|
|
NAME: Stephen Tyrone Colbert
AUDIT DATE: June 22, 2006
AGE: 42
OCCUPATION: Actor, linguist, patriot
EXPERIENCE: Six movies and nine TV series since 1995
We watch The Daily Show. (But you already knew that.) We enjoy it. We encourage our friends to watch it, too, and think slightly less of them if they don't. For years, Stephen Colbert had been our favourite Daily Show correspondent -- the best at impersonating an actual newscaster, and the best at cracking up Stewart. We loved him from his wingtipped toes right up to his elfin right ear. We were cautiously excited that his right-wing jackass character was getting spun off onto his own show -- cautious because it seemed like too many levels of irony to actually function as satire, but excited because...it's Colbert. Even if it was kind of bad, it'd still be mostly good. It started out perhaps a little too precious, but then sometime this spring really came into its own, and we were happy that Colbert had, like his former colleague Steve Carell, left his safe, cozy berth on Daily Show and made a success of himself. He deserved a tip of our hat, and not a wag of our finger. Frankly, we admired his balls.
The problem is...well, to be completely honest, we're not sure exactly what the problem is. It was as though, one night, we turned off The Colbert Report and snuggled down in bed, perfectly entertained and content, and then the next morning, the dude was fucking everywhere! In March: a seven-figure book deal, for a title Colbert would write, alone, in Report character. In April: a performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner. In May: a position among the "Artists & Entertainers" of the Time 100, a list of "People Who Shape Our World." In June: an honorary doctorate and commencement address at Illinois's Knox College. In July: headlining Independence Day celebrations on all the networks. In August: selling NBC a third show about the backstage mayhem at a sketch-comedy show, starring himself. In September: appearing on a new $15 bill.
Maybe he would not be doing those things, specifically, sure. But...do you see what we mean? Everywhere!
Here's what July will actually hold for Colbert (though for all we know, that Independence Day thing really could be true): starring in The Great New Wonderful and the film adaptation of Strangers With Candy. (Officially, Wonderful opens tomorrow, and Candy next week, but only in New York, so let's assume they will take a few weeks to penetrate America's creamy center.) And although it technically means more Colbert for us to contend with -- which should irritate us, at this point -- we're actually relieved. We are looking forward to seeing the man play a fictional role other than Bill O'Reilly's spiritual son, a.k.a. Stephen Colbert in air quotes.
It would be disingenuous for us to complain that anyone else is too arch or clever. Obviously. And that's not it -- or not quite it. We can appreciate Colbert's decision to invent a braying, uninformed, reactionary dimwit and use that character to attack the many braying, uninformed, reactionary dimwits on TV who aren't actually kidding. What makes "Stephen Colbert" a little tiresome, at this point, is the degree to which the character has started to take over the performer's public persona. For God's sake, he had to kick off his Knox College speech by stating that he wasn't sure whether he was invited to speak as himself, or as the air quotes version, and ended up delivering an address that switched off from one to the other, practically with each alternating paragraph. Lord knows that it is in vogue, at the moment, for celebrities to play self-mocking versions of themselves, from Entourage to Curb Your Enthusiasm (on which Colbert appeared, hilariously, in the finale a couple of seasons ago, as a Larry David stalker) to whatever the hell this abortion is. But they mostly just do it once, or for a few episodes, or -- at the outside -- for eight episodes a year, with a lot of hiatus months in between. Colbert does it for around eight episodes a month. Don't you think a put-on that relentless and opaque would start to wear on him?
Apparently it isn't wearing on Colbert's audience, from what we can see. The past couple of months have seen the people in the studio cheering with a frenzy to rival the intensity and duration we routinely get at the beginning of Late Night With Conan O'Brien -- and not just after the opening titles; they're also losing their shit at the cold open, and for all the recurring bits, from "Formidable Opponent" to (our favourite) "The Word." On The Daily Show, all we get is the opening burst of hysteria, normally; maybe a particularly sugar-fueled crowd will get it up for "This Week In God." (Which, since we've mentioned it, hasn't been the same since Colbert left it.) Anyway: the people there seem to have no problem with air quotes Colbert, so maybe we're just being picky or churlish or un-American -- which is, after all, this Canadian commentator's prerogative.
We love Stephen Colbert, the man. We love him so much we check on Hollywood Insider daily for the latest news on him (and other hollywood celebrities too, but especially him). We loved Strangers With Candy and are thrilled that the movie's finally going to see the light of day; we're equally thrilled at the evidence that Colbert may have a post-Report exit strategy, since we're not so confident that the show will still work if 2008 finds a Democrat in the White House (pleeeeeeeeeeeease, God, let it happen). We realize that The Colbert Report with Colbert as himself would just duplicate The Daily Show, so while it's wrong for us to wish it off the air -- and strange even to suggest it since, in case we haven't actually mentioned this part, we really do watch every episode, and like it -- it will be better for the career of Colbert the performer once he can give up Colbert the conservative wacko. And wouldn't we like Colbert -- either Colbert -- even better if we occasionally got the chance to miss him?
Current approximate level of fame: Jon Stewart
Deserved approximate level of fame: Denis Leary
Feast of Love (2007) MGM
1 hr. 45 mins.
Starring: Morgan Freeman, Greg Kinnear, Toby Hemingway, Radha Mitchell, Alexa Davalos, Selma Blair, Jane Alexander, Billy Burke, Fred Ward, Missi Pyle
Directed by: Robert Benton
This film is rated: R
Writer/director Robert Benton’s Feast of Love is nothing but an arbitrary “snack for frivolous fondness”. Benton (“Kramer vs. Kramer”) wants to convey the forethought of random love that overcomes the cynical emptiness of a quaint Portland, Oregon community. However, the film never establishes a distinctive tone for why the power of love is such a mysterious concept. Instead, Feast of Love comes off as one of these bland big screen melodramas that should be showcasing its sentimental sludge on the Lifetime cable channel. For Benton, this sprawling and syrupy concoction is instantly forgettable despite a noteworthy cast trapped in the confines of a drippy script.
The theme to Feast is quite familiar as the elusive art of love is explored as it touches a group of folks at the most ambivalent moments. Somehow, the gimmicky aspect to Benton’s sluggish narrative gives off trite vibes thus rendering this staid story as another toothless romancer wrapped up in quirky albeit synthetic sweetness. Feast of Love is based upon college professor/author Charles Baxter’s transfixing novel. The fabric of the premise is quite interesting in terms of how a selection of dysfunctional small town residents view their hungry hearts for affection. Still, Benton never executes this format beyond its perfunctory weaving of manufactured wit and emotion.
Oscar-winning vet Morgan Freeman is back once again in “mystical observatory mode” as Harry Stevenson, a retired professor that has the luxury of overseeing the trials and tribulations of the small Oregon surroundings. Harry is the “go-to” personality that dispenses worthy advice especially when it comes to various affairs of the heart. Let’s face it...Harry has his work cut out for him as his clueless cohorts are in desperate need of reviewing an ancient 70’s rerun of TV’s Love, American Style.
For Harry, handling his misguided coffee shop owner buddy Bradley Thomas (Greg Kinnear) in particular is a trying challenge. Bradley is under the false assumption that his marriage to Kathryn (Selma Blair) is safe and sound until he discovers that his wife is a lesbian and wants to divorce him to be with her female lover. Shortly afterwards, Bradley is blessed with meeting and falling in love with real estate agent Diana (Radha Mitchell). The problem remains is that Diana—although enjoying the company of a newly liberated Bradley—is having wild sexual encounters with a married man named David Watson (Billy Burke).
In the meanwhile, Bradley’s youthful employees/friends Oscar and Chloe (Toby Hemingway and Alexa Davalos) cultivate a loving relationship. It’s not long before the destitute couple engages in a moneymaking scheme to enhance their financial status (they agree to have on-camera sex) as a way of dealing with their developing bond. We cannot overlook Harry’s own relationship spotlight with his wife (Jane Alexander). Basically, it’s an obvious blueprint of foolish old/young love and how these lost souls are able to cope with the unpredictable wackiness that ensues.
In short, Feast of Love embellishes on that old notion that the game of love is tricky yet a satisfying state of mind once it’s conquered. Curiously, there’s no real texture or tension to give this sappy exposition its lyrical luster. The film delves into the annoying sea of cliched platitudes and convenient coincidences. Although the pacing is lightweight and lingering, there are a few outrageous fluffy moments that register slightly. The proceedings beg for a breezy and whimsical effect but the overall moodiness feels catastrophically stiff.
The performances are engaging at times but nothing sticks out as being vastly radical or revealing. Freeman seems to be channeling his mild-mannered mentor shtick that is getting to be too commonplace for the talented maturing actor. Freeman is too resourceful to be aping the same old one-dimensional turn as a worldly wise man figurehead. Kinnear is effective enough as the handsome yet hapless guy that’s drawn to the wrong type of wayward women. Again, we’ve seen Kinnear’s impish nature on screen before but somehow his presence is wasted in this mawkish material.
Apparently Feast of Love has a drawn out tepid taste that isn’t very appetizing given the star power of its high caliber cast and noted helmer in Benton. Love may be unsteady in its many infinite stages but Feast does nothing concrete to make us embrace this uneven romancer that has all the giddy spirit of a melted box of chocolates.
Enjoyed this satisfyingly scathing review? Then you’ll definitely want to read up on the latest hollywood gossip.
The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (2000) Universal Pictures
1 hr. 32 mins.
Starring: Robert De Niro, Jason Alexander, Rene Russo, and a whole bunch of boring cameos.
Directed by: Des McAnuff
Cartoon to live-action film adaptations are usually unsuccessful, and this film by far is no exception. ‘The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle’ has all the formulaic elements that entertain the children – a deep voiced-over narrator, a fast paced editing style, and the film is never scared to poke fun at itself. Yet, not even all these elements as well as all the cameos contained can revive this tepid, boring film.
First and foremost, the lead in the film, up-and-comer Piper Perabo is completely miscast as the FBI agent sent to retrieve Rocky and Bullwinkle from the depths of TV land. Do not ask me how she does it, it involves the symbolism of the Hollywood ‘green light’ (a term used by producers when okaying the shoot of a film) that is so far-fetched, it is not even worth explaining. Perabo certainly was cast to make the picture more kid-friendly; yet, her appearance on screen makes her not even old enough to drive a car. Throughout the whole film it casts an evil look upon it because aside from the fact that we are watching an animated Moose and Squirrel save America, we know it is fiction – we accept that part. But just looking at Perabo smile her way through situations with that fake innocent look is enough to make me leave the movie right away. It just does not make sense.
Secondly, it is a fact that Bobby D.’s production company Tribeca Films produced the film, maybe that was the only reason why he decided to play evil villain – Fearless Leader. Granted, De Niro does his best (because he is the best, no bias intended) at a weakly written character that even he seems embarrassed to play on screen. When an actor such as De Niro who personifies evilness in movies seems embarrassed to play a character – you know there is something wrong.
Furthermore, Jason Alexander and Rene Russo accompany Bobby D. in the roles of the Russian spies, Boris and Natasha. Evidently, their horrible Russian accents are intended to be that way, and I cannot even believe two actors such as these agreed to embarrass themselves on screen with the poorest sight gags ever.
It is obvious Director Des McAnuff intended for the film to be a live-action cartoon. It has all the characteristics of a cartoon, yet, lacks the appeal of one. Jokes that would play well on a cartoon, fail terribly here. And I mean terribly, the film was observed with children by my side, and when you do not hear any laughing when there is obviously a freeze in the movie to accept the laughs – you know there is something wrong.
The movie opens up nicely, explaining in animated form where exactly our two characters Rocky and Bullwinkle have been for the past 35 years - apparently in re-runs (again, do not ask why), and since Fearless Leader and Boris and Natasha have transferred over into the real world through a television screen (again, please do not ask why) the FBI deems only Rocky and Bullwinkle worthy to capture these criminals who plan to zombify the world through their new television channel – RBTV (Really Bad TeleVision ). I got news for the makers of this film, somebody should have thought about not making a really bad film.
Janeane Garofolo, Jonathon Winters, Randy Quaid, John Goodman and Whoopi Goldberg all make cameo appearances in what seems a blatant attempt in masking the true aspect that this is a bad film. It is well done, yet, the paper-thin plot does not hold its ground and it seems as is all these scenes were just strewn together to occupy 92 minutes of our lives. By the way, the animation of the two titular characters was nicely done, but when you are observing all the horrible aspects around these characters happening, these two seem to be left in the background collecting dust. Which is what this movie will be doing at your local video store.
We’re big fans of Robert De Niro but definitely aren’t cheering for him in this film. Enjoyed this review? Then check Hollywood Insider for more in-depth movie reviews.
Robert Rodriquez and Quentin Tarantino go digital on Hollywood
Due for release in April 2007, this ultra-violent feature gives us two movies for the price of one.
Robert Rodriquez, “Sin City” and the “Spy Kids” series, has teamed with Quentin Tarantino, “Pulp Fiction,” "Kill Bill, Parts I and II" to produce a digitally created flick. This may not sound so revolutionary, but it is. With High Definition on the rise, this means that over the next 3 to 4 years the some 6,000 movie theaters that exist in the United States today will have no choice to move into the HD market. This means individual movie theaters will download movies from satellite or broadband or receive HD disk tape, replacing the traditionally used expensive and fragile 35mm cellulite film stock on bulky reels.
With so much invested in the old camera system, Hollywood will most likely hold off this new wave as long as possible.
While this trend is still a few years away, Rodriquez and Tarantino are making their entrée with a bang, and a whole lotta blood. “Grindhouse” offers us two distinct features in one movie. In “Planet Terror,” Rodriquez’s contribution, a hot chick with a machine gun for a leg, fights a brain-melting virus. Of his production company in Austin Texas, Rodriquez boasts that filmmaking outside Hollywood is more creative, and removed from its corporate programming. He stands by “Grindhouse” to prove him right.
Quentin Tarantino fancies himself a ‘film purist,’ and he is. When he shoots a movie, it goes onto good old 35mm celluloid. On a bet that Rodriquez could digitally shoot in a style Tarantino loves: The ‘70’s, Tarantino took him up on that wager. Rodriquez used footage from “Sin City” and “Dusk Till Dawn,” purposely degrading images using digital effects that emulate the old 35mm film and camera system. So completely impressed, Tarantino set out with Rodriquez to make “Grindhouse.”
Tarantino’s ditty, “Death Proof,” is a slasher story, starring Kurt Russell as a crazed murderer with one mean car. A smattering of fake trailers, or movie previews holds the two features together. All this effort, in the hands of these two directors, “Grindhouse” proves out to be an incredibly violent movie. The filmmakers are both ardent devotees of a decade that gave us both great, and many D movies. Rodriquez and Tarantino love those D movies. They offer “Grindhouse” as a tribute and an appreciation to that genre.
The movie makes no apologies for the fact that it exploits ultra-violence, hot chicks and maniacal murderers. Indeed, ‘70’s exploitation movies do fit in a legitimate genre. That being the case, one must give these ‘devils’ their due.
Have you seen all of Tarantino and Rodriquez’s movies? Click here to brush up on your fim industry knowledge.
 |
|
|
Home