Cameron diaz Hot Actress Wallpapers Images Pictures

 ^{Alexis  Bledel HotActress Wallpapers Images Pictures}

^{Cameron diaz Hot Actress Wallpapers Free Images}

^{Cameron diaz Hot}

USA News Channel Gallery

  Cameron diaz HollywoodModels Fashion

Get Many More Hot Wallpaper

Go To

Hollywood Wallpapers | Bollywood Wallpapers

Cameron Diaz | Hot | Wallapers | Hot girls | Hot girls in USA

The Green Hornet (2011)

Title: The Green Hornet (2011)

Director: Michel Gondry

Cast: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Christoph Waltz

So Gondry doing a commercial film, that’s what really called my attention towards this film. It wasn’t Seth Rogen or even The Green Hornet character because I was never that much into the character. I’d read a comic book or two, but basically all I knew about The Green Hornet was that Bruce Lee had been in the 1966 television show, that’s it. It was only later that I found out it had been a radio show in the 30’s. But Michel Gondry directing a commercial film? That was the real grabber for me because Gondry has never done what we would call a commercial film. Most of his films are always artsy films like Human Nature (2001), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), The Science of Sleep (2006), and Be Kind Rewind (2008) all awesome movies on their own right, but big summer blockbusters they were not. So how did Gondry’s trip down Hollywood lane turn out?

Thats Gondry to the left. The Green Hornet and Kato from the 1966 television show on the right

I’d say it went pretty damn good. I mean, I was really curious about this film because it had many strange things going for it. Gondry directing a big budget flick like this one was a first, but that was something I was definitely willing to give a try. What caught me off guard was Seth Rogen playing the hero. In previous attempts at bringing The Green Hornet to cinematic life, actors like Mark Wahlberg, Vince Vaugh, George Clooney and Jake Gyllenhaal were considered for the role. Hell, even Eddie Murphy tried to play Britt at one point. Eventually, years and years passed and Rogen took an interest in the film and decided to write it and produce it himself. He also put himself in the lead role as the films hero. To me, that also went against type because what Hollywood normally does in superhero films is place a buffed up dude in the role of the hero, and Rogen is everything but that. Reportedly, Rogen lost 30 pounds to be on this movie, but he still didn’t come off as a muscle bound superhero. I don’t care about that though, I think he did just fine the way he is. Who says all heroes have to be muscle bound? And finally, another strange thing about the film was its tone, apparently according to the trailers; this was going to be a comedy. So The Green Hornet was definitely shaping up to be a film that was playing with our expectations of a comic book film. But what the hell, it looked like a fun time at the movies so I gave it a shot.

I’m glad I did. I mean, it delivered exactly what I was expecting: a fun lighthearted superhero film. Rogen plays Britt Reid. A millionaire, son to the head honcho of the local newspaper, ‘The Daily Sentinel’. When his father dies, suddenly Britt is faced with the responsibility of running the local newspaper. Problem is that Britt isn’t a very responsible person. He likes to party like its 1999, all the time! He doesn’t give a damn about the newspaper or how it is run. But that all changes one night when he and his trusty driver Kato manage to stop a robbery. It is then that he realizes that he has the power and the means with which to fight crime, so suddenly he has a change of heart and decides to do something worthwhile with his life. He will fight crime with his side kick Kato as the masked avenger known as The Green Hornet!

There’s a lot of good things I can say about this movie, number one, having Gondry as the director is major asset. Gondry was supposed to direct this film as his first feature film way back in 1997, when this film was first attempted. So in a way, Gondry had always been involved with this picture. The cool thing about Gondry is that he has always been known for using lots of visual gags on his films, and on this one he goes all out with this. Whenever The Green Hornet and Kato go out to kick some ass, there’s some sort of visual effect to keep things interesting, especially in the fight sequences. His visual trickery makes the film that much cooler to watch. In the film, Kato serves as the gadget maker for Britt. I mean, essentially, Kato is this genius inventor who can make anything! He turns Britt’s car into a mean crime fighting machine, equipped with machine guns and everything. He makes all the gadgets and the cars, plus he is a Kung Fu expert! And he can make a mean cup of coffee! So all of Kato’s gadgets (brought to life by Gondry’s visual trickery) make the film fun to watch. It was interesting seeing Gondry taking full advantage of CGI and 3-D as well. Speaking of the 3-D, I gots no complaints about that either.

The film’s themes are against political corruption, it deals with a politician who wants to use the local newspaper to boost his image in the publics’ eye by printing bullshit stories that make him look good. In this way increasing his chances of becoming President of the United States. The film has a very subversive nature to it because it addresses the power that the media has to manipulate how the masses perceive the world. I liked that about it. They really go into how a newspaper headline can change peoples perceptions of things. Put this or that in the headline and poof! that’s how people will see things. The Green Hornet is perceived as a villain, a vigilante out to take justice into his own hands. So the film also addresses how the media will often times portray the bad guys as the good guys, and the heroes as the villains, all to fit the political scheme of things. A bold statement for what is essentially a very lighthearted film.

And trust me, the film is lighthearted. It never gets too violent or graphic or anything. It keeps a fun vibe all through out. The dialog had me cracking up all the time. There is something about the characters, they come off as extremely likable. Rogen plays his character the way many of Gondry’s characters are portrayed in his films, like grown men with 12 year old sensibilities. Think about it, Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine and Gael Garcia Bernal in The Science of Sleep where grown men acting like children. Same thing happens here. Rogen sounds like a little kid most of the time. I’ve always liked that about Gondry’s films, his characters never loose that sense of child like amazement and wonderment. Kato comes off as a father figure to Britt, the big kid with the expensive toys. And speaking of Kato, he totally dominates this movie and often times comes off as more of a hero then Britt does. So this is the kind of movie where the hero isn’t all that perfect and awesome, he is flawed. Most of the time he ends up getting his ass saved by Kato, his sidekick. Kind of like how you felt that Kick-Ass (2010) was more about Hit Girl then Kick-Ass himself, that’s how this movie plays out.

But considering how much money The Green Hornet is making, we might get to see the character grow into a full blown hero in future films. I’m thinking the purposely made him out to be a goof ball, because like Kick-Ass, he is just learning how to become a hero. The Green Hornet aint gonna change your life or nothing, but it will entertain ya pretty well for an hour and a half!

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5

Knight and Day (2010)

Title: Knight and Day (2010)

Director: James Mangold

Cast: Cameron Diaz, Tom Cruise, Peter Saarsgard, Paul Dano

Review:

Watching Knight and Day was the cinematic equivalent of going to a Rolling Stone’s concert where you see a bunch of aging rock stars that for all intents and purposes are still trying their best to rock. Though they still “got it” they’ve also lost that vitality, that craziness and unpredictability of their youth. In Knight and Day the stars that are still trying their best to rock in their old age are: Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. Though Cruise is just about to hit 50 and Diaz is only 38, they look really beat for some reason. Maybe its because we remember them more for the roles they played in their youth. It’s funny how we as movie watchers freeze an actors image in our mind, and think that they will look like that forever. I mean, don’t you sometimes think that Tom Cruise will always be that young strapping dude you saw in Top Gun? Or that Cameron Diaz’s hotness will be the same as when she first appeared in The Mask all those years ago? It’s when you see these actors getting old on screen that you realize they are just as human as us. And they wont remain young forver. But these actors are not ready to give up their younger action packed years, they want to go down fighting the good cinematic fight, and so we get a film like Knight and Day, where Cruise is still playing the indestructible super agent, killing the bad guys and saving the girl.  How did it go?

In Knight and Day, Tom Cruise plays Roy Miller a rogue FBI agent who is out to protect a young genius who has just invented a power source that supposedly never wears down. The FBI wants to stop Roy and get the battery. Meanwhile, as he runs away from the government Roy stumbles upon June Havens (Cameron Diaz) your every day regular girl on her way to her sisters wedding. Unfortunately, she stumbles upon the whole pursuit and becomes an accomplice to Roy. Roy tells her he is doing good, trying to do the right thing, that if she sticks to him that she will have a better chance to stay alive. While the government tells her that Cruise is a nut, a government agent whose gone rogue, and that they need their help to stop him. Who will she believe? And will Roy manage to save the everlasting battery from falling in the wrong hands?

The way I saw this movie, I got the vibe that they were trying to duplicate the enormous success of films like Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005), where they pared two huge actors of both genders in one bombastic big budget action adventure film. It’s one of those movies that wants to cover it all. Problem is that Cameron Diaz isnt exactly a huge box office draw; and Tom Cruise, well, some people prefer to make fun of him nowadays. Though I will say that Cruise has retaliated that situation very intelligently by making fun of himself in comedies like Tropic Thunder (2008), where he showed to the world that yeah, he’s got a funny bone too. He is taking this route of getting on audiences good side by playing funny/happy go lucky characters. This is the case with of Knight and Day, where he is this crazy unpredictable character who has the solution for everything he is always 50 steps ahead of you. He has been trained to do everything and anything, no one can trap him, he is always on the run, and he is that much more clever than the bad guys. Buty at the end of the day, his objectives noble.

"Please save me Mr. Secret Agent Man!"

My main problem with the film was that they played the female character in an extremely clichéd way. Knight and Day reminded me of films like Romancing the Stone (1985) and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) where the guy is this loose cannon with the answers to everything, and the girl basically screams, shouts, cries and fucks everything up through out the whole film. She’s only there for the guy to rescue her. I would have thought that the portrayal of women in films would have been past that by now, but apparently not. Cameron Diaz’s June, is that walking cliché of a female character every step of the way. Roy does all the smart moves, she stumbles trips and generally “cant cope well with a situation” unless she is drugged. She does some good at the end of the film, but by then, she’s already walked through every step of the female cliché book. The supporting cast was made up of Paul Dano who plays Simon, the genius who is working on the everlasting battery thingy. If you ask me he was completely wasted on this movie, having very little to do, they could have given that role to a lesser actor. Same goes for Peter Sarsgaard. They guy is a solid actor, but here he plays a luke warm half assed villain. I mean that’s another rule this movie broke for me. It had a weak ass villain. A pity, because they had such a good actor to play him.

As for the action adventure side in the film, it’s non stop. There was a lot of CGI involved on this movie, but I did notice that Tom Cruise was doing a lot of his own stunts, I'll give him that! I mean, sure, he's harnessed up the wazoo, but at least the guy is doing it himself. Kudos to him for that. We go from a plane crash, to a car chase, to a motorcycle chase, to a boat chase, to a train, after a while, you feel like cashing in your frequent flyer mileage. We go from Austria to Spain, to Mexico to U.S.A. and back again. Its one of those movies where the characters fly all over the world in the span of an hour and a half. You feel like a ping pong ball half way through the movie. The action sequences are complex and entertaining just don’t expect any level of reality to them. People jump from moving cars while shooting their guns. There are spectacular car crashes in this extended freeway chase sequence. A plane crashes in a corn field, in fact every conceivable vehicle you can think of crashes. But a word of warning, none of it feels believable. This is the kind of film where you have to just give in to the action adventure fantasy. Take that disbelief and suspend it before hitting play.

"Theres this really cool new church called Church of Scientology, ever heard of it?"

The plot is paper thin, which is kind of weird because the film was written by 14 different people! I have a rule when watching movies, if the film is written by more then two writers, it’s bound to be crap. There are a few exceptions, but generally, for some reason, it’s always been true. The more writers the film has, the shittier the film is gonna be. Usually this type of deal applies to big budget movies, where studios can’t freaking make up their minds as to what kind of movie they want to make. I have to admit, the films story is a mess. The good guys are the bad guys and suddenly everything changes and they are the good guys again and everything is alright? The ending made no point to me, really, the story was a big old mess, sweeping everything up to make everything alright at the end, sacrificing logic along the way. That’s they kind of movie this is, a big budget blunder. At one point the film was going to star Chris Tucker next to Eva Mendez! Even Gerard Butler was slated to star on this one! Actually, I’m kind of curious myself as to how that version of the movie would have turned out! Butler was born to play big action; sadly, he opted to make The Bounty Hunter (2010) with Jennifer Aniston. So what we got here ladies and gents, is an attempt to make a big budget action adventure comedy, that didn’t exactly work out at the box office. Toy Story 3 made sure of that! But honestly? I had some fun with it. It’s that kind of a movie that isn’t brainy or intelligent, but it is light, entertaining and fun.

Rating: 3 out 5

 

Tom Cruise and director James Mangold

The Box (2009)

Title: The Box (2009)

Director: Richard Kelly

Stars: Frank Langella, James Marsden, Cameron Diaz

Review:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” - Arthur C. Clarke

Arthur C. Clarke is one of my favorite science fiction authors; I’ve read most of his books and enjoyed them. Many of Clarke’s works focus on how amazing, vast and unexplored the universe is. He also addresses -many times through out his body of work- the issue of the existence of God and the validity of religion. He was quoted saying that he was fascinated by the concept of God. So it came as no surprise to me that Richard Kelly’s new film The Box based a lot of the films ideology’s and logic in the famous Arthur C. Clarke quote that is posted above.

This films premise is not really as complicated as some make it out to be. Basically, a strange and mysterious man visits a household and makes a very unusual proposal to them. He hands them a small box with a red button on it and says to them that they have a choice to make. They can press the red button, at which moment someone whom they don’t know will die, and at the same time, simply for pressing the red button, they would get a payment for a million dollars in cash. The household that is presented with this premise is a poor one, a couple that is struggling to make ends meet. Of course the offer of receiving a million dollars for simply pressing a red button seems like one they should at least consider. All their present economical troubles would vanish, but somebody they don’t know would have to die. To press the button or not to press it? That is the question.

The following review will be sprinkled with many spoilers. This is not going to be one of my regular reviews where I try and avoid spoilers, on this review I will be giving my own take as to what I thought the film was about, so if you don’t want the particulars of the story spoiled for you, read no further. On the other hand, if you have seen The Box and you are open for a discussion of this films themes; then read on my friend!

I have read many reviews on this film that make it out to be a confusing film. And in a way, a confusing film is the kind of film you are to expect from writer director Richard Kelly who was responsible for directing the “mind fuck” films known as Donnie Darko (2001) and Southland Tales (2006). I agree, both can be extremely confusing (yet enjoyable) films. But I don’t think The Box is as convoluted as Kelly’s previous films. It does have some confusing elements to it, but they are not really pushed to the max as in previous Kelly films. The Box plays with many of the themes that Richard Kelly loves to explore Like interdimensional travel or traveling through time. Donnie Darko has Donnie, a depressed and neurotic teenager discover that he can travel through time and space, and he can even see where his destiny is headed. On Southland Tales he dealt with similar themes of traveling from one dimension to the next, and maybe stumbling upon another version of you from some other point in time. Even though these films might prove to be confusing, they made for truly interesting films to watch, the mystery of it all always keeping you glued to the screen.

Director Richard Kelly, trying to stick to his artistic integrity, while directing a commercial film

The Box is similar in this way. It’s got that strange aura of mystery to it all the time, you will be intrigued through out its duration. In this way, once again Richard Kelly shows us how much he admires David Lynch. This movie feels like a Lynch movie even more so then Southland Tales and Donnie Darko did. In fact, a couple of scenes from The Box were swiped from Lynch films, mainly Lost Highway (1997). So even though this film might prove to be “too confusing” for some, some might also delight in that constant vibe of strangeness that the film evokes every step of the way.

So heres where we start talking about the movies themes. Did anyone out there get the vibe that this movies premise was simply that of God putting a common family to the test? Testing them to see if they would do what is right? Frank Langella played the mysterious Mr. Arlington Steward, the man who knocks on the Lewis household and presents them with a moral dilemma. I thought the dilemma in this film was interesting, considering the times we are living in where a lot of people suddenly face themselves with the fact that they have to struggle to survive, to put food on their tables, to pay the rent. The Lewis Family is living on a “pay check to pay check” situation as Cameron Diaz’s character puts it; so I liked the fact that the film is asking people out there these questions. Things might be bad, but if push came to shove, would you be willing to kill others so that you could be okay?

The fact that this film is about “doing what’s right” and making the right choice is really what drives me to believe this movie was all about the Lewis family getting a visit from God. The biblical allusions are there plain as daylight. The option to press the button or not is similar to temptation, same as the situation the biblical Adam and Eve were in when God puts the tree of “good and evil” in paradise and tells them not to eat from it. The Box is more or less the same story. The Box is the tree of good and evil, and pressing the button on the box would be the equivalent of eating from the tree that God told you not to eat from. The answer to pressing that red button or not, should be an automatic “no” simply because of the fact that somebody would be dying if you press it. Doesn’t matter if you don’t know the person, or if you won’t see that person die, you’re still supposed to be killing someone if you press it. And all for a million dollars, for monetary gain. If you press that button, you are making the wrong moral choice, breaking one of the ten biblical commandments “though shall not kill” and as is shown in the film, the Lewis family ends up paying for “sinning” in such a big way.

Which is really what Arlington Steward does in the film. He makes the Lewis family pay for having committed the atrocious crime of pressing that red button. Arlington Steward might not really be God himself, but he has god like powers and is certainly connected to the supreme being in some form or another. For all intents and purposes, he represents God in the film, spewing judgment left and right, making evil doers pay. But how does Arthur C. Clarkes quote fit the rhyme scheme of this film? Well, I’m thinking that this film was taking the route of Alex Proya’s Knowing (2009) which presented us with the idea that maybe angels are really aliens, and that we humans, not fully understanding them see them as angels. We see them as something spiritual (or magical) because we do not understand their scientific nature. This is something that movies do when they tackle religious themes, because in this way you present both sides of the tale, in this way avoiding audience alienation. The Box has a science fiction angle to it with the whole teleportation thing, the traveling through dimensional doors thing. So it has that ambiguity to it. It’s not an openly religious film, but its religious connotations are there. I’m thinking this was just Kelly’s way of being as indirect as possible with the biblical references in the film.

The people who work for Mr. Steward -the god like character in the film- are an allegory for religious individuals. They act strange, they all seem to be mentally connected somehow. They don’t like outsiders meddling in their business, asking questions and doubting things. One scene has Marsden’s character Arthur Lewis searching for information about Mr. Steward past history. Trying to see where he comes from and what makes him tick (same as one might search for the truth behind the idea of God) and what does he confront himself with? Stewards followers! They question him and his purposes, and then they make him choose between “eternal damnation or eternal enlightenment” which should be enough information to let anyone who is watching this film know how much it’s commenting on religion and faith.

I liked the idea that Mr. Steward refers to the whole box thing as an ongoing experiment. He tells them “the experiment continues” with another family who will be presented with the same choice. To me religion is a social experiment, placed upon society by governments to regulate and control peoples moral and ethics. I also find it interesting how Mr. Steward goes from door to door, presenting the family with this experiment, same as many preachers do with their teachings, spreading the teachings of the bible from door to door. After watching The Box I came to a conclusion. In my opinion, religion has demonstrated itself to be a failed experiment, bringing more evil then good to the world. It should be eradicated, and people should be taught to be good simply because they choose to be, because its what’s best for them and their fellow man. Not because they are afraid God is watching them, and he is going to make them pay. But thats my own personal take on religion, so dont take it personal if you think differently. The Box is a dark, mysterious and at times terrafying movie. I found it to be an intriguing flick, with great themes, but not as complex as some make it out to be.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Cameron Diaz Leggings

Candid picture of celebrity babe Cameron Diaz, shying away from the camera while donning some great leggings.

Cameron Diaz was born to wear leggings and she is taking full advantage of it.

Charlie Angels celebrity evening dress inspired

Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore, & Cameron Diaz evening dress inspired