A few posts ago I mentioned I've always confused myself with Channing Tatum, Chris Evans & Chris Pine. Over the weekend while I was watching "The Host", they showed a new trailer for "Star Trek: Into Darkness", and for a moment I found my inner Ally McBeal popped up and asked myself: What's that fellow's name again? Heck, even two of the three are named Chris. Maybe put it down in an article will help me see where this confusion began, and if there might be a cure :)

Channing Tatum
Born: 26-April-1980 (age 33)
From: Cullman, Alabama, USA
First Movie: Coach Carter (2004) with Samuel L. Jackson

Notable Filmography:
Franchises - G.I. Joe
Male-Targeted Action Movies - Fighting, The Eagle, Haywire
Female-Targeted Romantic Flicks - She's the Man, 10 Years, Dear John, The Vow, Magic Mike
Drama: Side Effects
Silly Fun - 21 Jump Street, The Dilemma

Academy Award: None

Chris Evans
Born: 13-June-1981 (age 32)
From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA
First Movie: The Newcomers (2000), though I have never heard of this film before, so I'm gonna start counting from "Not Another Teen Movie"... yes that's right, that's the silly teen movie rip-off.

Notable Filmography:
Franchises - Fantastic Four, Captain America, The Avengers
Male-Targeted Action Movies -The Losers, Push, Cellular
Female-Targeted Romantic Flicks - What's Your Number
Drama - Sunshine
Silly Fun - Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Not Another Teen Movie

Academy Award: None

Chris Pine
Born: 26-August-1980 (age 33)
From: Los Angeles, California, USA
First Movie: The Princess Diaries 2 (2004) with Anne Hathaway

Notable Filmography:
Franchises - Star Trek
Male-Targeted Action Movies -Unstoppable
Female-Targeted Romantic Flicks - Just My Luck, This Means War
Drama - People Like Us, Small Town Saturday Night
Silly Fun - Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Not Another Teen Movie

Academy Award: None




You see the similarity there? They are almost the same age, they came out of stardom almost the same time, and their resumes contain almost the same formula of at least one blockbuster franchise with the balance of male targeted & female-targeted films.

Okay, you might say "don't many other stars have similar resumes too?". Well, kind of. But it's hard to argue "She's the Man", "Just My Luck" and "What's Your Number" are the same movie, or at least different movie depicting the same heroine's different stage of life, and the guy in it is just for decoration. It's also hard to differentiate Captain Duke from Captain America and Captain Kirk, though they actually live in different time era. I can always call out the name of other actors immediately when I see them in films or in pictures, but when I see either one of these three I have to pause for 3 seconds before successfully call out the right name.

So far this year, Channing Tatum had been in supporting roles for two films (Side Effects & G.I. Joe: Retaliation) and he has a few upcoming films including the action flick "White House Down". Chris Evans doesn't have much to offer this year but his real deal comes next year with the second installment in the Captain America franchise. Unlike the two above, Chris Pine didn't have a good year last year when his two films (This Means War & People Like US) kinda bombed box-office & critical wise (no, voice work doesn't count so don't bring up "Rise of the Gurdians"). This year, he will try his luck with two big budget films Star Trek: Into Darkness & Jack Ryan. The formal is automatically a box office gold even before it opens. The true test of Chris's star power will be the latter. Will it be a Jason Bourne (so successful they made three movies out of it, no I don't count the Jeremy Renner vehicle, no offense Mr. Renner but you are not Bourne) or Jack Reacher (so forgettable you forget about it 2 hours after you watch it, thus unlikely to have a sequel)?

Do you have the same problem telling these three apart? Highly unlikely. I've come to be more able to differentiate them now, though it's still a blur from time to time.

Random Thoughts While Watching "G.I.Joe: Retaliation"

Random thoughts while watching "G.I.Joe: Retaliation" (this is not a review, just random notes):

(1) I am cheating on my first point, since I posted this before on Facebook. Can you call yourself a sequel if most of your original cast do not return, or if they return they die early in the film? To me, this is more like a brand new film starring Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis.

(2) The first G.I. Joe movie was released less than 4 years ago, but I've completely erased that movie from my memory. Try and try I did, but I can't recall the plot line of the film. Unfortunately you have to at least remember a bit of that film to get into this sequel faster. This movie experience is bound to be a disaster for me right from the start.

(3) They postponed the release of this film from the summer of last year, to convert the film into a 3D movie. News flash, there's not much in this film worthy of 3D experience. My suggestion is to spend that extra few bucks on another 3D film, like The Croods.

(4) Two consecutive weeks, two films with Channing Tatum dies early in the film (last week it was Side Effects). He must have been getting tired after highlighting so many hits last year, so he requested for minimal screen time?

(5) Let me get off topic a bit: Why do I always thought Channing Tatum, Chris Evans and Chris Pine are the same person? It doesn't make any sense. My only excuse might be they are about the same age, and their choice of films are quite similar as well. They have big budget franchises (G.I. Joe, Captain America, Star Trek), and they also do rom-com (The Vow, What's Your Number, This Means War).

(6) Another super productive actor - Bruce Willis. But apart from that Die Hard movie, he's been a supporting cast more frequently in recently 2 years. In this film, he has approximately 15 minutes of screen time. Damn movie trailer, they are so good at misleading us into thinking Bruce Willis is as "main" as Dwayne Johnson.

(7) Dwayne Johnson, you are better in The Snitch, though that movie itself is just a so-so film. One more thing: I like you better when you were called The Rock.

(8) The ninja at the mountain fight scene is one of the best action sequence in the movie. This is how you do action. Bravo!

(9) In one scene, the President of United States is playing Angry Birds on his cellphone. See, this is why postponing the movie is such a bad idea. Angry Birds is so last year. People were like: What? Still playing Angry Birds? He should be playing Candy Crush now!

(10) Final verdict: 1 star out of 5. Typical action movie, lame joke (okay, the Brenda joke got me, haha), typical cliché (that Point#9 from my last week's note on Olympus Has Fallen, about how our hero always shuts down the bombs or nuclear weapons last 3 seconds before it goes off, it happened here too. And they bring it up one notch, he stopped it at the very last second). Not a very good movie.

Random Thoughts While Watching "Side Effects"

Random thoughts while watching "Side Effects” (this is not a review, just random notes):

(1) Steven Soderbergh, the super productive director behind the Ocean's series, was recently telling reporters he's retiring. Yeah right! I thought he said that few times before, and yet he kept churning out movie after movie. And I read the other day he's directing Matt Damon in an upcoming movie. Dude, what retiring?

(2) Back to this movie, it's so low profile I almost missed it. I didn't even realize it's showing here in Malaysia until I checked the showtime online. Why such a low profile? It's not like there's no big star. Come on, Jude Law can sell tickets, right?

(3) That poster with square boxes containing the 4 actors' and actresses' faces, it's so bad I almost thought it's some crappy B-grade movie. So unattractive and unoriginal.

(4) Catherine Zeta-Jones's lips are kinda distracting. Did she look like this before?

(5) So you hire Channing Tatum for a role, and you had him on screen for what? 30 minutes? So some random movie-star-wannabe TV actors are not available?

(6) Rooney Mara. Yes her name is weird. Some people said her brief appearance in The Social Network was eye opening, but I didn't pay her too much attention there. Many said her Lisbeth Salander was great, but back then I suspected it was a fluke, the greatness was the character not the performance. Now I think yes, this lady can act. When you realize what really happen and you think back, alright she left traces for you early in the movie, and that's called acting.

(7) Jude Law once again proves he can bring a seemingly boring character to life and makes you root for him. Yes he's always got the less interesting part compared to his co-star, Sherlock Holmes, Anna Karenina, Closer..., but he always gives his best performance. It's unlikely he'll get award buzz for this movie since it's an early release and it's a quiet performance. Too bad, I think he's under-appreciated.

(8) So you think this is a medical drama? It started as one, but it soon becomes something else. Go watch it and you'll find out. It's more complicated than that.

(9) The ending is a bit rush. I still don't understand what was the last 5 minutes about. What did Jude Law do to tie up the loose ends? Maybe I was blur, or I missed something in between? If you watch this, can you explain it to me?

(10) Final verdict: 3.5 stars out of 5. Not as boring as it may seem, and good drama is so rare nowadays you'd appreciate this.