Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Randomness: Sorcerers, Pesci, Garfield

Three things that amused me in the past 48 hours.

1. Message received from my friend txtcritic whilst under the influence of Love Ranch
Man, this Joe Pesci has RANGE.
2. E-mail received from reader Yonatan.
It may surprise you but after seeing the movie, I can safely predict that The Sorcerer's Apprentice won't be nominated for an Oscar.
Ah, sweet sarcasm. Times two.

3. Various comments /articles about the "pennies" Andrew Garfield is making for that Untitled Spider-Man Reboot (2012). The hyperbole/perspective distortion amuses in a gallows humor sort of way in this era of double digit unemployment. I understand that it's not Nicolas Cage millions but from the vantage point of this perpetually poor writer $500,000 seems like a very nice paycheck for six/seven months work and a leap frog move up several rungs on Hollywood's lucrative latter. What is it they always say about your first hit in Hollywood, 'You'll make it on the next picture.'? If I ran Hollywood, I'd almost always opt for unknowns for superhero pictures. I've never understood why they pay huge star salaries when the suit and not the face is the draw (for this genre I mean, Iron Man being the exception that proves the rule). Both big screen supermans Christopher Reeve in Superman (1978) and Brandon Routh in Superman Returns (2006) had less acting experience than Garfield has now. I wonder how much they were paid?

Andrew Garfield with his BAFTA trophy for Boy A (2007) --->

[pet peeve tangent alert] One thing that did not amuse me in the past 72 hours... the various online comments/articles hating on Garfield because he's "obscure." Nothing sets me on edge quite as much as pride in ignorance and the shameless act of demanding that that ignorance be seen as a valid opinion. All opinions are not created equally. Why do so many people hate anything unfamiliar on principle or refuse to look anything up or do any research? It's so f***ing lazy. Just because you've never heard of someone does not mean they aren't talented. It just means that you've never heard of them. Simple as that. No shame in not knowing something or someone. It happens to all of us. The only shame is to demand that you should never have to know it and that the world should cater to your limitations of experience or imagination. [/pet peeve rant]

P.S. I have no idea why I continue to talk about this Spider-Man picture when I think it's a bad idea in the first place. I blame my affection for the webslinger, deeply rooted since childhood.


Ryan T. said...

Obscure? Hilarious.

I got Boy A last week from Netflix, but I also have seen him previously in Doctor Who and Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.

AND I'm looking forward to seeing what he does in The Social Network and Never Let Me Go.

Volvagia said...

If the reviews agree they've gone in a more humourous angle, I'll see it. Otherwise, this revival has been executed too soon.

James T said...

Spidrman will be released lonf after Social Network and Never Let Me Go. By then, he will not be obscure even for the people who watch only "big" films.

Andrew K. said...

I think there's been so much noise about his obscurity is because of the annoyance from the rebooting of the series. Fans figure, if they're scrapping a good series they must be bringing in some hot new big thing. But I'm least interested, though I WAS a little hopeful they'd bring in Aaron Johnson. Did you ever see Nowhere Boy Nathaniel?

(Are you less than enthused by Helen Mirren in Love Ranch too?

Volvagia said...

Ouch. You had said you wanted Jamie Bell for that role, to boost his career. My opinion of Andrew Garfield's rightness for the part? I've gotta see Boy A to decide.


I did want JAMIE BELL. Because I love him. But Garfield was my second favorite of the finalists.

but now having seen THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT again i think it might have been fun to go truly high school and see what Josh Hutcherson coulda done with it.

kin said...

I don't recall you having seen Boy A. Which you should.

Laika said...

Which actors are considered
'known' and 'unknown' brings out the idiot even in people who ought to know better. I remember reading an article on 'Red Dragon' at the time it was released (in Empire or Total Film, back when I used to read those esteemed publications), and Brett Ratner explained that they'd cast Ralph Feinnes as the killer because a 'name' actor that people recognised would have been too distracting and less frightening. Apparently, starring in not one but two best picture oscar winners in the previous decade didn't qualify him as a name.

Apparently, Brett Ratner's entire career is explicable by the fact that he throws great parties. I would not be surprised.

Sebastian said...

More power to Andrew Garfield I say for the career boost (I think he's on his way to an Oscar nod for "Never Let Me Go," and "The Social Network" will raise his visibility this year). But isn't this reboot supposed to take place with Spider-Man in high school? Was it so hard to find a right teenager for this role? Garfield is mid-twenties at least. I was rooting for Aaron Johnson personally. I don't care that he was Kick-Ass, and few people saw that film anyway (sniff, sniff). I think he would have been awesome in this role. Now I've never seen Andrew Garfield in any film before. I'm just heavily tied to "Never Let Me Go" b/c I read it a few months ago and loved, loved, loved it. I'm hoping the film's a great one. Not sure I'd even watch this reboot, but I'm becoming more and more interested in Andrew Garfield the more I read about him.