RED...Bruce Willis big budget bore! Turkey tasteless...

 


 

As far as spoofs go, it went badly.

Blame it on a poorly-developed idea (book adaptation), badly-written script, and a star past his prime - who lacked the good sense to quit - while he was ahead of the game.

Even the normally-formidable talents of elegant Helen Mirren and quirky John Malcovich couldn’t save a Die Hard star’s vanity vehicle intended to end a long drought.

Not much to crow about, Bruce.

Sight gags went awry, dialogue fell flat, and the old Willis screen charm - what there was of it - wore thin a few minutes into the lame flick.

Frankly, I dozed off half-the-way through this studio clunker, which was short on laughs - and thanks to Demi’s ex - too long in the tooth to rustle up any enthusiasm for its cardboard characters and muddled plot.

The basic premise - a posse of retired spies break into a secure Law Enforcement Agency to ferret out information on a hit - stunk to high heaven.

In fact, the writers must have been smoking some of the leafy green stuff at a rally for the legalization of marijuana in sunny Cal, when they tossed about this dumb scenario in the development phase.

I expect the box office receipts will be sobering when the word gets out.

In a nutshell?

Red is a overcooked turkey that causes the stomach to turn.

Excuse me, while I go and throw up!

http://www.thetattler.biz/



Bruce Willis infectious grin now a grimace!

Secretariat...Diane Lane & John Malcovich in heart-warming drama!

Diane Lane talented actress!

“Secretariat” is one of those Disney-style family movies where film-goers - thoroughly entertained by a cast of likeable characters (who propel the gripping piece of drama forward to an upbeat satisfying conclusion) - spontaneously applaud at the end of the flick as the credits crawl across the screen.

"Secretariat" is one of those Disney-style movies where film-goers thoroughly entertained by the likeable characters (who propel the gripping drama forward to an upbeat satisfying conclusion) spontaneously applaud as the end of the film as credits crawl across the screen.

After all, the well-produced flick - starring Diane Lane and John Malcovich - is based on a true story.

Track enthusiasts may recall that “Secretariat” - a celebrated racehorse (affectionately nick-named “Big Red” by the owners) - rode into the history books after winning the prestigious "Triple Crown" a scant few decades ago.

The film chronicles the inspiring tale in spell-binding fashion  and manages to tug at the heart strings along the way.

Diane Lane is in top form in a role that suits her to a “T”.

Ms. Lane is one of those talented performers who has been blessed with the good fortune to be well-received by film buffs at pivotal points in her illustrious film-acting career over the years.

Years ago, Ms. Lane stirred up quite a bit of excitement on the lot at Universal Studios - and earned the reputation of a being a “seasoned pro” - when she turned up daily on the set of the teen rock hit - “Streets of Fire” - to play opposite another actor who turned out to be a flash in the pan.

As the classy actress made her rounds this past week to plug “Secretariat” on the talk-show circuit - it was quite evident that the low-key actress (though not always in the public eye screaming for attention like so many of her needy contemporaries) - still garners a lot of respect with the movie-going public, critics, and in the industry-at-large.

Indeed, this past weekend, the box office receipts called attention to a glaring fact.

Ms. Lane is still a big draw in the movie business!

In “Secretariat”, Lane portrays a housewife - who is suddenly thrust into the male-dominated realms of professional horse-racing - due to an unexpected turn-of-events in her private life.

With a hope and a prayer, Ms. Lane’s character tackles the challenge head on, in a scenario that proves to be very entertaining bill-of-fare for young and old audiences alike.

Not all the local critics were thrilled with the idea of having to screen a family-oriented film that moves along at its own steady - but slow - pace.

For instance, one reviewer made a snide remark that too much precious celluloid time was wasted on Ms. Lane gazing into the eyes of the horse to the film’s detriment.

What a ridiculous criticism!

In fact, the screen moments he was referring to - resonated with quite a few film buffs (myself included) - because during the duration of those insightful moments Lane’s character was subtly establishing a bond between horse and owner.

The dopey reviewer was too lame to figure that one out!

Take aim; after all, they shoot horses, don't they?

Duh!

John Malcovich, as usual, turns in a stellar performance as a quirky horse trainer with a lousy golf putt.

The established star of stage and screen literally mesmerizes - so seamless and authentic - is his characterization here.

In fact, Malcovich breathes life into a role that less competent actors would turn into a showy piece of jambone.

Come to think of it, Marlon Brando - an actor’s actor - has even managed to flirt with that theatrical sin on occasion.

Although the well-rounded cast of supporting players turn in high caliber performances, too - in the final analysis - the audience can’t help but root for the true star of the heart-warming flick.

The four-legged beauty who plays the horse!

Why did W.C. Fields always caution actors about working with animals and children?

Because, they steal the show, of course.

http://www.thetattler.biz

The Great Buck Howard...a laugh riot! But, Tom Hanks drags the film down...

For me - "The Great Buck Howard" - is hard to knock in many respects.

Well, when it comes to John Malkovich, for sure!

The seasoned pro is always a delight to watch in any role he chooses to inhabit - and in this instant case - he has nudged his way into the very heartbeat of the character hands down.

One mannerism nagged the he** out of me, though, by the time the credits rolled.

An over-the-top heart-warming handshake Buck Howard (played by Malkovich to near perfection) foisted on every character he crossed paths with in the well-written comedy wore a little thin quick as a wink.

In a nutshell, the poignant tale is about a once-famous mentalist (no, the artist is not a mere magician) who connives to worm his way into the big time once again before the elusive opportunity for a last gasp at the brass ring slips away forever.

A young man, bored with law school and pining to find is way in the great scheme of things, answers an ad one day - and before you can pull a rabbit out of a hat - the naive lad is gainfully employed as a road manager for the slightly eccentric stage performer who is not only a stickler for details - but above all else - a precise routine that doesn't play havoc with his sly game plan.

The new hire is likable enough, but most certainly a little wet behind the ears; in fact, it's written all over his cherubic face.

The actor (played by Colin Hanks) isn't your typical pretty boy lead turned out by one of the majors to test the waters.

As a matter of fact, he's average-looking, but in an appealing - "grows on 'ya" - kind of way.

When we were teens on-the-make oft swayed by raging hormones, we'd often rate a less attractive date by the number of beers you'd have to down before you'd hop into the sack with 'em.

In this instant case, that yardstick definitely applies to Buck's chief cook and bottle-washer.

For his big comeback, Buck Howard zeroes in on Cincinnati (cause they like him there) where he anticipates a stunning "effect" (he gets angry when his sleight-of-hand is referred to as a mere magic trick) he has just conjured from the depths of his psyche will nab him National attention and summarily catapult him back into the limelight on the Tonight Show.

That does happen, but in a round-about poignant way.

In a running gag throughout the film, the master of illusion boasts ad nauseam that he appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson sixty-one times.

In contrast, Howard has his knives out for Jay Leno, who hasn't even tossed a crumb his way.

About half-way through the fast-paced farce, Howard appears to go through some kind of epiphany, which ultimately transforms the aging trickster into a genuine old soul who at long last finds peace in his personal and professional life.

Along the way, Hank's character wrestles with his own demons, and ends up signalling by the closing act that - he, too - will come out alright.



One of the few scenes that didn't gel for me occurred at a pivotal point in the film when the actor's real-life father - Tom Hanks - sauntered into the picture and was paired in a scene with son Colin which I found downright distracting.



When the audience is forced to watch histrionics go down between the two, they can't help but compare Tom's finely-honed talent with that of his scene partner, marvel at how similar the thespians physical characteristics are, and so forth and so on.

Big mistake!

It wasn't until Tom disappeared into the woodwork that the story got back on track.

I expect that Mr. Hanks (senior) has to be faulted for that poor judgment call, since he took on the mantle of producer, as well.

To ensure that sonny boy got the part?

There's nothing worse than nepotism in Hollywood, except for the casting couch, of course.

There didn't appear to be any hint of incest here, so I rest my case.

"The Great Buck Howard" is not great, but most certainly, near great.

While eliciting wild guffaws from a captive audience, "Buck" manages to make a subtle statement about the vagaries of fame, the lack of manners in our "me"-oriented society, and a keen insight into the ugly underbelly of the human condition in America today.

I say, two thumbs up!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Burn After Reading...ticket sales drop as predicted. Film fizzles. LA Times misrepresents facts!

Last week, I predicted that once the word got out that the new Coen release - "Burn After Reading" - was basically a piece of celluloid crap, that the ticket sales would drop off.

Opening week - due in large part to the all-star cast (which included Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and John Malkovich) "Burn" managed to rustle up approximately $25 million.

However - now that the theatre-going public has gotten wind of the fact that "Burn" is a bit of a stinker - Box Office has dropped off by over fifty percent.

Meanwhile, in the business section of the LA TIMES this morning, the paper falsely represented that the "dark spy comedy" was gaining momentum - when, in fact - it is losing its legs!

Notwithstanding this glaring irregularity, their list of top ten films does not accurately reflect the facts either; especially when you consider that "The Duchess" and "Appaloosa" had strong sales in limited release around the country over the weekend.

In sum, the top ten list the Times is touting, doesn't mean diddly-squat!

Part of the problem is that writers at the Times are not only inexperienced (incompetent at interpreting data and facts) but are also inclined to be biased in their reporting.

In addition, the paper kow-tows to advertisers to curry favor and boost sales, which doesn't bode well for ethics in journalism.

Understandably, the morning daily has lost its credibility as a legitimate news outlet.

In fact, smart readers are turning to the New York Times by the droves!

The more practical ones - on the other hand - are using the main sections of the LA rag to line their kitty litter boxes.

Zell must be turning over in his grave!

In sum, features in the Los Angeles Times amount to:

"All the news that isn't fit to print"



Can't all be winners, 'ya know...

Brad Pitt...bad in "Burn". Coen feature fizzles!

When I first saw the trailer for "Burn After Reading" last week, it struck me right off-the-bat that Brad Pitt's acting appeared to be stilted and that he was miscast in his role as a trainer at a local gym.

But, I reserved judgment on his performance, until I took in the feature last night at the Grove in Hollywood.

Well, the verdict is out.

Pitt's wooden performance was so off-the-mark, that it forced me to consider the possibility that a couple of plum acting assignments that he carried off in the past, were outright flukes.

For starters, his external approach to the characterization was all wrong.

In fact, the acting choices he made in "Burn", were of the amateurish kind that inexperienced actors (who don't know much better) engage in the first-time-out the starter's gate.

Brad, the character should "bubble" up from inside to the surface.

Not the other way 'round.

Get it?

I surmise that part of the problem was due to fact that neither Pitt or the director bothered to research all the particulars part 'n parcel to the locale.

You'd think that a guy with chiseled abs and a muscled bod would have an inkling about what goes on in a professional gym. Or, at least an idea about what a trainer's thought processes are, while going through the paces with a client at a work-out facility.

In "Burn", however, Brad futzes about with a lot of silly schtick that simply doesn't work because it is not grounded in truth.

In a review for US Magazine, Bradly Jacobs was quick to rave.

"Brad Pitt gets big laughs."

Not in the theater environs I was shifting uncomfortably in.

In fact - I am inclined to surmise that a couple of critics must have gotten some payola or something from the producers to boost up the black comedy - 'cause their reviews were way off, too.

For example, Ben Lyons opined,

"A hilarious comedy from an all-star ensemble cast."

Hilarious? No, not by any stretch of the old funny bone.

In fact, when the audience filed out after the abrupt screwball ending, there was a noticeable silence among the throngs.

Yeah, me-thinks many theatre-goers were under the distinct impression that they got "burned", alright.

The ensemble cast?

Well, at times it appeared they all had a touch of "burnitis".

Frances McDormand (usually a competent actress) got pulled-down a notch or two in her scenes with Pitt, for instance.
And, it appeared for all-the-world, that George Clooney couldn't fathom which way or that his character should go.

Although Clooney demonstrated his ability to subtly shade a character in the past - in award-winning roles - it boggles the sensibilities to encounter him trying to pin down a part on screen that should have been a snap for the talented seasoned pro.

Even, Ellen Chenoweth managed to miss the mark, when she cast a handful of supporting players in roles they weren't suited for from the get-go.

There was one noteable exception, though.

John Malkovich was all fire and spit. Single-handed, the skilled thespian not only underscored what good acting is all about, but - in the process - triumphantly stole the film out from under the rest of the high-profile performers.

In fact, in "Burn After Reading", Malkovich is a one-man tour-de-force.

Even still, he couldn't save the producers from disaster.

The script was poorly written, after all. And, the direction, pedestrian.

At times, "Burn" struggled to achieve that Fargo off-the-wall correctness.

But, none of the magic of that earlier Coen Brother classic, materialized on the silver screen.

I could go on and on.

Why bother?

Rotten Tomatoes has been reporting favorable reviews.

And, there was a flurry of ticket sales over the weekend, which enthused an industry that has been languishing in the doldrums of late.

But, I expect that once the "word of mouth" is out about this little "stinker", audiences will - as Samuel Goldwyn would have quipped - stay away in droves.

In this tough economy, who wants to waste 12 bucks on a dismal night of lousy entertainment that leaves a bad taste in the mouth?

A few die-hard Coen fans, at most, I expect!