?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
Aug 2nd
01:49 pm
LA Times: 'Zac Efron's (halting) reinvention'  
From LA Times writer, Steven Zeitchik:

There's a piquant irony in Zac Efron backing out of "Footloose" because he didn't want to be the "High School Musical" guy -- and then having the movie he chose to do draw mainly from the "High School Musical" set.

Efron's soapy "Charlie St. Cloud" grossed just $12.1 million this weekend, largely because of goodwill from tweens and teens who like Efron from his Troy Bolton days, according to box-office experts. Showing less goodwill were critics, who collectively gave the tearjerky story of a lovelorn man conjuring up memories of his late brother a mere 24% on Rotten Tomatoes, and used such descriptors as "unintentionally hilarious" (the New York Post, Lou Lumenick).

But in an interview with my colleague Amy Kaufman, Efron said he felt confident that acting in a serious drama would help him move into the next phase of his career.

"I was looking at 'Footloose' and how great it would be, and every person you talk to is like, 'That's a great move. That's exactly what we would expect from you,' " he said, pouring himself some tea last month. "And after you hear that a few times, you kind of just go, 'I have to look myself in the face.' I wanted to slow down and do something challenging for the right reasons — not for the money or notoriety or for more fame or to be the king of genre."

Compared to singing and dancing through homeroom, the movie represents an evolution, but only the way going from an amoeba to a paramecium might be considered an evolution.
The shaky reviews might suggest Efron should stick with the tween roles as long as he can eke them out. But it's clear he wants more, and it's also clear he has at least a little more talent than this (it was even clear in "17 Again"). And yet he continues with the maudlin teen fare, a point underscored last week when it was revealed he was attached to "The Lucky One," the latest Nicholas Sparks Kleenex-puller. While superficially a more dramatic role, the project smells of the same saturated schmaltz of "High School Musical," only in non-singing form.

The simple answer to this conundrum -- assuming he wants to solve it -- is for Efron to choose better material, though of course that presumes it's there to be chosen. "St. Cloud" came about because it was the most adult option in a sea of kiddie choices. Those options may be expanding a little for Efron now, especially as he gets his production company going and studio Warner Bros. redoubles its efforts to keep him happy. The studio recently optioned remake rights to the Swedish hit "Snabba Cash," a movie about an ingénue drug dealer that's as much character piece as action thriller. So he at least should have a few more choices over the coming years.

There's a silver lining in the failure of "Charlie St. Cloud"; you could look at the results and infer that audiences don't want to see Efron as a vulnerable heartthrob. It's an open question, though, whether we want to see him as something else.

Personally I disagree with the last paragraph. To me the silver lining is, you put him in a movie that was not that well-reviewed and not that well-promoted and it still made $12 million dollars. Jeezbee pointed out to me The Playlist made this connection as well and it's true. If he wasn't a star, this would've banked $6 million tops, just like the similarly melodramatic and poorly marketed film Extraordinary Measures. People showed up for him. I do agree about the better material thing though... and about The Lucky One.
 
 
Mood: busybusy
40 40 comments Comment
 
 
It's Audrey not Aubreyaudrey_za on August 2nd, 2010 08:30 pm (UTC)
... this isn't really a question other than is RT something more than a database of reviews?
Shruticalcified on August 2nd, 2010 09:28 pm (UTC)
No, but that's where it gets its credence from? That it's an amalgamate of all mildly-through-prominent reviews.
It's Audrey not Aubreyaudrey_za on August 2nd, 2010 09:31 pm (UTC)
I know it's highly acclaimed/recognized due to it's journalistic selectiveness, but I was just wondering aloud if it's anything more than a database of reviews- albeit, reviews by legit film critics.
Shruticalcified on August 2nd, 2010 09:34 pm (UTC)
Oh... no, idts? It's really just useful in that it averages across individual biases, or at least generalizes them.
It's Audrey not Aubreyaudrey_za on August 2nd, 2010 09:38 pm (UTC)
I don't think I phrased myself well before (I was just kind of musing and it came our garbled), but this answer helps more. Thanks, girl! I was curious if RT held any signifigance beyond providing an overall consensus amongst critics prior to film releases.

Tbh, I hadn't heard about it until I started visiting C's lj and ONTD so it's a new resource to me!
hunny miss (aka lets fead him to the gators)ehs_wildcats on August 2nd, 2010 10:50 pm (UTC)
really metacritic is possibly more balanced in the sense that it restricts it's tallied reviews to long established sources. whereas rt, while they are selective it is not that hard to get listed as a critic.

plus rt, basically if everyone gives a movie 2.5 stars or higher looks like 100% positive because or 2 or lower it looks like 0% of the way they tally fresh or rotten... most of the time it works out that the average reflects the basically quality of the film. but sometimes it ends up weird. metacritic averages the percentage scores instead of just fresh or rotten so sometimes that comes out more meaningful.