Q: Is it better or worse than the original?
A: Sacrilege Alert: I think this Yuma actually surpasses the well-regarded 1957 version. It's darker and edgier--which doesn't always equal "better," but in this case takes advantage of the more permissive modern standards to create a more affecting experience. This nastier, more brutal film is also deeper and more credible.
Q: What kind of new spin does James Mangold put on this version?
He makes a more brutal, scarier film, for one thing, with outlaw Ben Wade far more threatening--and graphically so. Stylistically, he chooses to rely on frequent extreme close-ups to ratchet up the tension. I don't think it always works, but it does provide distinction. Also, while the 1957 adaptation of this Elmore Leonard story featured a lot of clock-watching and a lot of sitting around (though not uninteresting sitting around), the remake eschews some of that but builds more suspense in other areas. For example, rancher Dan Evans' teenage son plays a much larger role, which adds to the stake. But more effectively, Mangold amplifies the moral questions of the story. The director does a superb job of pacing the film while stripping away Evans' reasons to do his job--making it increasingly a matter of doing the right thing.
Q: Well, how do Crowe and Bale stack up against Glenn Ford and Van Heflin?
Heflin may be one of the more underrated performers from the golden days of Hollywood, and he excelled in 1957 at playing the beaten-down, struggling rancher Dan Evans. But Bale makes the character his own and matches Heflin. In the role of the outlaw Ben Wade, Crowe far surpasses Ford. The tricky blend of charismatic charm and shocking brutality just comes more naturally to Crowe in this setting--and I don't mean that as a knock on Ford, but praise for Crowe, who stands out once again as a man's man in an era littered with failed pretty-boy "leading men." The chemistry between Crowe and Bale is excellent--a crucial factor in a story that puts them as adversaries and partners at various points.
Q: Why don't we see more Westerns on the big screen?
A: Good question. They can't all be as good as Yuma, but I'd like to see more people try. Sorry to pick on another genre, fans, but I'd rather see more Westerns than cheapo slasher flicks. But the cheapo slasher flicks are often quite cost-effective, and I guess studios fear that oaters skew too old to get the young'uns into the theaters and buying the DVDs.
Q: So you really liked this one. Should we just junk the original?
A: No, the 1957 version still stands as a solid Western drama. Lest you think I'm saying the remake is perfect, let me point out one misstep: There is a cameo by a prominent actor at a key point, and that actor is about the last one I expected to see. I was surprised to see him, and I won't give it away, but if you look far down the IMDB listing, you'll find him. He wasn't bad, exactly, but his presence was a brief but unfortunate distraction in a movie that was otherwise stuffed with perfectly cast actors who absorbed their period characters and left vivid impressions. In particular, Ben Foster is amazing as Wade's sadistic second-in-command.
Let me also address the ending, which has brought this movie heat in some circles. Parts of the finale defy credibility. However, this was true of the original, too. In each version, there comes a moment of truth when a big decision is made, and I have a hard time buying it in each. But I think in the 1957 edition, the ending was so out of character it robbed the film of much of its emotional impact. This time out, the ending justifies the time given to the moral questions raised in the preceding two hours or so.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
This Week in DVD
Thoughts on some of this past Tuesday's notable DVD releases:
KNOCKED UP: Judd Apatow is now widely considered the reigning Comedy God of the Multiplex, and while that may not be a great thing, it has at least taken the title away from the inconsistent Will Ferrell. I didn't get around to seeing it this summer, but it's on tap for me as a rental. You get some laughs, some raunch, and maybe best of all, you get Emmy-award-winning Katherine Heigl without having to sit through those whiny hospital friends she hangs out with on Thursdays.
BUG: William Friedkin directs this psychological disturber about two people who begin to feel increasingly claustrophobic, with no hope or chance for escape from the demons plaguing them. Kind of like how I felt while listening to Friedkin's commentary on the DVD of "The Narrow Margin."
NEXT: As on the MTV show of the same name, the public voted almost instantaneously to evict this sci-fi nonstarter from theaters. It'll probably be long forgotten on video, too, by the time Nicolas Cage's National Treasure 2 comes out. Next!
MICKEY ROONEY AND JUDY GARLAND COLLECTION: Sure, you may prefer Andy Hardy Mick or Codger Mick or, if you've seen "Bill," Retarded Mick. I'm more a fan of those Micks than the pure "Let's put on a show" Mick of these musical collaborations with Judy. But, damn it, it's still the Mickster, and you have to respect the Mickster.
UNTOUCHABLES SEASON 1 PART 2 AND STREETS OF SAN FRAN SEASON 1 PART 2: Paramount is at least getting these shows out there, but with their ripoff split season policy, fans should be able to get the complete series of each by, what, 2011? Don't fans of any show get a complete series release?
WHAT ABOUT BRIAN: THE COMPLETE SERIES: No, this isn't what I mean! The complete series of this is on shelves everywhere, while one of the greatest sitcoms ever, Sgt. Bilko, got one set of a few dozen episodes. There is truly no justice in the DVD world.
KNOCKED UP: Judd Apatow is now widely considered the reigning Comedy God of the Multiplex, and while that may not be a great thing, it has at least taken the title away from the inconsistent Will Ferrell. I didn't get around to seeing it this summer, but it's on tap for me as a rental. You get some laughs, some raunch, and maybe best of all, you get Emmy-award-winning Katherine Heigl without having to sit through those whiny hospital friends she hangs out with on Thursdays.
BUG: William Friedkin directs this psychological disturber about two people who begin to feel increasingly claustrophobic, with no hope or chance for escape from the demons plaguing them. Kind of like how I felt while listening to Friedkin's commentary on the DVD of "The Narrow Margin."
NEXT: As on the MTV show of the same name, the public voted almost instantaneously to evict this sci-fi nonstarter from theaters. It'll probably be long forgotten on video, too, by the time Nicolas Cage's National Treasure 2 comes out. Next!
MICKEY ROONEY AND JUDY GARLAND COLLECTION: Sure, you may prefer Andy Hardy Mick or Codger Mick or, if you've seen "Bill," Retarded Mick. I'm more a fan of those Micks than the pure "Let's put on a show" Mick of these musical collaborations with Judy. But, damn it, it's still the Mickster, and you have to respect the Mickster.
UNTOUCHABLES SEASON 1 PART 2 AND STREETS OF SAN FRAN SEASON 1 PART 2: Paramount is at least getting these shows out there, but with their ripoff split season policy, fans should be able to get the complete series of each by, what, 2011? Don't fans of any show get a complete series release?
WHAT ABOUT BRIAN: THE COMPLETE SERIES: No, this isn't what I mean! The complete series of this is on shelves everywhere, while one of the greatest sitcoms ever, Sgt. Bilko, got one set of a few dozen episodes. There is truly no justice in the DVD world.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Brooks on Books: A Baseball Doubleheader
Yes, I do read stuff other than baseball books, and you'll discover that soon enough, but today I want to share some thoughts on a few diamond-centric tones I recently enjoyed. After all, we have to remember that, yes, football's back, but baseball ain't over yet, bucko.
Is This a Great Game or What? By Tim Kurkjian:
I expected a memoir by this current ESPN "Baseball Tonight" talking head and longtime journalist. Actually, though, there was very little of his childhood or private life, a little bit more in the way of personal anecdotes, and mostly a breezy but entertaining mix of trivia and funny stories. The common thread throughout is how great baseball is and why it is so much better than any other sport, and his stories and info back that claim well.
I sped right through this one and enjoyed it the whole way. His admittedly dorky persona only made it funnier to read him use the f-word--even if it was only quoting another player--and mentioning how ex-manager and ex-"Baseball Tonight" analyst Bobby Valentine used to fart on the set. I would have liked a little more detail on "Baseball Tonight" behind the scenes as it's one of my favorite shows, but what he has here is pretty good. I mean, hey--farting!
Ball Four by Jim Bouton:
It was a reread for me of this classic diary account of veteran pitcher Bouton's 1969 season with the expansion Seattle Pilots (later the Milwaukee Brewers) and the Astros (after a midseason trade). This book was extremely controversial both inside baseball (simply for breaking "the code of the locker room" and revealing so many conversations and antics of players in "their" domain) and outside baseball (for exposing things like rampant amphetamine use, rampant looking up the skirts of women in the stands, and other not-so-wholesome National Pastimes in which players indulge).
A writer helped Bouton edit down his diaries and--presumably--polish the diaries. Many of the entries seem a little too sharp, with a little too much perspective, to be spontaneous. But maybe I am being biased against jocks. Still, I find the book essentially genuine and extremely entertaining. Bouton's candid insights illuminate all sorts of aspects of baseball and the life of a professional athlete, from topics like what pitchers think about on the mound to the logistical problems that face a traded athlete when he has a wife and kids to worry about.
But maybe the most striking aspect of the book is how it exposes the essentially conservative nature of the sport. I don't mean politically--although there is that in, for example, the way Bouton's teammates who wear their hair below their necks are eyed with suspicion--but just the fundamentally resistant-to-change, old-school nature of the institutions of the game. There is such a group-think mentality that comes through in this book that it's quickly apparent why Bouton would be scorned for writing a book. Hell, players, especially in 1969, but by no means limited to those days of yore, are scorned for READING a book. This is interesting not just from a sports standpoint, but from a sociological standpoint, as you see how someone like Bouton (a man with leftist politics, an intellectual curiosity about the world, and a willingness to challenge established norms) tries to fit into a culture that encourages conformity for both professional and social reasons. Again, it's not just political. Even something apparently as simple as getting permission to throw more during games to get practice is a big deal as Bouton has to jump through hoops to do anything that goes outside his coaches' standard operating procedures.
Also recommended if you can find it: Bouton's 1971 follow-up, again edited by Leonard Shecter, "I'm Glad You Didn't Take It Personally," in which he discusses his entry into broadcasting as well as reaction to "Ball Four." This book is much shorter and doesn't have the same impact, but it's almost as entertaining and a must-read for fans.
Is This a Great Game or What? By Tim Kurkjian:
I expected a memoir by this current ESPN "Baseball Tonight" talking head and longtime journalist. Actually, though, there was very little of his childhood or private life, a little bit more in the way of personal anecdotes, and mostly a breezy but entertaining mix of trivia and funny stories. The common thread throughout is how great baseball is and why it is so much better than any other sport, and his stories and info back that claim well.
I sped right through this one and enjoyed it the whole way. His admittedly dorky persona only made it funnier to read him use the f-word--even if it was only quoting another player--and mentioning how ex-manager and ex-"Baseball Tonight" analyst Bobby Valentine used to fart on the set. I would have liked a little more detail on "Baseball Tonight" behind the scenes as it's one of my favorite shows, but what he has here is pretty good. I mean, hey--farting!
Ball Four by Jim Bouton:
It was a reread for me of this classic diary account of veteran pitcher Bouton's 1969 season with the expansion Seattle Pilots (later the Milwaukee Brewers) and the Astros (after a midseason trade). This book was extremely controversial both inside baseball (simply for breaking "the code of the locker room" and revealing so many conversations and antics of players in "their" domain) and outside baseball (for exposing things like rampant amphetamine use, rampant looking up the skirts of women in the stands, and other not-so-wholesome National Pastimes in which players indulge).
A writer helped Bouton edit down his diaries and--presumably--polish the diaries. Many of the entries seem a little too sharp, with a little too much perspective, to be spontaneous. But maybe I am being biased against jocks. Still, I find the book essentially genuine and extremely entertaining. Bouton's candid insights illuminate all sorts of aspects of baseball and the life of a professional athlete, from topics like what pitchers think about on the mound to the logistical problems that face a traded athlete when he has a wife and kids to worry about.
But maybe the most striking aspect of the book is how it exposes the essentially conservative nature of the sport. I don't mean politically--although there is that in, for example, the way Bouton's teammates who wear their hair below their necks are eyed with suspicion--but just the fundamentally resistant-to-change, old-school nature of the institutions of the game. There is such a group-think mentality that comes through in this book that it's quickly apparent why Bouton would be scorned for writing a book. Hell, players, especially in 1969, but by no means limited to those days of yore, are scorned for READING a book. This is interesting not just from a sports standpoint, but from a sociological standpoint, as you see how someone like Bouton (a man with leftist politics, an intellectual curiosity about the world, and a willingness to challenge established norms) tries to fit into a culture that encourages conformity for both professional and social reasons. Again, it's not just political. Even something apparently as simple as getting permission to throw more during games to get practice is a big deal as Bouton has to jump through hoops to do anything that goes outside his coaches' standard operating procedures.
Also recommended if you can find it: Bouton's 1971 follow-up, again edited by Leonard Shecter, "I'm Glad You Didn't Take It Personally," in which he discusses his entry into broadcasting as well as reaction to "Ball Four." This book is much shorter and doesn't have the same impact, but it's almost as entertaining and a must-read for fans.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Fall TV 2007: Cultureshark's Endorsements
As the new Fall Network Television season really gets going the next several weeks, it's time to reveal the returning shows I am endorsing. Mind you, I have not seen THIS season's episodes, but I base my recommendations on past seasons and a confidence that things won't dive south this year.
How I Met Your Mother (Mondays, CBS):
Consistently funny and quotable, and even though the lead character often annoys (even when he's not being voiced in the future by Bob Saget), the rest are stellar, and Neil Patrick Harris' Barney is one of the best characters on network TV right now. The scripts often go up to the edge of cloying but stop short, and there is always a danger of this show becoming too self-aware for its own good. But why worry about that? The networks spent years and tons of bucks trying to clone Friends. This isn't a clone, but it is the logical successor. For the first two seasons, it was cool that this was sort of under the radar but still delivering the funny; now it's time for everyone to get on board, appreciate this sucker, and get those ratings up so we get more.
Heroes (NBC):
This one took some heat for its "disappointing" season one finale, yet throughout its entire freshman season, Heroes reminded certain other serialized dramas with fantasy elements that it IS possible to resolve storylines and keep the saga moving forward while stoking anticipation for future events. Sure, Heroes has its ridiculous moments, and some plots and characters work better than others, but it's something that not enough shows remember to be: fun. While this is the kind of program seemingly ripe for a fall, again, I won't worry about what COULD happen; I'll endorse this one based on the quality of last season.
Everybody Hates Chris (Mondays, The CW):
I believe this solid family sitcom is hurt by two things: Though it's exec-produced by Chris Rock, it's not Chris Rock's standup, and it's not on a real network. This show manages to have a certain charm without resorting to Very Special status every week (though it's not above loading up on Guest Stars). Chris' family is TV-wacky, of course, but it feels like a real enough unit, and Young Chris is one of the most appealing underdogs around. Anyone bemoaning the death of the traditional sitcom should check this one out, as apart from Rock's narration, it feels old-school, even including the surrealism the writers throw in at times.
Friday Night Lights (Fridays, NBC):
The media is trying one of its semi-regular Campaigns of Shame to get you to watch this. The fact that it's on Fridays may mean it's too late, but hopefully the DVD release of the astounding season one (and the accompanying laudatory reviews) did some good in getting the public to sample this one. It was the most addictive show on network TV last year, delivering week in and week out with its blend of soap opera, sports, and teen drama. I may have alienated half of you with those labels in that sentence. I'll shut up now. Just try the show.
How I Met Your Mother (Mondays, CBS):
Consistently funny and quotable, and even though the lead character often annoys (even when he's not being voiced in the future by Bob Saget), the rest are stellar, and Neil Patrick Harris' Barney is one of the best characters on network TV right now. The scripts often go up to the edge of cloying but stop short, and there is always a danger of this show becoming too self-aware for its own good. But why worry about that? The networks spent years and tons of bucks trying to clone Friends. This isn't a clone, but it is the logical successor. For the first two seasons, it was cool that this was sort of under the radar but still delivering the funny; now it's time for everyone to get on board, appreciate this sucker, and get those ratings up so we get more.
Heroes (NBC):
This one took some heat for its "disappointing" season one finale, yet throughout its entire freshman season, Heroes reminded certain other serialized dramas with fantasy elements that it IS possible to resolve storylines and keep the saga moving forward while stoking anticipation for future events. Sure, Heroes has its ridiculous moments, and some plots and characters work better than others, but it's something that not enough shows remember to be: fun. While this is the kind of program seemingly ripe for a fall, again, I won't worry about what COULD happen; I'll endorse this one based on the quality of last season.
Everybody Hates Chris (Mondays, The CW):
I believe this solid family sitcom is hurt by two things: Though it's exec-produced by Chris Rock, it's not Chris Rock's standup, and it's not on a real network. This show manages to have a certain charm without resorting to Very Special status every week (though it's not above loading up on Guest Stars). Chris' family is TV-wacky, of course, but it feels like a real enough unit, and Young Chris is one of the most appealing underdogs around. Anyone bemoaning the death of the traditional sitcom should check this one out, as apart from Rock's narration, it feels old-school, even including the surrealism the writers throw in at times.
Friday Night Lights (Fridays, NBC):
The media is trying one of its semi-regular Campaigns of Shame to get you to watch this. The fact that it's on Fridays may mean it's too late, but hopefully the DVD release of the astounding season one (and the accompanying laudatory reviews) did some good in getting the public to sample this one. It was the most addictive show on network TV last year, delivering week in and week out with its blend of soap opera, sports, and teen drama. I may have alienated half of you with those labels in that sentence. I'll shut up now. Just try the show.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
5 Question Movie Review: The Bourne Ultimatum
Q: Is the production of a third one of these justified by Ultimatum?
A: Well, "Ultimatum" is a solid movie, and it should please fans of the first two--especially fans of number two, since "Supremacy" director Paul Greengrass returns. Did we NEED this to be a trilogy? Not really. This effort is more of the same: more shaky camera, more chases, more scenes of people walking dramatically in crowded public places. No new ground is broken. But what we get here is a well-made action movie that pretty much delivers what it intends. It doesn't stay with you for long, but those two hours are a fun ride.
Q: So this is shot like "Supremacy" was? Hey, why is it when Paul Greengrass shoots a movie like this--handheld, jittery, disorienting, rapid-paced--it's fine filmmaking, but if someone else does it, it's "incoherent" or "MTV editing"?
A: Uh...hmm. Uh, because I said so?
Your point is well taken. The style can be irritating when used by lesser directors who don't take time to establish story parameters or who use the rapid visuals to disguise uninspired choreography or bad staging. Greengrass himself might overuse these techniques, but he really is a talented helmer who generally knows what he's doing.
Q: Who would win a fight: Stone Cold Matt Damon (Bourne Trilogy), Puppet Warrior Matt Damon (Team America), or Boy Genius Matt Damon (Good Will Hunting)?
A: We've seen Puppet Warrior Matt Damon get his wooden ass splintered, so rule him out. Boy Genius Matt Damon is clever, but he doesn't have the physical tools to win this battle without an assist from Big Buddy Ben Affleck. So the clear winner is Stone Cold--hey, wait a minute. TRICK QUESTION ALERT! The winner is Rannulph Jannuh Matt Damon, who would vanquish any foe with the help of Bagger Vance.
Matt Damon does get to kick some A in this film, though, and if you're looking for some intense close-in fight scenes, get ready to enjoy yourself.
Q: I gots to know, is there an underappreciated veteran actor in the cast to serve as the main CIA foil for Jason Bourne?
A: I got two words for you, pal: DAVID STRAITHAIRN. And if that name doesn't thrill you, well, you're not John Sayles.
Every Bourne flick needs that type of character, and Straithairn's Noah fits the bill here. But you also get good work from reliable returning vets like Joan Allen and Julia Stiles. Scott Glenn and Albert Finney are fine support in smaller roles. So Stone Cold Matt Damon doesn't have to carry the show entirely on his own.
Q: By now, we surely know everything about Jason Bourne...right?
A: Er, no. There is closure in a sense, but there are also tantalizing hints of other pieces of information that could be fleshed out in--you guessed it--a fourth movie. That seems inevitable given the box office success of this one, but creatively, they should go in a different direction. Bring back Jason Bourne, but give him something else to do besides cat and mouse with his former employer.
A: Well, "Ultimatum" is a solid movie, and it should please fans of the first two--especially fans of number two, since "Supremacy" director Paul Greengrass returns. Did we NEED this to be a trilogy? Not really. This effort is more of the same: more shaky camera, more chases, more scenes of people walking dramatically in crowded public places. No new ground is broken. But what we get here is a well-made action movie that pretty much delivers what it intends. It doesn't stay with you for long, but those two hours are a fun ride.
Q: So this is shot like "Supremacy" was? Hey, why is it when Paul Greengrass shoots a movie like this--handheld, jittery, disorienting, rapid-paced--it's fine filmmaking, but if someone else does it, it's "incoherent" or "MTV editing"?
A: Uh...hmm. Uh, because I said so?
Your point is well taken. The style can be irritating when used by lesser directors who don't take time to establish story parameters or who use the rapid visuals to disguise uninspired choreography or bad staging. Greengrass himself might overuse these techniques, but he really is a talented helmer who generally knows what he's doing.
Q: Who would win a fight: Stone Cold Matt Damon (Bourne Trilogy), Puppet Warrior Matt Damon (Team America), or Boy Genius Matt Damon (Good Will Hunting)?
A: We've seen Puppet Warrior Matt Damon get his wooden ass splintered, so rule him out. Boy Genius Matt Damon is clever, but he doesn't have the physical tools to win this battle without an assist from Big Buddy Ben Affleck. So the clear winner is Stone Cold--hey, wait a minute. TRICK QUESTION ALERT! The winner is Rannulph Jannuh Matt Damon, who would vanquish any foe with the help of Bagger Vance.
Matt Damon does get to kick some A in this film, though, and if you're looking for some intense close-in fight scenes, get ready to enjoy yourself.
Q: I gots to know, is there an underappreciated veteran actor in the cast to serve as the main CIA foil for Jason Bourne?
A: I got two words for you, pal: DAVID STRAITHAIRN. And if that name doesn't thrill you, well, you're not John Sayles.
Every Bourne flick needs that type of character, and Straithairn's Noah fits the bill here. But you also get good work from reliable returning vets like Joan Allen and Julia Stiles. Scott Glenn and Albert Finney are fine support in smaller roles. So Stone Cold Matt Damon doesn't have to carry the show entirely on his own.
Q: By now, we surely know everything about Jason Bourne...right?
A: Er, no. There is closure in a sense, but there are also tantalizing hints of other pieces of information that could be fleshed out in--you guessed it--a fourth movie. That seems inevitable given the box office success of this one, but creatively, they should go in a different direction. Bring back Jason Bourne, but give him something else to do besides cat and mouse with his former employer.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
This Week in DVD
Time to check out some of the notable discs that streeted this week:
Grindhouse Presents Death Proof: Remember how great that idea was a few months ago, recreating the original grindhouse experience by seeing a double feature? And remember what a deal it was when you got to see two movies for the price of one? Uh, it's payback time, as now each movie will cost twice as much as the price of a ticket, the two features aren't even coming out the same week, and you'll surely be asked to cough up again for a combo edition with extras not on the individual releases. Doesn't sound so much fun anymore, does it?
We Are Marshall: This is the kind of feel-good flick that makes you feel bad for criticizing it. Hey, I didn't see it, so I'm not gonna rip it, but it certainly wasn't a blockbuster success. On video, the story will still be sentimental, Marshall will still be Marshall, and McConaughey will still be McConaughey.
Superman: Doomsday: These DC animated efforts are always more inspired and entertaining than the Marvel efforts, so I'm looking forward to this adaptation of a famous Supes comic book saga. Something really bad happens to the Man of Steel here--not as bad as Bryan Singer getting his hands on him, but still really bad.
Lucky You: Curtis Hanson's long-delayed poker movie went bust faster than I did last time I played Hold 'Em, and I'm no Phil Gordon.
The Condemned: WWE tries to make Steve Austin a movie star with this reworking of The Running Man. Not a terrible idea, but not one that generated a lot of heat for Stone Cold's Hollywood career. Maybe that Clifford Odets adaptation he's long dreamed of doing will do the trick.
Grindhouse Presents Death Proof: Remember how great that idea was a few months ago, recreating the original grindhouse experience by seeing a double feature? And remember what a deal it was when you got to see two movies for the price of one? Uh, it's payback time, as now each movie will cost twice as much as the price of a ticket, the two features aren't even coming out the same week, and you'll surely be asked to cough up again for a combo edition with extras not on the individual releases. Doesn't sound so much fun anymore, does it?
We Are Marshall: This is the kind of feel-good flick that makes you feel bad for criticizing it. Hey, I didn't see it, so I'm not gonna rip it, but it certainly wasn't a blockbuster success. On video, the story will still be sentimental, Marshall will still be Marshall, and McConaughey will still be McConaughey.
Superman: Doomsday: These DC animated efforts are always more inspired and entertaining than the Marvel efforts, so I'm looking forward to this adaptation of a famous Supes comic book saga. Something really bad happens to the Man of Steel here--not as bad as Bryan Singer getting his hands on him, but still really bad.
Lucky You: Curtis Hanson's long-delayed poker movie went bust faster than I did last time I played Hold 'Em, and I'm no Phil Gordon.
The Condemned: WWE tries to make Steve Austin a movie star with this reworking of The Running Man. Not a terrible idea, but not one that generated a lot of heat for Stone Cold's Hollywood career. Maybe that Clifford Odets adaptation he's long dreamed of doing will do the trick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
