The Hostel Free Zone
As fairly requested by one regular… here is a space to discuss anything and everything that is NOT Hostel 2 related.
Commence!
May 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
::crickets::
Movie(s) that will suck but I’ll love anyway:
Fantastic Four 2 Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Movie(s) that will suck but I’ll kinda like:
Transformers
Movie(s) that will be greatest movie(s) ever made and I will love:
The Simpsons Movie
I just read that Richard Corliss piece on Ratatouille (linked on the MCN front page) and he gives away a major, critical, climatic moment in the film. A film that doesn’t come out for three weeks. Is that kosher?
If “Chalk” has opened in your neck of the woods — rush to see it. I think it’s the best Christopher Guest movie that Christopher Guest never made. As a lover of film, I laughed heartily and frequently. As an educator, I felt repeatedly jolted by the shock of recognition.
But don’t just take my word for it:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chalk/
Is Chalk an uprorious movie that’s more explosively funny, more frequently, than nearly any other film in recent memory?
No, Wrecktum, you silly goose. THAT movie is “Knocked Up.” Which, as you well know, is a monster hit mainly because I liked it.
And if you believe that, I got some land near Glengarry Glen Ross to sell you…
Any thoughts on the Fall season trailers we got this weekend?
The Brave One–I submit that Terrence Howard is the best actor working today. Just his moments in this trailer had me hooked.
I Am Legend– I don’t know the source material, but the images look eye-popping. Looks better than I, Robot, which I liked.
American Gangster– I kept thinking of Medellin. Washington and Crowe look to be having a lot of fun. It looks like a good, high-gloss piece of disreputable filmmaking I do wish Oliver Stone had meen allowed to do his wilm-man approach to the story. It could’ve been a companion piece to Scarface, one of the most influential movies in the last 30 years on Black (i.e. American) Pop Culture.
Is Chalk as good as Guffman? I hope so because no Guest film has come close for me since…
Movie(s) that will be greatest movie(s) ever made and I will love:
The Simpsons Movie
God, I hope so. It’ll be such a shame if it’s mediocre.
A1: It’s pretty damn close.
Wrecktum: yes, Chalk is very much worth your while, per Joe’s recommendation, and yes, Corliss blows one of Ratatouille’s best moments, and one that does appear quite late in the game.
I’m just not seeing anything new in the “American Gangster” trailer at all. It’s 2007. I know there’s still some resonance for the point, but the trailer does everything but freeze frame Denzel while having a narrator suddenly intone “AND HE’S BLACK”. I’d honesty rather see a full-on blacksploitation version of this preview.
I saw ANGEL-A last night and was blown away. I would never expected something like this from Besson. The climactic scene entails a romantic gesture that is simply flabbergasting, and the tall blonde is a find. What a shame it’s a big flop.
I saw Ocean’s 13 and enjoyed it.
I preferred “Angel-A” the first time, when it was called “The Girl on the Bridge.”
Hallick, I agree. The thing I thought most strongly while watching the American Gangster trailer was ‘wow, Ridley Scott really wants an Oscar’.
Thanks for the heads up on the Corliss piece. I won;t read it since I f*cking hate spoilers. It’s NOT kosher to give away key plot turning points. I usually don;t read reviews anyway if I want to see a movie badly, and I am looking forward to Ratatouille.
liked the American gangster trailer and if Guest has made a funny movie then I will be overjoyed since Spinal tap is one of my favorite movies of all time and I really loved Best in Show, and Guffman too.
“I know there’s still some resonance for the point, but the trailer does everything but freeze frame Denzel while having a narrator suddenly intone ‘AND HE’S BLACK'”
The trailer doesn’t emphasize that point simply to sell it as some kind of twist or gimmick that distinguishes the film from it’s peers. The Blackness of Frank Lucas is one of the central themes of his story.
Frank Lucas was very much a Maverick and a pioneer in the drug trade. He was one of the first black men to do what he did (Not that that is soemthing to be proud of, but the fact still stands).
Lucas was one of the first Drug Dealers to develop his own connections outside the U.S. without having to be sponsored by the Italian mob. He did this at a time when Black Gangsters were not considered much of a factor as far as organized crime was concerned. Hell, many people back then (and even today) didn’t think there was even a such thing as black organized crime.
Those of you who think that AMerican Gangster isn’t offering anything new need to take a look at this classic New York Magazine interview with the real Frank Lucas entitled “The Return Of Superfly”: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/3649/
If Ridley flim is half as entertaining as that interview, we’re in for a real treat.
**I apologize in advance to those of you who are already aware o fthis information. Please don’t mistake my tone as one of condescention. Just passing on some info that I think will give some of you a bit of perspective. Thanks
….Please forgive the spelling and grammatical errors. I typed this in a bit of a hurry (Just worked a double shift).
After reading that article on Frank Lucas I’m more convinced Oliver Stone should’ve made the movie. Or The Hughes Brothers. American Gangster is the perfect companion piece to their great, little-seen documentary American Pimp. Or even Michael Mann. The mind boggles at what could’ve done with a ’70s-era, New York-set crime epic. It could’ve been one of the great ones.
Why is everyone passing judgment on a film they haven’t seen? Ridley Scott isn’t exactly Brett Ratner, so why the vilification?
American Gangster could very well be great, but maybe it won’t be. November’s a few months away though…
Wait a minute: American Gangster is due in November? So Russell Crowe will have back-to-back movies coming out this fall (3:10 to Yuma in October)?
Nikke Finke said that Transformers should resonate with audiences because ‘it’s original’
is that sarcasm?
is she capable of that?
Ridley Scott is a great director, but gritty, big city stories aren’t exactly what he does. He at his best when exploring other worlds, whether it’s the future-shock of Blade Runner or the discovery of America by Columbus.
I can’t wait for American Gangster. It looks terrific. But I also know that a Michael Mann version of the same material could’ve easily been a classic.
“Nikke Finke said that Transformers should resonate with audiences because ‘it’s original’
is that sarcasm?
is she capable of that?”
ACtually I can see what she means. I would say that Transformers is the only summer blockbuster that comes close to offering something new in a visual sense.
One could look at it as a big budget American version of Japanese Kaiju films (except with more convincing FX) or even a live action version of Japanese “Mech” based animes like Gundam and so forth. I’m not sure if we’ve ever had anything like that before, unless you want to count Robot Jox, or certain scenes from Matrix revolutions.
Of course you could always say “how can a movie based on a toy line and a cartoon be considered original?”, but I think that’s kind of missing the point. Who cares what the source material is as long as Bay and Spielberg can do something fun and exciting with it? Hell, Johnny Depp managed to get an oscar nomination for a film based an amusment park ride.
“Ridley Scott is a great director, but gritty, big city stories aren’t exactly what he does. He at his best when exploring other worlds, whether it’s the future-shock of Blade Runner or the discovery of America by Columbus.
I can’t wait for American Gangster. It looks terrific. But I also know that a Michael Mann version of the same material could’ve easily been a classic.”
As much as I am looking forward to American Gangster (and as great as that trailer was), I agree with you whole heartedly. Ridley Scott is a visual stylist who is at right at home when it comes to sci-fi and historical epics. Truth be told, I have never cared for his storytelling sensibilities.
Still, I will eat happily eat my words if the actual film is half as that trailer
So… when Transformers does $200 million total, much less than at least four sequels, what will that mean?
Scott, like most directors, is only as good as the script he has; visuals can only take you so far. Guys like Hawks, Wilder and Cukor merely pointed the camera at their actors and yelled, “Action!”–and their movies are mostly classics. Give Scott a lousy script, and you get SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME. If AG turns out to be a classic, some measure of credit should go to Zaillian.
Dave, you think that Transformers is only going to make $200 mill?
This is the film for people raised in the 80s. Heck, even teenagers that work for me, who were barely born when the show went off the air are waiting for this like its Christmas. The hope is that we’re gonna get something special.
Even if we don’t, and it’s just robots beating on robots, well, it’s still gonna make its money. I think $200 mill is the minimum. I figure the actual figure will end up over $250m, maybe close to $300m.
Of course, I’ve been wrong before.
Dave,
I admit that I am not to swift on the uptake, so please bare with me when I ask you to clarify your statement.
Obviously you think that Transformers will do much less that either me or Nikke Finke, that part I get.
I think visuals can carry you a long way, sometimes. If anyone wants to be brutally honest, Blade Runner did not have the most literate screenplay. The visuals did a lot to cover up quite a few plot holes. It’s the visuals and ideas, not the plot, that have allowed it to last.
FYI Ridley Scot has actually shot some new footage of Joanna Cassidy for the forthcoming Blade Runner SE, presumably to replace the scene where Cassidy’s character crashes through the plate glass window and the body double is at least a foot shorter than Cassidy.
Old news by now but discuss the PG-13 rating on the upcoming DIE HARD sequel and b.o. prospects.
the fact that transformers is seen as ‘original’ by anyone under any circumstances depresses the high holy hell out of me.
are we really at a point where the most original blockbuster is based on a toy line?
my god that’s sad.
Of all of the (already or soon-to-be) disappointing sequels released this summer, LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD sends my schadenfreud receptors into the highest gear. Between Willis’ ego run amok, the irritating Apple Computer Guy and the ridiculous and completely unreal CGI effects, I so want this one to die. Very, very hard.
“Why is everyone passing judgment on a film they haven’t seen? Ridley Scott isn’t exactly Brett Ratner, so why the vilification?”
I’d didn’t pass any judgements on the movie; I passed judgement on the trailer. I don’t think it does anything to distinguish the film from other “he’s a crime boss on the rise/and he’s the edgy cop out to take him down” movies. It looks like something that should’ve come out 15 to 20 years ago. Just looks like.
“Old news by now but discuss the PG-13 rating on the upcoming DIE HARD sequel and b.o. prospects.”
“Yippie-Ky-Yay Mother Fudger!”
bmc,
C’mon, it’s McClane! I’m not sold by the trailers, but 1 and 3 are great (1 a classic), and 2 was solid. I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt until opening day.
Space,
The TV ads still say “Not Yet Rated.” Any chance they might go for an R, or is PG-13 a contractual necessity?
I’m not expecting much from ‘Live Free Or Die Hard’, but I still hold out hope that it will surprise me.
Am I the only one laughing out loud every time Willis’ character says this bit in the commercials:
“I
I think $200 million is a triumph for Transformers, a movie that simply cannot be four quadrants.
Only one movie has ever launched around July 4 to more than $65 million. Only one July 4 movie has ever cracked $250 million. Both movies are Spider-Man 2… a sequel… and like it or not, Transformers wil play like an original with a following.. bigger than TMNT or Suepr Mario Bros, but similar issues… it needs to be sold as though no one knows it or it will be very limited.
Nikki Finke knows nothing about box office other than how to take/make a phone call.
If the film opens to $110 million in six days (Tues – Sun) you are looking at Harry Potter summer numbers. And even Potter didn’t hit $250 million in Summer ’04.
Transformers would have to be a great movie, not just a great gimmick, to hit $250 milion, much less $300 million. Wanna take bets?
I say $100 million in six (War of the Worlds with Spielberg and Cruise = $116 in six and better position, as in “not a Wed holiday with no clear extra day off for a lot of people, including many schools”) and $200 million and change total, especially with Potter the very next weekend.
$200 million is no insult. And being a robot movie and a Michael Bay movie (is that redundant?), it will probably play better overseas.
I definitely see Transformers falling into the $150-$200mil range that many similar movies have fallen into. Stuff like I, Robot – which was actually pretty good as those movies go.
“The Brave One–I submit that Terrence Howard is the best actor working today. Just his moments in this trailer had me hooked.”
I submit that Terence Howard was great in Hustle & Flow but everywhere else he makes me wanna snooze. Something about his voice just makes him sound really bored and uninterested in what he’s doing. Plus, I submit he gave one of last year’s worst performances in the terrible Idlewild. However, The Brave One looks like it could be great. I miss Jodie something fierce.
Am I reading imdb correctly? Did ARMAGEDDON really only open to $36M on its 4th of July weekend? And did DEEP IMPACT really open better? Shit! I kept thinking in the back of my mind that TRANSFORMERS would probably do a little less than ‘GEDDON, but if it does, it fucked! Mr. Bay, its time to prep the panic room! And for the cheese factor, how could they not have thrown enough cash at Aerosmith to do either the main theme or a horrible ballad for this picture? The Goo Goo Dolls? Yeesh. I do want to see this, though I wish it was with a great deal less reluctance.
are we really at a point where the most original blockbuster is based on a toy line?
my god that’s sad.
Yes we are and yes it is, but it’s pretty much true. It’s the only one of three truly high profile non-comedy releases for the summer season that isn’t a third isntallment–one being a movie that’s on movie number five, and another that’s a sequel to a movie that blows.
I think if it was someone considered a little more high class than Michael Bay, we’d be rooting for this movie to succeed. In fact, I still am, if only by default.
As for the movie coming over the high profile sequels, it’s true the demographic is a little less limited than many of the other megagrossers of the past, bt who would have saw the Lord of the Rings movies’ popularity with females in the long run? Still, I don’t think it’s going to happen here. I think it just comes down to believing if another Jurrassic Park or Indepdence Day is possible in the new decade.
And let’s not forget that there was an animated Transformers movie about 20 years ago, so you could argue that this is a remake.
I’m at my last day of Cinevegas and this is an amazing festival. Vegas itself I can do without, but I’ve seen some terrific indie fare that has made the trip worthwhile. I saw “Choosing Connor” and “The Living Wake” and both are excellent. I can’t get over how funny and original “The Living Wake” is. it needs to get more press and more festival screenings so seek it out youse festival/press types.
I have some reviews up at Film Threat and some blogs. There’s also a video of me and our editor Mark Bell on the red carpet for OCEANS 13. Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, Ellen Barkin and Andy Garcia were all there. I interviewed…..Carrot Top. Still, the whole event was rather surreal. Girls screaming, jostling photographers enarly coming to blows…all over some of the bigeest celebrities of our time. It was fun and weird but boy am I glad I don’t do that for a living.
Check our coverage on Film Threat (click my name) and pray for me on my last night!
Interesting pont, Man, the official webpage also tates ‘Not Rated’ but according to Willis on AICN it was submitted and got a PG-13 (nothing was edited) and he thinks its the best one since #1. Interestingly enough, the makers claim they didn’t use any CGI in the film (i.e. they flipped the car for real). It’s a sad day at the movies when non CGI looks like CGI.
I’m a DIE HARD freak, I love the trilogy and loved the action and savagery of the first flick (McLaine running over broken glass, Takagi’s execution, etc) – they don’t make ’em like they used to. Jan De Bont’s cinematography was also ace.
Another element sorely missing from the fourth flick will be the distinctive score by the late Michael Kamen, an integral trademark of the series as well.
They shoulda picked Ian McShane from DEADWOOD for the villain as opposed to Timothy Olyphant (a good actor but not likely to challenge Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman in the bad guy sweepstakes). McShane would’ve owned the role.
“Interestingly enough, the makers claim they didn’t use any CGI in the film (i.e. they flipped the car for real). It’s a sad day at the movies when non CGI looks like CGI.”
Doublespeak. They used no CG – computer generated – effects, but there’s computer compositing all over the place, like in that car hiting the helicopter shot, or the shot of the car coming down on Bruce WIllis in the tunnel. Half a dozen of one, six of the other.
Dave how about a place to talk Sopranos?