Posts Tagged ‘Owen Wilson’
5 items.
I think by now, most people in this country are familiar with the work of Jackie Chan. It’s been a long time coming, if you ask me.
Chan has always been an acquired taste and had a fairly strong cult following in Kung Fu circles. It wasn’t until a string of mismatched buddy capers like Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon brought his talent to the fore. Now everyone is familiar with his high-kicking antics and daredevil stunts. Some have even dipped into his back catalog for a greater understanding of his talents. Drunken Master II is the pinnacle of his greatness, in my opinion.
But with Chan’s momentum state-side, die hard fans were saddened to learn that he used as many as seven stunt doubles on his last film, The Tuxedo. Chan claimed it was the fault of the insurance companies standing behind the studio. He also cited his age and the physical limitations it’s placed on him.
Personally, I don’t think anyone should get too uptight about this. The man is steadily encroaching on 50. Can you imagine your Dad doing half the stuff Chan does? I rest my case.
Truth be told, some critics believe that Chan is steadily inventing a new style of stunt work that still looks amazing without being physically taxing. In a review of Shanghai Knights, Entertainment Weekly critic Lisa Schwarzbaum says, “Chan is now perfecting a stay-put style no less inventive in its construction. In place of a younger man’s gymnastics, he favors mature brain work, expressed in dazzling strategy.. His is a talent not so much cooling down as getting cool in middle age.” Incidentally, she gave the film a grade of “B”.
Truthfully, I would expect no less. The man is a great talent and can block a fight scene better than anyone in the business. Watching a good Chan fight scene is like watching a violent ballet. The choreography is beautiful in its skull-cracking elegance.
That being said, I still don’t think I will see Shanghai Knights. Not so much because of what Chan is or isn’t doing, but because I really don’t like to watch him in buddy films.
The buddy film as a genre is difficult to swallow as it is. Without fail, there is always some sort of division by class, race, or culture – but our leads overcome these obstacles and reach a plateau of grudging respect for one another. To force this routine on a Jackie Chan flick waters down what makes watching him movie a visceral thrill. The zing of the action is countersunk by the predictability of tired set ups and premises.
Take for example, the set up of Shanghai Knights. In the first movie, Chan was a Chinese guard in the the old west. This time around, let’s take him and his cowboy buddy and drop them straight in the middle of Victorian England! Will there be a precocious red-headed sidekick in the third installment?
Add to this mix Owen Wilson, and actor I am steadily beginning to dislike. Another film like Behind Enemy Lines or I Spy and he will have lost me as a fan.
I’m a big fan of Bottle Rocket, Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums – all films he had a hand in writing. I also thought he was the best thing about Zoolander, using his zen-cool to its most rewarding end. That’s why it’s so difficult for me to understand why he’s taking on so many fluff roles. He’s obviously smarter than this.
I understand that every so often, actors take “money pictures” to either raise their profile or bankroll personal projects that would never see studio backing. But like I said before, Wilson is skirting too closely toward making one too many of these pictures. A big screen version of Starsky and Hutch is on the horizon. While the casting of Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear is inspired casting, if this thing lands with a thud at the box office, Wilson better go into hiding for a while.
[ No Comments ]
I called the Witch Doctor, he told me what to do… Vote for Theater Hopper at BuzzComix!
Not much for me to comment on today other than I’m excited to see Starsky & Hutch. Cami and I are going with a bunch of friends. I’m really looking forward to seeing it with a crowd.
The movie has been getting good reviews so far. From the sound of it, Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson aren’t making fun of the franchise so much as playing it straight and letting the laughs evolve from the situations. That’s good to know. That means they’re not being cheap with it.
Of course, in full pimp attire in today’s strip, I have to pay homage to the brilliant casting of Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear. I mean, can you think of anyone better for the role? Maybe Chris Tucker before he wanted everyone to think he was the second coming of Eddie Murphy.
Long live Tha Doggfather.
It’s been a long week for me personally. The home improvement projects we started last weekend, we’re still mired in today. We’ve finished painting our living room and dining room and made some progress on the flooring we’re installing – but after working an 8 hour day, the last thing I want to do is more manual labor. I need a nice Saturday morning where I can wake up kinda late, then lean right into this and get it done. Of course, I have to meet my CPA to work on my taxes Saturday morning. Oh bitter irony!
Hopefully your weekend will be more restful than mine. Take it easy, yo.
[ 1 Comment ]
I spent a lot of time on today’s comic – maybe more time than I should have.
I don’t know. Sometimes I slip into this talking head thing where it’s just a two of the characters spitting out one-liners to each other and when I finally notice it, I’m compelled to switch it up a little.
That’s why I was hyper aware of the composition, what props Cami and Jared had in their hands – what they were doing with them. Having Tom talk more with his hands. That kind of stuff.
Maybe it’s important only to me?
As far as You, Me and Dupree is concerned, it looks like a real sitcom-y kind of set up. Immature friend loses his job and home after going to a friend’s wedding. Friend feels guilty, let’s him stay at his house, ruining honeymoon. Friend overstays welcome, Goldie Hawn’s daughter is forced to play a screaming harpie and, by the end, everyone has learned something about friendship.
But, truth is, we’ll probably see it. Why? Because we noticed Seth Rogen is in some of the sceens from the commercials and we’ve been fans of his for ages. Nice to see he’s getting some work outside the Apatow realm. The 40 Year-Old Virgin must have given him some clout.
It would probably be a better use of our time to see Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest a second time since the first time we had to sit in the front row and endure the movie walleye-vision style. But at 2 and a half hours, it’s hard to committ to that again. I told Cami after our experience with Priates and the IMAX frame blow outs in Superman Returns that it would be nice to see a movie that no one really cares about so we can hang back and relax for a few hours. You, Me and Dupree might be that movie.
THERE’S a ringing endorsement for ya’!
Come back later today. I have some news about my attendance at Wizard World Chicago on August 4 – 6.
[ No Comments ]
You think that girl crying was just a sniffle before it was over with. Oh, no. She’s just getting started! Vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics to see the water works in full effect!
Sorry for the delay on Monday’s comic. I know I promised it to you late yesterday, but the Memorial Day holiday kind of got in the way. I thought I was going to have an opportunity to draw and ink the strip while Henry was napping, but it didn’t work out that way. Then, despiteGordon’s upset stomach, Joe and I decided to go through with recording last night’s The Triple Feature podcast and that pushed my time line back further. When it was all said and done, I said to myself, “This is going to have to be a Tuesday comic instead.”
Incidentally, regarding last night’s The Triple Feature, I strongly suggest you check it out. I think Joe and I had a really good show. We were really clicking. We talked about Angels & Demons and Terminator Salvation and I spent a little time discussing Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.
Regarding the latter, I saw strong>Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian and liked it. The movie is certainly better than the first because it’s smart enough to put the “divorced Dad just trying to do right by his kid” angle into the background and focuses on what people really came to the theater for – classical sculpture preening like a Brooklyn pigeon for statues of antiquity.
“BOOM! BOOM! FIAHPOWAH!”
Amy Adams plays Ben Stiller’s love interest in the film as aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart. I found Adams winning in the role, even if she was using some kind of clipped 1920’s vocal affectation not entirely dissimilar from Katherine Hepburn (I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe everyone from the 20s and 30s talked with that way).
I do have to admit that the question of Earhart’s sexual orientation crept into my head while watching the movie. Later, when I was discussing today’s comic, Cami did have to correct me as to her marital status, which I was totally oblivious to.
Doing research for the comic, rumors of Earhart’s sexuality were never confirmed. Truthfully, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was an ugly rumor created to discredit her as being “butch” or some such nonsense for entering into the field of aviation – an arena many men of the period did not feel women belonged.
Ultimately, it doesn’t mater. It matters even less within the context of the movie. It’s Earhart’s Spirit of Adventure that Stiller’s character is meant to fall in love with. It’s his wake up call to leave the corporate world he went on to establish himself in and reconnect with his true passion – being a night guard at a magical museum.
Aside from Adams, Hank Azaria is effective as the slapstick villain Kahmunrah. Again, putting on an usual accent, I found his Karloff-esque lisp funny the first few scenes he was in, but distracting later on.
Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan and Robin Williams show up and get a few good lines. Coogan as the Roman General Octavius probably gets the funniest bit in the movie as he charges toward the White House in an attempt to notify the President of the situation at the Smithsonian. Bill Hader also gets in a few funny moments early on as the vain and self-important General Custer. His hair care regimen alone will leave you ROFLing in your popcorn.
There are a ton of cameos in the movie too many to mention. Truthfully, I wouldn’t want to tell you. I think you’d be better off surprised. But nearly every up-and-coming comedic performer of the last 5 years shows up in this thing and it’s fun to go “Hey, I know that person!”
At least it was fun for me. I’m simple like that.
Between all this comedic talent, you can tell there was room left in the script for improvisation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Some bits go on a little too long – as if the performers are purposefully trying to push an idea from funny to unfunny an back to “funny” again. They don’t always salvage the effort. But the exchanges are refreshing in the sense that the characters just and spewing boilerplate “Now I will do THIS!” / “No, you can’t!” dialogue at each other.
The last little gripe I’ll make about the movie is that despite the fact it’s promoting history, it’s historically inaccurate. There is a chase sequence inside the Air & Space Museum where Stiller and Adams’ characters dislodge the Wright Brothers plane from it’s ceiling mount and fly it out of the building. Not only do they fly it out of the building, they fly around inside the building for a while. Not only do the fly around inside the building for a while, they make a series of impossible maneuvers, dipping and diving around the other aircraft on displace before launching into the skies over Washington D.C. for a languid, romantic moment.
I’m sorry – but wasn’t this the plane that was only able to maintain flight for about 12 seconds?
I don’t mean to be a milksop. I recognize that the movie is fantasy and has to bend the rules a little bit to be entertaining. After all, if I’m going to nit-pick the aerobatic prowess of the world’s first airplane, there’s probably something I should say about a magical Egyptian tablet that brings wax sculptures to life, right?
But intentionally or not, a movie like this will generate an interest in history. It’s basically on big commercial for the Smithsonian. Shouldn’t the producers be a little bit more responsible with what they are portraying on screen?
Or, considering the audience the movie is targeted toward – young kids – is it acceptable to tell a small lie to foster interest in the larger truth? Personally, I’m not a fan of the idea that kids deserve dumbed down entertainment. Kids are capable of understanding much more than we give them credit for. But I suppose if it get’s them away from video games, I’m okay with the idea that the Wright’s plane can perform loops…
I feel like there is more I can be blogging about. I also caught Terminator Salvation this weekend and have some opinions on that. But I think I’ll wrap things up for now.
Did anyone here catch Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian this weekend? What did you think? Did you find it better than the original? Are you able to look over some of the more fantastic elements if it serves the entertainment value of the movie?
Leave your thoughts below!
[ 8 Comments ]
As you probably know, Cars 2 came out this weekend. And, as you probably know, most critics didn’t like it. Cars 2 has the dubious distinction of being the first “rotten” movie in Pixar’s 15-year production history.
Unfortunately, this is probably what Cars 2 will be most readily identified with – a punctuation mark on unsurpassed era of critical praise. This is unfair for a number of reasons.
The peripherals of Pixar’s films include a legacy of quality, critical response to that standard, box office success and merchandising ubiquity. In many ways, this is a Jenga stack that was destined to tumble. As each new film is released, any small imperfection will be magnified and exploited before the tower falls.
In this case, Cars 2 has the unfortunate distinction of being released behind Toy Story 3 which was Pixar’s most profitable, best reviewed film to date. Next to that, nearly anything would have looked like a pale imitator.
But does that mean that Cars 2 is a bad movie? No, it’s not. Is it a great movie? Well, no. Not exactly. Then what is it? Cars 2 is a perfectly serviceable piece of family entertainment that moves briskly, entertains thoroughly and doesn’t insult the audience’s intelligence. That sounds like faint praise. But neither is it condemning damnation.
I guess walking out of the theater, the question that I tried to answer was “Is Cars 2 worse than the original Cars?” My conclusion was, “It isn’t!” So, by that logic, how can it be the worst Pixar movie of all time. Or, at the very least “rotten?”
Well, I would say that there we some opportunities missed. Unlike the original Cars, whose theme was basically “Slow down and enjoy life,” Cars 2 serves up a tepid lesson about letting your friends be who they are. It doesn’t exactly resonate.
Additionally, I find that one’s enjoyment of Cars 2 weighs heavily on their ability to tollerare comedian Larry the Cable Guy as the faithful tow truck, Mater. Make no mistake about it – Cars 2 is his movie. Either you’re okay with that or you’re not.
In the negative reviews I’ve read, most critics aren’t okay with that. It’s understandable why. As a character, Mater is well-meaning, but best in small doses. Regrettably, what Cars 2 does is makes him slightly more insufferable and ignorant so Owen Wilson (as racing superstar Lightning McQueen) has a reason to push him away in the film’s first act.
This feels a little disingenuous to the character. Despite Mater’s country-bumpkin exterior, in the original Cars, he at least seemed to have some awareness of how others perceived him. I’m thinking specifically when Lightning McQueen is brought in front of a Paul Newman’s Doc Hudson to answer for tearing up the main drag in Radiator Springs. When Bonnie Hunt as Sally shows up, Lightning McQueen is awestruck. Even moreso when Mater says Sally is his financée. “What?!” Lighning says, incredulously. “I’m just kiddin’,” Mater responds. “She jus’ likes me for my body.”
None of that self-awareness is on display in Cars 2 and Mater feels like he’s taken a step backwards as a result.
The resulting lack of message or character progression can make Cars 2 feel somewhat shallow if you listen to your inner cynic. “This is just a money grab!” “They want to sell more toys!” You’re inner cynic is right, by the way. I’m just saying that doesn’t mean Cars 2 is a bad film.
In terms of scope, creativity, design and attention to detail, Cars 2 delivers exactly the way you expect a Pixar movie to. In fact, once the dust settles and people seriously sit down and consider Cars and Cars 2 side-by-side, I think they will agree with that assessment. From a technical perspective, Cars 2 is every way superior to its predecessor. Animation buffs will be dissecting it for years.
Considering that Pixar has always been a studio that trumpted the value of “Story First,” Cars 2 failings in this area makes the rest of the film seem like a sell-out. I don’t feel that way because I never felt like the film was wasting my time.
The more I think about it, the more I acknowledge that maybe I have my “fanboy blinders” on. But I guess I feel like I see both sides of the equation. I know where Cars 2 doesn’t work but I don’t feel like that diminishes the accomplishments of what DOES work about the film. Therefore, I don’t feel like critics are necessarily justified in punishing the movie with abysmal reviews for an otherwise inoffensive and acceptable film.
If it was a Dreamworks movie on the other hand, maybe we could talk. 😉
[ 9 Comments ]
