Daily

My entire morning was destroyed by the geniuses at Time Warner cable. A guy came by to install TW’s new wideband service (“speeds up to 50 mbps”), and it took him well over 90 minutes to figure things out with the TW brainiacs back at TW command central. And then he couldn’t type in the right password, and we spent nearly a half-hour trying to decipher that mystery.

And then we discovered than only two computers could use the wireless service at the same time, and not three. (Which I have.) Then I couldn’t access Gmail, either through the online platform or via Thunderbird. And then that eventually resolved itself but only after much arguing and exasperation and trying to understand certain nouns and verbs as spoken by tech support guys with New York Hispanic accents.

And then a tech support guy from Metropolitan Cable named Juan (whom I later learned is actually a member of SPECTRE — special executive for counter-intelligence, terrorism, revenge and extortion) called to explain that I actually hadn’t had TW’s wideband service installed, but something less fast. He called it “torrbough.” What? “Torrbough.” What’s torrbough? I don’t know what youre sayin’, man. “Torrbough,” he repeated. Could you please spell it? “T-U-R-B-O,” he said. Oh, turbo….fine! So you’re saying I have turbo and not wideband? “That’s what it says on my computer.”

The service guy came back an hour later and explained that Juan is some kind of mental defective impostor (like that guy Tony Curtis played in The Great Impostor) and that he’d taken flight about 20 minutes earlier and that he’s now being hunted down by Time Warner agents. The service guy said I was cool, that I had wideband, and that I really didn’t need to worry or even think about turbo or “turrbough” or anything along those lines.

Early last May Sunset Gun‘s Kim Morgan spoke with Lindsay Lohan during a Burbank photo shoot that would produce images to promote Inferno, the Linda Lovelace film. Tyler Shields took the photographs; director Matthew Wilder was there. But who mixed this just-posted video? Too much music, muddy dialogue…yeesh!

“The dramatic pictures [were] based on an especially sad moment in Lovelace’s life,” Morgan writes. “It was fascinating to watch Lindsay go in and out of character. When it was all done, she sat on the bed with me while I asked questions (and here, simply listened, like a therapist), and she talked quite easily about the sadomasochist relationship of Lovelace and Chuck Traynor, at one point saying the script reminded her of her parents. Yes. She has been through some things.”

“At first glance The Romantics (Plum, 9.10) gives the impression of being one of those trendy value-packed romantic comedies laced with bits and pieces of top talent aimed at getting fans in the seats, but which offer little in the way of good story-telling (He’s Just Not That Into You, Valentine’s Day). But The Romantics is a true ensemble piece where the actors work stronger as a unit then alone.

“The casting by producer-director-screenwriter-novelist Galt Niederhoffer is near pitch perfect, and the players work together seamlessly to create a smart story about the unpredictability of love and how we may get older and wander around, but some things never change.” — an intelligent sounding IMDB person (perhaps a plant) who claims to have seen The Romantics at Sundance 2010.

A critic friend saw Eat Pray Love today. “So how is it on a scale of 1 to 10?,” I wrote five or ten minutes ago. “Is it, like, a 7? Maybe a 7.5?” His reply: “I’d give it a 6. Pretty bland self-help movie with a lot of pretty travelogue footage.” Update: HE reader “bobbyperu” has given it an 8.

Disney publicity is showing Randall Wallace‘s Secretariat (Disney, 10.8) to certain folks in the loop, so I called around today and finally heard two non-vested views. Both informers believe that Diane Lane may be in line to snag the same kind of praise that Sandra Bullock got for her performance in The Blind Side.

“It’s very good for Diane, is what it is,” says one viewer. “Because it’s a strong role, because of her performance, it could turn into a kind of Blind Side thing for her, depending on how Disney handles it.”

Everyone presumably knows the Secretariat story about owner Penny Chenery (Diane Lane), a horse-farm inheritor who brushed back financial pressure and adversity while guiding Secretariat, an unlikely seeming champion at first, to win the 1973 Triple Crown.

The significant costars are John Malkovich, Nelsan Ellis, Dylan Walsh, Dylan Baker and Fred Dalton Thompson.

“It’s a great story with really good acting…a very solid horse-racing movie that’s somewhat conventional but very good,” another viewer says. “They use a special horsey-cam in the racing scenes, a camera that wasn’t used for Seabiscuit, a camera right on the hooves, right in front, right in that race. The sound is really good, the sounds of the horse breathing, as it all happens.

Lane’s character “inherits the horse-farm business from her ailing father (Scott Glenn), a woman in a man’s world….the real story is Lane’s character…persevering against the odds, actually going against her own brother and then her own husband, who wants her to sell the horse because of a $7 million tax bill….they didn’t believe the horse had the stones to win, much less win the Triple Crown. Malkovich is really good. I though it was terrific for what it is, beautifully done.”

I wrote a few months ago that I couldn’t invest in Queen Latifah in a romantic context in Just Wright because she seemed too physically imposing for a guy like Common. I’m also down with any actor who seeks privacy in order to not interfere with any chance of some producer being reluctant to cast him/her in a mainstream romantic comedy.

With the death of former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens now being reported, the voters of Alaska are being reminded of the constant cycle of things. This actually has nothing to do with Stevens, a corrupt old buzzard, being killed in a plane crash, but the fact is that fresh energy is needed. Alaska needs to shed skins, reinvent itself, support new fellows.

I’ve noted before that a good portion of popular movies and popular actors have always been mediocre and/or mushy. You can’t quite say that the more popular a film is now, the less cultural cred it will have in years and decades to come…but a lot of popular stuff sure seems old or stodgy in retrospect. And an awful lot of popular actors from the big-studio era sure seem like nothing. Which correlates, of course, to our current crop.

(l. t. ro.) Bing Crosby, Robert Taylor, Mervyn LeRoy.

Everyone today gets what Cooper, Cagney, Bogart, Gable, Astaire, Raft, Davis, Widmark, the Marx Brothers, Monroe and Dean were about. But other studio-era figures seem stodgy, Pleistocene. You watch their films and can’t understand what the big deal was.

Who rents the movies of Bing Crosby today? Nobody, but he was a major Box-Office God in the ’40s and ’50s. Ditto the bland and dismissable Robert Taylor, who was quite popular in the ’30s and ’40s. Who talks about the films of Mervyn LeRoy these days? Except for ardent fans of Little Ceasar, I Am A Fugitive From a Chain Gang and Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, no one. That’s partly because LeRoy became a total status-quo mush head in the late in the ’40s and ’50s, churning out stuff like Little Women, Quo Vadis?, Million Dollar Mermaid, Mister Roberts, The FBI Story, A Majority of One, Gypsy, etc. All but unwatchable today.

Among the box-office chat-toppers between 1995 and 2000, only one — Titanic — has any dramatic or cultural cred today. (And that’s only because of the last 25 minutes or so.) The rest are borderline embarassments now. ’95’s top grosser was Die Hard with a Vengeance — awful. The ’96 champ was Independence Day — Chinese water torture today. Armageddon topped the ’98 list — all but excruciating because of the machine-gun cutting. The biggest film of ’99 was Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace — enough said. The biggest grosser was Mission: Impossible II, which I’ve seen exactly once and will probably never see again.

So who are the Bing Crosby’s and Mervy LeRoy’s of today? Which actors and directors will mean absolutely nothing to film lovers in 2040 or 2050? Presuming there will be serious film lovers around 30 or 40 years hence is a big presumption, isn’t it? The fans of Michael Cera and Snooki and movies like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World will be in their 50s and 60s and running the show.

Cinema Blend‘s Josh Tyler has written the best defense of The Expendables so far. Wait…who has defended it? Anyone? The point is that Tyler’s writing is honest and the thinking is right out there — no posturing, no subterfuge, no clever-dick wordsmithing. I vaguely sympathize with what he’s saying — this is the age of Michael Cera, the little-girly man with the scrawny bod and the little fairy voice and deer-in the headlights expression, and woe to any culture that embraces such a pale expression of maleness — but The Expendables is still a stinky, third-rate embarassment.

“The Expendables is not a great movie,” Tyler admits, “[and] maybe it’s not even a good movie, but it’s a MAN MOVIE in all-capital letters. For fathers, The Expendables is a rare opportunity to share a little bit of the manly movie magic they shared with their dads, with their own sons.

“It’s violent and gory and utterly reprehensible — there’s no denying that. And it’s true that the story’s a mess and the characters are two-dimensional. Everything Cinema Blend‘s Katey Rich wrote in her negative review of the film is absolutely true. She’s dead on. Yet I’m not sure I’d want it made any other way. The Expendables should be like this. It must be this way. Cavemen are two-dimensional, black and white, on or off. From that dogged, admittedly dumb, often careless simplicity comes their power. So it is with The Expendables.”

I for one completely support the position on Afghanistan taken by Senator Barack Obama. His is a very intelligent and perceptive view of an obviously untenable situation. If only…

We all know exactly — exactly — what to expect from Nora Ephron‘s forthcoming Reese Witherspoon-as-Peggy Lee biopic. Lee’s rep is that of a soulful singer-artist who peaked in the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s, was kind of led around by her loins and hot blood (marriage to Dave Barbour, “Fever,” “Lover”), did some animal voicings in 1955’s Lady and the Tramp, and ended up feeling a little dispirited and disappointed (“Is That All There Is?”). Accurate or dead-on, unfair or unkind, that’s the sum-up.

If I know Ephron, she’ll tone down the eroticism (or she’ll try to get into it but blow it all the same). She’ll focus instead upon Lee’s singing, spirit, artistry, awards and longevity. She’ll try for a female Walk The Line, but will deliver a squarish tribute to a woman singer who blazed her own path and did it her own way, etc. Singing over sex. Ephron is not Bernardo Bertolucci and never will be. But Witherspoon won’t let Ephron suffocate the eroticism entirely and will kick ass with the Lee character, and will absolutely, definitely be nominated for Best Actress in 2012 or whenever. You can take this to the bank.

Am I right or am I right, Scott Feinstein and Sasha Stone?

In an April 2006 MacLeans piece, Mark Steyn wrote the following: “The other female vocalists who emerged from the big bands of the forties — Doris Day, Dinah Shore, Rosemary Clooney — were ‘girl singers.’ Peggy Lee was a woman singer, and not just because she was shoehorned into gowns that exaggerated that hourglass figure: in the fifties, the poise, the cool, the raised eyebrow and the beauty spot made her as defining an emblem of mid-century pop culture style for the distaff side as Sinatra was for men.”

Eat Pray Love is a fertile satirical topic this week (Eat vs. Expendables, chick-flick aesthetics, boning Bardem vs. Bali spirituality, is Roberts resurging or over?) and Jimmy Kimmel‘s writers decided to focus on Latino fat guys?