THE ROCKER is about a middle-aged drummer who joins his nephew's band, living out his dream of rock stardom twenty years late.
RAINN WILSON, who you know as "Dwight" from "The Office", is great in this flick, coming across as a believable drummer who was kicked out of his 1980's hair band. Two decades later, on his last dime, he rooms up with his sister's family.
His nephew's band needs a drummer, of course, and when Wilson is unknowingly filmed drumming naked in a steamy cellar, the video goes viral on youtube and the band becomes an overnight sensation.
TEDDY GEIGER plays the lead singer and songwriter and in real life that's exactly what he is. Damn good actor too.
EMMA STONE is the bassist, she even learned to play the instrument for the part.
CHRISTINA APPLEGATE is Teddy's mom, perfectly cast.
Plenty of SNL alumni appear in bit parts.
This film got a bad rap, unfairly being compared to "School of Rock". Critics killed it at the box office, it ranked as one of the lowest for 2008.
Too bad, because it's a great work. It's funny, fast moving, kids as well as their parents can love it. It was never boring, out of context -- it is definitely "feel good" and nothing is wrong with that. Check the satellite, it's worth your time.
Check out RAINN WILSON'S "SOUL PANCAKE" WEBSITE!
Showing posts with label Movie Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Reviews. Show all posts
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
MOVIE REVIEW: 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN
Another one you have probably seen but we had to revisit it on the satellite last night. I've read the script a few times, there are some minor changes in the actual movie, mostly for the sake of expediting things or increasing drama, like main character Andy's bicycle accident at the end.
The film is sweet and has a good moral value to it, Steve Carell is fantastic in the role, of course. A Judd Apatow classic including the usuals Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, and Jud's wife Leslie Mann, who pulls off quite a drunk chick. Romany Malco is the ultimate "playa".
NBC really cut this to pieces, and the whole "safe sex clinic" scene was chopped out, voiding Carell's wife, Nancy Walls, spot.
If you've denied yourself the pleasure, let me help unbunk a few myths -- no, it's not childish, full of poop jokes, or void of storyline. With almost 180 million dollars grossed it earns a respected slot in the annals of Hollywood film, and in your video cabinet or wherever you stash your guilty pleasures.
FORTY YEAR OLD VIRGIN ON WIKI
FORTY YEAR OLD VIRGIN SCRIPT
The film is sweet and has a good moral value to it, Steve Carell is fantastic in the role, of course. A Judd Apatow classic including the usuals Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, and Jud's wife Leslie Mann, who pulls off quite a drunk chick. Romany Malco is the ultimate "playa".
NBC really cut this to pieces, and the whole "safe sex clinic" scene was chopped out, voiding Carell's wife, Nancy Walls, spot.
If you've denied yourself the pleasure, let me help unbunk a few myths -- no, it's not childish, full of poop jokes, or void of storyline. With almost 180 million dollars grossed it earns a respected slot in the annals of Hollywood film, and in your video cabinet or wherever you stash your guilty pleasures.
FORTY YEAR OLD VIRGIN ON WIKI
FORTY YEAR OLD VIRGIN SCRIPT
Friday, November 27, 2009
MOVIE REVIEW: MILK
You've probably seen MILK, being awarded best screenplay and all. I had read the script but saw the film for the first time, last night. Moving picture, it is.
As for structure, the film was so interesting I found myself not even trying to count the changes in acts, I didn't care. Sean Penn does such an amazing job portraying Harvey Milk that I really felt like I was there, no distractions.
Emile Hirsch does an amazing job as well, full into his method. It's one of those movies you google afterwards to read all about, and we did.
Unfortunate is the relatively small box office returns for such an amazing film. Few will have the incentive to shoot something worth the while if this keeps up. It grossed about 60 mill total with DVD sales. Just counting the number of homosexuals in this world one would figure the numbers would be much higher. It's a must see, especially if you are from the G&L community.
By the end my feeling was that Harvey Milk is to the gay community as MLK is to african americans and the civil rights movement. Only the letter "i" separates MLK and Milk. Neither would sit idly by and tolerate ignorance, and they paid the ultimate price in the process.
A lot to be said for that.
As for structure, the film was so interesting I found myself not even trying to count the changes in acts, I didn't care. Sean Penn does such an amazing job portraying Harvey Milk that I really felt like I was there, no distractions.
Emile Hirsch does an amazing job as well, full into his method. It's one of those movies you google afterwards to read all about, and we did.
Unfortunate is the relatively small box office returns for such an amazing film. Few will have the incentive to shoot something worth the while if this keeps up. It grossed about 60 mill total with DVD sales. Just counting the number of homosexuals in this world one would figure the numbers would be much higher. It's a must see, especially if you are from the G&L community.
By the end my feeling was that Harvey Milk is to the gay community as MLK is to african americans and the civil rights movement. Only the letter "i" separates MLK and Milk. Neither would sit idly by and tolerate ignorance, and they paid the ultimate price in the process.
A lot to be said for that.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
REVIEW: BURN AFTER READING
BURN AFTER READING
Armed with a DVR remote on a Saturday night, Lovely Wife and I perused the latest to see what we could watch and settled on "Burn After Reading". After all, it was a Coen brothers flick with Clooney, Malkovich, Pitt... what could go wrong?
A lot.
I'm not against different formulas, we should all try something new, but this just doesn't work. Here we have an interesting plot, great character traits, unexpected twists, orchestrated in a brilliant little "POOF" of "who cares and why did I waste the time watching it?"
Lovely Wife, who will sit through any movie, she doesn't give up -- felt pretty ripped off by the last five minutes. It's not a matter of a "good" ending or not, or if you just don't understand the director's technique, there's absolutely no payoff and nobody cares, to wait for the end or through another Coen brothers film.
Too many different POV's, the only character we have a chance to get close too is Clooney, who plays "not such a nice guy". A senseless killing at the end tops it off.
To each his own. I'm not even going to google the box office numbers because just being a Coen film with Clooney and Malkovich influences the gross.
So, if you've got some time to waste, go ahead. If not, you might want to use this piece of advice --
"Burn Before Watching"...
Then read a book.
Armed with a DVR remote on a Saturday night, Lovely Wife and I perused the latest to see what we could watch and settled on "Burn After Reading". After all, it was a Coen brothers flick with Clooney, Malkovich, Pitt... what could go wrong?
A lot.
I'm not against different formulas, we should all try something new, but this just doesn't work. Here we have an interesting plot, great character traits, unexpected twists, orchestrated in a brilliant little "POOF" of "who cares and why did I waste the time watching it?"
Lovely Wife, who will sit through any movie, she doesn't give up -- felt pretty ripped off by the last five minutes. It's not a matter of a "good" ending or not, or if you just don't understand the director's technique, there's absolutely no payoff and nobody cares, to wait for the end or through another Coen brothers film.
Too many different POV's, the only character we have a chance to get close too is Clooney, who plays "not such a nice guy". A senseless killing at the end tops it off.
To each his own. I'm not even going to google the box office numbers because just being a Coen film with Clooney and Malkovich influences the gross.
So, if you've got some time to waste, go ahead. If not, you might want to use this piece of advice --
"Burn Before Watching"...
Then read a book.
Monday, September 28, 2009
MOVIE REVIEW
MAD MONEY
Starring Diane Keaton, Queen Latifah, Katie Holmes, and Ted Danson.
In between Lovely Wife doing laundry, and me traversing the porch and walking Caesar the Dog, we watched "MAD MONEY". No, not that irritable investment show with the guy yelling at the screen, the film with three women working at a Federal Reserve, "recycling" (stealing) money that was destined to be taken out of circulation in the furnaces (or however they destroy it, I missed that part).
If you haven't seen it then you've heard of it, one way or another, and the news probably wasn't good. Well, here's what's good: Diane Keaton is the cool mom or aunt you wish you had but never did, but she's like that in all her films. There's just something neat and quirky about the lady.
Props to Queen Latifah, who'd a thunk it? But yes, she's believable in every role that she takes on and she's even reinvented herself a few times.
Katie Holmes...oh, I was supposed to be highlighting the good things about the show. Okay, She plays a believable kid, I mean, how old is she, 15? And, she's good at throwing money straight up in the air, lots of it.
Hats off to Ted Danson, who plays Keaton's husband, not a hard role and I'm sure he bought himself something nice after the job because it's one of those "gotta pay the utility bill" kinda gigs.
From the screenplay side, the concept evolved from a British novel, "Hot Money", supposedly based on a semi-true story. So, it had the adaptation factor going for it. Then, early on, Keaton and Latifah were tagged as elements. And you thought it was an obvious concoction of Tom Cruise getting his wife an acting gig, not.
The big problem: how to get the audience to back ANYONE who steals, let alone from our Federal Reserve? But then again, we forgave AIG, GM, Bank of America, and all the other bailout thieves, why shouldn't we give these three girls a break? Just in case, they start with a flashback, revealing the fact that they will be busted in the end. That doesn't help, there's something inherently wrong about stealing, and acting like Katie Holmes making scrunchy funny faces, and dancing while pushing a cart, and throwing money in the air is funny; it's not.
The props are cool though: locks, glass carts where you see stacks of money, hidden keys. Funny thing: Diane Keaton, who is notorious for wearing gloves with any outfit, even on a blazing summer day, well, she doesn't wear gloves, and she actually has some nice-looking hands. Oh, she does wear rubber gloves in her duties as one of the janitors, so that busts my observation. Oh, that's how she keeps her fingerprints off the metal locks and bills? Love figuring this out.
The show gets a 22% rating on "ROTTEN TOMATOES". Screenwriters, or wannabe types like me, love referencing that site. Well, I'm not a fan. For starters, you have to figure out its rating system. On the site it shows a tomato, of course, with a link to "how does our tomatometer work?". Now, if I have to read that to figure it out, then it's fundamentally flawed. You would guess that it rates how rotten the movie is, the higher the rating, the more spoiled. Nope. SO, for those that need a translation, 78% of reviewers said the movie sucked.
All in all, if you have nothing better to do and can catch it on cable, then go for it, it's mindless "fun", throwing money in the air; it's even on the poster for the show, of course. I don't think the producers would agree that throwing money is so much fun: this was a break even deal at the box office. That's their money that Katie Holmes is shoveling out of the bucket and throwing haplessly around the room...while making scrunchy, "funny" faces.
Starring Diane Keaton, Queen Latifah, Katie Holmes, and Ted Danson.
In between Lovely Wife doing laundry, and me traversing the porch and walking Caesar the Dog, we watched "MAD MONEY". No, not that irritable investment show with the guy yelling at the screen, the film with three women working at a Federal Reserve, "recycling" (stealing) money that was destined to be taken out of circulation in the furnaces (or however they destroy it, I missed that part).
If you haven't seen it then you've heard of it, one way or another, and the news probably wasn't good. Well, here's what's good: Diane Keaton is the cool mom or aunt you wish you had but never did, but she's like that in all her films. There's just something neat and quirky about the lady.
Props to Queen Latifah, who'd a thunk it? But yes, she's believable in every role that she takes on and she's even reinvented herself a few times.
Katie Holmes...oh, I was supposed to be highlighting the good things about the show. Okay, She plays a believable kid, I mean, how old is she, 15? And, she's good at throwing money straight up in the air, lots of it.
Hats off to Ted Danson, who plays Keaton's husband, not a hard role and I'm sure he bought himself something nice after the job because it's one of those "gotta pay the utility bill" kinda gigs.
From the screenplay side, the concept evolved from a British novel, "Hot Money", supposedly based on a semi-true story. So, it had the adaptation factor going for it. Then, early on, Keaton and Latifah were tagged as elements. And you thought it was an obvious concoction of Tom Cruise getting his wife an acting gig, not.
The big problem: how to get the audience to back ANYONE who steals, let alone from our Federal Reserve? But then again, we forgave AIG, GM, Bank of America, and all the other bailout thieves, why shouldn't we give these three girls a break? Just in case, they start with a flashback, revealing the fact that they will be busted in the end. That doesn't help, there's something inherently wrong about stealing, and acting like Katie Holmes making scrunchy funny faces, and dancing while pushing a cart, and throwing money in the air is funny; it's not.
The props are cool though: locks, glass carts where you see stacks of money, hidden keys. Funny thing: Diane Keaton, who is notorious for wearing gloves with any outfit, even on a blazing summer day, well, she doesn't wear gloves, and she actually has some nice-looking hands. Oh, she does wear rubber gloves in her duties as one of the janitors, so that busts my observation. Oh, that's how she keeps her fingerprints off the metal locks and bills? Love figuring this out.
The show gets a 22% rating on "ROTTEN TOMATOES". Screenwriters, or wannabe types like me, love referencing that site. Well, I'm not a fan. For starters, you have to figure out its rating system. On the site it shows a tomato, of course, with a link to "how does our tomatometer work?". Now, if I have to read that to figure it out, then it's fundamentally flawed. You would guess that it rates how rotten the movie is, the higher the rating, the more spoiled. Nope. SO, for those that need a translation, 78% of reviewers said the movie sucked.
All in all, if you have nothing better to do and can catch it on cable, then go for it, it's mindless "fun", throwing money in the air; it's even on the poster for the show, of course. I don't think the producers would agree that throwing money is so much fun: this was a break even deal at the box office. That's their money that Katie Holmes is shoveling out of the bucket and throwing haplessly around the room...while making scrunchy, "funny" faces.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
IN BRUGES
MOVIE REVIEW
Okay, if you're a movie buff, which I'm not, your gasping over the fact that I just watched "IN BRUGES" for the first time, this Labor Day weekend. Why now? Because a lot of screenwriters and blogs have it referenced, but mainly the fact that my Lovely Wife had recorded it and we needed something to watch.
Written and directed by Martin McDonagh, "In Bruges" is about two hit men who are sent to, blah, blah... you're not reading because you've already seen it, right? I knew that. Okay, then onto the review.
The medieval city, Bruges, Belgium, looks good, with its stonework, stucco, iron windows and all. Without dialogue I still would've watched, it would have been just another one of those PBS travel shows, which I happen to love.
The acting was good but I have to admit, Colin Farrell was not convincing me in the beginning, it seemed a bit too much like acting. He grew into it though.
As for the script itself, early on Brendan Gleeson climbs a medieval tower to view the city. When he gets to the top, all alone, he looks down and it's quite like a view onto a HO scale trainset. He says, out loud, all alone, "I like this place."
Are you kidding me? People don't do that. Now, it's kind of like the tree falling in the woods if there are no people there, does it make a sound? Well, I'm a tree in this case, and I've been to the top of a ton of towers throughout Europe, sometimes alone, and I never once said, out loud, "I like this place". It should have been voiced over or left out entirely.
Why is it a big deal? Credibility. They're trying to lure me in during the first thirty minutes and Colin is acting fake-twitchy and Brendan is on a tower speaking out loud to himself? Not in MY script. Like they say, "gain the trust of your audience in ACT I and they will believe you throughout the rest of the film".
Other than that, it was good, and credible, so I got over it. McDonagh razzes americans, especially fat americans, quite a bit, which is good. You'll never fully get his pokes at the Belgians, or americans, unless you've spent a fair amount of time in Europe. Something like "Bruges is beautiful, too bad it's in Belgium".
Good stuff, to learn more, travel to Belgium, NOT!
Okay, if you're a movie buff, which I'm not, your gasping over the fact that I just watched "IN BRUGES" for the first time, this Labor Day weekend. Why now? Because a lot of screenwriters and blogs have it referenced, but mainly the fact that my Lovely Wife had recorded it and we needed something to watch.
Written and directed by Martin McDonagh, "In Bruges" is about two hit men who are sent to, blah, blah... you're not reading because you've already seen it, right? I knew that. Okay, then onto the review.
The medieval city, Bruges, Belgium, looks good, with its stonework, stucco, iron windows and all. Without dialogue I still would've watched, it would have been just another one of those PBS travel shows, which I happen to love.
The acting was good but I have to admit, Colin Farrell was not convincing me in the beginning, it seemed a bit too much like acting. He grew into it though.
As for the script itself, early on Brendan Gleeson climbs a medieval tower to view the city. When he gets to the top, all alone, he looks down and it's quite like a view onto a HO scale trainset. He says, out loud, all alone, "I like this place."
Are you kidding me? People don't do that. Now, it's kind of like the tree falling in the woods if there are no people there, does it make a sound? Well, I'm a tree in this case, and I've been to the top of a ton of towers throughout Europe, sometimes alone, and I never once said, out loud, "I like this place". It should have been voiced over or left out entirely.
Why is it a big deal? Credibility. They're trying to lure me in during the first thirty minutes and Colin is acting fake-twitchy and Brendan is on a tower speaking out loud to himself? Not in MY script. Like they say, "gain the trust of your audience in ACT I and they will believe you throughout the rest of the film".
Other than that, it was good, and credible, so I got over it. McDonagh razzes americans, especially fat americans, quite a bit, which is good. You'll never fully get his pokes at the Belgians, or americans, unless you've spent a fair amount of time in Europe. Something like "Bruges is beautiful, too bad it's in Belgium".
Good stuff, to learn more, travel to Belgium, NOT!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
IN THE TIME OF THE BUTTERFLIES
MOVIE REVIEW
IN THE TIME OF THE BUTTERFLIES
I found this on my never-ending search of satellite listings, and the findings must have been scarce for me to look at the info on this title. Salma Hayek and Marc Anthony? Sure, I'll tape that.
And I'm glad I did. The movie is based on the lives of the Mirabal sisters, Dominican revolutionary activists, who opposed the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo and were assassinated in 1960.
The cast, from what I could make of it, was completely Hispanic. The question here is, who in the world made the poor decision to have the entire film shot in english, forcing the actors to have a spanish accent? An incredibly dumb decision in my opinion, it should have all been done in spanish with english subtitles.
Hayek plays the main character, a girl in a large family on a farm who wants to move on and get a proper education. Her boyfriend, Marc Anthony, is an activist who knows of the atrocities being committed by the brutal dictator's regime. Through the surreptitious help of her underground comrades she becomes a icon for their struggles.
The cinematography is beautiful, the settings are very reminiscent of what old Cuba once was: colonial architecture in the city, jungle and simplistic farms in the countryside.
Be warned, the conflict is often violent and very sad but doesn't even start to touch on the depth of the murderous ways of Trujillo, who was assassinated in 1961.
It's worth a watch. IMDB says it was made for television, Salma picked up two awards for the gig. Being a MOW (Movie of the Week) explains why it was shot in english, rather unfortunate. In spanish, with some script tweaking, this could have gone on to better things.
Check out this LINK for more on the film.
IN THE TIME OF THE BUTTERFLIES
I found this on my never-ending search of satellite listings, and the findings must have been scarce for me to look at the info on this title. Salma Hayek and Marc Anthony? Sure, I'll tape that.
And I'm glad I did. The movie is based on the lives of the Mirabal sisters, Dominican revolutionary activists, who opposed the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo and were assassinated in 1960.
The cast, from what I could make of it, was completely Hispanic. The question here is, who in the world made the poor decision to have the entire film shot in english, forcing the actors to have a spanish accent? An incredibly dumb decision in my opinion, it should have all been done in spanish with english subtitles.
Hayek plays the main character, a girl in a large family on a farm who wants to move on and get a proper education. Her boyfriend, Marc Anthony, is an activist who knows of the atrocities being committed by the brutal dictator's regime. Through the surreptitious help of her underground comrades she becomes a icon for their struggles.
The cinematography is beautiful, the settings are very reminiscent of what old Cuba once was: colonial architecture in the city, jungle and simplistic farms in the countryside.
Be warned, the conflict is often violent and very sad but doesn't even start to touch on the depth of the murderous ways of Trujillo, who was assassinated in 1961.
It's worth a watch. IMDB says it was made for television, Salma picked up two awards for the gig. Being a MOW (Movie of the Week) explains why it was shot in english, rather unfortunate. In spanish, with some script tweaking, this could have gone on to better things.
Check out this LINK for more on the film.
Monday, August 24, 2009
THE PUFFY CHAIR
MOVIE REVIEW
Skipping through the movie guide of the satellite system, I spy an interesting title: THE PUFFY CHAIR. The description went something like "a man, his girlfriend, and brother travel to Atlanta to pick up a chair he purchased on Ebay". I quickly programmed it to record.
Josh, the main character, buys a chair on Ebay and sets out from New York on a road trip with girlfriend Emily. They soon pick up Rhett, the first of many errors on the journey. The goal is the delivery of the chair to Atlanta as a gift for
their father's birthday.
The show is fairly fast moving, it mostly kept my attention, which means a lot, coming from me. It's shot in "shaky-cam" style, using a Panasonic AG-DVX100A. The first act incorporates a lot of this motion, less as the film goes on (thank god,
it was making me queasy!).
It's well scripted, although I read there was much adlibbing it's not apparent. The acting and dialogue are fantastic, especially for a seemingly low-budget film.
The director, Jay Duplass, later went on to act in "Nights and Weekends". Mark Duplass co-wrote and plays the main character. The film was released in
2006, check into Wikipedia or IMDB for more on the brothers.
I highly recommend viewing the film, especially for aspiring screenwriters. It shows how characters and dialogue are much more important than a particular
setting or effect. or effect. ENJOY!
Skipping through the movie guide of the satellite system, I spy an interesting title: THE PUFFY CHAIR. The description went something like "a man, his girlfriend, and brother travel to Atlanta to pick up a chair he purchased on Ebay". I quickly programmed it to record.
Josh, the main character, buys a chair on Ebay and sets out from New York on a road trip with girlfriend Emily. They soon pick up Rhett, the first of many errors on the journey. The goal is the delivery of the chair to Atlanta as a gift for
their father's birthday.
The show is fairly fast moving, it mostly kept my attention, which means a lot, coming from me. It's shot in "shaky-cam" style, using a Panasonic AG-DVX100A. The first act incorporates a lot of this motion, less as the film goes on (thank god,
it was making me queasy!).
It's well scripted, although I read there was much adlibbing it's not apparent. The acting and dialogue are fantastic, especially for a seemingly low-budget film.
The director, Jay Duplass, later went on to act in "Nights and Weekends". Mark Duplass co-wrote and plays the main character. The film was released in
2006, check into Wikipedia or IMDB for more on the brothers.
I highly recommend viewing the film, especially for aspiring screenwriters. It shows how characters and dialogue are much more important than a particular
setting or effect. or effect. ENJOY!
Monday, August 17, 2009
THE GOODS
MOVIE REVIEW
THE GOODS: LIVE HARD, SELL HARD
With a Saturday afternoon free, me and my lovely wife head to the local cinema, I mean the ONLY cinema within a fifty-mile radius here, and have decided on THE GOODS: LIVE HARD, SELL HARD.
Why, of all things, would we chose this over "G-FORCE" or "THE PROPOSAL"? Because of JEREMY PIVEN, that's why. We wanted more than the scant thirty minutes we get of him each week on HBO's "ENTOURAGE".
Piven plays "Don Ready", a pinch hitter for the car sales industry. He and his team seek out failing auto dealers who need to make big sales in a squeeze.
There are lots of familiar faces in the cast: James Brolin owns the failing dealership. Ed Helms, of "The Office" and "Hangover" fame plays Paxton Harding, Brolin's future son-in-law, an adult boy-band singer (he calls it a "man-band"). David Koechner, Kathryn Hahn, and Ving Rhames round out the hit squad sales crew.
The storyline is quite obvious: failing car dealership contracts with super-sales team, the ride is up and down but they come out on top. You're not paying for an intricate or surprising concept here.
Instead, your dollars go into ninety minutes of a few good jokes, some raunch, and two "sitcom-gone-sad" moments that are quickly over (thank god). In all, if we divide the ninety minutes by the $12.00 ticket fee, we get $0.13 cents a minute of entertainment. It's better than calling someone for that rate and listening them use the "F-word", as much as used in the film, but with less pizzazz.
For this "newbee" screenwriter, there were a few things learned. Before the show started I wanted to see if it would coincide with the "ACT" formula for acts 1, 2a, 2b, and 3. I used 22 minutes as a rough estimate and the change of acts came out on perfect timing.
Also, casting is everything, not that I will have choices in that department, but if Piven calls me for a role, it's on!
The audience loves knowing something the other's don't, of course. This is played up when Piven believes a young salesman might be his long, lost son, but he isn't.
The unexpected: it helps to bring up many unexpected moments, even in act three. That whole portion doesn't need to seem focused around one resolution with an obvious answer.
As far as the script, I think there was a lot of tinkering and ad-libbing. The screenwriting team of STOCK and STEMPSON did get the full writing credit, however.
So all in all, the film validated a few thoughts for me: stay with the ACT formula, hope big elements get attached, and get full writing credit...unless the film sucks, and I'll leave that opinion up to you.
THE GOODS: LIVE HARD, SELL HARD
With a Saturday afternoon free, me and my lovely wife head to the local cinema, I mean the ONLY cinema within a fifty-mile radius here, and have decided on THE GOODS: LIVE HARD, SELL HARD.
Why, of all things, would we chose this over "G-FORCE" or "THE PROPOSAL"? Because of JEREMY PIVEN, that's why. We wanted more than the scant thirty minutes we get of him each week on HBO's "ENTOURAGE".
Piven plays "Don Ready", a pinch hitter for the car sales industry. He and his team seek out failing auto dealers who need to make big sales in a squeeze.
There are lots of familiar faces in the cast: James Brolin owns the failing dealership. Ed Helms, of "The Office" and "Hangover" fame plays Paxton Harding, Brolin's future son-in-law, an adult boy-band singer (he calls it a "man-band"). David Koechner, Kathryn Hahn, and Ving Rhames round out the hit squad sales crew.
The storyline is quite obvious: failing car dealership contracts with super-sales team, the ride is up and down but they come out on top. You're not paying for an intricate or surprising concept here.
Instead, your dollars go into ninety minutes of a few good jokes, some raunch, and two "sitcom-gone-sad" moments that are quickly over (thank god). In all, if we divide the ninety minutes by the $12.00 ticket fee, we get $0.13 cents a minute of entertainment. It's better than calling someone for that rate and listening them use the "F-word", as much as used in the film, but with less pizzazz.
For this "newbee" screenwriter, there were a few things learned. Before the show started I wanted to see if it would coincide with the "ACT" formula for acts 1, 2a, 2b, and 3. I used 22 minutes as a rough estimate and the change of acts came out on perfect timing.
Also, casting is everything, not that I will have choices in that department, but if Piven calls me for a role, it's on!
The audience loves knowing something the other's don't, of course. This is played up when Piven believes a young salesman might be his long, lost son, but he isn't.
The unexpected: it helps to bring up many unexpected moments, even in act three. That whole portion doesn't need to seem focused around one resolution with an obvious answer.
As far as the script, I think there was a lot of tinkering and ad-libbing. The screenwriting team of STOCK and STEMPSON did get the full writing credit, however.
So all in all, the film validated a few thoughts for me: stay with the ACT formula, hope big elements get attached, and get full writing credit...unless the film sucks, and I'll leave that opinion up to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
