MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Klady's Friday Estimates – 2/11/06

As always seems to be the case, overloaded weekends

Be Sociable, Share!

191 Responses to “Klady's Friday Estimates – 2/11/06”

  1. Crow T Robot says:

    Ford needs to realize that there’s no shame in taking quirky cool character parts in your sixties. Imagine, instead of spreading his presence thin over an entire feature, the joy of seeing the guy in a five minute Baldwin-in-Glengarry role. Imagine him as Bruce Wayne’s lawyer in Batman Begins 2. Audiences WANT to love this actor again.

  2. Wrecktum says:

    All four new movies will make over $10m 3-day, which is pretty damn good.
    I think your analysis is spot on this week, especially your Grazer and Ford comments. Harrison Ford has no idea what’s right for his career, and his celebrity has significantly tarnished as a result. Remember when he was the coolest guy alive? Boy, that was a long time ago.

  3. Spacesheik says:

    “The Pink Panther / Sony / 6.1 / 3477 / New / 6.1”
    Bloody hell. 3477 screens – thats a *massive* opening…shit…
    Hmm at this rate maybe a $15-20 million opening, which is kinda underwhelming for that amount of screens. If trash like CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2 can make $80 million, maybe this has a shot at $50 million.
    If DON’T SAY A WORD and HOSTAGE fucked and had a bastard child it would be FIREWALL. Nothing new there. Well at least Ford didn’t use the ‘finger of doom.’
    CURIOUS GEORGE – potential to be a massive franchise – dropped the ball. Anyone who has been to UNIVERSAL STUDIOS and seen the fun. lively Curious George playground/town for kids knows this could have been appealing had it been done right supposedly.
    FINAL DESTINATION 3 runs out of THE OMEN ideas so now it rips off the George Segal/Richard Widmark disaster pic ROLLERCOASTER. But this shit aint in Sensurround…

  4. martin says:

    batman begins 2? firewall may be trash, but give Ford some credit for a pulling a liam neeson and going comic book trash-for-cash. He’ll be fine once Indy 4 comes around.

  5. ManWithNoName says:

    Uh-oh, Waterbucket! BBM is losing steam!!

  6. joefitz84 says:

    The death of Harrison Ford. Box office star. How sad.

  7. MattM says:

    I think Ford’s still kicking himself for turning down the Michael Douglas part in “Traffic.” (He would have been equally good in the Clooney part in “Syriana.”)
    The problem that a filmmaker has is that it’s not worth paying more money to Ford than it is to, say, Michael Douglas, and Ford’s asking price is stil higher.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    Ford just doesn’t care anymore. He has millions and millions of dollars and would rather make one money every year or two, pick up an easy paycheck, and not have to work very hard. If and when Indy 4 gets made it’ll be more out of obligation to Lucas and Spielberg than because he actually thinks it’s a good project.

  9. jeffmcm says:

    that should have been ‘one movie’, not ‘one money’.

  10. Wrecktum says:

    The sad part is that, in his heyday, Ford used to take the edgy or smaller parts that he really should be taking now. Mosquito Coast, Frantic, Working Girl and Witness were all films that were variously small and/or challenging. And they were made by great directors like Nichols and Wier and Polanski.
    These days Ford turns down great roles like in Traffic and works for broken down has-beens like Locraine and Ron Shelton. Wouldn’t it be great to see Ford in a movie by Nolen or Fincher or Soderbergh? Boy, I think so.

  11. Nicol D says:

    Harrison Ford and Clint Eastwood are my favourite actors bar none; yet I haven’t seen a Ford movie in the theatre since 2000.
    He seems to have been caught in a mid-life crisis.
    Ford has another problem though. He is the iconic hero to a generation; but part of what made him our icon is that we thought he was like the characters he played; stoic men rooted in moral tradition that could not be corrupted by what was popular or ‘the system’. He lived on a ranch in Wyoming with his family. He wasn’t ‘Hollywood’.
    Once he got his ear pierced and started hanging out with Marilyn Manson at Russian strip clubs I knew something was askew. This is not what Indiana Jones is supposed to do.
    This is the problem of being an icon as opposed to just an actor. It’s okay if Kevin Spacey is gay or Daniel Craig doesn’t like guns. If ‘family man’ Tom Hanks gets caught with a transvestite however ‘Houston we’ve got a problem’.
    This is Ford’s real issue. He no longer is believable as the guy we thought he was. He comes of as ‘pissy’ and ‘condescending’ in interviews and seems to hate that which we loved about him to begin with.
    What he needs is to play a role like he is now as a person. A basically decent man who has ‘screwed up’ and been beaten by the system he once adheared to and maybe only an idealistic young man can break him out of his cynicism. In short…he needs Sean Connery’s role in The Untouchables. That will bring him back. Not some ‘edgy’ PC crap.
    Play the hero. But play him in an era that no longer wants them.

  12. MASON says:

    I find it interesting that Ford was attached to both Traffic — Douglass’s role — and Syriana — Clooney’s role — then dropped out at the last second to do far less interesting films.
    Wait, that’s not interesting — it’s depressing.

  13. Jimmy the Gent says:

    Nicol D– I think that might be your hang up, not everyone else’s. Hanks has been slowly subverting his image for awhile. Look at Perdition and Ladykillers. I would like him to go further.
    Ford hasn’t lost his box office clout. Firewall isn’t doing well because it’s not very good. Audiences could sense that. All Ford has to do is find a smart script like What Lies Beneath or Presummed Innocent and he’s back on top. (Remember, he was the villian in What Lies Beneath.)
    BTW: Why is it that 23 years after WarGames no one has been able to make a good computer thriller? By all accounts WarGames shouldn’t hold up, but it does. The Net, Hackers, and AntiTrust have failed to capture the public’s imagination. Strange Days is great but isn’t exactly a “fun” movie. Anyone have any theories?

  14. Nicol D says:

    Jimmy the Gent,
    Hanks is an awfully nice bad guy in Perdition. I quite liked the Lady Killers…no one else did.
    I’m not talking about the odd throway project…I’m talking about a career.
    Yes Ford is the villain in WLB. But again…do you even think of it as a Ford film? It is Pfeiffer’s from beginning to end and he is barely in the first half.
    It’s not ‘my hang up’. It’s culture and how people want to see their icons. If you actually think people want to see Ford doing gritty edgy little roles where he snorts coke and the like as opposed to those like Connery in Untouchables…I won’t try to convince you otherwise.
    I guarantee you’ll be the only one in the theatre.

  15. jeffmcm says:

    Well that last line is obviously untrue. If Ford started taking on sleazy Michael Douglas roles as a way to shake up his image, he could draw an audience as long as he had a good director. Or higher-class but still edgy roles like the part he turned down in Traffic.
    But he won’t. I agree with Nicol’s earlier post about how Ford should find a role that’s basically just a version of himself, because he’s never had a lot of range and something like that could invigorate him.

  16. RyanK says:

    What’s with the hate for FINAL DESTINATION 3? It’s not art, it’s entertainment. It does exactly what it promises to do: kill annoying teens in creative ways. If only life imitated art and most of the teens in the theater bumped up to a nailgun or two…

  17. waterbucket says:

    I still love you Brokeback Mountain. More so than ever.

  18. martindale says:

    Curious George’s numbers aren’t too bad considerin it’s 2-D animation. The last such movie to get good numbers was Lilo and Stitch.
    Brokeback Mountain looks like it will make under $4 million this weekend. It will probably have $75-80 mil on the eve of the Oscars.

  19. EDouglas says:

    Does anyone want to break it to waterbucket that Brokeback has been cheating on him with about 70,000 or more people daily?

  20. jeffmcm says:

    Waterbucket has a codependent relationship. He’ll overlook Brokeback’s philandering and pretend like it doesn’t exist, packing new reels in Brokeback’s fishing kit that never get used.

  21. Nicol D says:

    Here’s a question about Brokeback Mountain.
    Is it a legitimate western?
    I do not mean with regards to the sexual content. I mean with regards to the time period. Can you have a western that takes place post-mechanization of the west (ie. post 1930)?
    My personal feeling is that a ‘Western’ with regards to film genre must be roughly pre-1930. Once mechanization comes into play, there are too many aesthetic questions that arise.
    Anyone have any thoughts? I’m open to be convinced otherwise.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    The traditional genre of the Western is typically about things that Brokeback Mountain does not cover, specifically the exporation and civilization of the West and the issues of authority, law, justice, and violence. I have never really thought that BBM was a Western in any sense beyond that of locale.

  23. Wayman_Wong says:

    Wrecktum, I couldn’t agree with you more about Harrison Ford. Why has he squandered his talent on all this popcorn thriller junk? I recently read an interview where he says his favorite movie has been ”The Mosquito Coast.” So why isn’t he doing more films like that? Or ”Witness”? Or ”Traffic” or ”Syriana”? He’s made more money than God. Do we really need ”Indy 4”? His next film is ”Godspeed,” a a sci-fi thriller. Sounds like more formula fare.

  24. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Jimmy the Gent, I saw “The Net” when I was much younger and looooved it. Still do. So bad, yet oh so fun. I am even intrigued that there is a “The Net 2.0” considering how far the internet has come since the original.
    And while I’m burying myself in bad movie habits, i’m gonna say it again – the Final Destination franchise ain’t that bad. It’s fun watching annoying kids get killed in whacky ways. Better than stuff like Hostel.
    Agreed with jeff on the Brokeback/Western deal. Just cause a movie is set in France, don’t make it a French film.
    Ya know who Harrison Ford could take some lessons from (and don’t laugh here) – Alec Baldwin. Okay, so he occasionally takes roles in crappy movies that are pretty good gets for money (Pearl Harbour, The Aviator and Fun With Dick & Jane) and then also takes roles in movies like The Cooler (i can actually imagine Harrison in that role) and gets himself awards and Oscar nominations to boot. Coming up he has “The Good Shepherd” and “Running With Scissors” plus others in the pipeline. Alec will be 60 in 2 years btw.
    People don’t wanna see him (Harrison) in boring “action thrillers” that are all the same -that’s why Ashley Judd disappeared, she kept making the same movies and people stopped caring.

  25. JBM... says:

    Even though it’s the product of hacks, there’s a place in my heart for FD2. The highway chaos and the kid and the pigeons…you’ve got to be made to stone not to laugh at that.
    And Baldwin will be 50 in 2 years, not 60.

  26. Crow T Robot says:

    D To The P mentioned Ford’s “second act.” I’m intruiged by this. More specifically, if this act began before or after the Jack Ryan movies.
    And the comparisons to Connery are spot on… Ford has already sealed his place in movie history but it would be great to see him get dangerous and start acting like an actor. It can be done, even tastefully… look at Costner and “Upside.”
    Imagine the hearts that would leap if he ever won an Oscar.

  27. Krazy Eyes says:

    The problem with the Baldwin/Ford characterization is that Alec Baldwin has range and Ford doesn’t. Baldwin (with the right material) can be convincing in drama, romance, comedy, etc. Ford is pretty much just Ford. Sure, Ford displayed some easy charm as Han Solo in the SW films but has he ever been good with comedy?
    I think Ford’s star will continue to fall with the coming years. I’m not even so sure that an Indy 4 will provide the solution unless they tailor the script to be self-reflective to the fact that he’s so damn old.

  28. Dr Wally says:

    Uh, since when is The Aviator a ‘crappy movie’? ‘Crappy movie’ means The Pacifier, Monster-in-Law, Are We There Yet or Man of the House, not something by Martin Scorsese!

  29. Filipe says:

    Actually 10.5-12m open to Firewall isn’t bad at all. Not that many actors can open a movie based on his name alone to that. The problem is Ford’s asking price and the expectations that come with it. He seems to be in a very similar place than Bruce Willis, the difference being Willis seems aware of this position while Ford is not. Hostage and Firewall probably gonna have similar careers, but the Willis movie looks more moderately budget so it probably made some decent profit to its producers between foreign and DVD, while Firewall looks like a money loser.
    And then there’s Ford’s taste on scripts. He’s attract to the sort of star vehicle that today only exist as theatrical B-movie, even if it was very strongy directed and written nothing in Firewall made it souns to me as more than 15m opening/50m final and it has no real audience hook besides Ford being on it and it has a very generic premise that screams wait for DVD. I guess there’s only two types of audiences to it: big ford fans and people who want to see something on theatre this weekend but has already seen/has no interest in anything else playing in his local multiplex.

  30. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Sorry dr. wally, i originally didn’t have The Aviator there but then remember he had a small role in that and put it in – but forgot that I had written the other two (PH and FWD&J) were “crappy” – for some reason that part skipped past my brain when I re-read it and I just saw those examples as small parts.
    Swap The Aviator for Elizabethtown and you got yourself a correction.
    I think Ford is currently in his third stage. There was the young days of Star Wars through to around Blade Runner. Then there are the mid-80s and owards til maybe Air Force One. And then probably Random Hearts signalled the final stage (dreary) but nothing has really panned out.
    (that may be out of whack since I can’t be bothered going to IMDb and finding out what years exactly those films were – it’s 2am, gimme a break)
    Doesn’t help that Firewall had a boring name (The Final Element was better) – is Firewall an internet movie?
    However, it’s got to be said that out of the 4 new releases this week, Firewall is (well, in a manner of speaking) the only true “original” movie. Yes, it’s probably about as cliched you can get, but it wasn’t based on a book, a tv series, another movie, a news article, a song or a piece of furniture. The other three movies? Ones a sequel, one’s a remake and one’s based on a book.
    Me and my friends were discussing how it’s been so long since we saw a movie that was based on an original idea. The closest we got was Wolf Creek, and even that is based around a famous real-life event if not directly. All the others are sequels, remakes, based on any number of things. Even “original” movies like Good Night, and Good Luck are clearly not based on original ideas. Weird.

  31. waterbucket says:

    I’m so sad about Michelle Kwan right now. What a bad way to end your Olympics career.

  32. Spacesheik says:

    The problem with Harrison Ford is he cannot seem to be part of an ensemble cast. I don’t know if he’s scarred from his early Hollywood career -DEAD HEAT ON A MERRY GO ROUND, AMERICAN GRAFFITI or FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE (more likely the latter with Robert Shaw and an all-star cast)- and prefers to be the centre of attention in films. He made a lot of money and doesn’t seem to want to work that much, but the problem is when he does get to work he does utter shiite like SABRINA, RANDOM HEARTS, THE DEVIL WITHIN, SEVEN DAYS SEVEN NIGHTS, HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE and that K-19 flick where he had the horrible Russian accent.
    Once in a while he does something worthwhile like WHAT LIES BENEATH, THE FUGITIVE, AIR FORCE ONE and CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Think of them what you will: they delivered the goods and audiences liked the films.
    He’s doing an Abe Lincoln fugitive/chase drama now so that looks good. And INDY 4 needs to be sensational, on par with RAIDERS, but if it consists of Spielberg’s crap ideas prevalent in LAST CRUSADE (Nazis comically crashing their planes into tunnels, stereotypical bumbling Arabs chasing Indy on a boat chase in Venice, Sean Connery slapping his son and calling him “Junior,” rat infested sewers, and a climax consisting of 1 tank, 1 bullet killing 3 Nazis and an old Templar asking peeps to drink from a cup) then INDY 4 will be utter mierda.

  33. Nicol D says:

    Scorsese’s newer films are certainly not ‘crappy’ movies but they are no where near the heights he hit earlier in his career.
    He should be making films now with DeNiro that examine this phase of an older man’s life who has lived a life of darness and violence. Eastwood has done this brilliantly in the autumn of his career. Gibson’s third act is also promising to be interesting. Both men grew.
    Instead we get more Scorsese lite with Deniro baby-face-lite-wanna be DeCaprio.
    As for Gangs of New York I would have much preferred to see the Neeson/Lewis stand off ending with the fight that opened the film as opposed to baby-face extracting his vengeance.
    Scorsese no longer makes deep films. Just stylistic exercises for the popcorn masses that crix can feel sophisticated at liking.
    After Hours is more complex than Scorsese’s output of the past decade.
    I trace his third act decline to roughly the period that started with Kundun.
    I only say this because I am half way through his documentary on the history of cinema. He should have a better 3rd act.

  34. palmtree says:

    The worst Harrison Ford performance of late?
    The Super Bowl commercial where he reads Dr. Seuss’ Oh the Places You’ll Go with a labored enthusiasm. Seems to confirm the theory that he’s all about the money these days.

  35. martin says:

    agreed, it’s mostly been a downhill slide since goodfellas. But there are very few old directors that put out anything good, it’s endemic to the craft.

  36. Wrecktum says:

    Has Ford done any historical roles in the past 15 years? Everything I can think of takes place in the present…which makes no sense, considering his most famous roles place him in eras outside our own.
    Ford needs to do a war movie or a western. And by western (for those looking for a definition) I mean a film that takes place in the American West during the time between the Civil War and the coming of the automobile. A remake of Gregory Peck’s The Gunfighter would be a perfect kind of role for him.

  37. jrains1 says:

    The Dr. Seuss Harrison comercial was the greatest work that man has done in years. It was one of the creepiest performances I have seen in years on television. His voice, movement, and beard really made him look like he had lost it. Now, if only he would take some eccentric parts in movies. That commercial proved to me he could pull off a Christopher Walken type of role.

  38. Crow T Robot says:

    Ford would have been a terrific Max Cherry in Jackie Brown.

  39. MattM says:

    Among Ford’s upcoming projects (according to IMDb)is a historical drama about the hunt for John Wilkes Booth, in which Ford will play the guy who led the hunt. That would seem to be the right sort of call for his career.

  40. Fades To Black says:

    Ford just needs to do a much better job of choosing and selecting roles. FIREWALL? Screamed bomb from the pitch.

  41. Wayman_Wong says:

    Jeffmcm, regarding the question as to whether ”Brokeback Mountain” is a Western or not, perhaps that’s best answered by the movie’s director, Ang Lee. In the Hollywood Reporter (Nov. 11), he insisted that ”Brokeback” ”is not a Western. No gunslingers. I don’t want to undermine the sanctified image of the American Western man. It’s a love story of real people in the West.”

  42. Josh says:

    This blizzard is going to put a damper on totals from this weekend. I hope they made their money on Fr-Sat.
    Firewall wasn’t a disaster. It was a decent movie. Everything you expect from a Ford vehichle. Just tough to be a action guy at 65+.

  43. jeffmcm says:

    Spaceshiek, you do understand that every ‘crap idea’ you referenced in the Indiana Jones movies are intended to be comical, right? And they’re pervasive through the series?

  44. palmtree says:

    I don’t think it’s a question of “is it a western?” It’s more of “are they really cowboys?” The movie doesn’t have the trappings of a western just like not every detective film is noir. But the fact that they engage in cowboy life is its one claim to “westernhood” (i.e. men bonding in the American west while on some expedition, etc.) But even then, they aren’t really cowboys for all of the movie.

  45. Wrecktum says:

    “Men bonding in the American west while on some expedition” isn’t really one of the classic motifs of a western.

  46. jeffmcm says:

    It kind of is. There’s plenty of male bonding in Red River or She Wore a Yellow Ribbon or The Wild Bunch. Typically, though, the Western is about male bonding with an ordered hierarchy, be it an outlaw gang or the Cavalry.

  47. waterbucket says:

    Ennis and Jack are real cowboys. What did you expect cowboys from the ’60s to do? Go to a saloon and have a shoot-out?
    They work hard on the land with their bare hands, know how to ride horses, and excel in fishing. What more do you want in a cowboy?
    …You are too much for me Ennis, you sonofawhoreson bitch! I wish I knew how to quit you…
    God, I love this movie.

  48. Nicol D says:

    “They work hard on the land with their bare hands, know how to ride horses, and excel in fishing. What more do you want in a cowboy?”
    Jack and Ennis know exactly what more we want in a cowboy.
    I couldn’t resist.

  49. waterbucket says:

    May I ask if what you want in a cowboy is his ability to make hot gay cowboy love?
    Oh wait, maybe that’s what I want. No no, I’m quite sure that’s what you want too.
    …This is a bitch of an unsatisfactory situation…

  50. Spacesheik says:

    TEMPLE OF DOOM was not a perfect film, it also had elements of unbelievability and slapstick (rubber raft falling off a plane landing on a mountain etc) but it had a kinetic, ferocioius energy and a hell of a villain. It was much maligned during its heyday for the violence but its set-pieces were great.
    LAST CRUSADE was not a decent Indy adventure, it seemed lazier, campier, less exciting than its predecessors. The only sequence in the film that captured the energy and magic of RAIDERS was the opening one with River Phoenix on the train. The villain and female love interest were unmemorable and the action was very blah.

  51. jeffmcm says:

    You’re ignoring the rampant racism of Temple of Doom and the fact that Raiders, like Last Crusade, has stereotypically bumbling Arabs. I don’t see what’s so wrong with, as you mentioned in your earlier post, rats in sewers or a finale involving one tank and a bullet that kills 3 guys or a Knight Templar, etc. I agree that Raiders is the best of the three, but the other two are on par with each other (thanks for cranking your rhetoric down from ‘mierde’ to ‘blah’ though).

  52. palmtree says:

    Wrecktum, many of the best westerns are about men joining forces on a trip of some kind. Is there something I’m missing?
    Temple of Doom is, indeed, awful if you look at it from its racism and stereotypical depictions (Short Round however is one cool kid). But it is a sentimental favorite of mine. And it’s so memorable. The eyeball soup. Pulling a heart out. Anything goes.

  53. jeffmcm says:

    Usually the men join forces to rob a bank or stop the Apaches from raiding, this time they just happen to join forces to do…other things.

  54. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Ennis and Jack are the greatest fisherman evaaahh!!

  55. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    oh, btw
    1. The Pink Panther (3477), $21.7
    2. Final Destination 2 (2880), $20.1
    3. Curious George (2566), $15.3
    4. Firewall (2840), $13.8
    5. When A Stranger Calls (3004), $10.0
    6. Big Momma’s House 2 (2733), $6.8
    7. Nanny McPhee (2148), $5.2
    8. Brokeback Mountain (1963), $4.2
    9. Hoodwinked (2085), $2.5
    10. Underworld: Evolution (1835), $2.5
    I suppose if you send your movie to enough cinemas you’ll get a number that seems alright. FD3 gets the highest debut for the series yet. Horror keeps on truckin’. Another low-budget kids movie gets a good opening. Nobody cares about Harrison anymore. Brokeback is slowly sliding out of the top tep, but it’s currently at $67mil and should be floating between $75mil and $80mil by Oscar night depending how well it goes throughout the weekdays.
    Good Night & Good Luck is almost at $30million! King Kong just passed $215mil *chortle*! Match Point will become Woody’s first $20mil movie in quite some time by next weekend (or just after)probably .
    And to all those people who thought TransAmerica was going to become another Monster or whatever, it grossed a whopping $430,000! It’s cume is now $2.8mil – wowee.
    Fact – this weekend beat 2005’s comparatable weekend, even when last year had Hitch debuting to over $40mil. Just imagine if there was some form of romantic comedy out (not including Something New, okay)

  56. Wrecktum says:

    “Wrecktum, many of the best westerns are about men joining forces on a trip of some kind. Is there something I’m missing?”
    Well, yes. The traditional western creates character archtypes which inhabit a world of strict moral codes. The modernist idea of “male bonding” simply doesn’t exist is this context, even in the movies Jeff mentions (in The Wild Bunch, “male bonding” might be the outward manifestion of the Bunch’s actions, but what they’re really doing is adhering to the rigid construct inherent in their archtypical social order).

  57. jeffmcm says:

    It all depends on what your definition of ‘male bonding’ is. The farthest a Western typically goes in this regard is testing the bonds of friendship and loyalty (as in The Wild Bunch or Rio Bravo), or putting young men through rites of passge to see if they become men or not (as in Red River or Unforgiven). I can’t think of any traditional Westerns off the top of my head that get any deeper into a more modern notion of ‘male bonding’ because in most Westerns, men are assumed to all be more or less alike.

  58. waterbucket says:

    Hi Dave,
    Since you’re a rich critic and I’m just a poor college student, could you buy me this and I in return will do whatever you want, including loving Munich to death?
    The items are Ennis’s and Jack’s bloody shirts wrapped around in an embrace. I think they haven’t washed the shirts so hopefully all the blood, sweat, and tear are still there for me and you to sniff all we want.
    So hurry Dave, before it’s too late.
    Sincerely yours,

  59. Spacesheik says:

    I’m working on a sitcom for HBO revolving around a dapper jet-setting opinionated film critic and a rabid sexually obsessed fan who communicates with the critic via the ‘net. I’m hoping to get Dylan McDermott(THE PRACTICE)to play the critic and Pauly Shore (BIODOME) to play the fan.
    It will be great. A cross between YOU’VE GOT MAIL and Luis Bunuel’s THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE.

  60. Martin S says:

    Ford, like many others, let his personal life wreck his business life. His mid-life crisis exploded his marriage and took his ability to find material with it. Maybe Matheson had more to do with his choice of roles than anyone realized.

  61. waterbucket says:

    Dear Dave, you still ain’t called or wrote, I hope you have the chance. I ain’t mad, I just think it’s fucked up you don’t answer fans.
    If you didn’t want to talk to me outside your office. You didn’t have to but you could have signed an autograph for Matthew. That’s my f’ing roommate, man. He’s only 20 years old. We waited in the blistering cold for you for 4 hours and ya just said no.
    That’s pretty shitty man, you’re like his fuckin’ idol. He wants to be just like you man, trashing good movies and kissing Spielberg’s rear.
    I ain’t that mad, but I just don’t like bein’ lied to. Remember when we met at Sundance, you said if I write you, you would write back. See, I’m just like you in a way. I never had good taste in movies neither. Until I see BBM and my eyes are finally open.
    I can relate to what you’re sayin’ in your reviews. So when I have a shitty day, I drift away and read ’em away. Cause I don’t really got shit else, so that shit helps when I’m depressed.
    I even got a tattoo with your name across the chest: DAVE MY BOO.
    Sometimes I even cut myself to see how much it bleeds. It’s like adrenaline. The Pain is such a sudden rush for me. See, everything you say is real, and I respect you ’cause you tell it. My boyfriend’s jealous ’cause I talk about you 24/7.
    But he don’t know you like I know you, Dave, no one does. He don’t know what it was like for people like us growing up.
    You’ve gotta call me man. I’ll be the biggest fan
    you’ll ever lose.
    Sincerely yours, Bucket.
    PS: We should be together too.
    …My tea’s gone cold,I’m wondering why I got out of bed at all..

  62. Spacesheik says:

    ROFL ‘bucket

  63. palmtree says:

    Thanks for clarifying…fair enough, Wrecktum. It also kinda proves my original point of “it’s not really a Western but just seemingly has the trappings of one.” Indeed, Jack and Ennis would definitely be operating outside the moral code of their society (by that I mean Wyoming in the 70s).

  64. palmtree says:

    And 60s too…

  65. Crow T Robot says:

    I can only imagine the things you would do to that BBM shirt. Private things. Unnatural things. Things that Tide and Clorox could never restore.

  66. Martin S says:

    I’d just like to say that Dana Stevens/Liz Penn is one of the worse critics I’ve read in awhile.
    How in the hell someone with a degree in comparative literature ends up reviewing “pop culture”, I’ll never understand.

  67. Nicol D says:

    Just read SIR Ian McKellan’s tiff about how gays are still not allowed in ‘old fashioned’ Hollywood.
    Please someone notify
    Bryan Singer,David Geffen,Ellen Degeneres,Elton John,Ian McKellan,Rupert Everett,Rosie O’Donell,Roddy McDowell, Tom Ford, John Waters, Chastity Bono,Clive Barker,Margaret Cho,Alan Cumming,Harvey Fierstein, Nathan Lane,Stephen Fry,Sir John Geilgud,Todd Haynes,Calvin Klein,Annie Leibowitz,Paul Rudnick, Michael Stipe, Lilly Tomlin, Gus Van Zant, Bruce Vilanch and many other…
    To keep quiet about how talented and successful they are. It hurts the overall game plan of playing the oppressed card.
    Many of the people I have listed above are some of my favourite entertainers (Stipe, Tomlin, Fry etc).
    When people like McKellan go on their rants what they really do is undermine the accomplishments made by those who are gay in Hollywood.
    Sadly, even if BBM wins Best Picture of the year by the end of the week we will be seeing stories in the media of how it ‘fluked’ its win and many were vehemently opposed and the cliches will come out about how ‘we still have a long way to go’ etc.
    And when/if Brad Pitt has his edgy gay film in two years we will all have to act as though BBM didn’t exist and feign shock and awe all over again.
    If someone loves BBM good for them. But really…Sir Ian, put the oppressed card on the back burner. It could be worse…you could be pro-life.

  68. DannyBoy says:

    You make some good points, Nicol, but for the record: Roddy McDowell can’t be “told” anything, since he’s dead. Also, he was never out of the closet during his life time. Second, even though it’s one of the most open secrets in the world, Lily Tomlin has never actually confirmed that she is or is not lesbian.
    Finally, to be fair to McKellen, he was talking about the lack of gay/lesbian people IN FILM, in front of the camera, on the A list. You know that list, the one that has Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Jodie Foster, Leonardo Decaprio, Keanu Reaves on it. It’s well known that there are a few people on the proverbial “A list” (maybe one or two I just listed) who are gay or lesbian but are not open about it.
    Some times this is because they themselves don’t want to come out, othertimes it’s because their powerful agents, managers, etc. basically tell them they’ll be dropped as clients and never given good jobs again if they come out.
    Remember: when Anne Heche came out as Ellen’s lover, she lost her big shot agent right after that and had to go with a less powerful and effective one.

  69. Wayman_Wong says:

    Nicol D, the point McKellen is making is NOT that gay people can’t work in Hollywood; needless to say, a number of them do. Your list includes various character actors, writers, directors, musicians, etc. But what your list does NOT include is any A-list U.S. movie star who’s openly gay. McKellen is saying Hollywood is reluctant to cast an openly gay man in a leading role. Can you name any? Because they’re all closeted for the sake of their careers.
    While straight actors continue to be applauded for their ”bravery” in playing gay roles, no one’s yet had the ”bravery” to cast any openly gay actors in a romantic straight role. There’s a double standard. Somehow, audiences CAN believe straight actors as gay people, but they CAN’T believe gay actors as straight people?
    And look at most of the gay actors you’ve listed: Rupert Everett, Ian McKellen, Alan Cumming, Sir John Gielgud. They’re British, and that seems more acceptable. But not if you’re American, and surely not if you’re an action or romantic hero. (Everett has said that if he had to do over again, he doesn’t think he would’ve come out.)
    As long as gay American actors are afraid to come out because they fear it’ll hurt their careers, they ARE ”oppressed” to some degree. Look, there are sitcom actors on TV playing the queeniest gay stereotypes who are STILL in the closet. … So for Brad Pitt to play gay in this post-”Brokeback” era, is hardly progress. But seeing a romantic leading man at the level of a Brad Pitt or a Tom Cruise, cast straight, without any big fuss, THAT would be progress. Until that happens, yes, ”we still have a long way to go.”

  70. palmtree says:

    And I believe McKellan was comparing it to Broadway, where people are much more free to live openly homosexual lifestyles without worries. Granted though, Broadway is a smaller world than that of Hollywood and mainstream film.

  71. jeffmcm says:

    I couldn’t find McKellen’s original comments so I tried Google. But the keywords I used led me to several ‘gay conspiracy’ websites about how gays are ridden with disease, are actively choosing their lifestyles, and have radical political agendas. Then I found the comments Tony Curtis made about how nobody in Hollywood wants to see Brokeback Mountain. So maybe some other time I’ll find McKellen’s comments and understand how repression and discrimination are so 1980s.
    PS: When was the last time somebody went into a Pro-Life bar and started shooting at people?

  72. Wayman_Wong says:

    Jeffmcm, here’s the link to the McKellen piece …
    Or you can find it on the MovieCityNews home page.

  73. jeffmcm says:

    I read it. I disagree with him, though, about gay women. I think our culture is more homophobic about gay men by a long shot.

  74. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Josh is correct re the blizzard. A co-worker of mine had to move her car so her apartment driveway could be plowed out. She drove to her local Regal only to find it closed.
    Kami: I saw “Transamerica” last weekend and was not impressed. Basically it’s “Play a Cross-Dresser, Win an Oscar”. The last Oscar Bait picture to movie to pull that was “Boys Don’t Cry”.
    “Transamerica” also has to fight for bookings with “Mrs. Henderson Presents”, another Oscar Bait release from the Weinstein Co. Plus there’s the ever-present spectre of Harvey Weinstein buying an Oscar.

  75. James Leer says:

    Agreed, jeffmcm — I don’t know what McKellen was talking about when he said that Hollywood was more homophobic towards women. Though we have about as many openly lesbian A-listers as we do gay ones (zero), there are some female A-listers who have come out as bisexual, such as Angelina Jolie and Drew Barrymore, and the result? It only made them more sexually desirable to the straight male audience. I don’t think an openly bisexual male star could count on the same boost.
    I’m not trying to undermine the struggle that lesbian actresses may face, but hey, if McKellen’s comparing…
    And DannyBoy was right to point out how few of Nicol’s “out” gay/lesbians are in front of the camera. What’s even more telling is that some of these “out” people aren’t even out! A couple of the people listed are STILL too afraid to say they’re gay, even though it’s widely known. So there’s still a lot of miles to go, even in “progressive” Hollywood.

  76. MattM says:

    Anyone who thinks Jodie Foster is really even VAGUELY closeted at this point isn’t paying attention. Yeah, she hasn’t had a big “coming out” thing, but it’s not like it’s a SECRET. (And good for her! I don’t like actors, gay/straight/bi, using their sexuality as a crutch or a platform.)
    And Lily Tomlin finally officially came out a couple of years back, in connection with the revival of “Search For Signs Of Intelligent Life…”

  77. Lota says:

    open secrets are still secrets. some junior A-listers have been told they might want to keep a lid on it (i.e. being bi- or gay) for the sake of getting cast as romantic leads.
    Michale Stipe did not come out until REM was so huge that news couldn’t dampen their fan base. he just refered to himself for years as “asexual” to get off the hook with questioning journos. I know this first hand.
    Kevin Spacey is a good example of how open a secret can be without “getting out” to the mainstream entertainment press. When I first was working in California he was openly doing the gay scene…then suddenly he wasn’t. It was a bit hypocritical of him, but I doubt very much he would have got the part opposite Ms. Bening had he been openly “out”.
    Men run Hollywood for the most part, and I think lesbians being female are seen as much less of a threat to the hetero masculinity.

  78. waterbucket says:

    I think Mr. McKellen is wrong because I’m gay and I’m still a BIG star.
    Just ask my mom.

  79. Sanchez says:

    Who would believe in a billion years Sir Ian and a women on screen? You can’t be a big star if you can’t be a romantic lead.

  80. DannyBoy says:

    MattM writes, of Jodie Foster, “she hasn’t had a big ‘coming out’ thing, but it’s not like it’s a SECRET.”
    Actually her sex life IS secret. Not only has she not “had a big ‘coming out’ thing,” which would be fine by anyone’s standards, but she refuses to do interviews unless it is agreed upon in advance that the subject of any “significant other” or any romance will not be discussed. That to me is keeping a “secret.” I don’t know WHAT Ms. Foster’s sexuality is but it’s definitely a secret. I guess I prefer people keeping their sex lives a secret than lying about them. There are a couple of big name stars I could mention, who only go out with Navy guys knowing that they won’t try to sell their stories to the tabloids, since have to stay in the closet to keep their jobs. They LIE their asses off (both are in sham marriages to women. Both even have kids.)

  81. waterbucket says:

    DannyBody, who are these big name stars who love the Navy? Please spill. And if the answers rhyme with Teric Sbana or Klife Howen, I’ll give you some Reese’s peanutbutter cups.

  82. Spacesheik says:

    Out of curiosity do you find William Shatner attractive?

  83. waterbucket says:

    hehe, maybe 80 years ago when he was young. You know I kid about Dave Poland but I don’t like overweight old men that much.

  84. Nicol D says:

    “PS: When was the last time somebody went into a Pro-Life bar and started shooting at people? ”
    You disappoint me. This is the kind of comment, that along with the rest of your post is beneath you. I have no problem debating you but I have little time for ignorant snide generalizations that are steeped more in rhetoric than truth.
    Pro-lifers are routinely attacked at demonstrations and marches, moreso than any other modern group of demonstrators.
    Recently, a student was attacked violently while handing out pro-life literature at Williams and Mary College.
    A church in St. Louis was vandalized/descecrated (this happens regularly in North America) and just last fall a man went on a shooting rampage at a Catholic Church in New York state. Thankfully the priest was not killed.
    Last year an Egyptian Coptic Christian family was slaughtered to death in their home in New Jersey (8 and 15 year old children included) in what was believed to be a ritulistic killing because of their beliefs.
    Around the globe (China, Egypt, Cuba etc.) Christians and Catholics are routinely targeted for torture and imprisonment for their beliefs.
    Violence against homosexuals is an evil thing; but do not be so ignorant as to think that they are the only ‘victims’ in world. Life is much more complex than Hollywood movies. A person who really cared about issues of tolerance-as opposed to just the PC type-would take the time educate themself about this.
    As for Hollywood and Sir Ian’ s remarks. When I think of all of the demographics that have virtually no representation in Hollywood-Mulsims, Chinese, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Evangelicals,Hindus, Africans (insert world demographic here)-Ian’s comments seem particularly combined of both ignorance and arrogance.
    But I am not surprised; ignorance and arrogance seem to go hand in hand in the modern film community.

  85. Terence D says:

    I could be wrong but I don’t recall Ricky Martin being a big Hollywood star. And Kevin Spacey had his chances to be and became what he is. A great second banana and supporting player.
    The facts are that a gay man can’t get the same roles as a straight man. Ruper Everett could be the best actor ever and he’s not going to get any big roles. Just isn’t going to happen. Audiences have to accept their leading men and women as straight. Once the cat is out of the bag they won’t be able to get those roles they seek. You will see a big team sport member come out before a big A list actor.
    What’s so wrong with hiding it? They’re actors. Act. It may not be fair but life isn’t fair. If you haven’t realized that by now, God help you.

  86. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I always thought Jodie was gay. You’ve also got Nathan Lane, but I suppose he’s not a big cinema star.
    But it’s just a fact that in cinema days past, a gay man could get away with it, but today there is so much attention paid to that subject that they must hide it at all costs – or they’ll be relegated to “character actor”.
    But, i’m fairly certain every single actor who has “played gay” throughout the history of time has been labelled “brave” – it’s just a kneejerk term. “Oooh, he’s brave isn’t he!”
    er, except for Phillip Seymour Hoffman who seems to really like playing gay characters. I was shocked to find out he had a kid with his partner (female partner).

  87. Martin S says:

    I almost commented on this yesterday, but I wanted to see the direction it would go…
    McKellan’s not blaming the audience. He’s blaming Hollywood – the studios, the execs, the agents.
    quote – “His career in mainstream films “really took off once I’d come out and said I was gay”, he said”
    He knows, first hand, that the audience is accepting – as long as you are separating your life from your work. When the two are fused, the audience will abandon if it feels like they’re being lectured from the bully pulpit. And that goes for anyone, not homosexuals specific. Look at the Cruise backlash for his Scientology preaching.
    What McKellan knows is that execs and agents are gun-shy about pushing gay leads due to a holdover belief from the halcyon studio days.
    quote – “The Lord of the Rings star added: “The film industry is very old fashioned in California.”
    He means Old Hollywood. When screwball comedies and romances were being pumped out. When a character’s heterosexuality was intrinsic to the selling of the film. That really doesn’t exist anymore. It’s been replaced by the selling of sexual appeal.
    But the belief of the old system is still in tact, thanks to execs and agents who are afraid they’re not going to get market value for someone who’s openly gay. It’s financially safer for them to blame the audience for not being “open-minded”, which keeps the person in the closet.
    So the question is not about sexual lifestyle, but sexual appeal. Does it hurt a film to have the lead an effeminate male? A big critique of Kingdom Of Heaven and Alexander were how miscast these leads were. They were literally *pretty boys* playing warriors. There was nothing about them that made you believe they could drive a sword into anyone. Even if Alexander was bisexual, he certainly wasn’t as soft as Farrell always seems. McKellan in his 20’s/30’s carried a tougher presence than Farrel, Bloom or Leo ever has.
    The big test is coming with Superman Returns.

  88. DannyBoy says:

    Sorry, waterbucket. I’m not gonna out em. Their agents might close Poland down! Suffice to say, if you have gay friends who were or are in the military, the same two names crop up again and again. Big, huge, multi-Oscar nominated A-list stars….

  89. Wayman_Wong says:

    Nicol D, I don’t think anyone is arguing that gays think they’re the only ”victims” in the world. And violence against any people is not something I imagine any of us condone. But let’s get back to the issue at hand: gay actors. If you’re a Chinese actor, or Catholic, or Jewish, or evangelical, there’s little pressure to hide that fact by being in the closet. Ironically, some of the agents, managers, publicists, etc., who help keep their clients closeted are gay themselves. That’s how endemic it is. Finally, if you look at the world as a whole, the ”film community” hardly has a monopoly on ignorance and arrogance. There’s far too much to go around.

  90. Bruce says:

    I have to give gays a ton of credit. They always take as their own the really handsome actors. The Pitts. The Cruise’s. The Gere’s. You never hear any of them say “Phillip Seymour Hoffman is gay” or “That John C Reilly is definately gay”.
    Even old school actors they claim for themselves. James Dean, Monty CLift, even Cary Grant. You never hear them go “Chris Farley definately played for our team” or “Orson Welles was gay”.

  91. DannyBoy says:

    Don’t be snotty, Bruce. We’ve never denied Charles Laughton, and if there’s anybody we’d want on the OTHER team, it’s him.

  92. Nicol D says:

    Wayman Wong
    “If you’re a Chinese actor, or Catholic, or Jewish, or evangelical, there’s little pressure to hide that fact by being in the closet.”…
    With regards to Chinese actors or visible minorities obviously one can’t hide it. And most do not get work as leads. Three cheers for progressive Hollywood!
    As for Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews and the like with regards to belief systems…
    If you do not think those out there are hiding themselves you are living in another reality.
    I can list multitudes of successful homosexuals in Hollywood. Can you name 3 Catholics, Orthodox Jews or Evangelicals?
    I mean real ones…not Kennedy Catholic belief system types.
    It is good that gays are being able to tell their stories now in Hollywood. But thier cries of ‘oppression’ are more and more ringing hollow to those other demographics that still cannot.

  93. Nicol D says:

    Just so there is no misunderstanding with regards to my last post;
    my comment of “Three cheers for progressive Hollywood!”, with respect to minorities not getting leads was oozing with sarcasm.

  94. DannyBoy says:

    “But thier cries of ‘oppression’ are more and more ringing hollow to those other demographics that still cannot.”
    Jesus… when gays can get married like straight Catholics, evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews, when it’s perfectly legal in half the country to fire someone and say to their face: “I’m firing you because you’re a Jew”, then we can parse the fine lines of who’s oppressed more. In the meantime, there’s no comparison.

  95. Wayman_Wong says:

    Nicol D, if you can name three openly gay actors who are romantic leading men in Hollywood …
    Let’s set aside movies for a moment. DannyBoy just brilliantly put all this in context. Bravo!

  96. palmtree says:

    And Chinese people, Catholics, etc. have entire countries and other places where they are the majority…i.e. China, Italy…
    It’s fundamentally different from being homosexual. They must live in a largely heterosexual world.
    Doesn’t make their plight worse than others, but it’s not exactly apples to apples.

  97. DannyBoy says:

    Actually, Wayman, I kind of feel like I fell into Nicol’s trap. There’s this rhetorical trap out there that tries to snare people into debating who’s oppressed MORE. Once you start doing that, the argument

  98. James Leer says:

    Well put, DannyBoy.
    This “who’s oppressed more” shtick is a shell game for people who’d rather not actually confront homophobia. I love the tacit message of “See, you have it better than so-and-so (often a white conservative – horrors! – but occasionally another race) so stop whining!”
    I actually thought jeffmcm’s response to Nicol D was perfectly valid…but I’m going to try my damnedest not to get caught up in that shell game.

  99. Nicol D says:

    Danny Boy
    “…when gays can get married like straight Catholics, evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews, when it’s perfectly legal in half the country to fire someone and say to their face: “I’m firing you because you’re a Jew”, then we can parse the fine lines of who’s oppressed more. In the meantime, there’s no comparison.”
    Same sex marriage is a very complex issue and has nothing to do with the debate of who can tell what stories in Hollywood. Nevertheless, if you want to go there…
    As for being able to fire someone to their face because they are gay. Where? What country are you living in, friend?
    Most corporations in North America right now are the exact opposite…Kodak, Hewlitt-Packard, Levi-Strauss, Xerox and hundreds more allow you to fire someone who is openly Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim etc. if it ‘offends’ modern corporate standards of politically correct ‘diversity’. That translates to ‘pro-gay’ as I’m sure you know. Most major companies also require employees to take courses in diversity training before being hired. I’ve seen them…they aren’t socially conservative.
    In Canada employees of religious faith at RBC (a huge bank) were chastised for not putting a pink triangle on their desk.
    Check out the HR departments of most corporations…they go out of their way to be gay friendly to the point of excluding people who are Orthodox Jewish, Catholic, Muslim etc.
    The truth is this…I am actually on your side. I do not think people should be able to discriminate if someone is gay, and if they do they should be taken to court. But too often nowadays the opposite is what happens and all I here is rhetoric from 1968.
    It is not legal to fire someone because they are gay. That is a good thing. But in actuality you can fire someone for being Catholic, Muslim etc. under modern day corporate ‘diversity’ manifestoes.
    Modern corporate America is not Christian or religious…it is radically secular. Most companies have policies that are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
    also here…
    “No gay person I know thinks of himself as better, because he

  100. James Leer says:

    Mel Gibson, dude.

  101. James Leer says:

    Also, “Same sex marriage is a very complex issue and has nothing to do with the debate of who can tell what stories in Hollywood. Nevertheless, if you want to go there…”
    Nicol, you’re the one who, instead of focusing on actual homophobia in the film industry (which you have repeatedly tried to marginalize in each of your posts), repeatedly compared it to other issues outside the film industry to make a point.
    I’ll let some of the other posters parse the legal elements of your last post, but if you didn’t know that people can still be fired for being gay in many places (because many states do not bar sexual orientation discrimination — though they do bar religious discrimination)…well, I don’t even know how to finish that sentence, because I think you DO know that, but are obfuscating it.

  102. Wayman_Wong says:

    Nicol D, I’m no expert on ”openly Catholic people in Hollywood.” In fact, until you mentioned it, I never even heard of ”closeted Catholic people.” (Does the Vatican know about this? Guess they’re too busy with proclamations about gays.) But neither could you name any openly gay actors who are romantic leading men.
    What else can I say?

  103. palmtree says:

    According to one website, Gregory Peck, Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy, Grace Kelly, Vivian Leigh, Rita Hayworth, James Cagney, and Gary Cooper (he converted) were practicing Catholics.
    Whether they were open with it was a different story, but they were definitely successful.

  104. LesterFreed says:

    Oppression? In Hollywood? Liberal bastion Hollywood? Where killers, pimps, thugs, deviants, rapists all find work if they can make someone money?
    Who are you kidding here?

  105. Lynn says:

    “It is not legal to fire someone because they are gay.”
    Actually, yes, it is, in most states in the US.
    There is no federal law that protects someone from employment discrimination in private employment based on sexual orientation. Only 16 states plus the district of Columbia have such laws.
    The federal government itself has an anti-discrimination *policy* (in civilian employment), but that only applies to federal government jobs, not the private sector. (Some localities have similar provisions.)
    There are federal (as well as state) laws against religious discrimination in employment, so if someone had actual evidence that they were denied a job or fired for their religious beliefs, they would have a federal cause of action (and probably state claims) against the employer.

  106. Terence D says:

    A gay leading man won’t happen. What studio will put that man in their 100 million dollar movie? Make him a franchise star? There is too much money on the line these days for some big time actor to come out of the closet. The public won’t accept it and even if they will, the studios won’t take the chance at it. They all still operate on a 1935 level.
    We all know there are more than a few actors who are gay. I think we all can safely assume that. And not one has come out and been himself because they know they’ll never work at the level they are at again. It’s not fair but that’s the business.
    The real disservice and fraud is when they get married and have kids to perpetuate the fraud. And also keep their other lives. Have some pride, fellas.
    There always has to be the 1st to do something. Maybe one of these brave young guys will actually do not listen to their advisors and be themselves for once.

  107. Josh says:

    Modern companies take great pains to be secular. In order to “not offend” anyone and everyone. They even try to make Christmas not about religion. It’s a joke. It’s the PC world taking over and getting into the boardrooms.
    With stars nowadays, they would be dumb and foolish to ever give any info about themselves or even talk about anything other than bland crap. The less known about them the better. The more that is known, the less successful people will perceive them as actors. All this couch jumping and loony interviews will hurt Tom Cruise in the long run. Crowes bashing bellhops with telephones hurt his last movie.
    Gibson and Clooney get away with it now because they can step behind the camera. If Jodie Foster ever came out she’d be ok because she can direct. Spacey would be ok because no one sees him as anything other than a character actor.

  108. Bruce says:

    It’s funny. In every interview I read about Brokeback and Heath/Jake there has to be at least one mention of how straight they are in real life. Like the role is such a burden for them and how much of a struggle it was to play gay. They’re so brave. It’s required by their PR firms or something. You’re going to see Heath impregnate Michelle Williams six more times in six years to prove it. And Jake? He’s going to be with every actress under 25 and make sure US Weekly takes pictures. Threesomes with models, actresses, daughters of stars, random tourists. Everyone.

  109. Lynn says:

    Oh, about Harrison Ford.
    He did himself a career disservice by divorcing his longtime spouse and taking up with a woman 20+ years his junior. The fact that she’s an actress only makes it worse.
    My secretary (age 50+) and my mother (age 60) have separately expressed the same negative opinion about this. I know their opinions are hardly a representative sample, but if women of that age group are less interested in seeing his films because they find his personal life distasteful, it can’t be helping his career.

  110. Crow T Robot says:

    When Ford went on Larry King ten years ago with that stupid earring, I knew there was trouble in paradise. You could almost hear the opening chords of Faith No More’s “Midlife Crisis” thumping in the background.

  111. DannyBoy says:

    “Modern corporate America is not Christian or religious…” bemoans Nicol. “Modern companies take great pains to be secular,” complains Josh.
    “And what’s wrong with that,” I ask. The fact that you both think those are not shockingly radical statements on their faces makes me wonder what country you’re living in, friends. This is not a theocracy, and businesses are not religious institutions. (Nor are modern workplaces to be thought of as gay bathhouses or cruising parks, and all us gays know that very well and are 100% fine with that.)
    As for these statements: “Kodak, Hewlitt-Packard, Levi-Strauss, Xerox and hundreds more allow you to fire someone who is openly Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim etc. if it ‘offends’ modern corporate standards of politically correct ‘diversity’. That translates to ‘pro-gay’ as I’m sure you know. [Huh?] In Canada employees of religious faith at RBC (a huge bank) were chastised for not putting a pink triangle on their desk.”
    Those are absurd claims on their face, Nicol. Just because people like Pat Robertson say things like that, doesn’t mean they’re true. What

  112. Josh says:

    Thanks, Danny. We get it. You’re gay and you feel oppressed. Loud and clear. But every group feels a little oppressed. It’s not just the homosexuals.
    This country was founded for religious freedoms. And we’re just shutting that up because a select few secularists think it’s better. But there are a lot more religious people thanb secularists out there. And you making fun and harping on it proves the point that they’re more oppressed than you and your fellow homosexuals.

  113. BluStealer says:

    I thought Harrison Ford was a great sex symbol. But that was over ten years. Not many stars still stay sex symbols after they turn 60. Newman, Eastwood, Connery couldn’t do it. Ford won’t either. Proven by his box office take.
    I bet when they do Indy 4 they add a young Indy type guy to the cast to balance it out.

  114. DannyBoy says:

    Josh: “…it just proves the point that [religious folks] are more oppressed than you and your fellow homosexuals.”
    What “proves” that? You get married, you live your lives openly, you rarely get beaten up for who you are. You don’t get fired for being religious (nuff of the lying that says you do. Isn’t their a commandment about lying you’re supposed to believe in?) But if you get a little fair criticism on a blog, that proves you’re MORE persecuted than gays. Wow. Earth to Josh!

  115. DannyBoy says:

    By the way, Benjamin Franklin and most of the other men who founded the country and wrote the founding documents were secularists. Hate to keep bringing facts into the discussion….

  116. Angelus21 says:

    I know we have to talk about homosexuality because of all the Oscar films that deal with it as a subject matter but this is getting ridiculious. And boring to boot.

  117. palmtree says:

    “But every group feels a little oppressed. It’s not just the homosexuals.”
    Okay, and when a film about how you’re oppressed does well at the box office and is a shoo-in for all sorts of awards including the Best Picture Oscar, then we’ll all gladly listen to your plight.

  118. Josh says:

    Sorry to break the news to you Danny. But this country was founded on religious principles. They were just smart enough to separate it from government. Separate Church and State doesn’t mean we should be without religion. Like many secularists believe.
    Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.
    John Quincy Adams said… “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
    “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” – George Washington
    Pretty important Founding Fathers don’t you think, Danny?

  119. palmtree says:

    Just to clarify, it’s not that you have to wait for a movie to speak up for yourself. But I don’t understand how you can fault people for using the film as a springboard to talk about real issues. Yet we keep getting deflections of “gays have it easy”…if that were true, then the success of BM wouldn’t be this much of a surprise to everyone.

  120. Mark Ziegler says:

    The problem Harrison Ford has is ego. He’s been such a big BO star for such a long time he doesn’t know how to kick it back and segue into the next phase. He doesn’t know how to be a supporting player. What was his last supporting role? Star Wars? When was the last time he worked with a great director? I’d love to see him show some chops and really start going after some good roles and good movies. Work with some guys like Tarantino or Scorcese or Fincher.

  121. Lynn says:

    The founding fathers were primarily deist. They were certainly not fundamentalist, evangelical Protestants. They never had the goal of imposing their beliefs on others.
    Thomas Jefferson “edited” his copy of the Bible to eliminate all the miracles and mysticism, which he regarded as superstitious.
    John Adams: “The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” Adams also signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated: “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
    Thomas Paine: “I would not dare so dishonor my Creator’s name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).”
    James Madison: “What inflience in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Ruler who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxilaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.”
    John Quincy Adams did not participate in the drafting of the Constitution, btw, and doesn’t have “founding father” status.
    Washington’s statment, without context, is difficult to interpret, and there is considerable disagreement among historians as to whether the was a Christian or a Deist. He was also an early supporter of religious pluralism — during the war
    he ordered his troops not to burn the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night. He wrote a letter in 1790 to Jewish leaders that he envisioned a country “which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance…. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
    And Patrick Henry? His statement is historically accurate — nobody is denying that the first white settlers of the United States were Christians. That has little or nothing to do with the Constitution we eventually adopted. He was one of the people leading the charge for the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, which specifically forbids establishment of a state religion.
    (Why are we discussing this on this blog again?)

  122. DannyBoy says:

    Josh, Nicol, etc. Lynn does a great job of dispelling the lies about America the Christian Theocracy. Beyond that: you might want to educate yourselves a bit with the following books: “The Myth of Christian America: What You Need to Know About the Separation of Church and State” by Mark Weldon Whitten and “Jefferson and Madison on the Separation of Church and State” by Lenni Brenner.
    Our founding fathers were horrified by witch burnings in Salem and by the control of various European nations by the unanswerable religious elite. The America they created was far from the one in which most American Fundimentalists seem to believe.

  123. joefitz84 says:

    Lies about America and religion? Because the Founders of this country believed in God?
    I don’t get it. How is anyone lying? The Founders were smart people. They separated church and state but also based this country on morals and ethics. The lynchpins of religion.
    In God We Trust. Or did you forget? The secular lovers can say all they want but that’s a fact. Check your money if you don’t believe it.

  124. Josh says:

    I can list out a nice selection of books by people who believe this country was founded on religious principles. What’s it prove?
    I’m not even Christian. I’m Jewish. And not every Christian is a “fundamentalist” as Lynn states. I know its easy to lump it all in that divisive term but it’s not true and a lie.

  125. DannyBoy says:

    My money shows a big eye on the top of a pyramid, too, Joe. The reason for that being there is the same as the “in God we Trust.” Tradition. If quoting lines off of your money is the best you can do as a counter argument…..

  126. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, you weren’t complaining before about Christians being persecuted, you were specifically complaining about Pro-Lifers being persecuted, which even you have to know are two separate (if somewhat overlapping) groups of people. And I simply do not believe you when you say that Pro-Life demonstrators are attacked more than any other demonstrators.
    Also if you want three Catholics in Hollywood, in addition to the obvious Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel: Nicolas Cage, Nicole Kidman, Al Pacino, Susan Sarandon. Although you probably consider at least one of them to be a ‘Kennedy Catholic’, whatever that is. I guess some kind of heretic.
    Anyway, good job totally changing the subject from how one group is persecuted to how _Your_ group is persecuted.
    I really feel like using the old, tired language of everyone’s favorite poster up above to say “We get it. You’re ___ and you feel oppressed” but I won’t because the idiots who say that stuff are the worst people/person on the blog.

  127. Angelus21 says:

    Hmmmmmm interesting choice
    Either homosexuality and their lives or the Founding Fathers and their religious backgrounds.
    What a doozy!
    I’ll stick with Harrison Ford’s falling career.

  128. jeffmcm says:

    Josh: there’s a big difference between religious principles, like belief in equality, taking care of the poor, etc., which is what JQ Adams mentioned in your misleading quote, and specific religious practices, which the 1st Amendment forbids.

  129. palmtree says:

    If you read Lynn’s post, you’d see she said the Founding Fathers were deists. That means they did believe in God although not the Christian one.
    Last time I checked, morality and ethics were not monopolized by religion. There are plenty of moral and ethical people who don’t subscribe to any particular established faith.

  130. Josh says:

    Actually, jeffmcm, that was my point. That this country is founded on those basic principles and the men who set that up knew as much. People that want this country to be totally secular deny this and miss the boat. They try to cloud it by calling religious people “fundamentalists”. Which is not true and totally misleading.
    But we get it jeffmcm. You’re oppressed and feeling blue. No sweat.

  131. DannyBoy says:

    Well, kids, I’m off to break “natural law” by taking my gay lover out to eat on Valentines Day. On the bright side, we

  132. jeffmcm says:

    Then there’s no argument. There is no conflict between secularism and ‘basic principles’ because secularism is the absence of any specific religion, be it Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc and not the absence of ‘principles’ as you seem to suggest.
    So you didn’t read my post a little earlier up re: your last sentence?

  133. Rufus Masters says:

    How hard is it to believe that Pro-Lifers get attacked? Was it the third question down on the list after “the Sun is the ruler of the Universe” and “You too can own the Brooklyn Bridge for 20 bucks”?
    Do some research before you make a erroneous statement like that. Makes all your other statements seem lazy and ill informed.

  134. Josh says:

    Unfortunately, that’s why I added it. No one gets anything by jeffmcm!! Sarcasm goes right above his miniscule head. Oy vey.
    I never met a guy who has to show the world how gay he is and is so self loathing at the same time. Why do you think any straight person cares about homosexuals? Because you’ve been lead to believe it? Because you got called a “fag” when you were young? I know some straight guys who’ve been called that too. I know some straight guys who’ve actually been beaten up to.
    It doesn’t just happen to you. Sorry. You’re not alone and unique. 98% of the world could care less who you have dinner with and who you stick your penis in. You think its any different for a Jew dating a Muslim? Or a white dating a black? No. It’s not.
    Now have him pay because you deserve it. You’ve had a rough day. Smile.

  135. jeffmcm says:

    A) Nobody said “Pro-Lifers are never attacked”. I said I didn’t think they were the number 1 victimized group in America. The fact that your second and third links are not exactly from unbiased, objective sources reinforces my view.
    B) You are such a phony.

  136. jeffmcm says:

    If Danny’s hereness and queerness offends you so much, why do you continuously harass him about it? Obviously he is alone and unique because you keep going after him pretty much every time he posts something you don’t like.
    If you don’t like what Danny says, ignore him.

  137. jeffmcm says:

    Oh, and Josh: sarcasm only works if you’ve established a history of wit or cleverness. I suppose it’s possibly that most of your posts are diabolically ironic and you’re actually a writer for the New Yorker, getting his jollies by posing as Neanderthal Movie Blog Dope to rile people up. If so, cheers!

  138. Josh says:

    Should I feel sad for you, jeffmcm, because it took you four posts to convey one thing or honored that it was about me? Don’t know which way to go with it.
    If it didn’t go right over your head I’d say something else to you.

  139. jeffmcm says:

    Whatever you wanna do, chief.

  140. Rufus Masters says:

    Do your research before you say things. How hard is that? If you knew what you were talking about instead of just running your mouth off at the first person who doesn’t agree with your world view, you would engage in solid discussions. Instead you go around name calling people like me who just made a point. That might be how it’s done in the third grade schoolyard. But show some respect with people of age.

  141. jeffmcm says:

    “People of age…?”
    There was no research to be done. If you can find some statistics that say that the Pro-Life movement sees a greater number of attacks than any other group in America, then you might have something. You made no point.

  142. Josh says:

    Your sexuality doesn’t bother me in the least. I just want to know why does it bother you so much? Why is it so much of who you are? You seem very angry that you were made a homosexual and you sound like you wish that God had made you a straight man. Saying it’s an easier life to lead. This is just what I get from you. That’s why I’m asking you. And I do hope your boyfriend takes you to a nice restaurant tonight.
    Jeffmcm, I only go after you because I think you’re a jerk and an antagonist who tries to get peoples goats because you have nothing to say. You disagree with people just for the fun of it. That means you’re a jerk. You never have anything to contribute to any thread besides contentious acts and calling people out. That’s why I know you’re a jerk. And we all know you’re alone so enjoy that sixer of O’Douls and American Idol on Tivo.
    Thank you.

  143. Mark Ziegler says:

    I’ve said it a million times. Just ignore Jeff. Really. One million times now.

  144. jeffmcm says:

    Josh, you’re the jerk. You’re antagonizing Danny for no reason except that he’s gay. You’re making, out of thin air, some kind of imaginary ‘self-loathing’ based on absolutely nothing that he has said. His mere gayness is apparently what you find objectionable.
    I have said this many times before Josh, but here we go again: just because every time we interact I’m going after you is simply because you’re an idiot and not because I like to fight. Scan up on this thread and you’ll see lengthy discussions on the Western genre and Harrison Ford.
    Stop projecting your paranoia and hatred on other people here. Until you do, I will not stop ‘calling you out’ because I cannot tolerate idiocy.

  145. jeffmcm says:

    Mark, you can fuck off too.

  146. James Leer says:

    “Should I feel sad for you, jeffmcm, because it took you four posts to convey one thing?”
    That’s really rich considering it’s coming from “Josh,” who has used TEN aliases on this topic alone to convey one thing.

  147. jeffmcm says:

    I was going to say you overcounted, but ten might actually be just about right.

  148. James Leer says:

    Josh, joefitz, Fades to Black, Sanchez, Terence D (not Nicol D, who is actually a different person), Bruce, LesterFreed, BluStealer, Angelus21, Mark Ziegler.
    Ten by my count.

  149. Fades To Black says:

    I’m continually amazed how some people can be so utterly abrasive.
    I saw PINK PANTHER (wasn’t my idea). Let’s just say I would have been better off taking my 20$ bucks and either burning it or flushing it down the toilet. What was Steve Martin thinking? It is making me rethink him as a comedian. I hope his paycheck was worth it.

  150. jeffmcm says:

    You forgot Rufus Masters.
    I’m still undecided on Sanchez.

  151. palmtree says:

    To be fair to them, Christians are regularly treated like second-class citizens in this country. They aren’t even allowed to perform baptisms and communions in the workplace but have to do them at church. And the Bible not being on the bestseller lists every single week just shows the massive conspiracy to deny Christians their rights. And the corporate ban on the word Christmas…it was basically like being sent to a concentration camp.
    Is that sarcastic enough?

  152. James Leer says:

    Whoops, must’ve missed good old Rufus.
    JeffMCM, I don’t know what more you need to know that Sanchez is an alias. But I admire your willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the dude who’s slagged on you time and time again.

  153. jeffmcm says:

    I still think he’s just a toady of the Collective. He exhibits a little more personality than the rest, although granted with a willingness to go along with the ‘herd’.

  154. waterbucket says:

    Sometimes, I also go as Dave Poland. Hey look at me, I hate Brokeback. Woohoo.
    I can’t believe that all those people are actually one person. Then this blog has like 3 posters total?

  155. Bruce says:

    James I am very much myself. Even though my wife would say I’m hers. Wouldn’t disagree with her at the moment. But I must say thanks for thinking of me and including me.

  156. jeffmcm says:

    You could have fooled me, Bruce. What union are you a member of, by the way?

  157. Crow T Robot says:

    “Josh, joefitz, Fades to Black, Sanchez, Terence D (not Nicol D, who is actually a different person), Bruce, LesterFreed, BluStealer, Angelus21, Mark Ziegler.”
    LOL This is sort of like that scene in The Thing remake… where James Leer sticks a hot pin in each of our (electronic) blood samples and we wait anxiously for the “tsss.” Lovin it.

  158. Josh says:

    Whoever disagrees with Jeff/James is obviously everyone else. No wonder you’re so on edge.

  159. Rufus Masters says:

    I don’t mind too much being ripped on by anonymous internet users who can’t be themselves or even use a real name. But that’s the name of the game. I wouldn’t post at blogs if I cared too much about it. I’d like to see some ip addresses because I got my suspicions about people like jeff. But like I said who really cares?
    Like I stated before. When you can’t get into a real discussion the name calling comes out.

  160. jeffmcm says:

    Rufus, EVERYONE on here is anonymous. I don’t understand what you’re talking about with this ‘real name’ stuff. Especially coming from you. I have posted my real name and email address on here before, and would be happy to address any questions you have, but if you’d rather merely insinuate, go ahead.
    Oh, and by all means, let’s have a real discussion. Pick something to discuss.

  161. Fades To Black says:

    This arguing trip some are on is not a trip I’m into. Not into it at all. I’m hear for the movies and the talk about movies. I could care less about your fights or anything else so please do me a favor and leave me out of it, dude. If you want to address me I have my email address there I’d be happy to listen to you. If I wanted to sit here and read people trying to attack me for something I’d go somewhere else.

  162. jeffmcm says:

    Oh, and Josh: your logic is faulty. Things don’t follow the “everyone disagrees with Josh and Jeff, therefore Josh and Jeff think everyone is a fake poster” supposition.
    Rather, the set of people who constantly post in a belligerent manner and pick fights is roughly congruent with the set of ID names who strongly appear to be phony.

  163. jeffmcm says:

    Go ahead, Fades. Post your email address, like you just said you would.

  164. James Leer says:

    There’s a lot more to it than that…in other posts, we’ve pointed out that the poster posts under those same aliases on this site and, mispunctuates the same things across aliases, uses the same phrases, has the same opinion, posts during the same period as his other aliases, etc. None of the alises defended themselves the first time this was brought up and discussed at length because the dude was taking an inopportune (and glorious) vacation from the blog.
    DP knows about the situation and has chosen not to take any action against it and I’m not going to beat that dead horse, but I will call the multiple poster out on it whenever things get too out of hand.

  165. Josh says:

    James Stone is a better name than James Leer.

  166. Fades To Black says:

    You can write me personally at
    or if you are ever in need of a band, singer, or artist

  167. James Leer says:

    Sorry Fades. If you were really here to talk about movies, maybe you’d do it less schizophrenically…like in this “can’t get your story straight” discussion about “The New World.”
    “The version I saw was the longer cut. It was thrilling. You just knew you were watching a Malick movie. Slowly unfolding in front of you. I can’t believe he would let anyone cut his work after he finished. I’m guessing studio pressure to force him to make cuts.
    Posted by: Fades To Black at January 17, 2006 05:10 PM”
    “Think I’ll finally be seeing BBM this weekend. Hopefully, New World too.
    Posted by: Fades To Black at January 20, 2006”
    “I caught “New World” over the weekend. Didn’t see the old cut so I can’t reall compare it to anything. It’s challenging and moves slow. But it is so well shot. It is not a crowd pleaser. If they wanted that kind of movie they should have avoided Malick as the director.
    Posted by: Fades To Black at January 23, 2006 02:40 PM”
    Not that it needed proving, since we’d already proved you to be one of the aliases.
    Happy Valentine’s, sweetheart.

  168. jeffmcm says:

    Hey James, did you ever stop and think that maybe he really _is_ schizophrenic? Then it wouldn’t be something to make light of.

  169. James Leer says:

    Don’t harsh my buzz, Jeff! Don’t you know that most modern corporations bend over backwards to cater to schizophrenics at the expense of their gay commie coworkers? If I can’t make fun, what resources do I have left?

  170. jeffmcm says:

    I keed, I keed. I just walked down to my local video store and there was a little old man ranting about the Jews and someone putting poison in his mouth and it made me think of real-life schizophrenics.
    But I was kind of laughing at the guy at the same time too.

  171. Fades To Black says:

    I only saw one cut of the movie. Longer, shorter, I didn’t know because I couldn’t compare it to anything else because I didn’t see it. But I’m happy you are asking about films I’ve actually seen and talked about than anything else.

  172. Fades To Black says:

    To take the time and effort to sift thru every post of mine in a month is a nice feeling. I didn’t think my views on film were that appreciated until now. Either you’re a fan or you have way too much free time on your hands. I could use some more fans. My band needs them.

  173. jeffmcm says:

    Stop, Fades, you’re just digging the hole deeper with every reference to your ‘band’.

  174. James Leer says:

    No, this is good. I like to know how he sees all these personalities…I’m a completist.
    Fades to Black: has band
    LesterFreed: black
    Rufus Masters: also black
    Josh: Jewish
    blustealer: girl
    Sanchez: Puerto Rican except for the one time he was Mexican
    I can’t distinguish amongst the rest.

  175. Crow T Robot says:

    Starting to wonder now if this site is the reason my credit card number was stolen last month….
    (though that was some funny, coldblooded shit, Leer)

  176. Lota says:

    Fades to black. Martin’s paycheck for Panther, like Father of the Bride and Cheaper by the Duz, was just grand. He’s not hurting for cash. A lot o them comics are very tight-fisted, but Steve Martin actually spends alot in the arts and is very generous, so I don;t begrudge him for his high salary since he’s definitely at least a “ten-percenter” in terms of donations and purchases from galleries and helping out museums. The artist in you should be pleased. He may own as much art as Madonna.
    However, it would be nice if Steve would take a big sum for a decent movie for a change.
    And after reading alot of this stuff on this thread I am so glad for the separation of church and state, despite repeated attempts by a few special interest groups to fuse them back together and attempt to make martyrs of themselves.

  177. Fades To Black says:

    I have to begrudge Martin slightly for the paycheck crack. Is he like DeNiro in that he takes these nonsense type roles for the money and than takes that money and gives back? Like DeNiro does with Tribeca and getting those projects off the ground? I can respect doing it for the money if you’re taking that money back into the arts.
    But how must two talented guys like that feel when they’re reduced to doing movies and roles like this?

  178. Charly Baltimore says:

    What’s it say about art if you have to whore yourself out like a prostitute in order to get money to fund projects that you care deeply about?

  179. Lota says:

    Hey I don;t agree with it–I just can’t tell anyone how to earn their money. There are plenty of the thesps who whore themselves out and Don;t give back to anything except their Habits.
    It would be nice if they all were quality actors first, celebrities second, but it doesn;t seem to be how Hollywood or TV is operating in the USA these last 10 yrs.
    Nic Cage does it too. He;s been in some horrific movies, giving scenery chewing cud nonstop for his side projects. he should go back to Raising Arizona stuff. he had a talent for comedy.

  180. Yodas Nut Sac says:

    It may be the biz but I don’t have to like it.
    In their spot I’d probably do the same thing. I can’t find faults with any man who takes the money. Who turns down that much cash for a few weeks of going through the motions? I wish I were an actor.
    Imagine Bobby D on the set of Analyze That:
    “I did Taxi Driver. I did that. I was Jake Lamotta. I did fucking Goodfellas for chritsakes. And now I’m doing a goddamn sequel to a shitty movie with Billy Crystal. Think studio space, Bobby. What the fuck you lookin at? You talking to me?”

  181. James Leer says:

    Hi, number twelve.

  182. Angelus21 says:

    “Cheaper by the Dozen” and “Bringing Down the House” better pay for a ton of other things going on. Because while Shopgirl was a decent little book it wasn’t great.
    You can straddle your commercial and your artistic tastes. It can be done. It’s a tightrope though. You better hope the money is worth having those movies hang over your head. Integrity doesn’t always come back and a price can’t always be put on it.

  183. Crow T Robot says:

    I can see this guy tucking his weiner between his legs and dancing around naked to “Goodbye Horses” by Q Lazzarus.
    “It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the blog again.”
    This is surreal.

  184. James Leer says:

    Nice Jame Gumb reset, Crow.
    All right, boys and girls, it’s Valentine’s Night for me. Hope the rest of you get some lovin’…

  185. jeffmcm says:

    The weirdest thing about those New World posts that Leer tracked down is that they’re so pointless. Just lying in order to maintain a presence in the conversation and for no other purpose.

  186. Martin S says:

    You have to keep Panther in context of when it was offered to Martin. He stepped in and picked up Mike Myers contract. Myers signed an absurd-ass deal due to Austin Powers, but then got cold feet. He said it was because he couldn’t follow up Sellars, some MGM people thought it was because he had nothing to distinguish it from Powers.
    Martin got the deal because Cheaper performed well and he was tight with a few MGM board members. MGM had the film slated for years and couldn’t pull it from development for shareholder reasons. It was the last film to go into production under the old MGM brass. If Sony could have gotten involved earlier, they would have.
    Before Martin agreed – Adam Sandler, Chris Tucker, Robin Williams all considered it. Rowan Atkinson wanted the part.
    IMO – it should have been Nathan Lane or Will Arnett as Clouseau. Carrell would be a good, obvious studio choice. Kelsey Grammar as Dreyfous. Sammo Hung would have made a funny Kato. I would have brought Grammar on as producer, also. A number of Fraiser episodes had the same sensibilites as the first Panther or A Shot In The Dark.

  187. Yodas Nut Sac says:

    Harrison Ford is 64 Years Old for gods sake!
    He was 50 when he did Patriot Games and we called him old.
    He’s aging gracefully but it’s not his fault if theres no one behind him ready to grab his mantle.

  188. Richard Nash says:

    Remember that Ford was also in his high thirties when he did “Star Wars”. He was a late comer in the acting game.
    When his career is all said and done we’ll be talking about one of the great actors of his generation. He won’t get the respect now. But he will when he is done.
    More respect will be given to roles he had in films like “Witness” and “Mosquito Coast”.
    He’s still young enough where he can start another act of his acting career. His story may not yet be done.

  189. DannyBoy says:

    Ford’s a better actor than, say, Eastwood and Redford, maybe as good as Connery. He has the possibility of a fine last act career, much as Connery has, if he plays his cards right, gets some films like “Untouchables” and “Name of the Rose” in there.

  190. Tcolors says:

    Who found CRASH to be ground-breaking? I watched it once. Usually I’ll watch a movie more than once, but CRASH was nothing new or ground-breaking to me. I remember another movie about aids that had a story line like Crash. Where one persons actions touched another persons life and the movie followed that chain of events just like Crash has done. But, that movie did it years ago. As far as everything else in the story line, you can watch any sitcom on tv and see those play out.
    What was sooo new and ground-breaking? I agree with that dude from “Hollywood Elsewhere” when he said an “Emmy” maybe, but an Oscar?”

  191. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Blah. We get that Crash is the worst movie in the history of film. Can we stop constantly asking “Why do people think it’s good?”
    The people who liked it have said why many times (or, I know I have).
    On the matter of Steve Martin, will i get lambasted if I say I liked Father of the Bride when I was 10 and if it’s on tv i might flick over.
    You know what comedy is really underappreciated? It’s not Martin, but it is Murray.
    Man, that movie is great. One of the best heist scenes too.

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” — 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