How 'The Devil Wears Prada' Transformed Careers

Posted by Should I See It on Saturday, February 27, 2010 , under , , , , , , , , , , | comments (0)





So what do you remember most about The Devil Wears Prada? Meryl Streep’s delicious performance? The clothes? New York? Simon Baker without a shirt on?


Or maybe it's the aftermath of this intelligent blockbuster that you remember most? Now you know who Emily Blunt is, and you watch The Mentalist every week and you secretly hope Stanley Tucci will walk away with the Academy Award in a few weeks time.

What ever you liked or didn't like about it, you can't help but notice that after this film the careers of the leading cast members took a turn for the better.

I call it 'The Devil Wears Prada Effect.' Symptoms include increased publicity, more widespread roles, becoming a 'bankable' name, and having greater attention focused on the actor's career. Side effects may include, but are not limited to, above the title billing, increased interest in the actor's personal life and an increase in nominations and awards.

I am in no way suggesting that these actors were nobodies before this film, but rather we can plot a definate upwards trajectory in their careers that got it's boost from The Devil Wears Prada.






 EMILY BLUNT

Now, be honest: Who here had heard of Emily Blunt before she literally stole every scene in The Devil Wears Prada??? Anyone????? Now she does have an impressive list of credits pre-Prada, including a Golden Globe Award for her role in British miniseries Gideon’s Daughter, but Prada sky-rocketed her from relative unknown to the hottest property in young Hollywood.

Prada gave Blunt’s career the attention her talent deserves. She has graduated into and ‘above the title’ actress and has had quite a few nominations for her work in The Young Victoria.

It’s actually hard to believe Hathaway got an Academy Award nomination before her.





ANNE HATHAWAY



Okay, so Anne Hathaway is probably the actor in this list least impacted by The Devil Wears Prada Effect. Hathaway had a pretty good career behind he; She was already well known and a marketable name in Hollywood. But Prada allowed her to move beyond the teeny bopper roles like The Princess Diaries in to more adult territory (yes, I know she was in Brokeback Mountain, but who remembers her in that?!). Since Prada, Hathaway was nominated for an Academy Award in 2009 for Rachel Getting Married as well as winning a number of independent and critics choice awards for that performance.









STANLEY TUCCI



For Tucci, great roles have never been a problem. He has an impressive list of credits and awards including two Emmys Two Golden Globes and an Independent Spirit Award amongst others.

Stanley Tucci has never been the sort of bankable name the way Streep and Hathaway are. He has flown under the radar, while delivering performances worthy of attention.

His turn as over worked/ underappreciated designer Nigel in The Devil Wears Prada is almost like Tucci’s career; great performances, but not widely recognised.

Last year, Tucci delivered great performances in both Julie & Julia and The Lovely Bones. In fact, the journalists predicting the likely candidates for the Academy Awards were torn between which of the two performances would be recognised. Tucci actually scored his first Academy Award nomination for The Lovely Bones.




SIMON BAKER



The Devil Wears Prada is one of the highlights of Simon Baker’s otherwise lacklustre resume. Apart from LA Confidential and season one of The Guardian, there are some pretty embarrassing films on there (Affair of the Necklace, Something New).

His performance in Prada as devilishly charming writer Christian Thompson was (more than likely) responsible for him landing the role of devilishly charming fake psychic Patrick Jane on The Mentalist.

For his work on The Mentalist, Baker has been nominated for an Emmy, a Screen Actors Guild Award and a Golden Globe, as well as receiving the coveted title of Sexiest Man on Television.





MERYL STREEP



Yes, even Queen Meryl makes this list. Oh I know she had like thirteen Academy Award nominations before Prada, and is widely recognised as one of the greatest actresses of all time, but I don’t think we should over look the impact of Prada.

Not only did The Devil Wears Prada introduce Streep to a new generation of cinema goers (trust me, Out of Africa was not high on any teenagers must watch list), but it also launched something of an Academy Award nomination spree: three nominations in the last four years (including her work in Prada). And after the massive box office success of Mamma Mia!, it is suddenly hip to be Meryl Streep.














Crazy Heart Review

Posted by Should I See It on Thursday, February 25, 2010 , under | comments (0)





Film: Crazy Heart
Director: Scott Cooper
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhall, Robert Duvall and Colin Farrell
Plot: A fading country singer, Bad Blake, grapples with his alcohol addiction, especially after he meets Jean and her young son Buddy.

I went to see Crazy Heart only because I want to see the performance that is going to win Jeff Bridges the Academy Award.

Well, let’s start off by saying, Jeff Bridges is good. He is very good. He inhabits the role, right down to the physical aspect.

But I couldn’t help feeling like he was playing Mickey Rourke, if Mickey Rourke was a country singer instead of an actor.

Colin Farrell also makes an appearance as fellow country singer (but the far more successful) Tommy Sweet. He manages to do quite a bit with not very much screen time.

One point worth mentioning is that both Farrell and Bridges do their own singing. And I have to admit they both have good voices. And I am not just talking about “they can sing.” What is actually impressive is that “they can sing country!” and sound authentic without being overly nasal or whiny.



Now country music is not exactly my idea of a great time, but the original songs composed by T-Bone Brunett, Stephen Bruton and Ryan Bingham are surprisingly not annoying. Actually, they are quite beautiful, particularly ‘The Weary Kind’ which is one of the front runners to win the Academy Award for Best Original Song.

I can appreciate the performance of Bridges. I can appreciate what it means dor an alcoholic to say ‘I want to get sober’. But I could not connect with this film or its characters.

I don’t really have sympathy for Bad. He continues to drink without trying to change his situation. (He drinks so much in the film that within the first ten minutes I was seriously concerned about the state of his insides).



I don’t understand the relationship between Jean and Bad. I actually don’t understand her actions at all. It is implied that her ex-husband was an alcoholic, and yet she willingly takes Bad into her home, heart and bed, and then is upset when it backfires on her.

The most likeable character ends up being Jean’s four-year old son, Buddy.

I know that these judgements say more about me as a person, than it does about the film itself, but for me part of what makes a good film is for it to allow the audience to be emotionally invested in the characters and the film’s outcome. If I don’t care about the characters, then I don’t care for the film.



Should I See It?

Hmmm. Only if you’re interested in seeing Jeff Bridges performance. Otherwise, skip it.




 
Crazy Heart Official Site here.

Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief Review

Posted by Should I See It on Monday, February 22, 2010 , under , , , | comments (1)



Percy Jackson Lightning Thief Logan Lerman Brandon T Jackson Alexandra Daddario Pierce Brosnan Sean Bean Uma Thurman Chris Columbus


Film: Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief
Director: Chris Columbus
Plot: A teenager discovers he's the descendant of a Greek god and sets out on an adventure to settle an on-going battle between the gods
Starring: Logan Lerman, Brandon T Jackson, Alexandra Daddario, Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Uma Thurman.







If JK Rowling and CS Lewis ever had a love child, I imagine it would have turned out something like Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

You really can’t help but compare it to either of them, especially Harry Potter: there are too many similarities in the plots and the conundrums that the heroes face.

Also the cinematic realisation of the two are incredibly similar, probably because the director of Percy Jackson, Chris Columbus, also directed Harry Potter 1 and 2.

Actually I would say that Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a better FILM that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone*, because it is better acted, better paces and (a little) more imaginatively shot. It’s almost as if Percy Jackson is what Chris Columbus intended to do with Potter 1&2 but didn’t quite get there.



I know I’m not exactly the target audience for Percy Jackson, but I enjoyed it. It’s not fantastic or ground breaking cinema, but it is very good for what it is: an enjoyable, special effects laden two hours (and that is not intended to be demeaning in any way).

Of course there are few problems with the film that come along with this genre and adapting from a novel.

The opening scenes feel a bit rushed; almost as if there was a lot stuff from the book that they didn’t put in (I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know if that was the case, but that’s what it felt like). Once it got past the awkward opening, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a well paced film.

The plot is a little but silly: Someone has stolen Zeus’ lightning bolt and he thinks Percy Jackson, son of Poseidon, has taken it. You can pick who the lightning thief is very early on (hint, it’s not Percy Jackson). Your kids might not pick it though. I guess this brings us to the crux of the matter. Percy Jackson is a kid’s film, but it is by no means painful for the parents to sit through.



The quest of this story is somewhat confused. While the film is called Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, the hero’s (self imposed) quest is not to find the lightning thief, but to find Percy’s mother, who has been kidnapped by Hades and taken to the underworld, in exchange for the stolen lightning. Percy thinks that once Hades realises he doesn’t have the lightning, Hades will let his mother go. In fact it never actually occurs to Percy and Co. to find out who the lightning thief is to put a stop to the war of the gods. It is a bit of a lightning bolt moment for Percy (pardon the pun) when her realises that all he has to do is return the lightning bolt to Zeus. Meanwhile the audience is thinking: ‘Duh! That’s what I thought this movie was about!’

Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson) is an appealing hero. He is a better actor than Daniel Radcliffe, and looks and sounds an awful lot like Zac Efron. I can’t really say anything beyond that about the performances (except Catherine Keener was awful; she made no effort to look interested in any of the scenes she was in) because it’s really not that type of movie. The movie is really about an adventure, as long as the plot keeps moving and the special effects keep coming, every one’s happy.



When exiting the cinema, I was walking behind a mother and her three sons aged between six and twelve, all of whom loved the film. I couldn’t help but over hear the eldest of the boys said “That was reeeeeeally good! I can’t wait to read the book now!!!!” In my opinion, if it gets kids to read, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief must be doing something right.



Should I See It?

Yes, it’s enjoyable,just be prepared to switch your brain off and just go along for the ride.








 
Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief Official Site here.



*I am in no way suggesting that either of these movies are great examples of cinema, nor am I suggesting that the Percy Jackson books are better than the Harry Potter books. I am only saying that comparatively, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a better FILM that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, irrespective of their source material.

Up in the Air Review

Posted by Should I See It on Thursday, February 18, 2010 , under , , , , | comments (1)





Film: Up in the Air
Director: Jason Reitman
Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick and Jason Bateman
Plot: With a job that has him traveling around the country firing people, Ryan Bingham leads an empty life out of a suitcase, until his company does the unexpected: ground him.

Please be advised: Up In the Air was the cinematic experience that inspired The Guide to Cinema Etiquette. So my attention was not necessarily on the film. This review was written with great difficulty because of the horrendous behaviour of my fellow cinema patrons.



Up In the Air is another solid cinematic entry from director Jason Reitman, following the surprise box office success of Juno (2007) and the critical success of Thank You for Smoking (2005).

Up In the Air is a socially aware film, quite obviously making a comment on today’s society, but one that seems appropriate given the Global Financial Crisis.

The opening scenes of men and women wondering what their future will hold now they are out of work are open, honest and a little confronting. Sure, it’s not an easy way to open a film, but it’s one of the film’s best parts. Mostly because those people in the opening and closing scenes are not actors, but people who have been recently laid off. They come with such a raw honesty that you would have to have a heart of stone not to feel for them.



Up In the Air packs these emotional punches the whole way through. Which is not surprising really; firing people is hardly a sunny business. Yet out of this comes some surprising comic moments. The film moves easily between the dark and the light, often with on feeding the other. The changes in tone are done skilfully, never disrupting the flow of the film, but rather enhancing it.

Despite all this business about firing people, Up In the Air is not really about the Global Financial Crisis. That only provides the background for a story about the importance of having someone, anyone, to come home to.

The journey of Ryan Bingham (corporate sacker, motivational speaker that motivates people to rid their lives of personal connections) from a man who loves to be on the road to realising that how empty it is to be alone is expertly done. It is even evident cinematically: compare the efficiency and energy of the airport scenes at the beginning of the film, with the resigned way Ryan approaches he departures board at the films end.




In a story about the importance of human connection, it is not surprising that technology takes a beating, as does Generation Y for their insistence on using it. The scene where Natalie (Anna Kendrick) is dumped via text message is both heartbreakingly and hilariously ironic.

The only scene that feels awkward is the celebration of Ryan’s 10 million mile mark mid air.

Performances are solid (as you would expect, since all three leads are nominated for Academy Awards). George Clooney is very good. Ryan Bingham is just and ‘ordinary’ guy. There’s nothing wrong with him, he’s not crazy, not on drugs, not a criminal master mind, not fighting in a war, not dealing with the death of anyone. He just has a fear of commitment. And maybe that’s the hardest thing to do….act normal.




Vera Farmiga is the performance I am the most ambivalent about. I don’t think it’s really award worthy, she really didn’t have anything to do. Anna Kendrick was better….

Up in the Air was slated as the favourite to win the Academy Award for Best Picture before Avatar and The Hurt Locker snuck in. I have to say that Up in the Air is a probably a more appropriate choice than a bunch of CGI creatures and the war in Iraq.

Up in the Air is a good film and, apart from a few swear words, is relatively inoffensive. And it’s reflection of the times makes it better- or perhaps better received- that it otherwise would be.


Should I See It?

Sure! An enjoyable, well made film.





Up In the Air Official Site here.

SUBSCRIBE

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, February 14, 2010 , under | comments (0)



If you wish to Subscribe to Should I See It? then enter your email address in the box to the right that says SUBSCRIBE FOR UPDATES


Or follow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shouldiseeblog

DISCLAIMER

Posted by Should I See It on , under | comments (0)



Should I See It? does not own any film, images or trailers on this site, they belong to their respective studios and production companies. Should I See It? does, however, own all the words. This blog holds Should I See It’s? opinions. If you don’t like it... well, tough luck.

CONTACT

Posted by Should I See It on , under | comments (0)



For questions, comments or suggestions, you can leave a message in the 'comments' section on the appropriate page.

Alternatively, you can tweet

@shouldiseeblog

All comments are welcome!