Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf took a lot of hits for its perceived silliness, a verdict I could never quite sign on to. First of all, silly compared to what? Have these people seen the 1999 space opera Beowulf starring Christopher Lambert? Compared to that, Zemeckis's Beowulf is a sober meditation on the human condition. Have they seen the Gerard Butler clunker Beowulf and Grendel? Come on, guys: considering what the movies have done to this story in the past, last year's high-tech effort seems like serious business to me.

What about the source material – the ancient Old English epic poem upon which these movies purport to be based? If you've ever read it (or tried to read it), the perversions of the adaptations shouldn't surprise you. It's both begging for action movie treatment and impossible to faithfully adapt into anything resembling a compelling action movie. The story is credited with generating many of the archetypes we see in our fiction, and indeed, it's so archetypical that by modern standards, it's a skeleton; there's nothing there.

Seriously – you know how people complain about movies whose plots can be fully described in one sentence? A faithful Beowulf would take this phenomenon to new heights. A synopsis would read something like this: Beowulf beats up Grendel, Grendel's mom, and a dragon, and dies. The end. Some complained that the Zemeckis version distorted Beowulf, but I'd have liked to see their reaction to an undistorted adaptation. Trust me, it wouldn't work. There's a reason that all these screenwriters have scrambled to add elements to the story.

When it comes to fantasy, I'm all for putting the unexplainable in otherwise 'normal' situations -- I could go on and on about the work of Neil Gaiman for this very reason -- so you can probably understand why I'm already sold on WB's latest acquisition. Variety reports that Warner Bros. has purchased a yet to be titled fantasy pitch about a mystical world hiding out in the middle of Central Park -- although, when it comes to urban fantasy, it's going to be tough to top The Earl's Court.

The untitled story would center on "two brothers who, while visiting their grandfather in Gotham, meet a man who shows them a mystical realm in Central Park that is in danger." The original idea came from Warner Senior VP, Joe Berg, and Bryan Schulz and Neil Uliano have already been tapped to write the script. Schulz and Uliano are relative newcomers to the business, but, the two seem to have a knack for fantasy as this marks the duos second sale in the last six months (the two also sold another fantasy spec-script called Imaginary Friends to Dreamworks back in March).

WB has been hard at work building an impressive fantasy slate for the next few years. Obviously, The Hobbit and the latest installment of Harry Potter are at the top of their list of priorities -- but it couldn't hurt to have another shot at those box-office dollars.

I first encountered author Harlan Ellison's writings in Fantasy and Science Fiction magazine, when I was in high school. I enjoyed his "Watching" series of movie essays, and in fact I still do -- I have the collected book of them, and I sometimes reread them when I want to remind myself of certain things I like about film criticism. So naturally I was excited about Dreams with Sharp Teeth, Erik Nelson's documentary about Ellison that screened at SXSW this week. I wasn't disappointed, but obviously I was already a fan of the author.

The movie sets out to show you various facets of Ellison's life, without resorting to a linear biography. Various friends, colleagues and well-known acquaintances of Ellison talk about him -- Robin Williams perhaps most surprising among them, reviewing a list of the crazy stuff Ellison has allegedly done, and Ellison responding on whether the stories are true. Neil Gaiman and Battlestar Galactica producer Ron Moore also make appearances. The film also includes some vintage interviews with Ellison, such as Tom Snyder's interview from the 1970s. In between these stories about his life, Ellison reads excerpts from some of his best or best-known work.

See, world! Perfectly normal, lovely girls read comic books.

Rachel McAdams spoke to MTV recently, and revealed that she's quite fond of comics and graphic novels. More than that, she wants to be the Black Orchid. "It's a really interesting character," the actress said. "She's a superhero that's a flower. I don't know if that would work or the audiences would be interested in that, but she was kind of cool."

She knows her stuff, too. She wants Neil Gaiman's 1988 run to be adapted.

Reportedly, McAdams has auditioned and lost roles in Iron Man, Fantastic Four, and Batman Begins. That's simply not fair. An actress who can name drop Neil Gaiman (I bet Gwyenth Paltrow can't) deserves a really cool superheroine. Hopefully, someone will take up her Black Orchid suggestion and cast her in the lead.

Mostly, I just want a girl to be rewarded for her geekery. Then we can all have hope! McAdams, you must be a pioneer for us all.

I'm a grown woman that has been a fan of Neil Gaiman for many years; and still, Coraline manages to freak me out every time I see those little button eyes. The first teaser for the big-screen version of Gaiman's fantasy is now over at MovieWeb. Granted, it would probably be a lot more exciting if it was actually in 3-D (the trailer tells you to put on your glasses, so this must be the one that will screen in theaters), but for anyone who is a fan of Gaiman's dark fairy tales, you'll be glad to know that the film seems to have gotten the tone of Gaiman's work pitch perfect.

Coraline is the story of a small girl who travels into a fantasy world where everything is familiar but nothing is quite right. There is an 'Other Mother' who is the spitting image of her own, but with the frightening distinction of having buttons for eyes. Coraline's adventure leads her to become the savior of her family and the other children trapped in this world, while hopefully getting them all back to the real world.

Teri Hatcher voices the 'Mothers', Dakota Fanning is Coraline. The cast also includes Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, and John Hodgeman (also knows as 'The PC'). Stop motion master Henry Selick directed the flick based on Gaiman's novella. Last December, Gaiman had posted a short clip on his personal site, but this is the first official trailer I've seen so far.

So, could it be a little too creepy for kids? (The tag line sounds like something from a supernatural thriller.) Maybe, but I miss the old days when children's entertainment had a little more 'bite.' Coraline is scheduled for release in 3-D format on January 18th, 2009.

Any time I hear news about a new project from director David Fincher, I get a little excited. Barring his debut, the studio-monkeyed Alien 3, Fincher has had a remarkably impressive run as a flick helmer: Seven, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room and Zodiac, with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button on the way. So even though he already has a few projects in development, Mr. Fincher has signed on to direct an adaptation of Charles Burns' graphic novel Black Hole. Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, who last collaborated on Beowulf, will bang out the screenplay for MTV Films and Paramount Pictures.

The Hollywood Reporter offers this as a plot synopsis: "The story follows a group of high school students whose lives are altered drastically when they come in contact with a sexually transmitted disease called the "teen plague" or "the bug." But if you head on over to the publisher's site, you'll find a much more thorough breakdown. To me it sounds like John Hughes meets (early) David Cronenberg ... and obviously that'd be just fine by me. Here's hoping Fincher makes Black Hole his very next project.

One thing that has always impressed me about the work of Neil Gaiman -- even though the man writes fairy tales, he never sugar-coats it for the kids. Case in point: the author is now hosting a clip from the upcoming adaptation of Coraline on his personal web site, and it can probably be summed up in one word -- creepy. Based on Gaiman's Hugo award winning novella, the story focuses on a young girl who discovers an alternate world with very twisted versions of her home and family -- for starters they all have buttons sewn over their eyes. The young heroine is then charged with rescuing her family and freeing the souls of trapped children from the clutches of the "other mother."

Coraline stars the voice talents of Dakota Fanning, Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French (or as I like to call them: one of the funniest comedy duos of all time), and Teri Hatcher (Desperate Housewives) as the "other mother." The film was directed by Henry Selick, who is a stop-motion animation vet and is probably best known for directing Tim Burton's A Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. Stop-motion animation is probably one of the most painstaking processes around, so I can only imagine how long it took to create the clip on Gaiman's site. Not to mention the fact that this film will be the first to use stop-motion animation in a 3D format. It almost makes you forgive the fact that it's going to a full year before Coraline finally hits theaters on January 16th, 2009.

[via ComingSoon.net]

With Beowulf, the latest motion-capture film from director Robert Zemeckis, one of mankind's oldest tales is hurled up onto the movie screen using the cutting edge of new technology. As in The Polar Express, Zemeckis's first foray into motion-capture animated moviemaking, the actors are first shot on a soundstage, wearing motion-indicating elements that allow computers to turn their movements and facial expressions into sets of data; then, that data is animated by computers and artists, so that real motion and facial expressions can be re-cast in fantastic settings and melded with wild imaginings. As if that weren't enough, the resulting movie in this case has also been enhanced so the theatrical experience is 3-D; swords, dragons and flame leap from the screen, hovering right before your very eyes. It all sounds wonderful.

But, as so often happens in life, the execution falls somewhat short of the expectation. I know it seems like a betrayal of the critic's job -- to look deeper, to see beyond the obvious -- to begin with complaints about the animation in the film, but it would be even more of a betrayal of the critic's job to not point out the most obvious and glaring fact about Zemeckis's technique. Namely, that it looks horrible. A scientist working in the burgeoning field of the human perception of virtual simulacra would talk Beowulf's animation in the context of the "uncanny valley," the phenomena where, when confronted with a robot or virtual avatar that has a high degree of match to human movement and appearance, the human mind flip-flops and instead obsesses about the smaller elements of mis-match, jarred by the mistakes in the image instead of thrilled by the accuracies. (Confronted with a 98% accurate simulacra, for example, most people instead fixate on the 2% difference.) But I'm not a scientist working in the burgeoning field of the human perception of virtual simulacra; as a layman, I can only offer that in Beowulf (as in The Polar Express), Zemeckis seems to have created a world peopled by drowning victims brought back to life after a three-week soak: Pale, puffy, slow-moving revenants with no light in their eyes.

We could really use a new adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. It could be a faithful film, which would have certain relevance in a time when genetic research and other culturally debated scientific progresses, medical or not, continue to mark us as a God-aspirant species. Or it could be an updated or altered adaptation, to make the relevance more obvious. I think James Whale's films about the doctor and the monster are terrific, and we already have the greatest variation -- Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein -- but I'd personally like to see a new take on the original novel. Well, according to JoBlo, the guy who would most like to take the reigns on that idea is Guillermo Del Toro. During a visit to the set of Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, JoBlo's Jason Adams quoted Del Toro as saying he "would kill to make" a faithful "Miltonian tragedy" version.

Apparently when Kenneth Branagh tried to do this 13 years ago with his Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, there was an unshot version of the script by Frank Darabont. Del Toro claims that draft was, according to Adams, "pretty much perfect." I admit I never bothered with Branagh's film. I'd rather watch "Johnny 5" play the monster than Robert DeNiro (or at least watch the robot read the book, as he does in Short Circuit 2). So, I can't directly say what didn't work about the adaptation. All I know is that it seems to have been pretty much disregarded by everyone. That said, I'm also not the biggest Del Toro enthusiast in the world. I'm not going to exclaim that he needs to make this and that he would deliver the best Frankenstein ever. I would, however, love to see him make the attempt.