BuzzSugar

Weekend Reading: What the Heck Happened to That Brad Pitt Baseball Movie?

BuzzSugar — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:30:28 -0700

Last weekend, the entertainment industry was shocked when Sony pulled the plug on Steven Soderbergh's baseball movie that was going to star Brad Pitt - just days before the movie was supposed to start shooting.

Based on a bestseller by Michael Lewis, Moneyball was going to be a feature-length film about the true story of Oakland Athletics' general manager Billy Beane (Pitt) who put together a successful baseball team based on a new way of measuring a player's skill via stats. It might sound kind of dry, but having read both the book and an early, leaked version of the script, I can vouch for it being a compelling story. So, I'm officially bummed that this project appears to be stuck in development hell and may never hit the big screen.

High-profile projects with big-name stars and directors don't get swiftly killed all that often - so what the heck happened? Two articles this week shed some light on the whole debacle, and they're fascinating reads if you're interested in this project and/or the inner workings of the Hollywood studio system.

First, Sony co-chairman Amy Pascal gives her side of the story in this LA Times piece. Apparently, Soderbergh made some drastic, last-minute changes to the script:

"I've wanted to work with Steven forever, because he's simply a great filmmaker," Pascal told me today. "But the draft he turned in wasn't at all what we'd signed up for. He wanted to make a dramatic reenactment of events with real people playing themselves. I'd still work with Steven in a minute, but in terms of this project, he wanted to do the film in a different way than we did."

For more on what happened with Moneyball, just read more.

Then there's this New York Times article that fills in details on some of Soderbergh's changes, some of which were made to make Major League Baseball happier with the film's accuracy:

What baseball saw as accurate, Sony executives saw as being too much a documentary. Mr. Soderbergh, for instance, planned to film interviews with some of the people who were connected to the film’s story. The executives, who had just seen disappointing results from The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and Year One, rebelled.

As of now, the film is mostly considered dead, though there's thought that a different director could come in to make a movie out of the version of the script that Sony originally approved. After reading the stories, do you think Soderbergh was in the wrong for making the last-minute changes? Or do you think Sony got too skittish about a movie that still could have been good? And if Moneyball ever does get made, would you go see it?

WireImage and Source

Weekend Reading: Thoughts on Michael Jackson

BuzzSugar — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:30:51 -0700

In the wake of the death of one of the world's most recognizable figures, the media coverage has and will continue to be voluminous. Tributes to Michael Jackson abound, as does speculation about the circumstances surrounding his death. In the midst of all this, I find myself drawn to the more thoughtful and reflective writing online that puts the man, his life, and his musical legacy into perspective. Here are two insightful pieces I've read that add some context to this sad event.

First, a piece by Slate's Stephen Metcalf. He writes about how, in 1982, Michael Jackson and his moonwalk ushered in a very specific American era that is all some of us have ever known. The entire thing is a great (and short) read, but here's a start:

The moment I heard he died I watched the Motown appearance on my iPhone. It is thrilling. It belongs to eternity. But it also belongs to something else. It belongs to 1983, an annus mirabilis, in its way, in American life; a year of economic recovery that, in addition to prosperity and the King of Pop, brought us Madonna, Oprah, Jay McInerney, Tom Cruise, Michael Milken, Vanity Fair, and the resurrection of Andy Warhol, downtown impresario behind the Limelight nightclub. Thus Jackson was a central figure in the re-creation of a viable American mainstream, a mainstream dominated by the larger-than-life, if you're being polite - or credulous. I prefer the noun form of "grotesque."

One more selection, just read more.

This piece in The New York Times explores some interesting questions about the differences between Michael Jackson the superstar and Michael Jackson the recluse:

Which Michael Jackson will be remembered? The unsurpassed entertainer, the gifted and driven song-and-dance man who wielded rhythm, melody, texture and image to create and promote the best-selling album of all time, Thriller? Or the bizarre figure he became after he failed in his stated ambition to outsell Thriller, and after the gleaming fantasy gave way to tabloid revelations, bitter rejoinders and the long public silence he was scheduled to break next month?

Weekend Reading: The History of Sundance

BuzzSugar — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:30:05 -0800

This year marks the 25th anniversary for the Sundance Film Festival, which is about as long as some of us have been alive. It's easy to take for granted the fact that this festival held in a snowy little Utah town wasn't always the influential mega-event it is today. Recently the LA Times had an interesting retrospective about the festival's origins and the way it revolutionized independent film.

Some interesting nuggets:

Steven Soderbergh's debut feature film is partly responsible for the festival's success. Director Bryan Singer reminisces, "Sex, Lies, and Videotape made guys like me go, 'If I can get into the Sundance Film Festival, I'll have a shot at a career.'"
Aw, Kevin Smith was working as a convenience store clerk when he brought his little movie Clerks to Sundance. He says of the heady experience, "It was basically me showing up in Utah and the Mormon God saying, 'I am going to grant you every wish you ever had, including some you never thought of.'"
Also, Smith tells the reporter that Clerks was made for $27,575.
Originally the festival was called The Utah/U.S. Film Festival but after Robert Redford's gang took over in 1989, some changes were made. "Organizers began to shift the festival's focus toward contemporary films that took storytelling risks."
The article asserts that "nobody embodies the go-for-broke moviemaking ingenuity now commonly associated with Sundance entries more than. . . Robert Rodriguez." Apparently Rodriquez (director of Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Sin City) raised money for one of his movies by "volunteering for experimental clinical drug testing." Hard core.

Photo courtesy of Sundance

Weekend Reading: Representing the Peacock as a Page

BuzzSugar — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:30:00 -0700

Kenneth on 30 Rock might lack common sense, but he must be quite extraordinary if he's nabbed a page job at NBC. The New York Times recently profiled the page program for a story that includes interviews with current pages, famous pages (Regis Philbin, Ted Koppel), and Jack McBrayer, whose 30 Rock character is probably the best-known fictional page of all time.

Among the things I learned from the story:

The page program is 10 times as competitive as admission to Harvard.
Pages get a 75-page handbook full of NBC trivia, most of which they're supposed to memorize, and they have to pass a test at the end of orientation.
About 70 percent of pages end up with jobs at NBC by the end of the program.
Ted Koppel claims that when he was a page, he dated his way through the Rockettes.
The real NBC pages recently got snazzy gray uniforms, which means Kenneth's look might be getting an update as well.

It's a fun story and definitely worth the read. Have you ever dreamed of being an NBC page?

Photo courtesy of NBC

Weekend Reading: How Not to Get Sent Home First

BuzzSugar — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:00:42 -0700

I got a kick this week out of a piece Slate did on the doomed reality show contestants who have been voted or kicked off in the first episode, complete with tips on how to avoid their fate. At first I struggled to remember a single first contestant, but then this piece reminded me of Jerry and Nimma from Bravo's Project Runway and Top Chef.

If you are planning on competing on one of these reality shows, these are some pretty good tips for sticking around for more than one episode. If not, you'll probably find them as fascinating as I do and will watch to see if they hold true for shows like The Amazing Race, which premieres tonight.

Here are some of the tips and excerpts from the article:

Lesson 9: Everyone loves a comeback story: "A bad first episode doesn't mean a contestant can't make a comeback. But if you want a shot at post-reality fame, you first have to make it past Week 1."
Lesson 8: Know your demographic: "VH1 understands the ratings power of the loudmouth; who among the channel's viewers wouldn't want to watch a plus-sized Omarosa gone ghetto?"
Lesson 6: Know your eliminator: "On a reality show, it's almost always good to be memorable. But if your fate is in a single person's hands, you'd better be indelible for the right reasons."

To see some more, just read more!

Lesson 5: Don't clam up: "With so little time to break through the clutter, no one has the luxury of opening-night jitters."
Lesson 3: Don't be chicken: "Sometimes, a reality contestant signs up for adventure but winds up looking sorry she didn't stay home."
Lesson 2: Nice guys finish last. Same with nice ladies: "This was an island of snakes and rats, and Sonja's guileless personality made her seem impossibly weak."

Do you agree with these? Do you remember any reality contestants who went home first?

Source

Weekend Reading: Alec Baldwin's Insecurities

BuzzSugar — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:00:08 -0700

It's funny, isn't it, how and when actors' personal lives begin to sabotage their professional lives? Lindsay Lohan, once a promising young talent, is in the process of rebuilding her career after issues with drugs, alcohol, and bar fights. Then there's Tom Cruise, who has been in career rehab ever since he jumped the couch. Major celebs are more than just talent, they're entire brands, and going off brand is usually career suicide - unless, of course, you're Alec Baldwin.

This guy is known to be, well, a little odd and even a loose cannon. But no matter what terrible, weird thing comes out about his private life, he's such a great addition to any cast (30 Rock is the most recent perfect example) on TV or in movies that I for one tend to ignore that other stuff. I mean, look at him. I can't even type this post without looking at his picture and cracking up.

In this way, he is totally fascinating to me. Which is why I for one will be curling up with this giant, illuminating profile on Baldwin in The New Yorker this weekend. To see some of the tidbits that got me hooked, just read more.

Baldwin's "rhetoric" brings to mind for the reporter a scene where his character on 30 Rock looks at an "equestrian painting" and says, "I wish I were a horse - strong, free, my chestnut haunches glistening in the sun.”
Even though he is enjoying a career rejuvenation right now (a career many actors would kill for), he is still "very conscious of what is lacking in his life - a spouse, for example, and a film career something like Jack Nicholson’s, and the governorship of New York."
Of Tina Fey, he says, "She’s so bright you’re always wondering if you’re boring her" and says that his 30 Rock character, Jack Donaghy, is based on SNL creator Lorne Michaels: "Jack Donaghy is Lorne, first and foremost. 'What am I, a farmer?' That is Lorne. I think he said that. Lorne’s got a tuxedo in the glove compartment of his car. Lorne is a big-ticket A-list New York water buffalo. He’s big on the Serengeti. Lorne is a person who seduces you into thinking that if you take his advice and play your cards right you're going to end up with his life."
And then there's stuff like this:

"In East Hampton, I’m a nudist and I eat meat," Baldwin - a vegetarian - had said before my visit, expanding on the idea that he lived a quite different life on Long Island than he did in New York. "I shoot deer with a bow and arrow. I smoke the deer meat and eat it every morning with my eggs and toast. I am a homosexual. I listen to rock music, loud."

Interesting guy, right? What do you think? Will we ever truly understand the mind of Alec Baldwin?

Source

Brush Up on New Moon Before You See the Movie!

BuzzSugar — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:00:31 -0800

I don't know about you, but I read New Moon so long ago that I hardly remember all the happenings. That's why I've put together this handy little quiz to help you brush up before you head to the theater to see the movie this weekend. Warning: there are spoilers ahead! For all of our Twilight and New Moon coverage, be sure to check out TwilightSugar!

Take the quiz

Law Abiding Citizen: Deserves a Death Sentence

BuzzSugar — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:30:13 -0700

Oh, Gerard Butler, what were you thinking? You might be able to forgive the 300 actor for starring in this horror flick disguised as a meaningful thriller, but he also served as producer to help finance the train wreck. Did he not even read the script?

Law Abiding Citizen opens with Butler as Clyde Shelton, a devoted father and husband who witnesses the murder of his family by two psychopaths after a break-in. When his lawyer, Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), strikes a deal in the case that lets one of them free, Shelton begs Rice to reconsider. And that’s where Shelton's deadly resentment - and the slasher flick stuff- begins.

To hear more about what I mean, read more.

Ten years later, Shelton returns to seek vengeance against Rice and the entire Philadelphia legal system through a series of mass killings and car bombs. The man is understandably still distraught over his family’s deaths, but he’s clearly gone cuckoo.

This is when the movie becomes less of a drama and starts resembling the Saw franchise instead. While Shelton starts off as the good guy, he's later partaking in gruesome torture scenes that leave him completely in covered in blood like the prom scene in Carrie. To make matters worse, Shelton throws out bad jokes as he's wreaking havoc for a few cheap laughs. It negates any possibility for the audience to feel sympathy for Shelton, and the attempted shock value also completely ruins the movie's credibility.

The film wants to make us question the inner-workings of law - when dealing with a killer, is it better to leave things to the justice system or take matters into your own hands? Really though, it would’ve worked better as a cheesy horror movie. It has all of the requirements: splattered body parts, a giant chain saw, abandoned warehouses, goofy wigs and costumes, creepy music, the obligatory muffled voice on the end of the phone - and loads of plot holes. Like, why is Shelton rich enough to buy all of his assassin-style supplies and how does he know how to use them all? The film attempts to answer the question for us later in the film, but it feels tacked on and much too late.

In other words, if you do go see this film, don't try to think too much about it. Foxx and Butler do their best with what they're given, but the film is only good for a couple of thrills that make you jump in your seat. As for me, I just wanted to walk out.

P.S. Don't forget to check out the Movie Reviews community group if you want to weigh in about your own weekend film picks.

A Serious Man: Seriously Hard To Wrap Your Head Around

BuzzSugar — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:00:10 -0700

I like the Coen brothers. I loved No Country For Old Men, I still enjoy quoting Frances McDormand lines from Fargo - I even appreciated their most recent project, Burn After Reading despite lukewarm reviews. So I went into A Serious Man with high expectations. Perhaps a bit too high.

The Coens go incredibly dark and thought-provoking this time around, and unfortunately without any big-named stars attached like Clooney a la Reading or O Brother, Where Art Thou?, A Serious Man probably won't live on as one of their more memorable films for viewers. In fact, many people will probably feel put off by it. To see what I mean, read more

A Serious Man opens like a horror movie, which isn't surprising given the Coen's propensity for heavy themes (and often a few stab wounds) in their stories. The music is a big player, creating tension that doesn't let up for the audience even when the screen goes to black. But the antagonizing score fits well within the nightmare existence of Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a professor and devoted family man in '60s suburbia. First, his wife announces that she's leaving him for a touchy-feely close-talker; his unemployed brother spends entire 24-hour periods in his bathroom; and one of his foreign students is threatening to sue him. Really, the only thrill Gopnik ever gets in life is when his neighbor Mrs. Samsky sunbathes nude.

Poor Gopnik is a wound-up guy, and you feel for him and with him. (It's true; I had to decompress after this movie.) His world is spiraling out of control, so he seeks out three rabbis for a solution. Does Gopnik get the enlightenment he seeks? Not exactly, and neither do we as the audience.

There's not a single bad thing I can say about any of the actors. Each one was believable and charmingly offbeat in their role. The Coens are brilliant with character nuances - even some of the small two-minute parts managed to get laughs - but the larger picture just seemed murky from the get-go. The first five minutes of the film starts with a man in a village who accidentally invites a ghost home for dinner. It's all in Yiddish with subtitles, and it's almost like watching a stand-alone play, but I'm still not sure what it had to do with the rest of the plot, other than the Jewish religion and setting a dismal tone. So right away I felt semiconfused, but entertained nonetheless - which is pretty much how the duration of it went for me.

The film does have some great scenes - I loved the interaction between Gopnik and his foreign student, and his wife's new boyfriend Si is particularly funny - but trying to piece it together is a bit like banging your head against the wall (just like in the movie's trailer). I get that Gopnik's life sucks, but other than that, it's hard to tell exactly what we're supposed to glean from the story. I think that was sort of the point the Coens were trying to make - Gopnik doesn't get the answers he seeks, and neither do we.

Go see it if you're a hardcore Coenaholic, and enjoy the funny scenes without trying to analyze it too much. But if you prefer to dissect your movies, I'd say rent this one at home, because you may need to watch it twice.

What movies are you seeing this weekend? Review them in our Movie Review Group!

Photos courtesy of Focus Features

I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell: An Unfunny Waste of Time

BuzzSugar — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:30:13 -0700

You're supposed to think that the jokes in I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell are so shocking, so offensive, that you laugh because you forget being PC for a moment. And if you don't laugh, you're the kind of square that Tucker Max, the lead character, takes aim at.

The real story is that the movie is offensive, but not because it's just so edgy. It's offensively unfunny - that is, the movie's jokes are not so offensive that they're not funny, they're such bombs you're shocked someone got paid for this. To see why I thought this movie was so terrible, just read more.

The Tucker Max of the movie (played by Matt Czuchry) is based on the real-life Tucker Max, who wrote the memoir the film is based on, which was based on his blog. I read the blog a bit and found it mildly amusing - so what changed in the film version? Nothing, really, I just think the larger scale of a movie can't validate the boringly immature Max. There's a plot, here, sort of: Tucker wants to give his best friend an epic bachelor party and whisks him out of town, where hijinks ensue (sound familiar? More on that later).

Tucker is supposed to be totally boorish and offensive, but his crudeness and raunchy jokes are not shocking; they're just lame. He talks about killing a fat girl and brags about having sex with a deaf girl. Yeah. Laughing at the inappropriate is not the new territory this movie acts like it is; five minutes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia provides more laughs than this movie does in its 105 minutes.

The one emotion I had watching I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell that wasn't disgust or boredom was sympathy. I felt bad for the poor actors, especially Gilmore Girls' Matt Czuchry, whom I've rooted for - I hoped he would land a great role that would invigorate his career. This is not that role. (All is not lost: he's in this Fall's The Good Wife.)

Even the adorable Czuchry can't make Max charming, nor can cute Jesse Bradford make Max's best friend Drew anything but abhorrent. It's painful watching him force out such pathetic one-liners. By the time Max and Drew are supposed to be redeemed, you don't believe any of it (but it does signal the end of the movie, so that's a relief). And I have to mention: there's the grossest fecal scene I've ever seen in a movie (it puts the poop monster in Dogma to shame).

Pouring salt in the movie's unfunny wounds is timing - The Hangover was released earlier this summer with a similar storyline, and it was a huge hit. But to call it a poor man's The Hangover is too generous; The Hangover was funny.

What movies are you seeing this weekend? Review them in our Movie Review Group!