May 18, 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
Redford’s post-SPY GAME eye tuck is consistently distracting.
Streep is such a ham these days. And Cruise’s *third billing* (at least according to the trailer) is pretty transparent.
That trailer just makes the movie look like self-important Hollywood BS. So sick of that genre.
though it was written by the guy who wrote The Kingdom, so one can hope.
Reford’s last two directing efforts have bordered on the dreadful. So I really am not holding out for this one. Another “topical” political film this winter is Charlie Wilson’s War with Hanks, Roberts and PS Hoffman. I can’t wait to see the trailer, or ads for that.
It looks more complicated than the usual Hollywood BS to me – maybe it’s actually a debate instead of just hammering talking points into your head for two hours.
I hope you’re right.
The Guardian article in which this movie and all the others are mentioned will be followed up in eight months by one about how they all flopped.
While I can’t say that seeing actors with, shock, wrinkles is abhorant, the poster itself is lazy and the movie doesn’t look that flash. We’ll see, I guess. I can see it easily being this year’s The Good Sherpherd. Nice cast, note-worthy director, seemingly important issue, but just not exciting enough.
I rewatched The Conversation last night and am still amazed at how great that film is and it again reminds one of why the current crop of political films is so poor. They are too explicit, too blunt and too angry and as such lack poetry, metaphor and art.
The Conversation obviously relates to Watergate but that is never mentioned and no political parties are revealed. Hence the film transcends its era. It is about ideas, not political agendas.
This is the reason why the original Apocalypse Now is so powerful because it doesn’t – have – to be about Vietnam. When Redux added explicit discussions about the Vietnam war it made the film smaller and poorer.
This seems very much cut from that cloth. Redford is obviously talented and is actually one of my favourite actors but a moderate he is not. I am also cynical enough to believe that Cruise took this role as a form of career rehabilitation.
He was seen as a loon; play a one-dimensional evil Repub, then be welcomed back to the fold.
Nicol D. I’m 110% with you on the Conversation. What a fantastic film that very much played with how society was feeling at that time. It’s the perfect “Watergate” movie, but not about watergate other than spying and privacy and it’s WAY more relevant today.
I don’t quite agree with you on Cruise though. This is the first film from his United Artists venture, so I think he felt his appearance might boost the box office some. but, a cynical side to me thinks you might be on to something.
Hopscotch,
I also love the ending to The Conversation, where the final camera pan can itself be seen as the surveillance camera that Hackman missed. Sad that he has quietly gone into retirement.