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.

Yes, No, Maybe So? Love Ranch

We've been ignoring trailers, so we might play catch up this week. Today's future enticement is the 70s brothel drama Love Ranch. Let's map out what makes us want to see it... and not.

If you'd rather not know the entire story, I'd advise you not to watch this particular trailer and just reading the less revealing text.



Most marketing teams don't realize (or perhaps have statistical evidence to the unfortunate contrary) that a well told concept, plot hook and name actors should be enough to hook your target audience. Why do they always think a point by point three act summary is best?

Do we want to see it?

YES.


The cinema has always had a preoccupation with prostitutes; Movie makers see the kinship between show & 'ho business' as well they should. Despite this infamous love affair, the brothel setting is underused. [This is completely tangential, but wouldn't a fictional brothel series be fascinating in the hands of the right HBO or Showtime creative team? There's more than enough TV shows about cops, lawyers and doctors so why not try some other drama-magnet workplaces! Those aren't the only three places where drama is a given.] Anyway, from the looks of the trailer the art direction (Bruno Rubeo and team), costumes (Melissa Bruning) and overall setting should provide moments of interest even setting aside the unknown quality of the script, directing and acting.

Plus there are the girls they're selling which include Bai Ling, Taryn Manning & Gina Gershon. Taylor Hackford and his casting team definitely weren't afraid of scene stealers when they went to work. Or maybe they knew that with Helen Mirren and Joe Pesci leading, scene stealing is a far less likely outcome than scene tug-of-wars.

NO.

The movies love boxers almost as much as hookers. Perhaps filmmakers see a kinship between show & body-blow business? But do we need both in the same movie? Love Ranch could be two full hours of clichéd story beats since we've got entrepreneurs, whores and boxers all battling it out for screen time and narrative arcs in the same movie. Those are three of the movies most familiar types right there. Explosive clichés are probably buried everywhere in that Nevada sand like so many film-derailing landmines.

MAYBE SO.

The casting intrigues. Helen Mirren is always worth a look (though "accent" work is always hard to adjust to in the time span of a trailer) and perhaps her chemistry with Joe Pesci will be odd couple fascinating? But I worry. I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Joe Pesci. He strikes me as an... um... excessive actor and I have a much easier time with 'over the top' when the performer taking me there has a vagina. It's just how I'm wired.

When it comes to Love Ranch are you a Yes, a No or a Maybe So?
And does 'maybe so' mean "wait for reviews" or "I'll watch it on DVD" for you?