2013-05-22T10:21:27-04:00 Mike Ryan http://www.news.moviefone.com/author/index.php?author=mike-ryan Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Mike Ryan Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog// 2013-05-21T12:29:24-04:00 2013-05-21T12:40:37-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/ "Fast & Furious 6" director Justin Lin compares his latest installment of the hugely successful franchise to a Robert Altman movie -- especially since Altman wasn't exactly known for scenes featuring tanks haphazardly steamrolling over oncoming traffic.

Ahead is a fairly comprehensive look at the outline of the last four "Fast & Furious" movies from the mind of the films' director, Justin Lin. (Lin did not direct the first two installments.) He transformed a series that didn't even bring back its own original stars (except for a cameo by Vin Diesel) for Lin's first installment, "Tokyo Drift," into the mega-blockbuster it is today.

And "Fast & Furious 6" will be Lin's last installment (well, maybe). He explains why.

With these last couple of installments, and some of the things that I've witnessed in these movies, I've left the theater shaking my head thinking, Well, Justin Lin has done it again.
[Laughs] Thank you.

These are not things I usually think while walking out of movies.
[Laughing] I appreciate that; that's the ultimate compliment. I feel like since I've joined this franchise, I always feel that if we get an opportunity to make another one, it's a privilege ... Usually when you're successful and then you do sequels, they tend to quantify everything and say, It's successful, here, let's do the same thing again. I really felt like if we have other opportunities, we should really help the characters evolve and further explore the themes. And to the studio's credit, they've been totally open, saying, Do what you need to do.

It's interesting that you say that, because I liked the first couple movies and liked the first two that you directed for what they were. But it wasn't until "Fast Five" that I really started liking these. There's been a definite shift in tone, right?
I'll tell you, what's funny is that when I came on the franchise, I was pitching the studio and, ultimately, it went to Vin -- because I felt like it was important to have him join us in "Tokyo Drift." And part of that conversation was to try to hopefully create a mythology and I think that was the ultimate goal. And if we were to keep growing, we were going to have the other characters join up. And, also, to be honest, behind the camera, there was a cultural shift, too.

How so?
Because when I came on -- because I came from an independent, credit card movie where people came on to work on the project because they believe in the script. And you go on to studio movies and you realize it's very different. The currency with studio movies is money. So you're trying to convert that and you're trying to create a culture -- because when I came on, "Fast & Furious" had become a cultural adjective. People almost feel like they can push the buttons and say, It's "Fast & Furious," so we'll do neon lights, short skirts, blah, blah, blah. And to try to change that? It did take a little time.

How did you do that?
We had to get through "4" to get to "5." "Part 3" was to really set up a new sensibility, "4" we kind of had to pull back and make it a little bit more personal and darker. And then in "5," I felt like, you know, it's interesting hearing your reaction because my greatest hope was that we would somehow get to "5" and "6." And when you watch the film, you'll notice it's titled "Furious 6" -- because it was always supposed to be "Tokyo Drift," "Fast & Furious," "Fast Five," and "Furious 6." That was always by design. So for me to be sitting here talking to you eight years later, that means I've gotten to fulfill everything I had pitched. It's emotional! But, yet, at the same time, it's really fulfilling.

When Vin Diesel shows up at the end of "Tokyo Drift," did you know for sure at that point that he would do the fourth movie, "Fast & Furious"?
Well, my thing was to get him into "Tokyo Drift" because I had heard -- I don't know exactly what happened -- I've heard rumors about why he wasn't in the second one and stuff. But I felt like he was the patriarch of the franchise. If I could convince him to come back, it means we're doing something right. I went to his house and showed him the film -- the footage -- and told him what I was trying to build. When he agreed to do it, that meant a lot. That meant that we were going in the right direction. So, it naturally just went into "4." It is funny, a lot of stuff that is in "Fast & Furious 6," we talked about it that one night in 2005 in his house.

So that night at his house, did he tell you, Hey, man, you should put a tank in "Part 6?"
[Laughs] Oh, I'll tell you, the tank wasn't, but I've been working on the plane sequence since 2009.

Really?
I started it before "Fast Five." It was my "Nashville." [Laughs] It's my Robert Altman ensemble piece. I knew it was all going to end there.

"Why Fast and Furious is a Robert Altman movie" will be my headline, I must warn you.
If you watch this film, I have 13 characters to take care of -- and that was the challenge. Altman probably influenced this movie more than anything.

Speaking of that plane, is there a self-awareness of, we have to top ourselves? I know you're not doing the next one, but it will have to have aliens.
[Laughs] Well, I like to say that, by nature, I will savor this. But by next week, I already have the writer of one of my projects developing here in London, so, I'm already moving on. I always feel like it can be better; always get better. But I think when you talk about franchise, that could be a little dangerous because you can get over-the-top. By nature of letting the characters evolve, it just felt natural for it to be bigger. I think the tank was the last piece that I put in -- it came from almost a joke of saying, God, it would be great if we could drive the vault from "Fast Five" and it could fire. And you're like, wait, that's a tank! We got a tank and we got a car and we tested it and I thought, wow.

Running over oncoming traffic, why not?
Well, I think that's, again, I get to work with some of the best, most skilled crew in the world. And I always love that moment when I pitch something and I'll see fear in their eyes. When I do that, I know we're doing something good.

You're not doing "Fast & Furious 7" because of scheduling -- because it's coming out next year. Is there any chance we could see you come back for "Fast & Furious 8"?
Well, I think at this point, again, I'm just kind of savoring the fact that it's so rare to be able to pitch something of this scope and actually be able to, eight years later, carry out everything you had hoped for.

That's not a no.
Yeah, to be totally honest with you, it's been emotional. It's been tough. Because it's been eight years and we've become family -- the crew and the cast. A lot of us have had kids and our kids are growing up together. So, for me to say, Hey, guys, I've got to take a little break because I've been developing a lot of stuff -- as a filmmaker, I'm itching to go and explore, definitely. I talk to Vin; we talk all the time. It's interesting because most of the stuff we talk about in "Fast & Furious" isn't even on screen. It's about the relationships between the characters.

And I can see a scenario, maybe down the line -- if we crack another trilogy -- that is something that I would be totally open to. But I've been a professional filmmaker for 10 years and I've been very fortunate to have done indie movies, TV and a tent-pole franchise. And I think my expectations -- the bar that I want to be there when we start something -- has changed also. So, if the situation is right, part of me hopes that down the line there might be something that comes together because, you know, we are a family.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog// 2013-05-21T10:00:32-04:00 2013-05-21T12:42:07-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/ "Return of the Jedi," the third film in the original "Star Wars" trilogy, was released on May 25, 1983. Lucasfilm, the production company founded by "Star Wars" creator George Lucas, is celebrating the film's 30th anniversary with a new book documenting the making of "Jedi." ("Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" already have books of their own.) "The Making of Return of the Jedi" won't come out until Oct. 1, but HuffPost Entertainment will have an exclusive excerpt later this week in time for the official anniversary on Saturday.

In the meantime, we present the very first look at the book's trailer, above, as well as an interview with the book's author, J.W. Rinzler. Ahead, Rinzler's best quotes on topics ranging from Harrison Ford's Han Solo death wish to the rumors of rampant, behind-closed-doors Ewok sex.

On sex among the actors who played Ewoks:

I don't know how much of that has been exaggerated over the past but, yeah, a few people had funny stories about having to knock on any doors that contained private places. I think there was one Ewok couple that did get married a few years later, which is not in the book, but that did happen. What they said, normally little people aren't used to seeing so many other little people at the same time -- so it was kind of a new experience for them.

On the trials of the director of "Return of the Jedi," the late Richard Marquand:

Certainly George did not want to have a repeat experience of "Empire" in terms of the time and the budget ... George wanted coverage of every scene, which he didn't really get as much of with ["The Empire Strikes Back" director] Irvin Kershner. It made it harder to do what he does in the editing room -- and for George, that's where some of the most important filmmaking takes place, so he really wanted to get that footage and he was determined to get it for "Jedi." And Marquand was kind of wondering at some points, "What's my job?" Kershner was kind of -- not exactly doing it like Hitchcock -- but more like Hitchcock. Saying, "I know what this is going to look like. I know how it's going to cut together." That forces the editor into a single way of cutting it together, and George didn't want to be handcuffed that way.

On Harrison Ford's attitude toward "Return of the Jedi":

Obviously, Harrison Ford career had taken a mega leap with Indiana Jones and he had just done "Blade Runner." So, he was doing really interesting work. I think he was as interested as always, but he just felt that in terms of the character arc of [Han Solo], it would serve the story more if he died. And it's well known that he was really pushing that. But George didn't want to kill off a major character -- or even a minor character -- in "Jedi." But in the story conference [with Lucas, Lawrence Kasdan, Richard Marquand and producer Howard Kazanjian], I think you can see in hindsight that what happened was that Han and Leia, their storyline, didn't receive as much attention as it might have. It's not really Ford losing interest as it is neither character has as much to do in "Jedi" as they did in "Empire."

On George Lucas' divorce:

That's not something I want to play up at all. It's obviously in the book, and George is the one who talked to me about it ... but he brought it up and basically kind of wanted it in the book because it was obviously having a big effect upon him at the time. As he said, he just had to drag himself to work during post-production every day.

On the legacy of "Return of the Jedi," compared to "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back":

In a way, "Jedi"'s trajectory is similar to "Empire'"s. They both got mixed reviews, and a lot of the actors back then in 1982 didn't even like "Empire" that much. They really preferred "Star Wars" and they preferred "Jedi." Then, over the years, "Empire" has kind of appeared as a lot of people's favorite. I was taking to Guillermo del Toro about this. Already with "Jedi," you have another generation of filmgoers going to the theater. And for people like me, "Jedi" was already a kind of "The Phantom Menace" in that we're like, "You've got to be kidding me with these Ewoks. I just cannot relate to this. These are little people in suits and it looks ridiculous." There's already a generational divide. But those kids who were seven and eight who saw Jedi -- for a lot of people, "Jedi" is their favorite film. And del Toro is saying it will be the same way for the prequels.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3303863 2013-05-20T11:01:42-04:00 2013-05-20T16:16:15-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/


On Friday, the sixth installment of The Fast and the Furious franchise, this one titled Pollock Fast & Furious 6, will open at a multiplex near you. Vin Diesel (Saving Private Ryan) and Paul Walker (The Skulls) reprise their roles from most of the other movies. Also, there's a tank in this one. So let's just get to the part where we answer every question that you could possibly have about Fast & Furious 6.

Q: What's the best thing about Fast & Furious 6?

A: The fact that a tank motoring down the road, crushing oncoming traffic, plays a major role.

Q: If you're going to be blurbed in the commercials for Fast & Furious 6, what quote do you hope is used?

A: "SpecTANKular!" Mike Ryan, The Huffington Post

Q: After very little thought, did you just email this suggestion to Universal Pictures?

A: Yes.

Q: Is there any chance that this will happen?

A: No.

Q: What's the plot of Fast & Furious 6?

A: Hahahaha.

Q: Do Vin Diesel and The Rock at least fight in this one?

A: No. As we saw at the end of Fast Five, Dominic Toretto (Diesel) and Luke Hobbs (The Rock) are now friends.

Q: If they did fight, who would win?

A: Honestly, The Rock is so large in this movie that Vin Diesel could have been a stand-in for The Rock's left quadricep.

Q: I was under the impression that at the end of Fast Five, Toretto and Brian O'Conner (Walker) stole enough money to retire?

A: They did. But Hobbs pulls the two out of retirement by showing Toretto a photo of someone from his past?

Q: Nicky Katt?

A: No, it's a photo of Toretto's thought-to-be-dead ex-girlfriend, Letty (Michelle Rodriguez).

Q: Does Fast & Furious 6 take place before the events that led to Letty's death?

A: No. A cockamamie excuse is given as to why she's alive, which involves--you know what? It doesn't matter. The point is that she's alive and that she has amnesia.

Q: From now on, will you refer to amnesia as "Romnesia" for no real reason whatsoever other than it's fun to say?

A: Sure.

Q: So what are Toretto and O'Conner hired to do?

A: Hobbs recruits Toretto and O'Conner and the rest of their furious team to stop a terrorist named Owen Shaw (Luke Evens) who, luckily, also specializes in driving fast and furious land vehicles. Letty, suffering from Romnesia, works for Shaw.

Q: Is Fast & Furious 6 the best of the franchise?

A: Yes.

Q: What if I gave up on this franchise after the second movie?

A: Boy, are you missing out. What was once an excuse to watch fast cars drive around has transformed -- starting with the fifth installment -- into a self-aware series of heist movies.

Q: Self-aware?

A: The action scenes are so ridiculously over-the-top, there's no way the filmmakers don't know it. It's as if, for the first couple of movies, the joke was on Fast & Furious. But now, Fast & Furious is in on the joke. Once that happens, an observer can safely watch from afar without feeling guilty.

Q: What's the biggest problem with Fast & Furious 6?

A: At well over two hours long, it takes a bit too much time to actually get to the over-the-top action scenes. But the movie more than makes up for it's slow-ish first hour in the final 60 minutes.

Q: What's the best thing about the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole?

A: That there's a character named Han Seoul-Oh.

Q: If I informed Harrison Ford of this fact, what would be his reaction?

A: He would shrug without pausing as he walked right past you.

Q: Is there racing in Fast & Furious 6?

A: Yes, but it's almost an afterthought. It's as if, halfway through shooting, a conversation began:

"Hey, should we have a car race?"

"We probably should. People who pay to see these movies seem to like those."

It's so out-of-the-blue, the car race in Fast & Furious 6 could have very well been a street pillow fight if this franchise happened to be called Puffy & Pajamaed.

Q Are the Fast & Furious movies, as numbered, in chronological order?

A: No.

Q: What is your suggestion for a hip title to next summer's Fast & Furious 7?

A: Furiou7even.

Q: How many diving head butts are in Fast & Furious 6?

A: Two.

Q: What's the most outlandish thing that happens in Fast & Furious 6?

A: Hahahahha.

Q: Did you now just email Universal Pictures the word "Fan-TANK-six"?

A: I'm sorry, but I want to live in a world where that fake word appears on television.

Q: How was that one received?

A: What's the email equivalent of a shrug as someone walks right past you?

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog// 2013-05-20T08:45:40-04:00 2013-05-20T12:05:01-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/ not to think about Bradley Cooper's own journey since the first film debuted in 2009. In four short years, Cooper has transformed himself from wiseacre Phil Wenneck to an Academy Award-nominated actor -- a transformation so thorough, it's actually a little odd watching him play Wenneck again.

Cooper called after a long day of press events (that were held in Las Vegas, so your guess is as good as mine as to the amount of sleep he was running on). He discussed the end of the "Hangover" series, his relationship with David O. Russell, and the reasons behind his abrupt departure from the troubled Western "Jane Got a Gun." Cooper also talked about a recent meeting with Sean Penn (yes, the now viral 1999 "Bradley Cooper Asks Sean Penn a question" video was a topic), and explained why, now that he's worked with Christian Bale in the upcoming "American Hustle," he'd like another shot of that impression he did of Bale on "Saturday Night Live."

I think what I will miss the most about the "Hangover" movies is the smaller moments. Like when Phil responds to Alan [Zach Galifianakis] killing a giraffe, "So he killed a giraffe, who gives a fuck?"
The one thing I loved about the third one, the thing that we did that was most like the first one was indulge in the in-between moments. The second one didn't have as much of that. And we were very conscious of making sure that happened in the third one. Sort of, you know, the side of the road in the car. A moment when they're rappelling down the building, when Alan's like, "Try to take a picture." And Phil is like, "Did you get it?" You know, those are the moments when the audience hopefully just connects in such a hugely visceral way with these characters.

There's a montage in this movie that shows scenes from all three "Hangover" movies. It was interesting watching that because audiences really got to know you in that first movie and so much has happened in your career since then. I almost expected to see clips from "The Place Beyond the Pines" and "Silver Linings Playbook" thrown in.
[Laughs] Right.

Does that make you feel nostalgic that these are ending?
I mean, there's definitely a lament for the four of us [Galifianakis, Ed Helms and director Todd Phillips] that has really nothing to do with "Pines" or "Playbook." Yeah, definitely it was bittersweet. Gratitude is the word that we'd been batting around for the past three days of this junket in Vegas. That's because, you know, this was never realized as a trilogy on the outset. This is all gravy.

Do you have mixed feelings about it ending? Obviously it meant a lot for your career, but you get to close a chapter. You mentioned "bittersweet."
I'd say it's just sweet, in the sense that you want to go out on a high note, hopefully. We'll see what happens. You know, like life, there's a beginning, middle and end -- and the end is sad but it's also, I don't know, there's just a lot of gratitude, I'd say. So, because of that, because it was never thought of as a trilogy, all of this is just bonus. Do you know what I mean? And when you know it's all bonus, it's harder to sort of feel upset about it.

There was some backlash toward the second movie because the plot had a similar structure to the first movie. This one doesn't follow that same pattern. Was that a concern?
[We were] very conscious of [that]. Just as conscious as we were the second time of adhering to the structure. I think that maybe, in retrospect, people say that, but if you had deviated from this formula the second movie, it wouldn't have been as successful. I think that we had part two with the structure, and with the third one, we could rely upon the audience's engagement with the characters to drive the narrative. It is the time bomb of Alan that drives this third movie.

I feel like this has been the Year of Bradley Cooper. Do you have time to actually think about that?
I feel very fortunate. This is a wonderful time in my life. No question about it. And I just wake up every day and make sure I enjoy the hell out of it.

When you're around your friends do you drop "Oscar nominee" into your conversations? Like, "Hey, that's 'Oscar nominee Bradley Cooper' to you now"?
[Laughs] It never comes up.

I'd be dropping that any chance I had.
Yeah ... no, no. I haven't yet. Maybe I should start doing it.

You're working with Christian Bale in David O. Russell's next movie, "American Hustle." Has he mentioned the impression that you did of him on "Saturday Night Live?"
Oh, God. I hosted "Saturday Night Live" before the "The Hangover" came out. That was around "He's Just Not That Into You," and we did a skit. But the reason why I even agreed to do it was it really wasn't making fun of him, actually. It's about a DVD of everybody's rants. But, no, he never brought it up.

I bring it up because it was a good impression.
Oh, you know, now that I know him, I don't think it was a very good impression. I would like another crack at it, actually! And it's interesting, it's hard to do an impersonation because it depends on what movie he's just done -- you know, in terms of where his accent's at.

That's true. When you hear him give a speech at an awards show or something, it's always startling to hear his real voice.
Right. And it changes!

You starred in David O. Russell's "Silver Linings Playbook." Now you're working with him again in "American Hustle." I don't want to get ahead of myself, but could this be like a Scorsese and De Niro type of relationship?
I feel very fortunate that we have a shorthand -- a way of working together -- that is ridiculously complementary. And even more so on this film, because we're both tired as hell, and we're both getting through this movie and it works! You know, we'll see. I hope "American Hustle" will be as wonderful as I hope it can be, given this incredible cast. But I would be honored if I could make seven or eight movies with this man, are you kidding?

What clicks with you two? He's a director that not everyone responds to, what about your personalities makes this work?
For me though, he has a tremendous heart. First of all, he's ridiculously talented. His instincts are insane. And he's a very, very funny writer. And then just the way we work and what we think is funny -- we get each other. I feel like he gets me in a way that maybe a lot of people don't and I think a little bit vice versa. I enjoy his company and I find him to be endlessly inspiring, artistically.

I'm curious, have you run into Sean Penn since that video of you asking him a question from a 1999 taping of "Inside the Actors Studio" went viral?
Yeah, I have! Yeah. And he brought it up, actually. His daughter had showed it to him.




Did he remember that?
Oh, he doesn't remember, but he was laughing about it.

You were in recent headlines for backing out of "Jane Got a Gun." I've heard though the grapevine that there were script rewrites and that someone may have announced your involvement before it was finalized. What exactly happened there?
That was simply a scheduling thing. And I think it was important to make a statement because I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't any bad -- they've already changed directors, you know, you don't want it to seem like it's a cursed project.

Like you're piling on?
Yeah, exactly. So, here's the reason, because I would be honored to work with [director] Gavin O'Connor. If there were any mistake made, it was of sort of jumping the gun and saying, "Yeah, sure," but then realizing the logistics were impossible. Because it would have been going from literally my last day in Rio to Albuquerque to start shooting the next day. And that's with no prep, you know what I mean? You know, it would have been a nightmare. Everything worked out for the best because they got Ewan McGregor. If they could have gotten him at the outset, I would have never gotten offered the role [laughs], I'll tell you that.

You're an Oscar nominee now, you don't have to be that humble.
Well, it's the truth. I'm not trying to be humble, it's just how I see things.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3302738 2013-05-19T12:05:08-04:00 2013-05-19T12:34:52-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/


Bill Hader and Fred Armisen are officially gone. As for Jason Sudeikis, who really knows at this point? I would assume that, right now, he doesn't know for sure either. But I have a hard time believing that, if he were leaving, he wouldn't have been waving to the crowd along with Hader and Armisen during the goodnights. Or at least have had one goodbye sketch, something that Hader and Armisen each provided last night in completely different ways.

Yes, it was a bittersweet show, a show during which the host, the amicable Ben Affleck, was almost an afterthought (which was kind of played to during a monologue in which he joined the five timers club, yet only Bobby Moynihan wearing a "5" t-shirt congratulated him). Yet, for as bittersweet as the undertones of the show were, it still played like your average installment of "Saturday Night Live." There wasn't an endless parade of Bill Hader and Fred Armisen's greatest hits -- Herb Welch and Nicholas Fehn were nowhere to be seen. Instead, both men left as they arrived, standouts of the ensemble, without overshadowing the cast. A fitting sendoff.

Off we go to your last "SNL" Scorecard for quite some time ...

Sketch of the Night

"Weekend Update" (Seth Meyers, Amy Poehler, Bill Hader, Ben Affleck, Anderson Cooper) Before we get to Stefon, it must be pointed out how well Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler work together. That was far from the best "Really?!?" that these two have been a part of and it's already a highlight from this past season.

As for Stefon, that was pretty perfect. Not only did we get one last hurrah with Stefon behind the "Update" desk, but the proceedings then morphed into a sketch about Stefon's wedding to Anderson Cooper -- a wedding with pretty much every character that Stefon has ever described over the last four seasons. (It was basically the last episode of "Seinfeld," only done well.) A wedding that also included Gordon Shumway (or ALF, if we must) and Ben Affleck returning as Stefon's brother. (Stefon's first appearance on "SNL" was in a 2008 sketch in which Affleck played his brother.) Sure, Stefon was overused over the past four seasons (this was his 17th appearance), but it would have been ludicrous to not have him appear in Hader's last show and this really was the perfect sendoff.



Score: 10


The Good

"Top of the Pops" (Fred Armisen, Bill Hader, Jason Sudeikis, Taran Killam, Carrie Brownstein, Steve Jones, Kim Gordon, J Mascis, Michael Penn, Aimee Mann) I was worried about how Armisen's departure would be handled. Most of Armisen's best-known recurring characters are "Weekend Update" characters, which would have been sadly overshadowed by the Stefon proceedings. Armisen, singing as Ian Rubbish, certainly didn't provide anything as bombastic as the time Darrell Hammond left while Will Ferrell sang him off with "Goodnight Saigon" -- instead, it was a poignant moment, as "SNL" and "Portlandia" combined right there in front of us. I wouldn't go as far to say that Armisen has looked bored the last couple of seasons of "SNL," but he's certainly been itching to do some more experimental things. Though, there's no doubt how Armisen feels about "SNL," it was right there on his guitar strap: "TY LM I <3 u."



Score: 9.5

"New Xanax" (Cecily Strong, Taran Killam, Vanessa Bayer, Bobby Moynihan, Bill Hader, Jason Sudeikis, Aidy Bryant, Kate McKinnon) I am still laughing at the site of Bill Hader dancing aimlessly in front of the choreographed Beyoncé performance. (Honestly, this happen to me at any wedding.) It was interesting -- there were two gay-themed sketches last night and it really showed the contrast of how to do one right (this one) and how to do one wrong (see: The Ugly).



Score: 8.0

"Hermes" (Vanessa Bayer, Cecily Strong, Ben Affleck) Fine! These are starting to make me laugh. At least, for whatever reason, this one was my favorite so far. Bayer and Strong now certainly have the timing down. (And, as opposed to past installments, it didn't seem like it went on for 10 minutes.) I think it was important on a night like last night to showcase what "SNL" will still have to offer after losing such important cast members -- this helped to do that.



Score: 7.0

"Ben Affleck Monologue" (Ben Affleck, Bobby Moynihan, Jennifer Garner) The previously mentioned fact that Affleck was a bit of an afterthought as host is played up here, pretty well actually. (You know, they could have at least had Elliott Gould show up to say, "Congratulations.") Anyway, the main gist is that Affleck said something weird about marriage during his Oscar acceptance speech and, let's face it, on the list of "weird things that have been said during Oscar acceptance speeches," this seems pretty low. Regardless, Affleck looked like he was happy to be there.



Score: 6.5

"Iranian Film" (Fred Armisen, Bill Hader, Bobby Moynihan, Ben Affleck) It was nice to see Armisen's Ahmadinejad one last time, even though he's pretty far down on the list of Armisen characters that I'd like to see. But this certainly wasn't a "Let's do it for Fred" type sketch -- it was more of a "Let's let Affleck be self-deprecating about 'Argo'" sketch, which would have been much more potent a couple of months ago. Alas. Though, this sketch was worth it just for one last "Gigli" reference. (It's just too bad Armisen's Frondi wasn't there to share in that reference.)



Score: 6.2

"Cops" (Bill Hader, Ben Affleck, Kate McKinnon, Nasim Pedrad, Tim Robinson, Fred Armisen, Taran Killam, Jason Sudeikis, Bobby Moynihan) This is one of those strange sketches that, for some reason, gets funnier as it keeps going. (Unfortunately, it's not online because they sang three seconds of the "Cops" theme song, I guess?) For no other reason, it was just nice to see a good portion of the cast together one last time, getting to make funny noises in an attempt to make each other laugh. Why not?

Score: 6.0


The Bad

"Greg's Funeral" (Jason Sudeikis, Ben Affleck, Tim Robinson, Cecily Strong, Kate McKinnon, Taran Killam, Nasim Pedrad, Jay Pharoah) There was a good sketch in there somewhere, but in the end, it was just a straightforward sketch about a guy who fakes his own death, then defends himself at his funeral. This sketch was just screaming for some sort of a twist on what isn't a very inspired idea -- by the end, I was hoping Kevin Hart would show up and ask "Is it a Z Shirt?"



Score: 5.0

"Cold Open: Politics Nation" (Kenan Thompson, Jason Sudeikis, Bill Hader) You know, this past week hasn't been the greatest week of Barack Obama's presidency. For the life of me, I can't understand how the cold open wasn't Pharoah as Obama doing something. And if the goal here was to have a sketch with Kenan, Hader and Sudeikis, why not just do one last "What's Up With That?" Alas, this was quite the dud to start the show.



Score: 5.0

"Depression Scene" (Bill Hader, Ben Affleck, Kate McKinnon) I'm not sure what happened here: I was ready for something pretty terrific because the scene was certainly set -- then, nothing. I certainly laughed when Hader's out of work bozo balks at the idea of being at work at 8 a.m., which is a funny premise, but unfortunately, it took an odd turn -- realizing Hader and McKinnon were criminals instead of just lazy. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what the point was supposed to be here, other than Hader and McKinnon can still be funny even without the best material.



Score: 4.5


The Ugly

"Camp" (Ben Affleck, Bobby Moynihan, Aidy Bryant, Kenan Thompson, Vanessa Bayer, Taran Killam, Jay Pharoah) Here's a sketch that at least pretended that it had something to say, but really didn't say anything. It was just lacking any sort of real bite and seemed more like an excuse for the cast to act "flamboyant" than to really try to say anything important. And, sure, it's not really the job of "SNL" to have to say something important, but if they're going to set up a premise with something that is extremely controversial (even though no one in his or her right mind believes a camp that turns someone straight "works"), it would be nice if it had at least some sort of clever message other than Affleck and Killam almost kissing.

(Is not online due to song rights issues.)

Score: 2.5


Average Score for this Show: 6.38

· Christoph Waltz 7.03
· Justin Timberlake 6.40
· Ben Affleck 6.38
· Martin Short 6.28
· Christina Applegate 6.13
· Seth MacFarlane 5.93
· Louis C.K. 5.92
· Anne Hathaway 5.87
·Melissa McCarthy 5.86
· Bruno Mars 5.81
· Zach Galifianakis 5.78
·Vince Vaughn 5.75
· Adam Levine 5.71
· Joseph Gordon-Levitt 5.51
· Kevin Hart 5.47
·Kristen Wiig 5.45
· Jamie Foxx 5.43
· Jeremy Renner 5.39
· Jennifer Lawrence 5.38
· Daniel Craig 5.35
· Justin Bieber 5.23

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter. Click below for this week's "SNL," Not Ready For Primetime Podcast featuring Mike Ryan and Hitfix's Ryan McGee.

If you would like to subscribe to the podcast, you can do that here.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog// 2013-05-17T11:23:52-04:00 2013-05-17T11:43:16-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/
Congratulations on the renewal of "Community."
Oh, thank you so much. I'm excited. I'm just really excited and pleasantly surprised. You know, I really didn't know what the chances of renewal would be. I really didn't know. That's really a testament to the fanbase, the devoted fanbase, that the show has.

Do they give you any hints on renewal either way before the announcement?
We get our information probably off of the Internet, just like you guys -- at least for the actors -- so everyone is kind of kept in the dark. There are a lot of decisions to be made at the last minute right before upfronts for any network. And I think that's good, because you don't want any information to be leaked out. I'm sure people are changing their minds and finessing their decisions right until the eleventh hour. So we were definitely an eleventh-hour renewal. I think the whole cast, we're such good friends that we're just so grateful to come back.

When you first read the script for "The Hangover Part III," were you at all like, "I'm in this a lot"?
Yeah, exactly. I was surprised, again in a good way. I couldn't believe that I had an expanded role. And I was just excited to come back to the third movie. I was just hoping to have a part in the third movie, to be honest. So, to me, I was so grateful that they gave me a part in it. Then to find out I had an expanded role? It's like, "Wow, oh my goodness."

In the past two, your role has been memorable but small. In this third movie, Chow even opens up the film with a prison escape.
I think I'm still kind of wrapping my head around it. And I've already finished filming it -- it's kind of a mind-blowing thing. Coming from a guy, not too long ago quit his medical day job, and to end up in this situation is beyond a dream come true. When I quit my day job as a doctor, I was thinking, "You know, I just want to be a working actor."

You had a successful run with guest appearances for a really long time. You were in a lot of things.
Yeah, well, thank you for noticing. And I was really happy doing that. That was really the goal: I wanted to get lines on TV shows and movies. That was really it, I just wanted to have lines. And that's what a working actor does: A working actor works. And that's still the goal. All I want to do is just work, and I think the ultimate reward for a guy like me is just to keep working steadily the rest of his life.

Does having a medical degree ever help you on set? Let's say Chow shoots someone, can you say, "Well, you would want to aim at that part of the body if you want him to die right away."
You know, that doesn't really happen in this context. But I do think -- I remember in "Knocked Up," it did. I'm trying to think of some other times that I was a physician. I would offer, sometimes, those things if I was asked. It really depends on the context of the story, and sometimes accuracy is not what is important in the scene. You are telling a story and it's all contextual, like anything else.

Both Chow and Chang from "Community" are over-the-top characters. You mentioned "Knocked Up" -- do you ever miss doing the straight-shooting dick like that character?
I'm going with the flow at this point in my career. And the good thing about it, at the very least, I feel -- how do I say? -- secure in the knowledge that I can go back to roles like Dr. Kuni as well as Mr. Chow. I enjoy doing both of those roles in many ways. It's so much fun doing a role like Mr. Chow because I am a doctor. For me to be known for playing "crazy villain roles" is -- as a guy in real life who is a mild-mannered doctor -- that's the biggest accomplishment that I could think of. I think other people would look at it like, "Oh, he's typecast as the villain." I'm looking at it like, "Oh my God, I'm typecast as a villain! It's amazing!" [laughs]. It's all about perspective. To be honest, I can always go back to playing those types of roles, the medical roles. Those come to me -- quite frankly, I hate to say it like this -- but it's pretty easy, because I was a doctor for 10 years!

Speaking of the villain role, I've seen every episode of "Community," but I was recently watching some episodes from early in the first season and it's crazy how the tone of the show has changed.
Well, that's television.

Right, you can watch the first episode of "Friends" and the characters are very different then how we know them later.
Exactly.

But Chang's arc, he's not really anything like the character that we know now.
Oh, yeah. They've done so many permutations to my character, it's like I can't keep count anymore. But I look at that show -- honestly, for me, it's experimental theater, you know? They're always trying something new every year and it keeps it fresh. And I actually enjoy that, if that makes any sense. I look at it as: I became a better actor because of "Community," because of all of the hours in front of the camera for four years. That's been my formal training, to be honest. In between "Hangover" movies, [director] Todd Phillips was like, "Oh my God, between movies you're like a better actor every year."

That's a nice thing to hear.
And it's because of "Community." So I make it work. Does that make sense? Whatever circumstances I have, I don't complain and I just make it work. That's kind of the key to doing all of this, in my opinion. And, again, to go back to "Hangover III" -- to be honest, I think "Hangover III" is the best work I've ever done. And I think it's a culmination of the years of "Community" and the previous two "Hangover" movies and movies like "Knocked Up" and "Role Models" that I've been a part of. I honestly don't know if it can get any better than this. People have asked me, "What goals do you have after 'Hangover III'?" I really don't know, because I honestly don't think it could get any better than this. I have an expanded part in a franchise that people know and love -- what's not to like?

As far as after "Hangover III," I feel like you've gotten yourself into the Michael Bay club. You were in both "Transformers 3" and "Pain & Gain."
That's right, yeah. It was through "Hangover" -- because Michael Bay is a big "Hangover" fan, you know -- I got to be in "Transformers 3" and "Pain & Gain." Honestly, I would like to keep doing more Mr. Chow. I would love to do a Chow spinoff or anything Chow related. He's my favorite character that I've ever played, because you can literally say or do anything in that character.

You mentioned that you feel this is your best work. On top of that, the second "Hangover" has a reputation for being repetitive of the first movie, and that's not the case with this installment.
Yeah, this is not a bachelor party situation. There's no missing person. It doesn't adhere to the formula of the first two movies, and it's a fitting finale to it. I personally love the second movie. I really enjoyed making it and I loved being in Thailand. I felt, as an actor, that we were really, really in a pocket ... and I think all of those experiences are very additive, and that leads to this movie ... it's not a sprint, it's a marathon.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3281281 2013-05-16T10:52:07-04:00 2013-05-16T10:52:47-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/


Even during elementary school recess, all of the cool kids were playing Star Wars, not Star Trek.

I use the term cool loosely. I'm really talking about the coolest kids I could hope to spend meaningful time with. The truly cool kids were playing tetherball. (It's possible that at least some percentage of my Star Wars fandom stems from my extreme prejudice against tetherball - mostly because I played it about as well as Deb from Napoleon Dynamite. )

I've never really understood the divide between Star Wars and Star Trek fans. As far I can tell, they're just two sides of the same tragic coin. Yes, Star Wars happened to be the popular entity when I was in elementary school. While we were playing Star Wars (which pretty much consisted of children running around the playground pretending to fly an X-Wing fighter; the children pretending to be Han Solo and Chewbacca had to run around together in unison), the Star Trek kids were over by the fence, burning stuff with a magnifying glass.

See, it already sounds like I'm making fun of Star Trek fans. I swear that I am not. In the early 1980s, it was hard to compete with Star Wars. I'm sure today, as I type this, the cool kids are out on the playground pretending to be Chris Pine's Kirk and Zachary Quinto's Spock, while some sad child is off in the background, babbling something about midichlorians and drinking Sunny-D from his Jar Jar Binks thermos. (I kid. Obviously all the cool kids of 2013 are busy playing Grand Theft Auto 5 and tweeting recipes for crystal meth.)

I first encountered Kirk and Spock when my mom made me watch Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Her attitude was, effectively, "it's about space; you'll like it; now leave me alone." I've formed a mild appreciation of the film over the years, but, to a six-year-old watching it on cable, it was about as stimulating as chloroform.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan changed things. I saw this one on cable too (even though I don't remember exactly when), but strangely I wasn't bored. Actually, it made me interested in the entire series. It made me think, I would like to learn more about these people. Even though I didn't necessarily feel invited.

This divide is not just some figment of my imagination. Even recently, after the director of the last two Star Trek films, J.J. Abrams, announced that he'd be directing Star Wars Episode VII, a die-hard Trek fan friend of mine barked, "He's your problem now." (Abrams, for his part, has never been a huge Trek fan. Hold that thought.) And way back in 1981 (as recounted in J.W. Rinzler's upcoming and excellent The Making of Return of the Jedi), Mark Hamill called George Lucas and his team "traitors" after learning that Lucasfilm's Industrial Light and Magic would be doing the effects for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Lucas responded, "It's a business, kid."

The first movie I ever saw at a theater was The Empire Strikes Back. I owned Star Wars toys before I had ever seen a Star Wars movie. I was born into Star Wars, basically. Though, by junior high, I was experimenting even more with Star Trek. (Yes, I realize I wrote that last sentence the same way an addict would write, "by junior high I was experimenting with marijuana.")

When I was in junior high, a local television station started airing episodes of the original series, which I found fascinating. I was always aware of the series, but until then I'd only seen the movies. It was like finding out there was a Star Wars television show with 79 additional Han, Luke and Leia adventures that I had never seen. Later, I begged my mom to buy me the home video release of the original series. At one episode per tape, these were staggeringly expensive. (I should also point out here that I was an only child.) It was after the purchase of the tenth tape that my mom realized I could just record these episodes off the television. Regardless, as a 12-year-old I owned a Betamax copy of the never-aired Star Trek pilot "The Cage." And yet, today, my very public affection for Star Wars makes people assume I can't love Star Trek too.

I happen to enjoy both of J.J. Abrams' cinematic Star Trek interpretations. I certainly understand how these Trek movies differ from what came before, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying them. Sure, they're different from the originals -- but that's the point. To many Trek fans, however, Abrams himself is just a big bag of problematic, because he's so openly not a Trek fan. (This kind of thing seems to irk die-hard Star Trek fans more than it does die-hard Star Wars fans.)

Now, fans of both franchises are in the odd position of sharing a director. This has only widened the chasm by making it feel as if Abrams is leaving Star Trek for Star Wars. (And by making Abrams look a little like that annoying guy who likes both the Yankees and the Mets.) In reality, the Star Wars movie Abrams makes is likely to share the same tone and style as these last two Star Trek movies (only with less lens flare and more scene wipes). And yes, that will further cloud the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars, thereby pissing off every Trek fan while bringing cautious optimism to Star Wars fans -- because we know that we will at least get something that was better than the prequels. (I have long given up on ever seeing a movie as good as the original Star Wars or The Empire Strikes Back. At this point I'd take a Star Wars film that's even remotely as competent as Star Trek Into Darkness.) By the summer of 2015, those non-existent playground kids won't know whether to play Star Wars or Star Trek.

Today, I rank Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as one of my personal Top 10 favorite movies of all time. Yet, again, I am a Star Wars guy -- because a side must be picked and that's where my emotional ties are stronger. And, yeah, I get it: It's not the greatest feeling when the director who was tapped to bring Trek back from the precipice switches sides. But, as George Lucas told Mark Hamill, "It's a business, kid."

And that's why we really are the same: because we both desperately don't want that to be true, even though it is.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3274300 2013-05-14T15:50:18-04:00 2013-05-15T20:04:20-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/


When I woke up this morning to the news that Bill Hader was leaving "Saturday Night Live" after this weekend's season finale, my initial reaction was something along the lines of, "Well, I guess that was expected." His contract was up -- Andy Samberg, who joined "SNL" as a featured player the same year as Hader in 2005, had already departed at the end of last season -- and more and more Hollywood projects have been beckoning. (I recently saw an early cut of the upcoming "The To Do List," directed by Hader's wife, Maggie Carey, which features a substantial role for Hader.) So, no, it wasn't a surprise. But over the course of the day, I'm slowly starting to realize that I've been taking Bill Hader for granted.

Bill Hader is the perfect "SNL" cast member. And the fact that I've always known this, yet still feel like I have taken him for granted is a big part of why he is the perfect cast member. Hader's first show, October 1, 2005, introduced him on "Weekend Update" as basically "the impressionist," while Samberg played the goofy foil who got the laughs.



Samberg was the one who was put front and center as "the funny one," while Hader slowly but surely grinded his way up the ladder. While Samberg was doing his part in YouTube's rise to power with "Lazy Sunday," Hader was just starting to gain some attention with his uncanny Al Pacino impression (an impression that even stood out in a world where any bozo who can say "hoo-ah" has an Al Pacino impression).

But it wasn't really until later in Hader's first season that he really started to make himself noticed with what would become a recurring sketch about Vincent Price hosting televised holiday-themed specials. The next season, Hader's second, he would add another recurring staple: Vinny Vedecci.

While Samberg continued to make the headlines with his Digital Shorts and Kristen Wiig became the front-and-center star, Hader, along with Jason Sudeikis, became the backbone. And though Sudeikis could play the wise-cracking everyman with more ease, Hader could just do anything.

The reason that Hader is the perfect "SNL" cast member is that you never saw him completely take over the show like, say, Kristen Wiig. You never heard him publicly sulk like Jason Sudeikis has in the past. Hader showed up every week and gave his all no matter if his role in the show was large or small. His most prominent year was probably the 2010-2011 season -- a season in which Kristen Wiig took a step back to spend time on "Bridemaids," leaving Hader as the dominant force. And, as opposed to Wiig's more eccentric and manic characters, the nature of Hader's characters left a little more room for other cast members to shine. (Vinny Vedecci and Greg the Alien don't work as well on their own.)

Then there's Stefon.

Stefon debuted with little fanfare in a pretty much forgotten sketch that originally aired on November 1, 2008, with Hader and Ben Affleck playing brothers pitching a pornographic movie idea. (And yes, Affleck will be the host for Hader's final show.) It wasn't until 2010 that Stefon became a staple on "Weekend Update," finally giving Hader the Sunday morning headlines that he deserved. Sure, Stefon was overused (appearing a whopping 16 times), but if anyone deserved to have a character be overexposed, it was Hader. He sure had earned it.

Look, even as someone who has grown a bit tired of Stefon, it would be inconceivable to imagine this Saturday's show without him. Perhaps Affleck can even once again play Stefon's brother in some capacity, bringing the character full circle and giving it the closure that it deserves. (For the record, I would bet good money that we also see Herb Welch return one last time this weekend, too.)

We'll notice the true meaning of Hader's departure next season -- a season that will look drastically different than what we will see this Saturday. (Jason Sudeikis, Fred Armisen and Nasim Pedrad's names have all been mentioned as possible departures; Seth Meyers has already announced that he will leave the show this fall; Kenan Thompson has remained mum, but has been on the show since 2003.) But no one in recent history did the little things better than Hader. No one could breathe life into a dead-on arrival sketch quite like Hader -- even if it was just by breaking character. (Hader has a special knack for breaking character and remaining charming while doing so, not an easy task.)

All important cast members have inevitably left "SNL" in the past. And the show has, of course, always survived. But very, very few were has ever as good as Hader is -- he really is the total package. He is Phil Hartman-level good. Though, he leaves the show in good hands: Taran Killam, Cecily Strong and Kate McKinnon have already shown that they can lead the show's next generation, while Jay Pharoah, Bobby Moynihan, Vanessa Bayer, Aidy Bryant and Tim Robinson provide an extremely strong foundation.

It's fitting that Hader is departing with as little fanfare as he came. There haven't been weeks of a Hader-themed goodbye tour of his greatest hits. He hasn't been waffling in the press as Sudeikis was doing a year ago. As Hader told Dave Itzkoff of The New York Times, "My joke was, we'll start singing 'Ruby Tuesday' and just say bye to Kristen again. I can just do a little wave at goodnights, and that signifies it."

Hopefully we, as the audience, will get more than that. Because it would be a shame to send off one of the greatest cast members in the history of "SNL" without some sort of emotional acknowledgement. Then again, because it's Bill Hader, maybe just a wave during goodnights would be fitting.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog// 2013-05-14T08:45:55-04:00 2013-05-14T11:37:37-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/
"Frances Ha," not called "Frances" because there's already a Jessica Lange film with that title, has been a darling of the festival circuit since it debuted at the Telluride Film Festival in September. Greta Gerwig stars (and co-wrote the screenplay) as the title character who wanders through life, jumping from one New York City apartment to another (with an occasional sprint down the street, scored to David Bowie's "Modern Love") as a never-ending parade of personal relationships seem to come and go.

I met with Baumbach in a New York City hotel room. At first meeting, Baumbach is pleasant enough, but slightly aloof -- which makes perfect sense considering that we are strangers. Slowly, the aloofness wears off -- this is a man who talks about the lack of expectations as a protection device -- and once it does, the conversation steers into topics as seemingly arbitrary as his brief stint as a "Saturday Night Live" director and the movie "Gremlins." (These topics are not as arbitrary as they seem.) And, yes, he explains the annoyance of finding out that your directorial debut has been overshadowed by a throwaway kids' soccer movie.

The praise for "Frances Ha" has been pretty high. Do you notice that compared to your other movies?
Yeah, I mean, there's a kind of a variation on praise that you start to recognize. But, of course, even movies that I've made that maybe were more polarizing -- the people who liked them, liked them a lot. But, yes, I think I can recognize something different.

What do you feel is one of your polarizing movies?
Well, I mean, I can only speak to the feedback I get. I mean, I don't make them any differently or think about them differently. But, I mean, "Margot at the Wedding," when it came out certainly had more of maybe a polarizing affect on people than I expected.

So is it surprising when the reactions differ so much?
A little bit. I mean, I think, in a way, you sort of stop expecting one thing or the other. Partly, I think, to protect yourself -- but, also, just because there's no way to predict it. You know, you go into all of them to do the best job that you can and make something that people are going to like. And then they do or they don't -- you can't predict it.

Did you feel with "Frances Ha" you were making something a little different than some of your other movies?
I didn't think about it very consciously, except that I was aware of what I felt was the right tone for this movie and this character. So, it was very clear to me how this movie should be shot and what the tone should be. I think because it was Greta and it was this character, I felt very protective of the character. I also felt kind of celebratory about the character and I think that all went into the style, the tone, the feeling of the movie. But, for me it's a matter of emphasis, really. Like, the world is equally the tone of "Margot at the Wedding" as it is "Frances Ha" to me. And it doesn't mean that one is better or worse than the other. It's just, sometimes, a story feels like it should be more one way and sometimes it should feel like another.

"Frances Ha" has a fun lightness to it, but it's also strangely depressing.
Well, I think this point in life and these kinds of intense friendships -- I mean, this is something Greta and I both have had a lot of experience with. And Greta was even going through some of this stuff in kind of real time while we were making it. I think the notion of friendship and the role of friendship in one's life -- and this being the first time in your adult life where you have to grow, or not. And your friendships are going to be affected by that. And it's obviously something that I was looking at with "Kicking and Screaming," too. But, you know, I think this is the first of many times that that happens, but it's probably never more intense than it is at this point.

When this premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, it was labeled a "secret movie." Is that a deliberate tactic?
It wasn't deliberate to keep it that secret, but it wasn't actually on the Internet until it got announced at Toronto.

It really was out of nowhere.
It was cool that it happened that way. To, you know, game the Internet [laughs] ...

And that feels good?
That feels good. But I didn't set out to do it that way. I mean, we kept a low profile because I kind of wanted it to be, I don't know, I just felt, you know, let's just do our work and not have to kind of deal with expectations. I didn't really want agents all over this submitting their actors. I kind of just wanted to kind of go audition people -- find a great pool of actors in New York and make something kind of simply, but kind of rigorously -- and take the time we needed to get it right.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this. There are a couple digs at "SNL" in this movie. A character, Benji, at one point brags about how he might have a job writing for "SNL," then laments that "SNL" has gone downhill. I feel those digs are aimed at that type of person who says those thing, not "SNL."
Right. Someone thinks the opposite?

I know of at least one person. Not the majority. I pointed out that you've written sketches for "SNL."
I did. I did two.

"Clearing the Air" and "New York Underground." But you're making fun of the people who are dismissive of "SNL."
Of course! No, I love "SNL." And I had a great time there. I made two shorts for them.

I just rewatched "Clearing the Air" today.
That was fun to do. No, I love that show and I like Lorne a lot. And, yeah, that's totally Benji, within probably a few hours saying, "I might be able to get a job there," then a few hours later dismissing the show. Because he's already come to the conclusion that he'll never work for them. I also like "Gremlins."

There is a "Gremlins 3" reference in this movie. You know, "Gremlins 2" is surprisingly bizarre.
"The New Batch." Yeah, it is weird. They're sort of making fun of it at the same time that they're kind of doing another one. Yeah, it's a weird one.

That should be your next movie. You should make "Gremlins 3" and shock the world.

[Laughs] Shock the world! A sort of sequel to "Frances Ha" -- it's set up in "Frances."

If you watch a full "SNL" from 1977, it's got its ups and downs, just like today. I feel people tend to cherry pick the best stuff from past eras.
Right, yeah, it just seemed like such a kind of easy, dismissive, comment that someone might make. But, I totally agree with you. I think it's remarkable the consistency that show has maintained.

Would you ever do anything for them again?
Yeah, I'd love to. It was good timing. I was here and I wasn't working on anything else. I had just sort of become friendly with Bill and Fred. And I had adapted a book that Lorne was attached to as a producer. And, so, I was sort of hanging out with those guys and it was really fun to do. But, yeah, I would definitely do it again.

There's a scene in the movie where someone touches Greta's shoulder and she makes a honking noise in response, followed by a lot of silence. Is something like that scripted or did she just do that? I have to admit, I caught a case of the giggles after that scene.
Yeah, that was in the script. I'm trying to remember how it was phrased -- it was like, "Frances makes a sound that she immediately realizes afterwords is a mistake." It was like, yeah, the character would react so impulsively that they would have no control over what their reaction was. What was fun about it was that it was written in, but I never asked Greta how she was going to do it or what it was going to sound like. So that was fun to shoot it.

You didn't know what the noise would be.
No. A lot of the times stuff that's funny in the movie, you're not necessarily laughing on set. But that was something that was very funny, even there.

We hear David Bowie's "Modern Love" twice during this movie.
Actually, if you saw it in Toronto, you only got it once -- and then I brought it back.

I did notice that.
Two music things changed: One is The Rolling Stones asked for too much money, so, I had to swap out their song with a T. Rex song that's in the movie -- which I think actually works better. The other, which was actually a nice effect if you were in a silent screening room, was you just heard the sounds of the city while the credits rolled. But, the problem is I saw it with these full audiences and people then are talking over the credits. I realized no one can hear it, so, it just sounds like silence. And then that provided the opportunity, which I think is actually the right thing, which was to bring that song back.

I think that song is the perfect pop song. When I first heard it when I got the "Let's Dance" record as a kid, I really remember very vividly that feeling of I couldn't believe how it sounded. I just loved how it sounded. And I kept playing it over and over again. I think in someways Greta and I think of "Frances" as a pop song, as a movie. And so it seemed like the right companion.

I can't tell you how many times I'm flipping through the guide on my cable box, see "Kicking and Screaming" and think hot damn. It's never your version.
Right.

Was that annoying when that movie came out with the same title?
Yeah. It was very annoying. The same year, "Crash" came out, too -- or right around there -- I imagined David Cronenberg was annoyed as well. I mean, actually, that was something that I was very conscious about because an obvious title for our movie was "Frances." And there's a very good movie with Jessica Lange called "Frances" about Frances Farmer. It kind of pushed Greta and me to get more inventive with the title and, ultimately, I think to come up with a kind of great ending for the movie. So, I wish the filmmakers of "Kicking & Screaming" had maybe done similar -- [laughs] worked a little harder to figure it out.

"Kicking and Screaming ... at a Soccer Match"
Yes, yes. Yeah, something. But, you know, I don't think -- it sort of is what it is. I feel like except for your getting tricked, I feel maybe we've won the war. Maybe we lost the battle, but we might win the war. I'm also lucky, you know, Will Ferrell has made a bunch of brilliant comedies -- and that wasn't one of them.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog// 2013-05-13T08:17:09-04:00 2013-05-13T13:39:01-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/ think he's kidding.)

As you probably know by now, the identity of Cumberbatch's "Star Trek Into Darkness" character -- a character that causes much havoc for the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise, while his motivations remain unclear -- has been purposely shrouded in mystery. You probably also know that rumors persist that Cumberbatch is reprising a quite popular villain from a prior "Star Trek" film. (And if you don't know already, a quick check of IMDb will fill you in.)

We caught up with Cumberbatch -- the British thespian best known, until now, for his role as the title character in "Sherlock" and for thrillers like "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" -- by phone from London the day after "Trek" premiered. Luckily, there's plenty to talk about with the actor -- who's had quite the last couple of years -- including the fact that he (not too surprisingly) knows very little about "Star Trek," though he's been catching up on certain notorious characters as of late now that his filming is finished.

In our long chat, Cumberbatch discusses his crash course in "Star Trek" (which the more die-hard Trek journalists are quizzing him on), the success of "Sherlock," his involvement as Smaug in that other franchise, "The Hobbit," and why "The Sixth Sense" has everything to do with his, let's say, vague answers about his current role.

Oh, and the added treat of a cameo from Alice Eve.

I get the sense that you've had a nice couple of past years. Do you actually stop and think about that?
I have. I have. Even among the maelstrom and wonderful madness of "Star Trek" -- even on the red carpet -- I step back and have a look, take a breath and just have a moment taking it in. It's incredible. And that night [last night at the premiere], I had my drama teacher from school, my parents -- [Cumberbatch's phone rings.] Oh, this is Alice Eve ringing. Can I just tell her I'm in a conversation with you and call her back? [Alice Eve asks if Cumberbatch plans on attending a play that evening. Cumberbatch declines, worrying that he might fall asleep during the performance from exhaustion.] Sorry about that.

What play are you declining to attend?
"The Audience," which I really want to see. But I can't. We had a late night last night -- well, an early morning -- of celebration. I would be spotted sleeping. I know that would happen and that would really offend people. And I so really want to see that play wide awake.

The headlines would read, "Benedict Cumberbatch isn't impressed with this one."
You know what I mean? Seriously. "He's running around with this film, then he's falling asleep in front of his peers and contemporaries" [laughs].

This is probably the point, but I've never watched you in anything and thought, There's a guy who's going to be a villain in a "Star Trek" movie.
I take that as a massive compliment. I think that's a good thing. I mean that. You know, if I'm surprising you or exceeding your expectations in any way by being in this film as opposed to something similar to what I've done before, we're kind of getting the game plan right. Which is just for my own selfish enjoyment [to have] as much diversity as possible. And, you know, my kind of "game on" as well -- to have different challenges that keep me invigorated and refreshed and enjoying what I do. Which I really do enjoy; I love my job. And it goes back to what you said about the two years. It has been extraordinary, and I do pinch myself. I've had loads of "oh my God" moments -- whether it's an awards ceremony, or meeting people being on the "Star Trek" set, or first being Sherlock Holmes and seeing people's reaction to that.

Did you even know about "Star Trek" before being approached for this?
No. I mean, I really didn't. There was an interview today that was, I don't know, interview number 532 -- and she literally had a page-long list of questions. And I started by really liking her. And by question number five, I was ready to beg her for mercy. I mean, that was such a cruel thing to do. I have never professed to any expert knowledge of anything much in life, in particular "Star Trek." I really, really, really enjoyed the first film. The passion that I felt for this origin story with these extraordinarily iconic characters -- which, of course, I knew something of. It's something that I had sown a seed of somewhere back in time, but I had taken note of this series and Gene Roddenberry's genius at creation -- which still resonates now. That's a remarkable thing.

Did you feel it necessary to go back and watch any of the original series or the movies with the original cast?
No. With all of the respect for that era, no, I didn't. I really wanted to be on board for the journey that J.J. created with the first rebooting. And I trusted him and his team. There's a sort of hard-core Trek team within that writing, producing group that, basically, monitors all things canon. In the same way as "Sherlock." I respected the good taste of the writers and was very happy; it's kind of put my faith in their judgements. I just know that I wasn't going to be risking massively upsetting fans if there were choices that I was making that weren't right for the moment or the beats in the story or the character. I had people around me that would very politely tell me. And it didn't happen. I mean, it's been a great choice since, however, to look back to see what I'm a part of. And it's an honor. It really is an honor.

We'll get back to "Star Trek," but you mentioned "Sherlock." Are you surprised by how popular that show is in the United States?
Yes. Everywhere where it's been successful I've been surprised. I mean, the level of success is what's surprising. I always knew we were going to get attention because we use such an iconic character and the original story is so loved. And, also, there have been many, many successful incarnations at the moment. You know, I think Johnny [Lee Miller] and Robert Downey Jr. ... it's one of the most portrayed fictional characters. So, I knew there would be a lot of attention focused on it, but I had absolutely no idea that it would take off and become a phenomenon.

Have you ever been on a set that's been shrouded with as much secrecy as "Star Trek Into Darkness"?
Well, yes, I have [laughs]. I play a little part in "The Hobbit," and that carries its own secrets. I'm in a film about secrets that at the moment is called -- the working title is -- "The Fifth Estate," playing Julian Assange. And then "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," that character had a big secret and reveal. So, I genuinely really do seem to be the go-to guy to kind of involve myself in secretive stories or franchise ideas.

When we talk about high secret levels, all we're really talking about in this case is the idea that the audience has as much of a fresh experience watching the movie as Kirk does -- as our hero and everyman taking us through the narrative. And you don't want to be ahead of him, you want to be enjoying it because there is a real thrill to having reactions to things unfolding rather than sort of having somewhere in the back of your head, a memory of a checklist from spoilers. So, I do buy into it, and there's no lawyer hovering over me. It's not like J.J. is going to slap my wrist.

So he's not in the room right now listening?
He's right here now with a gun pointed to my head saying, "If you fucking tell him" [laughs]. Of course he's not, though, I wish he was because that would have made him laugh. I went to see "Super 8," and I didn't know what was in that train. And if you haven't seen the film, I'm still not going to tell you. It's a real thrill.

And I know what it's like to have things spoiled. I was a bit too fast on the draw when I went to see -- and this isn't me blowing my own trumpet; I rarely guess things right. But, I was with a friend in "The Sixth Sense," the first few scenes, in the first moment after the incident when Bruce Willis is sitting on the bench...

Wait, you guessed it right there?
I said, "He's a ghost, right?" My friend went, "You motherfucker."

You ruined the whole point of the movie.
But I didn't mean to! I thought it was really clear to me for some reason. I just really got it.

I'll admit, I didn't see that one coming.
Listen. Trust me. That was a rare fluke. I rarely, rarely do.

Let's put it this way: Do you worry about your villain being compared to other popular actors who have played other popular "Star Trek" villains?
Well, I'm having someone frown at me from Paramount when that question was said. All I will say is that I've got so much respect for anyone -- and I've got friends who have been villains, not just in "Star Trek," but other franchises. I'm friends with Tom Hardy [Bane in "The Dark Knight Rises"] and I thought he did a fantastic job. And, again, it came from an interesting place like my character, which was based in an emotional truth. He was seeking vengeance for the destruction or the annihilation of his family. All I would say is that I really, richly enjoyed going back and watching other actors in all of the iconic roles in this incredible franchise. It's just a great, great honor to now be among their number. That's all I can say on that.

Just like I didn't expect you to be in a "Star Trek" movie, for "The Hobbit," you are not the first person I think of when I hear "dragon voice."
You're not the only one. I didn't think I'd be a go-to dragon. Basically, I auditioned for it. And I really wanted the part because I really wanted to do motion-capture. And my father read me the story when I was a child, and it was just a great, full circle, to be able to pay back the compliment. The imagination he fired up at such a young age of having this fantastic, rich, vivid story illuminated by an actor -- which he is -- and so beautifully characterized as he did with bedtime reads as a kid, it's something that really made me want to be a part of it. I was never really into "The Lord of the Rings," but "The Hobbit" was really a defining moment for me as a kid growing up. So, I was over the moon when Peter [Jackson] thought -- surprisingly, to the world -- that I would be right for his dragon.

I didn't realize that you auditioned.
I went in and auditioned for it and met him in person. And he kept on making me read all of these other characters. I said, "Peter, I'm really flattered, but I would give all of your interest up in any of these other characters and sort of throw the bet all on the one I really want to play, which is the dragon." He's like, "Oh, no, no. It's in the bag, mate. You nailed that audition." I said, "Really?" He said, "He totally got what we want from you and that's very exciting, but you could possibly be three or four other parts." I was like, "What?" That was a secret I kept to myself for a while -- and I don't want to talk about that too much because, again, that's another franchise and I know they want to keep that all for when it kicks off this winter. But I will say this: Not only is he a delightful man, he's as delightful to work for as he is a person.

I've interviewed him a couple of times. He seems very nice.
He's lovely, isn't he? He's so modest. You think, this guy plodding around barefoot in shorts and a T-shirt is in charge of the most extraordinary film empire -- and he's kind of built his own studio around those projects.

Benicio Del Toro was quite publicly offered your "Star Trek" role first. When it's that public, can ego enter into the equation? In a "Why wasn't I approached first" kind of way?
Are you kidding me? I mean, no. I'm kind of bamboozled by the idea that I should be fussed about who might not want to play this part before me or might not have been right for this part. You know, I adored the first film and the idea of being a central focus of the film in the sense that this character really does hit with logic and human emotion. Kirk against Spock, in many ways. There's just so much to get ahold of as an actor, whether it's the psychological mind-play, or the sort of kick-ass strength of the one-man weapon of mass destruction -- whether it's weaponry or hand-to-hand combat. Or whether it's doing incredible stunts and those fight sequences involving those characteristics. Or whether it's trying to get into the mind of both Kirk and, therefore, the audience -- to empathize with his cause with this incredibly and morally certain reasoning behind what he does. To say, "Nah, I'm not interested in that," because somebody else didn't want to do it would be bonkers.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3262621 2013-05-12T11:29:34-04:00 2013-05-12T12:17:00-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/


Less than a year ago, Kristen Wiig was given an emotional and touching graduation-style sendoff from "SNL" that very few cast members ever received. So, that's why it was a little weird seeing her "back in school" so soon -- pulling the same old tricks.

Last year, we watched Wiig perform all of her best-known characters one last time. When I first heard that Wiig was coming back already to host, my hope was that she would have integrated herself into what this version of the cast has been doing. Basically: keep her old characters retired and show us some new things. Nope. Instead, we saw five of Wiig's recurring characters. Honestly, this is like grading a greatest hits album of a band whose deep cuts you prefer. (I don't really blame Wiig for this. I can see the writers having "How do I get my stuff on the air?" flashbacks from last season, resulting in the words "Target Lady" being yelled at the pitch meeting.) Well, whatever. Onward to a very recurring and uninspired Scorecard ...

Sketch of the Night

"Weekend Update" (Seth Meyers, Bobby Moynihan, Kristen Wiig, Seth Armisen) Did Seth Meyers have a cold? I ask this because his voice seemed off. If so, here's what I've decided: I like Seth Meyers with a cold. His delivery was just slightly slower, which made it at least feel like he wasn't rushing through any of the punchlines.

I do enjoy Anthony Crispino, though this may have been one of Crispino's weaker efforts, no matter how high his voice gets.

Now, one recurring character I didn't mind seeing was the return of Garth and Kat. If for no other reason than it's one of the rare opportunities that we get to see true improv on "SNL." In a perfect world, Wiig would have had all new material tonight -- which we know she's capable of -- and this would have been her one tip of the cap to her old characters. Again, whatever.



Score: 8.0

The Good

"Kristen Wiig Monologue" (Kristen Wiig, Jonah Hill, Maya Rudolph, Lorne Michaels, Ensemble) I guess Jonah Hill is in town? Regardless, I'm a sucker for the high-energy monologues with the entire cast involved (and the backstage llama). Though, "SNL" has a tendency to overuse the "I don't remember your name" joke for whatever reason. And even while pregnant, Maya Rudolph brought her A-game.



Score: 7.5

"Mother's Day" (Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Tim Robinson, Bill Hader) Kate McKinnon makes a good mom. Look, there's not a lot here other than "moms will be moms," but there's nothing wrong with that. And if nothing else, Wiig and McKinnon have a nice chemistry together.



Score: 7.0

"Acupuncture" (Kristen Wiig, Jason Sudeikis, Aidy Bryant, Kate McKinnon, Fred Armisen) So, this happened. I have no idea if I should award this Sketch of the Night or put it in The Ugly slot. Good God, this was ... something. But at least it was "something" everyone seemed to commit to 100 percent. How about this? How about we give it "6" and move on with our lives and never speak of this again? (Especially that giant exploding cyst.) Can we all agree on this? Please?



Score: 6.0

The Bad

"New Disney Show" (Cecily Strong, Bobby Moynihan, Kristen Wiig, Jason Sudeikis, Tim Robinson) A few weeks ago, a terrible movie called "Scary Movie 5" was released at theaters. A lot of the jokes "Scary Movie 5" used about horror movies were also used in this sketch. I do appreciate the fact that something at least halfway original was attempted, but there really wasn't any new ground covered here.



Score: 5.7

"Lawrence Welk" (Fred Armisen, Kristen Wiig, Vanessa Bayer, Nasim Pedrad, Jason Sudeikis, Cecily Strong) I was tempted to find whatever I wrote about the last time this sketch aired a year ago and just copy and paste that here and see if anyone noticed. But then I remembered that at least last year's version had an appearance from Jon Hamm. Anyway, the greatest hits keep on coming.



Score: 5.5

"Double Date" (Tim Robinson, Bobby Moynihan, Kristen Wiig, Cecily Strong, Taran Killam) This is a classic case of something sounding really funny at a pitch meeting, but not working on the air. I can actually imagine Tim Robinson explaining this. My imaginary thoughts of Tim Robinson explaining a sketch about 6th graders going on a date with two adult women makes me laugh much harder than the final product did, unfortunately. A final product that just went nowhere. (Though, I'd still rather see a Tim Robinson misfire than the same old tired sketches that were being force-fed to us the entire show.)



Score: 5.5

"Cold Open: Benghazi" (Bill Hader, Kenan Thompson, Taran Killam, Nasim Pedrad, Tim Robinson, Bobby Moynihan) This felt too tame, really, which has kind of been problem with the political satire all season. The main point was kind of hit: the endless amount of hearings for an attack in which we know the culprit. But this was sloppy (with its message and even its props) and would have needed to be drastically tightened up to get its point across. Sometimes a writer just needs to be asked, "What are you trying to say?" After he or she comes up with that answer, then just say it instead of dancing around the issue.



Score: 4.2

The Californians (Fred Armisen, Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Vanessa Bayer, Taran Killam, Maya Rudolph, Kenan Thompson) I have nothing more to say about this sketch. Ever.



Score: 4.0

"Socialite CD" (Kristen Wiig, Nasim Pedrad, Kenan Thompson, Cecily Strong, Jay Pharoah, Aidy Bryant) I've never understood parodies of reality stars because the people being parodied are already such caricatures of themselves, so what's the point? This sketch was no different. And this went on and on and on. Though, at least it had a "Coach" reference.



Score: 3.5

The Ugly

"Target Lady" (Kristen Wiig, Bobby Moynihan, Aidy Bryant, Jay Pharoah, Vanessa Bayer) It's the Target Lady, same as it's always been the Target Lady. This particular Target Lady sketch was better than some of the others that had come before, but not as good as some installments. (If you're wondering what's the point of the last sentence that I just wrote, I'm wondering the same thing.) Again, nothing new here and that's what's so bad about it. If we're going to see a now eight-year-old sketch idea (Target Lady first premiered n 2005), at least do something new. And if we had to have recurring sketches, would it have been terrible to use "The Two A-Holes"? Especially considering that next week might be Jason Sudeikis' last show?



Score: 3.0

Average Score for this Show: 5.45

· Christoph Waltz 7.03
· Justin Timberlake 6.40
· Martin Short 6.28
· Christina Applegate 6.13
· Seth MacFarlane 5.93
· Louis C.K. 5.92
· Anne Hathaway 5.87
·Melissa McCarthy 5.86
· Bruno Mars 5.81
· Zach Galifianakis 5.78
·Vince Vaughn 5.75
· Adam Levine 5.71
· Joseph Gordon-Levitt 5.51
· Kevin Hart 5.47
· Kristen Wiig 5.45
· Jamie Foxx 5.43
· Jeremy Renner 5.39
· Jennifer Lawrence 5.38
· Daniel Craig 5.35
· Justin Bieber 5.23

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter. Click below for this week's "SNL," Not Ready For Primetime Podcast featuring Mike Ryan and Hitfix's Ryan McGee.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3248292 2013-05-09T17:22:48-04:00 2013-05-11T10:28:03-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/


I hate the last episode of Seinfeld. This is an admittedly odd way to open up an essay that is primarily about Friends. I also realize this isn't a unique or particularly notable opinion to express, since most people who have seen the last episode of Seinfeld share it.

"Seinfeld should have its own 24-hour-a-day cable channel." I remember reading this on Twitter even though I can't remember exactly who said it. (I think it was NHL.com writer Dave Lozo.) I do remember agreeing profusely, because I would find such a channel very appealing. Even now, 15 years after Seinfeld went dark ("The Finale" aired on May 14, 1998), it remains the most re-watchable show on television. But it's more than re-watchable. It's a security blanket after a long day. It's televised comfort food. Sometimes all you want is a very good grilled cheese sandwich.

"The Finale" is only episode of the series that I refuse to watch again. (The episodes that take place in L.A. come close, but I don't hate them enough to change the channel.) The simplicity of the entire series (though, calling it "a show about nothing," never made sense to me because these was always something happening) got chucked out the window in the final installment -- replacing what worked with a barrage of cameos and over-complicated plot points. To me, it's unwatchable. It's like someone took my perfect grilled cheese sandwich and served it with a side of Keith Hernandez's warm piss.

Here in New York City, a local television station reruns two episodes of Seinfeld every night starting at 11 p.m. -- and I'm pretty sure something similar happens almost everywhere in the United States. A couple of months ago, the hour-long episode of "The Finale" aired, so I changed the channel -- after those first couple of minutes that always fool me into thinking it's a normal episode. Because I am lazy and it was late and I wanted to watch something that had the semblance of comfort food, I changed the channel to Nick@Nite -- which was airing a rerun of "Friends."

I have seen every episode of Friends. And yet, until this particular night, I hadn't watched a full episode of Friends since the show ended its run in May of 2004. I've never felt a desire to revisit the adventures of Ross, Rachel, Phoebe, Chandler, Monica and Tribbiani. (For reasons that won't make sense, I've always preferred to refer to Joey Tribbani by his last name.)

Over the last couple of months, however, I've been watching a lot of Friends. Even though both Seinfeld and Friends are bound by being New York-based sitcoms of the '90s, these two shows could not be more different. (And yes, I know Seinfeld premiered in 1989 and Friends lasted well into the 21st century.)

Seinfeld remains re-watchable because the show did a fairly good job of not dating itself. The intricate details or annoyances of life in 1998 are not that much different from those of life in 2013. In 2013, people still pick their nose and masturbate. Friends, on the other hand, was more driven by an ongoing plot. In the early days, Seinfeld tried to have recurring plot lines, but that never quite worked out. (To this day, I don't care about Crazy Joe Davola.) But the only reason I watched Friends was to find out what would become of its characters.

Seinfeld's biggest mistake with "The Finale" was thinking that we cared about what happened to Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer. We didn't. We just wanted to watch them complain about the same things they had been complaining about in every episode of the previous nine seasons.

I've been enjoying Friends lately, unexpectedly enough. But I've been enjoying it for reasons completely different from those that make me enjoy Seinfeld. While Seinfeld still feels oddly contemporary, Friends feels hopelessly dated. So dated that now, finally, my sense of nostalgia for Friends has kicked in. This is at the same time predictable and alarming. Predictable in the sense that all good television shows will eventually evoke nostalgia. Alarming in that we're already talking about Friends as a relic of the past.

(To put this in perspective. The amount of time today that Friends has been off the air is equal to the amount of time that The Dukes of Hazzard had been off the air when Friends debuted.)

I don't relate to Friends in the present tense. Instead, it reminds me of where I was when I had watched that episode for the first time. There's something appealing about that. For example, when Tribbani (I know, I can't help it) attempts to teach a dance class, I remember being surrounded by my friends in college, being the only one to get a reference to the PBS television show Zoom that would be mentioned later in that episode. (For whatever reason, Zoom was not remembered fondly or even at all at the University of Missouri in 1997.)

I recently watched the final episode of Friends. Rachel got off the plane. I already knew she was going to get off the plane. But it took me back to 2004, just a few months before I moved to New York City. Watching this episode brought back every feeling of uncertainty that I had about moving to the city where Friends took place. It was fun to relive those feelings with the added knowledge that, nine years later, I'm still here.

This is not an endorsement of Friends. Nostalgia is not a good enough reason to enjoy a show. I'm certainly not trying to say that Friends wasn't a good television series. It was. I am saying that it's not a particularly good television show in 2013. (And its reliance on celebrity guest stars - George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Billy Crystal and Robin Williams among them -- is just as annoying today as it was back then.)

After the final episode of Friends aired the other night, it was immediately followed by the pilot. In the blink of an eye, all of these characters were ten years younger. That was startling to watch. (Also startling was the opening credit sequence that had no clips from the show to work with, so "I'll Be There For You" by The Rembrandts played over nothing but the cast dancing in front of a fountain on a Warner Bros. studio lot.) I watched this episode, too, which felt as every bit a relic of 1994 as the prior episode had felt a relic of 2004.

Seinfeld has found a way to still co-exist with society in 2013. The 2013 version of me still finds Seinfeld entertaining. Unfortunately, the 2013 of me feels sorry for Ross, Rachel, Phoebe, Chandler, Monica and Tribbiani, who will forever be stuck on an endless loop somewhere between 1994 and 2004. Even if I sometimes still like to visit them there.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog// 2013-05-08T08:00:00-04:00 2013-05-08T11:20:26-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/ when I solicited opinions from contemporary filmmakers about "Star Wars" for a piece on the original film's 35th anniversary, the "Hostel" director submitted a series of "Star Wars" drawings from his childhood. Then, last month, we unearthed Roth's long forgotten (and quite vocally disappointed) review of "The Phantom Menace." So, yes, when I met Roth in his Manhattan hotel room to discuss his new film, "Aftershock," I had a feeling "Star Wars" would become a topic. I did not know I'd ask Roth (and he'd comply) to give his version of an "Episode VII" and give a detailed breakdown of the much maligned "Star Wars Holiday Special."

Roth's new film, "Aftershock" -- that he wrote and stars in (directing duties went to Nicolas Lopez) -- is about a group of club-hopping joy-seekers who experience the horrors of a Chilean earthquake and a subsequent prison escape of all the local criminals.

As I sat down with Roth, he noticed a sticker of Admiral Ackbar on my computer -- a character from "Return of the Jedi" who is least known for leading the Rebel Alliance assault on the second Death Star and best known for screaming "It's a trap." We'll pick up the conversation there. A conversation that would of course loop around to "Star Wars" -- after stops that include "A Cabin in the Woods" and "Scream."

[Eli Roth] You have Admiral Ackbar.

[Mike Ryan] I do have Admiral Ackbar.
I had a long discussion with ["Fanboys" director] Kyle Newman ... I said that Admiral Ackbar, whether Lucas intended it or not, is actually probably more quoted now than "May the force be with you."

"It's a trap."
"It's a trap!" It's become, if you meet a girl online and her in person looks very different from her profile photo, you go, "It's a trap!" And then people are like, "What happened?" And you're like, "It's a trap!" Like, it all went wrong. It's become a euphemism that everyone uses.

Right now I'm reading an advance copy of "The Making of Return of the Jedi." It was "Jedi" director, Richard Marquand, who picked out the design for Ackbar. He was given a choice and he wanted the one that looked like calamari man. I was surprised it was Marquand's decision.
Yeah, you didn't see a lot of calamari men in "Eye of the Needle." I think if there's one thing we could say about "Eye of the Needle," it's that there was not nearly enough calamari men. There was a serious lack of calamari men.

Marquand fascinates me. Lucas is around, obviously. Kershner just passed away in 2010. Marquand remains a mystery to me.
He died like right away.

He hasn't been around to talk about "Jedi."
Yeah, he never got to be part of that sort of like "Star Wars" obsession -- and how it grew and what it became. So, maybe if we all sing the song at the end of "Jedi," Marquand's spirit will appear. And he'll be in the room with us, just as a Force ghost, smiling.

The original end song, I presume?
Yeah, it's got to be the original.

In "Aftershock," it takes it's time getting to the horror.
Well, I wanted to build up the minor problems that each character experiences. The film is about moral choices and the decisions we make in times of crises. Is it for self-preservation? Or do you risk your own life to save your friend or to save a stranger? And what are the ramifications of that? We wanted to make the movie where, there you are, you're in the club, you're having fun ... whatever the problems are, now you have to find your best friend's hands or he's going to bleed to death. And that's what really happened. Talking to [director] Nicholas [Lopez], all he had to do was describe some of the events that he lived through and that other cast members lived through.

Was it ever a worry that it hit too close to home with the real Chilean earthquake?
No. Because we dramatized it. It's not that earthquake. It's an earthquake based on that. Also, there was a movie called "3:34" that came out, because that was the time the earthquake struck. It was the biggest piece of shit. People fucking hated it. They tried to be the "respectful" earthquake [movie]. So, his feeling was there's absolutely nothing more offensive than that piece of shit -- which was a terrible, terrible movie that nobody saw ... [Filming in Chile] was an amazing experience. It was such a revitalizing time for me. I hadn't had that much fun shooting since film school. And, you know, there is a new way of making movies. You can shoot a movie on a 5D [digital camera], and it looks like 35 [mm film]. All you need is the right lens, the right production design, a good photographer -- and that's a $2,500 camera body.

You mention "revitalized," you haven't directed a movie since "Hostel 2," which was 2007. Have you not felt vitalized?
Well, making a movie is a battle. And after "Hostel 2," I needed a break.

Did you think it would be this long of a break?
I never saw it as a break. I saw it as an evolution. And I felt that everything else that I was doing was working toward making me a better director. And I was directing things here and there like "Nation's Pride" or the "Hemlock Grove" pilot. But, I felt that having been through the Tarantino acting school [in 'Inglourious Basterds,"] Quentin said, "Now you can write great parts for yourself." And I had never done that. I had never pushed myself to write a part that I was going to play and this was a great opportunity to do that. I wanted to push myself as an actor. I wanted to have a leading role. And I thought it was a great part that would be in my zone that was very different than Donowitz and have a character that makes choices that might surprise the audience.

There have been quite a few "Hostel" copycats.
Yes.

Have you seen any of these and thought that the violence was taken too far?
No. I mean, I've watched them and I think that if I ever think, "That crosses a line," or, "That's too far," I think it's either bad or silly or boring. There are certain movies that have come out and, again, I don't want to name them because it will seem like I'm trashing the director and I'm not. Like, I get what they're doing. But if it goes so far in the shocking that the movie stops becoming real, then I lose interest. And that, to me, is the worst crime that can happen.

If you don't care why a character is being killed ...
It's like, yeah, you want to do all of this stuff. You're going to do things to children -- it's fine if that's the movie that you're going to make. I know it's all fake.

It sound like you're talking about "A Serbian Film."
Whatever film it is. But, whatever thing that you're going to have happen, if the characters stop behaving logically -- I've noticed that in a lot of these movies. Even in "Martyrs," what, they had a whole torture factory under their sofa and the kids never looked in the sofa? What? And why don't they leave the house? Just basic questions of humans behaving. And I love Pascal [Laugier], the director of "Martyrs," and I joke about it all of the time. And in "Martyrs," I thought the performances were amazing. And, again, I don't want it to make it look like I'm trashing the movie -- but, whenever a character stops behaving from a place of logic and starts doing something for the sake of giving an excuse for the movie to do some crazy kill, that's when I check out. I go, "you lost me." It's lazy. It's lazy writing.

Does a movie like "The Cabin in the Woods" change the game at all? A movie that deconstructs character behavior in horror movies?
I really enjoyed "The Cabin in the Woods." And I got to talk to Joss Whedon about it because that was the closest -- it was the "Cabin Fever" production design. It was like he shot on the same cabin that I shot at! And, look, "Cabin Fever" was very much a deconstruction of "Evil Dead." So, it's killing people out of order and all of that kind of stuff. And I really thought "The Cabin in the Woods" is fantastic, but that movie is like an anomaly -- that movie is its own thing. The movie is a deconstruction of horror movies, that's what that movie is. You can learn about horror movies in a class -- and the different ways to kill -- they took that and made it as if it was a society of people that put people through crazy things. It was hilarious and fun, but that's not an actual scary movie. It's a fun deconstruction of horror movies.

But don't horror movies have to be more careful now not to fall into the tropes that "The Cabin in the Woods" deconstructs?
It doesn't matter. "Scream" did it. Remember "Scream"? You had to have movies after "Scream" because they talked about the rules of horror. And that was '80s horror. You can't have this, "OK, I'm the virgin, I'm going to die." "Scream" was a very, very self conscious deconstruction of the horror movie. And I loved it; it was refreshing. It was the first time you had character that had seen other horror movies, so you could really relate to those characters. So, I think every once in awhile there comes a movie that talks about the cliches because you need enough types of cliches to build up before you can deconstruct them. And it's great when it's smart and good and I think that "Scream" and "The Cabin in the Woods" were terrific, terrific movies that horror fans love. But, I also think that, whether or not those movies existed, you still have to find ways. Whether if people are conscious of those rules or not, you have to find ways to up the ante.

So, you're a big "Star Wars" fan. Let's say that Eli Roth got to make Episode VII, what would you do?
You're talking to the guy who would have an entire movie about Lobot. I mean it. I literally would find my favorite character as a kid that I obsessed over ...

So, Lobot would be back.
I mean, first of all, you're never going to top Patton Oswalt's rant.

Right. But his included The Avengers and The X-Men. What would you actually do?
My Episode VII, I mean, I would honestly bring back -- I would find my favorite obscure characters. I would find R5-D4, I would find Hammerhead. I would have Bossk! I would have a whole storyline based around Bossk.

Bounty hunter-wise, most people want Boba Fett back. Bossk seems like a more untapped resource.
I love Boba Fett. But we've had a lot of Boba Fett. We've had Jango Fett. If you really, really want Boba Fett, then watch the "Star Wars Holiday Special." Go dig it up on YouTube.

The Boba Fett cartoon is great.
There's a 22-minute animated act about Boba Fett.

It's the best part of the special.
It really is. That and the Life Day song by Diahann Carroll, as well.

Are you an Itchy or a Lumpy fan?
Lumpy. For sure. You know, the great thing about the "Star Wars Holiday Special:" I was young enough to have watched it, but I couldn't really remember it, so I don't know if I had dreamed it. I had these images in my head of like other Wookiees and not really understanding where they came from. I was like, "Did I hallucinate or was I so wishing there was more 'Star Wars' that I dreamed up this whole world about Life Day and Princess Leia?" And then I finally, of course, got one of those convention VHS tapes and spent $100 on it.

And immediately regretted paying $100.
Yeah, but it satisfied this urge from childhood of wishing or wondering whether or not I hallucinated the "Star Wars Holiday Special."

So Lumpy and Itchy would not be in Episode VII?
I would not have Lumpy and Itchy. I would have Bossk, Ackbar -- we'd have Admiral Ackbar in a trap. I would have a very strict puppet only rule. Puppets first -- try it with a puppet. If you absolutely can't make it work, then go to CG. And the more Hammerhead and Greedo and Sy Snootles, the better. I would love if they became friends and went on wacky adventures together. But Bossk is the one I was most obsessed with.

Would Han, Luke and Leia be main characters or background characters?
No, I think they would be background characters. And there would have to be a Life Day reference.

Han and Chewie are on their way back for another Life Day.
Yeah, they're trying to race home for Malla and and Lumpy. I'll have Harvey Korman, Diahann Carrol -- maybe but puppet Lambchop in there.

Jefferson Starship.
I'd want to get every '70s person that was in the "Star Wars Holiday Special" Life Day just getting blown up on a planet. It starts on Life Day and the whole Wookiee planet blows up.

I like it.
I would start Twitter feeds for all of them. I'd have a Twitter feed for Bossk. And in his hashtag on everything he writes, "#likeabossk." And that's one of the 10,000 reasons why I'm not directing Episode VII.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog// 2013-05-07T08:33:26-04:00 2013-05-07T08:48:53-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/ 2006's "Annapolis."

As Lin tells it, he wouldn't be where he is as a filmmaker without "Annapolis." Sure, he's aware that the film -- about boxers at the Naval Academy -- wasn't embraced by audiences or critics, but the effort and experience allowed Lin to grow as a director. Lin has a sentimental bond with "Annapolis," which is why he's having trouble wrapping his head around some recent comments made by the film's star, James Franco.

During the press tour for "Spring Breakers," Franco recalled how he had been shooting "Annapolis" when he received his first Harmony Korine script. (Korine directed "Spring Breakers.") The 35-year-old star used that anecdote as an opportunity to refer to "Annapolis" as "bad" and explain how he "didn't like the movie" and "didn't like the experience."

On Sunday, we spoke to Justin Lin, who was in London promoting "Fast and Furious 6," about Franco's comments. (The full interview will publish closer to the May 24 release of "Fast and Furious 6.")

On his recent press tour, James Franco wasn't too kind to "Annapolis." As the director, does that hurt?
Well, it is very hurtful. And it's actually not very respectful because I know a lot of the crew worked really hard on that. That was a scenario where the budget -- we literally shot the movie for half of what was budgeted. I think they hired me to give me my first shot because they felt like I could handle something like that.

And, you know, James was a big part of that. And for him to not take any accountability into -- you know, there are some people who have actually worked on that film and nothing else. The crew had a great experience; we were all very young and we were all doing the best we can. And for someone to kind of lay judgement, you know, it is hurtful. And I think it's very disrespectful.

I wish James could keep it to himself because I don't know the point. We make movies and we all try our best and sometimes we connect with the audience, sometimes we don't. And I can tell you for a fact: A lot of people worked very, very hard to make him look good. Whether we succeeded or not? You know, that's subjective. There are people who like that film -- the film did well in home video -- the reviews are maybe not what we had hoped for. But it was also a genre that's very hard to make. And James worked very hard; he got in great shape. And there were a lot of issues when we were shooting, but, we got it done. We made the film.

And, so, I will always be proud of that. Without "Annapolis," I wouldn't have gotten "Tokyo Drift" -- I wouldn't be here today. And, so, it's part of who I am. And I've gotten my ass kicked more than once, but I will always be proud of it. And for someone to be a big part of that and to publicly go and start talking trash? You know, I just don't think that's cool.

There's a respect factor in filmmaking, like in sports, where certain things are kept in the locker room. James Franco is not perfect. I'm not perfect. I'm really proud to be here now, but I'm just as equally proud as when that movie opened and nobody would take my call. Because that makes me who I am. And that experience made me who I am. And I would hope it's the same for him as opposed to him judging the rest of us.

The reason I asked is because it seemed to come out of nowhere. I didn't know if there was more to it.
You know, James and I, we're cool. I can call him -- and I've done, like, no-budget movies -- and he's there. He's there to help. And, you know, I don't understand it. Since then, he's going on publicly about stuff and I honestly don't understand it. I think James is a good guy, but I don't know. I wish he would just not say anything because -- it's going to be part of him, he's obviously very successful. You know, we all will fall and we will get up and we will learn.

It's funny, as I sit here talking to you, I was in London, doing a scene for "Annapolis" when Universal tracked me down to my hotel room to talk about "Fast and Furious." To be sitting here, it's become full circle for me. It's very emotional. But, at the same time, I totally feel like without that experience, I wouldn't be who I am today. And I hope James can grow out of that, too.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.



CORRECTION: During editing, the title of Justin Lin's first feature was mistakenly identified as "Better Off Tomorrow."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3226633 2013-05-06T22:14:30-04:00 2013-05-07T13:13:35-04:00

Mike Ryan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/


I am a firm believer that, if you're going to attempt something, you should give it 100 percent or don't attempt it at all. This is why I don't attempt a lot of things. Some might consider this lazy. I at least pretend that it's conviction. (It doesn't help that I'm also lazy.) Anyway, this is what I found so infuriating about Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of The Great Gatsby. It's wary half-heartedness disguised as trashy spectacle. If you're going to do trashy spectacle, at least have the conviction to go all the way.

I should be the target audience for this interpretation of The Great Gatsby. You know, the type who has never read the novel but sometimes fakes his way through conversations about it with words like "classic" and just contrary enough phrases like, "I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I see what you're saying," before quickly changing the subject to ALF or whatever.

My point is: if there's an audience for an over-the-top, colorful, Cliff-Noted, hip hop-injected version of The Great Gatsby, it's me. I didn't enter the theater feeling defensive about the sanctity of F. Scott Fitzgerald's original work. "How dare a Lana Del Rey song appear alongside such a classic piece of literature?" is something I would never say. I went into this movie wanting to see ramped-up nonsense. I went into this movie wanting to experience a hip hop-infused caricature of the Roaring Twenties. Instead, I almost fell asleep, twice, during an afternoon screening.

It all started promisingly enough. The first 45 minutes of The Great Gatsby amount to pure trashy spectacle. Hip hop music from 2013 plays over stock footage of New York City circa 1922, and the effect is actually quite odd and wonderful. During the first act, Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) throws a number of lavish parties, and they are presented in a colorful and eccentric way that only Baz Luhrmann could pull off. This is exactly what I wanted. (And, I must say, no one can raise a glass to the camera quite like Leonardo DiCaprio.) Sadly, at the end of those 45 minutes, there were still 100 more left to watch.

For whatever reason, The Great Gatsby decides not to go "all in" on spectacle and, instead, eventually tries to become something that resembles a faithful adaptation. This movie wants it both ways and, in turn, winds up being not very good at either.

I suppose that I should describe the basic plot of The Great Gatsby. Then again, I have already admitted that I have never read the book (for the record: this is not something I'm proud of -- I blame the Missouri public school system), so you probably know the basic story better than I do.

Jay Gatsby is a loving father of a family that adopts a wisecracking alien ... OK, I'm sorry, even now I feel a desire to avoiding talking about The Great Gatsby. And, again, that's the point. When the first trailer debuted (which was already a year ago), it played up the pageantry. I mean, this was Gatsby in 3D, for Pete's sake! This was going to be the Moulin Rouge! of F. Scott Fitzgerald novels. Instead, we get 45 minutes of what we were promised, followed by an additional hour and a half of DiCaprio calling Tobey Maguire "old sport." (Yes, I realize this is from the novel, but I can't help but think this was also what DiCaprio called Maguire when they were both members of the Pussy Posse.)

To be fair, perhaps this was an impossible task. The Great Gatsby is not Moulin Rouge! -- there's a complex and intricate story that still has to be told. Because, if not, the movie could have just been titled Great and featured nothing but people dressed in 1920s style dancing to contemporary music. Instead, when these parties stop, it's as if Luhrmann decides, Oh, yeah, the story. Well, I suppose if we have to ... I won't go as far to say that Luhrmann was disinterested in Fitzgerald's story, but there was more passion present in the party scenes than there was in the all-revealing would-be climax at the Plaza. Perhaps it would have worked better if Jay Gatsby had started singing "Empire State of Mind." (I'm half serious.)

I didn't know quite what to expect before I saw a Baz Luhrmann-directed version of The Great Gatsby. I did expect it to be loud. I did expect it to be big. I did expect it to infuse the eccentricities of today and the 1920s. I really wanted to like this movie. What I didn't expect it to do was waste my time. I should have stayed home and watched that episode of ALF.

Mike Ryan is senior writer for Huffington Post Entertainment. You can contact him directly on Twitter.]]>