So in addition to the two previous paternity suit participants, we have clown prince Frederic von Anhalt claiming a 10-year affair with Anna Nicole Smith, and now her bodyguard has come forward as the fourth man to say he believes he’s her “baby daddy.” Great, just fantastic. What the hell is this, Broken Flowers? Can we literally just eradicate everyone involved in this story, put them down for the good of society? Because we all know that with role models like these, that baby girl ends up in rehab 20 years from now, or pregnant, or arrested in some meth lab raid.
For the record, though, let me just state, in no uncertain terms, that I am not the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby. It doesn’t even depend on what your definition of the word “is” is.
You know what I’m really tired of? Friggin’ architects. I
mean, does anyone out there really know an architect? And before you say, “You’re so full of shit, Brent. My dad’s actually
an architect,” is this the same father that lives in a neighboring state but
hasn’t seen you in 12 years, and once told your mother to “give you a cut” of
his monthly alimony check for your Christmas gift? I rest my case. Dude is
probably not an architect. “Pharmaceuticals redistribution manager” is more
like it…
Not to be impolite, but architect is one of those
bullshit jobs that Hollywood screenwriters seem to lazily trot out when they need some hot-shit occupation to
attach to a desirable young guy who, golly gee, at his core really wants to settle down and
have a family, or is already a nice young family man. When lawyer has a bit too much of a negative occupational
connotation for your protagonist, doctor is a bit too pointy-headed, and
advertising executive is a bit too in danger of puncturing the movie’s
entertainment value, architect is seemingly settled upon as the perfect
white-collar big screen job (see Adam Sandler in Click, Luke Wilson in My
Super Ex-Girlfriend, et al). It’s professional and lucrative — even vaguely
scholastic — but its day-to-day specifics seem to dance beyond our
intellectual grasp, and you never see any one of these characters do something related to their job except maybe deliver a passing line of dialogue about the “sleek angles” or open spaces of an area. If you believed the movies and television, 75 percent
of us are cops, lawyers, doctors, forensics investigators and architects.
The incidental trigger for my rage comes in the form of this
week’s Because I Said So, in which Tom
Everett Scott’s somewhat rakish, entrepreneurial architect competes for Mandy
Moore’s affection with a guitar player played by Gabriel Macht. He easily wins
over Moore’s mom (Diane Keaton),
but the moment he reveals his occupation, you know that he’s a shit-heel in
waiting. Well… because of how that occupation doesn’t jibe with Moore’s
creative catering business, as well as the fact that he answered a mother’s
personal ad for her daughter, went along with contrived meeting with said
daughter, entered into relationship with said daughter, and never saw fit to
tell said daughter about the truth behind their meeting… though of course he (sort
of) tells his own mother. Idiot
architect…
So I caught Catch and Release for review last week, and it triggered another big screen irritation with insert shots for the lowest common denominator. A week after his death, after she’s already discovered a secret bank account with a hefty balance, there’s a point in the film where Jennifer Garner’s bereaved Gray comes across her deceased fiancé’s cell phone, and further cements the discovery that she didn’t know quite everything
she thought she did about him. Someone was calling late at night, you see; “10 missed calls,” reads the cell phone.
So eventually (which is to say, the next scene, the following day) Gray has to try to call this person back. We see her fiddling with the established cell phone, obviously to pull up the number to call. She then dials from her office phone. Instead of conveying this with one shot, though, director Susannah Grant gives us another look at “10 missed calls,” with Gray scrolling to the number. Why 10? Well, so there’s a full screen of the same number, of course, so there’s no possible confusion about what’s going on, even though the answering machine message that Gray reaches on the other end matches the voice of the messages she’s already listened to on her fiancé’s phone. Thanks Hollywood, thanks a lot. What a money shot. If you’re not engaged enough in the movie to pick up on and follow a simple detail like this, you’re an idiot. And don’t tell me this was for the technology-impaired, over-60 set. Is that Catch and Release‘s core audience?
I suppose I can understand the Academy Award nomination for the very deserving Borat in the Best Adapted Screenplay category, on the grounds that the character originated on Da Ali G Show. But can someone explain how/why Letters from Iwo Jimais nominated, alongside Babel, Little Miss Sunshine, Pan’s Labyrinthand The Queen, in the Best Original Screenplay category, even though its credits clearly list the movie as being based upon Picture Letters from Commander in Chief? Is there some deckchair shuffling going on? Or did someone owe Paul Haggis (who receives story credit on the film, and thus would be eligible for an Oscar) a favor?
Hey, so no reasonable person would argue or expect movies to accurately reflect the manner in which we spend most of our time, or the many pedestrian activities (brushing one’s teeth, putting away laundry, walking from our car to an apartment or home, vacuuming) that round out our days. But one thing that struck me recently is the manner in which even included prosaic acts get trimmed down and glossed over.
Take cigarettes, for instance. It’s become far less pervasive on screen over the past 15 to 20 years, no doubt about it, but when we do see someone smoking, it’s frequently in the act of lighting up and taking that first drag — the ultimate foreplay and sexualization of the act. What about extinguishing cigarettes, though? I’ve seen entire movies set in smoky bars where smokestack characters never once properly dispose of a butt.
On the other hand, if we need to show a character is thoughtless or bad, we’re apt to get the artfully flicked away finished cig. (You’ll never see this from a straight-up protagonist, though, because Lord knows none of that litter comes from decent folks…) This is most recently egregiously represented in Alpha Dog, which goes out of its way to include a scene in which Justin Timberlake’s character flicks away a Marlboro and lobs a beer bottle into a neighbor’s yard. (I mean, kids these days! Abusing drugs, ‘napping kids… littering!) At some point, though, I’d like to see a character rub out a butt and toss it in a trashcan. I mean, that still happens in real life, right?
I don’t know where to begin with this item from The Hollywood Reporter, about Tara Reid being attached to star in and executive produce the indie romantic comedy Honestly. I mean, anyone who’s seen Alone in the Dark can attest to the fact that Reid can deliver laughs, and she did fit in OK on the small screen in Scrubs back when that show was still putting Zach Braff through the comedic ringer, before it had devolved into a gooey send-off.
No, Tara Reid starring in a comedy about a hard-boiled private eye who works as a temptress to out philandering husbands is fine, even though you and I already know she will not get naked in the movie, and her hard-boiledness will be conveyed by… what, a cute scene where she finds a missing dog? What really caught my eye, though, is that Reid’s brother Tommy is set to direct the film. This shouldn’t irritate me, but it does. Especially when interesting filmmakers with idiosyncratic voices like Lisa Cholodenko have trouble getting movies off the ground, not to mention solid for-hire comedy directors like Tamra Davis and Betty Thomas.
Also of note — that thick-necked Guy Ritchie pal Vinnie Jones and former NFL running back Eddie George have been inked to co-star in the film. (Honestly, what kind of movie is this? Zing!) Oh, and that Tara Reid… has a production company.
It’s a very happy birthday to Estella Warren, who turns 28 today, along with her bee-stung lips. I don’t know what the hell her gift from director boyfriend Peter Berg is, but your gift is above.
Next up for Warren is another putative National Lampoon’s comedy (directed by Arthur Hiller!) that shot in North Carolina last year under the much more dignified moniker of The Trouble with Frank, and has now been rechristened Pucked. I know, I know… it made me think of that speed-freak, snot rocket-launching loser from The Real World as well. But no, this movie stars Jon Bon Jovi, along with Warren, David Faustino, Nora Dunn and Curtis Armstrong. Actually… now that I type that, it sounds like Puck could be in it as well.
Estella, it bothers me greatly that you aren’t a bigger demi-celebrity. You have a beautiful pout, and were actually semi-affecting and one of the best things going in Driven — no great shake, perhaps, but no entirely dismissible feat either. I know all the parties and shopping for handbags is likely a lot of fun, but you need to submit to a nice little indie erotic thriller, or get back into catalogue work. You are greatly missed in college dorm rooms across the country, trust me.
So I don’t want to be a complete little pissy bitch, but awards season is of course upon us, so there are not only myriad reviews to write but also Best of 2006 lists to start considering and, more pressingly, awards voting deadlines. And it’s confounding and quite irritating, some of the incompetence and outright… well, let’s say conflicting stories one encounters in pursuing all sorts of screening schedules. It’s certainly interesting, in a bemusing sort of way, to see which
studios actively court and/or welcome critical reception, and on which films.
The words “Do you know who I am?” shall never pass my lips, I promise, but as an accredited member of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association I really don’t think I should have this much trouble seeing, let’s say, Dreamgirls. Receiving an all-media screening invitation after the date(s) of said screenings is one thing. Arriving straight from driving across town from another screening, five minutes in advance of an appointed time to a screening which you RSVPed to earlier in the week (and received email confirmation), only to be told that the screening is full and closed is… well, frustrating.
More irritating, though, are smug, officious and/or unhelpful studio lot security guards. I’ve got absolutely no beef with the normal working man (or woman), believe me. But some of these folks are officially on my shit list. And when I say I “some,” I might be talking about folks at Warner Bros. When one courteously inquires as to whether someone from the publicity department — someone working a screening on the lot, someone 30 to 40 yards away — can be contacted to help resolve a matter, and is met with both a dismissiveness and rudeness that continually fails to address said specific question, well, I take affront at that, since after all I’m merely attempting to execute my occupational duty, ostensibly just like you. Through your own ineptitude, you help escalate the situation, actually.
In the spirit of the holidays, I’ll refrain from wishing you a flaming sack of shit for your top-shelf douchebaggery, mustachioed WB lot officer. What’s that… I already typed it? Oh well. What’re you gonna do? I can’t seem to find that backspace key. Merry Christmas!
So Borat hasn’t even released yet, and already the tom-toms of potential litigation are being pounded by many of the dupes that the in-character Sacha Baron Cohen got over on. Newsweek already did a full-fledged feature piece on the matter, interviewing some of those who appear in the movie and talking about some of the production’s slick tricks with release waivers. The reaction seemed to be kind of mixed, with most people claiming they figured out something was amiss.
The latest bit to catch my eye, though, came from the magazine’s October 30 issue’s letters to the editor, in which D.A. Arthur of Panama City, Florida, describes him/herself as “one of Cohen’s many victims.” The letter relates how Arthur booked Borat Sagdiyev on a morning news show in Jackson, Mississippi, thinking he was a legitimate reporter from Kazakhstan. Arthur goes on to say, “Because of [Borat], my boss lost faith in my abilities and second-guessed everything I did thereafter. I spiraled into depression, and before I could recover I was released from my contract early. It took me three months to find another job and now I’m thousands of dollars in debt and struggling to keep my house out of foreclosure…. Think of all the other people who’ve probably been fired because of his antics.”
What someone on the hook can’t say, for fear of it winding up in court filings, I will go on record as saying: D.A. Arthur, you are an idiot. If you were indeed let go early from your job, I can assure you it wasn’t due to this one incident, but rather an accumulated opinion regarding your work. If it took you three months to find work, that may be a reflection of general opinion of your skill sets. And finally, if you are thousands of dollars in debt after only three months without work, you are not particularly financially astute, and likely living beyond your means. I’m not discounting or short-selling depression by any means, but c’mon… grow a pair, of your choice. For the full letter, click here, and scroll down.
So this is actually less about an irritation than the release of an irritation. Is there anything really better, you ask, than being able to take a thick packet of press notes to a marginal film (like, say, Crossover), for which you conducted too many interviews and on which you’ve already expended too much thought, and toss it away after opening weekend, knowing that you’re never going to have to once think about that movie ever again? No, no there really isn’t.
In the wake of New Line’s ill-fated decision not to hold any advance critics’ screenings of its web fire-stoked Snakes on a Plane — definitive proof that, with tongue-in-cheek apologies to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the passions of the blogosphere are neither a dump truck nor “a series of tubes” leading directly to lasting zeitgeist relevance and/or commercial lucre — there is the fact that this week’s two widest film releases were not screened for reviewers. That’s right: no advance word on Jason Statham’s streamlined, head-cracking action flick Crank (above), from Lionsgate, or Warner Bros.’ The Wicker Man, a remake of the 1973 film of the same name starring Nicolas Cage and directed by respected indie auteur Neil LaBute.
So what does that mean? Don’t write the obituary for critics just yet. So Hollywood collectively doesn’t really respect us all that much. Big whoop. Did they really ever? And do they respect anyone or anything except their own congratulatory awards shows and bottom lines? (If you said “audiences,” please take two steps back… and punch yourself in the groin.) This latest bout of advanced screening aversion only speaks to their desire to exert more control over their product and its reception, and framed within this context it should be entirely expected. The next battle will be fought when studios start to realize that traditionally more pliable and coercible Internet press are less and less beholden to either conventional notions of “run dates” or fully fleshed-out critical appraisals. Instead of a handful of critics groups screening a film in long-lead fashion, it only takes a hard-blogging friend of a studio projectionist to go online and tap out a few poorly constructed sentences about how Film X “totally sucks.” For more on this phenomenon, click here, for my feature piece explication from FilmStew.
Look, I have exactly one thing to say about Material Girls, the cute
little PG-rated romp starring sisters Hilary and Haylie Duff that opened last
week to $4.6 million, and it has nothing to do with how much I’ve had to drink
tonight.
I noticed as I was wandering by its poster today
that this movie has 19 effing producers… 19! And no, that’s
not counting the credited line producer either. Sure, you’ve got a couple Duffs on the list, and the requisite mix of executive producers and co-producers. But
sweet frickin’ Christ, Hollywood,
you’re telling me it really took this many people to
painstakingly piece together a masterpiece like this while Munich or Forrest Gump or
any number of complex epics have four or less? Producer credits are a complete
joke — the new STD of the industry — and if I were an ass-busting member of the Hollywood old guard, I’d be mightily pissed.
So this is my challenge, any and all Material Girls producers:
defend yourself and all your cohorts, explain who did what and why you deserve
poster/title card position. I’m talking to you, David Faigenblum, Brent Emery,
Milton Kim, Troy Rowland, Tara Pirnia, Guy Oseary… aww, screw this. I’m tired
of typing out all these names…
I caught a screening of Pulse, the
Weinstein Company’s new J-horror remake of Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s 2001 film of the
same name, last night at the ArcLight in Hollywood, and while I’ll reserve sum
total judgment on the movie until a later date, one brief scene tangentially
stirred my ire, and got me wondering.
In said scene, Christina Milian, who plays star Kristen Bell’s best friend
and a fellow college student, wanders into class late, books cradled in one arm
and a takeout coffee cup — presumably just grabbed, en route — in the opposite
hand. She holds it, though, not carefully, as with a full, hot beverage, or even
as one would an almost empty cup of cold coffee. No, she holds it as it is: an
empty cup.
Now, Pulse is hardly the first or most egregious example of this
rapidly increasing and annoying phenomenon. It’s seemingly everywhere, including
in this summer’s The Devil Wear’s Prada, in which, as I recall, Anne
Hathaway’s put-upon fashion magazine assistant awkwardly balances a tray with
four very obviously empty cups of special-order Starbucks. In fact, whenever
movies want to show us a character juggling the myriad, whirlwind, crazy demands
of modern day life, they generally put a beverage in their hand, and more often
than not ostensibly a hot one.
The thing is, many times said cup will be clearly empty, as minutely
evidenced by its weight upon pick up, the complete disregard the actor/character
has for item, and/or some combination thereof. Is this some sort of goddamned,
ridiculous, arcane production rule or something? I know we don’t want “the
talent” scalded, but can we not have actors handle full cups of water or any
other room-temperature beverage? I’m not sure, but what was once just a minor
irritation has stirred in me a vitriolic rage matched offscreen by those that
ride around obliviously with their turn signals on.
Let me know of any examples you spot and/or remember, and together we’ll
make up a list to hopefully shame studios and filmmakers into paying attention
to this sort of piddling detail that, when botched, really pulls you out of a
scene.
Snakes on a Plane
blog party, but the film’s poster has finally released, causing more
than a few raised eyebrows among the self-appointed cultural
commentators of the blogosphere.
There’s been a lot of attention heaped on this movie — about an FBI agent (Samuel L. Jackson) assigned to protect a witness in a murder trial, and the Mob boss who
attempts to kill said witness, via titular manner, during a flight over
the Pacific — because of its deliciously pokerfaced Teflon title, and
almost all of it sight-unseen. Now, on the heels of its first teaser
trailers comes the poster for Snakes on a Plane,
though, which bows August 18 from distributor New Line, and I’m not
sure that it really works. Shouldn’t the title be ironic counterpoint
to what is otherwise a deadly straightforward concept pitch? This
poster doesn’t seem to be that.
1997’s Anaconda gathered Jennifer Lopez, Owen Wilson, Ice Cube and Eric Stoltz, among others (think of that cast in the same film
now!), but it wasn’t until after the movie opened, mid-spring, that
audiences discovered the unhinged delights of Jon Voight’s performance,
during which he at one point actually winks after being regurgitated by
a giant snake. Would selling the movie with a wink have increased its
$130 million worldwide haul, split almost evenly between domestically
and abroad? Unlikely, as kitschy products — movies inclusive — have a
short shelf life when birthed honestly but additional cachet when
discovered more organically. Audiences enjoy feeling smarter,
collectively and individually, than a movie like Snakes on a Plane,
and trying to lure in a crowd not predisposed and programmed to its
tongue in cheek tone could have the opposite effect of dampening viral
enthusiasm. So has Snakes on a Plane
peaked? We’ll see, time will tell. But it feels like it.
In the meantime, by all means, click over to their
web site for more on the movie, including wallpapers and desktop icons. No free snakes, though. What bullshit…
I saw a young woman in a pair of Ugg boots yesterday, and somehow, exercising great willpower, I managed to resist the urge to beat her about the head and shoulders. My rage finds its roots in the 2004 Garry Marshall movie Raising Helen, and the destructive power of film fashion.
Sandra Bullock and Reese Witherspoon have flirted with but never truly inherited from Meg Ryan in the wake of the latter’s wandering off to become a cautionary Botox tale. This generally means Hollywood makes each year, in groping fashion, a handful of trifles that have been knocking around in development, casting thousand-watt-smile female up-and-comers opposite B-level, sad-sack leading men (John Corbin, Luke Wilson, Edward Burns, John Caviezel and, I’m quite sorry to say it, Mark Ruffalo, who should really stick to dramatic fare) who dare not overshadow their chief investment.
A big screen bauble pinned at the time to the rising star power of Kate Hudson, Raising Helen added a pinch more pathos than usual to the mix, charting Hudson’s tumble from the glamorous life as a fashion mogul’s assistant when her sister and brother-in-law both die, leaving her with their three kids. Overwhelmed uncertainty, bickering and tears are followed in turn by peppy montage, love and hugs all around. The kids raise her, you see?
It’s not the merits of the movie or lack thereof, however, that have left an indelible mark. The poster for Raising Helen featured a side-view of a smiling, sprawling Hudson in micro-shorts and fur-ringed Ugg boots, making her look like a saucy Hoth pin-up. I hated those boots then, but I hate them with an unrivaled zeal even more so now, all for the fashion holocaust they’ve helped spawn.
Seemingly everywhere you turn, you see young girls and even otherwise seemingly intelligent women rocking all manner of Uggs, frequently either with skirts (!) or tucked into jeans (!!). Sigh… You know how parents use “fad” in deriding fashion — emphasizing its negative connotation — when they want to get out of purchasing something for kids? Uggs, I assume shorthand slang for “ugly” (apparently “hideous and laughably crappy-looking” was deemed more difficult to break down into monosyllabic marketing jargon), earn every bit of that clucking disdain and contempt. Sure, they were around before Raising Helen, I gather, but that confounded film and its insidious multi-million dollar marketing campaign helped really launch and further engrain them in the public consciousness.
Look, the big screen sets off and abets all sorts of fashion trends, I realize: wide-faced wraparound sunglasses, fitted men’s shirts, big purses, et al. A famous and prettified person in a certain outfit can make it seem attractive and desirable. But there comes a time to call a spade a spade, and here I’m hollering, “Emperor’s new clothes!” Can anyone defend Uggs on their own merits? To me, the only reason someone should be wearing shoes like that is if they’re involved in some sort of comedic sketch or if they’re going to or coming from playing outside in the snow. Otherwise… just stop it. You look ridiculous, ladies.