Covering entertainment news, we hear all too much about no-talent amateurs who just coast through the business winning jobs based on looks or nepotism. People like that lazy hack Meryl Streep. What we don’t hear nearly enough about are those young go-getters who aren’t afraid to go out there and grab life by the junk. People like the young South African you see here, and his campaign to get cast in Stephen Sommers’ Tarzan movie. Here’s part of the letter he wrote to movie writer David Poland accompanying the above picture:
I’m a highly self motivated 22- year old bodybuilder and actor. I’m a huge TARZAN fan ( the walls of my room mostly consists out of Tarzan posters and movie stars) and I live and breathe movies…which is why my dream is to one day move to America/USA and become an actor (movie star) there… as California is the film/entertainment capital of the world.
Honestly I dont have that much film experience (I’ve been working with an Israeli fim company to do a comercial shot at Mosselbay, South Africa/ I’ve done some stage acting as well) but I believe that THE WILL TO WIN IS MORE CRUCIAL THAN THE SKILL TO WIN… [OOH WHA-AA AA-AAH! -Ed.] and anything that I dont know by now I’m willing to learn very fast… It would be an honour to be part of this new TARZAN movie thats now in production by STEPHEN SOMMERS at WARNER BROS.
My personality is very open. I’m an extrovert and an outgoing kind of person.I worked a few years at a local gym where you are constantly working with people which is awesome.
I’m an outdoor type of guy, and like to do a lot of challenging things such as: horse riding/ canoeing /target shooting/ hunting/ swimming/ working out/ mountain climbing/ cycling and anything that is physiqly demanding.
REGARDS
DEWET DU TOIT
Well there you have it. The ball is in your court, Stephen Sommers. I imagine hiring this guy would be a relief after doing all those movies with Brendan Fraser. I have it on good authority that that guy couldn’t canoe for sh-t.
Yeah, so there’s going to be a G.I. Joe sequel. And that’s apparently such a minor and unsurprising news item that the LA Times all but breezed through it in a longer article about box office grosses:
[G.I. Joe's box office was] certainly good enough for Paramount to claim victory, however, and start thinking about the future. The studio’s vice chairman, Rob Moore, confirmed that a sequel will soon go into development. The film’s lead actors are contractually obligated to return for another film, though director Stephen Sommers is not.
Well I hope Stephen Sommers doesn’t ask for too much money, and can find time in his schedule between The Mummy 6 or The League of Extraordinary Werewolves or whatever. Otherwise, I don’t know what could happen to this franchise. But as long as Channing Tatums is there to mumble and stare vacant eyed while Marlon Wayans slips on banana peels I’m sure everything will be fine.
Despite their epically sleazy the-soldiers-who-defend-your-freedom-want-you-to-see-it marketing campaign, Paramount made $56.2 million on their G.I. Joe movie. The sad thing about even the most blatantly phony, transparent pandering is that it usually works. Oh hey look, Toby Keith bought a new cowboy hat. Anyway, it’s not Transformers money, but it’s enough for execs to say “well look how well G.I. Joe and Transformers did!” as they try to defend their decision to greenlight the next movie based on a board game or parlor trick. Thing is, though G.I. Joe and Transformers are technically based on a toy, they also both had old cartoons and the accompanying nostalgia on which to draw. If the View-Master movie does anywhere near this kind of business, I promise I’ll chug a pint of hobo piss.
Elsewhere, Julie and Julia was number two with $20.1 million. Surprising that there were so many people that couldn’t just wait to see it on a plane. Hard to tell if it will hold or drop immediately, but critics are already calling it the plane-yest movie of the summer.
Most everything else made a not-particularly-noteworthy $7 or $8 million (though Funny People declined a sharp 65%). And pour a little beer out on a hooker for The Hangover, which dropped out of the top 10 for the first week since its release. Though at -35%, it had the smallest decline for wide releases for the fifth weekend in a row, and still managed the number 11 spot. It just goes to show, people really want to see Zach Galifianakis get blown by an old chick.
(”Dey make me wear thees ovair my eye so dat I don’t get esleepy.”)
Paramount’s decision to only screen G.I. Joe for critics handpicked by the studio and their phoney-baloney empty gestures at patriotism (they won’t actually put the US military in their movie but they’ll bend over backwards to use them for marketing - you’re not fooling anyone, you pieces of sh*t) were looking good as of a few days ago when the film was tracking 91% on rottentomatoes. Now that a few people have actually seen it… not so much. It’s down to 41% as of this writing, and the only point of contention seems to be whether it’s just really stupid, or so stupid that it’s kind of fascinating, like a retard who remembers to breathe. I think the British reviews are my favorite:
“You wonder how the actors kept straight faces making this shameless codswallop.” -The Daily Express.
Codswallop? Did he just compare the movie to getting hit with a fish? I think that’s my new favorite word. “Waiter? Back to the kitchen, and take this codswallop with you! We are men, not grizzly bears.”
“I was more excited by last week’s G-Force 3-D, if only because the guinea pigs give the better performances.” -The Independent. [ho snap!]
“G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobblers, as it must now be known, is a 118-minute war crime that does for the army what Steve Martin’s Inspector Clouseau did for the French police force - except with more fake-looking explosions.” -NewsoftheWorld
Rise of Cobblers? Is… he saying fixing shoes… is a war crime? I’m so confused.
Watching “G.I. Joe” is like being slapped across the face with utility-grade meat for two hours and for all I know, that is exactly what screenwriters Stuart Beattie and David Elliot & Paul Lovett did to get themselves in the proper frame of mind. -eFilmCritic
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Allow me to paraphrase: “YOUR MOVIE IS LIKE GETTING SLAPPED WITH POOR PEOPLE DICKS, YOUR MOM’S FAVORITE HOBBIE.”
Sometimes I get caught up in this insular, nerdy world of movie news and take stories for granted. Anyway, I thought this was obvious, but I guess it’s a story - G.I. Joe will not screen for critics. /Film has a nice little rundown on past movies not screened for critics here, but basically, not screening for critics is a tacit admission that the movie sucks. If you’re confident in your product, you want to get it to as many people as possible and create all the positive word of mouth you can. Paramount clearly doesn’t expect much of a positive reaction, so it chose instead to handpick critics who are easy lays like Harry Knowles and shun the rest (and it seems to be working, as it’s gotten mostly positive reviews so far). But of course, to hear them tell it, they wanted to screen it for the Real Fans in Real America, not those elitist commy fags on the coast, with their berets and fancy expresso drank.
The studio says it’s intentionally aiming the movie at the heartland, at cities and audiences outside the entertainment vortexes of New York and Los Angeles. Paramount held a screening Friday for 1,000 military service members and their families at Andrews Air Force Base; it’s also focusing marketing efforts in places like Kansas City, Charlotte, N.C., and Columbus, Ohio.
Because people in the cities and people in the country couldn’t possibly hope to enjoy the same things!
While appealing to a sense of patriotism nationwide [editor's note: False], the plan also is inspired by the disparity that existed between the critical trashing “Transformers: Rise of the Fallen” received and the massive crowds it drew at the box office.
Shocking. Though you’d think a studio that actually cared about negative reviews wouldn’t have hired Stephen Sommers in the first place.
