May 3, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā” “Yeah, sure ā you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I think you’re giving The Producers a little too much Coastal credit. They should retitle the remake “Get Nazi!”
But is King Kong really going to be over 3 hours?
Oh Peter Peter Peter Peter…
Is anyone else sick of Harvey Weinstein and his perennial Oscar machine?
Oh, and, is anyone besides me really not impressed by Fernando Meirelles as a director? I could be a minority but I really don’t get the excitement over his two movies.
Jeff, I thought City of God was spectacular. Probably one of the most exhilarating movies I’ve ever seen. (Did you see it in a theater or on a television?) But I was somewhat disappointed by Constant Gardener, especially in light of its overwhelming critical praise.
Theater. I thought it was Goodfellas redux.
Meirelles’s movies seem to consist of flashy technique joined with shallow political content and weak characters.
City of God was great but I refuse to call that a “Harvey” movie. It got its nominations on its own merits. He tried to dump it and didn’t get behind it.
Meirelles is a blue chip talent with already two great films under his belt. But lets see him do a few more here.
But why did you think they were so great?
If you can’t see that from seeing the films than I don’t know why you’re posting on a movie site like this. I mean, really. If you can’t see the greatness that was in City of God? I don’t think me telling you can help you.
Is Joaquin Phoenix really going to win a best actor award? Who would have thought back in the day? I thought we’d be polishing off one for his brother.
City of God was a terrific movie but it doesn’t hold a candle to Goodfellas. Not many do of course. But to say Marseilles isn’t a good director? He has some real ability.
I post to talk about movies. I would think that if people really like Meirelles’ movies they would be willing and able to describe why. The invitation is still open.
Tell me what you don’t like about City of God (cue Nip/Tuck music…)
You don’t like the storytelling and the camera work? Those 2 are 2 of the most interesting and compelling stories of the past few years. Expertly acted. Even by nonactors in the first one. And he showed he can work with Oscar caliber pro’s in the second one. To weave a story with that many threads takes a lot of work. And all of it paid off. The end products are unique and extremely watchable. They even get better on repeat viewings which is rare nowadays.
What I loved about City of God was its immense energy, which with the genuine acting and the sheer filmmaking bravado built into something that just felt alive.
Constant Gardener was similar, but with altogether different results. Watching a movie that dense, leading to such a desolate end, is just exhausting.
I was just plain exciting after seeing City of God, I had to tell all my friends about it. Constant Gardener, although I respect it, didn’t have that same effect.
City of God was the best film of last last two years. Not even really close. FM is a real find as a director.
Thanks, Eric and Angelus, for your words.
For me, City of God was a post-Tarantino gangster movie with a semblance of social criticism, but I didn’t care about any characters in it. For me, Constant Gardener was a step up, but again I thought Fiennes and Weisz were playing characters so thinly realized that they were basically slogans (“liberal do-gooder woman”, “man who learns a valuable lesson”), and in both movies I thought the technique was unnecessarily flashy for their stories.
But I’m just one guy.
Jeff, I’ve never met anybody who didn’t like City of God– but I do think your criticisms are valid. There was an abundance of style, but, unlike the product of many of Tarantino’s children, I was convinced there was substance driving it. I did care about the characters. Reasonable people can probably disagree on this one.
Constant Gardener… I dunno. Again, I thought the style had its place, and I really think Meirelles cuts in a particularly deliberate, rewarding, effective way. But I took nothing from it that makes me want to see it a second time.
Huge miscoo releasing Constant Gardener in August. It’ll be very forgotten by the fickle voters of awards.
What City of God and Constant Gardener had in common, at least for me, was that both took their time in the beginning (kind of boring at first I admit), slowly planting their emotional potential in unexpected places throughhout its large scope and by the last act totally having me in their grip. That little girl chasing the plane in Africa just killed me.
Though I do think it’s a little too highminded for Oscars.
The little African girl totally struck me as heavy-handed and manipulative.
That’s interesting, I think the reaction of Pete Postlewaite’s character in contrast to Fiennes’, made what could have been a tear-jerky moment come alive with truth. More so than the fate of the girl, this cold hard fact of life in Africa got to me.
But I’m just one guy. š
I agree that Postlethwaite’s presence added a lot to his section of the movie.
While I’m a bigger fan of static composed shots than handheld, I find FM’s technique to be very poetic, especially the way he plays with time frames. It’s almost like watching a grittier Wong Kar-Wai. So that’s what really appealed to me in Constant Gardener.
City of God might not be as technically proficient as GoodFellas, and derivative of it, but come on, it was the guy’s first fim. It’s a lot easier to make something like Bottle Rocket than something like that. At least give him credit for going there. It’s epic none the less.
I’m wondering why DP doesn’t have The New World higher. Sure it’s barely a blip on the rader, but do you really think this isn’t going to be there at the end of the race? It appears to be a lot more grounded, dare I say conventional, than The Thin Red Line, and I’m sure there will be a lot of debate when the film arrives just in time for the white man’s annual Thanksgiving jerk-off. Let’s not forget that New Line knows how to play with the big boys now, and if they promote it correctly they can bring home the bacon and the gold.
what didn’t u like about city of god? it had everything u could want. good story. romance. violence. and for a first film? impressive.
Tarantino can’t carry Meirelles’ jock.
Unlike all Tarantino, City of God is about something completely real. The argument against the film has been that by stylizing it, it shows a disrespect for the poverty and the pain. but I think it is profound and party to watch.
As for Constant Gardener, it is a love story first and a thriller second… which is what peopel who don’t like it don’t like. It is a movie about a man who doesn’t understand his wife, loses her, and first comes to learn how much she loved him… and then even more powerfully, comes to understand how much more deeply he loves her – more deeply than he ever knew – as he really gets to know her.
P.S. New World has to prove itself now.
Bibob, I’m amused at your three criteria for what makes a good film. Revealing.
DP, I understand what you say about Constant Gardener being a love story. Unfortunately, I felt that your one-line description of Fiennes’ arc was exactly as complex as the film, which was not enough for me. It reminds me of a similar Fiennes performance in End of the Affair, which I thought was vastly superior.
Why does New World have to prove itself…now?
1. Don Cheadle is going Lead for Crash – there’s an ad on MCN’s home page
2. Jake Gyllenhaal is going Supporting for Brokeback – the new FYC ad says it
3. All The King’s Men moving to 2006? Very interesting (specially considering I don’t want Penn in the Best Actor race AGAIN)
City of God was one of the very best of 2003. Excellent stuff.
Mark! “City of God was great but I refuse to call that a “Harvey” movie. It got its nominations on its own merits. He tried to dump it and didn’t get behind it.”
er, you’re actually wrong there Mark. Harvey worked to keep that movie in theatrical release for essentially an entire year. And if I remember correctly there were quite a few FYC ads running. It’s just that nobody thought anything of the film in terms of Oscar cause it wasn’t a very Oscary movie.
The thing about Meirelles is the texture that gives sort of an intimacy and realism to everything while still looking great. The good directors make everything look good. The great directors make it look real AND good.
He also has a style that’s everything I want without any of the self-conscious crap a lot of directors have that makes their movies more “look at me” than “look at these characters.” It’s a personal pet peeve of mine. Tim Burton’s a one-of-a-kind visual stylist, no doubt, but I don’t really like a lot of the films in the middle of his career where he “knows” it. Stuff like Batman Returns where Michael’s Keaton’s performance is the only thing keeping it from going completely out of control with “BURTON!!!!!” In The Constant Gardner, the early parts of the film are filled with sudden shifts in time that make sense that aren’t the least bit disorienting, yet the style of the film doesn’t ask that you suck on the director’s dick for it, like Tarantino. Of course, this could be great craftsmanship by screenwriter Jeffrey Caine and Meirelles is just filming it. After listening to the Soderbergh/Lem Dobbs Limey commentary track, I don’t want to make that mistake of giving all the credit to the director.
City of God has a lot of kinetic style, but this is a story about teenagers and youth, and when you’re that age, a lot of things are pure energetic emotion. In this movie, it just happens the energy is often directed on violence and drugs. But the style fits. If someone like Z held a gun to your face while keeping you pinned to the floor, I think it’d feel a bit like how it was shot.
The Constant Gardner was much more subtle. It’s a lot of little pieces that become one huge puzzle. I personally liked the thriller aspects more than the love story, if only because the early whirlind romance parts lacked passion. Sure, that’s part of the point, as the Ralph Fiennes character loves and admires more of what his wife was as he investigates what she did, but passion is not necessarily love and if I were someone like the Ralph Fiennes character and I got someone who looked and acted like the Rachel Weisz character, it’d be much more of a “HOLY SHIT!” moment than it came off as in the film. But I needed drama with a capital D after living with people who only wanted to go to comic book adaptations and trashy action movies, so the slow-burn intelligent thriller stuff REALLY hit the spot. The shot of the statue pointing its finger was a bit dumb, though. Was that really needed?
I agree with all the praise of City of God. It’s one of my favorite films of the past 5-10 years. I almost prefer it to the similar Goodfellas because the people it’s about don’t really have a choice in their lifestyle, which makes it more tragic.
I liked Constant Gardener, but felt the handheld camera and quick-cut editing was over-the-top. It bothered me, and not in a good way. If he had toned that stuff down by half, it would be one of my top movies of the year.
If I had to narrow it down to one thing that really made City of God great for me, was the storytelling technique that showed how this society went down the tubes. The connections linking poverty to drugs to violence were crystal clear and enlightening, while also being clever and entertainingly done. Hell, he went for so much more than Tarantino has ever even tried to accomplish. And I just find it a lot more entertaining than Goodfellas, despite what the Scorsese purists say.
Oh, and DP, please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, stop using the phrase ___ can’t hold ___’s jock. It’s just juvenile and fanboyish.
New World has to prove itself because Terry Malick can’t tell a story.
It’s better to say that Malick doesn’t want to tell a story, isn’t interested in working that way. Look elsewhere for your narrative pleasures.
Movies are about telling stories. If he has no interest in that than he really shouldn’t be directing. He should get his camera and take photos.
Camel,
Harvey tried everything in his power to dump City of God. It got its nominations by virtue of people going to see it. He didn’t try and help it in any way. He didn’t think the little movie could win.
If you think movies are only about ‘telling stories’ in the same way that a 19th century novel is about telling stories, you should see more movies.
Cheadle doesn’t have a shot at a best actor nom. They’re wasting their time. I think Crash may be one one of the most overrated movies of the year. And I like all the actors in it.
I really liked City of God the first time I saw it, but it seemed a lot less serious on the second. The Scarface style sensationalist aspects are front and centre, but without that movie’s moral conviction. The end is especially troublesome: The hero rises above violence by exploiting violence for his new job.
The Constant Gardener was basically horrible. It actually reveals how Meirelles’ position has changed so much since CoG’s success. We’re no longer at the level of the suffering; now everything’s filtered through white privilege.
The poltics of the Constant Gardener are pretty absurd. But if you can get over that you can enjoy the movie for what it is. It’s just not anywhere close to fact.
Okay, I’ll bite…what’s wrong with the politics in Constant Gardener? (Sound of huge can of worms opening).
Other critics have complained about a movie allegedly about African problems concentrating on rich white people, but I’m guessing that’s not Panda’s complaint.
Those evil Westerners who are poisoning the poor Africans to test out their evil drugs that kill them just so they can make a tidy profit. And the killers in the corporations who will do anything to kill the poor and protect the company. Sound good enough?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Badlands and Days of Heaven both had pretty clear cut stories. And in The Thin Red Line, almost the whole film was just about taking that one hill. What sets Malick apart from his peers is that he dwells a lot longer on what’s going on in the background; not just how the action effect his main characters, but everyone else, including the natural world.
To me that doesn’t equal not knowing how to tell a story. I mean, you could levy the same charges against Wong Kar-Wai and that guy’s a fucking genius too.
It’s like looking at a Picasso and saying that he doesn’t know what he’s doing because his people have eyes on only one side of their face.
It’s a pity much hard core campaigning was wasted on that piece of tepid boredom Cold Mountain, when the cheerleading should have started for City of God BEFORE everyone else was singing its praises.
Meirelles (and Medem IMUHO) are perhaps the best thing to happen to Cinema in over a decade.
But Mark, how else would people have seen City of God if it weren’t playing in cinemas 8 months after it’s release. I can bet it wasn’t grossing $10,000/screen all those weeks for the cinemas to keep it in there on their own accord.
Plus, it’s not Harvey’s fault that Cold Mountain looked like a much easier Oscar bet. EVERY STUDIO DOES IT. They put 80% of their force behind their one big movie and the rest behind all the smaller ones. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn’t. It’s not his fault he knows the industry.
It is Harvey’s fault that every year he rams a movie down the Oscar voters’ throats, whether it’s good or not. There was no reason for Chocolat or Cider House Rules to be nominated for best picture except that the Weinsteins made them their designated choices.
City of God is a good film…not a great film.
Excellent subject matter but yes, certainly sensationalized in a very PulpFiction-by way of Goodfellas – mid-nineties Fincher music video kinda way.
I looked forward to seeing it but was disappointed. Wanted to see more of the protagonist’s story and less concentration on the dizzying array of characters whose side-stories occupied way too much screen time.
Maybe it’s just my aesthetic but the music video style of editing always tells me that the directors care more about the flash than the horror of violence. “Look Hollywood, I can direct and edit on the Avid too!”
A good film…not a great film. It has not stayed with me in any significant way.
Maybe once we as people get rid of our fascination with CGI and flash-cut style editing to a midnight blue style liquid metal cinematography we’ll be able to tell real stories again.
Oh gimme a break. “we’ll be able to tell real stories again”?
If it’s not one thing causing the apocolypse of cinema it’s another, isn’t it?
Now Harveys a genuis for not trying to promote and sell City of God? Can he walk on water too?
Kamikaze,
It is exactly because every 25-30 years or so that people talk about the ‘apocalpse of cinema’ that it forces the people in the industry to refocus and try something new.
If you don’t complain about the staleness of the product every now and again, nothing ever changes.
Then again some people don’t like change, eh?