ARE SPOILERS RUINING MOVIES?

Benedict Cumberbatch in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

I posted a comment about the new STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS movie on my Facebook status last week and it drew umbrage from some who thought I was exposing a story secret that Paramount Studios was working very hard to keep under wraps. However, the scoop that I revealed had been in the public discourse for months. It’s been covered extensively online, in magazines, and all over TV. The revelation concerned the true identity of the character that Benedict Cumberbatch plays in the new movie and any true STAR TREK fan knew the truth of it eons ago.

(NOTE: This blog entry is now going to expose all kinds of spoilers, including the role, so stop here if that sort of thing offends you.)

Practically every Trekkie and their brother knew the big ‘secret’ for months – Cumberbatch was playing Khan, or at least a new version of the titular villain from the original series’ “Space Seed” episode and the 2^nd Trek movie THE WRATH OF KHAN. So what’s the big deal? Why did Paramount send out Cumberbatch on his press junket so sworn to secrecy? If everyone knows it, at least the core audience, then isn’t it more insulting to make all those involved continue to play along with the charade?

Ricardo Montalban in STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982)

And what’s the big deal anyway? Director J.J.Abrams is reinventing all sorts of characters as he redoes STAR TREK. (Guess what? He’ll probably do the same as he reboots STAR WARS!)  And the Khan role isn’t really all that close to Ricardo Montalban’s classic portrayal of the super human with an equally oversized ego. And, having just seen the movie, I can tell you that knowing Cumberbatch was playing a new version of Khan didn’t ruin a damn thing. The movie is still incredibly entertaining. And Cumberbatch makes a wonderful and wholly different Khan than his predecessor. So let’s stop pretending that it was ever a secret to begin with.

That’s the problem with spoilers. When the Internet has spoiled the ‘surprise’ for six months in every corner of the globe, there is no reason to act so precious about keeping the lid on such things. And truly, can any movie studio honestly expect such secrets to remain so in this day and age? Anywhere? Everything goes global the second it hits the Internet. Heck, maybe that’s it. Maybe Paramount knew we all knew and just kept the conversation with the fans and the blogosphere going on and on by pretending it was a secret at all. If that’s the case, bravo Paramount!

Jaye Davidson as Dil in THE CRYING GAME (1992)

There was a time, say 20 years ago, when movie spoilers and big plot twists in movies could be contained. But that’s a long time ago. Since then it’s hard to keep anything under wraps. The revelation of the character of Dil having a pickle in the thriller THE CRYING GAME (1992) would not have been able to remain secret today. The revelation that Bruce Willis’ psychiatrist character was dead throughout the whole of THE SIXTH SENSE (1999) would have been blabbed online after the first preview screening. It’s that type of atmosphere today. Just ask Harry Knowles. He’s become a wealthy man by getting the first look at test screenings and writing about them on his movie site AintItCool.com.

Surprisingly, most movie critics, at least those with a true journalistic background, maintain the ethics of not giving away too much of a movie in their reviews. It’s rare that any legitimate evaluation goes past the 60-minute mark of any given movie. And that’s great. In fact, the only time critics really give a film away is if it’s god-awful and they want to prevent people from going to see it. But that’s rare that a film is so pathetic that it pushes critics to divulge so.

You know who has really turned spoilers into an epidemic, and a ruinous one at that? It’s not bloggers or critics or fan boys. It’s the studio guys responsible for creating the movie trailers! They’re the real culprits. For decades now, movie trailers have revealed more and more of the movies they’re selling. They’re supposed to be mere appetizers, whetting our appetite for the main course. Yet how many movie trailers have you seen where all the best scenes, lines and moments are crammed into a two-minute exercise that leaves you with the feeling you’ve already seen the whole damn thing?

Ben Kingsley in IRON MAN 3 

I myself always worry when trailers start for fear that they’re going to give away as much as they too often do. And that’s by far the norm, rather than the exception. I really enjoyed IRON MAN 3 but the trailer gave away far too many of its best shots and action bits. At least the trailer kept the revelation about the truth of Ben Kingsley’s character to itself. (I may have gone too far even saying that here. My apologies.)

Trailers for movie comedies are by far the most egregious as they showcase most of the best lines and gags so that by the time you see the actual film, you know the set-up and punchline and it ruins the joke. No wonder most comedies feel stale by the time they open. I can’t help but wonder if one of the reasons that THE HANGOVER movies have been so successful is due to the fact that so many of their R-rated gags and lines cannot be showcased in a trailer for general audiences. The movie holds surprises because we aren’t exposed to some of the raunch and blue language prematurely.

Zack Galifianakis, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms in THE HANGOVER (2009)

Nonetheless, more and more R-rated comedies get special redband trailers too. Those are the previews that you can only see online or with an R-rated movie. They show the dirtier parts, the cruder language, and end up giving away even more of the best stuff. Trailers are supposed to lure us in, but far too often they spoil a good movie by giving away the goods before we’ve even bought a ticket.

I remember talking to a guy who cuts trailers years ago when I was doing some advertising work for a major studio. He told me that his only responsibility was to get the opening weekend audience in the theater. After that, the movie lives or dies on its own merits and/or word-of-mouth. That’s why he put all the best bits in the trailer, to ensure that audience. He felt no responsibility after that, no sense of obligation to leave some of the best for the actual movie going experience.

Bryan Cranston in the TV series BREAKING BAD

It’s funny, but one place that seems quite capable of keeping secrets is the world of television. Perhaps it’s because there’s so much of it but seldom are cliffhangers ruined or revelations given up prematurely. I mean did anyone expect the final episode of THE SOPRANOS to be what it was? Did anyone know for sure if Brody was good or bad on HOMELAND? And who out there in the blogosphere can tell us what’s going to happen within the final episodes of BREAKING BAD due this summer? I’ve looked. Believe me. I love the new series HANNIBAL and for all of NBC’s misfortunes and mistakes, they certainly have kept the week-to-week developments on that eerie show hidden. Maybe the movie marketers should talk to the TV marketers and steal a page or two from their playbook. Then we’d all be a little more surprised and delighted when the lights go down and the movie starts.

William Shatner in STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982)

So if you’re a movie fan who doesn’t want to be exposed to any of the twists and turns of a movie before you see it in the theaters I’d suggest you do the following: stop reading, stop surfing the net, stop watching TV or listening to the radio. In fact you should probably go find yourself a cave, hide out there for a while, and make sure you're blindfolded. Oh, and stick your fingers in your ears. And hum. 

The spoilers are out there, friends. And they’re easily accessed any darn day of the week. Everything is a spoiler these days. Not just my Facebook page. Why, there are so few surprises left in the entertainment world it’s enough to make Captain Kirk howl in utter anger and frustration, “Khaaaaaaaannnn!” Or, as it’s done in the new STAR TREK movie, by Mr. Spock instead.

Oops! I did it again. Sorry. I’m a spoiler.

2013'S BEST FILM SO FAR? BAZ LUHRMANN'S VISIONARY TAKE ON THE GREAT GATSBY

“The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald is one of the greatest novels in the history of literature, and my all-time favorite book, so I had to review this new movie adaptation of the classic Jazz Era work that just opened. And I am happy to report that the film is a triumph, an inspired and focused adaptation of Fitzgerald’s most popular work.

While the story has been fully translated to the big screen four different times, as well as for the small screen in 2000, no one's done a better job of capturing both the story’s surface extravagance and inner loneliness. Australian filmmaker Baz Luhrmann (MOULIN ROUGE) has given it a big, theatrical spin and I think it’s absolutely apropos for a study of the rich “Roaring 20’s”. Some may quibble that it’s all a bit too lush and loud, but I think the memory of narrator Nick Carraway would get carried away in his remembrances. Memories of events tend to do that, seeming much more vivid than they were at the time. And while his recollection of the events in the world of Gatsby are remembered as gorgeous, Carraway's memory doesn’t shy away from remembering the ugliness just under the surface of all this illusionary glamour too. Nor does Luhrmann's film.

The story of Jay Gatsby, the self-invented man who’s chasing a lost love and the memory of a purer time that goes with it, has fascinated audiences for almost 100 years since its publication in 1925. And the book is still selling strong, currently atop the New York Times bestseller list as well as Amazon.com's list too. (http://nyti.ms/10Fs3IX). I’m sure the film's buzz helps immensely but the book remains a continual strong seller, enthralling one generation after another, and that’s because of its timeless telling of reinvention and lost innocence. Its commentary on class systems, prejudices, celebrity and our nation's corruption is perhaps even more relevant to today’s 'keeping up with the Kardashians' world.

And in the moneyed time of Jay Gatsby, he’s come into his wealth through equally dubious means as anything that Kim and her clan have done. Gatsby may act like a savvy businessman, and the key word there is act, but he’s really the pretty face of a mob making money hand over fist running illegal booze and bond schemes. Nonetheless, Gatsby thinks his ‘new money’ will impress his old girlfriend Daisy Buchanan, now snuggling comfortably in ‘old money’ up in the Hamptons. He buys a huge mansion across the bay from the home of Daisy and her boorish hubby Tom and thinks that his new means will allow him to win her back. But money cannot buy happiness, of course, and ultimately Gatsby’s naiveté will be his downfall. He believes you can buy the past and wrongly believes in a good in Daisy that doesn’t exist.

Luhrmann’s take on Fitzgerald connects these themes with today’s audience by using all the cinematic techniques at his disposal. Quick cuts, eye-popping 3-D depth of field, pulsing hip-hop songs on the soundtrack – they bring this timeless work to immediate, modern life. And his youthful cast reminds us of how green, both in money and experience, Fitzgerald’s characters truly were. Gatsby is handsome and larger-than-life in the story so how perfect is it that uber-celebrity/actor Leonardo DiCaprio plays him here?

DiCaprio works wonders with his tricky role. He’s both enigmatic and painfully human as the title character. Gatsby looks to the manor born and can truly rock a pink pinstripe suit, but  DiCaprio lets us see the uncertainty present in the former Jay Gatz's eyes. He's faking the part of the rich playboy, and DiCaprio captures the layers of the illusion beautifully. He even stretches out the vowels when he speaks Gatsby's favorite colloquialism - “old sport”. Gatsby is always trying a little too hard and DiCaprio understands that and makes his character vulnerable and tragic throughout in words as well as deeds.

Tobey Maguire makes for an ideal Carraway, nicely shy and timid in his body language, yet with eyes bursting with desire and awe. Australian Joel Edgerton perfectly suites the insensitive and brutish rich boy Tom, who no matter how refined his wardrobe is or how fussy his mustache is, they cannot hide the fact that he’s a snotty, frat boy who’s never worked a day in his life and acts like everyone is his servant. And Carey Mulligan says more with her hurt eyes than with Daisy’s few lines. She is named so because she’s beautiful, delicate and all too easily bent by the whim of the wind. In many ways Daisy is the true villain of the piece, recklessly abandoning any sense of responsibility for her actions throughout. She wrongly enables her husband’s garish behavior and tragically leads Gatsby on, letting him nurse the belief that they can repeat their past. And Mulligan resists playing the role with any sympathy.

The only actor who doesn’t quite work here is Elizabeth Dibicki as the athletic Jordan Baker. She’s expert at playfully toying with affections in her scenes with Nick, but her ‘Emo Girl’ looks don’t exactly fit a golfer who spends a lot of time out on the links. I also think that Luhrmann gave short shrift to the characters of Tom’s mistress Myrtle (An underused Isla Fisher) and her cuckolded husband (Jason Clarke). Director Jack Clayton did far better with these crucial supporting parts, played by Karen Black and Scott Wilson, in his 1974 big screen version, and that is the only place where that older film trumps this new one.

Books written in a first-person narrative often struggle onscreen. THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (1993) is a fine film, but Kazuo Ishiguro’s prose, told from the viewpoint of central character James Stevens, didn’t quite come alive with pictures primarily telling the story. The same is true with Jay McInery’s BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY (1988), as well as many others screenplay adaptations. To avoid that problem, Luhrmann lets Nick narrate throughout, with Fitzgerald’s memorable prose front and center in many scenes. But it doesn’t seem intrusive as Luhrmann has created a framing device that's not in the book. He starts with Nick drying out in a local sanitarium. His physician suggests he put his story down on paper to help alleviate his depression. It’s a bold narrative move on Luhrmann's part and it allows for a lot of Fitzgerald’s famous prose to shine in Nick's voice-over, with the words even animating atop the action at times.

The whole film is filled with bold moves like that. Luhrmann shoots his actors against green screen and that allow for the 3-D to pop more. It even gives the appearance of his film, that Andrew Duggan has beautifully shot, a similar look to period pieces from the Golden Age of Hollywood. The automobile scenes then were almost always shot against a filmed backdrop, and Luhrmann nicely pays tribute to that old school style of filmmaking here with his car work shot in studio. 

Director Baz Luhrmann

And for those who think that Luhrmann has gilded the lily with too much pomp and circumstance, that’s precisely the point. Gatsby’s world is all about the material, and it's done to impress Daisy and the high society types whom he desperately wants acceptance from. But if she’s persuaded by his rainbow collection of Arrow shirts, we in the audience shouldn’t be. It’s all a very shallow existence, and a gold cage is nothing without substance within. And such riches seem more than a bit garish so close up, don't they? Hence, Luhrmann's in-your-face style of moviemaking here.

Luhrmann brought WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S ROMEO & JULIET to startling, vibrant life for a new audience back in 1996, and he reinvented the modern movie musical with MOULIN ROUGE five years later. Now, with his audacious take on the corruption of the American dream, I believe he’s rendered Gatsby wholly accessible for new eyes. At the end of the film, Nick changes the title of his memoir from “Gatsby” to “The Great Gatsby”. It’s ironic of course, as Jay Gatsby was far from greatness. But Baz Luhrmann’s film of THE GREAT GATSBY truly achieves it.  

TUNE IN TO MY INTERVIEW MAY 25th WITH THE INTERNATIONAL SCREENWRITERS' ASSOCIATION

This is the poster mock-up I put together on PhotoShop for the Sundance read of my award-winning script.

As some of you may know, having read The Establishing Shot for some time now, in addition to being one of the Examiner film critics online and a fervent movie blogger, I am also a budding screenwriter. I've gotten close to selling a script or two a couple of times and am getting closer to realizing that dream. I've also been fortunate to have figured in the finals of a number of screenplay contests. I even was lucky enough to have won the Grand Prize in the Table Read My Screenplay contest for my western THE SCOUNDRELS CLUB this past January. That was a very exciting honor and Craig James Pietrowiak and his wonderful folks from the contest flew me out to Park City, Utah to be part of the Sundance Film Festival. My script was read there in a table read by a terrific group of LA actors up for the event. (You can read about my four days of adventure at Sundance as I blogged about it starting with this entry: http://bit.ly/Ts9Mv3.)

And on May 25th, the fun continues! The International Screenwriters' Association, which Craig is president of, will have me interviewed by acclaimed screenwriter Alvaro Rodriguez (MACHETE) during an hour and a half podcast. If you enjoy my blog, love the movies, or are curious about what's involved in the world of screenwriting, I know you'll get a kick out of this free event. Details are here @ the ISA website: http://bit.ly/17KHIpm

The wonderful troupe of actors who read my script at the table read at Sundance. Alvaro Rodriguez is second from the left. And ISA president Craig James Pietrowiak is to the far right. (Yours truly is in the center with his poster.)

I think you'll enjoy the podcast. And as always, thanks for following The Establishing Shot.

NOTE: This was originally scheduled to happen on Saturday, May 11th but was postponed due to Alvaro Rodriguez coming down with pneumonia. Obviously, we all wish him well. And I'll look forward to the interview with him two weeks from now, on May 25th.

10 MOVIES HOLLYWOOD SHOULD REMAKE

Hollywood loves remakes. They're redoing practically everything these days. Another version of THE GREAT GATSBY is opening May 10. Just about every successful horror movie from yesteryear is getting redone too, including a big budget CARRIE due in October. Heck, even early 90’s bombast like POINT BREAK, the bromance surfer thriller starring Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze, is getting an update. I know I don’t want to see that one. I could barely watch the first version.

But wouldn't it be better to remake movies that weren't successful?  You know, fix those films that took good material and just didn't do 'em the proper justice? Maybe that's why Baz Luhrmann is doing another GATSBY. Heaven knows the 1974 Robert Redford version left a lot to be desired. There are films like that which deserve a second look. CARRIE isn't really one of those that needs a remake, but here are 10 that I think could stand to have a better version.

CATWOMAN

 Let’s give Batman’s favorite femme fatale a better solo vehicle than the god-awful 2004 Halle Berry debacle. When you realize how many good actresses have effectively rendered Catwoman - Julie Newmar, Eartha Kitt, Michelle Pfeiffer and Anne Hathaway – it’s a shame that their characterizations were only supporting players. And the one time Catwoman starred, it was in the Berry bust that went wrong from the get-go with that ridiculous costume. A great starring vehicle for Selina Kyle would be an adaptation of the DC graphic novel CATWOMAN: WHEN IN ROME. In Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale’s clever caper, she matches wits with the likes of The Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Scarecrow, the Italian mob, and, in her fantasies, The Caped Crusader. Hathaway is an obvious choice to star, but maybe the whip could be handed over to someone new to crack it. Rachel McAdams, Amber Heard or Olivia Wilde, prrrrrhaps? 

THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES

The 1990 movie version of one of Tom Wolfe’s seminal works made dozens of wrong turns, not just the one that starts the story as an arrogant Wall Street tycoon finds himself driving into a dangerous section of the Big Apple. Stars Tom Hanks, Melanie Griffith and Bruce Willis were all miscast. (Really? Bruce Willis was the pick to play a drunken British tabloid reporter?) And director Brian DePalma made more mistakes from there. He's not exactly anyone’s first choice to helm a glossy social satire, but he never got control of the project, letting all of Wolfe's bile get watered down by a constantly rewritten script striving for political correctness. So with all those mistakes, I'd say that not only is Wolfe's takedown of Wall Street greed, self-serving politics  and the sensationalistic press truly ripe for a remake, but it couldn't be more timely either. How about letting someone like Ben Stiller take a crack at directing it? His serio-comic abilities would be perfectly suited for such a dark  comedy as this. 

THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN

The 2003 movie of this brilliant graphic novel was another total botch that desperately needs a redo, if for nothing more than to restore the good name of Alan Moore and Kevin O’Neill’s landmark work. On the comic book page, this was a clever adventure about famous characters from literature solving crimes in the 19^th century, but on film it was an utter fiasco with rambling set pieces, actors chewing the scenery, and confused storytelling that made the whole shebang absolutely incoherent. Redo it pronto, only this time do it on the small screen. This complex material demands more than two hours to tell its story. Giving it a 12-hour season and adapting the narrative faithfully would be essential to its success. And by adapting the other two books in the oeuvre, a network like AMC could easily yield five seasons. They've made magic out of THE WALKING DEAD, so I say let them have first crack at this genius comic as well.

FAHRENHEIT 451

In 1966, the estimable Francois Truffaut directed a version of Ray Bradbury’s futuristic tale about book burning, but it veered too far from the author’s sci-fi leanings. While Truffaut brought clever touches galore to the piece, like having the credits spoken instead of read, the inescapable fact is that the script is not a true and faithful adaptation. So why not give this classic of modern literature another shot onscreen? Someone like screenwriter John Logan could do this pulp material proud, having worked similar wonders with GLADIATOR and SKYFALL. And a director like Darren Aronofsky would be perfect to direct it. He showed an intuitive knack for sci-fi elements when he helmed THE FOUNTAIN. And he’s certainly got a knack for getting the most out of stars in genre material. Just look at the award-winning performances he pulled from Mickey Rourke in THE WRESTLER and Natalie Portman in BLACK SWAN. Now imagine what he could do with fire.

CAPRICORN ONE

This 1977 cult classic about the faking of a NASA mission to Mars was pretty darn nifty to begin with. It had a great paranoid conspiracy theory premise at its center. And it had terrific actors like Elliot Gould, Hal Holbrook and Sam Waterston speaking writer/director Peter Hyams' crackling, cynical dialogue. But some of the acting was rather dismal. (O.J. Simpson proved that he did not have thespian chops.) And the film's mediocre budget robbed the action scenes of their true potential. In fact, the whole thing looked a little cheap, almost like a 1970's made-for-TV movie. So give this material an A+ budget with great production values and I believe it could be a blockbuster. 

WESTWORLD

One of my favorite films from the 70’s could do with a little modernizing too. Writer/director Michael Crichton created a thriller about a theme park where the audio-animatronic robots (like gunslinger Yul Brynner spoofing his character from THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN) start running amuck and end up killing the guests. Technology gone astray is always a great movie subject, but the production values in the original 1973 film gave it a "B movie" look. So why not remake it with a better budget? Only this time, might I suggest a conceptual rejiggering that would give it even more relevance. Call it MOVIEWORLD and have the foils in the theme park be famous movie villains. Imagine the story's heroes fighting against robot versions of Freddy Kruger, The Terminator and The Wicked Witch of the West. Actually, that's not just a good idea for an updating of this movie, it might be a pretty good one for a real theme park.

FANTASTIC VOYAGE

There is nothing wrong with this movie that amazing special effects could not better. Made in 1966, the original film doesn’t stand up very well because of its dated visuals. But today, Hollywood magicians can make anything look believable. Imagine what they could do with the rich premise of shrunk-down scientists traveling inside the human body. Battling white blood cells, corroding stomach acid, and all kinds of tissue and nerves could make for one fantastical film fantasy. And while no one could top Raquel Welch's turn as the sexiest of the scientists, wouldn't someone like Rihanna be an interesting choice for this material? She proved she can act in BATTLESHIP. And God knows she could sing the theme song over the end credits.

FLASH GORDON

Despite Seth Macfarlane’s love for this campy 1980 flick starring Sam Jones, FLASH GORDON is not a great rendering of the iconic comic book character. The movie was an utterly silly and cheap looking spectacle that was so cheesy it would make the president of Kraft envious. No, this wonderful character from the 1930’s needs a reboot. It should be done earnestly too, like the first SUPERMAN in 1978 or CAPTAIN AMERICA from two years ago. You can even keep the famous Queen theme song in it, but that's it.

KING ARTHUR

Medieval fare is cinematic gold these days. LORD OF THE RINGS, THE HOBBIT, GAME OF THRONES, you name it - if it has swords and sorcery, audiences will eat it up. Thus, a proper telling of the tale of King Arthur seems to be required. After all, there's never been a truly great version of the tale put onscreen yet. (Maybe EXCALIBUR comes close. Maybe.) The movie version of the musical CAMELOT (1967) was overwrought and laughable. And both FIRST KNIGHT (1995) and KING ARTHUR (2004) were big, expensive busts that showcased little except the lack of chemistry between those cast as Arthur and Guinevere. The big problem with all three of these previous executions is that they malign and emasculate King Arthur far too much. That’s a huge mistake for a film where he's the heroic lead. He is cuckolded yes, but he's a great man with love for his queen and country. Make it a more sympathetic character study, showing the man torn between love and politics, like the story of Ned Stark, and I think King Artie would finally get his due.

TEN LITTLE INDIANS

Agatha Christie’s most popular whodunit got a marvelous big screen treatment directed by Rene Clair in 1945 called AND THEN THERE WERE NONE. It captured the essence of Christie and was a smart and fun thriller. But it also deviated extensively from the source material, particularly at the end. Subsequent versions have fared even worse, with one remake after another missing the flavor of Christie, and screwing up the story about 10 guests being picked off one by one by their unknown host. So why not do one that's truer to Dame Agatha's worldwide bestseller? A new movie would be wise to keep her great dialogue, make the tone darker, and maintain the original, uncompromising ending. That version would instantly become the definitive one. And while Hollywood is at it, fill this film with big stars. An all-star cast is essential for something like this.  

So, if I was a studio executive, those are the 10 remakes I would greenlight. What would you remake? And why? Share your thoughts here and let’s keep this conversation going. And let's hope that Baz Luhrmann does Gatsby proud.

GIVING OUR GREATEST MOVIE STAR HIS DUE

Is it time to forgive Tom Cruise? For jumping on Oprah’s couch like a fool in love? For arguing with Matt Lauer about the benefits of psychiatry? For being so into Scientology it’s sometimes hard to forget what a terrific movie star he’s been for over 30 years now? That’s right. Since his star turn in 1983’s RISKY BUSINESS, he’s remained at the very top of the Hollywood food chain. And it’s time he got his due.

Tom Cruise in his latest hit OBLIVION

Oh sure, he’s gotten plenty of due. Money, fame, a wide swath of critical success – he’s hardly gone undervalued. He’s been nominated for the Oscar three times and won a number of critics’ awards and Golden Globes along the way. But somehow people tend to be a bit dismissive of him, maybe because of that infamous SOUTH PARK episode. But that’s not really fair. And his exemplary resume certainly trumps any item about him in Us magazine or the incendiary gossip blogs.

Quick, name another actor who can do action, comedy, romance, horror, farce and drama equally well. The list is short if there even is one. Indeed, Tom Cruise is a pretty singular talent these days. Granted, he almost always plays a version of Tom Cruise, but that persona is utterly believable in every genre and then some. Cruise can even sing, as he proved in the otherwise forgettable ROCK OF AGES last year. 

Tom Cruise became a star in RISKY BUSINESS (1983)

Whether it's searing drama (BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY), romantic comedy (JERRY MAGUIRE), sci-fi (THE WAR OF THE WORLDS), character studies (RAIN MAN), all kinds of action (the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE series), and even over-the-top farce (TROPIC THUNDER), Cruise has put together a body of work that’s as impressive as most any other actor this side of Meryl Streep. Here are the major highlights:

RISKY BUSINESS (1983)                                                            

TOP GUN (1986)                                                                       

THE COLOR OF MONEY (1986)                                   

RAIN MAN (1988)                                   

BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989)           

A FEW GOOD MEN (1992)           

THE FIRM (1993)

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (1994)                                   

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (1996)

JERRY MAGUIRE (1996)

EYES WIDE SHUT (1999)

MAGNOLIA (1999)           

MINORITY REPORT (2002)

COLLATERAL (2004)

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3 (2006)

TROPIC THUNDER (2008)

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL (2011)

OBLIVION (2013)

Tom Cruise in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (1996)

His most recent sci-fi adventure, OBLIVION, was the # 1 film this past weekend and took in 38 million. Yep, he’s still got it. And better than his box office prowess, his acting is getting more and more interesting. And the success of OBLIVION may be due in large part to it. Cruise is now playing wizened and weary adults and it’s an exciting stage of his career. He’s seen a lot in his 50 years on this earth, been on top, and vilified too. And it’s informing his roles, even in genre pieces.

In his early days onscreen Cruise almost always played the naïf - a young man just starting to learn to be an adult. Films like RISKY BUSINESS, THE COLOR OF MONEY and A FEW GOOD MEN were all about a callow ‘youth’ who matured into a responsible adult through the course of the story. His characters thought they knew all there was to know but were soon schooled in the world of hard knocks. And Cruise’s energy and bright-eyed optimism perfectly fit such roles. Roles like that in COCKTAIL and TOP GUN came easily to him. He was able to perfectly personify the cocky, overly confident lead, perhaps because it echoed his life all too well.

Tom Cruise in A FEW GOOD MEN (1992)

Then Cruise started to mature and gravitated towards roles that fit his persona in between young man and knowing adult. The ‘man-child’ roles he played showcased men who had conquered part of their world, the business part, but had yet to master the personal side (i.e. love and relationships). This kind of role reached the zenith for Cruise when he played JERRY MAGUIRE. Jerry was a hotshot sports agent whose self-centered lifestyle may have made him a business big shot, but he knew precious little about relationships, either platonic or romantic. Only through the love of a good woman (Renee Zellweger) and the caring of an honest client/friend (Cuba Gooding Jr.) was Jerry able to see what was really important in life. He needed to be less driven by ambition and more governed by the heart.

Tom Cruise with Renee Zellweger in JERRY MAGUIRE (1996)

By now Cruise was the biggest movie star on the planet and he seemed to be succeeding in his personal life too with a successful 10-year relationship with fellow movie star Nicole Kidman. But then that relationship imploded. He divorced and became tabloid fodder. His short-lived and controversy-stricken third marriage to Katie Holmes turned a troubled private life into a talk show punchline. By the time he got around to constantly beating the drum for his Scientology faith or criticizing Brooke Shields for believing in anti-depressants, he had become unlikable to many of the movers and the shakers. And his subsequent ups and downs, whether personal or professional, soon became regular fodder for the press and the likes of TMZ.

Tom Cruise with Nicole Kidman in EYES WIDE SHUT (1999)

 It must have been tough for Cruise to see his public turn all that love and respect into so much loathing and scorn. But that, which doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger. Armed with the experience of such pain, Cruise thus entered his present, most complex stage. He’s now playing men who’ve lived and loved and lost. He’s essaying men he relates too, only this time they are those who’ve had much taken away. In OBLIVION, his character lives in the post-apocalyptic world and he mourns the loss of connection. It's a feeling he may be able to relate to all too well.

Yet to look at him, Cruise has aged with incredible grace. He looks at least a decade younger than his 50 years and he’s still amazingly fit and handsome, with a great, thick head of hair. But his eyes are  showing their age. They are not the innocent, laser beams of energy and recklessness they once were. Now, they show pain and hurt a lot more convincingly.  

Tom Cruise, under heavy makeup, with Matthew McConaughey in TROPIC THUNDER (2008)

Like Sinatra, who sang with greater emotion after Ava Gardner dumped him, the ravages of life seem to have now deepened Cruise’s artistry, even in a sci-fi role like his in OBLIVION. And with such experiences now informing his work, it’s impossible for Cruise to go back to his old ways of yesteryear. Cruise tried to in 2010’s KNIGHT AND DAY, but it flopped, probably because Cruise can’t play that ridiculously confident, slightly smarmy hero anymore. He no longer walks through life blithely unscathed so how can we buy his characters doing so?

Tom Cruise, again in OBLIVION (2013)

Cruise’s pain may be our gain. It’s made his work even more fascinating to watch. And I’d like to see him challenge himself by playing even more complex and flawed characters as the years go on. The darker places he’s exploring now are making his star wattage burn even brighter. And I can’t wait to see what he does in the next 30 years of his stellar career.

10 WAYS HOLLYWOOD WILL HELP HEAL OUR BOSTON GRIEF

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings Monday, it’s impossible not to feel crestfallen once again. But as we grieve, as well as look for the answers to this awful crime, perhaps we can be buoyed by the amazing good all around us, starting with those incredible first responders & bystanders who rescued so many victims after the explosions.

And we can find joy in family, friends, and yes, the movies. Here are 10 things in the cinematic world worth being excited about. And the hope and good contained in them may be just what we need in this nation in these coming months:

The movie 42 is a big hit and proves that well-done sports bio’s can succeed at the box office. If you haven’t seen it yet, you should take in this inspiring true story about Jackie Robinson, the first African-American baseball player. It’s proving to be a big hit with family audiences too, and that’s very encouraging. It proves they will go see challenging dramas, not just CGI animated films.

In just three weeks, visionary filmmaker Baz Luhrmann returns to the screen with his lush take on THE GREAT GATSBY. It’s a complicated period story about status and class, and that too bodes well for more mature fare at the cinema. Check out the outstanding trailer (http://bit.ly/KLjxhW) and tell me you’re not as excited to see it as I am when it opens on May 10.

Robert Redford, who played Gatsby back in the 1974 version, is back on the big screen starring in THE COMPANY YOU KEEP. It’s a timely political thriller and the reviews have been terrific. Redford has always been one of this country’s most interesting leading men (http://bit.ly/Xp4wdz) and at 76 he’s still got it. He’s still a major talent in front of the camera and behind it. Yep, he directed this one too.

On the other end of the age spectrum, Chloe Grace Moretz is an amazing young talent of only 16, and Hollywood knows it. She’s headlining two movies in the coming months. First up, she reprises her role as Hit Girl in KICK-ASS 2. Then she essays the title character of Stephen King’s CARRIE in director Kimberly Pierce’s remake due at Halloween. Chloe Moretz is one spooky talented actress, that’s for sure!

Speaking of horror, the buzz on YOU'RE NEXT is outstanding. It opens August 23 and early sneaks suggest it’s as funny as it is scary. Good, scary fun – that’s the only kind of frights we need in this world, wouldn’t you agree?

MAN OF STEEL and IRON MAN 3 both open this summer. Rejoice fan boys, rejoice!

Movie franchises are doing very well on TV too. Witness the success of BATES MOTEL on A & E, and HANNIBAL on NBC. (The former has already been renewed for a second season, and the latter is on its way.)

Miraculously, Richard Linklater got to make a third movie about his ever-romantic couple (Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke) from BEFORE SUNRISE and BEFORE SUNSET fame. The new film BEFORE MIDNIGHT was SRO at Sundance in January, and its upcoming release on May 24 will have adult audiences standing in line.

Guess who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS? Move over, Ricardo Montalban, the buzz is he's playing Khaaaaaaaaaaaan!

Pedro Almodovar, Spain’s greatest filmmaker, returns June 28 with a comedy! It’s called I'M SO EXCITED and so am I. Here is its delightful trailer: http://slate.me/WzHB9f .

Those are just 10 things to feel encouraged about. And there will be many more as the year goes on. And with the sad realities in the news this week, who couldn’t use a little escapism? See you at the movies!

RIP ROGER EBERT, THE GREATEST FILM CRITIC

The world lost its greatest film critic today. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times died at the age of 70 after battling cancer for many years. He won a Pulitzer Prize for his film criticism, and won the hearts and admiration of millions of film fans throughout the world for his insightful writing and passionate love for film. He became a household name through his movie review programs on TV with long-time friend and rival Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune. And he was one of the most prolific commentators about the arts, politics and the movie world up to his dying day. Today, the world of film is sadder, and I mourn his loss along with all those fortunate to know him or know of him.

Here, in his honor and memory, is the link to a piece I wrote about him in 2011 here at The Establishing Shot. He will be greatly missed.

http://theestablishingshot.blogspot.com/2011/10/my-favorite-film-critic_23.html

I also think he's the most important film critic of all time. Here's why:

He utterly changed the world of film criticism.

Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel changed it together when they started hosting their movie reviews programs on TV in 1975. They became celebrity critics like no other had been before or since. In fact, by 1977 when SNEAK PREVIEWS became syndicated, they became household names. Their argumentative style thus influenced a generation of film critics, as well as a host of cable news shows. And their ‘thumbs up’ became the most desired approval sought by any Hollywood filmmaker.

He championed film better than any other critic.

Ebert may have hated certain movies in his day, but he rarely took delight in negative reviews. Unlike peers such as Pauline Kael, his best writing wasn’t when he was taking down a film, but rather, when he was exalting one. He wrote dozens of books on films, penned prolifically for the Chicago Sun-Times, and embraced social media to jot down more about film than any other critic going. He put movies like HOOP DREAMS, EVE'S BAYOU and many other small films on the map, and often in the eyes of Oscar.  Ebert lived and loved movies so much he even sponsored his own film festival –“Ebertfest” - in Champaign, Illinois for many, many years.

Hollywood respected him immeasurably.

Most artists loathe critics, but there are have been a select few who are respected and even revered. Roger Ebert was one. Practically everyone in Hollywood admired him. They liked him too. He was smart, fair and never played favorites. Folks like Martin Scorsese considered Ebert’s thoughts to be so invaluable, so helpful, that they became friends. Ebert was a straight shooter and he never became a shell of his former self, raging at the windmills like Rex Reed so often does now in his twilight years. Quite the contrary, Ebert became even more buoyant about the possibility of film.

He never sold out.

Ebert kept his integrity and never became a commercial spokesman, shilling for soda, giving a fabric softener a ‘big thumbs up’. He could have made millions doing so, but never did. He always stood on principle, even venturing into political commentary and criticism in the last few years to rage at hypocrisy and prejudice in the GOP (http://nydn.us/12oCZGW). He was the very definition of editorial integrity up to his dying day.

His illnesses only made him stronger.
Roger battled alcoholism in his early days, and famously and courageously confronted his thyroid cancer throughout the last decade, losing his voice and part of his jawbone to it. He also struggled with his weight for many years. But none of those things kept him from staying positive and prolific about movies, writing, and journalism. He was a superb critic, writer and journalist, as well as a loving husband to attorney Chaz Hammelsmith, and a great friend to all those who knew him.

I am deeply saddened by the death of Roger Ebert. He was a hero and an inspiration. And his importance in my movie world and the world of film will remain forever profound and unmatched.