May 7, 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
The only reason I want this movie to rot is for Paramount to realize, WTF! And then pull his ass off Avatar: The Last Airbender. The only decent thing on Nick. It he is still on the project, if he screws it up, I will personally make my way to PA and make it happen to him.
Air Bud?
Yeah, that is going to comeback and bite you ass.
I remember reading a short story in the early ’80s about the nation being attacked by the angry souls of…roadkill. It seems that animals don’t mind dying in the jaws of predators–at least their life served a purpose–but to die under the wheels of a Datsun, well, that just ticked them off no end.
(The author apparently neglected to note that even roadkill gets eaten, and depending upon the locale the scavenger might be birds, vermin, or the treacherous rednecked Bud-sucker.)
Even if the movie were crackerjack, do audiences really want to see a movie where the plants fight back? It’s like an unwritten sequel to Roald Dahl’s Sound Machine.
Day of the Triffids?
Not quite…..
Yeah, too Whovian, which is what I initially thought when the ’81 serial came out, but then I discovered the book came out twelve years before the Time Lord’s debut.
Carnivorous plants chasing people around–heh. How silly. Plants are just beautiful airheads, so harmless they couldn’t harm a…well, anything larger than a housefly.
This is easily the stupidest concept for a film ever. It’s basically a goofy premise wrapped around supposedly SHOCKING GORE, that’s just plain goofy. It’s like the fucking guy wants to act as if everyone has forgotten MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE! A film that is goofy, but has fun with it’s goofiness.
This film also demonstrates that Night’s run as a singles competitor has run it’s course, and now it’s time he mixes it up with a tag-team run. He needs to let the ego go, accept he needs a partner to help him get back to the top of the card, and spend the next few years trying to get his mojo back. A mojo he clearly lost the moment the Mouse pulled a Sergant Keith Manning and said; “Done.”
Well thanks for spoiling the movie. That’s appreciated (i speak of the replies, not Dave’s SPOILER-warned review, which I gladly skipped.
BTW, Day of the Triffids is great.
Also, I fail to see how there’s a twist in Signs or Lady in the Water. If it’s just the natural way of the movie it hardly counts as a twist. If the aliens in Signs turned out to be Mel Gibson’s father, then it’s a twist.
Oops. I guess I thought there had to be more than “It’s plants.” I mean, really, just look at the trailer–people spaz out then kill themselves, and it’s just plants?!? There has to be so much more that only watching the movie would provide, right?
But then I still haven’t seen CHILDREN OF MEN, and even had a chance to buy the DVD for $4.99, but passed up because I heard there was no explanation given for why women were no longer able to conceive. Seems the director thought it was an unimportant detail?!?
You should see Children of Men immedialty. The reason no reason is given for the infertility is to add to the unsettling nature of the film, not something they simply forgot to mention. If the world knew why they could be working to fix it, but not having a reason makes it all the more hopeless. And then when there is hope it is all the more important. I am not saying you will like the film, there are a lot who don’t, but it is certainly one that is required viewing to make your own opinion.
Stumbling in the dark is one thing, but they don’t have a clue? Smacks of divine intervention, or a nonchalance on the part of the creative crew.
I detected the same vibe when I was listening to the commentary track on the Venture Bros DVD, when one of the creators mentioned the mystery over who the mother of the boys might be. Then they both laughed, snorting “Who cares?” Well, uh, some of us do. We care that there’s an elephant standing in the middle of the room and you don’t seem interested in even acknowledging its existence.
So I dropped the Venture Bros like a bad habit as a result of that insult.
I usually don’t care about those types of details, especially when the movie acknowledges that it isn’t important for the story that is being told. And I can’t understand those who need that type of useless information. Would five minutes of a doctor explaining why there are no babies make Children of Men more riveting? It doesn’t matter. It’s like an accountant’s way of watching a movie…be sure and account for every little detail. And accounting, as we all know, is very very interesting.
Then I guess Frank Herbert’s WHITE PLAGUE lies at the opposite end of that spectrum. The book focuses almost entirely on the creation, spread, and search for a cure to the virus that’s killing all the world’s women. That was one hard slog, though, and I seem to remember less about the (anti)hero’s journey than about the couple who nipped off to an abandoned decompression chamber for some nookie but had to spend the rest of the book there just to keep the gal alive.
So I guess details do matter to me. Like, why doesn’t the shrapnel being kept away from Tony Stark’s heart rip up the remainder of his organs?
Wow, RudyV. You dropped Venture Bros. because the creators are snarky?
I FUCKING LOVE The Venture Bros.
Best relationship comedy show on TV.
Rudy, I think if details like that matter to you, you shouldn’t watch genre films.
What’s gonna kill “The Happening”? Good old-fashioned name-checking. Yes, the trailer refers to Mr. Shyamalan as “director of ‘The Sixth Sense’ and ‘Signs’.”
FWIW his movies aren’t all set in rural Pennsylvania. Bucks County is suburbs in one half and small towns in the other.
“From the director of The Sixth Sense and Signs” can only help the movie. “From the director of The Village and Lady in the Water” would be a better way to say what you want to say, Chucky.
Plus, as we’ve been saying, Shyamalan is one of the only directors for whom name-checking is (or was) a good strategy. Wake up.
I don’t know – judging from a kind of “feel” you get from the general public (not critics, not film geeks, but John Q Popcorn), I think The Happening might open bigger than one might think.
In fact, I would say it has a good chance at a 30+ opening… but I don’t think it’s going to have legs once the bad word-of-mouth hits.
It’s not like it’s stink-proof (i.e. Indiana Jones). Then again, not many films are.
It’ll probably do well on DVD though – it looks so much like one of those “oh, I might as well hire this for the night, and maybe one or two of these other films I missed at the movie theatre…”
Doc Hammer and Jackson Publick rule. They also are not snarky. If you listened to that commentary. They explain that the point of the mom is not that important because they are clones of clones of clones. So who the mother was (If you look at the agent that guarded Rusty. It’s clear that she’s the boys’ mom, but they do not want to discuss her role in their life at the present) does not matter as much as the circumstance the Brothers find themselves in now.
If you gave up the Ventures because you lacked the ability to put two and two together. You really need to travel to the NYC, find Doc Hammer, and tell him how sorry you are for such silliness.
You stopped watching a show not because of what was actually in (or not in) the show, but because of what the creators said in the commentary? That’s screwed up.
My theory is that if Children of Men were all about why the women are infertile then sure I’d want an explanation, but it’s not.
Then again, if they did explain it then there would be people who would complain that the explanation isn’t scientific enough or could never happen in reality. Some people just can’t be pleased.
Never made it past season 1 so I only have that to rely on, but I don’t think “snarky” is the word I’d choose–“jerks” fits much better. I listen to the commentaries because I want to find out more than what the show provides, and yet on one episode these guys spent more time talking about the Halloween costumes they wanted to wear than on the show they were supposed to be commenting on. It was definitely a “too cool for the room” vibe, like they were just doing the commentary for a check.
Plus, I’ve been rewriting an 800+pg novel in my spare time going on three years now, so, yes, details do matter, quite a bit. It seems…depressing…to see something tossed up on the screen that looks like it was hashed out over a weekend and never given any sort of deep thought. If it’s Cheech & Chong doing improv that’s one thing, but when movies like PIRATES 3 don’t even obey the rules set up on PIRATES 2, then there is something definitely wrong going on.
There’s quite a bit of thought in the film, but the meaning of why women are infertile is really beside the point of the film. Are you asking for a dialogue aside a la an old Star Trek episode where somebody says “If it wasn’t for that mutogenic pathogen that cross-infected the left fallopian tube, everything would be fine”?
“Children of Men” isn’t about much of anything.
“Air Bud”? Wow, Dave. Do yourself a favor – if you appreciate smart, creative children’s literature *in the slightest*, investigate this little gem called Avatar: The Last Airbender, and realize why the film is going to be a big deal. And then freeze some crow. For later, y’know.