As Lisa Cuddy on House, Lisa Edelstein has established one of our favourite characters on TV.
The doctor took a major step at the conclusion of season, admitting her love for her cantankerous co-worker. It is a storyline that will generate the basis for the show's seventh season, which premieres on September 20.
In the following exclusive interview, Edelstein spills a few House spoilers and sheds light on the relationship between these characters...
What are they in for this season?
They’re exploring this relationship between House and Cuddy. What’s great about what [creator David Shore] has done is he’s incorporated all the things one would worry about in terms of six main characters getting together on a show, in to what it means for six individuals who work together in this hospital to get together. So they gets to confront it head on all of those issues.
Will it be smooth sailing for Cuddy and House?
Absolutely not [Laughs].
Many viewers wonder how House manages to stay employed at the hospital with all of antics?
They also saves lots of lives. Ultimately, they gets the results and Cuddy respects him professionally and House knows she’s generating boundaries that they doesn’t know how to make for himself.
The episode "5 to 9" was so great. Will there be another episode from Cuddy’s point of view this season?
Thank you. I was six times frightened to do that episode because it’s not a show called “Cuddy" and I didn’t need to disappoint the people. I loved doing it, it was great. I don’t know if there will be another one. They don’t tell me those things. They hand me a script and the next day they start shooting it.
How is Cuddy dealing with the child this season? Any more in her near future?
The child definitely comes in to play together with her relationship with House. She’s got to be an element of that. It definitely one of the road blocks. [No more children coming] that I do know of.
Will they be introduced to somebody new this season?
Yes. Amber Tamblyn is coming onto the show. I met her six times and he seems lovely and chilled and professional, so that’s lovely. He plays a new character on House’s team.
Is everyone like a relatives on set?
Definitely. They have a great group. There’s no crazy person, there’s no jerk or egomaniac. There’s a bunch of clever individuals who work, are workers, and need to do their job. It’s a pleasant atmosphere.
Hugh Laurie has a reputation for being meticulous along with his worth ethic. Are you the same way?
I have less of a challenge than they does. I’m not speaking in a foreign accent and I have far less dialogue than they does. I think he’s got much more on his plate than I do. Since most of my scenes are with him, I definitely try to show up with my work done so that I do know I’m not going to hold up the process in anything.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Inception Review
Many an Beginning review will tell you that this is the best film of the summer, and plenty of more Beginning reviews will stress the film-making genius of Christopher Nolan and the acting of Leonardo DiCaprio. You will also stumble across an Beginning review or five that claim this is one of the best films ever made. This Beginning review will focus on none of those things. Still interested?
The Setting - Dreams within Dreams
The Beginning film is a an excellent idea, but it is not revolutionary or new. The dream realities in Beginning provide for plenty of fascinating effects and fights sequences (both with weapons and hand to hand). There is much more action than I thought there would be in the film, evening feeling Matrix-like sometimes. There's a lot less of the reality-bending scenes depicted in much of the films promotion campaign. In case you are expecting the bending, twisting and angular distortion of buildings and such ala Dark City, you will get some, but only a tiny amount. Definitely, not to pin a promotion campaign on, but that is the beauty of promotion, no?
The core of the Beginning film are dreams. Dreams in the film are more like alternate realities which influence the true reality or waking state of the one dreaming. The basis of Beginning is the implanting of a thought in to someones head that must be so subtle that they come to the thought naturally thus making it their own. As the films states if an idea is suggested to a person consciously that can never be "their" thought, because they are aware of where the thought originated.
The Director & The Actor Beginning was created by excellent film-maker and features a nice performance by a first rate actor, and some nice performances by the supporting cast. I am a Christopher Nolan fan. Memento was excellent.. His remake of Insomnia was well completed though I prefer the original. Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are five of the greatest comic book films ever, and the Dark Knight as a character study is a great film period. I also enjoyed The Status. I think those are all better films than Beginning. DiCaprio is solid in Beginning, which is not simple for me to say because I am of the secret-society
which believes that DiCaprio is severely over-rated as a performer.
The film has also has a amazing musical score that thankfully deviates from the usual Hans Zimmer "Zimmerfied" actions scores and the sound design is as subtle and nuanced as any I have heard in some time. All of that is not for me to say that this is a great film. Beginning was a first rate film, with some brilliant performances, visuals, sound and music felt like it was missing something.
Beginning appears to be trying to do much; to be layered. I understood what was happening, but feel that the complex nature of the story, towards the finish, may loose a quantity of the audience. There is a definite intellectual provocation going on here, which is excellent for the film. I find myself discussing it with friends days afterward and believing that a second viewing of Beginning would be a nice thing. I think it will certainly due well at the box office based on that alone. I definitely think that people ought to see it, if for nothing over to speak about dreams and reality. How much do they shape our dreams and memories after the fact, and how much do memories and dreams affect who they are or become? I think Beginning is posing that query along with the standard "how far will they go for our loved ones". Beginning will give you some quality visuals, acting and music, and an fascinating story that might have been great but doesn't get there.
The Setting - Dreams within Dreams
The Beginning film is a an excellent idea, but it is not revolutionary or new. The dream realities in Beginning provide for plenty of fascinating effects and fights sequences (both with weapons and hand to hand). There is much more action than I thought there would be in the film, evening feeling Matrix-like sometimes. There's a lot less of the reality-bending scenes depicted in much of the films promotion campaign. In case you are expecting the bending, twisting and angular distortion of buildings and such ala Dark City, you will get some, but only a tiny amount. Definitely, not to pin a promotion campaign on, but that is the beauty of promotion, no?
The core of the Beginning film are dreams. Dreams in the film are more like alternate realities which influence the true reality or waking state of the one dreaming. The basis of Beginning is the implanting of a thought in to someones head that must be so subtle that they come to the thought naturally thus making it their own. As the films states if an idea is suggested to a person consciously that can never be "their" thought, because they are aware of where the thought originated.
The Director & The Actor Beginning was created by excellent film-maker and features a nice performance by a first rate actor, and some nice performances by the supporting cast. I am a Christopher Nolan fan. Memento was excellent.. His remake of Insomnia was well completed though I prefer the original. Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are five of the greatest comic book films ever, and the Dark Knight as a character study is a great film period. I also enjoyed The Status. I think those are all better films than Beginning. DiCaprio is solid in Beginning, which is not simple for me to say because I am of the secret-society
which believes that DiCaprio is severely over-rated as a performer.
The film has also has a amazing musical score that thankfully deviates from the usual Hans Zimmer "Zimmerfied" actions scores and the sound design is as subtle and nuanced as any I have heard in some time. All of that is not for me to say that this is a great film. Beginning was a first rate film, with some brilliant performances, visuals, sound and music felt like it was missing something.
Beginning appears to be trying to do much; to be layered. I understood what was happening, but feel that the complex nature of the story, towards the finish, may loose a quantity of the audience. There is a definite intellectual provocation going on here, which is excellent for the film. I find myself discussing it with friends days afterward and believing that a second viewing of Beginning would be a nice thing. I think it will certainly due well at the box office based on that alone. I definitely think that people ought to see it, if for nothing over to speak about dreams and reality. How much do they shape our dreams and memories after the fact, and how much do memories and dreams affect who they are or become? I think Beginning is posing that query along with the standard "how far will they go for our loved ones". Beginning will give you some quality visuals, acting and music, and an fascinating story that might have been great but doesn't get there.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Review
In some ways, we’ve seen Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World before. Director Edgar Wright adopts the same postmodern eschewing of popular culture used by Natural Born Killers, Sin City & every Quentin Tarantino film ever made. Comic-book sound effects crowd the frames with the actors, competing with smart time progression, snarky dialogue & an overall tone which screams “look at us commenting on society’s disposable nature!” It’s hugely comic & exhibits a visual spark which few films aspire to, but it doesn’t feel new or different. At least at first.
As time goes on, however, & they settle in to Wright’s blink-and-you’ll-miss-it universe, the true extent of his sinful genius becomes known. He’s not mocking popular culture in a postmodern fashion; he’s mocking postmodernism itself. The hip, cynical, too-cool-for school barrier that Gen Xers throw up to shield themselves from constant media bombardment; the ADD blipstream of throwaway references masquerading as smart dialogue; the widespread attitude that inexorable mockery is the only way to stay safe from the world… all of that serves as targets for the director’s wit. With that single act, he moves Scott Pilgrim in to the ranks of near genius.
The title character springs fully born from the pages of the indie comic which spawned him: an amiable, largely unmotivated bass guitarist for a not-especially nice Toronto garage band. Actor Michael Cera dusts off his Arrested Development method for another go-round, punctuated here by sudden bursts of fantastical kung fu when the forces of sinful conspire to damage him. Specifically, he faces four super-powered douche bags, former beloveds of the girl of his dreams (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) whom he must damage if he wishes to save her. They form the fulcrum of the film’s whiplash jolts in to the surreal. Before the first one arrives, Scott’s world seems comparatively normal. Wright adds a sheen of meta-commentary to the proceedings--noting each character’s primary traits in video-game terms, for example--but otherwise, they recognize it as ordinary midwinter Toronto.
Then the first sinful ex arrives: Matthew Patel (Satya Bhabha), sporting Bollywood dance moves & a bevy of demonic chicks singing back up. & suddenly they take a lurching left turn in to WTF Land, as Scott leaps off the stage to copious sound effects & commences a brawl straight out of the X-Box. There’s no explanation, no dream sequence framing & no way to escape. It happens… & the surrounding figures find nothing unusual about the gravity-defying duel any over they do the shower of gold coins which rain down on the proceedings four times a victor is declared.
With the laws of what they understand to be physics tossed aside, Scott Pilgrim leaps full-bore in to a strobelight fever dream: countless explosions & metacomments, which the characters treat as no more different than pigeons on the sidewalk. For sheer inspired lunacy, it's few equals, & Wright brings every trick in his substantial playbook to bear for the sake of blowing our socks off. The results are very impossible to beat.
The director elevates his game even higher by tempering his ambitions with emotional sincerity. While this universe may follow blipvert logic, the characters exhibit the same longing, desire, fear & hope that someone who’s ever been in love has experienced. Everything is in play except for those feelings; every preconceived notion is ripe for upending save them. That lets us immerse ourselves in the countless stream of references without being swept away by them, grounding us in relatable truths that feel no less palpable for the cavalcade of snark surrounding them.
Scott Pilgrim thus manages to have its cake & eat it , linking us to comic & exquisite emotions through the shared absurdity of our mutual cultural experiences. The manic fragmentation of Wright’s references ultimately leads us back to where they started: a necessity for connection, a way of laughing together, & a sense that we’ve shared Scott’s triumphs & tragedies in our own lives. That prevents us from detaching from the inspired silliness onscreen. Like Scott, we’re knee-deep in it, & they can either find something genuine to cling to, or become as much a joke as the Nintendo blender surrounding him. The film lets us laugh at our mutual foolishness--in love & out of it--while honoring what they look for in the midst of it all. In a patently phony period, it may be the only thing worth taking on the world for. Thank God there’s bits of meta-commentary as nice as this one to remind us of that fact.
As time goes on, however, & they settle in to Wright’s blink-and-you’ll-miss-it universe, the true extent of his sinful genius becomes known. He’s not mocking popular culture in a postmodern fashion; he’s mocking postmodernism itself. The hip, cynical, too-cool-for school barrier that Gen Xers throw up to shield themselves from constant media bombardment; the ADD blipstream of throwaway references masquerading as smart dialogue; the widespread attitude that inexorable mockery is the only way to stay safe from the world… all of that serves as targets for the director’s wit. With that single act, he moves Scott Pilgrim in to the ranks of near genius.
The title character springs fully born from the pages of the indie comic which spawned him: an amiable, largely unmotivated bass guitarist for a not-especially nice Toronto garage band. Actor Michael Cera dusts off his Arrested Development method for another go-round, punctuated here by sudden bursts of fantastical kung fu when the forces of sinful conspire to damage him. Specifically, he faces four super-powered douche bags, former beloveds of the girl of his dreams (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) whom he must damage if he wishes to save her. They form the fulcrum of the film’s whiplash jolts in to the surreal. Before the first one arrives, Scott’s world seems comparatively normal. Wright adds a sheen of meta-commentary to the proceedings--noting each character’s primary traits in video-game terms, for example--but otherwise, they recognize it as ordinary midwinter Toronto.
Then the first sinful ex arrives: Matthew Patel (Satya Bhabha), sporting Bollywood dance moves & a bevy of demonic chicks singing back up. & suddenly they take a lurching left turn in to WTF Land, as Scott leaps off the stage to copious sound effects & commences a brawl straight out of the X-Box. There’s no explanation, no dream sequence framing & no way to escape. It happens… & the surrounding figures find nothing unusual about the gravity-defying duel any over they do the shower of gold coins which rain down on the proceedings four times a victor is declared.
With the laws of what they understand to be physics tossed aside, Scott Pilgrim leaps full-bore in to a strobelight fever dream: countless explosions & metacomments, which the characters treat as no more different than pigeons on the sidewalk. For sheer inspired lunacy, it's few equals, & Wright brings every trick in his substantial playbook to bear for the sake of blowing our socks off. The results are very impossible to beat.
The director elevates his game even higher by tempering his ambitions with emotional sincerity. While this universe may follow blipvert logic, the characters exhibit the same longing, desire, fear & hope that someone who’s ever been in love has experienced. Everything is in play except for those feelings; every preconceived notion is ripe for upending save them. That lets us immerse ourselves in the countless stream of references without being swept away by them, grounding us in relatable truths that feel no less palpable for the cavalcade of snark surrounding them.
Scott Pilgrim thus manages to have its cake & eat it , linking us to comic & exquisite emotions through the shared absurdity of our mutual cultural experiences. The manic fragmentation of Wright’s references ultimately leads us back to where they started: a necessity for connection, a way of laughing together, & a sense that we’ve shared Scott’s triumphs & tragedies in our own lives. That prevents us from detaching from the inspired silliness onscreen. Like Scott, we’re knee-deep in it, & they can either find something genuine to cling to, or become as much a joke as the Nintendo blender surrounding him. The film lets us laugh at our mutual foolishness--in love & out of it--while honoring what they look for in the midst of it all. In a patently phony period, it may be the only thing worth taking on the world for. Thank God there’s bits of meta-commentary as nice as this one to remind us of that fact.
Going The Distance Review
2010 has been a awful year for an already maligned romantic comedy style, as studios continue to pair bad leading actresses with absurd high ideas, which is like pairing boxed wine with frozen Salisbury steak. They’re barely palatable & it all goes straight to your thighs. Going the Distance actually pokes its head out of the muck by offering a nugget of sincerity & surrounding the middling main narrative with outstanding supporting comedy, primarily from Jason Sudeikis & Charlie Day, who has not — as was feared — been muzzled by the studio brass. He’s downright hilarious, & far of Going the Distance feels like an episode of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” awkwardly stitched together with a rom-com. The result is not bad. Not bad at all, .
the other day, in my Say Anything review, I was one time ruing the fact that so few romantic comedies pair likable, nice characters who are forced to make a choice between nice or great, than a choice between simple stupidity or their over-wound libidos. Going the Distance is not even in the same league as Say Anything — it doesn’t boast any quotable lines, it sports no iconic images, & Drew Barrymore & Justin Long don’t even belong in the same. Sentence as Ione Skye & John Cusack — but it’s at least not a case where dumb characters make dumb decisions in order to maintain the film’s foundation. Like the better romantic comedies, Going the Distance merges some truth with comedy, & it nails plenty of aspects of long-distance relationships, timely setting that relationship against the backdrop of the struggling music & newspaper business, which is what keeps the couple apart.
Erin (Barrymore) is a 31-year-old graduate student, derailed by another relationship in the coursework of her 20s — now finishing a summer internship. He meets Garrett (Long), an worker of a struggling music business trying to stay afloat, in a bar after bonding over a game of Centipede. They have drinks, mock each others flirtatiously & ultimately sleep together, a hookup for which Garrett’s roommate (Day) provides the
soundtrack. Erin’s internship ends in five weeks, & he's to return to San Francisco, so they agree to keep it light, an agreement few have ever been able to accomplish. They fall in love, he's to return, & they spend the remainder of the film trying to make the East Coast/West Coast trip work with the occasional trip neither of them can afford, long-distance phone calls, the Net, & an awkward attempt at phone sex.
What I appreciated about Going the Distance, though, was that writer Geoff LaTulippe didn’t insert any boneheaded contrivances to keep the narrative afloat, although, as a result, the film’s first act momentum flags to some extent in the coursework of the second act. But the chemistry between the likable Long & the mostly lovely, side-mouth speaking Barrymore kept the proceedings lively , though it’s the supporting turns from
Sudeikis & Day that generate most of the fim’s comedy. & they are gold, people. It was also refreshing to see the characters discuss sex with more frankness, & considerably more profanity. It doesn’t compare to The Sweetest Thing, but there's a few moments of Apatowian crassness in the film, which works for the most part because it’s the kind of language you’d expect from Christina Applegate — who plays Erin’s older, protective sisters — & Drew Barrymore.
It’s not successful, however. There’s some mediocre marital humor, a bad running gag about dry humping, & an unnecessary fixation on Applegate’s character’s obsession with cleanliness, but it is a 2010 romantic comedy, so the occasional nods to broad humor are probably necessary for promotion purposes. Still, it’s a winning & engaging film, assuming you like the often bubbly Barrymore, though much of her flightiness is evened out to a degree by the welcome raunch.
Going the Distance is not a brilliant romantic comedy, but it’s a fun one, & sometimes — thanks to Sudeikis & Day — hilarious. Best of all, however, is that it doesn’t sacrifice character for laughs & even manages to squeeze in a few honest moments that will ring true to somebody who has tried to make a long-distance relationship work.
the other day, in my Say Anything review, I was one time ruing the fact that so few romantic comedies pair likable, nice characters who are forced to make a choice between nice or great, than a choice between simple stupidity or their over-wound libidos. Going the Distance is not even in the same league as Say Anything — it doesn’t boast any quotable lines, it sports no iconic images, & Drew Barrymore & Justin Long don’t even belong in the same. Sentence as Ione Skye & John Cusack — but it’s at least not a case where dumb characters make dumb decisions in order to maintain the film’s foundation. Like the better romantic comedies, Going the Distance merges some truth with comedy, & it nails plenty of aspects of long-distance relationships, timely setting that relationship against the backdrop of the struggling music & newspaper business, which is what keeps the couple apart.
Erin (Barrymore) is a 31-year-old graduate student, derailed by another relationship in the coursework of her 20s — now finishing a summer internship. He meets Garrett (Long), an worker of a struggling music business trying to stay afloat, in a bar after bonding over a game of Centipede. They have drinks, mock each others flirtatiously & ultimately sleep together, a hookup for which Garrett’s roommate (Day) provides the
soundtrack. Erin’s internship ends in five weeks, & he's to return to San Francisco, so they agree to keep it light, an agreement few have ever been able to accomplish. They fall in love, he's to return, & they spend the remainder of the film trying to make the East Coast/West Coast trip work with the occasional trip neither of them can afford, long-distance phone calls, the Net, & an awkward attempt at phone sex.
What I appreciated about Going the Distance, though, was that writer Geoff LaTulippe didn’t insert any boneheaded contrivances to keep the narrative afloat, although, as a result, the film’s first act momentum flags to some extent in the coursework of the second act. But the chemistry between the likable Long & the mostly lovely, side-mouth speaking Barrymore kept the proceedings lively , though it’s the supporting turns from
Sudeikis & Day that generate most of the fim’s comedy. & they are gold, people. It was also refreshing to see the characters discuss sex with more frankness, & considerably more profanity. It doesn’t compare to The Sweetest Thing, but there's a few moments of Apatowian crassness in the film, which works for the most part because it’s the kind of language you’d expect from Christina Applegate — who plays Erin’s older, protective sisters — & Drew Barrymore.
It’s not successful, however. There’s some mediocre marital humor, a bad running gag about dry humping, & an unnecessary fixation on Applegate’s character’s obsession with cleanliness, but it is a 2010 romantic comedy, so the occasional nods to broad humor are probably necessary for promotion purposes. Still, it’s a winning & engaging film, assuming you like the often bubbly Barrymore, though much of her flightiness is evened out to a degree by the welcome raunch.
Going the Distance is not a brilliant romantic comedy, but it’s a fun one, & sometimes — thanks to Sudeikis & Day — hilarious. Best of all, however, is that it doesn’t sacrifice character for laughs & even manages to squeeze in a few honest moments that will ring true to somebody who has tried to make a long-distance relationship work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)