As the Tom Hanks-Sandra Bullock drama Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close hits theaters today, New Yorkers are voicing their displeasure over the decision by both Warner Bros. and the MTA to air the movie’s commercials in digital subway ads in New York City. Most notably, the commercials are airing on a digital panel at a subway station right next to Ground Zero.

The film is about a young boy whose father (Hanks) dies in the attacks on the World Trade Center and his subsequent search for the answers to life’s questions, and so the ads feature footage of the attacks and smoke billowing from the towers. You know, I could see how that might upset some people in New York City.

“Everybody’s trying to make money off 9/11,” said Bill Doyle, whose son, Joseph, was killed in the north tower.

“A lot of families got upset. Why couldn’t they warn us about this? I don’t think people really realized that these people are really still stressed.”

A Warner Bros. spokesman, Paul McGuire, said the movie company would pull the ads.

“It was never our intention to cause any distress,” McGuire said. “As a result, we will make best efforts to pull the material from pertinent locations.”

(Via the New York Post)

Common sense is a rare treasure these days. I mean, I understand that you want to be able to convey to people that you’ve made a dramatic film that has 9/11 as a backdrop (oh how I miss the Cold War) and you need to show the horrific footage to really hammer home your point.

But I also want to believe that at some point during the video editing process for the TV ads, someone looked up and said, “Hey, I just had a thought – this might upset people.” Then again, I also assume another person just responded, “Nah, people still like Tom Hanks.”

Read the rest of this entry »

After the jump, I’ve got the new trailer for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, starring Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock, based on the Jonathan Safran Foer novel. This is also “the Daldry” that New Yorker critic David Denby said he was looking forward to in his email to producer Scott Rudin yesterday. As in, the new movie from director Stephen Daldry (The Reader, The Hours, Billy Elliot), who seems to make movies specifically for New Yorker critics.

…the story focuses on Oskar Schell (played by newcomer Thomas Horn), a nine-year-old boy from Manhattan whose father (Hanks) dies on 9/11 [So would you call it... OSKAR BAIT? ...I'm so sorry. -Ed]. Two years later, the boy discovers a key belonging to his father, which sends him on a search through the city, believing it will lead to a final message from his deceased parent. [ThePlaylist]

This looks great. I’ll probably throw on a wool caftan, light a few sandalwood candles, and curl up with a nice glass of Pinot Gris. Then after I have myself a good cry, I’ll probably throw the old James Taylor Greatest Hits CD in the Prius and go for a nice drive.

Read the rest of this entry »

(click to enlarge)

Thanks to FoodStampDavis for sending me this lovely rendering of “T. Hanksgiving.” It looks like the first T. Hanksgiving, in fact. It’s great, but I’ll be honest, at least 90 percent of the reason I’m posting this is that it includes Hooch.

After the jump, I’ve got the newest trailer for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, the film adaptation of Jonathan Safran Foer’s 2005 novel, starring Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, and some booger-faced milk baby (Kids Jeopardy champ Thomas Horn). It was directed by Stephen Daldry, who, having previously directed The Hours, Billy Elliot, and The Reader, specializes in critically acclaimed Oscar-bait movies that everyone says are good but you couldn’t convince me to watch in a million billion years. Not that they aren’t good. Heck, I want to see them. It’s just… my eyeballs and Nicole Kidman in a fake nose pretending to be Virginia Woolf… they’re like opposable magnets, you know? Anyway, this one was adapted by Eric Roth, who did Forrest Gump, Munich, and Benjamin Button. AND it stars a precocious child. If this doesn’t win a million Oscars, I will eat Colin Firth’s monocle.

Read the rest of this entry »

Channing Tatum’s spiritual doppleganger (and Lost Boys-era Corey Haim’s physical doppleganger), Chet Haze performed over the weekend, at a show in Chicago that was “not particularly off the hook” and “only mildly bangin’” according to witnesses (okay, I made that second one up). I suppose it’s not surprising at a show where he played second fiddle to an “edible candy wall” and “cotton candy”, according to the flyer. Chet’s pops, Tom Hanks, was also said to be in attendance, but at least as far as we can tell, it doesn’t sound like the music spoke to him quite like Mexican weather salsa music.  Here’s a first-hand account:

I’d say there were about 100 to 150 people there. It was a decent sized crowd but the club itself was pretty small. It was primarily made up of meatheads and club girls; my date told me that the guy behind me was singing along with all three songs, so apparently there were some Chet Haze superfans in attendance. I met some guy on the smoking deck who said he was a music producer and was there because he was fascinated that Chet Haze is making such a name for himself purely by being terrible.
The show was not particularly off the hook. I was disappointed with the length, especially since he didn’t go on until almost 1:00, and with the fact that he was clearly rapping and singing over his recordings. I would have been more impressed if he didn’t need such backup. Also, it would have been more off the hook if he brought those sexy dancers out earlier instead of at the end of his last song.
I was also surprised by Chet’s diminutive stature. He is a small, thin guy with muscles. I thought he would be much bulkier from his press pictures… [Nicole Lasky (pictured) for Gawker]

Only THREE songs of terrible music?  God, this food sucks, and the portions are so small.  Anyway, here’s Tom and Rita at the event (more pictures here):

They look surprisingly happy. I mean, they are professional actors and all, but still.  If he was my kid, I’d probably treat him like the exact opposite of Rita Wilson’s invisible child in that one TV movie. The world would be able to see him, but he’d be invisible to me.  “Hey, what’s up with your son rapping about Pacific Palisades?”  “My who?  I swear, I don’t know what you’re talking about.”