Justin Timberlake Stumbles Back to the Big Screen in Palmer - Vanity Fair
Justin Timberlake Stumbles Back to the Big Screen in Palmer - Vanity Fair |
- Justin Timberlake Stumbles Back to the Big Screen in Palmer - Vanity Fair
- 24 Age Gaps Between Actors Who Played Parent And Child That Just Don't Make Sense - BuzzFeed
- Killer Whales: 'Transient' Orcas Are Thriving - The Atlantic
- Star Wars sequel trilogy remake rumor is "preposterous," trusted leaker says - Inverse
| Justin Timberlake Stumbles Back to the Big Screen in Palmer - Vanity Fair Posted: 29 Jan 2021 07:31 AM PST  For a heady few years, not too long ago, we thought that Justin Timberlake might be an actor. More than an actor, even: a movie star. He'd charmed so thoroughly in his gigs hosting Saturday Night Live, though of course his success in that arena came from the happy surprise that he was funny for a singer. That crucial distinction went mostly ignored, though, and Timberlake was jammed into a ton of movies over a very short period of time, roughly 2011 to 2013, hailed to us as a new kind of Cher or, I guess, Frank Sinatra. There was, on the auspicious side of things, David Fincher's The Social Network, in which he played cocky manipulator Sean Parker. It was a supporting role, but Timberlake got to say one of the film's defining lines. ("You know what's cool? A billion dollars.") And then there was the rest of the stuff: a drab romantic comedy called Friends With Benefits, the strenuously R-rated comedy Bad Teacher, the disappointing sci-fi actioner In Time. In 2013, Timberlake once again briefly delighted in the Coen brothers' Inside Llewyn Davis, a pleasant little dollop that undid some of the shame of that same year's Runner Runner, an embarrassingly awful movie about a slick gambler getting in over his head. After that, Timberlake mostly retreated to music, and to the animated Trolls films. (The less said of Wonder Wheel, his 2017 outing with Woody Allen, the better.) He'd poked around at the movie star thing, and it just hadn't worked out. Now, Timberlake is reemerging from his adopted home state of Montana to try his hand in front of the camera again, this time on a more modest scale. His new film is Palmer (Apple TV+, January 29), a small drama directed by Fisher Stevens, about a recent ex-con trying to get his feet back under him. He is, as is cinematic tradition, aided in his growth by a child, his grandmother's neighbor. That kid, Sam (Ryder Allen), is picked on at school because he's into supposedly "girly" things, like dolls and princesses and wearing dresses and makeup. Will this decidedly 21st century child help the stunted, nearing-40 Millennial learn to live again on the backroads of rural Louisiana? Reader, he will. The setup for Palmer, written by Cheryl Guerriero (who also wrote the 2006 Paris Hilton vehicle National Lampoon's Pledge This!), is agreeable enough. Despite years' worth of accumulated cliché, the kid-teaches-adult genre can still yield some fruit—if the kid actor is right, and the sentiment is pitched carefully on the cozier side of cloying. With Palmer's added element of contemporary, and long overdue, discourse about gender, the film had the wan makings of something respectable enough, a gentle, low-key way for Timberlake to return to the movie star ecosystem. In practice, though, Palmer feels as cynical and flimsy as Timberlake's old big-budget stabs at movie stardom. The film doesn't actually show character growth so much as it tells you it's happening. Palmer goes from reticence to caring about young Sam—abandoned by his vaguely drug-addicted shambles of a mother (Juno Temple)—to doting father figure in the flash of a few scenes. Palmer develops because that's what stories like this require him to do. Stevens, Guerriero, and Timberlake add nothing of the individual detail that would make this specific film, this one man's journey, mean anything on its own. As for the matter of Sam's gender expression, it's handled with a bare minimum of sensitivity—but never with any real nuance. There's not even much discussion of it. Sam's non-conforming identity is ultimately pretty incidental, used as a mere crutch to underscore Palmer's innate goodness and compassion. The movie seems utterly unconcerned with the realities of Sam's life, his future, his needs beyond the close male care provided by Palmer. He's a piece of the Palmer puzzle, slotted in next to Palmer's love interest, teacher Maggie (Alisha Wainwright), whose presence as one of very few Black people in the film serves as proof that good ol' Louisiana boy Palmer isn't racist. The film is going for up-close, intimate, spare human drama, but it cuts every corner it can to get to its emotional payoff. Timberlake goes for man-of-few-words (or Man of the Woods) stoicism and comes off just as passively invested as the rest of the movie; the point is that he's doing it, not how it's done or what is being said. Palmer is a sneaky kind of vanity project. It's not one that gestures toward or further emboldens Timberlake's shining celebrity profile. Instead, it works to shrink and reshape Timberlake into a serious actor with a political heart, imbued with a mission toward social justice. It feels more like a calculating read of the moment than a genuine conviction. Even Mark Wahlberg, in the upcoming drama now called Joe Bell, has made a more earnest attempt at tackling a cause far from his lived experience. Palmer is the microwave meal version of that flawed but decent film, hasty and cold at the center. It provokes no sympathy, let alone the warm, "welcome back" regard for Timberlake it's determined to stoke. At least Runner Runner 2 would have been something closer to sincere. Where to Watch Palmer: All products featured on Vanity Fair are independently selected by our editors. However, when you buy something through our retail links, we may earn an affiliate commission. More Great Stories From Vanity Fair — Stanley Tucci on His Love Story With Colin Firth  |
| 24 Age Gaps Between Actors Who Played Parent And Child That Just Don't Make Sense - BuzzFeed Posted: 23 Jan 2021 09:16 AM PST  Something here's not adding up. We recently asked the members of the BuzzFeed Community to tell us what age gap between actors who played parent and child surprised them. Here are some of their eye-opening answers:1. In Brokeback Mountain, there was an age difference of four years between Heath Ledger and Kate Mara playing father and daughter.Focus Features 2. I just recently found out that the woman who played Mrs. Mulder in The X-Files is only a year older than David Duchovny, who played her son.3. In This Is Us, Mandy Moore (36) is younger than all of the actors who play her kids.4. Adam Garcia is two years older than Drew Barrymore, and he played her son in Riding in Cars with Boys.Sony Pictures Releasing 5. In Orange Is the New Black, Elizabeth Rodriguez and Dascha Polanco played mother and daughter, but in real life there's less than a two-year age gap between them.Netflix Elizabeth is older than Dascha by exactly one year, 11 months, and six days. 6. In Jane the Virgin, Andrea Navedo is only seven years older than Gina Rodriguez.The CW "Granted, Xiomora (Andrea Navedo) was a teen mom, so I think they're only supposed to be 16–17 years apart, but still." 7. In Rocketman, Bryce Dallas Howard played Taron Egerton's mom. There was only an eight-year difference.Paramount Pictures 8. In Mean Girls, Amy Poehler is only seven years older than Rachel McAdams.Paramount Pictures 9. In Blue Bloods, Len Cariou plays Tom Selleck's father, even though there is only a six-year difference in age, with Cariou being 81 and Selleck being 75.10. Angelina Jolie played Colin Farrell's mom in Alexander, but they're a year apart.Warner Brothers / courtesy Everett Collection 11. In The Hobbit, Lee Pace played Orlando Bloom's father, even though Pace is two years younger than him IRL.Warner Bros. Pictures 12. Winona Ryder is only six years older than Zachary Quinto, and she played his mother in the 2009 Star Trek.Paramount Pictures 13. If The George Lopez Show were accurate, Belita Moreno's character would have been 11 when she gave birth to George.14. On The Parkers, Monique and Countess Vaughn played mother and daughter, but there was only an 11-year age gap.15. In Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again, Cher played Meryl Streep's mom. Cher is only three years older than Meryl Streep.Universal Pictures 16. In The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Janet Hubert and Karyn Parsons played mother and daughter. There's only a 10-year age difference between the two.17. Sally Field played Tom Hanks's mom in Forrest Gump. She's only 10 years older than him, and she even played his love interest in Punchline just a few years earlier.AA Film Archive / Alamy Stock Photo / Paramount Pictures 18. There was only a 10-year age gap between John Marshall Jones and Essence Atkins, even though they played father and daughter on Smart Guy.The WB "Essence was born Feb. 7, 1972, while John was born July 5, 1962." 19. In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the age difference between Sean Connery and Harrison Ford is 12 years.Paramount Pictures 20. In General Hospital, Genie Francis (Laura Spencer) is only 10 years older than Tyler Christopher (Nicholas Cassadine), her onscreen son.21. Constance Marie is only four years older than Jennifer Lopez. She played her mother in Selena.Warner Bros. 22. In Prodigal Son, Bellamy Young (50) and Michael Sheen (51) are only 12 and 13 years older than Tom Payne (38), who plays their son.23. In Six Feet Under, Frances Conroy and Peter Krause play mother and son, but they're only separated by 12 years.24. And Estelle Getty was younger than Bea Arthur when she played her mom in Golden Girls.What age gap between actors who played parent and child shocked you? Let us know in the comments!TV and MoviesGet all the best moments in pop culture & entertainment delivered to your inbox.  |
| Killer Whales: 'Transient' Orcas Are Thriving - The Atlantic Posted: 29 Jan 2021 08:30 AM PST [unable to retrieve full-text content]Killer Whales: 'Transient' Orcas Are Thriving The Atlantic  |
| Star Wars sequel trilogy remake rumor is "preposterous," trusted leaker says - Inverse Posted: 29 Jan 2021 07:26 AM PST I've got a bad feeling about this. Is Disney planning to erase the Star Wars sequel trilogy and replace it with a new Disney+ miniseries? Is Elvis Presley living with aliens? It's time to come back down to reality. As a child, I too loved tabloids like Weekly World News, with their outrageous claims about celebrity brains being replaced by UFOs. But even as a kid, I also knew these headlines were bogus. As adults, we should all know that similar headlines about supposed instant-remakes of recent Star Wars films are just as credible. Recently, the Star Wars community has been buzzing about a "rumor" concerning a secret project behind-the-scenes at Disney and Lucasfilm. It goes like this: Lucasfilm and Disney will use archive footage of Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher and essentially paint over The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, The Rise of Skywalker, with a Disney+ series that tells a new version of the sequel trilogy. Oh, and just to make it spicy, George Lucas will be brought back to "direct" these CGI franken-Star Wars. Originating with a YouTuber called "Doomcock," and trumpeted by tabloid outlets like Express, the likelihood that this is going to happen is very close to zero. And all you have to do is follow the money. 
Inverse reached out to established leaker Jason Ward of Making Star Wars to get a gut check on these rumors. From The Last Jedi to The Rise of Skywalker, Ward has had early scoops about the future of the franchise for years. He draws from a wealth of sources that he scrupulously keeps anonymous; amounting to a composite of info which you could think of like the Star Wars Deep Throat. He's right more than he's not, and double-checks all his scoops before commenting. "There is nothing that makes me think anyone has any inkling of reworking the sequel trilogy. In fact, the idea is preposterous," Ward tells Inverse. "Each of the sequel trilogy films is performing rather well for Disney/Lucasfilm financially. To 'erase' those would weaken a consistent revenue stream that is currently being capitalized on." Before anyone mentions the legions of Last Jedi-haters and the money Lucasfilm stands to make by spinning such a bizarre stunt, allow this to sink in: The Last Jedi made 1.333 billion dollars worldwide. And that's just ticket sales. And that's just ONE of the films in the sequel trilogy. It's easy to come up with correlative figures for home video, merchandise, and other ways the film is commercially licensed. Like many of you, I'm not crazy about The Rise of Skywalker, but it made 1.074 billion while The Force Awakens, somewhat famously, made 2.066 billion. 
Inverse reached out to Disney for comment on the remake "rumor," but as of this writing has not heard back. In fairness, there are literally billions of reasons why Disney wouldn't even feel like responding to this rumor. Disney bean-counters could comfortably believe that the stories of the sequel trilogy were a resounding success. If you think about the numbers, despite what vocal aspects of fandom are saying — one way or another — the larger Star Wars mandate has nothing to do with what YouTubers think. "The idea of erasing those films would likely anger more fans than it would please," Ward points out. "Can you imagine trying to convince the general public that the films they just saw do not matter? This isn't the Terminator franchise." The Terminator comparison is especially relevant when you consider how its most recent retcon failed. Terminator: Dark Fate was a box office flop — tangential proof that when movie franchises try to get too tricky with continuity, the audience isn't going to follow it. Yes, Star Trek and Marvel get away with this kind of crap all the time, but applying those rules to Star Wars doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The mediums matter. Despite its success with The Mandalorian, it remains to be seen if Star Wars will be able to convince a HUGE audience to follow complex in-the-weeds-canon stories on TV. For now, Star Wars is still primarily a franchise anchored by feature films. 
There's one more reason these rumors can be dismissed as toxic fandom gibberish. There's literally no reason to think Lucasfilm would disrespect the memory of Carrie Fisher, an actor who placed her faith in J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson to make a certain series of films. Fisher co-dedicated her final memoir — The Princess Diarist — to her Star Wars co-stars and directors (excluding Richard Marquand). Fisher loved working with Abrams and Johnson. Had she not, she wouldn't have said nice things about them. The snub of Return of the Jedi director Marquand speaks volumes. Fisher wasn't someone who played diplomatic Hollywood games. She was honest and upfront, and she was behind the creative decisions of The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. All the way. "The idea of erasing Carrie Fisher's final films would be a slap in the face to Fisher's legacy," Ward says. "These are the films she believed in and agreed to make with J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson." The Star Wars sequel trilogy is streaming on Disney+.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from "celebrity movie archive" - Google News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Comments
Post a Comment