As I said in my review of 'Valkyrie,' the film pairs up director Bryan Singer again with writer Christopher McQuarrie. They previously worked together on 'The Usual Suspects.'
Yahoo! has posted an article about how Singer and McQuarrie had a huge argument over the ending of the movie. Or, rather, the interpretation. The interesting thing is that they didn't even realize this until the movie was finished.
My real point, though, is this: Look at the tags for the bottom of the article. "More on:" We have: Bryan Singer, Kevin Spacey, Tom Cruise, The Usual Suspects, X2: X-Men United
Tom Cruise is vaguely mentioned because of 'Valkyrie.' Kevin Spacey's importance to this article is even more sparse. The same goes for X2.
Now let's look who is not mentioned in the tags, who also happens to be the most significant player in the whole article. Oh, yeah. It's Christopher McQuarrie, the writer. Shocking, I know.
I know on Yahoo! and sites of the like, they cater to celebrity gossip. But in an article like that, I would think the author has some interest in actual film, and would at least give the writer some credit. "Oh, but he doesn't have any other tags, so why does it matter?" You have to start some time.
This makes me mad.
12.30.2008
Another Instance of: Writers Getting Shafted
12.29.2008
Review: Valkyrie
'Valkyrie' is a movie that succeeds in every aspect that it possibly can: The only problem is that, being influenced by history, we know that our protagonist is going to fail. The rush of this film is watching our hero rise, and the delusions that overcome him until the final minutes of the film.
Say what you want about Tom Cruise's personal life--he is a gifted actor. In 'Valkyrie,' he plays Colonel Stauffenberg, a man severely wounded fighting for the Nazis, who realizes that one can either fight for the Nazis or Sacred Germany, not both. Being a part of the Nazi regime is the opposite of being patriotic for Germany. Stauffenberg joins up with a group of rebels against Hitler, and they have a plan to turn Hitler's safety net, his Operation Valkyrie (which is a reserve army that responds only in the event of his death), against him by changing their orders to take Berlin. The steps are meticulous and it is in these small details that we see how history could have been changed so drastically if the smallest event did not go through. Or did.
I dislike when people shrug off a film as 'not being historically accurate.' No film based on a real event is perfectly accurate. Even if it portrays the events on screen flawlessly, what the film leaves out still does the truth injustice. The only films that are obligated to convey all the information are documentaries--everything else is for entertainment.
Valkyrie is a first-rate thriller confined to the realm of a failed assassination attempt. There are key players in this scheme against Hitler, but Tom Cruise overshadows them all with his eye patch and seven missing fingers. He commands the film just as he commands the men around him. He is promoted at one point in the film. He must find a replacement, and the first thing he tells his tentative replacement is that the picture of Hitler in his office will be un-hung and the man himself will be hung. Any loyal Nazi would report Stauffenberg immediately. The hesitation, and ultimate loyalty the new recruit has to Stauffenberg shows both the restlessness of the German people against Hitler, as well as the psychological hold one man can have. People see that Stauffenberg has given significant parts of his well-being for Hitler, and they see that he regrets it. It is an inspiration.
The film pairs director Bryan Singer (X-Men, X2, Superman Returns) with his writer Christopher McQuarrie from 'The Usual Suspects,' which was another gripping thriller. These two certainly do know how to tell a compelling story. As I said, we know Hitler lives to fight another day, but the film is to taut that we can taste Stauffenberg's success. And it is much more bitter when he crumbles and ultimately fails.
There are some flaws to the film: the situation with Stauffenberg's family and wife are brushed over quickly. It is stuck in the middle ground, because too much of them would have slowed the pace of the film. A little less may have benefited, because as is, I felt no attachment to them. Then again, the tragedy of Stauffenberg's family is not the heart of the story. It is not about one man's struggle, but about the struggle of a nation split in two.
Rating: 6/7
12.27.2008
Harold Pinter is Dead
This post is a late tidbit of news, and the fact that I just saw it is kind of embarrassing. Harold Pinter died on Wednesday.
It seems that more and more posts on my blog are about deaths, which is a shame, because I only post about the deaths of people I admire or care about.
Pinter has a list of accomplishments longer than pretty much any writer of the last century. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature. He wrote over a couple dozen plays, as well as numerous screenplays. A lot of his work was great. I studied his play 'The Birthday Party' during college and had never been more confused, yet at the same time, desperate to conquer the material. You guys should read it so we can talk about it.
So it goes.
12.24.2008
Coming Soon: Spider-Man 2 vs. The Dark Knight
On a forum I regularly visit, someone created a topic asking which is better: 'Spider-Man 2' or 'The Dark Knight.' I seemed to be the only one defending Spidey. I mean, it's not people saying Batman is a better hero or that one movie is simply better, but it's people completely bashing all of the Spider-man movies, the Spider-man character, and saying Batman is just infinitely more cool.
This is untrue. From a technical perspective, sure, 'The Dark Knight' may be a better film, but I'm willing to argue that the second Spidey film is superior to The Dark Knight. Yeah. I said it. Watch me.
In order to prepare I'm going to watch each of them again over the next few days. Though I've seen Spidey 2 at least four times and The Dark Knight twice in theaters, I feel to judge accurately I need to refresh my memory.
Stay tuned.
Synecdoche, New York
I am going to attempt to do the impossible: Write a review of a movie I've read much about without being influenced by outsider opinions.
'Synecdoche, New York' is a new film written by Charlie Kaufman (also directing for the first time), the writer behind 'Adaptation.,' 'Being John Malkovich,' and 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.' If you've seen any of those movies, you know the plot premise is far from normal -- and even if it was 'normal,' it would be told so extraordinarily that it's near impossible to understand.
The plot to this film is basic: Caden is a playwright who is fed up of his work and aims to portray life and death and loss, but with each person in a starring role. No one will be a secondary character -- like in the 'real world.' To do that, he creates a scale replica of New York in a warehouse, and in that warehouse/play he has someone play him, and someone play his lover, and in that, those actors hire actors to play them, etc. etc. etc. But the film aims much deeper than a play about life within a play.
Caden is played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who is truly a gifted actor. You only have to glance at his IMDb page to see how many great movies he's been in and roles he has played. Here is another one.
I can't believe this is relevant, but today I was watching Bravo and a commercial for Flipping Out came on, and Jeff Lewis was firing a man because their work environment was dysfunctional and the man being fired was too normal (or, not dysfunctional enough). Synecdoche revolves around the lives of people close to Caden and their dysfunctional behaviors. There is his (ex-)wife Adele who becomes a lesbian and leaves him to pursue an art career, his first daughter Olive, who seems to end up more disproportionate to reality than anyone else. Caden also has a slew of women in his life who mean different things to him. To explain his relations to them, or how things turn out for them, or why, would do nothing but cheapen the effect of the film and the subtlety is works with. So, I will not.
The play being developed is an experiment that, at the last given number, is 17 years in progress. By the end of the film I would guess it's about 35. Many people come and die, and we feel all of these losses through Caden, because it seems loss is the only emotion he really knows. He tries to create and to escape and to be a good father, but nothing in his whole life ever works out for him -- and he seems to accept that. It's sad.
I mentioned a person getting fired for being too functional. In this film it would be Claire (Michelle Williams), an actor from his original real-world play (a 'play' in traditional standards). She follows him to this replication, humors him, loves him, has a kid with him, but she sees everything clearly. She is the last tie between Caden and us, the real world. She gets that this whole thing is theater, while all the other actors take it as their new life. She leaves Caden to pursue acting in a traditional sense. She can't deal with Caden's obsession. When Claire gives up on Caden's project 2/3 through the film, it seems that this is the point of no return. Us, the audience, either join Claire and storm off the life-size apartment set, or we stay to see if Caden finally finds his truth. Thirty minutes into the film I would have followed Claire (two people in my theater actually did walk out), but by that point, I was drawn in. As ridiculous as all of this sounds, there is a truth in how its presentation. And is that not what great art does? It presents truths to us in new ways which we have not thought of, or in means we can learn from.
I need to see this film a second time. I know my opinion will change of the film. How much, I am not sure. What I do know, though, is that this film has an effect not immediately after you leave the theater, but when you're thinking about it a day later. And I don't remember the whole movie or it's plot or many particular scenes, but I do remember how it made me feel. I'll leave it up to you to determine how you feel, because telling you my feelings would only cheapen yours.
12.14.2008
A Thing About Actors
I was browsing the IMDb page for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and the top user comment begins like this:
When I first heard that Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett's new film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was destined to join the "sweepers" at the 2009 Oscars....
People are clueless. A film does not belong to actors. Actors are a part of the process of making a film, but if a film belongs to anyone, it would either be the Director, the Producers, or the Writer.
I understand that actors make the money. When was the last time a Will Smith movie didn't make 9 figures? Writers are behind the scenes to most of the public because most of the public doesn't care who writes the movie. Because of this, writers are replaced on whims and treated poorly in Hollywood. Which is a shame, because they, in a sense, own the movie. They conceive it and nurture it from the beginning, figure the whole mess out, make it coherent and interesting, and then sell it. Then, the director makes it look good and the actors give the material a little interpretation and the editors fix pacing issues... etc. But again, most people don't think of this.
I am reminded of two lines from two great film.
The first is from All About Eve. Tension arises in the film and Margo Channing (a top theater actress) argues with Lloyd Richards (a top theater writer). The basic argument is that Margo gives the boring play life, but Lloyd says what she does to it ruins it (at this point Eve is surfacing as a great actress). Lloyd says, "There comes a time that a piano realizes that it has not written a concerto." Ah, yes. Very true. The actors have not written their material--they are just reading someone's work. They are tools. As Hitchcock said, they should be treated like cattle.
The second, and slightly more humorous, is from Shakespeare in Love. Geoffrey Rush's character is asked who William Shakespeare is, and Geoff says something like, "Nobody, he's the writer." Hence, what I said earlier.
/end rant
12.13.2008
Nastia!
Yahoo! is my homepage, and they frequently link to their awful stories. The one on the main page today was of Nastia Liukin and one of her recent fashion decisions. Here it is:
Yikes. Yikes, yikes, yikes, yikes, yikes.
I mean, the outfit itself: bad, but could be worse. But look at her. She looks like she's 40. What the hell is up with that? She's 19. So that means, now, after I marry her, not only do I have to educate her in movies (her website says her favorites are 27 Dresses, The Holiday, and Kung Fu Panda -- gag), but dress her as well. This is starting to sound more like a parenting job, and I may need to reconsider.
Boredom
Well, right now I'm bored, but there has been a lack of updates lately because I've been busy. Sorry!
Some recent views:
Wall Street - Good movie, and it just became available on Netflix again (why was it out for a while?). Sure, it's on TV all the time, but I refuse to watch movies for the first time with commercials and edits. Artistic integrity, anyone?
March of the Penguins - I'm not one for documentaries, but this movie is fantastic and perfect. And sad. There are some really sad parts. I want a pet penguins.
I really want to see Slumdog Millionaire, Rachel Getting Married, Milk, and Frost/Nixon, but the town I'm in sucks and doesn't have any of them. Limited releases irritate me.
12.04.2008
'Equilibrium'
I will admit that before today I had not seen the movie 'Equilibrium.' I finally Netflix'd it and watched it, and have two comments:
Firstly, all the gun-ninja stuff is badass. At first glimpse of Christian Bale going into the room and killing all of the people, I noticed it was jumpy--which is the point. The explanation of how, in that world, all gunfire patterns will be predictable and can be avoided with carefully timed movements is ingenious. Mildly implausible, but creative nonetheless. I also liked the scene when Christian Bale kept getting attacked by the automatic rifle and kept hitting it to the side to avoid being shot (scene with the puppy, I believe). Very cool choreography.
Secondly, the ending: not a big fan. Since this was loosely based on '1984' (not legally, but it seems that way), and '1984' has far from a happy ending, I was expecting the same. Also, anyone who knows me knows I love a downer ending. I don't particularly 'buy' the fact Christian Bale's character can infiltrate the system and stage that whole overthrow. Wouldn't "Father" have anticipated Bale's character would come with loaded weapons? How would this be overlooked? And since he was planning on the rebels infiltrating the Clerics, wouldn't have have a countermeasure prepared as well? I know people like to see 'The Man' being overthrown, but in a movie like this, that ending came too quickly and in an unjustified manner.
The ending should have either been a small victory for Bale's character toward his cause, or a larger victory after Bale's sacrifice--trying to achieve both was aiming too high, and the last 20 minutes fell flat.
The Office = Best
Who else watched tonight's episode of The Office (The Surplus)? best episode in a long time? Sure, it didn't have as much of my beloved Kelly Kapoor as I like, but it was grand.
The ending with Jim having Pam make his copies was golden. As was the running gag of Andy stepping in manure. Even indoors. Great episode, available on NBC's site shortly.
11.28.2008
Movies to Study: Clueless
A couple days ago, through a string of conversation, one of my friends attempted to insult another friend by saying that he liked the movie 'Clueless.' In response, the other friend said, 'Clueless is like a critically acclaimed movie, like Mean Girls was.' I don't know about 'critically acclaimed,' though it does have an 83% Fresh on Rottentomatoes.com, but what I do know is that the movie is a strong lesson in writing comedy.
Cher Horiwitz, our protagonista of the film, has a very unique perspective of the world around her--she's a pleasant blend of an egocentric personality and naivete to the world around her. Listen how she first describes her Dad:
Daddy's a litigator. Those are the scariest kind of lawyer. Even Lucy, our maid, is terrified of him. And daddy's so good he gets $500 an hour to fight with people. But he fights with me for free because I'm his daughter.
The movie is, if nothing else, a strong mesh of great one-liners. "Searching for a boy in high school is as useless as searching for meaning in a Pauly Shore movie." I'm sure all high school girls would agree, though today I doubt any of them even know who Pauly Shore is.
My favorite part of the movie goes in three phases (like all traditional comedy). When Tai goes over to Cher's house, Cher explains how she tries to learn a new word each day, and it helps to use it in a sentence.
"Sporadic means once in a while. Try using it in a sentence," Cher says to Tai.
That's the setup.
Then, later in that scene, Josh (Paul Rudd) comes in, talks for a beat, and then as he's leaving, he says, "Be seeing you...."
To which Tai responds, "I hope not sporadically."
Hardly a strong grasp of vocabulary, and the awkwardness Tai imposes is the immediate laugh.
But to show how subtle the film is, think about later in the film. Christian comes over to Cher's house to watch movies. Cher tells us, Christian had a thing for Tony Curtis so he brought over "Some Like it Hot" and "Sporadicus."
Sporadicus? Clearly she means 'Spartacus,' but makes a mistake. Her own attempts to become intelligent work against her every once in a while--maybe Cher can't overcome her natural blond lifestyle.
Another interesting thing about the film: Christian is a gay character in the movie, but it is kept hidden as long as possible, ideally to reveal it to us at the same time it's revealed to Cher. And then, in the mall during a scene right after the reveal, Christian is wearing a pink jacket. Odd how he never wore pink before, but now that we know, it's fine.
My only real gripe with the film is in the ending, where Cher and her step-brother Josh get together. Sure, they aren't blood related, but it's still a bit weird. But hey, it's a comedy. Whatever.
Retrospective: Memoirs of a Geisha
I'm going to introduce a new heading for posts called 'Retrospective.' These posts will typically deal with reevaluating a film, comparing it to other films of the time, or just plain talking about an older movie again. I also know I had a series of 'Movies to Study,' and there is a new post of that kind coming soon--I promise!
Memoirs of a Geisha is not a perfect film. I'm ambivalent toward the introduction of the bombings and how it affects Sayuri (basically, the third act of the film). On the one hand, it takes us completely out of the Geisha world of Japan that we've spent 100 minutes establishing to something completely remote; however, wars are a part of history and the exclusion of them--it could be argued--would discredit the accuracy of the film. But how accurate is it in the first place? That is not the point.
The film is supremely strong for two reasons: The first, and most obvious, is the enormous success of Ziyi Zhang. Not only is she gorgeous (making her a Geisha seems much easier than it would take for some), but consider some of her other roles in films like: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, 2046, and House of Flying Daggers (underrated). If you have seen this movie (or any of those), you will know what I'm talking about.
But the second reason this film is so great is its aesthetic. It won the Oscars for Art Direction, Set Design, and Cinematography. These weren't easy wins, considering cinematography was up against Brokeback Mountain and Emmanuel Lubezki (one of the best cinematographers working today). But to judge cinematography in the simplest way, one must ask: Which film looks the prettiest? Well, that answer is easy.
Two scenes come to mind when I think of this film. If I had to sit down and pick two scenes out, that would be a supreme challenge since the whole movie looks so fantastic--but in memory, these two come out the most vividly.
The first is of young Sayuri running to the wishing well with the money given to her by the Chairman. Sayuri explains that she was given enough money to feed them for a month, but instead she dropped it into the well, wishing that she would someday meet with the Chairman again. She runs to make this wish, and until this point her life has been sullen and miserable--and out of nowhere, after this act of kindness, is an explosion of colors. A still frame, like all of these scenes, does the film no justice. Watch the film (and see the other reasons after the cut).
The second scene--and most memorable--is Sayuri's snow dance. This takes place in the film after Hatsumomo attempts to ruin Sayuri's claims of virginity. Geisha's sell their virginity to the highest bidder, and in order to show how pure she still is, here is the dance Sayuri performs:
Youtube quality severely reduces the effect--on DVD the colors are much more piercing. Can you guess the symbolism of the white and red snow/lights? I hope so, because it's not subtle.
Memoirs of a Geisha is a superb visual treat. Honestly, the plot is strong as well. We see and feel Sayuri's struggles throughout the film, and though it drags at some points (mainly the beginning of act 3), I still want to watch this film again right now--and I watched it yesterday.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I'm playing with the layout. Most will probably dislike it. But whatever. I like simply, but the last one was too simple.
11.23.2008
Movies I Used to Like (But Now Think Are Gimmicky or Thematically Shallow)
I think we all go through different levels of 'taste.' When I was in High School I was on the bandwagon of cool thrillers and movies that made you 'think.' Movies that were kind of 'indie' yet popular enough to have an audience. A cult audience, for the most part.
Now, I have most definitely moved on from that part of my life. It's interesting, because now when I hear people praise these movies, a part of me can't wait for them to realize what I did.
Here is a list of some such movies -- in no order.
Fight Club
This is a decent movie. I really, truly think David Fincher is a great director, Jim Uhls can write good screenplays, and Chuck Palahniuk can write good novels. There is a real voice in the narration by the Edward Norton character, and Brad Pitt is a very convincing Tyler Durden. The movie starts off strong, but the 'twist,' which I won't spoil, works on a personal level, but when things escalate to blowing up buildings and Project Mayhem, the movie strays from an interesting individual study into the waters of satire -- and those waters are hard to navigate successfully. 'Fight Club' does not do it.
Memento
Another decent movie. The screenplay, told in reverse chronological order, is unique in its suspense and concept. One a first and second viewing, the film functions very well. But after two viewings, the film has absolutely zero re-watch value. None. On the DVD you can view the movie in chronological order. I tried that, and it's like watching paint dry. Great movies have excellent re-watch value. 'Memento' is a one-trick pony.
Reservoir Dogs
Other than maybe Orson Welles and Sam Mendes, few directors get it perfect the first time around. Quentin Tarantino, writer and director of the exceptionally great film 'Pulp Fiction,' got a start in a warehouse with some robbers and one cop. The plot of the film is interesting. It's not exactly unique (this is a big debate among movie trivia hounds, but we won't get into it), but still very captivating. But what removes 'Reservoir Dogs' from the realm of other great crime movies like, I don't know, 'L.A. Confidential,' is that we don't care about the characters. Sure, we get a tiny bit of backstory, but that's it. And yes, the whole premise of the film is we don't know about the characters. I get it. But doesn't that make it a fundamental flaw in the film's design? It doesn't make it right.
More later. Maybe. We'll see.
11.21.2008
Review: Hors de prix ("Priceless")
Priceless was released in 2006, but the DVD became available this Tuesday, so here is a review.
There is a group of individuals who make their living by seducing rich men (or women) and working their way around the social ladder. Though sometimes called 'gold-diggers,' the women seem much less like tramps when every day is a new outfit that costs not a euro less than 2,000. Such is the occupation of Audrey Tautou's character Irene in 'Priceless.'
As Irene explains in the film--beauty can be resisted, but not charm. Tautou is perfect in this role because, while not an Angelina Jolie or Jessica Alba or whoever, she has as a unique disarming quality that makes men fall quickly. She doesn't hide her lifestyle, and often maneuvers from one man to the next before dropping her last one.
The complications come when she mistakes a barman in a hotel named Jean (Gad Elmaleh) as one of these rich men. She sleeps with him because he has money, and he sleeps with her because she's gorgeous -- or is it because she's so good at seduction? What's pleasant about the film is that it does not play on this bland concept through the whole film (like in, say, 'How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days'), and once she finds out he is in the hotel's employ, begins treating him like she would any other financier. She runs up his credit card, and to please her, he empties his savings on her. He knows what he's doing, but does it anyway.
What makes this film truly unique is the turn the story takes. Jean, now broke, and through rather humorous circumstances, ends up doing the same thing Irene does, except for a woman who, it appears, is more wildly rich than any of the men Irene has been with. The woman starts Jean off slowly, but thanks to some tips from Irene and a bit of his own savvy, before long he gets a 30,000 euro watch, among other things. Irene is naturally jealous.
Do Irene and Jean eventually realize that they love each other? Yes. Do they realize that money doesn't matter? Yes. These are all obvious conclusions within the first ten minutes. What makes this movie so enjoyable is how they get there.
The two work together, working their rich lovers, all the while seeing each other--but not in a 'hooking up' way, merely to compare notes and conquests. They put up a front for the whole world, but with each other, it is the harsh truth around the clock. And they do care for each other. Two of the movie's most charming moments are, firstly, after Irene has driven Jean's bank account into the ground, she still thinks to buy him a first class ticket home. Later, when Irene's plans completely collapse, Jean bails her out--and, having learned so much, still covers his tracks.
'Priceless' is about as cute of a romantic comedy as one can get. Yet, since the characters have glaring flaws and seemingly insatiable hunger for money, we see a dark shroud around their good, kind inner core. And those layers are what make movies truly memorable.
Rating: 6.5/7
11.18.2008
i accidentally a coca cola bottle.
If you visit any large forums on the net, I'm sure you're aware of the 'i accidentally a coke bottle. is this bad?' gag.
For a pretty funny example, check out this link. The typical scenario goes like this:
Jon: I accidentally a coke bottle.
Batman: You accidentally what?
Jon: The whole bottle.
Batman: .....
Yes, I brought Batman into this one.
Because I like grammar and enjoy ruining jokes by explaining why they are funny (trust me, this definitely ruins a joke), here is why the scenario is so great.
A sentence is, in its most basic form, a subject and a verb. Those are the two things a sentence must have. In the sentence "I accidentally a coke bottle" there is a subject, and an adverb, but no verb.
This leads people to exclaim, "You WHAT a coke bottle?"
Pretty amusing -- and makes me appreciate verbs.
11.17.2008
Quantum of Solace
Quantum of Solace: What. A. Train. Wreck.
Casino Royale was fantastic. Daniel Craig is a fantastic bond. The movie's script -- not so much. The action sequences also fail miserably.
In Casino Royale, the first real chase was all in and around a construction site, with Bond and the bomb maker, and it was one of the best, most creative chases I've seen in a long time. What does Quantum get? A car chase that looks like the leftover footage from The Fast and the Furious.
And there's a boat chase, and a plane chase. All these action scenes which have been done countless times before in countless other Bond movies (and other movies in general).
The worst part is that the pitiful action sequences aren't the worst part of the film.
The film attempts to be a continuation of Casino Royale -- a sequel, if you will. Why would anyone ever think that's a good idea? One of the greatest things about Bond is he is free from time, and the films are independent. From Sean Connery all the way to Daniel Craig, Bond remains a suave man in his 30s(-ish). The previous storyline was finished. Yes, Bond is heartbroken from Vesper dying, but let us move on.
Who is our primary villain? Dominic Greene. Mathieu Almaric, so good in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, is not scary. It is that simple. Yes, his weapon is money, but he is ultimately a middleman, and it seems like nothing about him should be feared by Bond -- or us. He looks like a villain who would cry to his mommy if Bond sucker punched him. And who else is there to fear? There are a few other names tossed into the ring, including the Mr. White man from Casino Royale, but none of them do anything important. Then again, neither does Greene.
The 'Bond Girl' is totally useless and ordinary in every way. She's attractive, but barely even succeeds at that. In this role she is so stiff, I think she would have tripped over her own feet if her instructions didn't include how to walk properly. She brings absolutely nothing to the table.
One of the great things about Bond is how he travels across the world and visits exotic locations. Casino Royale was also great for those reasons (I love the shot at the end of CR before Mr. White is shot). Here, not only is our location in the middle of a desert (scenery cannot be more bland than that), but the few times we see something nice to look at, it's so poorly framed that I wait for a boom mic to bob down on screen.
Marc Forster is a very capable director. On the one hand, you have Finding Neverland, Monster's Ball, and Stranger Than Fiction. But, sadly, there is also Stay, and The Kite Runner. I'm afraid Quantum of Solace will be lumped with the latter two.
Rating: 4/7
11.13.2008
Immaturity At Its Finest
In the classes I teach, the kids are required to pick a book that they want to read, and by the end of the semester give a presentation on it. A few kids have finished early, and in order to prevent them for putting the presentation off until January and forgetting everything, they can do it whenever they want.
Today one of my kids finished his book and did his report. When he finished talking about it, his classmates did not have questions pertaining to the text, but made comments basically saying the kid is a dork, a loser, and uncool because he reads in his spare time.
How completely ridiculous is that? Declaring that you "don't like books," or "don't read," does not make you look cool. It makes you look ignorant and immature. Reading is so important for so many reasons, and someone who decides to read in their spare time instead of playing video games or partying or whatever should be admired, not criticized.
Hopefully some day these kids will realize how important reading is, and that it's not something that they 'have to do,' but something that can give them such a huge advantage in life.
Top Chef NY Premiere
The 5th season of Top Chef premiered last night. This time around the show takes place in NYC. Based on the challenge and what I've seen of the contestants so far, the season looks like it will be a good one. Also, did I ever mention that I'm going to marry Padma? No? Oh, well now you know.
11.09.2008
'Role Models' is Funny
I don't feel like writing a whole review, but I did go and see Role Models. It was very funny. Go see it.
11.08.2008
A New 'Top 10 Comedies'
Back in May, 2006, I listed my top 10 comedies, ranked in order. The list was as follows:
1. A Shot in the Dark
2. Some Like It Hot
3. The Producers
4. Annie Hall
5. The Graduate
6. Clue
7. Dr. Strangelove
8. Ghostbusters
9. Blazing Saddles
10. Clerks
Needless to say, that list is a bit dated. Both in terms of when the movies came out, as well as my taste in comedies. Yet, all ten of those are hilarious movies. Yet, I feel I must update. So here it is:
10. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
The obligatory 'hip new movies.' But yes, this is a great comedy. I know it will stand up as time goes on, whereas similar Judd Apatow films like 'Knocked Up' and 'Superbad' have already faded into obscurity. Comedy is a tough field to crack into (successfully), but Jason Segel has made it happen--not only with his acting in the film, but the fact that he wrote it himself. Quite the accomplishment.
9 more after the jump.
9. Clue
A slight drop for this slapstick of a good time, but it still holds a special place in my movie heart. The complete absurdity of the movie and how implausible it all is only adds to the humor. While there are moments of blunt humor, the film also has subtle notes that I pick up on more every viewing. That is what makes a great film.
8. Bridget Jones's Diary
Oh yes I did. If there is one thing that pushes a comedy from the 'funny' category to the 'endearing' category, it is a lovable main character. It worked for Juno, and it works here. Bridget Jones, who has more faults than most, is impossible to not love by the end of the film. Sure, this is a 'rom-com,' but that doesn't mean it's not funny.
7. City Lights
How was there no Chaplin on my list before? What an enormous error. City Lights is a triumph not only in pure comedy of our protagonist, but in the goodness it shows and the sappy ending (that gets me every time). I rarely say this, but this is a film everyone should see.
6. The Producers
I haven't watched this film in a while, yet still laugh when thinking of some of the lines from it. Sure, line-for-line Blazing Saddles may be the funnier film, but the mere concept of The Producers alone makes it a supreme laughfest. A producer and an accountant who try to find a play they know will flop so they can score big? Springtime for Hitler? So brilliant.
5. This Is Spinal Tap
Borat was funny. The mockumentary is a great film concept. And it all started with the fictional band Spinal Tap. Yet, they have a song on Guitar Hero, so they're sort of a real band. Why this film works so well is because all of the actors play their own music and really convince us of the band. And they are completely clueless. The characters, not the actors. And clueless people, when done right, are a home run. Like in the movie 'Clueless.' And, here, as well.
4. Dr. Strangelove
I feel like anything I explain about this film would be an insult to its greatness. This film is so brilliant in every single aspect that even stating its brilliance is an understatement. Why is it so brilliant? Peter Sellers' multiple roles is certainly a factor, but we cannot overlook George C. Scott and Stanley Kubrick, also two of cinemas greatest treasures. Name-dropping is not enough, because what these three people have created (with the help of others, obviously, but...) is a timeless comedy that is funny and satirical all the way through, until the very last moment of the film, in the War Room, where the greatest last line of any movie is delivered. If you have not seen it, there is no way I am ruining it for you.
3. A Shot in the Dark
As I said above, when a character is portrayed as clueless and it is done effectively, it is very funny. Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau is a model for such characters. He is so bad at his job he can barely walk around his apartment without tripping over himself. Yet, he thinks he is the most brilliant Inspector in all of France, and insists on frequently giving advice. The scene where he plays a game of billiards with Ballon is the funniest scene of any film. It is pure brilliance, and most of the film is pretty close to this standard. A definite good laugh.
2. Annie Hall
I would have no trouble filling up this whole list with Woody Allen films, but I have restricted myself to only one. Manhattan is a great film, but that shall be on another list someday. Annie Hall is a jumbled story of Alvy Singer and Annie Hall, told in every way imaginable--flashbacks, stage plays, cartoons, breaking the fourth wall, voice over, subtitles revealing what the characters 'really' think, and on and on. Woody Allen, here, has decided to satisfy all of his whims, and when all of these elements mix with some of his traditional stand-up and one-liners, it's quite exhilarating.
1. Some Like It Hot
I feel like such a tool listing this as my number one, because AFI did as well. But, alas, here I am. What can I say that I have not already on this blog? Everything about the film is pitch-perfect, especially Tony Curtis' Junior. I think that's my favorite part. Or Marilyn Monroe. Or the mere concept of men forced to cross-dress to escape being murdered. All of those jokes that, if told today, would not be nearly as funny or clean as they were back in 1950. This film is one that always makes me feel a little bit better, and I will always enjoy, and will always stop whatever I'm doing to watch if it is on. It's certainly one of the greatest.
11.06.2008
Role Models Opens Tomorrow
I love me some Paul Rudd. And Seann William Scott. But mainly Paul Rudd. Here's a trailer for a new comedy, 'Role Models,' which opens tomorrow. Should be quite funny. See it so we can talk about it!
(first = theatrical, second = red band [a lot funnier])
11.04.2008
And the Winner Is....
Barack Obama.
Today my students constantly asked me who I voted for. I'm hesitant to talk about these issues in the classroom environment because I think people should decide for themselves who to vote for, not throw away their vote in mimicry of someone they look up to (teacher, parent, etc.). Though, often, the people you look up to have the same ideals as you, so voting along those lines would make perfect sense.
I did ask a couple people who they voted for, and always followed up with, "Why?" The "why" is important.
One student said they "voted for McCain because Sarah Palin is hot."
Another student said they "voted for Obama because he's black."
Neither of these are good reasons. Obviously.
As I try to tell people when the subject comes up: I do not personally care, or judge, based on who you vote for. I judge you based on how well you can defend your reasons. If you think McCain was the better candidate because of his policies, and can identify which ones you agree with, good for you. Same with Obama. Be informed!
America made the right decision today.
More commentary after the cut.
Who you vote for should be based on what you value the most. I think McCain is better in almost all military affairs, but I think our economy, energy sources, and diplomacy are more important. Electing Barack Obama shows progression. Electing John McCain would have shown repetition. And had McCain been elected, America would have shown repetition.
A few people I know have said that the economy is going to fail now. Sorry, but the economy is already failing. Yes, it could get worse. But the policies that have been around are what brought us here, and if it's broke, I'm definitely going to try to fix it.
As a person, I almost like McCain. Almost. Sure, he's only a mediocre public speaker (and a horrible debater), but he means well. Unfortunately he had a huge handicap in Sarah Palin. I've made a couple posts about her before, so I'll refrain. I'll just say that she was the incorrect choice as a running mate.
I don't want to get overly political on the blog, so if you want more details on what I agree/disagree with from the candidates, ask me in person.
11.02.2008
Christina Aguilera Keeps Gettin'... Better?
I love Christina Aguilera.
There. I said it.
Her music is great (for the most part--Stripped is one of my favorite albums ever), she seems to have her life together (compared to lots of other celebrities these days), and hey, she's hot (I think we can all at least agree on this one).
On Nov. 11th a 'greatest hits' album comes out. Here is the track listing, via Target:
Genie in a Bottle; What a Girl Wants; I Turn to You; Come on Over (All I Want is You); Dirrty; Fighter; Beautiful; Ain’t No Other Man; Candyman; Hurt; Genie 2.0; Keeps Gettin’ Better; Dynamite; You are What You are (Beautiful)
The album is titled Keeps Gettin' Better and has a couple new songs, one of which is--you guessed it--Keeps Gettin' Better. You can hear the new single on her MySpace, on youtube, or on your radio 374 times a day.
However, like many artists who claim something about their work, the title is inaccurate. I've listened to the new single a dozen or so times, and I just can't like it. I try to like it. I really do. Back to Basics had some good songs on it, but it looks like Christina has a flop this time around. And by 'flop,' I mean it will still get countless plays because it's still better than most other pop music that comes out these days.
With that said, the album will be available ("exclusively") at Target on the 11th, or through your favorite pirated music source a few days before then.
11.01.2008
A Thing About Great Performances
I hope there are at least a few people out there who value my opinion, as well as a few who value my opinion on movies. I've seen many, know quite a lot about them, and keep up with all sorts of trivia, upcoming releases, and reviews. And, as any intelligent person can, can defend my thoughts with examples. Like I always tell the students in my classes: What you think is important, but never, ever forget the why.
With that said, I would like the state that a single great performance does not make a movie great. Let me give some examples:
The other day I watched the film 'My Left Foot.' This is a very good film. Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the best actors there is, and his performance in this film was one of the best I've ever seen. The film itself, though, I felt was only 'good.' Therefore, I will not give this film a 10/10, or even a 9.5/10 strictly based on how great DD-L was. I can think of quite a few people who would.
More examples....
Meryl Streep in 'Sophie's Choice.' I don't think anyone loves Meryl Streep more than I do, except maybe her husband. She's had so many great roles--the best of which was as the concentration camp survivor Sophie. Off the top of my head, this is the best female performance I can think up. But the movie itself? Good, not great. Yes, the scenes with Sophie are emotionally extreme, but the other actors, a bit of the writing, and some pacing issues prevent the film from being great.
Let's go with an example in the opposite direction.
Take Peter Lorre's role in the classic, 'M.' 'M' is undoubtedly a great film. If I was hard-pressed to create a list of the ten best films out there, 'M' would be a close contender. The film is driven by not only Peter Lorre's phenomenal performance (compare his work here to, say, 'The Maltese Falcon'), but by the shadows and corridors, the whistling tune, the script, the direction, and all of the other actors. A film is an ensemble. One must not overlook that.
Also, take Bette Davis as Margo Channing in 'All About Eve.' Again, one of the best acting jobs of all time. No one's gonna deny that. But how tricky that after each viewing, I find myself more and more fascinated by Anne Baxter's Eve. Or the immensely articulate, perfectly paced Addison DeWitt. Or even the small Marilyn Monroe cameo. And that's just the acting. The script is sensational, mixing a buffet of highbrow allusions with blunt banter that strikes to the core. Joe Mankiewicz was a genius. This is a great film.
I shall end with one more example.
Jamie Foxx in 'Ray.' Now, who doesn't love Ray Charles? No doubt Jamie Foxx did a fantastic job in the role. But watch this film and 'Walk the Line' in the same day. Notice the almost identical storyline, sans blindness. Now, that's not the writer or director's fault, because these are based on true events. But the plot of 'Ray' borders on cliche, and even though Jamie Foxx was great, the movie is far from.
With these things and this philosophy in mind, if I ever give a movie a 10/10 simply because of one performance, you have my permission to slap me.
10.25.2008
Sarah Palin is Done
I see no way in which the Republicans can win this election. John McCain is a decent guy and if he was President I really wouldn't mind too much. Sarah Palin, however, is a complete idiot.
Check out this article from CNN.
In quick summary, the article states how Palin has been going against party advisers to further her own agenda, aiming for prosperity of her own in 2012. Not only that, but it mentions what I've thought about her SNL appearance but haven't been able to express so articulately:
"She's no longer playing for 2008; she's playing 2012," Democratic pollster Peter Hart said. "And the difficulty is, when she went on 'Saturday Night Live,' she became a reinforcement of her caricature. She never allowed herself to be vetted, and at the end of the day, voters turned against her both in terms of qualifications and personally."
Political figures go on talk shows all the time--no problem there. Not only is the Tina Fey impression getting monotonous itself, but Palin going on SNL was a new low point. It didn't relate a feeling of, "Oh that's funny, they're embellishing how I act for comedic value." Instead, it seemed more like she supported all of the exaggerations. Why fuel the fire?
In non-SNL related commentary, the article also points out how she went against the party's statements, for example she claimed robocalls were "irritating" while the campaign defended their use. Now, was she trying to be candid with us? Bond as a human being? Possibly. But if that's the case, at least make sure you and the rest of your party are on the same page. Apparently no one knew this was how she felt.
So either: A) She's deliberately going against Republican advisers, or B) she's just dumb and doesn't pay attention. Whichever way, I think she should stay as far from any political office as possible (maybe this is why she's out in Alaska and not in the continental U.S. Haaaaaaha).
10.24.2008
Palin Really Bugs Me
An article on Yahoo! says that Sarah Palin is getting a lot of attention because of $150,000 spend on her wardrobe and hair.
I'm not going to debate whether that is excessive or not -- whether it is or is not is up to you to decide.
But in the article, the first thing she says is:
"I think Hillary Clinton was held to a different standard in her primary race," Palin said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune posted on the newspaper's Web site Thursday night. "Do you remember the conversations that took place about her, say superficial things that they don't talk about with men, her wardrobe and her hairstyles, all of that? That's a bit of that double standard."
So her first point is that it's a double standard -- that we criticize women and not men on their wardrobe and hairstyle. Sure, maybe. But I guarantee you that if a male politician came to a debate in khaki pants and a polo instead of a suit, or his hair wasn't combed just right, he would get as much flak as Sarah Palin would. But yes, sure, no one pays attention to how much men spend on clothes. Fine.
But then Palin says:
"It's kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported," Palin said.
Whoa! So first you want to pull out the double standard card, which basically admits that you did spend that much but so do men so people shouldn't attack you. Then you change the argument, saying that people don't have "all the facts." Really? What facts are we missing? Your hair and wardrobe is expensive.
What Sarah Palin is trying to do is play offense and defense. She's defending herself by saying that it's a double standard and she shouldn't be under the microscope on her spending, while playing offense and stating that your facts are WRONG! Not a bad tactic, except for the fact that claiming a double standard admits to the facts being correct. If they were incorrect you would have a bogus comparison and not care about the double standard -- also, you would correct them. Sarah Palin does neither.
10.18.2008
Sad Truth About the Digital Age
I'm sure I've been doing this for a while, but I just recently realized it: Sometimes I think in acronyms. Not 'lol' or 'rofl,' thankfully. But here are a couple popular ones:
I very often think 'idc' instead of 'I don't care.' Which is weird since I don't use it very often when I'm IMing/texting... or not near as much as 'idk,' but I never think 'idk,' I always think 'I don't know.'
Another common one is 'w/e.' And I do think the slash, so I think 'w slash e.' I admit that I think 'whatever' a lot more than anyone not in the film Clueless should.
This is not a good sign for the future of civilization.
More Blog Cleanup
I'm going to go through and un-publish some more posts. I think I'm slowly trying to phase out my college career and move into a more professional lifestyle.... Okay, not really. But some things are better left in the past, and some are better kept around as a history lesson. I'm going to draw another line of distinction.
10.17.2008
A Great Site
Yes, this site has been around for a while, but one can never overemphasize a helpful hand.
FactCheck.org gives details on current politics, and unlike news sites, FactCheck actually finds evidence to prove or disprove what a candidate says.
For example, here are some examples of discrepancies from Debate 3. And yes, both candidates exaggerated or misled the viewers--sometimes intentionally, no doubt, and sometimes probably because their own research was inaccurate.
Either way, when something big comes up in the political realm, before you take what someone says as a truth, run by this site to see if it holds water.
Obama is Eloquent
I finally got around to watching the presidential debate from two days ago. I'm only going to touch on one topic to avoid massive arguments: Two times during the night Senator McCain followed a statement from Senator Obama by pointing out how 'eloquent' he was in his word choice.
Since when is eloquence a bad thing? Sorry that Obama is specific in his terms and chooses his word carefully. Maybe he should watch some McCain speeches so he can study how to mix sentences and lose his train of thought.
Also, I don't even think eloquent is the correct word McCain was aiming for. Eloquent means fluent language that is very polished and proper. What McCain was trying to show was that Obama would be sure to use a phrase like 'looking at' instead of 'going to.' I can't off the top of my head think of a word that means specifically to choose one's words carefully to avoid commitment, but it's definitely not eloquent. This seems like a decent sized oversight from someone attempting to police grammar.
10.15.2008
Project Runway is Better
LeAnne won Project Runway. Score! I called that shit a few weeks ago, so again, I rule Bravo reality TV shows.
I was unimpressed by Korto and Kenley's shows. They had a few decent ones in each, but overall, meh.
What really bugs me is that LeAnne won but Karalyn (model) didn't win. Remember how she swapped Karalyn for Tia on a whim a while back? I'm still mad about that. I think I rant about this every post. I'm probably Karalyn's number one non-family fan.
Anyway, looks like we'll be back to Top Chef soon. Yay, Padma!
Kairi Gets Better Every Day
Hayden Panettiere, who I endearingly call 'Kairi' because her voice acting in Kingdom Hearts is better than anything else she's ever done, becomes more awesome by the day.
No, I don't watch Heroes (maybe someday).
No, I don't like getting into political arguments (except with my mom, because she'll love me no matter what [unless I vote non-Republican]).
Anyway, here's a video of Hayden pitching why McCain is a great candidate. There's mild use of the f-bomb, so don't watch this at work or school.
Oh, how I love sarcasm, satire, and parody. Sure, subtlety isn't very present here, but sometimes it's okay to be explicit. Video of the Month.
10.14.2008
Netflix and 30 Rock are Grand
Netflix is possibly the best investment one could make. Not only do you get DVDs straight to your doorstep (copyright?), you also get unlimited Watch Now time with all but the cheapest membership.
Watch Now? Yes, that's right, I can watch hundreds of movies on my computer. It's especially awesome since Starz just struck a deal with Netflix and hundreds more titles have been added.
I watched all of the first season of 30 Rock on Netflix Watch Now, and since the second season came out, I've been watching that as well. If the first season was good, the second season is great. Yes, Tina Fey is hilarious and I love her, but Alec Baldwin is easily the best part of the show (narrowly beating out Katrina Bowden, who gets second on a strictly looks basis).
I know I may be a bit behind the times with this, but hey, better late than never. And I know NBC puts their episodes online, but for 30 Rock (and maybe others) it's only the most recent few episodes. So does this mean I can get caught up and watch the show on television like everyone else? I hope not, because I hate commercials and I hate waiting seven days for a new episode.
Edit: Damnit, season 3 doesn't come back until October 30th. I'm stuck with everyone else.
10.09.2008
The Aging of Mysteries
For the sake of a short post title I have lumped the genres of film noir and mysteries together. Both genres are about crime, figuring out who a killer or thief was, and bringing the viewer through a maze of plot twists, turns, and red herrings. The difference is that film noir typically puts all of these elements in the dark. The stories are in the shadows and behind bars, the women have no qualms about killing for their own good (unique to this genre), and there are never happy endings (often because of a martyr).
Film noir, for the most part, hit its peak in the 1940s and 50s. Some of the greatest movies ever have come from this genre, including The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Sunset Blvd, The Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil, The Third Man, and that scene replayed a thousand times during The Shawshank Redemption from Gilda (where Rita Hayworth flips her hair). These films, when still watched today, grip the viewer until the last scene.
I try to watch old movies that aren't classics so I can have an appreciation for the gems that remain. Yesterday I watched I Wake Up Screaming, a 1941 film with a 7.4 rating on IMDb. Not bad, right? The only problem is that films like these, the ones that don't hold up well over time, have become the cliches. They aren't subtle enough, don't have enough twists, or are just plain lethargic.
I don't think anyone reading this is planning to go out and rent I Wake Up Screaming, so I won't bother avoiding spoilers.
When Betty Grable needs to pack up her things from her room, the downstairs clerk Harry Williams already has them packed. Right there, in that instant, I knew he was the killer. I would have liked to be proven wrong, but I wasn't. The problem was that this was maybe, maybe at the end of the first act. It's not that this is a bad film. In 1941 I'm sure the film was received very well. But today audiences are so stuck on plucking out the twists for themselves and claiming, afterward, that they "called it."
I try to avoid those "called it" situations. It's hard to avoid with bad movies, easy with good ones. If a movie is intelligent it will always be one step ahead of the viewer and they won't have time to figure it out -- if they pause to think they'll miss something that could either prove them wrong, or readjust their course. The Prestige was a good one. Ocean's 12 and 13, not so much (though fun movies).
What I'm trying to say is that there are two real distinctions in older films: those that hold up extremely well, and those that crumble. The middle ground is a small island. And it's not because of movie quality, but viewer expectations.
10.08.2008
Project Runway is Stupid
Last week on Project Runway it was down to the final four: Kenley, Jerell, LeAnne, and Korto. Jerell won, LeAnne got second, and the other two tied for last. Of course they tied. For a few seasons now Project Runway has been on this terrible gimmicky kick where they don't eliminate anyone in the pre-finale episodes, just fake us (and them) out.
So this week LeAnne did amazing (as expected), Kenley did well (though her wedding dress and bridesmaid dresses had no correlation), Korto's sucked a lot, and Jerell's were not his best... but had some redeeming qualities.
And Jerell got sent home. Even though he won last week and should have gone to Fashion Week to compete. And Korto and Kenley's were worse last week. And this dumb technicality screwed him over. The producers suck.
The Logistics of Reality TV
One thing has always bugged me about reality TV shows: How real can someone's reaction to a surprise be if the cameras are set up beforehand?
For example, tonight on Project Runway Tim Gunn was doing his visits to the designers' houses to check up on them. When he knocked on the door, we had a series of shots alternating from outside (behind Tim) and inside (the designer answering the door and acting surprised). Clearly they're faking their shock because those cameras don't just sit around for 2 months.
Though 'American Dreamz' was a mediocre movie at best, it was pretty funny when they made a joke about this very thing when Mandy Moore's character is told she gets to be on the show. "We need you to come out again, we didn't get a good reaction shot." Skip to 46 seconds into the trailer below to see what I'm talking about.*
* Thank you to Katie for reminding me about this scene. I dedicate 5.4% of this post to her.
10.03.2008
Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and Judd Apatow
I'm one of the few people in the 18-25 age range who did not see 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' in theaters. Fortunately, yesterday I watched it on DVD.
I'm going to begin with a small rant, and then progress into the actual movie.
Judd Apatow is one of the most overrated people in Hollywood. 'The 40 year-old Virgin' was amusing, but failed to be anything more than a traditional rom-com with more vulgar language. It lacked the wit that a movie like 'Clueless' would have. 'Knocked Up' followed pretty much the same format: Vulgarity as a substitute for classy humor. Oh, but humor does not have to be classy -- but all comedy derives from the same formats. Content is not as important as context. I won't lie and say I sat through those movies without laughing. Laugh, I did. But five years from now, or even today, both of those films are forgotten just as quickly as they were 'hits.'
Judd Apatow has helped jump-start a few actors' careers. Seth Rogen got 'Superbad' made into a film, but that was pretty much the high school version of '40 Year-old Virgin.' Same pony, same trick. Again, 'Superbad' has faded almost into obscurity, and it's only a year old. 'Pineapple Express,' a different kind of film, showed that Seth Rogen does know how to structure a story. He just doesn't know how to develop characters. The film was inferior to 'Harold and Kumar' in every aspect.
The worst tragedy coming up is Apatow's next film featuring stand-up comedy from Seth Rogen, Adam Sandler, and Jonah Hill. Jonah Hill? Are you joking? This kid is all kinds of awful. The film will be titled 'Funny People,' which I can only assume is intended to be ironic.
But there has been on real gem from all of this mess. In producing Forgetting Sarah Marshall it looks like Apatow stepped aside and let Jason Segal do all the work. And finally, after many movies, we get one that actually does work. [Review after the cut.]
What's so great about 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' (FSM from here on out) is that, while a romantic comedy of sorts, we feel comfortable that the film will not step into cliche. The first act is structured so well that we don't anticipate a cliche to surface, but can sit and enjoy these characters in what seems like a natural state. A prime example is toward the end: In too many movies the girl our hero is actually in love with walks in on the hero being pleasured (euphemism) by his ex-girlfriend, freaks out, doesn't want to take him back, they have a fight, and eventually make up. The walk-in is a cliche, and the film almost preps us for it with Rachel working at the hotel, but it's Peter himself that confesses.
Peter pins a key point of the movie for us when he's talking to Aldous, Sarah Marshall's new boyfriend. He says that he hates him because of the circumstances, and wants to dislike him, but that Aldous is really such a cool dude. It's true. Unlike in many other movies where the new guy is an antagonist, here the antagonist is our title character, Sarah Marshall. But even she is passive, propelled into situations by the other characters. It's an interesting scope here, the relationship between everyone. The aggressive, open, talkative males are the good in everything, whereas the quiet, catty Sarah Marshall is the cause of all the drama.
If there's one thing to gripe about, it's Mila Kunis' role in the film. Her character knows what she wants, is completely lovable, and makes Hawaii much more beautiful than it already is. Unfortunately, her past and troubled relationships with ex-boyfriends appears crammed in to cover some tracks. A slightly rethought history on her part would have benefited the movie, though a scene with her and Peter on top of an island cliff is close to perfection.
I don't know if this is Jason Segal's one hit wonder screenplay or not. From his anecdotes during press, it seems like it might be; however, I'm extremely curious to see what he can pen next. If it's any bit as good as FSM, I'll see it in theaters this time.
9.27.2008
RIP Paul Newman
Last night another one of the greats died. He was 83.
This is another loss of a super-talented actor. Butch Cassidy is like the only Western I actually like. The Sting is an exceptionally great movie. Cool Hand Luke, The Color of Money, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The Verdict.... He will be missed.
9.24.2008
Project Runway: Rock n'Runway
Note: Didn't feel like blogging PR last week. Let's just say I'm glad Jerell won and glad Joe went home.
Five designers left... ideally Suede will go next, and then Kenley. I don't like Korto, but at least she's not awful like Suede or obnoxious like Kenley. Plus Kenley swapped out her model. WHAT! LeAnne swapped models?! Karalyn was great and it really bugs me that LeAnne dropped her. What craziness.
The challenge: Design an outfit for another designer based on a specific musical genre. This should be epic.
The genres each designer are paired with are pretty funny. Can't wait to see Kenley's design for hip-hop, or how Korto looks in a country outfit.
See, here's the difference: Suede takes Tim's critique completely to heart, as most do. But then we have Kenley, who insists on criticizing Tim's taste. She needs to be much more respectful to Tim. "What does Tim know about hip-hop, anyway?" Maybe not a lot, but he does know what the judges will and will not like.
What is this outfit... the hip-hop outfit Kenley made for LeAnne is awful, for a hip-hop or for any outfit. However, Kenley looks pretty hot in this pop outfit.
Now for the runway (this is the designer's name, not the client)! (Why is LL Cool J a judge?)
Kenley: This looks awful. Kenley blaming it on LeAnne's attitude pulling if off? Whatever.
Jerell: Don't know how I feel about the front strip, but a very pop outfit.
Korto: This punk outfit is pretty great. The bleach on the jeans helped a lot. It's very good, though I think she coulda gone with one less chain on the top.
Suede: Not really the best 'rock' outfit, but still, not too bad.
LeAnne: Looks not so much like a great garment, but very country.
I think Jerell should win with Korto second. LeAnne third. Oh, and LL Cool J is guest judging so Heidi can plug his new album. It all makes sense now.
Heidi is useless. "You know what Jerell looks like today? Jerell." Really?
Thank you Nina for telling off Kenley. "Everyone's was hard." Exactly. Kenley had one day the same as everyone else.
LOL @ 88% of people thinking Kenley needs to leave Tim alone [and stop being a bitch].
Aww, weak. Korto won. I was hoping Jerell would win three in a row. Oh well, no real complaint.
WHAT. How is Kenley in?!?!!!!!!!!!!!! Suede's was very well made. Kenley's was freaking disgusting. Man....... I don't like Suede but I think he was cheated.
9.23.2008
'The Mentalist' a 'Psych' Rip-off?
Recently one of my friends introduced me to the wonderful show 'Psych.' If you don't watch it, you should. If you do, then no doubt you'll agree that this new show, 'The Mentalist,' looks exactly like 'Psych,' minus any humor. And we know humor is what makes 'Psych' great. But come on, a fake psychic who uses his ability to notice minute details and put them together? It's not really even a subtle nod to 'Psych,' it's a genuine rip.
Here's the Mentalist trailer (of course, like always, I can't find the short commercial I've seen on TV a hundred times where he describes his 'power' more in-depth. Here is a weak alternative):
9.19.2008
Movies to Study: The Savages
In my original review of 'The Savages,' I stated: "Both of our protagonists are intelligent, yet fail to grasp on to the essentials of traditional happy living. Raised by their irritable father and abandoned by their mother, Wendy is trapped in an affair with a married man, while Jon can't commit to marrying his girlfriend from Poland, even though that means her visa will expire and she has to leave the country. These characters have a good heart, but are simply unaware of how to use it." 'The Savages' is a film about dealing with dementia, but the subtext here is the story of Jon and Wendy's realization that they have more in common than just their father.
The film begins with mellow music and a montage of elderly people dancing, swimming, playing golf, riding bikes. First impressions: Is this a musical disguised as a drama? No, no it is not. It's us being shown what Lenny Savage is missing since he is confined in his home not by his age, but his illness.
The film is a lesson in subtlety. Notice how in the first scene, while Lenny's longtime girlfriend Doris is being dressed by the home care technician, he does not put her ring on her ring finger, but her pinky finger. A small sign of things to come, and one that is easily overlooked because of common assumptions that, A) old people living together are married, and B) we saw the photograph on the fridge moments earlier. And sometimes the subtlety plays into the comedy of later scenes, like when Wendy takes Lenny's suspenders and hat off because they're "not your style," and then when he stands up on the plane... well, you can guess what happens.
Both Laura Linney (Wendy) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (Jon) are outstanding in their roles, proving that they're two of this generation's best actors. Linney, so great in movies ranging from 'Love, Actually' to 'The Truman Show' to 'Kinsey,' delivers another touching performance. Take the scene where she tells Jon that she got the Guggenheim fellowship. She's timid and doesn't say much -- which at first we think is because of the situation: Her father has dementia and her brother doubt her talent and called her life "portable," which she interprets to mean like a portable toilet. But knowing how things turn out, it's clear to see she's hiding something in plain view. And since Jon, her brother, couldn't pick up on it, it's no wonder we can't. Again, subtlety.
Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Jon straightforward. He is always rational and blunt in dealing with their father. His philosophy is that a nursing home is a nursing home, and the landscaping is all for the family. True, though no one wants to acknowledge this -- especially Wendy. But where Jon succeeds in getting their father into a nursing home, he fails in his personal life. He claims he isn't ready to marry his Polish girlfriend of three years, yet he cries when she cooks him eggs in the morning. Not just the morning before she leaves, but every morning since he realized that their time is finite.
The movie flows like poetry, with one scene almost always leading into the next. I usually dislike cheap gimmicky transitions, such as, "I wonder where he is now," and then the next scene shows where he is now. 'The Savages' uses a little more finesse. When Jon and Wendy first talk on the phone, Jon concludes that they'll really be in trouble when they reach the red zone, but right now they're in orange, maybe yellow. The next shot if of Ravishing Red, the nail polish Lenny's girlfriend Doris is getting just before she dies. Another example is when Jon and Wendy go to a dementia support group. The scene, while having the undercurrent of humor in their eating of refreshments, shows that they do care about Lenny. Support groups are often for the individuals attending, but the group leader mentions ways to help care for your elder, and one of them is talk about old movies. The next scene is Movie Night presented by Lenny Savage. Unfortunately this experience does not go nearly as well as the Savages expected when Lenny screens 'The Jazz Singer,' a film that seems racist by today's standards, but as Jon said, you have to judge it in historical context.
The color red is also an important symbol in this film. We have the red nail polish before Doris dies, the big red pillow that Wendy buys for her father, and just before Lenny's toes curl up (like the Witch in the Wizard of Oz, meaning he's about to die) the scene fades in over the red lava lamp that lights up Lenny's room. There was another great movie that did this with oranges, maybe you've heard of it. It was called 'The Godfather.' Though, obviously, 'The Savages' isn't quite 'Godfather' quality.
Here, Tamara Jenkins makes a wonderful film that I hope will last a long time in the hearts of movie-goers. She knows when the film should be charming, when it should be silly, and when it should be sincere. She achieves something fewer and fewer movies these days seem to accomplish: She makes us care about the characters.
9.17.2008
Vote: WALL-E / EVE
Inevitably as it comes closer to the time of election, everyone over the age of 18 will be asked: "Who are you voting for?" And if you agree with the asking party, you'll be praised, and if you disagree, expect either a long debate or a long stare of disapproval.
In times like these, there's really only one safe way to vote. And that vote is:
But why? A candidate should not be voted on strictly because of his or her cuteness and emotional appeal. We, as voters, should take into consideration a candidate's policy on all fronts. But unsurprisingly, WALL-E and EVE dominate both Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin.
Environment
We all know that we're wrecking the Earth. Whether you believe in global warming or not, it's hard to deny that all the trash we make and energy we waste will be a problem eventually. But no one knows that better than WALL-E, the candidate with first-hand experience with this issues. WALL-E is an everyday man, going to work with his lunchbox just like the rest of us. He has lived through what the other candidates only predict will happen.
WALL-E's running mate, EVE, is a female Vegetation Evaluator. Have any of the other candidates spent their whole lives searching for and rescuing plants in order to restore life to its home planet? I think not. How can they compete with this?
Women
Are you voting for McCain/Palin because you'd like to see a woman in office? I should hope that's not your only reason, but if it is, consider WALL-E/EVE. EVE does not equivocate -- you know exactly what she plans to do. Are any of the candidates this straightforward? No. EVE is a strong-minded individual who is looking out for the best of us and the betterment of the planet. Does Palin fit that bill? Maybe. But she has to wear glasses. Can we really count on a vice president with poor eye sight?
Equal Rights
Let's examine a paparazzi shot of WALL-E with his best friend.
WALL-E's personal life is filled with diverse individuals, and judging from his actions, I find it impossible to think he would allow anyone to be considered a second class citizen.
Energy
WALL-E is a known advocate of solar power. Why use batteries when one can run for days on the sun's natural energy? Why oil, a finite resource, when solar power will last for centuries? WALL-E understands our needs and is already in action.
With these issues at the front of the WALL-E / EVE campaign, I don't see how anyone can vote otherwise.
Have a question about the candidates' policies? Feel free to inquire in the comments.
9.15.2008
TV Review: True Blood
I waited a week beyond the pilot so I could accurately gauge this show. Now, having seen the first two episodes, I have a better idea of what to expect.
True Blood is a new series on HBO created by Alan Ball -- writer of American Beauty, creator of the show Six Feet Under (which I have not seen [though wanted to]). The premise is that vampires do exist (they are not the Dracula cliches we've come to expect), and thanks to bottled blood (True Blood), they live among humans. But the world is not at ease with this. There is a blanket of discrimination against vampires, so much that news anchors won't even debate directly with a vampire -- he requires a third party.
This is not a vampire Sex and the City. The series takes place in backwater country where half the setting is swamp and everyone in town knows one-another. Anna Paquin plays Sookie, a server at a local restaurant. When a vampire shows up to town for the first time, well, ever, Sookie is the only person to not judge him so quickly (there is no hiding of allegory here). Sookie saves Bill the vampire from two rednecks who were trying to drain his blood (vampire blood sells for a lot, and naturally this kills the vampire). This is all an interesting take on the vampire genre.
Another key element is that Sookie is telepathic. Yet she cannot read Bill's mind, which is part of her attraction. The other? Maybe she enjoys being with someone who's different as well. But unfortunately Paquin's accent leaves a bit to be desired.
The pilot packs quite a punch, introducing Sookie's stubborn, protective, unhealthily horny older brother Jason, as well as her grandma that she lives with and a handful of friends and coworkers. None of the characters fit precisely into a mold, but there is definitely a hint of textbook presence. Maybe they need some time to come into their own.
The real bottom line here is that if you're open to new ideas and/or like Gothic vampire macabre, you will enjoy this show. I do. If you don't like that stuff, your time is probably better spent elsewhere.
Rating (so far): 7.5/10
Blog URL
As some of you may or may not notice, the blog has been put to a URL.
http://kidwaltz.blogspot.com will still forward to the new address, but from here until the next year the site is going to be youbettereffinloveit.com.
I think the URL name speaks for itself.
9.14.2008
Review: Burn After Reading
Burn After Reading (2008) || IMDb
It seems the Coen Brothers waste no time between their dominance of the Oscars (No Country for Old Men) and their next film. Burn After Reading is a spy movie that twiddles between traditional, situational comedy and the sadistic, dark humor avid Coen fans have come to love. The film may not always be 'working,' but in the end, it all works just well enough.
The plot here is scatter-brained and seemingly haphazard. There's a government analyst named Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) who is blackmailed by Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand (two employees and trainers at the gym Hardbodies) when they find a disc containing his financial information in the female locker room. Their names are Linda Litzke and Chad Feldheimer, which itself should hint that this film has no shame in the occasional cheap gag. Their motivation? McDormand wants the money for some plastic surgeries, and Pitt wants to find out what all these documents and figures are about. It seems like Pitt's character doesn't have much of a personal life, so this is his chance to practice his spy routines.
Then there is George Clooney, playing Harry, a charming man obsessed with flooring. He sleeps with every female in this film, and is also a former government employee. He carries a pistol with him all the time, though he's never had to discharge it in twenty years. Guess if he has to in this film? I wouldn't dare spoil it for you, though.
There are also plenty of affairs and divorces and unhappy characters in the film. Cox is dealing with a divorce from his wife, as well as trying to get his documents back. McDormand attempts to sell Cox's documents to the Russian government, which doesn't go over well since they're unimportant in every way.
The real charm of the film is how tight everything is. At 96 minutes, the film has no excess. And some of the greatest scenes come from J.K. Simmons, the super-superior CIA officer. His role is small, but it adds justification and an interesting perspective to not only the film, but how our government may actually work.
This film is nothing if not fun and full of surprises, the best of which comes not from left field, but from out of the park. So absurd it is, you'll know exactly when you see it what I'm talking about.
Yet in the end, it all makes sense.
Rating: 6/7
9.10.2008
Project Runway: What's Your Sign
Fresh off Stella going home and LeAnne winning, I doubt tonight's episode will live up to last week's. But, we'll see....
Wow, this season seems so long. The previously eliminated designers came out and I didn't recognize half of them. This show needs to be on three nights a week like Big Brother.
The challenge: Avant-garde look based on the zodiac sign of one team member. I'm a Sagittarius, so let's see who else is. Daniel, Terri, Jerell, and Suede. I guess it could be worse. Sweet, Jerell is actually using Sagittarius. Go, him.
After all these seasons I still don't know how the designers find what they want in Mood in 30 minutes. It looks huge, with thousands of rolls of fabric just piled up. Ridiculous.
Some people hate on Terri, but I think she's hilarious. "Maybe Keith can count the pins that fall on the floor." So funny.
Tim Gunn is the BEST. Calling Kenley's a costume for Glinda, the Good Witch of the North. Freaking genius.
Heidi's message the next day says two designers will be eliminated this time. Whaaaat? I hope she's just messin' and means one will be eliminated, and then the designer who came back will be eliminated (again).
Oh my God, Daniel V is back! I love him. Oh, and of course Christian is back, because I really don't think he cares about designs, he only cares about plugging himself on other TV shows (i.e. Ugly Betty, etc). Sigh.
It's pretty funny watching Kenley argue with Heidi, because honestly, just because you look good in clothes, it doesn't mean you know about clothes. I think Heidi knows some, but really, judging is not her forte.
Why is Carmen here? Wasn't she kicked off like week 2? Joke.
I hate to sound like a fanboy but LeAnne's looks awesome yet again. And, you know, her model Karalyn is gorgeous.
Anyway, runway time! (Yay, Nina is back!)
The GOOD: Terri (I agree with Keith, though, the skirt looks a bit cheap), Joe (I really like this one), LeAnne (simple and perfect)
The MEH: Blayne (interesting, but too much), Korto, Jerell (great top, meh on skirt)
The BAD: Kenley (great design but the fabrics were awful), Suede
God Kenley, stop arguing with the judges. Seriously, please shut up and take criticism. You're a lot cuter when you're not being a bitch.
Wow, Jerell won. That's awesome, I'm glad he finally pulled a W. And Tim Gunn called it earlier in the show, either he'll win or crash and burn.
Blayne is out. Not a surprise. He was entertaining, but his garments (especially this time) weren't spectacular.
Shit, Suede is in. Terri is out? Man, that bugs me. Terri's was a lot better IMO. Man, Keith ruins the show again. Shit.
Let's get some pictures of the winner and two losers.
(For reference, I don't think the protruding fabric was there on the runway)
9.09.2008
This is Awesome
I've hated on the film 'Disturbia' (not to be confused with the highly addicting song by Rihanna) ever since I heard about its premise because I don't like Shia LaBeouf and it's a plain ripoff of 'Rear Window.' And who would want to remake 'Rear Window?' It's a perfect movie.
In this post I call it out, as well as show similarities of the director's next project to 'North by Northwest.'
Today, /Film reports that Spielberg and DreamWorks may be sued over 'Disturbia' for its resemblance to 'Rear Window.' I like Spielberg, and I like DreamWorks, but I don't like this film or director or Shia, so this is great.
9.07.2008
Review: Love and Other Disasters
How can one pass up a movie with a title so epic as 'Love and Other Disasters?' Doesn't that sound like potentially the best romantic comedy of all time? Unfortunately, the movie opens very strong but cannot risk falling into traditional cliches and frustrations of the genre. A tip to the writer, Alek Keshishian: Even if you acknowledge something as a formula or a gimmick in your film, it's still a formula or a gimmick.
But let us begin with the good.
Brittany Murphy, always charming, can never seem to quite fit into a great role. We either get the 'Clueless,' 'Sin City,' or '8 Mile' Brittany, or we get the 'Just Married,' 'Uptown Girls,' 'Little Black Book' Brittany. Here, in 'Love and Other Disasters,' she falls somewhere in-between.
The movie is about Love, as well as a few Other Disasters. One of those disasters is that Brittany Murphy's character Jacks (short for Jackson) is stuck on an ex-boyfriend who she sleeps with in order to "fill a void. Literally." Another Disaster is the abundance of gay stereotypes portrayed in the film. Her gay best friend Peter (Matthew Rhys, of TV's 'Brothers & Sisters') enjoys living in fantasy relationships because every time reality hits, it hits too hard and too real. Funny, charming, and entertaining these all are. Yet somewhere around the beginning of Act II the film loses its touch.
Jacks' main interest in the film is Paolo (Santiago Cabrera), who Jacks assumes is gay. The disaster here is that he is not, and like so many other films, cannot simply correct her because of countless odd coincidences. The movie amounts to frustration that is only passed by the film 'Serendipity.' (Which I enjoys, until I wanted to rip my hair out 30 minutes in.) Why can't Paolo simply say "I'm straight" thirty minutes into the film and be done with it?
All of those are disasters of the characters, which, while not the best writing in the world, are a part of the film. The disaster of the film itself is the half-ass attempt to play on the formula 'Adaptation.' did so much better so many years earlier: With one of the main characters writing a film script about the film we are watching. Yes, Peter is trying to become a famous writer, and eventually he turns the film we watched into a script. Naturally he wants it to be more like 'real life' (which, by this point, we're hardly in those waters anymore), and naturally the studio wants to spice it up with a happy ending, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Orlando Bloom. This film would have been better without the tricks and Courier New font roaming free on my screen.
Despite its structural flaws, the film has some redeeming qualities, mainly in some witty exchanges of dialogue and how to furnish your expensive London apartment (how do they afford that place?). Worth a watch if it is on the tube, but barely worth the rental.
Rating: 3.5/7
9.03.2008
Project Runway: Double O Fashion
Why would I watch the Republican National Convention when I can watch Project Runway instead? The presidential election is huge for America, yes. But fashion is Universal.
This season is going by so fast. Only 9 designers left. Where has the time gone? And LeAnne's model Karalyn is beautiful (still).
Blayne is hilarious. "I want every challenge to be involving Mary-Kate Olsen. I want to marry Mary-Kate. Who doesn't? Besides Tim Gunn." I like him more every episode. Except he called Mary-Kate Olsen a fashion legend. What?
Is it bad I don't know who Diane Von Furstenberg is? Kenley's crying, so it must be a big deal. But Diane thinks Marlene Dietrich is one of the most glamorous women in the world, so obviously she knows what she's talking about. Wow, the movie 'A Foreign Affair,' which I haven't seen, was directed by Billy Wilder (my favorite). I'm slacking and need to see that film stat.
I hope I don't bite my tongue, but this challenge has Jerell's name written all over it. A classy, retro dress? So him.
Wow, Kenley. Stop crying.
Stella is kind of a jerk. Why keep what you're doing a secret? It's not like people are going to want to copy you. All your designs suck. Plus, you're in the same room. They can watch you do it.
Kenley's look is disgusting. I think it's the fabric. It's too flashy for the 'spy' feel that the challenge is going for. However, there is a bit of Shanghai feel. But that's in the shape, not in the fabric.
LeAnne's dress looks fabulous. The jacket looks great, but not with that dress. Tim's a genius in saying, "Shrink it."
Stella's looks horrific in the workroom. I hope for her sake it comes together on the runway.
Man, Nina is gone again? I miss her so much.
The GOOD: LeAnne, Terri (wow, that jacket is fantastic), Jerell (this one's hot, but a bit sloppy)
The MEH: Joe, Korto, Blayne (what a jacket, though)
The BAD: Suede, Stella (who is she, Batman?), Kenley (totally boring, and a miss)
Joe's looks so tacky. I agree with the judges that it's not cohesive, as well as the gap in the back not working.
Kenley, stop interrupting Heidi while she tries to talk. I'd be pissed if I was Heidi.
I'm glad the judges like LeAnne's. She's my faaaaaaaaaaavorite. But the way this is edited, with the judges not saying much other than they like it, leads me to think she won't win.
Korto's looks good, but I agree with what Tim said earlier in the workroom, that the yellow up top looks like a sticking out bra strap. The yellow on the bottom -- great. Top -- not so much.
"Stella was not stellar." This guest judge is awful (not Diane). Nina needs to come back ASAP.
YES! LeAnne won again! Yay yay yay. Two weeks in a row, holler. She's great.
YES! Stella's out! This is definitely the best episode ever. Oh my God, stop talking and get off my show already.
And for reference, here are the winning and losing designs. Try to guess which one is which!
Big Brother 10: Update
Yes, I have been keeping up with Big Brother 10 (which you can watch for free on the CBS site).
I'm really excited that my alliance of four is in the final five. Unfortunately Jerry won HOH this week. I really, really dislike him. He's such a jerk and a hypocrite. But hey, Ollie and Michelle and April and Libra and all these people I don't like got booted, so it's okay.
I'm hoping for a Dan/Memphis/Keesha final three, with Dan/Memphis final two and Dan winning on votes (which is unlikely since he pissed off lots of people). But then again, maybe they will admire Dan's great game play. Doubt it, though.
9.02.2008
'Remember the Titans' Was a Good Springboard
Yesterday I caught a showing of Remember the Titans on TV, and once it was finished and the credits started, I was surprised how many of the child/young actors that are now big names appeared in this film. It seems like this was a first role, or at least starting point, for numerous careers.
In IMDB Order:
Donald Faison, who is best known these days as Turk on Scrubs, had a significant part here. I can't really count him, though, because he was put to fame for his work in the timeless 'Clueless.'
Kip Pardue, whom I love for his role as Victor in 'The Rules of Attraction,' has this as one of his first credits. He was also in the humorous 'But I'm a Cheerleader' (which starred the gorgeous Clea DuVall, but that's another blog post).
Hayden Panettiere, who I affectionately refer to as Kairi (from Kingdom Hearts), has a large part in this film. It was far from her first gig, but I think it was her first major bit. You can see her now on Heroes, and also the cover of almost every teen magazine.
Kate Bosworth has a small part here as the judgmental girlfriend. It's hard to recognize her -- I knew she looked familiar but couldn't tell it was her. There's a huge difference between her at 17 here and her at 19 in 'The Rules of Attraction.' Most recently she did 'Superman Returns,' which was decent, and '21,' which was awful.
Ryan Gosling had a small part as one of the players. IMDb shows a bunch of TV credits, but this looks like his first serious film role. He's gone on to make 'The Notebook,' as most know, but has proven himself a great actor in 'Half Nelson' and to a lesser degree 'Lars and the Real Girl.'
Denzel Washington.... Just kidding. He's long been famous and great. Still is.
Watch the movie now, if you haven't seen it recently, and you'll notice what I did. This movie really is a gem.
Don LaFontaine Dead at 68
/Film reports that Don LaFontaine has died. This is a real big deal. Let's think about how much this man has done.
Thousands and thousands of movie trailers have used Don as their voice. He's been doing voice work for years and years, meaning his effort has shaped the movie-going experience significantly. He started work in the late-60s/early-70s, which brings him to and through a revolution of the movie promoting industry. Imagine how different trailers would have been over the years without him, and perhaps how many studios would have made millions and millions less dollars. Think of all the trailers that will now come out and have the voice-over done by someone else.
Movie trailers were his forte it seemed, but Don also did thousands of commercials, among other things. I feel like his death will have a more significant impact on the film industry than most think. Maybe it will be more subtle, but it will be there.
Posts
