April 19, 2024
BYOB
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
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
Damn…the SXSW Film Festival came out with their lineup today and it’s fan-TASTIC! A perfect blend of big stuff, small stuff, lots of music stuff and more mumblecore than you can shake a quiet moment of reflection at.
http://sxsw.com/
Schnabel’s Lou Reed flick is going to be there DP…….are you finally going to head out to Austin this March?
The “Sarah Marshall” trailer looks great; as do the trailers for “Leatherheads” and “Baby Mama.”
Add next week’s already seen (and pretty terrific) “Definitely, Maybe,” and I think it’s safe to say that Universal is off to a swell start in 2008.
Based on the trailer and TV spots, it’s so hard for me to believe that Definitely, Maybe is a good movie. But apparently I’m wrong.
that some sarcasm there movieman, I honestly can’t tell (not on this blog anyway).
I actually think Leatherheads could be good.
But Baby Mama, Marsahll, and D,M look horrid.
I’m seeing In Bruges tomorrow night. hopefully it’ll be this year’s Hot Fuzz.
well that word “swell” is usually an indicator.
I chuckled a few times at the Baby Mama trailer. Tina Fey is funny, but Amy Poehler is the anti-funny, so there’s a good chance the two of them appearing in a movie together could create a rift in the space-time continuum. You never know.
No sarcasm intended, Hop.
“D/M” is actually a breath of fresh air: a nice variation on the generic rom-com formula, and Ryan Reynolds has never been more appealing. I hope this does at least as well as the dreadful “P.S. I Love You” did over the holidays.
OK, maybe I let my Tina Fey idolatry sway me a tad, but I thought “Baby Mama” looked like a hoot (sort of “Mean Girls” for thirtysomething career women instead of high school chicks).
“Sarah Marshall” would seem to have all the earmarks–including his repertory company–of a typical Judd Apatow laugh machine, so what’s not to like?
And since “Leatherheads” was directed by one of the smartest, savviest guys around (GC), I’m guessing that it’s going to be another of his typically Class-A productions. It also reminds me a bit of the Coens at their screwballiest (“Hudsucker Proxy,” “O Brother,” “Intolerable Cruelty”), which is perfectly fine in my book. (Yep, I loved “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,” too, and consider it one of the best, if most underappreciated directing debuts of the past decade.)
“Bruges,” from Uni’s Focus subdivision, is pretty good, not great. It does, however, feature a fantastic comic performance by Colin Farrell. Comparisons with “Hot Fuzz” are way off base, though; the two films have zilch in common other than a British accent.
To prove that I’m not on Universal’s payroll, lol, I will say that “Roscoe Jenkins” is just about as lame as it looks.
How dare you diss my lil Amy Poehler-Bear! Thems fightin’ blog words!
Yeah, I have to concur. Amy Poehler is funny. Watch any Appalachian Emergency Room for confirmation.
Happy Mardi Gras, one and all. If I were back home in New Orleans today… well, I’d probably be very drunk by now.
by far the funniest thing I’ve seen today:
The reel geezers do the oscars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw3CngYPRw8&eurl=http://www.awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?t=2199
and part two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4LM0qKonp0
“Shot by a redneck or eaten by a bear, what’s the difference?”
Watch any Appalachian Emergency Room
I was doin’ naked squat thrusts over top of this bottle y’see….
Sarah Marshall feels more like a Walk Hard than a Knocked Up in the box office stakes.
Although, I’d love for my Kristen to have a hit.
“My Kristen”?
What, do you know her? If so, can you tell her I think she’s hot.
Anyone else see that HANCOCK trailer????
Love Berg, but, really, what the HELL?
Oh, and thay MAMMA MIA shit is the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen in my life.
It’s odd that MCN headlines are making fun of the Bond title so much. Quincunx of Solipsism. I personally LOVE the idea that the producers aren’t afraid of using a title with uncommon words in it. This is FAR FAR FAR preferable to 20 years ago, when the title “Licence Revoked” was watered down to the vastly inferior “Licence To Kill” when executives worried that the average filmgoer wouldn’t know what the word “revoked” meant. (Answer: more people than know what “quantum” or “solace” means.)
True, it doesn’t have the elegant flow of sounds that a great title should have, but it is evocative and intriguing, and that’s ultimately what counts. I’ll take that title over such illiterate tongue twisters as “Lara Craft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life” any day, and it’s a far sight better the simplistic marketing punches like “Hook”, “Cobb”, “Crash”, “Awake”, “Hitman”, “Shooter”, “RV”, “Next”, “Once”, and “Cars,” too.
Bond 22 dares to be better, and it gets slammed for it.
To be fair to Shooter, the title of the novel it was based on, Point of Impact, does sound kind of “porny” (then again, Shooter does too, if you think that way :D)…
…the first teaser for Quantum of Solace will have a narrator recite the title, that’s a bet…
…but does the title of a Bond movie, evocative or not, really matter? I worked in a theater (God forgive me) when Casino Royale came out. Half the time people asked for “one ticket to 007” or “one to the James Bond movie” or “Casino Royal.” The brand’s still the most important…
it’s no worse than “a view to a kill” or any of the instantly forgettable brosnan films (with the exception of “goldeneye”).
but i’ll probably just think of it as the next bond film.
Actually, A View to a Kill also is the title of an Ian Fleming story.
yes, but “quantum of solace” is the name of an ian fleming short story. don’t make the title that more appealing.
“Definitely, Maybe” is a definite loser. It’s name-checking a pic that opened opposite “Star Wars: Episode 1”.
“Leatherheads” is old-school + good looks = potential winner. The trailer was attached to US prints of “Charlie Wilson’s War”.
If Definitely, Maybe is a loser it’s because its own title is vague and not catchy. Nobody, let me reemphasize that, NOBODY cares what other romantic comedies it references in its ad campaign. That has zero effect on the target audience.
On the other hand, Leatherheads’ closest analogues are probably O Brother Where Art Thou and Intolerable Cruelty, which made $45m and $35m respectively, so the new movie will probably fall in that general area.