Posts Tagged ‘John Travolta’
5 items.
Mar04
You know, I had planned to come in here Friday morning to post a little extra commentary and totally spaced it off. It’s now early Friday evening and I feel like a total moron.
Indulge me, won’t you, as I fill in some copy before I go out with my wife for a riotous night of pizza, beer and bowling?
I’ll be up front and admit that, yeah – Be Cool looked kind of good to me. Of course, the reviews coming back haven’t been very kind. I guess I don’t know why that surprises me. As much as I often enjoy watch John Travolta smear his charm across the screen, he’s been in a steady decline for a while now.
I think I was probably less interested in watching Travolta this time around than I was at watching some of the secondary characters. Vince Vaughn, The Rock, Harvey Keitel, Steven Tyler…
*THE REST OF THIS BLOG POST WAS LOST WHEN THEATER HOPPER MOVED TO WORDPRESS IN JANUARY 2009*
[ No Comments ]
Hairspray opens this weekend and I’m ambivalent about it. I’m trying to understand Hollywood’s new predilection toward taking movies that were turned into splashy Broadway musicals BACK into movies for a new generation. They did it once with The Producers with marginal success. But I don’t think anyone watched that movie and thought it was better than the Broadway production. Or better than the Zero Mostel, Gene Wilder original, for that matter.
Not to say that it isn’t encouraging to see properties created by Mel Brooks and John Waters receive wider recognition, but one has to assume that the Law of Diminishing Returns will take hold at some point. How good can a movie based on a play, based on a movie really be? I mean, who is it supposed to appeal to? Fans of the Broadway musical? Because that’s probably the closest iteration. But how many people have actually seen the show in New York or it’s traveling tour? Certainly they’re not trying to capture the imagination of fans of the John Waters original. It’s a completely different monster.
According to the reviews assembled so far over at Rotten Tomatoes, Hairspray is absolutely perfect with a 100% rating. I don’t want to take away from anyone who has seen previews of the movie and enjoyed it. but that 100% makes me suspicious.
Maybe it’s just me.
Incidentally, if you want to get a sense of what John Waters is all about, go rent Pink Flamingos to see the infamous scene Tom refers to in today’s comic. It’s mind-bending – particularly within the context of some of Waters later films – Hairspray and Cry-Baby among them. It makes you realize how particularly subversive his brand of comedy is when compared to the depravity of his roots. It’s all great stuff – even when he plays it straight. Check it out.
As a side note, I’m writing today’s blog courtesy of the magic of Wi-Fi from Columbus, Ohio. I’m in town for three days for a conference sponsored by the company I work for in my 9 to 5. It’s cool traveling on someone else’s dime even when it really isn’t a vacation because it kind of makes you feel like a big shot. I don’t get the opportunity to travel in this capacity very often, so there’s a bit of a rush traveling on the corporate jet and staying in your own hotel room. I don’t know if one might consider that provincial thinking or not. “I flew in an air-eeo-plane!”
I can’t see business travel being very fulfilling long-term. I don’t like the idea of being away from Cami or Henry this long. It’s a little lonely, I guess. And I’m beat. I’m going to iron a few shirts and go to bed. How exciting is that?
See all of you again soon!
[ No Comments ]
Today’s comic was inspired by my continuing work on Theater Hopper: Year Three. I was writing up some commentary from 2005 and ruminating on the simplified style I attempted on a specific comic I don’t draw things like that very often mostly because I don’t often have a reason to stage the characters in a full-body render. If you look through the archives, there’s a lot of close-ups or shots from mid-chest up. Part of that is because I feel it puts you closer to things, but part of it is because larger areas are easier to color and shade than the smaller, detailed work
Anyway, I was thinking about the lack of the full-body render and – even though it’s time consuming – it’s fun to do and I enjoy the results. So I decided to take a swing at it with this comic.
I’m kicking around the idea of seeing Bolt this weekend, although it looks like a paint-by-numbers Disney film to me and I’m not particularly impressed by the fact that it has John Travolta and Miley Cyrus laying down vocals. But face facts; It’s been getting strong reviews and that hamster looks friggin’ hilarous!
But if anything is going to get me in the door, it’s that the movie is also being presented in 3-D. I’m completely aware that it’s a gimmick, but I’m willing to give it a try. Primarily because it’s a CG movie and a creative director can do things with shots that a real-world director could never attempt. Couple that with 3-D and you get an interesting result.
I only seem to feel this way about CG movies and not live-action movies. For example, Journey to the Center of the Earth looked dumb to me. But this looks alright. A big reason I went to see Beowulf last year was for the 3-D and it didn’t disappoint. So let’s see what Disney can do with it.
Not much more to say, so I’ll leave it at that. Here’s hoping everyone has a great weekend and I’ll see you all again on Monday!
[ No Comments ]
For today’s incentive sketch, I decided to make a point. A handle bar mustache and a neck tattoo don’t make you a bad ass. They make you look ridiculous. Vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics to see what I’m talking about.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 comes out on Friday over a VERY slow weekend with very few other releases. It seems weird that there is a lull like this at the top of the blockbuster season.
I have a cursory interest in the film, but only for Tony Scott’s particular brand of action directing. Even though his last two film Deja Vu and Domino were muddled messes, Scott gets a good length of leash for Man on Fire.
I’m not particularly interested in either Denzel Washington or John Travolta – which is kind of sad considering their roles as A-list talent. I think Denzel looks like too much of a sad sack in this one. Certainly the man is allowed to branch out from his typical action hero template, but it’s not how I’m used to seeing him. Washington should be running roughshod over this production. Instead, he almost looks incidental.
Travolta as the hilariously code-named villain “Ryder,” (Get it? Subway rider? Ryder?! HAW!) looks ridiculous to me for all the reasons outlined in the comic. I’m wondering at what point everyone sat down and figured out what this character’s look was going to be. It is as if in the back of someone’s head they decided “mustache = evil” and someone up the decision-making change vetoed them on the Snidely Whiplash protruding number that Travolta could twist around his finger. “Sorry, guys. We’re going with the handle bar ‘stache.”
Travolta has played charming villains before. Most notably in Broken Arrow and Swordfish. He didn’t have to bring a visual shorthand to that performance, so why is he doing it now? I guess those guys were supposed to be smooth operators. Maybe Ryder is a little more blue collar? Even so, if this is Travolta’s idea of a working man villain, it’s laughably bad.
The reviews I’ve read so far have said that Travolta brings a strong intensity to the character, so maybe I’m way off base with my criticisms. All I’m saying is that first impressions matter and Travolta as Ryder does not make a good one.
Switching gears here, I’ve been getting feedback from a few people that they’re getting error messages when they try to log onto the site. Their browsers are warning them of malware? I’m not encountering any errors, so I’m trying to gather consensus. If you are having any problems with the site, please let me know in the comments below. Try to tell me what’s on the screen when the error comes up and specifically what the error message is.
Myself and my web administrator have combed through the site’s code and we can’t find any malicious links so we’re suspecting it’s one of the ads being served through the ad network that’s causing a problem. We want to try to isolate that ad and shut it off.
Then again, we could be on a wild goose chase. Any information from you guys would be helpful.
If you have nothing to add about the errors, why don’t you let us know what you think of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 instead? Are you going to see it this weekend? What do you think about Travolta’s look? Leave your thoughts below!
[ 28 Comments ]
The longer John Travolta hangs around, the more I’m becoming convinced that he’s some kind of whack-job like Nic Cage. At least when it comes to the weird choices he makes his hair when it comes to playing certain roles.
Maybe it’s just that he looked so weird in The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, following things up with the cue ball look so soon after the fact feels like a weird de-evolution.
I realize that Travolta starred in Old Dogs in between these two films. But it’s not like his hair looked any better in that movie.
Travolta wears one of the most obvious wigs in show business. Not that it really matters. He’s an actor after all. He’s supposed to look different from role to role. I don’t know why it matters to me… except it does.
I think because his wigs look so obvious. Not just in his movies, but in his public appearances. On minute, he’ll have a buzz cut. Then, four months later, he’s miraculously “grown” a full head of hair with crazy bangs in front. You’d think someone with as much money as Travolta would find a better way to make his hairpiece look less obvious.
Anyway, I’ll stop harping on the immaterial. Although I still think Travolta looks like a genie in the stills and trailer for From Paris With Love.
I’d like to see From Paris With Love, but Travolta isn’t the draw for me. Neither is his co-star Jonathan Rhys Meyers. Frankly, I’m not a fan of either actor. But I would see the movie because it’s directed by Pierre Morel and written by Luc Besson – the same pair that brought us a surprising kick-ass turn from Liam Neeson in Taken last year.
Clearly, they’re trying to put lightning in a bottle by releasing another rolicking Euro-trash adventure in the same vein as Taken. But John Travolta isn’t Liam Neeson and I have my doubts that he won’t be able to keep from hamming it up on screen.
I think a large part of Taken’s success was how seriously Neeson took the role in the face of the overall cheesiness of the movie. He made you believe in the situations his character inserted himself into, regardless of how ridiculous they were.
But Neeson has that kind of gravity to him. Travolta is light and airy and all about having a quick step – a holdover from his Grease days. I don’t get the sense that his special agent character Charlie Wax is supposed to be altogether mentally, so maybe a little bit of Travolta’s manic tenancies will do his performance justice. I’m just skeptical. That’s all.
Actually, considering that I haven’t left the house aside from work for the last two months, I think I’m saving up karma points so I can cash them in for Shutter Island in a couple of weeks. They’re starting to air commercials for it more regularly and I keep reminding Cami how badly I want to see it. She has no interest. She says I can see it by myself. I don’t care. It looks great – like Scorsese channeling the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock. I can’t wait.
But that’s neither here not there. We can talk more about Shutter Island when the time comes. What about From Paris With Love? Who here is excited to see it? Do you think Pierre Morel and Luc Besson can recapture what they created with Taken? If you plan on seeing the movie this weekend, let us know in the comments below!
[ 16 Comments ]
