Tag: goldie-hawn

  • 50 Years Later, ‘Laugh-In’ Is Back to Sock It to You

    Fifty years ago, a lightning-quick, anarchic comedy show featuring an unknown ensemble of up-and-coming comic actors, hosted by a flippant duo best known for livening up smoky nightclubs, made its debut on NBC.

    And after its initial bow as TV special in 1967, “Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In” socked it to just about everyone and everything, quickly ordered to regular series status and causing a seismic sensation with widespread aftershocks that affected everything from the TV variety show format, the ramped-up speed in which audiences could process fast-paced punchlines, psychedelic set design and the overall comedy sensibility of an entire generation.

    The series, which is now available in its entirety in a brand-new 38-DVD collection from TimeLife — all 140 episodes, plus extras and more -– also made household names of its dapper and quick-quipping hosts Dan Rowan and Dick Martin, and launched the careers of a slew of future on-camera stars and unconventional guests, including Goldie Hawn, Lily Tomlin, Henry Gibson, Jo Anne Worley, Tiny Tim and many more.

    Executive producer George Schlatter was there at the very beginning, and he joined Moviefone to share his memories of seven seasons of the generationally defining series that had everyone – including a sitting U.S. president – stopping by to have it socked to them.

    Moviefone: I can’t think of many shows that were as game-changing and influential on both the television form and on the comedy genre as “Laugh-In.” Tell me about when it first came into your life, and how you all decided to basically break all the rules as far as television shows were concerned.

    George Schlatter: It’s a long story. It was just something I had wanted to do, and it was a vacuum: there was nothing new going on in comedy or sitcoms. NBC wanted me to do another show that I didn’t want to do. So I said I would do that if it they let me do one show my way, with no interference. They said okay, but they didn’t really mean it.

    So then we walked in with this group of unknowns. Nobody knew how the cast was — Rowan & Martin worked nightclubs and they were a big nightclub act but they were no-names as far as television. So we put together this group of unusual people, and just started playing, having a good time. And writers that didn’t have a niche to go into, so this unpredictable group of outcasts got together and had a good time. That’s pretty much what we did.

    No show had been edited in that fast-paced, gag-a-minute way before. You moved that series at an incredible pace. Was that hard to convince the networks that the audience was going to respond to something that moved so incredibly fast for the time?

    They didn’t like it at first. They thought it was too fast. They thought nobody could understand it. I said, well, you laughed. The audience is brighter than you are. At that point, the show went on the air on Monday night. Monday night at eight o’clock. It was against “[The] Lucy [Show]” and “Gunsmoke,” and they didn’t have anything else to put in there that they believed in, and this show was cheap [Laughs] and they put it in there until they could get a real show ready.

    When they looked at the first cut, they said, “This is crazy! Nobody will understand this.” I said, “It’s the biggest thing in Europe.” “What do you mean?” I said, “It’s called comedy vérité.” And I made it up, right? They said, “Really?” I said, “It’s huge in Europe.” If something was a hit some place, then they think it’ll work here. So they put it on the air.

    Nothing happened for about three or four weeks. Then Sammy Davis, Jr., came on. We started doing jokes about [vaudeville comedian] Pigmeat Markham doing [his catchphrase] “Here comes the Judge!” Sammy did “Here comes the Judge,” we put it into the next show, and that week when the Supreme Court came in, somebody in the back of the courtroom said, “Here comes Judge!” And the courtroom cracked up, and that became largely responsible for our immediate success.

    To beat TV institutions like “Gunsmoke” and Lucille Ball, you had to know right away that you tapped into a specific generational audience. You’d found something that spoke to that Baby Boom generation in particular. What did that mean to your staff when you realized, “Oh, we’ve found gold for this particular generation?”

    It didn’t mean much then because we were under such pressure. We were living under a rock. We were working 24 hours a day, and we developed the editing techniques that didn’t exist. We didn’t have the Avid [editing software], so everything had to be physically spliced. But it was a group of outcasts just having a really good time.

    A woman by the name of Carolyn Raskin developed many of the editing techniques. We didn’t have timecode or anything, so we put it on the air, and it was a big huge playpen for outcast adults. Then we rounded up this cast. How lucky can you get to find Goldie Hawn and Lily Tomlin, and a group of wonderfully talented people?

    The political problems then are the same as they are now. The reason I think the show now will work, the reason I think that the DVDs will be welcome, is because we haven’t fixed anything. The same problems – you can’t believe it’s the same: an unpopular war, an unpopular president, political unrest, gay rights – all the same problems we had then, we have now, so it’s very contemporary.

    And you got away with a lot political humor that previously tripped up some other shows, like “The Smothers Brothers.” Why do you think you were able to finesse it just so to get that stuff on the air and not get a big backlash?

    My own personal charm! No, the fact that it was so fast, that while they were worrying about one thing, we were doing something else. By the time we got to them saying no, we had already done it. It was an adventure. It was something nobody had ever done before.

    My wife Jolene [Brand] did “The The Dinah Shore Chevy Show” and the Judy Garland series, the series and it was all the same thing.

    We found this group of very talented young people. So we got them all in, and at that point, because as I said, the network was desperate, nobody auditioned. We just hired them. And they came in and looked at these people and said, “What the hell are you doing?” I said, “I don’t know, but we’re having fun.” That’s what went on the air.

    What were some of the cues for you that you didn’t just have a hit show, but you had a full-on pop culture phenomenon? I think maybe only “Batman” prior to that had had that level of so instantly and deeply permeating the pop culture. When did you guys get a sense that this is something special?

    It helped because we didn’t know it. We knew there was a reaction to it, but we were busy fighting the network, and fighting the sensors, fighting the sponsors, who all said, “This is not a television show.” It snuck up on them. By the time it was a hit – eventually, got up to a 50 [ratings] share! Well, I’m arrogant now, but gee, 50 years ago? Forget about it!

    We went on and kept doing it. When the first season was over, we got out of the box where you go out and breathe the air, and roam around the streets, we found out what a big hit it was. We were having a good time. That doesn’t sound like an adult show business, but that’s what it was.

    I can’t think of another show before — maybe since with “Saturday Night Live” — that had the amount of catch phrases that were instantly adopted by people all over the country. That must have been a very surreal/rewarding kind of experience to see that happen.

    Yes, it was. Lorne Michaels was one of the writers in that second year, and he learned a lot. “Saturday Night Live” was at 11:30 at night. We were on at eight o’clock. So what we were doing was really, truly revolutionary.

    A man by the name of Herb Schlosser, who was head of NBC, they used to go to him and say, “Herb, George won’t listen, he won’t cut this, he won’t cut that, and he won’t cut this.” So Herb Schlosser said, “Well, I’ll talk to him.” Herb called me and said, “Do just what you’re doing,” and we did, and that was what became the show

    We’re now going to release all 140 episodes on Amazon, and It’s interesting because those same shows now feel like we just taped them yesterday, because it’s the same problems, the same things.

    When you’re that of-the-moment, was there a lot of pressure to keep the show fresh? Because people can sometimes wander away from these sensation-type series, but you guys managed to stay on the air for several seasons.

    We would stay on for seven. Partially given my own minimal attention span, it didn’t become boring. We kept bringing in new people. In one room you have Goldie and Lily and Ruth and Jo Anne and all of that, all coming in with their own ideas. We had this group of outcast writers that were not writing for anything else. They were not sitcom writers or variety show writers. They were just comedy writers. So it was an adventure, alright.

  • 6 Reasons Why ‘King Arthur’ Bombed at the Box Office

    While “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” was a lock to repeat at No. 1 on the box office chart this weekend, “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” was still expected to take the second-place crown — just barely.

    While people knew “King Arthur” wouldn’t do great business, few expected it to do this bad. Warner Bros. had hoped their big-budget action epic — plagued with four release date changes and costly reshoots — would hit somewhere in the $20 to $25 million range. Instead, it eked out an estimated $14.7 million.

    This weekend’s other wide release, raunchy mother-daughter comedy “Snatched,” opened with an underwhelming (but decent) $17.5 million. For a movie that cost a reported $175 million to make — and was supposed to launch a series of six movies about the ruler of Camelot — it’s opening is far from promising. Here are six reasons why “King Arthur” became 2017’s first major flop:

    1. No One Wanted This Movie
    You’d think a familiar, public-domain property like King Arthur would be an easy sell. And yet, since 1980, there have been about half a dozen attempts to reboot Arthur’s legend on the big screen, and only 1981’s “Excalibur” was a sizable hit. Then again, familiarity could be the problem; besides the theatrical films, there have been many TV Arthurs, few of them memorable. Why spend money to go see yet another Arthur pull that sword out of the stone? And the marketing didn’t show audiences anything they haven’t seen before, or couldn’t see again if they stayed home and watched “Game of Thrones” instead.

    2. Guy Ritchie = Style Over Substance
    Sure, Guy Ritchie successfully put his modern-London-street-thug spin on “Sherlock Holmes” and made a fortune with that reboot. But he also lost a fortune on his adaptation of 1960s TV spy series “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” — like “King Arthur,” another big-budget reboot that no one asked for.

    Let’s face it, Ritchie is an acquired taste, with a hit-and-miss résumé (maybe Warner Bros. has forgotten that he directed “Swept Away,” but critics and connoisseurs of laughably awful movies haven’t). Is he really the guy you want to risk a $175 million budget and a potential new franchise on? (If we were Disney, we’d be worried about our live-action remake of “Aladdin,” to be directed by Ritchie.)

    3. Charlie Hunnam Is Not a Movie Star
    Hollywood has spent a decade and a half trying to make an A-list leading man out of Charlie Hunnam, with little success so far.

    Even with all the positive buzz he’s received for his other current starring role, in indie adventure “Sons of Anarchy” than for his movies. He’s certainly no Robert Downey Jr., who deserves much of the credit for the box office success of Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” movies.

    Maybe Amy Schumer isn’t a proven box office draw either, but then, “Snatched” is only her second lead role. Still, her first, 2015’s “Trainwreck,” opened with $30.6 million. Her co-star, Goldie Hawn, hasn’t made a movie in 15 years, but she did score several big hits in the 1980s and ’90s, and she still has a lot of residual goodwill from her half-century as a comic leading woman.

    4. The Studio
    Warner Bros. desperately wants to be in the blockbuster franchise business, to the near exclusion of all other kinds of movies.

    It has the DC superhero films, the “LEGO” movies, and the recently revived Harry Potter universe movies (relaunched last fall with “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them“), but not much else. That’s why it gambled so much in recent years on potential franchise launchers like “Pan,” “U.N.C.L.E.”, “The Legend of Tarzan,” and now “King Arthur.”

    Unfortunately, “King Arthur” also bears the fingerprints of a lot of desperate studio tinkering. Over the past eight years, Warners had several competing Arthur projects in development until Ritchie’s won out. Since then, Warners has changed the title of his film once, changed the release date four times (it was initially supposed to come out last July, when it would have been clobbered by the likes of “Star Trek Beyond” and even “Ghostbusters“), and scrapped a planned IMAX version.

    Releasing “King Arthur” in the shadow of “Guardians” may not have been the wisest move either, but at least the film will have all summer to try to recoup its budget. And at least the studio didn’t further signal its ambivalence about the film by dumping it in August.

    5. Bad Reviews, Worse Buzz
    Still, critics’ knowledge of the movie’s troubled production history may have colored their reviews and may be part of the reason why “King Arthur” scored a dismal 27 percent at Rotten Tomatoes. Not that “Snatched” did much better (just 36 percent).

    Nonetheless, to the extent that the R-rated “Snatched” targeted an older audience that still reads criticism, the fact that it was the better reviewed of this weekend’s two new wide releases gave it a slight edge over “King Arthur.”

    6. The Genre
    Just as there have already been a lot of male-oriented action movies this year and only a handful of women-powered releases, there have also been very few live action comedies in wide release so far in 2017. “Snatched” is only the fifth. Multiplex audiences looking for laughs who want something more mature than “The Boss Baby” (and maybe a little less mature than “Going in Style“) currently have just “Snatched” and “How to Be a Latin Lover” to choose from. “Latin Lover,” however, is three weeks old and is playing in only a third as many theaters as “Snatched.”

    For all its weaknesses, “Legend of the Sword” could still end up with a small victory thanks to overseas audiences. After all, comedies don’t translate well (which is why “Snatched” has earned just an estimated $3.2 million abroad), but action movies do.

    Looking back on other Round Table movies, the Warners accountants must have noticed this about the most recent one, the 2004 “King Arthur” that starred Clive Owen: while it earned just $51.9 million here, it earned $151.7 million abroad.

    In fact, “Legend of the Sword” is also doing much better in foreign markets than it is in America, having earned an estimated $29.1 million overseas. Of course, there’s still a long uphill climb to profitability from that $43.8 million global total so far. If foreign audiences respond to “Legend of the Sword” the way they did to the 2004 “King Arthur” — or, for that matter, the way they did to “Legend of Tarzan,” which earned $230.1 million abroad — Hunnam’s Arthur may not have bombed in vein.

  • ‘Overboard’: An Appreciation

    In 1987, MGM released director Gary Marshall‘s “Overboard.” A gentle screwball comedy released during the height of the sex comedy craze of the ’80s, “Overboard” starred former Disney kid Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn (then a box office dynamo and one of the most powerful women in Hollywood). Hawn and Russell were a real-life couple at the time, having gotten together on Jonathan Demme‘s underrated “Swing Shift” (they had previously met on the set of a 1968 Disney movie, “The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band”), but all the celebrity couple buzz didn’t add much heat to the movie’s opening. Instead, the movie came and went, making a modest profit and receiving only so-so reviews (Roger Ebert was one of the film’s few fans in the critical community).

    But the movie has endured. Last month, Anna Faris announced her intentions to re-imagine the property, and we recently devoted an hour of our very own podcast to applauding the movie’s goofiness (and puzzling over its legal implications). It has gained a loyal and voracious cult following amongst even the most ardent film fanatics, and, 30 years later, it’s unclear how anyone could have believed it to be anything but a classic.

    So the question remains: why?

    While it is true that the movie is a nostalgia-lover’s dream come true, from the hairstyles to the bouncy score by Alan Silvestri (that same year he also scored a little movie called “Predator“) to outdated hairstyles to the somewhat primitive understanding of both gender roles and the criminality of what is essentially kidnapping, one of the reasons the movie has endured is how timeless it truly is.

    Part of its timelessness has to do with the ingenious tonal grafting of a 1930s screwball farce onto a 1980s relationship comedy. It was a bold move for sure; this is the decade that was defined by T&A extravaganzas like “Porky’s.” It was rare to see something so sweet. Marshall’s style and sensibilities (an approach that borders on the classical) is perfectly suited for “Overboard”; aside from a couple of Pee-Wee Herman references and some of the clothes, the movie could be set in almost any time. Russell is a blue-collar carpenter, Hawn is a snooty heiress and through a series of zany coincidences, she becomes his wife. That’s pretty much all there is to the story. There are few ties to contemporary technology, popular culture or — another hallmark of Marshall’s style — politics. It’s just the story of a family, framed by a traditionally gonzo conceit.

    Then, there are, of course, the performances.Hawn is finally making her return to cinemas this week with Amy Schumer’s “Snatched,” and re-watching “Overboard,” it’s hard not to get positively giddy at her comeback. Her performance in “Overboard” is genuinely incredible. Watching the early scenes of her lounging around a luxury yacht, she is dressed like Lady Gaga and purrs like a Real Housewife crossed with a Disney villainess (a wicked stepmother maybe or an evil sorceress). When she loses her memory and Russell convinces her that she’s his lost wife, her performance becomes more dimensional, nuanced, and effective; she finds contours to the role that would have escaped other actresses.

    Every moment feels like it’s on the border of becoming something endlessly remembered and a handful of the times it actually does. Who could forget when she has had enough of Russell’s children playing pranks on her and she brings a hose into the living room and douses them all? It’s something that, if you come across “Overboard” on basic cable, you’ll watch until at least that scene. It’s just one of those sequences you remember and love and is just as funny and charming as it was 30 years ago. The fact that she’s able to give the character (ostensibly two-dimensional and saddled with a ridiculous central premise) so much depth, is a testament to her abilities and Marshall’s kind encouragement. (Oftentimes the camera doesn’t move or cut; it just stays still, waiting for whatever Hawn comes up with.)

    And as good as Hawn is, Kurt Russell matches her. It’s clear that the movie was filmed during the first part of the couple’s relationship — a relationship that has, all these years later, kept going. The way he looks at her, even though he’s trying to pull a fast one, is a sparkly combination of infatuation and awe. (Just watch the scene in which he explains the Portuguese story of why boats honk three times when returning to port and you’ll understand.) In “Overboard,” he’s a perfect blue collar slob, excitable and crass, but also one who is wounded (he’s a widower in the movie) and able to bring nuance and emotionality to any scene (no matter how charged with goofy energy); he can also veer left during a potentially dramatic scene, too. Whatever you think he’s going to do, however you think he’s going to play it, he does the opposite. It’s a performance of endless surprises.Another reason it’s endured is how funny it is. Because it’s really, really funny. And it’s not just the performances of Hawn and Russell. It’s the way in which Marshall moves (or doesn’t move) the camera; look at the reveal early on in the film of Hawn’s elderly roommate in the hospital, or how calm the camerawork is. Characters bounce in and out of frame, huge chunks of dialogue are recited, the entire frame is alive with energy but the camera stays steady, allowing everything to be seen and heard when it is supposed to, giving jokes and gags proper room to breathe. (At almost two hours, it’s also unfashionably long for a comedy of the period.)

    The supporting performances are terrific, too, from Edward Herrmann to Roddy McDowell (who was also an executive producer) to all the young actors who play Russell’s kids (the “She might have no t*ts but she’s got a nice *ss” line reading might be the best in the entire movie). Everyone is deeply committed, both to their characters and to the movie’s off-the-wall vibe, which makes it even funnier. Nobody is over-the-top and that commitment to realism inside what is obviously a fantasy makes it that much funnier.

    But the real reason “Overboard” has lasted all of these years and become such a favorite has to do with the movie’s last 30 minutes, which are really, really emotional. Hawn’s character finally comes face-to-face with her actual husband (Herrmann) and is compelled to return to her old life. Again, Hawn is peerless: The look on her face as she registers the situation, the way her physicality changes from boundless to hollowed-out, and how she sticks her fingers in her ears as her would-be children come crashing into the side of her limousine (all yelling “Mom!”) It’s deeply affecting in a very plain way.

    Marshall’s unfussy direction and lack of sentimentality means that these scenes play out with ease; her return to a pampered life are juxtaposed with scenes of Russell dealing with the boys on his own in their shabby house. Even when there’s an element of suspense, the camera luxuriates on Hawn and Russell’s faces. It’s sort of miraculous, especially in the current climate of rapid-fire editing. It’s these quieter moments that ground the movie’s climax, which is pretty huge (it involves two boats and really reinforces the title). At the very end, we even get a nifty twist, but one that never undermines what came before it.

    “Overboard” is a movie that has an oversized conceptual framework but an even bigger heart.

  • ‘Snatched’ Unscripted

    When “Snatched” stars Amy Schumer and Goldie Hawn go “Unscripted,” you know the conversation is going to visit some unique places. Among the topics discussed: Goldie’s first kiss, Amy’s sleeping attire, awkward AF ex-boyfriend interactions, the status of Amy and Jennifer Lawrence’s movie, and the unusual place Goldie stores all of her travel essentials.

    “Snatched” hits theaters May 12th.

  • ‘Overboard’ Is an ’80s Lover’s Dream and a Legal Nightmare: Podcast

    Goldie Hawn, Kurt Russell in OVERBOARD (1987)A man, driven by revenge, kidnaps the woman who wronged him. Suffering from amnesia, the woman is tricked into thinking she is his wife and forced to clean, cook, and raise his four children … until she starts to suspect that things are not as they seem. Sound like a great ’90s thriller? Well, it’s not. It’s the plot of “Overboard,” Garry Marshall‘s 1987 comedy starring Goldie Hawn (“Snatched”), Kurt Russell (“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2”), Edward Hermann (“Gilmore Girls”), and Katherine Helmond (“Who’s the Boss?”). Hilarious!

    This week, Team CAN’T WAIT! discusses the ’80s exploration of false imprisonment, fraud, and the high jinks that ensue when you trick a mind-wiped heiress into thinking she’s poor, married to you, and the mother of your four horrible children. Topics discussed include: the legal consequences (or lack thereof) of the basic plot points of “Overboard,” the majesty (and secrets) of Tillamook County (this is not a sponsored podcast!), successful nepotism, the magic of watching Goldie Hawn, and what it sounds like when a soundtrack is composed on a Casio keyboard (sorry, Alan Silvestri). It’s quite a ride.

    Tune in next time for Phil’s pick, 1992’s “The Bodyguard,” a mediocre movie that birthed the best-selling soundtrack of all time.

    Listen to CAN’T WAIT! A Movie Lover’s Podcast Episode 21: ‘Overboard’Total runtime: 52:32

    Subscribe to the CAN’T WAIT! podcast:

    Have thoughts/feelings/feedback about the podcast? Have a movie you really, really want us to watch and talk about? Hit us up on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram with the hashtag #CANTWAIT.

    CAN’T WAIT! A Movie Lover’s Podcast by Moviefone celebrates Hollywood’s guiltiest pleasures by taking a fresh look at critically ignored movies and giving them a second chance at life. Join Moviefone editors Tim Hayne, Rachel Horner, Phil Pirrello, and Tony Maccio as they extol the virtues and expose the failings (with love!) of nostalgic movies.

  • Anna Faris to Star in Gender-Swapped Remake of ‘Overboard’

    Anna FarisAnna Faris will star in a remake of ’80s comedy “Overboard,” but she won’t be playing the Goldie Hawn role, The Wrap reports.

    As MGM announced yesterday, the roles in the new version will be switched: Faris will be playing a single, working class mom who convinces a rich amnesiac (Mexican actor Eugenio Derbez) that he’s her husband.

    Faris’s films include the “Mom.” Derbez is known for the film “Instructions Not Included,” which he directed, co-wrote and starred in. It set US and global box office records as the most successful Spanish-language film ever.

    In the 1987 original, Goldie Hawn played a spoiled rich woman who falls off a boat and has no memory of who she is. Kurt Russell was the handyman who got revenge on his impossible-to-please client by telling her he’s his husband and putting her to work caring for his four children.

    The original film was directed by Garry Marshall. Rob Greenberg (“How I Met Your Mother”) and Bob Fisher (“We’re the Millers”) will co-write and direct the remake.

    A previously announced remake starring Jennifer Lopez never happened.

    Another gender-swapped remake of another ’80s classic is already in the works: The update on “Splash” will star Channing Tatum as a merman and Jillan Bell (“Office Christmas Party’) as the human who falls for him.

  • Amy Schumer and Goldie Hawn Get ‘Snatched’ in New Trailer

    A mother/daughter bonding trip goes terribly, but hilariously, wrong in the trailer for “Snatched,” starring Amy Schumer and Goldie Hawn.

    When Schumer’s boyfriend breaks up with her before a planned adventure to South America, she takes Hawn instead (even though Mom is very reluctant to go). They bicker and get on each other’s nerves, but have an OK vacation — until they’re kidnapped!

    “Oh my god, we’ve been Liam Neeson ‘Taken’!” Schumer screams in their cell. And now mother and daughter have to work together to get themselves out of this situation. The red-band trailer follows:This is Hawn’s first movie role since 2002, but it doesn’t seem like she’s missed a beat. She and Schumer exhibit some good chemistry, and of course, Schumer’s particular brand of raunchy comedy is out in full force.

    “Snatched” opens in theaters May 12.

    Here’s the green-band version of the trailer:

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

  • 8 ‘First Wives Club’ Moments That Still Give Us Life

    first wives club quotesNeed some inspiration? A few daily affirmations, if you will? Leave it to the 1996 masterpiece that is “The First Wives Club.”

    We still quote it and copy it decades later, and find its memorable moments pretty much apply to any every day situation. We are all Annie, Brenda, and Elise.

    Here are eight “First Wives Club” moments we can’t get through life without.

  • Goldie Hawn May Play Amy Schumer’s Mom in Vacation Comedy

    2015 Glamour Women Of The Year Awards - BackstageTwo comedy giants may be joining forces: Goldie Hawn is reportedly in talks to play Amy Schumer’s mom in an upcoming mother-daughter vacation comedy.

    Vulture reporter Kyle Buchanan was the first to break the news that Hawn was circling the role, which would be her first since way back in 2002, when she co-starred with Susan Sarandon in “The Banger Sisters.” Since then, Hawn has been in semi-retirement, so landing her for the Schumer project would be a major coup.

    According to TheWrap, the flick in question is an untitled project from director Jonathan Levine (“50/50,” “Warm Bodies,” “The Night Before”), produced by hitmaker Paul Feig and written by frequent Feig collaborator Katie Dippold (“The Heat,” “Spy,” this summer’s “Ghostbusters”). It’s based on Dippold’s relationship with her own mother, per TheWrap, and centers around “a family vacation gone wrong.”

    So far Hawn’s involvement has not been confirmed by studio 20th Century Fox, but we’re hoping this is one rumor that pans out. Pairing Schumer with Hawn would be a brilliant bit of casting, and we’re excited to (hopefully) see them face off against each other.

    Stay tuned.

    [via: Kyle Buchanan, TheWrap]

    Photo credit: Getty Images for Glamour

    %Slideshow-305280%