We should have seen this coming. True to his name, the “Rat” feeds off the projects of others, like a nasty rodent looking for scraps he crawls himself in there and makes a God damn mess.
He first did it with X-MEN 3 after Bryan Singer left to take on Supes, though to be fair to Ratner he did deliver a very watchable and mildly entertaining two hours but it is easily the worst in the series. He then did it with ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK when Len Wiseman pulled out of the project in the Summer and originally he was suppose to be filming that project right now but New Line balked at it when it was pretty obvious that they were making a huge mistake.
Now it would seem Ratner is going to be the man to deliver THE WOLF MAN for Universal after Romanek’s sudden departure on Monday night.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs. Ratner is just one of those directors who do absolutely everything by the book, taking little risk or putting any kind of creative effort or interesting visual stamp to his pictures. There’s just nothing to his movies. They are hollow, empty and not insulting or bad enough to be called bad.
They just exist, nothing more.
And he’s the safe studio choice. That’s why he keeps getting these gigs because he can come in quick, do his work and deliver just what the studio wants with little rush and a nice profit in return (his average gross per film in his career is a whopping $122.5 million).
This time last week, THE WOLF MAN was one of my favourite movies in production but Universal have screwed things up with this choice. We can add this classic horror character to the graveyard that Rob Cohen is sending their MUMMY character too in August.
Farewell WOLF MAN, we didn’t even get to know ya.
source - aicn
Categories: Brett-Ratner, Movie News, The-Wolf-Man
Totally agree, Matt. Ratner is a hack, pure and simple.
He is not interested in improving as a filmmaker or contributing anything new or innovative to cinema.
He came in and made Matthew Vaughn’s X-Men 3, now it looks like he’ll come in and make the movie Romanek prepped.
The guy is just content to sit in the director’s chair, yell cut and action and picks up his millions.
I might actually have some respect for the guy if he came out and said “I’m in this for the money and women”, but he won’t. And he wonders why movie fans hate him so much.
Bay is a genius compared to this guy.
Comment by Will Reynolds | January 31, 2008
Michael Bay is ham fisted, but he tries to improve. He works at the things he knows he is lacking in. The Island proved that he was listening to his critics was trying to improve on his weaknesses as a filmmaker.
The “Rat” just doesn’t care. He puts no effort into his films, doesn’t listen to critics, doesn’t try to improve, doesn’t think he has deficiencies, and doesn’t have any pride in his work or care about the quality of what he turns in. He skims through his job, putting in the least amount of effort for the barely passing grade.
Comment by Hellen | February 1, 2008
I agree too. I have a certain respect for bad directors like Paul WS Anderson and Michael Bay (and, dare I say, Uwe Boll?) who really get into what they’re doing, but always make a mess anyway. Ratner, however, is the definition of “hack.” It’s really a shame too, because the guy clearly has talent - he just chooses not to use it.
Comment by cambion | February 1, 2008