After all kinds of grief, delay and unexpected potholes (including a last-minute blowoff by Tatiana Antropova, who had agreed to participate in a “Misfits” Zoom session), Hollywood Elsewhere hosted a three-way, audio-only “Misfts” discussion between entertainment critic, on-air host, podcaster and movie maven Neil Rosen (“Talking Pictures with Neil Rosen“), comedian, podcaster and East Hampton go-to guy Bill McCuddy, and myself.
We got into Road House, of course, along with Immaculate (HE is not a huge fan of Sydney Sweeney), Michael Keaton‘s Knox Goes Away, Asphalt City and Woody Allen‘s Coup de Chance, which I’ve seen but haven’t reviewed.
Toward the end I introduced a new “Misfits” sidelight called “Revival House,” a discussion of great or near-great films that most Millennials and Zoomers (who regard anything released before 1980 as ancient history and therefore irrelevant) probably haven’t seen or have little interest in seeing. I started by discussing Cameron Crowe‘s Vanilla Sky (’01) but Rosen and McCuddy weren’t enthused enough, so I switched over to Martin Ritt‘s Hud (’63),and sudenly a great emotional switch was thrown because riffing on 20th Century films opens up a floodgate of passion, the kind that is barely felt (or felt infrequently) in today’s realm.
For roughly a half-hour the Wells-Rosen-McCuddy discussion (one hour, 11 minutes) was recorded from inside a soundproof booth at the Wilton Library. But it was interrupted when a Wilton Library staffer tapped on the recording booth door while pointing to her wristwatch and whispering that I can’t record a podcast of any length from inside it. I’ve noticed several people occupying the booth for longish periods (30 or 40 minutes), and I’ve recorded three or four Sasha Stone podcasts from within the same booth. But there’s no point in challenging a librarian.
While Rosen and McCuddy were chatting I picked up my phone and digicorder and strolled outside into a flagstone courtyard. My jacket asn’t warm enough for 40 degres, but I managed. Everything went well.
Except for the very beginning, that is, when I had trouble managing a three-way conversation. When I hit the “add” button it invited one person to join while un-inviting the other. I fiddled around and finally figured it out. If any HE reader-listener turdbrain says so much as one snarky word about this, they will be instantly terminated…fair warning. I’ve been an iPhone owner for 16 or 17 years — don’t even think about giving me shit about this.
Audio Player
Alejandro Amenábar‘s Abre los ojos, a psychological horror film about self-loathing and self-mutilation and penance, opened 27 years ago. I was intrigued by it but less than a fan. It was definitely an odd detour flick if I’d ever seen one.. I pretty much decided “okay, first-rate film but too unsettling and therefore never again.”
And then along came Cameron Crowe‘s Vanilla Sky (’01), an English-language remake that creeped me out even worse. It’s been 22 years and change since my first and only viewing. In my head this wasn’t a film about Tom Cruise‘s youung publisher character going through all kinds of traumas and convulsions and suppressed freak-outs…it was about me and my selfishness and assholery and self-delusion.
To this day I can’t recall another 21st Century film that made me feel quite so awful as this one.
The quality of Vanilla Sky is/was undeniable — a haunting Manhattan nightmare vibe, first-rate direction, superb John Toll cinematography, powerfully acted by Cruise, Penélope Cruz, Kurt Russell (I don’t even remember who or what Russell played), Cameron Diaz, Jason Lee, etc. It’s definitely a stretch movie — Crowe and Cruise stepping outside of their safe zone and then some.
The more I think about it the idea of re-experiencing the commanding assurance of this film, the high-dive plunge of it all, is tempting, but I don’t want to drop into that pit of dread and anxiety ever again.
HE’s 15 Richest, Best Crafted, Most Compellingly Performed Tom Cruise Films (in this order and excluding all of his high-powered, robo-bunny formula action franchise films): Jerry Maguire, Collateral, Risky Business, The Firm, Born on the Fourth of July, Rain Man, Jack Reacher, American Made, The Color of Money, Tropic Thunder, A Few Good Men, Edge of Tomorrow, Losin’ It, Interview with the Vampire, Magnolia.
HE’s 14 Least Favorite Cruise Films (excluding all of his high-powered, robo-bunny formula action franchise films): Cocktail, Far and Away, Legend, Days of Thunder, Eyes Wide Shut (very well made, compulsive watchable but finally a curiously chilly experience), Minority Report (irritating Kaminsky bleachy-gray color scheme), Vanilla Sky, The Last Samurai, War of the Worlds (good film with atrocious ending), The Mummy, Knight and Day, Valkyrie, Lions for Lambs, The Outsiders.
Posted on 7.29.15: The basic thrust of Mark Harris‘s Grantland piece on Tom Cruise (posted as part of the site’s “Tom Cruise Week” tribute) is that his decision to become the dominant 50something energizer bunny of the action-franchise realm is unfortunate because he seems to have concurrently shut down his ambitious acting game.
Eight or nine years ago Mark Harris obxserved that Cruise’s peak acting years happened between 1988 and ’99, or the timespan in which Born on the Fourth of July, Jerry Maguire and Magnolia were released. That’s because Cruise’s performance in each landed a Best Actor nomination, but that’s not encompassing enough.
Cruise also delivered riveting, touch-bottom performances as a selfish, resentful younger brother in Barry Levinson‘s Rain Man (’88) and as Vincent-the-compassionate-assassin in Michael Mann‘s Collateral, and he delivered aggressively A Few Good Men (’92), The Firm (’93), Interview with the Vampire (’94) and Vanilla Sky (’01).
HE agrees that Timothee Chalamet‘s simulation of Bob Dylan, as revealed in Entertainment Weekly‘s shots of recent filming of A Complete Unknown, is agreeable.
The hair and brown folkie threads appear to suggest Dylan ’65 — his “Bringing It All Back Home” (January ’65) or “Highway 61 Revisited” (August ’65) period.
Let no one misunderstand that these James Mangold-approved capturings are from METROPOLIS/BAUER-GRIFFIN/GC IMAGES.
Scarlett Johansson‘s reported interest in starring in a new Jurassic Park film is a paycheck move…obviously. She needs the money.
Because…think about it…the Jurassic franchise peaked roughly 30 years ago (1993’s Jurassisc Park + 1997’s The Lost World) and there’s obviously nothing classy or even exciting about making one of these godawful things, which currently appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator…the dregs of megaplex culture.
It would seem that Johansson’s current game is largely or significantly about wanting to keeping living in the lap of luxury and having to occasionally hold her nose when she makes certain films. Paycheck gigs are a fact of life. Nobody likes them, but almost everyone accepts the fact that appearing a well-paying dreck is an unfortunate necessity.
Plus Johansson is pushing 40 (she was born on 11.22.84) and a voice is probably telling her “you’ve had a great 20-year run and although you’re sure to make many more smart and edgy films, your highly-paid glory period is winding down and so it’s probably wise to snag as many hefty-paycheck roles as you can, regardless of quality….get it while you can.”
