MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB – Thursday 2/14

Be Sociable, Share!

65 Responses to “BYOB – Thursday 2/14”

  1. JVD says:

    Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull trailer will be online in less than 30 minutes.

  2. Aris P says:

    Bootleg copies abound on the net as we speak. I just watched it. Looks pretty good, I guess. Will reserve judgment till further viewings.

  3. JVD says:

    Just caught the bootleg on Loved the bit where he’s swinging for the truck in the warehouse, misses and ends up crashing through the window of another truck. Can’t wait to check it out frame by frame when they release the high-def version.

  4. Definitely shows my age when I say I don’t particularly care for the Indi franchise, but there ya have it.

  5. waterbucket says:

    Count me in as another member to the “I don’t care about the new Indi movie” club. I will probably cave under peer pressure and go see it but I’m not looking forward to it.

  6. LockeMask says:

    Its kind of sad that I was more excited about the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants sequel trailer getting released, than viewing the underwhelming Indy 4 teaser trailer. I was impressed with the appearance of Cate Blanchett in the Indy 4 trailer though.

  7. brack says:

    not looking forward to new Indy = must be suffering from some sort of depression. 😉

  8. Wrecktum says:

    …or it equals being under the age of 25.

  9. movieman says:

    The “Indy 4” trailer looks kind of neat in a typical, airbrushed-to-perfection Spielbergy kind of way.
    But I can’t muster up a whole lot of enthusiasm for actually sitting through the movie, though. The last “Indiana Jones” movie feels like a lifetime ago, and it wasn’t all that great.
    Now “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2”? I am so there!!
    (And yes, that final comment was intended without a smidgeon of irony.)

  10. Noah says:

    I grew up watching the Indiana Jones movies on VHS over and over again. But, it’s still difficult for me to muster up enthusiasm for this flick. Indiana Jones was my hero when I was 8, but now I’m just disappointed that Spielberg is doing another sequel instead of telling a more original or important story.

  11. Kambei says:

    Looks like Spielberg (and Ford) having fun again…it’s been a long time…

  12. brack says:

    Important movies are overrated. I’m all for Spielberg’s fun action movies.

  13. Hopscotch says:

    I was at Disneyland a few months ago, and the one ride that gave me the biggest kick was…you guessed it. I can’t wait to see this one. Just the music alone draws me in.
    It looks fun.

  14. Hopscotch says:

    Also I froze the final end of the credits to see who’s getting writing credit.
    Story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson
    Screenplay by David Koepp.
    hmmmm. No Darabont?

  15. Wrecktum says:

    “I’m just disappointed that Spielberg is doing another sequel instead of telling a more original or important story.”
    The VERY prolific Spielberg (who’s directed almost a movie a year this decade) will be getting back to original and important stories shortly. For now, let him and his audience enjoy this nostalgic romp. Lightweight it may be. Unoriginal, no doubt. But fun, exciting and joyful. Yes. That’s “important” in some way, is it not?

  16. LexG says:

    After all the speculation about what a Kaminski-shot Indy film would look like…
    …apparently it looks a lot like a Michael Bay movie. But it’s just the font and the opening montage before the Indy reveal, but that trailer was positively Pearl Harbor-esque and the sheen is VERY Bay.
    I’m in my mid-30s, and have always had a distinctly minority opinion on this series; When I first saw RAIDERS at age 9, apparently the prime age for it to be some important Xer origins movie?
    I thought it was kind of boring. I like it a lot now as an adult, but I still contend that outside of the awesome opening setpiece and the truck chase, it’s kind of brown, dusty, slow-paced movie. Hell, the opening exposition takes half a reel.
    Maybe I just always had a preference for “urban” set action, but even at 9 I thought cop movies and Clint were more exciting than Indy running around with poison dates and Karen Allen stuffed in a bushel.
    TEMPLE owns Raiders. It’s all about MOLA RAM.

  17. Noah says:

    Wrecktum, it’s not a matter of me “letting” him or not letting him do this movie. I’m not begrudging anyone who wants to see this movie and have a good time. In fact, I’m all for it. I was simply expressing a bit of disappointment that the man would take so much time out of his life (and he’s no spring chicken at 61) to make a film I feel like I’ve seen three times before.
    It’s been three years since his last movie and he spent a good chunk of that time developing this project when I wish he would have been developing or prepping something different. He and his audience can enjoy this nostalgic romp and I’ll be there opening day as well, but I’m just lamenting the fact that he didn’t choose the last few years to get a more original project off the ground.

  18. jeffmcm says:

    So that’s what an Indy movie looks like with a bunch of CGI. I’m a fan of Spielberg-style slapstick, which is nice.
    Lex, you seem to have a problem with ‘brown, dusty’ movies. I recommend against that dream vacation in Barstow.

  19. RocketScientist says:

    For a film Fox has put a lot of effort into marketing AND is banking on TWO sequels, JUMPER doesn’t look like it’s going to perform quite as wonderfully as they’d hoped …

  20. Wrecktum says:

    What’s the obvious CGI in this trailer? I see some hinky process shots during the Indy/Kate cliff chase scene, but that’s all I noticed.

  21. storymark says:

    As to those who say no-one under 25 is interested – bull. I teach highschool. I pulled up one of the leaked photos weeks ago on my computer. One kid spotted it, and within 60 seconds, every kid in the room way talking about Indy.

  22. Wrecktum says:

    By the way, showing scenes of the first three movies demonstrates how little of Slocombe’s palette will be present in the new movie. I know it’s just a teaser and not necessarity how the finished project will be color timed, but the muted colors and heavy shadows are Kiminskian, not Slocombesque.

  23. Cadavra says:

    “I’m just disappointed that Spielberg is doing another sequel instead of telling a more original or important story.”
    You mean like MUNICH, which approximately 98% of the people around here loathed?

  24. Wrecktum says:

    Loved Munich.

  25. Noah says:

    Yes, I mean like Munich which I loved and I think less than 98% of people around here hated. Even if you didn’t like it, at least it was an attempt at opening up a dialogue about an important subject.

  26. Dr Wally says:

    I can’t freakin’ WAIT for May 22 personally. Say waht you will, the blockbusters of Spielberg, Lucas, and maybe Cameron and Zemeckis have a certain grandeur to them. The new generation of Summer tentpoles however, are gross-out comedies, superheroes and CG toons. So the pending release of Crystal Skull is making me actually kind of wistful for a bygone age, because with Spielberg and Lucas moving on from the kinds of films that made them, and Cameron and Zemeckis playing with their digital toys, the sense is that Indy 4 really is the end of an era. I saw the trailer in 720p, and felt like an idiot afterward, but i tell you, i jumped up and down when Indy picked up the hat in silhouette and John Williams’ Raiders March kicked in…

  27. Stella's Boy says:

    Another Munich lover here.

  28. lazarus says:

    Kiminskian (should be Kaminskian) and Slocombesque?
    Give me a fucking break.
    Not even Storaro has his own auteur-suffix.

  29. lazarus says:

    And Ford looks about stiff as Jake Lloyd. Alaska Jones, prequel-haters?

  30. Wrecktum says:

    “Kiminskian (should be Kaminskian) and Slocombesque?”
    It was intended to be a tongue in cheek statement. My apologies to Mr. Kaminski about the “i”.

  31. kelzeek says:

    As for fun Speilberg movies, let’s hope this is more War of the Worlds (minus the ending) and less Jurassic Park 2.
    Unforunately, the trailer had me thinking of Hook and 1941… not the jazzed Speilberg, but the through-the-motion Speilberg.
    Munich = underrated.

  32. movielocke says:

    today is VDay so I wouldn’t expect Jumper to do tremendously well as a thursday review because it’s tax time for guys, pay various chocolate, flower, jewelry and ‘her choice at the movies’ taxes in order to make sure you get sex and not a sex audit (no sex).

  33. movielocke says:

    edit: “thursday opener” not thursday review. :p

  34. hendhogan says:

    yes, noah, important subjects like moral relativism. hardly ever get to hear about that. unless you read a newspaper or turn on a news broadcast.

  35. TuckPendleton says:

    Last year, Darabont said somewhere in an interview on the Net (I am fairly certain on, but am too swamped to look it up) that the extreme hosing he got on Indy IV is what made him realize he would never be a gun for hire again. (And I think he also mentioned a similiar hosing on MI:III, but if I remembering right, it was the way Lucas treated him on Indy IV that pushed over the edge.)
    For me, I am thrilled and excited and tears of joy crept into my eyes when I realizes he was the Ark warehouse. I have seen those movies countless times, and have forgotten what a place they have in my memory. I was 9 also, when Raiders firt came out.
    The one thing that concerns me is that they have made Indy into a wise-cracking superhuman, much like they did with John McClane in Die Hard IV, when so much of his appeal is that he loses as much as he wins. Aside from that though, I thought it looked like it could be a great time at the movies.
    For those that might be interested, DVD Journal critic Alexandra DuPont wrote my favorite breakdown of the series when the first three came out on DVD:
    She also mounts a fairly impressive defense of Doom, especially the last 45 minutes, which really is one of the greatest extended action sequences in movie history.
    Go Indy!

  36. THX5334 says:

    God that trailer rocked!
    They address the age in the sequence when they’re surrounded by the Army and Winstone’s character says: “This isn’t going to be easy”, and Indy says: “Not as easy as it used to be.”
    Then they proceed to showcase a great action sequence that shows you Harrison still has it; in a familiar set piece to hint at connections to previous stories, What the fuck is not to love?
    This is Ford’s swan song as one of the greatest cinematic characters ever!
    Soon, all these filmmakers will be gone and it truly will be the end of an era.
    Oh Noah, if only I could be 24 again, and so full of grand cinematic artistic ambitions…
    Thinking that all of cinema’s stories should be compositions of importance; forgetting that maybe the emotional journey one experiences in a story is more important than what the story itself is about. And films like these (when done right) provide an emotional journey few can equal.
    This movie is the end of an era. Don’t you all get it?
    God, if you fucking haters are the future of cinema, than I weep for the future of cinema.
    Happy Valentines Day, Bitches.

  37. Noah says:

    THX, I will probably have a fun time at the movies when I see Indiana Jones 4 and I hope everyone else does as well. I just think so much of Spielberg as a director that I’d like him to work on something a little more ambitious than the fourth movie in a franchise. I’m not trying to be a hater, just someone who admires Spielberg as a director and wants to see him doing something different and hand over the reins of this film to, say, George Lucas.
    Hendhogan, as much as I appreciate the insinuation that I don’t read a newspaper, I’ll have to disagree with you. Name me another American film that deals with Israeli/Palestinian issues at all. At least Munich does and tries to give a voice to each side.

  38. hendhogan says:

    i was not insuating you don’t read newspapers or watch the news. i’m saying the important subject you refer to is in both those mediums daily.
    i’m saying the idea of equalling the murder of the israeli athletes and the murder of those murders is not new either.
    somewhere eugene ionesco’s sylogist from “rhinocerous” is quite pleased.

  39. Noah says:

    Sorry, I must have misread that. So because something is a chronic newspaper item means that it can’t be considered important or original when it’s done in a movie form? It might not be a new “idea”, but it’s a novel idea for a film.

  40. brack says:

    I thought Munich was great and all, but I love when Spielberg makes movies that I want to see more than just a couple of times.

  41. LexG says:

    An unrelated, more pressing issue for me is that as of today, I’ll never have to see the STEP UP 2 trailer in a movie theater again.
    I swear I’ve seen it roughly 75 times now, and definitely in front of EVERY 2008 release I’ve seen. I know every annoying, headache-inducing beat of the trailer.
    I will miss the incredibly embarrassing part where the Minka Kelly-looking chick is dancing in front of the mirror on the floor, not to mention the Kubrick-style font of the character names.
    I will not miss the douchey kid with the long hair and the dumb hat.
    One last time for all its fanz:

  42. brack says:

    I agree, LexG, a terrible trailer. I remember seeing it before something this year thinking “wow, I hope to never see that.”

  43. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Say this for “Step Up 2 The Streets”: The original kicked azz at the B.O. — opened better than “World Trade Center”.
    Ahh, to remember the day when Oliver Stone morphed from worthwhile filmmaker into courtesan for the ruling class.

  44. Jonj says:

    Loved “Munich.” I could get into trashing “The Terminal,” but that’s about it. On an unrelated note, this movie “Blindness” by the “City of God” director starring Julianne Moore has hit my radar. I hope it has “Children of Men” potential (and not “The Eye” potential).

  45. christian says:

    Worst trailer of the nonth is SUPERHERO MOVIE — every single moment is a character getting impaled or hurt as if it was a Superbowl ad.
    The audience lapped it up like the Thuggee before Mola Ram. Depressing.

  46. hendhogan says:

    you’re original lament was that spielberg wasn’t making movies with important subjects. so, yes, tackling something that happens chronically in the mainstream medium would in my opinion lessen the importance. of course, your choice of the word “important” leaves a lot up in the air, definition wise. maybe i’m not understanding you.
    dude, that’s BJ & the bear’s kid your dissing!

  47. Noah says:

    Hendhogan, it’s still important if the most influential and mainstream director working today decides to make a film about one of the most turbulent areas of the world. Whether or not it is talked about widely in the news, that doesn’t make it any less important or any less worthy of discussion. My original lament was that the world’s most famous director was not using his clout to directa picture that might not otherwise be produced in favor of directing the fourth film in a franchise. That doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy that fourth film, but rather that I wish he would tackle more difficult subject matter. If you still don’t understand me, then feel free to e-mail me.

  48. brack says:

    Based on the info on IMDB, it looks like Spielberg has plenty of stuff coming up in the next couple of years. Be patient. 😉

  49. mutinyco says:

    It’s a palette cleanser. He wanted to do something fun and profitable before returning to dramas. That’s all.

  50. hendhogan says:

    what makes you say influential? i’d agree with one of the most famous, but what’s he done that influenced anyone? we’re you pro israel and then the movie made you pro arab? and the reason for the fame is not those “important” movies. it’s “jaws,” “close encounters,” “indy,” “ET.” in other words, it’s the popcorn movies that made him who he is. and quite frankly, i’d rather he stick with material like that.

  51. Noah says:

    By making a film like Munich, he gives the material a wider berth than it might ordinarily receive. A film like Indiana Jones has a built-in audience and doesn’t need a filmmaker as talented as Spielberg to make it. I think Jaws is an important film, sure, but there’s a reason he didn’t do a sequel. Popcorn moves has brought him to this point and as an artist, would you rather he remain stagnant, making nothing but popcorn pictures for the rest of his life? Or would you rather he stretch a little bit and continue making films like A.I. or Munich, difficult films with complicated themes? Personally, I prefer the latter while it’s clear you prefer the former. And that’s fine. I think he’s at his best when he straddles the line and mixes genre filmmaking with serious subject matter the way I believe he does with Jaws, Close Encounters, Minority Report, AI and Munich (which is almost designed like a caper film).
    Look, once again, I have no ethical problem with him making a fourth Indiana Jones movie. But my PREFERENCE is for weightier material. That’s all. I hope to enjoy Indiana Jones and I hope you enjoy it too.

  52. jeffmcm says:

    A few things:
    There’s no reason to not use a word like “Kaminskian” when it’s about a filmmaker who exerts such a consistent stamp on his work. For better or worse, you can instantly recognize a film shot by Kaminski as well as you can by Gordon Willis, Gregg Toland, or Christopher Doyle. And Storaro may not have his own suffix, but he does have his own special shade of yellow.
    Next, Munich is a terrific film. I actually think the bulk of posters here are more likely to be fans of it than haters, thanks to DP’s fandom of it. And Hendhogan, I’d like to suggest you’re mistaking moral complexity for moral relativism. Not that m.r. is such a bad thing either. Also, if you’re a fan of Ionesco’s ‘Rhinoceros’ I recommend you rent the upcoming movie “Zombie Strippers”. Check it out on wikipedia.
    Noah, the greatness of Spielberg is that even in his ‘popcorn’ movies he still makes terrific, complex works of art and just because it’s not about ‘important’ themes doesn’t mean that it’ll be just popcorn flash.
    I had a sex audit once, it sucked cause I hadn’t gotten enough receipts.

  53. THX5334 says:

    “the greatness of Spielberg is that even in his ‘popcorn’ movies he still makes terrific, complex works of art and just because it’s not about ‘important’ themes doesn’t mean that it’ll be just popcorn flash.”
    Well said, JeffMcM

  54. Noah says:

    That’s an excellent point, Jeff. I think it chafes me more than it’s THIS particular popcorn film. I just feel like he’s said all he needed to say in this franchise. After all, the last one was called The Last Crusade! I suppose you could call Catch Me If You Can a popcorn flick, but I enjoyed the hell out of that and thought there was something more going on beneath the popcorn. The Indiana Jones films, films that I grew up loving by the way, were almost entirely about the popcorn factor, borne out Lucas and Spielberg’s love of serials. I just think three were enough, but I’m more than willing to be entertained a fourth time even if I’ll be wondering if he could’ve spent his time working on a more original piece.

  55. Blackcloud says:

    Noah, read Ebert’s “Great Movies” review of “Raiders.” There’s more going on than you give it credit for. The subtext may be close to surface, but it is there.

  56. jeffmcm says:

    Time will tell, but I can’t imagine that at this stage in his career Spielberg would make this movie without injecting something personal into it, if nothing else a statement about getting older and moving on with your life. (Hopefully it’ll be more profound than The Bucket List though).
    Also, we all understand he made this movie to gain some box-office cred for his next few movies, right?

  57. Nicol D says:

    “A film like Indiana Jones has a built-in audience and doesn’t need a filmmaker as talented as Spielberg to make it.”
    This could not be further from the truth. Craft matters. A film need not be about important subject matter to be great and many films about important subject matters are not.
    Spielberg has always been as much about craft as meaning and craft is as much about art as anything else.
    The Indiana Jones films are shot and edited in a way that only Spielberg can bring.
    I have been very critical about the potential for this film but I do not think Spielberg is just ‘cashing in’.
    He is truly a great artist.

  58. Noah says:

    Blackcloud, I agree that there’s more going on in Raiders, but that was the first one. With each successive film in a franchise, it’s a bit more diluted, no?
    Jeff, I suppose that’s the ultimate point then. And can I accept that Spielberg is making this film so that it’ll make enough money that he can get to work on more personal and ambitious projects? Yeah, I can accept that.

  59. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t know where to find it, but I believe that crazy Armond White has written that each Indiana Jones movie gets progressively more complex, ethically. Not saying I agree or disagree, but the argument has been made.

  60. Skyblade says:

    Say what you will, the blockbusters of Spielberg, Lucas, and maybe Cameron and Zemeckis have a certain grandeur to them. The new generation of Summer tentpoles however, are gross-out comedies, superheroes and CG toons.
    I’d say plenty of the superhero movies (Which by the way, coexisted with many of these guys’ heydays) have a granduer to them. Plus a few other blockbusters like Harry Potter and LOTR. I don’t know why people talk about Spielberg bringing a series that’s been dormant for twenty years is the “end of an era”.
    I’m not 100% excited about this, but I do think it will be good. I didn’t geek out about it, but there’s nothing really to geek out about with summer movies these days because they really just push them as inertia porn, which is what I think my problem with the sequel deluge is. It’s not the lack of originality, it’s that movie fandom feels like sports team loyalty. We are doing the studios’ legwork for them–like the frog genes in Jurrassic Park where we fill in whatever blanks the movie may provide with our love for previous installments or the genre or whatever.

  61. ThriceDamned says:

    I’m not a big Spielberg fan, and find most of his recent output to be bad-to-middling fare (A.I, Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, War of the Worlds, Terminal…however Catch Me If You Can was a whole heap of fun and Munich grows on me I must admit) and enjoy his earlier work a lot more (Jaws, Close Encounters).
    For my tastes, the Indy movies are the very best films Spielberg has ever made and I’m super excited (as a true child of the 80’s) for the fourth one. For me, Spielberg doesn’t work all that well when he tries to be “serious”, and after rewatching the Indy trilogy the other day, I was glad to know that he was returning to the kind of stuff that he does best in my opinion…fun, light adventure.

  62. modernknife says:

    With CHICAGO 7, LINCOLN and INTERSTELLAR set to follow INDY 4, I think all fans of Spielberg’s work as a director, both “popcorn” and “important”, have a full plate ahead of them. If you don’t like the subjects, best to turn your attention to another director.
    At this point, I’ll take another INDY over a WAR OF THE WORLDS anyday.
    Skyblade — nice commentary on the mentality of the summer pass given to summer tentpole movies.

  63. brack says:

    “I agree that there’s more going on in Raiders, but that was the first one. With each successive film in a franchise, it’s a bit more diluted, no?”
    Actually, I enjoy them all pretty equally. Like the original Star Wars trilogy.

  64. Cadavra says:

    Noah, I think MUNICH is excellent and I’m sorry if my post led you to believe otherwise. I guess I’ll hafta downgrade that 98% estimate a tad. 🙂

  65. IOIOIOI says:

    Good lord to all of this.

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