I Liked That Song The First Hundred Times I Heard It

Samuel L. Jackson and Christopher Walken have become parodies of themselves. They’re the acting equivalent of that song you liked the first few times you heard it and now you can’t stand it because you’ve heard it so much. You know what they are, they’re the human version of “500 Miles” by the Proclaimers. Remember how novel that was at first? Now, does it even register with anyone anymore? No way. Ask yourself this, if an actor appears in everything, does their presence still mean anything? The answer is no.

While both have appeared in many hits, neither has anchored a hit by themselves for years, if ever. For SLJ, since 2000, he’s only anchored two hits, both modest (Coach Carter and Unbreakable and those are pushing it), while sinking several (Snakes On A Plane, Shaft, The Man, Formula 51, the list is endless). CW gave up headlining a film decades ago, in favor of lending his shtick to every project that would pay him. The guy averages 4 films a year. Four! And he’s the same in almost every one. Do people still find that fresh or funny? SLJ is even worse, averaging 5!! Their presence has become so ubiquitous that seeing Matt Lauer every morning carries more anticipation.

Why do film investors think having their names attached to something means better box office? Or, artistic acclaim for that matter? Neither of them have that kind of pull. And, what they do bring to a film is so marginal. We get it, Sam is going to act righteous and Chris is going to act twitchy and isn’t that funny for the millionth time. Is their something comforting about them that I’m missing? For instance, Alec Baldwin seems to have a hard time saying no to scripts these days too, but having him in something has come to be a reason TO see it, not to stay away. Do SLJ and CW engender similar feelings in film goers and I’m just not aware of it? If so, tell me the last time you went to a movie to see them? Wedding Crashers, Star Wars, Hairspray, and The Incredibles don’t count. No one saw those because of either of these clowns.

Like any artist that won’t go away (Elvis Costello, I’m looking at you) overload weakens your status and makes you invisible to consumers. If either of them took a year (or two) off and then came back with a juicy role in a good film, they may be able to revive their credibility. It may even become an event to see them act again. For now, they’re obviously collecting paychecks and they do it at our expense. Let us miss you, please! Now go away!

Flushed Down The Johns

A coworker and I were recently casting the movie of our office. There’s the guy that’s built like Brad Pitt, there’s the guy that’s short and dark like Tom Cruise, there’s the big bald guy like Vin Diesel, there’s the attractive working mom like Jennifer Garner, etc. When casting myself, the first and only name I could think of or want was John Cusack. I feel like I grew up with him and, based on some of his films, we seem to share similar tastes and sensibilities.

But, then I reflected on what John’s given us the last 10 years or so and I realized he may promote himself as the left-of-center thinking man’s (and woman’s) movie star, but he’s really as full of crap as the next guy. How can someone feel he deserves some some street-cred and then go on to star in Must Love Dogs, Martain Child, and Serendipity? John Cusack doesn’t even make movies that “John Cusack” would go to anymore.

There have been the occasional bright spot. Ice Harvest was great, but ignored. Being John Malkovich is an obvious classic, but I forget he’s even in it. I had to go back to 1994 to find two good and challenging roles in a row (The Road To Wellville and Bullets Over Broadway, both ensemble pieces (hint)). Instead, I see dreck like America’s Sweethearts and Pushing Tin.

Ok, I’m sure all of you are wondering why I would skip High Fidelity, since it’s such my kind of movie. Good point. I’m realizing HF is not aging well and I have a hard time even watching it now, after it was among my all-time faves upon its release. He just talks to the camera the whole time?! Plus, his character isn’t likable and seems to act selfishly and illogically a lot. The scene where he finds out his #1 married her childhood sweetheart makes me cringe every time now. Yes, it’s good and a definite highlight comparatively. But, it’s not as great as we thought it was when it came out.

John seems to still be coasting on the goodwill afforded him from his 80s work, specifically Say Anything, Better Off Dead, One Crazy Summer, and The Sure Thing. Back then he embodied the every-teenager and seemed to represent all of us on screen, whether we were cool or not. He was normal looking, normal acting, smart, had good taste, funny, and seemed vulnerable at the same time. Now, he’s a bloated, pasty bore who can’t make up his mind what color to dye his hair to hide the grey. I’m serious on this. Most of the time it’s black, but in the right light, like on his episode of Inside The Actors Studio (yawn), it’s a sort of cherrywood brown. It looks like he uses the same box of Clairol Paul McCartney is into these days. Plus, does he only wear black now?

And, honestly, he isn’t much of an actor. He has no range. It spans from “normal guy obsessed with a woman” to “normal guy obsessed with death”. Even when he does try to act, like in 1408, he’s hard to even look at. That movie was terrible.

His new movie is called War Inc. and he says it’s sort of “punk rock” Hmm, a punk rock war movie from a total sell-out, sounds riveting! Good luck, buddy. We love you, but we aren’t buying this act anymore.

Which brings me to the biggest sell-out of all-time: Johnny Depp. Oh man, does this guy work the most perfect con ever. He says he is anti-establishment, yet has no problem allowing his likeness to appear on Happy Meal boxes. He claims he only did acting to support himself while his band tried to get signed. Where’s that band now, John? Obviously, taking a backseat to pirate movies. He says he agreed to do the Pirates almost "as a joke", but he likes cashing $20 million paychecks as much as the next guy. He says he doesn’t want to sell himself on his looks, but he doesn’t think of that when he poses for the cover of countless magazines, including Rolling Stone like 3 or 4 times in the last 4 years. Of course, Rolling Stone is to hard news what Johnny is to rebellion – a total poser. Plus, how gay is that cover photo! These guys are nihilists?

Don’t get me wrong, he’s a good actor. I would have given him the Oscar for the first Pirates, even if Finding Neverland and Sweeney Todd were boring mush. I’m just not buying this BS anymore. Put the necklaces and bracelets down, take a shower, and come clean. You’re a total poser and you know it.

Tune in next time for the second installment of “Actors who were once cool, but now are only mugging, clowning shells of their former selves” starring Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino.

Why Kevin Costner is Dumb

Quick, name the last good Kevin Costner movie you saw. Chances are you might mention Dances With Wolves or JFK or Fields Of Dreams. Do you realize those films are all almost 20 years old? For a guy who started so idealistically and so full of promise as a man who could humanize the best the American male could be, his fall from grace is a perfect example of ego overcoming talent.

I watched The Guardian this weekend, another in a long line of so-so films from a guy who’s lost his way. I won’t get into reviewing the film, as it doesn’t merit the effort, but I began thinking why it was that he means so little now. The answer is this: he has no sense of humor about himself and it’s obvious to anyone who watches him. He appears to embody the most annoying trait a person can have, the inability to acknowledge their weaknesses.

How many times have you stared annoyingly at a coworker or friend who is oblivious and delusional. Who doesn’t seem to “get it”. Who can’t admit when they’re wrong or need help. The effort they put into their image is too strong to puncture. This is Kevin Costner.

For some hard evidence of this, track down his appearance on Inside The Actors Studio (the whole show can be seen in installments on youtube, but this section is the one where he starts standing up to address the class). He seems to forget that this is James Lipton's show and he’s just been invited there to discuss his craft. The guy takes it over. He’s constantly standing up and passing on righteous advice to the crowd. While the effort seems altruistic enough, it reeks of piety.

So, let’s look at his last 11 films.
Mr. Brooks – so-so, actually
The Guardian – inconsequential
Rumor Has It – terrible
The Upside Of Anger – his single bright spot of the last 10 years and it’s because he’s basically playing himself, something he should do more of
Open Range – an underrated Western
Dragonfly – never saw it
3000 Miles To Graceland – this either
Thirteen Days – great, but that has nothing to do with him
For Love Of The Game – a lame attempt at getting back his baseball mojo
Message In a Bottle – sappy pap
The Postman – his “jumping on Oprah’s couch” moment

Is there a single one in the bunch that can even come close to Bull Durham (THE greatest sports movie of all-time), JFK (one of THE greatest political thrillers of all time, as well as the boilerplate for anyone trying to decipher the Kennedy assassination mystery), or The Untouchables (where his potential as an American hero was first born)? Keep in mind, I haven’t even mentioned dreck like The Bodyguard, Robin Hood or Waterworld, the initial chinks in his armor.

Much like Tom Cruise now, those films and several appearances, began to cause his audience to try and put a finger on what’s wrong with the guy. “Yeah, we’ve liked him for years, but there’s always been something a little off that we’ve ignored because the movies were good. I can’t see the movies for what they are now, because the weirdness is so glaring.”

Here’s hoping Kevin can stop taking himself so seriously.

Btw, I'm not the fan of Field of Dreams and Dances With Wolves that others are or else I'd spend more time slurping them.