SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 12, 2005 23:03:25 GMT -5
OK, I know this will probably get moved. But the movie "Cinderella Man" is worth going to see. Just thought I'd pass that on. Sports fans will enjoy this flick.
OK, back to Hoya Hoops. DuJuan Summers! WOW!
KEEP GOING JT3!!!
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 12, 2005 23:17:04 GMT -5
Saw it today myself. Very impressive although they slander Max Bear (sp?) in the film. Bob Costas justifiably took Ron Howard and Co to task for that.
|
|
|
Post by stafford72 on Jun 13, 2005 6:30:49 GMT -5
I agree that for a boxing flick, it was ok, my wife is a big fan of the phone thrower, but it was more than a little hokey, and the characterization of Max Baer was extremely one-sided, and I have no idea if it was even remotely justified.
Just to get something in which is on topic, I have noticed that those who are trying to project a starting lineup and have mentioned Egerson, who I have thught all along is going to be one hell of a player, and others, seem to dismiss the likelihood that Owens will start, especially given the boost to his confidence based on his end-of-year play. He also has one last chance to make a statement for any opportunity for a professional career, even if orerseas. His defense with his quickness and size is also a definite strong point. It may be that the reason there has not been definite confirmation about his return is that the official approval from the NCAA on his extra year is forthcoming.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 8:15:14 GMT -5
The biggest problem with modern day hollywood story telling is that they won't give us multi-dimmensional bad guys. They don't respect the audience, so they hammer you over the head with "bad guy" stuff. Hence, in today's Hollywood, they had to minimize the star of David on Baer's trunks so you almost couldn't see it, even though historically it was quite large, just in case the audience forgets who to root for.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 8:52:57 GMT -5
The biggest problem with modern day hollywood story telling is that they won't give us multi-dimmensional bad guys. They don't respect the audience, so they hammer you over the head with "bad guy" stuff. Hence, in today's Hollywood, they had to minimize the star of David on Baer's trunks so you almost couldn't see it, even though historically it was quite large, just in case the audience forgets who to root for. Modern day Hollywood? When has Hollywood actually given us multi-dimensional bad guys? Certainly not in the 30s, the decade in which most of this movie takes place. Back in the Golden Era of Hollywood (30s through early 50s) Hollywood was even more black and white in terms of how it presented its heroes and villains. I would say it does a better job of presenting three dimensional bad guys and flawed good guys now then it has in anytime during the past with the possible exception of the 70s. With that being said I wonder it was necessary to present Baer as a "bad guy" in the first place. The story would have held up without resorting to such tactics. I would argue that Ron Howard and the writers reached back into the past and gave this movie a "classic" feel with its syrupy, sweet, feel-good nature of the script and its mostly simplistic characterizations. This was a movie that would have felt at home in the 40s and 50s. Despite its flaws it is a very well done film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 9:57:06 GMT -5
Generally not a fan of Ron Howard sap, but this was ok. Still wish I'd spent my bones elsewhere and rented this, but thought it was a decent showing. The whole Baer thing Editeded me off a bit, but not enough to ruin the film. Renee Zellwiger's presence on the other hand...
If you're looking for something a bit more edgy, go see "Layer Cake" if its showing in your town. Directorial debut for the producer of "Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrells" and ".snatch" - really well done English crime flick (NOT like the aforementioned Richie films).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 9:59:51 GMT -5
Also, is it possible for a marketable mega star like Crowe to be typecast? He loves these historical figure types recently. Outside of "Proof of Life," I think his last four roles have fit that mold.
Say what you will about Tom Cruise, but there's a guy who picks his roles really well and across all genres... not to mention his women across all generations. BA-ZING!!
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 11:06:07 GMT -5
I actually think that Crowe can now be said to be picking his roles better than any other film actor, a mantle he has lifted from Cruise sometime in the last year or so. War of the World needs to make a ton of scratch to be profitible, and it looks like a snoozer to me. Cruise's star is just about in freefall from its once unassailble position. Crowe is the new Cruise and Cruise is turning into the new Costner.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Jun 13, 2005 11:34:38 GMT -5
I hope this thread doesn't get moved. I personally liked it when we had off topic threads all in the same section. Especially during the offseason. More people were involved in discussion.
Anyway, I think Crow is a great actor. I think Cruise is well-liked but not a great actor. Just like Pitt and Jolie. I heard their movie was horrible, but people went to see it not for the movie, but because Jolie and Pitt were in it. And, its number one at the box office. Cruise's movies make money. There hasn't been one movie in Cruise's career that he was in, that didn't net a profit. Thats astounding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 11:47:55 GMT -5
bin, I wouldn't go so far as to say Cruise is the new Costner. Costner was in MASSIVE free-fall (and still sort of is) for years. Cruise keeps churning out hundred-million dollar blockbusters. People want to call films "Last Samurai" or "Vanilla Sky" bombs, and they can go right ahead, maybe critically they were... but they DID bring in tens of millions of dollars over budget, not to mention their overseas takes. As _way correctly noted, that's astounding. My only problem with Crowe is that he seems to be avoiding showing any of the range he showed earlier in his career ("Romper Stomper," "The Insider" even). Now he's basically playing a variation of the same character, whether its "LA Confidential," "Gladiator," "Master and Commander," etc. "A Beautiful Mind" is the only one that sort of stands out to me as different, and I think its his best role since "The Insider" (which is EASILY his best-to-date). Thankyouverymuch, Michael Mann (who's horribly underrated, but that's for another time).
Also, while Cruise is not a GREAT actor, but he's slightly better and has a bit more range than people give him credit for. Keanu, on the other hand...
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,212
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jun 13, 2005 12:09:35 GMT -5
I noted that Sports Guy wrote that the boxing scenes in this film were really, really bad, and brought down the rest of the movie. Any takes on that?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 12:16:13 GMT -5
Buffalo- I like Cruise, always have. But no matter how you look at it, films like Minority Report are fiscal flops, even if they don't lose money, because the return for the risk is well below what studios expect and there is opportunity cost of not making something more succesful. Ask any studio head if they would put $100 million into a film that they just about KNEW would make about $200 million but not much more- they wouldn't do it, because they would be looking to turn that $100 million into a $500 million grosser instead. Its just not worth the cash outlay to them for a massive picture to just turn a small profit, and yeah, in that business, 50 or even $100 million in profit on a huge project is considered small. Hence the third Mission Impossible film has been called into some doubt after once having been greenlit, not because Cruises's movies have lost money, but becuase they haven't made nearly as much as they used to, or Crowe's movies currently do. Can Cruise still put butts in the seats? Yeah, but not nearly as well as in the 90s. His last bonafide smash was MI2 5 years ago. This guy used to have the midas touch, and now Crowe has it I think.
You are right that Cruise isn't Costner yet in terms of box office poisen and he may never be nearly so bad, but his decline has been rapid these last several months as it seems there is no longer a lid on his peculiar religous fervor- something bound to hasten his decline in my opinion.
I see what you are saying with Crowe's roles, but honestly think he is as daring in his selection as Cruise ever was on the whole. Both are mainstream actors who do mainstream films of better than average quality. But I now think that Crowe's films are bound not only to do better at the box office, but actually be better as well. Cruise was on top for a long time. Crowe would do well to be on top for so long, but on top he is.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Jun 13, 2005 12:26:06 GMT -5
I also think about the likability factor when it comes to Cruise and Crow. People go to movies to see people they like. Even if they hear its not good, they will give them the benefit of the doubt. People like Tom Cruise. They don't necessarily like Crowe but they respect him because of his talent as an actor. Cruise is waning in popularity a bit, and he is trying to spruce it up with this "Katie Holmes" hoax, that nobody believes. Personally, I think he is trying to cover something else up, but I'm not going to go there.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 12:27:23 GMT -5
Wait, Cruise doesn't play the same role in every movie? I like Tom Cruise. Heck, I think I'm the only person in the world who actually like "Far and Away" for some reason. But he plays Tom Cruise in EVERY movie. "Rain Man" and "Vanilla Sky" are fantastic movies but he's still playing Tom Cruise.
Which is fine. Denzel Washington plays Denzel in every movie. I'd like just once to see him play a morally bankrupt, slimy character who does his dirty work behind the scenes. Even as the "bad cop" in training day, he managed to be a righteous, loud, aggressive "bad cop."
Back on topic, Crowe is a much better actor, though I don't particularly like him or his recent movie choices.
Re: Cruise and movie selection, I think studios view Cruise about as close to a sure bet as possible. Sure, $100M is a big investment, but Cruise is as sure a bet to make a return as anyone. Studios are less worried about the upside than they are about a $100M bomb. A 100% return is well over the studios' hurdles.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 12:29:56 GMT -5
Cruise was very likeable, but he is becoming the opposite of likable in America- which is not a jerk, but rather pathetic. The Scientology thing and the Katie Holmes thing and the tar of "has been" is sapping his likability big time.
I think Crowe has something that no phone throwing will diminsh- guys want to be like him (more than they wanted to be the diminutive Cruise) and girls want to sleep with him at least as much as they ever did Cruise. That's likablity, isn't it? I think Crowe will be the biggest actor of our time for the decade anyway. Pitt doesn't have the range to challenge him.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 12:32:56 GMT -5
"I'd like just once to see him play a morally bankrupt, slimy character who does his dirty work behind the scenes."
He did that in Collateral- which gave him a needed dose of street cred among the actors/critics set I think. But there is no doubt his blockbuster shine has taken some hits. More than Denzel, Pacino plays Pacino and DeNiro plays DeNiro and I would say both have done more bad films than Cruise or Crowe actually.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,312
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 13, 2005 12:33:20 GMT -5
Denzel doesn't ALWAYS play Denzel. See e.g., "Training Day" and "Man on Fire."
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 12:37:09 GMT -5
"Re: Cruise and movie selection, I think studios view Cruise about as close to a sure bet as possible. Sure, $100M is a big investment, but Cruise is as sure a bet to make a return as anyone. Studios are less worried about the upside than they are about a $100M bomb. A 100% return is well over the studios' hurdles. "
I just don't think that's true at all. First of all, if this were 1999, I would agree with you, but in 2005 its just not the case that Cruise's films are more likely to make money than Crowes.' Second of all, Just about ZERO big budget movies actually lose money. Catwoman is about the only one I can think of in recent years. Studios do worry very much about the far more likely prospect of grossing $150 over a $100 budget than a the very rare $100 film that grosses $50- which is the entertainment industries equivilant of lighting striking twice. Believe me the studios worried Catwoman would only make 20 or 30 million before they worried that it would lose that much- you worry about what is likely to happen over the rare of course.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Jun 13, 2005 12:40:27 GMT -5
Denzel doesn't ALWAYS play Denzel. See e.g., "Training Day" and "Man on Fire." Excellent Point!! Denzel would outlap Cruise anyday in acting. Denzel and Crowe are real actors to me. Cruise is a box office draw, not necessarily a great actor. Take Adam Sandler for example. The man is not that funny, not even remote funny, but his movies make tons of money. What do you guys think of Sean Penn as an actor?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 12:43:24 GMT -5
Denzel doesn't ALWAYS play Denzel. See e.g., "Training Day" and "Man on Fire." Training Day? That was Denzel, again. Oh, yeah, so his character was morally questionable, but he still acted the same. I'd like to see him do someone like Crowe did in the Insider -- no speeches, no "get angry" scenes, etc. I didn't see Man on Fire, so I can't comment. Denzel is a fine actor playing himself, but he hasn't shown the range -- and most actors don't.
|
|