WORD

outlier [out-lahy-er] n. 1. a person or thing that lies outside 2. a person residing outside the place of his or her business, duty, etc 3. Geology. a part of a formation left detached through the removal of surrounding parts by erosion

BIRTHDAY

Jonathan Swift (1667), Mark Twain (1835), Lord Frederick Cavendish (1836), Richard Crenna (1926), Robert Guillaume (1927), Dick Clark (1929), G. Gordon Liddy (1930), Abbie Hoffman (1936), Ridley Scott (1937), Terrence Malick (1943), David Mamet (1947), Mandy Patinkin (1952), Billy Idol (1955), Bo Jackson (1962), Ben Stiller (1965), Clay Aiken (1978), Gael García Bernal (1978)

STANDPOINT

Several years ago, when the reality-television craze began kicking its ugly way into our living rooms, I boldly declared, “This won’t last. It’s a fad. It’ll go away.”

Man, was I wrong.

It has lasted. It’s not a fad. And it refuses to go away. As a matter of fact, it’s continuing to grow. From what I can tell, it’s also making society as a whole dumber. So, of course, that fascinates me.

First off, let me say I don’t think all reality-television is bad. Some of it’s actually worthwhile. Top Chef, The Amazing Race, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Those are some I’ve watched without becoming agitated. And that’s inasmuch as those shows are chronicling individuals doing things I can’t (or won’t) do.

For example, Top Chef. I’ve worked in the restaurtant business for almost two decades, in both the front- and back-of-the-house. I’m no chef, but I know my way around a kitchen. Basically, I can make food people like, but not necessarily rave about. So, when I watch Top Chef, I’m entertained because I’m watching individuals do something I can’t, something I find extraordinary. To me, that’s interesting.

In contrast, when I view programs like Big Brother, The Real World, or The Real Housewives of Atlanta, all I see are a group of unexceptional individuals supposedly living lives we’re expected to perceive as somehow “real.” But it’s not at all. Just a collection of nitwits trying to outsmart one another while simultaneously positioning themselves for more camera time.

From the little I’ve seen of Big Brother, it’s never failed to confuse me. Besides the participants, none of which I feed redeemable, and the events, few of which aren’t orchestrated, being actual, what the fuck is so real about it? The answer is exactly none of it. Everyone in the house has a motive. The producers stage events that, without prodding, would never come about. All the footage gets edited to death so the true sequence is lost. To me, that’s uninteresting.

What truly sucks about all of this is that I’m apparently squarely in the minority. I’m relatively sure most of us find things capable of bothering us daily. Also, I was under the impression watching television was supposed to be fun and less bothersome than our daily routines.

If I’m wrong about all this, I’ll accept it. But, before you start popping off on how I’m completely wrong about reality television, I need you to answer the following question: If these shows are so enjoyable, why is it every single conversation I’ve ever heard about them is basically a discussion on which character is more annoying and why?

QUOTATION

This is what politics is to me: Somebody tells you all the trees on your street have a disease. One side says give them food and water and everything will be fine. One side says chop them down and burn them so they don’t infect another street. That’s politics. And I’m going, Who says they’re diseased? And how does this sickness manifest itself? And is this outside of a natural cycle? And who said this again? And when were they on the street? But we just have people who shout, “Chop it down and burn it” or “Give it food and water,” and there’s your two choices. Sorry, I’m not a believer. → John Malkovich

TUNE

MewithoutYou is a band from Philadelphia. That’s here. In Pennsylvania. I’ve heard them mentioned from time-to-time, and I think I may have seen the band live once but that might be entirely untrue. In any case, I was recently introduced to the video for “The Fox, The Crow and The Cookie,” and, to put it mildly, it’s pretty fuckin’ great. The song is solid but the whole concept and execution of the video is pretty unique and remarkable.  

CALLIMAUFRY

→ OK, so the whole Tiger Woods car accident thing. I have two questions. (1) Where was Woods going at 2:25am, the morning after Thanksgiving. (2) Why did the wife, after hearing the accident, decide to head out to investigate with a golf club? Woods is going to live to golf another day. He’s fine and that’s great. Truly. Still, everyone’s going to want to discover what really went down. The truth is no one besides Woods and his wife are ever going to know what happened. And, so far, it appears they’re not going to tell. Sadly, for everyone who’s dying to know, it’s bound to become one of those events marked for countless decades of endless speculation. When you’re a billionnaire, you can crash your car and not be expected to give some valid explanation.

→ Rush Limbaugh is America’s most influential conservative. Still, who cares?

→ No post tomorrow. If you’ve a problem with that, you’ll need to get in line behind my good friend Joe Taylor, who I’ve started affectionately calling “Boss-Man.” OK, I only did it once, but I plan on doing it again real soon.

Desde hace más de un año estaba a la espera esta cinta, basada en una de las mejores novelas de J. M. Coetzee. El resultado no es para nada desalentador. Al contrario. Lo único malo de la película es que se presentó en la Cineteca Nacional, plagada de intelectuales del cine –sin serlo– y que muy a su pesar, pocas cosas interesantes pueden decir acerca de la cinematografía mundial; cuando me topo con estos seres que todo critican gratuitamente, extraño las salas populares donde lo único que importa es si la película te divirtió o no.

Desgracia (2008), dirigida por Steve Jacobs y adaptada por Anna Maria Monticelli, es un buen homenaje a la novela de Coetzee. Tanto los escenarios como el ritmo narrativo del filme se mantienen fieles a la progresión dramática que posee la novela. Quizá lo único que eché de menos fueron algunas partes crudas de la obra literaria que la guionista decidió suavizar; aclaro, la tensión que te provoca el buen trabajo de los actores, deja entrever la atinada lectura que tuvo Jacobs de la novela de este autor sudafricano.

Ahora bien, el carácter de la novela no es apto, así como la cinta, para espectadores con problemas morales irresolutos; esto es, simplemente, si son frágiles y proclives a sentirse atacados (por todo mundo), a lo largo de la proyección del filme serán confrontados con la clásica naturaleza humana que, cuando desnuda, resulta deprimente, grosera, racista, hipócrita y, por demás, agresiva. Para quienes, aún así, desean ver una buena cinta, acudan a la Cineteca –les recomiendo ignorar a los intelectuales– y disfruten de una excelente historia puesta en el tiempo. Y si cuentan con buena voluntad, lean el libro…

Consulten la cartelera aquí…

Comingsoon.net has posted the first pictures for Warner Bros. Pictures’ two new comic book adaptation films The Losers and Jonah Hex.

Jonah Hex opens up in theaters nationwide on June 18, 2010 and stars Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men), John Malkovich (Burn After Reading), Megan Fox (Transformers), Will Arnett (Arrested Development) and Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road).

Jonah Hex is about a scarred bounty hunter tracks a voodoo practitioner bent on liberating the South by raising an army of the undead in the Wild West.

The Losers opens in theaters nationwide on April 9, 2010 and stars Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Supernatural), Zoe Saldana (Star Trek), Chris Evans (Fantastic Four), Idris Elba (Obsessed), Columbus Short (Stomp The Yard), Holt McCallany (Alpha Dog), Oscar Jaenada (Che: Part Two), Jason Patric (My Sister’s Keeper) and Peter Macdissi (Six Feet Under).

The Losers is about members of a CIA black ops team root out those who targeted them for assassination after being betrayed and left for dead.

A Warner Bros divulgou a primeira imagem oficial da adaptação dos quadrinhos para o cinema de Jonah Hex, personagem da DC Comics. Veja abaixo Josh Brolin como o desfigurado personagem:

Ficou bem parecido o original e que lembra muito as cicatrizes do Duas Caras de Batman- O Cavaleiro das Trevas. Para melhorar ainda mais o elenco do filme conta com Megan Fox.

A história se passa após a Guerra Civil nos EUA, quando o Sul escravagista, o exército dos Confederados, foi derrotado pelo lado norte abolicionista, os soldados da União. Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) é um desfigurado caçador de recompensas que é contratado para deter um fazendeiro sulista (John Malkovich) que pretender montar um exército para reverter a guerra civil e retornar o poder que tinha antes.

O roteiro é de Mark Neveldine e Brian Taylor (dupla de Adrenalina) e a direção é de Jimmy Hayward (Horton e o Mundo dos Quem).

Jonah Hex chega aos cinemas em 6 de agosto de 2010.

Día de primeras imágenes oficiales, en este caso presentadas por partida doble y cortesía de un mismo responsable, la Warner Bros., quién en ambas cintas adapta un material de la DC Comics, quiénes ante el reinado de la Marvel ha pisado el acelerador en sacar partido del mismo más allá de los personajes de Batman y Superman.

Primero, tenemos la presencia de Josh Brolin como el desfigurado anti-héroe ‘Jonah Hex‘ ; y por otro lado, tenemos al nutrido grupo de protagonistas de ‘The Losers‘.

‘The Losers‘ es la adaptación del cómic creado por Andy Diggle y dibujado por Jock para Vertigo, filial de DC Comics. ‘Los Perdedores’, que es como se le conoce en nuestro país, narra las aventuras de una unidad de Fuerzas Especiales de Estados Unidos formado por Clay, Chucho, Roque, Jemsen, Pooch y Cougar, quiénes se dedican a limpiar todos los trapos sucios del gobierno, hasta que un buen día un supuesto agente de la C.I.A. llamado Max les envía a una misión con la verdadera intención de intentar matarlos… Dados por muertos, estos deciden dejar pasar un tiempo para volver y vengarse de sus antiguos jefes. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Idris Elba, Chris Evans, Columbus Short, Jason Patric, Zoe Saldana y nuestro Oscar Jaenada son los protagonistas de esta esperada producción de la Warner Bros. en rodaje pero que aun carece de fecha de estreno.

‘Jonah Hex‘ se estrenará el próximo 16 de Junio en Estados Unidos, siendo una de las grandes apuestas de la Warner de cara a la temporada estival. Esta adaptación del western creado por el escritor John Albano y el artista Tony DeZuniga creado en 1972, cuenta con un reparto encabezado por Josh Brolin como el personaje central, un desfigurado y amargado ex-oficial confederado que se gana la vida como cazarecompensas y sin miedo a nada ni nadie, y al que acompañan John Malkovich como el villano de la función y la sexy Megan Fox. El argumento de la cinta gira entorno a que, por un lado, Jonah Hex será contratado para dar caza a Quentin Turnbull, mientras que por el otro a él mismo le han puesto precio a su cabeza.

Un punto a favor de Jonah Hex. En esta primera imagen de la producción han logrado alcanzar un factor muy favorable. Hex aterroriza a pesar de ser, supuestamente, el héroe de esta historia. Josh Brolin se mete en la piel de este confederado salido de las páginas de DC, que tendrá que seguir la pista de su mayor enemigo para lograr su propia libertad, aunque todo un ejército de pistoleros se interponga en el camino que le separa de su presa. John Malkovich, Megan Fox, Will Arnett y Michael Shannon forman alrededor de Brolin y bajo el mando de Jimmy Hayward. El polémico dúo Neveldine – Taylor firma el guión.

Land of the Lost | Brad Silberling, 2009

I understand why this movie got so many bad reviews, but I liked it. Yes, it does feel slow for a movie that is less than two hours, and yes, some of the scenes are rather horrible, but I found my self having fun, laughing at some of the lines and situations.

Will Ferrell is just doing his usual schtick; Danny McBride is pretty funny; and Anna Friel is lovely in a severely lacking role. The visual effects and set are intentionally cheesy, and I liked that. The movie captures the feeling of the original show, and just adds some modern humor to it. I had fun, and that was enough for me.

The Great Buck Howard | Sean McGinly, 2009

This movie was surprisingly engaging. After a rather stylish opening sequence, the movie slows down to tell us the story of The Great Buck Howard (John Malkovich), a mentalist who used to be a favorite of Johnny Carson’s but faded away after a while. Now he has been reduced to playing in small towns where his shows do rather great. The story is told through the eyes of Troy (Collin Hanks), a law school drop-out, aspiring writher, and Buck’s assistant.

John Malkovich gives one of my favorites performances of the year here. I just forgot that I was watching him and truly believed he was the character. Hanks holds his own against Malkovich, and Emily Blunt is good as Buck’s PR person. It was constantly funny, heartfelt, and good fun.

The Others | Alejandro Amenabar, 2001

I’ve already said that this is one of the best horror movies of the decade, but I finally had the chance of rewatching it and I loved it as much as I did the first time. Horror movies that rely on atmosphere rahter than gore are rare these days, so it was nice to travel a little bit back in time before J-horror remakes and torture porn began to take over.

Nicole Kidman gives her third-best performance here. She is controlled, and doesn’t over act, even whens she has the chance. The performances from the rest of the cast are also great and creepy. Then there’s the ending. I already knew the twist, but I still could not help but be surprised at how it is revealed. One of the best movies of the decade.

Faire de la veille, c’est comme reconstituer un puzzle.

Il faut tout d’abord rassembler toutes les pièces du puzzle. C’est la collecte d’informations.

Ensuite, il faut remettre les pièces bout à bout, afin qu’apparaisse l’image. C’est l’analyse de l’information.

Enfin, il ne reste plus qu’à photographier le puzzle terminé pour envoyer la photo à un ami. C’est la transmission de l’information.

Grâce  à Internet, il est possible de tout comprendre, à condition d’effectuer ces trois phases.

Quiconque peut ainsi reconstituer la stratégie d’une entreprise grâce aux informations disponibles sur Internet.

La preuve avec la société Nespresso :

[embed]http://[/embed]

Per certi versi richiama alla memoria la fortunata serie di spot Lavazza con Paolo Bonolis, Luca Laurenti e… San Pietro. Però volete mettere il confronto con George Clooney e John Malkovich? Quest’ultimo, in veste divina, regala al primo una seconda chance di vita – il povero George è stato ucciso da un pianoforte caduto chissà come dall’alto – in cambio di… una macchina Nespresso!
Molto divertente. La campagna è firmata McCann-Erickson.

The Apprentice

Nic Cage takes a ride with a bunch of convicts featuring Dave Chapelle, yeah this is a movie.

When the government puts all its rotten criminal eggs in one airborne basket, it’s asking for trouble. Before you can say, “Pass the barf bag,” the crooks control the plane, led by creepy Cyrus “The Virus” Grissom (John Malkovich). Watching his every move is the just-released Nicolas Cage, who’d rather reunite with his family. John Cusack plays the creator of the plane and stands by as his whole dream turns into a nightmare.

Con Air combines elements from many other films such as Airplane!, The Rock, The Dirty Dozen, and a little bit of Silence Of The Lambs. Now all of this may seem like a weird combination for a film, but it turns out to be one of my favorite action films of all-time.

First of all, the great thing about Con Air is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously. Scott Rosenberg’s ultra macho script knows it is having a lot of fun with the writing, and it brings in a lot of good laughs. The tongue-in-cheek approach that this film had never really dies out, cause although some of the lines may be cheesy, they are still hilarious and well worth it.

The action that takes place in this film isn’t so bad either. I liked how it was fun but it wasn’t non stop to the point of where there’s no room for a story to take place. The things that happen in this film seem very believable and the action is never too dumb to where its unbelievable.

The only problem I really had with this film was that it was working out really well by the end, and it loses itself in a routine explosive third act. Yeas, it was very good and fun to look at, but it just didn’t seem like it was needed for this film. I liked how the action took place in that scene, but when it was all said and done I felt like everything else sort of was lost cause of it.

The acting in this film is pretty good but mostly from Malkovich. He plays this slick, witty, and actually pretty smart villain that you want to hate cause he’s so crazy, but you can’t help but to love cause of his amazing apporach to the lines and the events that happen. Cage, I thought could have done a lot better, but his accent by the end just got really annoying for me, and by the end I just couldn’t stand it. Steve Buscemi plays a little side character in this film that is really funny, and by the end of the film, he turns out to be the most-liked character from the whole film.

Consensus: Con Air is full of energy and humor, that is fun to be a part of and does hit the right spots every time throughout the movie. Though the ending was a little bit out of hand, the film still holds a great place in my heart.

9/10=Full Priccee!!!

CLICK HERE TO VIEW

At first, Clint Eastwood’s CHANGELING could appear to be following too closely in the footsteps of his earlier Oscar winner, MYSTIC RIVER, since both films center on a missing child. But while his previous film was based on a Dennis Lehane novel, CHANGELING carries a particular weight because it is based on a true story, and one that isn’t largely known. Angelina Jolie stars as Christine Collins, a single mother working in 1928 Los Angeles when her son goes missing. A boy is returned to her months later by the police, but she is shocked and disheartened when she realizes that the boy isn’t her son. Joined by a crusading pastor (John Malkovich), Christine battles for justice against the corrupt L.A.P.D. while she continues to search for her child. Eventually her fight against the cops lands her in a mental hospital, where she is surrounded by others with a similar plight. At times, CHANGELING is incredibly difficult to watch. Jolie gives an authentic, anguished performance, and the on-screen tragedy is quite disturbing, largely because of its basis in reality. But Eastwood has crafted another Oscar-worthy film that is certainly worth sitting through, even if a tissue or two is required. Screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski had been best known for his work in science fiction (BABYLON FIVE) and graphic novels, but he makes an adept transition to feature drama with this film. Its unusual focus–on the victim and her struggle for justice, rather than on the criminal and the crime–brings further depth to the film. As always, Amy Ryan (an Oscar nominee for GONE BABY GONE) perfectly morphs into her role (this time as a prostitute imprisoned in the mental hospital), and the film’s many child actors are compelling to watch.

Recently I defended Michael Bay (while simultaneously expressing how odious his movies can be), and now I rush to the defense of another man used as a lazy punchline to a billion deeply unfunny jokes about bad cinema: the acting colossus called Nicolas Cage. As with Bay, Cage is treated like a cautionary tale about how that vile, Chthonic monolith called Hollywood can drive people insane with greed, how talented individuals can lose their way and begin a descent from making art to making dross. He is accused of sleepwalking through films, cashing checks, appearing in unworthy crowd-pleasing dreck, and working with anti-cinematic infidels. His personal life is raked over (he keeps impulsively marrying women! He calls his kid a silly name! He buys too much crap!), his eccentricities treated as signs of mental illness, and his success used as example number two in the case against modern culture (example one being the success of Bay). Only Ben Affleck is treated with less respect, a fact that I intend to address in a future post where I defend him too. (I’m serious about that. Affleck is awesome.)

There are millions who seem to love to take a short-cut in thinking and just refer to Cage as a has-been with no understanding of what a joke he has become, though Cage’s most famous critic has been Sean Penn, the former friend who once told the New York Times, “Nic Cage is no longer an actor. He could be again, but now he’s more like a…performer”. This was said around the time that Cage appeared in two Bruckheimer productions — The Rock and Con Air — which seems to be the one thing an artist can do that will sink his credibility. Why did Penn single out Cage for that and not Cage’s co-stars Ed Harris, or Sean Connery, or John Cusack, or John Malkovich? They’re respected actors who have won awards and are considered to be fine actors, but Cage falls into the line of fire for moving from carefully considered character pieces like Leaving Las Vegas to action movies, three of which he did in a row (the third being the classic John Woo SF actioner Face/Off). His wildly broad performances in those movies were almost certainly a factor, but then he has always given broad performances, within which lie subtle moments (see also Wild At Heart, Birdy, Peggy Sue Got Married, etc.). They’re entertaining displays of eye-rolling crowd-pleasing acting pyrotechnics, but there’s a soul there too. This is what I think of as getting The Full-On Cage Experience, with madness and soulfulness tied together. Penn could never pull off anything like that. When he mugs, he ends up wrecking the movie.

By all that’s holy and unholy, how much better was Penn in Milk, or Dead Man Walking (incidentally, that’s one of my favourite screen performances of all time)? It’s not even a fair competition. Besides, this accusation, insinuating that Cage is no longer an actor, is rich coming from someone who appeared in I Am Sam. I’ll take an entertaining and unpretentious actor having fun playing a demonic avenger with a flaming skull than some humourless chide wasting his talent on Oscar-baiting bullshit like that any day of the week. Sadly, Penn’s not the only one who thinks Cage has pissed his talent away. In this little essay, Entertainment Weekly’s Owen Gleiberman compares Cage to Dr. Wesley T. Snipes, which is prescient considering Cage’s current tax woes, but while Snipes has descended into Direct-To-DVD hell, Cage is still working on big-budget movies and smaller curios, still attracting the viewing public, and still cranking out performances that are — at best — thrilling, and — at worst — merely entertaining.

The one argument that genuinely annoys me is the one where Cage is cranking out piss-poor, lazy performances since his last truly astonishing performance in Jonze and Kaufman’s Adaptation. I’ve often said that I think his work in that (along with his work in Leaving Las Vegas and Raising Arizona) deserves a coveted Shades of Caruso Free Pass…

…but of all the movies he has made since, only three performances really disappointed me: his work as Benjamin Gates in the first National Treasure movie, where he seemed awfully tired; his creepy performance in Next, the empty action thriller adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s clever short story; and his catatonic turn as a greasy-haired loser assassin in the disastrous remake of Bangkok Dangerous, which I suspect he took so he could get a holiday in Thailand. That last one really did give me cause for concern, but Gleiberman likes to make out that Cage is regularly signing on for “grade-Z genre schlockers”, which apparently include Ghost Rider and The Wicker Man. Neither of them are good movies, but they were not developed as low-budget cash-ins. Ghost Rider was obviously meant to be a big comic book adaptation, with a pretty good cast and a $110m budget, and even if it was absolutely dire, it was made with love by fans of the character, of which Cage is one.

The Wicker Man is a dumb-ass movie by any standards, but it’s made by Neil LaBute, who was once a promising director. He could have turned in a thoughtless remake of the excellent original (which would fit under Gleiberman’s umbrella of “genre schlocker”) but instead made something personal, for better or worse. For all it’s faults it’s obviously of a part with his other movies, dealing with his favourite themes of misanthropy, deceit, misogyny, fear of opening up to others, and gynophobia. I’ve occasionally argued that The Wicker Man is a satire on male fear of impotence and castration, a paranoid comical fantasy about a scheming cabal of exaggerated feminist ballbreakers who are out to destroy the penis, turning all men into drones and semen-donors whose sexuality is merely a sacrifice of power to the almighty womb in order to replenish the earth with children.

Sadly, even if this was LaBute’s intention — and even if Cage was in on this project for that reason alone — it’s still ridiculous and poorly made and filled with wonderfully camp moments. Cage maintains that the comedic aspects of the movie were not lost on him. In an interview with Spike Jonze, Drew McWeeny discusses meeting Cage, and Jonze is full of praise:

Jonze: I love [Cage]. We had the best time working together. He really works and focuses.
McWeeny: His publicist was a little wary of me being there, I guess, because he doesn’t do a lot of press and he doesn’t allow press around a lot, but he really was very accessible once I’d been there for a few days, and he kind of warmed up to me. And he was really just fascinating. I loved chatting with him about stuff.
Jonze: Totally chill.
McWeeny: Yeah. And I think far more self-aware than most people think. Like I think some people think Nic is in this vacuum and doesn’t realize how crazy some of his performances are. I got the feeling he was totally aware of how people perceive things. We were talking about THE WICKER MAN, and he was like, “How do people call that an unintentional comedy? I’m in a bear suit kicking Lelee Sobieski in the throat. I know it’s funny.”
Jonze: He just takes it so seriously that nobody knows how to take him. Like PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED, I was like, “What is that?” Like I was 15 so I didn’t really know.
McWeeny: I just love how you can always count on him to push things further, like VAMPIRE’S KISS. He ate a roach, man.
Jonze: And also just the insanity of that performance, just the balls-out fearlessness.

Is it enough that Cage is aware of the ridiculousness of the movies he is appearing in? For me it is. I strongly suspect Cage is the most easily bored person in the world, and unfortunately that is paired with the ability to get work in movies that pay millions of dollars for him to spend on cars and comics and castles. Some of the films he has been in lately are truly awful, and I would never argue that they weren’t. Neverthless, I watch them for those flashes of manic commitment from Cage — The Partial Cage Experience — that delight me so. Are they valid acting choices, or is he merely trying to entertain himself while he trudges through formulaic populist bilge? As far as I’m concerned, even if he’s merely trying to entertain himself, he succeeding in entertaining me, and surely that’s what counts.

The only other popular actors that delight me as much are Clooney (who can do pathos and comedy equally well), Streep (who is always the best thing about everything she has ever been in), and maybe Jeff Bridges. Even those fine actors have not given me as much pleasure as Cage does, even when you forget about his early, golden years and concentrate on this bizarre stretch of poor movies. Since Adaptation we’ve had the insanity of Not The Bees…

…a literally hysterical fiery transformation…

…a Shout-Off with Rose Byrne (who is utterly overmatched, despite her invention of the word “chuldren”)…

…a run in with an obnoxious know-it-all child (the best part of which is how he treats the kid like an adult for most of the scene)…

…and a frustrating teaser of what could be his finest hour, if ever Rob Zombie got the money to make it…

His willingness to make fun of himself is the thing that keeps his crazy public and professional persona viable, and though many of his actions seem completely deranged, I honestly believe he’s playing a trick on us. Can someone who makes a series of adverts like these really be unintentionally weird?

(N.B. Anyone who has a sense of humour about themselves gets a break from me. Even the reportedly tyrannical and insensitive director Michael Bay gets points for playing up to his image with this commercial for Verizon:)

I’m a fully paid up Cage fan. For entertainment value, he can’t be beat. To see a person with such intelligence, quirkiness, restlessness, fearlessness, and energy do his thing in such big-screen movies is a rare thrill. If I squint I can see why Cage is now considered a hack by critics and film-watchers, because it’s easy to confuse being in a terrible movie and actually being terrible, but I worry that maybe people are also turned off by his intensity and his allegiance to the weird. The odd soporific performance aside, perhaps what baffles people the most is seeing him devote so much energy to projects that they feel don’t deserve it. Personally, I think that’s admirable. He’s getting paid enough, after all. Dance, you fucking monkey! Dance for your millions!

And yet even though I revel in his passionate and unpredictable work in crud, I’ve become concerned that we would never get another performance out of Cage that is as electrifying as his best work (disclaimer: I’ve not seen Lord of War or The Weather Man, and some have said he gives solid, rounded performances in both). Once upon a time he would work with Lynch and Scorsese, and the performances he gave were over-the-top yet grounded in some kind of emotional profundity, but lately those performances — while entertaining, memorable, and stronger than popular wisdom would have you believe — are lacking that extra fire. Well, I’m happy to report the return of The Full-On Cage Experience, as he takes on the task of being the 21st Century Klaus Kinski. More on that tomorrow, when I review Werner Herzog’s excellent Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.

Burn After Reading – A prova di spia è un film del 2008 scritto, prodotto e diretto da Joel ed Ethan Coen. Il film è interpretato da George Clooney, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Richard Jenkins e Brad Pitt.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Ethan Coen | Joel Coen | Brad Pitt | George Clooney | John Malkovich | Tilda Swinton

tnx albeenah

Título: Quemar después de leer
Título original: Burn after reading
País: USA
Estreno en USA: 12/09/2008
Estreno en España: 10/10/2008
Productora: Working Title Films
Director: Joel Coen y Ethan Coen
Guión: Joel Coen y Ethan Coen
Reparto: George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Brad Pitt

Sinopsis:

El analista Osborne Cox llega al cuartel general de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) en Arlington, Virginia, para una reunión ultrasecreta. Por desgracia para él, el secreto no tarda en salir a la luz: le han despedido. Cox no encaja muy bien la noticia y regresa a su casa en Georgetown, Washington DC, para entregarse a la redacción de sus memorias y a la bebida, el orden no altera el producto. Su esposa Katie está consternada, aunque no parece muy sorprendida. Ya hace tiempo que tiene una aventura con Harry Pfarrer, un agente federal casado, y empieza a hacer planes para dejar a Cox por Harry. En un barrio a las afueras de la capital, en un mundo totalmente diferente, Linda Litzke, empleada de Hardbodies Fitness Centers (Gimnasios Cuerpos Duros), tiene dificultad para concentrarse en su trabajo. Sólo piensa en hacerse la cirugía plástica total y decide confiar su plan a su compañero Chad. Linda no se da cuenta de que Ted Treffon, el director del centro, está loco por ella. Cuando un disco de las memorias del analista de la CIA llega accidentalmente a manos de Linda y Chad, los dos deciden sacar provecho de esta casualidad. Pero Ted se preocupa con razón: “No puede salir nada bueno de esto”. Los acontecimientos se precipitan en una serie de oscuros e hilarantes encuentros fortuitos.

Opinión:

A los Coen les encanta este tipo de personajes. Exagerados e imbéciles. Tan idiotas que son fácil objeto de burla. El problema es que aquí han dado en hueso. En su intento de ridiculizar a los servicios de inteligencia, les ha salido una película confusa, en el que la trama no avanza y los personajes van y vienen o aparecen y desaparecen sin ningún sentido. Y para colmo el largometraje no es tan divertido como otros de su filmografia.

Litros y litros de laca

Pena, porque el reparto es de los de aúpa, destacando sobremanera un estupendo Brad Pitt, de lo mejor de la película, en un papel de bobo adorable que clava a la perfección. Por contra, ni George Clooney ni John Malkovich están a la altura. Sobreactuando y siendo demasiado gesticulantes para mi gusto en esta comedia coral y esperpentica, pero muy desigual en sus resultados.

¿¿Comorrrr??

Y ese es el problema fundamental, que el film te deja la sensación de que había podido ser mucho mejor de lo que es. Esperemos que para la próxima ocasión, los Coen nos ofrezcan algo mejor.

Puntuación:

5 / 10

En jawel, Nespresso springt mee op de virale kar: een nieuwe spot waarin jij zelf het einde bepaalt. Met in de hoofdrol uiteraard de charmante George Clooney maar ook de iets minder charmante John Malkovich.

De minisite is natuurlijk compleet met Facebook Connect en een link naar de Nespresso Facebook fanpage (met 100 000 fans) waar je nog exclusieve content vind.

http://www.nespresso-whatelse.com/

If you’ll excluse me now, I’m going to get a coffee. Nespresso. What else?

Client: Nespresso

Agency: McCann Paris

VERDICT:
3/10 Epic Fails

What a bastardized and unnecessary movie this was.

Beowulf is about a warrior of epic proportions that moseys on over to a small town in Denmark to take out Grendel – a hideous monster that’s been terrorizing the said town and eating folks up because they’re all boozehounds and party too hard for Grendel’s liking. The Wulfmeister also has to fight Grendel’s mother, and then he has to fight a freakin’ dragon, but that’s about it.

Thought I would go ahead and give this one a write-up what with A Christmas Carol coming out this weekend (aka: Robert Zemeckis’ second journey into the…THE THIRD DIMENSION!) I’ve got a lot of problems with this movie, but how am I supposed to forgive the catalyst that re-ignited this ridiculous 3-D movie craze that somehow went from dumb as hell to cool as Fonzie without anyone batting an eye to it. Am I the only one who thinks that this is gonna be more fodder for the next episode of I Love The New Millennium on VH1? 

Who cares if it looks like that spear is gonna poke you in the eye. Go outside, real life is in 3-D. Why has this become a selling point? What a joke.

Anyway, this movie is based off the Old English poem of the same name, a poem which happens to be very badass. Granted, it’s a tough story to adapt, but harder things have been done in movies. My point being that I don’t know what compelled Zemeckis to animate this movie of all things, but it doesn’t work. Everything that was cool and epic about the source material, from the characters to the action, just ends up feeling they way it looks – cartoonish. With real people, I’m confident this could have had the potential to be something else, something like a mix between Braveheart and The Lord of the Rings. But alas, Zemeckis didn’t get the memo that just because people liked The Polar Express doesn’t mean you can animate any damn thing you want.

Just a bad call that makes the finished product seem unfortunately childish. The overtly-epic dialogue really doesn’t help either. Tone it down there, Rob.

It’s too bad because there’s a slew of great actors doing the voice acting here. Ray Winstone, John Malkovich, Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie (not so great), and Robin Wright Penn (sure, why not) all contribute their vocals, and even though I have no idea how to judge whether someone’s got a good voice or not, I guess that’s a draw to some. 

Another big WTF moment was Jolie as Grendel’s mother. Go ahead, click on that link. What the hell is that about? That sure isn’t what she looks like and what goes down between her and Wulfie definitely doesn’t happen in the poem. Who wants to see a near-naked, animated Angelina Jolie? Man, shaking my head as I write this.

Grendel also looks nothing like I had imagined him being from the poem. He looks like a mutant man-child, like The Elephant Man mixed with The Hulk…after falling into a vat of battery acid. Not terrifying, just gross.

The thing with Beowulf is that it seemingly completely disregards everything about the source material that didn’t involve Beowulf killing things along with anything that might lead its audience to believe there’s any kind of depth to be found here. Being a big fan of the poem, it deserved a much better treatment than the one it got. It’s just eye candy and nothing more, and that’s a damn shame.

I have no idea if the same is going to be true for A Christmas Carol, but whatever, I’ll give Zemeckis the benefit of the doubt this one time. Go back to making movies with real people already, you’re the guy who did Forrest Gump for chrissakes! What happened, man?

POKER DE FOTOGRAMAS (III)

Texto de Ricard Aumedes para 39escalones.

Rounders se estrenó el 11 de septiembre de 1998 en 2.176 salas de cine, recaudó 8,5 millones de dólares durante su primer fin de semana y posteriormente 22,9 millones de dólares en Estados Unidos. El crítico de cine Roger Ebert le dio a la película 3 de 4 estrellas y su opinión en el New York Times fue, “Rounders a veces tiene un aspecto negro pero nunca tiene un sentido negro porque no trata sobre los perdedores (o al menos no lo admite). Básicamente se trata una fotografía de deportes, en la que gana el héroe de talento, se enfrenta a casos de desastre y luego se empareja una vez más contra el campeón”.

A pesar de un estreno en cines anodina, Rounders ha pasado a ser un clásico de culto, especialmente entre los entusiastas del poker. Algunas personas dicen que la película es la responsable directa del reciente aumento de la popularidad del juego de poker Texas hold’em; sin embargo, para otras, el aumento sustancial en la popularidad de esta modalidad de poker no tiene nada que ver con la película; sin embargo, años después de su estreno, es más que relevante la coincidencia entre ese aumento y el éxito de la película. De ahí que se comente que Rounders es la mejor película de poker que jamás se ha realizado.

Rounders empieza con un joven estudiante de derecho, Mike McDermott (Matt Damon), que pierde todo su dinero (30.000 dolares) en una partida de poker Texas hold’em contra Teddy “KGB” (John Malkovich), un mafioso ruso que dirige una sala de poker ilegal que Mike suele frecuentar. Aturdido por la pérdida decide concentrarse en sus estudios y le hace la promesa a su novia (Gretchen Mol) de no volver a jugar al poker nunca más. Knish (John Turturro) se ofrece para financiar a Mike después de haber visto como perdía todo su dinero contra Teddy. Mike decide aceptar un trabajo a tiempo parcial conduciendo un camión de reparto de Knish. Las cosas para Mike darán un vuelco enorme cuando su mejor amigo “Gusano” Murphy (Edward Norton) sale de la cárcel y vuelve a llevarle por el camino de las mesas de juego. Mike, entusiasta del poker, decide volver a jugar para ayudar a Gusano a pagar todas las deudas que tiene pendientes, pero a consecuencia de ello pierde a su novia, ya que ella se convence de que no podrá dejar de jugar nunca. En el transcurso de la película se suceden infinidad de acontecimientos que llevarán a Mike a jugar en la serie mundial de poker.

Esta historia ambientada en los juegos de azar, sobre todo en el poker Texas hold’em, da una visión general de cómo se vive en un entorno de mafiosos, deudas y juego que permanece vigente igualmente hoy en día allí donde existen cirtuitos de poker ilegal. El argumento cinematográfico centrado en el poker le proporciona al espectador los atractivos ingredientes habituales, tensión entre los jugadores, el duelo de miradas y nervios, las estrategias de juego, el suspense del farol, la incertidumbre por el desenlace de las partidas, etc., aunque como siempre conlleva el inconveniente de la pérdida de efectividad de la emoción y el suspense en posteriores visionados. En el caso de Rounders se compensa este déficit con la excelente construcción del guión, que contiene diálogos brillantes, y las buenas interpretaciones de unos personajes de fuerza y carácter especialmente difíciles, que hacen que las relaciones personales de animadversión, amistad y amor entre los personajes tengan mayor peso e importancia que el final de cada mano disputada en el juego. La escenografía que recrea las atmósferas propias de los ambientes y lugares clandestinos es realmente creíble y muy cercana al cine clásico, ámbito preferente del director John Dahl.

Es posible que la película no sea del agrado del espectador al que no le guste el juego y mucho menos el mundo de los profesionales del poker. Si por el contrario le interesa no sólo la estrategia, la psicología y las probabilidades del juego, sino también participar en él de vez en cuando, es probable que se sienta inspirado por esta película. Recientemente, al calor del inesperado éxito del poker online, se ha comercializado una edición para coleccionistas en DVD con unos estupendos extras que incluyen comentarios del propio director y los protagonistas principales, además de comentarios de jugadores profesionales en el poker Texas hold’em.

Post realizado con la colaboración de pokerlistings, una de las mejores páginas de poker online

CLICK FOR TRAILER

What?

Cameron Poe is a highly decorated military officer who is sent to prison because of killing a man while defending his wife. Seven years later, he is granted a parole. He is put on a plane with many other convicts. Everything looks smooth until one of the convicts, Cyrus “The Virus” Grissom breaks out of his restraints and takes control of the plane. The D.E.A quickly learns of the event and plans on shooting the plane down, but U.S. Marshall Vince Larkin sees Poe as an ally and tries to work with him before his superiors shoot down the plane.

Where?

At home.

With?

The girlfriend.

Why?

I don’t actually recall having seen Con Air since I rented it on its release to video (remember those?) and with Nicholas Cage’s career becoming more and more mental with every release, I figured now was as good a time as any to relive the days when he was tipped to be the next Sly Stallone of the action world.

Worth It?

I’m struggling to figure out what was funniest about this movie:

A) Nic Cage’s hair.

B) Dave Chappelle being one of the convicts.

C) The fact that Cage’s character doesn’t have a single full conversation during the entire movie, every word that comes out of his mouth is designed to be in a trailer.

D) One menacing character is called “Billy Bedlam”

E) How despite all of this, it’s still such a massively fun movie to watch.

In summary: Absolutely retarded in the best possible way. Not quite as good as The Rock mind…well…what I remember of The Rock. Watch this space…

7/10

Disgrace, 2008, de Steve Jacobs