Filler? I Hardly Know Her!
I’m sure there is something worth discussing here on the blog today…. but damned if I know what it is!
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’m not usually very political, but my pal Devin has a great story up on CHUD:
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=7505
Anyone who caught this doc at Tribeca realizes that Franken’s debate with Coulter is one of the hilights of the movie (even says so in the press notes!) and the movie’s really hurt by it not being in there, since I think the debate is pivotal in Al’s decision to enter politics himself. I think they should just leak the footage to YouTube so that people can see what a monster Coulter really is. (Which is probably why she wouldn’t give permission for them to use it)
I notice on IMDB that David Lynch has a new film called Inland Empire that is slated to play festivals in the fall.
Why no buzz? It seems if any auteur should be creating noise about having a new film out in the fall it should be Lynch, and yet I have heard absolutely nothing on this.
Lynch is one of my favourite directors. Anyone know anything at all about Inland Empire?
It’s playing at the New York Film Festival. Not sure if it’s playing at Telluride, Venice or Toronto.
Has anyone heard anything about this Adrian Grenier doc Shot in the Dark that’s playing at Toronto?
Borrowed a friend’s overseas DVD of “Ken Park” yesterday and today I’m taking a shower and then turning myself into authorities.
That’s rich, instead of leaking, you go mute. Re: Ann Coulter, that’s gotta really suck, having a scene pulled when you open on 9/13, the sticky public domain issue rears its ugly head again. Guess it’s too late, or illegal, to animate it and run it with subtitles. BTW, speaking of animation, The Triplets of Bellevue is the best damn movie ever, it’s my personal Casablanca, and the beagle in it, until you live with one, you can’t understand how accurate a portrayal it is.
I saw a clip of INLAND EMPIRE somewhere….(youtube maybe?) and it looked like a-typical Lynch weirdness. I LOVE Lynch, but the clip I saw looked like a Lynch parody, and hell, it could’ve been…although I did recognize one actor.
It was 2 girls and a guy sitting in lawn chairs talking in circles. Something along the lines of “who’s that?” “I don’t know” “Oh, that’s me…or is it you.” It looked to be shot on hi-8 video too. Needless to say, I didn’t dig what I saw. But out of context Lynch doesn’t really stand on it’s own.
Haven’t had luck finding a clip, poster or anything.
I’m just surprised that no one has mentioned it as one of the fall films to watch especially given how well Mullholland Drive was recieved.
I honestly haven’t seen a Lynch film that I didn’t like (even Dune has its rewards) and would have thought more crix would put this on their fall film radar.
Maybe he’ll pull another rabbit out of a hat.
Also, any word on The Wicker Man? Is it not being screened because they want to keep the ending a ‘surprise’, or because its a piece of… well…poo.
I find it hard to believe LaBute could do something that awful. Then again, I’m in that distinct list of three people that always shows up for Nic Cage films.
“Also, any word on The Wicker Man? Is it not being screened because they want to keep the ending a ‘surprise’, or because its a piece of… well…poo.”
I can’t imagine how they can keep the ending a surprise when it’s a remake of a movie that is mostly memorable for that ending. There’s no such thing as a “shocking twist” in a remake.
Found this clip of Inland Empire. I can’t get YouTube videos to work on the computer I’m posting from, though, so I haven’t even seen it myself yet.
http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=1981
Sheesh, don’t look too hard Nicol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLVH4BXlPc4
I googled “inland empire” lynch youtube and bingo.
Upon further review, and reading the comments, that is apparently not an INLAND EMPIRE clip but something from Lynch’s website. My bad! Still looks like a Lynch parody…
Aha! The gods revenge for your sarcasm!
Yes, I’ve been struck down with furious vengeance….on this mother fuckin’ plane…
Maybe this “twist” for the new Wicker Man is that they changed the twist?
Kind of like how The Vanishing remake had a twist ending.
I saw “Ken Park” some years ago and immediately sought therapy.
A shame the sole high point of the “Wicker Man” remake is Ellen Burstyn. The original is overrated, but certainly captivating in its weirdness; it’ll most likely suck hard. A shame, too, considering Robin Hardy’s been trying to get another movie off the ground for, oh, four or five years now (“Riding of the Lassie/Laddie/Cowboys in Christ”).
I don’t know why I like this guy so much.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/tully/archives/011145.html
The title of this post is tawdry.
All yawl, Donald Trumped by the desperate LATimes.
The Black Dalia is getting raves and pans from Venice. London Evening Standard gave it four stars and some german critic called it a masterpiece. But two french critics hated it. In other words, it’s the typical reaction to any Brian DePalma film.
You mean this rag: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/film/review-23364933-details/Scarlett+women%27s+dark+secrets/review.do?reviewId=23364933
Yeah, that’s the rag. I’m curious about the film. I really dug the script but I hear DePalma did some work on it — which probably isn’t a good thing.
How do you know about the french and german critics? What’s your source?
http://www.angelfire.com/de/palma/
What is the harm in predicting the movies that will play at Telluride? Is it really more shameful than Oscar prognosticating? I don’t get it.
I forgot to mention, I read the first graphic novel (ie; comic book) in the SOUTHLAND TALES three book series. If it’s any indication of how the film turned out, no wonder people are confused. The first book had some super ideas that are just 1/4 baked…not ever 1/2 baked. I’m still unclear on what the story is about, but I like the characters. However, I’m not going to be rushing out to buy part two…
James, you don’t really think the 2 are the same, do you?
Just noticed the ad, upper right corner on home page, for Svensk Filmindustri’s The Art of Crying showing in Toronto. Could be a public service announcement or something?
Variety and the Reporter didn’t love the Dahlia, but they didn’t hate it either.
NEW YORK needs to STOP raining and ruining my first US Open experience. GO AGASSI! GO SERENA!
Tawdry’s the word of the day. Both reviews make me want to see it.
Maybe I missed it, but did anyone around here mention that Brett Ratner is going to make an Oscar movie based on Robert Evans, as of now, unpublished second memoir?
Ratner may have been kidding, but there’s no way to tell, since the NYT doesn’t really do sarcasm very well…but even if it was an honest statement…shit! You don’t say you’re going to say something is your ‘Oscar movie’ do you? Everyone may wanna do one, but sheesh. Then again, at least he’s copping to it.
Either way, he needs to be stopped. And soon. Like five minutes ago kind of soon.
Anyone else catch Spike Lee’s WHEN THE LEVEES BROKE? Holy shit…that might be the best doc ever made. it’s stunningly well balanced and not only puts a face on the victims of this disaster, but also passes around plenty of blame. New Orleans is STILL not cleaned up and it’s the one eyar anniversary of Katrina. Sad, sad sad…but a great doc.
On the matter of Inland Empire it has been my #1 anticipated title all year. It is apparently playing at NY but not Venice. I heard that Rome Festival could also have it (Opening night of Rome Festival is Nicole Kidman starring Fur, which I am also quite anticipating.
Empire doesn’t have a distributer yet, which makes many believe it won’t be a 2006 release. They could even hold it back, whoever picks it up, and try to get it into Cannes next year.
The response to The Black Dahlia isn’t surprising at all, it’s just like the buzz. Some are really pumped for it (like me) and some are downright hating it already. There’s also mixed on Hollywoodland. Poland hates it but a few others like it.
Wasn’t BLACK DAHLIA a pet project of David Fincher for a while. Don’t know what happened there but had Fincher stayed on might have been a real contender.
Don’t get me wrong, I like De Palma, but apart from DRESSED TO KILL, UNTOUCHABLES and that Travolta flick BLOW OUT – De Palma has been dissapointing as of late.
And no I don’t agree with Pauline Kael that CASUALTIES OF WAR was a masterpiece.
“…but apart from DRESSED TO KILL, UNTOUCHABLES and that Travolta flick BLOW OUT – De Palma has been dissapointing as of late.”
You do know the most recent of those films was 19 years ago, right?
“Stunningly well balanced?” Petaluma, you’re bring sarcastic, right?
I find it hilarious that the ad campaign for Dahlia is touting it as “From the director of Scarface,” when that film was released, oh, 23 years ago? It’d be great if they touted it as “From the director of Snake Eyes and Mission to Mars.” I imagine that’d put the asses in the seats.
Maybe if they put “From the director of the first 20 minutes of Snake Eyes but NOT the rest”
I can’t remember a film that I loved the start of so much yet went on to hate the rest with equal passion. And, well, Mission to Mars is (for me) the second worst movie I’ve ever seen. Just atrocious.
I really loved Femme Fatale though so I don’t know where that puts me in the scheme of DePalmadome (i just invented that word, go me)
Ah, Mission to Mars, one of Disney’s first Theme Park Ride to Feature Length Movie experiments.
Was surprised I made it through all four hours of When the Leevees Broke. Easily the most depressing watch of the year.
How about discussing Jeff Wells’ disgraceful piece today on Glenn Ford, cruelly (and baselessly) disparaging the great actor on the day of his death? You should see how many posters are tearing him to shreds for picking on one of the most beloved actors of the Golden Age!
One thing that Wells doesn’t mention in his Glenn Ford hatchet piece was that Ford was a conservative who refused to work in projects with sex and too much foul language. This, no doubt, contributed to the decline of interesting work by Ford in the 1970s, a time when filmmakers were pushing the content envelope.
Snarkiness knows no honor.
Josh- I’m not kidding. I guess if you go into the film looking for and expecting a “Spike Lee point of view,” you’ll find it. But if you actually watch the film and let it be what it is, you’ll see he allows for ALL sides of the story and doesn’t take anyone’s side. Every claim that’s put forth by people (the levees were blown up, it was Blanco’s fault, it was the governments fault) he throws out the opposite idea. That’s balance my friend.
Not only that, but it doesn’t matter what political party you subscribe to, the governments response to Katrina was a major, major screw job. They totally fucked up…and this is a post 9-11 DISASTER that’s akin to an attack.,..and it was totally mismanaged. There’s no disagreeing on that, plain and simple.
In closing…did you finish THE RUINS?
Camel, I adored FEMME FATALE as well, and also RAISING CAIN. Even his worst movie (and yes, that would be MISSION TO MARS) is still of more value than most other pictures.
Mission to Mars is a bizarre film. It’s full of so much garbage, especially in the script, and ESPECIALLY in the last ten minutes, but then it also has some amazing sequences.
I’m another Femme Fatale lover, plus Raising Cain and Body Double (aka Poor Man’s Vertigo) and for my money, his Mission: Impossible is the best of the three.
Re: the Glenn Ford item: reason #483692 to consider Wells an asshole.
I don’t know why everyone is so bent out of shape about Wells stating his opinion. I disagree with him for the most part and I am sure that Wells has never seen some of Ford’s best films (So Ends Our Night, Gallant Journey, Texas, The Man From Colorado, Framed, The Sheepman, Jubal, etc…) but why does someone’s death mean that that person’s work can’t be critically appraised?
I just wouldn’t go to Jeffrey Wells for insight into film history.
I think the problem with Wells is that in his piece, it only took him sixteen words to get negative, and his positive comments on Ford’s career read as very curt and flippant.
There is no room for negativity in a memorial for a decent, upstanding guy who made a mark on the movies he was in. Wells could have said the exact same things he said without any negative spin…it’s the fact that he chose to.
i read only a couple movienews/blog sites including this one. But, after reading this thread, I read Wells’ piece on Glenn Ford.
Something is wrong with Mr Wells’ head. Why would one write a piece like that anyway? I mean if it were Jayne mansfield or William Holden, a movie writer who really loves movies would want to highlight the POSITIVE of a career–the personal best.
I think Wells is just jealous of Mr. Ford’s Tools. Ford definitely had the Tools. What a man.
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1021/Mptv/1021/0079-0028.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Ford,%20Glenn
G’night Dave Bannion…
“I am sure that Wells has never seen some of Ford’s best films”
Pat H., if that is true it only makes Wells looks worse–his piece isn’t valid film criticism in any respect then, it’s just ‘personal’.
Nothing like slagging off a dead person’s work you haven’t seen.
Lota,
I agree that Wells is pretty worthless regarding classic films and actors but I don’t subscribe to the theory that you always have to highlight the positives of someone’s career. He wasn’t doing an obituary he was giving his appraisal of the man’s career.
Yes, a strangely negative, trying-to-be-hip-and-contrarian appraisal with nothing of productive value, his basic conclusion seems to be “Ford wasn’t that great so I don’t feel bad that he’s gone”.
^^^The only reason why Wells wrote his appraisal was because the man died…doesn’t that make it a memorial? How is it okay to use someone’s death as a springboard to describe how worthless their career was?
“He wasn’t doing an obituary he was giving his appraisal of the man’s career.”
I disagree. An appraisal gives the best and least attractive aspects of the item described. There was no need for the vitriol and cutting sarcasm on a career that had many highlights.
If he’s trashing Glenn Ford wonder what he’ll say about my sister Sophia Loren when she dies.
Ignorance never is an excuse but it appears to be the MO for the Glenn Ford lash.
Giving Wells ‘ignorance’ as an excuse is very generous of you, Lota.
Here’s my try:
“Sophia Loren passed away today. Not to be a jerk, but what had she done for us lately? The lady had been coasting on her past ‘glories’ for the last thirty+ years. And don’t even get me started on Man of La Mancha. Sophia was out of touch and irrelevant to modern movie culture for a long, long time.”
So has anyone seen/will anyone besides myself be seeing Idiocracy this weekend? Think I’ll also catch up on The Illusionist.
I’m heading to the Arclight to see “Idiocracy” today, jeffmcm. See you there.
Well Jeff my charitable-ness to others used to be the ‘flaw’ that Bicycle Bob and alter egos used to pick on. I can live with it. asshole-dom is what it is without me pointing it out. Let’s hope nothing happens to Sophia for a long time.
i just realized that Glenn ford and Edward G Robinson both never got deserved awards (or noms) for many stellar performances. It’s particularly shocking that Robinson didn;t get boatloads of awards for Scarlet Street, one of my favorite movies. Funnily enough both Ford and Robinson did their best under one of my favorite directors, Fritz Lang.
Sometimes the Academy as a ‘body’, and certain critics willing to bash dead multi-talented actors really are lacking a sense of talent appreciation.
Following up here: If you’re gonna check out Idiocracy this weekend make damn sure you stay all the way to the end.
Follow up again: Idiocracy is a little uneven and was obviously patched together with some crude re-editing and voiceover, but it’s reasonably funny. It’s also, in some ways, the movie that the critics were accusing Talladega Nights of being last month.