April 25, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — 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
I have to agree with the critics…this is getting a little ridiculous. Did Stephen Sommers direct this movie?
What critics?
Well, Mr. Nicol D., for one.
But yeah…what’s up with the lack of advance word?
Why mess with what is working – according to tracking – beyond anything rational?
Here’s a thought: perhaps the studio fears that the teenagers aren’t gonna go for this one–Tom Hanks is older and is usually in “boring” films now, they don’t know who the hell Audrey Tautou is, and they just know this is based on some popular book. The Sith imagery might make some of the younger people think “Hey, this actually looks kind of dark and cool”.
Talk about covering all your demographic bases. At least maybe they’ll get the rest of the goths to show up.
Just a thought.
If I didn’t know Paul Bettany was in The Da Vince Code I’d probably think it was a poster for The Omen.
My point is, can’t we all agree that it looks, in a word, stupid?
It’s kind of funny that you don’t hear peep from the Catholic Church about “The Omen”… so they don’t have a problem with a movie about the son of Satan? Interesting…
A story of an evil Satan goes along with – more or less – the church’s teachings. Obviously “The DaVinci Code” doesn’t. That’s why there is no outcry.
Is “The Omen” based on a book which purports to be factual yet is rife with errors and inaccuracies?
He does look kinda like the Emperor from “Empire,” the original one, that is.
I dig it.
Um, he’s playing a monk. Cowls are normal garb.
And he’s albino, which accounts for his washed out appearance.
You guys are missing the forest for the trees. Dan Brown made him an albino in a cowl expressly to make him creepy looking (and I thought he was an Opus Dei member, who tend to not wear cowls, in real life anyway).
This might be a good marketing campaign to get butts in seats, but I’m starting to side with the Catholic Church in agreeing that this movie looks more than a little hateful.
I haven’t read the book. Does it assail the very existence and foundations of the Church, or are the villains merely members of it?
I keep meaning to read the book, but never got around to it. I read Dan Brown’s ANGELS AND DEMONS, though. This looks quite alot like that book, except for the Jesus controversy. I understand why some Christians are up in arms…it’s not just controversial. It plays with some serious notions about the Son of God. But it’s FICTION people! The same thing happened when THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST came out.
Yes and yes, though with qualifications in both cases. And also, the two aren’t causally related. It’s not an either/or proposition.
I wouldn’t call the villains “mere” members of the church. I’d say that some of them are powerful figures in the church trying to cover up the truth.
Pwrgirl, if we believe that fiction has the power to change people for the better, we also have to assume that fiction can have the opposite effect. Obviously it depends on the individual. I’m no fan of the institutional Catholic Church, but poster represents a fear-mongering attitude on the part of the marketing team and producers.
(By the way, who else things that marketers are some of the worst people on Earth?)
“The DaVinci Code” is currently at disastrously low 18% on the Rotten Tomatoes homepage. Amusingly, the first positive review currently listed is from “Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat, Spirituality and Practice.”
Ebert has given it his three-star rubber stamp of approval. Surely the outlier is Lou Lumenick’s four-star rave. How far out is that limb going to turn out to be?
“The Last Temptation of Christ” was targeted by Christian fundamentalists — some of whom tore apart theaters that played the pic. Blockbuster refuses to stock “Last Temptation” for that reason.
The MSM is soft on Opus Dei because the MSM is soft on right-wing outfits. The MSM is soft on the Catholic Church because the MSM has a soft spot for right-wing religion (and this was long before the current Pope was installed).
What does the current Pope have to do with any of this?
Let’s separate actual criticism of the Catholic Church from this movie, which is apparently some kind of fantasy/nightmare version of the Church with paranoid ramblings at its heart. Critics attacking a bad movie, regardless of what its about or who its bad guys are, is a good thing for intellectual discourse.
Chucky, I remember very clearly the uproar when “The Last Temptation of Christ” came out but, to be fair, I do not recall any instance of people tearing apart any theatres in the United States. There were quite a few angry protests here, but I believe that was the extent of it. (There was, however, one incident of arson at a movie house in Paris.)
Must be all those non-MSM outlets reporting on the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, then, since the MSM has such a big soft spot for it.
Yeah what’s up with the MSM reporting on the church sex abuse scandal? Couldn’t they have just ignored it, much like the church itself did for decades?