Jeff Bridges is NOT John Wayne

They just had to do it. They just couldn't leave it alone. Hollywood is going for broke and about to ruin a great film because someone thinks they can do it better than the original.

It's a trip on the revisionist wave that is modern Hollywood. This time around we are going to be treated to a "new" look at John Wayne's oscar winning performance in True Grit. Likely the film is being redone because most younger movie audiences have never seen the original, which fans of Wayne love. You can include me in the latter.

The original film was released in 1969, based on the novel of the same name from 1968. It featured Wayne, Glen Campbell, and Kim Darby. The basic premise goes, a drifter kills a father in the old 1880 west. His daughter goes to hire a marshal to gain revenge by bringing the man to justice (a trial). The daughter is highly religious and very sheltered. She also is stubborn.

She hires a notorious Marshal by the name of Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne), known for catching criminals as often as killing them. Along the way they meet up with a Texas Ranger after the same man (and the reward for him).

In attempting to capture the fugitive, who has joined a vicious band of outlaws, Maggie learns the meaning of 'true grit' and comes to respect Cogburn despite his flaws (an alcoholic and constant use of profanity).

It's a good film, the following video clip may give you an idea of how the film went. (Yes, that is a very young Robert Duvall)


But the new version, set to come out in December of 2010, won't be the same story. This time the story will be from the view of Maggie. It will depict a far different view of Cogburn (as played by Jeff Bridges) and the Ranger (to be Matt Damon). It will seek to convey a moral message, and be far more funny at points.

In essence it will ruin the film. Because Bridges is a good actor, but he does not convey the charisma or character of Wayne. Nor does he resemble an image of a world-weary wilderness hardened cowboy.

The same can be said of Matt Damon. he can do action, and drama. He is talented. But he does not convey an image of the old west. Perhaps makeup and the proper scenery can change that view. But I doubt it.

The bottom line is why are they remaking the film? Why must modern directors and movie studios insist on trying to remake classics with the thought that they can do it better? Because they never do. Not in the revisioned Psycho, or Halloween, or Hills Have Eyes, or Speed Racer, or I Am Legened, or Pink Panther, ect. Perhaps lighting strikes once in every 100 tries, like with The Fly, but it is so rare as to not be worth the attempt.

Classics aren't there to be "improved upon". Let's just enjoy them for what they are.

Movie Preview: Green Zone

Let's say you are a Hollywood Liberal. You hate President Bush, dislike Republicans, loathe the war in Iraq (and likely Afghanistan) and gernerally want to tell the world that America is wrong (on just about everything). What do you do?

The result is likely Green Zone. A film that focuses on the Iraq War in it's pre-surge stages. A time when admittedly America was not focused in it's efforts or goals. A war that did not have a clear justification, and was the focal point of Liberal disgust with the Government.

But films of this nature have been made before. Lions for Lambs is just one example. There are many. The general public made a clear statement that such films were distasteful, and far too politically biased, to be worthy of viewing - even as DVD's or on cable. Thus the Hollywood Liberal is stuck; wanting to spread a message that no one wishes to hear, nor believes in total.

Green Zone resolves that in 2 ways. First is the use of Matt Damon, a solid actor, as a quasi-Bourne/average joe soldier. Damon is the spy/soldier of fortune of this generation. Sort of a Rambo with a brain or Bond with brawn. His name is sure to draw action and adventure fans, while still bringing in a female audience that just likes his looks.

The second part is the loose use of the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. A book that purported to not pick sides, and was a moment in time in the war in Iraq. A moment that specifically emphasizes the less than stellar actions of America.

With these 2 elements a film can be created that sets the American Government as bad guys, the American soldier as caught in the middle of deceptions and intrigue, and the military as bullies. It can ram home the dreams of the Liberal Hollywood in a format that will seem less political in movie trailers and finally be seen by the public at large.



I am a fan of Matt Damon. I like his acting, and I have no doubt that he will make this role interesting. Politically we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, which is fine. Until politics invades a movie in the disguise of entertainment.

I don't mind politics in movies. Anti-war movies and those with political commentaries can be great films. Like Apocalypse Now or Platoon. When the point is entertainment and then politics and not the other way around.

I dislike films that are mere propoganda, no matter how stylishly done or how many star entertainers it may contain. I dislike films that use the military as a tool to exploit to spread a message. And yes, I am no fan of anti-American films.

Thus you can take this preview of Green Zone with a grain of salt or not. You may not see the elements that I believe are present and at the fore of the film. You may agree with these ideas, in part or whole, and like the package that has been made to present them.

I do not.

Paul Greengrass is an excellent director (Bourne Ultimatum), and Damon is a solid actor. This film will have action and superb war fight scenes. It looks to have a pace that is intense, writing that is on par or above most films these days. Even the plot will be logical, if biased.

But these trappings do not seperate the true reason this film exists. To spread a political philosophy that Hollywood Liberals espouse and have been trying to disseminate for years without success by any metric.

I do not recommend this film. I won't recommend it as a DVD either. I may be completely wrong, and I will be the first to stand up and state so if I am, but that is about as likely as Hollywood becoming Conservatives.

Matt Damon in South Africa

I am always happy to speak about the positive actions of entertainers and celebrities. So often the actions that many of these stars take are hollow and for the cameras. But there are a few that really stand out, and believe in the causes they bring attention to. Matt Damon is among those few, in my opinion.

Today, Damon was photographed as he went to a Musina in South Africa, near the border of Zimbabwe. The reason he was there was to bring attention to the plight of refugees escaping the dire situation in Zimbabwe. 3 million have fled the country since 2000, and Damon listened to some of their stories.

One story included a woman that had fled Zimbabwe. On her journey to South Africa she was raped, while she was pregnant. It was stories like this that I believe lead Damon to state he was

“shocked and saddened" by the plight of the people he had spoken to. He said conditions were "untenable" and called on international and regional leaders to take action.”

When he says this is untenable, he isn’t underestimating the need. There are some 2,000 children without family in the town that Matt Damon visited, not to mention adults. UNICEF is particularly worried about the children. Abuse is far too probable an outcome, so they are working with Save the Children to try to register and provide some help to these kids.

Were it not for the actions of Damon, I guarantee that people in the U.S. would never have heard of this city or the dangers to these children. Instead most would just hear the rumors of Michael Jackson going back on-tour. Obviously you can see which I think is more important.

Matt Damon is also the founder of H20 Africa Foundation. The cause is to raise awareness about clean water initiatives in Africa. As I said before, I enjoy mentioning when entertainers really step up to do something positive with their fame.

JB head to head: Bond vs Bourne

So the big question of the post-election cycle is just one simple thing, is James Bond better than Jason Bourne. I’ve read a couple of opinions on this question and in general the answer has been mixed.

Most tend to focus on the question of looks of Daniel Craig or Matt Damon. Some compare the revenues of the films. Others take their cue from the critics or the action in each film. But I think the real question is the thinking of the characters.

Both characters think as much as they act. So if we compare just the thinking of the latest Bond, and Bourne what do we get? Bourne wins hands down.

Bond is out of his league when it comes to number of languages. That doesn’t me he is stupid, but it does limit him in some situations and cuts down his response time. Luckily he tends to always be surrounded by only well-spoken english speaking foes and spots in the world.

Bond also loses on spontaneous thought. Neither man looks like they have a plan, if you watch them casually. But Bourne always has a plan. As Nikki says,

“They don’t do random. There’s always a target, always a plan.”

He modifies it as he goes, but the plan is always there. In every movie he has a purpose and never expends more energy or makes himself more obvious than he needs.

Bond is always very visible. He tends to draw attention to himself. And his reaction time to events unfolding around him is slower than Bourne. Bond looks to figure out the big plan and then work down to the details, skipping a few points on the way.

Bourne is focused on the details, working his way up. He follows every detail and works from the shadows if at all possible. Bourne looks to misdirect and confuse to Bonds frontal attack.

Another problem for Bond, he needs gadgets. Mind you we all love the stuff he gets from Q. It’s cool stuff, perfect for the mission at hand. Sadly almost none of it survives a mission.

Bourne has never used anything more complicated than a tracking device. He is so low tech as to almost be stone age compared to Bond. Of course Bond never gets to beat down anyone with a pen, magazine, or a towel. I’m not sure Bond could if he needed to.

If they had to go up against each other Bourne wins in my opinion. Bond would likely never see Bourne coming after him, and I doubt he could keep up with him in a fight. Bond could never track Bourne down. And Bond sticks out in a crowd everywhere.

And the last thing that puts Bourne over Bond is the fact that Bond is not committed enough. Bond would die for Queen and country, but Bourne refuses to acknowledge pain or the thought of death. Once he has to act it is without regard to pain or physical consequence with everything in his surroundings adding to his arsenal of weapons. (I don't recall exactly but did Bourne ever shoot anyone besides the one guy in the field in the first movie?) Bond really hasn’t been in such a situation (yet) but he does not inspire the thought of absolute commitment that Bourne does.

In a different way of stating it, Bourne is a samurai to Bond’s cowboy. Both can be quite deadly, but your chances of surviving the cowboy is much higher.

Do you agree? Do you think Quantum of Solace will prove this wrong? Let me know if you see the movie this weekend.

Movie Preview: Don Cheadle starring in Traitor

The rise and fall of the stars in the entertainment industry is always fickle. Often this or that actor goes unrecognized for decades sometimes, though their work is of the highest quality. And all too often other factors restrict an actor as well.

Harry Belafonte made huge strides until his politics interfered, Rob Lowe was untouchable for a decade, alcohol and/or drugs has stopped careers of Mickey Rourke, Forest Whitaker, David Hasselhoff and many others for years if not forever; and for some drugs and/or alcohol ended their lives – Anna Nicole Smith, Marilyn Monroe, John Belushi, Heath Ledger, and on and on.

But perhaps the worst reason an actor may be overlooked is because Hollywood decides that the actor just isn’t “leading” material. In some cases that is true, but I think that for one performer it is way off. Don Cheadle.

Don Cheadle is a great actor. His performances have won huge acclaim, and even the smaller more artistic films he has been in have done modestly well. Hotel Rwanda was a performance that would have rocketed any other performer to the top of the A-list in both pay and movie roles. But perhaps the vocal and humanitarian efforts of Don Cheadle, to help end the 5 years and continuing genocide in Darfur, Sudan [efforts that I strongly support] scared too many execs. Or perhaps the fact he is Black has kept leading roles from him, as they once were for Denzel Washington and Sidney Poitier.

But he may get his chance to start getting the leads I think he deserves after his latest film Traitor comes out this month. This is the first film where Cheadle will have the leading role to himself in a big budget film. Up til now Hollywood execs have been fearful and only allowed him to co-star with other actors, which I feel he often out shone. His only other leading roles were in far smaller, limited release films – Talk To Me and Hotel Rwanda (which he was nominated for an Academy Award Best Actor).

This film is a topical one, dealing with the all too real difficulties of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, American influences in the Middle East, fanatical Islam and world politics. Prior films by Hollywood trying to depict these issues in the last 3 years have all failed both due to slipshod acting, and heavy handed scripts that were more self-aggrandizing political commercials than entertainment. But Cheadle has been very good at picking his films, and performing well in them.

The trailer gives us a hint that we may find a more Jason Bourne style look at these issues. Not just action for its own sake but a plot driven drama that uses the violence and confusion of war as a vehicle for the character to become greater than his surroundings. And the biggest question is if Cheadle’s character really is on our side or not. I expect that the film may well end without ever clearly defining an answer, just as the actual reality is equally undefined or clear in its outcome.

If my expectations are correct this will be a defining film for Cheadle. Like what Jason Bourne did for Matt Damon, and In the Heat of Night did for Sidney Poitier, this movie may well establish his rising star as not only the A-list actor he is, but a leading man with the ability to entertain all of us.

The movie trailer makes a bold statement that this will be a movie to capture you for at least its time on the silver screen. Don Cheadle makes that trailer promise far more tangible. I’ll see it and let you know more.

Not On Our Watch, Cheadle and Clooney, donate $500,000 - 3.13.2008.1

Unlike the major news media, or the Government of the U.S., I have spoken about Darfur and what is happening there. For years there has been little said about the genocide, and even less done in Congress. An example of that inaction is HR 180 IH.

But there are individuals that have done a great deal. One of the most notable and famous is entertainer Don Cheadle. Mr. Cheadle, along with George Clooney, producer Jerry Weintraub, entertainers Brad Pitt and Matt Damon created Not On Our Watch. Through this non-profit organization attention and aid has been given to Darfur and the 200,000 African that have been murdered and the 2.5 million men, women, and children that no longer have homes.

It is Not On Our Watch that again did something our nation seems incapable, or unwilling, to do. Today they gave $500,000 to the World Food Program (WFP) of the United Nations. The WFP has been providing food and support people in Darfur for years, in fact 70% of it’s aid goes to this area alone.

As much as half-a-million dollars is, it does not compare to the $77 million needed in 2008 alone.

Don Cheadle, George Clooney and the others in Not On Our Watch need to be commended on their actions and support to date. Congress, including Presidential candidates Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama, and President Bush need to be admonished for their failures to address this issue.

America has not take a stance against what is happening in Darfur. When Apartheid needed to be stopped, America stood up and refused to do business with the nation. We placed pressure on that government and helped to improve the lives of millions of South Africans including former political prisoner and now leader Nelson Mandela. [For those that weren’t alive in the 1980’s, Apartheid was the rule of the White minority in South Africa over the African majority. Think of it as a couple of steps above slavery and segregation on crack.]

If America as a government is unwilling to end the support of the Sudan, which Darfur is within, perhaps the people of America are willing to step up. Already the entertainers mentioned above have done so, and no one would consider entertainers political leaders. Yet they have done more to lead this cause than all of the politicians in America so far, in my opinion.

Darfur may be in Africa, and Africans are not as important to America as other parts of the world. That is apparently factual based on what our nation has done, or failed to do, over the last 5 years. But I see no difference in the lives of children in Darfur than in Iraq. If there can be such huge support for helping Iraq (whether through leaving the area or staying and winning the fight against Iran and terrorists) I cannot see how we cannot want to support those in Darfur.

If you agree with me, and Don Cheadle, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and so many other regular everyday Americans you have never heard of then please go to Not On Our Watch and make a donation. Today this organization sent $500,000 because of what they believe and the families and children they wish to help, and amount few of us have. But I have to believe that we normal Americans can afford $1 or $5.

I will even make it easier if you can’t afford that. Every dollar and cent donated to any of my blogs or sites, as recorded in my donation widget above, since the beginning of this year until my birthday on April 6th will be donated to this organization. In addition I will make a donation on that day beyond the funds collected.

So if you can only afford .50 cents, or $1.50, or even .05 cents, I will send it along with ever other donation I receive.

One person probably won’t be able to come up with $77 million or a solution. But all of us together can easily do so.

The movies of 2007 in retrospect - 12.12.2007.1

As 2007 is coming to a close I looked back on the films of the year, and the actors that made them what they were. It’s quite the mixed bag, with far too many massively overpaid for underperformance. Quite a few are, in my opinion, without the ability to justify the pay they receive, while others are a bit surprising in the modest pay they receive, relative to Hollywood payouts. Thankfully there are many that are worth the money that are a bit long in the tooth, making ‘older’ folks like myself feel a bit better I suppose.

In terms of the films that were hits, that lived up to the hype we all seemed to have. Included in that list The Bourne Ultimatum, Live Free or Die Hard, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, Saw IV, Harry Potter, 300, Spiderman 3, I Am Legend [I include this because the storyline has been good enough to make this the 4th version of the film, and I have that much confidence in the ability and choices made by Will Smith] and to a lesser amount Hitman.

There were several films that failed, and most were no surprise to me. That would include Underdog, Fred Claus, The Mist, The Comebacks, Halloween, Code Name: The Cleaner, Alpha Dog, Hannibal Rising, The Hoax, Rush Hour 3, The Brothers Solomon, Lars And The Real Girl, 30 Days Of Night, The Invaders and a few others.

And then there are the special mentions like Aqua Teen Movie, Red Line, Georgia Rule, Ocean’s 13, Talk To Me, Bratz Movie, Rendition, Darfur Now, Lions For Lambs, Redacted, This Christmas, and American Ganster.

The leading films all boasted great casts with some of the best in the industry. It’s no surprise that Johnny Depp made a reputed $92 million this year. The same can be said of the $32 million for Matt Damon, the $23 million paid to the top 3 in Harry Potter and the unknown amounts for Bruce Willis and Will Smith (I would guess in the range of $20 million a piece). As for 300 or Spiderman, every dollar spent on the effects was worth it as that was the real stars. And Saw is just what you expect so it did its gore fest above par.

The worst films, which the list is hardly complete for, were all bloated poorly written refuse that amazed me someone greenlighted. Underdog proved that not every show or cartoon from the past needs to be remade or done live action. Stephen King continued his long streak of failing to convert his quality and success from books to film. Rush Hour, and Hannibal show that making sequels just for the money doesn’t always make money, and Cedric may be an entertainer, but he’s not an actor. Didn’t anyone get the clue from the horrendous Honeymooners movie? They just need to stop making him the lead in movies. The rest were just really bad ideas that turned into really bad movies.

The list of movies that qualify under that last sentence is too long to write. I’m sure we all could think of a couple of those movies, if we wanted the torture of thinking about that. The good news is that 2007 is over and they can only be reseen on DVD, if you get bored burning $20 bills. (The bad news is that 2008 will probably have at least as many gruesome failures – at $20 million a film Nicole Kidman is burning buildings full of them)

As for the last category of films, well they are special. Aqua Teen Hunger Force is a special interest – mostly targeting college kids up late watching cartoons that are distracting and meaningless (which is why we like them). Georgia Rule deserved to fail because of 2 things Lindsey Lohan and Hanoi Jane. I cannot fathom any film that contains the America hating Hanoi Jane that deserves to make a single dime. I dislike her and revel in her failures, personal and professional. [And I don’t care if anyone likes her for any reason, I despise her.] Equally fathomless is the concept that a film based on anorexic dolls could work. Seriously, anorexic dolls with attitudes?

I equally reveled in the failure of equally America hating films Rendition, Lions For Lambs, and Redacted. The abject failure of these films to garner any interest is a testament to the good taste of everyone except the people who greenlighted them. I can only hope that the actors in these films were doing them for the paychecks and not their political views. I would also say that if the producers and writers of these films feel that strongly (especially Mark Cuban) give up your citizenship and move to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or any other nation that will take you. I will not mourn your loss or the money you have.

But there are also films that should have gotten real attention and distribution. Talk To Me and Darfur Now were thrown to the wayside, the corporate execs sleeping well at night because they got them into theaters. In fact both were solid films deserving of recognition for what they had to say and the performances. Luckily both have Don Cheadle in them, though he is only acting in one. I have to wonder, considering the wide release of Cedric’s movie, that execs fear promoting a film with a Black actor that makes any serious political and social statement. You can’t pay a major media company to acknowledge Darfur has been going on, least of all for 4 years, and America has yet to do ANYTHING about it. We can run around the world and help fix everyone’s problems, but forbid we even distribute a movie about a genocide we can do something about.

Lastly there is American Gangster and Ocean’s 13. Denzel Washington is a solid, brilliant actor. The film is quite good (even with 3 rappers in it). But I have a problem with the promotion of a negative style of life for African Americans. Far too many will see this as a vindication or motivation. The mindless find inspiration in odd places, thus the film upset me. And Ocean’s 13 just proved that sometimes you can make a sequel just for the money and it’s ok.

So there are my thoughts on the films of 2007. Get the DVD’s of those you like, target shoot the ones you hate and get as a gift. And gird yourself for 2008, because Carrotman (it’s an old obscure comic book character) the movie hasn’t been greenlighted, yet.

[Again I say, Iron Man will be the massive big winner of the year.]

Review - The Bourne Ultimatum - 8.4.2007.1

The Borne Ultimatum. It is almost enough to say that alone, and still explain with clarity the fact that it is a full-throttle adrenaline rush. The movie is about as non-stop as any movie can claim to be. And when you are on this ride you are bewildered, careening and intensely absorbed in everything around you. It’s about the best description for how the movie will make you feel.

Honestly the movie is a rush. From the first 5 minutes to the last 5 you are kept moving at a pace that is breathe-taking. The pace is moving at the speed of Bourne, and for once we get to glimpse the world from his eyes. To appreciate how quickly Bourne can evaluate and implement a plan based on his surroundings is astounding.

This film starts from just before the end of the 2nd movie, and continues in time from there. By late in the film we connect to the last scenes of the Supremacy. The context changes everything. And the trailers for the movie are not quite what you will get in the film.

The movie provides several scenes where we get to see exactly how Bourne makes his disappearances, and he even imparts this to another person. Effectively he takes a regular man and cloaks him in invisibility to the eyes of the operatives searching for him, in one of the most video surveillanced and agent filled places in England.

This lives up to the hype, and expectations. More fights, more locations, more secrets revealed. As Bourne unravels his past, the levels of deception and danger unfold at higher levels. The willingness of some to do whatever it takes to keep the shadows dark is equal to the grey of what is right and wrong in their world.

The quest of Bourne to understand who made him what he is takes us full circle through the entire movie series. We begin in water, and end there as well. We get questions and answers in a diner. We learn what is similar in all the women of Bourne’s life.

Mr. Matt Damon picks up his titular role and doesn’t miss a beat. He gives us exactly what we’ve come to love about Bourne. Taciturn, economical and lightning sharp. Quite a few of the stunts are done by Mr. Damon, adding to the connection and authenticity. Watching him take out various bad guys with nothing more deadly than a book or just bare handed is impressive.

Unlike most films, except the Ocean 11 series, all the major characters we’ve come to enjoy make an appearance at least. The one’s that have survived to this point at least. And more than in the other films we get a bit of politics infused as well. Both the pro and con of various issues, like tapping cell phones. To see the keyword program in action, with the ability to tap conversations, overseas shows the potential good and the ease of misuse of such a policy. Much like the various operatives and the shadow programs everything in this film details the fine line between the good of the nation and the evil power can bring.

Perhaps that is the real attraction of the series. Watching the battle, not of good and bad, but the struggle of being in the gray. Either way, the journey is worth the price.

Ocean's 13 is worth the bet - 6.11.2007.1

Well what can be said about Ocean’s 13? It was far better than the second movie in the series. But in saying that I take away from the fun and action that takes place. The pace may not be as fast, nor the plot as slick, but it’s a movie that redeems the series. The interaction among the actors is quite good as well.


The various actors that were not as well known in the first Ocean’s movie get a lot more time in this going. They are good in their roles but the roles are not as in-depth as you might wish. Mr. Casey Affleck’s Spanish is excellent, the characters understanding of Mandarin Chinese is equally good. Mr. Don Cheadle’s American accent (as opposed to his character’s Eastender norm) is quite entertaining. But that brings up a point,

Most of the characters expand their abilities. Virtually all the team expands to take on aspects of the con that others previously did. The twins handle explosives, the computer geek takes on an inside man position as does the gymnast and Basher. Not too extreme, but different.

Another new aspect is the very direct introduction of political themes. From Oprah giving a family a house, to Mexicans working for $3.50 a week, to a children’s camp. The political themes are right in your face, but thankfully not detracting or interrupting the story, much. The last minute of the film let’s you walk away with a smile. But there is more thought and discussion left in your mind than most movies compel. At least for me.

Did I enjoy it? Yes. Do I get that companies doing business in Mexico take extreme advantage of the weak labor laws and cheap costs? Abundantly. Is Mr. Eric Idle wasted in his role? Without question. Though Mr. David Paymer’s brief appearances just hit the right mark.

I saw the movie with a friend that has never seen the first 2 movies, don’t ask why not. Talking about it afterwards, she enjoyed the movie but didn’t get a bunch of the nuances. I didn’t realize it right away but, there are a bunch of little easter eggs for everyone who has seen the prior movies and pays attention. Like Bruiser.

Well suffice to say, it’s a good movie. Seeing it in a theater is fun, especially if you saw it with friends who saw the first 2 movies. Even if you haven’t seen them, you will enjoy it. But I think it will be just as good on DVD. You can make your choice on that though.

This is what I think, what do you think?