Trending RIGHT Now (5/3/2011)

1. Shania Twain - In a televised statement that would go on for over two hours, Ms, Twain ranted and railed against someone she overheard who said that country music was "no longer relevant".  She ended her telecast by debuting a new song where her husband ran off with another woman after taking her pick-up truck and running over her dog while her daddy worked the fields alone.

2. Selena Gomez - After being announced as hostess for the upcoming MuchMusic Awards, Ms. Gomez promised her fans that this had nothing to do with her recent travels to Canada to try and find a cure for Beiber Fever.  "I felt so bad for them, being Canadian and all," she said.

3. Phil Spector - Still isn't getting "that Johnny Cash vibe" in prison; he hopes it will come soon, since he was promised a harmonica next month. 

4. Abigail Breslin - Answering critics who claim she is still too young to be taken seriously as an actress, Ms. Breslin tearfully admonished a roomful of Associated Press reporters.  To which the assembled responded, quote, "awwwww," end quote.

5. Fake quote - "Ask not what your country can do for you, read my lips and tear down this wall for the Gipper."  - Andrew Jackson

6. Manny Pacquiao - Angered about the lack of usable vowels for most modern-day names, one man is setting out to legalize the use of more than one "U" in his name.  Film at 11.

7. Thunderbolt iMac - The proposed sequel to Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, sans Jeff Bridges and Clint Eastwood, is expected to star Steve Jobs playing a dual role.  Though sure he will be able to play a character who looks like he was just kicked in the head, his secondary role may be harder since it requires him to be an invisible shape-shifting Gran Torino.

8. Credit card fraud - Today a Visa Card attempted to enter Paraguay illegally by pretending to be a Diners Club Card.  A quick trial is expected today, followed by a hasty shredding.

9. Fuel-efficient cars - Many such car models have been developed, unfortunately their creators admit that while none of them use a drop of gas, that is because they do not have engines; just big push pedals.

10. Geronimo - Though still popular with parachute enthusiasts, newer names to shout have been tried out at plane-jumping centers recently.  Dances With Wolves, Johnny Firecloud and Two-Pines-Shimmering-After-Driving-Rain tested well, but many admit that Feathered-Chief-Running-Cloud-Descending-Mountain-Through-Raging-Forest-Fire-Caused-By-White-Man's-Negligence-And-Rampant-Smug-Superiority-Against-Those-Who-Were-Here-First-And-Were-Unfairly-Driven-Off-Their-Land, while historically thorough, still killed many jumpers who never finished shouting it after 900 feet.

20 Cool Things About Jeff Bridges

1. He was probably the most laid-back member of the United States Coast Guard ever.

2. If he had a dollar for every role he either was considered for or passed on in Hollywood, he'd be the richest man in Hollywood today.

3. Jeff almost got the lead in so many films that it makes you wonder what casting idiots screwed up so many movies.

4. Held his own in a movie alongside Barbra Streisand. Not an easy thing to do.

5. He was probably the most laid-back student ever to study in a military academy.

6. It was because of him that most people ever wanted to get assimilated into a computer mainframe.

7. His best pals are Gary Busey, Tommy Lee Jones, Kurt Russell and Nick Nolte - now THERE'S a party!

8. Seems that directors like casting him in roles where they call him "Jack"...which explains why so many boys end up being named "Jack" after seeing a Jeff Bridges movie.

9. Only he could take out Iron Man. Almost.

10. The Beach Boys never had a cooler fan than he.

11. He's probably the most laid-back cigar-smoking photographer ever to grace a movie set.

12. The 1989 Batman was just thiiis close to becoming the most laid-back superhero ever.

13. If you're gonna win an Oscar, you might as well win it for a role where you do what comes naturally: play guitar and act laid-back.

14. Seems to be the kind of guy who'd offer you a cigar if you asked for one.

15. You'd have to guess that his dad kind of helped influence his decision to get into the acting thing.

16. Never worked with Pauly Shore. Never will.

17. Travis Bickle would have been even cooler and more laid-back if original casting had its way.

18. Only man who would dare step into a role played by John Wayne and not only succeed at it, but get an Oscar nom for it!

19. Not every actor in Hollywood "just enjoyed the ride".

20. The man survived Heaven's Gate; it was all easy sailing from that point on.

Dope out.

- TGWD

King Kong (1976)

For any child of the Seventies, chances are they had never even seen the 1933 King Kong, seeing that video rental places weren't really right around the corner at the time, unless of course they happened to catch it on the late-night movie or the Saturday Afternoon Movie right after the Pro Bowler's Tour. That kinda thing.

So when Dino De Laurentiis announced his intention around 1974 or so of remaking this classic monster movie, teens didn't really make that much of a big whoop on the matter. Purists who had seen and loved the original stop-motion classic, of course, kind of winced and turned their heads, hoping that the producer of such cinematic treats as Crazy Joe, Lipstick, Mandingo, Drum and To Bed Or Not To Bed would do their big hulking primate proud.

That's the thing about monster fans; they always hang on to that last thread of hope as long as they can, no mater how outlandish that hope may be: they were counting on Dino De Laurentiis to produce a great movie!

Now on the subject of remakes for a moment, of which 76's King Kong most definitely falls into category-wise, I'm not sure when the first remake was made; probably right after the first motion picture was made by the Lumieire Brothers. For such a lofty tradition, it had to have begun relatively early so as to become such an expected by-product of the film experience.

Certainly, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, there has been remake after remake after remake of almost every major motion picture ever made - and a few of the minor ones.

Sometimes they're good, but that is not always the case as one would expect. I've lost count when producers, studios and directors have put their heads together to make high-standing wrong-headed decisions, most of which led to major disasters right there on the screen. And I don't just mean in monetary terms - that's a given. But disasters also in terms of loss of integrity - both artistic and personal - for all involved. And it hurts. Bad.

You remember the first King Kong from 1933, don't you? I'm safely sure we've all seen the original at least once in our lives, right? Sure, it's old school, and not the CGI marvel we expect from all modern films. Even so, you could see the desire to entertain, bring things to light that had never been seen before in films and make a story that would fill you with awe and wonder as to what lies in the deepest jungle on the farthest reaches of the Earth.

We're talking Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong, Bruce Cabot, Empire State Building, "T'was beauty killed the beast", the whole thing.

So came our old friend Dino, the very man who thought he could do everything better - including The Bible! And with the opportunity afforded him by thees a-big a-monkey, he saw a way to not only update the story and make a spectacle for this generation but maybe even make a few bucks in the process.

Then we were given Paramount Pictures' Dino De Laurentiis Production of King Kong in Christmas of 1976. Or as I like to call it: The Year Without A Santa Claus.

Let's peel this banana of a story now. Big oil company Petrox is heading for distant Kong Island in search of a hopefully-large oil strike. The expedition is headed by the equally oily Fred Wilson (Charles Grodin), who promises to bring back "something big". Hmmm.... In the process, the crew comes across a stowaway (Jeff Bridges), a castaway (Jessica Lange) and the island in question which may not hold oil but does hold natives who worship a gorilla named (ironically enough) Kong. The crew is slow to catch on that the natives' huts and housing are encased within some VERY BIG WALLS. In time, they'll soon discover what the walls are for after the castaway is kidnapped and offered as a sacrifice. After that, it's pretty much your basic monkey-loves-girl, monkey-gets-captured, monkey-escapes-in-Noo-Yawk, catch-the-big-monkey, save-the-girl, destroy-the-city-in-the-process story. They even managed to include the recently-completed Twin Towers to fill in for The Empire State Building.

We got us one big honkin' movie here, $24 million worth - and Lorenzo Semple Junior wrangled a script from the original Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace story that dolloped in some heavy doses of...well, I can't really call it irony and it isn't quick enough to be considered a satire...let's just call this heavy doses of Mad Magazine-level nonsense.

Now, about the acting? Chuck Grodin is always worth watching and makes slimy and reprehensible very entertaining; of course what could you expect from the man who all but made Ishtar his own? Jeff Bridges will always be a great actor and makes his moments memorable - though I liked him better in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, he at least fares better here than in the Farrah Fawcett-Majors vehicle Somebody Killed Her Husband. Lange had several years to go to get better parts in films like Frances, Country and Blue Sky, and not be thought of as a model. She at least does her best while playing against a superimposed image of an ape head, but I'll get to that.

This is one of those films that you'll enjoy even more if you have any knowledge of who was who in Hollywood bit-parts and have watched more than your fair share of films in general. Then you can join in with the rest of the people who've watched this and play "Spot The Star - Seventies Version". The attentive will amuse themselves no end by catching performances by Rene Auberjonois, Jack O'Halloran, Ed Lauter, John Lone, Forrest J. Ackerman, Corbin Bernsen, Joe Piscopo, Walt Gorney (Friday the 13th's own Crazy Ralph, ladies and gentlemen!), and even a little part for John Agar, speaking of old school....

Director John Guillermin isn't known for his good judgment in lensing such "epics". Oh sure, he can use the widescreen lens as well as anyone else, but the stories he films? Check out The Towering Inferno, Sheena, Hell Heaven or Hoboken, and the inevitable King Kong Lives for further proof. Of course, he did helm Shaft in Africa, so a few coolness points go to him for that. Still, Sheena....

Can we at least count on the awesome effects expected for 1976 as compared to 1933? Well, Rick Baker designed a pretty effective monkey suit and a well-articulated face for it. He even played the title part - as he is wont to do roles in monkey suits from time to time as he did in The Thing With Two Heads, The Kentucky Fried Movie and The Incredible Shrinking Woman. Then all we're left with are small-scale sets with Baker in his suit stomping around; the sets are about the same quality you'd find in your typical Godzilla flick. Then we have to have 30-foot tall Styrofoam and semi-mechanical Kongs in big settings so we can have people mill around at his feet and/or run in pants-wetting terror from him. It's that whole to-scale thing we're talking about here, and it's not always successful - you tell me; if you're going to build a giant robot of a gorilla to use in a movie, shouldn't it at least not look lobotomized, as compared to the non-suit-wearing and articulated-mask-wearing scenes?

Then we have Lange interacting with blue screen scenes so that her emoting can show Kong reacting in kind. After all, it's hard to act against a styrofoam ape head. And there are a couple of successful scenes, like when Lange is held under a waterfall to clean off by our big boy then he blows air on her to dry her off, his cheeks puffing out as he blows. That part kind of amazed me as a kid, seeing as how even then realized we were talking a mask here instead of a real ape. Overall, it kind of lacks the entertainment value that A*P*E had in its cheap, dumb setup and purring gorilla destroying buildings made of paper.

Back in the day, I remember all the hype that Paramount ladled over the American public like so much ape gravy. Kong's face was on everything you could imagine: t-shirts, cups, stickers, drink glasses, magnets, posters, candy, and I think someone even came up with a King Kong Cocktail! Just the thing to drown your sorrows after watching the film!

But the fact of the matter is that Dino's Kong, no matter how much you saw of it on posters and at Burger Chef or whatever couldn't mask the fact that THIS version, while big and flashy, just didn't hold the same allure as the 1933 original.

What went wrong? They treated the whole endeavor NOT as a sequel to the original, but as a continuation of the clunky, jokey Japanese versions where their Kong would fight against Godzilla or some big robotic version of himself. They don't even do a version of the "beauty killed the beast" line. They do have Kong's hand reach in and grab up Lange at one point like in the '33 version, though without the hysterical screams.

Man, people were so depressed in the Seventies they didn't even scream when gigantic monkeys abducted them.

And even with all of that working against it, King Kong STILL managed to make $132 million overall, well over five times its budget. See, all those drink glasses they sold made SOME impression. And I think that may be it - merchandising is a big part of any movie's success. the more stuff you have for sale with your movie's name on it, the more money your movie will pull from it and the better your chances of making a profit. That's the power of marketing for you, baby - it has the power to make fertilizer appealing to the unwashed masses; even the unwashed masses expecting a 1933 throwback and instead got thrown down. To the curb.

When all was said and done, I guess there were some who preferred the Seventies' Kong to the Thirties' Kong. All well and good, save for the fact that they were replacing cinema gold with fool's gold and doing no one a favor in the process except the studios. Just another example of what a good advertising campaign can do for you.

It didn't last, though. The 1986 sequel to THIS film, King Kong Lives (oops, sorry - SPOILER ALERT), didn't even earn back it's $10 million budget. Ten million bucks - that's what they get for not getting Rick Baker back, I guess.

So when it comes to a taste test, comparing 1933 with 1976 in terms of gigantic gorillas, 4 out of 5 dentists (you innocent viewers being the dentists), would be wise to stick with the original.

That fifth one? If he wanted monkey shines, he sure got 'em.

Oscar Time Again Again! Who Wins Again? Who Cares Again? - Again!

As anyone who owns a TV or a radio will tell you, the Oscars nominees have once again been announced, starting up the grist train for the rumor mill as to who is once again going to win their own little man to take home...and no, I don't mean Perez Hilton.

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily down on these stupid awards because I know I'll never win one (BTW, Death 4 Told was just plain ROBBED), but becaue these things are NOT about talent and NOT about mutual love from celebrity to celebrity and NOT about enjoying movies, but about how much can be paid to The Academy (c) to get your little flick the gold it so richly desreves.

Grrr...I'll blow a gasket if I go on with this nonsense; I'd much rather focus on how well I have, the last two broadcasts of this...THING...guessed just exactly who would, in fact, not win. I think I have a handle on the way to pare these things down to the losers so, again, let us double-dip into our selections and see what we gots here:

----------

BEST PICTURE

The King's Speech

True Grit

Toy Story 3

Black Swan

The Social Network

127 Hours

Inception

The Fighter

The Kids Are All Right

Winter's Bone - Look at this: some of the biggest movies of the year, for a change, all get nominations for this award - even The Fighter has been seen by some folks - but Winter's Bone? Have you seen it? You have? Ohhh... you're the one. Even people who don't watch movies saw The Social Network, so what chance do you think a movie only a handful of people have watched? Oh, it might pull a Chariots of Fire, but I doubt it. That movie had Vangelis, anyway. Vangelis wasn't in this film's soundtrack, so I'm gonna say no.


----------

BEST ACTOR

Colin Firth (The King's Speech)

Jeff Bridges (True Grit)

James Franco (127 Hours)

Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network)

Javier Bardem (Biutiful) - Everyone here stands a pretty good chance of winning, so why Javier? It's not just because he's already won one - for that matter, Jeff Bridges did last year, too - but Javier's had his run, I think, and getting nominated is just something they do for some actors when they owe him too much for paying for one's Oscar previously. Must've been a package deal or something. Anyway, at least Javier's got his money worth. How nice.








----------

BEST ACTRESS

Annette Bening (The Kids Are All Right)

Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine)

Nicole Kidman (Rabbit Hole)

Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone) - Who? Jennifer who? What's-er-name Lawrence? Against a bunch of actresses everyone's actually heard of? I just don't feel good about this one...and I think this is another case of "footnote territory". Ah well....













----------

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Christian Bale (The Fighter)

Geoffrey Rush (The King's Speech)

Jeremy Renner (The Town)

Mark Ruffalo (The Kids Are All Right)

John Hawkes (Winter's Bone) - I know, I know; it looks like I'm picking on Winter's Bone this installment, but look at who he's up against. Bale might get one just as an apology for Heath Ledger dying and becoming a shoo-in last year. Even Jeremy Renner from Hurt Locker got nominated again, and he at least is a return, so he probably stands a chance. A better chance than someone very few (if any) people have even heard of. Unless his manager's got a lot of extra money or the guys who hold onto the winner envelopes in his back pocket, I think Hawkes is best off making sure he doesn't spend a whole lot on his hotel room, so he can check out early.






----------

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Amy Adams (The Fighter)

Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech)

Melissa Leo (The Fighter)

Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit)

Jacki Weaver (Animal Kingdom) - Look at it this way: Adams has proven her chops time and again, Carter always was a good actress, Leo is a return (just like Renner) so stands a chance and Steinfeld has that whole Kim Darby-vibe going on. Weaver, however, is walking into this one cold - and we've all seen how this has worked out before. Need I elaborate? Sorry, Jacki.











----------

BEST DIRECTOR

Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)

David O. Russell (The Fighter)

Joel Coen and Ethan Coen (True Grit)

David Fincher (The Social Network)

Tom Hooper (The King's Speech) - Oh, I'm sure it'll win an award or two, but up against the other names like here, you're looking at one of those situations like a stuttering king in front fo a crowd: public embarrassment. It's a toss-up mostly, but in comparison, it may just be a fact that a guy was nominated for a direction Oscar because he looks like James Cameron. Just sayin'.











----------

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

The Illusionist

Toy Story 3

How to Train Your Dragon - Oh sure, a Dreamworks picture stands a chance against one of the best-reviewed, biggest money-making, most fun, exhilirating and all-around best Pixar movies ever. Then again, I don't think this would have been able to beat Cars. At any rate, keep trying, Dreamworks.














----------

Okey-dokey; here you go with some even more finely-honed lucky guesses as to the ones with bad luck on that night of nights. Make your own guesses as to who will win. Me, I'll stick with my losers, thanks.

Dope out.

- TGWD

The TRON: LEGACY Conundrum...

I've got one huge honking dilemma on my hands right now, and it's about a movie I know I probably shouldn't go out and see for reasons of my own, but damn it - the more I see of it, the more I WANT to.

See, I was there in the beginning, waaay back in the magical year of 1982 when movies were still good and Disney had yet to be a channel. TRON came out that summer and wowed everybody's digital socks off with its look at the inside world of a computer. Pretty cool arcade game, too.

And then there was my favorite part of TRON, besides the look...Jeff Bridges. He was funny, sharp, had good one-liners and bounced around like a 10 year-old kid on jumping beans. In fact, I think he was a lot of people's favorite thing about TRON.

Then after its success, everyone started whining, "Ooh, when's the sequel coming out?" Or "Ooh, aren't they going to continue the story? Ooh...." I, however, was not one of those clamboring for another TRON movie.

Why? Because even as a callow youth I knew that some stories just needed one movie to be told. For some films, sometimes one movie to tell your story is one movie too much (right, Friday the 13th?). I would be content catching it on TV, getting it on VHS, upgrading to the 2-disc DVD and reliving my youth.

Then it happened; this trailer was released:

Damn it, they got my attention. Love TRON or hate it, you gotta admit that's some impressive CGI. And then there was the sight of Jeff Bridges - which would make any fan of the 1982 original do a "whoop-whoop". Still, even though the sight of those light cycles made my heart race with their sleek beauty, I didn't feel the same kind of rush I did way back when.

Disney then had to go and release THIS trailer:

Interesting - and there was a Recognizer! It's always good to see Bruce Boxleitner, even though I figure we'll never see HIM back in the computer mainframe, sadly. But only a fleeting glimpse of Jeff this time. Lots of teens, too. Of course, I am getting older while the world gets younger, so.... Lots of interesting revving engines, racing light cycles and noise and light, but still, not the same kind of heart as what I had felt when we were all younger and more foolish. I could still walk away from this one without any ill effects.

And it probably would have ended there, if I hadn't just caught THIS trailer today.

Young AND old Jeff Bridges??! More amazing special effects and action all over the place. Whoa, says my inner Keanu.

Now, this is turning out to become a movie that will appeal to the old TRON fans and the new up-and-coming tech-heads. Sometimes these kinds of movies work out and not only make legions of fans on both side of the microchip but make the accounting department at the studio happy too. Other times, though, they fall down with a thud and people ignore them in droves.

This one, though, may be a different story. Or it may not. Who knows?

As I said, I'm still on the fence. I don't want to ruin any of my old memories by having them replaced with new images that immediately ruin what I used to know. Then again, what if TRON: LEGACY is the sequel that bucks the odds and is just every bit as enjoyable as the original...and I miss it because of my own stubborn sticking to my beloved childhood memories?

I've still got a few months to mull it over. I'll have to watch the trailers again and think about it.

Looks like I'll be thinking about it a few dozen more times, at least.

END OF LINE.

DOPE OUT.

- TGWD

1985 was the WORST Year for Movies - Part Four

Why do you suppose there are certain years that seem to attract the best and worst of history?

1939 was famous for Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz.

1941 gave us The Maltese Falcon and High Sierra.

1965 gave us The Sound of Music and Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

But 1985?

What did it ever give us besides misery and agony and pain and suffering and lice and boils and syphilitic lip sores? And movies so bad that even VCRs wouldn't accept them.

It was just a plain bad, stinky year with a lingering stench that followed us well into 1986.

Don't stare at me like that; I just report the facts.

And speaking of facts, you're not getting out of here without the latest batch of the worst of the worst of the worst year for movies. Again, in no particular order:

THE NEW KIDS

I'm at a loss here. There's two kids on the poster, one of them has a stick and they're surrounded by doll faces. Plus is the fact this is directed by the guy who did Friday the 13th. These may have been selling points in the studio meeting to get this made but, come on, what in the hell is this movie even about? Anyone? Can you explain this to me? Is it even out on DVD? VHS? Laserdisc? Betamax? Anyone...???







HEAVENLY BODIES

Did we really need a ripoff of FlashDance? Starring Cynthia Dale and a bunch of Canadians? You've never seen so many leg warmers, torn sweatshirts, leotards, spandex, mirrored studio walls and sweaty bodies since Perfect. Come to think of it, this could only have been made in 1985. Any later in the Eighties and the humiliation of the actors would have made this a tragedy. Check that: MORE of a tragedy.






BAD MEDICINE

Police Academy set in a hospital. Great. They even cast Steve Guttenberg in it. And Julie Hagerty - you know, from Airplane!; the movie Police Academy wished it was. That's bad enough, but then they drag Alan Arkin into it doing his best Mexican improv and Gilbert Gottfried doing his worst Mexican improv and Taylor Negron as "Pepe the Cab Driver". This will have you looking for new adjectives for "crap".







CREATOR

In 1982, Peter O'Toole starred in My Favorite Year about an alcoholic actor whom everyone conveniences to get him on a TV show. In 1985, a movie was made with O'Toole using the same principle, apparently. Dealing with superficial ideas of science and romance, this is inconsequential fluff of the first order but, though certainly flimsy, certainly not Mariel Hemingway's worst performance of 1985 (that'll be revealed at a later time....).






STICK

Burt Reynolds and Elmore Leonard both had good years and good movies, but this was neither. Burt's idea of getting some pals together to make a movie almost never pulls together (except maybe for Sharkey's Machine) but when a stuntman (Dar Robinson) gives the best performance in your crime drama, it's time for a mulligan. And Charles Durning in a red Bozo wig? WHY????







JAGGED EDGE

Glenn Close is a good actress. Jeff Bridges is a good actor. Richard Marquand is a good director. But Joe Eszterhaus, slopping out a script that gives lurid melodrama a bad name, is the biggest culprit in this courtroom schlockfest. When you can't even count on Robert Loggia to liven things up, something's wrong. And when a camera angle is so bad that it takes you awhile to figure out who done it, that's worse. This will make you yearn for the stylish wholesomeness of Fatal Attraction.






THE HOLCROFT COVENANT

Robert Ludlum is the king (KING, I tell you) of convoluted and confusing literature. His movie adaptations are no better, as this flick proves. Nazis, treasure, assassinations, incest and Michael Caine in all his well-cured smoky hamminess all fight for top spot in this globe-hopping junket of junk, but the headliner for Holcroft is a plot that is at once too detailed and too simplistic for its own good. Caine's embarrassing acting outbursts are actually the highlight of this thing.










MAXIE

Glenn Close strikes again! This time as an average housewife who gets possessed by the spirit of a Twenties floozy who wants to sing and dance and booze it up and seduce everything in pants, even Close's hubby Mandy Patinkin! This tries to be every bit the breakaway hit that 1982's Kiss Me Goodbye was (which, incidentally, Kiss wasn't), and was in itself a remake of the FAR SUPERIOR Dona Flor and her Two Husbands. Ruth Gordon actually would have fared better by waiting for a call from Clint Eastwood and Clyde the Orangutan.





THE CARE BEARS MOVIE

Starring: Product Placement! For Kids! Seriously, this is one long ad for new toys, not a movie. Hasbro or Kenner or whoever it was that handled this meal ticket probably got rich from the tie-ins for this. But the film itself; that's an investment that probably won't pay off for awhile.







RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER

See: The Care Bears Movie.












There.

Satisfied?

No?

Fine; see you next time, when I will discuss two sequels that should never have been, the sad decline of Stephen King and what Patsy Cline has to do with any of this.

Dope out.

- TGWD

Oscar Results 2010 - Was I Right???

Okay, here we go again....

Typing up the Winning Nominees as they come up, I refuse to watch "that show", and so am looking at the winning list online as I watch the latest Food Network Challenge (Steak Cook-Off tonight. Yum...), just to see if yet again I made a clean sweep and my choices for non-winners did indeed do me proud and NOT win.

Of course, all of you know it's not whether you win or lose...it's how much money you had to pour into the Oscar coffers to insure yourself one of those little gold statuettes. Geez, I tell you what; those guys must be millionaires - right down to the Oscar interns....

So. Now, let us knock 'em off, shall we?

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR - WINNER, Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) Well. That was a surprise. And yet, I was right. Sorry, Woody - maybe if you talk to your agent about that People Vs. Larry Flynt sequel....

BEST ANIMATED FILM - WINNER, Up (director, Pete Docter) Two for two, not that I didn't expect that; it's a Disney AND it's a Pixar. How could it miss? And what was Belgium thinking?

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS - WINNER, Mo’Nique (Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire) Good for her, you know? I'm glad she won and all, but it just goes to show that no matter who won, Penélope Cruz didn't. So, three for me....

BEST ACTOR - WINNER, Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) Hey! An actor I really care about! Great! And even better that my prediction also held true for poor Jeremy Renner. Hang in there, pal; your agent will get enough money to bribe the Oscar committee someday....

BEST ACTRESS - WINNER, Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side) Kinda figured that's how it would go. But don't feel bad for Meryl; she's had enough noms of her own - besides, she can't give ALL her money to the Oscar guys, gotta save something for retirement, y'know.

BEST DIRECTOR - WINNER, Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) How about that? Not the fact that a woman won for Best Director for the very first time in Oscar history, but that my average is still holding. One more to go....

and we can all finally go to bed with the announcement of...

Lake Whitney Meat Company, the winners of the Best Steak in Texas!

Oops. Sorry; wrong show (that's what I get for watching one and writing about another) -

BEST PICTURE - WINNER, The Hurt Locker Amazing! Who would ever have believed that anyone could do it? Guess every single loser with such accuracy, that is? I did!

There you have it - another year of winning predictions from THE man in the know! Me! Ha! Well, in the know as far as losers go.

Gee, when I put it that way....

Till next season, Oscar Loser Watchers.

Dope out.

- TGWD

Oscar Time Again! Who Wins? Who Cares? - The Sequel

Didn't we just do the Oscars last year? Sheesh....

Regulars here will recall how last year I commented on my disdain for this "awards" show, with the glitz, hype and self-congratulatory high-fiving of overpaid actors and the vehicles they get filmed in, all vying for a little gold man to validate their craft.

Whatever, I say.

You may also remember how I, quite deftly, picked the ones who would NOT win this coveted symbol of nonsense. This year, I prepare to do the same thing again, only with a different cast...for the most part, anyway.

So let's start, as before, with the top dogs and move down the kennel:

----------

BEST PICTURE

Avatar

The Blind Side

District 9

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Precious

A Serious Man

Up

Up in the Air

An Education - Not only do there seem to be an ungodly amount of nominees for Best Picture this year, there are also a lot of pretty well-known titles even for the novice to recognize, if just from sound blurbs and ads and so forth. This one, however, has the luxury of having been heard of by only a select few, seen by even fewer and, up to its mention as a nominee, I had no idea this movie even existed. This is even worse than The Reader was last year - at least THAT one had what's-her-face, the Titanic chick, to star in it. This movie doesn't even have THAT going for it. You know your movie's in trouble when no one's heard of it outside of an Oscar nomination...it's in worse trouble still if its poster looks like a prom picture...and in worse trouble still if it makes you think of a movie that lost an Oscar the year before.

----------

BEST ACTOR

Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)

George Clooney (Up in the Air)

Colin Firth (A Single Man)

Morgan Freeman (Invictus)

Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) - I don't mean to pick on this poor guy, but let's face facts: he's up against Jeff Bridges. And George Clooney. And Morgan Freeman. You think YOU'D stand a chance against that Mount Rushmore of talent? Even Colin Firth has a better chance at winning, what with his past track record of acting credits. Quick: name three films Jeremy Renner's been in. Ah-ah-ah, don't Google him. Come on, name 'em...there, you see? Not so easy, is it? Not to say that Renner doesn't have it in him. He might stand a chance, just not this year, not in the same cage as these pit bulls. The Hurt Locker's a good film, it's just that it's an experience you take in altogether, not by noticing individual performances. Sorry, Jeremy - hang in there: You survived National Lampoon's Senior Trip, you'll get there eventually....

----------

BEST ACTRESS

Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)

Helen Mirren (The Last Station)

Carey Mulligan (An Education)

Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)

Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia) - Surprised? I'm surprised to be writing it myself. But this year the playing field is tough: good performances by many talented ladies - and just between you, me and the fencepost, I think it's going to be a battle royale between Sandra Bullock and Gabourey Sidibe, with a little bit of Helen Mirren thrown in for good measure. And since I already mentioned An Education earlier, it'd be unfair to think it would sweep the non-nominees. After all, I don't think anyone from that film will even get to be within 50 feet of the stage that night. Anyway, back to Meryl: she got her Oscar in 1982, has been top-notch for a long time, slacked off a tad in the late 80s/early 90s then got back on track. Now, it's easy for anyone to do an imitation, which Meryl does a fine one of Julia Child here, but it's not like The French Lieutenant's Woman. Or Sophie's Choice. Or Silkwood. Ah well.

----------

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Matt Damon (Invictus)

Christopher Plummer (The Last Station)

Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones)

Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)

Woody Harrelson (The Messenger) - Yeah, I know, I know; The People Vs. Larry Flynt. I know, Woody's been in this position before. And it's not like he doesn't have the acting chops. But for Woody's part, this is like he's the clown shoes of the award show's evening. The lovable, affable goof in a room full of actors who have all had their share of acclaim, awards, what have you. Of course, the sight of Woody standing alongside Christopher Plummer and Stanley Tucci is enough to make anyone do a double-take, shake their collective heads and rub their disbelieving eyes. My take on this: apparently the Oscar-nominating committee was short on dubbage this year. Not that Woody doesn't deserve another nomination...but the actual award itself? I think it would take a lot more than payoffs to make something like that happen. Maybe a Larry Flynt sequel?

----------

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air)

Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart)

Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)

Mo'nique (Precious)

Penelope Cruz (Nine) - You may remember last year that I was thinking of going with Penelope but didn't. This year I am. Why? Because as a follow-up to an award-winning performance in a Woody Allen movie no less, a movie-musical usually isn't the best way to go. Especially not a movie-musical like Nine, which was no great shakes to begin with, but for casting the likes of Penelope Cruz, not exactly known for her musical abilities, you have to accept the fact that things are just not going to go well. She's a good actress, best-suited for light comedy and romantic venues. For musicals, however, where the subject matter is most fondly remembered in its original Broadway incarnation, this is bad news for everybody involved. It's a shame, but all things considered, Penelope should have read a few more scripts before committing...and maybe taken a few more singing classes, that kinda thing.

----------

BEST DIRECTOR

Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)

James Cameron (Avatar)

Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)

Lee Daniels (Precious)

Jason Reitman (Up in the Air) - Even if you're the son of Ivan Reitman, even if you have the good fortune to have George Clooney in your film, and even if you get positive buzz about your project, that's no guarantee you can stand against a female director wth fire and passion, a perfectionist who can formulate billion-dollar blockbusters, a wordsmith who has stood tall among his contemporaries and won an Oscar for Pulp Fiction to boot and a man whose previous film Monster's Ball was so good it gave Halle Berry the opportunity to earn her own little gold guy (yeah right, it's all about the payoffs, people...). Jason may have done films like Juno and Thank You For Smoking, but he still has a way to go before making his own imprint on the film-going psyche. Not that Ivan had an easy time of it, but at least HE had the good fortune to have worked with Bill Murray, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Billy Crystal, squeezing all the laughs he could from them. Maybe Jason can take a few more notes from Pop....

----------

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

Coraline

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The Princess and the Frog

Up

The Secret of Kells - I don't really have a whole lot to say about an animated film from France and Belgium about a boy who has an adventure and blah blah blah....

But think about it: a little animated film up against two Disneys, the Nightmare Before Christmas guy and Wes Anderson.

Would you fancy your chances?

Neither would I.





----------

And there you have MORE choices to take to the bank on Oscar night. Just like all those people in the nominating committee ware taking their money to the bank they get from Hollywood for their favors of voting...okay, no more cynicism for tonight. Gotta go to bed. We'll see how right I am in a month or so.

For now, place your bets, place your bets.

Dope out.

- TGWD

What's With This Summer's Blockbusters?

Okay, first off, I have NOT seen any of these movies I'm about to write about, so all I'm about to say is based on what I've heard. Be warned.

NOW...

So far, everything I've read about 2008's summer movie crop shows this year should be a big one. After all, what with gas prices and ticket prices and uncomfortable seats and overpriced popcorn and so on, if you're gonna slap down your hard-earned bucks to spend two hours of your life watching something some film executive thinks would be worth your time (and money - see a trend here?), it had better be good.

And with that in mind, what do we have here to consider?

Well, let's see....

IRON MAN


I've read the comics when I was younger and thought the story of multi-millionauire Tony Stark wearing a cool suit just to live and finding he had super powers with it and being able to fight crime, save the world and so forth was pretty darn cool. Hearing about the movie being made based on it, all I could think of was "great; another superhero movie in a world filled with 'em." - but there was one major plus in this one that so many others didn't have:

Robert Downey Jr.



Not since Errol Flynn has there been such a talented, troubled and quirky actor; one who takes a lot of chances and does so with lots of on-screen charisma. If anyone could pull off Tony Stark, it would be him.

Of course, the special effects in the trailer look good. But nowadays, watching a movie because the effects are good is like buying a car because the tires are round. It's a given. But with a strong story, good actors (Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeff Bridges are also in the cast), decent-enough director in Jon Favreau, though he isn't the first one you think of as an action superhero director. But if all the stars are aligned and everything clicks, it could work.

And according to the initial take, it has.

MY VIEWING POSSIBILITY: Possible. Not an easy-in, since I'm kinda burnt-out on superhero movies but I do like the actors involved. We'll see.


SPEED RACER

































I loved the cartoon (oops: anime. Sorry....) and thought the stories were rather intricate and action-packed, even if the characters all moved their mouths kinda funny. :P Little did I know as an ankle-biter what a cult following the show would have over the years since its initial run.

Anyway, everyone reading this knows what kind of track record the Wachowski Brothers have had (The Matrix Movies, V for Vendetta, etc.) , so there is every possibility that there is going to be smashing visuals and effects rather on the wild side.

Well, good lord, have you seen the trailer?!!!



You see that?! Huh? Suffice it to say that if you enjoyed those visuals and they didn't give you an epileptic seizure, then say hello to your new favorite film.

[me]Hello, new favorite film.[/me]

MY VIEWING POSSIBILITY: Very high. I try not to connect my want to see a film on a cool trailer (I've been burnt on that road before), but how many chances during one lifetime will you have to see so kinetic a film as this? Not many, I'll wager. I may take the Wachowski's bait on this one.

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN


I never was a fan of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe on reading it, nor when it was a cartoon or when it was a made-for-TV special. It was just a little too stodgy for my taste.

Granted, they gave the 2005 film the right amount of action, CGI thrills, talking animals looking as real as anything and everything a fan of the book could want (maybe; I don't know that many book fans). But this sequel (the first of three more) looks like more of the same. Great if you're a fan of the first film; interminable if you're not a fan of C.S. Lewis or instantly dislike the staleness associated with Walden Media films...like I do.

MY VIEWING POSSIBILITY: No. My kids will probably love it, but then again, they dislike watching any film that feels like a homework assignment to sit through.


INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL


Oh well gee, let's see: a chance to see Harrison Ford reprise one of my favorite action heroes ever? A return to the kind of film Steven Spielberg was once the king of? The re-teaming of Ford and Karen Allen from the original Raiders of the Lost Ark? One more opportunity to hear that rousing John Williams theme in the cool comfort of a movie theater and relive grand memories from my past? And to take my son to see adventure films the way they used to be?

MY VIEWING POSSIBILITY: Heck, yeah. Lukewarm to poor reviews be damned. I will revisit my youth and enjoy it profoundly. And probably stand and applaud at the end of it and embarrass my son. Oh well.


THE INCREDIBLE HULK

I thought the 2003 Hulk was kinda talky and cerebral for the crowd it was being pitched to and Ang Lee, while a good director, wasn't the best choice for a summer popcorn movie about a green monster whose dialog consists mostly of grunts.

So here we are, five years later and looking at a continuation of the first film with an entirely different cast and director and, judging from the initial trailer, more of an emphasis on the kind of summer action we expect, mixed with more of the comic book sensibilities we know and love. After all, this one is directed by Louis Leterrier (director of the Transporter movies) and stars Edward Norton (who we all know can carry a movie), Liv Tyler ('scuse me...rowr), William Hurt and Tim Roth...so we all know that acting won't be a problem.

It could work, I guess, I just hope we aren't going to experience a superhero movie glut in which they just export mass movies like this without any thought or detail - just lots of great effects, recognized stars and flimsy story-lines that wouldn't pass muster in the Marvel universe, let alone the Hollywood universe.

Time will tell.

MY VIEWING POSSIBILITY: Lower spectrum. I love the comics, but the big guy doesn't have the best filmed record. It might be pulled off successfully, but this will probably still be an on-down-the-road rental.

Well, that's a good start. There's a lot of movies coming out this summer, and next post I'll tackle the others. And don't worry; my next post won't be in September. :P

Dope out.

-TGWD

Heaven's Gate (1980)

I love a good Western as much as the next guy. Heck, I love a bad Western, too. I've seen quite a few and know my John Waynes and Randolph Scotts as well as my Lash LaRues and Roy Rogerses. You name it - chances are I've seen it.

What do I like about a Western? That it deals with good old escapist entertainment in its purest form. Good guys and bad guys, last-minute rescues, belief in God and the land, and right always triumphing over wrong. This, of course, was revised somewhat with Sergio Leone and the advent of "Spaghetti Westerns". With them came a more sinister level to the evil, and even the good guys weren't all that good. And they also celebrated the anti-hero; the guy who plays both ends against the middle (like in A Fistful Of Dollars). It was all good, evil was still being vanquished (if just marginally). And then along with "Spaghetti Westerns" came nihilism, where no one wins. Not even the viewer. The good and bad guys are all in the same boat and it's sinking fast. Usually, these had a lot of death, blood, dashed hopes and crushed dreams along with the tumbleweeds and six-shooters. And the bad guys were usually the heroes of the film. For those who were weaned on the heroism and positive qualities of True Grit and My Darling Clementine, this must have been quite a case of disenchantment.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to Heaven's Gate, a film that in and of itself created a legend that no one else could (or has) ever come close to. Not that this is a good thing.

In the mid-and-late-'70s, Michael Cimino had written or co-written some fairly decent movies (Silent Running, Magnum Force) and even directed a film that was met with critical and financial acclaim (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot). It was therefore no huge surprise that Cimino had ambitions to make The Greatest Film Ever Made (c) and prove once and for all that he was the real deal. He had labored for years on a particular film idea: the fight between immigrant landowners and the corrupt cattlemen of the Montana area in 1870. A simple enough idea, and one that may have held the basis for a better-than-average film. After all, we can all get behind the idea of the little guy fighting against the bureaucracy.

His script went through many titles ("The Johnson County War", "Paydirt") and bounced between many studios, producers and actors (Cimino even went as far as sending a draft to Steve McQueen!) and was drafted and re-drafted multiple times. This happened all through the early part of Cimino's career until he got lucky enough to pitch a different script idea to EMI Productions. That idea became The Deer Hunter and went on to earn money, win awards and give a new-found clout to Cimino, who was now poised to finally bring his long-standing dream project to fruition. Fate lent a hand when several top executives walked out of United Artists and formed Orion Pictures (which ironically folded a decade or so later). UA's new VP, Steven Bach, then took up the option for Cimino's script, wanting UA to benefit from having an "Oscar-winning director" and be a part of his winning streak.

And so Heaven's Gate came to be. Its budget was to be a comparatively conservative $7.8 million and Cimino would have full rein as director.

Now before I get into the logistics, let me explain the story in its basic terms. Idealistic Harvard graduate James Averill (Kris Kristofferson) becomes a sheriff in the semi-tamed Wyoming territory. In his duties, he comes across a plot by the Wyoming Cattlemen's Association to murder several immigrants who are stealing their cattle to survive. As Averill tries to foil their plans, he also maintains a romance with local brother madam Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert) while dealing with Association gunman/best friend Nathan Champion (Christopher Walken), who is also having an affair with Watson. And yes, that does sound more like a soap opera than a "classic" Western. But Heaven's Gate has more going on in it than just a simplistic story....

The megalomaniac tendencies of Cimino on the set of Gate are now the stuff of legend; at one point, he decided the space between buildings on one set didn't look right, despite being built to his specifications, and had both sides of the street torn down and rebuilt for $1.2 million. Shooting of the film as a whole lasted over a year and resulted in over 1 million feet of film being shot (and processed) - on average a typical film uses at most 100,000 feet, just to put that into perspective. And as if that weren't enough, Cimino also went as far as to supervise the period dressing of every person on camera, have an old steam engine locomotive transported in from several states away, tack on a prologue and epilogue to the film long after shooting on the project began (costing another $5 million) and re-shoot even the smallest scenes multiple times to make sure that he "got it right". With all of this going on it's no wonder the budget skyrocketed from $7.8 million to $44 million.

And something else - the film's initial cut clocked in at nearly FIVE HOURS AND THIRTY MINUTES (the final battle in Gate is rumored to have been the full length of a regular motion picture). Later, after editing it down to three hours and thirty-nine minutes, it was presented to theaters worldwide. Critics, naturally, were waiting with glee after catching wind of all the troubles UA was having in keeping Cimino in line (and on budget). Not that length itself is a concern, mind you, provided that the characters are worth watching and investing that much time in.

They're not.

Kristofferson acts as though he were bored stiff and suffering from a mild hangover throughout. Walken, a great actor when wound up tight, is distressingly soft-spoken and not really all that convincing, either when killing good and bad guys or professing his love to Huppert. And speaking of Huppert, her role consists mostly of stripping off her clothes at every opportunity, and not much else. And for having great actors involved like John Hurt, Jeff Bridges, Sam Waterston, Brad Dourif, Geoffrey Lewis, Mickey Rourke, Richard Masur and Terry O'Quinn, none of them really contribute much to either the story or their characters; they simply wear their period clothes and say their lines. The best that can be said is that Hurt looks appropriately drunk through all of his scenes.

A word about the look of the film. Famed cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond made various panoramic shots look appropriately breath-taking and awe-inspiring. However, the film's overall look is simply an excuse to fill the screen with billows of smoke, clouds of dust and impenetrable fog - why bother having great background scenery if you're just going to obliterate it with opaque foreground smoke? There's one scene that isn't even all that important (it's when Kristofferson is piling a drunken Jeff Bridges into the back of a wagon) where Cimino decides to shoot in a faded brown, washed-out manner of an old tintype, which matches nothing else in the film. The editing itself is another matter; many of the principle characters aren't even given close-up shots so we can figure out who's doing what.

As I watched Heaven's Gate, I initially thought that no film could be as bad as what I'd heard; there had to be redeeming features in a film of such scope and magnitude. But that's the whole problem: this film has no scope. All of its facts are dubious (the film shows hundreds of people dying when in reality only TWO people died as a result of the actual Johnson County "war") and its characters are inane pawns that serve no purpose or conviction. This is a chess game played by Cimino against the audience in which he has it rigged in his favor. It's Three-Card Monty being played with jokers. Heaven's Gate is a failure on every conceivable entertainment level and caused the fall of United Artists, the firing of Bach and several other executives and, most importantly, a quick plummet from grace by Cimino himself (who's never again had the same control over a film nor again experienced the success of another Deer Hunter or Thunderbolt And Lightfoot). No surprise that it hasn't, to date, even earned back ONE THIRD of its $44 million budget - WORLDWIDE.

Heaven's Gate is not a good Western, not a good character study, not a good art film - heck, it's not even good nihilism. So, what is it?

If nothing else, Heaven's Gate serves as an example of what doom can be served by one man's hubris. And that in itself is a good lesson to learn, if painful to watch.