Today is the 10th anniversary of Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous (2000). I never quite understood its appeal but I understand it's beloved. I have only a vague recall of it. I remember Billy Crudup arms outstretched "I am a Golden God!" (and that Brad Pitt was originally earmarked for the part) and Frances McDormand's funny bossy telephone calls. I also vividly remember Penny Lane's (Kate Hudson) coat. You know the one. She never took it off in my mind (but this photo says otherwise) or at least that's how much the coat stayed burned to my retinas. So thanks, Betsy Heimann... and sorry you weren't Oscar nominated. What was that about exactly?
Anyway... I only bring this up because I'm wondering if you, dear reader, are one of this movie's groupies? If so, please explain the magic. Or maybe you'd like to share your own personal "I don't get it" in response to an otherwise beloved movie. We all have them. *
A steep box office drop off for Eat Pray Love (which opened well thanks to Julia Roberts and the memoir's popularity) or its generally blah reviews could easily kill it, but Richard Jenkins has a slam dunk Best Supporting Actor Type part, don't you think? Yeah, you know that category has its types.
For me though, the character I keep thinking about is Stephen (Billy Crudup). Crudup made a vivid impression in just a couple of scenes so I wrote him up for my "Best in Show" column at Tribeca Film. He's like a little boy whose heart Julia stomped on till it broke. So sad.
I have to start my spreadsheets for the 2010 Film Bitch Awards now lest I forget something (I've usually started them by now. Eeep). Are than any cameos or limited roles this year that wowed you that you want everyone else to love? If so, share them in the comments. (Here's who I went with last year in those "limited" categories.)
Speaking of men Julia Roberts may or may not have clobbered emotionally, apparently Eric (her older brother) and she have mended their previously tense relationship. The Daily Beast has an interview with Eric Roberts about his career and their relationship. Like his friend Mickey Rourke he isn't one to mince words and I love that in celebrities even if their handlers do not. He just flat out admits that he gave up chasing a certain kind of career after his Oscar loss.
When you hand in great performances in Star 80 and Runaway Train and the Oscar goes to Don Ameche, it kind of bums you out.
Brutal honesty plus shameless self regard. Love it! (To be fair he is just fantastic in Star 80 and should be proud of himself.) I also get bummed out about the Cocoon love. But if anyone but Ameche was going to win that particular Oscar, it would have been Klaus Maria Brandauer in Out of Africa. *
Jose here with a confession: few things nowadays get me as happy as the idea of a new Julia Roberts movie (yes, I'm slightly easy to please sometimes). So you can imagine the excitement this month has provided for me! First was the cute, and star studded, trailer for Valentine's Day (what do you mean you haven't seen it? Do so now!).
And today the web is bursting with Julia in saris, flower necklaces and bodyguards as she begins shooting Eat, Pray, Love in the town of Mirzapur in northern India. The movie, directed by Ryan Murphy, is based on the eponymous novel by Elizabeth Gilbert and tells the story of a divorced woman who travels across the world to regain her inner peace.
But back to Julia, TheIndian Times reports
Wearing a purple kurta, black salwar and rudraksha beads, she completed her first day's shoot for a Hollywood film in Pataudi on Sunday (Sept 20), living up her role every bit! One scene had her eating rice, chapati, aloo-gobi and muttar-paneer the Indian way - with her bare hands.
She's just like the rest of us...
The Associated Press also commented on Mrs. Moder's Indian visit and how she was all the rage amongst the villagers of Mirzapur where young boys climbed trees and villagers crowded rooftops. Is it me being morbid or does this remind you of Slumdog Millionaire a bit?
Fortunately for Julia the film kicked off with the rightfully blessed foot as Indian priest Swami Dharam Dev offered prayers for the whole cast and crew. He also gave Julia's children the names of Indian gods [he] named her twins Hazel and Phinnaeus as Laxmi and Ganesh, while Henry will be called Krishna Balram.
The movie is set to open in 2011 and also stars Javier Bardem as the man she falls in love with, Billy Crudup as the man she was in love with, Viola Davis as yet another rom-com best friend and Richard Jenkins.
Vanity Fair briefly killed my enthusiasm for the "Hollywood project" when they nixed the traditional cover for 2009. But time heals most wounds and I have reanimated the project's corpse. 2004's cover had 13 already peaking actresses on it. How'd they follow it in 2005? With another batch of goddesses, 60% of whom had already graced their "Hollywood" cover. In the case of the C/Kates, it was now thrice. Was Vanity Fair running out of ideas? Given the idiosyncratic pool the covers regularly pulled from you'd think there were only 40 actresses in Hollywood... but then, it's probably all in who you know who represents you when it comes to face time here. It's definitely not only about the fame. Consider this: this cover series lasted from 1995 - 2008 and Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry, Michelle Williams and Tilda Swinton never appeared on them (just four chronologically appropriate examples off the top of my head).
click to enlarge for maximum beauty
For reasons that only pop culture archives will be able to fully explain to future generations this cover was called "Not So Desperate Housewives". Only two of these actresses were even married at the time (the C/Kates) and only six kids had sprung from their enviable DNA (two kids each for Cate, Kate and Uma).
Uma Thurman, about to turn 35, had appeared on VF's very first Hollywood issue back in1995. Back then she was celebrating her deserved Oscar nom for Pulp Fiction. I like to think that her get up here, white shirt and black pants (the only one of the ladies eschewing a gown), was a nod to "Mia Wallace" in Pulp Fiction. It would make sense. Director Quentin Tarantino had just finished (momentarily) resuscitating her talent and fame with those thrilling Kill Bills and she was about to risk memories of that film with the John Travolta dance number in Be Cool. She had divorced Ethan Hawke in 2004 and the three films coming out (Prime, Be Cool and The Producers) were a nice range of drama, comedy and musical... on paper. Onscreen it didn't work out so well. More flops followed. Uma turns 40 in 2010, and she's undoubtedly looking for that third career wind. Next up: Motherhood, Percy Jackson and Eloise in Paris.
Cate Blanchett had just been won an Oscar (The Aviator) and was about to turn 36. Aside from the Oscar win, 2005 was quiet. Blanchett never stays quiet. The next four years would be jam packed full of Oscar bait and trips down the red carpet culminating in the two biggest non-Hobbity hits of her career (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). No films in 2009 (shocker!) but she'll be back in 2010 as Maid Marian in Ridley Scott's Robin Hood [see previous posts]
Kate Winslet was 29 years old, still Oscar-less and an old pro at the "Hollywood" covers. Uma & Cate are her superiors when it comes to behaving like models in photoshoots (think about it), but she wasn't letting them pull all the focus with her sleek über sexy look here. Her inarguable triumph in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) was about to prove very difficult to follow. Fascinating time capsule note: 2005 is the year wherein she guest starred on "Extras" as a foul mouthed narcissistic "Kate Winslet", bitching about having to do a Holocaust drama to win an Oscar.
Despite that hilariously written and performed prophecy, her next several films didn't truly catch on (The Holiday, Little Children, Romance & Cigarettes, Revolutionary Road and All the Kings Men). The happy ending punchline arrived earlier this year when she won her Oscar for the holocaust drama The Reader. Up next: Nothing. With Oscar in hand, I'm guessing she lays low for the next couple of years. She was never a ubiquitous celebrity to begin with.
Scarlett Johansson was just 20 and already a back to back Hollywood covergirl. She had skyrocketed in 2003 with the global success of Lost in Translation, the critical success of Girl with a Pearl Earring and her high profile relationship with another Young Hollywood star, Josh Hartnett. And though nothing in 2004 had added much to her mystique she had the lead in a would be summer blockbuster for 2005 (The Island, which flopped). No one at the time saw her Woody Allen's muse status coming, but Match Point (their first collaboration) was about to debut at Cannes and become the legendary director's biggest hit in over a decade. Cut to several Scarlett roles and three calendar years later: she's beloved as a celebrity, newlywed and spokesperson but who loves her as an actress, any more? Can she turn that around with her stint as The Black Widow in Iron Man 2 (see previous post)
<-- Rupert Everett, Claire Danes and Billy Crudup at the premiere of Stage Beauty in October 2004
Claire Danes, turning 26 appears to have been slain by ScarJo. And maybe she was. Hollywood only has room for a handful of young superstar blondes in any given time period, you know. Perhaps she's prone as sacrifice for Cate, Kate and Uma none of whom have ceded much space for up and comers, holding onto big fame with that iron grip combo of talent, beauty and the favor of important filmmakers. Or maybe Mary-Louise Parker had snuck in to lay her down? It had only been a year since the gossip machine had ground and spit Claire Danes and Billy Crudup out for splitting with their partners -- in Billy's case, the several months pregnant Parker.
Which is all along way of saying that her cover girl status was slightly puzzling. Despite Danes' absolutely stellar start in television's My So Called Life and a promising initial silver screen transfer (Little Women and Romeo + Juliet), the movie career never really worked out. Her career had slipped in the late 90s and the Aughts brought nothing but a string of well performed but small supporting roles (The Hours, Igby Goes Down) or lead parts that didn't do much for her (Terminator 3, Stage Beauty). This trend continued after this cover, too: The Family Stone, Stardust, Evening and Shopgirl haven't provided breakthroughs. Up next: Temple Grandin in which she plays an autistic scientist. Should she try headlining a TV series again?
Rosario Dawson about to turn 26, had been on the cover before and had just caused a mini-fuss with her scene stealing nudity and feral performance in Alexander (2004). Vanity Fair's cover indicated a good sized year for her and it was: Sin City and Rent "I wanna go ouu--uuuuuttt, tonight" both premiered.
Zhang Ziyi newly 26, had enjoyed a high international profile since her breakthrough in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, five years earlier. The preceding months had been very good to her with three well received successful imports: 2046 (her best performance if you ask me), Hero and House of Flying Daggers. But she was undoubtedly on this cover because everyone in the world seemed to be anxiously awaiting Memoirs of a Geisha, then only a blockbuster book and not yet a disappointing movie. She was making lists like People magazine's 50 Most Beautiful, she was a frequent object of lust in men's magazines. Once the Memoirs craze ended, things went quiet, though one can still spot her on red carpets or in paparazzi shots with venture capitalist boyfriend Vivi Nevo. Is an international comeback going to happen? She's only 30. Next up: Sophie's Revenge and possibly the romantic drama Waiting which would reunite her with her Daggers co-star, Takeshi Kaneshiro, her only co-star to ever challenge her for "prettiest person in this movie" contests.
Kerry Washington, 28, had just appeared in the Oscar nominated biopic Ray and was still dating actor David Moscow (pictured together right, Jan. 2005) Many people, including yours truly, were pulling for major stardom for Kerry. She's still high profile and highly castable (young, beautiful, talented, speaks multiple languages including very handy ones for the cinema: French and Spanish) and yet the cinema can't seem to figure it out. 2005 brought only bit parts in Mr & Mrs. Smith and Fantastic Four. When will Hollywood ever figure out big careers for the top black actresses? It seems hopelessly beyond Tinseltown's capabilities. Things are still about the same for Kerry. She'll give a great performance (The Last King of Scotland, Dead Girl) and it's like it didn't happen at all in the larger scheme of the star hierarchies. It's so frustrating. Will her new projects turn the tide? Next up: A Thousand Words with Eddie Murphy and a possibly plum possibly Oscar-bait supporting role in Mother and Child starring Annette Bening.
Kate Bosworth, 22, was fresh off the underrated romantic comedy Win a Date With Tad Hamilton! and the flop biopic Beyond the Sea starring Kevin Spacey. She was very high profile in the celebrity-watching sector as Orland Bloom's girlfriend and Hollywood seemed to have faith in her. She was soon given the Lois Lane role in Superman Returns (unfortunate casting, that). Her film career has long since been smaller than her celebrity and she hasn't actually been making many movies. Next up: The Warrior's Way.
Sienna Miller, at 23 was, like Kate Bosworth, far more famous than her filmography would imply. She was Jude Law's new fiancé -- they had just made Alfie (Oct 2004, left)-- and he was at the peak of his celebrity. A few months after this Hollywood cover they broke off the engagement and their on and off again relationship has provided tabloid fodder for years now. She followed Alfie by romancing Heath Ledger in Casanova. She's been working a lot ever since (Factory Girl, Stardust, The Edge of Love, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh) but it looks doubtful that her movie career will ever equal her celebrity. Or not. Maybe she's just the right role away from more legitimate stardom? Next up: playing "The Baroness" in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.
PLEASE NOTE: If you'd like to read more about any of these stars, click the names in the labels section below.
* median age: 27. Blanchett was the eldest, Scarlett the baby. noticeably absent: Who else was topical 'round mid 2004 to mid 2005? Let's see... Monica Bellucci (international profile raised with The Matrix films and The Passion of the Christ), Jennifer Garner (transferring to movies with 13 Going on 30 and Electra), Eva Mendes (had 4 movies coming out including Hitch), Lindsay Lohan (Mean Girls) and maybe Sophie Okonedo (Hotel Rwanda) collective Oscar stats before cover: 7 noms / 1 win (all by the front cover girls. Blanchett won for The Aviator) collective Oscar stats after cover: 5 nominations / 1 win (3 for Cate, 2 for Kate) fame levels in 2009, according to famousr, from most to least: Uma Thurman, Scarlett Johansson, Cate Blanchett, Kate Bosworth, Claire Danes, Sienna Miller, Rosario Dawson and Kerry Washington. Not listed in famousr for some bizarre reason:Kate Winslet & Zhang Ziyi. previous episodes:1995 ,1996, 1997,1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003and 2004. *
Who watches the Watchmen? A lot o' people even if not quite as many as projected
If time is relative, as Einstein and Dr. Manhattan, a fictional blue god and one of the Watchmen, like to tell us, than it’s never too late for a Watchmen review. In our opening-weekend-only film culture that’s usually a sin. But if the filmmakers are asking you to return, fear of second weekend box office drops hanging over them like a mushroom cloud, another round of reviews should also be encouraged. Time being relative...
It is today and you are reading this review. It is March 6th, 2009 and you are sitting in the theater watching the Watchmen. It is 1986 and the first issue of Alan Moore’s Watchmen is in comic book stores. Director Zach Snyder is twenty-years old and studying painting in London. It is eight minutes from now and you have finished reading this review. You are commenting. It is the 1990s and the movie is in development hell. It is March 6th 2009 and you are sitting in the theater watching the Watchmen. It is tomorrow and you are returning to The Film Experience to read more daily updates. You are still annoyed by something you read the day before.
Watchmen is based on a comic book cum graphic novel from the 1980s. It takes place in an alternate version of our earth where costumed vigilantes (i.e. superheroes) have been outlawed unless they’re working for the government. The Cold War still rages with Russian and American leaders ready to destroy the world in a nuclear holocaust should the other side look at them funny.
One of the few active heroes “The Comedian” is murdered and the members of the disbanded superhero group “The Watchmen” realize they’re being targeted. But why? They’re retired.
Plot descriptions leave Watchmen wanting because it’s so many things: a book of ideas, a visually compelling oddity, a product of its time with cold war paranoia encased wittily in spandex, and a meta-deconstruction of the superhero genre: What makes superheroes tick? What kind of a sicko would someone have to be to put on tights and beat criminals up as a hobby? Would man’s inhumanity to man eventually break their spirit? What would happen when they hit middle age?
You’ve seen other films that ask these questions in the service of comedy or spectacle (The Incredibles and Hancock spring to mind as recent variations) and violent heroes are nothing new either (Wolverine, The Dark Knight, etc...) but the influential Watchmen had a hand in all of this. The current psychoanalytical angst-ridden view of superheroes was probably a natural result of Marvel Comics brilliant move in the 1960s to shift the genre away from DC's godlike heroes (Superman, Wonder Woman) to those who were decidedly less super under the mask (Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, etcetera). One could argue that Watchmen was the brilliant apotheosis of that evolution.
Minute Men: Compelling history in graphic novel form. Unwieldy backstory in movie.
It is 2009 and there’s finally a film version of all of this. And I mean allof this. Barely anything save The Black Freighter (a comic within the original comic) has been jettisoned even if it’s only squeezed in with a quick edit here or there. The resulting movie is inevitably cluttered and overlong, making one long for a miniseries to do it justice or more merciless scripting. It’s pleasing and disappointing, exciting and dull. Fans of the comic book will enjoy seeing the characters finally come to life (I know I did) but might not learn anything new through this living. The visual effects and art direction are beautiful but to what end?
The source material wasn’t deemed unfilmable for so many years for its visuals but for the density of its storytelling. Watchmen’s original power was closely tied to its medium: paneled storytelling, the long form storyline and chapter construction, the very language and history of comics. The movie is not tied to its medium: the power of motion, streamlined narrative arcs, the distilled humanity of acting and the language and history of cinema aren't well leveraged.
The actors embodying the anti-heroes are hemmed in in this bookmovie (boovie?). Jeffrey Dean Morgan is appropriately vile as The Comedian, Patrick Wilson is game for the sad sack Nite Owl and Matthew Goode is slightly amusing in his total superiority as Ozymandias the smartest man in the world, but there’s precious little depth. Silk Spectre II has the most to offer the movie, emotionally speaking, but Malin Akerman seems disinterested in her material. She delivers all her lines in the same vaguely negative if not quite whiny fashion. No wonder her super powered lover Dr. Manhattan, embodied by impressively creepy and intimidating CGI and Billy Crudup’s face, is drifting away from his humanity. She’s his tether to Earth? Mars looks better all the time! Jackie Earle Haley tries hard as Rorschach, a fan favorite, but this isn’t an actor’s film.
Maybe it should have been. Watchmen is not an action comic. It thrives on ideas and the psychology (however bluntly defined) of its heroes. The film needed an actor’s director who could also handle the demands of a colossal technical project. Snyder is more than capable with the latter but his heart is with storyboards not actors (see also: 300). Faced with oppressive costumes, one note roles and dialogue insufficiently altered to flow in a different medium the actors choke. Their conversations have the distinct feeling of word balloons: dialogue in cages.
But it’s not just stiff acting and stop and start dialogue that gives Watchmen its weirdly staccato anti-rhythm. The action sequences, usually a highlight of superhero movies are a bigger problem. They actually do start and stop, refusing the potentially exciting momentum that action scenes can build and soar with. Where has the impressive Zach Snyder of Dawn of the Dead gone? His first film was relentless in its forward motion and growing sense of dread. Both were needed here.
At this point I should note a personal prejudice. I dislike slo-mo. It's my least favorite of cinematic action devices. It trips the "pretentious" switch in my head, as if the director thinks his visual choices so portentous that the masses require extra time to properly notice them. This technique can be useful if a director uses it in tiny portions for emotional punch or to convey something so inherently fast that one wouldn’t be able to see it in real time (Ozymandias’s swinging stantion attack is the one truly effective slomo moment in the film –we’ve been told that he can move with inhuman speed. We see it). Even if you don’t share my aversion, you’ll notice that Snyder has a limited arsenal of action tricks. Literally every fight scene in Watchmen uses slo-mo and frequently at that. Any film device constantly employed loses power and meaning.
It’s not appropriate to review a film based on its marketing but I do wish we’d stop hearing Zach Snyder referred to as a “visionary director”. He has made one remake (Dawn of the Dead) and two extremely faithful adaptations of visual work (300, Watchmen). He’s yet to reveal any particular visual ideas of his own. He may well have them but how would we know? Snyder’s latest adaptation prefers to function as a photorealistic recreation of the comic book. Watchmen the movie is ambitious in scope if not quite in cinematic design. To function as superbly as cinema as the comic did as literature, the adaptation would have had to have been a movie first and foremost. In its new hybrid form, all glories (and there are a few) are borrowed. Movie:C Comic: A Movie if you haven't read the comic: I can't even imagine.D?
Directed byZach Snyder StarringBilly Crudup's CG'd manhood, Malin Akerman's pleather dominatrix get-up, possibly Patrick Wilson's ass (do not cheat me of Patrick Wilson's ass, Zach Snyder! You promised you're staying true to the book!), and other people obscured to varying degrees by CG and their outfits SynopsisIn an alternate version of 1985 where Richard Nixon is still president and the world is on the edge of apocalypse, somebody's decided to start offing retired superheroes. Masked man Rorschach wants to find out why. Lots of bad stuff happens. Maybe a squid is involved. The end. Brought to you by the man responsible for 300, of which people's mileage will most certainly vary wildly NotBrought to You ByAlan Moore, the graphic novel's author, who is a little bit crazy and a lot vociferous on the fact that this should have never been made (he calls it "regurgitated worms"!) Expected Release DateMarch 6th, now that the FOX execs have been fed their seventy virgins.
Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan
JA: I for one am a 300 defender, but this is a whole different ballpark for Mr. Snyder to be wandering into. This isn't just pretty pictures of mostly-naked men, decapitations, and giant elephants in the Spartan version of those 40's propaganda cartoons starring Daffy Duck. This is holy land. Watchmen is sacred geek ground, and the apex of what superhero storytelling is all about. It's as good as it gets.
Where The Dark Knight made strides towards a more adult realization of the genre's possibilities, if Snyder were to capture all that this story has on the page then this could, then this should, be the first superhero movie nominated for Best Picture.
Nathaniel: I know you just didn't open up that can of worms again![editor's note: Nathaniel's rant about stuffy Oscars, crazy fanboys & "dark" superheroes has been excised on the grounds of 'let's not go there again'] ...I don't trust this Zach Snyder person!
Joe: Oddly enough, after hating the shit out of 300, I do trust Snyder. What he did right on that dick-measuring-contest-put-to-celluloid (the spectacle, the fidelity to the source material; the operatic drama) will work well on Watchmen, and this time he doesn't have to worry about Frank Miller's weird psycho-sexual hangups. Between these two and the Dawn of the Deadremake, Snyder has become THE go-to guy for faithful ambitious adaptations of genre material,
Nathaniel: There was more to this conversation readers but I have to interrupt. I caught about 17 minutes of Watchmen at Comic Con.
[Spoilers follow]
The movie begins with a newscast talking about possible nuclear attacks on America. We're back in the Cold War 80s but in an alternate reality from our own. The newscaster assures us that there won't be a nuclear war because of somebody named "Dr. Manhattan" (that'd be glowing blue Billy Crudup. I have not read Watchmen as Joe and Ja have but I have absorbed a few character details over the years). Cut to Jeffrey Dean Morgan who plays "The Comedian" smoking a cigar in his apartment. He wears that famous yellow happy face pin from the 80s on his bathrobe. He recognizes the intruder and they have a nasty wince filled fight (one shot of the Comedian's head taking a huge chunk out of the kitchen counter. Ouch). Morgan is sent through a plate glass window and plummets to his death. Cue: Watchmen's iconic marketing image, the happy face marred by a blood splatter. Cue: opening credits.
The credits were very cool and filled with brief illustrated tableau referencing either famous cultural moments twisted for this alternate universe --the recreation of that famous WW II kiss is awesome -- or the history of the Watchmen characters. I know that people are expecting this movie to be huge but I wonder. Everyone knows the Batman mythos. It's been with us for 70 years. I'm guessing non Watchmen readers will be very confused. Trust me, I was... and I basically know the concept and characters.
Once the credits are over, we meet Rorschach, pictured left. He's played by Little Children's Jackie Earle Haley and he speaks in Batman Bale's voice (???). He also hates liberals and intellectuals. (Er... is this another neo conservative movie? Aren't we supposed to be entering a new era? Bah!) He uses a grappling hook to scale the building and searches the apartment of the dead guy we met pre-credits. Fade out. That was the first 16 minutes or so.
We were also treated to a very brief scene from somewhen else in the movie (inside a prison). Rorschach is waiting in line for grub and hurls frying oil from the line onto the face of a fellow prisoner who was threatening him. Gruesome! As the guards restrain him he growls...
You don't understand. I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in hear with me!
This would have been very scary -- Haley is good at creepy -- were it not for Batman's voice.
The Comic Con crowd went absolutely wildfor all of this. At the Q & A that followed audience members at the mic gushed that the movie would be perfect and thank-you-so-much-for-making-such-a-wonderful-movie (Here we go again! Another #1 on the IMDB the day the movie opens. Trust me. People have already decided it's their favorite movie). Original Watchmen artist Dave Gibbons was an engaging presence and gave details: no squid --sorry JA, total Dr Manhattan nudity assured. He also discussed why Watchmen creator Alan Moore's name is nowhere on the movie. But what's odder than Moore not wanting credit is that he also turned down all moneys. He crazy!
The most interesting part of the conversation was Gibbons' well spoken dismay at how influential Watchmen has been. Both he and Moore wanted to do a fresh adult take on superheroes (this isn't a superhero film for kids) but they certainly didn't think that all comic books that followed should decide that dark and cynical was the way to go. He cited the Spider-Man movies (thank you) as another great way to do things and said there's room for multiple takes on the genre. Exactly!
Readers... do you need a break from superhero movies or will you be lining up to see Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and Dr Manhattan strut their CGI stuff?
In case you missed any entries they went like so... * We Can't Wait: #1Inglourious Basterds, #2Where the Wild Things Are,#3Fantastic Mr. Fox, #4Avatar, #5Bright Star, #6Shutter Island, #7Scott Pilgrim vs. The World #8Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, #9Nailed,#10Taking Woodstock, #11Watchmen, #12The Hurt Locker, #13The Road, #14The Tree of Life #15Away We Go, #16500 Days of Summer, #17Drag Me To Hell, #18 Whatever Works, #19Broken Embraces,#20Nine (the musical) intro (orphans -didn't make group list) *
Today is the 10th anniversary of Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous (2000). I never quite understood its appeal but I understand it's beloved. I have only a vague recall of it. I remember Billy Crudup arms outstretched "I am a Golden God!" (and that Brad Pitt was originally earmarked for the part) and Frances McDormand's funny bossy telephone calls. I also vividly remember Penny Lane's (Kate Hudson) coat. You know the one. She never took it off in my mind (but this photo says otherwise) or at least that's how much the coat stayed burned to my retinas. So thanks, Betsy Heimann... and sorry you weren't Oscar nominated. What was that about exactly?
Posts
