Furious on Film Movie News Report 04.30.08

Posted by Arnold Furious on 04.30.2008

More on Ironman, Sleestaks, Witch Mountain, Blake’s 7 (you’d think this was the 1970’s), Dan Brown, plus reviews of the Anderson Tapes, I Am Legend and more!

Issue 137

There was me thinking I'd fail to get a column together this week and as I sit here leisurely on Tuesday evening to write the news part I've already written the entire rest of the column AND I got three reviews in. It's a crazy world we live in. I've also eaten three extra large pizza's this week. That can't be healthy right? And I've been down the pub all week. On the upside I play the Never Ending Movie Quiz on Facebook during the ad breaks on Raw. Based almost entirely on playing at this irregular interval I've now reached the rank of 1,813 in the world. Of course this means I've answered about 2000 questions about Johnny Depp, Disney princesses and Orlando Bloom's hair. Girls are so predictable. I've also bagged a 60 question winning streak on there without cheating. Which would be awesome if it didn't make me a complete nerd. Hooray for me!

HERE IS THE GNUS



I called this last week

Credit: IGN.com

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS (IRONMAN)

"I thought about it," John Favreau said when asked about an Ironman trilogy. "I have one, two, and three in my head, because if you don't then it seems like you're just re-treading the same ground. No, the way the Mandarin fits in, the way War Machine fits in, whether or not Obadiah [Stane] pops up again… There's a lot. The relationship of Pepper. So we're really thinking and I'm watching the horizon as I do these movies so that it all makes sense as you watch them altogether. I mean, look at how well Lord of the Rings works. It builds to a climax, compared to movies where it just feels like you're redoing the same thing over and over again to diminishing returns."

Of course, Favreau hasn't even signed on for the sequel yet.

"There is no second one yet. Part of what they do when they do an actor's deal is they sign you on for many because it can get very expensive. For director they don't see the need because they can make the movie with or without you. I would love to do a sequel to it and I think that depending on the success of the film… You know, we made over a hundred million dollars on Daredevil and were getting fairly good reviews. And I thought we were off to the races but then quickly I was told, 'No, it wasn't successful and it didn't make enough money and the fans don't think it's that good of a movie.' So I don't take anything for granted now after having been through that experience."



Well it's only spoilers if you never read the Ironman comic books. Favreau has a point about Daredevil. It wasn't *that* badly received when it was released. But the fans didn't really care for it. Mainly because Ben Affleck overplayed Matt and underplayed Daredevil, which he should have known not to do after being a lifelong fan of the comic book itself. They also tried to get too much stuff into Daredevil. I guess the lure of Bullseye was too great but if they have Bullseye do they need Kingpin as well? The most successful comic book movies have focused almost entirely on one bad guy. If you look at the X-Men franchise they pretty much used Magneto as the focus for the whole thing. Very few other villains (Mystique, Toad, Sabretooth; all Magneto's minions). Superman had Lex Luthor. Batman had the Joker. Spiderman had Goblin then Dr Octopus. It was only when they had three villains in Spiderman 3 that the wheels fell off that project. Planning out Ironman as a trilogy is a smart move. And there pieces are already in place. Ironman's entire storyline history basically works as a three act movie. Or a trilogy. He's a guy who got famous, lost it all then got his redemption. Marvel have taken the character in a different direction since then but as far as the movies go Marvel has the basics of a trilogy in print already. Favreau just has to put the pieces together in 2 hour chunks.

Another re-hash ahoy!

Credit: USA Today

The Land of the Lost film is now shooting on multiple sound stages at Universal Studios, and the Sleestak surface in a temple where Ferrell's character and his two companions (comedian Danny McBride, Pushing Daisies' Anna Friel) are hoping a giant crystal will return them to their own dimension. The plot involves three adults (not a dad and two kids as on TV) accidentally thrust into a realm ruled by dinosaurs, monkey-men called Pakuni and the murderous Sleestak. Director Brad Silberling (Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events) says he fought to keep the human shape of the Sleestak from Sid & Marty Krofft's original production, and not give into the urge to render them as spindly computerized beings.



OS: Original Sleestak.



And the new model.

I don't remember Land of the Lost clearly because it ran just before I was born so I only saw a few repeats. I thought the Sleestak were quite creepy at the time but they look retarded in retrospect. The kitschy monsters may be a bit of a laughing stock when the movie comes out but chances are it'll be aimed at kids anyway. And nostalgia junkies living 1970's TV repeats. I guess there are only so many original ideas before movie cliches get repetitive and derivative, which is when Hollywood resorted to re-making everything from old movies to TV shows to comic books.

Return to Witch Mountain

Credit: Reuters.

Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann, the original kid stars of Disney's 1970s "Witch Mountain" movies, are coming back for the studio's re-imagining of the adventure tales. "Race to Witch Mountain," starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Carla Gugino, is currently in production. In a nod to the original movies, Eisenmann plays a sheriff and Richards a waitress at a roadhouse called Ray's in a town called Stony Creek. They help a Las Vegas cabbie (Johnson) and his two paranormal-powered passengers (AnnaSophia Robb and Alexander Ludwig), who are on the run from a diabolical group of men who wish to exploit their abilities.



It's a nice touch to be using the kids out of the original films. I also like that the Rock is trying to choose a variety of film roles. His work so far has been pleasant and varied after a few initial type castings. He also got a huge winner with the Game Plan. The movie grossed a whopping $90M despite poor reviews. It seems the movie going public has warned to the Rock after overcoming their usual ‘wrestler' prejudices. I think he's had a few good performances that have won over the public. I thought he was surprisingly strong in Gridiron Gang, which probably didn't go unnoticed as that film grossed $38M. If Get Smart pans out how the studios hope it will he should be considered a bonafide movie star and proven box office draw by the end of the year. Watch this space.

Blake's 7 returns…on Sky

Credit: The Times

Science fiction fans can celebrate the return of a famous cult hit, after plans to remake the BBC series Blake's 7 were announced. The space saga, which ran from 1978 to 1981, was praised for its dark storylines and gained an international following. After years of lobbying, a revival has been prompted by the success of Doctor Who and complex sci-fi series such as Battlestar Galactica. The new Blake's 7 will fly on Sky One, after the satellite broadcaster asked the holders of the rights to Terry Nation's creation to develop a fresh series.

The BBC show followed the exploits of Roj Blake as he led a band of reluctant rebels against the totalitarian Federation, which ruled the galaxy. Launched after the success of Star Wars, Blake's 7 challenged viewer expectations with its cynical characters, who were eventually massacred in a shoot-out. Blake is a political dissident who escapes deportation to a remote planet by forming a gang of reluctant rebels who include a smuggler and a thief. The show has already been revived as a series of web audio short stories. Blake 7 Productions will now have the technology to create the epic space battles that were constrained by the BBC's budgetary demands in the late 1970s. The producers have mapped out a six-part series that revives Blake, his self-serving lieutenant Avon, and Servalan, the ruthless Supreme Commander, as well as the show's other fondly remembered characters. The new series is expected to tell the story of how the rebel group was formed.



I remember Blake's 7 from when I was a nipper. The final episode is the only clear memory I have of the show because they made the, frankly terrifying to a six year old, decision to kill all the characters off. It had me very worried about Star Wars and what might happen to Han Solo after being frozen in carbonite. Blake's 7 was ingenious and well written but the low budget resulted in lots of silly costumes but none of the big screen thrills that Star Wars could provide. Seeing as Battlestar Galactica has fared well since being re-launched I don't see any problem with doing Blake's 7. After all budget can only be a good thing when dealing with a project that was great apart from the lack of budget. Sky putting their money behind it is good news because every time they attempt something original it seems to pan out really well. The Terry Pratchett adaptations spring to mind. I endorse this product.

Da Vinci Code prequel gathers pace

Credit: Dark Horizons.com.

Ayelet Zurer was locked in yesterday as the female lead, now Ewan McGregor is in talks to play a key character in Sony Pictures "The Da Vinci Code" prequel "Angels and Demons" says the trades. Based on the Dan Brown novel, "Angels" sees Hanks reprising his role as symbologist professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) who tries to solve a murder and unravel a plot by the most powerful underground organization in history, the Illuminati, to wipe out Vatican City in a massive explosion during a papal conclave.

McGregor will play Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca, also known as Janus, the late pope's closest aide who initially helps Langdon in the investigation. During a conclave (which can go for hours or days), the camerlengo is a young impartial priest who serves as the 'defacto pope' whilst the cardinals are locked in St. Peter's Basilica to decide the next Pope. Akiva Goldsman adapted the book, Ron Howard will direct and shooting is set to begin in June in Europe before heading to Los Angeles.



I personally didn't care much for the Da Vinci Code. I thought Audrey Tautou was terrible and the film was basically 2 hours of exposition because they had no idea what to cut out in order to make it interesting. But it made a small fortune thanks to the religious debate it sparked (geez, wait till these people get a load of Preacher if that ever gets made) so here comes a sequel. Or in this case, prequel. Happily enough author Dan Brown had already written one so we don't get something cobbled together at a minutes notice. If you liked the first one this will probably be more of the same. Lots of explanation about how the world ‘really' works and what history was ‘really' like and Tom Hanks with bad hair. I'll pass but for Dan Brown fans it'll be a lark. Probably make another $200M or so. The key thing is getting all the same elements back for fans of the first film though. Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Akiva Goldsman and Dan Brown was how it got made. They're all still in this.

And that's your news for Wednesday.

What do you mean you've never seen…?

Remember in High Fidelity where the potential record buyer is confronted by Jack Black? "Don't tell anyone you don't own Blonde on Blonde?" Well, if you were to enter a serious film buff's rental place, which sadly doesn't exist nowadays thanks to Blockbuster and online rentals, and happened to make a comment about liking movies then I like to think somewhere out there that a clerk still exists who would chastise you for not having seen certain movies. Seeing as that place doesn't exist you'll just have to imagine you're walking into my rental place and happened to mention dream casting choices. My personal favourite, a film that'll never be made due to retirement, was always a road trip movie starring Christopher Walken and Sean Connery. It wouldn't have been their first appearance together though because Walken's debut was in a Connery picture. But what's that? You've never seen…

#7 The Anderson Tapes (1971)



While my wish to see Connery & Walken at their peak isn't delivered by the Anderson Tapes at least they're side by side. Walken is too young to really impose himself on the picture and Connery isn't on his best form either. But what it does have is snippets of greatness. Which you'd expect because the film is from director Sidney Lumet. The same Lumet who directed 12 Angry Men, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon and Network. This was him warming up for his most successful spell where he teamed up with Al Pacino on Serpico then Dog Day Afternoon. The Anderson Tapes is almost a warm up for Dog Day Afternoon with the charismatic Connery leading a band of crooks on a caper that shouldn't really stand any chance of succeeding. Much like Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon (although Pacino had fewer elements to control with only one fellow robber). Connery gang includes the debuting Christopher Walken simply billed as "The Kid" although his deep voice and kooky appearance are beyond his years. Or at least his billed years as he was 28 at the time. His opening line of dialogue is "America, man! You know, it's so beautiful I wanna eat it!" Complete with the inflections that have made him famous over the years. I was sold right there and then. I can see why it's not regarded as a classic. The score, for example, is terrible and the plot lacks the depth it should have had with the underlying sub-plot about government surveillance pushing the boundaries of what is legal. It felt like the Anderson Tapes wanted to say a lot about privacy but didn't really get around to doing it. It's odd to see Lumet, although he's often criticised for being inconsistent, come up short on a movie because I've only seen his very best work. Walken would be wildly entertaining if he had more than a dozen or so lines and it's left to Connery and a scenery chewing Martin Balsam to keep things interesting.

BEST BIT – Connery goes off on a rant about how robbery isn't a bad thing and how insurance companies love it when big robberies go down. "Look, when you rob a guy who's got insurance, you're doing him a favor. You're giving him a little excitement in his life, a story to tell. He becomes a more interesting person because you robbed him. You boost the insurance company because the publicity gets people to buy insurance. You do the fuzz a favor because, well, you prove they're necessary and deserving of a big pay boost."

THIS WEEK'S REVIEWS

30 Days of Night, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, I Am Legend

30 Days of Night (2007)



EXPECTATIONS – Good trailer but mixed reviews. The comic book to movie conversion rate has been quite successful of late though with even misfires like V for Vendetta, X-Men 3, Spiderman 3 and Rise of the Silver Surfer at least having some value. Plus when adapting Dark Horse material movie makers tend to do quite well. Well, I'm thinking of Hellboy in particular. And also of another comic book adaptation; Sin City. But ultimately they conversions only really work out when there's someone really talented involved (Robert Rodriguez, Sam Raimi, Bryan Singer). The man behind 30 Days of Night is David Slade who previously had success with Hard Candy. This is only his second feature film. It also stars the notoriously average actor Josh Hartnett.

TRAILER –



PLOT – In Barrow, Alaska, night lasts for 30 days. When the sun sets local sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) and his estranged wife Stella (Melissa George) are left fighting for their lives along with the rest of the town. A gang of vampires descend on Barrow led by Marlow (Danny Huston). And with sunrise 30 days away the townsfolk have their work cut out to survive the night.

OPINION – 30 Days of Night suffers really badly from editing issues. Several scenes appear to be missing making the story disjointed and jumpy. Which is a pity because it starts so strongly. A lone stranger (Ben Foster) strolls into town and disrupts their defences before telling Eben that "death is coming" when he's arrested. His creepy vacant unblinking stare is an absolute winner and the early going of vampires flashing about in the shadows is marvellous stuff. Unfortunately once the failure to capture enough footage/editing issues kick in the storyline becomes really uneven and the characters with it. Then times seems to pass at uneven intervals as a gang of vampires spend days at a time failing to find 7 or 8 people in a small town. Seeing as they "can smell your blood" they must be among the most inept vampires ever. It's not a bad film for its genre (as there hasn't been a decent vampire film since Blade) but it suffers from poor directing and pacing. The intense opening rapidly goes downhill as they realised 30 days is a really long time. The passage of time through jump cuts doesn't seem right either. There's no feeling that a lot of time has passed. Nothing much changes other than Josh's beard growing. The best actors are badly misused. Huston is a minor character and doesn't speak English (the vampires speak a different language, which is conveniently subtitled) and Ben Foster is great in all of the 2 or 3 scenes he has but that's it. The film has a huge clunky dead spot in its second act before picking up again towards the end. While I liked most of the finale it started getting very silly

(*SPOILERS* - the whole bit with Harnett having to go out there at the end is bollocks. The fire never got anywhere near the car. He basically went out there for no reason. And punching someone through the head is just stupid. I pretty much hated that scene. If they'd just stayed in the building they'd have been fine. Which in itself is ridiculous because the vampires were ‘burning the whole town down' but they weren't. And it skips ahead from Day 29 to Day 30 in about 3 minutes. How long does that fight in the street last anyway? *SPOILERS END*).

Of course it's not a terrible film and it's way better than say…Ultraviolet. It's very stylised and looks great but the plot just has no fluidity and the only time they get some serious tension going, during the ‘Anne Frank' scene (the one that lasts 18 days!), they blow it by having no pay off. The concept of time in 30 Days of Night is really badly handled and they'd have been better off without throwing out date-stamps as that just showed how uneven the film was. When DAY 18 popped up onscreen I was like "really? I'm glad we didn't get extended highlights of those 18 days". It would have been like watching Big Brother. If its flaws weren't so obvious and noticeable 30 Days of Night would have been a great film. It has some solid action sequences (like the chase down main street with the shotgun & bear traps) and some decent, if cliched, characters. The set up is unique and ingenious but the film just doesn't deliver enough. Its good ideas are spread out across the run-time leaving large chunks of film that drops back into cliché territory. Basically; more Ben Foster would have been nice, because he was brilliant, and less time wasting. I would have been thrilled if the attic scene had a pay off. That alone would have bumped the rating up by probably an entire star. But you waste all that time in one place without there being a pay off and I feel cheated.

BEST BIT – "They're using her as bait".



RATING - **1/2. While it does take a decent stab at making vampires scary again (channelling Murnau's vision) there are too many issues with how the passage of time is portrayed. It doesn't feel like 30 days is passing, which is the fault of the inexperienced director. While certain cinematic tricks come into play in order to give the film some much needed tension it doesn't ever pay off and the ending isn't great. Good for the genre, because vampire movies tend to be pretty bad, but average for scary movies. It did make me want to see Whiteout though, which is due out this year. 6 months without sun and snow everywhere. Even if Kate Beckinsale is starring in it. You can't them all I guess.

Sidenote – I like checking IMDB's goofs section. Here's a few good ones for 30 Days of Night…

• Barrow is 200 miles from the oil pipeline shown as running right next to the town in the denouement.
• The sun doesn't rise for 67 days in Barrow but it's light between noon and 4pm. In 30 Days of Night it's pitch black night throughout.
• There are no sheriffs in Alaska
• The airport, which closes during the 30 days, is actually open all the time.
• Barrow's actual population is over 4000
• In a glaring continuity error a character says they heard "gunshots" when none were fired. Like I said, the editing seems to have hacked off a few key scenes here and there.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)



EXPECTATIONS – I watched clips to get an idea of how good Casey Affleck was in the film back at Oscar preview time. I could tell even from clips that it wasn't only a strong performance by him by also by Brad Pitt. The off-putting thing about the film, which I believe is why it wasn't more successful, is the long run time. 2 ½ hours is a long stretch in anyone's book. Especially in a bleak Western setting.

TRAILER –



PLOT – Jesse James (Brad Pitt) is joined by a young gunman named Robert Ford (Casey Affleck). Ford admired James' 14 years of banditry and wanted to join the James Gang. When he got the chance along with his brother Charlie (Sam Rockwell) he discovers not everything he's read about James is true and begins to doubt his legend.

OPINION – The original released cut of this film was 4 hours long. It screened as that version at the Venice Film Festival and was hailed as "majestic". Pitt won ‘best actor' at that festival. The studio weren't happy with releasing a four hour film as people simply can't pay attention to films of that length. I struggle with anything over 2 hours and I'm not alone. That's basically the amount of time that people are good at paying attention for. 4 hours is double that. The recut version the studio requested clocks in at 2 hours 40 minutes. It's still an enormous sweeping modern attempt at epic. It perhaps lacks the visuals to be considered truly epic (like the deserts of Lawrence of Arabia) but not the characters. Brad Pitt & Casey Affleck are both incredible and it's not Affleck's dubious "supporting actor" nomination (he spends more time onscreen than anyone else) that I'd disagree with but the lack of nomination for Pitt in one of his most subtle and nuanced roles. He even has the slightly showier character. I was initially worried that Andrew Dominik's lack of experience would hurt the film but his only previous flick was Chopper and that's brilliant. I think this is his official calling card. It reads "I have arrived". There's no disguising the fact that this film will not appeal to everyone. It's really long and there's precious little in terms of action. One train robbery and a few close range kills by the sadistic James ahead of the inevitable conclusion. This won't be enough to satisfy some film-goers. But those who like their plot dense, layered and moving at a very slow pace this is ideal. Clearly this is what kept people out of the cinema. The film was an expensive $30M but didn't even make it to $5M at the box office. I feel it'll be looked back upon fondly by Western fans but it'll still go down as a failure and a lesson to anyone intending to make a Western that makes money. The blood soaked 3:10 to Yuma was more entertaining and took more money. Even with Brad Pitt in the lead the Assassination of Jesse James was unpopular among the masses and regarded as too heavyweight for a mass market. All of this is probably true. While I felt the film could probably have done with losing another 30 minutes, which would have made it that much tighter and entertaining, the appeal of a long film is the time spent on character. And any more cuts would have hurt the overall vibe the film creates. The slow descent into insanity of James is quite remarkable and Affleck is almost unrecognisable as Ford. Rockwell also turns in one of his better performances erasing the memories of his ham-heavy Zaphod.

BEST BIT – Wood (Jeremy Renner) goes to take revenge on Dick Liddel (Paul Schneider) for making a move on his Daddy's young wife. Bloodshed ensues.

RATING - ***1/2. I'm really torn on the rating because there are two sides to my personality. The one side likes to be entertained and the other side likes to be told a coherent story. And as good as this story is it's rarely great entertainment. There are several sweeping epics you could say the same thing about. I liked this film and I really liked both Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck who are superb but I did mentally drift during the lengthy middle section after the initial train robbery and before the film headed to its long conclusion. There needed to be more in there. Performances superb, direction decent but this isn't for everyone.

I Am Legend (2007)



EXPECTATIONS – My mate Steve described the film as "two hours of nothing", which didn't exactly sell me on it. I checked the run time though and it's 101 minutes. So if it's terrible then at least its not 2 hours long. He also has a pretty weak attention span. I can't imagine him watching Lawrence of Arabia anytime soon. But my reasoning behind seeing it is twofold. 1. Will Smith is box office. I make a point of trying to see films that make a lot of money to keep my finger on the pulse of modern society (seeing as I don't watch TV). 2. I really like the Omega Man. And we've come a long way in terms of what's possible in CGI so I'm there.

TRAILER – Try and ignore the "$7K in 7 days" adverts.



PLOT – Dr Robert Neville (Will Smith) is the sole survivor in New York City of a terrible virus that killed the majority of the population leaving only "dark seekers" who attack the healthy because of blood-lust but are hurt by the sun. Yes, like vampires.

OPINION – There are very few actors who can carry a movie. And not just paper over the cracks in but actually carry the entire concept on their back. Will Smith is one of those actors. And it's a good job he is because his purpose in I Am Legend is to carry the entire film on the strength of his performance. It reminds me of Tom Hanks in Castaway. It starts with a disaster and then deals with one man's attempt to stave off insanity. While Hanks' did an amazing job of giving personality to a volleyball Smith has an easier job of working with his dog Samantha. The dog has a personality because of how Will Smith relates to it. And that means he's not alone. The special effects are remarkable, although the deer look pretty fake, and seeing an empty and overgrown New York is astounding. Smith's performance is up there with anything he's done before including Ali and so matches the effects people's efforts. It's just a pity the film went downhill in its 3rd act. I loved the premise, much like in 30 Days of Night, and it seemed so perfectly executed for so long. Pretty much as long as it's Smith and his dog. The stuff with the mannequins is good, the renting the DVD's, the flashbacks. It all works up to a point. Then we're introduced to Anna (Alice Braga) who comes in spouting a load of nonsense about God's plan. Very reminiscent of M. Night Shyamalan's Signs. Also along for the ride is a kid called Ethan who serves utterly no purpose. As the film races at breakneck pace towards its conclusion the ‘last day' flies by but steadily gets worse in its execution. Director Francis Lawrence has certainly done a better job here than on previous project Constantine though. Perhaps it was just the casting of Keanu Reeves but I always felt that film was destined to fail. And it did. I really can't remember much about it either, which is bad. It's better to be rubbish (like Independence Day) and memorable than completely forgettable. I Am Legend contains far more memorable imagery from the lions to the deer hunting to the empty streets to the attack on the bridge, to the battles with the "dark seekers". There are also great little bits of detail like the fake Superman/Batman poster in Times Square (as this film is set in 2012).

BEST BIT – When Sam accidentally runs into a darkened building containing a "Hive". Smith feels he has to follow showing how much he cares for his dog. The creepy tension that follows includes the first glimpse of the "dark seekers", which are really quite scary to begin with.

RATING - ***1/2. The set up is great and Will Smith is brilliant but the ending doesn't do it for me. There are also several quite large plot holes (the whole scene when Neville & Anna meet makes very little sense) that bring the rating down.

Sidenote – Will Smith is box office. There are few other actors who could not only pull this off but be so likeable in the role that people want to see it. I Am Legend grossed over $250M in the US alone and nearly $600M worldwide. Here are some other box office figures from the former Fresh Prince.

The list contains three figures after each film's title and year of release. The first is the budget, the second the US box office and the final figure is the worldwide box office.

Bad Boys (1995) 23 65 140
Independence Day (1996) 75 306 797
Men in Black (1997) 90 250 576
Wild Wild West (1999) 170 113 222
Ali (2001) 107 58 87
Men in Black II (2002) 140 190 425
Bad Boys 2 (2003) 130 138 267
I, Robot (2004) 120 144 347
Shark Tale (2004) 75 160 200+
Hitch (2005) 70 177 200+
The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) 55 162 304
I Am Legend (2007) 150 256 583

That whopping $583M makes I Am Legend the second biggest earner of Smith's career behind Independence Day. Seems people wanted to see that film. Thumbs up.

HOLLYWOOD WHORES

There are some really famous whore roles that simply have to get mentioned during the course of Hollywood Whores. Today I pay tribute to the ice maiden Catherine Deneuve who played an afternoon hooker in Belle de Jour.



Dubbed the "ice maiden" for her relatively emotionless performances she was considered quite the beauty at the height of her powers and has a natural appearance.



Not only that but her performance in Belle de Jour, while playing a prostitute, is her career highlight. Let's hear it for Catherine Deneuve…Hollywood Whore.



You stay classy…The World.