Features - by John - December 16, 2008 - 10:18 America/Montreal - 100 Comments
Well, as we approach the end of 2008 it’s time to continue the tradition and announce The Movie Blog’s 10 worst films of 2008. There were a LOT of horrible movies this year so it took a while to narrow down the bunch to just 10… but we have them here now for you to focus your disgust at. These movies represent the very worst of Hollywood and painful memories of wasted money at the box office. Thank goodness we had some really great films this year too… but that post is for later this week.
So for now I present to you for discussion, The Movie Blog’s 10 Worst Films of 2008
|
#1 - MEET THE SPARTANS
I don’t know that I have it in me to think about this movie long enough to make a statement about it. The fact that it made $30 million on it’s opening weekend proves that “Idiocracy” was more of a prophecy than a movie. Hands down the worst film of 2008. |
|
#2 - THE LOVE GURU
Should have just called it “Austin Powers 4 With A Different Accent And Without The Humor”. Myers… what happened to you dude? Yes, it was even worse than… |
|
#3 - WITLESS PROTECTION
How can a guy who is so funny on stage (yeah, I actually dig Larry as a stand up comedian) be so flat out horrible on screen each and every time he’s up there? |
|
#4 - THE ROCKER
I knew this film was a train wreck after being on set for just 5 minutes. Rainn Wilson was poised to become a big comedy movie star… after this flop it just ain’t gonna happen. Damn movie made less that $6.5 million. OUCH! |
|
#5 - X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE
I wanted to like this movie so badly, but it’s like the filmmakers sat down one day and said to themselves “how many ways can we really screw this movie up, and how fast can we do all of them”. Good job guys… total success! |
|
#6 - 88 MINUTES
Al Pacino holds the honor of being the only performer to headline 2 films on this year’s worst of list. Can anyone remember far back enough when this guy being in a movie meant something? |
|
#7 - OVER HER DEAD BODY
Turns out Eva Longoria actually can’t act or attract an audience and just fluked out with Housewives. Wow this movie SUCKED! Why did Paul Rudd agree to be in this? |
|
#8 - THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR
This is another one I so dearly wanted to like, but instead it just rotted like bad pork in the sun. Some great visual effect stuff in there… but aside from that just about nothing redeemable about the film whatsoever. |
|
#9 - RIGHTEOUS KILL
The long awaited team up of Al and Robert was made about 7 years too late. And why the hell would you get the director from 88 Minutes to do this??? A horrible piece of crap movie which only served to push Pacino and De Niro further into irrelevance. |
|
#10 - NICK AND NORAH’S INFINITE PLAYLIST
The worst unforgivable sin any comedy film can commit is to not be funny. This film was not funny. Not even once. Not one giggle, not one smile, not one grin. Can someone please tell Michael Cera that he’s allowed to play more than one character? Yes, I get it Cera. You’re a mildly awkward, good hearted, understated and sympathetic post-teen who struggles with identity and self confidence despite having a lot to offer. Oh wait… which one of his characters are we talking about? Oh that’s right… ALL OF THEM!!! |
So there you have it folks. The list of the very worst films of 2008. I’m sure there are others you’d like to see on there, so why don’t you guys fill out the rest in the comments section. Which films do you think deserve the “honor” of being on there… and which ones would you take off this prestigious list to make room for them?
In a couple of days I’ll be posting the Annual “Movie Blog Awards” listing the best films of 2008 including the categories of “Best Film”, “Most Surprising”, “Biggest Disappointment”, “Most Underrated” and a few other.
Features - by John - December 11, 2008 - 23:36 America/Montreal - 31 Comments
As promised, there is The Movie Blog’s DVD commentary for The Dark Knight. I’m joined in this special “production” by Soul Video and Kristopher Tapley (Robert Sanchez got held up and we had to do it without him).
Now remember… this isn’t like a Director’s commentary. We don’t dish all the inside information on the film or how they made it… it’s just s couple of guys sitting around talking about their thoughts and opinions on the film as we’re watching it… and hopefully as you watch it with us (make sure you have your DVD of The Dark Knight ready).
So go ahead and download the commentary here.
Features - by John - November 29, 2008 - 01:29 America/Montreal - 76 Comments
As the old saying goes, there are always exceptions to every rule. The rules we’re talking about here is the absolute inability of TV stars to successfully make the transition to movie stars. Yes, there are the odd success stories like Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Johnny Depp and even Rhona Mitra seems to be on her way (she’s not there quite yet), but for the most part these represent mere drops in an ocean of small screen to big screen flops and failures.
Some people believe that the more popular a TV performer is, the better the chance that they could successfully transition to movies. But in reality the opposite seems to be more true. In some recent film production classes I took, the instructor made a great observation about this by saying:
“The general public isn’t likely to pay money to go see a celebrity (go to see a movie they’re in) that they’re accustomed to seeing for free on TV each week”
On top of that, people in general don’t deal very well with change, and if they love a certain TV celebrity, they don’t normally want to see that actor playing a different character from the one they love. This obviously isn’t true for everyone, but the principle is still there.
There is also the issue of TV acting being very different (not harder, better or worse) from acting in film. They are two different styles. Yes they are obviously similar, but it’s like in baseball where batters are better at hitting either left handed pitchers or right handed pitchers. It’s the same game, they’re doing the same thing… but it’s different. Think about it… if you flip on the TV late at night and see something you’ve never seen before on the screen, you instantly know if you’re watching a movie or a TV episode (Unless it’s Aqua Teen Hunger Force).
The most striking example of this “rule” is the cast from one of the most popular sitcoms in television history… “Friends”. The show lasted 10 seasons and was still extremely popular when it went off air. The 6 leads of the show were household names and conventional wisdom dictated that they would all be very successful in any move to the big screen they made. Well… that didn’t really work out did it?
So let’s take some time to reflect on the film legacy of former “Friends” stars shall we?
THE ONES THAT WORKED
Just as there are exceptions to the “no TV stars make it in the film industry” rule, there are also some exceptions to the “All the Friends stars movies have failed” rule too and it’s only fair that we acknowledge those exceptions (although as you’ll see, most of these exceptions don’t even really count):
|
THE WHOLE NINE YARDS
This is easily the very best movie to have a former friends star as a lead. Yeah Matthew Perry basically played his exact same character from Friends in this film… but for this movie that’s exactly what he needed to do. Acting this way along side of Bruce Willis made for a terrific on screen chemistry. The movie was flat out hilarious and introduced me to one of my most powerful celeb crushes… Amanda Peet. Too bad the sequel sucked so badly. |
|
SCREAM
To be honest I never really liked this one and have never understood the following it has. However, there is no denying this film was a success and has a very loyal following. I hesitate to put this one in here because Courtney Cox isn’t really the “lead” of the movie, but her role is a big and significant one so I’ll say it qualifies. |
Ummm… really that’s about it. Of all 6 former “Friends” stars, those two are the only movies that could fit here. I’m sure some people would like to point out Office Space or perhaps Analyze This and also thrown Bruce Almighty in there too… but although Friends stars were IN those movies, they were only secondary supporting characters and that doesn’t really count. I also don’t count doing a voice in an animated film wither, so please don’t mention Madagascar (sweet heavens how I LOATH that movie).
So what are we left with? The surprising (or not so surprising) reality is that out of the 6 Friends stars, not many of them have even been given more than a couple of opportunities to lead a project. The smell of big screen failure seems to march ahead of them into any casting meeting. And sadly, when they have been given a shot… it usually ends up an epic failure. Don’t believe me? How about some of these classics (seriously, the following list looks like it was pulled right out of a Wallmart $2 bargain bin):
THE EPIC FAILURES
|
ED
Who can forget the instant cinematic masterpiece where Matt LeBlanc (Joey on Friends) plays opposite a baseball playing monkey. No… I’m serious. I’ll repeat those three words again to let the aweomeness sink in a little deeper. BASEBALL… PLAYING… MONKEY. I hope LeBlanc didn’t just fire his agent after being talked into doing this… I hope he dragged his ass into the parking lot and beat the hell out of him too. |
|
MARCI X
I hope whatever movie executive gave the official green light to this movie took a trip to some third world nation and caught syphilis. What the hell was Lisa Kudrow thinking?!?!?! Exactly what part of “A Jewish American princess falls in love with a bad boy gangsta rapper played by Damon Wayans” sounds like a good idea to you? |
|
LUCKY NUMBERS
Another absolute shit bomb from Lisa Kudrow. At least with this project you could understand the appeal since John Travolta was still a pretty hot name in 2000 (although his career had already started its decline again by then). Still, one read of the script should have sent her, and everyone else involved with this film running. |
|
3000 MILES TO GRACELAND
Man, the first 15 minutes of this flick had me thinking I was watching one of the greatest guy movies of all time. Then it went straight downhill for the rest of it. I hesitate to put this one on the list because technically Courtney Cox isn’t one of the “leads”, but her role is the third most prominent one in the film. To bad. |
|
FOOLS RUSH IN
Ok, I at least can understand why Matthew Perry gave this one a shot. The studio was very behind this film giving it a big marketing push, Selma Hayek was a hot name (and hot other things as well) and in theory it at least sounded interesting. However the movie turned out horribly, and even though Friends was insanely popular at the time, the movie failed to even crack $30 million. No one cared. |
|
ROMY AND MICHELE’S HIGH SCHOOL REUNION
Words simply fail me. I watched this 10 years ago once to appease a woman I was with. I no longer speak with that woman. |
|
PICTURE PERFECT
Really the first (of many to come) film where I realized that Jennifer Aniston was pretty much always going to be Rachel in every movie role she ever took. A standard RomCom snooze fest without the courtesy of giving us anything to laugh at in the film (other than at the film itself). Times must have been pretty rough for Kevin Bacon to appear in this thing. |
|
THE PALLBEARER
Seems like in a 2 year span the studios were taking chances on every Friends cast member, and even the funny looking David Schwimmer was no exception. Hey, don’t get me wrong… offer me a movie with Gwynethh Paltrow and I’d take it too. But come on… anyone could have told that this film was going to be terrible. Oh… and even though Friends was huge at the time… the flick made LESS than $6 million. Nice. |
|
ALONG CAME POLLY
Wow… SHOCKING! Another RomCom from Jennifer Aniston! This time she’s paired up with with Ben Stiller and even that doesn’t work. There were times that this whole mess just felt like a rip off movie version of Dharma and Greg if you follow me. |
|
SERVING SARA
I’ll give this to Matthew Perry… when he signs up to appear in a RomCom as the same old guy he always is… he at least manages to appear with some of the hottest women in the business. This movie was almost worth the 90 dreadfully painful minutes just to see Elizabeth Hurley. Well… at least when she wasn’t speaking that is. |
|
THREE TO TANGO
Wow, i don’t even know where to begin with how bad this movie was. Ok, if you’re going to have a love triangle type of comedy, this isn’t a bad cast for it. But nothing worked in this film. Well ok… there was this one scene where Neve Campbell is talking about a lesbian experience she had in college while soaking in a bath tub that’s pretty memorable… but that’s for the wrong reasons. |
Oh there are others, but I think we’ve tortured ourselves enough at this point don’t you agree?
One of the interesting things to notice is that even though these people are all “names”… today you really don’t see them getting many (if any) roles at all aside from Jennifer Aniston. So Matt LeBlanc hasn’t had a lot of failures… but that’s because no one wants to give him any more chances… and who can blame them?
However, I don’t think the lack of big screen success for the former Friends cast is necessarily a negative reflection on them as actors, but rather more of a case of what I was saying at the beginning of this post. TV stars have an almost impossible time transitioning to the big screen successfully. It does happen sometimes, but not often.
I also think that in the specific example of the Friends cast, the general audiences’ reluctance to accept these performers in any other role is actually a testament to just how good they all were on that show and how great the chemistry was between them, so please don’t take this post as a “bash” on the Friends crew… just as an observation, good or bad.
So what are some of your favorite Friends cast movies? Do you even have any at all?
Features - by John - November 26, 2008 - 11:12 America/Montreal - 62 Comments
It really wasn’t until Comic Con that I had any idea about the phenomenon Twilight had become. To be honest, I hadn’t even HEARD of Twilight until just a few short months before that when word of a film deal was released for the property. But if you were at Comic Con, you knew there was something about Twilight that had tapped into a serious fan base that made them… well… fanatical (And that’s a good thing). Comic Con was over run by rabid Twilight fans who single handedly put the project on the radar for a lot of outlets (like The Movie Blog) who up until that point hadn’t been paying much attention to it. The fans at Comic Con made that impossible to continue. This was going to be a hit.
But still, over the last couple of months I have sounded off a serious doubt about a Twilight movie. No, I never said it would be bad and I never suggested it couldn’t be a great movie… but having never read the book I simply couldn’t understand what the big deal was. After all, there is nothing original about the basic concept:
“There’s a vampire, and vampires are bad, but not THIS vampire. This vampire is a good vampire with a heart of gold. And this vampire you see… he falls in love with a mortal girl which is totally forbidden. And the girl you see… well she’s so in love with the vampire she overlooks his beast side”.
Yeah yeah yeah… we’ve seen this specific idea done a thousand times before. So while I never “hated” on Twilight, I just openly questioned what all the fuss was about considering it really didn’t strike me as being anything original. This got a lot of Twilight fans mad at me, but I was just being honest with my thoughts.
I was so indifferent about Twilight that I passed on an opportunity to see an advanced screening the studio invited me to and let someone else go in my place. I just didn’t care about the movie.
So opening night for the film comes and someone invited me to go see it with them, so I went. To my surprise I ended up LOVING the damn thing. And oddly enough… many of those Twilight fans who were mad at me for not speaking positively about it in advance… ended up hating it.
I believe there are some very legitimate reasons to love this movie. However, I also can see some very legitimate reasons why many people dislike it as well.
**WARNING - FROM HERE ON SOME SPOILERS WILL BE DISCUSSED. IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE AND DON’T WANT TO KNOW ANY SPOILERS THEN DO NOT READ ON**
I’ve said this a million times: The most beautiful thing about film is the pure subjectivity of it. It’s like a work of art hanging on a wall. 10 different people can stand and look at it, and each person can see something totally different from what the other people see and have a unique experience with it. That’s the movies.
Let me start by talking about why I enjoyed this movie so much.
First of all ironically enough my one biggest apprehension about the movie (The lack of originality) actually ended up being the most striking thing to me. This was the first Vampire movie I’ve seen in a long time (probably since Lost Boys) that really introduced some new and unique ideas to the whole vampire mythology that I had personally never really seen done before.
For instance, the concept of daylight. In just about every vampire story telling, sunlight burns and kills vampires. Some smoke and burn, some just flat out explode. But in Twilight, the vampires don’t stay out of the sun for fear of spontaneous combustion, but rather because their skin glimmers as if it were made of some sort of diamond crusted armor when exposed to direct sunlight which gives them away. Just the fact that it was so different from the way any other vampire genre film had dealt with this really made me sit up in my seat and honestly wonder what else we would learn about these creatures.
In film, you get most engaged with a movie when you share in the journey with the main character. But in vampire movies, even the best ones, you can never share in that journey with the character… because as the human character is unraveling the “mystery” of this dude who ends up being a vampire… is discovering strange things about them that leads them to the revelation of them being a creature of the night… we can’t share that suspense because we already know everything. We already know the mythology, we already know what kills them, we already know what their weaknesses are… WE ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING. So the journey of the character becomes just time filler to us until the revelation is made and then the real story can start.
But with Twilight, because of some of these subtle differences (Like the glimmering skin in the sunlight) I found myself more interested in the journey Bella was on. I didn’t know what else we might learn about Edward or his family.
Edward can read minds?
His sister can paint the future like Isaac from “Heroes”?
Different vampires have different unique abilities?
The glimmering skin?
All of these changes, these differences that makes them unique allowed me as an audience member to become more engaged in the film because I, like Bella, didn’t know what would be discovered next. This alone added a lot to my enjoyment of the movie.
I LOVED the history of the Cullen family. The Patriarch of the family is a DOCTOR who loves to save human lives!?!?! His “family” are people he’s turned into vampires over the past couple of hundred years who were once his young patients that were terminally ill and did it to save their lives… and then he brings them up to be “vegetarian” vampires who only feed on animals and not humans. LOVED IT. Great backstory… and to me backstory is 30% of a movie like this.
Speaking of the family, I loved them. The dynamic of the family was a lot different than I was expecting. It was quirky, sweet and had an almost “Leave it to Beaver” feel to it, which to me was hilarious when you remember their vampires. But they were never “goofy” or silly or crossed that line. You never forgot they were indeed vampires.
I liked the whole family, but I think i liked Jackson Rathbone (who played Jasper) the most. He only has a couple of lines, but his expression and just general disposition made me grin every time he was on screen.
I’m finding myself becoming a big Billy Burke fan. To me he’s becoming one of the most solid and reliable character actors out there, even when whatever movie he’s appearing in sucks (which has happened a lot). Personally I think he a “A list” potential and would cast him in anything I did.
Scenes like the family day of baseball out in the woods gave some depth and developed the “family” nature of these vampires for me and let us understand the bond between them without using cheesy dialog or some hack monolog scene to convey it. The action (when there was some) was pretty tight, the effects weren’t half bad either and the film had a great pace.
All together, for me they put together a movie that hit it’s mark and made for a very enjoyable time at the theater.
HOWEVER….
Those that are complaining about Twilight have some very legitimate beefs. Beefs that for me weren’t enough to negate my enjoyment of the film, but I could understand why it would spoil it for them.
1) The core of Twilight is the love story between Bella and Edward… and I’m sorry to say I never bought into it in the least. I never once really felt any chemistry between them on screen. It felt forced, awkward and at times extremely contrived. That spark, that passion, that electricity so many fans of the book tell me are on the pages just never made it on to the screen for me at all.
2) The acting. Oh dear heavens the acting. Kristen Stewart (Bella) for the most part was actually ok, except sometimes she came across as a psycho girlfriend with an over extended sense of dependance than a loving girlfriend. Good grief… that scene near the end when she was in the hospital and freaking out on Edward about how he can never leave her… man… if I was Edward my “crazy chick” alarm would be going off like nuts and I get the hell away from her as fast as my little vampire legs could carry me. Speaking of Edward… sorry… Robert Pattinson may be dreamy to look at for you ladies, but his acting chops need a lot of work in my opinion.
3) Not enough action. Yes I know this is primarily a love story so I’m not expecting a Jackie Chan flick here. But come on, its a movie about vampires! Let’s see some more vampire stuff!
4) They ruined a potentially cool villain in James. James suffers from what I call the “Darth Maul Syndrome”. It’s a situation where you’ve got a solid bad guy, but then hardly ever use him and kill him off pretty unceremoniously and quickly (although I must admit seeing the Cullen family show their “bad ass” side by ripping him apart was pretty cool).
5) They didn’t give us enough Jacob or reveal enough about his true identity. I thought giving us just a little bit more of him could have added another layer to the film without giving too much away.
There are more, but you get the point.
All in all, I stood in front of the Twilight painting on the wall and was able to engage it, appreciate it and love it. However I can completely see why others had a different experience from mine too. We know that a sequel is already planned, so here’s hoping that they build on the aspects of Twilight that worked and made me love it, and better develop those aspects that didn’t work and made some people hate it. As always, we’ll have to wait and see.
Favorites, Features, Top Lists - by John - November 21, 2008 - 05:11 America/Montreal - 190 Comments
Well, today is the official opening day of “Twilight”. A very highly anticipated movie… not because of the marketing campaign (which has been average at best), but because of the rabid and loyal following that the book series has. With that in mind, I thought it would be an appropriate time to put together a top 100 movies list of movies that were based on books.
Whenever I hear of a new movie coming out based on a popular book or comic book or a sequel, I instantly hear naysayers complaining about a “lack of creativity in hollywood”. “Why not write something original” some will say. But I say thank goodness gifted screenwriters adapt novels into movies! As you can see from my list, some of the greatest movies in the history of film were adapted from books… films that I can’t even imagine what the world of film would look like today if they never came to be.
So I spent a couple of weeks putting together this list with three purposes in mind:
1) To highlight the important role books have played in the movie world
2) To draw attention to some fantastic movies that some of you may have never taken the time to watch before
3) To draw attention to the fact that these movies are indeed based on books, which may encourage you to try reading them (which I confess is a little hypocritical of me since I’ve only read a fraction of the books here.)
Now let me emphasize this next point very explicitly. THIS LIST IS NOT A LIST OF THE BEST BOOKS OR WHICH MOVIES DID THE BEST JOB ADAPTING FROM THE BOOK. It is a list of the best movies which happen to be BASED on books. Also, while I did not include Graphic Novels or Comic Books in this list, I do include short stories or novellas since they are usually a part of a single issue collection.
Like all movie lists, this one is subjective and in no way authoritative. The main purpose of which is to spark discussion and maybe interest in seeing some of these fantastic films again, or for the first time. So now I present to you The Movie Blog’s Top 100 Movies Based On Books:
|
#100 - THE JOY LUCK CLUB
Rottem Tomatoes Rating - 90%
Synopsis: Through a series of flashbacks, four young chinese women born in America and their respective mothers born in feudal China, explore their past. This search will help them understand their difficult mother/daughter relationship.
John’s Thought: Yes, I am a heterosexual male… and I loved this movie. |
|
#99 - THE MAMBO KINGS
Rotten Tomatoes Rating - 78%
Synopsis: Musician brothers Cesar and Nestor leave Cuba for America in the 1950s, hoping to hit the top of the Latin music scene. Cesar is the older brother, the business manager, and the ladies’ man. Nestor is the brooding songwriter, who cannot forget the woman in Cuba who broke his heart.
John’s Thought: No Antonio! Too sexy! Too Sexy! |
|
#98 - STARDUST
Rotten Tomatoes Rating - 76%
Synopsis: “Stardust,” based on the best-selling graphic novel by Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess, takes audiences on an adventure that begins in a village in England and ends up in places that exist in an imaginary world. A young man named Tristan (Charlie Cox) tries to win the heart of Victoria (Sienna Miller), the beautiful but cold object of his desire, by going on a quest to retrieve a fallen star. His journey takes him to a mysterious and forbidden land beyond the walls of his village. On his odyssey, Tristan finds the star, which has transformed into a striking girl named Yvaine (Claire Danes).
John’s Thought: Easily the single most underrated and under appreciated film of 2007 |
|
#97 - FRIED GREEN TOMATOES
Rotten Tomatoes Rating - 82%
Synopsis: A heartwarming tale of family, friendship and murder in rural Georgia. In a Southern nursing home, a feisty resident and old local fixture named Ninny Threadgoode (Tandy) befriends Evelyn Couch (Kathy Bates) a depressed housewife and stirs her to action with an inspirational tale. She tells the story of a transcendent friendship between two young women living in Georgia in the 1930s, Idgie Threadgoode (Mary Stuart Masterson) and Ruth (Mary Louise Parker), who forge a powerful bond after witnessing a terrible tragedy together. The two women open a cafe (where fried green tomatoes are a house specialty) together in their small Southern town of Whistle Stop and manage to survive the hardships of life, despite racism, prejudice and the pressures of trying to live their lives as individuals in a strict and close-minded Southern society.
John’s Thought: Powerful cast, powerful story. An honestly moving film. |
|
#96 - THE SHINING
Rotten Tomatoes Rating - 86%
Synopsis: A family heads to an isolated hotel for the winter where an evil and spiritual presence influences the father into violence, while his psychic son sees horrific forebodings from the past and of the future
John’s Thought: Iconic film with some of the most quoted one liners from a horror film in history. |
|
#95 - PATRIOT GAMES
Rotten Tomatoes Rating - 80%
Synopsis: Jack Ryan, the hero of Tom Clancy’s techno-thriller series, returns in the sequel to _The Hunt for Red October_. Ryan is on vacation in England when he spoils an assassination attempt on an important member of the Royal Family. Ryan gets drawn back into the CIA when the same splinter faction of the IRA targets him and his family.
John’s Thought: Once again proving you CAN change actors and still make the franchise work. Ford in his prime and my introduction to the brilliance of Sean Bean. |
|
#94 - WAG THE DOG
Rotten Tomatoes Rating - 84%
Synopsis: When a Firefly Girl accuses the president of sexual misconduct in the Oval Office less than two weeks before the upcoming election, White House official Winifred Ames (Anne Heche) is told to bring in Conrad Bream (Robert De Niro) to fix the situation and save the president’s chances for reelection. This mysterious “fixer” fabricates a conflict with Albania in an effort to detract attention from the sex scandal, bringing in legendary Hollywood producer Stanley Motss (Dustin Hoffman) to “produce” the war. When the CIA foils the initial plot, the creative team turns to a new story line, creating the saga of a U.S. soldier left behind enemy lines whom the president vows to find and return to American soil.
John’s Thought: Especially funny watching this movie now after the events of the last 8 years. Hard to go wrong with Hoffman and DiNero before he started sucking. |
|
#93 - CHARLOTTE’S WEB
Rotten Tomatoes Rating - 74%
Synopsis: Wilbur the pig is scared of the end of the season, because he knows that come that time, he will end up on the dinner table. He hatches a plan with Charlotte, a spider that lives in his pen, to ensure that this will never happen.
John’s Thought: Loved this as a kid, still love it today and will leave it on whenever I stumble across it channel surfing. Much better than the Julia Roberts voiced one from a couple of years ago. |
|
#92 - PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (1940)
Rotten Tomatoes Rating - 88%
Synopsis: From the classic novel by Jane Austen about the morals and mores of the class system in early Georgian England. The intelligent and spirited Elizabeth Bennet is one of 5 daughters — which, during that era, meant trouble: because women cannot inherit, upon her father’s death her family’s home will become the property of their nearest male relative. Only marriage, preferably to someone wealthy, can ensure her security. But the proud young lady instantly takes offense when Mr. Darcy, a promising newcomer in town, doesn’t seem quite admiring enough, and she spurns his advances. Slowly and painfully, Elizabeth realizes her error, but not before it seems she has lost him forever.
John’s Thought: Easily the best adaptation of this book ever done. Not taking away from any of the other ones… but Olivier rules. |
|
#91 - THE NOTEBOOK
Rotten Tomatoes Rating - 51%
Synopsis: The movie focuses on an old man reading a story to an old woman in a nursing home. The story he reads follows two young lovers named Allie Hamilton and Noah Calhoun, who meet one evening at a carnival. But they are separated by Allie’s parents who dissaprove of Noah’s unwealthy family, and move Allie away. After waiting for Noah to write her for several years, Allie meets and gets engaged to a handsome young soldier named Lon. Allie, then, with her love for Noah still alive, stops by Noah’s 200-year-old home that he restored for her, “to see if he’s okay”. It is evident that they still have feelings for each other, and Allie has to choose between her fiancé and her first love.
John’s Thought: I avoided seeing this for a couple of years because it had “chick flick” written all over it. My loss… turned out it’s an exceptional film. |
Full Story
Features - by John - October 23, 2008 - 14:36 America/Montreal - 48 Comments
I make no secret about it. Besides Christmas, the Oscars are my favorite time of year. Since I’m a movie freak that really shouldn’t surprise anyone. The one day that we celebrate the year that was in the movie world is something I look forward to every year. I know it’s the cool thing to talk smack about the Oscars, but to me it’s one of those things I count down to every year. I’m kind of a loser that way. And for those who like to point out that the Oscar ratings were down last year… don’t forget that aside from the Superbowl it was still the highest rated television broadcast of the year.
Anyway, every year as we approach Oscar season the speculation starts over who will (or should) host the event. I have some very strong feelings on this issue. First and foremost, since it’s the night to celebrate the world of MOVIES, I prefer to have a MOVIE personality host the event rather than a comedian or TV personality. Call me crazy. I don’t see why you’d get Slash from Guns N’ Roses to host the Tony Awards.
With that being said I’ve put together a list of 15 possible hosts for this year’s Oscar ceremonies with what I see as the pros and cons for each potential host. I’m listing them in order of my preference, not in order of what I think their actual chances are of hosting.
|
#1 - RICKY GERVAIS
Pros - The man is absolutely hilarious and continues to be a growing name in the industry. His most recent film “Ghost Town” shows he has all the tools to be a cinematic comedy superstar and his one man stage shows prove he is extremely qualified to handle the hosting duities. A terrific personality and stage presence make Gervais my #1 pick to host the Oscars this year.
Cons - He was already approached about hosting this year and turned it down. DAMN! |
|
#2 - GEORGE CLOONEY
Pros - He is the last vestige of the classic Hollywood movie star. An Oscar winner and multi nominated actor and director with some of the most natural charm and presence in the business. George Clooney IS Hollywood and would make a fantastic front man for the event.
Cons - Some people would be turned off from this pick simply because of his political beliefs. |
|
#3 - STEVE CARELL
Pros - Carell is a hot name right now, very very funny and has all the tools at his disposal to run and hold the Oscar evening together. Having been a writer for Jon Stewart doesn’t hurt his resume for the job either. He has broad appeal and that would help the Oscar ratings.
Cons - Clearly a movie start NOW… but he’s still relatively new in the industry |
|
#4 - STEVE MARTIN
Pros - To this day I think he may have turned in the best Oscar hosting performance of my lifetime. Best joke ever made at the Oscars: “To me, hosting the Oscars is like making love to a beautiful woman. I can only do it when Billy Crystal is out of town”. I nearly laughed myself sick. He is a film legend. He is beyond hilarious. He is all class and not affraid to poke serious fun at the stars. He’s Steve Martin damnit!
Cons - It’s been a while since he’s hosted and since his last hosting gig his film resume hasn’t exactly been stellar. I completely love the man, but to be honest he’s not as relevant as he used to be. |
|
#5 - TOM HANKS
Pros - Is there a more respected statesman for the film industry than this man right now? He is Hollywood nobility. Winner of back to back best actor Oscars, nominated multiple other times, respected and admired throughout the industry and lest we forget a very funny comedic performer and one time stand up artist.
Cons - To be honest I can’t really think of any. |
|
#6 - DENZEL WASHINGTON
Pros - Another performer who is a landmark in the movie industry. Multiple Oscar winner and habitual nominee. One of the most recognizable figures in the movies today who also holds heaps of respect from the movie community.
Cons - Even though the Oscars would have their own team of comedy writers to create material for the host to use, I’m not really sure Washington could comfortably work with the material in a virtual one man stand up routine. Could feel awkward. |
|
#7 - WILL FERRELL
Pros - Everytime Will Ferrell has appeared on the Oscars he generally steals the show regardless who does the skit with him. He is a legitimate A-list movie star (for comedy at any rate), very popular, would attract an audience and clearly can hold his own in the stand up department.
Cons - Some people may see Ferrell hosting as just a gimmick and write him off. Some (not me) would also see him hosting as “beneath” the Oscars (then why have Chris Rock host it one year?) |
|
#8 - JON STEWART
Pros - Stewart has hosted the Oscars multiple times already and so would bring a sense of continuity and perhaps even tradition with him. He seems to have improved from his first time hosting with last year doing a very good job. Very funny, very popular and seems more and more comfortable with the role.
Cons - He’s not a movie personality. yes I know he had bit parts in a couple of films, but there is no debate that he is first and foremost a TV personality. His political satire could be a turn off for some people. |
|
#9 - JERRY SEINFELD
Pros - One of the most amazingly gifted comedians of our generation. Quick, witty with a terrific delivery. Could and would make the Oscars a very entertaining program this year.
Cons - Again, like Jon Stewart, my problem with Jerry Seinfeld is that he is first and foremost a TV personality and not really a member of the film world. To nit pick a little bit, he also turned off a lot of people in the Documentary field his last appearance on the Oscars when he was presenting the award for Best Feature Documentary and basically insulted the genre. |
|
#10 - ROBERT DOWNEY JR.
Pros - Even with The Soloist being pushed back a year, 2008 is pretty much the year of Robert Downey Jr. He is an insanely hot commodity right now and people love a good comeback and redemption story. He’s handsome, popular and very charismatic.
Cons - This is Robert’s big come back year… but many people will still remember that he disappeared for a reason for a while. There will probably be many people in the Academy that would probably like to see RDJ keep himself on the straight and narrow for a couple of more years before taking a risk on him. |
|
#11 - TINA FEY
Pros - Besides the fact that Tina Fey is an absolute comedic genius, has one of the hottest and most awarded comedies on TV right now (30 Rock) and the head writer for the tv institution know as Saturday Night LIve, Tina Fey is simply one of the most likable personalities around and could hold an Oscar crowd with very little trouble.
Cons - Once again… Tina Few, who although has appeared in a couple of movies, is undeniably first and foremost a television personality. Not to mention some people may not be happy with her amazing Sarah Palin impersonations. |
|
#12 - BEN STILLER
Pros - In frat terms Ben Stiller is a legacy with family lines in the entertainment industry. But don’t forget he is also an insanely successful filmmaker and actor as well. Very funny man who does solid work in stand up solo situations. Add to that he has a very popular movie out (Tropic Thunder) this year too.
Cons - Stiller has his detractors in the film world. Like Ferrell many people see Stiller as “low brow” and perhaps not a fit for the Oscars. Still, I’d like to see him get a shot. |
|
#13 - STEPHEN COLBERT
Pros - One of the most popular figures on TV and an absolute comedic mad man. Stephen Colbert has done hosting duties before for other programs and has always done extremely well in these kinds of situations.
Cons - Again, he’s a TV personality and not a movie personality. Like a few others there would be those turned off by his political material. Another knock against him is that he and Stewart are seen as two sides to the same coin and Stewart has already hosted a couple of times… they’d probably be more likely just to bring Stewart back again. |
|
#14 - UWE BOLL
Pros - Say what you will about this man’s filmmaking abilities (or lack thereof), this man has the biggest balls in the film industry and one of the flat out funniest story tellers (in personal I mean… not in his movies). He could get on stage and just tell everyone in the audience why their movies all suck compared to his and that they’re all cowards and then challenge the winners to a boxing match. Come on… admit it… you’d tune in for sure.
Cons - Well… he’s Uwe Boll. |
|
#15 - ELLEN DEGENERES
Pros - She hosted once and didn’t release toxic gas to kill everyone.
Cons - What? You mean besides the fact that she sucked on a Jena Jameson level of suck power? This woman was an embarrassment and should never be allowed near this show again. And yes… I did rate her lower than Uwe Boll. |
Features - by John - October 20, 2008 - 20:30 America/Montreal - 93 Comments
There were few films coming out this year that were as highly anticipated as The Dark Knight, and for good reason. Batman Begins re-energized the Batman franchise and delivered us the very best Batman movie to date. Christopher Nolan is one of the very best up and coming directors (can you call him up and coming anymore?) in the business, Christian Bale became the best on screen Batman in film history and the film just worked on just about every level. Why wouldn’t people be pumped about the sequel… ESPECIALLY with the most famous of all the Batman villains (The Joker) being the main antagonist.
Yes, The Dark Knight was highly anticipated… and it didn’t fail to deliver. The movie was deep (as far as comic book movies go at any rate), exciting with improved action and dramatic tension over the first film… and they exchanged Katie Holmes for an upgrade in Maggie Gyllenhaal (so please, no more discussion about how you can’t exchange supporting actors in a franchise).
Now me personally, I thought the film was great… but also over-rated by many other people who gushed out the ears for the film and poured generous amounts of hyperbole all over it like gravy on thanksgiving potatoes. Outrageous statements like “One of the greatest crime dramas ever made” nonsense. The reality is that The Dark Knight did have its weaknesses and although I loved it, I wouldn’t talk about it in terms of a possible Best Picture nomination at the Oscars. Well… at least I wouldn’t have before.
I’ve been talking to many of my film critic friends who have been seeing the early screenings (like my friend Kris Tapley over at In Contention) and it seems many of the higher profile “Best Picture” potential buzz movies that a few months ago many thought would be shoe ins for nominations are starting to fall by the wayside.
“The Soloist” has been pushed back to next year.
“The Changeling” is getting mixed reviews
“Milk” is getting mixed feedback
“Quantum of Solace” is generally thought to be good, but not as good as Royale
“Defiance” didn’t have the pop many hoped it would
Let me put it this way… if this was last year, The Dark Knight would have no business being mentioned in the “Best Picture” category. But this year may be different. With a number of these unseen early oscar favorites starting to get mixed responses it’s starting to look like a “very good” movie like The Dark Knight may just be good enough to be considered for Best Picture.
Here we are in October and it still really could be possible. If I personally had to pick the best picture nominees right now (not including films that haven’t been released yet), my nominees would be:
1) Wall-E (Best picture of the year so far bar none)
2) In Bruges (tragically underrated)
3) The Dark Knight
4) Son Of Rambow
5) Burn After Reading
So what do you think. With the early favorites starting to fade a bit, do you think it’s possible for The Dark Knight to be nominated for best picture this year?
Features - by John - October 19, 2008 - 09:13 America/Montreal - 35 Comments
I’ve talked at length in the past about Star Trek and the fact that it’s a dead franchise and in serious need of changes to be resuscitated. This past week some new images from the upcoming new Star Trek came out… and the vast majority of complaints I heard from people were that (and I’m not making this up) was that Kirk’s shirt was black instead of yellow.
So during a recent “The Movie Blog: Uncut UNPLUGGED” I took some time to talk about:
- Why Star Trek is a dead franchise
- Why changes are needed
- Traditional Star Trek fans needed to accept the changes
- Why Star WARS doesn’t need changes
- Why I think this is all good news
This video is missing the first 5 minutes of my commentary, but I think you can pick it up.
Features - by John - October 16, 2008 - 14:56 America/Montreal - 108 Comments
Often when I think about the topic of Video Game movies, the theme song from the classic Disney film “Beauty and the Beast” comes to mind
Ever just the same
Ever a surprise
Ever as before
Ever just as sure
As the sun will rise
Tale as old as time
Tune as old as song
Bittersweet and strange
Finding you can change
Learning you were wrong
Certain as the sun
Rising in the east
Tale as old as time
Song as old as rhyme
Beauty and the Beast Video Game movies suck
Ok, I may have taken some liberties with the rhyming aspect of the song, but you get the point. It has become an inevitability, a sure thing, a guarantee… if a video game based movie comes to a theater near you, it will suck. There isn’t a lot of wiggle room here and not much compromise to be found. In the league of making crapy movies, video game movies are currently batting 1000.
And as I once said: : “What is equally predictable, is that no matter how many times that proverb is proved correct, every time a new video game adaptation is announced, the lovers of that particular game pronouce “THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT!”, but it never ever ever ever is. The old chorus of “All video game movies suck” continues to be true.”
With all of the excitement of Max Payne coming out soon, I thought we’d take a short stroll down memory lane and remember just why we should never get our hopes up:
|
SUPER MARIO BROTHERS
Ahhh… often the first thing is a taste of what is to come. The very first major picture based on a video game… and the stench is still lingering. Even Dennis Hopper, John Leguizamo and Bob Hoskins couldn’t save it |
|
DOUBLE DRAGON
With the flood gates opened, Double Dragon was the next live action Video game movie on the scene just beating Street Fighter to theaters by like a month. Only cool thing to say about this flick is that it’s hard to believe Robert Patrick was in it just after his T-2 days |
|
STREET FIGHTER
I don’t know whose brilliant idea it was to make this movie in the first place let alone make the lead character in it Guile instead of Ryu or Ken… and THEN to make Jean Claude Van Damme the American solider. I can’t prove it, but I think the term “epic fail” may have been created just for this movie. |
|
MORTAL KOMBAT
I don’t which was stranger. Casting Christopher Lambert (who I love) as Rayden or Bridgette Wilson as Soyna Blade. Confession time… I LOVE this movie. But even I can’t deny its complete awfulness. Dear heavens they even made sequels. |
|
MORTAL KOMBAT: ANNIHILATION
So let’s take the really bad first movie, scrape together the few decent elements… throw them out the window and make a sequel! Yay! |
|
POKEMON: THE FIRST MOVIE
Pokemon is more a card game, but they said they based it on the video game, so we’ll include it here. This whole movie was like some deranged acid trip that you just couldn’t come down from. Nasty terrible movie. |
|
WING COMMANDER
This was the first Video Game movie that pissed me off because I actually thought this one had a chance at being decent. Instead we were served with 3 servings of ass awful with a plate of boring on the side. And to think.. Freddie Prinze Jr was a hot commodity. |
|
TOMB RAIDER
All my friends called this one “Boob Raider” for obvious reasons. The first “blockbuster” attempt at a video game movie and to this day still probably the one that came closest to actually being ok. It didn’t quite get there, but almost. |
|
FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN
At the time the single most stunning and beautiful example of 3D animation ever created. Unfortunately also one of the most incoherent and pathetic movies ever made. It almost felt like they took 18 vodka shots and then just made the movie up as they went along. |
|
RESIDENT EVIL
Putting hot chicks in tight and skimpy clothes armed with big guns and blades going around killing zombies sounds like a hard formula to screw up… and yet they found a way. |
|
TOMB RAIDER: THE CRADLE OF LIFE
The first one was ALMOST an ok movie. Add Gerard Butler and Djimon Hounsou and you’d think that would push it into decent territory right? Ug. Wrong. The franchise turned south and never recovered. |
|
HOUSE OF THE DEAD
All hail Uwe Boll!!! You’d think a movie about showing up on an Island for a party only to find it infested with Zombies would jsut be a fun little easy flick right? HAHAHA!! Guess not. |
|
RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE
Studio Head: “Hey we really screwed up the first on and we still made money! Dress her hup in even less clothes this time, put in half the effort, make it even worse and let’s see if we can still make profit”. Turns out he could. |
|
ALONE IN THE DARK
Another entry into the Uwe Boll files. But really… did you even have to see the name Uwe Boll to know this was going to be horrible? For heavens sake the name Tara Reid appears on the poster. What more did you need to know? |
|
DOOM
Karl Urban and The Rock were solid cast decisions… and boy did the fan boys swear up and down that THIS was the video game movie that would rule and change the tide. Turns out it was one of the worst ever. Do you remember that ridiculous first person shooter view scene? Yikes. |
|
BLOODRAYNE
You know, this one had some potential. Not a bad mythology behind the main character, a cast lead by Oscar winner Ben Kingsley, and a drunk Michael Madsen running around set swinging a sword haphazardly. However, it blew and becomes the third Uwe Boll film on this list. |
|
SILENT HILL
Horror video game movies seem to be all the rage. This is another one that had some potential and even started off ok, but then quickly spiraled downwards and ended up just completely nonsensical. For a “horror” movie it was dreadfully non-frightening or even eerie. |
|
DOA: DEAD OR ALIVE
This one had people talking about while it was still in production. The hyper sexy images and clips being released turned the atmosphere of the project into one of soft-core porn instead of an action video game movie. Nothing wrong with tits and ass and hot babes kicking copious amounts of it (except for the tits part), but it would be nice if it didn’t suck. |
|
RESIDENT EVIL: EXTINCTION
Trailers are funny things. Even though the first two Resident Evil films sucked, the trailer for this one convinced me there may be a chance it would be ok. Oh those evil deceptive trailers. |
|
HITMAN
Another video game movie where the fans of the game swore up and down that THIS movie would be awesome. Certainly cast a good lead and as many others it certainly had potential… but it failed miserably. The one good thing I can say is that it introduced us to a very naked Olga Kurylenko, possibly one of the hottest women alive and the new James Bond girl. |
|
IN THE NAME OF THE KING: A DUNGEON SIEGE TALE
It certainly had a decent amount of names in the cast. Jason Statham, Ron Perlman, John Rhys-Davies, Claire Forlani, Ray Liotta, Matthew Lillard (who was actually pretty funny in it), Burt Reynolds (yes, THE Burt Reynolds). You know what, it came close. A few key changes here and there and it might have been a passable fantasy flick. Did a few things right, but too many things wrong. |
WHY DO VIDEO GAME MOVIES SUCK?
Many game fans will often put forth ideas and theories about why all the video game movies up till this point have been poor. The theories usually revolve around the writers or the studios… but when you have a pattern like this (video game movies sucking) you have to look for the common denominator. In this case… they’re all video game movies.
With that simple logic, I propose (as I have many times in the past, but never in its own dedicated post) that there in an inherent weakness with the genre itself that almost condemns these projects to certain death the moment they’re born in a studio office. So why do Video Game movies suck? Well…
#1 - Video Games are made for gameplay, not narrative story telling
When a game developer is putting their game together, their first priority (or at least it should be) is gameplay. How well does this play, how enjoyable, creative and easy is this game to operate and what will the user experience be like. Their first priority is not to tell a 90 minute narrative story. Yes, story plays a part of any good game, but it’s only a side element to the over all game experience. And really, when you break it all down there is about 10 minutes of narrative story in any given game.
People will often mistake a great “premise” with a great “story”. They’re two different things. The premise of Bioshock is fantastic, but the actual amount of narrative in the game is completely minimal.
It’s not like adapting a comic or a novel that already have massive amounts of narrative laid out that can be adapted. Making a video game movie is basically starting from scratch with nothing but an idea for a story rather than a story itself.
#2 - Gamers imaginations fill in the gaps
Because video games are so sparse when it comes to narrative (and there’s nothing wrong with that since they’re designed for gameplay in the first place) each fan of the game has a different notion in their minds about what would fill in the narrative gaps. It’s fine to make a Halo game and say Master Chief has a meeting with some Captain who has vital information… but there is no reference for that meeting, what is said in it, how it impacts the rest of the narrative or anything else for that matter. To the game player that’s not an issue and their own imaginations can fill in those gaps… the problem is what a movie actually DOES flesh those elements out, there is a 99% if won’t match what was in the game player’s imagination. Now I’m talking in generalities here, but the principle is that because the game lacks pre-existing narrative, what the fan’s CONCEPT of what the narrative may look like is probably not what is going to manifest, thus leaving the audience wanting.
#3 - Everyone has a different idea of what “respect the source material” means
This one is a common lamentation I hear from game fans when their favorite games turn out to be horrible movies. “They didn’t respect the source material”. The problem with that assertion is that… what do they mean by “source material”? This goes back again to the first point about lack of real narrative. Since the game doesn’t have it, each person will have a different idea about which elements constitute “source material” to them. So what do they mean? Do they mean the atmosphere of the game? Do they mean the characters present in the game? Do they mean the premise of the game? Again, each person will have a different idea simply because the game itself doesn’t provide it.
So there you have it. Does all the preceding mean that there will never be a good video game movie? Not at all. The law of averages dictates that eventually lighting will strike a monkey in the forest that no one will here fall (or am I mixing metaphors?). At some point one has to come along to break the streak… and then maybe that movie will provide a new paradigm for the entire genre that others can then follow to continued success. But until that day folks… assume the worst of video game movies. Keep your expectations low and caution high. Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it (in the care of Resident Evil, repeat it twice).
Features - by John - October 14, 2008 - 11:17 America/Montreal - 58 Comments
It was the best performance of his career (yes I think it was better than his performance in Brokeback Moutain). It was, in my opinion the single greatest performance ever given in a comic book based movie (yes, that includes Ian McKellen as Magneto in the X-Men flix). It was also one of the best all round performances of the year, so clearly and understandably many people have been talking about a possible Oscar nomination for Heath Ledger for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight.
The thing is, most people up to this point have been talking about that possible Oscar Nomination in he context of Best SUPPORTING Actor… you know… because he was a supporting actor in the movie. But there have been some people poking their heads up to suggest that Warner Bros. should push for Ledger to be considered in the Best Actor category. A move that I contend would be both technically incorrect and an attempt to capitalize on the tragic death of Ledger.
#1 - TECHNICALLY INCORRECT
From a technically correct perspective, this has been a real issue with me for a couple of years now. To me, when you don’t have a clear definition of a category or fail to respect the categories boundaries… then that category looses all credibility and meaning. There are two categories… Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Sometimes a film clearly has two leads who share essentially the same screen time and number of pages. The horrible DiNero and Pacino film “Righteous Kill” would be an example of that. But in The Dark Knight, The Joker was not the lead character. Yes he stole the movie, I completely agree with that… but that doesn’t make him the lead and as such he is a supporting character.
The Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor is NOT a consolation prize. It’s not a second rate award. It is an award of excellence for those who filled roles of supporting characters. When people try to blur the lines between them I believe it degrades and demeans the category all together.
Heath Ledger is in the opening sequence of the film, but then disappears for a good amount of time before re-emerging at the mob boss meeting. He’s also missing for most of the third act of the film. NONE OF THAT DIMINISHES HIS IMPORTANCE OR HOW WELL HE PLAYED THE ROLE. It just highlights that he was not the “lead”. There is nothing wrong with that. “Best Lead Actor” does not mean better or worse than whoever is “Best Supporting Actor”. They’re just different roles that need to be played. But they are different and there are two different categories for a reason. Heath was magnificent… but The Joker was a supporting character, not the lead.
#2 - MORALLY WRONG
There were some people who charged that Warner Bros. were capitalizing on the death of Heath Ledger because of how they were marketing The Dark Knight. I firmly disagreed with them on this charge. I actually believe that Warner showed great class in how they handled the tragic passing of Ledger and didn’t feel they, in any way, attempted to cash in on the news of his death. I was afraid we’d see commercials and billboards proclaiming “See Heath Ledgers’ final complete performance… yadda yadda yadda”, but they never came. If anything they underplayed it and I believe they deserve much credit for that.
However, should WB make a move to push Ledger into LEAD Actor consideration, I think they’d erase all of that. In my opinion it would be nothing short of a stab at pulling money out of a dead man’s wallet, trying to capitalize on the buzz and tragedy all to gain higher exposure for their film. No one understand that business is business better than I do… and I don’t fault a studio trying to discover ways to make more money… but to me this would be such an overtly slime move that I’d recoil.
It should be mentioned that WB has not said that they’d push for a best LEAD nomination for Ledger at this point. That’s just what some pundits out there are speculating… but you know they’re considering it. And considering is fine… just don’t do it. It would be both the technically and morally incorrect thing to do.
For an opposite point of view with some good thoughts, check out the article over at In Contention.
Features - by John - October 8, 2008 - 23:13 America/Montreal - 51 Comments
How did the command to “Love Your Enemies” get so complicated? This was the question I had for years both when I was a minister in the church and ever since I left it. It seemed to me the religious right, more a political force than anything else, who embraced policies of violence, killing and destruction, all in the name of a God they claimed to follow seemed to be at odds with the teachings of the founder of their faith.
For the first three centuries that the church existed, those belonging to the faith of Christianity understood the words and example of Jesus to be a clear directive to never be involved with violence. To be a Christian was to be a Pacifist, and during those formative years the church endured several persecutions at the hands of the Roman Empire itself without ever considering taking up the sword against their aggressors.
How did this faith, known and identified for its non-violent beliefs, go on to conduct the crusades, the inquisitions, witch hunts, and today have 87% of white evangelical Christians support President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq? How did this religion, founded by a Pacifist and known (even criticized) for non-violence, become a religion known for its aggression, war, political power and embracing of violence?
So, in 2006 I decided to travel across North America and talk to scholars, historians, authors and religious leaders on both sides of the issue (not the cheap Bill Maher tactics of only talking to crazy people on whichever side he stands opposed to) to understand why some believe the Christian faith allows for killing and others in the exact same faith believe that to truly follow the faith, one must never take life. The result was this project “Prince of Peace - God of War”
The project took me just over a year to complete and was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done in my life, but at the same time one of the most rewarding. As a documentary I am very proud of how the issues are addressed and explored… but at the same time I am very humbled by how much it lacks artistic quality. A gifted documentary filmmaker I am not. But audiences across North America at various film festivals seems to quickly look past my artistic shortcomings and submerged themselves in the issues and discussion in the film. Some agreeing, some disagreeing, but all apparently talking.
Some media folks commented at the time:
“Central to John Campea’s engaging documentary is the question of how it is that 87 percent of self-defined Christians are able to rally fists in support of war when one would assume that conflict is not what Jesus would do.”
The Orlando Weekly
“Loved It! An Extensive look at how Christians went from preaching about love and peace to fighting for war.”
Peter Sciretta - Slahfilm.Com
“I was gripped the entire run time”
Kurt Halfyard - Twitchfilm.Net
“People should definitely see this… they’re going to love it”
Andrew Olson - MoviePatron.Com
“I urge you to give it a look and in all honesty, if your Religious Philosophy professor puts Just War on the curriculum, you may want to suggest he add this film as an introduction.”
Marina Antunes - MadAboutMovies.Net
“the documenary does a great job at presenting the facts, with the leading experts on Theology and Christianity and making you stop and think long and hard on a tough topic. ”
MoviesOnline.Ca
This project was only made possible by those people who were willing to lend their thoughts, expertise and perspective to the conversation. Both those on the Just War and Pacifism sides of this discussion were beyond generous with their time and insights. To all of them, I am very grateful.
With the festivals far behind me now, and all the DVDs that were printed sold out, I decided to release the movie online for free, just to get it out there and continue to spark discussion (that’s my hope at any rate). So download it, share it, copy it, BitTorrent it, love it, hate it, whatever. It’s amazing what you can do with one cheap little camera, one very cheap little microphone, no crew, no money and a bit of time on the road. I hope you enjoy it, or at least that it makes you think. Cheers!
You can watch Prince of Peace - God of War here:
You can download a higher quality copy here.
Or you can download an iPhone/iPod version here.
Features - by John - October 7, 2008 - 10:54 America/Montreal - 173 Comments
A truly gifted actor is an amazing thing to see in action. The good ones have the ability to make you forget where you are and what you’re doing by drawing you in and convincing you you’re in a different place seeing a drama unfold before your eyes. The great ones go even further beyond that and make you believe you’re looking at a totally different person. They take on the essence of different characters seemingly at will. Actors are a dime a dozen. Good actors are hard to find. Great actors are extremely rare, and when you find one, enjoy their work as much as you can.
Just as film themselves are subjective, to some degree so are the performances of actors who play in them. One actor may give a performance that truly hits home with a viewer… while the exact same performance may not move another viewer in the least. Having conceded that point, there are a handful of actors TODAY that I believe stand out above the rest of the crowd. Some of them may be jerks in real life, some of them may have little or no box office success, but when it comes down to pure acting ability and talent, I hold that these following names represent the best working in Hollywood today.
And so, for your consideration, I now present to you The Movie Blog’s Top 10 Best Actor’s Working Today list:
|
#10 - DON CHEADLE
Another Boogie Nights Alumni. You know what, even if Cheadle hadn’t done any other movie in his career I’d still be tempted to put him on this list just for his incredible work in Hotel Rwanda. One of the few actors who can smoothly transition from drama to comedy and back again effortlessly. Crash, Oceans, Reign Over Me, and his performance in Traitor is one of the best I’ve ever seen in a bad film. This guy is going to be around for a very long time. |
|
#9 - RALPH FIENNES
Considering the career this guy has had already it’s a bit surprising that he only has 2 Oscar nominations so far (The English Patient and Schindler’s List). I hope with all my being that he gets a best supporting nomination this year for his performance in In Bruges which was just ridiculously fantastic. He (and his brother for that matter) kicks all sorts of ass. Shame all the kiddies will just grow up knowing him a Voldemort |
|
#8 - CHIWETEL EJIOFOR
The most shocking thing to me about the movie Serenity wasn’t how badly it bombed at the box office, but rather the almost completely ignored villain in the movie “the operative”. Ejiofor gave us one of the absolute best screen villains in ages, and yet no one, even those who saw and liked Serenity, talked about him. Well I noticed him, and since then every single performance he’s given has been nothing short of exceptional. Talk To Me, Children Of Men, American Gangster and he’s just getting started. |
|
#7 - BRAD PITT
For years this guy got absolutely no respect as an actor because we were all sick of seeing his face all over the teen heart throb magazines in the grocery store. Well, as it turns out, the man just happens to be one of the best actors alive too. His defining role to me was in Twelve Monkeys, which is still one of the most incredible performances in a supporting role I’ve ever seen in a movie, but he’s also showed great diversity as well from action, to comedy to drama. Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Se7en, Fight Club, Seven Years In Tibet, Snatch, Assassination of Jesse James… and now people are already talking Oscar for his upcoming The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. |
|
#6 - SEAN PENN
There are those out there who will disparage Sean Penn as an actor simply because they don’t like his politics and the fact that he’s so vocal about it. Fact of the matter is though that he’s a four time Oscar nominee (Dead Man Walking, Sweet And Lowdown, I Am Sam, Mystic River) and winning once for Mystic River. Clint Eastwood once said “There just isn’t anyone better”. |
|
#5 - WILLIAM HURT
I know he’s not the “cool” thing anymore, but for my money William Hurt is STILL one of the very best damn actors out there today. LIke Sean Penn, 4 Oscar nominations to his credit with one win (Kiss Of The Spider Woman *win*, Children of a Lesser God, Broadcast News, A History of Violence) and I personally thought he was totally robed of a nomination for his role in Mr. Brooks last year. This man, for decades now, just continues to bring it time after time after time. He doesn’t get the sexy high profile roles anymore, and that’s a damn shame because he continues to be one of the best in the business. |
|
#4 - TOM HANKS
Hanks is one of the only actors ever to win back to back Best Actor Oscars (Philadelphia, Forrest Gump), he was nominated 3 other time (Big, Saving Private Ryan, Cast Away) and arguably should have been nominated at least 5 other times (Road To Perdition, Catch Me If You Can, Charlie Wilson’s War, The Green Mile, Apollo 13). The man is an icon already and he’s only 52 years old. |
|
#3 - LEONARDO DICAPRIO
Much like Brad Pitt was, DiCaprio was a face most of us were sick of seeing plastered all over the little girls bedroom walls. His knock out performance in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape should have clued us into the fact that there was a remarkable developing talent behind the cover boy face. Now he’s sought after by all the top directors, has 3 Oscar Nominations under his belt (What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, The Aviator, Blood Diamond) and perhaps should have had a couple more for Catch Me If You Can and Gangs Of New York. Many many many more to come. |
|
#2 - DANIEL DAY LEWIS
Was there any doubt this guy would land in the top 3? Perhaps the most intense actor of our age and holder of the single best performance I think I’ve ever seen given by a male lead in a film with his portrayal of Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood last year. He’s also probably the most picky and selective actor in the business only choosing to do 1 film every few years (good for him, shame for us). 4 Oscar nominations with 2 wins (There Will Be Blood *win*, My Left Foot: The Story Of Christy Brown *win*, Gangs of New York, In The Name Of The Father) means he’s been nominated in about half of his last 9 films. Not a bad record don’t ya think? |
|
#1 - RUSSELL CROWE
He’s not the most bankable. He’s not the most likable. He’s not the most famous. He’s not the best looking. But hands down, no questions asked he is simply the single best actor in the world today. Don’t believe me? Name another actor who has played as many completely different types of characters and 100% knocked it out of the park each and every time? He’s never the same guy twice, always brings something totally unique to his roles and always does them near perfectly. There is simply no one better in the business. He is the cream of the crop and the best Hollywood has to offer. Gladiator, Mystery Alaska, L.A. Confidential, Cinderalla Man, Master and Commander, A Beautiful Mind, The Insider, 3:10 to Yuma, American Gangster. People get sick of him because he’s a jack ass, but jack ass or not, he’s the best of the best right now. |
Honorable Mention (In no particular order)
- Philip Seymour Hoffman
- Christian Bale
- Edward Norton
- Joseph Fiennes
- Ed Harris
- Johnny Depp
- Tom Cruise
- John Cusack
- George Clooney
So there you have it folks. What names were left off my list that you feel deserved inclusion? If you have some names, which ones would you remove from my list to make room for them?
Features - by John - October 6, 2008 - 08:29 America/Montreal - 49 Comments
Ok look, before I say anything else let me put this out there first. I frigging LOVE Simon Pegg. I think he has some of the best comedic timing, both as straight man and protagonist working in the industry today and I find him completely entertaining. This guy should be a major star and I would put him in any film I ever do in a heartbeat, and probably ask him for a new autograph in between each take. (That’s me with him in the picture. See… I’m not trying to bash the guy in this post at all)
But my personal feelings aside, there seems to be no arguing with the numbers… Simon Pegg can not draw an audience, at least not in the North American market whatsoever. A point made even more true this past weekend as Pegg’s new film “How To Lose Friends And Alienate People”, which had a pretty respectable marketing campaign, only managed to make $1.4 million at the box office in 1750 theaters on opening weekend. OUCH!!!
But this isn’t the first poor showing like this. His last film, “Run Fat Boy Run” only managed to take in about $6 million in it’s total run. The fantastic “Hot Fuzz”, a film that SHOULD have easily been a $100+ film only managed to bring in about $23 million.
So my question is, why doesn’t Simon Pegg work as a lead for North American audiences? The guy is beyond brilliant. His performances are always wonderful. He has a lot of natural charaisma. So why doesn’t anyone want to go see his movies? Is it:
- His looks?
- The fact that he’s British?
- His movies look bad?
- The fact that he’s British?
- Bad marketing?
- The fact that he’s British?
All kidding aside, this is pretty disappointing. In a world where certain talentless hacks seem to be able to get attention, why can’t a genuinely great performer get any sort of love even when he’s given a chance by the studios? Your thoughts
Features - by John - October 4, 2008 - 23:43 America/Montreal - 60 Comments
There are circumstances when an actor who always seems to be the exact same bloody guy is forgivable. When you go to see a Steven Seagal movie (do people still go to see Steven Seagal movies?), you expect to see Steven Seagal, nothing more, nothing less. Certain action heroes or 1 schtick comedians are assumed to be the same guy each time… and to some degree that can work.
However, for the most part it becomes an annoying and often distracting trait when a performer seems incapable of being anything other than one character. Today’s case in point is former Arrested Development star Michael Cera.
Now let me go on record here. I liked Cera in Arrested Development. I LOVED Cera in Superbad. I thought Cera was pretty good in Juno, but I started to really notice that he was essentially the same guy… but he was just a supporting character so it didn’t bother me too much. However, the other day I watched the boring, yawn inducing and infinitely dull “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” and there was no getting away from it… Michael Cera once again was the exact, to the letter, in every way, with every mannerism, with every trait same bloody character that he’s been for the last couple of years.
The IMDB lists his character name as “Nick”, but it might as well have been “Evan” or “Paulie”… or for that matter you could have just named the whole bloody movie “Superbad 2: Evan In New York” and the ONLY reason anyone would have doubted it was a Superbad sequel would have been the absence of Jonah Hill.
Yes, I get it Cera. You’re a mildly awkward, good hearted, understated and sympathetic post-teen who struggles with identity and self confidence despite having a lot to offer. Oh wait… which one of his characters are we talking about? Oh that’s right… ALL OF THEM!!!
I’m now officially bored with Michael Cera. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t DISLIKE Cera. I’m very open to seeing him in something else, as long as he’s playing a different character (even in the slightest way) from the one and only guy he seems to know how to play. Other than that, not interested.
Features, Top Lists - by John - October 4, 2008 - 03:01 America/Montreal - 165 Comments
Making any sort of “Top 10″ list is always a tricky and dangerous thing. As I always say, all film is subjective, and that means no one on the planet will 100% agree with my list (and believe it or not, you’ll have a hard time finding people who 100% agree with your list too), and the real beauty of it is that neither of us is objectively wrong. That’s the best thing about film.
So why have these lists? Because they’re great for discussion and debate and give us as film fans yet another excuse just to think about, talk about and celebrate some of the greatest movies ever made. So why not?
Exactly 3 years ago today, I put up my first Top 10 Animated Films list, so I thought it would be an interesting exercise to do another list, and then see how it has changed from the original one I did. I’d also like to repeat something I said back in 2005:
“I should also mention that I’m NOT ranking these by technical merit. If I was, then Final Fantasy The Spirits Within would be #1. I’m ranking these by how well they performed as movies. Did they make me FEEL something, laugh, get choked up and most importantly get interested in the characters and their story.”
So with that said, I now present to you The Movie Blog’s Top 10 Best Animated Films of All Time:
|
#10 - SPIRITED AWAY
Perhaps more than any other film on this list, Spirited Away has the magical ability to envelop you in the wonder of fantasy. I remarkably solid story, beautiful style and re-watchability. It just barely failed to make my list last time, but I seem to appreciate it more and more each year |
|
#9 - CHARLOTTE’S WEB (1973)
That’s one fine Pig. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t mind the 2006 version at all… but it lacked the pure heart of the original. I also think it was the first movie that actually scared me as a kid. It took me a little while to eat pork again. Clearly I got over it. I LOVE this movie. |
|
#8 - TOY STORY
I’m actually a bit surprised this movie comes in this low on my list. The first legitimate hit 3d animated film was far more than just novelty. It set the standard for Pixar to make movies, not cartoons. To tell tales with wonderful characters and meaningful stories rather than just the regular tripe you can get away with easily in the name of making “kids movies” |
|
#7 - THE INCREDIBLES
Without exaggeration I think I’ve watched this movie from start to finish about 15 times… and I haven’t yet started to get bored with it. Funny and exciting, the film is also surprisingly deep in terms of dealing with issues like aging, family, priorities and marriage. Not just your average kids movie. |
|
#6 - RATATOUILLE
The #1 critically rated movie (not just animated movie) of 2007, and yet was not nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars… pretty much delegitimizing the entire “animated feature” category they have at the annual awards. This was (in my opinion) one of the best films of the year and it didn’t get its due because of the medium it used. Pure rubbish if you ask me (funny how no one did). |
|
#5 - IRON GIANT
One of those rare movies that I remember not even enjoying the very first time I saw it… but then I watched it again for some reason and liked it more. Then again and I liked it even more. 10 times in now and my enjoyment of it seems to continue to grow with each and every viewing. Funny how some random and heavily digitized tone talking is Vin Diesel’s best performance ever. |
|
#4 - BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
This movie is nothing short of beautiful. In my opinion the best music of any animated film, and the only animated film in history to actually be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards (well deserved too). This movie is a masterpiece that makes me look forward to being a parent someday so I can share it with my kids. |
|
#3 - TOY STORY 2
One of the greatest sequels of all time and one of the very rare ones that actually out does the original. As the story goes, Toy Story 2 was meant to be direct to video… but as development progressed the powers that be recognized they had something pretty special on their hands and decided to make it a wide theatrical release. Good thing they did. One of the only wide release films in history to hold a perfect 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. |
|
#2 - WALL-E
I don’t know why I doubted Pixar… but for some reason going into Wall-E I had my doubts it was even going to be any good. My dear sweet heavens it was far beyond anything I could have hoped for or imagined. A magnificent story told with movement and drama communicated with setting. Breathtaking in its scope yet endearing in its simplicity. I’m going to blow a gasket if this movie doesn’t at least get nominated for Best Picture this year. |
|
#1 - THE LION KING
No matter how many times I watch it, when the movie starts with the sun peaking over the African horizon and those voices start to sing the opening to “The Circle Of Life”, something in me stirs… and it doesn’t stop until the film ends. The first time I saw it 14 year ago I knew I had just seen a movie that would stay with me forever. Still today, in my opinion, the best animated movie ever made. |
HONORABLE MENTION (In no particular order)
- The Triplets of Belleville
- Cinderella
- Aladin
- Princess Mononoke
- Sleeping Beauty
- Fantasia
So there you go folks. Now I’m certain you have lots to say about this list, both yays and nays. So what do you think of the list in general? Which films do you feel I’ve unfairly snubbed? Which films would you remove? Have your say and start the discussion.
Features - by John - September 23, 2008 - 12:44 America/Montreal - 48 Comments
As film fans we have plenty of good reasons to complain about Hollywood and the state of the film industry all the time. Clearly they’re doing something right since we are film fans and keep going back, but that doesn’t mean they don’t make (sometimes massive) mistakes, and we as PAYING movie fans have the right to either cheer or criticize movies, studios or actors whose movies we pay to see. And that’s the way it should be.
However, just as we film fans sometimes give too much credit or praise where it isn’t really deserved, I think we can also fall into the habit of levying criticisms that are… well… misplaced. One good example of this is the line often used by pretentious film snobs to attack the big genre films that so many of us love. Lines like “Why do they keep making all this blockbuster crap” or “Why are people going to see such and such $300 million dollar movies”. The answer to those questions are obvious… because we like them. And as my friend Robert over at IESB once wisely said “Those self professed film experts better thank god those blockbuster movies exist, because what the hell do they think PAYS for the smaller projects they seem to love so much”. True words, true words.
But the one criticism that I want to address here is one I’ve mentioned in the comment sections a few times and even mentioned on the Uncut show more than once, but I’ve never gotten around to addressing in an actual post. It’s one that I hear all the time about certain actors or studios who choose to make certain movies. When it’s said, it’s usually meant as a blistering insult, but when you really step back to think about it, it’s just common sense. They line is some variation of:
- They’re just doing it for the money
- The studio is just being greedy
- He’s just in it for the pay check
- All they care about is money
- The studios just want another cash cow
- etc. etc. etc.
Clearly the connotations, when such phrases are used, are negative and are meant to imply that the actor, director or studio has done something wrong in their pursuit of money. “They’re making a sequel to that?!?! Obviously it’s just a money grab“.
The funny thing is that you very rarely ever hear that sort of criticism brought against any other industry. Seriously, when is the last time Toyota made a new car and heard people complaining “That car is just a money grab“? Basically never. You know why? Because it is understood by the market that Toyota is in the car business TO MAKE MONEY. In essence, it’s understood that everything Toyota does in the car business is a money grab. They are in the car business to make money. It isn’t the car hobby. It isn’t the car past time. It’s the car BUSINESS. They are in business to make money.
Too many people romanticize the film industry as just a bunch a happy artists who want nothing more than to make the world more beautiful with what they have to create and say. In a word, that’s bullshit.
Let’s start with the Directors shall we. According to the Director’s Guild of America (DGA), do you know what the MINIMUM salary is for a director on the average low budget hollywood movie (with around a budget of $1.5 million dollars) is? About $14,500 a WEEK with a minimum commitment of 10 weeks. That’s not including bonuses, percentages or other benefits. Just the flat, bottom of the barrel fee is $145,000 for 2 and a half months of work.
And guess what, we shouldn’t criticize directors for making that much money. It’s a high paying job, why shouldn’t they want it?
My point is, you most likely have a job that you go to every day. Hopefully you like your job (statistics show that most people don’t). But even if you LOVE your job, I’m willing to wager that if you weren’t getting paid, you’d stop going. Or, if another company offered you another job in the same industry and in the same city for DOUBLE the money… I bet you’d be walking into your boss’ office first thing in the morning with your two weeks notice. Are you just doing a “Money Grab”? No, you’re making a living as best you can… hopefully in a field you don’t hate. I highly doubt anyone will criticize you for the move.
Because of that aforementioned over romanticization of the movie world, we often forget that while these actors are very lucky to be doing what they do… it’s still their career. It’s their job. It’s how they earn they’re money. Do you know how much actors make? According to the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) the minimum any SAG actor can make on a low budget film (low budget to SAG is about $2.5 million budget), is just over $500 a day. We’re not talking about big stars. We’re just talking about no name actors working for minimum. $500/day. I’ll tell you right now I’ve never made $500 a day in my life.
And guess what, we shouldn’t criticize actors for that. They don’t always get work. It’s a career that offers the hope of big fame and fortune… why shouldn’t they want it?
Now let’s talk about the studios. They are in the movie BUSINESS. Not the movie HOBBY. Not the movie PAST TIME. It’s called the movie BUSINESS. They invest huge amounts of money to produce a product they hope the market will like and then make a profit off of. It’s what any and every business does. If you or I were to invest $20,000 in a movie, you bet your sweet ass we’d only be doing it if we thought there was the real potential that we would at the very least get our money back, and hopefully make some profit. Essentially the studios are no different, nor should they be blamed for that.
As a business, they react and respond to what they see the market demanding. The business that meets demand (effectively) makes the money. Oh sure they’ll do smaller projects… but every single time they do they do so with the goal of making a profit on it (big or small), and so they should.
Look at Johnny Deep for a moment. Do you think he just does movies for the “art” of it? Do you think he does what he does just because he loves it soooooo much? If you’re unsure, go track him down at one of his 4 houses spread over 3 countries and ask him. In total he’s only worked about 8 months in the last 3 years. You’d think if he LOVED the art so much he’d work more than that… but he doesn’t have to because he’s a mega millionaire who doesn’t have to work all that often to keep up the lifestyle he now enjoys. And who among us can blame him for that? Wouldn’t you or I enjoy it all just as much if we had the opportunity to do so??? Of course we would! Acting is his JOB.
The point of this whole little diatribe is this: Saying “it’s just for the money” is actually a pretty silly and self evident thing to say. Every actor, every studio, every director is in it for the money. Oh they may ALSO be in it for other factors as well… no doubt… but if they ever say “it isn’t about the money” do a quick check to see if they work for free… if they don’t, they’re either lying or kidding themselves.
The movie business is a business, and those involved have CAREERS in it and we shouldn’t criticize them for that. They work to earn money. You work to earn money. I work to earn money. We spend more of our waking hours at work than we do in our own homes. Why? For the money.
So the next time you hear someone say “They’re just doing it for the money”, just ask them: “Well what do you think they’d be doing it for?”
Features - by John - September 22, 2008 - 14:36 America/Montreal - 253 Comments
**DON’T FORGET. THE MOVIE BLOG: UNCUT LIVE VIDEO SHOW IS ON TONIGHT AT 8PM EST (5PM PST). THE VIDEO WILL BEGIN STREAMING LIVE IN THE PLAYER ON THE UPPER RIGHT AT THE START TIME. JOIN US. GET YOUR QUESTIONS ASKED ON AIR!**
We’ve all said this phrase several times about one actor or another: “How on earth does this person keep getting parts in movies!?!?”. Maybe sometimes we see and understand why someone keeps getting parts… hell maybe we even love seeing them, but when it comes down to it we admit to ourselves and others that the person in question is actually talentless and probably doesn’t belong on the big screen.
For a multitude of reasons talentless people see to keep getting themselves on the big screen one way or another. Maybe it’s because they’re famous. Maybe it’s because they’re charming. Maybe it’s because their father is the producer on most of her films (see #3). Maybe it’s because they were on a famous TV show. Whatever the reason, they’re still talentless.
NOW REMEMBER, I’m not talking about the WORST actors. You can have an actor with talent, but they find a way to screw up everything they do. At the same time, you can have someone with no talent at all… but they find a way to not screw something up (I have no talent as a painter, but if you tell me to paint one straight red line on a wall… I can pull that off without too much trouble).
So here for your consideration is The Movie Blog’s top 10 most talentless actor’s in the movie business,
|
#1 - ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
The big guy has to be in the #1 spot. I love him as much as anyone, but come on, let’s be honest here… a thespian he’s not. Smart man, loads of charm, zero in the talent department. |
|
#2 - PARIS HILTON
Is there anyone else on the planet who embodies the phrase “famous for being famous” more than this girl? Zero talent (if you were one of the 18 people who saw Hottie and the Nottie you know) and annoying as hell. |
|
#3 - JESSICA SIMPSON
Full marks for being VERY hot, and I’ll admit to even liking her singing voice, but dear heavens this girl can’t read a menu let alone a decent script. Hell, she couldn’t even play herself (dumb blonde) in Dukes of Hazzard. I guess it helps when your daddy produces movies. |
|
#4 - STEVEN SEAGAL
I liked Under Siege as much as the next guy, but holy crap if this guy had to play a corpse he’s find a way to ruin it. But don’t laugh… the guy has a couple of albums and they’re actually pretty good. |
|
#5 - DANE COOK
This guy is actually the inspiration for doing this post after seeing him bomb in the dreadful “My Best Friend’s Girl”. A comedian with absolutely ZERO acting ability who continues to embarass himself and those acting with him in every movie he appears in. |
|
#6 - ORLANDO BLOOM
If a pretty face equalled talent, then Orlando Bloom would have an Oscar by now. Instead, we now see the flat, reserved performance he gave in Lord of the Rings (which was perfect for that role) was really all he had anyway. He was poised to be a major superstar… then he made the mistake of letting us all see he had no talent. |
|
#7 - ASHTON KUTCHER
A big tip of the hat and much respect to any man sleeping with Demi Moore… but he should probably just stick to that. The guy is as believable as Sarah Palin (that’s not a good thing) |
|
#8 - JON HEDER
In the movie world, the phrase “One hit wonder” really does apply to Jon Heder. Mr. Dynamite blew up with his hit indie classic… and then showed he really had nothing else to offer. How can you be in a movie with Rob Schneider and be so bad that you make HIM look good? |
|
#9 - CURTIS “50 CENT” JACKSON
I’ll be honest with you, I’m not sure why I don’t have him much higher on the talentless list. This guy is a door stop with all the depth of a saucer of milk. Absolutely brutal… has no place in the movies whatsoever. |
|
#10 - CHRIS TUCKER
The talent pool goes bone dry with this guy. But say what you will… the man knows how to negotiate and has one hell of an agent. Him getting $20+ million for Rush Hour 3 is one of the biggest blunders in film history. You could have put in a comatose train wreck victim in that role and it would have almost been as entertaining. |
So who would you add to this immortal list of the talentless? Remember, I’m not asking what actors you hate. It’s fine to hate Nic Cage, but don’t call the multi Oscar nominee and winner “talentless”. A list for the actors I HATE will be forthcoming. For now, love them or hate them… who should be on this talentless list?
Features - by John - September 16, 2008 - 14:02 America/Montreal - 60 Comments
2008 seems to be the year of Robert Downey Jr. and why not? The man has gone through a lot of hell (it should be pointed out that it was all his own damn fault), but managed to pick himself up and re-establish himself and his career. The year started for him with two smash hits, Iron Man and Tropic Thunder, and now there are people whispering the word “Oscar” about him for his upcoming movie “The Soloist” with Jamie Foxx.
It’s the type of year most performers only ever dream of. But lets not forget that amidst all the turmoil his life has been known for, Robert Downey Jr. has ALWAYS been a top notch actor with some incredible performances to his credit. So as we exit his hugely successful summer, let’s look back for a moment at Robert Downey Jr.’s 10 best performances. Now some of these movies are horrible, but Downey was solid in them all:
|
#1 - KISS KISS BANG BANG
A lot of people will find this to be an odd choice considering Downey got an Oscar nomination for Chaplin, but to me he nailed this film and character so perfectly and brought so much life to it I can’t deny it the #1 spot. |
|
#2 - CHAPLIN
This movie isn’t even all that old so I’m shocked at home many people haven’t ever seen it. A flat out terrific film and once of Downey’s best performances ever. |
|
#3- ZODIAC
Confession time. I didn’t even like this movie. I thought it was a bloated, self important mess that most people gave too much credit too for what it was TRYING to do instead of what it actually accomplished. But that’s just me. Still, Downey nearly saved the whole film for me. |
|
#4 - IRON MAN
With the possible exception of The Avengers or Iron Man 2, this film will probably always be his biggest box office success. And the #1 thing to me that made this movie work (lots of things made it work, but this was #1) was the pure charm and charism Downey brought to Tony Stark. |
|
#5 - A GUIDE TO RECOGNIZING YOUR SAINTS
A film with a loads of film festival acclaim and buzz, but never really caught on for one reason or another. Shame… it’s really solid. |
|
#6 - TROPIC THUNDER
I nearly spit the pop right out of my mouth the first time I saw the trailer and witnessed Downey as a black man in a war movie. The idea alone is priceless… and it was made even better by the performance Downey brought to it. |
|
#7 - ALLY McBEAL
So shoot me, I know this isn’t a movie, but in all seriousness Robert Downy Jr. was insanely good in this series. It was so good he was poised to make his big comeback… until he screwed it up again with more drugs. Such a shame. |
|
#8 - GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK
Yes, there is no doubt that this was David Strathairn’s movie all the way, but part of what gave this movie so much punch was the great supporting roles, not the least of which was Downey. |
|
#9 - A SCANNER DARKLY
I’m always amazed by actors who somehow find a way to deliver a solid performance when the movie they are performing is in excessively stylized. You need to do it a little different than you would in a normal flick and it can easily be screwed up. Downey didn’t screw it up. |
|
#10 - U.S. MARSHALS
This poor pseudo-sequel to “The Fugitive” suffered from a lousy plot… and yet was almost saved by guys like Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Downey Jr. I think Robert needs to do more villains. |
So there you have it, my little list of Robert Downey Jr.’s top 10 best performances. It looks like this list will have to be updated once The Soloist comes out (at least I hope it will), but for now it’s good to remember that Robert Downey Jr. was doing great work long before he put on the Iron suit and started blowing up terrorists.
Am I missing anything on this list that you would have included?
Features - by John - September 11, 2008 - 12:45 America/Montreal - 32 Comments
It’s been 7 years and I still remember exactly where I was, what I was doing and what exactly I was feeling. I was living in Saskatoon Saskatchewan in 2001 and on the morning of September 11th I was running around frantically trying to get all my stuff together and head to the airport. I was flying back to Ontario that morning to attend the funeral of a family member.
You have to understand that I hate flying… I have a fear of heights, so I was already feeling nervous and a bit panicked (as I always do when I fly). I turned on the TV just to hear the news as I was getting ready… and I heard it. There had been an “ACCIDENT” in New York. A plane had crashed into one of he World Trade Center buildings. Not news a person who has a fear of heights wants to hear when heading to the airport.
But oh well, nothing I could do so I continued getting ready. I left a few minutes later for the airport listening to a CD in the car. When I walked into the airport I saw EVERYONE crowded around various TV monitors watching the news. That’s when I heard another plane had hit the other tower. No one was using the word “ACCIDENT” anymore. It was an attack. Over the next little while as I sat in that airport word came that other planes had gone down as well, including one hitting the pentagon. I was sitting in the middle of history and I knew it. A moment I knew I’d never forget, and I was flooded with thoughts wondering what the world would look like tomorrow once the fires die and the smoke clears.
Obviously I never got on my plane that morning. All flights in North America were grounded and I eventually just drove back home a bit dazed and confused thinking about what else might come later that day or week or month or year. It’s September 11th, and I find myself thinking about it all again.
As a species, we are story tellers. We have been ever since we had the ability to communicate and the oldest drawings sketched on cave walls we know of do that very thing… tell stories. Storytelling to us as a people is more than just relaying information or communicating facts of a time, a person, a place or an event. It is the passing on of an experience. When we tell stories, we share experiences be they fictional or real. We communicate human drama encapsulated in the various human experiences and modes we all share. Even in the boys locker room in high school, you can’t just say “I had sex with Julie last night”. That’s not enough. The other guys quickly gather around and say “Tell us what happened”.
They already know what happened. You had sex with Julie. But that only communicated the facts. It didn’t share the experience. It didn’t encapsulate the conditions, the emotions, the sensations of the event in such a way that it shares it with those who listen. And we do listen, and when we listen we want that event shared so that we, in a way, can share in the experience of the story with the teller.
In that way, storytelling isn’t just entertainment or something we do to pass the time. It is an important part of who and what we are.
With this in mind, I knew it wouldn’t be long before movies or concepts for movies started popping up revolving around 9-11. Yes, much of the motivation behind those movies would be money and profit (as are EVERY SINGLE MOVIE EVER PRODUCED AND MADE), and I knew that there would be those angry at the notion of some people trying to “capitalize” on the tragedy. But at the same time, underneath the business of Hollywood, there was a need to have this story told, and told by different people with different points of view.
9-11 was an event that I would go so far as to say demanded stories be told about it, what happened, how it effected various people in different ways and told from those people’s unique and perhaps even contradictory points of view.
Oliver Stone’s “The World Trade Center” may not have been the best movie ever made, but it told a magnificent story of hope and courage, of personal bravery and loss. A story of fear and darkness and heroes in its midst. Was it a great movie? No. But it is a story that I nonetheless am richer for hearing. The simple act of hearing a story helped me in a small and personal way recover from 9-11 (all of us in one way or another and to one degree or another were effected by the events of that day). Storytelling is that powerful.
United 93 was another movie that I actually didn’t think was all that great, but the story it told was one I’m glad I heard even if most of the events were fabricated to fill in the gaps. Even contextualized fiction (or pure fiction) passes on the tellers vision, point of view, experience, the way the see the world as it is or even as it could be.
Thus, on the anniversary of 9-11 I actually find myself a little sad that we haven’t seen more 9-11 based films yet. From the left or from the right. Based on real events or works of fiction around the real events of that day. Stories and our telling of them are so vital to who we are, and an event like 9-11 holds more potential to bring out our fears and hopes, our weaknesses and our strengths, our good and our bad than just about any other event in modern history (with some exceptions).
So I’m glad we have movies about (or based around) 9-11, and today, I find myself hoping we see more in the future… I’m pretty positive we will.
Features - by John - September 9, 2008 - 13:34 America/Montreal - 69 Comments
Whenever anyone asks me the question “What comic book story would you most like to see turned into a live action film” (and I do get asked that question a lot) I always respond with the same two answers. 1) The Age Of Apocalypse from the X-Men universe, and 2) The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller (300, Sin City).
The Dark Knight is the book that got me into comics in the first place. The story is of a 55 year old Bruce Wayne who gave up on being Batman after the death of the second Robin (Jason Todd). Consumed by guilt Wayne become an alcoholic. Now, years later Gotham is overrun by gangs, drugs and crime. One night Bruce is confronted by gang members, AND NOW HE’S HAD ENOUGH! Bruce comes back as Batman, but this time he’s older, his body can’t do all the things that he used to do and the public sees him more as a menace now. However, he’s also more brutal than he used to be with no compassion for those who would break the law. He RULES! Eventually this leads to a confrontation with Superman that culminates in the most epic battle in the history of comic books (in my opinion anyway).
Whenever you hear people talking about wanting to see a “Superman vs. Batman” movie, this is where it comes from.
For decades now people have wanted to see a Dark Knight Returns movie… but one of the problems that has always existed was who on earth you get to play Batman/Bruce Wayne. Well… maybe Frank Miller himself has given us the answer. Our friends over at Cinematical quote an interview with Miller about who he thinks would be the right guy for Batman:
“Just that mouth of his, the scowl and the way it would look in a mask. I loved Rocky Balboa. This wounded warrior, that’s what Batman is in Dark Knight Returns. “
I’ll cut right to it. I LOVE THIS IDEA!
Sylvester Stalone is not the greatest actor in the world, although when he’s on his game he can be pretty good, but he embodies The Dark Knight at 55. He has the face, he has the pure massive physique, he has that rage, that anger and he also has that sadness that underlies Wayne in the story. I can 100% see this without question. If I had $100 million in the bank I would immediately start making phone calls and try to get this off the ground.
The great thing is that The Dark Knight Returns is set in another time. It’s 20+ years in the future from where the current Batman franchise is set and thus you don’t have to worry about pretending they’re in the same or different continuities. Which just feeds into another reason why you get Stallone for this… he’s just about the right age (actually, he’s a touch too old, but he would work).
Will this ever happen? Probably not in a million years, but that doesn’t change the fact that Sylvester Stallone as Batman in The Dark Knight Returns is a wicked idea. So good, that I’d pay for it myself if I could (you might be surprised to discover I can’t).
So put on your casting hats. What would you think of Stallone as Batman? If not him, who could you see as the aged caped crusader?
