Category: Actors (Page 127 of 343)

Extremely late Friday night news dump

Hey folks, day time tasks have slowed me down, but who was it who said “the night was made for movie blogging”? Okay, no one said that, but we all know it’s true! Anyhow, here are some items from throughout the week I haven’t had a chance to touch on…

* This interview with director Mary Harron has been linked to by several different bloggers throughout the week. If memory serves, it may not actually be new news that Christian Bale partially based his genius-level breakthrough performance in 2000’s “American Psycho” on Tom Cruise, but it’s perhaps more intriguing now that we think we more about both actors’ quirks.

Christian Bale in "American Psycho"

* It might be inside critic/film blogger baseball to you but it’s big — and somewhat distressing — news to me. The thought provoking and just plain cool Karina Longworth, who has helped me out via the miracle of linking many times at her Spout blog home, will be leaving the site at the end of the month, which will also no longer be providing new content including the work of Christopher Campbell (I frequently link to his “The Day in Film Bloggery” posts.).

Somewhat oddly, her soon to be ex-boss attributed her departure not to fiscal issues but to a difference over “vision” for the blog. So, his “vision” was not to have one at all? Anyhow, the consensus is that the hardworking Longworth will be going places regardless.

* I strongly disliked the pilot for “Fringe” (and said so right here) and, unlike David Medsker, I outright hated “Transformers.” (I didn’t even make it through the whole movie…oh, the pleasures of not reviewing.) Then screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman surprised the heck out of me by crafting a perfectly terrific script for “Star Trek,” marred only a little by director J.J. Abram’s hyperactive visual proclivities. (What’s wrong with using a tripod sometimes? Still, he got terrific performances and told a dandy tale, so I’m not complaining too much.) Anyhow, the  writers’ thoughts on the sequel are worth a look.

* Jackie Chan and Andy Lau are remaking Jet Li‘s 1981 breakthrough film, which I’m ashamed to say I’ve never even heard of before (at least not that I can remember), “Shaolin Temple.” I guess I should try to see it. Considering that Li was barely 19 back then and that Chan is now 55 (Lau’s in his forties), I trust he’s not playing the same character…or it’s been seriously rewritten.

* Disney is reportedly working on a “digital cloud,” in which content will be purchased and viewable in multiple formats. I generally get the consumer appeal of this, but I still fail to see why anyone would want to watch a movie on a cell phone. In fact, I think even the larger online version of this is way too small for this kind of beauty. (There’s a very brief Spanish language intro, by far the best version of this Disney classic I found on YouTube — the segment starts at 0:23.)

Wuthering Heights

Here’s a long forgotten relic from the past. It’s a BBC adaptation from 1967 of the Emily Brontë classic, and there’s really only one reason it’s out on DVD at all: It stars Ian McShane (“Deadwood”) as Heathcliff. I’m a slave to all things “Wuthering Heights,” and not just because Kate Bush put her stamp on it, either. I’ll watch any adaptation of the book that comes out, and my wife tells me this makes me a very strange man, since to her mind, it’s not a story that many guys dig. What’s not to like? A guy is jilted by his one true love and proceeds to makes life for her (and everyone she knows) a living hell. I get it; I see where ol’ Heathcliff is coming from. He probably takes it a bit too far, though, especially in the second half of the story, when Cathy’s been dead for years and he’s still pissed off and inflicting all manner of pain and degradation on the next generation. Dude – you’ve got to learn to let it go! I say this through every version, and of course he never gets it right. But those misty moors keep calling me back for further helpings, and I can’t get enough “Wuthering Heights.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t one of the better adaptations, especially given how many strong versions have been produced in recent years. With a running time of just over 3 hours, it pretty much covers the entire story, which is certainly a plus. However, the DVD artwork is somewhat misleading. The full color shot of McShane and Angela Scoular (who plays Cathy) might lead you to believe this is considerably more sumptuous than it actually is. It is in fact in black and white, and the video quality is mediocre at best. The entire thing feels like a stage play on film, and perhaps worst of all, it has no musical score whatsoever. It’s pretty creaky, vintage British TV that’s ultimately saved by McShane, who, even at the age of 25, plays an utter bastard (literally) better than most. Even with the problematic production values, he’s a force with which to be reckoned. The same can’t be said for Scoular, who’s one of the brattiest and most unlikable Cathys ever filmed. Ultimately, this version is only going to have two audiences: “Heights” completists like myself, and female McShane fans with a masochistic streak.

A Soupy Sales memorial movie moment

The late Soupy Sales was a great comic who achieved his great fame through television but never had much of a film career. His one starring role, 1966’s “Birds Do It,” is essentially impossible to see. Given two of the comments currently on IMDb, perhaps for a reason.

Nevertheless, his pie throwing and receiving savvy tickled the funny bone of a couple of generations and certainly influenced the slapstick comedy of his era quite a bit. So, in honor of the late Mr. Sales, the most famed pie fight of the 1960s.

Considering that this scene from Blake Edwards’ 1965’s “The Great Race” features several of the biggest stars of its day including Natalie Wood, Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon (as two separate characters — the villainous Prof. Fate and the aimably drunken Crown Prince Hapnik), a pre-“Columbo” Peter Falk and character acting great Keenan Wynn (aka Col. Bat Guano of “Dr. Strangelove“), it’s also easily the most star-studded creamy pastry battle yet filmed.

And, remember the wise words of Mr. Sales and brush after every pie fight: “Be true to your teeth, and they’ll never be false to you.”

Gore v. chills at the box office

I keep reading that the studios are reducing their outputs and that we’ll be seeing fewer new movies, but there’s sure no sign of it lately as we have another complicated week where, at least in theory, anything can happen. Still, the prognosticators agree that the latest entry in the first and longest running franchise in the sub-genre of torture-heavy horror, “Saw VI,” will likely win the week for Lionsgate.

On the other hand, there is also a consensus that the low-violence yet entirely potent chills of “Paranormal Activity” will be cutting into the Saw-bucks some also. Obviously, there is some audience crossover but, just as obviously, the most jaded gore hounds may find it beyond tame. I’ve already noted online the start of an inevitable backlash. I doubt this reaction will have the same angry potency that afflicted “The Blair Witch Project” so many moons ago. In that case, Lionsgate’s attempt to persuade less-savvy audiences that it might actually be real probably backfired later on, as did the over-hype of some of the early write-ups.

This time, Paramount has been more cleverly circumspect than the “Blair Witch” marketers, simply making the case that the modest video-movie can really scare the bejesus out of an audience. I’m here to tell you it can, even though I feel sure that not a single person I saw it with was under any delusion that what we were watching was not staged. Still, you see the violence-loving fanboys complaining at certain sites. I mean, how can a movie be scary if it lets you imagine the worst of it? How is that ever going to work?

It’s probably pretty obvious by now, especially from my post just before this one, that I prefer the “Paranormal” approach and will be rooting for it but, despite the still growing excitement around the movie, it’s the definite underdog as “Saw VI” will be opening in 3,036 theaters, while it’s competitor will be expanding to a mere 1,900. However, the outstanding per-screen averages that the film has been nailing could compensate if some horror audiences find the prospect of yet another ultra-brutality fest less than ultra-appealing.

Though it’s yet another family-friendly CGI animated film, this one based on a property at least some of us remember from our childhoods, hopes are not all that astronomically high for the next film. Summit’s “Astro Boy” is based on the best known creation of Japan’s “God of Manga” Osamu Tezuka, who basically invented both manga and anime as we now know them and who created some of the best comic books for adults that I’ve ever read. Of course, you’d never know from the horrendously lame gag at the end of the trailer or the often ugly CGI animation that ruins the beautiful 2-D (black and white, too!) of the early Tezuka cartoons as scene in the trailer. This appears to be another case of a studio adapting a property and missing what made the original work.

astro_boy_movie_image

Continue reading »

What’s scary?

I’ll be doing my weekly box office preview next, but before I do we have an apt movie moment for this week’s box office derby as the “extreme” horror of the latest entry in the “Saw” franchise will be pitted, among other films, against the clever head games of “Paranormal Activity.” Just in case anyone out there thinks the push and pull between scaring an audience by showing it disturbing material or by almost showing it disturbing material is anything new, I’ve got a wonderfully concise sequence from Vicented Minelle’s soapy-but-brilliant 1952 inside-Hollywood tale, “The Bad and the Beautiful.”

Below Barry Sullivan as a hardworking director and Kirk Douglas as a hotshot writer-producer partially modeled on horror-legend Val Lewton (“Cat People,” “The Body Snatcher,” etc.), deal with the rather basic filmmaking problem their low-budget scare flick is presented with.

That’s Ned Glass as the costume guy, by the way, feeding those great reactions by Douglas and Sullivan. Gotta love Ned.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Premium Hollywood

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑