MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

BYOB – Weekend

Not the first or last entry of the day… but someplace for y’all to purge before rushing to the cinema to experience Kung Fu Zohan…

Be Sociable, Share!

60 Responses to “BYOB – Weekend”

  1. Eric says:

    The drive-in nearest me is showing Kung Fu Panda and Indiana Jones. If only it wasn’t rainy and cold.

  2. LYT says:

    Is anybody actually excited about Zohan?

  3. IOIOIOI says:

    I am not excited, but it does seem to be the first Sandler movie I have wanted to see in a theatre since PDL.

  4. Stella's Boy says:

    The Strangers is terrible. That is all.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    It’s fine if you want to be scared for 90 minutes and don’t mind a letdown ending. If you want theme or character work, not so much.

  6. Stella's Boy says:

    I love horror jeff and I would have been fine if it had scared me for 90 minutes. It didn’t. It bored me to tears. It’s so tedious and there’s way too many “boo” scares. The letdown ending is the least of its problems.

  7. Dr Wally says:

    SATC has been doing great in weekdays, over $5 million a day. I don’t think it’s going to drop 65% or whatever.

  8. JPK says:

    Same here, Eric. I am thinking of taking my daughter to her first drive-in movie. Panda and Indy seems like a good combo.

  9. anghus says:

    i was just over at aint it cool news and saw a “story” about a new young adult fiction book being posted in serialized chapters that vanish daily, only posting the first 14 though leading up to the release of the book.
    If this isn’t advertising, it sure as hell reads like it. I’m really curious if Harper Collins is cutting them a check, and if so, why on earth are they selling the final shred of credibility down the river for a Left Behind clone aimed at teens?
    So often i find myself on both sides of the issues on some of these websites. I can understand why guys at film sites use ‘interviews’ and ‘set visits’ to pimp their own scripts and network, or how certain webmasters use the website as a leverage position to help raise funding for films that never seem to happen. I can reason out why punches are pulled on projects that involve industry people they’ve become friendly with.
    But running chapters of a book as a story and picking up a check for it? Is there another side worth defending in this? If this isn’t paid advertising, then i’m way off base, but the whole thing feels like an attempt to sell stories as advertising, and if that isn’t the final nail in the coffin for credibility, i don’t know what is.
    And i have no interest in Panda or Zohan. I saw the Strangers. I was impressed with the minimalist, creepy storytelling.

  10. scooterzz says:

    ‘panda’ is so lush it deserves to be seen in an enclosed theater…..
    that said, a drive-in double feature of ‘indy’ and ‘panda’ sounds like the best summer night activity i’ve heard of in ages……
    all of the drive-ins near me went from being shooting galleries to swap meets to strip malls years ago……

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    Really anghus? Rent Ils then. It’s similar to The Strangers except way, way better.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    Really? Now what did you think made them different? I felt like they were virtually identical, except one was French and one wasn’t.

  13. anghus says:

    ill have to check Ils out. I wouldnt call the Strangers the greatest film ever, but i was entertained the whole time. My wife was scared shitless. She screamed at least four times at the top of her lungs.

  14. Stella's Boy says:

    I think Ils is paced better, relies far less on obnoxious boo scares/pounding sound effects, isn’t nearly as tedious, and has a much better ending. They are definitely similar, but Ils is vastly superior.

  15. jeffmcm says:

    I’ll need to see Ils again, but they really felt like the exact same movie. I also think that boo scares and pounding sound effects are fine, when done properly, and that Strangers did them properly. As for ‘tedious’, Ils is also about 15 minutes shorter than Strangers.
    As for the ending, I can comment on that, and both movies end equally unsatisfyingly. The twist in Ils is interesting for about five seconds.

  16. anghus says:

    *************************STRANGERS SPOILERS*********************
    The ending was kind of weak, and i have no idea how anyone survived a slow stabbing/bleeding out.

  17. jeffmcm says:

    SPOILERS CONT.
    Just a flesh wound. I’ll willing to bet that the DVD will have at least one ‘alternate ending’ though.
    Basically the screenplay painted itself into a corner and didn’t have any other ideas to play out.

  18. Stella's Boy says:

    It’s not just the difference in length jeff, a difference I am perfectly aware of. I felt like I was watching the same scene over and over again in The Strangers. We catch a glimpse of a villain behind one of the leads, they don’t know the villain is behind them, we’re supposed to be oh so scared, and then suddenly the villain is no longer behind them. This happened over and over again.
    I hate boo scares and pounding sound effects. The Strangers relies on them way too much and it didn’t need to.
    I literally just saw Ils. Like I said, I realize they are somewhat similar, but Ils is much better. I guess we just have different taste in horror jeff. You seem to find value in almost every movie in the genre. I do not.

  19. hendhogan says:

    did anyone see the monstrosity that was the remake of “andromeda strain” last week? if not, i’m warning you SPOILERS.
    granted, the original is dated. but do we really need to see a physical manifestation of the disease spreading? what was a simple premise, that it’s very likely that the first contact with an alien organism would be a virus is cast aside. now, there’s time travel. the future sends it back because only we can handle it with a counter disease that has been destroyed due to “rift mining” (whatever the fuck that is). Oh, come on! works for star trek, not so much here.
    then there’s the evil government angle. tired. howabout the plucky reporter just after the truth (a throwback to 50s style journalists that does not exist today). hey, don’t forget to get all PC and have the one kick-ass military guy also be gay. and it’s just a throwaway.
    finally, that is the longest 15 minute destruct sequence i’ve ever seen. get the panels off the wall, climb the shaft, guy falls to death, but wait need his thumb, so guy #2 climbs down, cuts thumb off, throws it up to guy #3 and then dies, guy #3 gets hot steam in his eyes so he can’t see, then by feel and audio instruction he manages to shut off the device with seconds left.
    give me the original version any day, anachronisms and all.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    Stella, I hate as many horror movies as I like. From this year, Prom Night was a tedious slog. I’m fully on record as loathing Saw II/III/IV. I paid for this microphone, senator!

  21. Stella's Boy says:

    If you say so. I expected more from The Strangers.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    Stella, we agree on a lot, but you seriously need to get a grip on your life, don’t step up or you will get beaten down.
    (I’m joking)

  23. Stella's Boy says:

    Ha. Lucky for you, cause it was about to get really nasty up in this piece. And the Saw movies definitely do not own.

  24. SJRubinstein says:

    I have not seen “The Strangers,” but the screenplay was actually really well done. From what I’ve heard about the ending of the released version, the ending-ending with the missionaries seems to have been a re-shoot or a late addition to the script.

  25. movieman says:

    …”rainy and cold,” Eric?
    Lucky you. We just went from an exceptionally wet/chilly “spring” to 90+ humid degrees 24/7 here in northeastern Ohio. Ugh.
    I’m not a big “Indy 4” fan, but a “Panda”/”Indy” double-feature (in comfortable weather) at a drive-in with brought-from-home popcorn and walnut fudge snacks (the drive-in goodies of my misbegotten youth thanks to mom) sounds delicious.

  26. Eric says:

    Actually the weather did a complete 180– we went from tornados a few miles away this afternoon to warm, humid, and balmy this evening. I wish I hadn’t made plans, it would have been a great night for the double feature.
    This drive-in is strictly against outside food, on the grounds that their meager profit comes from concessions. They can be jerks about it and it’d be easy to sneak in snacks and drinks, of course, but I always try to spend $20 while I’m there because I don’t want them to go out of business.

  27. Saw Sex and the City last night. I liked it a lot, as did my friends. People in the audience even clapped, which I found odd (I’ve only heard clapping at three non festival films – LotR:RotK, one of the Harry Potter flicks and Moulin Rouge!) cause Australian audiences aren’t like… that. 🙂
    I gave it a higher rating (B+) than it surely deserves (the writing was definitely worse than the series) because it’s the sort of the movie I’ll be able to rewatch multiple times just like the series. I thought the early wedding scenes were actually really well done. Best in show goes to Kristen Davis.
    They showed a trailer for Mamma Mia as well. If that movie can’t be a hit in Australia then it can’t be a hit anywhere.

  28. Aladdin Sane says:

    Finally caught up with Prince Caspian and it was much better than I expected. The fights were well done and the film felt more dynamic overall. The first one was rather flat for the most part. This time there was the sense of urgency that the first one lacked. If they continue in this direction, I can’t wait to see where the series goes.
    Also, I would like to direct The Horse and His Boy. Any objections? (Besides the obvious fact that I am not in the business.)

  29. EOTW says:

    I’m not a recent horror movie guy, and I think I have mentioned this here before a few months back, but the 2007 French horror film INSIDE is VERY well made. It has images that are so disgusting and terrifying that it really makes you wonder how people can desire to put something like it on screen. It’s revolting and simple, and yet, even though I have only seen it once, the images and feeling of dread that envelops the pic, its very atmosphere, si so obviously well done that it has to be seen to be appreciated. Yeah, It will mess you up for days to come but its effectiveness CAN NOT be denied.

  30. movieman says:

    …totally agree with EOTW’s comments about “Inside.” It’s revolting, even nauseating at times, but it’s tough denying that the film is superbly directed and extraordinarily effective.
    I wasn’t as big a fan of “Frontiere(s)”. Unlike “Inside”–which is a total original, whether you like/appreciate it or not–“F” seemed awfully derivative and familiar somehow, despite the subtitled French dialogue.
    “Them” is very well done, however, and I actually prefer it to “The Strangers” which petty much left me cold.

  31. EOTW says:

    Thanks for the reply, MM. I have to say that I rarely watch horror/really graphic violent films. I don’t like them all that much when I know that it’s a gimmick. That being said, when I hear of a film so extreme and raw, something makes me seek it out, like a bad tooth, hence why I watched SALO, Or IRREVERSIBLE (which has a couple of redeeming features to it).”
    I honestly think I have NEVER seen a film that compares to SALO,
    except INSIDE. I find myself fascinated by the air of futile hopelessness that both films drown the viewer in. Just an odd facet of the movie going life: films we find unnerving and revolting and remain fascinated by long after they are through assaulting us, even after just a single viewing.

  32. Noah says:

    Perhaps it was just too hyped up for me, but I found INSIDE to be a well-done and effective horror flick, but it doesn’t crack my top ten films that terrified me. I think the scissors were truly horrifying and I loved the interaction between the two leads, but I could have done without the whole part with the riot gun towards the end.
    I definitely don’t think it compares to films like Salo, Cannibal Holocaust or other “controversial” films like that. And I don’t think it compares to a film like The Shining or Session 9 or any of the Bava films in terms of sheer scares; but of course, this is completely subjective and I find it fascinating that so many folks find INSIDE to be so horrific. I respect the opinion, just wish I felt the same.

  33. movieman says:

    Even though “Salo” and “Irreversible” are nearly excruciating to watch, I respect both films as singular auteurist visions.
    And your use of the word “hopelessness” to describe “Inside” and “Salo” is spot-on.
    Actually, all three share a kind of existentialist despair–and formalist rigor–that makes it impossible to look away, even when you don’t think you can stand to watch anymore.
    These are not movies that I recommend casually to friends/acquaintances, but the rewards are there for anyone with a strong enough constitution.
    Since it’s my job to see everything, I’ve endured my share of sickeningly violent crap over the years. But it’s only lately–in this post-“Saw” boomlet of torture porn–that I’ve begun to actively recoil from movies that seem to exist only to revel in mindless sadism and gore. Or maybe I’m just getting older.
    That’s probably why “The Strangers” bummed me out. Although it’s relatively mild by current standards and expertly crafted, “The Strangers” left me feeling just a tad queasy at the end. “What exactly was the point/purpose of all that unpleasantness?,” I asked myself when it was over.
    Unlike the previously cited films, there didn’t seem to be any overarching vision (auteurist or otherwise) to justify the kick in the gut that it leaves you with. It just made me sad.

  34. jeffmcm says:

    I agree with you, Noah. For me, Inside was entertaining and nasty (in a good way) but it didn’t punch me in gut the same way most of the other movies you mention did. I wasn’t a fan of the over-the-top duct tape bit at the end which felt like it belonged in an early Peter Jackson movie (which were all comedies). I didn’t see a lot of genuine despair in it, personally.

  35. EOTW says:

    I should probably say that INSIDE didn’t “scare” me. It just was a film that blew my mind in its own way and is horrific. Yeah, a movie like THE SHINING is MUCH more effective (at least until the shot of forzen Jack. Am I the only one who finds that effect completely hysterical?)
    Gotta agree about the films like SAW which wallow in violence. Although, to be honest, I’ve never seen a SAW or HOSTEL film and probably never will. Likewise, I LOVE Naomi Watts in everything but have no desire at all th see FUNNY GAMES (or the orginal, for that matter).
    Man, those damn scissors…ugh. I’ll take images I’ll never get out of my head for a thousand, Alex.

  36. EOTW says:

    Jut to add, I watched CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST a few years ago, maybe 10 or so. I just didn’t get it personally. The pre credit sequence of the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake was more effective. While the est of the film was crap for me.

  37. IOIOIOI says:

    Cannibal Holocaust is just a funny movie. It’s easily one of those films that can be ranked up there with the other “WHITE PEOPLE DOING STUPID THINGS” horrour films. It’s also another one of those Italian horrour films that wants to be all cinema verite, but comes across like a K-Mart promotional video.

  38. Noah says:

    Yeah, Cannibal Holocaust is not scary…but I was just talking about people putting INSIDE on that same list of “controversial” films like that one or I Spit on Your Grave or Salo (which actually merits the ‘controversial’ tag). But yeah, I thought INSIDE was well done enough and it certainly satisfied me as a film, but I agree with what Jeff said in that it didn’t “punch me in the gut” like some of the best scary movies.
    And EOTW, I agree with you on the shot of frozen Nicholson in the Shining. I saw it for the first time when I was like eleven and I’ll never be more scared watching a film, but even then I found that shot to be chuckle-worthy…which was actually kind of a necessary moment for me, to be able to say “whew.”

  39. EOTW says:

    Noah: I was at a party last NYE and some folks were watching the flick on a huge TV on DVD (Blue Ray, maybe?). when that shot was almost onscreen, I waited, and yep, half the room laughed, probably having seen it before and the rest were annoyed, nver having seen the flick before that night. either way, it’s pretty funny stuff and it does kinda let some air into the room. talk about atmosphere!

  40. leahnz says:

    there should be two official classifications of ‘horror’ movies: type 1 – scary; type 2 – gross. in my experience they usually don’t overlap (type 1, you sit there cowering in your seat in the dark looking through your fingers cause you can’t bear to see or miss what happens next; type 2, you sit there cringing in your seat in the dark looking through your fingers cause you can’t quite bear to watch people being sliced and diced but you can’t look away…)
    i know this is, as my son would put it, ‘sooo ten seconds ago’, but i finally managed to catch ‘no country for old men’ on dvd last night after two near-misses seeing it at the cinema (in which life conspired against me, and then it was gone). i don’t know what i expected after seeing the rather innocuous trailer, but it was not what i expected…such a simple, linear story, well told. i didn’t expect it to be quite so hilarious (i found myself laughing out loud several times at the subtle humour in the dialog); i didn’t expect josh brolin to steal the show, though i thought bardem was brilliantly demented and amusing in what is an almost silent movie-type performance (i don’t know why but the sight of him carrying around that air compressor gun everywhere was funny as hell), and i didn’t expect the ending to totally not shock me after all the kafluffle (i have a friend who was so angry about the ending, i thought he was going to blow a gasket when he told me how bad the ending was, he was spluttering). i was expecting some really weird, abrupt ending, but what i saw was totally reasonable and in keeping with the story…(the freakish killer with a knack for survival gets away, the cautious cop survives to go into mundane retirement). can anyone be bothered this long after the fact to explain to me what all the fuss was about? i really don’t get it, i’m really curious.

  41. leahnz says:

    there should be two official classifications of ‘horror’ movies: type 1 – scary; type 2 – gross. in my experience they usually don’t overlap (type 1, you sit there cowering in your seat in the dark looking through your fingers cause you can’t bear to see or miss what happens next; type 2, you sit there cringing in your seat in the dark looking through your fingers cause you can’t quite bear to watch people being sliced and diced but you can’t look away…)
    i know this is, as my son would put it, ‘sooo ten seconds ago’, but i finally managed to catch ‘no country for old men’ on dvd last night after two near-misses seeing it at the cinema (in which life conspired against me, and then it was gone). i don’t know what i expected after seeing the rather innocuous trailer, but it was not what i expected…such a simple, linear story, well told. i didn’t expect it to be quite so hilarious (i found myself laughing out loud several times at the subtle humour in the dialog); i didn’t expect josh brolin to steal the show, though i thought bardem was brilliantly demented and amusing in what is an almost silent movie-type performance (i don’t know why but the sight of him carrying around that air compressor gun everywhere was funny as hell), and i didn’t expect the ending to totally not shock me after all the kafluffle (i have a friend who was so angry about the ending, i thought he was going to blow a gasket when he told me how bad the ending was, he was spluttering). i was expecting some really weird, abrupt ending, but what i saw was totally reasonable and in keeping with the story…(the freakish killer with a knack for survival gets away, the cautious cop survives to go into mundane retirement). can anyone be bothered this long after the fact to explain to me what all the fuss was about? i really don’t get it, i’m really curious.

  42. leahnz says:

    shit shit shit shit shit! and bugger

  43. jeffmcm says:

    Leah, a lot of it was about expectations: a lot of people were expecting the conflict between Chigurh and Moss to finally reach a traditional mano y mano climax that would end with some kind of action catharsis, like any conventional action movie. But since it was really a noir, all bets were off.

  44. leahnz says:

    ah, ok, so the outrage was mainly due to being denied the catharsis of seeing chig blow moss away? (cause as chig says on the phone, there’s only one way it’s all gonna end, and we know moss is doomed from the moment chig shows up with his portable compressor and bemused death-like visage…) As abrupt as it was, i was actually glad to be spared the gory details of moss’s death, moss being the big, scruffy, likable dumb-ass spunk that he was.
    the tension in the scene between chig and the poor kind store clerk who is forced to call heads or tails for his life was terrific…i called ‘heads’ out loud (and was so relieved i got it right). i never say stuff out loud to a movie, i think that was the first time

  45. polarbear2 says:

    I wasn’t upset that Chigurh the supernatural killer got away, or that the film ended so obliquely. But as a filmgoer, I resented not being there when Moss gets killed, or not even knowing who got him in the end. We were following his character for the entire movie, we were invested in him. By not showing us his death for artistic, subversive, or whatever reason, the Coens are robbing the viewer of a scene we feel we’ve earned.
    It’s like if Shakespeare decided to show the final act of Hamlet entirely from Fortinbras’ point of view. “Hello Denmark! I’m here to take over and…whoa, what’s up with all these dead bodies?”

  46. EOTW says:

    To be fair, the Coens didn’t really rob anyone. The book is even more vague. In the book, we don’t get even a shot of his body, just a scene of Ed Tom in the morgue viewing his corpse. the Coens were, I think, trying to stay true to the source.
    Which again makes me wonder how they can even be awarded Best Screenplay. All they did was take the book and put it onscreen. the dialogue is almost all straight from the book, no real “adaptation.” But this is all moot now.

  47. THe reason I loved the ending of NCfOM was because it lived up to everything it had developed about it’s characters. Chigurh got away, Ed Tom did his darndest but couldn’t keep up and Llewelin’s death was completely unspectacular just like he lived his life.
    That’s the way it goes, really, in life.
    I recently purchased a DVD that included Brian Trenchard-Smith’s Dead End Drive-In (amazing flick) and Roggero Deodato’s Cut and Run. I’ve yet to watch the latter (cannibals make me feel icky), but if it’s not as horrific as you guys seem to be saying these Italian horror flicks are then maybe I should give it a spin?

  48. jeffmcm says:

    “the Coens are robbing the viewer of a scene we feel we’ve earned.”
    Sorry to sound like a dick, but welcome to cinema. It doesn’t all work out the way you expect.
    KCamel, the Italians, in their day, were amazing. Bava, Argento, Fulci, are all worthwhile artsts. I haven’t seen (or heard of) Cut and Run, but it’ll be at least watching.

  49. jeffmcm says:

    That should be ‘at least worth watching’. sorry.

  50. IOIOIOI says:

    Let me also throw in that Anton Cigurh got away, but he got away with a limp. He did pay for his sins in a small way, but he did pay.

  51. leahnz says:

    kam, i like what you said about the ending for ncfom being perfectly fitting in relation to the characters and how the story unfolds, that’s just how i feel, which is why i was so puzzled about the controversy. did anyone else also find it really amusing? some of the dialog struck me funny (‘that’s a dead dog’…’sure is’…). i must be weird.
    io, chig’s arm bone was sticking out, which in no way counted toward paying for his murderous sins, him being death incarnate and all…my feeling is that for him, it just fell into the ‘shit happens’ catagory and nothing as lame as a compound fracture would slow him down for long

  52. Garret Dillahunt made me laugh out loud several times yet I never read a single word of praise for him.

  53. leahnz says:

    yes! thank goodness it’s not just me being a sick puppy.
    i’d like to watch it again, actually, by myself; i couldn’t re-wind certain scenes with impunity so i wasn’t able to form an opinion about such things as exactly when and where chig was lurking up in the dark when the sheriff came to examine the room where moss was killed later that night…or the reflection in the blown-out lock, which was slow-moed repeatedly but nobody could agree on what it was…all sorts of little details

  54. yancyskancy says:

    Yes, NCFOM had lots of intentional humor. It’s the Coens, after all. Kubrick is always funny, too, but there seem to be a lot of people who don’t think so, or think his humor is unintentional except for Strangelove.
    SPOILER:
    I thought it was fairly clear that the Mexicans killed Moss, but I really do need to see it again. It’s an endlessly discussable film (see Jim Emerson’s Scanners blog for lots of often rewarding back and forth about it).

  55. leahnz says:

    i’m relieved you guys got the humour, too, and it’s not just me (i thought it was sublimely written), i was starting to worry about a defective funny bone.
    didn’t chigurh kill the mexicans in the wrong room while moss was retrieving the loot with his fishing rod contraption? i need to watch it again.

  56. leahnz says:

    tent pole contraption…the memory is slipping

  57. jeffmcm says:

    There’s a whole other set of replacement Mexicans who are the ones peeling out of the motel parking lot at the end of the movie when Tommy Lee Jones is just arriving there, when he finds Moss.

  58. leahnz says:

    oh, shit, really? so chig didn’t even kill moss? geeze, i hate watching movies with other human beings, i’m too easily distracted, like a fish by shiny objects

  59. jeffmcm says:

    Shiny objects are awesome.

  60. leahnz says:

    lol, welcome to the goldfish bowl (home of the three-second memory)

Leonard Klady's Friday Estimates
Friday Screens % Chg Cume
Title Gross Thtr % Chgn Cume
Venom 33 4250 NEW 33
A Star is Born 15.7 3686 NEW 15.7
Smallfoot 3.5 4131 -46% 31.3
Night School 3.5 3019 -63% 37.9
The House Wirh a Clock in its Walls 1.8 3463 -43% 49.5
A Simple Favor 1 2408 -50% 46.6
The Nun 0.75 2264 -52% 111.5
Hell Fest 0.6 2297 -70% 7.4
Crazy Rich Asians 0.6 1466 -51% 167.6
The Predator 0.25 1643 -77% 49.3
Also Debuting
The Hate U Give 0.17 36
Shine 85,600 609
Exes Baggage 75,900 62
NOTA 71,300 138
96 61,600 62
Andhadhun 55,000 54
Afsar 45,400 33
Project Gutenberg 36,000 17
Love Yatri 22,300 41
Hello, Mrs. Money 22,200 37
Studio 54 5,300 1
Loving Pablo 4,200 15
3-Day Estimates Weekend % Chg Cume
No Good Dead 24.4 (11,230) NEW 24.4
Dolphin Tale 2 16.6 (4,540) NEW 16.6
Guardians of the Galaxy 7.9 (2,550) -23% 305.8
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 4.8 (1,630) -26% 181.1
The Drop 4.4 (5,480) NEW 4.4
Let's Be Cops 4.3 (1,570) -22% 73
If I Stay 4.0 (1,320) -28% 44.9
The November Man 2.8 (1,030) -36% 22.5
The Giver 2.5 (1,120) -26% 41.2
The Hundred-Foot Journey 2.5 (1,270) -21% 49.4