This Space For Rent
I just thought I’d make some space for y’all to talk about whatever if you happen to be wanting to chat during the holiday…
April 19, 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
On a non-movie point, let it be known that Amy Winehouse’s “Rehab” is the best song of 2006. It’s also an anthem for half of Hollywood. “They tried to make me go to rehab, but I said ‘No! No! No!'”
On a movie point:
The worst film of 2006 for me was definitely Footy Legends, an awfully trite Aussie feelgood sports movie where every single scene is overflowing with cliches. Just atrocious.
Then there’s American Dreamz – it didn’t surprise me in the slightest to read that Paul Weitz had never watched an episode of “American Idol” when he sat down to write this movie. It’s called research you naffwit.
There was Colour Me Kubrick which was such inept filmmaking that featured a downright embarassing performance from John Malkovich.
Solo was a dreadful Project Greenlight film from Australia about an assassin deciding to call it quits (yeah, I know!).
Another Gay Movie insulted me on a multitude of levels. First as a gay man, secondly as a film fan, and thirdly as a human being in general.
The Lake House was just stupendously ridiculous and it never once crawled out from it’s only selfindulged arse.
Freedomland featured the worst female performance in a long time. That of Julianne Moore. Shame that Edie Falco was actually so good.
Basic Instinct 2 had a couple of chuckles but was ultimately about as sexy as a kick up the rear.
Just My Luck, V For Vendetta, The Book of Revelation and The Da Vinci Code were also worthy of “worst of the year” dishonours.
“it’s only selfindulged arse.” should be “it’s own selfindulged arse”. It did feel like it was excreting from multiple areas though.
“The Lake House was just stupendously ridiculous and it never once crawled out from it’s own selfindulged arse.”
But using the logic that went into the plot, it probably could have!
hah! How very true.
I got the DVD for Bertolucci’s “1900.” WOW ! It was worth waiting all these years for.
Now, I want some camp stuff…like Losey’s “Boom.” And Ken Russell’s “The Boy Friend.”
The death of James Brown on Christmas Day reconfirms a feeling I’ve had for years and years: Media folks should never be too early with their year-end wrap-ups. Every year, you can safely predict that at least one major star, filmmaker or character actor (and usually two) will die during the final week of December. And yet because of the holiday — and because so many of the A-team anchors and journalists are on holiday, temporarily replaced by B-teamers — that death (or those deaths) won’t get anywhere near the coverage it should.
“The Sentinel” and “The Da Vinci Code” are neck-and-neck for worst movie of the year.
James Brown has his tribute in the form of Rocky Balboa’s return. Remember, he appeared in Rocky III performing “Living In America”…
My bad. It was Rocky IV. (Does it make a difference?)
I have a question. How much does a movie have to make to make a profit? Say a movie cost $100M to produce, is it 2 times the 100M or 3 times the 100M. This always fascinates me, because it seems none of these movies this year, except the Pirates and James Bond, made their money back.
I have a question. How much does a movie have to make to make a profit? Say a movie cost $100M to produce, is it 2 times the 100M or 3 times the 100M. This always fascinates me, because it seems none of these big movies this year, except the Pirates and James Bond, made their money back.
For some reason, I didn’t like HAPPY FEET.
Maybe it was over my head.
I really, really wanted to like DA VINCI but what a dull film it was, not bad, just dull.
Ron Howard dropped the ball on that one; they should have done a GODFATHER II type thing, having two different storylines going (past and present) instead of having Tom Hank’s endless narration intercut with quick CGI shots etc.
But biggest dissapointment of the summer – for a comic book fan such as myself – was SUPERMAN RETURNS…lightweight, drab, dull, overlong, weak script, *very* light on the action and *high* on the angst.
Poland was one of the first to go against the ‘rave reviews’ tide for SUPERMAN and he was criticized for it but his review was spot on.
The worst movie I saw all year was FLYBOYS, by a wide margin. The other really bad ones I saw this year were:
When a Stranger Calls
Saw III
Lady in the Water
Poseidon
Date Movie
Turistas
Fast Food Nation
The Pink Panther
The Da Vinci Code
Chicago48, it can’t be distilled like that. It should be the subject of a current book on movie finance, exhibitor deals terms, fluid marketing, gross profits, studio overhead and distribution fees, ancillary rights, foreign sales. I think movies can make as much or as little as studios need them to.
Emerging Pictures is trying to remedy that.
http://reporter.blogs.com/risky/2006/12/sayles_wraps_ho.html
It might be more interesting to put your two cents in here, especially if you are a movie critic.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/12/thompson_vs_roe.php
Funny, I didn’t think it was worth much discussion at all, Holly. Richard is Richard. It didn’t change because Anne was on this week.
Chris rock is a cultural icon, Jude Law is a CAA manufactured over hyped British man whore.
“The worst movie I saw all year was FLYBOYS, by a wide margin.”
Well, I was going to not hate you today, cause it’s Christmas, but then you blew it. 🙂
“I have a question. How much does a movie have to make to make a profit? Say a movie cost $100M to produce, is it 2 times the 100M or 3 times the 100M. This always fascinates me, because it seems none of these big movies this year, except the Pirates and James Bond, made their money back.”
David’s really good explaining this stuff, but you have to figure that about 55% (is that right?) of the U.S. box office goes back to the studio, so for a $100 million movie to make back its production budget just with North American theatrical, it needs to make around $180 million. I’m assuming that the studio ends up making a lot more from the sale of DVDs, selling the rights to cable/networks, international box office… the thing to remember that it only costs the money to make the movie ONCE, so every time they sell it to a new outlet after making back the budget, that’s pure profit. It’s those profits that usually pay for the movies that end up bombing.
But the production budget is just the beginning. There’s P & A, and distribution and overhead fees.
I can understand confusing brooklyngutter, but DP? Roeper was particularly in nausea making mode last night. Those puppy dog hurt looks when Anne told him she “couldn’t go there” when he went over-the-moon on “We are Marshall” made me go bonkers.
About movies making back its money, how about P&A cost? I understand that theaters and other people also pay for it, but how does that factor into the overall cost?
The worst movie of the year is Lady in The Water. I almost walked out of that one. But I went with a friend and I didn’t want to ask her to leave since she paid for the tickets.
“Ron Howard dropped the ball on that one; they should have done a GODFATHER II type thing, having two different storylines going (past and present) instead of having Tom Hank’s endless narration intercut with quick CGI shots etc.”
I haven’t seen the Godfather Trilogy, but this idea (or any ideas, as a matter of fact, except the catrastrophic one Howard et al. decided to use) would have been greatly welcomed. Let’s wait and see what the same people will do with the sequel/prequel to Da Vinci.
I wear the fact I’m the only person on the planet who liked Lady in the Water (and even more the second time!) like a proud badge… and that’s bearing in mind, that I used to HATE HATE HATE Shyamalan. I guess that I saw the things that bothered people about him in this movie a long time ago so when he cast himself in the role of a world-changing writer, I didn’t take it too seriously, assuming that it was done purely to annoy the critics. (It was.)
“The worst movie of the year is Lady in The Water. I almost walked out of that one. But I went with a friend and I didn’t want to ask her to leave since she paid for the tickets.”
A quick tip since this is something that always works. Offer to buy her dinner if you can leave before the end of the movie. You’ll be surprised how many women will accept.
Ed, you’re being taken advantage of. If it’s a free movie, the guest should always pay for dinner.
Ed, I’ve got a friend who loves Lady in the Water, so I count two.
I didn’t hate it, although I didn’t love it either. It was so-so, and after The Village, I wasn’t expecting much.
The worst film for the geek in me was X3, although Friends With Money is a close second.
In the end, I would have to say Clerks 2 & Lady in the Water aren’t even qualified to be classified as movies, so I’ll give Ultraviolet the worst of award.
2006 simply lacked bang. Superman, Rocky, Da Vinci, and even X-Men were about as lively as a September funeral. Vendetta, Vice, and even Tokyo Drift at least splashed some pretty images onto the screen.
Worst Movies of the Year:
The Black Dahlia
X3
The Break Up
And I laughed at a lot of The Break Up, but still, that was garbage.
De Palma is the most overrated director in history, due to Kael and fanboy misenthusiasms. I still had high hopes, but it’s as if Dahlia was directed by the blind Woody Allen of Hollywood Story or whatever that awful film of his was called.
X3 just goes to show that Brett Ratner really is the biggest, most overpaid hack in Hollywood. Ratner makes Michael Bay look like Orson Welles (And Hugh Jackman look like Brendan Frasier). Just beyond awful. Only thing good about X3 was that it was only about 95 minutes long.
All those other supposedly awful films, like Lad in the Water or Da Vince, I haven’t seen that garbage.
I did see Vendetta, and that film is garbage too, worst director, just clueless on how to make a scene. Stick to comic books.
“The worst film for the geek in me was X3, although Friends With Money is a close second.”
So, if they gave Keener and McDormand superpowers, it’d be fine with you? 😉
ULTRAVIOLET wasn’t awful. It was merely misguided.
The DaVinci Code actually made me fall asleep. I had to turn it off twice because I just couldn’t stay awake both times. And, you’d think that Audrey Tautou’s character would have more of a reaction to finding out she’s related to Jesus Christ.
“I did see Vendetta, and that film is garbage too, worst director, just clueless on how to make a scene. Stick to comic books.”
Exactly! Scenes were either impossibly chopped up or reduced to slow motion! Couldn’t see any of the choreography and if your main character wears a mask you don’t have long closeups of him as he speaks! My god, that’s just common sense.
I thought The Black Dahlia was a hoot! It was pretty darn good to look at, yet almost ever performance was so hilarious whacked. And then there were the supporting actors. Fiona Shaw? She grabs the movie from the claws of death and gives it CPR and then she steals the movie and runs away with it. I had a blast with that movie. When I saw it in the cinema for the first half there were a few nervous chuckles by audience members throughout, but by the end we were all laughing along with it.
“I haven’t seen the Godfather Trilogy”
Wha?
Just saw “Lady in the Water” yesterday – stupid, but not really painful. At least not nearly as bad as “The Village.” And I kinda liked “X3” after going in with expectations in the basement.
“ULTRAVIOLET wasn’t awful. It was merely misguided.”
I wish they’d release a version with absolutely no dialogue…the music and visuals were very cool, probably everything Aeon Flux tried to be.
“De Palma is the most overrated director in history, due to Kael and fanboy misenthusiasms. I still had high hopes, but it’s as if Dahlia was directed by the blind Woody Allen of Hollywood Story or whatever that awful film of his was called.”
Truer words were never spoken. The cult of DePalma is mindboggling to me, and my hope is that the wretched Dahlia puts the end to his overrated career.
thanks y’all (slight sarcasm) for reminding me that 2006 was one of those poor harvests. It is a stressful contest to decide which was the most painful movie of 2006. Lady in the water is vying for first; Black Dahlia is vying for a close second.
Black Dahlia wasn’t even so bad it was good. it was just bad. I think Dahlia was acting’s version of swill. Do you still think the movie was misunderstood Jeffmcm or do you think differently now? Just wondering since we got into a fistfight about it. I still think it was poor in recollection and regretful second viewing at behest of friend, but then I am not a big depalma fan.
oh yes, I meant to say I put A GOOD YEAR in that bad harvest too.
I liked Inside man and Borat and Haven and not too much more, at least not intensely.
If someone made a superhero film with McDormand and Keener, well that would be pretty sweet. 😉
If McDormand and Keener were playing superheroes in X3, it might have been slightly enjoyable. 😉
Okay…what the heck? Sorry about the double-post.
Well, I’m somewhat fortunate to have the luxury of skipping movies I have no interest in, for the most part. My worst movie was PULSE (Kristen Bell needs to bitch-slap her agent within an inch of his/her life), but I had to see that, so the worst I saw this year of my own volition was that two-hour screen-saver, MARIE ANTOINETTE. To paraphrase Mel Brooks: “Your Majesty, the peasants are revolting!” “And so is this picture!”
Sorry Lota, I would agree that Black Dahlia is not DePalma at his best, but I still think it’s more good than bad. Matt Zoller Seitz wrote the most worshipful review of it if you have any interest.
Anyway, DePalma is a great director, but he’s misunderstood because he makes art movies that look like mass-market movies. I don’t say this necessarily to justify him, because Von Trier is an art director and I pretty much hate all of his movies; just to open up the discussion a little.
But back to Flyboys…how oould anyone possibly like that movie? It was the movie that, for me, failed on every possible level: boring story, full of cliches, bad acting, horrible video-game special effects, incompetently directed…I could go on and on. The only way I can see it being appealing is if you have a fetish for the period.
The word “fetish” is negative and unnecessary. Perhaps replace with the word “interest.” Using loaded words like this to humiliate people who disagree with you might be one reason why so many people dislike you, jeff.
I wasn’t thinking of ‘fetish’ in derogatory/perjorative terms, sorry for anyone who thought so. The reviews I read that liked the movie seemed to be describing the it in those terms, though, along the lines of “oh, those men in their leather jackets, flying out of the fog…”
I thought people disliked me because I’m a stubborn crank (which I don’t have a problem with).
The fact that a movie about WWI got made at all in this day and age is impressive, so I don’t want to slag it too much. Alas, we’ve seen it all before in dozens of similar pictures–but full credit to Jean Reno, who gave a solid performance and almost made the enterprise worthwhile.
“If someone made a superhero film with McDormand and Keener, well that would be pretty sweet. ;)”
Well, McDormand was in Aeon Flux!
My review of The Black Dahlia sums up all my feelings towards that strange, strange movie.
Hmm, that link didn’t work.
http://kamikazecamel.blogspot.com/2006/12/cinema-of-absurd-black-dahlia.html
There you go.
I was looking through a stack of old, unread Entertainment Weeklies and came across an article about Matthew McCougnahey (sp?). Since i went to Marshall, i thumbed through it, and came across an interesting item, talking about how he could have easily been another premanufactured star that Hollywood tried to convince people was the next big thing but just never lived up to that promise. They noted two examples:
Josh Lucas and Josh Hartnett
I started to wonder if Josh Hartnett passing on Superman was a bad career move. Sure, it makes sense if you want to be a serious actor, but i wonder if passing on the franchise was a bad, bad idea. Of course, this was during the JJ Abrams script debacle, but i just can’t help but think that Hartnett made a bad choise passing on Superman.
This is O/T, but seems like a good place to ask: Who was that SCHOOLMARM who sat in for Ebert this week with Roeper? Christ, I thought Richard had invited his curmudgeonly 2nd grade teacher; She was from the Hollywood Reporter, and I think her name was Anne Thompson? She made the New Agey ramblings of previous worst fill-in Mario Van Peebles sound profound.
Shouldn’t movie critics be kind of FUN? Even stale old Ken Turan is capable of a good zinger now and again, and seems avuncular enough. But what’s with stuffed-shirt critics with no discernible personality? I would think people who appreciate ART and CINEMA and FICTION would be clever, witty, and imaginative people themselves, but that’s not really the case. Who OK’d this stiff to go in front of the cameras?
On Josh Hartnett, he seems to have more talent than a lot of those other guys (especially McCougnahey – who has seemed to coast on his charm for a lot of his career). I just saw him in Mozart and the Whale, which wasn’t very good, but Hartnett was excellent in it. He seems to be following the career course of Heath Ledger – and if he can find that low budget movie that re-establishes him with the public, he could get some meaty studio roles.
I’ve known Anne for years and she’s a fun, lively woman. I also know that when that red light comes on and it suddenly sinks in that millions of people are watching, you can freeze up like a popsicle. Cut her some slack.
Black Dahlia IS such an awesome howler; The funniest/weirdest elements are…
1) The insistence that Hilary Swank and Mia Kirschner, who could only look less alike were Mia African-American and Hilary albino, are somehow dopplegangers. I still get a hearty chuckle at ScaJo screaming “She looks like that dead girl!!!!!” Er, no, she doesn’t.
2) Aaron Eckhart’s riotously bad performance. Sure, everyone harps on Fiona Shaw’s craziness, but whassup wit Eckhart? Take note of how in every scene after the first 20 mins., he’s consistently blowing into rooms, slamming doors, screaming at people out of nowhere, trashing projectors, etc. It’s HILARIOUS. I know they give him some backstory as to why the sight of abused or murdered women can set him off like a firecracker, but anyone else go THAT postal from watching a cheap girl-girl short?
Obviously there are many more absurdities that make it hilarious, but these two make me question to what degree DePalma intended it as a comedy. Either that, or he’s just hopelessly out of touch. Where his peers like Spielberg and Scorsese and Scott and Mann, etc. always seem to stay on the cutting edge of technology and and style, and guys like Eastwood and Malick have turned into solid elder statesman, DePalma seems so stuck in the 1960’s– Wow, look! Split-screen! Riffing on Hitchcock! Split diopter! I love the guy and all, but he’s like he’s stuck in Sarah Lawrence film school, circa 1966, with all these wack-ass dated tricks that aren’t impressive to anyone anymore.
“Mission:Impossible III” probably takes the cake for me. Good writing? HA! They had to start the movie Fight Club style just so people wouldn’t think they’d walked into “What About Brian?: The Movie.” Honestly, who starts the first ten minutes of a Mission: Impossible movie at a suburban house party?! It’s not even funny in a non-intentional way.
We get the wife who is introduced only as the wife and a nurse for plot purposes. At least when the fate the world in M:I 2 rested on a couple who’d slept with each other once, Cruise and Thandie Newton had the charm and chemistry to make me think, “Okay, it’s bullshit, but I’m willing to roll with it.”
Then the spy stuff happens and the movie doesn’t get better. The scenes in Berlin had potential, but the helicopter chase was dashed by the constant cutting to the stuff inside the helicopter, which they don’t explain why we should care until 10 minutes later. Then there was the bone-headed “Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall” one-liner followed by the wasting of Philip Seymour Hoffman followed by tedium followed by crap cribbed horribly from True Lies followed by the second unit shooting some beautiful stuff as if to say, “Hey, J.J., this is how you shoot a movie!” topped off with an exclamation point by CUTTING AWAY FROM THE CLIMACTIC HEIST. The speech by the tech guy is the only good thing. Too bad it feels like something from an entirely different (And better) movie.
The Wicker Man comes in close second, though. Even if Warner Bros. didn’t force cut a lot of stuff out (You can tell they did because like The Avengers, there are glaring continuity issues and missing plot points. “Hi, I randomly picked up a bike somewhere even though all the villagers hate me and wouldn’t even let me borrow a used tissue!”), you still have to deal with things like Nicolas Cage punching a 70 year-old woman across the room and trying to make it come off as HEROIC. Oh, if only it was that unintentionally hilarious all the time. Unfortunately, it magically made 100 minutes feel like 3 hours.
I watched “Da Vinci Code” on DVD the other night. I’d seen it before in the theater and this time I decided it wouldn’t be that bad if they cut out all the Jesus crap. Problem is, there’d be no movie left if they did. Or, as my brother said at his waggish best, “I didn’t think the Da Vinci Code book could be better than anything.” Another thing that occurred to me this time out, which didn’t while reading the book or seeing the movie originally is that if Sir Ian’s character really was the brilliant scholar he’s supposed to be, he wouldn’t be spouting all that rubbish about Constantine. He’d know better. It makes him come across like a crank. Which in the end is what he is, but I don’t think that’s the impression we’re supposed to get.
DVC was just one of a string of mediocre high profile movies that had serious flaws. V for Vendetta is one, POTC 2 is another, Superman Returns, MI III one more. I’d throw in The Fountain, though it’s not in the blockbuster camp. Of the movies I saw this year in a theater, only a handful really stood out: The New World, The Queen, Cars, Over the Hedge, and Casino Royale. The Prestige just misses because it falls apart in the third act. All the rest I saw fall somewhere in the middle.
It was emblematic of my movie-going year when I saw The Fountain, Stranger Than Fiction, and Happy Feet over a two-day span a couple weeks ago and left feeling vaguely let down after all three. That’s a feeling I had far more this year than the opposite.
But no matter. 2007 will be here soon and I hope it will be better. With the likes of Good Shepherd, Children of Men, Curse of the Golden Flower, and Dreamgirls to see, I’ll find out sooner than later if it is.
LexG, exactly. The movie is a hoot. “She looks like that dead girl!” How did she even think of that?
They should’ve cast Mia Kirshner as both the Black Dahlia and as the Hilary Swank character. At least then it would’ve made sense for them to look alike. “I wanted to know what it was like to sleep with someone who looked like me.” LOL.
I still say Fiona Shaw’s performance is one of the best though. I think DePalma knew something was iffy and when she shows up it’s as if he’s giving us permission to laugh at his movie. “Yeah, I screwed up – but here’s enough campiness to last until the next Showgirls convention.”
I agree, KCamel, I don’t think DePalma cares anymore if he makes movies that make sense anymore. You could call it wanking off.
But I also really loved Femme Fatale so I think I’m a DePalma tragic.
No, that means you have good taste. (still not a movie that makes sense to a lot of people)
Those people aren’t paying attention. It makes perfect sense, really.
“I don’t think DePalma cares anymore if he makes movies that make sense anymore. You could call it wanking off.”
no Jeff I’d call that wasting money (that could go into another production for moviemakers who Care) and wasting the filmgoers (who also paid) time. Me and Samuel L. do not like people wasting our motherf*ckin time.
But we will never be able to find common ground on those issues since the last time Dahlia was a long thread discussion you also uttered that one of my favorite-ist last decade h-wood movie, LA confidential was “overrrated”. that’s just evil.
so no, Dahlia was not more good than bad IMUHO. and Hilary Swank was more feminine in Boys don’t cry.
onward to 2007.
See, Lota, this is where we part ways: if they didn’t want DePalma to make a DePalma movie, they shouldn’t have hired him in the first place. They must have seen Snake Eyes, and Mission to Mars, and Femme Fatale, and known that he was going to shoot and edit things his own way. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn’t, but if they wanted a faithful adaptation of the book, they would have already known he wasn’t going to give him one. Your complaint is with the producers/rights-holders of the novel, not with DePalma.
The author of the book has gone on record to say he doesn’t give a flying fuck about how his books are adapted, as long as he gets a cheque in the mail.