The recent movie Cinderella Man was a near-perfect example of a movie I couldn't possibly be interested in seeing. For one, it was about boxing. Sports in general are usually a turnoff for me in films. Secondly, it was a "biopic." I generally need a dramatic arc and message to my dramas -- something along the lines of Finding Neverland, which isn't a "life story of J.M. Barrie." Thirdly, it features Russell Crowe. Can't stand him on film, and his general conduct in life just cranks the hatred up a notch.
But I did say "near-perfect," because it did have at least one thing going for it: Ron Howard directed it. He's made some really great movies, I think, including one of my top 10 favorites of all time, Apollo 13. (Yes, I realize Apollo 13 possibly breaks "rule #2" stated above. All I can say is, "but it's about the space program.")
Anyway, Hollywood is now rushing to do the job right, and is preparing to produce a perfect example of a movie I couldn't possibly be interested in seeing.
First, it's about the World Trade Center attacks. I don't know what the "statute of limitations" on this is as far as maintaining good taste, but I'm fairly sure they haven't expired. And even if they had, I still don't think I'm interested. Seeing the real thing on television was more than enough for me.
Second, it stars Nicholas Cage. Another actor I can't stand. In a contest between him and Russell Crowe, I'm not sure who I'd pick. Although, if you could arrange such a contest -- preferably a fight to the death -- I wouldn't mind.
(shudder)
13 comments:
Yup, I'm with you on that one. Sounds like a totally tasteless idea.
Can't stand Cage either, but he's a fraction better than Keanu Reeves imo.
Sadly, maintaining good taste is not a priority with Hollywood. I wouldn't want to see this movie regardless of who starred in it (though Nicolas Cage is on my "don't like" list also). IMO the "statute of limitations", as you put it, will never expire.
I'll have to admit to having seen only one Russell Crowe movie, A Beautiful Mind, but I was very impressed with that film and his performance. What is there about his acting that you can't stand? I've been thinking about renting Master and Commander but I'm wondering if I'll be disappointed in it.
that's just wrong. and bad. there should be a new stronger word for this. like badwrong... or badong. yes, this idea is badong. (ubergeek points for getting that reference)
not that I'm going to dis "the passion", but this movie idea is banking on a similar theme. the masses will flock to the movie simply because if you don't go, you will somehow be less of "an american"
nobody should profit off of this movie. all $$ should go to charity. ugh the more I think of this... it's just badong.
-the mole
First, off 'Apollo 13' had both a dramatic story and a good message... so though it was a biopic - it was more a story you wouldn't believe it if it weren't true.
Russell Crowe is a good actor, but I too have been turned off by him after Gladiator (which I credit more success of that film to Ridley Scott than to Crowe).
As for the 9/11 movie... from what I've heard it supposed to be about the firefighters who actually survived the 2nd tower's collapse in a stairways. So it won't actually be able the actual event - but a sidestory.
Now, I'm sure they could make a nice uplifting story about the heroic firefighters - but I probably won't see it, just like I didn't watch the 1990 made-for-TV movie about the poorly-made Challenger astronauts that stared Barry Bostwick.
My reaction to the 9/11 movie is that I wouldn't see it just on the bad taste principle.
I would dispute that biopics can't have a dramatic arc and a message. Cinderella Man was, more or less, Rocky. Well, definitely less because I enjoyed Rocky more, but it was a decent movie. It was a typical little guy persevering against all odds and making it to the top story that just happened to be true.
I also think that Russel Crowe is a good actor (though not such a good person). My only criticism of his acting is that he only has one American accent, so every time he plays an American, he sounds exactly the same (regardless of where the character is supposed to be from).
Nicholas Cage is hit or miss for me. He ends up doing a lot of stupid movies and he definitely phones it in at times, but I enjoyed his performances in Adaptation and Matchstick Men.
If I had to choose which actor I liked based on his or her personal conduct, I'd probably like none of them. No offense, Evan, but I find a large number of actors to have a few screws loose, hence their ease at flocking to whatever whackjob derivative religion or exercise routine infiltrates Hollywood.
I think the two actors that I respect the most are:
Paul Newman because of the amount of money his food products have given to charities over the years and that he and his wife have been married for decades... and you almost never hear anything bad about them.
Secondly, is Tom Hanks. I haven't heard almost anything bad about the guy. You would think someone with 2 Oscars might have a big ego and pulls the power cord all the time - but I've heard he doesn't have a big one.
Okay, you have me on Paul Newman. He's the Real Deal. His charitable work is an industry unto itself.
I'm not sold on Tom Hanks. Yes, even Tom Hanks.
I had a similar reaction to Pearl Harbor and wonder if a 9/11 will take as much liberty with the facts. I expect Life On An Open-Top London Bus by the end of the year.
I knew we wouldn't have to wait fifty years for a summer blockbuster based on 9/11. Today's desperate Hollywood wouldn't allow it.
Look for Oliver Stone to go on another extended multiformat wank in this film.
Well, Hanks spoke out about the need for a World War II monument in Washington - something I believe no other Hollywood actor did...
Also, read today that movie studio wants Russell Crowe to star in another 'Gladiator' movie -- even though his character died at the end of the first one.
Holy crap! Lots of comments! Replies, in order:
Major: My complaint with Russell Crowe is that he seems a very "flat" actor. There are actors out there who are very quiet and intense, and can pull that off. With RC, I feel that one "emotion" is identical to another, unless he's shouting at the top of his lungs in "fiery oratory" mode -- a mode he's often given opportunity to play in his films.
Perhaps partly to blame is his choices of movies, though. I have yet to see a RC movie I liked. If there was ever going to be one that might do it, it would probably be L.A. Confidential... that's sort of on my to-do list. But most of the others people would name, I thought were fairly rubbish. And don't get me started on Gladiator. Of all the films I've seen that have won an Oscar for Best Picture, I'd call that far and away the least deserving. Joaquin Phoneix's performance is the only good thing about that movie -- and it only barely.
Jono: Yup, Apollo 13 had "throughline" and "message," not just "biopic" -- I was going to point that out, but I didn't want to get too sidetracked from my main rant. Thanks for jumping in for me. :-)
David: Yes, I suppose a "biopic" can have a message to it, but I guess I'm arguing most of them (say, 90%) don't.
GiromiDe: Yeah, well, you have to be disturbed on some level to want to be an actor in the first place. Put yourself on display in front of others (when, apparently, the #1 fear of the average person is public speaking). Pretend to be someone else. Make yourself live through imagined traumas, trying to make them feel as real to you as possible... yeah, you've got to be slightly deranged to want to do that. Myself included. :-)
Right on regarding Gladiator not deserving an Oscar. I mean, I found it a fun action movie, but I felt the same way about Total Recall. :)
Post a Comment