MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Oscar Kick Off – Universal Sets Clint Date

The horror… the horror…
In an Oscar season that has so far been marked by everyone keeping their powder very, very dry, this tiny little release from Universal is – like it or not – the first salvo of the season.
Discussion out of Cannes has this film anywhere from being a winner to being a non-starter. But discussion out of Cannes and a 9 quarters will get you a cuppa Starbucks…
I am still not ready to dive into the fray. I am concious of about a half-dozen contenders that are trying to stay far away from the front-runner slot. I am also aware that Fox has what they hope will be an Oscar movie for the first time in a while and that for the first time in a longer while, Searchlight seems to be taking the year off. Also seemingly out of the game for the year are Sony, big Disney, and most surely MGM and UA with it. What’s left of Par Vantage has one movie, Focus has a couple, WB has one (in the American Gangster mode), Miramax has a couple, Lionsgate has at least two potential players, Sony Classics is serious about playing this year, and The Weinsteins have their very own Cormac McCarthy.
===============
Universal Pictures will release CHANGELING on Friday, October 24, 2008 in limited engagements, and the film will go wide on Friday, October 31, 2008.
About the film
Clint Eastwood directs Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich in a provocative thriller based on actual events: CHANGELING. In the film, Christine Collins

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Responses to “Oscar Kick Off – Universal Sets Clint Date”

  1. FNG says:

    What about Weinstein’s immigration drama “Crossing Over,” starring Harrison Ford and Sean Penn?
    It opens on August 22nd. Anyone hear anything about this one?

  2. IOIOIOI says:

    DAMN IT! IT’S JUNE! THE DARK KNIGHT HAS NOT EVEN COME OUT YET! DAMN YOU OSCAR SEASON! DAMN YOU!
    Thank you. Thank you. Come back for the dinner performance at 8! HAVE A NICE AFTERNOON EVERYBODY!

  3. Armin Tamzarian says:

    any chance GRAN TORINO comes out in 2008?

  4. JBM... says:

    FNG: Crossing Over is basically a diluted version of Crash. The script is weak and Kramer can’t hide it with Tony Scott-style hand-cranks and overblown violence like he did Running Scared. Plus a very important scene had to be reshot due to complaints from some Iranian-Americans. And Sean Penn’s in the thing for all of ten minutes unless he got Kramer to expand his role…

  5. doug r says:

    Kung Fu Panda for Best Picture!

  6. FNG says:

    Thank you, JBM. I appreciate it greatly.

    Btw, how are the performances in this film? If I have heard or read anything about this film it has only been about Ford’s performance. I read that it is his best performance since Witness.

    I am a little suspicious this could be just PR word, but my interests are somewhat piqued.

    It would be nice to see the legendary actor go back to his Witness, Frantic, Blade Runner, Presumed Innocent and The Mosquito Coast days once again.

    Even though Mr. Ford still has a few years left in him as a lead star in major blockbusters, with films such as Indy 4 (which is up to nearly $600 million globally now and still growing), it would be great to see him stretch his acting chops like he did for a bit in the 80’s and early 90’s.

    Maybe today’s announcement is the beginning of a new era for the legend.

    http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117987104.html?categoryId=13&cs=1

    Thanks again.

  7. RudyV says:

    After reading the first few sentences of the press release I thought this was the Bobby Dunbar story, presented on THIS AMERICAN LIFE back in March, which told of two Louisiana boys who went missing. One eventually returned, and was the subject of legal wrangling by both families when it appeared that he may have been returned to the wrong family…the wealthier, more “morally upright” family.
    CHANGELING, though, sounds like a feminist spin affixed to an Ellroy novel. Looks like Ellroy was right after all, and LA is/was a totally corrupt and sleazy place.

  8. Isn’t it time the Academy took a break from Eastwood? I say that not to insult Clint, but to all the people who instantly predict him for everything. He’s gotta have a break eventually.
    Sounds like they’re keeping the title though, thankfully. The Exchange was such a boring title.

The Hot Blog

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