Showing posts with label Gratuitous Simpsons References. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gratuitous Simpsons References. Show all posts

Monday, October 3, 2011

He’s Got His Wife Locked Up In There: Featuring Male Of The Year George Wilson


The Great Gatsby character review has been on a bit of a hiatus recently.  It’s nothing you did, so don’t worry.  I have been looking very closely at how I am judging the character selections, and have tried to figure out a coherent way to explain how and why I am doing this. 

Look, I am not trying to be too cynical in these reviews and say that everyone will suck.  Far from it (except for Tobey).  What I am trying to do is review each actor and see if they fit the profile of the character they are portraying in the book.  Australian or European or American actors aside, can they live up to their predecessors and the original?
For example: Robert Redford’s version of Jay Gatsby (née Gatz) was probably the best interpretation from the novel.  Just my opinion, but the other two were good, but on a different level of good.  Maybe it was the supporting cast, maybe it was what part of the theme was conveyed that made Redford look good; whatever it was, it worked.
So, what tools do Leonardo DiCapro bring to make his performance even better than Redford, thus making him an even closer representation to the actual character, thus retelling the book in visual form in the best way possible (I will get to this comparison another day)? 
That’s the question I am trying to answer.  So, with DeBicki, I can’t really answer that question, but I can say that she has potential to make the character truly hers because all she has at this point is potential.  She has things to live up to, but she isn't pigeonholed in the role because she is a character actress.  But, I can also say Tobey Maguire will be boring because he does that in a good majority of his movies.  Nick Carraway is not a boring character and he cannot exist as a boring character meant to drive/narrate a plot, and that is TRUTH.

So, if that wasn’t confusing enough, basically I:
  • describe the character portrayed in the book
  • look at past roles
  • look at others’ performances of the same character
  • infer their role in the greater theme of the story and see if this is a good fit for them
  • infer if this role will then make the movie better as a whole
  • offer up suggestions based on no personal experience in feature films
Bringing all of these things together, one can make a subjective assessment of how the character may act in the movie.  Also, yes, I may be a little cynical, but oh well.

Today’s character: George Wilson

Luhrmann’s George: Jason Clarke

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Those Jerks, Always Walking Over the Small Businessman


Look, I am not going to pretend like I know anything about the Casey Anthony trial because my only knowledge comes from hearing Nancy Grace put on her whole "LEMME JUSSAY" and "JUSTICE....for little Caylee...killed....and abandoned....in....the....woods" routine while passing relatives in the living room on my way to the kitchen.  As a heterosexual male with some sort of (any) life outside my house, I had absolutely no interest in the trial and questioned the morals of those that did, because, you see, I am an American, dammit.

What I do know is the only reason the Anthony trial was not as popular as the O.J. Simpson trial was because a car chase did not precede it.  Car chases are awesome, like this one, or this one, or these, ewww, even this one!!!  Oh man, how I do love a good car/tank chase.  (Sidenote: Worlds Wildest Police Chases, what a good ass show.)

But, that is not my point.  My point comes from what we see as a result of the trial.  It, uh, kind of brought out the worse in people and junk.

Go ahead and jump if you really care

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Prepare For the End! The End of High Prices!


So, May 21st, wait, now May 22nd, and we are all still here.  As much as I want to believe this happened, I would imagine that is not the case.  FamilyRadio media franchise leader Harold Camping's math must have been off again, and while I could lapse into ranting on the various degrees of meaning this held and why it was so popular, and the repercussions etc. etc., I will let others do that for me.  

Although there have been few times where I could say, "good journalism, folks," now would be one of those times.  So, good journalism, folks. 

Go ahead and jump for good journalism!