Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Courtesy of Lionsgate.
Preview:
‘Michael’ has set records for biopic movies on its first weekend.
It topped the domestic box office with $97 million.
Elsewhere, new releases struggled.
It may have arrived laden with controversies about re-shoots and didn’t exactly strike a chord with critics, but audiences have certainly embraced ‘Michael’, the biopic of troubled music superstar Michael Jackson.The film, directed by Antoine Fuqua, has kicked off its run at the box office as an instant success, earning $97 million for first place.
Lft8D7heZ1vUsG1f3vG1E1
The movie’s ticket sales rank as the best start of all time for a biopic, smashing the record set by 2015’s ‘Straight Outta Compton’ ($60 million). And they tower above 2018’s ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, which opened to $51 million. Can it match the latter’s huge run, though? That’s a bigger question. Still, with $217 million globally in one weekend, it’s a solid start.
What else happened at the box office this weekend?
(L to R) Luigi (Charlie Day), Mario (Chris Pratt), Yoshi (Donald Glover) and Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy) in Nintendo and Illumination’s ‘The Super Mario Galaxy Movie’, directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic.
Previous champion ‘The Super Mario Galaxy Movie’ was pushed down to second place after three weekends in the No. 1 spot. Universal’s animated sequel added $21.2 million, boosting revenues to $384 million domestically and more than $800 million globally.
‘Project Hail Mary’, meanwhile, was third with $13.2 million, a remarkable tally for a film in its sixth weekend of release. So far, the space epic has generated a mighty $305 million in North America and $613 million worldwide.
What about other new releases?
(L to R) Michaela Coel and Anne Hathaway in ‘Mother Mary’. Photo: A24.
Besides ‘Michael,’ other new releases fared less well. A24’s thriller ‘Mother Mary’, starring Anne Hathaway as a pop star on the eve of a comeback, earned $1.3 million.
And ‘Lorne’, a documentary about ‘Saturday Night Live’ boss Lorne Michaels, struggled to break out with $70,000 from 248 theaters. The film has collected $426,000 while playing in limited release.
Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Bruce Talamon.
Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Kevin Mazur.
Director Antoine Fuqua’s new biopic ‘Michael’ is a sanitized look at the legendary performer’s career from joining The Jackson 5 in 1964 to beginning the ‘Bad’ tour in 1987. While the film omits quite a bit of the legendary singer’s controversial past, it focuses on his abusive relationship with his father Joe Jackson, played by Colman Domingo, and Michael’s journey to become his own artist and get out from under his father’s control.
While the movie hits on all the important moments in that time-period, it falls into familiar biopic pitfalls by not spending enough time in each moment and really exploring what happened and why it was important to Michael’s story. The film feels rushed at times, and really focuses on his relationship with Joe and leaving The Jackson 5, rather than exploring the moments that made him a superstar performer.
However, despite the messy issues with the script and direction, the film is saved by Jaafar Jackson’s commanding performance. The actor perfectly channels his famous uncle, getting the attitude and personality of Michael pitch perfect, while also illuminating his gentle spirit. But Jackson is truly fantastic in the music and dance sequences, mimicking the King of Pop’s moves flawlessly.
Story and Direction
(L to R) Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson and Director Antoine Fuqua on the set of ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Glen Wilson/Lionsgate.
The film begins in the late 1960s and depicts the humble beginnings of The Jackson 5 and their move from a local band in Indiana to being nationally known. It’s here where we see the beginnings of Joe Jackson’s (Colman Domingo) abusive behavior towards his youngest son, Michael, played in those scenes by Juliano Krue Valdi. As the lead singer of the group, Michael feels the pressure put on him by his father and longs to have a normal childhood, which will be a theme across the singer’s entire life.
Eventually, Joe gets the group signed by Motown Records and they become extremely successful, with the family eventually moving to California. It becomes clear quickly, to both Motown’s Berry Gordy (Larenz Tate) and super producer Quincy Jones (Kendrick Sampson), that Michael is the true star of The Jackson 5 and they encourage him to go solo, against the wishes of his father. This eventually leads to recording ‘Off the Wall’ and then ‘Thriller’, which suddenly made Michael (now played by Jaafar Jackson) the biggest star in the world.
Joe starts trying to cash in on his son’s sudden success and forces Michael to join his brothers on a Jackson 5 tour, rather than a solo tour to support ‘Thriller’. Now, Michael must finally stand up to his father and make his own decisions if he is to truly become the King of Pop.
Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Glen Wilson.
The biggest problem with ‘Michael’ is that too much is packed into the film, and it doesn’t leave enough room to truly explore those moments. Montages are used to show us the making of the ‘Thriller’ album and video, as well as his legendary performance at the Motown 25th Anniversary event where he did the Moonwalk for the first time. These moments are so big in Michael’s life and pop culture history, that you could make an entire film based on either one event but instead they are relegated to a quick montage.
I also didn’t understand making such a big deal out of the ‘Victory Tour’ and having that be the centerpiece of the film. Although I understand that since they were focusing on Michael and Joe’s relationship, the final Jackson 5 tour seems like the logical place to have their final confrontation.
But the film does seem odd at times, going out of its way to not include any of the controversial moments that happened later in Jackson’s life, although rumor is that some of those scenes were shot and removed for legal reasons. Also, the movie makes no mention of Janet Jackson, which I don’t understand. Michael’s other sister La Toya is depicted, so while it’s a weird choice to not even mention Janet, or pretend she doesn’t exist, I assume it was also a rights issue.
(L to R) Judah Edwards as Young Tito, Jaylen Hunter as Young Marlon, Juliano Krue Valdi as Young MJ, Nathaniel McIntyre as Young Jackie and Jayden Harville as Young Jermaine in ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Glen Wilson.
The movie also makes mention of Michael’s fight with his brother Jermaine, but never explores it and the character of Jermaine basically disappears by the second half of the film, which is weird since the actor playing Michael is Jermaine’s real-life son. Awkward! And while Jackson’s mentors Berry Gordy and Quincy Jones are depicted, no real time is spent to explore their relationships to Michael and their influence on his career. But a scene featuring Joe making a deal with the shady Don King is shoehorned in for no real reason, which again, makes no narrative sense.
Written by John Logan (‘Gladiator‘), the script bites off more than it can chew and again, doesn’t give us enough time to really get to know the character or understand the moments that made him great. However, Jackson’s music is pumped throughout the film, and it really is the soundtrack of our lives. The song choices are excellent and helps navigate us through Michael’s story. And kudos to costume designer Marci Rodgers who captured Michael’s fashion perfectly in every era.
Director Antoine Fuqua is a master of the action genre with films like ‘Training Day’ and the ‘Equalizer’ franchise but seems out of his element here. He clearly has a love and passion for MJ’s legacy and does his best to bring it to the screen in a natural way, but it gets buried by the weight of Jackson’s achievements and his overreaching relationship with his father.
Cast and Performances
Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Courtesy of Lionsgate.
The biopic’s success hinges on the performance of the actor playing Michael Jackson, and Jaafar Jackson is nothing short of brilliant in the role. In fact, Jaafar Jackson was born to play Michael Jackson, quite literally, as he is the son of Michael’s brother Jermaine.
Besides the fact that he has a striking resemblance, Jaafar channels his uncle in the most surprising ways, capturing his soft voice, childlike attitude and walk perfectly. But it’s the musical and dance numbers where Jaafar really shines, and I promise you there will be moments when you forget you are not watching the real Michael. It’s also worth mentioning that Juliano Krue Valdi is great as young Michael and helps Jaafar create a rounded character.
Colman Domingo as Joe Jackson in ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Courtesy of Lionsgate.
Oscar nominee Colman Domingo gives a menacing performance as Joe Jackson, and while he steps up to the precipice of playing a caricature rather than a character, he never steps over the line. Joe’s abusive relationship with Michael is the heart of the story, and Domingo brings gravitas exploring the role.
While she has limited screen time, actress Nia Long gives one of the best performances of her career as Michael’s mother, Katherine. As one of Michael’s only friends and a true supporter, Long brings an unconditional love to the role that helps illuminate her connection to her son. Finally, Miles Teller is fine as Michael’s manager and lawyer John Banca, but the role doesn’t give the actor much to do.
Final Thoughts
(L to R) Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson and KeiLyn Durrel Jones as Bill Bray in ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Glen Wilson/Lionsgate.
Director Antoine Fuqua does the best he can with the material but seems lost at times trying to tell Michael’s complex story. But its Jaafar Jackson’s once in a lifetime performance that really brings the King of Pop to life on screen and makes the film worth seeing for any Michael Jackson fan.
‘Michael’ receives a score of 65 out of 100.
Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson in ‘Michael’. Photo Credit: Courtesy of Lionsgate.
What is the plot of ‘Michael’?
Discover the story of Michael Jackson (Jaafar Jackson), one of the most influential artists the world has ever known, and his life beyond the music, tracing his journey from the discovery of his extraordinary talent as the lead of the Jackson Five, to the visionary artist whose creative ambition fueled a relentless pursuit to become the biggest entertainer in the world, highlighting both his life off-stage and some of the most iconic performances from his early solo career.
Bon Jovi in the documentary ‘Thank You, Goodnight – The Bon Jovi Story’. Photo: Hulu.
Preview:
A biopic about rock group Bon Jovi is in the works.
It’ll focus on their early days.
Universal is backing the project.
Music biopics continue to be a hot commodity in the movie world. With Michael Jackson film ‘Michael’ the next to hit screens, Deadline reports that Universal is in development on one about the early days of rock superstars Bon Jovi.
The new film development follows 2024 Hulu documentary series ‘Thank You, Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story,’ and crucially includes the involvement of producer Gotham Chopra, who directed the doc and has access to the band members.
Fg4LLrdEKOF5xTNm0BtFU
That’s likely going to be key to getting the band’s stories and their music rights, though it also tends to lead to accusations of leaving out any thorny issues.
Bon Jovi in the documentary ‘Thank You, Goodnight – The Bon Jovi Story’. Photo: Hulu.
Cody Brotter, who has worked on several scripts about real-life figures, will write the new biopic.
Expect the focus to be on the younger days of the band members, including front man Bon Jovi (real name: Jon Bongiovi), keyboardist David Bryan, drummer Tico Torres, bassist Alec John Such and lead guitarist/fellow songwriter Richie Sambora.
It’ll chronicle their struggles and triumphs as they look to make their mark on the music industry.
When will the Bon Jovi biopic be on screens?
There is no official information on a release date just yet –– but expect Universal to push to get this one made quickly.
With a writer aboard, the studio is halfway there – but is it living on a prayer?
Jon Bon Jovi in the documentary ‘Thank You, Goodnight – The Bon Jovi Story’. Photo: David Bergman/Hulu.
Austin Butler is playing Lance Armstrong in a new movie.
‘Conclave’s Edward Berger is aboard to direct.
Zach Baylin will write the script.
Though a specific part of his life and career has been brought to screens before (in 2015’s ‘The Program’, where he was played by Ben Foster), a new movie focused on controversial cyclist Lance Armstrong is in the works.
Producer Scott Stuber, who has been trying to set this project up for years now, has convinced Armstrong to sign over his life rights and promises a biopic that won’t pull any punches (more on the cyclist’s story below).
What’s the story of the new Lance Armstrong movie?
Lance Armstrong in ’30 for 30: Lance’. Photo: ESPN.
It may not be a complete life-story biopic, but the screenplay from ‘King Richard’s Zach Baylin certainly has good material to work from: Armstrong famously survived cancer and returned to the world of pro cycling, where he would go on to win the famed Tour de France an incredible seven consecutive times.
Hollywood would soon fall in love with that story, with several A-listers chasing the role of a lifetime. But before that story could be told, Armstrong, after denying it for years, ultimately admitted to blood doping, ultimately ending his career.
When will the Lance Armstrong movie be on screens?
Right now, this only exists as a packaged project with several studios bidding to take it on. Stuber has a deal at Amazon MGM Studios, but this idea apparently predates that, so it’s available to a variety of potential homes.
Sydney Sweeney in ‘Christy’. Photo: Black Bear Pictures.
There are two films out now based on the true stories of professional fighters: one, ‘The Smashing Machine,’ focuses on its subject (MMA fighter Mark Kerr) and his addiction, while the other, ‘Christy,’ chronicles the career of the first major female boxer, Christy Martin (Sydney Sweeney), as well as her abusive marriage to her trainer and manager.
‘The Smashing Machine’ doesn’t follow the usual biopic route, hopping through random moments in Kerr’s life in kaleidoscopic fashion but leaving us wondering just who he really was. ‘Christy’ follows the standard biopic formula – the rise, fall, and rise again of its subject in linear fashion – and while it doesn’t break the mold of those tropes, it’s ultimately the more affecting film because of its protagonist, her resiliency, and two incendiary performances from its stars.
Story and Direction
(L to R) Sydney Sweeney and director David Michôd in ‘Christy’. Photo: Black Bear Pictures.
We first meet Christy Salters (later Martin) when she wins a local boxing match for the princely sum of $300 and a jacket. But her parents (Ethan Embry and a quietly vicious Merritt Wever) are more concerned with the rumors that their daughter is dating another local girl named Rosie (Jess Gabor as a fictionalized version of the real person). When Christy gets a call from a regional boxing promoter, it’s a chance to get some space of her own and learn whether boxing is really ‘her thing’ or not.
Enter trainer Jim Martin (Ben Foster), who is at first dismissive of the idea of training a woman until he sees Christy knock a sparring partner out cold. Martin trains Christy and ultimately marries her, but her rocket-like rise to fame and fortune as the first major female boxing star is only matched by the increasingly controlling and abusive behavior of the toxic, tightly-wound Martin, who sees Christy as less a partner and soulmate and more a meal ticket he can shove around.
Christy’s ascent, peak, and eventual downfall are documented by director David Michôd (‘Animal Kingdom,’‘War Machine’) in standard fashion. There are the early scenes of her going-nowhere life, her conflicts with family, training and fighting montages, and eventually financial and drug problems (Christy claims later that Martin got her addicted to coke to keep her under his thumb). There’s nothing exceptional about the way the story is structured and even the boxing scenes, while well-staged, don’t bring anything new to the table.
What gives ‘Christy’ its power is the dark road it goes down in its second half, as the relationship between Christy and the malignant Martin curdles into something dangerous and climaxes in a sequence that is outright shocking. But the seeds for this are planted early on, and not just through the dynamic with Martin: so much of the movie shows how men – from her own loving but hapless father to boxing promoter Don King – condescended to Christy from the start. Martin tells her how to dress, how long her hair should be, and who she can talk to, but her family tells her who she can date and King tells her to sign a contract without having a lawyer read it.
Most biopics that follow the rise/fall/rise formula don’t have a person at their center who went through what Christy Salters when through – being left for dead both professionally and literally at one point. That things get to that point – and yet she manages to literally walk out of it all on her own two feet – gives ‘Christy’ an extra power that gives it an extra boost in a genre that’s been running on fumes for a while.
Cast and Performances
(L to R) Ben Foster and Sydney Sweeney in ‘Christy’. Photo: Black Bear Pictures.
Sydney Sweeney is a formidable young actor, and ‘Christy’ may be her best big-screen work to date. She is almost unrecognizable at first, but more than capably projects Christy’s drive, determination, and self-assurance, as well as her fear and inner vulnerability. Sweeney also handles herself quite well in the boxing scenes and bulks up a bit to create Christy’s physical presence. The wigs representing Christy’s hairstyles throughout the years may be the only flaw in her transformation here. Otherwise she is absorbing as this not always likable but still empathetic figure, and brings a raw level of pain to her work.
Seeing Ben Foster’s name in a movie sends a signal that there is an extreme, often repressed and/or unpredictable character afoot, but he ups even his impressive intensity with his immersive work as the vile Jim Martin. From his wheedling initial manipulation of Christy to his later dead-eyed psychosis, Martin goes from distasteful to horrifying over the course of the story and is believable every step of the way. He and Sweeney could both be in the Oscar race if ‘Christy’ gains some traction.
Merritt Wever (‘Nurse Jackie’) plays Christy’s homophobic mother Joyce with an enraging soft-spoken cruelty, while Katy O’Brian (‘Love Lies Bleeding’) delivers some welcome humanity and warmth as boxer Lisa Holewyne. Chad Coleman brings the comic relief as Don King, while we wish we saw more of Christy’s father as played by a sad-eyed Ethan Embry.
‘Christy’ is a boxing picture from a different perspective. It’s not ‘Rocky’ or ‘Raging Bull.’ While the characters in those movies face considerable challenges, they are never denigrated for their sexuality or abused by a borderline psychotic narcissist and degenerate. Christy’s fate is sadly no different from that of so many other women – she just meets it in a profession and climate that is stacked against her.
The movie leaves some questions unanswered: her wicked mother aside, did her father and brother try to intervene, or was she too afraid to tell them? What happened with Rosie, the only person who helped her in her darkest hour? The limitations of the format leave some plot threads unclear and condense a lot of the narrative’s action as it skips from ‘this happened’ to ‘that happened.’ But the bruising battle outside the ring is what ultimately makes ‘Christy,’ if not a knockout, a win on points all the same.
‘Christy’ receives a score of 80 out of 100.
‘Christy’ opens in theaters on November 7th.
What is the plot of ‘Christy’?
Determined to win, Christy Martin (Sydney Sweeney) leaves behind her small-town roots and charges into the world of boxing under the guidance of her trainer and manager-turned-husband, Jim (Ben Foster). But her toughest battles unfold outside the ring — confronting family, identity, and a relationship that just might become deadly.
There are so many biopics – musical and otherwise –flying around these days that it’s hard for any single one to stand out from the pack. Scott Cooper’s ‘Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere’ – about the making of the Boss’ immersive, bleak 1982 lo-fi masterpiece ‘Nebraska’ – manages to make its mark for about half its two-hour running time.
The part that chronicles Bruce Springsteen’s creative process, as well as the struggle for his manager, his engineers, his label, and finally a depressed Bruce himself to understand what he’s doing, is fascinating and even powerful. The other half of the film – about a pointless romance with a single mom and the now-overdone cliches about the protagonist coming to terms with an abusive, non-loving father – are painful to slog through, especially since they try and fail to tie themselves to the more successful narrative about the album.
The movie opens in black and white, at Bruce’s childhood home in Freehold, New Jersey in 1957, where we learn in quick succession that his mom and dad fight (which, it’s implied, gets physical), that his dad is a drunk, and that these flashbacks are reappear like commercial breaks. It’s a smash cut from there to the stage of Cincinnati’s Riverfront Coliseum in 1981, where the now-adult Bruce (Jeremy Allen White) finishes off his latest massive tour. Afterward, manager Jon Landau (Jeremy Strong) tells Bruce – and us, in the first of many heavy-handed lumps of expository dialogue that Scott Cooper dumps in Strong’s lap – that they should start thinking about what’s next.
And Bruce does just that, moving into a secluded house deep in the woods of Colt’s Neck, New Jersey to begin working on new songs. His influences go far and wide – everything from movies like ‘Badlands’ and ‘The Night of the Hunter’ to the stories of Flannery O’Connor to his real-life glimpses of exhausted, dead-eyed working people sitting in diners (Cooper does capture the worn-down milieu of South Jersey in the ‘80s quite well) – and soon coalesce into a collection of haunting, sparse folk songs about the dark underside of American life that eventually becomes ‘Nebraska.’
That story, as well as the tricky gauntlet that Bruce runs to ultimately convince his manager and his inner circle that he wants to release the songs – recorded on a four-track machine in his bedroom – as is, without the involvement of the E Street Band and without releasing any singles, is the most interesting and lively part of a generally somber movie. But a lot of time is spent on the unresolved, cliched father-son conflict that Cooper tries to staple to the content of ‘Nebraska’ (which stands up quite well without it) and which we’ve seen so many times before that it’s now entered eye-rolling territory (which is not to make light of abusive fathers with substance abuse problems; it’s just that the movie doesn’t do anything new with it).
Also wasting our time is the romance with a local Asbury Park waitress (Odessa Young), who tells us – in another example of bad, trite writing – that she knows what she’s getting into with a sulky rock star who tends to disappear for weeks on end and then undermines that by behaving like it’s not what she expected. It’s a thankless character and storyline made even more insulting by the fact that it was made up for the movie, because somebody felt that Springsteen needed a love story.
The creative and business aspects of the film – Bruce writing the songs (a groanworthy moment or two aside, like when he writes ‘Mansion on the Hill’ after flashing back to his dad taking him to see…guess what), Landau reacting to the songs, Landau politely telling the head of the record label to get stuffed if he has a problem with what Bruce is serving up, and the struggle to master the record so that it sounds exactly as the Boss wants it – are quietly terrific. The rest, including a 10-minute tacked-on coda after the real ending that delves into therapy and borders on ridiculous, is not really worthy of this artist or the masterful album around which the film is constructed.
He doesn’t really look like the Boss, but Jeremy Allen White does capture something of his essence – and when the light or camera captures him a certain way, he almost resembles the man himself. But if he’s a little too broody on occasion, White’s rasp/whisper and body language still tell a lot about the inner turmoil and depression that both hinder and drive the artist. It’s an understated, nuanced performance that avoids the showiness of so many biopic marquee roles.
Equally effective is Jeremy Strong as Jon Landau. Although he’s cursed with some of the movie’s clunkiest dialogue, Strong channels the restrained resolve of one of rock’s most famous managers – gently pushing his client toward what needs to be done to continue their success, but knowing when to pull back and never showing anything but devotion to his client’s needs to the outside world. His warmth and love for Springsteen shine through as well, making their relationship one of the movie’s pillars. It’s also a nice change of pace for Strong after playing the vile Roy Cohn in ‘The Apprentice.’
The rest of the cast don’t have much to work with but do as well as they can. Odessa Young is very good but her character amounts to little as the woman who must be sacrificed at the altar of art, while Stephen Graham grunts and trudges his way through an essentially one-note character. The best of the supporting cast is Paul Walter Hauser as Bruce’s engineer, Mike Batlan, bringing some much-needed levity to a somber piece.
It’s interesting to compare ‘Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere’ to last year’s brilliant Bob Dylan biopic ‘A Complete Unknown.’ The latter captures Dylan as the symbolic leader of a sea change in culture and music, while remaining an enigma. The former tries to paint Springsteen as a mystery too, but with the focus on him and not the way he changes the world around him, its impact is not nearly as powerful – especially when Scott Cooper brings more shopworn plot devices into the narrative.
Cringy dialogue like Bruce saying ‘That makes one of us,’ when a car salesman whispers conspiratorially, ‘I know who you are’ only steers this portrait of the Boss dangerously close to self-serving, performative mopiness, although White thankfully pulls it back with the sincerity of his work. If only more of ‘Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere’ were as sincere.
‘Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere’ receives a score of 60 out of 100.
What is the plot of ‘Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere’?
Bruce Springsteen, a young musician on the cusp of global superstardom, struggles to reconcile the pressures of success with the ghosts of his past as he makes a raw, haunted acoustic album titled ‘Nebraska.’
Who is in the cast of ‘Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere’?
(Left) Director Craig Brewer on the set of ‘Coming 2 America’. Photo: Amazon Prime Video. (Right) Snoop Dogg in ‘Dolemite Is My Name’. Photo: François Duhamel/Netflix.
Preview:
A Snoop Dogg biopic is in the works.
Director Craig Brewer will handle the movie.
‘Outer Banks’ Jonathan Daviss has been cast as Snoop.
The spate of musical biopics in the works continues, and the latest is for someone we’re actually surprised hasn’t already gotten a fully authorized one.
Universal, which has seen box office and awards success with the likes of ‘Straight Outta Compton’ and ‘8 Mile,’ is putting the pieces together for a Snoop Dogg movie. Yes, the star of ‘The Underdoggs’ (okay, he’s done more than that –– see below) will be the focus of a biopic with Brian Grazer and Snoop himself among its producers.
“Not everyone has the courage and vision to see what Death Row Pictures can bring to the table, but Donna and the NBCUniversal team have always understood, which is why I am proud to call NBCUniversal my new home. The Dogg has officially moved into the neighborhood, ya dig?”
Snoop Dogg, born Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. on October 20, 1971, in Long Beach, California, is a legendary figure in hip-hop and an influential pop culture icon. His nickname “Snoop” came from his mother, who thought he resembled Snoopy from Peanuts.
The neighborhood where he grew up was a tough one, and he was involved in gangs and had multiple run-ins with the law.
Snoop was discovered by Dr. Dre in the early 1990s and was featured on Dre’s 1992 debut solo album “The Chronic.” He released his debut album “Doggystyle” in 1993, which debuted at No. 1 and became a classic West Coast G-funk record.
Released numerous albums across several labels including “Tha Doggfather, ” “R&G (Rhythm & Gangsta): The Masterpiece,” and “Doggumentary” His hits include “Gin and Juice” and “Who Am I? (What’s My Name?)”
Snoop has showed a knack for re-inventing himself, including as Snoop Lion in 2012 during a reggae phase and spiritual journey to Jamaica, before returning to rap and even venturing into gospel with 2018’s “Bible of Love.”
The famed stoner has turned his favorite pastime into a business, investing in cannabis businesses, but diversifying to tech, and media (including acquiring Death Row Records in 2022, and expanding it into his Death Row company).
And, perhaps most surprisingly, he’s a good friend and frequent collaborator with culinary and home furnishing icon Martha Stewart.
This year, Snoop sparked controversy when he agreed to perform at one of Donald Trump’s inaugural balls.
Here’s how he responded on Instagram to criticism of the decision:
“It’s Sunday I got gospel in my heart. For all the hate I’m going to answer with love, I love too much. Get your life right, stop worrying about mine. I’m cool. I’m together. Still a Black man. Still 100 percent Black. All out ’til you ball out or ’til you fall out.”
What else has Craig Brewer worked on?
(Left) Eddie Murphy, Shari Headley and director Craig Brewer on the set of ‘Coming 2 America’. Photo: Amazon Prime Video.
While Brewer made his directorial debut with 2000’s ‘The Poor & Hungry,’ it was ‘Hustle & Flow’ in 2005 that really saw him break out. The movie, which starred Terrence Howard and Taraji P. Henson in the story of a Memphis pimp in a mid-life crisis who attempts to become a successful hip-hop emcee.
It scored an Oscar nomination for Howard and hip hop group Three 6 Mafia took home a statuette for their song “It’s Hard out Here for a Pimp.”
His latest movie, ‘Song Sung Blue,’ which chronicles the ups and downs of Lightning and Thunder, a Milwaukee husband and wife Neil Diamond tribute act, starring Hugh Jackman and Kate Hudson, is due in theaters on Christmas Day.
When will the Snoop Dogg biopic be on screens?
It’s too early for any release date news on this one –– we’ll have to wait and see how quickly the movie comes together, but Daviss’ casting is certainly a positive step forward.
Opening in theaters on October 11th is the new documentary/biopic about the life and career of Pharrell Williams called ‘Piece By Piece’, which was completely animated with LEGO.
Moviefone recently had the pleasure of speaking with filmmaker Morgan Neville about his work on ‘Piece By Piece’, collaborating with Pharrell and LEGO on the groundbreaking project, making an animated movie for the first time, whether the film is a documentary or a biopic, conducting the interviews, becoming a LEGO figure himself, and the emotional connection the audience has with the characters in the movie.
You can read our full interview below or click on the video player above to watch the interview.
Director Morgan Neville discusses ‘Piece By Piece’.
Moviefone: To begin with, can you talk about how this unique project came together and what it was like working with Pharrell Williams to tell his story on screen?
Morgan Neville: This crazy idea came from Pharrell, where he apparently had the idea that if he was ever going to do anything like a documentary, it would be in LEGO. Apparently, everybody he told this to said, “That’s a terrible idea,” or “It’s a crazy idea. It’s an unattainable idea.” Fortunately, he was a big fan of my films, and he said, “I want Morgan to do it.” I met him, and the way he pitched me was, “It would be interesting if you made a documentary about my life, and when you were done with it, you threw out all the images and just replaced it with LEGO.” When he said that, I got excited. I didn’t think it was crazy. Well, maybe I did think it was crazy. But the craziness of it is what I thought was interesting because it was so unusual. I didn’t even know what it would mean, and we just spent years in production figuring out what it could mean. But it felt like it opened so many creative doors. From that, we just had this incredible burst of creative freedom, which is what you want. I felt like that was Pharrell producing me, like, “Here are the ingredients. Now you go make it.”
MF: Before making this movie you were primarily a documentary filmmaker, what was it like for you to direct an animated movie and work with LEGO on this project?
MN: The documentary process and the animation process are opposites. The documentary process is revision and looseness. You don’t have a lot of control. You’re just trying to kind of stitch together the messiness of reality into something. In animation, you’re God. You get to build the world. You get to put everybody wherever you want them and make everybody say whatever you want them to say. So, there was a tension between those two things that I really wanted to keep. I think it was interesting. Rather than erasing the imperfections, I wanted to embrace the imperfections and keep the grammar of documentary going. There were many times in working on the film with my animation director, who is fantastic, and our studios, that they would say, “Well, you don’t do it that way in animation.” I was like, “Oh, but we are. We are. We’re going to try.” Whenever they said, “Oh, you don’t do it that way,” I’m like, “Why not? Why can’t we do it that way?” So, there was an interesting tension there that I think bore incredible fruit. It was the kind of thing where I knew my ignorance could be a bit of an asset, like let me insist on doing things this way just to see what it brings, and at the same time, also embracing the freedom of animation where, particularly when songs come in in the movie, anything can happen. So, me saying, “Well, we’re not in a documentary anymore. We’re in his head and in his head, anything can happen. We can be underwater, and we can be floating. Let’s embrace that too.” That, for me, having done this for a long time, was so incredibly liberating.
MF: While the film is an animated documentary, it’s also an animated biopic about Pharrell’s life. Was that the goal or something you found naturally through the process of making this movie?
MN: It’s a natural process and I feel like this is true of a lot of my filmmaking storytelling in documentary, is that it’s not so much that I want to give you all the achievements of Pharrell Williams, because that is an eight-hour film. It’s more like, how do I tell a story about a Black nerd from the projects who doesn’t fit in, and then suddenly he completely fits in, and what does that mean to his own creative voice, and how does he stay in touch with it? It’s a story of a creative person on this journey. That gets me excited, and that is a story that I identify with as a creative person. So that part of it, I kind of fully embraced, that we were making a movie that way. The other layer to it is that it’s a musical in that I really listened to all the music he did. In my Spotify, I have 10 playlists of Pharrell songs he sang, songs he wrote, songs inspired by, songs with his solo albums, and songs with N.E.R.D. and The Neptunes. I spent a lot of time listening to everything and trying to find songs that spoke to me or felt like they were telling a story about Pharrell’s life and then trying to really use the music to tell the story as much as we could too, which is great. Then on top of that, being able to then show the film to Pharrell and say, “Okay, Pharrell, why don’t you write some new songs based on my view of your story?” He said to me that because he was looking at himself through my eyes, it made it way easier for him to write music as opposed to if somebody just said, “Hey, why don’t you write a song about your life?” But the fact that he was able to see it through my eyes gave him a focus that allowed him to do it. I love all that. I love that creative feedback loop that we created.
MF: Can you talk about the interviews you did for this film and how did people react when you told them they would be depicted as LEGO figurines?
MN: Well, we didn’t tell anybody in the beginning that it was going to be LEGO. It was kind of a secret. It’s not that we were trying to deceive people, but we told people it was going to be a documentary and we were going to animate it. Five years ago, we started these interviews, and we didn’t want it getting out, but we also didn’t want people necessarily performing or thinking, “Oh, I’m talking as a LEGO minifigure.” So, we just tried to keep it organic like I normally would on a documentary. Then over years of animation, we started to tell people. I started to show some of the people in the film their character designs. I have to say, every single person was excited. Who doesn’t want to be a minifigure in LEGO? So, a lot of people, even people who were kind of like, “What? Really? Is this going to work,” every one of those people now wants their own minifigure. So, I think it was something that just clicked so well that turned out better than I could have expected. It was exciting.
MF: You are also featured in the film. What was that like for you as a filmmaker to be a character in the movie and what did you think about your own LEGO representation?
MN: Yeah, I’m not normally a character in my movies, but this was such an unusual movie that I felt like if I was honest about my role in the film, it helped the audience understand how we got here. So really it was a way of me solving a story point, but it’s real. That’s really me trying to figure out what this movie is. So, in that way, even though the film is a documentary, it also plays like a film about a guy trying to make a documentary about Pharrell too. All those different gears, the lines of what’s documentary and what’s musical and what’s a biopic, to me, you have a lot of those questions going in, but hopefully when you come out, it just makes sense.
MF: Finally, have you been surprised by the emotional connection audiences are having with these plastic characters?
MN: Yeah. I was worried because a LEGO minifigure is very reductive. Characters have no nose; they have no ears. You can’t see them cry or sweat. There’s a lot of restrictions. The question was, if I’m showing close-ups of a minifigure in an interview, is that compelling? Is it going to be emotional? Is it going to connect? Right when we started doing tests, it started to work. Kind of my own theory on it is that you project a lot of yourself into LEGO because it’s low resolution in that way, that you can see yourself in characters more. Now a lot of people who see the film say, “I forgot I was watching a LEGO movie,” and I love that. There are a lot of people saying that they get emotional watching it, and I felt emotional about making it, but you never know if that’s going to translate. So that’s been one of the best things to come out of finally being able to show people this film is just seeing how it connects so deeply with folks.
aTbMoBvwrLTncbSlI2r7L1
What is the plot of ‘Piece By Piece’?
The film documents Pharrell Williams’s life and musical career, incorporating Williams’s faith and expressing his artistry by means of LEGO.
(L to R) Gilda Radner (Ella Hunt), Jane Curtain (Kim Matula), Dick Ebersol (Cooper Hoffman), Rosie Shuster (Rachel Sennott), Garrett Morris (Lamorne Morris), Alan Zweibel (Josh Brener) and Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle) in ‘Saturday Night’. Photo: Sony Pictures.
Opening in theaters everywhere on October 11th is the biographical comedy ‘Saturday Night’, which chronicles the 90-minutes leading up to the premiere of ‘Saturday Night Live’.
(L to R) Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, Kaia Gerber as Jacqueline Carlin, and Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase in ‘Saturday Night’. Photo: Sony Pictures.
‘Saturday Night’, director Jason Reitman’s loving tribute to the 50-year television institution that Lorne Michaels’ created is fun, fast-paced and thoroughly entertaining. The film plays like a greatest-hits of all the behind-the-scenes stories and sketches from the first year of ‘SNL’, within the confines of the 90-minutes leading up to the premiere episode in 1975. While Reitman certainly took creative liberties with the facts, the film is exciting to watch and probably his best movie to date.
Script and Direction
Director Jason Reitman on the set of Columbia Pictures’ ‘Saturday Night.’
Unfolding in real-time, ‘Saturday Night’ tells the story of the 90-minutes leading up to the premiere of the first episode in 1975 and literally ends after the first sketch and Chevy Chase says, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night’.
The movie begins by introducing us to a frantic Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle), who is dealing with a handful of problems including nervous NBC executives, a missing John Belushi (Matt Wood), over 3-hours of sketches to cut down into 90 minutes and the fact that he still doesn’t know what the show is going to be. Pressuring Michaels to cancel the live-broadcast and air a tape instead is NBC executives Dick Eborsol (Cooper Hoffman) and David Tebet (Willem Dafoe), who has ulterior motives for hiring Michaels in the first place.
We soon meet cast members including Chevy Chase (Cory Michael Smith), who already thinks he is a superstar. We also meet Garrett Morris (Lamorne Morris), who as the oldest member of the cast and mostly a dramatic actor and playwright, has no idea why he is there. In addition to meeting the rest of the cast, we also see a young Billy Crystal (Nicholas Podany) who was promised a spot on the show, and a confused Andy Kaufman (Nicholas Braun) arriving for his appearance. Finally, we meet writer and Michaels’ wife, Rosie Schuster (Rachel Sennott), who is trying to calm the cast down and decide if she wants to be credited with her married name.
(L to R) Cinematographer Eric Steelberg and Director Jason Reitman on the set of Columbia Pictures’ ‘Saturday Night’.
Reitman clearly has a lot of love for ‘Saturday Night Live’ and the original cast, I would imagine partly because his father, the late director Ivan Reitman (‘Ghostbusters’) had worked with most of them in Toronto before they were cast on the show, which makes Jason the perfect person to tell this specific story. Rather than doing the usual biopic that follows the creation and casting of the series, and maybe even chronicle the entire 50-year history, Reitman wisely focused on the hour and a half before the first broadcast. The movie fits in all the legendary stories that fans have heard over the years, while also finding time for glimpses of most of the sketches that would end up featuring in that episode and later in the first season.
While Reitman takes some liberties with the facts, the film is none the less fascinating to watch. However, there was more time spent with certain characters like Garrett Morris and Billy Crystal than needed, and I thought it took away from exploring the main cast. In fact, except for Morris, most of the original cast members don’t have as much screen time as you would expect, especially Belushi, although I think they were trying to use the character sparingly like Spielberg did with the shark in ‘Jaws’. However, it still kind of works because we as an audience have so much nostalgia for the show and already basically know who Chevy Chase, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner and the rest are. But I wonder how well this movie would have worked if it was an original story and we had no history with these characters or this show.
Performances
Lamorne Morris as Garrett Morris in ‘Saturday Night’. Photo: Sony Pictures.
The actors playing the original ‘SNL’ cast are excellent, truly working as an ensemble as no one actor stands-out, but again, this is also one of the problems with the movie as we really are not given enough time with any of them to really get to know them. Lamorne Morris probably has the most screen time and brings vulnerability to the character of Garret Morris (no relation).
While not in the movie nearly enough, Cory Michael Smith is excellent as an arrogant Chevy Chase. Kim Matula was very intriguing as Jane Curtain, but again didn’t have enough to do and the same can be said for Dylan O’Brian as Aykroyd, Emily Fain as Newman, Ella Hunt as Radner and Matt Wood as Belushi.
The character we spend the most time with is of course Lorne Michaels, but we never really get the feeling that we know him. That’s not actor Gabriel LaBelle’s fault, and I would argue that he played the role perfectly. The problem is that the character of Lorne Michaels is aloof to begin with, and there is no way to truly understand his genius.
(Left) Nicholas Braun as Andy Kaufman in ‘Saturday Night’. Photo: Sony Pictures. (Right) Nicholas Braun as Jim Henson in ‘Saturday Night’. Photo: Sony Pictures.
But the love story (if you can call it that) between Michaels and Rosie Shuster helps to give the audience a little insight into his character and their relationship. In fact, Rachel Sennott lights up the screen as Shuster and gives one of the brightest performances in the film. It’s also worth mentioning Cooper Hoffman as Dick Ebersol and Willem Dafoe as David Tebet, respectively, as both actors give solid performances but, in the end, just act as the antagonists.
(L to R) Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle), Gilda Radner (Ella Hunt), John Belushi (Matt Wood) and Dan Aykroyd (Dylan O’Brian) in ‘Saturday Night’. Photo: Sony Pictures.
In the end, ‘Saturday Night’ is probably the best possible version of this movie that someone could make, and the best film of Jason Reitman’s career so far. I would think that the film will certainly be on the shortlist for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay at next year’s Oscars, but unfortunately, no one performance stands-out enough to be nominated. Whether you are a diehard fan of ‘Saturday Night Live’ or have never seen an episode (that’s hard to believe), you will enjoy this fun, funny and fast-paced film, which is a perfect tribute to the comedic television institution that is celebrating its 50th anniversary next year.
‘Saturday Night’ receives 8.5 out of 10 stars.
gG3Efafs8vdcvlnRLZXLV3
What is the plot of ‘Saturday Night’?
The film is based on the true story of what happened in the 90 minutes prior to the October 11, 1975, debut of ‘Saturday Night Live’.
(L to R) Kim Matula as Jane Curtin, Emily Fairn as Laraine Newman, Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, Rachel Sennott as Rosie Shuster, and Matt Wood as John Belushi in ‘Saturday Night’. Photo: Sony Pictures.
(L to R) Marion Cotillard and Noemie Merlant in ‘Lee’. Photo: Kimberley French.
Lee Miller is considered one of the greatest and most important war photographers of the 20th (or any) century, with her images from World War II – the horrors inside a concentration camp, the unspeakable contents of an abandoned train on its way to one of the camps, the haunted faces of both soldiers and survivors – not only indelible but crucial to documenting the defining cataclysm of modern human civilization.
And while ‘Lee,’ the new film from first-time director Ellen Kuras, doesn’t skimp on the visual side either, it follows a very predictable path that is the curse of all biopics these days: the film bounces from incident to incident, bound to a repetitive show-and-tell structure that recounts a lot of Miller’s adult life yet never delves deeply into their meaning or emotional aspects. The result is more museum piece than motion picture.
Story and Direction
(L to R) Andy Samberg and Kate Winslet in ‘Lee’. Photo: Kimberley French.
Like most biopics these days, ‘Lee’ begins in the middle of the story – in this case, Miller’s first time shooting photos on a battlefield – and then flashes back to tell us how she got there. Or rather, it flashes both back and forward: the movie then sets up a future timeline in which an aged Miller (Kate Winslet) grudgingly tells her story to an interviewer (Josh O’Connor from ‘Challengers’) who apparently has no idea of her life’s work.
This intrusive narrative device (which it took four credited writers to decide upon) recurs throughout the film, as does a gravelly voiceover from Winslet, both of which signal than the film is going to lead us gently by the hand through the narrative instead of letting it unfold on its own terms.
Even with that, by the time the main thrust of the story gets going, we meet Miller when she has already abandoned her early career as a fashion model in the 1920s and ‘30s and struck out as a photographer in her own right. She’s first seen hanging out topless (along with other women) at a picnic in France, but we have little context for this or the bohemian group of friends she’s with. “I was good at drinking, having sex, and taking pictures, and did all three as much as I could,” says Miller in what’s supposed to be character development.
‘Lee’ is the kind of biopic that expects us to have done our homework beforehand – when Miller meets the love her life, Roland Penrose (Alexander Skarsgård), their almost perfunctory tumble into bed mere hours later seems more baffling than erotic. But Winslet and Skarsgård never quite have the time to develop any real chemistry onscreen after that.
Alexander Skarsgard in ‘Lee’. Photo: Kimberley French.
Miller keeps fighting for the chance to go to Europe to shoot the escalating war, but the U.K.’s patriarchal rules of the day forbid it, until she goes around her British editors at Vogue and appeals to her American ones. “It happened so slowly, yet kind of overnight,” says Miller in her voiceover about Hitler’s conquest of Europe, which plays out offscreen during a montage of Miller’s days at Vogue before she finally gets the nod to go to Europe and catch up to the movie’s opening scene.
The bulk of the film is set during Miller’s time near or on the front, where she heads out with fellow photojournalist David Scherman (Andy Samberg) — who may or may not be in love with her but who remains a strictly platonic friend and colleague — to chronicle the war. From there, the movie takes us episodically through the staging of a handful of Miller’s most famous photos, while touching tangentially on sexism, Miller’s own alcoholism (although she seems to conquer both with relative ease), and the fraying of her marriage to Penrose.
The film’s third act is saddled with not one, not two, but three reveals, all of which come far too late in the game. One is a scene between Miller and her Vogue editor, Audrey Withers (Andrea Riseborough), in which Miller confides a devastating episode from her childhood but seems here almost like an afterthought. The other two depend on the film withholding information in a way that makes them seem like cheap tricks rather than important twists.
Ellen Kuras, a longtime cinematographer making her feature directorial debut here, shoots ‘Lee’ beautifully as one might expect, with the early sun-drenched vistas of France giving way to the darker grays, browns, and blues of a war-devastated Europe. But Kuras, like the cast, can’t get around the checklist nature of the script to make us truly feel or understand anything that happens in the film.
The Cast
(L to R) Noemie Merlant, Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet, and Alexander Skarsgard in ‘Lee’. Photo: Kimberley French.
If you’re not already in the camp that regards Kate Winslet as one of the greatest actors of her generation, then ‘Lee’ is not the place to start (we’d go with ‘Mare of Easttown,’ ‘Little Children,’ or ‘Mildred Pierce,’ for starters). It’s not that Winslet isn’t as terrific as always here – she is. Her Lee is a fighter all the way, but only has a couple of scenes in which to fully showcase the scope of both her humanity and her own motivations. The Lee Miller we see in the film only comes to life sporadically, and is seemingly driven only by the needs of the narrative.
The rest of the cast falls prey to another typical biopic convention: cast enough well-known actors as people we’re supposed to know, and let their star wattage do the work. Everyone is good as far as it goes, but the film has this air of pre-supposing that you’ll know who Marion Cotillard’s Solange d’Ayen is and fill in the blanks yourself. Only the chameleonic Riseborough makes somewhat of a lasting impression as British Vogue editor Audrey Withers. There is also the token “comic actor taking on a serious role that will surprise you” – in this case it’s Andy Samberg as David Scherman, who again has no real life save that he follows Lee around like a puppy.
Final Thoughts
(L to R) Andrea Riseborough and Kate Winslet in ‘Lee’. Photo: Kimberley French.
The problem with telling the story of someone’s life is that life itself is an often-rambling journey, full of highs and lows and rarely imbued with the kind of dramatic turns or climactic moments that are necessary for a film. As a result, most biopics run the risk of seeming shapeless and haphazard even as they follow a formulaic structure that tries to whip the events of the subject’s life into shape (this is why, say, Steven Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ is more successful, in that it focuses on one crucial episode in the subject’s life rather than encompassing them all).
As fascinating and complicated as Lee Miller apparently was, and as important as her work was to understanding an event that nearly brought civilization to its knees and realigned the world order for the foreseeable future, ‘Lee’ doesn’t have the narrative real estate to give us anymore than a snapshot of either the woman or her exploits. The result is a staid, self-important “and then this happened, and then we went here” approach that will leave most viewers, ironically enough, without a clear image of who Lee Miller was.
‘Lee’ receives 5.5 out of 10 stars.
zxfbef8e5013RQU1HgLiF7
What is the plot of ‘Lee’?
Lee Miller (Kate Winslet) goes from a career as a model to enlisting as a photographer to chronicle the events of World War II for Vogue magazine.
