A local shopkeeper is already commenting on how he/she sees the fest… though I am sure the store will take the money from fest goers.
Is this outdoor for The Border or The Departed? Jack looks pretty darned good, huh? But is it really an image from the current film? And where is Marky “Invincible” Mark?
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"]
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
Why does Matt Damon look like Kevin Bacon?
You mean Jack looking like Goodman in Lebowski?
Actually I think that’s Leo looking like Kevin Bacon, and Matt looking like Ewan MacGregor
To anyone in Toronto: if you see one of these being sold (they’re ahead of us, this Canadian company is a major dealer of the good kind with Mitsubishi shield) do yourself a favor and bring one home — makes a fashion statement too.
http://www.facevisor.com/index.html
Reminds me of the green (or was it purple) sunblock in Robocop.
Ah man, why does David have to be out of town when all of this juicy Path to 9/11 hooha is going down?
Ah people getting their panties in a bunch over a boring mini-series. jmcm, when I wear my black one, people scream, “Darth Vader.”
It’s not a boring miniseries, it seems to be (i’m not fully informed) an inflammatory docudrama posing as a documentary.
T.H., you must be tall.
No Jeff,
It’s apparently a very accurate docudrama that accurately shows how Bill Clinton dropped the ball for the better part of decade on terrorism.
But all that aside…
…you never saw Bush trying to censor true propaganda like F/911, DOAP, Syriana etc.
And that’s what this is really all about.
Love it or hate it, the left no longer believes in free speech.
That is the true legacy here. It’s not like Michael Moore or George Clooney traffic in truth.
Being pro-free speech is no longer something the left believes in.
Sigh, here we go again.
I’d say that too if I no longer had an argument worth defending.
I guess only some free speech is worth defending eh, Jeff?
Nicol, I would say you baffle me by the fact that you typically only show up to get into a political argument, with no efforts to reach understanding, only shrill self-aggrandizement and belligerence. But you don’t baffle me, you just fall into the same one-track mindset every time. Do you want to have a discussion about this program that none of us have seen, or do you just want to rant and rave about how awful your opponents are?
You also seem to have forgotten this:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/
Why the hell would Bush censor “Syriana”? It’s not about him, and the book it is based on took place in the 90’s before he was President.
BTW, you actually seen the 9/11 show yet Nicol D? I’m dying to hear what you think of it.
I just hope there’s a scene where Richard Clarke (Stephen Root) asks if someone stole his stapler.
Jeff, if all that you say about me is so true; that I try to reach no ‘understanding’ whatsoever and am only into “shrill self-aggrandizement and belligerence”…then why do you respond?
That’s how you torpedo yourself Jeff. Every time, you show yourself as that which you claim your opponents are.
And I’ll quit discussing politics in film when political films quit being made.
As for the Reagan program, the screenwriter deliberately put in lines that made Reagan look vicious but that were pure invention, that no one said he actually said.
Many claim the Sandy Berger stuff happened. Very different scenario.
Now respond with some more name calling…I know it makes you feel like you’ve won.
Try some alliteration next time, then it won’t seem as predictable. Oh, but please layer on the condescending sarcasm; play to your strengths, boyo!
Hopscotch,
The argument hear is whether or not we will be allowed to see The Path To 9/11 intact and as intended.
Obviously, if some people have their way we will not see it at all.
False, defamatory and dramatic license are the terms being used to describe PATH. $40 million and 5 full hours (no commercials), I’m getting sleepy just thinking ’bout it.
Nicol, you always say I call you names, and I never have that I can recall. I certainly didn’t up above on this thread. Nor was I ‘condescendingly sarcastic’ which is bizarre to read in a sentence that contains the word ‘boyo’.
You are exhausting to talk to because you are not honestly interested in communicating. I beg of you, if you want to DISCUSS movies, political or otherwise let’s discuss them. If you just want to rant and rave and yell, then it is pointless to keep trying. I respond to your posts primarily to counteract what I consider to be dangerous and false statements that you put forth, but it would be so much better use of both of our time to actually discuss and reach common ground. I’ve tried and tried and you constantly refuse.
I beg of you, for the sake of America, to refrain from the back-and-forth mudslinging that nobody is innocent of and deliberaly try to actually have a proper, civilized discussion.
Pssstt…the new Bond trailer:
http://movies.aol.com/casino-royale-james-bond/exclusive-video-features
Since when is primetime broadcast TV about free speech?
There are specific regulations regarding what programming can happen during certain hours and as the people at the Parents Television Council have known for years, you can make TV stations that don’t self-censor pay fines to the FCC. Broadcast TV is about lowest common denominator, not free speech.
DOAP?
Doodie on a Plane?
^^^Death of a President.
Also, does Bush need to censor DOAP yet when it has no distribution in the U.S.?
I see that Nicol has taken himself over to Hollywood Elsewhere to carry on this discussion.
God you’re a fucking idiot, Nicol. That ABC miniseries is being presented as FACT and EVERYONE who knows first hand about the events (the 9/11 commission, the Clinton Administration,etc…but strangely not the Bush Admin) said what ABC is putting out there as fact simply did. not. happen.
Scholastic pulled their sponsorship of the miniseries because they were told it was based on truth and it’s obviously all false. That’s here:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001483.php
Rather than try and argue with the brick wall of talking points, please guys, sign this petition to ABC:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/tellabc
I’m all for putting out various ideas about what may or may not have happened in the world, but trying to pass it off as fact is flat out wrong, especially when it’s being fed to brain dead basic cable subscribers.
The thing that I wonder is why it was decided to greenlight a ‘docudrama’ about these events, starring Hollywood actors like Harvey Keitel, Stephen Root, and Patricia Heaton, when such a project would seem inherently problematic and bound to piss one side or the other off, when they could have commissioned a documentary from ABC News to cover all the same events.
“Love it or hate it, the left no longer believes in free speech.”
Nicol: With all due respect, even you admit that the Righties attempted to pre-emptively censor “The Reagans” (and largely succeeded). So why shouldn’t the Lefties borrow a page from the same playbook?
And as for this alleged assault by the Left on free spech: excuse me, but it’s the group on YOUR side of the political divide that has ratcheted up the censoring ability of the FCC. It’s your crowd that wants to extend FCC censorship to CABLE as well as BROADCAST television. It’s your crowd that intimidates reporters by tossing them in prison, and threatens to press charges against inconveninet leakers. Sorry, I don’t remember very much of this sort of thing going on during the Clinton Administration.
And BTW: Didn’t you get the news from Tony Snow? The real reason we’re in Iraq now is, we didn’t topple Saddam when we had the chance during the last Gulf War. (No, I’m not making this up: The doofus actually said as much during a press conference.) Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the current president’s daddy in charge of that particular war? Gosh, you guys are harsh: You’ll toss you own leader’s father under the bus when that leader starts to sink in the polls.
Found it surprising to hear the director admit he made shit up for the mockumentary, and then didn’t even care. Jesus.
And people want to compare blaming 9/11 on people to Reagan not being stuffed with rainbows and gumdrops?
That said, Casino Royale looks brutal.
I just downloaded that Casino Royale trailer. Holy crap, that looks like it could be great! Lots of action of the less cartoony variety, AND what could possibly be drama and characterization! It’s definitely responding to both the Bourne movies and, it looks like a harder-edged post-9/11 sensibility, meaning that the franchise has definitely gotten a shot in the arm, so to speak.
In a related story, ABC has announced a follow-up mini-series which depicts how George McGovern was responsible for the Vietnam War.
The whole ABC/”9-11″ Doc story just got a whole lot more interesting. And, for ABC, a great deal more embarrassing.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001491.php
Joe, this could help explain why Harvey Keitel was so forthright with reservation about the mini-series last night when he was interviewed on CNN’s Showbiz Tonight. He could have just said, “Look, I needed the work, ok?”
Here
Someone attempts to put out a film on 9/11 that doesn’t confrom with the fantasies that the Left has been peddling for the last five years and now all of a sudden everyone on this boards gets concerned about “The Truth”.
But after reading the erudite comments by some of the people on this board I think you guys should go back to talking about comic book character movies. Its more your speed.
Thanks Pat, you really elevated the level of discourse.
From the sound of it, the producers of this film couldn’t even get right what airlines the hijackers were flying on that day.
He He.
Thanks for bringing the level of discourse back up, Jeff.
That last comment really was filled with erudite nuance and 20 different shades of grey.
Do you know that jeff’s last comment is false Nicol? Have you ever posted anything with nuance and shades of gray? I must have missed it.
In ratings news, for anyone who cares, apparently football last night nearly doubled this.
Nicol, I would ask that to mark today’s anniversary you would refrain from pointless bickering. I will.
“Do you know that jeff’s last comment is false Nicol?”
Of course I do, and so does Jeff.
“Nicol, I would ask that to mark today’s anniversary you would refrain from pointless bickering.”
Which of course is a comment of pointless bickering.
If you really were taking what you perceive to be the ‘high road’, you wouldn’t have left a comment at all.
Nicol, I will not be drawn into an argument with you today. I put up a comment to make it clear that I wasn’t out sick today.
Why would I think you were sick as opposed to just not responding?
People have left plenty of comments to me specifically trying to goad me into a ‘pissing match’ (most recently on the Deliver Us From Evil post). If I do not think they are worth a response I just read past them and move on.
If you really think I or someone else is trying to goad you into a ‘petty argument’ that you do not want to endure, then just do not respond.
No shame in that at all. I do it all the time.
So how was The Path to 9/11 Nicol? Or at least part one of it?
As cinema?
I thought it was well done and certainly had the look of a forty million budgeted film. I thought they perhaps overused the ‘cinema verite’ style too much to the point where some scenes were too much in close-up and the effect could be somewhat disorienting; kind of like Woody Allen’s Husbands and Wives. If the DVD version is WS this could correct that.
The first hour was somewhat harder to follow where all of the characters are introduced but once you reached the second hour and characters begin to recur, it settled into a good pace and structure.
The indictments here are more about the slowness of the beauracracy and while the Clinton administration certainly is portrayed as being part of that beauracracy in Part 1, based on what I have read, part 2 will focus on the Bush administration.
Bill does not come off as ‘evil’ in it. Just part of a beauracracy that was more concerned with political correctness and not performing the covert operations that Reagan was known for. Again, tonight the Bush admin will be critiqued.
It is compelling TV if you are fascinated with the subject matter and a very smart piece of television. ABC has nothing to be ashamed of.
It is probably the most far-reaching program/movie I have seen on terrorism yet. For more than Syriana, but then again this is a much longer film.
If it hadn’t been so controversial, it would certainly be up for Emmy’s for the quality of the production.
I hope they release the DVD WS and uncut. I suspect it will play well in that format.
Stella’s Boy: Not only was “Path to 9/11” out-rated by football — the new and much-publicized docudrama didn’t really score much higher in the ratings than the THIRD airing of a 9/11 doc on CBS. In fact, I’d be willing to bet the CBS doc would have scored even higher if several affiliates hadn’t pre-empted or delayed the telecast for fear of being fined by the FCC (because of the language issue stirred up by Rev. Donald Wildmon’s pressure group).
Now that the day is over, I don’t mind asking Nicol what it was in this statement that I knew to be false:
“From the sound of it, the producers of this film couldn’t even get right what airlines the hijackers were flying on that day.”
I didn’t watch the program (not out of a boycott, I just had better things to do) so maybe in the end they corrected themselves or re-edited, but I read a report online (granted, a blog) that said that the program had Mohammed Atta almost being halted at an American Airlines ticket counter, when the event they are referring to was a USAir ticket counter.
Nicol, don’t assume that your ‘opponents’ are always lying to make sense of your world. It provides further proof of your paranoia which has become one of your most prominent personality characteristics.
In further consideration, do us all a favor and refrain from being goaded into a pissing match here as well. I know that I am not going to convince you of anything and I’m sure you know that you are not going to convince me of anything as well, meaning that it would inevitably turn into another round of pointless bickering.
My issues with you ultimately are more personal than political, and therefore can never be resolved.
He He.
Glad to see your respect for 9/11 and no ‘pointless bickering’ lasted a whole, what…15 hours?
See the key to days like 9/11 or any day of emotion or respect is that they change you 365 days a year Jeff; that they change your fundamental personality. That we grow and learn from them as people.
If you are just doing it for the day, then what is the point? That insincerity ultimately shows more a lack of respect than anything else.
Perhaps that is a lesson that takes a long time to learn.
Best.
I was glad that part two came in number one for the evening. It was also much stronger than part one with fewer characters and a much more linear plot focal point (ie. directly focussing on the 10 months before 9/11).
ABC should be proud that they stuck to their guns.
Part Two also dispels the myth that ‘we created them’, showing how The Northern Alliance was the primary force that helped drive the Russians out of Afghanistan and whom Reagan helped finance, not Bin Laden.
This film is probably the most comprehensive production on terrorism at least in the past decade or so.
Again, I certainly hope the DVD is WS and uncut.
“This film is probably the most comprehensive production on terrorism at least in the past decade or so.”
Because it aligns with your personal politics of course. Considering who made it, I am hardly surprised. Knowing you Nicol, if something like this had been made that stretched the truth or just made things up about the right or a Republican administration, you would be criticizing it every chance you got. Your hypocrisy never fails to display itself.
Nicol, I am very glad that you are such a grown-up. Please continue to be so and you will have a long and rewarding life.
Like I said: I don’t have a problem with your politics per se, I have friends who are conservative who I am able to have discussions with that do not as quickly degenerate as the discussions here do. If ever you are interested in having proper communicative discussions, I would welcome them, but my experience has taught me to expect nothing but smugness and insincerity from you.
Prove me wrong.
Unfortunately I don’t see that ever happening jeff. Nicol has been this way from the start.
Stella and Jeff,
There is no hypocrisy…just a lack of relativism. I do not say to myself “Don’t lie about Republicans but it’s okay to lie about Democrats’.
See I do not see The Path to 9/11 as lying about Democrats.
Does it truncate timelines and have composite characters?
Of course! Welcome to the world of narrative cinema. Every historical film from Munich to Reds to Schindler’s List to JFK to everything in between truncates timelines and characters. You do realize that?
What matters is; what is the core ‘truth’ of the dramatization.
The truth here is that the Clinton administration was obsessed with political correctness and was not willing to carry out covert operations like Reagan did. As a result there were several instances where they could have got Bin Laden but did not. Clinton denies this but several other CIA operatives say it is true.
We weren’t there, so we can never be 100% sure.
But is it really so hard to believe? Don’t you all love Clinton because he is so politically correct and would not carry out covert operations like Reagan? Isn’t that what made Reagan so despised by the left?
I am not saying this, thinking I will convince you. I am just saying there is no ‘hypocrisy’. I just do not believe your interpretation of history.
That seems to be what bothers you about me. You cannot understand how I do not agree with you and the only way I can be seen as a ‘nice guy’ is to slap myself on the wrist and say you are right and I am wrong.
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
I find it amazing how you and others can call me names just based on my disagreeing with you, then say I am being ‘smug and insincere’.
I give you my opinions. I know they are not the most popular on this site, but they are mine. Smugness is name-calling and rhetoric which I rarely resort to (unlike so many who only use it). If I resorted to that I wouldn’t write so many long posts trying to explain myself to you.
Sadly, all of yours (and others) ‘dislike’ of me has very little to do with me as a person of substance and everything to do with the my opinions. You say that is not true…but how can it be otherwise? All you know about me is my opinions and the predjudices you attach to them.
Some say I am a bitter,poor person, others say I am a wealthy,rich snob or a paranoid Catholic.
Which is it?
But none of you know me. If you read my posts, you will know one thing…I never presume to know someone else’s life experience based on what they write here.
Why? Because it is impossible.
Respond or not as you will. I will post no more on this thread.
Best.
Nicol, my dislike of you has a great deal with your conduct and attitude on the blog, and is not exclusively (I will admit, yes, partially) based on your opinions. I routinely go after Chucky in Jersey for his posts as well, and he is on the far-left end of the political spectrum, but for similar reasons. He, like you, posts _entirely_ in rhetoric, in bluster, in talking points. Maybe this is how you really think.
Your statements “Smugness is name-calling and rhetoric which I rarely resort to” and “I never presume to know someone else’s life experience based on what they write here” are either shockingly disingenuous, or (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) demonstrate a sincere lack of self-knowledge about how you are perceived by others. I suspect the anonymity of the blog enhances this element of your personality, as I know it does me.
For the last time, I would ask you why you are here. If you are truly interested in convincing myself or Stella or anyone else of what you believe, then you have failed. I would hope that you would deeply mourn the failure to communicate, which is what has happened here. I don’t need you to ‘slap myself on the wrist and say you are right and I am wrong’. This is something you have never understood. What I have asked for, frequently, is to find common ground and start from there. Imagine two people sharing a drink over beer. But your primary interest seems to have been in winning arguments. I will compliment you, you are an excellent rhetorical tactician. But you don’t seem to have much interest in deeper human understanding, what happens after you have demonstrated your flair in constructing arguments and deflecting attacks. Not long ago you mentioned ‘missionaries’ as people you admired. It seems like on this blog, you should consider yourself a missionary, and act accordingly.
Lastly, I am unaware of anybody calling you names on this thread. The previous two times that I asked for an example you did not provide one. When you constantly consider that you are under attack when in fact you are not, the dictionary definition is ‘paranoid’.
I have to echo jeff’s sentiments Nicol, which is too bad. I think we could have some interesting discussions here. I will tell you what bothers me about you, and you can tell me if I am totally off base.
You constantly criticize “the left.” I can’t count how many times you have used that phrase when stating your case, as if millions of people can be lumped into one category. Now if someone like jeff or I constantly criticized “the right” and used that phrase to do so, lumping millions of people together into one category, I am guessing that you would have a problem with that and call us out on it. You would say, “typical liberal. Believes that everyone right of center is exactly the same.” Am I right, or do you think I am pulling this out of nowhere? You seem to hate broad generalizations of the right, yet you continually use them to bash the left. I know you consider yourself an informed and intelligent individual, so I have a hard time believing that you truly think everyone left of center can be lumped into one category. Maybe you think I am way off, but that’s where I’m coming from.
Final wrap-up, I was glad to find validation that I was not spreading a falsehood, as Nicol had alleged. From the IMDB Studio Briefing news:
American Airlines on Monday joined critics of ABC’s The Path to 9/11, saying that the film was “inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.” It called on the public to read the actual findings of the 9/11 Commission. The film shows Mohammed Atta, the supposed ringleader of the attackers, buying a plane ticket in Boston for the American Airlines flight that eventually was forced to fly into the World Trade Center and a warning popping up as he did so. In fact, the plane connected with a US Airways flight that Atta had taken from Portland, ME, and the warning was to alert airline personnel that late-arriving passengers should carry their hand-luggage aboard. And while several of the filmmakers contended that none of those involved in its making ever had a political discussion about the contents, two FBI agents who were hired as consultants on the movie disagreed. One of them, Thomas E. Nicoletti, told today’s (Tuesday) New York Times that he quit the project because of scenes he believed to be misleading or “just total fiction.”