I was saddened to hear about the passing of two people who were favorites of mine. First was Leslie Nielsen, star of the "Airplane!" and "Naked Gun" films. Millions have poured out their condolences over the past few days, and I'd like to throw my lot in with them. He was one of the best at playing the straight-laced goofball, a style of comedy that has kind of fallen by the wayside in favor of more over-the-top gross-out comedy stylings. He will be missed.
Also, Irvin Kershner, director of "The Empire Strikes Back," easily the best of the original "Star Wars" films, passed this weekend. Given the strength of that installment, he kind of went on to become a "Sequel King," directing Sean Connery's last turn as James Bond in "Never Say Never Again" and comic scribe Frank Miller's take on the cybernetic crime fighter in "Robocop 2." I think it's safe to say that "Empire" is what he'll be most remembered for. And I say that's a good thing.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Mr. Ranger's Not Going To Like It (And Neither Will I)
I first saw this at a bus stop in Northridge:
A little bit of my soul died at that moment. It's not because I don't like Yogi Bear; I do. He's probably my favorite of the whole Hanna-Barbera character lineup. What kills me is Justin Timberlake as Boo-Boo.
Justin. Timberlake. "Boo-Boo."
If you ever asked me what three words I would never see on a movie poster, those would have been at the top of my list. This is such a gimmicky move, designed to get kids who've never even heard of Yogi Bear into the theaters. And yeah, I know that's the point, but it still irks me. It makes me want to go on a lengthy tirade about how "face actors" are taking away roles from equally talented actors who specialize in cartoon voice acting. Not to mention, a extensive spiel about the state of the animation industry in general. But that's for another time.
A little bit of my soul died at that moment. It's not because I don't like Yogi Bear; I do. He's probably my favorite of the whole Hanna-Barbera character lineup. What kills me is Justin Timberlake as Boo-Boo.
Justin. Timberlake. "Boo-Boo."
If you ever asked me what three words I would never see on a movie poster, those would have been at the top of my list. This is such a gimmicky move, designed to get kids who've never even heard of Yogi Bear into the theaters. And yeah, I know that's the point, but it still irks me. It makes me want to go on a lengthy tirade about how "face actors" are taking away roles from equally talented actors who specialize in cartoon voice acting. Not to mention, a extensive spiel about the state of the animation industry in general. But that's for another time.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
And The Oscar For Best Gender Non-Specific Performance Goes To...
According to this Variety article, there is talk this Oscar season of doing away with the "Best Actress" category in favor of simply nominating five gender non-specific actors for Best Lead and Best Supporting Player. And this isn't a new debate. When I was first getting involved in drama, the term "actor" was already being applied to thespians of both sexes, which didn't (and still doesn't) bother me. After all, it's just a term used to describe a person's job, right? There's no seperate word for female doctors, lawyers, etc.
But the article raises some very good pros and cons. On the pro side, we have women who are already breaking the gender barrier by playing roles originally intended for men (such as Helen Mirren taking over John Gielgud's role in the upcoming Arthur remake). We've also had women playing men (Cate Blanchette as Bob Dylan in I'm Not There) and women playing men playing women (Gwenyth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love). Shouldn't women and men be on an even playing field?
On the other hand, it's no secret that this is a male-dominated field. If the two acting categories were combined, would there be any women nominated at all, or would it be, as Patricia Clarkson put it, "Nine men and Meryl Streep?"
It's a touchy subject to be sure. Personally, I don't think they should mess with the formula, based on the fact that there are male roles that women wouldn't be able to play effectively and vice versa for men playing female roles. This isn't a hard and fast rule, and there are always exceptions, but for the most part, it's the case. From a storytelling standpoint, there is a reason that an writer writes a character as male or female and a reason that a director casts a role as male or female. This is not to say that a writer or director can't shake things up if they want to, because they certainly can - and have - many times to great effect.
Another argument is that they should change the categories (such as musical/comedy, drama, etc.) to reflect genre rather than gender, but again, I feel that would take away from the actor's performance and lead to typecasting.
What do you all think? Keep it as it is? Change it up? The floor is open.
But the article raises some very good pros and cons. On the pro side, we have women who are already breaking the gender barrier by playing roles originally intended for men (such as Helen Mirren taking over John Gielgud's role in the upcoming Arthur remake). We've also had women playing men (Cate Blanchette as Bob Dylan in I'm Not There) and women playing men playing women (Gwenyth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love). Shouldn't women and men be on an even playing field?
On the other hand, it's no secret that this is a male-dominated field. If the two acting categories were combined, would there be any women nominated at all, or would it be, as Patricia Clarkson put it, "Nine men and Meryl Streep?"
It's a touchy subject to be sure. Personally, I don't think they should mess with the formula, based on the fact that there are male roles that women wouldn't be able to play effectively and vice versa for men playing female roles. This isn't a hard and fast rule, and there are always exceptions, but for the most part, it's the case. From a storytelling standpoint, there is a reason that an writer writes a character as male or female and a reason that a director casts a role as male or female. This is not to say that a writer or director can't shake things up if they want to, because they certainly can - and have - many times to great effect.
Another argument is that they should change the categories (such as musical/comedy, drama, etc.) to reflect genre rather than gender, but again, I feel that would take away from the actor's performance and lead to typecasting.
What do you all think? Keep it as it is? Change it up? The floor is open.
Review - "Unstoppable"
Yes, I know it's not very professional to review a movie that's been out nearly a week, but cut me some slack. Unless they pay me to do this, I'm not getting in on preview night.
There aren't a whole lot of what could be called "blue-collar" action films out there, which is odd, since it's one of the most blue-collar genres out there. Red-blooded American males just love them some stuff gettin' blowed up real good, and I'm no exception. But the characters in the films aren't usually average Joes with real problems. They're hard-bitten cops on the brink of retirement, or wrongly accused doctors of a certain age. A rail yard is one of the least likely places to host an action flick.
And yet, that's just what we get in Unstoppable, the latest film from Tony Scott. Again, he teams up with Denzel Washington (as in Pelham 1-2-3 and Man on Fire), who plays Frank, an older, wiser and yet decidedly amiable rail worker who gets assigned to work with Will (Chris Pine), the token newbie with family connections that the old guard resent. Predictably, they don't get along at first, as they both have problems at home that neither of them are willing to talk about. But there is little in the way of friction between them, as Frank generally laughs off Will's attitude.
What brings them together as a team is the fact that there's a half-mile-long unmanned train barreling toward the town of Stanton, Pennsylvania that is full of toxic chemicals. Should it hit a certain elevated curve while going too fast, it will tip over, crashing into some rather unfortunately placed oil storage tanks and essentially wiping the town off the map in a giant fireball. And caught in the middle is Connie (Rosario Dawson), who frantically plays damage control in the station's command center.
The film is "Inspired By True Events," which is a phrase that lacks the credibility of "Based on a True Story." And there are some liberties taken with the facts, to be sure. Still, the thing that sets this film apart from standard action fare is the fact that Tony Scott knows how to build suspense. And the best way to build suspense is with uncertainty. Most action films have know-it-all protagonists who always have the solution to every single problem they're confronted with. Here, Scott is not afraid to show us that nobody has the slightest idea of how to stop the train. They are literally flying by the seat of their pants, and any and all ideas they come up with may or may not work. If they do, great, but if they don't, an entire city faces fiery doom. It may seem like a trifling thing, but having flawed characters helps with the suspension of disbelief. We connect with them and empathize with them instead of just being dragged along for the ride.
Then again, action films aren't ultimately about the characters. They're all about the roller-coaster ride the characters go on. And this ride is a lot of fun. You can't really go wrong in the action department when you've got a 70-mile-per-hour missile full of toxic chemicals barreling toward a suburb with no one at the controls. As expected, the film is big in the special effects department, with cabooses getting torn to smithereens, fire trucks getting pulverized and a near miss with a couple of horses. All of this is captured in mock-news footage, adding a sense of realism, as reporters are mere feet away from disaster at any given moment.
Unstoppable certainly isn't a perfect film. It wanders off into pretty schmaltzy territory at the end, which takes away much of the impact the previous hour-and-a-half. However, it's one of the better action films I've seen in a long time. It takes a pretty far-out premise and makes it, if not genuine, than certainly believable. Not to mention, a lot of fun.
There aren't a whole lot of what could be called "blue-collar" action films out there, which is odd, since it's one of the most blue-collar genres out there. Red-blooded American males just love them some stuff gettin' blowed up real good, and I'm no exception. But the characters in the films aren't usually average Joes with real problems. They're hard-bitten cops on the brink of retirement, or wrongly accused doctors of a certain age. A rail yard is one of the least likely places to host an action flick.
And yet, that's just what we get in Unstoppable, the latest film from Tony Scott. Again, he teams up with Denzel Washington (as in Pelham 1-2-3 and Man on Fire), who plays Frank, an older, wiser and yet decidedly amiable rail worker who gets assigned to work with Will (Chris Pine), the token newbie with family connections that the old guard resent. Predictably, they don't get along at first, as they both have problems at home that neither of them are willing to talk about. But there is little in the way of friction between them, as Frank generally laughs off Will's attitude.
What brings them together as a team is the fact that there's a half-mile-long unmanned train barreling toward the town of Stanton, Pennsylvania that is full of toxic chemicals. Should it hit a certain elevated curve while going too fast, it will tip over, crashing into some rather unfortunately placed oil storage tanks and essentially wiping the town off the map in a giant fireball. And caught in the middle is Connie (Rosario Dawson), who frantically plays damage control in the station's command center.
The film is "Inspired By True Events," which is a phrase that lacks the credibility of "Based on a True Story." And there are some liberties taken with the facts, to be sure. Still, the thing that sets this film apart from standard action fare is the fact that Tony Scott knows how to build suspense. And the best way to build suspense is with uncertainty. Most action films have know-it-all protagonists who always have the solution to every single problem they're confronted with. Here, Scott is not afraid to show us that nobody has the slightest idea of how to stop the train. They are literally flying by the seat of their pants, and any and all ideas they come up with may or may not work. If they do, great, but if they don't, an entire city faces fiery doom. It may seem like a trifling thing, but having flawed characters helps with the suspension of disbelief. We connect with them and empathize with them instead of just being dragged along for the ride.
Then again, action films aren't ultimately about the characters. They're all about the roller-coaster ride the characters go on. And this ride is a lot of fun. You can't really go wrong in the action department when you've got a 70-mile-per-hour missile full of toxic chemicals barreling toward a suburb with no one at the controls. As expected, the film is big in the special effects department, with cabooses getting torn to smithereens, fire trucks getting pulverized and a near miss with a couple of horses. All of this is captured in mock-news footage, adding a sense of realism, as reporters are mere feet away from disaster at any given moment.
Unstoppable certainly isn't a perfect film. It wanders off into pretty schmaltzy territory at the end, which takes away much of the impact the previous hour-and-a-half. However, it's one of the better action films I've seen in a long time. It takes a pretty far-out premise and makes it, if not genuine, than certainly believable. Not to mention, a lot of fun.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Slim Goodbody IS The Green Lantern!
Don't believe me? See for yourself:
No, actually that's Ryan Reynolds in a costume that I have to say I disagree with. I know, I know, the modern superhero can't have anything to do with tights that look like long underwear, but this just makes him look like Giant Gonzales.
I've been waiting for a Green Lantern movie for a while now, but I already don't like the direction it's taking. Then again, I had my doubts about Heath Ledger's Joker when I saw the first pictures, and man was I wrong. I could be wrong again. But I'm laughing to hard to make an informed decision at the moment.
No, actually that's Ryan Reynolds in a costume that I have to say I disagree with. I know, I know, the modern superhero can't have anything to do with tights that look like long underwear, but this just makes him look like Giant Gonzales.
I've been waiting for a Green Lantern movie for a while now, but I already don't like the direction it's taking. Then again, I had my doubts about Heath Ledger's Joker when I saw the first pictures, and man was I wrong. I could be wrong again. But I'm laughing to hard to make an informed decision at the moment.
Oh Hi
Generic Hello and Welcome to Movies and Beer. A fun little corner of the interwebs where I talk about movies, TV and entertainment in general.
Up until recently, I had been posting my reviews on Twitter (http://twitter.com/Lord_Kingsley), but sometimes I feel like I have more to say than 140 characters will allow. So I'd have to make four or five posts to get out what I wanted to say, and still, that wasn't enough. So here we are.
Why call it "Movies and Beer?" Well, to be honest, that was the only name I could think of that wasn't already taken. I don't plan on discussing beer at length here. Sorry to disappoint.
Up until recently, I had been posting my reviews on Twitter (http://twitter.com/Lord_Kingsley), but sometimes I feel like I have more to say than 140 characters will allow. So I'd have to make four or five posts to get out what I wanted to say, and still, that wasn't enough. So here we are.
Why call it "Movies and Beer?" Well, to be honest, that was the only name I could think of that wasn't already taken. I don't plan on discussing beer at length here. Sorry to disappoint.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)