My Favorite Actor

If there is ever one actor who could say he did it all, it would have to be Tom Hanks. He is by far my favorite actor, not only because of his skills within acting (which are evident) but also his range through his films. His very first movie was "Splash" in 1984, and aside from recieving critical acclaim the film went on to be nominated for an Oscar for best screenplay. From that point on it seemed Hanks was perfect for light romantic comedies, including "Joe Versus the Volcano" which was his first movie with Meg Ryan. Three years later he played the lead role in "Philadelphia," in which he played a gay man with Aids, which marked his first Oscar nomination and win. The next year, Hanks played the lead role in a film which he is by far best known for; "Forrest Gump." Not only did this film gain extreme critical acclaim, it also won Hanks his second oscar, and Best Picture. He was the first actor ever to win the Best Actor award two years in a row. After that Hanks became an icon in Hollywood, and great projects followed including "Apollo 13", "Toy Story", "That Thing You Do!", "Saving Private Ryan", and "The Green Mile". Even within all these action, animated, and dramatic films, Hanks still contained the charm to star in two more romantic comedies with Meg Ryan. Throughout his acting career Tom Hanks definetly did not create a box for himself. He starred in a film that many people expected to fail, but turned it into a surpise classic; "Cast Away," which chronicled one man's experience stranded on a deserted island alone. Now even through all these great films, I have yet to tell you my favorite. Although I love "Forrest Gump" and love watching his romantic comedies, my favorite Tom Hanks movies would have to be "A League of Their Own" and "Catch Me If You Can." He plays such a cold, careless coach in "A League of Their Own" but who could forget him yelling "There's no crying in baseball!!" to one of his female players. Even as a mean guy, you can't help but love him. "Catch Me If You Can" just happens to be one of my favorite movies, not only because of its amazingly true story, but also because of the acting; Tom Hanks is simply amazing. And his career has yet to stop in any form. Although many people were harsh in the adaption of 2006's "The DaVinci Code," I couldn't find anything wrong with it, but my opinion's quite biased. His cameo in "The Simpson's Movie" proves it though; Tom Hanks is unstoppable. Many people in Hollywood seem to agree that Tom Hanks is an icon, and inspiring many proteges. Shia LaBeouf has been called the next Tom Hanks, but he'll have to do a lot to prove that.

Critique the Critic

"Across the Universe" is a film that came out just last Friday, and one that has been anticipated by Beatles fans everywhere. The film is essentially a movie-musical, but completely using only Beatles songs; 33 to be exact. While searching for reviews, the critiques for this film were extremely mixed. I finally found a review in The Hollywood Reporter that presented all the good things, the bad things, and the original things that this film has to offer. Stephen Farber describes the premise of the film, which is a love story, based in the 1960s, one of the most historically important decades this country has encountered. The main character in the film, Jude, is a Liverpudlian dock worker looking for his father whom he hopes to find in America. While at school he meets Max, a rebellious young student, who becomes a fast friend. Jude soon falls in love with Max's sister Lucy, and life seems to be at its peak for the trio. Although, when Max is drafted into the military after dropping out, and leaves for Vietnam, Lucy and Jude are left to fight for peace, and keep their love alive. Farber agrees with many critics in saying that, yes it is an original idea for a film, mixing the music of the Beatles with the drama of the era, but an original idea can only go so far.

Yet this lavish production, which also screened at the Toronto International Film Festival, is finally unsatisfying because it somehow misses the essence of the Beatles and of the most memorable movie musicals.

Even though throughout the review, Farber points out the faults of this movie, his approval of the overall presentation of the film still keeps me wanting to see it. Farber does make it clear that the film had a great potential and much of it was reached through the full presentation of the story. Throughout the review, a reader can notice the one thing truly troubling Farber about the film is its desire to be a musical without harnessing the joy and cleverness found in many of the Beatles' songs.

The Beatles acknowledged the tensions of the period in some of their music, and Taymor has highlighted the grim mood of songs like "Revolution" as well as the more surreal, psychedelically flavored songs such as "I Am the Walrus" and "Strawberry Fields Forever." But she has completely ignored the sly wit found in such songs as "Penny Lane," "Paperback Writer" or "When I'm 64."

Farber believes that one of the greatest mistakes within the film was the simple story accompanying its extravagant musical numbers. He gives great praise to the costume and set design and the editing, which without would have made the review completely cynical. He also points out that with all that the movie presents during the storytelling, it is not met with a strong enough ending to finish it off.

Mark Friedberg's production design and Albert Wolsky's costumes should be remembered during awards season. Francoise Bonnot's editing also deserves high praise. The inter cutting during "Hold Me Tight," "With a Little Help From My Friends"and "Let It Be" gives these numbers a breathless cinematic rhythm. The arrangement of the songs also is top-notch. But the romantic finale seems pat rather than emotionally devastating.

Farber is able to present his critique by not just listing off reasons why he thinks this movie is just okay, but he uses his knowledge of the subject to enhance the reader's understanding of why the film could use improvement. His knowledge of various Beatles' songs and how there presentation would have better fit the story help acknowledge the possible mistakes the film may contain. He also compares the film to other movie musicals explaining that not all musicals must be joyous, but they should render a significant emotion.

Still, it could be argued that many of the greatest moments in movie musical history-like Gene Kelly's performance of the title number in Donen and Kelly's "Singin' in the Rain" -- convey pure exuberance. And of course what made the Beatles' own movies "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help!" so captivating was their spirit of playfulness and joy.

I enjoyed reading this review more than others because it presented not just reasoning why the film was not its best, but also highlights of the film that helped me realize that, although it is not fantastic, the film does have its bright moments.

Joe Cocker plays three characters in a brilliant rendition of "Come Together," and he momentarily supplies the gleeful wit that the film desperately needs. Bono's performance of "I Am the Walrus" is another high point.

Aside from complementing various songs throughout the film, Farber also expresses great acceptance for the cast and their overall performance.

Overall, this review not only informed me about the various issues lying within this film, it also informed me of the many ways the film could have improved, and giving examples of various moments where the film was truly good, helps me to know what to focus on when I go see it, because I still do want to!

Tuna Fish

Fish