**
directed by: Donald Petrie
starring: Lindsay Lohan, Chris Pine
Released in 2006.
This is a movie that you probably won't know off the bat. It's Lindsay Lohan at the start of her fall from grace, though at no fault on the part of Just My Luck, and Chris Pine at the start of his ascent.
Lohan was a darling as a child actor, whether in The Parent Trap or Mean Girls. When she grew up, like all child actors she suddenly realized that she wasn't a kid anymore, and that all the fame she'd had was based on very innocent roles, so she started to become that much less innocent in her real life. Luck, however, is still very much an innocent kind of movie, not a Disney movie like so many of her previous projects but it might as well have been. It's also one of her first roles where she was asked to carry the movie on her own merits, rather than depending on a studio or gimmick to do it for her. Except it's very much a gimmick movie, too, as the title helps explain.
Lohan's character has all the luck in the world. Pine's has none. Through a movie magic fluke, they exchange luck, and the results for Lohan are supposed to be charmingly hilarious. Except they end up being more embarrassing than charming, at least as anyone who expected something a little more adult from here at this point would have wanted. Like I said, it's not Disney but it's very much Disney, and Lohan hasn't figured out what kind of actor she is outside of the Disney formula that to this point in her career has completely defined her. This is not to say she's untalented, as people tended to start believing once she started asserting herself (the same thing that happened to Jennifer Lopez once she started a pop music career and dared to continue acting). It's just, Luck may have been a poor choice.
For Pine, it's much the same kind of performance he had in Princess Diaries 2, the romantic lead who plays second fiddle to his more famous costar. If people had cared about him at this point in his career, he might have gotten stuck in these roles, and not begun to explore his more edgy side, evidenced in Smokin' Aces and Star Trek (with a transition between the two in Bottle Shock). So it's almost a good thing, as far as Pine's career goes, that Luck was luckless.
Just My Luck is not a bad film, but it's also not highly recommended, except to see Lohan and Pine in transition.
Showing posts with label **. Show all posts
Showing posts with label **. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Tombstone
**
directed by: George P. Cosmatos, Kevin Jarre
starring: Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Sam Elliot, Bill Paxton, Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, Charlton Heston, Jason Priestley, Jon Tenney, Stephen Lang, Thomas Haden Church, Dana Delaney, Michael Rooker, Billy Bob Thornton, Billy Zane, John Corbett, Terry O'Quinn, Frank Stallone
Released in 1993.
Tombstone is not as good as Wyatt Earp. Both films were released around the same time, both feature the same characters and the same scenario, but one does it better. Don't get me wrong. It's certainly worth watching both. Tombstone probably has a better overall reputation, mostly because it's not the one starring Kevin Costner in yet another historical epic.
What both films unmistakably are is Hollywood's attempt at the time to keep the Western alive. The Western was a genre that dominated movies and television for decades. With the passing of John Wayne, its most iconic star, however, the Western fell out of favor with the general public. Everyone moved on, and for a while it was a lot easier to pretend it simply no longer existed. Yet Hollywood loves to revive things, and in the 1990s the Western was the subject of a persistent revival effort. Clint Eastwood, who had earlier made his name with the "Man with no Name" trilogy, scored with Unforgiven, but then no one seemed to know what to do next. Instead of a monolithic presence, it had become a specialty genre. Tombstone represents one way to make this special attraction a real attraction, by amassing a notable cast in the place of a notable star.
Kurt Russell has been a Hollywood project since he was a kid. He's been a successful star, sure, and has had his share of signature hits, but he's never really been iconic. As this film's Wyatt Earp it's much the same. He's not really a Western actor, anymore than he's any given genre actor, just someone who can appear in any given one and be fairly respectable. He's the main reason why there has to be so many other notable actors in the project, beginning with Val Kilmer, who at this point in his career cuts a more recognizable figure as Doc Holliday than his Wyatt Earp (and in this role, superior) counterpart Dennis Quaid. Everyone else is far lower on the instant recognition scale, but the cast is packed with talent all the same, even a few (Thomas Haden Church, Billy Bob Thornton) whose subsequent careers make their appearances here more significant to newer audiences than those who saw them originally.
You can certainly enjoy Tombstone for what it is, but it didn't at the time and never will represent anything more than a movie Hollywood made to be a Western, rather than a true contribution to the genre.
directed by: George P. Cosmatos, Kevin Jarre
starring: Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Sam Elliot, Bill Paxton, Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, Charlton Heston, Jason Priestley, Jon Tenney, Stephen Lang, Thomas Haden Church, Dana Delaney, Michael Rooker, Billy Bob Thornton, Billy Zane, John Corbett, Terry O'Quinn, Frank Stallone
Released in 1993.
Tombstone is not as good as Wyatt Earp. Both films were released around the same time, both feature the same characters and the same scenario, but one does it better. Don't get me wrong. It's certainly worth watching both. Tombstone probably has a better overall reputation, mostly because it's not the one starring Kevin Costner in yet another historical epic.
What both films unmistakably are is Hollywood's attempt at the time to keep the Western alive. The Western was a genre that dominated movies and television for decades. With the passing of John Wayne, its most iconic star, however, the Western fell out of favor with the general public. Everyone moved on, and for a while it was a lot easier to pretend it simply no longer existed. Yet Hollywood loves to revive things, and in the 1990s the Western was the subject of a persistent revival effort. Clint Eastwood, who had earlier made his name with the "Man with no Name" trilogy, scored with Unforgiven, but then no one seemed to know what to do next. Instead of a monolithic presence, it had become a specialty genre. Tombstone represents one way to make this special attraction a real attraction, by amassing a notable cast in the place of a notable star.
Kurt Russell has been a Hollywood project since he was a kid. He's been a successful star, sure, and has had his share of signature hits, but he's never really been iconic. As this film's Wyatt Earp it's much the same. He's not really a Western actor, anymore than he's any given genre actor, just someone who can appear in any given one and be fairly respectable. He's the main reason why there has to be so many other notable actors in the project, beginning with Val Kilmer, who at this point in his career cuts a more recognizable figure as Doc Holliday than his Wyatt Earp (and in this role, superior) counterpart Dennis Quaid. Everyone else is far lower on the instant recognition scale, but the cast is packed with talent all the same, even a few (Thomas Haden Church, Billy Bob Thornton) whose subsequent careers make their appearances here more significant to newer audiences than those who saw them originally.
You can certainly enjoy Tombstone for what it is, but it didn't at the time and never will represent anything more than a movie Hollywood made to be a Western, rather than a true contribution to the genre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)