Showing posts with label Predictions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Predictions. Show all posts

February 29, 2024

FX's Capote vs. The Swans & How Iconic 80's Actresses Diane Lane, Molly Ringwald & Demi Moore Make it Great

 

One of the most enjoyable things about Murphy's series: seeing the three most iconic actresses of the 1980's sharing the screen for the very first time... we have Diane Lane, Molly Ringwald and Demi Moore who, forty-plus years after their initial fame, crush their roles and once again show us why they became stars. 

 

We are barely halfway through Ryan Murphy's latest offering, Feud: Capote vs. the Swans but we've already been treated to a once in a decade type performance by Tom Hollander who positively disappears into his (title) character role. Hollander perfectly captures Capote's dual nature -- amusing and endearing but also pompous and infuriating --- and also replicates his speech and mannerisms so precisely it's practically spooky. (To be honest, they should just skip the ceremony and give him the Emmy right now.)

That said, the "Swans" referred to in this series are a group of elite socialites (most of them New York-based) who befriended and patronized Capote after he reached fame with his sensationalistic novel In Cold Blood. After years of trusting some of their most guarded secrets to the author, he reveals them in a Esquire article that included excerpts from a new book titled Answered Prayers. The group then proceeded to ostracize Capote, forever banishing him from the high society circle he relished so much. Capote supposedly coined the term "Swans" to describe these women that were, by all appearances, perfectly composed but in reality were carrying tremendous weight and beneath the surface were always paddling furiously to keep themselves afloat.  

Often, elements of this story and the reaction of the Swans to Capote's betrayal are difficult to understand. Why would these women -- wealthy, refined and entrenched in the upper crust of society, care so much about Truman? Why are they so devasted when he exposes them this way? And why do they second guess themselves for even a minute about cutting them out of their lives?

It's because Capote's assessment of them was correct. Beneath their veneers of perfection, these women are struggling mightily. They've lost their identities after marrying bankers, European royalty, and other rich and powerful men and now deep down perhaps they're realizing that most of what they've accomplished was only made possible through their family and social connections. Maybe they're awakening to the thought that although they're the envy of many, their lives are largely empty, short of pruning the perfect garden, earning "best dressed" honors, or planning Truman's famous Black and White BallOr maybe the betrayal thrust these women into turmoil due to simple embarrassment. For the Swans, appearances (we quickly learn) are paramount. Confronting Truman and making a scene in a swank restaurant they frequent is deemed just as much a sin as the betrayal itself. Likewise, husbands' infidelities are tolerable but the thought of others knowing is not.

It speaks to why Capote was able to fall in with the Swans in the first place. He ingratiates himself with flattery, preying on their superficiality and appearance consciousness, even going so far as to toy with them (and send them into a competitive tizzy) by suggesting he'll be choosing one of them as guest of honor at his ball. In spite of his not so subtle pandering and social climbing, the Swans adopted Truman, introduced him to power brokers, brought him along on lavish vacations, all while sharing their personal doubts and fears. So yes they are clearly victims but not entirely sympathetic due to their own snobbery and pretentiousness. All of this makes them rich, multi-layered characters that any actress (particularly those of a certain age) would love to play.

Which brings me to one of the most enjoyable things about Murphy's series: seeing the three most iconic actresses of the 1980's sharing the screen for the very first time. In addition to Naomi Watts as Babe Paley, wife of CBS head William Paley; Calista Flockhart, as Lee Radziwill, younger sister of Jackie Kennedy, and Chloe Sevigny as fashion icon and author C.Z. Guest, we have Diane Lane, Molly Ringwald and Demi Moore who -- forty-plus years after their initial fame -- crush their roles and once again show us why they became stars.

Diane Lane - Time Magazine cover

Diane Lane first grabbed headlines at age fourteen when she starred opposite Sir Laurence Olivier in the 1979 feature A Little Romance. Olivier called her "the next Grace Kelly" and Time magazine put Lane on the cover, proclaiming her one of Hollywood's "whiz kids." This was at a time  when print was still a dominant form of media, so for a respected world news magazine like Time to dedicate a cover story to a Hollywood actress (especially one still in her early teens) was practically unprecedented. 

Lane next made waves in the cult classic Ladies and Gentlemen, the Fabulous Stains and the more mainstream family pic Six Pack. At the famous casting sessions for Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of The Outsiders, she beat out a who's who of other young ingenues for the role of the beautiful and conflicted Cherry Valance. The performance earned Lane a Young Artist Award nomination. Coppola was so taken with Lane that he cast her in his next film, Rumble Fish (also based on an S.E. Hinton novel.) 

Diane Lane - Playboy 1985 (from the Pop Culture Fiend Archives)

In 1984, Lane took on the role of Ellen Aim, a kidnapped rock star in Walter Hill's vastly underrated Streets of Fire and later that year she scored her first "adult" role as singer/gun moll Vera Cicero in Coppola's brilliant The Cotton Club. Lane was just eighteen during shooting (her co-star Richard Gere was thirty-four) but brought a sultriness to her performance that helped establish her as one of Hollywood's leading screen sirens. (She would go on to star in two other films opposite Gere, the acclaimed Unfaithful -- for which she earned a Best Actress Academy Award nomination -- and Nights of Rodante, adapted from the Nicholas Sparks novel.)

Diane Lane's other 1980's film roles included stripper/femme fatale Lorry in The Cincinnati Kid-esque The Big Town, and lead in the erotic thriller Lady Beware. She closed out the decade with an Emmy nominated performance in 1989's Lonesome Dove miniseries. 

Diane Lane as Slim Keith in Feud: Capote vs. The Swans

Lane has one of the meatiest roles in Feud, portraying Nancy "Slim" Keith, who wed filmmaker Howard Hawks and Broadway producer Leland Hayward before marrying into British royalty. According to some accounts, Slim helped Capote land high powered agent Swifty Lazar and a million dollar book deal. Lane's Slim is resolute in her disdain and quest for revenge after Capote's backstab and Lane's strong performance portrays her as the icy ringleader of Capote's ostracization. As she did with her character in The Cotton Club, Lane plays Slim as calculating, direct and in charge. When it comes to the Swans, she is "the center of the center" -- as Slim describes herself in episode 3. Lane is also fantastic at replicating the high-born accent and affectations of New York's upper crust.

Though she's three years Lane's junior, Molly Ringwald's career path was eerily similar -- from starting out as a child actress, to having a cover story crowning her the new face of young Hollywood, to having her career propelled forward by a genius director. She first gained attention for her lead role in the west coast production of the stage play Annie. In 1979, at just eleven years old, she played Molly in the The Facts of Life but the show was retooled after its first season and the cast drastically reduced. It was a lucky break for Ringwald; she quickly found success in feature films, beginning with 1982's Tempest, for which she earned a Golden Globe nomination. But it would be 1984's Sixteen Candles that would rocket the young actress to fame. Writer-director John Hughes cast Ringwald as the film's protagonist Samantha Baker, a high school sophomore whose sixteenth birthday is forgotten in the chaos surrounding her older sister's wedding. Ringwald was praised for her tender and authentic portrayal and the film helped propel the teen movie genre into its High Renaissance. 

Like Coppola did with Diane Lane, Hughes was inspired by Ringwald and cast her in his next project -- the film that would come to define Gen X, The Breakfast Club. Ringwald would become something of a muse for Hughes and she next took on the lead role in the director's follow up, Pretty in Pink. A few weeks after the film's release, Ringwald was on the cover of Life magazine in a special issue that christened her as "Hollywood's Teen Queen". Two months later, her own Time magazine cover story cemented this status.

At this point, Molly was eighteen and ready to take on more mature roles. She turned down Hughes' Some Kind of Wonderful and starred as Cordelia in Jean Luc Godard's avant garde exploration of King Learplayed opposite Robert Downey Jr. in the Warren Beatty-produced The Pick-Up Artist; and finished her 80's run with the comedy For Keeps and the drama Fresh Horses, adapted from the stage play.

Molly Ringwald - career progression

In Feud, Ringwald plays Joanna Carson, ex-wife of Johnny, who (like the New York Swans) is taken with Capote's charm, wit and intellect. Carson adopts the discarded Capote and brings him into her circle of elite (this time Hollywood) friends. Ringwald's signature red tresses are colored brunette for this role and at fifty-five years old she naturally no longer possesses her waif-like figure, so it's easy to forget who you're watching. As Carson, Ringwald brings the same effusiveness she did with her Pretty in Pink character Andie and her compassion for Truman is on display in several pathos-rich scenes that portray the man at his lowest.

Demi Moore's road to 1980's stardom was far different than Lane's and Moore's. She wasn't an accomplished child actor and in 1983 -- at the exact same time Lane was shooting scenes with the Academy Award-winning Coppola and Ringwald was about to become the face of the American teenager -- Moore was earning her bones as a recurring character on General Hospital. But in 1984, she starred opposite Michael Caine in the charming but overlooked romantic comedy Blame it On Rio. Though newcomer Michelle Johnson was the breakout star, it was Moore's first major film and she soon began a slow climb to success that would culminate with a run of critical and commercial successes through the 1990's. Ghost, A Few Good Men, Indecemt Proposal, Disclosure and Striptease (the film that made Moore the highest paid actress in Hollywood) were all in her future, along with her own iconic magazine cover, but her rise to fame largely began with the sweet and quirky 1984 teen comedy No Small Affair. The role of Jules in the seminal Gen X coming-of-age drama St. Elmo's Fire followed, as did a relationship with co-star Emilio Estevez and membership in the famous "Brat Pack". Moore then played John Cusack's love interest in One Crazy Summer and re-teamed with her St. Elmo's co-star Rob Lowe in the beloved About Last Night, both released in the summer of 1986. 

Her next film, The Seventh Sign (despite being highly anticipated) was a box office flop. Moore then closed her 80's career with the role of Molly -- a prostitute who befriends two escape convicts (Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn) masquerading as priests -- in the much-hyped Christmastime release We're No Angels.

Interestingly, though her box office hit rate was spotty, Moore's career never stalled during the eighties. She married Bruce Willis, who at the time was starring in the ABC hit Moonlighting but with the release of 1988's Die Hard would soon become a full on movie star. He and Moore became Hollywood's "it" couple which helped Demi move solidly onto Hollywood's A-list -- where she basically remained until the 2000's.

Demi Moore at the Feud: Capote vs. The Swans premiere

In Feud, Moore plays Ann Woodward, a former radio star and showgirl who was married to wealthy  banker William Woodward Jr. In what would become one of the biggest stories of its day, Ann killed William after mistaking him for a burglar. Speculation that it was murder ignited after Capote's book preview, which included a character based on Ann who was painted as a gold digger and murderess. In real life, Capote seemed to have personal disdain for Ann and publicly accused her of killing her husband.

Moore gives us a picture of Ann battling depression and straining to maintain her dignity amid the public stares. She displays venomous anger in certain scenes and intense vulnerability in others. At the ball, we see Moore at her best, portraying calm and elegance -- but when Truman calls security to have her ejected we see her shaken, pleading, humiliated. It's a scene where Moore demonstrates swan-like comportment as she calls Truman out for his misdeeds and it's reminiscent of another emotional scene in which Moore displayed similar range -- the break up scene in About Last Night.

For Lane, Ringwald and Moore, streaming shows and other high end television like Murphy's Feud offer strong, female lead roles that come few and far between in feature films. Past the age where they can star in rom-coms, take on "lethal lady" action roles (e..g., Black Widow, Atomic Blonde) or other parts written for younger actresses, fifty-something actresses are these days too often relegated to lesser fare -- guest shots on network shows or if they're lucky perhaps a starring role in their own series (think Tea Leoni in Madame Secretary or Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Veep.) Thankfully, Capote and the Swans shines a spotlight on three of the most talented and beloved mature actresses who by chance came up at almost the exact same time. You literally could not have chosen three women more representative of young Hollywood during the 1980's than these three. In fact, you almost wish Murphy would have made it an all-80's party and given the Watts, Sevigny and Flockhart roles to Elisabeth Shue, Lea Thompson and Winona Ryder instead.

Maybe next time : )

Feud: Capote vs. The Swans

July 15, 2021

Streaming Wars Update: Part 3


Here's the the third and final part of my audio blog on the streaming wars, the state of the industry and where it's headed. In this discussion I cover:
  • The history of Hulu and it's current place in the Disney bundle
  • Roku's revenue shifts from hardware to advertising after its acquisition of the Quibi content
  • AMC, studios, theater owners, and Christopher Nolan all have beef
  • The Scarlett Johanssen lawsuit
  • What the streaming industry can learn from Napster

Streaming Wars Update: Part 3


July 14, 2021

Streaming Wars Update: Part 2

The second part of my audio blog covering the current state of the streaming wars. Have a listen as I discuss:

  • Apple +'s enviable position "owning the rails"
  • CBS/Viacom's Paramount + and its need for a consolidation strategy 
  • Whether sports content could be a key differentiator to thrust one or more streamers to the top
  • How tier-based pricing and advertising are being implemented 
  • If Comcast and NBC Universal can leverage its cable platform and theme parks to market struggling latecomer Peacock (and its weird new original that conjures memories of Josie and the Pussycats in Outer Space!)

Streaming Wars Update: Part 2



Related Posts:

July 13, 2021

Streaming Wars in Full Effect!


Give a listen to my first "audio blog" as I take a look at what's happening in the world of streaming, trends in the industry, who the major players are, their financial outlooks and plans for the future, and all the changes affecting the entire streaming world. Here in Part 1, among other things I discuss:
  • How the pandemic ignited the streaming industry
  • The bundling of streaming apps with mobile phones, TVs and other smart devices
  • Amazon Prime, it's acquisition of MGM, and massive investment in Lord of the Rings
  • Netflix's position as first in the market
  • Disney +'s Star Wars and MCU-based platform (How many spin-offs are enough?)
  • HBO Max's controversial same-day new release strategy

Streaming Wars in Full Effect!


June 12, 2012

How to Make the Justice League of America Movie a Success


Barely a month after I predicted that the success of The Avengers would revive and kick plans into high gear for a Justice League of America movie, Warner Brothers announced Will Beall (of the upcoming Monster Squad and Logan's Run remake) as screenwriter of the JLA script.

Great news for fans of the DC universe, who have been wondering for years why the likes of great, beloved DC heroes (i.e., Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, and Martian Manhunter), all of whom have rich histories to draw from,  have never really even come close to making it to the big screen. But while the JLA movie now seems to be on track and in pre-production (Beall was reportedly brought in some time in 2011) there are still three major hurdles that need to be cleared to ensure the Justice League of America movie is a success. In the order that they need to be addressed, those three things are 1) reconciling the franchises 2) introducing the characters, and 3) building anticipation.

One of the main reasons The Avengers has been so immensely successful is because Marvel stuck to the formula of a carefully planned production with a slow build. Beginning with the first Hulk movie (and well before The Avengers was ever seriously considered) the Marvel films effectively introduced the characters who would later join forces as the Avengers, established backstories, teased audiences, and got us all emotionally invested in the individual heroes and franchises (The HulkIron ManThor, and Captain America.) Onscreen, storylines in the individual films foreshadowed the coming together of these characters via the "Avengers Initiative", while behind the scenes in the real world, all the lead actors were being signed on. Thor's Christopher Hemsworth and Jeremy Renner, and Captain America's Chris Evans, were locked in to The Avengers early, as was Robert Downey Jr., whose Iron Man deal reportedly earns him up to 7 percent of the revenue in any film in which he plays that character. Additionally, the creative teams for each of the individual Marvel films were put in place early on. There was collaboration among these teams; storylines were carefully weaved together; resulting in The Avengers coming off as a logical next step that movie audiences knew years ahead of time was coming down the pipe.

The JLA movie, unfortunately, has none of this going for it. Despite the fact that the film has been gestating in Hollywood for nearly a decade -- George (Mad Max) Miller was set to direct at one point -- Warner Brothers' announcement this week comes off as nothing short of... well I'll just say it... reactionary.

If the JLA movie becomes the mega-picture it should be, it won't be because it followed The Avengers' blueprint. For one,  half of the core JLA lineup (Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Flash and Martian Manhunter) hasn't even been featured in their own individual movies, or otherwise introduced to contemporary audiences. It's troubling that instead of focusing on the JLA members (the most popular and interesting heroes in the DC universe) over the past 30 years, we've  inexplicably seen lesser (and in some cases, downright obscure) DC characters like Jonah Hex, Catwoman, Steel, Supergirl, and even Swamp Thing make it to the big screen.

Making matters worse is the fact that the JLA members that have been featured in movies (Superman, Green Lantern, and Batman) have done so in very self-contained franchises that have no connection to each other. Dark Knight trilogy director Christopher Nolan has gone on record stating that this summer's The Dark Knight Rises will be the last in the series and (in spite of the fact that Warner Brothers has extended an offer) he has no interest in directing a JLA feature. Pre-Avengers, there were plans for a Batman reboot (with Nolan reportedly producing) but things have likely changed now. Nolan has been clear in stating that he actually prefers to keep any and all of his Batman films independent of the rest of the DC universe, but at this point, any Batman reboot absolutely must support the JLA movie and the rest of the DC cinematic universe.

Warner Brothers also missed a golden opportunity with last summer's Green Lantern to tease both a JLA movie and the upcoming Man of Steel (Superman) feature. When studio execs should have been thinking long-term and doing what they could to at least hint at the formation or existence of the JLA, the GL movie was produced in a vacuum; no one was thinking big picture (no pun intended) and a chance to create audience anticipation was lost.


What this all means is that the JLA movie is pretty much starting from ground zero. So the only logical move at this point is for Warner Brothers to make the best of what it's got -- the Green Lantern franchise and Man of Steel -- and simply proceed from there. The extended game plan could proceed thusly:
With a creative team that includes producer Nolan, screenwriter David S. Goyer (BladeBatman BeginsThe Dark Knight) and director Zack Snyder (Watchmen), all signs point to Man of Steel being a can't miss hit. But there's still more than a year before the film is scheduled to hit theaters. Warner Brothers could use that time to shoot a short epilogue to be placed after the closing credits of Man of Steel (similar to the "recruitment" scenes we saw at the end of Captain AmericaThe Incredible Hulk, and the other Marvel films.) A scene like this placed at the conclusion of Man of Steel could see Superman perhaps "checking in" at the JLA satellite, or alternatively, seeking out Green Lantern or one of the other heroes to discuss forming the JLA. Not only could this serve as the launching pad for the JLA film, but it would also make a lot of sense when you consider that Superman is certainly one of the cornerstones of the Justice League.


The next logical move would be to get a Green Lantern sequel into production. Admittedly, the original underperformed, but the pluses of a second GL film outweigh the negatives. For one, Green Lantern is best buds with Barry Allen, making the introduction and spin-off of the Flash character a possibility. As a bonus, should they prefer someone other than Ryan Reynolds to play the title character in the GL sequel (and the subsequent JLA movie) or if in fact they decided to go with a GL reboot instead of a sequel, Warner Brothers already has a means to smoothly accomplish this already built into DC Comics canon. Reynolds' Hal Jordan character could be replaced (as he was in the comics) by the Kyle Rayner Green Lantern, thus providing a seamless way to recast GL with a newer and/or more popular actor. This would then create the opportunity to bring Hal Jordan back (perhaps in the JLA movie) reincarnated as the Spectre. (And once again, this would all be 100% DC canon.)

But of course none of this solves the fundamental problem of getting the remaining JLA characters introduced. Not that some haven't tried. Goyer completed a script for the Flash years ago and fought hard to get it into into production. Now, however, any Flash movie seems more likely to come from Green Lantern writer Greg Berlanti. A Wonder Woman film, despite tons of rumors about Megan Fox starring in the title role, also seems a long ways off (even the updated TV series got shelved) and by all estimations is somewhere in the vague "in development" stage. Aquaman, meanwhile, is also still MIA on the big screen. A movie, reportedly attached to Leonardo DiCaprio's production company, has been rumored -- but for 2015 at the earliest.


The upshot, unfortunately, is that in the wake of the record-breaking box office receipts The Avengers has netted, Warner Brothers will likely forgo a logical, intelligent and anticipation-building film-by-film progression and instead dive headfirst into their JLA movie. Blowing their wad all at once like this seems not only risky, but short-sighted. Even if the JLA movie is a full-on blockbuster, where do you go from there? Could you start to spin off the individual characters into their own films one at a time?... I suppose, but how well would movie fans receive that?

Sadly, DC and Warner Brothers seem to be drooling at the billions The Avengers is raking in and in their mad chase after those kinds of dollars, they're rushing a JLA movie into production far too early.

Related Posts:
With the Success of The Avengers, Is a Justice League Movie Next?




May 19, 2012

With the Success of The Avengers, Is a Justice League of America Movie Next?


Do we really need to look past the success of The Avengers, which is well on its way to becoming the highest grossing film of all time, for a reason to get a Justice League of America movie into the production pipeline? Give Marvel Studios, parent company Disney, and everyone else involved credit -- they played it perfectly. Beginning with the first Hulk movie, they introduced the characters, gave us the backstories, teased audiences, and most importantly, got us all emotionally invested in the individual heroes and franchises (The Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America.) 



Part of the reason The Avengers is doing so well is because it was the result of a slow and well planned and executed build -- one character at a time; one movie at a time. And even as they were making gobs of money with the individual films, everything was being set up for a big team-up. We knew years ahead of time that a mega-movie featuring ALL of these characters was growing ever closer.

So can someone tell me why Hollywood isn't more aggressive in their partnering with DC Comics to achieve the same thing? Dating back to 1960, the Justice League of America is older and has FAR more backstory than The Avengers ever did. In large part, this is because the JLA has a deeper roster of characters with rich histories that predate (by decades) all of the Avengers -- with the exception of Captain America. And few would argue that the JLA counts among its members, two of the three single most recognizable comic book heroes in history -- Superman and Batman (the third would be Spiderman.) 

So why no JLA movie? 

Maybe because apart from the Superman movies and the two separate Batman franchises, the top DC characters have never really been given a chance on the big screen. Instead, we've inexplicably seen lesser characters like Catwoman, Jonah Hex, and Swamp Thing. Sure, we got Green Lantern last year -- but why no Flash movie? Why no Aquaman movie? How about Green Arrow and Black Canary? (They're at least as movie-worthy as their Marvel equivalents, Hawkeye and Black Widow.) And why no Wonder Woman? All are great characters, fully capable of carrying one (or more) films on their own. If Hollywood would do these movies right, and then put these characters together with Superman and Batman in a Justice League of America movie, you'd have a film property that could rival, perhaps even surpass The Avengers


Yet a quick search of the web for DC Comic movies gives us very little to hang our hopes on. Green Lantern 2 appears to be on track, but Aquaman can't seem to make it off the small screen. The Aquaman TV series that spun-off of Smallville a few years ago never got picked up by a network and was released on iTunes. A movie version (reportedly attached to Leonardo DiCaprio's production company) remains little more than a rumor -- one slated for 2015 at the earliest. 

Screenwriter David S. Goyer, to his credit, has completed scripts for both The Flash and Green Arrow and has fought to get them into production. Both are (or at least were) close to being official, but The Flash (if and when it is ever confirmed) now seems more likely to come from Green Lantern writer Greg Berlanti. And a Wonder Woman movie, despite tons of rumors about Megan Fox starring in the title role, also seems a long ways off. (Even the updated TV series got shelved.) Serious web searching finds the film in the always-vague "in development" stage. 


Maybe the new Superman movie, Man of Steel, starring Henry Cavill and set for release next June, will do well and serve as the first step towards a JLA movie. All signs point to Man of Steel being a can't miss hit. Let's face it, if you can't get a hit superhero movie by teaming director Zack Snyder (Watchmen) with screenwriter Goyer and producer Christopher Nolan (the duo behind Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises) then there's just no hope. 

Odds are, with such a stellar creative team, and an all-star cast that includes Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner and Michael Shannon, Man of Steel WILL do well and hopefully jump start the aforementioned Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman productions. From there, it would make sense for Martian Manhunter to make an appearance in Green Lantern 2 and/or a Man of Steel sequel. Then, with the core members of the JLA having all been introduced, best case scenario, we could finally get a JLA movie sometime around 2017... 

One can only hope...

November 11, 2011

Trailer Friday for November 11th, 2011

Hi folks, it's Trailer Friday again. Check out the in-the-moment commentary on an all new crop of movies.

Immortals (November 11)

"I missed Clash of the Titans and was kind of disappointed by Troy but still enjoyed it. This looks way better than both."

"Not enough audience for this movie. It's probably gonna do poorly at the box office. Too bad -- I love my Greek mythology movies."

"I dunno, the last big picture the director [Tarsem Singh] did was that JLo movie The Cell, which was one of the worst pieces of crap I ever saw."



Snow White and the Huntsman (Summer 2012)



"This film has a lot to live up to. The writer got an unbelievable $3 million for what was essentially a spec script. That said, the trailer looks awesome! Of the two Snow White movies, this is definitely gonna be the one to see."

"Someone needs to return that magic mirror to Home Goods. There's no way that skinny, pasty, Kristen Stewart is "fairer" than Charlize Theron. Also, it's hard to buy Stewart as an ass-kicking action hero."

"Agreed. Seriously bad casting for that lead role. Stewart always looks so mopey and bored. Like she's thinking, 'Yeah, being a movie star sucks.'"



Project X (March 2)




"Can't Hardly Wait meets Risky Business with a smattering of The Blair Witch Project."

"First of all, they need a more original title. Project X is the name of an 80's movie about astronaut monkeys... No bullshit, Matthew Broderick was in it."

"Sex-starved teens have a wild party and wreck the house while their parents are away -- how original!"

"Here's a red flag for you -- Todd Phillips [Old School, The Hangover] is listed as producer but DIDN'T write or direct."



Justice (November 18)



"Why, oh why, do they keep giving Nicholas Cage starring roles?... Box office poison he is."

"I say the exact same thing about Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heigl, and Anna Faris. But seriously, this could be good. Roger Donaldson [No Way Out, Thirteen Days, The Bank Job] has a lot of great thrillers on his resume.'"

"Seems very predictable. Did anyone NOT think the favor the guy was gonna ask for was for Cage to kill someone?"



A Thousand Words (Coming soon)



"Broad, high-concept comedies like this (Liar, Liar comes to mind) often work. Wish I'd thought of that premise."

"High-concept... or gimmicky? It worked for Liar, Liar, not so much for Yes Man. It's all in the execution."

"I agree it's a great premise but judging from that trailer, they're not doing enough with it. I was expecting to laugh out loud watching that preview and it just didn't happen."

"This movie would work better with a stronger supporting cast. Someone like Chris Tucker as the best friend and Halle Berry instead of Kerry Washington as the girlfriend."




Related Posts:

October 28, 2011

Hey Everyone, It's Trailer Friday!

Every other Friday (or so) I get together with the crew to view a bunch of the latest movie trailers. So check out what we watched and enjoy the commentary:


A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas [red band trailer]


"Yes! Harold's girlfriend [Paula Garces] is back, wearing lingerie and talking dirty!"

"Geez, Kal Penn is looking kinda old... and pudgy."

"This movie actually looks like it could be okay. Babies doing drugs is always good for a laugh."



Tower Heist 


"Tea Leoni's Hollywood career is like a Wack-a-Mole game. Every so often she pops up completely unexpectedly, then disappears again."

"It's been 25 years but Eddie Murphy's still got it. It's like as soon as you see his face, you smile."

"Is anybody else looking at Matthew Broderick and thinking, 'Wow, Ferris Beuller really let himself go."?



Piranha 3DD



"Was that Doc Brown from Back to the Future?"

"Cool -- Ving Rhames has guns for legs just like Rose McGowan in Planet Terror."

"Ten bucks says this movie never makes it theaters and goes straight to DVD."

"Campy, low-budget crap... But hey, can we watch that 'Double the D's' part again?"



The Mighty Macs


"The producers of this movie are targeting a very specific demo -- Catholic, women's college basketball fans."

"Isn't Marley Shelton supposed to be in this movie -- cause I don't think I saw her in that trailer."

"That 70s Show meets Hoosiers with a smattering of Sister Act."



In Time



"Interesting -- this is from the same writer who did Gattaca."

"Love the premise. Very Logan's Run-ny-ish."

"This could be a great movie. I seriously hope that puss Justin Timberlake doesn't ruin it."

"They had me the second Olivia Wilde's face hit the screen."


Related Posts:
Trailer Friday for November 11th, 2011
Trailer Friday for November 25th, 2011

September 14, 2009

Return to Melrose Place



After bringing back Beverly Hills 90210 last season (as just plain ole 90210) wasn't it just a matter of time before the CW took the next logical step and ressurrected Melrose Place? The original Melrose was a spin-off that ultimately became one of the most popular shows on television and even reached the level of “water cooler” show, right alongside its contemporaries Friends and Seinfeld.

So far, it looks like the new Melrose is getting mixed reviews. I watched it Tuesday and I have to say, it held my attention… but barely. Maybe we're being too crtical, too soon, but most of the characters, including Violet (Ashley Simpson), Riley (Jessica Lucas) and Auggie (Colin Egglesfield) aren’t terribly interesting and so far the show’s writers haven’t hinted at very many compelling storylines (with the exception of “who killed Sydney and why” -- but I’ll get to that in a minute.)

All in all, the premiere episode was very reminiscent of the original Melrose’s entire first season. If you recall, that season the plots and almost all the characters (particularly Courtney Thorne Smith as Allison and Andrew Shue as Billy) were downright boring. The show only took off after the characters of Sandy (Amy Locane) and Rhonda (Vanessa Williams) were jettisoned, Heather Locklear was brought in to play ad exec Amanda Woodward, and Thomas Calabro’s character (Michael) turned evil.


You’d think the new Melrose Place producers would’ve learned a lesson from this but it seems like they missed a golden opportunity to perhaps launch the new series with Locklear in a multi-episode arc (maybe as the owner of the apartment complex?) Perhaps Heather wasn’t available, or maybe she wanted too much money because instead, what we got was Laura Leighton returning as Sydney, who is now the apartment manager.


Seems like the producers had the right idea. Last season, bringing back cast members Jennie Garth and Shannen Doherty from the original show attracted extra viewers to 90210 and helped expand its audience demographic. 
Similarly, the Melrose producers had Leighton and Calabro reprise their roles from the original Melrose... But then they blew it by killing off Sydney and barely giving Michael any screen time at all. 

But in fairness, it’s not all bad. We do like Stephanie Jacobsen as Lauren, med student by day, prostitute by night, and also Katie Cassidy as upwardly mobile Ella. But what this show really needs is a jump-start—something to pull in viewers of the original series, because let’s face it, there’s a ton of competing programming for the audience it's targeting. 

What made the original Melrose so entertaining was when the storylines came off the rails (remember the cliffhanger where crazy-ass Kimberly blew up the courtyard?) and Michael, Sydney, and Amanda were wreaking havoc on a weekly basis. But it seems like this new incarnation of Melrose has too many "Allisons" and "Billys" and not enough "Kimberlys" and "Michaels" (although I can see Ella becoming a scheming Amanda-esque type character.)




Original Melroser Josie Bissett will be back for at least one episode as Michael's ex-wife, and Daphne Zuniga returns as Jo at the end of the season. That's fine, but did anyone ever really care about them the first time around?


Come on -- get with it you guys! Inject some life into the show! Pick up the phone, make a deal with Heather Locklear and bring back Amanda as a regular. Then punch up Michael's role and commence with the over the top, crazy plot twists! Let's go! We wanna see stolen babies, catfights in the pool, dead bodies rising from the grave, and brides run over by speeding cars on their wedding day!

Related Posts:

July 2, 2009

Is an All Star Michael Jackson Tribute Concert in the Works?

As far as the rumored All-Star Michael Jackson Tribute Concert is concerned, right now I'm still trying to separate fact from fiction. I'll stay on it but in the meantime, if there is a show, here's a few things it must include:

Sheryl Crow performing "I Just Can't Stop Loving You", the song she and Michael dueted on when she sang backup with him on the Bad tour.


Mariah Carey crooning "You Are Not Alone".

Usher recreating the Motown 25 "Billie Jean" performance.

Madonna doing anything (because she can.)

A tender performance of "Gone Too Soon" by John Legend.

The Jonas Brothers trading verses on the "I Want You Back/ABC/The Love You Save" medley.

Bono doing "Man in the Mirror".


Seal covering "The Lady in My Life".

A bluesy John Mayer version of "Who's Loving You".

Black Eyed Peas taking on "Wanna Be Starting Something".


Prince, Slash and Eddie Van Halen ripping it up on "Beat It" and "Black or White".

Alicia Keys playing and singing "She's Out of My Life".

Lady Gaga doing "Smooth Criminal".

Diana Ross holding back tears on "I'll Be There".

Stevie Wonder and Lionel Richie closing the show and leading everyone on "We Are the World".

Related Posts:

May 20, 2009

I told ya!... Shawn Johnson Wins Dancing with the Stars


Hate to toot my own horn here but... BEEP-BEEP! 

As I predicted way back on March 9, Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson won Dancing with the Stars last night. Here's what I said back then:

Shawn Johnson – The multi-medal winning Olympian has a lot going for her. She’s cute, used to competing, and her gymnastics background gives her all the athleticism, conditioning, discipline, balance and grace she needs to win. It’s all just a question of how well everything translates to the dance floor. Any way you slice it, she’s gotta be the favorite and I can’t see her missing the top three. Odds: 3-1

Pretty damn accurate if I say so my damn self.

Also, actor Gilles Marini came in second, one spot higher than I predicted. For verification purposes, simply check the post below.

Related Posts:

May 1, 2009

Summer Movie Season Arrives Earlier (and Earlier, and Earlier...)

The release of X-Men Origins: Wolverine today marks the start of the summer movie season. But the interesting thing is, today is May 1st and we're nearly two months removed from the official start of summer (June 21.) We're also nearly a month ahead of Memorial Day, which used to be the date the studios looked to as their jumping off point for summer releases. But as everyone seeks to get a jump on the competition, release dates are now sliding further and further up on the calendar. Somewhere along the line, the studio execs figured out that from Christmas-time through April, audiences are so starved for decent movies, that if a big-budget sequel, action or super-hero pic arrives in theaters in early May, it's likely to earn big box office. Moreover, the success of recent late March and April releases like Anger Management, Blades of Glory, and Baby Mama, has proven that even marginal pictures can do well so long as they have a decent marketing push behind them.


I'm not complaining though. In the 80s and 90s you had to wait until close to Memorial Day for blockbusters like Return of The Jedi (released May 25, 1983), Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (May 23, 1984), Mission Impossible (May 21, 1996), and The Lost World (May 22, 1997). Nowadays, the release dates of some of summer's most highly anticipated films creep closer to the beginning of May. Which is why this decade we got Star Wars: Attack of the Clones on May 16, Van Helsing on May 7, and Spiderman 3 on May 4. The studios now understand that getting their film out in early (as opposed to late) May (when there's more competition from both other movies and from summer activities like going to the beach) can potentially add more than $100 million to their picture's gross. Look at last year's Iron Man, which was an entertaining film but by no means one of the best summer movies in recent years. It became a $300 million dollar blockbuster, largely due to the fact that its May 2 opening beat everything else out of the gate. Folks were so starved for a decent movie and so amped up for summer that they flocked to theaters to see it. 

And now, with today's opening of Wolverine, we've reached the limit of the May release. Wolverine is sure to have a huge weekend, and I predict that very shortly, maybe as soon as next year, one or more of the studios will dip their toe in the water and release one of their summer blockbusters in April. Even as I'm writing this, I'm looking at my calendar and I see that in 2010, April 30th is a Friday... Seems inevitable doesn't it?

Who knows what's after that. Easter could become the new Memorial Day. Studios might want to take advantage of the fact that many kids are on spring break around that time, and many adults get (or take) Easter Monday off so they can have a 3-day weekend. In any case, enjoy your summer movies and maybe I'll see you on line for Wolverine... or Star Trek... or Terminator Salvation... or Year One... or Transformers 2... or Public Enemies... or G.I. Joe... or Inglorious Bastards... or... 

Related Links:

March 9, 2009

Pop Culture Fiend Handicaps Dancing with the Stars


Drop everything, read this, then get your bet down. (No joke, there's a legitimate line for this in Vegas.) The Pop Culture Fiend has studied, broken it down and come up with the odds for this season's DWTS contestants:

Lawrence Taylor (retired football star) – Maybe because they're so used to repetitive training and using their entire bodies, but athletes in general and football players in particular (Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith, Warren Sapp) always do well on this show. LT's also got personality, a great smile and experience in front of the camera. Odds: 4-1


Nancy O’Dell – Dropped out due to injury.

Jewel – Dropped out due to injury.

Holly Madison (Playboy model, reality TV star) - Madison comes to this competition straight off a collapsed reality show. She’s in this largely to remain in the spotlight and improve her Q-rating, but as a late replacement for Jewel, she's had less practice time and is at a distinct disadvantage. Odds: 15-1

Ty Murray (rodeo star) – When his wife Jewel dropped out due to injury, Murray’s chances went right with her. The novelty of seeing he and his wife competing against one another is now gone and Murray has zero name recognition on his own, thereby placing him near the bottom in terms of fan favorites. Odds: 40-1

David Alan Grier (actor-comedian) – Funny guys (Adam Carolla, Jeff Ross) don’t usually do well on DWTS. But Grier was recently on Carolla's radio show and seemed like he was taking this competition pretty seriously. Call it a hunch but we have him as our best longshot. Odds: 10-1


Gilles Marini (actor) – Okay, I never watched Sex in the City so have no idea who this guy is. I know he’s French (maybe that’ll help him?) and his partner is two-time winner Cheryl Burke, who may be the best of all the professionals. Odds: 8-1

Steve-O (reality TV star) – First off, great pick by the DWTS producers. Steve-O's irreverent personality has the potential to really liven up the show and also pull in an entirely new demographic of viewers. But even though he’s paired with Lacey, one of my new favorite dancer, we doubt Steve-O can dance or is interested in putting forth the effort needed to win. Odds: 35-1


Lil’ Kim (recording artist) – Just a quick side note: Lil' Kim was on one of the entertainment shows the other day, and she has had so much cosmetic surgery on her face and her body, she’s virtually unrecognizable from when she first started out in the rap game. Nevertheless, Kim's a performer who seems to love being back in the spotlight. It'll be interesting to see how she’ll click with her partner Derek Hough. Odds: 12-1

Shawn Johnson (gymnast) – The multi-medal winning Olympian has a lot going for her. She’s cute, used to competing, and her gymnastics background gives her all the athleticism, conditioning, discipline, balance and grace she needs to win. It’s all just a question of how well everything translates to the dance floor. Any way you slice it, she’s  the favorite and a lock to make the top three. Odds: 3-1



Chuck Wicks (country singer) – Word is, Wicks has been dating Julianne Hough for awhile (the two opened for Brad Paisley on his last tour.) Hough, it seems, had made up her mind not to return to the show this season but was talked into staying because the producers agreed to have Wicks as a contestant and then pair the couple up. Julianne’s another of our favorites and she’ll no doubt pull out all the stops to get her and Wicks through each week. Even so, we say this duo's dancing (and their relationship) will both be over quickly. Odds: 10-1

Denise Richards (actress) – After running off with her friend Heather Locklear’s husband (Bon Jovi guitarist, Richie Sambora) Richards runs the risk of being unpopular among women viewers. She’ll need to not only dance well but also make nice with everyone in order to repair her image as a man-stealer and make it through. Odds: 8-1

Belinda Carlisle (singer) – Not only is she 50, but the Go-Go’s singer came off as somewhat indifferent in previous reality show appearances on Who Wants to be a Millionaire and Celebrity Duets. Belinda will have to curb any apathy, be really engaging, and show a lot of personality to last even through the first few weeks. Odds: 25-1


Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple) – He’s a gregarious guy but has too much girth and too little name recognition.
Odds: 
50-1



February 20, 2009

Oscar Predictions (Part III)

Here's the last of a 3 part series:


Best Adapted Screenplay
In many ways, this year’s Slumdog Millionaire vs The Curious Case of Benjamin Button face-off is reminiscent of 1995, when the innovative and edgy Pulp Fiction ultimately lost Best Picture to the broader, more audience friendly modern-day fable, Forrest Gump. Back then, in the screenplay category, Gump was competing in the "Best Adapted" category, while Pulp Fiction was an original work by Quentin Tarantino. This year, Button’s epic, sweeping story goes against three dramatically intense (but more intimate) dramas (Doubt, The Reader, and Frost Nixon) and the gritty, cathartic Slumdog


Hollywood never seems to tire of Holocaust-related material (as Ricky Gervais alluded to at the Golden Globes this year) which gives The Reader a shot at this one. However, the Doubt script was so emotionally charged and rich with dialog, it could have easily had the most lasting impact on voters. Regardless, the official pick is cleverly-crafted Slumdog, with its finely weaved, poignant flashback-intensive narrative.

Should win: Slumdog
Will win: Slumdog



Best Original Screenplay
Apart from Milk, we’ve got some very unusual nominees this year. Frozen River scribe Courtney Hunt is a relatively new writer-director and she’s in against some very tough competition. Happy Go Lucky’s Mike Leigh was nominated previously for both Vera Drake and Secrets and Lies; and WALL-E co-writer Andrew Stanton previously brought us Toy Story and Finding Nemo (nominated for this award in 1995 and 2003, respectively.) Hunt won’t win against competition of this caliber and neither will Leigh’s script which, despite being a favorite among his fellow nominating writers, could be hindered by the fact that British humor is often not as broad as it needs to be to gain the appeal needed to win (as was the case with 1988’s A Fish Called Wanda and 1994’s Four Weddings and a Funeral.)


Similar to the 2007 and 2006 winners in this category (Diablo Cody’s Juno and Michael Arndt’s Little Miss Sunshine) Martin McDonagh’s In Bruges is an offbeat comedy that was hard not to appreciate. 

Milk’s only real shot at a major award is in this category but WALL-E has a wry story and an environmentally conscious theme, which Hollywood loves. Really tough call here…

Should win: In Bruges

Will win: Milk



Best Director and Best Picture
Since the nominated directors are all from the best picture nominees, let's cover everything together. 





Milk director Gus Van Sant is the quintessential Hollywood “outsider” that’s gotten to the point where he’s so respected and his films so highly recognized and successful, he’s now actually more of an “insider”. He’d be a fine selection, but once again, this is just not Milk’s year.

As for Ron Howard (winner for 2001’s A Beautiful Mind), Frost Nixon is a fine film, but nowhere near Howard's best work (see Apollo 13, Ransom, The Missing, Cinderella Man and the aforementioned A Beautiful Mind) so it’s a very long shot he wins here.

Deservingly, at this year’s ceremony, Slumdog and Button will be battling it out in several categories and these two categories are the toughest to call. Watch the telecast closely, as the winners in the Best Cinematography, Editing, and Art Direction categories may give an indication of who will take home the big prizes. 

As I mentioned, this year’s Oscars mirrors 1995’s Forrest Gump vs Pulp Fiction showdown when the grittier, edgier film (Pulp Fiction) lost Best Picture and Best Director to the more audience-friendly Gump (and its director Bob Zemeckis.) I’m going out on a limb by saying history WON'T repeat itself this year.

Button director David Fincher has the credentials (Seven, Fight Club, The Game, Zodiac) and a reputation as one of the most talented filmmakers in the business. It’s hard to imagine the Academy would deny him in favor of Slumdog’s Danny Boyle or The Reader’s Stephen Daldry. It's just that Slumdog has had so much more buzz, better legs at the box office, and is clearly the more socially conscious choice. Hollywood is like the rest of America right now and mainly just wants to be entertained and made to feel good again. Button does that quite well, but Slumdog just has too much momentum and will walk away with a Best Picture win.



Best Director 
Should win: Danny Boyle (Slumdog)
Will win: Danny Boyle


Best Picture
Should win: Button
Will win: Slumdog

Related Posts: