It is often assumed that prominent individuals in business or celebrities in the public eye fail to lead normal lives like the rest of us. This dehumanization almost makes it easier for the public to lay judgement upon famous people because they are perceived differently than the more average members of society. The reality is that fame does not mean that fun cannot be had, and by recognizing what these people do in their free time, they become more relatable and human.
Some famous people and their hobbies include:
• Mark Zuckerberg: the creator and CEO of Facebook, who is one of the world’s entrepreneur’s that the media is most intrigued by due to his low-key lifestyle, appears to enjoy traveling, and spending time with his dog and family at home.
• Reed Cagle: Skiing on Vail Mountain is the preferred activity of the Founder, CEO, and President of HEI Resources. As a Colorado resident, the mountains are in Reed Cagle’s backyard and it is a great way for the busy oil and gas industry entrepreneur to unwind.
• Justin Timberlake: the busy celebrity and entrepreneur is a musician and actor, a restaurant owner, fashion designer, and is involved with various other businesses. In his spare time he likes to golf, snowboard, and engage in other fitness-related activities, in addition to simply spending time at home with wife Jessica Biel.
• Quentin Tarantino: the movie mogul may be behind a wide variety of R-rated action flicks, but his favorite hobby is much more family-friendly. Tarantino enjoys collecting board games; specifically those that have a TV show theme.
• David Arquette: the actor may have given himself a “bad boy” image but his favorite hobby is certainly anything but. The actor, once married to Courtney Cox, likes to knit in his spare time.
The hobbies of famous people prove that while they may have made a big name for themselves in whatever business they’ve endeavored to be a part of, that they have the same basic interests and enjoy the types of things that everyone does. Take this into consideration next time you hear a news story about one of these celebrities, or anyone else that has found themselves in the limelight!
As I settled in to watch “B-Girl,” a film described on the back of its DVD box as originating “from the dancers of ‘Fame,’ ‘How She Move,’ ‘Step Up,’ ‘Step Up 2,’ & ‘Step Up 3D,'” I was reminded of a nine-word phrase of total disclosure which Roger Ebert once used to open a review: “I am not the person to review this movie.” Granted, he was speaking of “Scooby Doo” at the time, but his lack of familiarity with the mythos of that famed mystery-solving mutt have nothing on my deficiency of dance-movie knowledge. Still, I grew up in the ’80s, when breakdancing was in its original heyday, so I figured, okay, the least I can do is give this movie a chance. Sadly, “B-Girl” can’t hold a candle to “Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo.” (Really, though, how many films can?)
“B-Girl” offers an all-too-familiar underdog story: Angel (Jules Urich, “You Got Served,” “Step Up 2”) dances her ass off while cruising the streets of NYC, but when a tragedy occurs in Angel’s life and results in both a shoulder injury and a decision by her mother to move to the other side of the country, she realizes that her only solace in California will come from getting back into shape and onto the dance floor again. The film is an expanded version of a short film bearing the same title, which was released in 2004 and also starred Urich, but that was five years ago; even in a world where we’ve been accepting twentysomethings playing teenagers since the original “Beverly Hills 90210,” no one in their right mind is going to look at Urich and say, “Okay, I’ll buy that she’s young enough to still be under her mother’s thumb.” It must also be said that neither the dialogue nor the acting is all that. This, of course, only leaves the dancing as a reason to see “B-Girl.” Is it enough? Well, this is where I’m going to more or less fall back on the aforementioned Ebert-ism, but for what it’s worth, Iwas impressed. For you B-Girls and B-Boys amongst our readership, though, you’ll probably have to see it for yourself.
One of the biggest box office hits of the year, “The Hangover” finally comes to Blu-ray and DVD just in time for the holidays boasting a theatrical and unrated cut of the film (for once, you don’t have to choose between the two) and a slew of extras that are fun to watch once, but aren’t necessarily as good as you would expect.
The highlight of most Blu-ray releases is typically the audio commentary, and though this track featuring director Todd Phillips and co-stars Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis doesn’t start out strong, it gets better over time as they discuss everything from the music to Helms’ fake tooth to the different babies used during production. The picture-in-picture video doesn’t exactly, though, help because everyone involved looks positively bored (or just trying to enjoy the movie, you decide), so it can hardly be viewed as an incentive for Blu-ray owners.
“Map of Destruction”
This interactive feature lets you retrace the guys’ crazy night by visiting all of the locations they hit up along the way. From Caesar’s and the Riviera to Mike Tyson’s house, every stop includes interviews with the cast and footage of on-set antics. Tyson himself even gets a chance to shine with a great comeback on director Phillips.
“The Madness of Ken Jeong”
I’m not exactly sure why we needed eight minutes of Ken Jeong improvising, but this series of deleted scenes/alternate takes shows how he created the character of Mr. Chow through some experimenting.
Never bet against family entertainment, especially when it’s in 3-D and generating strong word of mouth. “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” declined a very small 19% and collected an estimated $24.6 million over the weekend, which puts it at a $60 million “cume” or thereabouts according to Bruce McNary of Variety. Not bad.
I’m not one one bit surprised that the new Bruce Willis science-fiction tale, “Surrogates,” didn’t get the over-fluffed $20+ million that was expected, despite the help of costar Radha Mitchell. The movie hasn’t generated much excitement, is getting “meh” to bad reviews, and the appeal of older stars like Willis just doesn’t seem to be that powerful at the box office these days. Does Bruce Willis even register that much with people under thirty? If it wasn’t for the success of the last “Die Hard” flick, I think this would have done significantly less than the non-terrible estimated $15 million it actually netted for the #2 slot. On the other hand, the film cost $80 million. How much of that was Willis’s salary?
The remake of Alan Parker’s “Fame” got mostly bad reviews, and the box office wasn’t too exciting either with a mere $10 million estimated. Though the film apparently attracted a youngish audience — a possible reflection of the film being perceived as not very good since it’s a well known property to we mid-lifers — apparently most of them were taken up with other films. The week’s other major new release, the Dennis Quaid sci-fi horror entry, “Pandorum,” did a predictably awful estimated $4.4 million.
In more positive news, “The Informant!” held better than expected with roughly $6.9 million in the #4 spot and a mere 33% decline according to the Box Office Mojo chart. An interesting real life story, a funny trailer, an imaginative director, and more youngish star power may still count for something.
The week’s highest per screen average was documentary superstar Michael Moore’s latest, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” earning about $60,000 each in four theaters before going wide next week. The French language biopic, “Coco Before Chanel” starring Audrey Tautou (“Amelie”), earned a stylish estimated $35,000 average on five screens.
I’m in the middle of some big stuff you’ll be seeing here before too long, so this is going to be an extremely short version of my usual long-winded pre-weekend box office previews.
Basically, this is a tricky weekend when it’s hard to see a clear box office favorite. It could be the remake of Alan Parker’s 1980 musical drama, “Fame“; it could be the Bruce Willis/Radha Mitchell virtual living science fiction flick “Surrogates” (a topic much on my mind as I work on a very long post about this movie); it could be a second #1 weekend for “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.” It almost certainly won’t be a second sci-fi flick, a horror/space opera with Dennis Quaid that was withheld from critics, “Pandorum.” Dave McNary of Variety goes out on a limb to say that “Surrogates” will win the weekend with something in the low twenty millions, but jolly Carl DiOrio of THR is honestly equivocal while leaning on his imaginary car horn. He’s probably not wrong when he says there’s just an awful lot of material out there chasing a limited number of autumn filmgoers. We shall see.