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
It is agreed that comedy is subjective. So, in this instance, we have to overlook own personal taste. However, I think the personal opinion of a critic has no place in a film review.
I still think there is humor and, indeed, insight in the idea being put forth about losing touch with your audience by drowning yourself in a role for the sheer point of accolades. It goes a step beyond the “Oscar-fucking” accusation and is worth more than you allow, I think.
‘Backlash backlash’ isn’t stupid, that’s how a dialectic works, until finally you reach some kind of equilibrium.
I don’t know what you mean, Kris.
And what I do understand of it, I think I disagree with. People get crazy about awards, but I don’t think I know of a single really good actor who has stunted just to chase awards. Do you think that Crowe & Clooney put on weight because of award obsession? DeNiro? Even Theron… a great piece of work… are you really so cynical that you think it was just an awards ploy?
As much as Eddie Murphy may have wanted an Oscar for Dreamgirls, do you think he took the role just saying, “Time for my Oscar!”?
Wow… if that’s true, it’s remarkably cynical.
And Pope? Huh? Are you suggesting that any opinion is fact? Opinion has no place in a review? What would you have “reviews” be?
The purpose of the “Simple Jack” gag is clear as can be, and it has nothing to do with laughing at mentally handicapped people. When Stiller, in character, is talking about his “head movies” and how his eyes are going to “rain” (or whatever), the target is bad screenwriting, acting, etc. We’re laughing at a risible stereotype that’s been perpetrated by Hollywood for years.
I think Kris’s point is that the movie is exagerrating the idea of the ‘actor who goes nuts seeking acclaim’ to the point of parody, and that the real-world examples DP mentions are kind of beside the point. It sounds like the same argument could be made against Dr. Strangelove: “are you really saying Kennedy and Khrushchev might behave irrationally and start a war for no good reason?”
Again, I haven’t seen this movie so I’m just postulating.
I think Carrey was chasing with The Majestic, but that’s me.
Anyway, my point wasn’t the stunting but the truth in Downey’s monologue about giving the audience something they can connect to. It went beyond the obvious joke (Oscar-chasing) and into a different area that I kind of agree with. “You never go full retard.” You never lose sight of the art form. “Why not just act, dear boy,” as Olivier put it to Hoffman.
I’m simplifying it, of course, but I thought it was smart.
I wasn’t talking about The Fattys bit, which was toilet humor that worked on its own terms. If that’s why you’re bringing up Murphy.
As much as Eddie Murphy may have wanted an Oscar for Dreamgirls, do you think he took the role just saying, “Time for my Oscar!”?
Well, frankly, yes. Mind you, I thought his performance was the best thing in the movie. But, to be entirely honest, yes.
It’s the most entertaining movie I’ve seen all year. Easily.
But I’ll admit, I was laughing too hard to process if it’s any good or not. My critical eye was turned off as soon as the words “Satan’s Alley” flashed across the screen. It may not stand up as a story well told in the long run, but the energy of the film was so infectious I don’t really care.
As for the retard and blackface and jewface stuff… I mean, if that offends you, then you’re were looking for a fight. Those are simply the knives Stiller’s using to cut into these egomaniacs. And, like the best knives, they are dangerous.
SPOILER
And I’m sorry but Cruise singling out the key grip and commanding him to sock the director in the face is the genius bit of the year. At least to anyone who knows what they do on sets.
END
And, Joe, OF COURSE Murphy took the DG role for the Oscar. Look at how cynical this man’s career has become since 1990. Gimme a break. Tropic Thunder is directed mostly at him… which is awfully ironic being that he was on the other side of the satire gun in Bowfinger.
Anyway, Mr. Downey is firing on all cylinders now.
I (finally) saw the trailer for this movie (and Step Brothers for that matter) before The Strangers last night. I want those four minutes of my life back.
They both have such stupid plots.
Same plot as Three Amigos/A Bug’s Life/Galaxy Quest.
Liked the second, loved the third, couldn’t bear to sit through the first. Shows how it’s all in the execution, I guess.
Kinda like how Children of Men turns out to be a piss-poor copy of True Romance.
OK Rudy I’ll bite, please explain how Children of Men is related to True Romance besides that they were both one of the top five best films made in their respective years. I promise I will keep an open mind (this is coming from someone who thinks Miami Vice and Marie Antoniete are essentially the same movie).
If it were merely the chase after the MacGuffin (whether pregnant girl or bag of cocaine), then Children of Men would be more similar to, say, North by Northwest than True Romance. But the kicker is the visit to Dad’s house, which not only results in Dad’s death but also provides the baddies with the necessary clues to keep the chase going.
The problem, though, is that while a concrete clue (a dropped driver’s license) led the baddies to Dad in one movie, in the other they sort of magically knew where he lived (if they didn’t know then the chase would be over for the baddies and the protagonists win). And just as another concrete clue found by a henchman (contact info on the fridge) allowed the chase to continue in one movie, in the other the henchman apparently found some blindingly obvious clue that must have been cut from the movie, presented perhaps in a deleted montage where the protagonists build a replica of the prison camp out of toys and model railroad parts.
I stated here months ago that I refused to see CoM because I heard that the filmmakers did not care to explain why no more children were being born, apparently thinking it was an unimportant detail, which I argued meant that the filmmakers didn’t really care and were just making up shit as they went along. However, the posters here convinced me to see the movie, and I did, just recently, and I was stunned by the film’s complete disconnect from logic. Why are no more kids being born? Nobody knows. How did this girl get pregnant? Nobody knows. So why take here to the hospital ship if nobody there will likely find a cure for this apparently magical malady? Well, I guess it seems like a good place to end the movie. And why, oh why, would the global celebrity who was the last boy born on Earth remain in Rio when he could have gone anywhere and demanded anything he wanted? I’m surprised he wasn’t killed during a kidnapping attempt.
After showing us at the very beginning of the movie how silly people are for deifying the last person born on Earth, the filmmakers then present us with the next candidate and promptly force a halo on her head. One of the protagonists fears that the baby will be handed off to a “posh” woman…why? Why would that be a concern, since it’s not the baby that’s important (except in an empty, symbolic say), but the mother, who somehow overcame the fertility malady and thus is the only person who can provide medical clues as to how this condition can be cured. Unless it’s really just the wrath of God, which explains why nobody is apparently even trying to find a cure, because it can’t exist. Which means the whole thing was a pointless exercise after all, and my initial dismissal of the film still holds up, unfortunately.
Sigh…please mentally edit in “take her to the hospital ship” and “empty, symbolic way”.
So you feel that Children of Men is a poor version of True Romance because they both involve unlikely or unexplained occurrences that forward the plot, not because they share any similar themes or points of view. I seem to think there were ridiculous parts on say both The Phantom and The Golden Child but that wouldn
Sorry about that post next time I will include more white space.
From the Night of the Living Dead Wiki page:
“A subsequent broadcast reports that the murders are being perpetrated by the recently deceased who have returned to life. Experts
I agree 95% of the population were pathetic or violent. That makes the decent and selfless actions of the main charactor that more important.
‘If Britain, then, is all that remains of civilization, then civilization is doomed’
EXACTLY. If all society is divided into camps of US and Them, (as most of the people are in the film)then there is no hope for any of us. It is only the actions of those without idealogy that give hope for a future.
Agreed. I found it odd, though, that the only solution to the problem was to leave entirely, with no plan for the future, no way to resolve the problem, just…leave, into the supposedly uncivilized unknown.
…which was how True Romance ended.
So you’re saying you really need to know what was on that microfilm inside the statue in North by Northwest to know if what those characters were doing was worthwhile as well? Or the market value of the Maltese Falcon?
All these things are beside the points of their respective movies.
Wait, because the characters haven’t figured out the reason no children are born, it must be the wrath of God?
M’kay….
You got it, Storymark. Researchers had nearly three decades to figure it out from the moment fertility started to decline and they obviously got nowhere, so the answer must not lie within the realm of science. Telling your audience “nobody knows” may have worked in the days of the Brothers Grimm, but things have changed a bit since then.
Researchers may have made some gross generalizations in the early years of AIDS, but it didn’t take them long to figure out what it was, how it was spread, and eventually how to make it not quite so lethal–and yet this was a disease seen as a punishment from God for sinful behavior which Reagan didn’t want to spend any government time or money on. Now imagine if there was a disease threatening to end the fertility of all women on the planet–don’t you think the ensuing rush to throw money, minds, and machines into the research effort would make the Apollo program look like a local pork barrel project?
And no, I don’t expect to know what was on the microfilm (and I do believe the Falcon was a fake, wasn’t it?). What I was saying is that the pregnant girl IS the microfilm, and thus the Falcon as well. Just a MacGuffin, the thing everyone is so desperate to lay their hands on, which is what led me to compare the film to North by Northwest and True Romance. The whole trash-laden end of the world is just window dressing, like Mt. Rushmore.
I think it’s more fair to call the baby the macguffin, and just like we don’t need to know what’s on the microfilm except ‘it’s important’, it really doesn’t matter why people are infertile except ‘it’s bad’.
I wasn’t a big fan of the film (CoM) but it seems to me that some of these criticisms would be more on point if it were a medical mystery story. The plot and themes aren’t dependent on knowing or figuring out the cause of the infertility.
Maybe that was my problem with it–I was viewing it as a race against time, a problem to be solved, and all the rest was just obstruction. Plot and theme? Couldn’t find any. And I, especially, find that sad considering I have a BA in English.
I would say it had a lot more to do with Clive Owen’s character’s arc, from hopelessness to something else. That, and a presentation of spectacle in the warzone sequences.
Actually neither the woman or the baby works as a McGuffin in the same way as the microfilm or The Falcon do in the other films. The McGuffin is merely a plot device to move the charactors, the name was given by hitchcock to signify just how meaningless the item is, but in COM the woman and Child are not meaningless but symbols of individuals deemed as expendable against the needs of the cause. NBN and TR are simply rocking thrillers while COM was using the genre to say something deeper.
I know that this isn’t going to make you slap your forehead and declare ‘What a fool I was, COM is a masterpiece’ but there is a hell of a lot more going on in the movie than you are giving it credit for.
Rudy, if you couldn’t find a plot in COM, then I don’t know hoe you got that BA. Although Lex has THREE degress and he’s a bonafine retard. I say this as someone who thought the movie was fine, but not nearly deserving of the praise it got. But there was clarly more there than what you’re saying…although I’d say it was sort of trite.
The trash laden end of the world is NOT window dressing. It’s as if the world went into a full scale depression. It’s the last generation of people, and they all know it. So who gives a fuck anymore?
There is no problem to be solved, because the movie presents it as an unsolvable problem. Since you mentioned Night of the Living Dead, by the time we got around to Day of the Dead they had no idea what was causing the dead to rise, and a scientist spent the whole movie trying to figure it out. But he never did. Would that have ruined the movie for you as well? Because ti didn’t matter there either.
Saw Tropic Thunder last night.
A big resounding “MEH..”
Funny in parts, sure. The opening trailers were fun. Cruise absolutely stole the movie, but bringing him back four flipping times seemed two too many. No desire to see it again. The two big August comedies were both very disappointing.
After reading an article describing what plot is (in the midst of explaining that George Lucas is a great plotter but a lousy storyteller), I’d assume the plot of CoM is “get the girl to the boat in as many steps as possible”. Then what?
BTW, I didn’t bring up Night of the Living Dead. It was brought up as an example of a movie with no scientific explanation provided, but I looked up the Wiki page and discovered, zut alors, there WAS a scientific explanation provided in the movie.
As for the trashing and statue-demolishing end of the world, the police were apparently pretty lax in shooting those who were making such a mess of the place. Reminds me of Soylent Green–even if the world is going down in flames, wouldn’t you rather die in a beautiful, comforting atmosphere as opposed to collapsing on top of a dung pile?
As far as the plot, most plots can be summed up as quickly. I would assume the plot of the Searchers is “find the girl”. Then what? There is much more going on in the film other than the chase.
And how do you want people to behave at the end of the world? The world has completly collapsed and you would worry about the rise in litter? And from how the government was portrayed you can be sure plenty of people were shot for their unrulyness, as well as their questioning of authority or any critique of the government. They were living in a police state and your complaint is that they werent quite facist enough to stop vandalism.
And you would have been perfectly able to die in a beautiful, comforting atmosphere, with a nice drive into the country and those suicide pills that they were advertising.
It’s worth noting that the ‘explanation’ in Night of the Living Dead is purely inserted as a pretext, it has no bearing on anything that actually happens in the movie and is basically irrelevant, and Romero abandoned any ‘explanation’ from any of the rest of his zombie movies.
Yep, the reason for the zombies appearing was unnecessary…also, in the movie it was never proven that it was the meteor, just a theory. COM had theories too, but nothing was proven. In the sequel to Night of the Living Dead they talk about religious reason, and in the third the scientists are trying to figure out a scientific reason. So nothing was ever given as the real reason. BECAUSE IT DIDN’T MATTER! And I think for an apocalyptic scenario, not knowing is more powerful and scary than saying “it’s because of this specific germ.” How boring.
And as for the world going nice and peacefully into the night…come on Rudy, just watching the news out to clue you in that isn’t going to happen. We had rioting in LA over a simple court case, you think humanity is going to take the end of the world gracefully?
Exactly, part of the appeal of both movies (Children of Men and Night of the Living Dead) is just to let you stew in the experience of living in a world destroying itself for no rational reason, making it that much more nightmarish.
Rudy, were you relieved when you found out that the Force is, in fact, controlled by midichlorians in the bloodstream?
The problem with the midiwhatzis is that they couldn’t possibly explain magical force abilities. High jumping, rapid healing–nanotech could swing that, but choking someone on a spaceship light-years away?
Magic.
And if people make it clear that they’re not going to take the end of the world gracefully, then that’s when the police need to start buying more bullets.
That would at least speed things up, I guess.
What if…there’s a shortage of bullets because the factory has been bombed! Or vital parts in the supply chain are missing!
Reminds me that one of the things I like about the original Mad Max is that, whereas the other films in the series are definitely post-apocalypse, Mad Max appears to be taking place mid-apocalypse, which is much trickier to pull off.
‘And if people make it clear that they’re not going to take the end of the world gracefully, then that’s when the police need to start buying more bullets’
That is just an incredible statement, anyone who is not willing to be completly zen about the end of humanity and all of history gets one through the brain.
Again, there is a population problem due to the refugee crisis, the government has turned facist and ALL OF HUMANITY IS DYING. So that tends to put people on edge a bit.
When watching The Running Man were you rooting for the government helicopters to shoot the starving civilians since they were rioting instead of standing in a single file line and whispering softly “please sir, may i have some more?”
wow, hcat, ‘the running man’, i haven’t thought about that somewhat prophetic ‘reality tv gone bad’ flick in ages…weird how it’s probably the most relevant ‘arnie’ flick at the mo what with the current reality tv craze, and yet for some reason it doesn’t get endlessly rehashed on cable tv like ‘conan’, ‘commando’, ‘predator’, ‘total recall’, etc. perhaps it cuts too close to the bone nowadays!
Running Man may be Arnold’s cheesiest movie. Could there possibly be a cheesier flick in his resume, not counting shot like Hercules in New York, of course. I’d say Commando is his goofiest, and Running Man is his cheesiest.
oh yeah, it’s cheese-city, perm (richard dawson is priceless as the game show host slash villain), but the reality tv aspect of it is bizarrely apt now for a movie made in the ’80’s before ‘reality tv’ as we know it was even a twinkle in some moronic tv exec’s eye
I would put Conan the Destroyer as the cheesiest. Haven’t seen it in awhile but remember it was a huge disappointment even though the original was by no means a classic. Did Universal ever make a decent sequal to anything in the 80’s?
Having lived in a college town for far too many years, I find myself siding with the police when the drunken fratboys who get all angsty about MSU winning or losing just about anything decide to start flipping cars and setting couches on fire. The world would be such a nicer place if they responded with live rounds instead of pepper spray.
I am also in a college town and find the drunken macho destruction annoying, but I have also been in a lot of legitimate protests where the cops had very little concern for people’s rights. Can you not tell the difference between drunken destruction regarding a sports victory and say the WTO protests in Seattle? How about Kent State?
I smile when a drunken frat boy gets some pepper spray because he is breaking store windows after a basketball victory but having him shot in the street would be a bit much.
and it took me a minute to realize MSU was Michigan. I do sympathize, I have a friend out there who is hired during those times to work as like a roving peacekeeper after big games. She told me a story once about some drunk who threw a brick through the front window of a taco bell, nonchanlantly walked through the opening and went up and ordered.
Mindless destruction like that always gets me angry, like those kids have no sense of the value of things since everything was always handed to them and there are no repercussions for their actions. However, disliking a movie that had a completly different type of rioting going on (offscreen no less) because of some drunks in your town seems like you are letting some personal baggage cloud your judgement of the movie.
Again not saying you should love it, but don’t feel like you are giving it a fair shake.