No Drive, No Shame

Oscars, Oscars, Oscars.

A couple of years ago my friend Tim and I came up with this test for the Academy Awards and it was beautiful in its simplicity: the question must be asked, how would Tony Curtis vote?

(Yeah-yeah, Tony Curtis passed away two years ago. But stay with me on this one.)

How would Tony Curtis vote? -- Would he nominate a movie that had a German actor playing an American in New York who sleeps with lots of women, shows off his massive schlong but should be pitied because he is emotionally cut-off from the world? --> Tony might *watch* "Shame", but he wouldn't admit to liking it.

Would Tony nominate the actor who played the chimp in the 7th version of a movie that he didn't like back in 1969? -- Hell, Tony wouldn't even watch the movie let alone realize that it was Andy Serkis in an award-worthy performance as Caesar in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes".

And as for the Ryan who was completely shut out for his performances in "The Ides of March", "Crazy, Stupid, Love" and the brilliant but oh-so violent "Drive", Tony would probably get Gosling mixed up with Reynolds, and Tony hated that "Green Lantern Hornet" movie, so who cares anyway.

To sum up...

Michael Fassbender overlooked after *his* amazing year with "A Dangerous Method", "X-Men First Class" and "Shame".

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" not getting the acting nomination it deserved.

One of the two Ryan's will just have to be satisfied with it being the Year of the Gosling.

And Albert Brooks, so very powerful as the bad guy in "Drive", is ignored. They like him funny; don't like him psychotic.

(Oh and I thoroughly enjoyed "Moneyball", but passing over Albert Brooks or Andy Serkis for Jonah Hill is a real... well, I was going to say 'shame', but I'll just stick with 'letdown'. The guy who starred in "The Sitter" and the upcoming "21 Jump Street" was good in "Moneyball", but nowhere near as powerful as Brooks and Serkis in their movies.)

So, yep, I guess I have to watch "The Help" now.

A British Block

It's always interesting seeing a film that has yet to build any buzz.

I don't mean a film that is lying there like a flopping fish that everyone has expressed dazzling disinterest in, but a movie that has yet to tickle anyone's fancy, has yet to become the twinkle in a moviegoer's eye, and has not yet started the publicity machine of the tv spots and the trailers and the appearances on Entertainment Tonight, Letterman, Leno or Oprah.

"Attack the Block" has yet to make its way to our shores in a wide multi-theatre way and is still somewhere on the horizon with its release date. It was therefore interesting seeing it last night without any major expectations or pre-conceptions.

I knew it was British, I knew it involved teenagers who battle aliens, and -- well, that was about it. The rest of it was going to be a surprise.

After seeing the movie I can tell you this without spoiling anything: if 'Shaun of the Dead' had its DNA mixed with 'Trainspotting' and 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels', was then transported to the original British setting of Clive Barker's 'Candyman' and was all stirred together with the deadly addition of a vicious 'Doctor Who' / 'X-Files' type monster -- it's offspring would be this film.

One challenge the film may face over here is that the British council housing accents that the young actors employ can be incredibly difficult to follow. I was often thinking "What the heck did he just say?" but you don't expect the king's speech to be roll off the tongues of these characters. And, having said that, the movie rolls along at such a quick speed that the dialogue rarely matters.

At times the pacing of the movie is a little choppy and uneven, and, like "Shaun of the Dead" I thought it occasionally went a little overboard with its gruesomeness, but the audience I was with had a great time.

It will be interesting to see if other North American audiences are as receptive to the movie's charms. Perhaps the appeal of teenagers taking on an evil extraterrestrial will prove to be international no matter where the story is set.

Oscar, oscar, oscar

It's strange how dull the Academy Awards were.

There weren't any major surprises, just disappointments and embarrasments.

Melissa Leo, winning the Best Supporting Actress, did surprise everyone by saying the F word (as in "When I watched Kate two years ago it looked so fucking easy") but beyond that the show was a yawn.

Embarrassments:

1) the head of the Academy coming on-stage with the head of ABC/Disney to inform a billion people that the contract has been renewed and ABC will continue to broadcast the ceremony. Why would they waste precious airtime for this non-news that no one at home cares about?

2) Halle Berry being allowed to praise the late Lena Horne as if her career and death was more important and noteworthy than anyone else's last year. Which is not to say that Horne's role in Hollywood history is unimportant, but to focus on her passing and not give other actors the same tribute was questionable to say the least.

3) Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock having to give their mini and pseudo-sincere introductions to this year's nominated actresses and actors was painful to watch. Last year the Academy had people who had worked with the nominees give the introductions; this year, perhaps to save time, they just had last year's winners do the speeches. It felt forced and very phony.

4) the final montage of the best picture nominees being shown as the King's speech from the film of the same title was disrespectful to all of the nominees. While the montage was well edited, the decision to use the King's narration allowed one film to overshadowing all of the other nominees.

I said everything I wanted to say about "The King's Speech" back on February 10th
http://wordsflowlikechocolate.blogspot.com/2011/02/speechless.html

But even setting aside my disappointment that "The Social Network" didn't win best picture and David Fincher didn't win director, this year's program was the dullest event in years. It lacked energy and enthusiasm. The show, as star studded as it was, lacked any sort of spark.

But even setting aside my disappointment that "The Social Network" didn't win best picture and David Fincher didn't win director, this year's program was the dullest event in years. It lacked energy and enthusiasm. The show, as star studded as it was, lacked spark.

Speechless

I don't know if this has ever happened to you...

You go to a nice restaurant with a friend. You've never been there before. It's perhaps a little pricey, and you notice something strange and out of place on the menu: a comfort food like mom never made and at a price that she never would have charged. Something like a $25 piece of meatloaf.

Picture the scene in "Pulp Fiction" where John Travolta talks to Uma Thurman about the $5 milkshake, but multiply that scene by whatever factor that makes it ridiculous.

Now. Hold that thought but push it ever so gently to the side.

Cleanse the palate and clear the mind. Think of a waterfall. Now, read on...

I finally made it to see "The King's Speech". I realize that I'm incredibly late to the party on this one. It wasn't that I didn't want to see it, but it was just not that high on my "Gotta see this film" list. "True Grit", "Black Swan", heck even "Tron" were all higher on my list.

I have heard nothing but wonderful things about the movie, from Colin Firth's terrific performance through to the powerful and emotional script. Truly, I have only heard good things. There was no reason not to see it when everyone is saying how good it is.

But I didn't feel the need to see it. Because I honestly feel that I've seen it before.

"The Queen", "The Madness of King George", "Elizabeth" and "Shakespeare in Love". Stir them all together and then mix with "Awakenings", "Rain Man" and "A Beautiful Mind". Add just a hint of "My Left Foot". Stir well. Bake for half an hour. And out comes "The King's Speech".

None of this is to take away from the film's performances. Colin Firth is equal parts regal and sympathetic as the Man Who Does Not Want to Be King. Guy Pearce is terrific as the regal and somewhat bullying brother who abdicates. Helena Bonham Carter is strong as the regal and yet sympathetic and loving wife. And Geoffrey Rush is captivating as the common man who must assist the king to become more king-ly.

All are regal and common and very, very human in the correct measures.

But as good as they are, the film itself feels like it's a made for tv, paint by numbers production. Everything in the film seems to be shot in close-up with the actors filling up half the screen. Nothing ever occurs in the background, everything happens right up front.

There is also no sense of suspense, uncertainty or risk in the movie -- everything runs its course, the king will become regal but won't forget the commoner who helped him, everyone is basically good and everything will turn out okay at the end.

But the thing is this: while it's almost impossible to dislike the film, at the same time I found it difficult to admire or even come close to loving.

All of this indifference towards a film that has been nominated for 12 Academy Awards and has more nominations than any other film this year.

I love "Inception". I adore and am dazzled by "The Social Network". "Let Me In" and "Never Let Me Go" are two of my favorite movies from last year. Heck, I even enjoyed "No Strings Attached". So it's not that I'm bitter, burned out, tired or jaded. A great film can still wrap me in its arms and transport me to a place of wonder.

But "The King's Speech" is like very expensive mac and cheese on a high class menu: it has all the ingredients, it's carefully prepared, but in the end it's just comfort food posing as a high class meal. Nothing surprising, nothing daring, and all very cozy in its presentation.

And while there's nothing wrong with that, it is certainly not a film that deserves to be recognized as the Best Picture of the year.

A Double Date with Natalie

Last week I was channel hopping and I noticed that "Full Metal Jacket" was on tv. And I thought to myself, "Wouldn't it be fun to flick from something like 'Two and a Half Men' to 'Full Metal Jacket' and see if my head exploded in confusion?" And then I put the movie on and, sure enough, it was the chilling scene in the film where Vincent D'Onforio's Private Pyle has his complete and incredibly violent breakdown. And I thought "Wow. What are the odds?"

This week I purposely put my brain through the same extreme transition as I sampled not one but two Natalie Portman movies. Two films could not be more different from one another. One film managed to be charming and frivolous while the other is simply daring and amazing.

Let's do brains before charm: "Black Swan" is an incredible film. Not to everyone's taste (after its conclusion, I heard one woman say to her partner, "I don't want to talk about the movie. I have nothing to say.") the film is brilliant, twisted and dazzling.

Natalie Portman plays a young, cowering ballerina who is technically brilliant but completely lacking in passion. When she is given the opportunity to assume the centre stage role, she must somehow find within herself an intensity and confidence that she has never shown before. But such passion comes at a horrendous price.

As the movie progresses it moves into a strange dream world where reality starts to crumble and it here that Portman shows how strong she is in the role. Her transformation from quivering and uncertain to confident and dangerous is amazing to watch. The movie is an incredible showcase for an actress who has never before been given an opportunity to show such range.

Imagine David Cronenberg directing a ballet and that measuring stick will give you an idea of your comfort level with a film that offers one of the best performances of the year.

At the other end of the scale (and literally down the hall at the theatre) is Natalie Portman in a fluffy romantic comedy that manages to be charming and easy-going while not being annoyingly predictable.

It's rare that a movie even attempts to do something different with the basic romantic comedy formula (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl) but "No Strings Attached" manages to play with the recipe while avoiding the potential for it to fall flat.

The twist in the usual story is that it's Ashton Kutcher who plays the traditional girl friend-type role: his heart has been broken and he would like a long-term romance, but she's afraid of commitment, is not looking for anything serious and basically likes the sin but doesn't want the serious.

The movie takes the usual journey down the romantic road and Kutcher even has a very Andie MacDowell "Four Weddings and a Funeral" moment at the film's end (the only stumble in an otherwise fun script) but the two stars managed to make the trip an enjoyable time.

The film's biggest suprise is how appealing Kutcher is in the role. Kutcher's on-screen characters are usually obnoxious in a charming kind of way (or vice versa to varying degrees and success) but in this movie he manages to be funny, romantic and attractive in a fun, needy manner. If the traditional roles in the film have been reversed, he seems to be in on the joke as he plays the part of the female lead in a story that has the woman playing the usual hard-to-get male role.

The film isn't in the pantheon of romantic comedy greats (which would include "Notting Hill", "The Princess Bride" and "Groundhog Day") but it never stumbles in its confidence and charm.

If anyone thought Natalie Portman would hurt her chance of winning an Oscar by having this film released before the votes are in, "No Strings Attached" only adds to her acting credibility because it is through her performance that Ashton Kutcher looks so believable in the movie. And anyone who can make Kutcher look credible deserves an Academy Award.

With Envy, But Little Sting

Super-hero movies are big business in Hollywood. Big, ultra mega business. Put it this way: last year Disney bought Marvel comics for four BILLION dollars. That's a lot of money to ensure that the company has one of the key spots in the super-hero game.

Batman, Iron Man and Spider-Man are all worth millions at the box office. And when merchandise, action figures, animated series and other by-products are factored in to the equation, the value of the characters is phenomenal.

And the amazing thing is that Iron Man proved that the character doesn't have to be a household name with built-in brand recognition. Tony Stark was an unknown commodity for most moviegoers, but through the strong casting of Robert Downey, Jr. and a powerful introductory film, Iron Man is now a major box office figure. And like his other super-hero cohorts and the pinnacle of success that is the James Bond series, there is no reason that the Iron Man movies cannot continue for a long, profitable time.

But for every Iron Man there is a Jonah Hex, for every Ghost Rider there is a Scott Pilgrim and for every Daredevil there is an Elektra. Making a big budget comic book movie does not guarantee that an audience is going to pay their money for the show. Director Zach Snyder learned that painful lesson when he followed up the surprise hit 300 with the disappointing Watchmen.

Which brings us to The Green Hornet, a character that has a most unusual pedigree.

The Green Hornet is not truly a "comic book hero" because he didn't debut in comic books. He started as a radio show character more than 70 years ago. Like his contemporaries, The Lone Ranger and The Shadow, The Green Hornet then made the journey from one medium to another. Movies and comic books came after the character was established in radio.

The premise for the original radio series was simple but brilliant: Britt Reid, who by day is a wealthy newspaper publisher, fights crime (with his trusty sidekick Kato) as he pretends to be a mysterious criminal mastermind. He works outside the law by posing as a villain and then turn the tables on the true criminals. He was the ultimate one-man 'good cop, bad cop' crime fighter.

For almost 20 years this big budget adaptation of the character has been slowly making its way to the silver screen. Creators attached to the project in the past two decades have included Mark Wahlberg, Nicholas Cage, Jet Li, Kevin Smith, Stephen Chow and (once upon a time) George Clooney.

But the film never came together. That is, until Seth Rogen arrived.

Rogen is a most unusual choice for the main character. Best known for his comic roles as the rude man-child in 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, the chunky, curly-haired actor is not the usual muscular, spandex-clad, strong-chinned choice for a super-hero.

But Rogen slimmed down for the role (or perhaps merely because his box office success allowed him to hire a chef, personal trainer and wardrobe consultant) and became the project's savior after many others had let it languish.

Rogen is not only the star of The Green Hornet, he is also the one of the film's executive producers and its co-writer. And it's because of his involvement with the writing that the movie has such a strange tone.

Most comic book movies have a heavy, almost melodramatic weight to the character. Bruce Wayne's parents are murdered so he becomes Batman; Peter Parker's uncle is murdered so he becomes Spider-Man; Bruce Banner is injured in an experiment and turns into The Hulk. The heroes have their background in basic childhood fears of loss and abandonment and this is one of the reasons why the characters resonate so strongly with all ages.

As a child at the beginning of The Green Hornet young Britt Reid is intimidated and bullied by his father who is the publisher of a major newspaper. As an adult Britt is a rich slacker who defies his father by wasting his days away.

But all of that changes when his father is killed and Britt decides to change his life. But he doesn't do it to avenge his father or because he wants to make his city safer. He does it because he gets drunk and decides to mock his father and, more to the point, because it would be kind of a cool thing to do because his man servant Kato is really good at creating really amazing gadgets. Hence the Green Hornet is drunkenly born.

It is a rather feeble reason to become a hero. It's like a parody of a secret origin but it's supposed to be taken seriously. This strange mish-mash of comedy, parody and drama makes for an awkward hero. Unfortunately the problems don't end there.

Every good comic book movie needs a good comic book villain and this film is truly lacking in that department. Christoph Waltz, who was brilliant in Inglorious Basterds and won an Academy Award for his performance, is wasted as he attempts to find the right tone in a film that is not truly an action movie, but not a comedy either.

Cameron Diaz is also at a loss in her role as Britt Reid's secretary. She is supposed to be smart and have insights to both the city's crime situation and the challenges that a modern newspaper faces, but she is mostly there so Rogen's character can hit on her and say wildly inappropriate things, and then get jealous when Kato takes her on a date. It's not that Diaz can't play the role, it's that the part merely seems to be "sexy but smart secretary who plays hard to get".

The only character who emerges unscathed from this mess is Kato. Taiwanese actor Jay Chou brings a quiet, steady charm to the character and seems to be operating on a different level than the rest of the film. His calm, grounded nature is essential next to the crazed, unfocused Green Hornet but there is the sense that the film could have been great had Kato's character been used as its inspiration.

Watching the film it becomes apparent that the filmmakers are very uncomfortable with the idea of nobility and making a sacrifice for the good of society. Unlike Bruce Wayne who puts on a show as a drunken playboy to mask his crime fighting identity, Britt Reid never develops beyond his frat boy persona. He is always swearing, constantly hitting on his co-workers and never seems to realize that people are in danger. For Seth Rogen's version of The Green Hornet, it's all a big drunken joke.

There film has a handful of strong action sequences and at times some of the humour works. Early in the film there is an action scene with Kato that is spectacular in all its 3D glory, but the film peaks too early and simply goes on too long. Seth Rogen overstays his welcome in the role and the film grows tiresome because of it.

If the movie is successful enough to spawn a sequel, Seth Rogen will hopefully allow the character to develop and grow. A comic book movie doesn't have to be deadly serious, but if this series continues to be the adventures of a frat boy dressing up in a costume, it's a sequel no one will want to see.

Catty Remarks

So, today the announcement came that Anne Hathaway is going to play Selina Kyle (aka Catwoman) in the next Batman movie.

And, I must confess that I'm skeptical.

This skepticism isn't solely based on bias. Julie Newmar was the greatest Catwoman of all time. No one else can compare. She's like Sean Connery as James Bond: other actor can portray 007, but he will always be the measuring stick for every agent with a licence to kill.

And it will always be Newmar that all other comic book femme fatales will be measured against.

But, setting aside that agreed upon fact / bias...

The big question: can Anne Hathaway play dangerous, deadly and sexy?

No one is sure what kind of part Selina will play in the movie, but considering that director Christopher Nolan has said that this will be his final Batman movie, it's unlikely that the character is merely being established for a future film (like Black Widow was set up in Iron Man 2.) She ain't gonna be window dressing. She is going to have to be menacing and exciting and captivating.

Hathaway is usually cast as the romantic lead or as the safe and somewhat bland girl friend type character (for instance, Agent 99 in the Get Smart movie). I could see Emma Stone in the role or Susan Sarandon, but neither of them would look age appropriate opposite Christian Bale's Batman. But using those two actresses as a start point, it still makes Hathaway an unlikely choice.

But points have to be awarded to Nolan for not going with the obvious choice: the dangerous, deadly and sexy Angelina Jolie. Her recent resume of Wanted, Salt and the semi-nude, semi-animated monster mother in Beowulf made her the ideal candidate but it would have been a very, very expected choice. It's almost as if the past five years, from Mr. and Mrs. Smith to The Tourist, have been an on-going audition for the part of Catwoman. But Selina Kyle is a role that Jolie could have sleepwalked (catwalked?) through. She would have been the safe choice; for Hathaway, it will be a role that she will have to stretch into.

Many years ago the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman was a source of much derision (can you imagine the thunderous noise that would have erupted had Keaton been cast in an age when the internet existed?) and he turned out to be an excellent choice for Tim Burton's take on the character. Perhaps Hathaway will prove to be the same for Nolan. But she has her work cut out for her.

And the news that almost gets eclipsed by the casting of Hathway: Bane as the other villain. A villain who is best known for being muscular and breaking Batman's back in the comic book.

Wow.

People were expecting The Riddler or Hugo Strange. Bane might prove to be an interesting choice because Nolan can create a rich background for him, but nevertheless... Bane? -- Wow.

Between Bane and the casting of Hathaway, this is not going to be the film that anyone was expecting. And who knows, that might turn out to be a very, very good thing.

An Amazon Who Doesn't Know Me

So, this morning when I went to Amazon Canada, on their friendly home page where they tell me about all the stuff that *should* interest me, a damn picture of the Star Wars blu-ray set shows up.

And I can't help but think that, even with all their customer recognition programming, Amazon doesn't know me as well as they think they do.

Or a much more scary thought is that they know me better than I know myself.

Damnit.

(And I know I should probably put up a picture of Han Solo shooting first in order to show my politically geeky stance or an image of Jar Jar Banks to show my mocking hatred, but instead I'm posting a picture that looks like the dog I had when I was a kid. Cuz I'm not going to let friggin' Star Wars overshadow my day. I would much rather think about puppies.)

A Galaxy Gone, Gone Away

I was tempted to write this whole thing in Yoda-voice. The idea just tickled me -- doing the whole thing like an ancient Jedi master.

As a matter of fact, somewhere in the house I have a McDonald's Happy Meal that explains exactly how to speak like Yoda. A couple of years ago I bought the McNuggets and fries, got the toys for the boys and then saved the box in order to send it as a gift to a friend. Because he, for some unfathomable reason, even after the travesty that is the prequels, remains unwavering in his joy for the Star Wars series.

Unfortunately I do not feel the same way.

In many ways the series is dead to me the same way Al Pacino's brother was dead to him in The Godfather Part II. Sometimes my boys ask me if I like Star Wars and I have tried to explain to them how much I loved the first three movies when they first came out, but I don't like what's been done to them since. I think I have actually used the phrase "They're dead to me" as I tried to describe the frustration, sadness and incredible sense of betrayal which I now feel towards the series.

My poor boys -- having to hear their dad go on about a movie series as if it was like someone sat down and told me all at once that there is no Santa Claus, I'm adopted, and my dog never liked me when I was a kid. That is what George Lucas has done to me.

And Yoda as a CGI pseudo-Mexican jumping bean in that last film? -- Please, just shoot me now. My rule is simple: just because it can be done with special effects, doesn't mean it should be done. Just because it's now possible to CGI Lucille Ball into a threesome with Fred Astaire and Judy Garland doesn't make it a good idea; and it's the same thing with a ninja Yoda.

It is such a drag, having something you love transform into something that is devastatingly disappointing. I've heard the Clone Wars tv show is fun, but the setting is right in the middle of the very prequels that I loathe. So the show could be a dazzling mish-mash of Buffy, The West Wing and Lost -- and I'd still wouldn't be able to watch it.

And yet for some reason I cannot let go of my ever-simmering hatred for it all. Like a reformed alcoholic who can't stop preaching about the evils of booze, I am always dumbfounded when people claim to enjoy the prequels. "They're really popular with kids" someone said to me the other day. And I then preached and babbled and foamed as I explained why they're horrible and of course kids like them because they are being manipulated into enjoying mediocrity in order for the sales of the merchandise to remain strong and...

And I could slowly see the fear in the person's eyes as they were forced to listen to the ramblings of a crazy person. And they slowly, ever so slowly, attempted to move away.

Be it the Clone Wars, the "Han Shot First" special editions or the upcoming Robot Chicken-produced tv show (really? I mean, really?!?) I've given up on the whole thing.

Oh, and the icing on this cake of craptitude was a book I saw the other day: Star Wars - Death Troopers. It's got Star Wars and zombies -- in the same story!!

It's as if some old-time movie mogul was sitting in his office smoking a cigar the size of Texas and screamed at his quivering lackeys, "Kids still like Star Wars but we've got to keep it fresh! What's hot out there that will keep kids interested?"

And one minion pipes up, "Wizards and magicians are popular, sir! Or hobbits! What about hobbits!"

"Jesus Crossover Christ!" explodes the mogul, "I'm not going to help make some other studio's goddamn franchise more popular by putting it in Star Wars. Hobbits can lick the fur from my unwashed ass-kicking feet! We've got the goddamn Ewoks, why the crap would we need hobbits! And if one of you bastards mention Predators, Batman or Iron Man, I will choke you to death with my cigar, hide your body in the sewers and then crap on your dead useless decaying corpse every day for the rest of my life. What am I paying you brainless geniuses for? What else have you got?"

"Zombies, sir. Zombies are popular," squeeks out one of the other cowering underlings.

"Zombies? Zombies!" says the mogul, savoring the word like an expensive wine. "No copyright infringements. No royalties to pay to some know-it-all creator who wants script and casting approval. Everything in the public domain but still more popular than that long-haired Justin Bieber girl. I like it! Get on it! Do it! And see if you can get Princess Leia in a bikini again. Those ancient basement-dwelling old time original horny friggin' fanboys eat that shit up."

Yep. Star Wars and zombies -- together!! Cuz if it works for Jane Austen, it can work for Star Wars.

As I said Star Wars is dead to me. And zombies are eating its brains. And its heart.

Gone is wonder and originality. Picked over the corpse has become. Bite my ass George Lucas must, he must.

I can't even do Yoda-talk anymore. Sad it is.

Jerry Meets George

Fourteen years ago, back in the winter of 1996, Tom Cruise starred and was then nominated for an Oscar in "Jerry Maguire".

That role has become a major touchstone in his career both as box office superstar and as a romantic lead. And with the guidance of writer/director Cameron Crowe, Cruise made the phrase "Show me the money" a pathetic, pleading scream of greed, accomplishment, friendship and pride.

And now, in the winter of 2010, actor Paul Rudd is starring in the movie "How Do You Know". Written and directed by James L. Brooks, the movie has Rudd playing a man named George who is tangled in a romantic love triangle with Reese Witherspoon.

Now, ignoring the fact that it is also a romantic comedy with a beautiful blonde and it is also created by an Academy Award winning screenwriter, isn't it freaky and (because both films are from Columbia Pictures) kind of interesting to note that the movie poster has an image of Rudd that is hauntingly familiar? Because you can sense from the picture of Rudd's character on the telephone that he isn't just ordering pizza; he is going through a Jerry Maguire-like hangin' by a thread, about to freak out quasi-breakdown.

Jerry Maguire tagline: "Everybody loved him. Everybody disappeared."

George's tagline: "He's In Trouble."

Although the image of Jerry Maguire screaming on the telephone wasn't used in the original poster, it is instantly recognizable from the film.

Fourteen years later, that image finally makes its way onto a one-sheet, but without Cruise's presence.

As Jerry would say, "You complete me."

NEWSFLASH: Headlines are Never Wrong, But They Can Mislead

The headline in the newspaper says "Slow Release Schedule Benefits Resident Evil".

And it drives me crazy when I read things like that because it's so misleading that it's darn close to being Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

I read another one on-line that says "Resident Evil Dominates By Default". And, again, I'm dazzled by the dopiness of the statement.

"Resident Evil: Afterlife 3-D" managed to grab $27.7 million in its first weekend.


(It is the 4th film in the series, but the movies have never been numbered -- which suggests to me that the filmmakers must think the audience for these movies has some intelligence and doesn't need the hand-holding and guidance that titles such as "Rocky III", "Rambo: First Blood Part II", and "Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter" seem to imply. Or perhaps that's just me being too charitable to the "Evil" series.)

But the thing is this: the previous "Resident Evil" movie ("Extinction") opened to $23.7 million in its first weekend. So it's not like the box office for the most recent film is a surprise. As a matter of fact, given that the current entry is in 3-D and thereby gets a bump in its average ticket price, the most recent film's box office could be said to be expected.

So why have a headline that says the slow schedule *benefits* the movie? -- Well, the headline is negative and in news it's always better to be negative than blah and average. And it also conveys the fact that the industry box office wasn't, as a whole, on fire this weekend. But the box office for the latest "Resident Evil" movie is exactly what it should be.

Now, admittedly, the release date didn't *hurt* the movie. Being the only major new film in the marketplace doesn't hurt a film. That's pretty obvious.

But it's not like your average moviegoer *must* go see a movie. It's not like the cash in their pocket was suddenly going to expire or combust and they had to rush out to see a film because of it.


Or to put it another way: movies such as "Piranha 3D" and "Scott Pilgrim" only open to $10 million because people didn't think the films deserved their money. If the movies had opened on a slower weekend, they might have done moderately more business, but it's not like they would have turned into better films or created more interest solely because of the release date.

Even when a film has killer mutant fish, a movie that is a dog is going to stay a dog. And even when a film has a terrific story and is incredibly creative, some pilgrims are gonna cause a lot of trouble and simply fail to grab their intended audience.

Opening "Resident Evil" on the same weekend as the latest "Harry Potter" or "Batman" movie would hurt its business because those movies create a black hole/ vacuum / perfect storm where every moviegoer's money is going to be pulled towards the huge mega-hit. That's why nothing (and certainly not another sci-fi/fantasy movie) gets in the path of those films.

So, yes, the release date of a film can help it or it can hurt it. But a bad film isn't going to turn into a huge hit just simply because of when it hits the market.

Or, as John Hiatt says, ugly ducklings don't turn into swans and guide down the lake.

Box office flops won't sprout wings and soar simply because the release schedule is a little less crowded.

People go to see a movie because they want to see it. They can always choose *not* to see a movie.

The latest film in a series that has seen its previous two installments open in September to $20+ million is probably going to open in the same ballpark. It's likely not going to fly much higher, but it's not a shock to see it be consistent.

May the Fourth Go Away

Star Wars has saddened me.

Because it was Star Wars that made me bitter and feel that things had got worse.

While I was out with friends the other night, someone at the table said, "It's not like the old days," and I replied, "It's never like the old days."

And I remember the first time I ever felt that way: Star Wars, the most recent crap-fest trilogy, made me feel that way.

Because those movies are shit and the originals are better. And only old people say stuff like "It's not as good as the original" or "It's not like the old days."

And that, my friends, is why Star Wars can bite me.

Because they made me feel old.

Describing a movie to a ten and seven year-old

The other night I took Gee to see "Avatar".

It was still playing at the fine Scotiabank Theatre here in Toronto (even though it's now out on dvd, they're still playing it!) and I wanted my son to experience it in 3-D and in a cinema.

It seemed like a Good Dad thing to do -- although he hadn't expressed a lot of interest in seeing "Avatar", I thought it was important for him to see The Biggest Movie of All Time.

(In a deep announcer's voice lecturing like in the warnings on a Viagara tv ad, you now have to imagine someone saying, "Please consult your local movie expert regarding actual statistics of the biggest movie of all time, these figures are not adjusted for inflation or the 3-D ticket surcharge, saying that it's the biggest movie of all time may cause film geeks to get angry and lecture you on ticket prices for Gone With the Wind, biggest does not mean best and all movies are relative to the period they were made.")

It was my second time seeing "Avatar" and I enjoyed it more this time out. I could just sit back and enjoy the visuals and just let if flow over me. The first time I saw it, the story bugged me and the long, extended, never seeming to end battle sequence at the film's conclusion seemed self-indulgent. But second time out, I could just enjoy the ride.

As for Gee, he told me that he liked the film, but he certainly didn't love it quite as much as I thought he would. I thought he would be blown away by the special effects and the sheer beauty of the film's images. But while he liked it, he found it too violent -- almost disturbingly so.

Nevertheless, it must have been on his mind because the next day as I was walking the two boys back from school, they asked me what *my* favorite movie was.

And I paused. And thought. And puzzled. And thought some more. And finally replied.

"That's really tough. I mean, I have a bunch of favorite movies. It's tough to pick just one."

But that of course is not much of an answer for two boys. "Okay, but if you had to pick one, what's your favorite?"

It is all in terms of absolutes when you're young. The notion of composing an entire list of great films is not quite there. The reasons why a film might be a Top 10 and why the list might shift and change depending on one's mood -- the concept is not quite there for a 7 and 10 year old. It's either the BEST or it's really not worth mentioning.

So I replied, "Probably 'Casablanca'. Sometimes 'The Matrix'. But probably 'Casablanca'."

(With more thought it could also be 'Blazing Saddles', 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory', 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', 'Ed Wood', 'The Big Lebowski', 'Citizen Kane', 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', 'The Usual Suspects', 'Punch Drunk Love', 'Bull Durham', 'Singin' in the Rain', 'A Clockwork Orange', 'Fight Club' and of course 'Young Frankenstein'.

And that list would be completely different in half an hour. And none of it is carved in stone. But it's almost impossible to explain a list like that to children.)

"What's Casablanca about?" asked seven year-old Zed.

And again, I'm at a loss. How can I summarize 'Casablanca'?

"Well, it's set during a war. And this guy owns a bar, a restaurant kind of thing. And he was in love with a woman. But she disappeared. And then one night she comes back. And he had been haunted by her memory. And the story goes from there."

(Which of course isn't a great description of 'Casablanca' because it doesn't deal with the World War II setting or Rick's role in the war or Sam at the piano being asked to play it or the fact that she's married to the head of the resistance and Rick was betrayed and heartbroken and at the end he gives her up because of a hill of beans... or any of the stuff that makes the movie amazing.)

Zed, trying to make sense of my brief description and put it within his own frame of reference, asks, "Was she a ghost?"

I'm a little surprised. "No, she's not a ghost."

"Was she a vampire?"

"No, she wasn't a vampire. Why would she be a vampire?"

"Because she came back at night. And you said she haunted him."

And then it all clicked for me. I explained, "It's not important that she came back at night. She left him and then she returned. He was haunted by her memory, not because she was a ghost."

"Ohhhhh," said Zed in reply. And the conversation then moved on.

Then I realized: for my boys, with their love of monsters, aliens, Scooby-Doo and Doctor Who, each and every story is more enjoyable if it has a ghost or a vampire.

Image and Brand

I have to wonder if John Malkovich and Sarah Palin sat down for a cup of coffee together and both decided to say “Screw it. Let’s just go for it.”

Because once upon a time it used to be that people had an image to protect.

For instance, many years ago, a movie star would never consider appearing in a tv show because movies were up here!!!



While television was down here ,,,

To some extent that hierarchy still exists today because it’s unlikely you’ll see recently crowned Academy Award winners Sandra Bullock or Jeff Bridges starring in their own television show next year.

To be blunt, when you were a movie star, you were on the top of the entertainment food chain.

Appearances on talk shows didn’t count because the stars only came out late at night in order to hawk their latest movies. And hosting Saturday Night Live has become the same thing, with the host appearing because of a new album/movie/major project to promote.

Some actors manage to make the transition from the small screen to the big screen – Bruce Willis, Bill Murray and Clint Eastwood for example – and these days there are people such as Steve Carrell and Tina Fey who are incredibly successful with their tv shows and are also being welcomed to motion pictures.

Brad Pitt, Robin Williams, Jennifer Lopez, Julia Roberts – all have been willing to make guests appearances on hot television shows, but it’s usually as they poke fun at themselves or stretch their acting range in a dramatic cameo.

Because it used to be that celebrities would do their one thing and do it well: a singer would sing, a dramatic actor would do dramas, a comedian would remain funny. Sometimes there would be an attempt to dip a toe into the other pond (Meryl Streep in the comedy “She-Devil” with Roseanne Barr; Bill Murray in the drama “The Razor’s Edge”, Madonna in “Castaway”) but the results were often painful and the audiences would usually stay away in droves.

The transition from drama to comedy can happen, but if the shift from tears to laughter is too successful, sometimes there’s no turning back. Rare is the actor like Tom Hanks who can do drama and comedy (although recently Meryl Streep has managed to overcome the previously mentioned Roseanne Barr travesty and added comedies *and* musicals to her list of accomplishments. But she is the exception. After all, she is Meryl Streep.)

After years of dramatic work, the “Airplane” and “The Naked Gun” movies completely re-wrote the career of Leslie Nielsen.

It could be said that the same has happened to Robert DeNiro. The success of “Analyze This” and the “Meet the Parents” series (and the disasters that were “Showtime” and “The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle”) have re-invented and re-invigorated his career as he parodies and parlays his tough guy image into comedy. But the cost of that success is that DeNiro’s funny side has overshadowed his dramatic stature. It’s now difficult to see him in a drama without finding him a little bit funny.

Elvis Presley hurt his music career with movies. Eddie Murphy bruised his comedy career with music. And Jim Carrey seems intent on sabotaging his career with drama. There is a huge risk involved with going to the other side.

Which brings us to John Malkovich.

Best known for “In the Line of Fire” opposite Clint Eastwood and for his work in “Burn After Reading”, “Empire of the Sun” and “Dangerous Liaisons”, Malkovich has built a career on playing strange yet captivating characters.

His image is so strong that an entire film was built around his quirky and powerful persona: “Being John Malkovich” showed how everyone would love to live someone else’s life, especially if it was the life of John Malkovich.

So perhaps the last thing anyone would have expected was for Malkovich to accept a role in the next “Transformers” movie.

While Malkovich has lent his talents to comedies and special effects-oriented films in the past (“Eragon”, “Johnny English”, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”) the decision to join the next Michael Bay rumpus is a stunning move towards a motion picture genre that barely makes room for an actor to appear on-screen unless they’re filling time until the next robot attack. Once the robots arrive, the actors (often quite literally) get shoved off the screen.

Perhaps the reasoning is that if John Turturro can do it, why can’t John Malkovich do the same? The money is presumably good and worth the calculated risk.

Perhaps “Transformers” won’t tarnish his image. Perhaps he can take the role, play the part, and then walk away richer and with his head still held high. More people will probably see him in “Transformers” than his last five films combined. And maybe the additional exposure will help him when he gets back the roles for which he is best known.

It is, however, a huge role of the dice: a career built upon risky and powerful performances could be destroyed with the slap of a giant robot’s mechanical hand.

This is why I have to wonder if John Malkovich and Sarah Palin have the same agent.

Palin is shopping around a reality show and rumour has it that the U.S. based Discovery Channel has won a bidding war to get the show.

At a cost of $1.5 million an episode.

Palin has a bestselling book.

Palin is a commentator on Fox News.

And now she’s going to star in a nature program about Alaska.

Palin obviously feels she can expand from politician to writer to commentator and now to tv star without The Sarah Palin Brand being damaged. One can imagine that there must have been family members, advisors and committees that would analyze, discuss and examine every aspect of every move she wants to make.

Or maybe she does it all by gut.

Being a politician isn’t enough for Sarah Palin. Not when she can be everything she wants to be and the public will follow her any and every where.

Because it must have been determined that all things Palin is all things wonderful to the world.

The brand will survive. And maybe that’s what it is now: a brand. It’s no longer just an image to protect; it’s a brand to expand.

Years ago, it used to be that it was either dramas or comedies. That a movie star was a movie star. That a tv star was a tv star. That a singer was a singer.
And that a politician was a politician.

I hope that John Malkovich can move from the big bang, special effects extravaganza of a “Transformers” movie back to the sort of roles that he does so well. I hope that “Transformers” is just a tiny step off the path in order to grab a big paycheck. And I hope that his journey to robot land is a short visit and not a plan to stay there for a long time.

And I hope that Palin has now decided that her role in life, that her one true calling, is to be a celebrity. She will be well paid for a bunch of years. And eventually her star will dim as her lack of talent becomes more apparent and people tire of her egocentric bizarrities. And eventually she will make the unavoidable journey to “Celebrity Apprentice”.

So while I hope that Malkovich’s trip into the land of robots is a short visit and that he does not plan to stay their for a long time, I’m also hoping that Palin’s journey into the wilderness is the first step of a permanent voyage away from here.

Because, while I don’t expect it from politicians, I guess I do expect it from actors: I want just a little bit of integrity.

The King is Dead! Long live the Queen!!

It's been two days since the Academy Awards and I have to wonder if now the media will stop referring to Kathryn Bigelow as "the ex-wife of James Cameron".

There must be some kind of statute of limitations on that sort of thing. After you've been divorced for more that 20 (?) years and your ex-husband has re-married twice, one would think that it's now in the rear view mirror, passe compose, so long ago that children born at the time now have children of their own.

She just won the Academy Award for Best Director. Give the woman some respect.

Oh, and the Academy orchestra playing Helen Reddy's "I Am Woman" as Bigelow left the stage with the Best Director Oscar in her hands? -- well that was just pitiful.

It reminded me of the bit on The Larry Sanders Show where Warren Zevon begged not to be asked to play "Werewolves of London" because the song was behind him and he had other music he wanted to showcase.

And then, while taping, he of course was asked to play "Werewolves of London".

Because Artie would protect Larry, and Larry wasn't very smart. Larry would go for the easy, obvious stuff. And the same can be said of the man behind the scenes who chose the songs for the Academy orchestra.