Film School Rejects » Shouting Match

Shouting Match: Best Horror Film of the Decade

Josh Radde — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:19:33 +0000

With Rob Zombie’s Halloween II and the fourth installment in the Final Destination series out in theaters this weekend, FSR’s resident Devil’s Advocate Josh Radde and guest Adam Sweeney decided not to debate between the two franchises, but rather: what is the best horror film of the decade? Shouting Match, heading up to the end of 2009, will occasionally jump into “decade-review mode” and determine what we thought shined in the first part of this bitchin’ new century.

Opening Statement (Josh)

Over the past half century, certain horror films have carved out a niche in which they grew to the heights of their popularity. In the 60’s we saw Mama’s boy Norman Bates stab a lady in the shower. Spielberg made us think twice about jumping into the ocean in the 70’s. The slasher genre hit its absolute apex with Freddy, Jason, and Michael Myers in the 80’s. Drew Barrymore was the first victim of the 90’s horror flicks that were self-aware. But what niche have we carved since the beginning of the new century?

It would seem that remakes have been the craze since 2000. Michael Bay, Rob Zombie, and others have given us everything from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre to Halloween to The Amityville Horror to a couple remakes starring Liev Schrieber, The Omen and The Manchurian Candidate (more of a “thriller” than a “horror” film, but still). There was also the America’s flirtation with the “torture porn” genre where films like Saw and Hostel and The Devil’s Rejects fall. As “entertaining” as some of these movies have been, one film stand high and above everything released this decade: 2005’s The Descent.

Released wide the same weekend as Sam Jackson’s Snakes on a Plane, I urged everybody to go see the superior film, which at the time I dubbed “Bitches in a Cave.” Neil Marshall’s film about female spelunkers is an absolute powerhouse of a film. It makes you confront fears of height, darkness, claustrophobia, and the unknown. It’s well acted and superbly written, in addition to being tense and scary as hell (which is, I believe, what the DVD box says on it). It’s everything you want in a horror movie: the characters are relatable and sympathetic; the chills and jumps come out of nowhere; it moves at a break-neck pace; and there’s a little bit of a revenge tale thrown in for good measure.

There are a few horror films released this decade that I would consider solid, but only The Descent is one that I would consider a great movie.

Counter Argument (Adam)

You’re right to point out the run of remakes Hollywood has put out, most of which were as forgettable as catching your parents having sex. In fact, that’s a horror film in it of itself. Sadly, Hollywood is really the only one being scared — of losing money — and we are ending up as the victim getting slashed in the wallet. That’s why we have to go outside of Hollywood to find the best horror film of the decade, Let the Right One In.

Equal parts revenge cinema, a love story and GOOD vampire fantasy (Because I can’t remember the last decent one of those I have seen), the Swedish masterpiece, yeah I said masterpiece, actually gives me hope that there can be thoughtful horror films. Of course, Hollywood plans to remake this and will probably fail miserably. While The Descent is definitely one of the better horrors of the decade, the acting by a few of the actors was somewhat flawed and there wasn’t much story there to begin with. Hot girls go into cave. Monsters attack hot girls. Hot girls scream and die. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the experience. But where The Descent falters, Let the Right One In sinks its teeth in. What is even more amazing is that the lead roles are played by two young adults. Hmm, after Kirsten Dunst’s role in Interview with the Vampire maybe we should just give parts in bloodsucker films to kids.

Rebuttal (Josh)

You know what … I have no insults to throw at you. I don’t necessarily agree with you, just because I don’t really find Let the Right One In all that scary, however, yes it is a damn fine film. You’re also right to point out that some of the actresses in Descent didn’t graduate from the Kirtsten Dunst School of Acting, but the simple story is what makes it so appealing to me.

Let the Right One In is pretty complex tale, and though its characters are very sympathetic, I just can’t call it the Best Horror Film of the Decade. Maybe it’s because we have SO many vampire films (along with an over-saturation of zombie films this decade) that I am more drawn to the relative uniqueness and originality of The Descent. You did touch on one really key subject, though: It’s impossible to find any good horror in the U.S. The Ring is scary, but not as much as Ringu; The Grudge showcased that Sarah Michelle Gellar is still our “scream queen” but couldn’t hold a candle to its overseas original. Kang-ho Song has starred in two great Korean horror films, Thirst and The Host which eventually made their way here.

Oh, and by the way, after I wrote the first part of this article I saw the trailer to The Descent: Part 2. Sigh. I don’t know what the editor of Snatch (Jon Harris) can add to the original, but frankly I’m pissed that they couldn’t leave a good thing be. What the hell would compel Sarah (Shauna MacDonald) to crawl back into that cave anyway?

Closing Statement (Adam)

I appreciate any refrain from insults as both of these films are up at the top of the list in terms of my favorite horror films of this decade. You can’t go wrong with either one. It’s like asking who is more attractive, Christina Hendricks from “Mad Men” or Anna Paquin from “True Blood.” The first is so overwhelmingly pretty and, let’s be honest, endowed that you can’t help but be drawn to her. But you, at least up until she started stripping for True Blood, had to work harder to understand the beauty of Paquin. I’m sure both have a lot going on underneath but on the surface they present two equally satisfying types of enjoyment.

Let the Right One In stands above the rest of the horror films of the decade because it can’t be simply defined. True, it doesn’t make you jump like The Descent but there are more layers to it. And don’t get confused, the film definitely has its share of suspense and “Holy shit!” moments. The fire scene in the hospital? Bingo. When you actually see Eli’s true age? Again, creepy. Where The Descent has no choice but to subscribe to the pop-out-at-you method, the other takes the time to let us know the characters, their surroundings and remind us how the classic tale of a weaker child against school bullies can be as monstrous as any mythical creation invented. Plus, from the opening credits you can tell this is one of the most beautifully shot horror films ever.

And you’re right, why Sarah (Shauna MacDonald) goes back into that cave after the first Descent is about as explainable as the ending to Rob Zombie’s Halloween 2. Did she forget her car keys? I will say this. I am intrigued to see both The Descent 2 and the American version of Let the Right One In just to see if they can expand on the brilliance of both originals. To me, that is a sign that the originals are both can’t miss films. So I’d say they both win.

So there you have it, The Descent and Let the Right One In are our votes for best horror film of the decade. Do you agree? What is your favorite since 2000?

Shouting Match: Giant Robots Fighting; Two Men Arguing

Josh Radde — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:20:09 +0000

Hey everybody. It’s your Resident Devil’s Advocate Josh Radde here. Usually every week an FSR writer and myself duke it out over myriad topics, usually going hand-in-hand with the week’s releases. However, this week’s Shouting Match obviously had to be Bay-driven with the release of Transformers 2. And because of a host of reasons, I haven’t seen this polarizing film yet. So, I turn the debate over to two skilled linguists and douche-nozzles, Adam Sweeney and Landon Palmer, to debate the merits of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with a word-count befitting of such an epic film.

Opening Statement (Adam):

Landon,

How I loathe Michael Bay. Let me count the ways. I would like to say that you’re a brave soul for applauding the latest piece of trash Michael Bay has put out, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but I’ve never been a good liar. I think it’s more a case of trying to defend a clearly guilty film, and I use the word film loosely.

What is the film guilty of? Well we could talk about how bloated this film feels, how awful the acting and story was (which flat out borrows from Revenge of the Sith at points.), or we could launch verbal missiles at scenes of Bumblebee giving a girl a golden shower, Decepticons and dogs busting a nut at our expense, a Decepticon with balls (I guess someone had to have them since Megatron was such a weak-ass in this film) or the lack of any true suspense. But it’d be too easy. Any person that claims to have credibility knows this film is the worst kind of “entertainment,” appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Instead, let’s examine the absolutely reprehensible racist and sexist tone of the film. The Autobot Twins, Lil’ Black Sambot and Step and Fetch It (That’s their names, right?) have all the stereotypes of a poor African-American. They have gold teeth, commit acts of Black-on-Black violence, fire curse words like it’s a glock and let’s not forget, they can’t read. Classy. Somewhere George Lucas is saying, “Thank you, Michael! People will forget Jar Jar now!” And we’re also supposed to believe a girl like Megan Fox would wait at home for Shia LaBeouf or that all college girls look like America’s Next Top Model? Oh and Fox doesn’t mind a little Decepticon bump and grind, right? Please.

The sad thing is that the film is going to make a killing at the box office while also killing our brain cells. You know what that means? More movies like this will be made. Allow me to throw up in my mouth for a second. Okay, better. Don’t forget that this film will be seen by tons of children. What kind of message does seeing a Transformer call someone else a punk bitch send to a child? It’s unacceptable. Bay has taken a solid concept and turned it into Night of the Living Frat Boy. Will Transformers 3 have Robot Girls Gone Wild? I can’t wait!

You’ll probably say we have to go into a Michael Bay film accepting it for what it is, an explosive, dumb blockbuster. I can’t disagree more. I should not have to compromise my morals or cinematic integrity in order to enjoy Transformers. The original series was fun, interesting and it wasn’t offensive. That’s what we Transformers fans really wanted to see. Instead we got a robot minstrel show. I’d ask if Bay really thinks we’re dumb enough to stand for this but the opening night returns already show me that a large portion of America is. The fallen, indeed.

Counter Argument (Landon):

I need to preface my impenetrable rebuttal that is going to make Sweeney’s argument my own personal roll of toilet paper with the following…

My review has been lumped on this site with Robert Fure’s several times, and while I have the utmost respect for Mr. Fure, his review and my review were simply not the same thing. Anybody who actually read my review instead of scrolling directly down to the letter grade knows that the praise I have for Transformers 2 is rather reserved and neutral, qualified by the film’s obvious lacking qualities. So I’m put in the rather odd position of defending a film that I didn’t necessarily think was good, but one that I did enjoy. And defend it I will.

That being said, go get your fucking shinebox, Sweeney.

Watching or enjoying Transformers 2 is a compromise of one’s morals? Please! We’re talking about a film that was adapted from a television show whose sole intent was to sell toys. Don’t act like the integrity of anything has been compromised here. Transformers as a franchise whole has always represented American capitalism at its most shameless, yet everybody, through the haze of nostalgia, seems to treat the original series as harmless fun and the release and success of ROTF as a sign of the apocalyptic denigration of our culture as we know it. Apparently people like to see giant robots fighting, I guess culture must be dead!

It’s true, Adam, Transformers 2 is a bad movie. I admit it. But quality isn’t directly tied to fun or enjoyment. Schindler’s List, for instance, was an incredible movie, but I can’t say I had fun. Transformers 2 is a bad movie, but I had a great time. My brain cells are still in tact, and as far as I know I came out of the film with my morals and ethics consistent with when I came in–but I’ll be the first to let you know if, as a result of seeing this move, I’ve lost my critical capabilities and start doing whatever Fox News tells me to. This movie is not harmful, and the state of cinema, and society, will be the same fucked-up institution it always was, indifferent to the dough this money rakes in.

To say this movie is harmful implies that people are stupid and unquestioning. Are you really criticizing the logic of a movie whose main draw is that it features alien robots who turn from one thing into another thing? The premise of the entire movie is illogical! People aren’t going to this movie to see a treatise on plausibility, it’s a movie about wish-fulfillment. What if you lived in a world where Megan Fox stayed at home waiting for you to call while you were voraciously hit on by another gorgeous woman, and what if this all happened in a world where your best friend was a GIANT ROBOT that FOUGHT ALL THE TIME?! That would be pretty cool, wouldn’t it? You’re goddamned right it would.

Because Adam, while you and I may have seen and studied many more movies than most people, we are not smarter than the average person. And even if we were, it would be irresponsible to say so, as you have done by oh-so-bravely heralding the masses on the harm that will be done if their feeble little brains are exposed to what is basically the cinematic equivalent of a snow cone–a summer treat that, while made up of synthetic ingredients and being essentially empty at its core, makes for a delightfully refreshing, albeit fleeting, way to break the heat. People above the target age of 12 are able to recognize the silliness and the stupidity and enjoy Transformers 2 not despite that, but because of it, while remaining cogent in their intellect and moral structure. Herein lies the appeal of this film.

And as for the race issue, thanks for being living proof of thing #101 that white people like to do. I’m sure your anger is very real…Let me back up because I know you’ve been taking this beating pretty hard. There’s certainly an argument to be made about the potential offense of these characters, but it’s not in calling Transformers 2 a “robot minstrel show,” and it doesn’t even really reflect on the movie as a whole. Who’s to say that these bots weren’t thought up as the target audience for the movie itself, suburban white kids? What culture do suburban white kids inappropriately appropriate most? Hip-hop culture! And what do adolescents do to hip-hop? They dumb it down to a spectacle of slang and vacant appropriation! If anything, these ‘bots represent a meta-commentary criticizing the very audience watching the film by allowing them to endorse a despicable caricature that has become a particular adolescent poseur culture (not based within the realm of race, but age) that praises the inarticulate and the anti-intellectual (remember, the ‘bots aren’t illiterate, they just don’t like to read)…Anyway, if you use my argument against me as a straw man, which you will, there’s no reason why two potentially offensive supporting characters should deem a movie as a whole despicable. Look at Mickey Rooney’s role in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. It’s a horrendous blotch on the history of cinema, but it’s a blotch that doesn’t extend beyond his supporting role, as the movie as a whole remains beloved to this day. Two minor characters ain’t the whole movie, buddy.

And as far as the sex and profanity goes for a kids’ movie, I have to ask what you watched as a kid, because I’d trade in the trauma I experienced watching Atreyu drown to death or Raphael going into a coma any day for the comparatively harmless T&A and dirty words in Transformers 2. Don’t worry, Adam, kids can handle it. I just hope one day you won’t be the dick parent that won’t let his kid watch fun movies.

There are popular movies out there that are harmful, and some of these movies make a farce out of minority cultures (Bringing Down the House and Crash for example), using labels of harmless fun or an attempt at self-righteous social finger-waving to reinforce existing stereotypes. Transformers 2 is not one of these movies. You might not like it personally, but it’s nothing to get your feathers ruffled over. Just leave it be and let the rest of us have fun.

Rebuttal (Adam):

Impenetrable rebuttal? Ha. Using my argument as toilet paper? The only reason that sentence made sense is because your argument indeed does remind me of shit. Funny, so does Transformers 2!

I read your review, Landon and my question is this: How does a film you know is horrible get a B-? I’d be scared to see what an F film would be for you. You say that Bay is concerned only with entertainment. If so, maybe he should find a new profession because there was very little entertaining about this film. You said it yourself that the robots are almost all interchangeable, the human performances are robotic themselves, the film is uneven throughout and is flat out bad. So what does it say that you enjoyed it after all of that? Maybe Bay has found his target victim, a person who is willing to be beaten over the head with stupidity. Bravo, sir.

As far as the shinebox comment, I’d rather shine shoes than lick the boots of one of the worst directors around. Make sure you dry clean that Transformers shirt to get the jizz stain out. Or don’t. Maybe it will help us distinguish which robot is who finally.

I have no problem with robots fighting, even if Bay still hasn’t learned how to edit properly in order to get the most out of the fight scenes. It’s what surrounds those scenes that I think is horrible. In fact, Bay is so dumb that he put the most climactic fight scene IN THE MIDDLE of the film. And he can’t even leave the Transformers alone without trying to compensate by putting balls on one of them. Little dick syndrome and mid-life crisis much?

And of course Schindler’s List wasn’t fun! If it was then you’re severely fucked up. But was it a well made and interesting film? Yes. You don’t go into a film like that expecting to have a barrel of laughs or eye candy. You do in Transformers and by that standard it failed miserably.

Nobody is claiming that your brain will be warped from watching this film but thanks for twisting my words. Are you sure you don’t work for a cable news network? Take a media and pop culture class and you will learn that one’s ideals are directly affected by the messages and images they are constantly sent through forms of media, religion and family. So what message is this film sending? Objectifying women is okay, poking fun at African-Americans is justified as long as you can blow shit up. Umm, sorry. It doesn’t work that way.

There have been plenty of movies that featured robots where the story defied plausability from our world perspective AND was good. The original Star Wars trilogy comes to mind. How about Terminator 2? Wall-E, Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey… need I go on? You can have fun with characters and not have to compromise the story. As far as the idea of robots befriending me being cool, I am going to pass if the robots like pissing on people or take on the character traits of 50 Cent.

Save the “We’re all equal” logic, please. I don’t think I am better than anyone else. Having said that, I would say the masses of film critics have spoken out and said this movie is pathetic. Does my background in film and exposure to more films than the average moviegoer make me more qualified? Hell yes, it does, just like a doctor is more qualified to give a heart transplant than I would be. I don’t think it makes me better than anyone, just more qualified to explain my position. But nice attempt to rally the masses, Pancho Villa. How many Reject readers agreed with your review again? And no, your mother doesn’t count. Do you defend the racist aspects of The Phantom Menace too? I am going to check and see if your profile pic has you slanting your eyes, because that is always hilarious, right? Oh wait, let’s not give Bay any ideas for part 3.

And Heaven forbid a White person be sensitive to racism. If anything, White America should be more sensitive to the potential racist aspects of the projects they create. And don’t try to pawn this film off as an attempt to poke fun at White America. Michael Bay isn’t that smart. You compare this film to Breakfast at Tiffany’s, a classic and say that two minor characters don’t make a whole film. That would be fine if the Autobot Twins were the only trangsression against the film, but we both know it isn’t. This film has more flaws than Tara Reid with her make-up off. Mark my words, this will be known as one of most disappointing blockbuster films of any summer. No amount of money can hide that truth.

Closing Statement (Landon):

Giant. Robots. Fighting.

So there you have it. We could let these two titans of rhetoric go back and forth all day, trading reasons why Transformers 2 is good/bad, and then eventually go Brokeback for each other in a tent…but what really matters is What Do You Think?

Shouting Match: Jack Black Must Be Stopped!

Josh Radde — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:28:50 +0000

With the release of Harold Ramis’ Year One, Jack Black continues his stay as Hollywood’s version of “Jack Black.” In light of that, FSR’s resident Fat Guy at the Movies Kevin Carr and Resident Devil’s Advocate Josh Radde ponder just how far they’re willing to let Jack Black go before enough is enough.

Opening Statement (Kevin)

As an avid fan of puns and plays on words, I am proud to recognize that one word in the English language is integral as to why Jack Black must be stopped from making more films.

The word, my friends, is SCAT.

Definition #1: “Jazz singing, with nonsense syllables.” [Ref.: Merriam-Webster]

In virtually every movie this guy is in, he scats. It doesn’t matter if he’s playing a rocker, a Spanish monk, a caveman or a frickin’ fat panda. For some reason, Jack Black always manages to work in a scene with his skiddily-diddily-doing it. It’s more annoying than Will Smith throwing down “Awwww, hell naaahhh!” in all of his blockbusters.

I know he first came to prominence with Tenacious D, and he has a certain high-energy charm, but enough is enough! He needs to quit the scatting! It just ain’t funny any more. (And when he does lose the scatting, he swaps it for lumpy male nudity, as seen in films like Tropic Thunder and Margot at the Wedding, and I’m not a big fan of that, either.)

Definition #2: “An animal fecal dropping.”

That’s right. Poop. Jack Black is poop. Yeah, I went there.

I hate to stoop to toilet humor… Aw, who am I kidding? I love to stoop to toilet humor! And why not? Jack Black has been batting closer to 300 than a thousand in the good movie department. After films like Envy, Shark Tale, Shallow Hal, Nacho Libre, Be Kind Rewind and now Year One, he’s picked some pretty sucky films. For every School of Rock, there’s at least two Saving Silverman. And let’s not forget his early career junk like The Neverending Story III and Waterworld.

I’m all for an actor getting as much work as he can, but how did this guy ever become an A-lister? He’s never really carried anything effectively, unless you count Kung Fu Panda… and that was an animated movie that allowed his performance to be tightly edited in post.

Yeah, Jack Black can be funny at times, but too many of his films retread his old shtick he’s been doing for years. His character of Jeff Portnoy may have been a parody of Eddie Murphy, but now he’s threatening to reduce himself to Eddie Murphy status with his own career choices.

So, when it comes to Jack Black in more movies, singing or dancing or otherwise, I simply say, “Scat!”

Counter Argument (Josh)

Kevin Carr! Such hostility towards a relatively unthreatening comedian! Sure, Jack Black may have overstayed his welcome in the comedic zeitgeist, but to compare him to a lone turd seems a bit extreme.

Here’s the thing about comedy: You can’t really tell when something is going to succeed or fail. You say that Mr. Black is hovering more around .300 than 1.000, and you know what, that’s about average when you look at comedians working today – and inadvertently, you make a good comparison – Comedy is like Baseball, and batting a .300 would still qualify Black for the all-star game (along with Jason Segel and Paul Rudd, comedy MVPs).

Jack Black is still relevant as a comedic actor. He’s funnier and less mainstream than Ben Stiller, he’s more marketable than Seth Rogen, he makes lower-budgeted films than Will Ferrell, knows what he can-and-cannot-do as far as his abilities go (unlike Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler) and hasn’t completely alienated his fanbase like Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy. Plus, he’s still willing to poke fun at himself. Jeff Portnoy was a knock on Murphy, but it was also a sly grin aimed back at Jack Black himself.

It’s true, Jack Black has been playing the “Jables” character for far too long. Tenacious D was a revelation at the time, and Black’s work in High Fidelity and School of Rock still holds up well to this day. And when director’s have tried to make him play outside his wheel house, he’s looked a little foolish. So we can knock him for not expanding his comedic horizons a little more, but he’s given us pretty much what we’ve wanted from him over the years. However, I still applaud him for trying to do challenging stuff like Margot at the Wedding and playing it straight in King Kong. Both movies were bad despite reasonable outings from JB.

But, please Kevin, let’s place blame where blame is to be placed. You put the onus of Waterworld on Jack Black’s shoulders? Is it his fault I Still Know What You Did Last Summer or The Jackal were train wrecks? Dude’s been in like 50 movies, many of them with memorable small roles, so I fail to see what is so objectionable about him. Would I like to see Jack Black branch out a little more? Sure. You need to put things into perspective: aren’t there bigger fish to fry out there?

The only thing that reeks of “scat” here is your argument.

Rebuttal (Kevin)

Radde, you ignorant slut. There is nothing extreme about calling an actor a turd, especially when it comes to Jack Black.

All Star Game or not, Jack Black’s .300 average is equivalent to an MLB player always striking out with the bases loaded and then bunting to first and getting picked off when the next batter hits. He may have a good record, but his victories are hollow and his failures really suck. Case in point, King Kong. You mention it as if he did a fine acting job, but he slathered on the cheese struggling to play it straight.

You can knock Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell all you want, but those guys have serious dramatic chops. Have you seen Man on the Moon? Or what about Stranger Than Fiction? Those are great films. And Jack Black has . . . Margot at the Wedding? Be Kind Rewind? The Holiday? His record speaks for itself. (I will concede that Adam Sandler doesn’t have what it takes for dramatic work, so I suppose we do agree there.)

But don’t just look at the parade of bad films with one-note performances in them. Let’s dissect your own argument and make you look like the fool. More mainstream than Ben Stiller? Are you telling me that Kung Fu Panda wasn’t mainstream? Or King Kong? Or this feeble attempt at Year One? Or last year’s Tropic Thunder, in which they both were above-the-title stars? Jack Black hosted the frickin’ Nickelodeon Kids’ Choice Awards last year. You don’t get much more mainstream than that.

More marketable than Seth Rogen? Are we talking about the same Seth Rogen? You mean the other fat, bearded guy who makes as many movies and can’t act outside of his own one-note character? I suppose they both have some strange appeal when plastered on a movie poster.

Lower-budgeted films? You mean like those student animation projects known as Shark Tale and Kung Fu Panda? Or how about that microbudget indie film called King Kong?

Yes, the guy can be funny when playing a stock character. But it’s the same thing again and again with no range whatsoever. There was a time when Eddie Murphy and Mike Myers – who both had their own serious films with Dreamgirls and 54 – both ruled the box office for doing the same thing. But people got tired of them.

He hasn’t expanded his comedic horizons because they’re operating on a flat-Earth lack of potential. The guy has very little dramatic talent, and when he tries to push his comedy shtick past his horizon, he falls into the abyss.

Jack Black may not have alienated his fan base like Murphy or Myers, but I’d suggest adding the adverb “yet” to that statement.

Closing Argument (Josh)

I never said he succeeded in dramatic roles, I said I give him props for attempting to branch out. It hasn’t happened, this much we know. He’s not my favorite comedic actor and I’d never say he’s in the top 20, I just don’t think his shortcomings have as much to do with his talent as it has to do with, like you said, the projects he chooses. If anyone should be stopped, it’s his agent.

And if you doubt his talent, just watch this clip from “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.” Real drama!

I rest my somewhat flawed case.

What do you think?

Shouting Match: Denzel Washington vs. John Travolta – FACE/OFF!

Josh Radde — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:29:24 +0000

First things first. Apologies for no “SM” last week. We were going to debate whether or not Will Ferrell still registered with audiences, but the weekend’s box office receipts settled that debate for us. However, we’re back to chomp our teeth into this week’s release of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 – and whether or not Denzel Washington or John Travolta has had the better career. Adam Sweeney and FSR Resident Devil’s Advocate Josh Radde get awkwardly revealing in this debate.

Opening Argument (Josh)

Dear FSR Readers,

Mr. Sweeney is going to tell you about how Denzel Washington has had a better career than John Travolta, his co-star in the new Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 remake. Allow me to “8 Mile” his ass for a moment. He could tell you that Mr. Washington is a 2-time recipient of a golden statue known as “Oscar,” and respectable force in the acting community. He may tell you that over the course of their careers, Mr. Washington has had far less dubious choices in his resume than Mr. Travolta (Battlefield Earth? Lucky Numbers?) He may tell you that from an objective observer, Denzel’s acting chops are far more sharp and pristine than those attached to Johnny T.

And by all accounts, he would be right.

But we are not judging the caliber of talent or the number of gold-plated bling given to each actor. We aren’t even talking about who’s been more consistent with their abilities. We’re talking about who’s had the better career – who’s filmography rests higher on the echelon of Hollywood importance. This is not the case of Mr. Keanu Reeves, in which Sweens and I discussed the importance of the thespian’s career, this is Travolta vs. Denzel.

In this regard, Travolta hovers above. Travolta was in two of the most recognizable films from the 70’s – Saturday Night Fever and Grease. He was a staple on a popular TV show from the same era. He had a lull in his career in the 80’s but still managed to pop out the everlastingly charming Look Who’s Talking. In the 90’s he gave us Vincent Vega, a character more memorable than any of the ones that garnered Denzel an Oscar nom. Simply put, the highs in Travolta’s career are higher than Denzel’s and the lows are much more embarrassing and lower – but they still matter. Travolta still registers with audiences in a way that Denzel never really could…hence, why Wild Hogs made a boat-load of money. I do not begrudge or belittle any of Denzel’s success, I merely state that Travolta’s career has been more notable. Denzel may have more consistency, but Travolta has had the grander career.

Rebuttal (Adam)

Fellow Rejects,

You have to applaud Josh’s opening strategy. The Eminem Defense ranks up there in the list of great arguments right next to The Chewbacca Defense and “He Who Smelt it Dealt it.” I’m kidding but really, the 8-Mile move can only be used by a bleached blonde rapper that hates his mother and allows Sasha Baron Cohen to put his ass in his face at the MTV Movie Awards. You’re one dye job away from reaching the goal, Josh!

I really like John Travolta. After all, we share the same birthday and his wife, Kelly Preston, is gorgeous. In many ways he has represented coolness at certain points in his career. But coolness doesn’t equate to greatness, always.

Denzel Washington is clearly the better actor of the two. Watch Glory and that argument is put to bed. The man commands respect. Does Travolta? I’m not so sure. I think people laughed a little bit when they see him try to play a badass. Denzel, however, won an Oscar for kicking ass in Training Day. He honestly should have 3 or 4 of them.

A lot of success comes from the opportunities given to an actor, and let’s be real, Denzel wasn’t ever going to be considered for Grease or Saturday Night Fever. Also, Tarantino had to help resurrect Travolta’s career, which he has tried to ruin yet again. Battlefield Earth has to be mentioned. It was getting-your-balls-cut-off-and-eaten-in-front-of-you bad. His success comes from taking more films that can be easily consumed, which is why Wild Hogs did well. That and much of the mainstream audience are idiots. I submit Paul Blart: Mall Cop’s success as exhibit A, your honor. Denzel doesn’t take those roles, which is why his career has been better and smoother, unlike Mr. Travolta’s Wild Ride.

Closing Argument (Josh)

Respect? Pssh, overrated.

At the end of the day, here’s what we’re talking about, essentially: Let’s say you have two hookers. One is a classy whore (gets her hair all did and doesn’t have lipstick on her teeth), she doesn’t get in to every car she sees and is more cautious, which is why she asks you 3 to 4 times if you’re a cop. She adheres strictly to the “no kissing” rule and makes you wear a rubber. But you go three blocks down the street, and there’s another street walker. She has one broken heel and a black eye and her breath wreaks of cigarettes, but she pretty much lets you do anything you want. Wanna smack her around? No problem. Wanna blow a load on her face? It’s recommended! At the end of the day, which prostitute makes more money? Which makes her Poppa happy more?

I think we know which Roxanne Denzel is – and we DEFINITELY know which one our Mr. Travolta would be.

My point: I’m not arguing which one can hold their head higher in a room full of actors, I’m arguing which one keeps his pimp (aka “the American public”) in the lifestyle to which he’s become accustomed. Is there integrity in that? Nah. But at least Travolta’s more memorable because he lets us blow in his face. And just in case you were wondering, no, this is no longer a metaphor.

I rest my case.

Final Words (Adam)

Josh, you speak like you’ve had experience in the prostitution ring. For that I fear you but also am somewhat intrigued. But I’ve seen Travolta dressed as a woman in Hairspray, so this gives me a literal interpretation of what he’d look like as a whore. Me no likey. I can imagine him going “Welcome Back, Kotter” on me and yelling, “Put it on my ass, Sassafras.” Thanks but no thanks. We’ve seen him whore himself out enough already.

As much as blowing a load on a Sweathog’s face sounds appealing, I will take Denzel’s career. When I watch his films I don’t feel dirty. Almost all of Travolta’s films have this “They’re so bad that they’re good” feel to them. It’s a guilty pleasure, like groping your partner while they’re sleeping. Is it a bit thrilling? Maybe. But more often than not you don’t want anybody to know about it.

Denzel’s like the girl or guy you bring home to Mom with the degree in neuroscience. He’s respectable and will always challenge you. Travolta? He works at a carnival and may or may not have three nipples and a dick. What’s weird is that the last sentence was quoted from Entertainment Tonight after Travolta went into hiding from the bomb that was Look Who’s Talking Now.

Denzel, for the win.

Well, we could go back and forth discussing this matter all day, trying to gross-out the other, and eventually make out sloppily. But what really matters is what you all think: Who’s had the better career? Who would make a better prostitute?

Shouting Match: Is ‘Toy Story’ Overrated?

FSR Staff — Sat, 30 May 2009 14:00:52 +0000

With Pixar’s Up out this weekend we all got a well deserved gift – the teaser trailer for next summer’s Toy Story 3. Like most Pixar teasers it didn’t show us much in the way of actual plot, but it showed us all the characters we’re familiar with back on screen together. However, this prompted one FSR writer, Michelle Graham, to exclaim “What is the fuss about?” Resident Devil’s Advocate Josh Radde defends Pixar’s first film franchise.

Opening Argument (Josh):

Michelle,

Word from your parole officer has it that you think Toy Story is overrated. I have two questions for you: 1. Are you joking? 2. What kind of crime did you commit so that I’d have to e-mail your parole officer just to get a hold of you? Now, we’re talking about 1995’s Toy Story, you know, Pixar’s first feature starring Woody the cowboy and the popular Buzz Lightyear doll, voiced by Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, respectively – just in case you thought we were talking about something else. Overrated? Really?

Is it because critics and audiences alike fawn all over Toy Story as if its one of the best children’s movies of all-time? Does that rub you the wrong way like your father’s friend who insists you call him “Uncle Carl?” Well, here’s the cold-hard truth: Toy Story IS one of the best children’s movies of all-time (and no, Carl is not your Uncle). Toy Story is the Citizen Kane of CG-animated features – not only was it ahead of its time technically, but it has a grand story that connects with all ages and will still be great for generations to come. Despite how raw the technology was, Toy Story still looked beautiful. Have the graphics gotten better since? Absolutely. But do we not owe it to Toy Story as the pioneer that paved the way for other great Pixar productions like Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Wall-E or other CG-animated films that have connected with audiences like the Shrek franchise, Kung Fu Panda, or some propaganda-fun like Happy Feet?

Borat is overrated. Fight Club is overrated. Toy Story is as evenly rated as you could ask.

I’m going to allow you to state your argument now, before I reveal to the internet just how ridiculous you really are. How, pray tell, is Toy Story overrated?

Rebuttal (Michelle):

Oh, Josh.

Before I get around to dealing with your little opinion, I must stop and marvel at the true courage you’re showing here. Not many people would be so flippant to someone with a parole officer, especially when they don’t have a clue what crime was committed to warrant one! Bravo, my good man, you are either fearless or truly dense. Based on the stance you seem to hold on this particular issue, I know which one of those I’d pick. However, before I end up being required to check in for a second offense, I’ll get back on topic. Yes, I really do mean Toy Story, with the crazy cast of adorable characters. I even remember all that merchandise that was around when the movie came out, it was like Pixar vomited all over the toy stores. The Christmas Buzz Lightyear rush can only be rivaled by the craze that was the Furby, and we all remember how great they were, don’t we?

Despite the strange reference to memories of uncles and inappropriate touching (are you projecting a little, here? I’m sure that one of the Rejects has a therapist you could try), your main point is pretty accurate. It does bother me that people cite this as one of the best movies for children ever made, because there’s absolutely no basis for the claim. Toy Story is a good little movie, sure, but what makes it stand out above all the other good movies that Pixar and Disney have produced? The fact that it was the first CG animated movie that pulled off the effects? Just because something was first doesn’t mean it was best – a fact you ought to remember next time you’re fiddling away in the bedroom. A truly great movie, a movie worthy of all the hype Toy Story has garnered, is more than just a pretty face. The characters in Toy Story aren’t fantastic, they’re irritating! It took until Toy Story 2 for those characters to become palatable and not make me want to reach into the screen and wrap Woody’s cord around Buzz’s neck whilst shooting Hamm, Rex and Slink with one of the green army guns.

You mention Finding Nemo and Wall-E up in your little propaganda piece, two studies in movies with true heart. Have you compared the content of these two movies to that of Toy Story? How about Monsters Inc, a movie you carelessly forgot, despite including tripe like any Shrek movie beyond the first one. Go do that and get back to me. You might learn what a truly great movie feels like while you’re at it. If your argument really does boil down to is “first is the best,” you better hope the jury is a troop of six year-olds since that only works in the schoolyard.

Closing Argument (Josh):

Michelle!

You’ve responded as if I’ve said something negative about the Twilight series or something. Put the knife down, baby. Cole Abaius has an incredible therapist that he hooked me up with (and talk about inappropriate touching…), I’ll pass the number on to you if you like.

First off, let me be absolutely clear in what I’m talking about. I called Toy Story the “Citizen Kane of CG-animated features” because it was innovative, not because the story or the content are the best. And yes, I did call it one of the best children’s stories of all-time, and I stick by that. Those “annoying” characters you talk about don’t really bug anybody that much, least of all kids. You’re calling the late great Jim Varney’s Slink annoying? You were disturbed by John Ratzenberger’s best performance in a Pixar movie as Hamm? I bet you didn’t like it every time Don Rickles’ Mr. Potato Head got the features knocked off his face, either.

Are you forgetting how the characters grow in the film? Did you not understand Toy Story’s message about acceptance and friendship? You must be forgetting brilliant moments of clever writing mixed with great character development like the scene where Sid’s sister invites Buzz Lightyear to a tea party or when the toy soldiers do recon at the birthday party. You must be neglecting the complexity of Woody’s guilt and fear over losing his relationship with Andy and Buzz’s existential crisis when finding out he’s not the “person” he thought he was. I’m not alone in saying that Toy Story is a great film and shattered every expectation at the time.

As far as “best,” I think that Finding Nemo and Wall-E have more heart, Monsters, Inc has more laughs, The Incredibles and even Toy Story 2 are more re-watchable – but guess what – those are all in the upper tier of top notch children’s films right alongside Toy Story! No one can accurately state just how great and consistent Pixar has been over the last 15 years. The quality to commercial viability ratio cannot be matched by any studio popping out movies. There may be better “films” than Toy Story, but to call it overrated? That’s the crux of this argument that we seem to be forgetting. You can’t call a film as (dare I say) important as Toy Story “overrated.”

A college professor once told me “There are no wrong opinions – only assholes” (I think what he meant to say was “opinions are like assholes, everyone has one,” but I like the other way better), and I’ll be the asshole to tell you that you’re just flat wrong. Wrong like the Holocaust. Wrong like a woman breast-feeding in public. Wrong like Freddy Got Fingered.

Go back and watch Toy Story, like I did yesterday to prepare for this Shouting Match. You’ll find that it is still as endearing as it ever was, and just as good, if not better than, anything else you can match it up against.

Final Word (Michelle):

Hey hey hey, don’t go throwing down the Twilight card, you know you hide under your bedsheets with a flashlight and some Edward Cullen slashfic late at night. Sure, Toy Story was innovative. However, innovation alone doesn’t warrant a place in the animated movie pantheon, the movie also needs to be of a higher quality than its competition. It can’t be just as good as anything else, it has to outstrip it and go the extra mile. Toy Story was okay, but don’t go thinking it’s all that. You say you rewatched it just the other day? Next time try looking past the flash. Just like in life, it ain’t all about looks.

Lucky for you, eh?

We could go back and forth discussing this matter all day and eventually just strap each other to Sid’s rocket. What really matters is what do you think: Is Toy Story overrated?

Shouting Match: Should They Terminate the ‘Terminator’?

Josh Radde — Sat, 23 May 2009 23:11:35 +0000

With Terminator: Salvation out this weekend, and three previous films and a TV series sharing its mythology already in existence, it’s about time to ask the question: When have we had enough of the Terminator series? Fat Guys at the Movies co-host Kevin Carr and resident Devil’s Advocate Josh Radde amiably discuss.

Opening Argument (Kevin):

This weekend, two sequels are hitting the big houses. And if you consider the long string of turds that are spoof movies that we’ve been subject to for years as sequels of each other, even Dance Flick can fall in this category. While Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is only the first sequel in that franchise, Terminator: Salvation marks the fourth film, following a failed television series that just got canned.

Enough is enough. This franchise needs to be terminated!

I know they’re breaking some new ground with Terminator: Salvation, but moving it into 2018 and casting Batman as John Connor just doesn’t cut it. The series jumped the shark in the second film with the introduction of the T-1000. (don’t get me wrong… I have liked all three movies to a degree, and I will forgive Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines because they actually blew up the freakin’ world in that one.)

The Terminator series shows that Hollywood does whatever the hell it wants to do, regardless of whether it actually makes sense. In the first film, they can’t change the future. In the second film, they change the future. In the third film, the future resists being changed but still violates all the time travel rules set up from the first two films.

Then there’s that crap storm of a television series, which reduced Sarah Connor (arguably one of the coolest female sci-fi heroines to grace the screen since Ripley took on the Aliens) into a whiney, moping mess of a woman. This is the best they could come up with? And what was with Thomas Dekker as John Connor. I’ve seen bigger balls on a horny Chihuahua.

There were some decent concepts in the new film, but in the end, this has devolved into a flashy post-apocalyptic movie that still doesn’t hold a candle to The Road Warrior.

“But wait!” you say. “Wait! There is still some cool things that could be done!” I’ll give you that, but seeing how Hollywood has handed the series from a master filmmaker like James Cameron to pop action slumlord Jonathan Mostow to McG of all people. And we all know that McG is just a low-rent Michael Bay…without the scintillating dialogue we’ve grown to expect from Bay’s films. If they could convince someone like Christopher Nolan or Bryan Singer to do a series reboot in the future… maybe. But right now, with McG polluting the cineplexes with his crass excuse for science fiction, any further films will have his fingerprints (or those of someone worse, like Renny Harlin) all over it.

Send the cyborg back in time, but no more of this series in the future, please.

Rebuttal (Josh):

Whoa, Kevin, back that ass up.

They jumped the shark with the T-1000? How can you say that? Robert Patrick’s villain showed us just how cool these Terminators can be. I would say the series “peaked” with the T-1000, and Terminator 2 in general, but I would never say anything from that movie “jumped the shark.” Nothing on film or TV has come close, so maybe based on that merit the series should’ve been kaput then, but since they didn’t: Who couldn’t use a little Terminator in their lives?

I don’t know. I’m not sold that this franchise is dead, and it’s clear based on Salvation that there are still a few things they can, and want to do. Time travel in any show or film is dangerous. It’s a lose-lose situation unless you do it cleverly like they do on “Lost.” But there’s no less holes in the Terminator time-travel theory than there is in the Back to the Future series. So, who cares? Sci-fi is sci-fi and action is action, you’re too good for that, Carr? This coming from the guy who said Star Trek was better than Star Wars two weeks ago, even though they too have a muddled concept of time travel.

Plus, there’s personality in this series. Salvation, regettably, was a bit too dry and serious, but there’s room to build. But look at the three movies: arguably Schwarzenegger’s most successfully humorous roles (unless you count Junior and Jingle All the Way, which, unfortunately, I do not). Those movies, even the third one, are incredibly re-watchable. From the “B” movie quality of the first installment, to the legitimate story and emotion of the second, to the flat-out fun and eye-popping action of the third. Even “SCC” has some personality. Summer Glau is fun to watch and I thought Garrett Dillahunt’s Cromartie was the reason to watch.

Bottom line? Robots posing as humans = always fun. And no no no. I don’t want Christopher Nolan on this project at all since it was HIS BROTHER that made this newest installment too serious for its own good. And you think Bryan Singer will give this series its balls back? Dude made Superman into a whiny bitch who sneaks into little boys’ bedrooms while they sleep. No thanks. Maybe now that Cameron and Worthington have worked together on Avatar we can see a Terminator installment with the two of them, going back to the fun storytelling basics that Cameron set up with the first two installments.

But pronouncing the Terminator series dead? Just the thought makes me want to attach an AK-47 to my arm and shoot you in the crotch.

Closing Argument (Kevin):

Radde, you ignorant slut. Jingle All the Way is one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time. A giant department store Santa smack-down? Priceless! Pre-Anakin Jake Lloyd? Brilliant! Sinbad in green spandex? What more can an audience want?!

But I digress. On to the termination of the Terminator saga…

So, let me get this straight…In your defense of the constant time-travel rule breaking in the Terminator series, your best defense is….Back to the Future? I know we’re talking about whether the Terminator series should be terminated, but the termination of Back to the Future is a whole new story. Even God brought down his wrath on that overdone franchise a year or so ago when he sent hellfire to burn down the clock tower.

You say that the Terminator series has personality? I’ll give you that. But that doesn’t mean it’s good. Don King has personality, but I don’t want to see a movie about him. Ron Jeremy in a g-string has personality, but it’s not going to stop me hitting the fast-forward button on my remote. And Rosie O’Donnell’s un-douched camel-toe is probably loaded with personality, but that’s not going to stop it from making your eyes burn. Just because something has personality doesn’t mean it needs any more screen time.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, which is to say the old television series. Read my Control Freaks column on that small-screen failure to taste my full venom. I’ll give you the fact that Summer Glau is hot. But dare I say that hot chicks aren’t going to save something that’s stumbling along like a donkey dying of heat stroke. I enjoyed seeing Linda Hamilton’s bazoombies in the first film, just as I enjoyed a naked (although annoyingly obstructed) Kristanna Loken in the third film.

But your point works against you. We didn’t even get to see Moon Bloodgood’s goods in this film. Only Bryce Dallas Howard swollen with child. Thanks McG and the MPAA for furthering the PG-13ification of American cinema. At least the direct-to-DVD movies of Steven Seagal still delivers a nice boob shot now and then.

I like a good man-versus-machine sci-fi extravaganza as much as the next fanboy, but thanks to “Battlestar Galactica” and its unprecedented brilliance of bringing the Cylons to life, the bar has been raised too high for Skynet to defend. I will concede that if James Cameron comes back to resurrect his own franchise, there might be life left in this dying heap of metal. But considering the guy only makes a movie once a decade, I don’t expect to see that happen any time soon.

I’m ready for you, Radde, and your AK-47. My crotch awaits your wrath.

Final Words (Josh):

AK-47s aimed at crotches? Camel-toes? Ron Jeremy? This discussion has taken a weird turn.

But you know what, it’s like what Jules said to Vincent in Pulp Fiction, “Personality goes a long way.” BSG was a terrific series (at least for two and a half seasons) but it’s completely different than The Terminator. I will agree that if the series keeps on the track that it’s on, I am willing to change my tune, but I still think there’s some salvation for this series. Let’s bring Worthington and Summer Glau together and they can form a Terminator tag team and become bounty hunters. And we’ll throw her tits in the mix too, just to please you, Kevin.

Shouting Match: Does Tom Hanks Still Have It?

Josh Radde — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:00:48 +0000

With Angels and Demons out in theaters now, there’s been a question burning at FSR HQ hotter than Neil Miller’s hemorrhoids: Does Tom Hanks still have it? FSR sex columnist Bethany Perryman and resident Devil’s Advocate Josh Radde debate the two-time Oscar winner’s chops.

Opening Argument (Josh):

Here’s what I’ll state bold and clear before I get to the rest of my argument: I like Tom Hanks. I think he’s given us some rich characters over the years and I think some of the work he’s produced for HBO has led to some very fine miniseries. That being said, dude can’t cut it in front of the camera anymore. With the release of Angels and Demons this week, coupled with early negative reviews, it’s clear that he never should’ve been cast in the role to begin with. But more than that, look at his recent outings as an actor since the turn of the century:

(Going backwards)

Charlie Wilson’s War – Hanks was on auto-pilot for this one. He was earnest and Southern, and that was basically it. He had some good chemistry with Philip Seymour Hoffman, but it’s a largely forgettable movie.

The Da Vinci Code – Terribly mis-cast with a bad hairdo.

The Polar Express – Creepy CGI coupled with some bad voiceover work from Hanks. Was it necessary to have him play 4 roles? He can’t do anything with his voice. He’s not Jim Carrey or Robin Williams.

The Terminal – Sweet-natured movie, but what a weird film. He also had no, NO chemistry with Catherina Zeta-Jones.

The Ladykillers – Hanks tried to do the Cajun gentleman thing in this one, they even gave him creepy-fun facial hair, but he was miscast in this Coen movie as well.

Catch Me If You Can – Actually not bad. He worked well, but his character was also not the focal point of the story. One of the rare times that Hanks could be billed as a supporting actor, he was still outshined by DiCaprio and Christopher Walken.

Road To Perdition – I actually liked this movie at the time, but seeing it recently I couldn’t remember why. Hanks looks disinterested during the entire film and I’m sorry, he’s just not intimidating with a Tommy Gun. It just looked silly. He was out-acted by Paul Newman, less interesting than Jude Law, and couldn’t hold a candle to the emotional depth Daniel Craig brought to his character.

Cast Away – Probably his most engaging role since 2000 (and his last Oscar nomination). But he would have to be engaging, because for an hour he’s the only person on-screen (unless you count that damn volleyball which actually STOLE scenes from his human counterpart).

I think that Tom Hanks is likable. I would watch him do a lot of things. But I’m sorry, for the last ten years, he just hasn’t been trying. Once you get labeled as “the generation’s greatest actor” I imagine it’s hard to strive for something more. Hanks is like Michael Jordan. Jordan perceived that he had no real competition anymore, so he retired and played baseball – only instead of retiring Hanks has fumbled his way through some half-assed performances.

He’s lost the touch. He’s an actor whose time has come and gone, and now we get to spend the next 20 years watching him pull a “De Niro” or a “Pacino” and keep getting credit for the ability he no longer possesses.

Rebuttal (Bethany):

On the contrary sir, I’ve come to believe that you’ve lost the touch. Your whines about Tom Hanks sound a lot like your thirteen “you never call me anymore” voice mails that I can’t figure out how to delete. Hanks hasn’t “lost the touch,” he may just be concentrating on different areas of his life. Like producing, or sticking it to the wife on a waterbed of liquid gold. You know, now that the kids are grown.

Without even batting my eyelashes at our readers, I know that they’ll agree with me about Charlie Wilson’s War. Largely forgettable? The goddamn thing was written by Aaron “Awesome” Sorkin, about one of the most colorful characters in the American political theater. Hanks was great in that movie! (Truly no match for the actual Charlie Wilson, but let’s be honest. We Texans are a rare and fascinating breed, and Charlie’s type is rarer still.)

You’re not fooling anyone, dude. You liked The Terminal. Sitting in the back of the theater with Ho-Hos and a box of Kleenex belies your previous claims. (Yeah, we saw you. We saw you at Spice World, too.) You may be right about The Polar Express, but you seemed to have skipped his role in Cars, so we’re calling this a wash. Also, The Polar Express was totally disappointing all around—surely you can’t blame Hanks for the creepy animation and that flat ginger kid? Same goes for Ladykillers, the movie itself was just a total miss. (Note: watch it completely sloshed on Wild Turkey, and it’s actually kind of awesome.) You can’t hold an actor responsible for the story.

Also, again you’re wrong about Road to Perdition and Castaway, which is surprisingly re-watchable if you’ve got HD. And your biggest argument about Catch Me If You Can is that he wasn’t the lead?! Uh, someone’s pulling a DeNiro here, and it ain’t Hanks.

Seriously? It’s like I told you before you tried out speed dating – your hairdo is every bit as bad as the one in Da Vinci Code. Just go with it.

Closing Argument (Josh):

Hey! I’d spend my time porkin’ Rita Wilson, too! I think that’s the one part of your argument that we can both agree on.

Now, allow me to de-bunk you faster than it would take you to get undressed while jamming to the Dixie Chicks. My argument about Catch Me If You Can had nothing to do with his screen time, I said he was “outshined.” Maybe Charlie Wilson’s War is the gold standard of excellence down in Texas, but here, IN AMERICA, it was just another too-clever-for-its-own-good Aaron Sorkin outing (but, I also love/hate Aaron Sorkin, so that may have swayed me more) which was more or less killed by the presence of what used to be known as Julia Roberts and the lack of more Emily Blunt in lingerie action. Likable, yes. Earth-shattering, no. Oh, and how could I forget about Cars? The only thing worth mentioning about that is that it’s the first time Tom Hanks and Michael Keaton “appeared” in a movie together.

You do, however, make a valid point – you can’t hold an actor responsible for a bad story. Except, that never stopped Hanks in the past! Look at some of those ’90s films – You’ve Got Mail should’ve been abysmal but Hanks actually makes it work. Same thing goes for his other Meg Ryan pairings, Turner and Hooch, The ‘Burbs, and I’m sorry, Philadelphia as well. Take away Hanks and all you have is a preachy film awkwardly directed by Jonathan Demme in his “look directly into the camera” style which only worked for Silence of the Lambs. Denzel was pretty good, but only when he’s working off of Hanks. (Note: Josh was a little steamed by Bethany exposing his fetish for speed dating that he actually called Philadelphia “preachy” – but the film’s problems cannot be blanketed that easily and perhaps it’s a topic for a different discussion.)

But now? I can’t say that Hanks has it in him anymore because there’s nothing left for him to prove. Plus he’s also in an awkward stage where he’s too old to play the love interest/most leading men and too young to play the wise elder. I’d love to look at him again and quote Stan Bush who said “You got the Touch. You got the POWERRRR!” But until then, he’s Pacino-lite.

P.S. Shouldn’t “Pullin’ a De Niro” be a sexual term for someone who passes out mid-intercourse?

Final Word (Bethany):

He’s not past his prime, he’s just cashing checks. Can’t blame a guy for needing to pay the private jet fuel bill. Tom Hanks is choice, I’m pretty sure he’s the highest grossing actor of all time, and he’s well on his way to becoming a Silver Fox. Also, The ‘Burbs? That story was every bit as endearing as Forrest Gump, and you know it.

As for your question…where I come from we still call that “The Josh Radde.”

What do all of you think? Does Tom Hanks still have it, or is he past his prime?

Shouting Match: Star Trek v. Star Wars

FSR Staff — Sat, 09 May 2009 17:04:24 +0000

J.J. Abrams’ long-awaited Star Trek finally hits theaters this weekend. And while Star Trek fans, J.J. Abrams fans, and general movie audiences are going to get together and become awe-induced by this rip-roaring sci-fi adventure film, there’s still a Shouting Match to be had. Fat Guys at the Movies host Kevin Carr and FSR’s resident Devil’s Advocate Josh Radde take on the most important intergalactic question facing us: Star Trek or Star Wars?

Opening Statement (Kevin):

I think we can all agree that Star Trek and Star Wars are two of the greatest science fiction adventures that has graced television and the movie houses. (Pause for the upcry of Joss Whedon fans and “BSG” aficionados… okay, let’s move on…)

However, a debate rages among geeks around the world and on the internet as to which one is better. While I dearly love both franchises, I am going to go out on a limb and declare that Star Trek is the superior space opera.

First, let’s look at its pedigree. Star Trek started off as a television series which spawned eleven films (and counting, now that Paramount is preemptively planning a sequel to J.J. Abrams’ masterpiece) and an additional four television shows (not counting that wacky-ass cartoon from the 1970s). Star Wars has only six films (seven if you count last year’s The Clone Wars… and don’t even get me started with The Star Wars Holiday Special or The Ewok Adventure) and just one television show (well, two if you count its own wacky-ass Droids cartoon from the 1980s). Kick in the fact that Star Trek was the first on the market in the mid-1960s, and it’s superior longevity is apparent.

For the most part, Star Trek was free of Ewoks and cute robots. Sure, it preached at us non-stop about everything from racism to saving the whales, but the cuteness level never threatened to kill the series.

The technology in Star Trek is so much better than the battered and wheezing machines of Star Wars. The Federation may not have lightsabers, but they have photon torpedoes, handheld phasers, tricorders and the all-important beaming technology – something even the Jedi can’t master.

And while there have been some weird adversaries in Star Trek over the years, they were more intellectual and thought provoking (like TNG’s crystalline entity and Q) than the bug-eyed monsters and disfigured Sith lords in Star Wars.

And two more things, which I find the most important: First, Star Trek was a sexually liberated show. The characters not only could and did have multiple sexual escapades with various aliens, they bred with them. It was an all-out space orgy when you joined Starfleet. You won’t find human-alien hybrids in Star Wars. No siree. Only uncomfortable deep-tongue kisses between brothers and sisters.

Finally, god rest his soul, Gene Roddenberry left our realm damn near 20 years ago, so there’s very little chance of him throttling his own franchise the way Lucas has to Star Wars since the last century.

Rebuttal (Josh):

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin…

I know you’re new to the Shouting Match arena (hence why you didn’t call me an assburger or a queer; a judgment you reserve for your podcast), but just because you go on your local TV news station and talk to some greasy-haired douche-nozzle about the new Abrams film doesn’t make you Trekkie God. Hell, I’m currently starring in a Sushi Station commercial, but I’m certainly not the world’s foremost authority on wasabi.

You talk about “pedigree” but really all you’re talking about is “quantity” — 11 films? So what? Most of them suck, whereas Lucas friggin’ NAILED three movies in the 70’s and early 80’s (and hit as much as he missed with the new trilogy) that altered the landscape of science-fiction/adventure storytelling forever. I know that there are legions of Trek-fans in the world that love the corny fight sequences and the cheesy effects and the woeful Shatner-acting, but even as a child I knew that Star Trek was just playful masturbation. I’ll agree with you that both franchises have a lot to be proud of and some things to sigh about (Phantom Menace, Whoopi Goldberg, etc.), and there’s not any way that we can cover all the ins-and-outs of this debate in 1,000 words.

So, all I can do is make you look like an idiot. Let’s give that a shot.

Sure, the Enterprise may never come into contact with Ewoks, but they do encounter Tribbles, which are just as cute/annoying. Sure, the machines and vehicles in Star Wars are battered and wheezing, but that’s what gives them personality. Give me the Millenium Falcon any day, my friend. Give me warp speed and lightsabers and ray gun blasters and carbonite prisons and cryoban grenades. You say beaming; I say give me levitation, holmes!

I’d rather incur the strongly effeminate wrath of Khan than the blistering revenge of a Sith. “bug-eyed monsters and disfigured Sith lords” — What kind of chiba you been smokin’ Carr? Darth Maul cannot be seduced by Kirk, Spock’s ass would be Jedi mind-tricked before he could perform the Vulcan mind meld, and I know you didn’t just brush off the most intimidating force in the whole of cinematic history as a disfigured Sith lord. Besides, Star Wars has tons of thought-provoking and intellectual enemies. Dare I say that Ian McDiarmid’s Chancellor/Emperor could talk anyone into joining the Dark Side. He’s like the Dick Cheney of the Galaxy, persuading young Anakin to embrace the power he doesn’t know he has. Plus, he shoots goddamn lightning out of his hands! With Klingons, uh-oh, you might get a little too close to them and their protruding foreheads might inadvertantly give you a throbbing headache in your temple. Hell, even Christopher Lee is more intimidating than Eric Bana.

Space Orgy? Sure, Kirk gets to seduce alien chicks with green hair and a nearly-dreadlocked Helen of Troy, but there’s no fun in that. He’s got lots of conquests, but what does your average fan remember most – Uhuru’s famous interracial kiss with Kirk or the GOLDEN F*CKING BIKINI! Say what you will about Star Trek characters gettin’ it on, but hasn’t Leia’s golden bikini become the standard for nerd fantasy? I rest my case.

I can’t defend Lucas for some of the dubious decisions he made in the 90’s and early 00’s, but as a whole, Star Wars is not just more entertaining, vibrant, and creative, but it’s oddly more subtle as well. They didn’t have to have Luke travel back to the Old West to create a Western feel and they didn’t have to travel to Great Depression Era 1930s to create a grim landscape. Star Wars is an appreciation and celebration for both world history and cinematic history – Star Trek is a wonderful and whimsical adventure series, but I’m sorry it just doesn’t compare.

Closing Argument (Kevin):

Radde, you ignorant slut. Tribbles are fucking awesome. They’re like donuts. You can’t get enough of them. Ewoks, on the other hand are only useful as fluffy padding against Stormtrooper blaster fire and wiping your ass in the Endor woods when you run out of toilet paper.

Star Trek is for intellectuals. It’s the thinking man’s sci-fi series. To mix metaphors, it is the lightsaber of space operas, an elegant series for a more civilized age. Star Wars, while still awesome in its own right, is for a clumsy and random bunch. I’ll defer to our illustrious executive editor Neil Miller, who said to me in a Fat Guys at the Movies production meeting: “Trekkies are peaceful warriors. Star Wars people are just militant about Star Wars.”

Now I’ll concede that Kirk wouldn’t be able to get into Darth Maul’s pants, but he’d charm the robes off the creepy Chester-the-Molester version of Count Dukoo. Spock might fall to a lightsaber, but he possesses a keen mind that wouldn’t succumb to the Jedi mind trick. Plus, with his awesome command of logic, he could bring down Palpatine with nary a blow by convincing him that total galactic domination is just simply not logical. And while Anakin Skywalker may be the W. of the Galactic Empire/Republic, under the not-so-quality acting of Hayden Christensen, he was a joke.

Say what you want to about Shatner’s acting in Star Trek: TOS, but I’m still relieved that Hayden Christensen (or Jake Lloyd, for that matter) aren’t coming anywhere near the Neutral Zone. Christensen’s wooden acting makes him easy prey to any random Klingon, become his lunch before being passed through the savage warrior’s small intestine.

And speaking of Klingons – and any other Trek beings with nasty scalp deformities – I have only three words that demonstrate the superiority of alien races in Federation space versus the Galactic Republic/Empire: Jar Jar Binks.

And now to a Bethany Perryman-inspired sexual angle… I’ll give you Leia’s golden bikini, but the robes and snowsuit in the other two movies lessened her sexual power. In Star Trek: TOS, you have every frickin’ lady in Starfleet in a miniskirt. What’s not to love about that?… unless your name is Josh Radde and you’re itching to see Sulu prancing around shirtless with a fencing foil or Kirk getting his clothes ripped open for the umpteenth time. We all loved Leia as the proverbial girl next door who made us cream our jeans only to find out we’re lusting after our sister… but Star Trek helped mold the burgeoning sexual identity of more than one generation.

Miniskirts, black nylons and go-go boots literally beat the pants off anything that Star Wars has to offer outside of Jabba’s palace.

Finally, let’s just look at the launch pad potential. Star Wars is dead and buried with the Clone Wars television show the only thing we have to look forward to, along with a yet-uncertain live-action TV show and retro-fitted 3D releases of the original films. Star Trek, on the other hand, is rising from the ashes of sci-fi cinema with a sequel already in the works and its glory days yet to come.

Final Words (Josh):

Sure, bring up Hayden Christensen and Jar-Jar Binks. That only proves that you had to resort to crotch blows to stay even in this battle, Carr.

Well my crotch is impervious to to your tactics, and to quote the greatest villain to ever grace the screen: “You have controlled your fear. Now, release your anger. Only your hatred can destroy me.”

We can go back and forth discussing this matter all month, making personal attacks and eventually pitting turbolasers against photon torpedoes. What really matters which do you prefer: Star Trek or Star Wars?

Shouting Match: Who’s More Badass, Movie or Comic Wolverine?

FSR Staff — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:45:09 +0000

X-Men Origins: Wolverine opens this weekend and we all know that Hugh Jackman is reprising his role from three previous X-Men films and is here to take names and cut some goddamn heads off. This sparked a debate within the FSR offices: Who is more of a badass? Movie character Wolverine portrayed by Jackman since 2000 or comic-book hero Wolverine whose been slashing bitches since 1974. FSR contributing writer Paul Sileo and resident devil’s advocate Josh Radde debate.

Opening Statement (Josh):

Normally, when we talk about characters being adapted from the page to the screen we’re talking about a director’s interpretation of that character based on the written material. Sometimes said interpretations lack that extra “umph” to put them in the same stratosphere as the written work. In the world of comic book adaptations, we’re talking about this all the time: For instance, why hasn’t there been a completely satisfying Punisher on-screen; how could a good actor like George Clooney so horrendously f*ck up Batman? Inversely, we talk about Heath Ledger’s Joker or Robert Downey Jr’s Iron Man as shining examples of actors who bring out the best of the famed characters they’re portraying. Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is an example of an actor taking a character and bringing him to new heights that wouldn’t have been achieved in the comics.

Sure, comic book Wolverine has faced off against everyone from the Incredible Hulk to The Punisher to Spider-Man, but I contend that Jackman’s Wolverine is more of a badass. Not only do we get his charisma which makes him more watchable, we get more of his vulnerability as well. Seeing a character be vulnerable makes it more engaging when he’s ripping through people’s abdomens with his bitchin’ claws. We can connect with him more and to a degree it increases his LOA (Levels of Awesomeness, a technical term, Wiki it if you doubt me – [and if you Wiki it, just realize that this term only appears to people who have graduated the first two Levels of Awesomeness, kind of like how Scientology teaches their followers about Lord Xenu]). Let me ask you this – Who’s more badass: Schwarzenegger’s Terminator from the first film that is just a soul-less killing machine or Schwarzenegger’s Terminator from the second film who is trying to save lives and in doing so has to work harder and even develops some shred of personality. Dolph Lundgren in Rocky IV is a far superior specimen in every way, but Stallone is the one we root for while singing “Hearts on Fire” at the top of our lungs! The latter in both scenarios is definitely more BAMF-tastic.

Because Jackman is so fearless in the role, he gives the character a higher sense of purpose than we can ever get from the comic book. Thus, I’m more willing to chant “Wolverine!” in the theater anytime he’s on (a sensation that is only duplicated when I watch Red Dawn at home) and less likely to wet my pants with glee when I see him on the page.

Rebuttal (Paul):

What the hell have you been sniffing on? Cole’s vial of ether? I guess I can’t really expect your walnut-sized brain to recognize this, but do you want to know why the movie version of Wolverine seems like such a badass? It’s because all the other X-Men in the movies are such fucking babies. Hell, he didn’t even bang one chick in the movies. All he did was play some wiener father figure type to Rogue and lose out on Jean Grey to Cyclops. Cyclops! The man who is about as much of a badass as my ten year old cousin. Wolverine wins the badassery contest in the movies simply by default. And Jackman bringing Wolverine to a new level? While I do believe Jackman was a good casting move, this is the same man who pranced around on-stage at the Oscars like Catherine Zeta Jones. I was highly disappointed when, in the middle of that number with Beyonce, he didn’t go feral and tear someone’s head off. Now that would have been television.

No, Josh, my repugnant friend, you are grossly misinformed. Let me lay it all out for you, in a way that maybe even you could understand. Also, I will do you a favor and ignore the fact that you cited his vulnerability in the films as a reason why he is more of a badass. I mean, really? Do you want to go have a latté with Hugh and play tiddlywinks while watching Dr. Phil? This is Wolverine we’re talking about. I’ll give you the raw version of Wolverine. The comics version. The real version. Prepare yourself, because I’m about to blow your goddamn mind.

Fact: We all know that Wolverine has adamantium grafted to his skeleton. But in the comics, this adamantium is literally ripped out of his body by Magneto at one point. Ripped out. Like, his entire skin comes open and the metal is pulled out. And he lives through it. But not only that, Wolverine discovers his real skeleton is just almost as good, and those claws of his? Yeah, those are natural, made out of his fucking bone.

Fact: One time, Wolverine was defeated by a guy named Cyber. How, you say? By having his eye gouged out. And did Wolverine cry or get all vulnerable? Hell no, he threw on an eye patch and continued to wreak havoc. I don’t think I need to explain how many LOA’s one achieves with the addition of an eye patch. Or being able to disembowel people with only one hand. Yeah, that’s right. In the Age of Apocalypse story arc, Wolverine only has one hand.

Fact: And speaking of Levels of Awesomeness, I know you still have yet to go through puberty, but in case you didn’t know, men have body hair. And real men have a lot of body hair. In fact, a guy’s level of badassery is proportionately related to his level of body hair. I’m sorry, but Jackman’s mutton chops just aren’t enough. The Wolverine from the comics is covered in hair. From head-to-toe. The man has more hair than a woolly mammoth. And they get some hairless Australian to play him in the movies? No thanks.

Fact: Alright, I left this one for last. It may be a bit controversial, but, regardless of its plausibility (which is ironic when we’re talking about mutants), I am going to name this as the Number One Reason Comic Wolverine Will Fucking Own Movie Wolverine. There is this dude named Nuke. I’m sure you can discern what his powers are. Yeah, so this dude named Nuke blows up. And incinerates Wolverine. I’m not talking about giving him a sunburn. I’m saying he is completely annihilated. In fact, nothing is left except for his indestructible skeleton, covered in adamantium. But, as we all know, you can’t keep a good man down, and Wolverine completely regenerates his entire body. From nothing but a skeleton! If that’s not badass, then you, sir, Mr. Josh Radde, don’t understand what badass is. Myself? I’m completely convinced you could cut Wolverine in half like a starfish, and get nothing for your troubles but two Wolverines trying to kill you, instead of one.

Look, you’ve made some decent points, but just because you have the word “Rad” in your last name doesn’t make you an expert on Wolverine. Or comics. Or anything, really. It just means I get to snicker every time I say it considering to whom it belongs. The comic version of Wolverine is far more of a badass than the movie version. Jackman does alright with what’s he’s got, but has he endured any of the mutilation or torture of the comic version? Has he been completely melted by a nuclear blast? Does he have high levels of body hair? No, no, and no. And guess what? Hugh Jackman almost didn’t even come back for X-Men Origins: Wolverine because, after X3, he felt like Wolverine was starting to turn into a little bit of a pussy. That’s right. Your hero, the singin’, dancin’, hairless Hugh Jackman, even knows you’re an idiot.

Closing Argument (Josh):

Fact: You keep a collection of your mama’s panties under your bed.

Paul, thank you for proving my point. Wolverine gets incinerated and regenerates? Guess what – THAT’S WHAT HE DOES! That’s one of his f*cking powers! When I cut my nostril hairs I don’t get rewarded because they grow back; neither should Wolverine get a Paul Sileo-patented rim job because he’s able to do exactly what his powers say he can. I will admit that what you say is pretty badass, and if I came across any comic book characters in an alley, Wolverine would be one of the ones to most quickly make me shit my pants. However, that’s not what I was arguing. Maybe our definitions of “badass” or uses of LOA differ, but mine comes from who I’d want in my corner. Which badass would I entrust to save the day.

OK, so comic book Wolverine is a survivalist and a fighter, but I never sensed from reading it that he wants to save people – he’s more of a lovable prick, and the fun comes from the fact that we may or may not trust him. Superman isn’t a badass because he’s indestructible and can fly; he’s a badass because he’ll do what it takes to save others. Jack Bauer isn’t a badass because he tortures people and yells a lot; he’s the f*cking MAN because you know he’ll go to the ends of the earth to protect people (unless you’re one of the hundreds that have died within a couple feet of him, of course). I’d want Jackman’s Wolverine in my corner because he fights FOR something. And I hate to use an example from X3, but the ending where he walks toward Phoenix and his skin keeps melting away and regenerating is most definitely badass. You telling me that from that scene alone he wouldn’t be able to regenerate if he were blown up? He’s every bit as badass (and adequately hairy) as comic-book Wolverine.

Final Words (Paul):

You keep my mama and her panties out of this.

Our definitions of badass must be all kinds of different if you are citing Superman as a badass. Look, man, at the end of the day, it seems you want a badass that can save the world. If it’s activist judges or the swine flu that you are worried about, by all means, call up Poofy Pants Jackman. But if you are troubled by the threat of a deranged supervillian promising worldwide destruction, an alien extermination force, or Dick Cheney opening up a private school for mutants, then the comic book version of Wolverine is just the man to cut some goddamn heads off. When humanity is threatened, I just can’t trust my life to someone who once starred in Oklahoma!.

Shouting Match: Is Jamie Foxx a Good Actor?

FSR Staff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:03:56 +0000

The Soloist, for which we’ve been seeing the same trailer for what feels like over a year, finally comes out today. With powerhouse actors Robert Downey Jr. (Academy Award nominee), Jamie Foxx (Academy Award winner), and director Joe Wright (Atonement; Pride and Prejudice), this is surely a film that aims to “change the world.” But before it can do that, FSR’s sex columnist, Bethany Perryman and resident devil’s advocate Josh Radde discuss whether or not Jamie Foxx actually possesses raw ability or if his talent is simply a well-marketed illusion.

Opening Statement (Bethany):

I don’t care that Jamie Foxx has two-count-em-two X’s in his stage name, or that he topped out on “In Living Color” — Jamie Foxx is not a Good Actor. He may, however, be one of the world’s greatest hacks. With that, Josh, I’m sure you can relate. In my best estimation, Foxx put on a pair of sunglasses, bobbed about asymmetrically, and received his Academy Award for Ray. But I’m not buyin’. Show me a man who can play an archetype just-good-enough, and I will show you that same man, winning a Grammy with Ludacris for a song that is just that.

He picks good roles, I’ll give him that — I mean, who didn’t love Booty Call? But his acting chops would be tested if he was given a truly complex role — one that didn’t rely on his other talents (piano playing, regular playing, and making friends with the guy in the editing room so that his astigmatism looks like Serious Actor Glare). The mark of a good actor is not doing decent impressions of famous blind people, wearing fatigues, or delivering classic lines (and by “classic” here I mean “well written”), it is being cast in more than one episode of “Hangin’ With Mr. Cooper” – which Jamie Foxx was not.

Rebuttal (Josh):

Bethany, I wouldn’t give up your day job writing about how Sawyer on “Lost” makes your uterus quiver. Jamie Foxx isn’t a Good Actor?! Now, I wouldn’t necessarily put him in the pantheon of extraordinary Hollywood actors alongside Gary Cooper and Jimmy Stewart, but he’s brought the goods on more than one occasion. Yes, Ray was a hack job (by the Academy), but I wouldn’t put it in the “One Hit Wonder” category like Cuba Gooding Jr. for Jerry Maguire or Mira Sorvino for Mighty Aphrodite, because the dude also picked up a nom for Collateral, showing up the best performance Tom Cruise has given this decade, which seems to have slipped your obviously syphilis-riddled mind.

Though I don’t think it was Oscar-worthy, his work in Ray is commendable and, more than that, he made what would’ve been a crap-tacular movie better-than-expected. He overcame a bad makeup job in Ali, was the only actor who knew the meaning of the word “subtlety” in Any Given Sunday, and taught a 14-year-old Josh Radde that condoms were “good” in Booty Call. You say he picks good roles, I say him picking the right role makes said movie better. Know why? Jamie Foxx is a GOOD actor. That being said, I can’t defend Stealth. However, we never begrudged Edward Norton for making Death To Smoochy or Robert De Niro for making any movie after Heat, yet they’re still considered good actors. The same principle applies to Jamie Foxx.

Closing Argument (Bethany):

First of all, Josh — syphilis? Mind? Stop flirting with me. I’ve told you – it’s never gonna happen. Second, you hardly defend any of Foxx’s merit, and I gave you plenty of room to do so (”The Jamie Foxx Show,” Bait, “In Living Color,” that one episode of “Moesha” he did that time). But, sadly, there are more holes in your argument than there are…nevermind, Virgin. I don’t want to spoil it for you. You claim that Ray was a “hack job,” then say his work was “commendable”. You’re the type of guy that praises Wikipedia for being a fount of actual knowledge, aren’t you?

Also, upstaging Xenutard Cruise is not necessarily the feat of a Good Actor, but merely someone who’s not criminally insane. And your only defense of his performance in Ali is that he overcame bad makeup?! If that’s all it takes in Hollywood to get the go-ahead to be mediocre at your trade, I seriously need to switch careers. Look, Foxx’s pick of roles has more to do with his ability to promote himself and look like an American Badass (and now with The Soloist, A Super Deep American Badass) than it does with Foxx trying to push the boundaries of his medium talent. I leave you with this: Tom Hanks followed up Philadelphia with Forrest Gump; Crowe’s Insider brought us Gladiator. And from the man who gave us Ray, we get Stealth?! I rest my case.

Oh, and Cuba a “One Hit Wonder”? Whatever, dude. Radio was a great movie. That was a comedy, right?

Closing Haiku (Josh):

Say what you want. The
Academy has spoken.
Jamie Foxx is GOD.

We can go back and forth discussing this matter all day, making personal attacks and eventually getting into slap fights. What really matters is Do You Think Jamie Foxx is a Good Actor?

Shouting Match: Should Actors Stop Whining About Lowball Salaries?

FSR Staff — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:49:02 +0000

Recently, the news cycle has been dominated by Marvel and their salary offers for upcoming films. Terrance Howard is out. Sam Jackson is out. If Mickey Rourke was coherent enough to read his bank statements, he would be out. Plus, the jury’s out on the subject, but the internet fan(boy)base has been more than vocal about its outrage. Last week, two of our writers got into a fistfight over the subject, and we’ve translated the physical violence into civil debate for this week’s Shouting Match. The contenders: Rob Hunter and Cole Abaius. The question: Should Actor’s Stop Whining About Lowball Salaries?

Opening Statements

ROB HUNTER: There’s been a lot of grumbling lately on blogs and comment boards about Marvel’s apparent “mishandling” of actors for the upcoming Iron Man sequel. First, Terrance Howard was reportedly replaced over money disagreements, then we heard “Sam Jackson” may not reprise his role as Nick Fury again due to pay squabbles. Most recently, the just-announced addition of Mickey Rourke to the cast came under scrutiny as Marvel apparently “low-balled” him with a $250k offer. (My use of quotes is meant to highlight various absurdities in this paragraph.)

Why the outcry? And why the mud-slinging towards Marvel? There’s no shortage of articles or comments in past years criticizing actors like Will Smith and Jim Carrey for pocketing $20 million paychecks for films that turned out to be shit. So shouldn’t Marvel deserve some credit for putting a lid on their actors out-of-control salaries?

COLE ABAIUS: This is a touchy subject. Obviously anything involving money should be, especially during these tough economic times. That’s why I’m going to make an outlandish comparison to prove my point.

The outrage over these actors’ salaries is two-fold. Right now, everyone is irritated about anyone getting shortchanged because everyone is being shortchanged. Secondly, even though the amount seems fantastic for a single job to most of us working schmoes, for an actor in such high demand, it’s an insult.

Also, considering that Iron Man 2 is set to be a major blockbuster – the original grossing $318.3 million in the United States alone – it seems absurd that the studio can’t figure out a better salary offer on the front end for the actor’s who will carry the next film on their backs to fill Marvel’s coffers.

Your move, sir.

The Rebuttals

ROB HUNTER: Before I dissect your three points (that failed to prove anything) let me revisit the point of mine that you ignored. Other actors like Smith, Carrey, and Tom Cruise have been criticized for their salaries, but Jackson and Rourke seem to get a pass. Neither of them are better actors, and neither of them are anywhere near the box office draws the other three are (or were), but fans are still in their corner instead of the studio’s. It’s a double standard and it’s due solely to the fact that Jackson and Rourke are currently “cool” right now in the eyes of many film geeks.

Okay, point one… the general public’s irritation over being shortchanged translating into a financial empathy with millionaire actors? A nice thought, but a little too Pollyanna to be believable.

Point two… the actors are in high demand and therefore deserve more? I agree that demand has a definite effect on salary, and it should. But is Jackson really in high demand? Sure he makes tons of movies, but it’s because the mother fucker can’t say “No” to anything, as evidenced by his shit-tastic resume. And Rourke? Do you honestly think there are people that would only watch Iron Man 2 if the ads proclaimed “starring Academy Award Winner Mickey Rourke?” No way. I’ve argued this elsewhere, but the man is not a box office draw, especially for a film like this. He’s a small piece that might make someone go, “Oh, Rourke, nice” but that’s the end of it.

Point three… Marvel’s gigantic grosses for the first film translating into huge salaries for the sequel’s stars? Robert Downey Jr is the only integral actor in the movie as he is Iron Man, and everyone else is window dressing. And they all take a back seat to the screenplay, effects, and action. I’d prefer Marvel spend the extra money on those three areas and less to the actors who think $250k for a month or two of work is beneath them. Plus, Marvel has bills and loans to pay, as well as future films to finance, all of which is in jeopardy if they don’t continue to turn a healthy profit.

COLE ABAIUS: It’s great that you think giving me a ton of arguments will deter me from accurately answering all of them, but since I don’t have to spend much time (or mental acuity) destroying them, I should have plenty of time to cover them all and add my own. Thanks for being so considerate.

I realize you have a big rubbery one for Smith and Cruise, but the complaints against their salaries (which I’ve never claimed were valid) stem from an emotional response to how astronomical they are. Haggling over $20 million (Smith’s salary for Hancock (plus 20% of gross)) is far different than haggling over $250,000 for Rourke.

Eighty times different, to be exact.

I know Rourke won’t be the main draw of the film, but he will be a draw, and definitely one stronger than $250,000. We’re used to film actors making millions of dollars – so hearing about one who gets offered 1/4 of that in a major blockbuster is an easy empathy point, especially right now. Welcome to your Pollyanna reality. Rourke will be playing a major villain – a major part of the film. Argue that he doesn’t deserve $1 million, but he definitely deserves more than he was offered.

And now for my formerly promised outlandish comparison. “Actors who think $250k for a month or two of work is beneath them?” Impressive that you could demean an entire career in less than twenty words, but foolish considering that acting (like sports figures) operate in a different salary spectrum, and you know it. Scoffing at an actor getting a low ball offer and not wanting it is tantamount to telling a librarian whose pay is cut to take what she’s offered and stop complaining. If librarian doesn’t work for you, trade it out for “IT Specialist.”

Closing Arguments

ROB HUNTER: Ouch. Nice job bringing the argument home at the end there. I’d do the same to you but you’re still unemployed right? Anyway…

Putting my big, rubbery one aside (which is an effort, believe me) I actually do think a $20 million salary is more than a little excessive for a film, but it’s earned in the sense that they are (or were) box office draws. Like them or not, a large percentage of the general public goes to see movies based on the actors or actresses. Yes, a large percentage of them are idiots with horrendous taste in movies, but the fact remains. Rourke absolutely will not be a draw to Iron Man 2. No one aside from Rourke himself will see the movie due solely to the fact that he’s in it. It’s absurd to think otherwise. And I never scoffed at an actor turning down an offer he felt was too low. That’s no different than anyone passing on a job due to pay. I’m arguing against the tide of anger aimed at Marvel for making that offer in the first place.

One final point. Take a second and look into the future a bit here. Look towards The Avengers movie. That movie has such incredible promise and everyone, including myself, is hoping for and expecting an amazing movie experience when it is released. But the film is designed to be a ensemble of super proportions… multiple heroes, multiple villains, it should be awesome. But now imagine that all of the actors, big and small, in Marvel’s individual hero films, have successfully argued for very large salaries. The production budget for The Avengers would surpass $100 million before the first frame was shot or the first second of CGI was created. What does that leave for the story, effects, and action? Let alone for a quality director, cinematographer, and gaffer?

I say Marvel is being smart in controlling these costs now. They may be erring a bit too much on the side of caution, but it’s preferable to the alternative. I want more kick-ass, fun, action-packed movies like Iron Man and fewer lame star vehicles like Ghost Rider or Daredevil.

COLE ABAIUS: Thanks for putting that aside. Yes, those major stars are superior box office draws, and they’ve earned a certain amount of salary negotiation leeway. Rourke’s or Jackson’s name might not be the big sell (although, yeah, Jackson’s might), but they are going to be playing major roles in a film and should be treated as such. Doubling, even tripling their salary offers isn’t going to break the bank.

I think the most compelling argument is how natural the response has been. Fans and critics are outraged because it just seems lousy en face. I could throw a ton of numbers out, but the natural reaction seems accurate simply because it’s the natural reaction. wrap your mind around that syllogism.

And as for your hyperbole about a post-apacolyptic Avengers world where each actor is paid $15 million a piece, and Marvel goes completely bankrupt at the hands of an angry actor’s coalition – really? Really? Granted, there will be a large slate of known talent coming on board for the film, but unless they are all, every single one of them, pulling down Will Smith numbers, the film’s budget won’t be forced to list $15 for lighting equipment. I think it’ll be alright if actor’s stand up for their fiscal interests on this one.

Final Verdict

As usual, we leave the final word up to you. Are Rourke and Jackson and others justified? Are the fanboys justified in being outraged? Or are they all blowing smoke? Who’s in the right – the producers or the talent?

Shouting Match: Is The Resurrection of Mickey Rourke Real?

Rob Hunter — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:33:51 +0000

At Film School Rejects, we believe that yelling the loudest makes us right. Every week we test that theory, and this week was particularly heated as we ask a question that must be on everyone’s mind. This whole renewal of Mickey Rourke’s career – is it for real? We’ve seen The Wrestler – it’s phenomenal, yes, but is it enough to keep the Rourke Train rolling? Will we see him at the Oscars in ten years?

This week’s contenders: Josh Radde and Rob Hunter. This week’s totally timely question: Is the resurrection of Mickey Rourke for real?

Opening Statements

JOSH RADDE: Dear Mr. Hunter–

I hear tale of the fact that you don’t believe Mickey Rourke’s resurrection is for real. Rourke, who received an Academy Award nomination for his portrayal of Randy “The Ram” Robinson in The Wrestler has received nothing but the highest marks for his performance, sparking one of the most talked about movie events last year (next to Heath Ledger’s Joker and Robert Downey Jr. going blackface for Tropic Thunder).

With roles in upcoming thrillers like 13 and Sylvester Stallone’s The Expendables, as well as rumors that he’ll be starring in both Iron Man 2 and Sin City 2, how can you say that Mickey Rourke’s “comeback” is a flash in the pan?

ROB HUNTER: You hear correct Senor Radde, but this may just come down to a matter of semantics. Is Rourke getting more press and goodwill from The Wrestler than he has for any other film in the past twenty years? Yes. Will he be seeing a career resurrection equal to John Travolta’s after Pulp Fiction or even Robert Downey Jr.’s after Iron Man? Not a chance in hell. But maybe he’ll get the same bump that Robert Forster saw after Jackie Brown. Lots of talk around that Oscar-nominated performance too…

As far as Rourke’s Oscar nomination goes, I say big whoop. And if, nay, when he wins? I say double big whoop. Frank Langella is nominated too… is this his rebirth after the low of showing his flapping wiener in Lolita? Rourke’s upcoming film slate is all genre films that he could have gotten with or without The Wrestler. Do you see him managing any kind of serious return to dramatic films? Does anyone want to see his puffy, weather-beaten face licking cottage cheese from Megan Fox’s cleavage in Nine and 1/2 Weeks Later? I think not.

The Rebuttals

JOSH RADDE: Who was talking about Robert Forster? Rourke is on the cover of several major magazines. And how does being in genre pics not solidify longevity? You mention Downey, but he was brought back into the limelight BY PLAYING IRON MAN. His performance in Tropic Thunder would not have gotten the same buzz if Iron Man hadn’t preceded it. And who’s to say he can’t make a return to dramatic film? Who’s also to say that his return to dramatic film would be the only criteria to consider in a comeback? If Steven Seagal made a righteously awesome action movie tomorrow, that got box office and moderate critical success, would that not be considered a comeback? If Pauly Shore gave us a funny performance in a comedy that people gave one shit about, wouldn’t that be considered a comeback as well?

It may just be me, but I consider Sin City his “comeback” already. It was a full 3 years before The Wrestler, so doesn’t that prove his longevity anyway? If he does those movies he’s either already doing or rumored to be doing, he should be commercially viable well into 2011.

ROB HUNTER: Semantics it is… yes, Rourke has entered the pop culture zeitgeist once again, however briefly, and that may count as your “comeback.” But your opening statement above referred to “Rourke’s resurrection” which is the point I take issue with.

Rourke has never stopped working. His IMDB page may read like Kevin Carr’s grocery list, long and filled with things that cause guacamole farts, but he’s worked consistently and had one or more movies per year since his glory days in the mid-eighties. So attention from The Wrestler isn’t going to get him any more work. Better work? Maybe, for the short term anyway. A higher percentage of work that hits theaters instead of straight-to-DVD? Probably, but as you pointed out, he hasn’t exactly been absent from the big screen in recent years… Sin City, Domino, Man On Fire, The Pledge, Get Carter… Notice the trend of solid genre pics. I’m not knocking genre movies, I love ‘em, but he’s already been doing them for decades. He’s no more “commercially viable” now then he has been for the past twenty years.

So if Rourke’s resurrection doesn’t increase his work-load, doesn’t improve the quality of his films, doesn’t broaden the types of films he appears in… what’s left to resurrect?

Closing Arguments

JOSH RADDE: I’m obviously talking about quality. What’s jarring about The Wrestler is how capable Rourke is. It may be that he found the role of a lifetime, but The Wrestler shows that he can do something outside of the genre in which he’s been living so comfortably. Directors used to hear the name Mickey Rourke and think “Hollywood nutjob whose been nominated for a Razzie”–but Aronofsky (and to an extent Frank Miller) gave him roles in large parts that could make or break the movie. He’s always been fine in supporting roles like in The Rainmaker, Man on Fire, or Once Upon a Time in Mexico, or been relegated to films like the one’s you’ve mentioned that didn’t aspire to be much anyway.

But now Rourke’s been propelled into a higher stratosphere of filmmaking. It didn’t take until he was in Pulp Fiction for directors to start looking at Travolta seriously, before that he was Danny Zuko and one of the Sweathogs from “Welcome Back, Kotter.” Before Tom Hanks did Philadelphia he was known primarily as a comedic actor. I’m not saying that Mickey Rourke’s future success is guaranteed or even if there’s a way he won’t squander it because maybe he’s not the caliber of actor as his performance in The Wrestler leads us to believe–but at least it’s different from his other roles and makes him more accessible to audiences (as well as directors).

And don’t tell me he would’ve been considered for Iron Man 2 if The Wrestler didn’t come along. That’s ridiculous. Super hero movies nowadays are so high profile that they attract not only commercially successful actors, but also proven thespians as well. No way is Rourke considered without The Wrestler. Favreau had to go to bat to get a proven actor like Downey into the role in the first place–if he had come to them with the idea of Rourke a year ago, they would’ve said “No” immediately.

ROB HUNTER: Rourke did a good job in an average movie, nothing more. (The resulting hub-bub is out of proportion, but that’s another issue all together.) A great performance isn’t completely alien to him though… Angel Heart? Barfly? Wild Orchid? It’s no surprise he knows how to act, it’s just been an admittedly long time since he did so convincingly.

Like I said, he’s in the public eye again because of The Wrestler, and he’ll book a few more gigs that he maybe wouldn’t have gotten prior to it, but I still don’t see much changing for him. This was a fluke. Watch his upcoming movies, notice how he’s part of ensembles instead of the central star. That won’t change. He’s not a commercial draw. He can’t open a movie. Period. And really? “A higher stratosphere of filmmaking?”

The only true resurrections last year belonged to Robert Downey Jr and Jean-Claude Van Damme. Downey is capitalizing on his properly with sequels and other high profile films. Van Damme is quite possibly squandering his with a self-directed film that almost sounds like his usual fare. (His agent should have been on Stallone’s doorstep getting Van Damme a role in The Expendables!) But Rourke? Rourke will show up in more mediocre movies, he’ll whine about not being interested in Sin City 2 once he has an Oscar, he’ll ham his way through Iron Man 2, and he’ll fade back to direct-to-DVD movies and big-screen genre fare. No disgrace in that. But no resurrection or glory either.

The Final Verdict

As usual, we leave the final word up to you. Is Rourke really back in the good graces of commercial viability or will his name still fail to sell a film on its own? Is it Hollywood leading man once more or permanent ensemble member?

Shouting Match: Are Horror Remakes Good or Evil?

FSR Staff — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:45:37 +0000

Horror movies have been being remade for four decades, but never with the fever of now. 2009 promises to have more than its share, from My Bloody Valentine 3D to Last House on the Left to the ultimate slasher, Friday the 13th. Are horror remakes a good thing? A terrible thing? Something to be celebrated or destroyed? Raging Robert Fure and Angry Adam Sweeney take up the gloves this week: Are horror remakes triumphant good or all consuming evil?

Opening Statements

Robert: Anytime a film is scheduled to be remade, there are undoubtedly jeers from the choir. I know, for at times I’ve lead them myself, but you can’t damn them all based on the piles that have given the remake a bad name. There have been many great remakes over the years, including films that many don’t even recognize as remakes. Of late, the horror industry has been inundated with dozens of remakes, from the well received The Grudge to the ill received, well, any other Japanese horror remake. But rather than give up the ghost and say remakes are always unnecessary and bad, I submit that remakes of horror movies are not only alright, but that they’ve given us some great horror and there are more fantastic remakes on the way. In the wake of My Bloody Valentine 3D and the face of Friday the 13th I say to you, sir – Bring on the losing argument.

Adam: Robert, I will concede that when it comes to knowledge of the horror genre, you have me out-manned. What you don’t have is an abundant amount of evidence to back your argument. For every impressive remake there are 10 pathetic wastes of time to pile on top it like bodies Jason Voorhees left behind. Psycho, The Omen, and Halloween are all perfect examples of classics that Hollywood couldn’t leave alone. Were any of the remakes superior? No. We’ve even had a Top 10 list of the worst horror remakes on the site, for crying out loud. The best argument one can make for the sake of horror remakes is that the writer and director would find a way to retell the story in an original way. My reply would be two-pronged. 1) Why aren’t we instead focusing on making any original stories? Would you try to repaint the Mona Lisa? and 2) the fact is that Hollywood isn’t making remakes of horror films to find new ways of telling them. They are making them because as Todd Farmer, co-writer of My Bloody Valentine 3-D, stated, it’s a recognizable name that they can cash in on. The industry is taking advantage of all of the fans of the classics and laughing all the way to bank as we try to pull up our pants and take the knife out of our back. We need to quit raping the classics and come up with new horror stories.

The Rebuttal

Robert: Of course I’m all for generating original ideas, but to be fair, tons of original ideas suck just as badly, if not more. The Omen wasn’t bad, it just was unnecessary, which I think is different. No one had to make it as they didn’t add anything and they didn’t do it better. For a horror remake to be alright in my book, it’s either got to be a little different or a lot better. The Thing from John Carpenter is a remake and its not only one of my favorite horror movies, its one of my favorite movies all time. Halloween from Zombie added in some gore and wasn’t terrible, and Dawn of the Dead from Snyder was totally kick ass. The reason I can stand behind horror remakes with a straight face is that bad horror flicks are nothing new. There are tons of movies from the last three decades that have awesome premises that just sucked. Or that don’t hold up well at all. Watch the original Last House on the Left and tell me it’s still good. It’s not. So remakes can take shitty movies or movies that haven’t held up and revitalize them and make them awesome.

Further, take a look at our current franchises like Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, et al. Those later sequels sucked hard balls. Real hard balls. Those movies are terrible, but the characters are not. If one way of saving my beloved slashers is to reboot them and do it hardcore and fun, then I’ll sign those papers in blood right now.

Adam: I think the majority of horror remakes fall under the categories of being either bad or unnecessary. That’s the problem. I had a feeling you’d bring Carpenter’s remake of The Thing, also one of my favorite films of all-time, into the picture. But you know that Carpenter also is responsible for the creation of Michael Myers and Halloween, one of the greatest original horror films. With Hollywood so focused on protecting their investments, in large part by rehashing stories we know, I wonder if a genius like Carpenter would have even been able to get the original Halloween the greenlight in this day and age. It’s time for Hollywood execs to come out from under the bed, grow some balls like Dr. Loomis and not make us tolerate the likes of a remake you’d say, “wasn’t terrible.” Yeah, a remake like My Bloody Valentine 3-D may be able to revitalize one film, but how many other disastrous entries do we have to spend our time and/or money on to get to a solid one?

The sequels to Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre aren’t really relevant in the conversation because it was the original idea that made all of those stories great. In fact, you pointing to sequels only makes my point. We need to stop expanding on the same idea. I want to be able to say my generation has new horror legends that can slash with the likes of Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger and Leatherface. But it seems like that isn’t possible because some idiot in Hollywood thinks it’s safer and smarter to re-do When a Stranger Calls.

Closing Arguments

Robert: From the outset, I’m willing to cede the point that a lot of remakes are unnecessary or terrible. I’m totally against remaking films that are still good – but that is the clincher. They still have to be good. They have to stand the test of time. I have no problem remaking piles upon piles of bad horror. Nor do I have problems revitalizing franchises. I think sequels are entirely relevant. The movies survived to spawn an average of like 7 sequels each, and, like James Bond, we want them to continue. Would you argue that Casino Royale was a bad reboot? You want a list of good remakes? The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, My Bloody Valentine 3D, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Quarantine, The Hills Have Eyes, Night of the Living Dead, and The Fly. I’m almost positive we can add the upcoming Friday the 13th remake as well. Are all the bad remakes worth suffering through to get to these? Yes – because we don’t even have to suffer through them. We don’t have to watch them. There is no killing the remake trend – but there’s no need to if Hollywood can give us entertaining shit.

As for original ideas, Jason Voorhees, the most iconic slasher of all, didn’t even have a hockey mask until the third sequel. Freddy Krueger didn’t start cracking wise immediately either. And there is original horror out there. Yes, we need more of it. Hatchet was fantastic. I’m super excited for Midnight Movie and Trick r Treat and all sorts of other original horror movies. But most of these I have to wait for DVD for. So I guess what I’m really saying here is that horror remakes are okay, because they’re something we have to settle for in the mean time. Right now, horror is in a tough place. The “original” horror we get is all “torture porn.” That’s fine, I like a bit of that, but I need slashers. I need over the top fun kills. And if it takes having some people fuck up, then fine. But if we get a few great ones in the mix, I’m willing to settle. Like I mentioned, there are a lot of ideas out there that are great the were bungled or that have long gone stale – that’s no reason to let them fade away. So I say, bring on original horror. Bring it on hard! But let’s not forget that there is plenty of talent that can jumpstart existing horror, drag it out of the gutter and make it great again. Also, fuck any PG-13 remake that is a compromise. If you’re going to make it, you make it great and you make it right, otherwise, in any film, go fuck yourself.

Adam: I believe Sir William Shakespeare once said, “You can’t polish a turd.” And that is what happens when you remake an already bad film. You’re putting blood red icing on a worm infested cake. Also, I’m not saying all sequels are pointless. However, not many horror sequels can match their predecessor. Truth be told, not many sequels in any genre can. Isn’t it enough to say, “Okay, that was a bad ass story. Let’s leave it alone?” And I have to pick a bit of a bone with some of the remakes you chose as quality reboots. Invasion of the Body Snatchers had not one, but two pointless remakes in 1993 and 2007. Neither the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or The Amityville Horror remake meant as much to me as the original. Unless seeing Van Wilder go crazy or Jessica Biel in a midriff shirt is enough reason to make a film. The latter might mean you’re okay with watching I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. Now that’s a true horror film.

Where we differ is that you’re saying it’s okay to tolerate bad or good ones if it means we get a great remake every once in awhile. I contend that there aren’t enough great remakes to make me forget all the House of Waxes of the world.

However, I think we both are operating from similar mindsets. I thought Victor Crowley in Hatchet was a beast and can’t wait to see Trick R’ Treat. So why are we forced to wait to see these films on DVD? Is it because audiences don’t want to see original projects, or is it because Hollywood knows we will accept a remake of Black Christmas when they throw it at us? Sadly, horror films will continue to be remade because they are the cheapest genre to film, don’t require high priced talent and reach an audience that mainly wants to see one thing; lots of blood and people leaving in body bags. That doesn’t mean we have to take their shit when they shovel it at us. Call me the Barack Obama of the horror genre, Can we stand up to remakes and create a new set of horror icons? Yes we can! Tell you what, remakes can be made but will not be released nationally unless they get the Film School Rejects Horror Board seal of approval. We will be kind of like the anti-MPAA, giving thumbs up to only the slashers that bring a good story, fresh kills, nudity and fun. (fun not meaning torture. Got that Eli Roth?) Deal? Now let’s go jump on a machete for the sake of our horror film brethren.

The Final Verdict

Seeing Jessica Biel in a midriff shirt is reason enough to make a film, isn’t it? This long-winded argument can only be settled in the comment section below. What do you think? Should horror remakes be done away with or are they worth it in the long run?

Shouting Match: Keanu Reeves, Thespian?

Josh Radde — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:56:57 +0000

At Film School Rejects, we like to have the final word, even when we’re arguing with ourselves. Although mostly, we just like to yell the loudest. We figured we should channel that energy into a new feature we like to call “Shouting Match.” This week’s contenders? Josh Radde and Adam Sweeney. This week’s point of contention: Keanu Reeves, Thespian?

Opening Statements

Josh Radde: Deny thy critic and refuse thy fanboy. What’s in a name? A Keanu Reeves by any other name would still be as SWEET. With the release of The Day the Earth Stood Still this Friday, I think its provided us with a great opportunity to look back on the actor’s career and “accomplishments.” Reeves shot on to the national stage over 20 years ago with the crime drama River’s Edge. He also found prominent roles in Dangerous Liaisons and in 1989 hit it big with Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. Keanu Reeves has stayed relevant for 20 years, yet no one would consider him a great actor. I’m not prepared to say that he is a great actor in a traditional sense, but I will say that he’s had a great career. Simply put, Keanu Reeves is one of the most important actors of our generation.

Once your done chuckling at my statement Adam, please tell me why I’m off base.

Adam Sweeney: Shall I call you Josh Shakespeare for this debate? The very thought of Keanu Reeves fumbling his way through a Shakespearean piece, as he did in Much Ado About Nothing, is a tragedy in itself. “Whoa is me, I know Kung Fu.” While it easy for us to remember Keanu’s triumphs like The Matrix it is important to remember the many lacking films he has made along the way. How quickly we have forgotten Johnny Mnemonic , Chain Reaction and even he lost the Midas touch in Matrix: Revolutions. If you were to list the greatest careers of actors in film history I am not sure I’d put Mr. Reeves in the top tier. I think we need to define what makes an actor great before we move forward. If it’s acting ability then I would rank Keanu next to a young Jonathan Lipnicki, maybe even giving Lipnicki the edge. If it’s the ability to choose certain films that find an audience during that particular time period then I would agree Keanu matters. But let’s not throw the word great out so quickly. The guy did star in The Watcher and Hard Ball, a bastardized version of The Bad News Bears.

Bogus!

The Rebuttal

Josh: Bill & Ted’s = Great
Speed = Great
The Matrix = Great
Point Break = GREAT

Sure, he’s made some poor choices like The Lake House and The Replacements, but he’s done a lot of good work in smaller roles as well. The Gift is a damn good movie. Dracula is pretty good. He was charming in Somethings Gotta Give. Go check out Street Kings, it’s actually a really solid movie. Constantine and Devil’s Advocate are decent, if not fun to watch when you’re drunk (Charlize Theron’s boobies make a sublime cameo as well). But the four that I mentioned above are essentials from the past two decades. I’ll never say that he’s a great actor, but he’s a bona fide movie star that’s had movies that appeal to a wide variety of movie fans. Sure, he’s made some crap, but no more than John Cusack makes every year.

Adam: What do all of the four of his “great” films have in common? None really required true displays of acting range. You could possibly even argue that Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure is his best part. Why? Because it plays to his strength, playing a dimwit. Even in The Matrix the best I could say about him was, ‘well, he wasn’t shitty this time.’ I still contest that in Matrix Revolutions the reason they blinded Neo before Trinity died is because Keanu couldn’t cry on command. Just saying. Reeves doesn’t stand out to me as a great actor for many reasons, but one is that he isn’t an actor I get excited about seeing in films. When I hear Denzel Washington or Christian Bale has a new film out I am interested. When I hear Keanu has a new flick out I ask, “is it called Dude, where’s my accent?” You bring up Dracula but his performance was arguably the worst part of the film. And while I do like The Devil’s Advocate, mainly for Al Pacino’s great role, Reeves is the real boob in the film. Sorry, Charlize, you’ll just have to deal with it. (And you call them boobies, really?) Alas, that is another debate for another day.

The question at hand is ‘is Keanu Reeves a great actor’, not ‘has Keanu Reeves made four great films in 20 years.” The biggest accomplishment of his career may be that he was smart enough to not do Speed 2. This is an actor who has been nominated for 7 Razzie Awards. That’s Steven Seagal territory. But maybe he is a great actor, he has been nominated for a shit load of MTV Movie Awards. That’s gotta count for something right? *Cough*

Closing Arguments

Josh: You seem to be forgetting my thesis here, Sweeney. I’m not arguing that Reeves is a good actor (and for clarification, his best performance is in Speed, he really brings the tension to a boiling point), but that his career is important. Meaning, I can’t see anyone else in the role of Neo. Will Smith reportedly turned that role down, and dare I say it’s a better movie with Keanu than it would’ve been with Smith (who opted to do Wild Wild West instead). The sequels were bloated and up their own asses, but that’s more the Wachowskis’ fault than Keanu’s. Also, not many actors get to contribute 4 great films over the span of 20 years. It may seem like an easy thing to do, but it’s a rarity. I can sit down any given day and watch a handful of Keanu Reeves movies–not because he’s an actor with excellent range–because he brings everything he can to every single performance. He sells Point Break with his commitment to the absurdity of it. He makes a ridiculous concept like a bomb on a bus work by treating it like its truly life and death. He may have Razzies up the wazz and Golden Popcorn out his ear, but I’ll never be able to laugh off a Keanu Reeves performance. We owe him the same respect he shows for film. Sometimes, he can portray some raw emotion–I submit this scene from Hard Ball. Sure, it’s not a “good” movie, but try denying that Keanu can tug those heartstrings (”I swear I was lifted in that moment to a better place. I swear, he lifted the world in that moment”).

I dunno, call me crazy, but I’d rather watch Keanu ham it up in Bill & Ted’s than watch Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar-winning performance in the snoozer Capote any day.

Adam: “Josh, that YouTube clip made me a better person … even if just for that moment. I am forever grateful to you for that.” Allow me to call your YouTube clip and raise you his greatest acting clip ever … his role in a Corn Flakes commercial. Look at him savor the goodness that is breakfast. I swear, he IS the cereal! Okay, let me wash away the layer of sarcasm and get real for a minute.

You offer a comparison to Will Smith and argue how difficult it is to make 4 great films in a span of 20 years. Would you say that Reeves’ 4 performances compare to Smith’s in Ali, The Pursuit of Happyness, Six Degrees of Separation, and Independence Day? (I bring Independence Day up because it isn’t by the most strict definition a great film, like Point Break, but at the time it was released was an entertaining action film) Reeves reaped the rewards of good scripts and actors around him. When I think of The Matrix I think of Hugo Weaving and Laurence Fishburne. When I think of Point Break I think of Patrick Swayze’s performance (mullet). When I think of Speed I think of Sandra Bullock and Dennis Hopper, and when I think of Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure I, of course, think of Missy, Bill’s hot mom. Okay, I am kidding about the last one but the rest show how Reeves, a leading man because of good looks more than anything else, gets outshined by supporting characters. That doesn’t happen with truly important actors. Reeves only succeeds when he has a world of talent and action or entertainment around him. Capote may have been fun to watch with Keanu in it, if only to play a drinking game to how many times he broke character. And you may be the only person on Earth that has used Bill & Ted to show an actor’s importance. You’re a brave man, Josh. Yes, The Matrix is important but Point Break? Come on …

Keanu Reeves has had a fun career. He has tried to be a good actor, but allow me to go Yoda on you for a second. “Do or do not, there is no try.” We don’t hand out praise at Film School Rejects for effort like we’re the YMCA. Now hit the showers, Josh. I will be waiting outside to hand you and Keanu your orange slices. Excellent!

Josh: Who watches Ali anymore? Also, no one has ever won an argument with me by quoting Yoda. S’all I’m sayin’.

Final Verdict

Round and round we go. Is Keanu an actor’s actor? Nobody knows. Maybe we should let all of you decide in the comment section below…

Shouting Match: Who’s The Greatest Bond?

FSR Staff — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:55:13 +0000

At Film School Rejects, we like to have the final word, even when we’re arguing with ourselves. Although mostly, we just like to yell the loudest. We figured we should channel that energy into a new feature we like to call “Shouting Match.” This week’s contenders? Jorge Sosa and Josh Radde. This week’s point of contention: The Best James Bond.

Opening Statements

JORGE: I will shout ’til I’m blue in the face that George Lazenby was the consummate Bond.

Do the math. Each Bond has had his share of good movies and bad movies. 60% of Connery’s ouevre was good, 100% of Lazenby’s were good, 30% of Moore’s films were good, 50% of Dalton’s movies were good, and 20% of Brosnan’s output was good. It’s too early to judge Craig by this measure. QoS could suck ass, which would really hurt his batting average.

So, by that measure, here’s my personal Bond ranking:

1. Lazenby
2. Connery
3. Dalton
4. Moore
5. Brosnan

Sheer numbers don’t lie, but Lazenby is also the manliest Bond. Granted, he dresses like an idiot. But, in one movie, he shags Diana Rigg at least twice (a third shagging is probably implied during the Louis Armstrong love-theme montage) plus he bones two other babes in Blofeld’s lair. During his downtime, he reads Playboy. Furthermore, unlike Moore, Lazenby did all his own fights. Unlike Connery or Dalton, he has a decent head of hair. Plus he rocks that amazing chin cleft.

Manvantage: Lazenby.

JOSH: Just because a pinch-hitter goes 1-for-1 in a baseball game doesn’t automatically mean he’s in the starting lineup the next day. Yes, Lazenby’s film was good largely because it showed a darker version of Bond, one similar to the novels of Ian Fleming, and more in tune to what Daniel Craig would eventually do with the character. Also, OHMSS ends with a married Bond holding his lifeless wife, so I give the producers and director (Peter R. Hunt) credit for going with the dark ending.

That being said, we’re talking about the best BOND. Any guy that was replaced because the fans hated him could not be considered the best James Bond. He just can’t be. After one film, the studio deemed it necessary to replace Lamenby with the established Connery in Diamonds Are Forever.

Also, I don’t think it’s too early to judge Craig. Casino Royale is the most exciting Bond film ever made and it’s largely thanks to Craig’s dynamic and risk-taking performance. He’s intense, calculated, vulnerable, and a man dead-set on his mission, not some dude wearing frilly shirts and taking ample screen time to shag the Dame from “The Avengers”. What Lazenby has in hair, Craig has in eyes. Craig is a physical powerhouse who also does as many fights and stunts as he can. When it’s all said and done, Craig will be the best Bond on film.

However, I’m going to go with Connery. The man IS James Bond. They even used his likeness in a video game for From Russia with Love 40 years after the film came out. His Bond films, FRwL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, and the first screen incarnation, Dr. No, are all certified classics. So even if Craig or Lazenby, or even Brosnan for that matter, gave better PERFORMANCES, no one is as quintessentially Bond as Connery.

Your move, sir.

The Rebuttal

JORGE: I find two major flaws with your argument.

1. Lazenby wasn’t shit-canned because the fans didn’t like him. Lazenby turned down a contract for a seven-picture deal because he thought Bond would be out of fashion in the ’70s. Oops. Hey, we’re not debating which Bond actor had the best business sense.

2. Connery might have defined the role of Bond in many people’s minds, but only because he had the good fortune of being cast in the part first. To argue that he was the best Bond is akin to arguing that William Shatner was the best captain of the Enterprise. We all know that’s bullshit — the best Enterprise captain was a certain bald Brit.

I don’t mean to equate Connery’s acting ability with Shatner’s. Christ, no. Connery is undoubtedly one of the most talented film stars of the 20th century. But his track record as Bond is pretty damned spotty. After a strong start, it didn’t take long for his enthusiasm to flag. I would argue that by Thunderball, and definitely by You Only Live Twice, he was phoning it in. Diamonds Are Forever? Fugeddaboutit. That cinematic shit-sack is awful, and only useful as a reminder of how far Connery had sunk.

However, I will concede that Craig might someday turn out to be the best Bond ever. I also concede that you’re a pestilent canker and the son of a thousand fathers. Nothing personal, but this is a fuckin’ Shouting Match, not a tea party.

JOSH: Ok, Sally.

Don’t use the “being first” argument for Connery. No one gives Brian Cox credit for being the first Hannibal Lecter. People USED to think that Michael Keaton was the best Batman. If Roger Moore were the first James Bond, would we even really care about the character today? Honestly, I doubt it. This distinction comes from the quality of work, not the chronology of a character. Goldfinger is Bond at his absolute best, and Connery gives the role everything someone not familiar with the character would need to see to get a good idea of what he’s about. The revenge aspect, the womanizing, the cheesy line delivery, the awkward karate chop, the fear of having a laser blast your nuts off. It’s all there. I would say that Connery lost interest by Diamonds Are Forever (notably because he looked significantly fatter than You Only Live Twice) and tarnished his reputation further when he made Never Say Never Again using his power to get a non-MGM licensed James Bond film made.

Your conclusion that Lazenby is the best Bond confirms something that FSR readers and myself have considered true for a long time: You have a tiny member. Yes, I went there.

Closing Arguments

JORGE: You brought this upon yourself. I’m hauling out the big guns (and, no, I’m not referring to my legendary wang). The easiest way to settle the Lazenby vs. Connery dispute is to ask: Which Bond could kick the other’s ass?

Lazenby could easily cripple Connery for several reasons. First, Connery would be encumbered by your clinging to him, vigorously suckling on his teat. Laying the Radde-factor aside, Lazenby was a sergeant in the Australian Army Special Forces and an unarmed combat instructor. Unlike Connery, he shot his own fight scenes. You can tell the difference by comparing the fights in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service with any of Connery’s on-screen catfights. The fights in OHMSS are raw-knuckled, frantic and visceral. Lazenby is a fucking monster, and, in fact, my friend, he broke a stuntman’s nose during a screen test. Somebody forgot to tell my man he had to contain his macho fury. The exact opposite is the case with Connery’s on-screen pansy-fests. It’s obvious that once the action escalated beyond bitch slaps, they needed to cut away and have a stunt double do the real heavy lifting.

Incidentally, Connery also served in the military, namely the British Royal Navy. He was discharged due to medical problems — a duodenal ulcer. That’s right: Connery was soft in the belly.

Lazenby probably gets some flak for only appearing as Bond once. Well, once was enough to prove himself the kick-assingest Bond of all time.

JOSH: At least Connery got to use his own voice in the film. Lazerbeam Taintsweat was dubbed at times. Dude got Jazz Singer-ed in an English speaking movie! I won’t claim that Connery is a physical beast, but that somewhat defeats the purpose of the early generation Bond. He was a man who used his intellect and quick-thinking over his brute strength. Even Craig, whose pretty much a physical force to be reckoned with, is usually outmatched in a fight.

I dunno, maybe you have a point in here somewhere. Even though I still think Connery is “the man, dawg,” Lazenby did do the French softcore erotica series, “Emmanuelle.” Though, sadly, he was not featured in “Emmanuelle in Space,” the only thing Cinemax cares about.

Update: I just saw Quantum of Solace and Craig is the best Bond ever. Previous conversation: moot.

Final Verdict

We’ve kicked and screamed and clawed at each other with our fingernails, and, as in true stubborn FSR fashion, neither of us will back down. So, we’re leaving the final verdict up to you: Who’s the best Bond of all time? Lazenby? Connery? Someone we didn’t even care to mention? Don’t say Dalton because we all know that’s absurd.

Film School Rejects » Shouting Match

Shouting Match: Best Horror Film of the Decade

Opening Statement (Josh)

Counter Argument (Adam)

Rebuttal (Josh)

Closing Statement (Adam)

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Giant Robots Fighting; Two Men Arguing

Opening Statement (Adam):

Counter Argument (Landon):

Rebuttal (Adam):

Closing Statement (Landon):

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Jack Black Must Be Stopped!

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Denzel Washington vs. John Travolta – FACE/OFF!

Opening Argument (Josh)

Rebuttal (Adam)

Closing Argument (Josh)

Final Words (Adam)

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Is ‘Toy Story’ Overrated?

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Should They Terminate the ‘Terminator’?

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Does Tom Hanks Still Have It?

Opening Argument (Josh):

Rebuttal (Bethany):

Closing Argument (Josh):

Final Word (Bethany):

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Star Trek v. Star Wars

Opening Statement (Kevin):

Rebuttal (Josh):

Closing Argument (Kevin):

Final Words (Josh):

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Who’s More Badass, Movie or Comic Wolverine?

Opening Statement (Josh):

Rebuttal (Paul):

Closing Argument (Josh):

Final Words (Paul):

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Is Jamie Foxx a Good Actor?

Opening Statement (Bethany):

Rebuttal (Josh):

Closing Argument (Bethany):

Closing Haiku (Josh):

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Should Actors Stop Whining About Lowball Salaries?

Opening Statements

The Rebuttals

Closing Arguments

Final Verdict

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Is The Resurrection of Mickey Rourke Real?

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Are Horror Remakes Good or Evil?

Opening Statements

The Rebuttal

Closing Arguments

The Final Verdict

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Keanu Reeves, Thespian?

Opening Statements

The Rebuttal

Closing Arguments

Final Verdict

Related Reading:

Shouting Match: Who’s The Greatest Bond?

Opening Statements

The Rebuttal

Closing Arguments

Final Verdict

Related Reading: