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” — 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 — 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 — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — 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 named—” “Yeah, sure — 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 I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s 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 didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — 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. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s 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
Can’t wait for the reviews. Sounds good for both of them.
Peter Jackson might be the new Spielberg.
if the kong action scene is just as good as even one of those u listed it would be great. those are the best of all time.
I wasn’t too into seeing King Kong but my appetite has now been wetted. Wetted? That even a word? Who cares. I might see it just for this action scene alone.
Whetted.
I’m anxious to read Poland’s review – but I guarantee you – it’s AMAZING! I saw it last night in NYC and the effects are incredible – oscar-worthy!! It’s not my kind of movie, but it worked for me and America will LOVE it. Jackson, put simply, is genius.
So, Dave, is Munich still Numero Uno on the Oscar charts??? Or do we have to wait til the review goes fully up?
They’re up now.
http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/index.html
Private Ryan? Ben Hur? Heat? Raiders? Jurassic?
Your reputation is now on the line, sir.
With Narnia, Kong and Munich, this seems to be one of the better Christmas film seasons of recent years. I have no idea of what my views will be of the three after I see them but at least they are films that I am willing to take a chance on and see on the big screen.
Harry Potter was a very pleasant surprise earlier and hopefully these three will be too.
Must say though…out of the three, Kong is the one I am least excited about. It still seems so ‘been there done that’. I hope I am wrong.
Throw Family Stone and Match Point into the mix as well.
I’m most excited about Kong, specifically because of the ground-breaking effects and Jackson’s way with set pieces.
“They’re up now.”
Not when I just checked, they weren’t…anyone else?
Ah, there we go, DP updated his post with the link.
I’m happy to see the reviews, but now I’m a little bit sad just because all the cats are finally out of the bag. It’s been a lot of fun hearing speculation about these two movies, even though I would certainly rather see them than just speculate about them.
Use this link…it’ll work indefinitely.
http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2005_thb/051206_tue.html
Must say, Dave, you’re certainly building a reputation as someone who tends to use a lot of hyperbole when you write. Better watch it or no one’s going to believe you when the next Godfather-caliber movie is released. I mean Elf was good and Phantom deserved praise…but I hope we’re not seeing an Awards season pattern of over-hype from the MCN.
Can you imagine going on a blind date with DP?
“You are the hottest women I’ve ever laid my eyes on! We’re talking Pfeiffer in Baker Boys here… Monroe in The Seven Year Itch… Maybe even Hayworth in Gilda!”
(I tease because I’m the exact same way)
I’m fairly positive that DP never said Elf was going to win awards. It was a really enjoyable film but he would lose all the credibility he has if he predicted Oscar for Elf.
This time of year is my favorite for movies.
I had zero expectations for King Kong but now that is a changing.
I usually have zero expectations dealing with Jack Black movies. Can you blame a guy?
Yes, Poland never suggested awards for Elf, but saying “…I can
I guarantee you more people enjoyed Elf than Mystic River, Lost in Translation or 21 Grams. And will rewatch Elf three times as much as those other movies. So, I wouldn’t call it hyperbole.
I wouldn’t call King Kong a Jack Black movie, and I’d put High Fidelity and School of Rock out there as worthwhile.
I loved Elf as well. It was a perfect family film. Zooey Deschanel singing that Christmas song was one of the nicest surprises I ‘ve ever had watching a movie.
And also, let’s be clear that DP never praised Phantom of the Opera in the way that people seem to think. He thought it was an awards lock, but didn’t say it was a great film. How many times does he have to clarify this for people to understand? As for his hyperbole, he hasn’t said anything over the top yet about anything being the best film of the year, so he’s keeping his hat on for now.
As for Munich, I’m excited to see this if Spielberg has dropped his manipulative/sentimental style. But I’d still like to see someone else win some Oscars this year. I hope the Academy feels an award for Malick is overdue and earned (like Polanski’s for 2002).
Very hard not to like Elf. But it’s definately no Christmas Story.
The “log bridge” scene was always my favorite from both the original and the 70’s remake. i wonder how it stacks up in the Jackson version? Were there even any obvious shots from this sequence in the trailers?
I believe Dave possesses a passion for the actual MOVIES that many of his colleagues either lack or lost a long time ago.
That’s why, despite our often differing opinions, I’m always curious to hear his thoughts on films. Because he knows the biz and he clearly loves the movies.
Happy to see some enthusiasm for both films, DP. Highly looking forward to both of ’em.
Yeah, the people I know who saw Kong yesterday loved it, and they weren’t expecting to. Color me surprised that Jackson was able to pull it off.
I do love Elf.
It is a silly, dumb, over-the-top movie with a bit of a structural mess in the third act, but it makes me happy every time I see any part of it. But it isn’t The Godfather.
The funny thing about both of these movies is that they work. The work on Kong himself cannot be overstated in my opinion. It is truly groundbreaking. There will be more ground broken some day. But today, there is nothing close. (The first dinosaur stuff is not as brilliant, but the daring and the magnitude of it as it rolls on makes it something special too.)
As for Munich, I thought I was kind of reserved in my comments… I really am waiting to see how it marinades in my mind and heart…
I’m not surprised that Jackson made a good film. I would be surprised if he didn’t make a good Kong.
But didn’t he want to work on smaller films? i wonder when this becomes a smash what he will do next. Not many directors have 4 smash hits in a row. He will be in a good place.
I’m not the only here who hated Elf, am I?
Josh, I think it’s been confirmed that the next project for Jackson and company is indeed a smaller movie, an adaptation of the popular novel “The Lovely Bones.”
There’s a lot of love for Peter Jackson around here, and yet nobody has mentioned “The Frighteners.” Am I the only person in the world who liked that movie?
I’ll be interested to see how Jackson’s career develops from here on out. Because he really could do anything he wanted to. I just hope he keeps working. Unlike QT and James Cameron. Whether it be on large or small films.
For $205 mill, the damn monkey better look good.
I agree Josh, lets hope this guy keeps making movies and not talking about them endlessly like those two.
the frighteners with the great michael j fox? it’ll get more love as the yrs go on and people look back more fondly at it.
I am really delighted by both of these reviews, as well as the generally positive stuff I’ve heard about Narnia so far.
BTW, I was reminded of this yesterday when someone mentioned Eric Bana as a potential breakthrough award candidate from NBR… what happened to the Curtis Hanson poker movie? Wasn’t that originally supposed to come out around the end of the year?
In Her Spades?
The Hand That Rocks The Cincinnati Kid’s Cradle?
IMDB lists an April release date for Hanson’s “Lucky You,” plus some specific days in that same month for releases in a few other countries, so maybe that’s accurate as of now.
Where are the braying jackasses? Or the single braying jackass with 4 or 5 user IDs–note how they all have the same writing quirks, attack en masse and make the same odd errors, like spelling Jeff Wells name with an apostrophe (Well’s) for no reason. I almost miss them. Almost!
As for KK, I’m a PJ fan and for some reason, it’s been hard for me to get excited, a feeling I apparently share with many others. Maybe it’s the uninspiring trailers. But now, I’m finally beginning to feel some real enthusiasm.
I don’t doubt that what Dave said about the Kong CGI is true; these guys created Gollum, and with the benefit of that work to draw on, this should only be better. Also, these kinds of effects look worse on TV or computer screens, at least to me. Is it because the tiny details that sell the illusion don’t show when shrunk down, or is it that projected film has grain that hides the defects? Anybody have an opinion on this?
The run time still seems too long for a film of this type, but we’ll see.
I thought the Curtis Hanson movie was coming out next year. Would be unusual to see a double dip from someone not named Spielberg.
Is the title Losin’ It?
Had to.
It’s been 9 years since the Frighteners came out…isnt’ that enough time, or years gone by so to speak, to establish itself as underappreciated?
The movie is imaginitive for that genre, got some good gore effects, but really doesn’t hold up well on a second viewing, I mean, REALLY doesn’t hold up well. And that’s cool, i think Sugarland Express blows. No one’s got Boxcar Bertha on their Netflix que.
Some films take decades to establish themselves.
But let’s face facts. The Frighteners might just not be that good. I certainly I didn’t think so. Same with Heavenly Creatures.
Wisely put, Poland.
If I were to have ventured an quick opinion about The Aviator a year ago, say a day after seeing it, I would have been dead wrong. The second viewing and a few respected opinions helped me develop my own. There’s no shame in that.
It’s never a bad thing when a movie begs “marination.”
But you know what they say about them first impressions.
Dave makes a great point. Some movies do gestate better than others. Dave made a similar point with War of the Worlds and how they let the media see that movie literally two days before release and not much time to chew it over before writing about it. I haven’t seen Worlds a second time, but I bet it doesn’t hold up well.
I thought Gangs of New York was a fascinating movie…then I saw it a second time, and I walked out I was so bored, and equally annoyed.
“There’s a lot of love for Peter Jackson around here, and yet nobody has mentioned ‘The Frighteners.’ Am I the only person in the world who liked that movie?”
It would’ve been a LOT better if it didn’t have the prologue. I caught it on HBO about five minutes in when it started on Fox’s little “ghost removal” schtick. The grim reaper stuff was great without the prologue. I didn’t know where the movie was going and I gladly went with it. Then I watched again from the beginning, and I kind of groaned about how much they tipped their hand right at the start. But when I saw it without the first five minutes, I really really really liked it.
I like Frighteners a lot but I don’t blame people for getting annoyed at it. Heavenly Creatures, on the other hand, is really great and totally different from anything Jackson has done before or since.
Is anyone else here besides me not that into Heat? I really don’t even remember whatever action sequence DP is referring to. There’s a heist, right?
The sound alone on the “Heat” robbery scene is worth the dvd buy.
One of the finest action scenes ever filmed jeff, if not the finest. Gives me chills just thinking about it.
I read some rock star reviews of King Kong today in addition to DP’s. Sounds really good.
BO prediction: 500$ mill US
Funny you say that Hopscotch. “Gangs” for me took that extra sitting and breathing time to fully grasp where it’s coming from. It’s an amazingly intelligent film with pleasures that have nothing to do with the visceral ones we’ve come to expect from the director. Like “The Constant Gardner” it’s a movie that finds drama through implications. To have your senses tuned into that, to find the two lines and then read between them, makes the experience overwhelmingly rich.
It took me a couple of years to get Liam Neeson’s “blood stays on the knife” thing. But it’s the key to the entire film and to not grasp the implications of it, could understandably leave some in the cold.
Does that sound snobby?
I didn’t like Gangs at first but as I have now caught it 25 times on cable it is really growing on me. I wish Leo would have kept the accent up the whole movie. And that they would have concentrated more on the story which you can just tell they didn’t know what to do with. But I like it more and more.
I’m one of those who loved Gangs when I saw it the first time, and still love it. But my favorite film is Apocalypse Now, so I don’t mind messy, out of control epics from brilliant directors (perhaps we’ll get a Gangs “Redux” one day?). Was Leo less than perfect? Yes, but there’s so much that he nailed that it doesn’t bother me. Same with Cameron. She had a couple GREAT scenes, and that’s probably what she gave Marty in the audition before he cast her.
A.O. Scott wrote a great review when Gangs came out, which speaks about the film being a likely grower, possible future classic: http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?title1=&title2=Gangs%20of%20New%20York%20%28Movie%29%20%20&reviewer=A.%20O.%20Scott&v_id=257288 The final line is very astute, in my opinion.
I think in 20 years when people don’t have DiCaprio or Harvey Weinstein baggage, they will see that within this film is some of the greatest Scorsese magic of his entire career. It hits some VERY high highs, even if it’s inconsistent.
And on a side note, I just saw Boxcar Bertha last year, and thought it was a hell of a lot of fun. It’s also cool to see shades of future Scorsese in the final violent moments.
Martin Scorsese wishes he had more time and money on Gangs too. It could have made a classic. Now it’s just a decent movie that won’t crack his top 10 List when it’s all said and done.
Is Heat the only original made-for-TV movie that was remade as a theatrical? If so, it’s a great trivia question 🙂
I remember my brother (big Michael Mann fan) being pretty bummed at the time he saw Heat, as he had no idea it was a remake.
You don’t sound snobby at all Scooba Steve, you sound like a guy defending a movie you love and respect. That’s cool. But we disagree. It IS a cold film. It has an amazingly anti-climatic ending. And I thought the constant flashbacks to the opening march was like hitting you on the head. “Look, there’s that guy from his past, you saw him literally less than ten minutes ago but we’re going to flash back to him just in case you were in the bathroom.”
I’ve always thought of Gangs as a disjointed but decent film made memorable by an absolutely stunning performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. Off the top of my head, I can’t ever remember being so impressed by an actor.
Eric is totally right. Day-Lewis completely owned that movie and that role. And took a so-so movie up a few levels just based on his performance.
LA Takedown was the TV movie version of HEAT, and as big of a fan of Mann as I am, it stunk. It served as the “blueprint” for HEAT, and there are many similarities. HEAT is one of the best films of the 1990’s and a classic in my book.
And GANGS is f’ing awesome, like every other Scorsese movie…the man couldn’t make a bad film if he tired. Some are better than others but none are “bad.”
Kundun. Was bad. Stink bomb bad.
Cape Fear was bad. Had a few good scenes, but overall it sucked.
Gangs of NY wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t good. I agree Daniel Day Lewis was amazing, but that was part of the problem… you never believe DiCaprio was a match for him. Not that they were even able to face off, what with the dud ending.
“Is Heat the only original made-for-TV movie that was remade as a theatrical? If so, it’s a great trivia question :)”
Not even close. It used to happen all the time. Two examples off the top of my head are Paddy Chayefsky’s Marty and Abby Mann’s Judgement at Nuremberg.
When your an artist on Scorsese’s level, even your bad movies are good in some way or another. Certainly not bad in the same way that a Rob Cohen or Joel Schumacher movie are bad.
I can’t believe I just wrote “your” instead of “you’re”.
Bill The Butcher plucking out his own eye and replacing it with a glass ball of the American Eagle has got to be the single badass moment of that year… it certainly makes anyone who’s ever gotten a tattoo look like a pussy.
As with the best movie villains, Day-Lewis overpowers you with a monster’s charm… demanding you respect his evil by making sense of it.
Stuff of legends.
Scorsese misses are always better than 98% of others hits.
Day-Lewis and the techs were the only things I liked about Gangs. I just didn’t like that movie at all. Too unfocused I thought. Plus, WHAT. THE. HELL. WAS UP. WITH. CAMERON. DIAZ’S. ACCENT. ???
I find that I can make fairly solid opinions of movies after one viewing – mostly, because I’ve found that I need to. I rarely ever see a movie twice in the cinema and only ones that I really am interested to see a second time (whether to firm opinions, or whatnot) I see on DVD.
It’s just that I don’t have enough money or time to just go to myself “I’m going to see that movie again today.”
My first impressions are usually pretty good. Sometimes they change but you can expect that as you get older and your taste changes and such.
For instance, I recently rewatched an Australian movie called ‘Peaches’ that I had seen in the cinema earlier in the year. I discovered that while I still disliked on of the plot turns involving Hugo Weaving, i found that on second viewing it was less distracting and I could focus better on the rest of the movie.
I can tell when I need to see a movie a second or third time.
Anyway, onto Munich and Kong. Good to hear about Kong. I doubt it will be as appealing to as many people because it simply isn’t LOTR. Munich? Sigh… i was hoping for something unexpected.
Gangs of NY needed to be tighter. Seems like Marty wanted to make a 5 hr movie there. He didn’t know how to tell that story in even 3 hrs.
Leo avenging his pops. the draft riots. The war. Tammanny Hall. Diaz and her terrible accent. Leo’s Irish crew. The hostilities between the natives and the immigrants. The Butcher becoming a force and dominating the movie. Corrutpion. Power. Greed. A ton of stuff.
So much to tell and so little time.
Kind of the same problems Oliver Stone ran into on “Alexander” (though Marty’s results were not quite as laughable). For both directors, they were tackling material that had been a passion project for decades, and yet they never had a concise script to work with. Perhaps they were too absorbed in the subject matter to figure out the best way to shape it into a story. You’d think they’d have had enough time!
As for the assertion that more time and money would have helped Scorsese craft a better film, I actually think the reverse. I mean, the man had virtually nothing BUT time and money on that one. Maybe if he’d had less, he’d have had to figure out what he needed and what he didn’t.
if u really want to compare those 2 movies than u can start with the leads. since leonardo d was supposed to star in both. i gotta say i think he would have made alexander better. by how much? prob not much but he just strikes me as a better alexander. with the younger looks. the skinniness. the arrogance.
Heat was an original screenplay and original story. I don’t know where all this Tv remake stuff is coming from.
I guess you could say it was an original screenplay and story when Mann wrote it 6 years earlier and called it L.A. Takedown.
Mann stepped up the cast for the feature version. Pacino for some guy named Scott Plank? Good trade. I have never even heard of this movie before. When a guy has a story to tell he makes sure he does it the best he can. Good thing for us Mann still wanted to tell this the bets way he could. We got a great film out of it.
Obviously a lot of well placed love for Scorsese. Well deserved because he is a master. But Michael Mann deserves some too. He seems to get better and better with each film. He can go from action to drama with ease.
Leo was too grimy and dirty for me in Gangs. I like him cleaned up and looking good like in Titanic and The Aviator. Which I still think should have won that Oscar last year. The best movie of 04.
I’m really excited for The Departed next year. Leo is his new DeNiro.
I’m in complete agreement, Terence. Mann is a director who gets respect but deserves more.
I would also place Robert Zemeckis in the category. He’s had some Academy success and huge box office success, but he’s just not revered to the degree he deserves. He doesn’t make a masterpiece every time out, but even his lesser works are fascinating.
For some reason, you almost never hear Zemeckis get comapred to the other A list directors. He’s been churning out hit movie after hit movie. Oscar nominated movies to boot. And nothing.
At one time, roughly fifteen years ago, I would have automatically gone to see anything made by Scorsese, Woody Allen, and the Coen brothers. Thank goodness I stopped!!
I could be wrong, but in 20 years, Scorsese will be remembered for only two things: Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. That’s it.
In twenty years, Michael Mann will age better than Martin Scorsese, Shane Black will age better than Quentin Tarantino, and the Coen brothers will still be considered promising film students. Woody who?
Wtf? Which Shane Black masterpiece are you referring to?
in 50 yrs people will remember small movies like mean streets, raging bull, the aviator, king of comedy, casino, and the last temptation of christ in addition to goodfellas and taxi driver.
not to mention whatever martin scorsese keeps on making.
and i’ll make a pretty easy call. pulp fiction is and will be ten times better and better remembered than anything shane black has done or will ever do.
The Long Kiss Goodnight/Last Action Hero/ Lethal Weapon 4 Shane Black???
We talking about the same guy here? You sure?
I agree that Tarantino is a better filmmaker, BUT, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was a tremendously fun movie that people should catch.
I like comparing greats and up and comers but Shane Black and QT is like comparing USC football and a junior college team.
I dunno. I may have been a little dramatic before, but I do think it’s possible that in 20-30 years, yes, Long Kiss Goodnight Shane Black will have his day. That guy has an ear for non-cultural-reference drenched dialogue that Quentin Tarantino will never have.
Regarding Pulp Fiction’s longevity – I’m not so sure it’s that easy of a call. Obviously, there are about twenty million factors that go into what art ages well, but I think that future viewers may not connect to QT’s movies about his favorite movies as much as a 1990s audience. For me, at least, if you remove all of the movie references and whatnot from QT’s work, there’s not much there, and I’d much rather watch Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang again than Pulp Fiction. At least now I would, I don’t know about in twenty years.
Regarding Marty – I dunno. Casino? Really?
“Obviously, there are about twenty million factors that go into what art ages well, but I think that future viewers may not connect to QT’s movies about his favorite movies as much as a 1990s audience.”
I guess that’s possible, although I doubt it, in the case of Pulp Fiction. But there’s no doubt that PF will forever have major significance as one of the most influential movies of its time.
What I found most interesting about Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is how Shane Black, after years of Tarantino saturation in this industry, still manages keep his own voice in the “tough-guy/smart-ass” genre. You’ll notice there’s almost nothing QT about the movie. It’s all Black… complete with red meat misogynists, a gapping non-plot and a beside-the-point-villain. There’s even a new original twist on the writer’s patented homophobia. He gives the Han Solo role to the gay dude!
The film is too all over the place to be considered quality but it’s nice to meet up with one of the most distinct movie voices of the past 20 years for some harmless time wasting.
Scary thing is that I’m starting to feel that way about Michael Bay now… the man has zero gift for dramatics but sitting through his films is slowly becoming like having a beer with your crazy cousin every Christmas. It takes too much energy to hate him!
You might have a point about PULP FICTION.
I *loved* that film when I saw it in the theater during it’s initial release. I recently saw it for the first time in 6-7 years and, although it’s still enjoyable, it’s not aging so well. It’s just too culturally connected to a specific place and time. I think this might be a problem with all of QTs work down the line.
Pukp Fiction was a classic on release. And it will be a classic in 2030.
QT’s writing and directing work holding up or Shane Blacks writing/directing?
I got to go QT.
Reservoir Dogs is what Black aspires to accomplish.
TWELVE ANGRY MEN, CASINO ROYALE and THE BOURNE IDENTITY are three others that were made for TV first (though of course the latter two are based on novels).
I enjoyed FRIGHTENERS when it came out, but haven’t seen it since, so I can’t speak to how it’s aged, but I’m willing to check it out again.
KISS KISS BANG BANG really surprised me. Hard to believe a guy who turned out such crass crap as LAST BOY SCOUT and LONG KISS GOODNIGHT could do something that clever and enjoyable.
And I love Scorsese’s CASINO!
Heat is a great movie, but I liked LA Takedown too! Also liked Manhunter better than it’s “remake”.
The Heat heist scene must have been heavily influenced by Rififi, my favorite heist scene of all. The Heat heist scene had a neat minimalist score (Brian Eno i think) whereas I think the entire Rififi scene is in silence.
Someone said days ago someone had said s/he didn’t like black and white flicks. Rififi is a good place to start to change your mind. Then try Grisbi, another B&W great gangster movie.
I like Casino better than Goodfellas, and King of Comedy I think is MS’s best movie. Sue me.
I actually saw Kiss Kiss Bang Bang today and thought it was great fun! But in the coming decades, it will still be Tarantino whose seen as the leading filmmaker of the two. However, if Black keeps churning out pictures (although, like Tarantino, they need to be different) then who knows.
Frightners seems to me like one of those movies that some people (not people here, just blase filmgoers) would say it great purely because it’s by Peter Jackson. Much like his lame horror movies. They’re bad, no matter how you look at them. Or… i think they are anyway.
On the matter of Pulp Fiction, there was recently a huge poll in Australia to find our favourite film. Obviously it’s not concrete because we’ve got 20million population and they didn’t all vote. But of the 100,000 or so that did vote, Pulp Fiction came in at #7 (or 8… or 6… somewhere around there). Donnie Darko was #5. Take that as you will. Blade Runner ranked higher than Star Wars. LOTR was #1, naturally.
Dead Alive, which you may know as Braindead, is my favorite Jackson film, no question about it. It was also his first film that I ever saw.
By the way, it’s not really a horror movie – Jackson’s first three movies and Frighteners are all comedies more than they are anything else.
Frighteners is good, but too inconsistent to be great. For eloquent and comtemporaneous, if somewhat indulgent, articulation of its moments of brilliance, see http://www.panix.com/~dangelo/frig.html and http://www.panix.com/~dangelo/col01.html
Heavenly Creatures is great and too often neglected by Wells et al.
I sometimes think films buffs take for granted that, even if the mass audiences don’t develop what they see has good taste now, they will in twenty years. If “Last Action Hero” hasn’t become iconic and revered by now, it’s not going to be years from now.
The very nature of a film scholar is to remember as many films as he can. So I don’t think a movie that has been revered for ten or twenty years is going to fall by the wayside after thirty. In terms of public conciousness? Not nearly as many indies will stand the test as you’d like to think.
While that may be true, have we really come to the stage where we can’t just enjoy movies NOW? Why do we have to consider how they will hold up 20, 30, however many years in the future.
The only movies that should be judged partly on that is ones that rely on pop culture references ala the Shrek movies. Are audiences in 2045 really going to understand why 75% of those jokes are funny? Or, “funny”, because they weren’t actually funny in the year it was released. Livin’ la vida Loca? That’ll be a rip snorter in the coming years. Ricky Martin’s already forgotten.
I remember sorta liking Last Action Hero when I was younger? That’s the Schwarzenegger Hollywood movie, right?
I really don’t see any less love for any QT picture in the coming years. He’s making films that will stand the test of time and not just a 90’s fad.
Plenty of movies shift from popularity to obscurity. Just look at the Best Picture winners list from the 1930s. Cavalcade, anyone?
Another thing to remember about Pulp Fiction is that it also may be a victim of its own success. There have been so many movies since that have imitated its chattiness and sense of humor and style that in the future the original may not seem so original.
That is the thing that will make Pulp Fiction stand out. It started a whole genre of films. It has been copied and imitated. QT has been ripped off so many times it’s now laughed at and given a name. Tarantinoesque. You mention a Tarantinoesque film and everyone knows what you are talking about.
Bringing up Oscar winners that aren’t remembered today isn’t a good basis for your argument. I think we can all agree that Oscar winners aren’t exactly the best movies all the time. Raging Bull never won and that has been remembered. No one will remember Ordinary People.
I do gotta say that Ordinary People, while is not as great as Raging Bull, is a pretty good flick, it holds up very well, and has also been imitated to death: Good Will Hunting, Finding Forrester, Antwone Fisher. All imitations of Ordinary People.
Raging Bull is the better movie, no question, but Ordinary People is great on its own. The better analogy would be Driving Miss Daisy and Dances With Wolves. Yeesh.
Has Morgan Freeman aged a day since Driving Miss Daisy? He’s holding up real well.