I'll keep this short and sweet so as not to lower your intelligence any lower than mine has already become.
Watched The Italian Job this past weekend for the first time. Shocking.
How they managed to get at least three big name actors (Norton, Wahlberg, Theron) along with a sizable chunk of known supporting actors (Mos Def, Jason Statham, Seth Green, Donald Sutherland) to appear in this craptacular shitfest is beyond me. Even the prospect of piles of money couldn't have been enough for the three stars to stain their resumes.
Totally unoriginal, wildly predictable, monstrously cliched, yet attempting to be stylish, The Italian Job fails in all aspects of filmmaking outside of the prerequisite "looking like a film."
And to think, people had the nerve to call "Ocean's Twelve" a failure. Watch the two back-to-back, I dare you, then tell me which is better.
Fletch's Film Rating: "I want you to punch me as hard as you can."
Footnotes:
* Unbelievably, they're making a sequel: The Brazilian Job. Can't wait...
* You may be wondering why I own this if it's so bad. Simple - Best Buy (or a video store) was selling it on the cheap and I had wanted to see it. $5.00 is the same as renting. No biggie there. That said, I'd like to return it now...
Here in Phoenix, we're lucky that the largest and most successful theater chain is the locally-owned and operated Harkins Theaters. Started by "Red" Harkins in 1933, the chain is currently run by his son Dan, under whom it has blossomed into a giant. When "Red" passed away in 1974, Harkins consisted of 5 locations; today, it is 300 screens strong, commanding the bulk of the Valley of the Sun's theater market, and having expanding into five states. In time, hopefully, they will grow to be a nationwide conglomerate, alongside AMC, Cineplex Odeon, and other large chains.
In short, I love the Harkins Theaters chain. I have been a 99% loyal customer to them for some 15 years now (it's hasn't always been my choice which theater to go to). They typically run a tight ship - clean, efficient and luxurious. Until a few years ago, when pre-film commercials essentially took over the landscape, they played classical music prior to the start of the trailers, a most welcome change from your typical theater's pop garbage. Sadly, that is gone and most likely won't return. As much as I like Harkins, I have some other pieces of advice for them and all of the theaters out there:
* Cross-promotion dominates marketing these days. Buy some Clorox and enter for a chance to win a trip to NASCAR! So why isn't (an uber-logical) cross-promotion going on at your local theaters - namely, why don't theaters sell DVDs?? This shocks me. Who deals with movie studios and distributors more than theaters do? Also, with the growing trend of films released simultaneously in the theater and on DVD, you'd think there might even be some incentive to push people to the theater to do both. For example, say 300 was released simultaneously on DVD and in the theater. Now, if the average price for a brand-new DVD (not from the bargain bin at Best Buy) is $19.99 or so, and the average ticket price at your local theater is $10 (except for New York and Los Angeles, at least), why not incentivize people to do both? Surely, there is a growing number of folks that have big-screen TVs and home theater audio sets at home that no longer attend the theater, but what if, after having seen the film for $10, were able to purchase the DVD at a discounted price (with their ticket stub as proof of purchase) on the way out the door? I'd do both if I planned on purchasing the DVD at some later date anyway - why not do it at the same time? There are a number of other reasons to sell DVDs at the theater as well (brings people to the theater that might not go there normally, for example).
* Why stop at DVDs? Look at what's hanging outside your local theater, trying to tempt you to come in and watch something? It's a movie poster! Enough people already purchase them that there are not only stores dedicated to doing such, but a cottage industry on eBay. Theaters seem a logical point-of-purchase as well.
* Mrs. Fletch has a request of her own. With the (well documented here) ever-growing length of movies, the need for soda or popcorn refills is ever-growing. And what's worse than having to run out of the theater and missing the movie - doing so and finding a long line at the concession stand. Therefore, she requests an express line for people already in the theater.
* I'm sure one of the larger problems for theaters (throughout time) is people (ahem, teenagers) who slip and slide their way into either the building itself or from theater to theater. Why not scan tickets at the doors to each theater? Yes, this would be an imposition to us paying customers, but if the end result is lower costs, then I think we all win in the end. One of the local theaters recently had a security guard stationed (in an ineffective position, mind you) in the hallway, checking people's tickets. Is this really the best we can do in the 21st century?
If all else fails, hire me as a consultant. I'm available at the right price.
F*ck movie studios and their stupid ass marketing right in their ears. Note:
If you've seen and/or loved the flick "Out of Sight", as I do, you know what it's about. I recently upgraded from my VHS version to the DVD and, well, aside from the travesty of them replacing the terrific movie poster that they had while it was in the theaters for the awful one that graces the DVD, they also decided to make the film sound less generic than "ACME Romantic Comedy," which is wrong on so many levels. First of all, the front of the DVD has the tagline of "Opposites Attract" below the title. Lamer than lame, as this isn't some cheesy "Odd Couple" remake. What's even worse, though, is the text on the back:
"Meet Jack Foley, the most successful bank robber in the country. On the day he busts out of jail, he finds himself stealing something far more precious than money...Karen Sisco's heart. She's smart. She's sexy, and unfortunately for Jack, she's a Federal Marshal. Now, they're willing to risk it all to find out if there's more between them than just the law..."
It goes on from there, but good god, that's awful. They contradict their own writing within 15 words - is he a great bank robber, or a prisoner, as you can't logically be both. Aside from that, the first scene of the movie involves HIM GETTING CAUGHT for a bank robbery - kinda takes away the whole "most successful in the country" vibe, no?
I'm sure there are 10,000 other examples of this as well, but I don't have them right in front of me. I shudder to think what the box says for "The Godfather" or "Citizen Kane" or something...
The Namesake, based on the novel of the same name by Jhumpa Lahiri, is an epic, sweeping tale of one family and two countries and some 25 years. Going back in forth in time and location (from India to New York), it covers a lot of ground, not only in terms of time and location, but of personal journeys along the way. And much like real life itself, the film shifts from jubilant celebrations to heartbreaking losses more often than a driver in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Kal Penn plays Gogol Ganguli, the child of Indian immigrants who came to America in the late 70s, the product of an arranged marriage. Gogol's father Ashoke (Irfan Khan) had travelled to the United States shortly before his marriage, following a life-changing train ride. He grew to love the "land of opportunity," and brought his new bride along with him, halfway across the world from their homeland.
How Gogol came to receive that name is (obviously) imperative to the story, but the more important aspect of the film is the growth and change of father, mother, son (and daughter) over the years. As young Gogol becomes more and more Americanized (and distant from his parents), he yearns to change his name, citing the strangeness of placing it "on a resume or application." His parents are stunned and saddened.
While Kal Penn is the centerpiece of the poster and trailer (and easily the biggest name to American audiences), The Namesake belongs to the parents' lives, pre- and post-children. For non-Indians (or even all non-immigrants, for that matter), the film could make for a good companion to Jim Sheridan's In America, though that film focused more so on the monetary struggles of poor immigrants than the cultural-based struggles felt by Gogol and his parents.
Though I enjoyed the film, it's 122 minute running time does feel long in the tooth at times, due to an immense amount of story, but also due to some extra scenes/subplots (from the book, no doubt) that could have been cut. Though somewhat integral to the plot, Gogol's romantic struggles feel unnecessarily lengthy, only serving to bring us to another step in the more integral "immediate family" story.
Bolstered by traditional Indian music and more contemporary "world music," The Namesake takes the audience on a long journey from Calcutta to Cleveland, from birth to death, and from loneliness to happiness. It's worth the ride.
For those of you unaware of the phenomenon of hidden text in your spam messages, click here to read up a bit.
Back yet? Ok - now that you're all caught up (or still caught up, if you were already in the know), I have to share the message that I received today. Typically, these hidden messages are only a sentence or two, and rarely make much, if any, sense. Not so today, my friends. I got a full-blown noir/sci-fi story, and I find it somewhat fascinating. It reads like a dream in more ways than one. Ready for it? Ok, here it is:
"In the morning I had picked the lock on the control panel in the
snapped into a military brace.
must have done something pretty gruesome to deserve this fate. I
snoring forms. I shook my hands over my head.
I started to shout fight-but at the last instant called out
This is madness-Ill be dead?
here. Right?
Not really.
Forbidden! Impossible!
For the likes of mee-ee-e-e!
her, hands out and ready to strike.
came back.
I pulled my finger out of my ear, wiped the earwax off of it, stared
it would be. I shook off the dark feelings just one more time, looked
ran an exploration spacer. Male crew, endless years in space. It was
Now hear this. All Stainless Steel Rats will assemble at debarkation
Fatigue sat on me. I closed my eyes and took a lot more than ten. The"
Those are the line breaks that it came with. See what I mean about it reading like a dream? Even the ending isn't there! (Like most dreams.) I'm eagerly anticipating my next piece of spam from "Brittania Daniels." Oh, and just in case you were wondering, she/it was selling Viagra/Cialis/etc, and the subject of the email was "eihag refusa." Weird...
Robert Altman was the perfect director for the cinematic adaptation of Garrison Keillor'sA Prairie Home Companion. His meandering, busy style matches the tempo and mood needed to film a radio show in (mostly) real time. It doesn't hurt to have a great cast as well, including Meryl Strepp, Lily Tomlin, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, John C. Reilly and Lindsay Lohan. That's the good news.
The bad news is that the screenplay, by Keillor, is contrived and dumb, featuring not only an private eye wannabe played by Kevin Kline named Guy Noir (who is a crossover from the actual radio show, which may explain the stupidity of the character name, but doesn't excuse it), but an idiotic "angel of death" played by Virginia Madsen, who meanders in and out of scenes as if she always has something important to say, yet never says it.
The scenes featuring the stage performances from the show are a genuine delight, most notably the singing performances by Harrelson and Reilly as cowboys Dusty and Lefty, and Street and Tomlin as a pair of singing sisters with tales of "Momma" from way back when. Keillor himself is also charming as can be, with his silky smooth voice narrating the show throughout.
That said, what could have been a meaningful tribute to Keillor's radio show becomes instead a sad attempt to create a narrative where there is none to be had. Or, if there was one to be had, this wasn't it.
I'd heard the rumblings. I'd heard the praise, and I'd heard the pans. "Idiocracy is hilarious!" "Idiocracy is a one-joke piece of crap!"
Either way, I had to see it - that much was known. After the cult-that-is-no-longer-a-cult masterpiece that is Office Space (not to mention all of his TV successes), Mike Judge deserves the benefit of the doubt, at the least. And besides, the bizarre "was it intentional or not" shelving of Idiocracy is as interesting a story as any movie.
After seeing the movie, the conspiracy theory's credence only grows. While a comparison to Office Space is moot, Idiocracy is indeed a funny film. At times hilarious, at times painful. In the end, it's "pretty good," certainly not of a quality that deems shelving (hell, Let's Go To Prison and Epic Movie are light years worse yet were given wider theatrical releases). So the Mike Judge Mystery lives.
And so will this film. While it remains a one-joke concept, it's a great joke and an even better concept. In short - a normal guy in the present day takes part in a hibernation experiment gone wrong and wakes up some 500 years later to a world full of morons, brought on by the litter-like breeding of idiots (while the smarter folk tend not to have as many kids, if any) - thus, a watered-down society.
Judge takes that simple premise and runs with it. Those who take joy in sight gag after sight gag will most likely love the film, while those who prefer the big picture will bore quickly. A liking/tolerance of somewhat sophomoric humor (almost always a Judge staple) doesn't hurt, either.
Fletch's Film Rating: "Darn tootin'!"
Some footnotes:
Nice to see Office Space alums David Herman and Stephen Root on board, though Root has a small role.
Without spoiling it, the "Brawndo"/plants exchange was amongst the funniest I've seen in some time. Thinking of it a week later still brings a smile to my face.
You'll never think of Carl's, Jr. the same way again, you bad mother, you.
I can't ignore this story, and must post about it, if only others out there have yet to hear about it. So, in case you haven't heard, apparently, lots of Iranians are pissed off about 300. The full story is here.
It's hard to put yourself in the shoes of these people. On the surface, it appears as though they are just looking for an excuse to despise Americans. A more in-depth look either confirms that suspicion, or confirms that Iranians are ignorant about America's ignorance.
Anyone who has seen the skit on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" where Jay asks normal people on the street questions that they should know but don't (like, "How many oceans are there?") would have to assume that most Americans don't know that Iran was formerly called Persia. Similarly, the Time article mentions that 300 was released around the time of the Perisan new year, called "Norouz." I would wager that 97% of Americans have never even heard of this holiday (myself included).
Either way, the people who are getting outraged over a film adaptation of a 10 year old graphic novel about a 2500 year old war between Spartans (Greeks, not Americans, by the way...) and Persians (portrayed in the film as pretty much being "anyone from the Middle East/Asia") are obviously batshit crazy.
Get over it. And find something real to get pissed about. W, for instance...
As much as I wanted to, I didn't like Sin City. For all its beauty, originality, and creativity, something about it didn't click with me. In fact, I fell asleep in the theater, strange as that may seem. Whether that was due to the quality of the film or if I was just tired, I'll never know. A second-chance viewing is long overdue, but until then, it remains a disappointment in my mind.
Another recent letdown was Troy, the 2004 swords-and-sandals flick starring Brad Pitt and Eric Bana. As good as some parts were (the Achilles-Hector showdown, the first five minutes, the launch of the "1000 ships"), the film was tedious. At 2 hours and 43 minutes, it was overly long, with needless battle sequences and slow pacing. It bored its audience to the point of apathy.
300 shares elements with both of those films. Like Sin City, it is based on a Frank Miller graphic novel (in case you've been living under a rock), and like Troy, it's a story about a Greek battle from long ago (it also shares a costar, Vincent Regan, who played the right-hand man to both the respective stars of both films, Pitt and Gerard Butler). However, the element that it does not share is that 300 succeeds in all the ways they failed.
It looks and feels like a comic book (and I mean that in a good way). It indulges in all the vices that it should, while giving just enough elements of humanity and emotion to not come off as cartoonish. At 117 minutes, it is by no means short, but never once feels long. It's not bloated. It has a simple story, and tells it effectively. And the visuals...oh yes, the visuals. They are worth the price of the ticket alone.
Go see this movie now.
Since I have nothing else compelling to share, here are some random points:
* Xerxes (pictured at right) is not only a fascinating character, but he's played by Rodrigo Santoro. Who's that (you might ask, unless you're Brazilian)? Why, he's "Pablo," the random new guy on Lost. Unrecognizable, to say the least.
* I can't wait to see the reaction from some of the more conservative folks out there ("Family" groups, etc.) - 300 contains biblical amounts of violence, some sexual content, and even some somewhat shocking scenes involving children.
* Not to pick on Troy too much, but with a reported $60 million budget (compared to $175 million for Troy), 300 appears to be the value of the century for its producers. That's a shockingly low budget for a movie that probably contains some CGI in every scene.
* Though he's been around for a few years (Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, The Phantom of the Opera), consider 300 a star-making turn for Gerard Butler. With some assistance from the script, he commands the screen at all times.
I don't know who to thank first. The teenagers who were dressed in Spartan garb at the movie theater? The marketers at Warner Brothers who hyped the crap out of it? People like myself who left our day jobs early to be amongst the first to see it? Maybe even the critics who pretty much universally praised it?
Naw...I'll just thank Frank Miller, Zach Snyder, Gerard Butler, and the rest of the cast and crew of 300. They made a kickass movie that kicked ass at the box office this weekend, thus restoring (some of) my faith in the American movie-going audience. (The bad news? Wild Hogs was still second, with $28 million - you can't win them all, I suppose.)
The list of unloved, forgotten, or just underappreciated films continues...
Red Rock West Made back when John Dahl was the next "Up and Coming" director, and also when Blog Cabins' favorite pariah Nicolas Cage was still a respected actor (even by me). Hitmen, cheating wives, Dennis Hopper, and a still healthy-looking Lara Flynn Boyle are also along for the ride. Film noir well done.
Stranger Than Fiction Unfairly dismissed by many as a Charlie Kauffman knockoff, this was probably the least-appreciated film of last year. Will Ferrell gives a tremendous performance as Harold Crick, a well-meaning but troubled IRS drone whose life is turned upside down when he starts to hear his own life being narrated. Though I could have done without the Queen Latifah character (unnecessary), Ferrell, Emma Thompson, and Dustin Hoffman (practically reprising his I Heart Huckabees role) more than carry the film.
I Heart Huckabees Speaking of Dustin Hoffman's role...this is one of the funniest films of the last decade. Jason Schwartzman (always fun) gets his best role since Rushmore and Mark Wahlberg plays waaayy off-type as a firefighter whose lost some of his marbles. Hoffman and Lily Tomlin steal the show as a pair of "existential detectives." The first 5 seconds had me at hello - they will likely either turn you off immediately or suck you in.
Hudson Hawk How is this considered a failure?!? Maybe it didn't make a ton of money, and maybe on some levels, it was a failure, but this is one of the best "bad" movies out there, joining such classics as Roadhouse and the next film listed here. This is The DaVinci Code for dummies, but it also happens to be a lot of fun, featuring candy bars, Bunny the dog, a fat man singing, and an explosive auction, amongst other things. Also, don't forget to keep an eye out for David Caruso in his pre-NYPD Blue form (and speechless, no less!)
Starship Troopers A first-ballot Hall of Fame Bad Movie. What's not to love? Director Paul Verhoeven (Total Recall, Basic Instinct) watches over one of the worst acting groups ever to grace celluloid - Casper Van Dien, Denise Richards, Patrick Muldoon, and a bunch of bugs! Doogie Howser himseld, Neil Patrick Harris, even has a small role as a genius (fitting). The really funny (not funny, but sad) thing is that Troopers was meant to be (and succeeds somewhat) a sharp satire. Presented in a psuedo-newscast/recruitment video at times, it urges the viewer to question the military's tactics for attracting "fresh meat" and the roles of the soldiers once they get there (the source material caused alot of controvery at the time of its release). Just a good, dumb time all around.
Smoke No irony or sarcasm here, just a critically-loved yet commercially-ignored indie from the time when indies still weren't getting all that much press (1995). Starring Harvey Keitel, Forest Whitaker and William Hurt (amongst others), Smoke follows a number of tangential stories between a group of New Yorkers. Low-key, slow-paced and touching, Smoke is a great watch on a night when you just want to chill out for awhile - it wouldn't hurt if you liked cigars, either. (The filmmakers even made a companion piece, the more loose yet not as good Blue in the Face. If you like Smoke, it's worth a watch just to see some of the characters, but is otherwise not too special.)
PCU Want to see Jeremy Piven in one of his first leading roles (more or less)? Want to see Jon Favreau before he got thin (and fat again)? Want to see the Animal House of the 90s? Ok, forget that last question, for it was the undoing of PCU. Saddled with the high expectation of living up to one of the most loved comedies of all time, floundered (no pun intended) under the weight. However, it's pretty witty at times (the term paper handouts by Piven) and pretty much plays out like the original Old School. Good times. Besides, can you really go wrong with any movie featuring George Clinton? I think not.
Sliding Doors Don't like Gwyneth? Ok, then this film may not be for you, as there is double the Gwyneth for the price of one here. But if you can get over that, you'll see a well-done, high-concept romantic comedy that asks "What if?" John Hannah nearly steals the film from Paltrow, however, in a charming role as the better or two suitors for her. Oh, and Gwyneth shows off her impeccable British accent - no small feat, considering the number of American actors that even attempt that.
From early news, it sounds like 300 will be one of the higher-grossing films of the year, despite its March release date and R rating. One projection, from www.boxofficereport.com, has making $43 million for it's first week. Frankly, I hope that estimate is low, considering that the abomination known as Wild Hogs made $39 million last week.
I, for one, will be all too happy to help 300 make some money. Headed to the theater this afternoon for a 3:50 show. Review to follow soon...
What do the numbers mean? What do these films have in common?
The numbers are their running times. Their common thread is that they are allll toooo looooong, in dire need of better editing. Yet another commonality is that all of these films were disappointments that would have been much, much better films had they each been trimmed by 15-30 minutes (or more in some cases).
Zodiac is just the latest (and most tragic case). Whereas most of the films listed at the top are straight action/adventure pictures, Zodiac is more ambitious, with a prestige director (David Fincher), an all-star cast, and a true-life, fascinating story.
For his first film since 2002's Panic Room, Fincher set his sights on the still-unsolved case of The Zodiac killer, taking place in the Bay Area in the late 60s and early 70s. Though much has been written (and some TV films have been made), this is the highest-profile telling of the story.
And tell a good story Fincher does, all the while pulling out some interesting cinematic techniques along the way. Unfortunately, there's either too much story or not enough restraint, as the film wears out it's welcome around the two hour mark. Hurting the cause is the much-known status of the case; with no resolution in sight, the audience is left to wonder how it will end. As the timeline plays out in the film, from 1969 to 1970 to 1973 to 1979 to 1991, you just can't help but to worry how far it will go. Despite an ending that's as fitting as could be expected of an unsolved mystery, the journey to get there is exhausting.
Deserving of praise, however, is the accuracy of the set pieces and the deep cast. The movie feels as authentic as could be (granted, this comes from someone who was born in the mid-70s, so take it with a grain of salt) - the music, the newspaper office setting, and especially the more minor details, from the volume of characters that smoke to the old-school theater that some characters visit at one point. No detail is ignored, and it's obvious that authenticiy was of paramount importance.
Meanwhile, not to discount stars Jake Ghyllenhaal, Robert Downey, Jr., and Mark Ruffalo, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen a film so chock full of excellent, veteran character actors. The list is dizzying:
Brian Cox (credits too numerous to mention; shame on you if you don't know who he is)
Donal Logue (Grounded for Life, The Tao of Steve)
Elias Koteas (Crash (1996), Gattaca)
Anthony Edwards (ER, Top Gun)
Dermot Mulroney (My Best Friend's Wedding)
James LeGros (Point Break, Living in Oblivion)
Phillip Baker Hall (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights)
Adam Goldberg (Dazed and Confused, Saving Private Ryan)
Chloe Sevingy (Shattered Glass, Boys Don't Cry)
John Carroll Lynch (The Drew Carey Show, Fargo)
John Terry (Jack's father on Lost)
John Mahoney (Frasier) is even listed in the credits but must have been cut, as he's nowhere to be seen (yes, apparently, some scenes were cut).
An impressive list, especially considering Fincher's bad reputation amongst actors. Zodiac should make for a great submission to the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game, if nothing else...
Fletch's Film Rating: "You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."
Call them what you will - underrated, unloved, ignored, or just plain not loved enough, I've been thinking lately about some films that, for whatever reason, I don't think people appreciate enough. So, if you haven't seen these yet, well, you know what to do...
(In no particular order)
Go Yes, Swingers is a great film that spawned a million one-liners and launched the careers of Favreau, Vaughn and (to a point) Ron Livingston, but Go is director Doug Liman's best film. Centering in on one absurd night in the interconnected life of a group of young Angelinos, Go is charged with energy, originality, full of wit, and features a great soundtrack and a great cast.
Shattered Glass "Anakin Skywalker as you've never seen him before" is putting it lightly. In director Billy Ray's (Breach) first feature, Hayden Christensen and Peter Sarsgaard star in the true-life tale of disgraced journalist Stephen Glass. It's hard to describe a film about a lying journalist as intense, but this one is. As good as Christensen is, though, this is Sarsgaard's breakout film.
Fletch You might have known this one was coming. Though it does get some love every now and then, what is one of the funniest films of the 80s often times gets lost in the shuffle amongst other classics like Trading Places, Caddyshack, and the John Hughes movies. Fletch Lives is also vastly underrated, but it's widely hated enough that I won't mention it. (Oh well, too late.)
12 Monkeys Along the Liman lines - forget Brazil, this is Terry Gilliam's masterpiece. Featuring Bruce Willis at his apex, along with a then "up and coming" Brad Pitt (who was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar - and deserved it), along with Madeline Stowe, David Morse and others, Monkeys is the Children of Men before there was a Children of Men. Worth seeing for the stunning visuals alone.
Ronin No irony, no sarcasm, just an earnest action-spy film (with the titular warrior mentality), complete with two of the best car chases I've ever seen, and I'm not even a car chase kind of guy. Throw in Robert DeNiro, Jean Reno, Sean Bean, Jonathan Pryce, Stellan Skarsgard, and gorgeous European destinations, and you've got a winner. One of the best action films of the last 20 years.
The only reason Tin Cup doesn't get as much love as Bull Durham is for two reasons: 1) Bull Durham came first, and 2) Durham's focus is on baseball, "America's Pasttime," while Cup is about golf, which may be popular, but doesn't touch what baseball did in 1988. Both are fair points, but neither should take away from how good Cup is. While Costner might not be the most likable movie star, he takes that unlikability and gruffness to an art form, especially in scenes with co-star Cheech Marin (in a great turn as well).
George Clooney has been in some great films (Syriana, Ocean's 11, O Brother Where Art Thou, Three Kings, etc.), but Out of Sight probably remains my favorite, and is the only film where I can watch Jennifer Lopez and take her seriously as an actress. Directed by Steven Soderbergh in 1998 (just before he got really big with Traffic and Erin Brockovich), it co-stars Don Cheadle, Albert Brooks, Ving Rhames, and 20 other great character actors. Adapted from an Elmore Leonard novel (which I'm a sucker for), and featuring a great soundtrack and script as well, the movie is almost flawless. In fact, it was so good, they even spun it off into a well-received but eventual ratings dud of a TV show, based on the Lopez character and starring Carla Gugino (Sin City). All that said, I'll never forgive the studio (or whoever made the decision) to use the above poster for marketing efforts after its theatrical release, as the original poster belongs on the list of all-time great movie posters:
That's enough for part I. I've got another 7 lined up for part II, but be sure to let me know if you have any submissions - I'd love to hear your choices.
LOS ANGELES - The biker buddy comedy "Wild Hogs" and its ensemble cast of John Travolta, Martin Lawrence, William H. Macy and Tim Allen was the weekend box office champ with a $38 million take, according to studio estimates Sunday.
It was Walt Disney Co.'s biggest March opening ever. It was also the largest-ever debut for the 53-year-old Travolta as well as the best non-animated movie debut for Allen, who is also 53. Macy turns 57 next week and Lawrence turns 42 next month.
"It's so easy to see in the material how much fun they were having together. The audience was looking for that first great comedy of the year," said Disney president of distribution Chuck Viane.
"Wild Hogs" performed well beyond expectations, said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Media By Numbers. It had been expected to be No. 1 with earnings in the $25 million range, he said.
"It's just astonishing," Dergarabedian said. "It was the perfect vehicle for these four stars. A combination of star power, great concept and great marketing was responsible.
"This is not an Oscar contender, but it's a fun time at the movies. You know, sometimes it's just about escapism."
No other films were even close.
The No. 2 movie was the thriller "Zodiac," which debuted with $13.1 million. "Ghost Rider" fell to No. 3 in its third week of release with $11.5 million, "Bridge to Terabithia" was fourth with $8.6 million, and "The Number 23" dropped to fifth with $7.1 million in its second week.
Eddie Murphy's "Norbit" continued to draw crowds, placing sixth in its fourth week of release with a $6.4 million take that boosted its cumulative tally to $83 million.
"Music & Lyrics" was No. 7 with $4.9 million and the new movie "Black Snake Moan," about an aging black man who chains a young white woman to a radiator to cure her of her demons, only took in $4 million for eighth place.
Rounding out the Top 10 was ninth place "Reno 911!: Miami" with $3.8 million and "Breach" with $3.5 million.
Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Media By Numbers LLC. Final figures will be released Monday.
1. "Wild Hogs," $38 million.
2. "Zodiac," $13.1 million.
3. "Ghost Rider," $11.5 million.
4. "Bridge to Terabithia," $8.6 million.
5. "The Number 23," $7.1 million.
6. "Norbit," $6.4 million.
7. "Music & Lyrics," $4.9 million.
8. "Black Snake Moan," $4 million.
9. "Reno 911!: Miami" $3.8 million.
10. "Breach," $3.5 million
___
Universal Pictures and Focus Features are owned by NBC Universal, a joint venture of General Electric Co. and Vivendi Universal; Sony Pictures, Sony Screen Gems and Sony Pictures Classics are units of Sony Corp (NYSE:SNE - news).; DreamWorks, Paramount and Paramount Vantage are divisions of Viacom Inc.; Disney's parent is The Walt Disney Co.; Miramax is a division of The Walt Disney Co.; 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Fox Atomic are owned by News Corp.; Warner Bros., New Line, Warner Independent and Picturehouse are units of Time Warner Inc.; MGM is owned by a consortium of Providence Equity Partners, Texas Pacific Group, Sony Corp., Comcast Corp., DLJ Merchant Banking Partners and Quadrangle Group; Lionsgate is owned by Lionsgate Entertainment Corp.; IFC Films is owned by Rainbow Media Holdings, a subsidiary of Cablevision Systems Corp.
There's a real problem with the premise of The Number 23, and it's one that's never really addressed during the film. While Jim Carrey's character is busy becoming obsessed with the many (forced) coincidences when the particular number pops up, neither he nor his wife nor his son bother to ask a simple question: "Ok, so the number keeps popping up everywhere - so what?"
Somehow, the mere thought of the world being "TAKEN OVER" by the number becomes a threat unto itself, a harbinger of an empty doom ahead. However, it's not like if you see it three times in a row that the Candyman is going to come for you. Quite the contrary - nothing will end up happening. Terrifying, indeed.
The Number 23 is barely about the number itself - it's just a gateway to more plot twists and turns, and the vehicle for the characters' obsession. Despite the (apparently) somewhat documented history of the "23 Enigma," the movie could just have easily been based on 32 ("23 reversed!," as the characters point out so often - ooohhh!) or 74.
Since I had low expectations going in (the blaring warning was the words "Directed by Joel Schumacher"), I wasn't all that disappointed with 23. Jim Carrey does a fine job playing a guy on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Virginia Madsen gets to play dress as well, when she's not perfecting the "wife" role (Madsen currently co-stars in The Astronaut Farmer with Billy Bob Thornton, and recently co-starred with Harrison Ford in the box office/critical dud Firewall. So much for all that goodwill - and those good roles - garnered by her Sideways buzz.).
Fletch's Film Rating: "You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."
I'll keep this short and sweet so as not to lower your intelligence any lower than mine has already become.
.jpg)
