Currently in production: Jon Gibson and Chris McDonnell have started production on a new and complete art and history of Bakshi Productions book which will also cover the fine art, photography and drawings of Ralph Bakshi. It is early in the process right now so some initial details that they can share are that they have a major publisher to put the book out and they will be seeing these in people's hands in mid 2008. Jon and Chris are co-authoring the book and Chris will design it. They are grateful for the co-operation and contributions of Ralph and the entire Bakshi family -- without them they wouldn't have much of a book. Ralph's voice and interviews will be the backbone of the book telling the first-hand account of Bakshi Productions through the years. Sidebars with other animation legends, directors and people from Ralph's life will complete the picture. This book will be art-heavy and packed full. The production will be high-quality, hardcover, large, full-color, "coffee-table" style. Of course they will be releasing much more information and previews as they progress through the production, but they knew they should get the early word out to all Bakshi fans!
Amicarella Reviews: Something To Crowe About
Posted by Jay Amicarella: I’ve thought for some time now that America has been losing its sense of humor. And romance. The reason I’ve come to believe that is the dearth of anything witty or funny or romantic on TV or in the movies. I can’t remember the last time I saw a film whose comedy was uproarious, or a so-called romantic comedy (the new generation of producers, aiming square at the 14 to 25 age group, insist on calling them ‘Date Movies’) that was even charming, let alone romantic or funny.
No, that’s not true. I can remember. The problem is, the movies were either old, “Some Like It Hot”, or foreign, “Love Actually”.
How and when did it happen?
Is it a consequence of 9/11? Did this horrific event cause us to collectively lose our sense of what’s funny? Do we blame Osama for having to wade through tripe like “Failure to Launch”? Or is it because today’s writers spent too much of their youth turning their brains to jelly on a steady diet of TV? Is Scooby-Do the culprit for us having to sit through messes like “How to Lose A Guy In 10 Days”? Have you seen this shit? Not only are they unfunny, but as far as how the main characters treat each other as they ‘find love’, they’re downright callous and mean. My divorce was nicer than their courtships!
Nice isn’t a problem in 1992’s “Romper Stomper”, an Aussie flick I’ve been meaning to watch for years, ever since I heard of the controversy it caused in its native country, and in the UK, where it was protested outside many theaters it played. It gave the rising star Russell Crowe to an international audience, and was the first film to open a window on the Skinhead Movement.
Director Geoffrey Wright, himself a former movie critic, makes all the right moves in his depiction of one of the creepiest groups in history. The pace is breakneck all the way, the violence, vicious and un-stylish, as it should be, the music, brutal and unforgettable. I’ve heard the budget was so low that Wright opted for a cheaper, smaller film grade, and even that choice of necessity turned out to pay dividends, as it gives the movie a gritty, claustrophobic look that is utterly authentic. And the cast and director refuse to mythologize the Skinheads themselves. Whereas “American History X” has white supremacists intelligently debating race issues over the dinner table, the thugs in ‘Romper’ are illiterate, and barely aware that they don’t really give a shit about the Master Race. Most are in it for the Rush. And don’t get me wrong, I liked “American History X”, and thought Edward Norton, beefed up for the part of a Skinhead leader, was very good. But he can’t hold a candle to the brooding, glowering, hair-trigger-tempered Russell Crowe, who Wright wisely doesn’t put in every scene. He’s so powerful in his performance that he is used sparingly, and to full effect. Other screentime is given to his equally impressive main costars: Daniel Pollock, as Crowes’ “Best Mate”, and Jacqueline McKenzie, as a troubled pill-popper who stumbles upon the gang and becomes Crowes’ squeeze. The three form a sick love triangle that has nothing to do with the romantic comedies I mentioned earlier, and everything to do with pathetic longings for human contact and affection, and repressed homosexuality. It is a shame we haven’t seen more of McKenzie and Pollock since “Romper Stomper”s release, although Mckenzie has won many awards for her acting, both in and outside her native Australia. Daniel Pollock, who was a veteran actor of real talent, was also, unfortunately, a heroin addict who took his own life by throwing himself under a train.
I first saw Russell Crowe in the tongue-in-cheek Western, “The Quick and the Dead”, but he didn’t really hit me until his powerhouse, anti-hero performance in the superb “L.A. Confidential”. Since then, it’s been one triumph after another, from “Gladiator” and “The Insider” to “A Beautiful Mind” and “Master and Commander”. He became my favorite leading male, owing much to the barely concealed danger lurking just beneath the surface.
All of this you’ve just read is a really, really long explanation for why I didn’t see “A Good Year” when it hit the theaters in 2006…
When I saw the previews, my immediate reaction was of dismay. Russell Crowe in a romantic comedy? You’re shittin’ me! It’s like using a great chef to whip up sandwiches, right?
I mean, I love romantic comedies, but as I explained before, I had lost faith in America’s ability to make a good one. I needn’t have worried, as England and France, in the person of director Ridley Scott, are responsible for this delightful surprise of a movie. The plot is almost laughable in how tired and overused is the premise: Wealthy, ruthless Crowe goes back to the simple, romantic place of his youth to deal with death and acquisition? Gee, you think sarcastically, I wonder how this will end? I haven’t seen this a dozen times before, and have no idea that Crowe will find his lost heart upon returning to his rustic beginnings. Well, unroll your eyes, because Scott and company realize that it’s not where you end up, it’s how you get there. And the journey they take us on is so full of charm, devastating wit, droll performances, breathtaking sets, and genuine romance, that you will enjoy every step, as in a delicious walk through the vineyards alluded to in the movie’s title. It is so refreshing for a modern film (especially one from actioner Ridley Scott) to abound with wit and many funny moments, but none at the expense of its characters. People in this story actually treat each other well, even when they are at odds. No cheap shots, no painful suspension of disbelief that we are subjected to in the usual “Boy Meets Girl” flick. But still, Russell Crowe in a modern comedy of manners?
A resounding yea. As usual, Crowe is completely believable, and makes all the right choices in his acting and line-readings. He proves that he can play deft comedy and romance as convincingly as he can portray men of strength and conscience. Crowe doesn’t make you forget Cary Grant, but he has shown that he can definitely rub shoulders with him. The film also features the gorgeous Marion Cotillard as the local woman who catches Crowe’s eye, and with good reason. I’m sorry to say this is the first film I’ve had the pleasure of seeing her in, but fervently hope it won’t be the last. Like many French actresses before her, Cotillard, with her ease with comedy, and effortless sexuality, shows just why the whole world has a thing for French Women.
An enjoyable supporting cast, including Albert Finney in another memorable role, and a great choice of modern and classic music, bolster this film and make it the most fun I’ve had looking at a screen in quite a while. If only the ‘Ammedicans’ could re-learn how to do this.