Showing posts with label Sandra Bullock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sandra Bullock. Show all posts

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Sandra Bullock : Jesse James forgives himself?

Reading the article from AOL, I wonder how Sandra Bullock might feel about Jesse James forgiving himself for cheating on her.


It was said that Jesse James had more than one affair during his five-year marriage to the A-list actress but insists he's totally over the guilt.

And he's put all those feelings of "shame and sadness" well and truly behind him.

James declared as he speaks on US radio's Kyle and Jackie O Show,

"The media portrayed it as this huge negative thing but if anything, I got more support from everybody else, because, yes, I cheated on my wife but so do a lot of other people."

"Does that mean I'm the devil? Or that I'm Satan?" he added. "I don't think so. I made a mistake and I'm sorry for it but I owned up to it. I didn't lie or do any kind of BS."

Asked whether that meant he had forgiven himself, Jesse replied: "Oh yeah. I'm cool."

Monday, July 5, 2010

Failure to Launch, Season One: Episode 1

Weeks ago when I wrote my final post on Forgotten Characters (for the time being) I promised you a new feature. Well, I’m still working on that, but I’ve still decided on another feature (I know, lofty ideals and all). By now you probably know I have my weird idiosyncrasies when it comes to irrational loathing of some actors, but sometimes it’s more than just irrational – they’ve just done nothing to make them worthwhile. So, every now and then I’ll focus on one of them. And it’s too easy to pass up on one of the most obvious choices when the feature’s title is begging me to mention him. And who am I to ignore the obvious?
                            
One career that has failed to launch, with me at least? Matthew Matthew McConaughey
                      
Prosecution, Exhibit A: The Wedding Planner
Against my better judgement I’m rather fond of Jennifer Lopez, the actress. She’s not amazingly talented, but she is personable. It’s weird, she’s doing her best to play a romantic comedy lead in The Wedding Planner and everything’s working with her except her co-lead, Mr. Matthew McConaughey. I’ll be honest, the one thing I particularly treasure in The Wedding Planner is Justin Chambers. He’s donning a faux Italian accent and he’s playing someone completely different to his congenial bastard on Grey’s Anatomy. It’s like the riddle of the sphinx with these romantic comedies, why does the leading lady always go for the prick of a man? I don’t know if Matthew McConaughey’s trying but he’s doing such a good job of making me despise him that The Wedding Planner just leaves a horrid taste in my mouth – not one for repeat viewing.
          
Prosecution, Exhibit B: How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days
This is actually a key bit of evidence used in people’s hatred of Kate Hudson. Poor Kate, she’s much better than she’s given credit for but even she can’t make this sinking ship work. Once again, a leading lady who’s trying and Matthew McConaughey just seems to be going through the motion. Surprise, surprise – he’s (once again) playing a grating character. I don’t know if that points to his range or not (or lack thereof). The film is an utter plod, but it would have been nice if he could have at least tied. Ugh.
               
Prosecution, Exhibit C: Failure to Launch
Sarah Jessica Parker, despite what everyone thinks, is a talented woman. She can play more than Carrie Bradshaw (who is more than just the self-absorbed narcissist she’s referred to as). She’s trying to be a normal romantic comedy lead here, I’m not sure if Matthew McConaughey is playing his character so well or so badly but once again I feel nothing but intense loathing for him. Sure, he goes around shirtless as is his wont, but that’s not impressing me and every time he gives that sickening grin I want to hurl. Add that to the fact that he’s starring with the other loathsome thirtysomething year old (Bradley Cooper) means that the title of the film is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
           
Defence, Exhibit A: A Time to Kill

It’s just a little ironic that after giving a fairly nuanced performance in this Grisham thriller that Matthew McConaughey decided to continue his career as an unappealing romantic comedy lead. A Time to Kill isn’t a film for the ages (it’s not Grisham’s best novel or best novel adaptation) but it works. Sandra Bullock, Matthew Matthew McConaughey and Ashley Judd put in good performances and Samuel Jackson is particularly moving here (should have been Oscar nominated, I say). Matthew McConaughey works as the conflicted lawyer and his final speech in the courtroom solidifies his top billing status. Pity, he never took it to this level again.
                
Verdict: I say he’s failed, irrefutably. But what you do think? Which side are you on? Has Matthew McConaughey proved his talents or do you, like me, think his career has failed to launch? What are your thoughts on the new feature?

Friday, February 19, 2010

The Blind Link

Remember The Blind Side, of course you do. Did you ever forget it. Daniel Getahun writes my favourite review of the film. Other than an angry few lines, I didn't review it - but with this review, I don't. His review speaks for itself.
Tom also givesa somewhat scathing review, even though these were not my exact issues with it he does raise some searing points.
Glenn Dukes contemplates if a Gabby Sidibe upset is in the making. It's an interesting thought, and he brings precedental proof. Sort of.
And Alex reviews Bullock's Leigh Ann going through the five Oscar nominated women.

And on to Nine. Well, you know my thoughts now...Jose gives a well thought out review being able to see the goodness of Nicole's small, but integral role, among other things.
Speaking of Nine, did you hear that the Original Songs won't be performed at the Oscars. Those bitches just have it in for me. There goes my hopes of seeing Marion. Sigh. Speaking of which Maury Yeston talks about getting nominated. I wish he'd win...but I'm not crazy.
And Peter gives us ten great shots of the year. Yes, Nine is there. Deal with it.
     
Bryce has seen Shutter Island and has praises to heap, unlike most he's loving it. But I'll be loving it too, this IS Scorsese.
   
I don't watch the Olympics, but you don't have to to enjoy the hilarity of this post.
   
Anna wants to know what you want from her, so head over and tell her.
     
Univarn reviews The Time Traveller's Wife which I will probably never watch, Bana and McAdams (bland and blander), but he's reticently positive...
     
What are your thoughts on James Cameron? Mike gives his. Sort of. Is he your least favourite of the five nominated directors?
    
And Heather is giving Brad Pitt some loving, looking at ten of his films she loves. It's a good list anyway you look at it.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Signing Off...

By nature, I am an obsessive soul. Thus, whenever I get interested in something my appreciation of it is not often tempered and usually veers into the neurotic. Neurotic is probably an ideal way to describe my relationship with the Academy Awards. Even though the actual results were less than perfect that first time [re picture] I was hooked from the beginning. There was a time I could list [from memory] Oscar winners in the major categories from the mid-seventies onwards. I told you – neurotic. Even though I’ve gotten wiser in the missteps of the Academy I still [inadvertently sometimes] end up regarding that day in Spring as the culmination of all things cinematic. This year, however, the nominees have not even been announced and I’ve already become disillusioned, I fear.
             
The state of the race [a word more pertinent than we realise] had exasperated me before it even began. The fĂȘting of Meryl Streep from the get-go already annoyed me. Sometimes it really doesn’t help not being a fan of Streep because she is the most ubiquitous actress [actor] at the moment. Nevertheless, despite my general my general apathy towards her I wouldn’t deny excellence if I see it. I'm always ready to recognise a good performance form her, which is why Julie & Julia disgusted me so much. Of course all these adjectives – best, excellent &etc – are completely subjective, but the only thing Julie & Julia did was confuse me as to the validity of its place in the Oscar race. I’ve never been fond of the accented Streep preferring her more subtle performances [her Clarissa Vaughn remains as one of my favourite portrayals of the last two decades]. Of course, she’s accented quite often but Julie & Julia regurgitated memories of Bridges of Madison County a film that only makes me see red. I finally realised my issue with Streep when I read this lucid article on the woman. It gets a bit snarky, but is a startlingly good read. It’s not that her Julia Child is a horrid performance. But, chameleon or not as someone who knows absolutely nothing of Julia Child her performance made me cringe at points. I couldn’t help but imagine the more unaffected Sigourney Weaver in the role. What really irked me was the residual belief that Meryl had been robbed of a third Oscar, this entitled to this win for Nora Ephron’s diverting comedy. It’s as if they had forgotten that La Streep has two Oscars – the entire debate of her comeuppance being extinguished by woman after woman was lost on me. What turned my disappointment in the Best Actress race into the deepest dredges of disgust was the addition of a certain Sandra Bullock. I’ve never bore ill will towards Ms. Bullock – her work in countless comedies from the inspired Ms. Congeniality and While You Were Sleeping to even the dubious Two Weeks Notice has always charmed me in their placid way. I saw The Blind Side late in the game, and although the term abject horror would be an over-exaggeration of my response it wasn’t far from it. I couldn’t even write a proper review the thought of the film annoyed me so much. Of course I’d prefer Streep’s flawed but superior Julia to Bullock’s uninspired Leigh Ann, but the very fact that that’s the end all of it is quite dismal.
                                                      
I’m yet to see the heavyweights for the Actors’ race. Bridges and Firth are not my favourite actors, but with the good roles I’m willing to board either train; but I can’t help feeling cynical and thinking that perhaps Bridges is not being rewarded for a [possibly] good performance in Crazy Heart but for lifetime achievement. Noble perhaps, but still annoying. When people like Ben Foster and even Sam Rockwell are ignored at ceremony after ceremony while Morgan Freeman – a man I admire without fail – can be nominated for his unimaginative Nelson Mandela only puzzles me, but is nothing compared to George Clooney’s moderately charming but lifeless Ryan in Up In the Air. But then I realise that with so many celebrating these pieces it’s not so much as unoriginality from the awards’ ceremonies than actual belief that these performances are the best of the year, which is even more disconcerting. If Freeman gets love for coasting in Invictus, why not Johnny Depp for Public Enemies?
Mo’Nique’s Precious win has many citing it as one of the imminent saving graces of the next award ceremonies and with her eclectic Mary Jones it wouldn’t be completely undeserved. But that category has become so auto-tuned that voters just seem to throwing the usual suspects together and ignoring quieter gems with potential to disturb the waters – Samantha Morton, Marion Cotillard [not only for Nine] on some days even Patricia Clarkson. I’m not saying that all of these women trump Mo’Nique, perhaps none of them do. I realise the ball’s completely in her court, and since I’m an undeterred fan of the comedian I don’t call foul. I’m worried that I’m missing something when Anna Kendrick keeps appearing on so many best-of lists, Seriously? We're touthing this performance? But, I won’t go there.  Again.
          
The race seems to have come down to Avatar and The Hurt Locker and scores have cried foul at Avatar’s Golden Globe win. Not me. I’m still undecided as to which of the two I’d give my vote to, but Cameron’s Avatar has turned into the film I’m rooting for. Not because it’s my favourite film of the year. It’s not. But despite it’s gigantic box-office it’s ironically tuned into the underdog. Someone, I can’t recall who, called it the tendency to hate the popular kid – which Avatar has turned into. I won’t deny the ostensibly potency of The Hurt Locker – it’s probably even more profound for Americans who know its themes all to well. Bigelow and Boal have crafted something wonderful, but the relegating of Avatar to some strange names “video-game movie”, “Pocahontas redux”, “stilted dialogue”, "stodgy acting" and on and on and on confuses me. Some people just don’t like it. That’s understandable, but I’ve never been a film apologist yet I can’t recall the ludicrously horrid dialogue of Cameron. I’m sure it wasn’t Oscar winningly quotable. But since when has Best Picture turned into a screenplay award? I understand the correlation between the two, but I can’t help calling foul when Avatar’s screenplay is advertised as one of the worst this year. But that’s probably one in the long list of things eluding my poor brain this Oscar season.
I’m signing off from this season. I doubt I’ll continue my four year long tradition of skipping school to hear the nominations live [embarrassing], and I’m definitely not inclined to join in predictions, though it’s always fun to read others. I’ve already committed to the LAMB’s 2010 production of Devouring the Oscars and will be writing on a Best Picture nominee. I’d love to see an off-kilter choice like Bright Star, The Messenger or Coraline. I’d prefer not to write on Invictus, Up In the Air, Inglourious Basterds or Precious. I don’t want to write a bashing post since nominations should be a happy thing. I’m sure at least a few of the nominees will be pleasing. Watching the Golden Globes though, I couldn’t ignore the number of sad [and sometimes angry faces] – Lee Daniels, Jason Reiteman, Quentin Tarantino, Jeremy Renner all looked peeved throughout. I wouldn’t have been backing many of them but I realised that each of the nominees want to win and deserved or not I wish them the best of luck. Being nominated has become less estimable and I can understand their apparent melancholies. But as far as Oscar is concerned, I've lost the drive. Let's hope next year is better...

Friday, January 1, 2010

The Blind Side

I didn’t go into The Blind Side with any high expectations. It wasn’t the reviews, at least it wasn’t the reviews alone. It just did not look like my type of film. But I thought it would be a mildly entertaining, but unrewarding film. Sandra Bullock has fallen out of my esteem for quite some time. Still, with all the laurels being given to it and with all the buzz around Bullock. I did. To be honest, I’m sorry I did. Just thinking about the film leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, which means I can’t review it properly. And I saw it three days ago. I’ll just say for now, if Sandra is nominated it will be my least favourite of the 50 Best Actress nominees this decade. Sure, she’s the best in the movie – but I just don’t find the movie to be very good. At. All.

D-

Saturday, December 26, 2009

I “C” A Romantic Comedy, I “C” Another


These reviews are somewhat overdue, I don’t know why I didn’t put up the grades earlier. Anyhow, here they are.
      
I Can Do Bad All Myself

It’s generally agreed that Tyler Perry’s brand of madness is more suited for the stage from where he originated. His outlandish plots and dialogue are legitimately funny there, not so much onscreen. I’ve never been overly fond of his stage to screen adaptations. I Can Do Bad All By Myself centres on Taraji P. Henson’s character, April. She is a nightclub singer who is having an affair with a married man. When her niece and two nephews become homeless she starts to tentatively forge a relationship with them and a Colombian boarder. I Can Do Bad All By Myself is a here and there film wrapped around an eclectic performance by Ms. Henson. Nick said it, James said it and I’ll say it too – the woman’s quite good here. It’s a pity the film is tripping all over its heels. That’s not to say that the film has nothing more to offer than Taraji. There are a number of musical scenes speckled throughout and I must say that Tyler Perry’s direction in these scenes were effective and inspired. In fact, I don’t really have anything overtly negative to say about his direction on the whole. The film’s crutch is its script, through and through. It gets more and more convoluted and at the end almost sinks Taraji’s good performance. Still, it’s a spottily enjoyable if predictable thing.
C
      
The Proposal

It’s actually just as predictable as The Proposal. What can I say about this? Sandra Bullock has always excelled at playing the good girl; I suppose this is why persons have stressed on that ridiculous comparison to Julia Roberts. It is this good girl character of her that fits like a glove that makes her excursions in The Proposal underwhelming. Say what you want about Julia, but she can play mean when she must. Sandra is not so convincing. The Proposal is fine of course. Nathaniel accurately points out the gender duplicity, and it’s obvious. Of course, it’s become rote in romantic comedies. It’s sad that The Proposal [and The Blind Side] have made me dislike Sandra. I never wanted to be that guy who begins to hate something because everyone loves it. I previously liked Sandra when she stayed in her niche, I even forgave her for Crash. Kind of. It wasn’t until I was bemoaning the injustice of her nominations that I realised I used to like her. Actually I still do. I can’t speak for The Blind Side which I’m yet to see, but this isn’t a performance worthy of a Globe nod. In a tale of two Cs Taraji wipes the floor with Sandra – and that’s just getting started in a year of Michelle Pfeiffer, Zoey Daschnell, Evan Rachel Wood, Maya Rudolph and on and on and on. But that’s awards for you.
C
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...