MovieChat Forums > mattjoes > Replies
mattjoes's Replies
And now Christopher Plummer will replace Kevin Spacey as J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's All the Money in the World, one month before the film's release, which won't be postponed.
[url]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christopher-plummer-replace-kevin-spacey-all-money-world-1056450[/url]
Has something like this [i]ever[/i] happened before?
(CONT'D) Regarding those who keep quiet about the abusers, the fact is that for the sake of succeeding, they are willing look the other way, and they also are probably indoctrinated to regard Hollywood as a closed society; its own world, that plays by its own rules, that have to be accepted to harbor a hope of joining in.
At any rate, it's good to see these things being exposed. They do have the effect of contributing to the demystification of Hollywood, but that was happening already, with movie stars today presenting a more down-to-earth, approachable image. Still, there is a certain magic to the process of moviemaking that I can't imagine going away, and the magic of the films themselves will not disappear.
Oh, and I love K-PAX. I'll continue to watch it. For the reasons, I'll quote Columbo:
"Even with some of the murderers that I meet, I even like them too. Sometimes, like 'em and even 'em respect them, not for what they did, certainly not for that, but for that part of them which is intelligent, funny or just nice, because there is niceness in everyone."
There is no excuse for Spacey's behavior and I condemn it, but I acknowledge there is a creative side to him, the good side, and that I appreciate.
As sad and revolting as this may be, it's fascinating to see it come to light in such an open way. It's not being relegated to rumor or gossip; instead, it's being widely discussed, and has had concrete repercussions in the film and TV projects Kevin Spacey is involved in. The same with Weinstein and his expulsion from his company, from guilds and associations and with the withdrawal of medals and other honors. Heavy stuff. With all the consequences it's had for the abusers and harrasers, and will all the actors that have spoken very passionately about it, it feels like some sort of volcanic eruption, as if many people had wanted to talk about this for a long time, but hadn't been able to or willing to. It will be very interesting to see what long-term effect these events will have on Hollywood... will this "cleansing" continue? Weinstein, Brett Ratner, Spacey, Dustin Hoffman... who's next? Will people now always be willing to publicly denounce those who harass them? Will AMPAS or any of the guilds provide more effective means for their members to do so?
This situation is reflective of a problem which is not exclusive to Hollywood, but can also be found in the political arena and probably in plenty of other situations in which there are many people trying to reach very few positions of "power". It has do both with the abusers and those who keep quiet about them. A part of what leads to abuse is that some of the people who are trying to get ahead begin to to look at others not so much as people, but as means to an end. They dehumanize others, and that's when they begin to harass and abuse others. Also, these people probably feel some sense of entitlement; they think they are special, and thus feel they can do whatever they want. (...)
One last thing: I suspect American Made is a film that Cruise --like other huge movie stars-- could've in fact done at his peak; it's just it would've been one of those comparatively smaller pictures these big stars sometimes do to relax and take a break between bigger, heavier projects. Even someone like Clint Eastwood had them. What I mean is, in and of itself, the film is not representative of a downward turn in Cruise's career. To visualize that, you have to look at the whole picture, at the trend his career has followed in recent years.
(Having said that, Cruise's career today is, of course, fairly remarkable still, especially with him having been around for so long.)
(CONT'D) for his career longevity, considering he's getting older (even though he looks youthful). But as you hinted at, what he needs the most is to make a really important film. He has to work with Scorsese, Nolan, PTA, whoever, and make something that gets some great critical attention. He used to make films like that, but I think by his own words, it has been harder to do so in recent years, which is why he has stuck to action.
You don't really think he's going straight to video, do you? If things don't change for him, in a few years, I can see him making one of those TV series with big stars that are in vogue these days, to shake things up, and eventually, I can see him going down the Robert Redford route, carving a corner for himself and making smaller, but classy films that don't hurt his reputation. That's not bad at all. Things CAN change for him if he gets to make a film with a BIG director once again. I don't think that's too likely, but it's not completely unlikely either. At any rate, Cruise has grown into a really enjoyable onscreen presence, and I hope he sticks around.
I came back from watching American Made a few hours ago. I actually appreciate the fact Cruise isn't made out to be unlikeable, as that ensures the film doesn't get too serious or dramatic. Instead, the movie maintains a sense of fun, being mostly about the "what happened" and not the "why". In this era in which plenty of commercial films aim for some amount of heavy drama, I find that refreshing. Instead of drama, what the movie gives us is a bit of light satire, with all the characters in the movie --Barry Seal, his wife, her brother, the CIA agent, the Colombian drug dealers, the etc.-- being presented as clueless or opportunistic, but not in such a way that you really hate them; they're just a bunch of people out to make money or further their careers, who get involved in these convoluted, almost comical entanglements with multiple government departments. The only part where, by necessity, the movie gets a bit heavier is at the end, but not too much either (I rather like the [spoiler]image of the VHS tape freezing and fading into white when Seal is murdered, and right as he was praising America and the American Dream. A brief and satisfying bit of commentary on what these people did; all the movie really needs.[/spoiler]) Apart from that, American Made is just a fun time at the movies (I feel compelled to call it "old-fashioned" as well-- not in a bad way), a good film, and Cruise is pretty damn good in it, with his movie star charisma keeping things afloat.
I agree that American Made doesn't feel too important as a film. In part that's because of its light, uncomplicated tone, but that doesn't make it a bad film at all. The other factors that make it feel a bit inconsequential have to do with the current state of the film industry and Cruise's star value. At any rate, a year ago, when I read he was making this, it was exciting to know he was going to do something outside the action genre. I'm happy he did it, as he needs to keep one foot outside the action arena, (CONTINUES...)
I don't think the talk show "set" is in his mind. It seems feasible to me that, being so passionate about the whole thing, Pupkin took the time to decorate his basement in the way it's presented on the screen. However, the mural and the hallway, in their appearance and size, seems physically incongruent with the rest of the basement, and disconnected from it. Also, in the mural scene, we hear the audience, a subjective touch that is absent from the scene with the cardboard cutouts, in which Pupkin also imagines things but we don't hear them or see them. To me, that further emphasizes the difference between these scenes and the fact the mural is in his head but the talk show set is not.
He was trying to reach the steering wheel in the back of the truck, to drive the rear wheels in such a way the cops were kept at bay.
Thanks very much!
Roger, my childhood (and adulthood) hero! You'll live in our hearts!
[quote]Its perhaps "the expected curmudgeon" of me to mourn the LOSS of a "Movie of the Year." It seems like there was a time when we knew what they were : The Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars. They were called "blockbusters," and while today ANY given summer has a LOT of blockbusters(movies that can gross 500 million to a billiion worldwide)...today's blockbusters are rather preordained. Supes, Bats, Spidey, The Avengers. Its all rather expected and as on time as a subway train.[/quote]
Yes! I was watching Tootsie some months ago, and while I didn't particularly care for it, I enjoyed reading afterwards it was the second highest-grossing film in the US in 1982. A romantic comedy. A. Romantic. Comedy. As I said, not crazy about it, but I relished the thought of a film of that genre being in the collective consciousness for a couple of months. And to think the year before, On Golden Pond, a film in which both stars were in their seventies, also held second place.
I just had a look at the lists of highest-grossers from 2010 to date. Mostly sci-fi, fantasy and animated films. There's nothing wrong with those genres, but more variety in the big blockbuster arena would be good!
Realism aside, this was a great scene. One could feel the physical struggle between the characters. It reminded me of that farm scene in Torn Curtain, in how it portrayed physical resilience.
(Continued.) On the other hand, looking at the movie as a romantic film, the overly simple solution to the mystery seems to make slightly more sense. The means by which the identity of the killer is discovered are not necessarily relevant to the relationship between the main characters, and its development. What's more important is, first, the fact that the woman could be the killer, and later, that the killer is, in fact, the ex-husband of the woman.
I think the ending is justified to a fairly reasonable extent when taking into account the crossing of genres of the film. It almost seems like a statement: this is not a straight police thriller. It works, and I like it. Despite this, for me, there remains a very slight tinge of weakness in the resolution of the story, from the thriller standpoint. The unconventional nature of the story seems to almost validate this ending, however.
Do you think solving the mystery like this was intentional, and does it feel like it was? Was it a reflection of the crossing of genres? At any rate, do you feel it works?
On Martin Brest:
Going in Style did earn him good notices. After that, he was slated to direct WarGames, but was replaced by John Badham (two weeks into filming, I think). Brest had been aiming for a tone that was deemed too serious by the powers that be. Nevertheless, he did have a crucial role in the making of the film, since he oversaw preproduction and casting (which is, may I say, terrific, with Broderick and Sheedy supported splendidly by John Wood, Dabney Coleman and Barry Corbin, among others).
He bounced back, of course, with Beverly Hills Cop, a seminal film in the action-comedy genre. It's interesting to compare it to Eddie Murphy's own 48 Hrs., released two years before: while the latter has comedic elements, it still feels mostly like a straightforward thriller (a Walter Hill movie, after all), whereas the former was clearly aiming to milk Murphy's persona as much as possible.
Brest was responsible for pushing for the casting of Charles Grodin in Midnight Run, another great coup, especially since he had to oppose the likes of Robin Williams and Cher. De Niro and him have wonderful chemistry, but even today it seems like an unlikely pairing, at least in concept-- the chemistry is not readily apparent, not until you see them together. But it really works, and the mere fact Grodin's talent and presence were put to such good use, with him being an unlikely candidate for the role, adds to the satisfaction of watching him and De Niro together. One of Grodin's best roles, and it allowed his career to continue at a reasonably good level in the next decade, until his retirement. The tone of the film is perfectly judged: it's funny, but it never allows you to forget for long the threat these characters are under. Wonderfully cast, down to the smallest role, and the script itself is marvellous: not a wasted line, and all the characters running around are utilized appropriately, coming in and out of the picture at the right moments.
Meet Joe Black is a fine film, in my view. I've had to opportunity to watch it several times over the years, and every time it's more engaging. A movie can be slow paced and fail to hold one's attention, or it can achieve that perfect rhythm that keeps one watching in a sort of hypnotic state. This one is the latter. It's kind of ridiculous to think it's three hours long, but it truly doesn't feel like it when you watch it. In its day, it made plenty of money, but contrasted with its budget, not enough. Still, in hindsight, it's interesting to think a near art film like it made such substantial dough.
I haven't seen 79's Going in Style, but from the clips I remember watching online, it seemed like a fairly serene, quiet, thoughtful and emotive film. Like Meet Joe Black, in fact. So it's interesting to contrast these films with others like Beverly Hills Cop and Midnight Run. On the surface, they seem so different. But I think the clearest connecting element between them is that great attention and care seems to go toward the characters. There are no caricatures. I think of Marvin in Midnight Run. At first he seems like a cartoon villain, but even he is humanized at several moments in the film. One can understand his motivations, and feel for him.
Gigli may have been a complete and utter bomb, critically and financially, but no film kills a director's career when he's reached that comparatively high level of success. Martin Brest doesn't work today because he doesn't want to work. From interviews and articles, I gather he just cared too much about his work to expose himself again to that sort of failure. In fact, I remember reading he was preparing for a crane shot in Beverly Hills Cop, and took the time to get off the crane solely to adjust Judge Reinhold's tie to his liking. Anthony Hopkins said something about him to the same effect. But he was liked, by Hopkins and others. In fact, Pacino appeared in Gigli as a favor to him. His crew on Midnight Run did walk out on him, as I recall, but I think that was because of his tenacity, rather because of any overly dictatorial or overbearing traits. From what I've seen of his work, I like Brest's artistic sensibilities: mainstream, but not generic. I hope he comes back some day.
I'm going to watch Going in Style and revisit Scent of a Woman one of these days (I can't recall much about it, to be honest). The latter will tie nicely with Pacino's Sea of Love, which I'm halfway through!
I haven't seen this, but I have seen Peter Falk in his guest appearance on The Untouchables, playing a gangster. He knew how to play a ruthless guy. And that's precisely why he was so good as Columbo: because the Lieutenant is, himself, ruthless. Behind the politeness and absent-mindedness, one just knows he won't stop at anything to catch the murderer. That's why those few occasions on which he explodes are so gratifying. His façade is broken, his intensity exposed.
There's something irreverent about that "Academy Award (R) Winner CHARLIZE THERON" credit. Mentioning her Oscar win in a film unlikely to win an Oscar.
((I saw the first few Seagals for the same relaxation I saw Commando. Seagal's deal was that no opponent really much could keep up with him, these were one-sided fights.))
That was his bit, and it definitely had some appeal, even though it teetered on the brink of being grating. As I said, I feel he was at his best when directed by someone like Andrew Davis. In something like On Deadly Ground, where he had total control, the results were highly silly. In all fairness, though, that has its own weird charm, in its excessive self-indulgence.
((In real life, a terrible ego. And eventually weight gain that doesn't cut it for action. Oh, well. He had HIS day.))))
Nowadays, with Seagal's weight gain and lack of interest, I think it's even gotten to the point where, in one of his recent films, he fights someone while --sitting down--.
((And Van Damme has done some serious indie work.))
In 2008's JCVD, especially. He also made an indie comedy, Welcome to the Jungle, I think it's called. And now he's going to star in Jean-Claude Van Johnson, an Amazon show in which he parodies himself and action movies. It's produced by Ridley Scott's Scott Free Productions. So, definitely doing better than Seagal, who doesn't seem to care enough to make any effort to get himself out of the DTV rut.
((Point of fact: Sly, Arnold, Bruce, Van Damme, Norris, and others made hay with that "Expendables" franchise. I gotta admit it got pretty fun when Harrison Ford and Mel Gibson showed up, too. The "has been" aspect was tough to take, but they all still had some star power; great to see them share some scenes. Oddly, Jason Statham registered as the NON has been in the movies, the one star of "now."))
I do feel Ford and Gibson glided elegantly over the whole thing, Ford by making a very brief appearance, and Gibson by dominating the film with his villain role (sort of doing it a favor by elevating it with his presence). Also, with their appearances being one-time only, the "has been" quotient felt relatively low. As for the others, Sly and Statham excepted, the more substantial the role, the higher the "has been" quotient.
((Yes. Very similar scores. And yet, by the time we reach Titanic and Perfect Storm...that sound is completely gone.))
He moved with the times. Without being too knowledgeable of Horner's work, I'd say 48 Hrs., Gorky Park and Commando all have a similar, specific sound, very 80s, most prominently in its synth percussion.
((I hear strains of "The Perfect Storm" in Horner's (partial) final score for The Magnificent Seven last year. Horner died in a plane crash right before production began, but had written the score on paper; another composer finished it up and got it conducted. ))
I think it's generally agreed upon that Horner is very self-referential. As I said, I'm no expert on him, but I do recall in The Magnificent Seven there was a distinctive, slightly sinister trumpet phrase, heard over a shot halfway through the film, when the seven-in-progress are riding through an open field. A phrase much like it is heard in Avatar, when the big tree is destroyed. Also, in Avatar, while the colonel is escaping a ship that's about the explode, there is a snare-and-strings section that sounds like it was taken straight from Aliens.
((Well, come to think of it with Arnold, who WOULD be [physically matched]? Perhaps one of his muscleman buddies --the ones who got to play baddies in Conan the Barbarian?))
This is very true. More on the subject below.
((I think folks forget that Arnold ran for Governor only after his career had run out of a lot of steam. Simply put, his budgets were shrinking back down and he was being sent backwards from True Lies to things like "Collateral Damage." (He was also removed from Planet of the Apes and I Am Legend, replaced with Wahlberg and Smith.) Arnold's rise to fame and making of money could never be taken away from him but...it was pretty much over. So he switched to politics and...I think...a NEW con job.))
Yeah, on further analysis, you're right about this. In fact, I think after Eraser, Arnold started taking some unusual roles for him, possibly to branch out a bit, but more likely to keep himself fresh and relevant:
-BATMAN & ROBIN: For the first time since he hit it big, he did not play the leading role. Instead, he was the villain. He was mostly typical Arnold, but nevertheless, a step in another direction.
-END OF DAYS: This project was originally intended for Tom Cruise, but I think Arnold was more logical casting, or at least, when he joined, he made sure it would be. After armies and aliens were no match for him, what else was left for him to battle but the Devil himself? Also, it was interesting to see him playing a depressed, drunk, suicidal character. This was Arnold both subverting his persona and taking it to its limits. I like this film a lot for that reason, by the way, barring some plot inconsistencies.
-COLLATERAL DAMAGE: Unlike Arnold's previous films, this one tried to take the subject of terrorism much more seriously. One can see Arnold was trying to keep up with the times. Once again, he was playing a character stricken by tragedy.
In the noughties, Terminator 3 was a big hit, but a retread. Collateral Damage didn't recoup its budget, and The 6th Day barely did. So as you explain, after returns started to diminish, he must've decided it was time to jump into politics. And I imagine he wouldn't have looked back had he been more successful at them.
((The best Van Damme movie is "Sudden Death," I think -- "Die Hard in a Hockey Arena," but well-crafted by veteran action director Peter Hyams.))
From what I've seen, I'd be inclined to agree. Watched it not too long ago. The film holds one's attention and, by design, the story is cleverly intertwined with the progress of the hockey match, which, in terms of narrative structure, is both gratifying and makes perfect sense. There are at least two bits I remember (at the end of successive hockey periods) in which the film crosscuts between different characters doing different things in different places (Van Damme trying to defuse a bomb, the bad guy about to set it off remotely, etc.). I felt the picture really came together in those moments. Hyams, in general, is no slouch.
Another candidate for the best Van Damme film would be Hard Target, which has a clever premise and John Woo's stylish direction.
((Well, Stallone started with Rocky. All heart plus some righteous violence when provoked. Then he wandered for a few years and then the first two Rambos took Sly in another - emotional -- direction. He got a bit too serious -- and Arnold started mocking him for that in interviews.))
Furthermore, it's easy to forget that, for a while, Stallone was a serious actor, and not just in Rocky. FIST, Paradise Alley, Victory... even Nighthawks. His recent Oscar nomination seems to have regained him some clout as serious filmmaker/actor, and he'll be directing and starring in a film for Fox, about a wounded war veteran returning home. Adam Driver will co-star.
((I can see that. Seagal's career was fascinating: he was the martial arts instructor of Hollywood superagent Mike Ovitz. Ovitz told Seagal: "I'm going to make a star out of you." And he did. It lasted almost 10 years, as I recall.))
That was an unusual occurrence, wasn't it? Seagal might've trained Sean Connery in the martial arts, but in terms of film work, he basically came out of nowhere, and got the lead role in a studio film. Ovitz sure had clout. Ovitz must've adviced Seagal on how to build a mystique around him, with those exaggerated stories of his past: working for the government, diving with the Navy SEALS, his life in Japan...
Anyway, when reigned in by a good director, such as Andrew Davis, and surrounded with a good cast and story, Seagal could make for a competent leading man. I do imagine, however, it must've taken days of intense talks for him to agree to the knife slash above the eyebrow Tommy Lee Jones gives him in Under Siege!
((What I love about that is how right after the daughter is kidnapped, one henchman explains the plan to Arnold ,and how Arnold has to go with him or the girl dies, and Arnold simply says "Wrong" and shoots the guy. From the START, Arnold isn't going along with anything.))
Hilarious!
Clearly Matt Damon had something to do with this. And the falling piece of set decoration that almost hit Kimmel in rehearsal.