« Even Worse | Main | FYI »

Starless

February 5, 2008 :: :: Textuality

Whenever I think I might end up going to the movies, I like to do a little bit of investigating before I go. This usually means looking up showtimes on my local newspaper's website. The thing is, I don't go to the theater very often, so when I see the titles, I don't recognize any of them.

What makes this even more interesting is that the Duluth News-Tribune's online movie descriptions don't include the names of the director or the stars. And let me tell you this: Every movie sounds good when you don't know who's in it or who directed it. You have to be very careful about this, otherwise you might find yourself plopping down $10 to unwittingly see something starring Vin Diesel.

When you take out the names of the actors like this, it's easy to see how such crappy movies get made. For example, even the Pauly Shore movie Jury Duty sounds like it might be funny if it's described without reference to its idiotic centerpiece: "An umemployed loser realizes that the free room and board he receives while serving on a sequestered jury is a great step up from his normal life, so he does everything in his power to stretch the trial out as long as he can." Sure, it's not Citizen Kane, but I can see how that story could be funny ... if it didn't star Pauly Shore.

I've mentioned before about how often celebrities can ruin the movies they act in or the music they play, simply by being themselves. The Terminator is a fantastic movie, but how much better would it be if it didn't star Arnold Schwartzenegger? He adds nothing to the movie, except his own presence, which the movie is great in spite of.

Recently, I saw Cloverfield, which I thought was a lot of fun. (I didn't experience any of the much-hyped "hype" that is mentioned in every review I've read since. I barely knew what the movie was about before I saw it.) I thought the unknown actors were every bit as good -- if not better -- than the celebs that would have played their parts if it had been a big-budget movie. I can just see Tom Cruise running around the streets of Manhatten with a camcorder. Ugh.

I say let's call for a new celebrity-free era in moviemaking. When I go to the theater, I go to see a movie. I don't go to see Tom Hanks.

Comments

First!

I've always thought Schwarzenegger was good in that part because he's scary. It seems like something is wrong with him. Later you find out and think, "Ah, now I see."
But you're right. A good actor would have done better.

They offered him the part of the guy who comes back to protect Sarah Conner, and he refused it, demanding to play the emotionless robot instead. Well, at least he knows his limitations.

Post a comment