dennis Illiades Is in? / Dustin Rowles

Trade News | December 2, 2009 | Comments (20)


Last year it was reported that Naomi Watts was signed to star in a remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds, about a flock of birds that takes over a quiet California town. At the time, Martin Campbell (Casino Royale) was attached to direct the project. But then something else came along — and that something else was The Green Lantern. But in all the hullabaloo over Campbell signing on to the Ryan Reynolds’ superhero flick, everyone forgot about The Birds.

And quite frankly, so did Martin Campbell. According to our inside source, The Hollywood Cog, Campbell has left the Michael Bay-produced The Birds (Michael Bay + horror remake = more blood and more boobs).

But a Universal property like The Birds isn’t going to simply disappear because it lost a big-name director. It just gets kicked down a stair to the next available lower tier director. In this case, that director looks be Dennis Iliades, who brought us the stunningly mediocre remake of The Last House on the Left.

It’s not completely official yet, but Platinum Dune has talked to Illiades about taking over the $60 million produced movie, and he’s driving the new direction of the movie, which, under Campbell’s direction, was geared toward a PG-13 release. Illiades is more interested in amping up the horror and making it an R-rated affair, although at this point, they’re looking to do another rewrite tailored toward Illiades’ vision (the script has passed through a lot of hands over the last year, including Scott Derickson’s (The Exorcism of Emily Rose) original take, a studio polish by Billy Ray (State of Play), and Peter Craig, who was hired to do a rewrite specifically for Martin Campbell. Why they need so many cooks in a kitchen when the HItchcock’s perfect recipe would do, I don’t know.

Now, usually I’m a fan of anybody that decides to turn a PG-13 movie into an R-Rated one, teenage audiences be damned. But Hitchcock’s film wasn’t about blood and gore — there wasn’t even an attack until halfway through the film. My guess is that Iliades and company know that can’t match Hitchcock in terms of suspense and psychological torment (few could), so they’re opting for more gore. Unfortunately, the shocking novelty of an innocent creature rising up to terrorize humans isn’t that novel or shocking anymore — look no further than Black Sheep. So, I suppose, when all else fails, bring out the buckets of blood.

Finally, though I don’t know for sure, my guess is that — without Campbell — Naomi Watts has probably left the project, as well.


Across the Hall Trailer | Come Out and Play





Comments

You know what The Birds needs?

Yup, J.J. Abrams, get some Zoe Saldana and Chris Pine all up in there and LOTS, LOTS of CGI birds, with lensflare effects.


/yeah, cut and print that BITCH!

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 2, 2009 11:26 AM

heh heh,

Black Sheep was funny.

More Zoe doesn't hurt any movie.
Maybe remake Warhol's 'Sleep' with her?

Posted by: Magiel at December 2, 2009 11:40 AM

And explosions. Even if there's nothing around to explode. We watched Bad Boys 2 over the weekend, mostly because we kept watching Hot Fuzz, and realized that no, we'd never seen Bad Boys 2, and all I really remember is a lot of conversations like this:

"Wait, what exploded? There wasn't even anything explosive in that scene."
"I dunno."
"Man, do these people seem a little heavily armed to you?"
"Maybe it's a Miami thing."

It's like Michael Bay lives in that version of reality from Last Action Hero. The one where supermodels work in video stores.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Birds that was in line with the events of the short-story. But anything less than, say, Spielberg on the helm? Don't bother.

Posted by: twig at December 2, 2009 11:41 AM

I still don't understand what the gain is here.

Look, when it comes to remakes, there is always a somewhat understandable reason for it, even on a purely financial level.

But this. The last Hitchcock remake was a dismal failure. And there is no recent resurgence in similar material to spark a end run. So exactly what is motivating this, from the studio standpoint?

I sincerely doubt this is going to make it to actual production, let alone theaters.

Posted by: Smoking Crater (formerly Vermillion) at December 2, 2009 11:46 AM

I'll be interested if they get the right actress for the Tippi Hedron role and/or stick closer to du Maurier's novella. Otherwise, I will not have the memory of my favorite Hitchcock film besmirched by Michael Bay fuckery.

Posted by: Robert at December 2, 2009 12:00 PM

I think it's a reflection on the COMPLETE and utter lack of culture on the part on the people running Hollywood. Most if not all classics were spawned at particular historical moments. Meaning they reflect particular mindsets, they click on psychological buttons reflective of their times.
And that's the thing, you just CANNOT bring cold war paranoia to a 2009 setting and have it resonate with folks. Hell you can't even bring 80's paranoia (try and remake Clancy's Firefox or Red October now, nobody gives a shit about Soviets, 'cept Rowles)

It's NOT GONNA WORK.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 2, 2009 12:03 PM

SPOILER, I guess, though if you consider yourself a movie buff and haven't seen "The Birds" then go someplace else ...

My fear is that they'll slap some kind of explanation on a movie that didn't have one because there wasn't one. Or perhaps even worse, give it a happy ending. So if this never sees the light of day, that's just ducky with me.

Posted by: , at December 2, 2009 12:03 PM

that's just ducky with me.
Posted by: , at December 2, 2009 12:03 PM

I usually expect a higher quality of pun out of you.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at December 2, 2009 12:12 PM

I remember skipping an afternoon of studying to go see The Birds at a matinee in college (it was part of the student center film series, I'm not quite that old).

It was so wonderful, tense and scary. I came out energized, and watched all the circling birds very closely as I walked home.

I don't plan on ruining that memory of a perfect afternoon of film-going.

Posted by: Drake at December 2, 2009 12:36 PM

This shouldn't be done, period. It is perfection as is.

Posted by: Cindy at December 2, 2009 12:43 PM

I usually expect a higher quality of pun out of you.
Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at December 2, 2009 12:12 PM

Ooh! Can I try?

Umm... This remake is for the birds.

Huh? Huh?

... I'll show myself out.

Posted by: Skewicide Blonde at December 2, 2009 1:19 PM

*dons Gestapo demeanor*


Your paperzzz! Your pajiba paperzzz!

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 2, 2009 1:44 PM

Hitchcock's "the birds" is perfect so no need to remake

Posted by: carrie at December 2, 2009 3:59 PM

I can't remember, but has the site put up a list of movies that should never be remade?

such as:

Casablanca

Alien

just to name 2.

Posted by: UncleJR at December 2, 2009 10:14 PM

I don't understand the point of this remake. Are they saying that they want to 'outdo' Hitchcock? The man who helped change cinema and influenced hundreds of filmmakers out there?

Posted by: Oi Vey at December 3, 2009 12:43 AM

Yeah, I know some people have a genuine bird phobia. But as a lifelong bird-lover myself, the only ones I'm scared by are large flocks of starlings in the trees overhanging my parked car or my deck. Now THAT'S genuinely horrifying!


Posted by: flickfan at December 3, 2009 10:57 AM

I found a HOTTEST interracial club =MixedConnect--*__*--C 0 M=for black Women and white Men, or black Men and white Women, to interact with each other. Interracial is not a problem here, but a great merit to cherish!

Posted by: flaky at December 3, 2009 12:28 PM

Welllllll I'm up for a little Michael Bay bird fuckery - that dock scene ought to be spectacular! But it's gonna be hard to top the crows on the playground sequence, that really is perfect as it is. But when those birds go after the schoolchildren...I think that could stand a little cgi updating. I dunno. I'm in. On a side note, I would love to see Naomi Watts get pecked to death, too. Cannot stand her!

Posted by: Chickaboom at December 3, 2009 12:49 PM

I so agree with Chickaboom. Today's CGI could make this new film superb, assuming the script is good and Naomi Watts is slated for the lead role. I am a Naomi lover, but I still want to see her be trapped by the birds. Naomi is the best scream actress of her generation!

Posted by: Naomi lover at December 6, 2009 4:42 AM

Why all of the automatic hating for a revamp? There is nothing at all wrong with Hitchcock's version, but that doesn't mean that this version can't be good as well. Psycho failed because they remade the same movie shot for shot...I didn't want to see that, I had already seen it. In the right hands, both writer and director, this could be great. You guys do know that it's going to be in 3D as well right. I'm not kidding either.

Posted by: erratyc at January 18, 2010 1:50 AM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment:



Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.