The Naked Gun movie branded 'buffoonery' as others hail reboot as 'masterclass'
Ahead of it's release, the remake of Naked Gun had a lot to live up to considering the original, starring Leslie Nielsen, became a cult classic across the world. But it looks as though Liam Neeson's who plays Frank Drebin Jnr, who is on a mission to solve a murder to halt the closure of the police department, has nailed it.
The crime comedy film has garnered rave reviews by film critics on Rotten Tomato as it successfully introduces "deadpan buffoonery", while feeding in a gripping plot. One critic wrote: "Director Akiva Schaffer and his co-writers, Dan Gregor and Doug Mand, get to the heart of the humor in a non-ironic, non-revisionist fashion."
A writer from the New York Times penned: "As the movie continues, though, [Neeson] adds emotional texture to the character and another, somewhat similar yet also different-enough Frank Drebin emerges." It comes after one Top Gear host admitted he 'never got along' with Jeremy Clarkson as he made a bold statement.
Helen Skelton and Gethin Jones split as he joins a notorious dating app on a lads' holiday Taylor Swift sparks engagement rumours as fans spot Travis Kelce's lock screen
Meanwhile another critic for The Times added: "See it with an audience, and experience the rare and wonderful pleasure of a crowd scrambling to keep up with one of the stupidest films it's ever seen." And a fourth person said: "So dense with jokes, gags and references to noir tropes and cop shows that it is impossible to clock them all on a single viewing."
Meanwhile a fourth person added: "Reviving a cult classic like The Naked Gun is a bit like bringing slapstick to a funeral — gutsy, awkward, and, when done right, oddly cathartic. Director Schaffer attempts just that, blending puns, parodies, and pop culture into a screwball cocktail... "
And it seems the sentiments of the critics is also echoed among fans of the film. One person said: "A funny movie that delivered what was advertised!" A second said: "loved this film. Silly and refreshing. Liam and Pam are awesome together."
And a third added: "If you a fan of the originals will enjoy this. Classic Naked Gun humor gotta always be paying attention."
Aside from the success of the film another talking point among fans is the chemistry between Pamela Anderson and Liam Neeson.
In an interview with People magazine, Liam, 73, candidly confessed to being "madly in love" with the mum of two. At the time, he told the publication: "With Pamela, first off, I'm madly in love with her."
He added: "She's just terrific to work with. I can't compliment her enough, I'll be honest with you. No huge ego. She just comes in to do the work. She's funny and so easy to work with. She's going to be terrific in the film."
And in response to his comments, Pamela who was formerly a pin up girl following her lengthy stint on nineties TV show Baywatch, claimed that he was "the perfect gentleman".
She added: "He brings out the best in you…with respect, kindness, and depth of experience. It was an absolute honor to work with him."
And while the couple have been careful to only discuss their work life, Pamela let slip their relationship spilled over into their personal life as she even cooked for him.
In May, she revealed: "I also baked my sourdough bread for therapy and regularly shared with him, along with cookies and muffins."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Could you land a job at the New Statesman in the 2020s?
Illustration by Roger Chouinard / Ikon Images We at the New Statesman are no strangers to hard work, but even the most diligent strivers need to take a break sometimes, and recently the New York Times was kind enough to provide us all with some distraction. 'Could you have landed a job at Vogue in the Nineties?' it asked, atop a cultural-literacy quiz, based on one once used to test applicants to the magazine. Once we were done smugly trading our scores, I began dwelling on what such a quiz would look like for this title. So, I present: 'Could you land a job at the New Statesman in the 2020s?' Match the numbers and letters to find out; answers below (don't cheat). Score full marks and I'm told Tom McTague will graciously vacate his office for you*. Four Shades of Grey 1) 'Great White Male' guest editor 2) Chronicler of Southgateism 3) Tina Brown successor 4) Feline Philosophy author a) James Graham b) Graydon Carter c) John Gray d) Grayson Perry Further reading 1) 'Books are the mirrors of the soul' 2) Nicola Six 3) George Smiley 4) 'Only connect' a) EM Forster b) John Le Carré c) Virginia Woolf d) Martin Amis Boys George 1) Rhapsody in Blue composer 2) Real name: Eric Blair 3) Austerity posterboy 4) Real name: Mary Ann Evans Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe a) George Gershwin b) George Orwell c) George Eliot d) George Osborne The Kate Mossman interview 1) Old Brightonian 2) Mostly Men author 3) The Pervert's Guide to Cinema writer 4) Joni Mitchell muse a) Slavoj Žižek b) Nick Cave c) Lynn Barber d) Cary Raditz Go figure 1) Seven 2) 49 3) 20th Century Women 4) 13 a) Liz Truss b) David Fincher c) Blur d) Greta Gerwig Life of (B)rian 1) Popular 20th-century philosopher 2) New Statesman illustrator 3) Scarface director 4) Former New Statesman film critic a) Ryan Gilbey b) Brian De Palma c) Ryan McAmis d) Bryan Magee Man and boy 1) Scottish satirist 2) Welsh illustrator 3) Fury author 4) Any Human Heart author a) Ralph Steadman b) William Boyd c) Salman Rushdie d) Armando Iannucci The Tony Awards 1) Prison Notebooks author 2) The Future of Socialism author 3) Stop the War president 4) Start the War prime minister a) Tony Crosland b) Tony Blair c) Tony Benn d) Antonio Gramsci * There is no actual reward for any score in this quiz, nor will taking it in any way influence your prospects of being employed by the New Statesman, and Tom is quite attached to his office, thank you very much. Answers: 1d, 2a, 3b, 4c; 1c, 2d, 3b, 4a; 1a, 2b, 3d, 4c; 1b, 2c, 3a, 4d; 1b, 2a, 3d, 4c; 1d, 2c, 3b, 4a; 1d, 2a, 3c, 4b; 1d, 2a, 3c, 4b. [See also: Labour's summer of discontent] Related
Graziadaily
5 hours ago
- Graziadaily
Blake Lively And Justin Baldoni Came Face To Face During Her Deposition, But What Actually Happened?
A year after It Ends With Us landed in cinemas, the feud between co-stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni shows no signs of abating. Despite the judge's ruling to throw out Baldoni's countersuit in June, which alleged defamation, extortion and and invasion of privacy, there still seems to be foul play keeping the saga in the headlines. Last December, after months of speculation about what happened behind the scenes of the film, Lively filed a lawsuit against Baldoni alleging sexual harassment and claims a calculated smear campaign was launched against her by his PR team. It came in tandem with a New York Times article detailing her alleged experiences and prompted Baldoni to countersue Lively for $400m and the New York Times for $250m. What followed was a toxic back and forth between the pair, all of which prompted unprecedented commentary on social media, with TikTok sleuths wading through legal documents to offer their 'takes' on the dispute. However, once Judge Liman ruled that Baldoni's claims were unsubstantiated – both against Lively and the NYT – onlookers might have been fooled into thinking the story would fade from public view. Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni in It Ends With Us. ©IMAGO Baldoni's legal team had other ideas. On 31 July, Lively was summoned to depose in front of the defence team to testify about her sexual harassment claims. At one point prior to the deposition, Baldoni's attorney, Bryan Freedman, suggested hosting the meeting as a pay-per-view event at Madison Square Garden with proceeds going to domestic abuse organisations. Even if this were a charitable endeavour, it is a preposterous suggestion, and the judge granted Lively's request to choose the location for the deposition herself. She opted for her lawyer's office in New York. 'Justin Baldoni's lawyer has tried to make this matter a public spectacle at every turn,' Lively's rep told People. 'Even proposing to sell tickets to a televised deposition at Madison Square Garden. This is a serious matter of sexual harassment and retaliation, and it deserves to be treated as such.' Her legal team later added: 'Defendants have not denied that their intent is to manufacture a harassing stunt by requiring Ms Lively to parade through paparazzi, or by inviting unknown attendees to the deposition, including members of the media or social media influencers, or any other number of abusive tactics.' The judge's decision to allow Lively to choose the location did not go down well with Baldoni's team who accused her of 'foot-stomping' and using her 'celebrity status' to control proceedings, adding 'her counsel's tantrum has no place in this court'. This meant matters were particularly acrimonious between both sides before the deposition took place – something that appears to have continued afterwards. According to details allegedly leaked to the Daily Mail, Lively attended with her older sister Robyn Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and a team of eight lawyers, while Baldoni and Freedman were the only two to attend on the defence side. However, Lively's lawyers later clarified that she 'testified across the table from Mr Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, all of whom attended the deposition in person, as well as eight attorneys representing Wayfarer and Wallace Parties, two of whom questioned her'. Yes, Lively's deposition is thought to be the first time the pair have met in person since the saga began last summer. While Baldoni's decision to attend Lively's deposition is unusual, it is no unheard of, and he has the right to be present at oral depositions relating to the case to prepare for trial next March. According to Lively, Baldoni attempted to upload the 292-page transcript after the deposition took place. This is unsurprising to those who have been following the case given that he has previously uploaded his lawsuits onto a publicly available website for anyone to read. In a motion filed by Lively's team, they argue: 'There is no conceivable legal purpose to file the whole transcript, particularly given that it has not been reviewed, corrected or finalised, and a mere two pages of it were cited in their argument.' Lively's lawyers claim the move was 'a manufactured excuse to force the transcript into the public domain as fodder for the Wayfarer Defendants' media campaign' and have asked the judge to strike the rough draft of her deposition from the court record, as the motion to seal it is pending. 'Ms. Lively affirmatively pursued this litigation with the full intention and desire to have her testimony heard in a legal process, governed by the rules of evidence which publicly filing this rough draft transcript in this manner substantially undermines,' the letter reads. 'To suggest otherwise is part of an ongoing character attack that Mr. Freedman has been advancing to undermine Ms. Lively's credibility and taint the jury pool.' Baldoni has denied all allegations made in Lively's original lawsuit and has not yet publicly responded to her team's claims that he attempted to publish the deposition transcript as 'fodder' in a wider media campaign. Nikki Peach is a writer at Grazia UK, working across entertainment, TV and news. She has also written for the i, i-D and the New Statesman Media Group and covers all things pop culture for Grazia (treating high and lowbrow with equal respect).
New Statesman
5 hours ago
- New Statesman
Who's afraid of YouTube Man?
Conventional wisdom, and conventional whinging, dictates that we live under a tyranny of screen addiction. Modern telephones are treated as a sort of heroin, promising the easy oblivion of doomscrolling and social media. And, we are told, they're pushing it on your kids. Children will reportedly spend 25 years of their lives on their phones; the most hardened screentime-smackheads will clock up an absurd 41 years. We may be sleepwalking into a post-literate society, in which 'short-form video' becomes the sole courier of information and feeling. So frantic are commentators that they cannot decide which of their two favourite dystopias we are in. Are we the overalled slave army envisioned by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four, screened and surveilled into a living nightmare? Or are we the joyous fools imagined by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, settling down to watch a 'feelie' dosed up on delicious, numbing soma? Behind this debate lurks the influential American critic Neil Postman, whose book Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985) forms the standard breviary for this techno-millenarianism. Postman fell into the Huxley school. He was also a comprehensive Luddite who avoided mobiles and refused email. Once, he waylaid a salesman for offering him cruise control on his new car. Postman's lifestyle and arguments have been taken up across the techno-sceptic intelligentsia. The Times journalist James Marriott leads the charge, condemning the decline he sees everywhere (all, paradoxically, while maintaining a popular column recommending obscure works of social history). Recently, in these pages, he lamented the decline of English literature. I couldn't help but feel the standards being exacted were severe. Marriott relates a cultural upbringing reminiscent of the young John Stuart Mill, who began learning Ancient Greek at three years old. Unsurprisingly, the rest of us are found wanting. This is trite, presentist Kulturkritik, and there are many trite arguments against it. People have never read as much or as well as clever people think they should. As John Carey writes in The Intellectuals and the Masses (1992), dons greeted the arrival of a reading public with a shriek, inventing the term 'highbrow' to preserve their graces. In the eyes of this class, people are always reading the wrong thing or reading the wrong way. Cycling through the skag of today's short-form videos, I am reminded of the kind of channel-hopping – Hollyoaks to MTV to Big Brother's Big Mouth – I once watched my sisters engage in on getting home from school. As long ago as 1993, David Foster Wallace analysed the impact of Americans watching six hours of TV a day – approximate to the '25 years' of damnation statisticians now predict. Television was the great stultifier then; now, prestige drama is venerated as the culmination of all the arts, the Gesamtkunstwerk. Meanwhile, the Eighties that so panicked Postman are seen as a rare period when long literary novels such as Midnight's Children and The Bonfire of the Vanities found a popular audience. Modern humans have always been in need of pointless entertainment. Forty years ago, people simply doom-flicked through their tabloid. 'Trash' and 'slop' (which literary theorists call ephemera and simulacra) are features of modernity broadly defined, not just of 2025. The more worrisome cultural turn here is: rather than rely on celebrities to provide the necessary drunkenness, depression and adultery to fill the average red-top, social media companies have convinced their customers to cough up their own intimacies for free. No one disputes that phones and videos make us feel good, at least in the moment. Having read the fearsome diagnostics – all the stuff about dopamine hits and reward pathways – I'd be wary of defending smartphone culture in the same way I'd be wary of defending tabloid newspapers. Or indeed heroin, which also feels good. But I will defend to the death what I regard as the greatest product of this brave new world: a tutor, a wonder, a friend. By which I mean YouTube. Many a golden hangover has been passed, my phone as horizontal as my body, dozed out before a buffet of videos short and long, thoughtful and mindless. Load up the homepage and what awaits you is a universe in thumbnailed panels, curated by the genius of 'the algorithm'. We're only a little over 20 years since the website launched, but it has been a background accompaniment to life ever since. These days, for me, it's a lot of football videos, old Harry and Paul sketches and celebrity impressions. I really like watching chat shows from the Seventies and Eighties, with Kenneth Williams hissing and honking away. The situation has only advanced since the arrival of YouTube on the TV, an upgrade that has made me the King Edward of couch potatoes. If this isn't the best use of my time, I'm reassured that when TS Eliot wasn't laying down epic poetry, he was down the music hall, and that Martin Amis broke up the composition of the novel Money with sessions of Space Invaders. Alan Hollinghurst played the same video game while dreaming up The Swimming-Pool Library (food for a future doctoral thesis?). Though probably none of us has a great novel in us, I feel I'm speaking on behalf of most young people, and especially men, in praising what may be the great solitary pleasure of our times. One friend likes a YouTuber called Ed Pratt. He films himself unicycling around the world. Others report dedicated relationships with everything from SAS to DIY videos. A culinary friend is keen on a chef-videographer called 'Willy Does Some Cooking', whose videos are packed with zany Gen-Z humour. Willy refers to chicken breasts as 'chicken tits'. Cooking and nonsense is just the half of it. The hunger of the internet to be more serious will surprise those who still see YouTube as the home of make-up tutorials or narcissistic vloggers. Entire new genres have sprung up: the video essay, sort of short-form Adam Curtis, and frequently as intriguing. Are you telling me you wouldn't click on 'Why Aren't There Locust Plagues Any More?', recently recommended by a friend? The pleasure of these videos can range from the shock of the strange to the utterly personal, the parasocial thrill of following a creator over projects and time. In certain quarters, it's commonplace to mourn the demise of intellectual TV discussion shows, and hear mention of Channel 4's After Dark or the BBC's Late Review. But since YouTube broadcasts have no transmission times or dates, a vast number of these programmes can always be found. You can dose up for an eternity on Tom Paulin or Germaine Greer. The algorithm is an expert sommelier, and next up there'll be Terry Eagleton laying into Philip Larkin, Clive James chatting with PJ O'Rourke, Gore Vidal vs Norman Mailer. I am a YouTube-first reader, having watched the above authors before I read their works. The little poetry I have by heart also comes from hearing it recited on video (Jeremy Irons's 'Prufrock' is pure bliss). The pre-eminent lit-tuber is the late Christopher Hitchens, whose withering oratory has left a mark on a generation, for better or worse. My favourite exhibition is an astonishing 2007 episode of Question Time, which features both Hitchens and his brother, the Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens, as well as Boris Johnson, and in which Christopher addresses Baroness Shirley Williams as 'madam'. Christopher Hitchens is at least partly responsible for transforming intellectual discourse into a kind of pugilism, these 'debates' styled more like boxing matches replete with slugs, hooks and jibes. Hitchens spawned a brood of hideous epigones, from Douglas Murray to Ben Shapiro, who 'DESTROY' and 'OBLITERATE' their opponents as soon as speak to them, and who benefit from credulous interviewers. But the form is finding its feet. And if podcasts are to be credited for mainstreaming long-form discussion, that is also a victory for YouTube, which hosts the best ones, from The Rest Is History to Novara Media's Downstream. 'There's a great convulsion of stupidity happening in the world, mostly to do with television,' Martin Amis said in 1984, of all years. 'People know a little about a lot and put very little effort into accumulating culture.' (I first heard those words on YouTube in sixth-form.) Forty years later, it's tempting to agree. But Amis followed up with a clarification: 'All writers think the world has reached its nadir, its low point. And in fact this age will be lamented just like the last – that's the paradox.' As perspective plays its trick, I do think there are profound reasons to be optimistic. The modernists' great fear of mass culture was its smothering effect, that it would clam the delicate highbrows beneath the density of middlebrow. On YouTube, though, both have carved out commercial niches. Even as highbrow outlets (Radio 3, BBC Four) lose funding, audiences find their way towards similar material. The oldsters are joining me on the couch: in the past two years, over-55s doubled the amount of YouTube they watch on their TVs, now second only to the BBC in broadcasting landmass. And as it gains ground on its neighbour, the two landmasses resemble rival civilisations, one traditional and patrician, the other endlessly diverse, radically democratised and revolutionary in temper. This is the domain of YouTube Man. He still reads – he tries to put his phone in another room – and he takes book recommendations from the people he watches. He's rarely seen the same TV show as his colleagues (though he suspects that nostalgia for 'water cooler' moments is so much hokum anyway). Instead, his quirks and specificities are served by all-embracing software, a space to indulge his highest and lowest instincts. He is our most generic cultural consumer. His needs are quite basic. In 2023, the journalist Helen Lewis speculated in her Substack newsletter The Bluestocking that podcasts were popular among men because they provide the mindless chat missing from their working lives, that they were 'a replacement for the pub'. Might YouTube Man be filling the hole left behind by other declining associative institutions and forms: the hobby club, the reading group? Men share videos as they once did articles. Think of the stunt-feature genre of journalism. The writer Geoff Dyer was once sent by a men's magazine to fly in a decommissioned Russian fighter jet. Only a YouTuber could do this now, and it would make for an enthusiastically shared video. As YouTube supersedes television, it will become an increasingly collective viewing experience. This is an ambiguous cultural development, but not a dystopian one. Social media is a radical experiment in leaving a culture to its devices. Rather like leaving a classroom of schoolboys unattended, we can see what it produces under its own steam, an unsupervised epoch of user-generated content. There will be the raised fist, the obscene remark and the vicious rumour: the last decade of history has prompted many liberals to develop a suspicion of 'democratisation'. But still, it must be cause for celebration that, when the teacher reopens the door, there is something more interesting on the blackboard than just doodles and phalluses. [See also: Gen Z cannot stop gambling] Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
