Jeremy The Critic Xtra®

Miss March

2009-09-23T23:35:00.000-07:00

Directors: Zach Cregger and Trevor Moore
Starring: Zach Creggger, Trevor Moore, Raquel Alessi, Craig Robinson, Molly Stanton
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: Unrated

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

With a 4.9 rating on the internet movie database and a 0% score on Rotten Tomatoes it's a pretty safe bet that the vulgar but frequently hilarious American Pie clone Miss March won't be showing up on many year-end top ten lists, nor are the performances likely to receive awards attention. But we knew that. Truthfully, this is a BAD movie and one I wouldn't even attempt to defend on any basis of technical merit. The writing, the directing and acting is all pretty average at best and bad at worst. Only it's bad in the most fun way possible and with all the movies I see it's kind of a relief to know that at least I haven't completely lost the ability to check my brain at the door and enjoy garbage. Sure, my IQ may have dropped a couple of hundred points when it ended, but damn if it didn't feel good.

After this I'm starting to think that maybe after this and Crank 2 I should just watch and review trash. It's definitely of a lot more fun. There are times when you're in the mood for a fancy five-course meal at an expensive restaurant and others when you just feel like eating at McDonald's. This film is a Big Mac. It's terrible for you and loaded with empty calories, but if you're in the mood, nothing tastes better. Usually, I'd be surprised that a Direct-to-DVD release could be so entertaining, except, much to my shock, this had a short run in theaters a couple of months ago so a few people actually saw it. There's no need to over-analyze things. A movie like this is only made to make you laugh, and I'm only slightly ashamed I laughed my ass off throughout.

High school senior Eugene (Zach Cregger) is moments away from losing his virginity to longtime girlfriend Cindi (Raquel Alessi) when a drunken fall down the basement stairs causes him to slip into a coma. He awakens four years later partially paralyzed and unable to control his bowels (as we're graphically shown). His goofy best friend Tucker (Trevor Moore) was the only one who stayed by his side as his parents abandoned him and Cindi disappeared. It isn't long before Tucker makes the shocking discovery that Cindi is now a Playboy centerfold, news that horrifies the prudish Eugene who hilariously used to host assemblies with her to scare kids away from sex. From a very early age, the two friends have always had wildly differing outlooks on sex, as we're shown in a really clever opening flashback scene. After a crazy accident involving strobe lights, oral sex, epilepsy and a stripper pole (don't ask), Tucker is hunted by his psycho girlfriend, Candace (Molly Stanton) and a brigade of evil firefighters as he drags Eugene cross-country to reunite with Cindi at the famed Playboy Mansion.

From this point on the movie erupts into a Road Trip-style adventure peppered with a variety of bizarre and hilarious supporting players, specifically Trevor's celebrity rapper friend, Horsedick.mpeg ( a scene-stealing Craig Robinson from Pineapple Express and Zack and Miri Make a Porno) and a pair of horny Russian lesbians (Eve Mauro and Alexis Raben) they end up cheufering on their journey. It's somewhat surprising how much of the comedy hits the mark considering how dumb it all is. Chalk it up to good editing or comic timing but for whatever reason there was hardly a scene where I wasn't cracking up at the antics of these guys. Not every joke hits, but the majority do and the underrated premise of a high school virgin awaking from a coma to discover his girlfriend is a Playboy playmate, is trite, but effectively realized to its fullest potential.

Any way you look at it, the idea of firefighters (of all people) scheming and plotting to take these guys down, to the point where they're throwing axes at their car and hosing them down, is funny. Sorry, but it is. As are scenes when an atrophied Eugene, clad in a hospital gown, attempts to pump gas on a breezy night or when Trevor witnesses one of Horsedick's groupies have an unfortunate accident on his tour bus. Just when you think the story is running out of gas when they hit the Playboy mansion in the last act, Trevor gets a pep talk from a wooden (no pun intended) Hugh Hefner, and it's hilarious how he just completely misses the point of the entire story he's being told, choosing to instead to obsess over the wrong aspect of it as Hef looks on blankly. This is the kind of movie that makes fun of its own message and isn't afraid to fully surrender itself to how dumb it is, which is a relief in an era where most comedies feel the need to hold back and deliver a carefully choreographed sappy message that appeals to both genders. This thankfully didn't succumb to that pressure.

From what I've heard, Zach Cregger and Trevor Moore star on a sketch cable comedy show called "The Whitest Kids U Know." I've never seen it and I'm sure whatever channel it's on I don't get it, but based on their work here I'd definitely check out the show and wouldn't mind seeing them in another big screen outing. The more charismatic than expected Cregger plays a good straight man to Moore, who is very obviously mimicking Jim Carrey, circa his Ace Ventura days. Ironically he actually plays a slightly less annoying Ace Ventura than Carrey did. Moore invokes the actor so well in both appearance and mannerisms that Carrey should expect to receive residual checks from this in the mail for the next few years. As Cindi, Alessi (Eva Mendes' younger counterpart in Ghost Rider) isn't given the opportunity to do much as the title character but makes the most of what limited screen time she has.

That Cregger and Moore (who are only in their twenties despite looking 35 and playing high school kids) managed to competently write, direct and star in a comedy that's consistently funnier than most of the stuff out there these days is pretty impressive and praise-worthy. Sure, it's bad but it's not THAT BAD. How do I know? Because it takes skill to make a good bad movie. That's why you don't see many doing it. It's better than it got credit for and deserved a bigger audience. This bathroom humor isn't for everyone and I completely understand why some would despise it but but doing so on the basis that it's too offensive or tasteless is silly. Film snobbery is a crime. Miss March may be dumb but it's still smart enough not to pretend to be any more than what it is. At least it'll hold me over until I watch Road Trip: Beer Pong.

John Hughes (1950-2009)

2009-08-09T12:00:00.000-07:00

"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
-Ferris Bueller

When the news broke a few days ago that filmmaker John Hughes shockingly passed away from a heart attack, it felt like a piece of everyone's childhood and adolescence went with him. This isn't a tribute because the fact is that there are other people out there for which his films defined their experiences growing up more than they did I. They were teenagers during Hughes' peak years so his movies should belong to them first and foremost. For a true tribute you should READ THIS PIECE instead, which I accidentally came across and has since been making the rounds all over the place. It's one of the most moving remembrances I've ever come across for anyone we've lost (and there's been way too many). Hopefully you check it out... then pass it along.

That correspondence is special in hinting that we may have been exactly right about who we thought John Hughes the person was, which softens the blow a little bit and can make us feel better knowing that he knew the impact he made. He was our best friend, just as we suspected. Other filmmakers who have won far more awards and received greater critical acclaim, would cut off their right leg to be able to say that they made a film that's even half as loved by the public as The Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink, Sixteen Candles, Some Kind of Wonderful, Planes, Trains and Automobiles, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Weird Science, National Lampoon's Vacation or Home Alone. They can have their Oscars if they want them because it's Hughes' movies that are far more often mentioned when you ask anyone to name their all-time "favorites." It's his they still watch and enjoy repeatedly over twenty years later. And I have a feeling many are being re-watched this week. It's funny how we always have problems appreciating something until it's gone. His movies were always loved and respected but in these past couple of days doesn't it seem like we're only now starting to fully realize just how important they are? He's gone, but the legacy he left isn't going anywhere.

Hughes made films that you could put your arms around and hug, never shying away from the pain of growing up, but unafraid to celebrate it either, proudly wearing his heart and the hearts of many moviegoers on his sleeve and earning the right to. He just got it. When he chose to go in a more adult direction with Planes, Trains and Automobiles all of that magic was retained. A new Thanksgiving classic was born and each time I've seen it I'm amazed how a movie that's so hysterical can be just as moving at the same time. His movie are filled with moments like the one when we're given the revelation about John Candy's character that changes everything that came before.

It's safe to say without Hughes there may not have been a Judd Apatow, a Kevin Smith or a Wes Anderson. His influence can be felt in some way in every film they've made. Upon hearing the news he died you knew there would be a huge outpouring of affection because he was just that kind of filmmaker. He knew how to connect with an audience and create memorable characters in believable situations. In doing so he mirrored the experiences of those who came of age during that time...and even those who didn't. He understood that regardless of age we never really leave those years behind. Nor do we ever outgrow movies that provided the soundtrack to our lives. No one will forget about John Hughes.

Flashback: My #1 Film (1997)

2009-04-21T21:54:00.000-07:00

★★★★★★★★★★All-Time Top 10★★★★★★★★★★

My movie watching life can be broken into two sections: "Pre-Game" and "Post-Game." Had I never seen it I wouldn't be reviewing movies today, or probably watching them that much at all. And you wouldn't be reading this right now. So, just how strong a year was it for film in 1997? Let's put it this way: The two movies The Game beat out for the top spot are ranked among my top ten all-time favorites.

I was a freshman in college when this film came out in September and when a group went to see it on opening night I missed out because of some ridiculous academic commitment I made earlier. I always regretted that and wondered what the atmosphere and reaction was in the theater when the big twist came at the end. Of course, as a home viewing experience its just as impactful, but I still haven't gotten over the wrong choice I made that night. On the bright side, I saved my manhood a little because no one was able to see I was fighting back tears by the end credits. There are some movies where it takes a couple of viewings to realize it's an all-time favorite. This isn't one of them. The second it concluded I thought it was one of the greatest motion pictures I'd ever seen. 12 years later the needle hasn't moved at all. I still feel the same exact way.

There are some days (okay, a lot of them) when I wish someone would give me the birthday present egocentric millionaire Nicholas Van Orton (a superb Michael Douglas) receives in David Fincher's master puzzlebox of a film. Sometimes I think I could sure use it and as crazy as this sounds whenever I'm feeling at my lowest this is the movie I always pop in. I find it inspiring and life affirming in a way most films that are intended to be aren't. It's a description you wouldn't normally associate with a dark Fincher thriller but helps explain why it carries such emotional power.

John Brancato and Michael Ferris' airtight script puts us through the wringer, making us speculate wildly on possible explanations and outcomes before the curtain is finally pulled back to reveal that, like the protagonist, we completely lost sight of the big picture. Fincher went on to become one of our most talented and respected filmmakers and after being critically drubbed and commercially ignored upon its release, The Game is now considered a classic in its genre. It always was to me. It's the only film in my Best of the Year series where I'm entitled to jump up and down and say "I told you so." There's maybe only one or two other movies I've seen in my life I feel as close to and while there are likely many more great films to come from Fincher, he won't be able to top this. No one will.

Other Contenders: The Ice Storm, Boogie Nights, Titanic, L.A. Confidential, Face/Off, Contact

My Top 5 Most Anticipated Films of 2009

2009-04-19T21:14:00.000-07:00

As I was perusing the slate of upcoming films for 2009 it occurred to me that the line between anticipation and dread can be very thin. It's always possible that projects looking to be sure bets on paper could easily turn out to be disasters while others you wouldn't give the time of day to could end up being listed among the year's best. If you think about it all we really have to go on is a premise and the past history of the participants involved. That's it. Expectations are a funny thing. For proof of that look no further than The Dark Knight. A great film to be sure, but my expectations going in were for it to be FAR BEYOND great.

Nolan's film was one of the more exciting experiences at the movies in the past few years yet somehow it's still somewhat of a disappointment to me because I expected something even better. Is that unfair of me? Maybe, but it's the truth. With all the cards Nolan held I don't think I was being unreasonable in asking for perfection. And because I wouldn't rank it among my top 10 (or even 20 or 30) films of all-time it will always carry a stench of disappointment. That stench has subsided over repeated viewings but I bet it will never completely go away. We always bring our expectations (or lack of them) to every film we see and denying it would just be a lie.

This was originally supposed to be a top ten list but I honestly couldn't name ten films I'm greatly anticipating so I picked five. My top two choices shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with my tastes. There were some movies (such as Star Trek and G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra) I thought I was looking forward to but the more glimpses I saw of them the less enthusiastic I got. Not to say I'm dreading them, but my anticipation has waned considerably. Now I'm just finding myself curious to see whether they fail or not.

It's great when a movie you have no expectations for surprises you, but it's even better (and far rarer) when you have giant expectations and they're met. These are the five films I'm most looking forward to in '09:

5. Inglourious Basterds (Dir. Quentin Tarantino)-Yeah, I know. I see the argument that Tarantino should dump this B-movie tribute nonsense and try to make a legitimate masterpiece again. And yes Grindhouse does feel more underwhelming the further you move away from it, but here's the thing. With some filmmakers I really do question how much passion they have for making movies, often thinking they're in it for a quick buck and nothing else. Tarantino loves movies and its visible in every single frame of every film he's ever written or directed, no matter how it turned out. In fact, he might be the only director alive who loves movies TOO MUCH. He's so self-indulgent he often needs to reigned in, but that's not necessarily a criticism. You've gotta give it to the guy--at least he knows how to have a good time. This promises more of that.

I know little about Basterds other than it's a WWII epic starring Brad Pitt that involves killing Nazis and is a remake of a Spaghetti Western from the '70's. And that's pretty much all I need or want to know until the opening credits. Plus, haven't you always wanted to see Eli Roth in a dramatic role? (no need to answer) And Tarantino is actually releasing it as ONE SINGLE FILM for a change. It could very well be train wreck...and I kind of hope it is. (Release Date: August 21)

4. Funny People (Dir. Judd Apatow)- I wasn't sure whether to include this on my most or least anticipated list but just because I'm so incredibly curious to see how it turns out creatively I figured it belongs here. I've been complaining for a while now that some of Apatow's written, directed and/or produced films (most notably Knocked Up and Forgetting Sarah Marshall) have had serious problems balancing tone and incorporating dramatic elements and emotional pathos into what's supposed to be comedy. So what does he do? Casts Adam Sandler as a comic...WHO'S DYING.

That this film is supposed to be the most dramatic of any of Apatow's output scares me because that aspect hasn't exactly been his strong suit. He's a better writer than director but he's such a gifted, observant writer that I still can't help but think he has a great film somewhere in him. Not just a great comedy, but a truly great film. I'm always willing to see Sandler stretch even just a little and the presence of Seth Rogen (on the streak of his life lately) and the criminally underrated Leslie Mann are big positives. I just hope the Apatow who directed The 40-Year-Old Virgin decides to show up instead of the one who made Knocked Up. If this doesn't work it's at least guaranteed to be an intriguing failure, but if it does, the sky's the limit. (Release Date: July 31)

3. Where The Wild Things Are (Dir. Spike Jonze)- Anyone interested in seeing their childhood unfold in front of their eyes in under 3 minutes should watch the magical trailer for Spike Jonze's adaptation of the Maurice Sendak's classic children's novel. What jumped out at me most are how the creatures are depicted. They actually look like something out of a child's imagination rather than the usual CGI crap we're used to.

The images and tone of the trailer bring to mind such '80's family classics as The Dark Crystal and The Neverending Story, movies in this genre that actually meant something. We need to get back to that kind of storytelling and from the looks of it Jonze may have captured everything that made that book special for so many. It also looks like he wasn't afraid to flirt with the story's darker side because, let's face it, everything is scary when you're a kid. The only thing that 's a concern is that the trailer's so strong (one of the strongest I've seen in years) that it's possible Jonze just won't be able to deliver on it resulting in a giant mess of great ideas that just doesn't come together. I hope not. (Release Date: October 16)

2. (500) Days of Summer (Dir. Marc Webb)- Talk about expectations. It isn't often my interest in a film (especially a romantic comedy) rests primarily with who's starring in it but this is one of those rare, welcome exceptions. I worry if a movie screen can even contain the talent of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel at the same time, easily two of the best young actors working today.

As the title character I'm sure Zooey will be playing the ultimate dream girlfriend like only she can and it'll be very interesting to see JGL return to comedy after proving himself the real deal as a dramatic actor in a series of dark, torturous roles. This should be a nice break from that.

I still have my reservations with this though since I can't recall a single buzzed about film in this genre to come out of Sundance that wasn't either flat-out terrible or at least massively overpraised in some way. Being an indie festival favorite could almost be considered a curse nowadays. That it's being released by Fox Searchlight, the same studio that shoved Little Miss Sunshine, Juno and Slumdog Millionaire so far down our throats we were gagging, is also slightly worrisome to me. But that's a minor quibble at this stage. I still have to take a "wait and see" but the signs look promising. (Release Date: July 24)

1. The Box (Dir. Richard Kelly)- In 2001 Kelly directed Donnie Darko, one of the most daring, original films of this decade. Six years later he topped himself with Southland Tales. Luckily I won't have to wait that long this time. The Box, adapted from sci-fi legend Richard Matheson's short story (later adapted into a well known Twilight Zone episode) is the film that's supposed to help Kelly "recover" from the failure of Southland Tales, as if that's even necessary. As far as I'm concerned the only people who need to recover from it are audiences who unfairly dismissed it after only a single viewing.

The plot centers around a married couple (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) who receive a box from a mysterious stranger (Langella!) who tells them each time they push a button they'll get a million dollars but simultaneously someone, somewhere will die. Kelly has stated this is his craziest and most personal film yet, scary to consider since his last one was made only for himself, me and maybe a couple of other people. It's also supposed to deviate heavily from the source material and incorporate NASA and, yes, time travel.

Believe it or not I'm a fan of Diaz and if pushed by the right director she's proven to be capable of great work (see Being John Malkovich, Vanilla Sky and In Her Shoes). If Kelly was able to get the performances he did out of that insane cast in his last film then wrangling one out of her should be a piece of cake. She usually thrives under bizarre circumstances like this and Marsden's been solid in any role he's had so we'll see. The release date has been shuffled around like crazy which isn't news since studios executives have already tried to sabotage his two previous films. This could be the first Halloween I don't rush out to see a Saw film.
(Release Date: October 30, 2009)

Other Films That Could Be Great: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Whatever Works, The Road, Moon, Taking Woodstock

Flashback: My #1 Film (1996)

2009-04-18T22:05:00.000-07:00

Of the films I've selected as the year's best Fargo probably wouldn't rank among the top tier but it is one of the most important in that it shaped and influenced my view of film like no other. When I first saw it I felt as if I was being taken to school because I learned so much about movies from it. At that point I had never seen Raising Arizona or Barton Fink and had no idea who these Coen Brothers were. But I knew I had never seen anything like this.

I remember watching an episode of Siskel & Ebert where they both agreed Fargo was the best film of the year with no other movie standing a chance in topping it. And it was only March. Their passion convinced me to seek it out and like so many of these titles it took me a few viewings to completely warm up to it. Once I did there was no turning back. Dark comedy is mixed seamlessly with crime drama as the acting, cinematography and music (how was Burwell's score not nominated?) combined to create an unforgettable experience that's only enhanced with each watch.

Frances McDormand justifiably won the Best Actress Oscar and her police chief Marge Gunderson is one of our greatest, most likable film heroes because she's just like us. Only a little smarter. Her speech in the squad car at the end is so profound in its simplicity, making you wonder why all movie characters can't be written as sharply and have such a firm grasp on reality. Brilliant.

Other Contenders: The English Patient, Jerry Maguire

Flashback: My #1 Film: 1995

2009-04-13T16:41:00.000-07:00

My selection for the best film of 1995, Terry Gilliam's dystopian nightmare, 12 Monkeys, also owns the distinction of being the worst theater experience I ever had. It was one of those screenings where exactly the wrong kind of crowd shows up for the movie you're watching and commits themselves to making it as miserable for everyone else as they can. It's a good thing this film can't be digested on a single viewing anyway.

I saw it again the following week and countless times after that in the years that followed. Did you know it's actually taught in schools? It's so difficult to make science fiction films that say something new, especially when they involve time travel. But Gilliam did it. The best performance of Bruce Willis' career, the first movie to convince the world that Brad Pitt is to be taken very seriously, a criminally underrated soundtrack and score and one of cinema's most haunting, cruelly ironic endings. A classic in every sense of the word, only in recent years getting the respect it always deserved.

Other Contenders: Leaving Las Vegas, Casino, Babe, The Usual Suspects, To Die For, Dead Man Walking, Before Sunrise, Se7en

Flashback: My #1 Film (1994)

2009-04-06T16:37:00.000-07:00

This was a tough year. Three films of absolutely staggering quality were released and to the Academy's credit they nominated them all for the big prize. Ask me tomorrow I might change my mind and say Forrest Gump. Ask me the following day and I could say The Shawshank Redemption. What's really called for here is a 3-way tie but that's a cop-out. My choice for the year's best may seem obvious, but only in hindsight.

It didn't completely register for me the first time I saw it but then I discovered how repeated viewings can help shape your perception of a film. Frequently mimicked in tone and style but never equaled it's outlasted its competition and is one of the few Best Picture nominees to sit atop my year-end list. It's almost fitting that it lost to Gump. If ever there was a movie made for fans, not the Academy, it's this. Not to mention it boasts the greatest motion picture soundtrack of all-time. Tarantino's masterpiece:

Flashback: My #1 Film (1993)

2009-04-05T09:32:00.000-07:00

With the unveiling of my choice for the Best Film of 2008 rapidly approaching (although unfortunately it's looking like it'll be next month instead of this one) I thought it might be fun to take a trip down memory lane and reveal some of my previous choices for the honor. Matt Damon recently made an interesting comment that he thinks Oscars should be handed out ten years after the contending films are released. He has a point and that's usually how I feel when it comes to naming a film the "best" of its year. It really can take that long to get an idea of its true staying power.

Some years I hadn't even made my mind up on yet and this forced me to do so (1994 was particularly tough as you could imagine). Plus, I'm always going back and discovering films I missed the year they were released. Since most of these picks pre-date the blogging era and I never really talked about them there are bound to be some surprises. Many of you will probably be scratching your heads asking, "He picked THAT?" But yes, I did.

At some point I may write in detail about some of these films, but for now I'm revealing the picks with their trailers. I started with 1993, the first year I can remember doing this. Just how long ago was it? Well, Kevin Costner was still a major star and making good films. This was a great one and for my money ranks as Eastwood's greatest.

Now THAT's How You End a TV Series

2009-04-04T16:37:00.000-07:00

It's not often I feel the need or urge to comment on anything related to television. If I did it would probably be mostly to complain. There just isn't a lot of good stuff on these days and I could count on one hand the amount of unmissable shows. In case you hadn't heard, Thursday night they aired the final episode of E.R., ending its 15-year run. And here's where I give you the opening to insert your own personal "Who cares?" or "I stopped watching this show 10 years ago" comment. I'm not going to pretend I'm a big fan of the show either or that its best years weren't behind it, but any way you look at it 15 years is a long time. To fully put this in perspective, Bill Clinton was serving his first term in office when it premiered. That's pretty damn impressive.

I won't bore you with a long, detailed review of the finale even though the episode was anything BUT boring. I realize everyone stopped tuning in and caring years ago, even if the 17 million indicate a lot more people tuned in Thursday than are willing to admit it. I always found the idea of series finales fascinating. More specifically, the idea that a show can run for a number of years, run out of gas, then limp to the finish line because the writers and producers threw their hands up in the air and just gave up. For every M*A*S*H that finishes in a blaze of glory there seem to be ten The X-Files. It's as if they have no clue that the final episode will be the last thing viewers remember and a bad send-off can tarnish the legacy of its entire run.

In E.R.'s final season the producers proved that they do have a clue and that they cared. Here's hoping the other networks were watching and taking notes because they just taught a master class on how to end a series. Fan of the show or not, they pulled out all the stops and what they pulled off is commendable. The amount of detail and dedication they put into closing this out was astounding, and all this for a show that very few were watching anymore! I'm not sure whether he was inspired by the recent death of creator Michael Crichton or he just knows how to deliver under pressure but writer/producer John Wells clearly summoned up every ounce of creative strength he had to make sure the show went out on not just a high note, but the highest one.

For their part, NBC was smart enough to treat it like an important TV event in an age where important TV events are becoming scarce. It may not have been but the point is that it was treated as one and because of that it felt like one. Besides giving it a one-hour retrospective and 2-hour finale they went all out, balls-to-the-wall and brought back EVERY SINGLE MAJOR CHARACTER from the show's run. Noah Wyle, Eriq LaSalle, Julianna Margulies, Sherry Stringfield (who apparently hasn't aged a day), Laura Innes, Alex Kingston and Paul McCrane all returned to reprise their roles in the final season. Of course, the big joke here is "What else did they have to do?" but, hey, I'm just impressed the producers even thought to ask. See what happens when you TRY.

But wait....we're not done yet. They didn't stop there. They actually went out and brought back Clooney. I don't know whether to be more surprised they had the guts to ask or that accepted with supposedly very little hesitation. If this isn't enough, they even somehow found a way to work back in Anthony Edwards back into the show via flashback in a really clever, believable way despite the fact that his Dr. Greene passed away years ago. Yes, they even dragged corpses back for this. Even if you're not or have never been a regular viewer (which I admittedly haven't been) you have to applaud the lengths they went to here to give the dedicated fans a celebration to remember. Why can't this happen more often? Instead, producers sabotage their own shows to screw the networks and everyone loses.

All of these creative decisions already far exceed reasonable expectations for a departing show (even one this long-running), but they STILL weren't finished. Rather than distractingly jam all these characters into the final episode in a forced, cliched way like any other program would, they knew to spread the wealth, sprinkling the returning characters into various episodes throughout the last episodes in such a way that it didn't needlessly call attention to itself or feel like a gimmick. When they showed up it felt real and organic, rather than something manufactured to grab ratings. Nor did they give in to the temptation to use the bigger names in such a way that it would steal the thunder from any of the current cast members, potentially short-changing their story arcs. And at a time when NBC could have easily been planning a funeral this was finishing so strong they actually added 3 more additional episodes to the final season.

Throughout its run E.R. has been known for its frequent use of big name guest stars but for the finale they took a HUGE RISK by casting a fairly well-known but mostly untested actress (Alexis Bledel) against type and giving her an absolutely enormous role in the show's last 120 minutes on the air. It should have resulted in disaster but she came off like a pro and seemed so comfortable in the part you'd think she'd been a series regular for years. Of the reviews I've read of the episode and people I've talked to, all of them have universally praised Bledel's performance, unheard of considering guest stars are frowned upon in finales where we're so accustomed to the focus being on series regulars. But they're right. She hit it out of the park under tough circumstances.

There's always that tendency when a "name" guest stars on something like E.R. to say that they're slumming it but with Bledel and the 92 year-old (!) Ernest Borgnine (who will probably earn an Emmy nod for his work) it sure didn't feel like it. They actually raised the caliber of the episode and likely earned a few more fans and some respect in the process. But that's not what I liked most about the episode. Most impressive of all was that they knew that Noah Wyle's Dr. Carter should have be the focal point of the episode because he was the character and actor who meant the most to the show throughout its run and he was who all the action should revolve around. It wasn't that obvious a choice and I could easily envision a lesser writer missing it. He was there at the beginning and there at the very end, giving back and doing what was done for him in the pilot. Full Circle.

In a surprising stroke of genius, they even brought back a minor but important character that perfectly tied the legacy of the show together while simultaneously paying tribute the roots of the show. I couldn't believe they actually thought to do it and there were tons of little details in a similar vain. Even the last line uttered in the episode and final shot MEANT SOMETHING. Just the right amount of loose ends were tied up and enough left unresolved. And if I got chills from the final scene I could only imagine how the longtime, diehards reacted. I've talked to a couple of casual viewers who told me they thought the finale was so strong they've questioned NBC's decision to cancel it and think that it was fleshed out so well that there was an opening for a spin-off. There was this feeling that there could be a little more gas in the tank, but best end it now. And that's exactly how a final episode should leave you feeling if its done its job.

Like I said, I'm hardly a frequent follower of the show but I just had to pause and give NBC credit. They didn't have to do it and certainly gain little from a monetary standpoint considering the show was going off the air no matter what. They also could have easily showboated Clooney's appearance but didn't. This and their recent renewal of Friday Night Lights (enjoying a creative resurgence that's another blog topic in itself) for two more seasons gives me hope that these network executives may have brains after all.

Moving forward, what Wells did could act as a blueprint for other shows drawing to a close. For a while I've thought about making a list of the best series finales and it would be interesting to see where this would show up on it. The general consensus seems to be that it was good, but that's it. I couldn't disagree more. Everyone has been shortchanging how hard this was to pull off. It's really tough to encapsulate what makes an entire series special (especially one with over a decade's history) in a single two-hour episode but they somehow managed to do it in a restrained, classy way.

Next year, ABC will face a similar challenge when they have to close out Lost. The pressure is really going to be on there since people are actually still watching that show and its rabid, cult fanbase expect only the best, as they should. Besides being a drama that's run for far shorter a time, the rules are also way different for sending it off. You have to wonder if anything they deliver could possibly meet expectations. And that's why these finales are so tricky. With apologies to Ben McKenzie, something tells me 15 years from now families won't be gathered around the TV watching the final episode of Wells' new cop drama Southland, the show "replacing" E.R. The constant promos clobbering us with hype for that upcoming series may have been the only black mark on an otherwise stellar presentation from NBC.

The episode made me consider whether E.R. really needed to go away. Did it really drop THAT MUCH in quality or did we just take it for granted? It's always been one of the shows that if you were flipping through the channels you'd keep watching because you knew it was at least smart and always technically sound. That's a lot more than you can say for most other shows on the air right now. That the finale actually had me asking myself this question speaks to how well it was executed. Because of this more will be willing to overlook the fact that the series stayed past its expiration date and embrace its legacy. I never thought it was THAT influential a program, but now I'm not so sure. But it should have ended. The timing was right and the final show confirmed it in a way we wish all shows could. 15 years IS a long time, but there's something to be said for going out on top.

Christian Bale and I Are Done Professionally

2009-02-03T20:48:00.000-08:00

This has to be heard to be believed. This week TMZ released the audio of Christian Bale's nearly four minute (!) profanity laced tirade on the set of Terminator: Salvation apparently caused when director of photography Shane Hurlbut walked onset and ruined an important scene between him and Bryce Dallas Howard. Bale's behavior is reprehensible for sure but I'll tell you what's even more reprehensible: Some people actually attempting to defend it. Over the past couple of days I've heard the following excuses:

- He's "very serious about his craft."
- His concentration can't be broken
- If you've never acted you "just don't understand."
- It was the most pivotal, emotional scene in the film.
- He was distraught over Heath's death.
- It was taken "out of context"
- McG is the director
- The set was unprofessional.
- Hurlbut should have known better. He's been in the business for 20 years

And here's my personal favorite, a real keeper from Whoopi Goldberg:

"We don't know if this is at the end of the day. We don't know how many hours he's been working. And it's tough."

I have a better explanation: Bale is a douchebag. Can you imagine if any of us pulled something like that on the job? Woe is him. Must be tough for an A-List superstar actor raking in millions of dollars a year to have to tolerate a crew member making an honest mistake. I'm sure he's never blown a take before. Not surprisingly, The Dark Knight fanboys have also come out of the woodwork defending him on the basis that he just must have been so used to dealing with the highest level of professionalism on Christopher Nolan's set. What a joke. Nolan's set could have been a complete disaster for all we know

It won't be long now before Bale issues some kind of public apology through his publicist or something. Except treating people like this isn't a "mistake." This guy needs serious help for his rage issues. And before producers convince themselves Bale is worth all the aggravation they should ask themselves just how much he really contributed to The Dark Knight's commercial success. I'd say very little to nothing. He was merely adequate in the film, and you could even reasonably argue the weakest link. Clooney could have reprised the role and it probably would have made just as much money.

Sure, Bale's a great actor but I wouldn't blame anyone in the industry if they didn't want to work with guy ever again. But they will because he's (falsely) perceived as being "bankable." And who Bale should really be cursing out is his agent for letting him star in a Terminator sequel directed by McG. Now that's a tape I'd want to hear.

Cool shirt though.

Veronica Mars Movie Kind of Confirmed

2009-02-02T15:58:00.000-08:00

How did I miss this? Sometime in the past two weeks the rumored Veronica Mars movie was confirmed by series creator Rob Thomas. Of course, knowing how these things work I'll believe that when it's actually in production (I mean just look at how long Michael Cera has held up the Arrested Development movie). But what's most surprising is that he's writing it now and has started to leak vague clues about the plot.

"...it's 70 percent broken in my head, I've been struggling with this one plot point and I'm hopeful to figure that out....I'm feeling like I'm on the right track now. But I don't want to give that away yet."

"The one thing that I will say is where it will pick up. "I know we did that F.B.I. ‘what if’ thing, but we would not go to that place. I think it would open just days before the Hearst College Graduation. So Veronica would be sort of at the end of her college career."

Well, at least it doesn't involve the F.B.I. That's a relief. But this isn't enough information to go on yet as far as any indication of the film's prospects. The first season of the show is the greatest piece of television I've ever seen, the second is just a notch below that and the third was castrated by the CW network, resulting in a creatively mixed bag that could only really be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure. So what next?

The show didn't soar off the air at the heights it truly deserved and the shift from high school to the college setting had a lot to do with that. Thomas' decision to set this during Veronica's final college days is a curious one and it'll be interesting to see how he handles that. But what he needs to do right now is plant himself in front of the TV and study season 1 very, very hard. And he should READ THIS. Still, any excuse to see the love of my life Kristen Bell onscreen in anything is fine by me and I'm thrilled to see my favorite show get a chance at potentially gaining more fans. Thomas just better not screw this up...and he better have Ken Marino and Harry Hamlin on speed dial.

Source: IF Magazine

AskMen.com Reveals Their 99 Most Desirable Women of 2009 (Could Be Worse)

2009-02-01T17:55:00.000-08:00

The folks over at AskMen.com have recently revealed their 99 "Most Desirable Women of 2009" list. A little early for sure, but I say it's never too early to start doing research on a topic as important as this. I've given up examining the rankings and just chalk it up as a victory if a favorite of mine even makes it on. Recently, my good friend d$mania of The Money Pit and I compiled dueling 2008 lists and I guested on his podcast to discuss and compare. During said appearance I didn't really come off too well, mainly because I revealed myself to be pretty shallow and superficial. In other words, I represented myself accurately. He took the high road and I took the low road, but it made for an interesting convo because we approached it from completely different perspectives. Anyway AskMen's is better than Maxim's or FHM's I'll at least give it that.

1. Eva Mendes (Hot no doubt but can't think of anything about her that screams out "#1")
2. Megan Fox
3. Marisa Miller
4. Keeley Hazell
5. Anne Hathaway (no thanks)
6. Alessandra Ambrosio
7. Scarlett Johansson (in her typical overrated top 10 spot)
8. Rihanna
9. Kristen Bell (YAY!!!!)
10. Kate Beckinsale
11. Heidi Klum
12. Emmanuelle Chriqui
13. Halle Berry (approve)
14. Brooke Burke
15. Jessica Alba (I'm still waiting for that list with enough guts to exclude her)
16. Jessica Biel
17. Selita Ebanks (who?)
18. Monica Bellucci
19. Adriana Lima
20. Cheryl Cole
21. Doutzen Kroes (Again....who?)
22. Evangeline Lilly
23. Lucy Pinder
24. Bianca Beauchamp (Okay, this is getting tiresome)
25. Penelope Cruz
26. Charlize Theron
27. Mila Kunis
28. Gisele Bundchen (More model nonsense. Whose list is this, AskMen's or DiCaprio's?)
29. Keira Knightley
30. Olga Kurylenko
31. Isla Fisher
32. Misa Campo
33. Denise Milani
34. Bar Rafaeli
35. Christina Aguilera (she runs hot and cold)
36. Summer Glau
37. Layla Kayleigh
38. Katy Perry (came thisclose to making mine)
39. Stacy Keibler
40. Odette Yustman
41. Hayden Panettiere
42. Angelina Jolie
43. Zoe Saldana
44. Sara Varone
45. Eva Longoria
46. Miranda Kerr
47. Carrie Underwood
48. Katrina Kaif
49. Karolina Kurkova
50. Beyonce
51. Christina Applegate
52. Christina Hendricks
53. Paz Vega
54. Leighton Meester
55. Maria Menounos
56. Elisabeth Hasselbeck (Gutsy pick)
57. Taylor Swift
58. Emily Blunt
59. Blake Lively
60. Aishwarya Rai
61. Vanessa Hudgens
62. Olivia Munn
63. Dania Ramirez
64. Katharine Mcphee
65. Nicole Scherzinger
66. Holly Weber
67. Camilla Belle
68. Audrina Patridge
69. Julianne Hough
70. Jessica Simpson (before or after the infamous Chili cook-off appearance?)
71. Anna Paquin
72. Yunjim Kim
73. Gina Carano
74. M.I.A.
75. Danielle Bux
76. Carla Bruni
77. Cassie
78. Anna Faris
79. Aubrey O’Day
80. Naomi Watts (YES!)
81. Katherine Heigl
82. Jade Raymond
83. Maria Sharapova
84. Carolyn Murphy
85. Sarah Shahi
86. Leryn Franco
87. Torrie Wilson (huh? Is she even still alive?)
88. Leona Lewis
89. Nadine Velasquez
90. Britney Spears
91. Danica Patrick
92. Alicia Keys
93. Emma Stone
94. Sophie Monk
95. Elizabeth Banks (Top 10 for me. The total package.)
96. Ana Ivanovic
97. Tina Fey
98. January Jones
99. Kate Winslet (at least they tried to give their list "prestige")

So Now Mickey Rourke ISN'T Competing at Wrestlemania (I Think)

2009-02-01T16:30:00.000-08:00

"This guy could headline Wrestlemania right now."

-Me, in my review of The Wrestler

Whoa...hold up. Okay, he was amazing in the part but I didn't mean he should LITERALLY headline Wrestlemania. Well, it looks like saner heads prevailed and Rourke's proposed match with Chris Jericho won't be happening....or is it? Who knows? It was already off to a shaky start when Rourke blew the big surprise on the red carpet of the SAG awards, but now it looks like his people are finally doing their jobs, coming to the realization that this fiasco could cost him the Oscar (if it hasn't already) or worse, deride his career comeback. Or Rourke has been told to deny it until after the Oscar ballots are in.

The only person who stands to benefit from this match is Vince McMahon, who deserves credit for at least finally acknowledging and promoting The Wrestler, even if his motives are suspect. Sorry, I still don't buy recent reports that he was "moved" by the film. Moved to vomit maybe. Besides, you know Vince would idiotically have him wrestle as "Mickey Rourke" instead of Randy "The Ram" Robinson. Who wants to see that? If that's not enough, rumors of overrated has-been Ric Flair's involvement as Mickey's trainer (ugh) should immediately qualify it as a must-miss. They should even the sides and have Ernest Miller (as The Ayatollah) in Jericho's corner. You'd have The Ayatollah and the "The Ayatollah of Rock n' Rolla"

The bottomline is these Wrestlemania rumors don't help Mickey's Oscar chances at all and he's come too far to let something like this derail him. Hopefully he's come to his senses. If not, the only other way he can win the Best Actor statue is if Vince signs a "Castro Street Fight" between these two (and I wouldn't put it past him):

I Want This Video Game

2009-01-31T10:44:00.000-08:00

I was never really good at video games. Still not. But here's a game I'd definitely buy...if it existed. Which begs the question: Why doesn't Nintendo just get on with it already and re-release the 8-Bit system with new games? You know everyone wants it. If they ever did, this title should be at the top of their list. Whoever created it clearly has serious skills. Now all we need is someone to hit that "START" button.

Source: /Film

Top 50 Women of 2008

2009-01-03T10:29:00.000-08:00

Wow, this was tough. I mean really, really hard. I've only ever bothered to do a top 10 and have never even attempted to rank as many as 50 before. That number is really stretching it and to be honest I think the top 3 or 4 are in an entirely different league than everybody else, and since I don't even think there are 50 deserving of this honor there are some choices at the bottom I'm not crazy about. I did the best I could. Of course, these rankings are extremely subjective and far from a perfect science. I'm sure if you asked a million different guys you'd get a million different lists. Here were the criteria for making it:

1. Looks. That's pretty self-explanatory and really the only concrete thing to go on. I tried to exclude women who just "have their moments" every once in a while. But how HOT are they? Another smaller part of that equation depends on some...

2. Mitigating Factors. This is trickier to put a finger on but it's just the overall vibe I get from them. It's sort of ridiculous since we don't actually KNOW these women personality-wise at all but everyone has a "type" and I think I have enough information to go on. I've also taken into account anything that may have increased or decreased their overall attractiveness in the past year. This isn't a talent competition or a popularity contest but to dismiss either of those as at least small factors is foolish. It tends to help if the celebrity doesn't repulse me, or better yet, I actually kind of like them (though that isn't even a prerequisite in some cases).

3. Exposure. The more you're seen the better chance you have of making it. It's that simple. Some choices are so strong they don't need much exposure at all. Others do. While it's possible to coast on past glory, it can only take you so far. Fame is fleeting, as is a good position on this list. On the flip side, overexposure and the media shoving an undeserving celebrity down my throat as god's gift to the hottie universe can't help either (cough Alba cough).

I think my list is differs from most. Looking at it anyone who doesn't know me could still tell I was brutally honest to a fault. And it's all over the map. I have celebrities both older and younger. Some big names and other lesser known ones. Some hated, some loved. I was less concerned about whether they had a good year than just making the best choices. It was tough because a lot of my favorites just kind of faded away in the past year and there was really no one there to step up and take their places. This resulted in many top choices of mine falling hard and others who hadn't seen the list for years returning to my good graces.

The good news is that there were a few fresh faces that really stepped up to the plate to make a huge splash on my hottie radar and they were rewarded accordingly. Two of whom ascended to the highest level and are knocking very hard on the door of my current #1, who's still sitting comfortably...for now. They say a list like like this can reveal a lot about someone so I should probably be afraid what this one says about me. I added comments on the selections that I wanted to say something about because they were a new entry or just felt like elaborating on.

50. Kate Bosworth

49. Alexis Bledel

48. Jenny Lewis

47. Elisha Cuthbert

46. Heather Graham

45. Bryce Dallas Howard

44. Schuyler Fisk

43. Jennie Garth

42. Robin Tunney

41. Marg Helgenberger

40. Dido-I'm breaking the rules on this since she's been M.I.A. for the better part of 5 years. Don't care. Love her and she had to be included. Criminally underrated. It scares me to think how high she'd be if I actually saw her every once in a while.

39. Julie Benz

38. Minka Kelly

37. Jessica Alba-zzzzzzzzzzz...oh I'm sorry I just fell asleep at the boring predictability of this pick. No, she shouldn't be ranked higher. This seems just fine. In her defense she is VERY hot and it's not her fault she's overexposed and overrrated.

36. Britney Spears- Am I forgiving or what? Not really, because she's one of those who can get away with a lot and still make a list like this. Still, her 2007 downfall was horrific, even for her. 2008 was much better. I still think she should actually make a comeback instead of the media fabricating one for her and is a FAR CRY looks-wise from what she used to be but anyone who says they'd kick her out of bed is kidding themselves.

35. Scarlett Johannson- Overrated, but not as overrated as Alba. I'll give her credit for at least being sexier than Jessica that's for sure.

34. Angelina Jolie- I'm not a fan of her saintly persona and yes she's massively overrated. But saying there are 50 celebrities better looking is a lie. My only serious issue with her recently was that she was looking skinny. Now that she put back on the weight all is good and she returns to the list.

33. Charlize Theron- It took THIS LONG for me to get over Monster and finally be able to find her hot again.

32. Ali Larter

31. Shannyn Sossamon

30. Amy Adams

29. Keri Russell

28. Gwyneth Paltrow

27. Selma Blair

26. Joss Stone

25. Cameron Diaz

24. Malin Akerman

23. Kirsten Dunst

22. Evan Rachel Wood

21. Rosario Dawson

20. Hayden Panetierre

19. Kate Hudson

18. Kelly Clarkson-Once occupied the top spot. Dropping off the face of the Earth in '08 accounts for this underwhelming ranking (and not looking that great in the few photos I've seen of her). When she decides to end her self-imposed exile an automatic free ride back to the top 10 will NOT be happening. Just the idea of her even competing with my top 3 right now is a joke. She'll have to earn it.

17. Julianne Moore

16. Reese Witherspoon

15. Jennifer Connelly

14. Halle Berry

13. Naomi Watts

12. Nicole Kidman

11. Mary Elizabeth Winstead- A potential future #1. Just wish we saw more of her.

10. Jewel- I've resigned myself to the fact that I see something in her that no one else does. I've given up trying to convert anyone.

9. Rachel Bilson

8. Elizabeth Banks- This chick is everywhere! I don't think there was a movie this year she WASN'T in. The more I saw of her the more I liked. I'm still not sure of the exact moment when she turned the corner in my eyes and became one of the ten most beautiful women in the world.

7. Blake Lively

6. Megan Fox-The only pick on this list who gets by on 100% scorching hotness and NOTHING ELSE. I can't name a single other redeeming thing about her. It's the shallowest, most superficial selection imaginable. But I don't have a problem with that at all.

5. Sarah Lancaster

4. Mandy Moore

3. Lauren Conrad-I know it's wrong. I tried to fight it. No use. Part of me wanted to rank her higher but looking at the top 2 that's just not possible. Easily the most controversial choice on here I'm sure.

2. Zooey Deschanel-While I've always been a fan it took me a while to see see that what makes her so hot is that she doesn't need to try to be. She has a special something that far transcends looks and I can't even explain what it is because no one else has it. Some girls on this list are just plain hot. Others are beautiful. She's the only one whose marryable (is that a word?) I heard she just got engaged. Excuse me while I cry, then throw things.

1. Kristen Bell- The total package. It's hard to believe just a couple of years ago I didn't dig her at all. How wrong I was. She retains her #1 status.

TV on DVD: One Tree Hill (The Complete Fifth Season)

2008-09-07T09:17:00.000-07:00

Creator: Mark Schwahn
Starring: Chad Michael Murray, James Lafferty, Hilarie Burton, Bethany Joy Galeotti, Sophia Bush, Paul Johansson
Original Airdate: 2008

*** (out of ****)

There are very few pieces of entertainment that I’d actually consider myself embarrassed to tell people I watch. Something where I’d choose not to share the information with anyone out of fear of public ridicule. I don’t have many “guilty pleasures”, but I’m convinced that has to do with the fact that not many movies and TV shows deserve that coveted title rather than any particularly fearless viewing habits on my part. I’m of the belief that a “guilty pleasure” should, you know, actually make you FEEL GUILTY. If that’s the criteria then nothing fits the bill better than The CW’s teen drama One Tree Hill. If you looked up “guilty pleasure” on Wikipedia there’s probably a cast photo.

That I watched even so much as a single episode of it is enough to make me feel guilty. That I watched an entire season makes my face flush with embarrassment. Just writing this review is mortifying. But you know what? In a strange way, it kind of feels great. It feels great because the show knows exactly what it is and doesn’t try to be any more than that, which makes it shamefully fun. It has absolutely no sustaining nutritional value and contains all the nutritional substance of a fast food meal at Burger King, but it knows it. The series doesn’t sport great writing or performances but gets away with everything by immersing itself (and us) in pure, mindless fun. Not only that, but it raises an interesting question I’ve never considered: Is it possible for an entire television series to succeed on the strength of just one supporting character? After watching this season in its entirety I’m convinced that it can.

When One Tree Hill debuted on the now defunct WB in 2003 I only caught a little of it, but enough to know I wasn’t interested. It was clearly meant to be the replacement for the recently departed Dawson’s Creek, even going so far as to shoot in the same location of Wilmington, North Carolina. While its ratings were strong initially they eventually leveled off and it seemed for every one of its seasons it was on the cancellation bubble. When the WB and UPN merged to form the new CW in 2006 the network bosses publicly boasted it would combine the best elements of both networks. Instead, it combined the worst, snatching up their worst shows (7th Heaven) while cancelling the best (Everwood). The only good news was that they were taking UPN’s Veronica Mars, but that victory was short-lived when we discovered how badly they planned to treat it.
It was surprising when the announcement came that One Tree Hill (which never seemed to have as strong a following as the network wanted) made the cut and would be making the jump. And now ironically it stands as the only series left on The CW that truly retains the spirit of the old WB. That it’s been running on two networks for five years is impressive. That it’s better now than it ever was before is a miracle. Much of that can be attributed to a very wise decision made by the writers that has not only saved the show, but also re-energized it creatively.

It seems whenever teen dramas leave the halls of high school and the characters go onto to college the show jumps the shark. They either have to come up with contrived ways to keep the characters together despite being in different locations, or even worse, conveniently (and unrealistically) ship them all off to the same university.Taking a page out of the Dawson’s Creek series finale, season 5 of OTH flash-forwards four years into the future after the characters have graduated. The results are that the show is finally freed from the shackles of its repetitive high school storylines and the actors are given the opportunity to actually play their own age for a change. We also get a break from a tiresome love triangle that’s been dragging the series down. Most shows fizzle out when they reach their fifth seasons, but this is just hitting its stride because the time jump allows the writers to indulge in hysterically over-the-top storylines like they never have before, and if you’ve seen this show you know that’s really saying something.

Similarly, if you haven’t caught it, this DVD set is a great way to begin since everything starts with a clean slate that doesn’t necessarily require knowledge of previous seasons. But if you watch this one you may be tempted to check those earlier episodes out of curiosity to see how these colorful characters could have possibly arrived at this point. Season 5 is slow starting mainly because these characters’ new post-grad lives have to be established. I probably would have run out of patience for something like that if what the writers didn’t come up with for them wasn’t so creative…and at times downright hilarious.

In the four years since we left the residents of Tree Hill, North Carolina, all their lives are dramatically different. The most ludicrous development concerns protagonist Lucas Scott (Chad Michael Murray) who, despite barely being able to string two words together for the past four years, becomes the critically acclaimed author of the bestselling novel, "The Unkindness of Ravens," which chronicles his years at Tree Hill High School. Returning home to coach the Ravens basketball team he’s now engaged to his editor, Lindsey (Michaela McManus).

Lucas' half-brother, former star basketball player Nathan (James Lafferty) has been left paralyzed from the waist down, effectively crushing his dreams to play in the NBA. In just one example of a special touch that makes this show so entertaining, it isn’t enough that he’s angry, bitter and paralyzed, he must also be a drunk sporting a Ron Kovac-style Born On The Fourth of July beard. His marriage to high school sweetheart Haley (Bethany Joy Galeotti) is crumbling because of his alcoholism, which makes caring for their now four-year old son Jamie (welcome newcomer Jackson Brundage) difficult. The presence of a psychotic nanny (Torrie DeVitto) trying to seduce him probably isn’t helping with the child care issues either.

Former high school queen bee and ex Lucas flame Brooke Davis (Sophia Bush) misses her roots in Tree Hill despite having become a world famous fashion designer in New York and running a multi-million dollar company with her mother (guest star Daphne Zuniga). Lucas’ other ex, Peyton Sawyer (Hilarie Burton) is the least successful of the group, working as a lowly assistant to an arrogant record label executive, still dreaming of starting a label of her own. She never really got over Lucas and that will have major repercussions as the season wears on and he plans his marriage to Lindsey.

The character who probably benefits the most from the time jump is high school nerd Marvin “Mouth” McFadden (Lee Norris). Mouth had shown signs of breaking out of his geekiness in the past few seasons but this one he finally does, embarking on a steady career path as a broadcast journalist. Besides having a fling with his “cougar” boss (Kelly Collins Lintz) he’s also actually involved in a meaningful adult relationship with Brooke’s assistant, the awesomely named Millicent Huxtable (Lisa Goldstein). Norris is able to go to more mature places as an actor he wasn’t allowed to in previous seasons and Mouth gets a welcome promotion from minor supporting character to primetime player. This is Norris’ finest hour on the show and he gives this season’s second best performance. Despite the separate paths all the characters took the past few years their lives all converge this season where they always have, in Tree Hill.

Other than Lost’s Benjamin Linus, there’s no better villain on television than OTH's Dan Scott (Paul Johansson), the evil father of Lucas and Nathan. So entertaining is this character that even when I stopped watching the show I would occasionally check in just to see the havoc he was causing or the life and death situation he would find himself in at the end of each season. In the course of these five years he’s blackmailed his ex-wife, suffered a massive heart attack, been poisoned, set ablaze, elected mayor, and most memorably, murdered his own brother Keith in Season 3. Season 4 ended with him actually doing the right thing and confessing to the crime.

There lies the contradiction of this complex character and Johansson’s unmatched skill in playing him. That he teases us with the fact that deep down he may actually be a good guy who wants to do the right thing but just can’t. He's always thisclose to redemption, but then his selfish impulses kick in, causing emotional and sometimes physical destruction to himself and the family he desperately wants acceptance from.

Johansson (previously best known for his reoccurring role on the ORIGINAL Beverly Hills 90210) makes you believe that all the evil he does comes not because he’s an evil man, but because he cares…TOO MUCH. He doesn’t appear in over half the episodes in this season and the show suffers greatly from it. It seems the wait for him to get out of prison and resume his dirty work is excruciating. I noticed on the credits Johansson directed a couple of episodes early in the season in which he didn’t appear and if it’s okay with the producers, for my own amusement, I’d like to imagine he did it in character.

When Dan does get out of prison it doesn’t disappoint and fittingly his release coincides with the show’s 100th episode. Oh, he also happens to be dying of heart failure and has only a couple of months left. The relationship that develops between him and his grandson who he meets for the first time is surprising and adds another curious dimension to a character we can never pin down. As evil and pathetic as he is, because of Johansson’s performance, you almost can’t help but pity the guy.

I can’t spoil what happens to him in the season finale’s final minutes. I caught it when it aired in the spring and my drink nearly came out of my nose I was laughing so hard. You suspect what's coming, but when it does, it somehow ends up being more entertaining than it has any right to be and puts all of Dan Scott’s other epic catastrophes to shame. He just can’t catch a break. And then it occurred to me: If his character were ever written out I think I’d stop watching. He’s the driving force and glue that holds it all together. Without Johansson, the show would probably be cancelled in a second. Even if you have no interest in watching it, it's worth it just to see his work.

Of the three main actresses, I’d say the least known and most underappreciated, Galleotti, is the strongest. She just seems the most real, in a show were realism doesn’t exactly dominate. That’s why it’s a shame she has really doesn’t have all that much to work with this season, at least compared to the past few. Burton and Bush are just okay. Basically they get the job done, which is all they’ve ever needed to do throughout the series’ run. Burton, a former MTV VJ made a wisest move of her life signing on with the show considering that network chooses not to air music videos anymore. There’s much more music on this show, as they hilariously (and sometimes distractingly) try to jam every cutting edge indie tune they can into every episode. That’s especially true in this season’s finale, when they threw in so many songs it played more like an hour-long video than a television episode.

Young Jackson Brundage proves to be a valuable addition this season as Jamie because besides being just about the cutest kid ever, you never know what’s going to come out of his mouth next. The writers were smart to give this junior screen stealer as much face time as possible. Murray and Lafferty continue the solid work they’ve been doing on the show, with Lafferty asked to take Nathan to different, darker places he hasn’t been before. But no one watches OTH for the performances. If you did though, Johansson acts circles around everyone else in the cast.

It’s true that I don’t fit the demographic The CW is targeting with this series, or probably any other series on the network. You could argue that I’m neither the right age nor gender to be watching it but in reality that’s nonsense. I read a review of OTH that stated the show actually isn’t aimed at teens at all, but rather adults who missed out in having the high school experience they never got. I think there’s some truth to that.

We’re already defined and labeled enough in the real world that I refuse to let it carry over into my viewing habits. I’ll watch anything or everything so long as I enjoy it. Don’t get me wrong, I love high-brow Emmy nominated programming like Mad Men as much as anyone else but after a rough week all I want to do is shut off my brain and watch something that’s stupid, mindless fun. The CW's other anchor show, Gossip Girl is too pretentious and snotty to qualify, as it seems to think its Shakespeare rather than a teen soap.

Most of this review probably reads like I’m mocking the show, but I’m not. It does exactly what it should be doing for the genre its in. I know I should harbor a grudge that this remains on The CW’s lineup when Veronica Mars was cancelled but I just can’t bring myself to do it. Despite what the network may have mistakenly tried to convince viewers, the two shows were always in completely different genres anyway. And this is no worse than anything else that airs on Monday nights, specifically Heroes or WWE Raw. And unlike the latter, at least this show gives me a reason to check back in every week and see what happens to its characters. That's the difference between bad writing and GOOD bad writing.
Even if you hate One Tree Hill it at least deserves credit for hanging in there longer than anyone thought it would. I can’t see it continuing more than one or two seasons longer but number 6 is already off to a rip-roaring start. It’s gone from a show I occasionally watched with massive guilt to appointment television...still with massive guilt. The show has lived up to its initial promise, but just took a little longer than we thought. So, I guess you can have your critically acclaimed Emmy award worthy television. I’ll be on the couch with a bag of Doritos banging my head to Gavin DeGraw’s “I Don’t Want To Be.” You just have to do me a favor and not tell anyone.

The Dark Knight Returns Fan-Made Poster

2008-08-17T13:00:00.000-07:00

Alright, I swear this is my last Dark Knight post...at least for a little while. What you see below ISN'T an official poster for The Dark Knight sequel, which hasn't even been announced yet and for all we know may not be happening. It's a fan made one and if I were Christopher Nolan I would give this guy a call right now and buy the rights to this very creative piece of work. What most jumps out at me at first glance (aside from the absurdly high level of professionalism) is the attention to detail.

It's tough to make out here (you can click to view it larger) but the Two-Face article is written "by Vicky Vale" and anyone doubting The Riddler wouldn't fit perfectly into Nolan's world would have to seriously re-think that after looking on the far right. Re-imagining Riddler as some kind of Zodiac killer type (complete with ciphers and codes) is brilliant and a different, darker take on the character no one has suggested yet.

Actually, the whole poster gives off a Zodiac vibe, with traces of Nolan's own Memento (the tattoos on Riddler's hand). It's tough naming two more appropriate movies to seek inspiration from. This fake one-sheet encapsulates everything the next film SHOULD be and if it were a real poster released by a major studio it would probably make my list of the best movie posters of the year. Now, the only problem is making a film that could live up to it.

Source: Cinematical

Fantasy Casting: The Dark Knight Sequel (Part II)

2008-08-08T11:25:00.000-07:00

In the first part of my Casting The Dark Knight Sequel blog series I revealed my picks for Catwoman, Penguin and Mr. Freeze. Now here are the contenders for Riddler, Joker and Poison Ivy along with my final selection for each.

RIDDLER

Johnny Depp-I don’t like it at all. Sorry, but I’m just so sick of Depp playing these loner, misfit freaks that I cringed when I heard his name mentioned as a serious possibility. I’m hoping that out of some warped loyalty to Burton he’ll turndown the role if he’s offered it. I’d just rather see another actor get a shot at this. Of course now that I said that I’m sure we’ll be hearing that Depp has been cast as The Riddler any day now. The silver lining here is that I had a similarly negative reaction to the casting of Ledger.

Robin Williams-What is this, 1995? Williams already lost this role to Carrey. Although Nolan did get a great, dark villainous turn out of Williams in Insomnia. Something to consider.

Jim Carrey-Out of all the possibilities of bringing someone back from a previous Batman installment this one is least likely to end in disaster. It could be interesting to see what Carrey could do with what’s sure to be Nolan’s much darker, more serious Riddler. Almost guaranteed better results than The Number 23. Still, this shouldn’t be done. Why remind people of Schumacher’s failed films?

Michael Emerson-Lost’s Benjamin Linus is the single greatest villain on television today, if not in the past decade. His performance this season resuscitated that show and if you think about it he’s already playing The Riddler on that series. It’s the exact direction Nolan’s version should take. But for fans of the show will this make the movie seem like just another episode? Furthermore, would those unfamiliar with him be willing to accept an unknown in such an important role?

Michael C. Hall-Yes! The star of TV’s Dexter would make the ideal cerebral assassin to match Bale’s Batman. The list of actors who can play Riddler is short mainly because we don’t have a clue where Nolan could go with the character. With Hall in the role we suddenly get a much clearer picture…and I like it what I’m seeing.

David Tennant-I don’t have a clue who this guy is but I heard he stars Doctor Who and is campaigning hard for the role. He’s been mentioned by everyone as a possibility. If anyone knows more about him please let me know. I have no idea so I can’t comment on his suitability.

Guy Pearce-I’m sure he’s only been mentioned because he starred in Nolan’s Memento, but Nolan isn’t like a P.T. Anderson who uses the same troupe of actors over again. He’d do a good job, but isn’t the best choice. Plus, what’s he gonna do, tattoo question marks and riddles all over himself?

Edward Norton-This can’t happen for a number of reasons such as the fact Norton is widely regarded as a pain in the ass to work with. Could you imagine the creative clashes between him and Nolan? Also, I’m sure Norton has sworn off superhero films after his horrible post-production experience on The Incredible Hulk. But we’re speculating on suitability not probability and Norton would knock it out of the park.

Ben Foster-This is a write-in pick I came up with and I’m shocked it hasn’t been brought up. Imagine the results if he brings the same kind of intensity to The Riddler that he did to his roles in Alpha Dog and 3:10 to Yuma. If the character is to be re-imagined as a complete raving psychotic Foster is the best man for the job.

Kevin Spacey-If you told me this choice 5-10 years ago I would have been completely on board. Now I laugh. He’s become a parody of himself with his villainous roles and helped drag down Superman Returns (as if needed to be dragged down further). I’d love to see him turn things around but we shouldn’t risk it here. His name on a picture nearly guarantees a creative flop these days. What a shame.

Crispin Glover- Consider this a joint pick for both Riddler and Joker since he was rumored for both for years and even actively campaigned for the latter before it went to Ledger. Just see Willard and try to tell me this guy wouldn’t make a sick, twisted, creepy Riddler. I guarantee you he’s at least on Nolan’s radar right now. And what a great comeback this could be.

Paul Bettany-Already has experience playing a creepy, sick villain in The DaVinci Code. If Nolan wants to go in that direction he’s a good choice and is one of the most physically imposing actors on this list.

David Hyde Pierce-Niles Crane as The Riddler? He’s only made everyone’s list because he bares a physical resemblance to the animated version but that’s beside the point. He does have a strong dramatic and theater background so the pick isn’t as silly as it looks, but it’s still really silly.

John Malkovich- We pretty much know exactly how this would turn out: Fine, but nothing special. If it were the ‘90’s and Malkovich still had some sadistic surprises left in him he’d be a candidate for a Burton or Schumacher installment. That time has passed and we need a fresher take.

Orlando Bloom- A few years ago I thought Orlando Bloom and Heath Ledger were interchangeable as actors. How wrong I was. Could Nolan work a similar miracle with Bloom? It's just the kind of casting stunt Nolan would pull.

Casey Affleck-Interesting. After his terrific work in ’07 I feel a lot better giving him a shot at it, but I’d still have serious reservations. He’s just starting to find his footing and may not have the screen presence yet to pull this off. We have to believe this madman is threatening human lives. We could make The Riddler low-key and intellectual but Affleck might be too low-key and intellectual.

William Fichtner-Remember the opening of The Dark Knight? Why it was so great. A lot of that had to do with this well-traveled character actor’s performance as the bank manager who took a stand. His character may or may not have died. We don’t know. If Nolan wants storyline continuity and the opportunity to give a deserving actor a promotion this is a great way to do it. Fichtner’s a criminally underrated performer capable of pulling off a transformation reminiscent of Eckhart’s Harvey Dent. Anyone familiar with this guy’s work through the years knows this choice has some serious weight behind it.

Anthony Michael Hall-While we’re at it let’s cast Judd Nelson as Mr. Freeze and Molly Ringwald as Poison Ivy. No, seriously Hall’s a good actor but his role as a TV interviewer in The Dark Knight was just a throwaway cameo that people are looking too far into. There’s really nothing on his resume that suggests he deserves a shot at this. He should consider it an honor he’s even being mentioned as a serious candidate in some circles.

Ed Harris-Actually somewhat physically resembles the original Riddler from the '60's televsion series, Frank Gorshin, but wouldn't bring the same silliness to the role. Despite playing a bunch of villains throughout his career I can't recall a time he was ever allowed to really cut loose. Nolan would give that to him. My only worry is he might be too dry to play such a larger than life character.

Geoffrey Rush-An underrated, overlooked choice who can play crazy and evil with the best of them. He's even gotten Oscar nominations for doing both separately so this would give him a chance to accentuate both those strengths at once. Tackling a scheming criminal mastermind would be a piece of cake for him and I could even picture him in a green suit (but hopefully it doesn't come to that).

Jude Law-Almost worked with Nolan once before on The Prestige until David O. Russell put Nolan in a headlock and forced him to let Law out of his contract so he could make I Heart Huckabees. Ironically, it’s his work that film that makes me think he could do this. Also looks the part.

My Pick: Michael Emerson
The presence appearance of Lost’s Nestor Carbonell as Mayor Garcia in The Dark Knight would lead one to believe someone with pull at Warner Bros. is watching the show. If that’s true then there’s a better chance than you think that Emerson’s name will come up at some point for this role. I have to remember I’m casting Nolan’s film not mine but this is a case where my personal favorite choice really is the right one for this sequel.

Unlike Catwoman I think it would help if The Riddler were older and more experienced than Batman so he can always remain a few steps ahead. He needs to be more of a psychological threat than a physical one and a true sociopath. He has to be believable as a genius while at the same time giving off a truly creepy and unnerving vibe, something Emerson specializes in. He looks like that strange man who lives down the street who you’re not quite sure about and it’s that degree of realism that makes him a perfect fit for Riddler. Just look at this guy. I’d even believe his name is Edward E. Nigma.

If you watch Lost you already know he can do it but even if you don’t he’d have you sold the second he appears onscreen. He’s gone untested in a big budget mainstream films, but he has more experience doing this kind of thing than just about anyone. After Ledger’s Joker you need as little drop off as possible for the lead male villain and Emerson would insure that. He's the only actor on here who I KNOW can do it. Having said that, casting Riddler is so difficult that I'd be forced to go in open minded whoever Nolan chooses. There's no question this character and Catwoman would be the strongest choices for villains in the next installment and carry the most creative potential.

JOKER

Mark Hamill-The voice of The Joker in the animated series was a serious contender (at least in the fans’ minds) for The Dark Knight. It’s been suggested that the sequel should be The Dark Knight Returns and take place 10 years later. If that’s the case no one but Mark Hamill should play him. That’s a big IF though. It sure would be great to finally see him in a meaningful role again. I was always curious what he was capable of outside of Skywalker.

Johnny Depp- Here we go again. Is already replacing Ledger in that Imaginary whatever it is directed by Terry Gilliam. I hate the word “replacing” though. Depp’s a great actor but I think he’s massively overpraised. Between being rumored for this role, The Riddler and appearing as The Mad Hatter in Tim Burton’s upcoming Alice in Wonderland I have to ask this question: When will this guy stretch a little bit. I think he’s slightly better for Joker than Riddler but it’s still an unequivocal “NO.” A small part of me thinks it could work, but that’s more a testament to Nolan than Depp.

Daniel Day-Lewis-This is out of left field but strangely it’s fitting because The Dark Knight does remind me a lot of There Will Be Blood. I’m not sure why exactly but it does. I think people have suggested this mainly because Lewis can do anything. Who am I to argue? They’re right. But I think I’d rather have him show up in Gotham City as Daniel Plainview than The Joker.

Robert Downey Jr.-Speaking of actors who can do anything. He’s probably going to be tied up with the Ironman sequel and a bunch of other things at the moment but he could step in and own this. Would you turn this guy down for ANY role? I wouldn’t.

Brad Pitt-I'm not sure why but for some reason I can kind of picture this. On paper it looks like a safer bet than Ledger did, but that could be precisely the reason it may not work. Of all the huge A-list stars he has proven over time to be among the most dedicated to his craft and unafraid of fully immersing himself in any role. There are actually a lot of similarities between him and Ledger as both worked hard to conquer inaccurate perceptions of their talents. It's a gamble, but a better gamble than some others.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt-What a compliment that he could step in for Ledger and not only would very few have a problem with it, the move would likely be highly praised. The best actor of his generation and he hasn’t even come close to his peak yet. That’s why I think it’s important that he continue to blaze his own trail, rather than have Ledger’s shadow follow him. I’d rather not mess with greatness and have him continue doing what he’s doing. But if we MUST, he might be the only actor I’d trust to pull it off. Can’t wait to see what he does with Cobra Commander by the way.

Michael Pitt-A similar pick to Levitt in that he’s an up and coming actor making risky choices and his role in Funny Games is proof positive he can mine the depths of evil when necessary. Much to my surprise, this possibility hasn’t really been discussed by anyone. He could easily do this.

Leonardo DiCaprio- He's due for a darker role and what better one to prove to the world he's at the top of his game than to step into Ledger's shoes and knock it out of the park. This part combines the artistic credibility and mainstream appeal that has been a hallmark of his career. Yeah I know, I'm really reaching here. I can't see this happening.

My Pick: No One
We need at least a one film break from The Joker, if not longer. To suggest it would be disrespectful to Ledger’s memory to have someone else play the role it is completely absurd, but it would be disrespectful to whoever tackles it to have his shadow hanging over them. Years down the line if they want to revisit the character I’d encourage it but we should let this rest for a while, and I think Nolan will. Plus, what more is there to do with him in this series? It’s time to move on to new villains. We already got our Joker.

POISON IVY

Runners-up: Isla Fisher, Cate Blanchett, Bryce Dallas Howard, Julianne Moore, Amy Adams

My Pick: Christina Hendricks
I was having huge problems casting this one and was about ready to give up. Honestly I think that’s because the character is weak and extremely difficult to translate to the screen (and this is coming from someone who enjoyed Uma Thurman’s performance in Batman and Robin, as silly as it was). I’d say there’s little to no chance of Poison Ivy appearing in the next film but I’d still give her much better odds than Mr. Freeze. I didn’t consciously try to pick a virtual unknown but it just happened and may work out better because the wounds are still so fresh from Schumacher’s film that a big star could bring back painful memories.

The actresses I strongly considered above are all great and you’d hear no complaints from me if any of them were chosen. The problem is a couple haven't proven they can radiate strength and power (at least at the level necessary for this role) and the two that can just wouldn’t feel right opposite Bale. That’s why I picked Christina Hendricks from TV’s Emmy nominated Mad Men. She has just the right mix of sexiness, mysteriousness and confidence that would work. You’d have to combine a bunch of different actresses to get someone better for this. In what little I’ve seen of her Nolan could take a chance on this problematic character and feel safe with Hendricks playing her. Or more accurately, not feel safe, which is what we should be going for.

Fantasy Casting: The Dark Knight Sequel

2008-08-07T11:26:00.000-07:00

The floodgates have been opened. With The Dark Knight still going very strong and making a run for the highest grossing motion picture of all-time, speculation has popped up everywhere regarding a sequel. One of the most impressive feats of Christopher Nolan's film was how it challenged our perceptions of superhero villains are presented and who could possibly play them. Two-Face is presumed dead. The Joker is alive. Whether either of those two will show up in the next film is a crap shoot (although Eckhart is reportedly signed on for one more). Then there's the controversy of whether or not The Joker can, or rather should, be recast and who could possibly play him.

What I'll be giving you in these next two blogs is possibilities for villains and who could play them if there is a sequel. I'll be working under the assumption that both Nolan and Christian Bale will be returning, which appears to be the likely scenario at this point. I didn't want to be caught off guard with Nolan making a choice that isn't on here so this is very detailed. No stone went unturned and you get my thoughts on basically everyone you could think of and their suitability for playing Batman villain. I analyze pros and cons of the choice and make my final pick at the end. Some are strongly rumored, some are my ideas and others are picks discussed all over the net.
For the record I do think the next villains should unquestionably be Catwoman and Riddler but I run down possibilities for Penguin, Joker, Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy as well. I devoted the least amount of space to the latter two because I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell Nolan will use either of them for obvious reasons. Of course, there's no guarantee he'll even use any of these villains and may instead go for lesser known ones from the comics as he did in Batman Begins.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the announcements are made (which should be soon) and whether I look like a casting genius, a complete moron or something in between based on my comments on these actors. I had to remember I was casting Nolan's movie not mine and did make my final choices based on who I thought would fit best in the world he created. It didn't matter whether they were a big star or an unknown, just that they were RIGHT FOR THE ROLE. I'd say there's a great chance you're about to read my thoughts on the stars of The Dark Knight Sequel, whoever they are. Welcome to Part 1 of 2: Catwoman, Penguin and Mr. Freeze.

CATWOMAN

Angelina Jolie-Here’s someone who’s made a lot of headlines recently as the current frontrunner. She’s even has the endorsement of the original (and best) Catwoman, Julie Newmar, which goes a long way in my book. I’m convinced the fact this possibility has been so harshly received by the public has everything to do with her celebrity status and nothing to do with her suitability for the part. Her casting would bring the film the wrong kind of media attention, but let’s admit it: She’d be completely in her element and nail this. You could even argue this is the role she was born to play. It would also tie up her schedule for a while so she couldn’t bore us with Oscar-baiting dramas.

Still, a part of me thinks she may have fit better in the Burton or Schumacher star-driven franchises than this one. I’ve spoken to many people who told me they’d be happy with anyone as Catwoman “as long as it ISN’T Angelina Jolie.” I’m not sure that’s fair. Everyone would expect Nolan to think outside-of-the-box in casting this but how funny would it be if he shocks us all by going with the most obvious choice? If he picks her I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Kate Beckinsale-A very solid possibility but I’m not as crazy about this as everyone else seems to be. Has to be considered one of the frontrunners right now but I think there’s this tendency in the Batman fan community to consider anyone who has worn a skintight body costume in a comic book movie as the right choice. Don’t get me wrong she’s good, just not the best we can do. The choice is too mainstream and lacks vision (although the same could have been said for Eckhart and look how that turned out).

Emily Blunt- I like this. I like it a lot. I can picture it also which isn’t always the case with choices that look good on paper. She’s young but always comes across as an experienced pro. Could easily go toe-to-toe with Bale believably and radiates just the right amount of mysterious sexiness to pull this off. This couldn’t come at a better time in her career.

Michelle Pfeiffer-This name has only appeared on some people’s casting list out of respect for her work in Batman Returns, which I completely appreciate. I have no problem with her age but it’s time to move on and do something new…and she’d probably agree with me.

Maggie Gyllenhaal-One of the craziest rumors to develop recently is that Rachel Dawes is not dead and will be returning as Catwoman since Gyllenhaal is signed on for another film. If Nolan does cast Maggie in the role it’s a HUGE RISK considering all the groundless complaints that she was “too ugly” for the role of Rachel.

How will audiences react then if she’s cast as Catwoman, a character whose very essence hinges on physical attractiveness and sexuality? Again, I refer you to her work in Secretary. She could probably do this, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I want her to try. I prefer Nolan not go this route because it’s disappointing narratively and I wouldn’t want to see the weak Rachel character return in any incarnation.

Rosario Dawson-A top candidate. I get the feeling we’ve already seen a variation on what her Catwoman would be like in Sin City. She definitely looks and acts the part, but under Nolan how do we even know what that part is anymore? Great choice, even if there’s no real element of surprise or re-interpretation in it. I love Dawson, but we know exactly what we’re getting with her. Still, she has to be considered one of the top 3 or 4 choices on this list. Few would do it better.

Charlize Theron-Yawn. I just put her down because I felt obligated. Could she really bring something new and exciting to a re-imagined version of Catwoman? Not a chance.

Halle Berry-Some feel she deserves another chance. I don't. But major props for showing up in person to accept your Razzie Award. That film wasn't her fault but I have to admit it is kind of fun blaming her.

Nicole Kidman- I think she has the acting chops but her role in a previous Batman film (a Schumacher one no less) could prove to be too jarring, despite the fact she was great in it. We need fresh blood. She’s an awesome, underrated talent but just not the right fit here for Nolan’s universe.

Naomi Watts-If Nolan takes the approach once again of going for the best actor for the role then Watts is the best choice on here. She may be pushing 40 but it’s not an issue since she doesn’t look a day over 34. I could really see Nolan picking her and I wouldn’t complain. It fits with the casting decisions he’s made so far.

Rose McGowen-There’s only one filmmaker who would consider casting her as Catwoman and as of now Robert Rodriguez is not scheduled to direct the next installment. To be fair, I actually think she’d do a better job than many think and it is tempting to see how this would turn out. It’s a temptation I’ll resist though because there are much better choices. Considering her reputation as box office poison she might also be a better fit as Poison Ivy.

Sienna Miller-This is one of those picks that’s solid, but lacks vision and originality. She’s already playing The Baroness in the G.I. Joe film and I think this role may seem too close to that. Besides, there are way better options available.

Megan Fox-Well, we know she'd look great in the cat suit at least. One of the best qualities of The Dark Knight was that it didn't feel like mindless summer escapist fare. Adding the "hot and nothing else" Fox to the mix would give the film an unshakable aura of emptiness and superficiality. Her, um, body of work up until now doesn't give us any indication whether she could actually do it. Regardless, this is supposed to be a Batman film not a porno.

Shannyn Sossamon- I love this freakin’ choice! I was so happy when I heard her name mentioned as a possibility because it was always in the back of my mind. She’s about the right age and bears a frightening resemblance to the Catwoman of the comics. Pretty much untested as an actress though. There’s some risk here.

Eva Green- I’m not familiar with that much of her work outside of Casino Royale but for some reason I can actually see it. I’m not a big fan of hers, but this isn’t a bad choice at all. If you want fresh blood for the franchise it doesn’t get much fresher than this.

Tilda Swinton-Don’t worry this wasn’t my pick, but you’d be surprised how many people think it’s a good idea. I realize she’s a great actress but no one would pay money to see her play Catwoman. Can you even picture her with Bale? I’m all for picking great actresses but this is one of the worst choices on here. I could see her as Poison Ivy though.

Milla Jovovich- She doesn’t have the acting goods to pull this off. This is one of those videogame fanboy picks and nothing more. A C-level direct to DVD choice for what should be an A-level film.

Natalie Portman-What a joke. Honestly, I’m laughing just picturing her in the costume. The whole thing just doesn’t fit. For this to even be a suggestion proves how massively overrated her talents are.

Anne Hathaway-That her career has ascended to the level that she's being mentioned for this part is an accomplishment in itself considering how ill-suited she is for it. So let's call that a victory and end it because if she got this part over the other far superior choices on here you'd just have to tell me know how the film is. I probably wouldn't watch it. I'd say there's no chance of this happening but with Nolan you never know.

Keira Knightley- This is almost along the same lines as Portman but a little better since Keira has proven she can believably play a bad ass in Domino. But something still seems really off with this choice.

Olivia Wilde- No one has brought this one up and I'm surprised. Not only does she look a lot like how we'd imagine Catwoman to be she's one of the few actresses who looks like she could kick Batman's ass. She's also the only actress in this age range I'd seriously consider, but there are drawbacks. She might have the Jessica Biel problem-being too tough and unable to portray to vulnerable side. Plus, she still so new and green as an actress we have no idea whether she'd be able to hold her own alongside the likes of Bale, Oldman, Caine and Freeman. It might be interesting to see her try though. She at least deserves to read for the part.

Jessica Biel- It's a no go because of the above reason. You can also cancel out another actress named Jessica and Scarlett Johansson, who's probably too busty to even fit in the catsuit anyway. None of them can do this and I'd sooner re-cast Berry before giving any of them a shot. Having been through the wringer once before at least we know she'll show up motivated and with something to prove this time. Biel, Johansson and Alba have a tendency to phone it in and the latter you could argue can't act at all.

Rachel Weisz-No doubt she’d put on an acting clinic and this is another one of those names I could see Nolan going with but we can do better. Sometimes the best actress isn’t always the best actress for the part.

Thandie Newton-Here’s a choice that made more sense to me a few years ago. Definitely looks the part and kind of has an Eartha Kitt vibe going for her. Except she’ll have to act, and after watching her “performances” in Norbit and The Pursuit of Happyness I’m not sure I want to see her attempt that.

Selma Blair-A dark horse pick who has more going for her as an actress than she often gets credit for. Already has experience in superhero films as Liz Sherman in the Hellboy franchise but that role is child’s play compared to this. Underratedly sexy but like Jovovich it may seem to be too low rent a pick and there’s legitimate doubt whether she’s ready for something like this challenging.

My pick: Shannyn Sossamon
I can see her name on the opening credits, picture her with Bale, envision Batman WANTING HER and WANTING TO KILL HER. She even looks like a cat for crying out loud. I’m a little bias here because she starred in one of my favorite all-time movies (The Rules of Attraction) but a big reason why was her performance in it. She possesses the right mix of vulnerability and toughness and has a dangerous, off-kilter beauty that’s perfect for the part. There’s also this realism to her that would effortlessly slide into Nolan’s universe.

Much like her A Knight’s Tale co-star Ledger did with Joker, I could see her digging down deep and challenging our perceptions of what Catwoman can be. Also, like Ledger, up until now she really hasn’t been given the opportunity to stretch as an actor so any potential complaints about this choice are unfounded. There are better actresses listed up there but for all of them I could name at least a couple of reasons why they shouldn’t get the part. I can’t name one here. Of all my final choices this is my absolute favorite and I'd jump through the roof if she got it. May not be a major name but that would change if this announcement were made. Make the call Nolan. Do it.

PENGUIN

Philip Seymour Hoffman-This Oscar winner is at the top of the list right now and it’s not hard to see why. It’s just like Nolan to cast him and there’s absolutely no doubt he can provide an interpretation of Penguin we’ve never seen before in any medium. Menacing, intimidating turns in MI:3 and Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead should make us feel even better about it. Forget pencil tricks. Imagine what he’d do with an umbrella.

Bob Hoskins-If rumors are true and Oswald Cobblepot will be a seedy club owner and mobster (much like the comics) than the seasoned Hoskins should be considered a front-runner. It’s amazing this guy’s been around so long and hasn’t had a role like this to sink his teeth into. He might be one of our most underappreciated actors and it would be great to see him get a chance to shine. Not to mention the physical resemblance. The only two issues could be age because he would have to go toe-to-toe with Bale and the fact this pick almost seems too DeVito-esque.

Paul Giamatti-Did you see Shoot ‘Em Up? Even if you hated the movie (and I know many who did) you have to respect the intensity he brought to that villainous role. Who knew he had that him? He would probably be right at home in Nolan’s Gotham City.

Dustin Hoffman-I don’t know where this one came from but it’s been discussed for some reason. One of our greatest actors but completely unsuitable for this. I just can’t see Hoffman playing someone who’s a sinister threat to Batman, or at least Bale’s version of him.

Danny DeVito-Some are curious to see him take another stab at the character. It seems like I’m one of the few who liked what he did with it but since it's a new Penguin we should have a new actor. This isn’t a feasible possibility.

My Pick: Philip Seymour Hoffman
Well, it's not my pick but as much as I hate doing it I have to go with the consensus on this one. They're right. Sometimes the most obvious choice is actually the best. When I saw his name being thrown around as a strong possibility I kind of just shrugged it off as a far-fetched prestige pick. But now the more I think about it the more sense it makes. The choice may appear obvious only because he’s such a gifted actor but it’s anything but predictable what he’d do with the character in this realistic universe.

Rumors have been picking up that Penguin could at the very least have a small, introductory role in the next film and of all the casting choices on here this is one I’d wager has the greatest probability of happening (although it’s the least favorite of my choices). I’d much rather see Catwoman and/or Riddler. But if it does happen and Hoffman gets the part you won’t hear any complaints from me. He’s the best available for it.

MR. FREEZE

Runners-up: Patrick Stewart, Anthony Hopkins, Tim Roth

My Pick: Ben Kingsley
Yeah I know, a pretty boring conventional choice but a solid one nonetheless. I find it funny the short list of actors who could play Mr. Freeze has gone mostly unchanged in the past decade. Stewart, Hopkins and Kingsley were all rumored for this part in just about every installment of the Batman franchise but unfortunately for us all the role eventually went to Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1997's ill-fated Batman and Robin. Of all the villains we could potentially see in The Dark Knight sequel Dr. Victor Fries is by far the one I'd least like to. It's so cartoonish I don't think Nolan would touch it but if he's really up for a challenge he could possibly have an interesting take on it. What that take is I have no idea but I'm guessing it would be much more realistically grounded than Schumacher's and wouldn't involve the character telling everybody "to chill out."

Anthony Hopkins would be too entertaining in a fun way and Patrick Stewart is just a watered down version of my pick for the part. I only listed Roth because he seems to appear on everyone's lists just for a lack of any other options. Oscar winner Ben Kingsley is the only person I can think of who physically resembles the character enough and has the dramatic gravitas to pull it off. If he plays it like his at all like his character from Sexy Beast we could be in for something special here. From what I've heard the Mr. Freeze from the comics is a dark, tortured soul with an involving backstory and considerable depth so there is some hope. I don't want Nolan to use this character but if he does I have this feeling he has an even better choice in mind and someone none of us have thought of.

COMING SOON: RIDDLER, JOKER, POISON IVY

TV on DVD: Weeds (The Complete Second Season)

2008-08-02T13:19:00.000-07:00

Creator: Jenji Kohan
Starring: Mary-Louise Parker, Elizabeth Perkins, Justin Kirk, Kevin Nealon, Hunter Parrish, Alexander Gould, Romany Malco, Allie Grant
Original Airdate: 2006

***1/2 (out of ****)

I know what you’re thinking: Why would I review the second season of Weeds without having reviewed the first? Despite not reviewing the first season of the series I did watch it, and honestly, I wasn’t impressed. I was so unimpressed that I couldn’t even motivate myself to type my thoughts on it. Remember how Seinfeld was referred to as “the show about nothing?” Well, that was essentially my reaction to this show’s inaugural season. I felt as if absolutely nothing happened and was perplexed why it was garnering such high praise. I thought Mary Louise Parker’s acting work as a widowed pot dealing suburban mom was fine but nothing more and when the finale ended I had little interest in watching its sophomore season.

I definitely wouldn’t lose any sleep over not finding out what happened to the residents of Agrestic, California and was particularly annoyed that fine supporting actors were criminally underused. I thought the show had one angle (Mom dealing pot) and it wasn’t nearly as clever or interesting as the writers believed it to be. Nor did I understand why we were supposed to find it funny or connect with it on any meaningful dramatic level. She sold pot and that was it. But everyone I knew just wouldn’t let me hear the end of it and kept ranting and raving about how good the show was. They told me I was sure to love the second season. I’m glad I listened because they were right.

I’m all for second chances but I certainly didn’t expect to get the surprise I did when I unenthusiastically popped the second season into my DVD player. I’m happy to report that this season is not only a VAST IMPROVEMENT over the first but so much of one that it’s hard to believe it’s even the same show. What’s the opposite of a sophomore slump? If up until now the pot dealing came across as just a gimmick, in this season it ingrains itself into the fabric of the series, affecting the lives of every single character. The first season may have ended with a whimper but the second concluded with me on the edge of my seat anxiously awaiting the resolution to a thrilling cliffhanger.

I can’t say I liked every character but I sure ended up caring what happened to every one of them as each are given ample time to shine. Nancy Botwin may be about as deserving as Dina Lohan for a “Mother of the Year” award but the beauty in Parker’s performance is how she makes us not care and root for her anyway. No matter how stupid or selfish her mistakes are she convinces us that they come from a real place. It took a little while, but now I’ve finally gotten to see the show everyone was talking about. What a turnaround.

When we last left Nancy Botwin (Parker) in season one she was adjusting to her new life as a widower by dealing marijuana to continue her family’s middle class lifestyle. She also had to deal with the arrival of her lazy, freeloading brother-in-law Andy (Justin Kirk) and her expanding partnership with fellow drug dealer Conrad (Romany Malco) which evolves from just dealing pot to actually growing it. Her personal life takes a new turn as well when she ends up in a relationship with Peter Scottson (Martin Donovan), who she discovers is a DEA Agent in the first season’s somewhat underwhelming finale. Looking back now, it almost seems fitting the season would end on that note because it would be the first sign the writers would start to explore the rewarding creative potential of Nancy’s two worlds colliding.

If Season 1 was set-up then Season 2 is all pay off. At its start we know Nancy’s relationship with Peter has trouble written all over it and can only end badly but what surprised me most is how we got there and how many people it affected. Of course, Peter reveals himself to be far less than what Nancy believes him to be but the show is clever enough to give us some revealing moments with him also. He’s not exactly a bad guy, just someone with such a strong moral code and attachment to his job that he really believes he’s doing the right thing, as warped as it seems. It’s that small detail, evident in the writing and in Donovan and Parker’s performances that makes the relationship so believable.
That may be the storyline at the core of this season but there’s definitely enough other craziness on the side that will keep you fully entertained. The best of which is a hilarious battle for spot on the town council between the selfish, manipulative Celia Hodes (Elizabeth Perkins) and clueless. sleazy accountant (and client of Nancy’s) Doug Wilson (Kevin Nealon). This is one of those rare cases when two actors are paired together who have such unbelievable chemistry that you can’t imagine the two even being able to exist on screen without one another.

All my complaints about the squandering of Nealon’s talents in the first season are addressed as he’s given a huge role here to sink his teeth into and knocks it out of the park. All that trademark smug sarcasm that made him the all-time greatest anchor of Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update is on full display here, except with a lot more depth to it. Perkins’ Celia I found to be just a crazy bitch in the first season and she still is, except this time there’s some humor and a few endearing qualities to go along with that bitchiness, and it makes a huge difference.

When we last left Celia she was a victim of both breast cancer and her husband Dean’s (Andy Milder) infidelity but now she’s in the driver’s seat taking control, which is where she belonged all along. Of all the hilarious sub-plots this season, Celia finds a way to be involved in most of them. Whether it be her husband getting tasered out of his job, her outrage at her lesbian daughter Isabelle (Allie Grant) starring in commercials for plus-size children’s wear or her mission her mission make Agrestic a “drug-free zone” she hardly gets a breather this season and neither do we. Most memorable Celia moment: Finally getting her comeuppance courtesy of Nancy’s youngest son Shane (Alexander Gould) at her ridiculous (bordering on delusional) anti-drug lecture featuring a Sasquatch.

It’s funny how last season I nearly slept through depressing home movie footage of Nancy’s ex-husband in the writers’ failed attempts to show us how his death affected her and the kids, but this season their grief is instead evident IN THEIR ACTIONS. Like her son Silas’ (Hunter Parrish) relationship with a deaf girl escalating far past where it should and Shane’s pre-pubescent curiosity. The latter results in a masturbation speech from his uncle that belongs in the television hall of fame.

Speaking of Andy, he dedicates himself to becoming a Rabbi so he can get out of serving in Iraq. Even the most unlikable, one-dimensional character, Nancy’s supplier Heylia (Tonye Patano) is given a hilarious sub-plot involving a militant Nation of Islam leader. And just when I thought this couldn’t get any better Zooey Deschanel shows up as Andy’s crazy ex-girlfriend. I’m still trying to figure out how her performance managed to exceed my unrealistically high expectations. She’s may be the only actress who can make stalking seem adorable and the worst part of her guest arc is knowing eventually it’ll have to end. If I had to pick a lowlight of the season, it would be the contrived (but thankfully brief) appearance of Snoop Dogg. Why did someone have to tell him about this show?

On paper all this seems like too much but amazingly it isn’t because the series’ never loses its focus on Nancy and her struggle to just get by and determination not let her family down. Despite making horrible judgment calls left and right she’s able to keep it together and push forward. This is the season that won Parker the Emmy and what impressed me most about her performance was how grounded and in control it seemed at all times despite the insanity of the material. You really could picture a woman like this living in your neighborhood and chances are you wouldn’t mind, pot dealer or not. There is a moment when Nancy finally does break and it has such a huge emotional impact because we were building toward it for so long.
When the finale ended I felt like I’d been put through the wringer in terms of what you can experience during one season and now I wouldn’t dare argue its far superior to nearly all the crap being trotted out by the major networks these days. Not to mention it's also really fun (but impossible) to guess which artists are performing the opening theme, "Little Boxes" for each episode. A lot is jammed in but nearly all of it clicks, thanks in no small part due to Parker’s amazing performance and the efforts of the supporting cast.

It isn’t the best show on television, or even the best show on Showtime (I think we all know what that is), but I can’t recall a series ever taking such a leap creatively from its first to second season. Not only is knowledge of the first unnecessary to enjoy the second, I’d say everyone should start at 2 and just save themselves the trouble. It's what I should have done. This is a darker, funnier and altogether better effort. It remains to be seen whether the show has hit its creative peak here or they’re even bigger surprises in store for Season 3. But that I even care is a great sign.

My Ten Favorite Movies of All-Time

2008-06-09T12:50:00.000-07:00

This past week over on MySpace there was a blog tag going around asking everyone to name their ten favorite movies... of ALL-TIME. A daunting task to be sure. I didn't expect my list turn into a dissertation (although I should have) but once I started writing about these films I just couldn't stop. I also didn't expect to be as proud of it as I was when I finished. It's probably the only time I can remember where I completed a top ten of any kind and all the choices really did seem to reflect me. So, as a result, I re-posted the blog here with some minor revisions.

10. FIGHT CLUB (1999-DAVID FINCHER)
1999 was a groundbreaking year for cinema. Ask me on any given day of the week and you'll get a different answer as to what I felt the best film of that year was. Some days it's American Beauty. On others it's Magnolia. Today it's Fight Club and therefore it's in the tenth position on this list. It was a tough decision made a lot easier by the fact that my connection to this film runs the deepest of the three. The last paper I wrote for psychology class in college was a 10-page analysis of the film and it was one of the toughest things I had to do. Not because of the content, but because I was forced to limit it to 10 pages. There was just too much discuss and analyze.

Many critics have written off the film as just a "guy movie" or a call to violence, but they're missing the point entirely. Perhaps no movie has more directly spoken to the mass-commercialized world we live in now, for better or worse, than Fight Club. Norton and Pitt own like they never have before and while I don't think this is Fincher's best film it is an unqualified masterpiece and one of the few times I felt compelled to pick up the book when it was through.

Often, when a best-selling novel like Chuck Palahniuk's is adapted into a feature film a personal voice is lost, but this movie finds a way to translate that voice perfectly. And like another Fincher film appearing on this list, it also features a twist ending that elevates the material to a deeper, more meaningful level and the use of the Pixies' "Where is My Mind" over the closing credits is just pure genius. Fight Club is a lot like A Clockwork Orange before it in that it was widely detested upon its initial release. Now we know why. This movie hits so close to home that it hurts.

9. DONNIE DARKO-ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSION (2001-RICHARD KELLY)
I'm making it clear that this refers to the original theatrical version because I've actually never seen the director's cut of the film and I'm not anxious to given what I've heard. For me, it's perfect as it is and knowing too much could hurt the experience. Like many, I didn't see this movie when it was first released in 2001 and only checked it out when word of mouth started to build in the years that followed, cementing its cult status. It's one of the many films on this list where I wasn't exactly blown away on an initial viewing. When it ended I just kind of sat there and scratched my head.

As a huge fan of time travel films I almost felt let down because it was the first time since 12 Monkeys where I really could honestly say I didn't understand everything, or more accurately, anything. All I knew was that I needed to see it again. And again. And again. And on each viewing a couple of more pieces of the puzzle started to fall into place and by the time I had it all figured out (or thought I did) I kind of didn't want to know anymore. The mystery and unanswered questions are part of the appeal. After all, there were so many other memorable aspects to it that were worth getting caught up in instead. Like Donnie's relationship with Gretchen, Patrick Swayze's creepy supporting performance (who knew he had that in him?), Smurfs, Sparkle Motion.

It's all done masterfully and almost poetic in its brilliance, tied up with an incredibly moving finale. This isn't just a time travel movie. I always viewed it as one of the most memorable depictions of teen angst put on film, all anchored by an awesome Jake Gyllenhaal. I always kind of wondered what it would be like to see this at a midnight screening with a bunch of fans dressed as Frank The Bunny.

8. THE ICE STORM (1997-ANG LEE)
The film with which this is most often compared is American Beauty, which I also loved and don't have a single negative thing to say about. I just love this more. What's funny is that of all the films on this list I think I may have watched The Ice Storm the most times. And it wasn't intentional. In the past decade it just always seemed to be playing on cable and I'd accidentally catch it. Sometimes it would be at the middle, the end, or the beginning. It didn't matter because whenever I tuned in I just couldn't stop watching.

On my initial viewing I thought it was merely okay, but it seemed on each subsequent watch I'd take a little more with me and see something else…and then another thing. Whether it be in the performances or the little emotional details Ang Lee and his top tier cast nailed down so perfectly. It's more subtle and subdued than American Beauty, letting us bask in those quite, real moments. It's so depressing yet it goes down easy without resorting to cheap melodrama like so many other suburban dramas.

On one hand it's cold but Lee manages to somehow invest the film with this warm, inviting feeling that makes me want to keep returning to it. I've never seen the 70's but this movie (and one other on here) sure makes me feel like I have. You can just sense that Lee got it right and each time I watch I'm hanging on every characters' words and even though I know what will happen next I forget that I do and just lose myself in their world.

It also features one of the most underrated casts ever assembled for a film: Kevin Kline, Joan Allen, Sigourney Weaver, Toby Maguire, Christina Ricci, Elijah Wood and Katie Holmes (in her first big screen role and playing one of the greatest named characters ever). That's remarkable enough but what's more remarkable is that nearly all of them give their career best performance in this one movie. As unbelievable as it seems, two EVEN BETTER movies were released that year.

7. BOOGIE NIGHTS (1997-PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON)
This is one of them. It's also a film that time has been generous to, as is the case with all of P.T. Anderson's efforts. Many critics and audiences have said it that he's channeling Martin Scorsese with this, which I find to be an interesting comparison. Interesting for me especially because as much as I respect and admire Scorsese's work none of his films even came close to making my list. I think part of the problem for me is that he never really explores topics I'm interested in.

I exactly can't claim to have a huge interest in the late 1970's-early 1980's porn industry either which is why it's unusual that this movie speaks to me this much. It could be because this film isn't about the porn industry at all. That's just the setting. It's actually about family and is similar to Magnolia in focusing on lost souls looking for love, forgiveness and redemption.

I'm always blown away by how well it all holds up. Mark Wahlberg never gave a better performance than he does here and neither did the Oscar nominated Julianne Moore, which is saying a lot since both have gone on to do some great work since then. The also nominated Burt Reynolds may have since squandered his big chance at a comeback but he shines here. So does Heather Graham, who will always, no matter what she does, be forever known to me as "Rollergirl." And that soundtrack kicks ass. One of my favorite all-time movie moments is when Night Ranger's "Sister Christian" cues up during that drug deal gone bad near the film's climax (no pun intended). Between this, Magnolia and last year's There Will Be Blood, Anderson is starting to occupy a space reserved for only the most talented American filmmakers.

6. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971-STANLEY KUBRICK)
I've seen A Clockwork Orange exactly once. That was all I could take and all that was necessary considering it's been playing in my mind ever since. I love it when people say certain movies are brave or take huge risks. No they don't. Not like this. From the unforgettable opening shot of Alex (a frightening Malcolm McDowell) and his "droogs" sitting in the Korova Milk Bar I knew that whether I ended up hating or loving this movie, I'd never see anything like it and wouldn't again.

Kubrick is the rare kind of director whose films exist in this timeless vacuum where not only do they never age, it's almost impossible to tell when they were made. This movie could have been released today and critics and audiences everywhere would herald it as being ahead of its time. Besides being downright scary, it's repulsive and tells us things about ourselves we'd probably rather not know. Banned to this day in England, the infamous "Singin' in the Rain" rape scene shocks just as much now as it did then. But all this would mean nothing if it didn't make you think, which was always Kubrick's specialty.

5. THE SWIMMER (1968-FRANK PERRY)
Imagine the most frightening episode of The Twilight Zone you've ever seen, magnify it times a hundred and add on top of it the best (and undeniably most daring) performance of Burt Lancaster's career, and you have The Swimmer, based on John Cheever's short story of the same name. I accidentally came across this film earlier in the decade and if the most important qualification for a great film is discovering something new on each viewing then this is the greatest film on my list. All those American suburban nightmares like Ordinary People, The Ice Storm, American Beauty and Little Children had the trail blazed for them by this.

To say this isn't the most audience friendly film would be an understatement as the viewer is left to do all the heavy lifting in unraveling the mystery of a man's life as he decides to "swim home" on a hot summer day in August. What unfolds is beyond disturbing and has haunted me ever since. Some say that the film looks and sounds terribly dated, like a bygone relic from another era. But for me that just increases the horror and effectiveness of the entire picture. Forget about Jaws. This is the movie that keeps me far away from the water.

I think it's one the most underrated, criminally overlooked films ever made and my one wish is that more people knew just how perfect it really is. Every time I watch it my appreciation and awe magnifies from the viewing before and everyone I know is already sick of hearing me babble about it constantly. I'll continue to do so until it's regarded as the masterpiece it is.

4. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968- STANLEY KUBRICK)
Many have accused Stanley Kubrick's films of being cold, sterile and lacking emotion. I can kind of see where they're coming from because the emotion he offers up isn't what we're used to. It isn't the kind that's warm, fuzzy, or will have you skipping out of the theater when the final credits roll. Kubrick refuses to sentimentalize anything. His movies are an acquired taste, so much so that it wasn't until I graduated high school that I thought I was ready to see this one, his greatest achievement.

There's really no way to fully prepare for 2001 and it's impossible to absorb not just everything, but anything, at first glance. You just sit back and let in engulf you, come to terms with the fact that it's the strangest trip you'll ever take and then watch it again. It's probably the most beautifully shot film ever made and a great argument against CGI. The movie came out in 1968 and doesn't look like it's more than two weeks old and the visual effects look far superior to any of the computer generated nonsense used now. I've never gotten the opportunity to see it on the big screen, which saddens me, but that final Star Gate sequence continues to blow my mind every time I watch it, and I don't even have to be under the influence of anything. As far as it not containing any emotion, just watch the scene where Bowman (Keir Dullea) disconnects HAL 9000. All those film snobs you can't stand are actually right this time. 2001 is the greatest science fiction film ever made and nothing comes close to touching it.

3. BACK TO THE FUTURE (1985-ROBERT ZEMECKIS)
The story goes that when Back To The Future producer and co-writer Bob Gale was looking at his dad's old high school yearbook he started to wonder whether he would have been friends with his father since they seemed so different. Who knew that germ of an idea would turn into one of cinema's most beloved trilogies? Its ranking on this list is actually more representative of the three films strung together since it's impossible for me to separate them in my mind. Each movie brings something entirely different and important to the table while at the same time contributing to the entire saga. No three films hold together as well or flow as seamlessly. I think because all of them go down so easily and are so entertaining Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd often don't get the credit they deserve for their performances. I can't recall two actors having better chemistry onscreen than these two.

Very few films from my youth hold a special place for me but this is one of them. I wouldn't be watching movies now if not for this and one of my favorite moments as a kid was when I actually got to ride in a DeLorean. I always found it funny that a car manufactured in the early 80's looks more futuristic than anything that could ever actually be produced in the future. I'm sure that irony wasn't lost on Gale and Zemeckis when they made that perfect choice of vehicle. It's a lot of fun to re-watch the film now because it works on so many different levels. The present in which the movie was filmed is now the past so it adds another interesting layer to an already interesting film.

Crispin Glover and Lea Thompson are amazing and Thomas F. Wilson's Biff Tannen deserves to be placed in the pantheon of the greatest movie villains. How many other actors have played multiple versions of themselves and their ancestors over different time periods throughout the course of three films? It's pretty much a national treasure to me and I'm one of the few who absolutely love the third installment, which besides featuring Lloyd's best performance as Doc, wrapped up the series on the highest note possible.

2. THE GAME (1997-DAVID FINCHER)
Yet another film from 1997 and this one is the most underappreciated, overlooked of decade. It's almost like the forgotten stepchild in David Fincher's portfolio, although as the years have passed and Fincher's reputation has increased it's very slowly started to get the credit it deserves. It's also ahead of its time, foretelling the popularity of role-playing games and reality television. I don't think any of Fincher's other work even comes close to this, which isn't faint praise considering this is the guy who directed Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac. One of the biggest criticisms I hear is that John Brancato and Michael Ferris' brilliant screenplay doesn't play fair with the audience and stretches credibility. Not true. It's completely air tight but for me to explain how would require going into too many details that would spoil the film's many shocking surprises.

It goes without saying this is Michael Douglas' greatest performance, but watch Sean Penn's supporting work as he subtly gives clues as to where this whole Rubik's cube of a conspiracy is heading. Most screenwriters paint themselves into a corner when they offer up a premise this intriguing, but the payoff here far exceeds even the wildest expectations and makes repeated viewings a real treat.

But all of it would have collapsed without Fincher's direction. The guy is so talented he can make a hamburger look menacing and as the film spirals toward its unforgettable conclusion we're given one of my favorite scenes in movie history when Douglas' character comes face to face with everyone involved in this sadistic plot. We, along with him, realize just how far it's gone and can't wait to see how it ends. It's the greatest of twist endings because it takes what was already an incredible suspense thriller and lifts it to another level as an emotionally moving morality play.

1. ALMOST FAMOUS-UNTITLED DIRECTORS CUT (2000-CAMERON CROWE)
I realize that by ranking this film #1 I've unintentionally implied that it's somehow better than the rest of the films on this list. I can't reasonably argue that Almost Famous is technically superior to something like 2001: A Space Odyssey but I do know when someone asks me what my favorite movie is I answer this one with very little hesitation. I know that there's no other movie I feel closer to, get more joy watching, am more moved by, or featured a protagonist I relate to more. It may not do anything groundbreaking cinematically and could be considered a "writer's movie," but from where I sit that counts for a hell of a lot.

For me Crowe's autobiographical love letter to rock was a movie made for anyone who was told that they shouldn't write about themselves because no one will care. And he responded by writing this and reminding us that movies are first and foremost about good storytelling. It all starts on the page and without that we have nothing. When Kate Hudson lost the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role as Penny Lane I think it was the first time I was legitimately furious with the Academy. I may not be crazy about the film choices Hudson has made since, there's nothing she can do in my mind to diminish the impact of her work here. About the only thing worse is that Parick Fugit, Billy Crudup and the picture itself weren't nominated at all.

I'm always wary of director's cuts but I think this is one of those rare cases where the director's cut really enhances the film and fleshes it out more in a way that makes the story resonate deeper. When I first saw the theatrical version on DVD I liked it a lot. When I saw it the second time I loved it. But when I saw the director's cut I thought it was the greatest thing I ever saw. It makes perfect sense I would favor the version with the longer running time though since I loved the characters so much I didn't want my time with them to end. It could have gone on forever and I wouldn't have complained. Almost Famous is my favorite movie of all-time and it's a pretty clear-cut victory.

Sydney Pollack: A Tribute

2008-06-02T14:42:00.000-07:00

Sydney Pollack (1934-2008)

For the past week I, like many others, have been trying to wrap my head around the fact that Academy Award winning director and gifted character actor Sydney Pollack passed away and somehow try to articulate my feelings on it. In just the past six months alone we’ve seen the passings of Heath Ledger, Brad Renfro, Roy Scheider and Anthony Minghella. That’s just too much. I refrained from commenting on those because I either wasn’t familiar enough with their work or didn’t have enough of a personal connection to it that my thoughts would add up to very much. Sydney Pollack is a different story.

His work has directly informed my perspective and appreciation of film, and those of countless others I’m sure. He directed and appeared in many films I loved as well as co-directed one I'd count among the very best pictures I've ever seen. I had heard rumors that he was ill with stomach cancer for the past several months but pushed it out of my mind, maybe secretly hoping if I ignored the news then it wouldn’t exist. I think this one’s so tough because he was such a life force on screen as an actor, always projecting a certain energy and vitality you didn’t see from many other actors half his age. He was 73 years old but it sure didn't seem like it.

It seems almost disingenuous to examine someone’s body of work and career when they’ve left us because we all know there’s so much more to a person than that and it should really be the last thing on our minds. He has a family that comes first and all of our thoughts should be with them before it’s with any of his cinematic contributions, but as fans, it’s funny sometimes how we feel we know these people through their work. It’s really all we have to go on, but in Sydney Pollack’s case that’s a very good thing because it’s clear he put a whole lot of himself into everything he did. During this past week everyone in the film industry who knew him described him as a class act all the way, which isn’t hard to believe given the warmth he projected in his appearances on screen, his interviews and the intelligent, personal films he directed over the years.

Ironically, just a couple of weeks ago I was trying to catch up on a couple of films I missed from year’s past and one of them was The Interpreter, the 2005 political thriller starring Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman. It would sadly end up being the last big studio picture Pollack directed and everyone (knowing my aversion to political thrillers) told me to stay as far away from it as possible. I didn’t, figuring with Pollack at the helm I had nothing to lose at least checking it out. I was right and ended up liking the film quite a bit. The best way to describe it is “smart” and that adjective could very well be applied to nearly all of his directorial efforts.

It’s a testament to Pollack’s exceptional work throughout his career that some considered it a disappointment, even though it garnered generally favorable notices, did reasonably well at the American box office and fared even better overseas. Looked at in context most filmmakers would be happy to have one film as good as The Interpreter on their resume' so maybe we were spoiled. But there was this feeling that the material was almost too commercial for a filmmaker of his talents, which is interesting when you consider he was primarily known as a big studio director who always worked with huge stars.
What most jumped out at me from that viewing and goes beyond the film itself was a conversation with Pollack on the special features in which he talks honestly and with a refreshing modesty you don’t find among many of today’s filmmakers. He didn’t bull shit and tell us what an enjoyable time he had making the film but instead acknowledged that it’s very hard, draining work and it could almost be considered a miracle if you come out on the other side with a movie that’s decent, much less actually good.

He confessed that there are moments of pure joy when you see an actor or actress really nail a scene but all in all, it’s just really difficult and he said that’s why he didn’t make as many films as some feel he should have. It makes sense then that in the final years of his career he turned to producing films he was passionate about rather than deal with the headaches that come with being a director, even one that great. You have to respect that.

As he went on some more talking about his notorious distaste for the pan-and-scan format that chopped all his films in half for TV viewing I was taken aback at how engaging he was and how he explained everything in a way that even someone who knew nothing about filmmaking would understand. He did it without coming off as condescending (like so many directors do in these interviews) and it as if you had sat down with a friend to discuss movies. He was just very open, matter-of-fact and no-nonsense. I think I would have paid money to see or hear his response to Blockbuster customers who don’t want “ those black bars across the screen” when they watch a movie. That would have been classic.

After starting his career as a theater actor in New York City he moved out to L.A. where he befriended Burt Lancaster who urged him to try directing. After a few projects under his belt, in 1968 he stepped in, uncredited, to complete the Lancaster suburban nightmare The Swimmer after Frank Perry walked off the picture due to creative differences with the allegedly difficult star. I’ve read differing reports of just how much was shot by Pollack but it’s of little relevance. Without him pinch-hitting for Perry who knows if it would have been completed and imagining a cinematic world without The Swimmer is something I’d rather not do. It was a pleasant surprise to read in the many tributes to Pollack this past week that his uncredited work on it started to become credited. You know when something like this appears as just a footnote on your resume' you've had one hell of a career.

He was just warming up because only a year later he would release another groundbreaking film that would mine similar themes of despair, They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? Arguably his greatest achievement, the film adapted from Horace McCoy’s 1935 novel about a sadistic Depression-era dance marathon, earned Pollack his first Oscar nomination for Best Director. You hear the expression often that certain films are “ahead of their time” but in this case it’s actually true. Despite its Depression-era setting the premise can almost be viewed as a bizarre predictor of the proliferation of reality television and entertainment exploitation as we headed into the next century. It plays just as well now as it did then, if not much better and used some very innovative techniques for its time (such as flash-forwards) that are still commonplace today. I’ve lost count of many times I’ve seen it and it just seems to gets better with each viewing.
Pollack would go on to direct many more acclaimed Oscar nominated and/or widely acclaimed films such as Jeremiah Johnson, Three Days of the Condor, Tootsie (probably his most popular picture) and Out of Africa (for which he won the Best Director Oscar) He worked with the biggest stars imaginable such as Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Harrison Ford, Faye Dunaway, Tom Cruise and most famously Robert Redford (7 times). Pollack wasn’t particularly known for being a visual director and he’s even stated such in interviews but few were better “actor’s directors,” likely because he was such a great actor himself. As crazy as it may seem I think I actually preferred him as an actor, which is saying a lot considering his amazing accomplishments behind the camera.

Talking to other film fans since his passing it’s amazing how many have said that Sydney Pollack looked like or reminded them of someone they knew. Whether it was their next-door neighbor, their physician or that one uncle at family reunions who you’re actually happy to see. He just had this very welcoming familiar presence onscreen and a charisma that was hard to come by. You knew, no matter how small the part, when Pollack was playing it, he’d elevate it into something more. Whether it was his hilarious supporting turn as Dustin Hoffman's agent in Tootsie or his dark dramatic work as millionaire Victor Ziegler in Stanley Kubrick’s criminally underrated final film Eyes Wide Shut, he brought the goods. In a notorious story, Pollack reluctantly agreed to do that film as a favor to his good friend Kubrick who promised he’d be done in a week. Of course one week turned into three months as Kubrick did 50,000 takes of the pool table scene.

Even if the film Pollack was appearing in wasn’t very good you almost felt like breathing a sigh of relief when you saw him because you knew at least the picture would have one thing going for it. To an extent he was typecast playing wealthy, but fair men in positions of power and privilege, but it was only because directors knew no one could do it better. He would often act as the moral center and lone voice of reason for characters in situations way over their heads and help ground the narrative in reality with his compassionate performances. Whenever we needed to take a breather and assess the damage he seemed to be there with plain, forthright straight talk we couldn't get from any other character in the film.

At one point he was offered the role of porn director Jack Horner in Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterpiece Boogie Nights but turned it down with his family in mind out of concern about the subject matter (a decision he said he later regretted after seeing the film). Burt Reynolds went on to score an Academy Award nomination for the role and did an amazing job, but I honestly think Pollack would have been a better fit for the part.

Don’t get me wrong Reynolds was great but he always seemed like an actor who had to work very hard to convey any kind of warmth or protectiveness onscreen, which is what that role primarily called for. He pulled it off exceptionally well but something tells me that would have been effortless for Pollack. It was his specialty. Combine that with his actual experience as a film director and you have one of Hollywood’s greatest casting “what ifs.” It would have been fascinating to see what he could have done with that part.
One of his most memorable acting roles and greatest performances came in last year’s Best Picture nominee, Michael Clayton, and besides being the quintessential Pollack part, he also co-produced the film. Over the span of his career he produced over 40 other films, most recently the HBO movie Recount, which he was scheduled to direct at one point but had to bow out due to his declining health. I haven’t seen it but from what I heard, it was a good film that would have been even better had Pollack filmed it. Ironically enough, his producing partner was the late Anthony Mingella, which makes a lot of sense since both directors had a gift for being able to make big commercially friendly pictures without ever sacrificing the emotional immediacy of the story. You could see where they’d have similar sensibilities when it comes to film and would work well together.

In a fitting way, Michael Clayton really felt like the kind of movie Pollack would direct himself in the ‘70’s, the kind of smart, character driven thrillers they don’t make nearly enough of anymore. He’ll be remembered going out with his acting work in that rather than his supporting role in the recent romantic comedy Made of Honor (although, joking aside, I’m willing to bet he did exceptional work in that too).

Sydney Pollack was the rare filmmaker who was successfully able to straddle the line between art and entertainment and was a consistent, commanding onscreen presence through the years that we often took for granted. There’s good reason to be sad about this but it’s also an opportunity to celebrate his work and the lasting cinematic legacy he’s left us. He’ll be missed. R.I.P. Sydney.

Fantasy Casting: Superman Reboot

2007-09-17T12:17:00.000-07:00

Note: This is the debut of what I'm hoping will be a new feature where I cast a motion picture that's in production or I believe needs to be. They'll be a special focus on adaptations, sequels and remakes since those are the films where casting seems to be most important, as audiences tend to bring preconceived notions of what they're looking for into the theater. It's here where casting decisions can literally make or break a movie. While I don't exactly have a burning desire to work in the movie business (I love the creative aspect, but despise the business end) I always had this sneaking suspicion I'd make a pretty good casting director or producer.

While watching a film I'm often fascinated at the casting choices made and how it affects the finished product. I can't tell you how many movies I've seen that were ruined because the parts were cast all wrong. It's tricky finding the right person for the right role. If this proves popular I plan to do more of these so if you have a film you'd like to see me cast just shoot me a message or leave a comment. Or you can tell me right now. I only have a few ideas at the moment for future installments, so more are definitely welcome.

I decided to start off tackling a big one: Superman. When it was announced they were rebooting The Incredible Hulk franchise one thought popped into my head: Was it really THAT bad? While I admit Ang Lee's Hulk is far from a masterpiece and definitely has its problems, wasn't this a bit of an overreaction? That's not what upsets me though. I do think Ed Norton will do as good if not a better job as Bruce Banner than Eric Bana, even if I refuse to accept anyone other than Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross. What bothered me was that Ang Lee was thrown under the bus while Bryan Singer, who single-handedly destroyed the Superman franchise, gets another chance. That's right, Singer is actually set to direct a sequel to the awful Superman Returns. What's worse is Lee's film (which is far superior) didn't even gross much less, yet idiotic studio execs were inexplicably clamoring for a Hulk reboot and taking every opportunity to publicly bury Lee. That Bryan Singer still has a job in Hollywood, much less is directing another Superman installment, is a miracle.

Superman Returns is a failure on every single level, the biggest of which is casting. Even Daredevil was better. What's scarier is Daredevil's star, Ben Affleck, did a better job playing Superman in Hollywoodland than Brandon Routh did in Singer's film. About the only thing Singer got right was he decided to keep John Williams score, which was really a no-brainer. The Superman franchise is in a code-red state of emergency and I have some suggestions that would help fix it. There is hope. The first thing I'd do is fire Singer.

I'm playing producer and casting director, not screenwriter so I won't give you specific details what I'd do with the story but I will say this: THEY NEED TO START OVER. BACK TO THE BEGINNING. I'd call this new version simply: Superman. That's it. One of Singer's many miscalculations was making Superman Returns some kind of quasi-sequel to Superman II. This confused newer and even older fans of the series and punctured huge holes in the story. He should've taken a page out of Christopher Nolan's book (who did a fantastic job resurrecting Batman) and just started from scratch. I will say the only directors I'd trust with this material are Kevin Smith, J.J. Abrams and maybe Len Wiseman. Here are my casting choices:

Jake Gyllenhaal (Superman/Clark Kent)

This is the choice on here I'm least enthusiastic about, as odd as that may seem given its importance. I'm going to have the most work defending this. The reason I can't get completely crazy about it is because it reminds me a little too much of casting Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man (a role Gyllenhaal was rumored to be taking over at one point). I, like everyone else, am starting to get a little sick of "sensitive regular guys" playing superheroes. My justification then? There's simply no one out there that can play the part as well as he can. He wins almost by default (and believe me I went through everyone).

In all fairness, Brandon Routh, as bland as he was, didn't do a terrible job. He was just mistakenly directed to mimic Christopher Reeve's performance in the original. Those are impossible shoes for anyone to fill. Singer has gone on record to say he cast Routh because of his stubborn commitment to "finding an unknown," as some kind of demented tribute to the original film. That's great, except the casting of Reeve didn't work because he was an unknown. It worked because HE WAS A GREAT ACTOR AND PERFECT FOR THE PART. UNKNOWN OR NOT. Routh's credentials were that he kind of looked like Reeve and once won a Halloween costume party dressed as Superman.

Gyllenhaal has the right size and look, plus is a great actor audiences like and trust. And we know he can play Clark Kent, the trickier role. His newsroom scenes in Zodiac should convince any doubters. This is one of those rare cases where the most obvious casting choice is the best one. He was actually strongly considered for the part in the last film, but lost out to Routh. That was a big mistake. Alterations will have to be made to the costume so he doesn't look as ridiculous as Routh, which shouldn't be difficult.

The final question then becomes: Do we want to potentially destroy a talented actor's career by saddling him with this role? Let's put it this way: Even though Tobey Maguire was great as Spider-Man his career may never recover and regain the credibility it once had. We know Gyllenhaal can play the role, but will we accept him as anyone else ever again? I suspect we will, which is how I justify torturing him like this. Plus, I suspect he'll share good chemistry with his Lois Lane, who'll be played by:

Zooey Deschanel (Lois Lane)

She's not a big enough name. She's a "supporting" actress. She can't carry a big budget movie. Those are the reasons I kept giving myself not to cast her, but as I ran down the list of candidates I always came back to her every time. If you've ever seen a Zooey performance you know just how ridiculous those above reasons are. I was just kidding myself. What Margot Kidder's Lois Lane had that Kate Bosworth's didn't was spark, fire and personality. While we don't want a copy of Kidder it is important the actress bring those traits.

Zooey is one of the few that would bring them and breathe new energy into the series. It also continues a positive trend that's been developing recently of good actresses being hired for superhero movies. This is actually similar to the wise casting of Maggie Gyllenhaal opposite Christian Bale in the upcoming Batman Begins sequel. I don't see many people crying over the fact Katie Holmes won't be returning as Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight. Most seem to agree she was the weak link in the first installment and won't be missed. Neither will Bosworth here. Good riddance.

When you see a pick like Zooey you start to realize just how bad a choice Bosworth really was. In fact, I don't think I realized exactly how bad until now. She's proof that an actress can look good but be completely devoid of any personality or charisma whatsoever. I think the casting of Bosworth as Lois Lane ranks among the worst in recent memory and a primary reason why that film failed. If you're going to emphasize the love story (which Singer did) you better be sure to have a damn good Lois. I got a huge laugh in that film when they said her character won the Pulitzer Prize. Does anyone believe, as played by Bosworth, she could win anything other than a swimsuit competition? I could cast a wooden board in this role and it would be an improvement, but I decided to go with a very good actress instead. Also, unlike Jake, I think this role would actually benefit Zooey's career, pushing her into the upper acting echelon, where she belongs. And in the process she'll help save this dying franchise.

Terry O' Quinn (Lex Luthor)

I can't take full credit for this one. I was actually having a discussion with a friend last week about this issue and he threw out Lost star and recent Emmy winner O'Quinn's name. We kind of laughed it off, but then I realized…He's actually perfect for this part! He's the right age. He has experience in villainous roles. And he looks EXACTLY like him. And, although he hasn't been heavily tested in feature films, has the necessary dramatic chops to pull it off. I actually didn't have a huge problem with Kevin Spacey (though he wasn't great) as Luthor but the role needs to be recast so we're consistent across the board. Honestly, I like this choice far better. Gene Hackman was great in the original but one of the problems with Luthor in all the installments was he was played kind of campy and comically. It was hard to take him seriously as a threat. O' Quinn could fix that and bring some much needed gravitas to the role. He'd be great.

Brian Cox (Jor-El)

Sure, he's a little old to be playing the part, but so was Marlon Brando when he tackled it. Plus, he kind of resembles the elder Brando, which is interesting casting in itself. It isn't a huge role, but it's a very important one and Cox is known for turning in great performances with even the tiniest amount of material to work with. He always brings certain eccentricities and dimensions to various supporting characters, comedic or dramatic. This superhero universe is perfect for an actor who specializes in playing larger than life personalities. You can't go wrong casting him in any role, but this one he happens to be perfect for. By the way, I thought using the digitized Brando at the beginning of Superman Returns was offensive. Not because I'm a huge Brando fan, but because no great actor (living or dead) deserves to appear in a movie that bad.

Adam Brody (Jimmy Olsen)

Bumbling Daily Planet photographer Jimmy Olsen is supposed to be a geek. Brody specialized in playing one for 4 years on The O.C. He wouldn't like hearing this, but he has a goofy sidekick kind of vibe to him, which is exactly what's needed here. He isn't a huge name and this isn't a huge part, so his presence won't be a distraction or upstage anyone else. I could see Brody ad-libbing a lot and bringing out a comedic dynamic that may not necessarily be in the script. Ironically, Shia LeBeouf was seriously considered for this role in Superman Returns. That's an even better choice, but he's become so big a star that this role is actually beneath him now. Does anyone even remember who played Jimmy Olsen in Superman Returns? I rest my case. That problem wouldn't exist with Brody.

Christopher McDonald (Perry White)

McDonald has to be one of the best and hardest working character actors in the business today. You might remember him from his most famous role as "Shooter" McGavin in Happy Gilmore, but it seems every time I turn around he's in something else. He's one of those actors where you know the second he pops up onscreen you'll get a memorable performance no matter how small the role or even how crappy the film. He's made a career of playing arrogant blowhards in positions of power so he's a logical choice to play boisterous, cigar chomping Daily Planet editor-in-chief Perry White. There's also a strong physical resemblance.

Frank Langella is a terrific actor but seemed totally out of place in the role in Superman Returns. Langella only stepped in to fill it because the original choice, Hugh Laurie, dropped out to film his television series House. Laurie, also a great actor, wasn't a much better choice. It would be great to see McDonald have a good role in a blockbuster film like this. He's worked hard and deserves it. That's not why I picked him though. I picked him because it fits.