biopics Tagged Articles at Cinematical
Cinematical Seven: Biopics Worthy of Their Subject
Filed under: Fandom », Cinematical Seven », Lists »
As the film prepares to take flight tomorrow, reviews are starting to pour in for Hilary Swank's Amelia. It's quite the mixed bag, from Roger Ebert's praise to Keith Uhlich's description of the film as a "colorfully hollow biopic about America's beloved aviatrix." Should more chime in with Ebert's positivity, the film could get decent buzz, but as it stands while writing this on Thursday afternoon, out of 13 reviews, it's got a paltry 23% fresh rating.
The negative sentiments aren't really a surprise. The early pictures of the film weren't exactly promising, and the trailer induced skeptical responses. But rather than rant about dreams of Amelia Earhart getting one of those biopics that mesmerizes from the get-go, I'm going to try and stay positive. Not every biopic has to struggle to find footing. In fact, some manage to capture the magic of their subject and make for a damn fine film.
Catch seven of my favorites after the jump, and since such a small number can't begin to cover them all, please weigh in with your own in the comments.
Discuss: Who's In Need of a Biopic?
Filed under: Drama », Fandom »
Big screen biopics will always be a Hollywood staple. They're a tricky genre to master, as they can end up mawkish Oscar bait, whitewashed fluff, fictional and fun, or grueling epics that leave no stone unturned. But at their best, they can entertain and educate without dangerous inaccuracies -- and anything that gets people digging into history or literature is fine by me.
I don't know what the committee process is for picking who gets a biopic and when, but it seems like there's a lot of individuals who are long overdue for the cinematic treatment. So, inspired by the news that Steve McQueen and Ernest Hemingway are getting theirs, I thought I'd pose the question to our readers.
I'll kick off the discussion with a few picks of my own. My controversial one would be Lev Trotsky, who was a college obsession of mine partly due to the above photo. He wasn't the most pleasant of people, but his life reads like a thriller. Escapes from Siberia, an early life spent in revolutions and on the run, the major role he played in 1917, and his gruesome assassination would make a pretty amazing movie.
The feminist in me would love to see Mary Wollstonecraft get her due. Not only should young women be reminded that she existed, but isn't she just the kind of strong and complex woman sorely lacking in a He's Just Not That Into You world? It's worth making just for the cinematography of her Scandinavian adventures.
Literary biopics often end up the fluffiest. My first pick would be Robert Graves, but it's a dangerous one -- I could see someone adapting his life into a lot of heaving sex and WWI trench scenes. Perhaps J.R.R. Tolkien and the Inklings would be safer?
Share yours in the comments -- or we can at least trade the titles of really good biographies!
I don't know what the committee process is for picking who gets a biopic and when, but it seems like there's a lot of individuals who are long overdue for the cinematic treatment. So, inspired by the news that Steve McQueen and Ernest Hemingway are getting theirs, I thought I'd pose the question to our readers.
I'll kick off the discussion with a few picks of my own. My controversial one would be Lev Trotsky, who was a college obsession of mine partly due to the above photo. He wasn't the most pleasant of people, but his life reads like a thriller. Escapes from Siberia, an early life spent in revolutions and on the run, the major role he played in 1917, and his gruesome assassination would make a pretty amazing movie.
The feminist in me would love to see Mary Wollstonecraft get her due. Not only should young women be reminded that she existed, but isn't she just the kind of strong and complex woman sorely lacking in a He's Just Not That Into You world? It's worth making just for the cinematography of her Scandinavian adventures.
Literary biopics often end up the fluffiest. My first pick would be Robert Graves, but it's a dangerous one -- I could see someone adapting his life into a lot of heaving sex and WWI trench scenes. Perhaps J.R.R. Tolkien and the Inklings would be safer?
Share yours in the comments -- or we can at least trade the titles of really good biographies!
400 Screens, 400 Blows - A Brief Guide to Biopics
Filed under: Columns », 400 Screens, 400 Blows »
400 Screens, 400 Blows is a weekly column that takes an in-depth look at the films playing below the radar, beneath the top ten, and on 400 screens or less.
This year we've got at least three biopics jockeying for space in the year-end awards, just like every year. Biopics continue alternately to fascinate and disappoint me. I've already written at length about how these movies tend to be roughly the same, following much the same format and formula (and brilliantly spoofed in last year's Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story). And I've written about how they're instant award-magnets, causing nearly every artist in Hollywood to scour every last barrel bottom for any famous person's life story that hasn't yet been filmed. So for them, here's a handy dandy field guide to getting awards.
Best Bet: War heroes or political figures. In 1970, was any other movie going to beat Patton for a bunch of Oscars? Robert Altman's M*A*S*H may have been more popular and more artistic, but it didn't have Patton. In 1982, Gandhi beat out the infinitely superior Blade Runner. Schindler's List (1993) counts too. So does Erin Brockovich (2000). And this year, though I'm not ready to bet the farm just yet, it looks like Milk (309 screens) could be the big winner. Ron Howard's Frost/Nixon (205 screens) will probably get some nominations this year, but it's hard for old Tricky Dick to stack up against Harvey. Exceptions to the rule: you have to clearly define your character as either a hero or a villain. Sorry Oliver Stone, no Nixon or W. Malcolm X (1992) came close, but it was a bit too subversive for voters. Forest Whitaker's award-winning Idi Amin was actually the villain of that film, so his purpose was clear. This year Steven Soderbergh's Che (2 screens) is worthy, but a bit too complex for voters, failing to explain whether or not they should actually like Che.
Wham! Movie in Trouble
Filed under: Music & Musicals »
Wait, there's a Wham! movie in the works? Apparently so, according to The Guardian, which has an article highlighting the problem with the band biopic before it even gets off the ground. The film, about the '80s pop duo featuring George Michael, is being planned by former Wham! co-manager Simon Napier-Bell, who also worked with The Yardbirds, Japan and T.Rex/Marc Bolan (man, I'd really rather see a Bolan biopic). One thing Napier-Bell is known for during the Wham! years is negotiating the duo's 1985 concert in Beijing, marking the first live performance by a Western group in communist China. As for film work, Napier-Bell worked on the scores for What's New Pussycat (for which he re-edited Burt Bacharach's original score) and Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush. The Guardian's quote from Napier-Bell regarding the Wham! movie seems to come directly off the guy's website, on which he answers a fan's query about whether or not a Wham! movie will ever happen. Napier-Bell notes that people are interested in such a project but that it would all depend on George Michael, who could either disallow rights to the group's music or demand too much control. He states that Michael would likely get to say yes or no to any scripts that come about. I'm sure a greenlight on any film would also depend on whether or not there's any actual demand for a Wham! movie. Are there any fans out there excited about such a thing?
Warner Bros Will Make Clint Eastwood Fans' Day
Their Best Role: Nicole Kidman in 'To Die For'
Discuss: How Long Should You Keep Netflix DVDs?
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
_thumbnail.jpg)
