Miley Cyrus gave her 15 million Twitter.com followers a thrill on Sunday (10Nov13) as she got ready for the MTV European Music Awards in Amsterdam, Holland by posting a 'shower selfie' photo online. The provocative 20 year old appears to be wearing nothing in the shot, which features her posing while showing off her bare shoulders and chain necklaces, and sporting her hair in bunches on top of her head.
She later stunned on the red carpet, wearing a back-less, lace-up mini-dress featuring the faces of slain rap rivals Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur and black and white chequered thigh-high boots.
The singer wasn't just there to dazzle; she also had a message - words printed around the hem of her barely-there outfit read: "Please Stop Violence".
And during the ceremony itself, Cyrus made sure she would be back in the headlines by spanking a little person and grabbing her breast during a performance of We Can't Stop.
The pop superstar became a talking point after the last MTV awards bash in New York in August (13) when she danced provocatively with a bunch of dancers dressed up as teddy bears and then stripped down to flesh-coloured underwear to perform a very racy version of Blurred Lines with Robin Thicke.
Based on the classic Rudyard Kipling story Jungle Book 2 starts basically where the 1967 original left off. Having been lured into the human village by a beautiful young girl Mowgli (voiced by Haley Joel Osment) is now living the life of his people. No more bumping bananas out of a tree swingin' with the monkeys or singing about the "bare necessities" with his old friend Baloo the bear (voiced by John Goodman). Mowgli doesn't mind living with his own kind despite their rules and restrictions especially when he can hang out with the beautiful girl Shanti (voiced by Mae Whitman) but he still misses the wild times he had in the jungle. So does Baloo who pines for his little buddy but is told again and again by the wise panther Bagheera (voiced by Bob Joles) that Mowgli is where he belongs. Even the malevolent tiger Shere Khan (voiced by Tony Jay) would like to get his hands on the man-cub--for a little payback. Finally Mowgli is fed up with the village rules and sneaks off into the jungle with Baloo while Shanti thinks he is being abducted by a wild animal and goes off to rescue him. Egad! Now there's two unsuspecting kids in the jungle. What to do? It's a chase to see who gets to Mowgli first--the man-eating tiger his old pals or his new human friends and family.
Everyone associated with this sequel makes a valiant effort to re-create the indelible character voices from the original but unfortunately just miss the mark. Goodman who will forever be the lovable James P. "Sully" Sullivan from Monsters Inc. can't quite capture the same magic the late Phil Harris had when he brought the big-hearted Baloo to life. Try and imagine someone else playing Sully. See what I mean? The same goes for attempting to top the 1967 originals Sebastian Cabot as the harried Bagheera Sterling Holloway as the villainous snake Kaa (remember "Trusssssst in Me"?) and George Sanders as the ultra-cool Shere Khan. These guys made the Kipling characters their own. Trying to imitate them in Jungle Book 2 doesn't work. At least the sequel has enough smarts to leave out the swingin' orangutan King Louie altogether who was voiced in the original by jazz musician Louis Prima. No one could have even touched that performance. Osment who is making a name for himself in the Disney voice-over community after doing the lead in The Country Bears does a fine job as Mowgli.
The one thing you can say about this sequel is that it tries too hard to be like its ultra-hip predecessor. When the original The Jungle Book was released in 1967 Disney had a vision of Kipling's story as a jazzy jungle romp with great songs such as "Bare Necessities" and "I Wan'na Be Like You' and incorporated some of the era's coolest beatniks including Prima and Harris. Jungle Book 2 isn't as toe-tappin' and fans of the original may think the new musical numbers a little cheesy especially the big one in the jungle ruins with Baloo and company. It can't hold a candle to the King Louie number from the original. Still the film doesn't fail completely. The continuing story of Mowgli's life is engaging as we watch him cope with his new surroundings realizing he truly can't be a jungle boy forever.
"Almost Reel is one of the decade's best columns!"
-- Harlan Sanders, The Silver Spring Post-Dispatch
"When I read last week's Almost Reel I laughed, I cried. It was better than Cats."
-- Lew Lautin, National Internet Review
A couple of weeks ago, Columbia Pictures (part of the evil Sony empire) admitted that they'd been using a fictitious movie reviewer, "David Manning," to supply some of the glowing phrases that we see attached to each and every film that comes out of Tinseltown.
"Manning" heaped praise upon such unworthy fare as A Knight's Tale, The Animal and Hollow Man.
If you're anything like me--and if you are, those Air Supply albums are still a guilty pleasure--you're not at all shocked or surprised. Hollywood employs some of the slickest marketing professionals this side of big tobacco, another bastion of corporate responsibility.
There are a few small thoughts that come immediately to mind that should mitigate any sense of outrage we the public may feel at this duplicity.
1. Movie studios are in the business of "pretend." The one product movie studios manufacture is, well, movies, which more often than not are made up. Is it so much of a stretch to us that the studios would make up their own glowing reviews?
Look at it this way: were any of us really shocked that Mike Tyson took a bite out of Evander Holyfield's ear? Sure, there are rules in boxing, but the primary goal of the sport is to turn your opponent's face into a bloody pulp. Mike decided to use his teeth instead of his fists. The means may have changed, but the ends remained the same.
I think you can see how the parallel applies to movies, only with a lot less ear-biting and blood. (Assuming, of course, you're not the producer of three high-profile bombs in a row. If so, watch out--I hear Michael Eisner has sharp teeth.)
2. Movie studios lie all the time. Do bears, bare? Do bees, be? Of course, they do. (Apologies to David Addison.)
Not every movie the studios put out can actually be worth your hard-earned eight bucks, yet the studios only make money if you buy a ticket. In fact, movie studios rank right up there (or is it down there?) with the used car industry on level of truthfulness.
3. Movie studios often pay lots of money for blurbmeisters from all over the country to come to lavish junkets, all for the sake of a nice review. The studios often wine, dine, and give away free movie merchandise (which sometimes means expensive luggage and perfume) to reviewers as part of these junkets.
We the public are just not as attuned to the commonly used euphemisms that those reviewers employ. Although by now I think everyone knows that if a film is plastered with quotes such as "One of the year's/decade's/century's best movies" or "a nonstop roller coaster ride" avoid it like the plague.
Other words that are a real clue to a movie's suckiness include "triumphant," "glorious," "mesmerizing" and "this year's insert movie title here."
So studios tried to cut out the middleman and write their own over-the-top reviews for mediocre movies. Who are we to quibble?
After all, it's the assumption of the movie studios that in this great society we've created the public at large is simply a repository for disposable income, controlled by insect-sized intellect. The public can't possibly discern the difference between the review of a veteran movie screener and the review of my 4-year-old niece.
Astute members of the American citizenry have actually proved that point rather nicely for the studios. Ten (ten--as if one wouldn't have been enough to get the point across) class-action lawsuits have been filed alleging that some of the public has been duped by movie reviews from critics who have been richly wined and dined on studio-paid press junkets.
One of the quotes cited by the attorney representing the plaintiffs compared the John Travolta dud Battlefield Earth favorably to Star Wars. Another review raved that The Perfect Storm is "one of the best movies of all time."
Who are these people that believed those reviews, and where do they live? I have some property in Florida that I'd like to sell them. These rubes are a Wall Street cold-caller's dream.
"Hello Mrs. Smithee? I have a stock that's this year's AOL! It's a triumphant stock, with a glorious upside. It's just going up, up, up and will be one of the year's ten best performers! You say you want 1,000 shares? I'll put you down for 2,000."
Of course, one has to wonder why Columbia Pictures execs thought they had to make up anything. As Washington Post movie critic Desson Howe put it, "This country is overpopulated with helium-filled movie critics who like anything."
Personally, I don't like just anything. There has to be some gratuitous violence.
As for the marketing geniuses at Columbia, don't cry for them.
The two-man brain-trust that made up these phony blurbs e.g., calling A Knight's Tale's Heath Ledger "this year's hottest new star," have returned to work after a 30-day unpaid suspension, presumably to bigger offices and bigger paychecks.
All right, you pressured me into it. I admit it, I wrote those reviews at the top of the column myself. Columbia Pictures here I come!