May 6, 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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
From Lyons Jr.’s “At the Movies” blog:
“Weisz hasn’t done much comedy during her career, but she told me her approach is actually much more serious than when she is doing dramatic work. She refrenced comedians like Peter Sellers and Sacha Baron Cohen as examples of those dedicated, and focused on being absurd.”
Can anyone explain to me what the hell this even MEANS?
And I love the fuck that Benny Boy can’t even fucking spell!
Does Ben Lyons officially signal the death of American civilization? Or merely American film criticism?
He makes his smug, dim-witted old man look like Gene Siskel.
That was so harsh that I feel sorry for the show’s participants. Very mean-spirited and disparaging.
Disparaging? Obviously, as earned.
Mean spirited? No. Generous.
Also mean-spirited. š
I remember Lyons the elder, so this comes as no surprise. The Ted Baxter of film criticism, staring straight into the camera with that lockjaw grin and phony/earnest delivery. He was a friggin’ robot.
Wasn’t he the one who said that every other film made him “stand up and cheer,” or have I got him confused with another guy?
The earliest I remember watching Siskel and Ebert was when I was a wee one and they were reviewing things like My Dinner With Andre and Swamp Thing. Thier influence on me cannot be overstated. My brother and I would search them out and find them no matter where the affiliates would put them. Usually Saturday night at 6:30 pm.
I watched a few clips of this and say it is a travesty.
A complete travesty.
I rarely write in caps but…
SISKEL AND EBERT FOREVER!
Scream it from the mountain tops.
I’m not defending this P.O.S. travesty, but in all fairness… See It/Skip It has been in place for several months, as has been the Three to See ending. Phillips and Roeper did them first.
Their three-part scale probably derives most directly from the “Buy It– Burn It– Trash It” scale on Sound Opinions, the Chicago-based music version of the original Sneak Previews, featuring– try to guess– the rock critic of the Chicago Tribune and the rock writer from the Chicago Sun-Times! It’s actually quite a good (radio) show, but it’s sad to see the new At the Movies borrowing from somebody who borrowed from the old one….
Did Nicol just pull a Lex G.!?! Dayum, son….you’re loosening up!!
But seriously, I agree with what you wrote. As a kid in a really small town, Siskel and Ebery on channel 9 was simply amazing. It was like there was a world of film out there I could *never* see from Orland, CA. (look it up…or, don’t…please). Siskel and Ebert made me the film fan I am today and this new lineup, I simply will not watch it.
I also want to add, I think Richard Roeper is much better than he was given credit for. I met him a few times at fests and in *real* life, he’s much funnier and edgy when he talks about film. In fact, having seen Roger Ebert at a ton of fests-and seeing how much he truly LOVES film-I think Roeper is/was a good counter-part. You gotta remember that the network probably toned them (or at least Roeper) down a bit. These 2 new jackals are proof.
Dave, why don’t you do your own review show? You could have the reviewers that post here do guest spots. I’m sure Don Murphy would be willing to produce.
Why has anybody been watching this since Ebert got sick in the first place?
Important point, Nicol. One of the great things S&E did was pointing out smaller films that wouldn’t get much attention. They’re the reason I rushed to the theater to see ONE FALSE MOVE. I remember Thornton saying “Siskel and Ebert are my personal heroes” at the end of that year. They were key to getting a lot of potentially overlooked gems into the spotlight. And the seriousness with which they took on film discussion is beyond compare.
And I also agree with Jeff. I watched rarely after Siskel died (since I could read Ebert’s reviews and skip the Roeper). And not at all since Rog has been off the air.
‘the ted baxter of film criticism’…frankbooth, that just about made me pee my pants š (i think i need some ‘depends’ undergarments)
(movieman, i think the rise of frat-boy lyons signals the fall of civilisation in general, where the ’15-25 yr old male demographic’ marketing machine takes over the world!)
how the hell did ben lyons get that gig, anyway, because of his pops? i don’t get it. to borrow a phrase from my dear departed granddad, that boy is dumber than a sack of hair.
(L.B., i watched the siskel and ebert show every week as a kid, and to say they took film discussion seriously is a bit of an understatement, those two went at it like two stubborn old ladies! with terrific passion, knowledge and insight, tho, the original and the best)
Agreed. I can only classify the new “At The Movies” as a genuine bummer.
Also, was there a Nelson Algren reference in there?
I actually wasn’t expecting a post on this. Isn’t it fish in a barrel at this point?
movieman: Re Little Lyons’ writing skills, several years ago I used to proof the brief reviews that his old man wrote for a now-defunct website. Let’s just say that’s another area in which the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. I suppose, in fairness, he knew the reviews would be cleaned up before they were posted, so why put any real effort into them?
Thanks, Leah. Glad someone else here is old enough to get that one.
It’s a fish in the barrel that needed more than just a shotgun blast though. I had to get this out of my head before it exploded. This 3rd episode (while still incredibly painful – mostly thanks to Lyons) was almost nothing next to the first two. As part of the “3 to see” Lyons actually put Twilight in there. Just see anything you can about it, he said, despite it not even being released (or likely screened) until November. You think he’s going to give that anything less than a “see it.” It was also pointed out to me that his video recommendations including one film that featured his very own uncle (Young@Heart) and a second (Bra Boys) that was directed by a colleague of his over at E! And you think what he said THIS week about editing was proof that Lyons is an ignorant slut? See what he said last week:
http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2548
Ben Lyons answers his critics and is his #1 enemy.
Nickelodeon brings sports, fun and healthy competition to kids and families across the country this fall with the premiere of its new series My Family’s Got GUTS on Monday, Sept. 15 at 8:00 p.m. (ET/PT.) The half-hour extreme sports series that asks ‘Do You Have It?’ is hosted by Ben Lyons (new co-host of At The Movies and E! Network’s resident film critic) and co-hosted by popular Australian TV personality Asha Kuerten. My Family’s Got GUTS will air every weeknight at 8:00 p.m. (ET/PT) from Monday, Sept. 15 through Friday, Sept. 26. The hour-long finale will premiere on Nick’s Annual Worldwide Day of Play on Saturday, Sept. 27, at 8:00 p.m. (ET/PT).
“That was so harsh that I feel sorry for the show’s participants. Very mean-spirited and disparaging.”
Mean-spirited and disparaging? Mysteryperfecta, have you watched the show? It’s absolute shite, and the younger Ben is an idiot — or at the very least, if I’m being charitable, he does a great job of portraying an idiot on TV.
Go read Erik Childress’s great post (he linked to it above), he does a fantastic job of ripping apart the dumbass crap Ben the Younger spouts off with. I mean, really. These guys trying to replace Siskel & Ebert, or even Ebert & Roeper, is like some great cosmic joke.
It’s also important to remember how much control producers have over these shows. You may remember HOT TICKET, a knock-off co-hosted by Leonard Maltin for three years. Each week, he and Joyce Kulhawik were basically told what movies to recommend in the video segment, and whenever they’d suggest something small and/or off-beat that they felt warranted attention, they were told to stick to films “people have heard of.”
So what’s the logic of that? “People really love that show where the two guys talk seriously about movies they haven’t heard of. Let’s do the exact same thing but take out the part people like.”
The bright side is it’s unanimous, it’s no barely there in-betweener like Roeper. We can start a ratings-drop watch group if someone has access and write “feedback” here:
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/
Don’t hire Peter Sobczynski though, it’s false that Gervais found Billy Campbell to be “a hunky human rights lawyer with not a single evident character flaw”, when the whole point was that he was pompous and self-righteous and Gervais had self-doubt.
No, the logic is that you don’t need to be told that UNFORGIVEN is a great film, but if Leonard Maltin tells you that BIRD is also a great film, you might be motivated to check it out.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I think a large part of the appeal of Sisk & Eb was that they did talk about what you didn’t know about already. And everybody else has felt the urge to dumb it down despite their example, and then is surprised it’s not embraced when it lacks precisely the element that made it informative and interesting.
I think something missing from the appreciation of what Siskel & Ebert were to society in their prime (well, that’s a little bit grandiose) is the fact that they would review everything on their show, Hollywood or indie, foreign or American. I don’t think a rave over movies like One False Move or Hoop Dreams would have caused the same impact if the pair weren’t also known for treating popcorn flicks just as seriously. Which is probably something that helped get them onto shows like Letterman, The Tonight Show, etc, where they had a much larger audience to make their case for all of those great unknown movies.
“As part of the “3 to see” Lyons actually put Twilight in there. Just see anything you can about it, he said, despite it not even being released (or likely screened) until November.”
Owwww, damn it…my jaw’s lodged in a floorboard. Who does that little prat think he is, snubbing Iron Man 2 like that?
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/
Post your feedback and paste it here.
If you don’t hire a producer who can book the right critics to review your weekly slate, then your show won’t succeed. Nobody wants pretty critics who and can act, but you can pull it off with a crew and a coach, a director and an editor and pros and civilians will tune in. Or someone else will do it.
I posted this minority opinion elsewhere here last week, but I actually think Mankiewicz is WORSE, at least on camera, than Lyons.
Obviously Lyons is kind of an awesome frat-prick, but seems like a cool guy to have a beer with, and that dude probably pulls down mad ass.
But Mankiewicz just seems a little sad (though obviously he knows his facts a little more.) That’s not to diss the guy who’s probably a decent guy, but it’s just EXTRA curious why he was considered a HIPPER alternative to Roeper and Phillips. Mankiewicz seems like he could be Roeper’s older uncle or something… not exactly “hip.”
Like, I get what they were going for in casting an E! smarmball like Lyons, but what exactly is the YOUTH-SKEWING APPEAL of BEN M.?
By the way, I’ll say it again, that CRITICS ROUNDTABLE sort of blows, but Wesley Morris IS a decent critic, I don’t know who the FUCK that Fred Armisen looking mincing douche is, BUT…
TORY SCHULMAN IS HOT. If she reads this blog, WHAT THE FUCK IS UP HOTNESS LET’S DRINK VODKA TOGETHER YEP YEP.
ALMOST as hot as that GOVINTINTIDINDDININI MURTY that Roeper had on. Too bad she’s a conservative nutcase.
ALSO, Ben Lyons should be celebrated for RECOGNIZING that TWILIGHT IS GOING TO SLAY THE BOX OFFICE.
200 MILLION DOLLAR OPENING WEEKEND, 2.4 BILLION DOMESTIC TOTAL BY JANUARY 1ST.
KNOW IT.
Oh this show is bad. And the sets are really cheap-looking. And it’s bad.
I will say as far as the Critics Roundup segment goes, it’s a good idea but obviously no one with any credibility is going to go on this show that essentially tossed out Rog, so they’re getting the best they can I imagine.
I disliked Roeper and his bullying ways with the guest chairs once Ebert was sidelined (thought you can only bully so much when you don’t know as much as Scott or Phillips who would make a great duo that only a few would be actually interested in)… he was way better than this. It won’t be around a year from now.
And there’s a certain irony in that Mankiewicz is the “young, hip” guy on Turner Classic Movies yet is the “older, knowledgeable” guy on ATM. Pretty much sez it all about the latter.
Memo to T.Holly
There are plenty of good and valid reasons out there for not hiring Peter Sobczynski for “At the Movies” or any other review show in this realm or the next–he is occasionally long-winded, he isn’t very attractive to look at and he has these pitiful soft spots for the likes of Brian De Palma and Milla Jovovich. However, casting him to the proverbial curb because you disagree with his interpretation of the Billy Campbell character in “Ghost Town” is lame as lame can be.
Well Earl, if he can adequately clarify the Billy Campbell character, I’d at least camera test him with an eye toward who I might have him spare with.
From reading Earl’s prose on the subject (tired as it may be), I believe he was trying to convey the immediate impression of the Billy Campbell character when we first see him–the saintly do-gooder type–and was leaving his stuffed-shirt qualities for audiences (such as they were) to discover on their own.
As for your offer to camera-test him with an eye towards a partner to “spare” with (which sounds more like you are trying to recreate the Irene Cara audition scene from “Fame”), while I am sure that he is both flattered and creeped out, it will not be necessary–without going into detail,he has already pretty much ensured that he will never be asked to appear on the program for however long it manages to stay on the air.
LEX AND LEYDON would be an awesome show.
MAKE IT HAPPEN MARTIN S.
Please Earl, I dig your honesty and I’m impressed with whatever ensured his banning, but I was thinking of a different incarnation. Besides, I got it right about Campbell the first time, if you’re nice, you’ll find out.
I jumped to Some Came Running to see Glenn Kenny had a thing for Dana Stevens’ (Liz Penn) review of Ghost Town. She introduces us to the movie introduction of “the stodgy human rights lawyer,” who I add, assumes a different quality later. She’s on the list.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200397
“LEX AND LEYDON would be an awesome show.”
It might look something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6tiFMVRMB4&NR=1
Joe… awesome.
Again, I am telling you people, Mankiewicz is WAY worse than Lyons. That dude is a STIFF and his goatee makes him look unpleasant.
“Again, I am telling you people, Mankiewicz is WAY worse than Lyons.”
After watching their “Eagle Eye” review I’m more inclined to agree.
Mankiewicz: “Ben, I agree with you. I’m gonna recommend that people see this movie. I don’t think I liked it QUITE as much as you. But I thought it was terrific.”
They’re the best of Kaiser Permanente and County USC rolled into one with members of dropout nation joining at the end.
At one point tonight, during the review of that Charlize Theron/Stuart Townsend WTO movie (Battle in Seattle?), Mankiewicz used the word ULTIMATELY three times in eight seconds.
Then for some reason Lyons lead the CRITICS’ ROUNDTABLE (WHO is that smarmy douche from IFC???? And what happened to Wesley Morris and Tory Hotness Schulman?). Lyons and the peanut gallery bounced Spike’s flick back and forth…
… yet for some reason, Mankiewicz never chimed in, didn’t even seem to be in the studio when this segment was recorded. What the hell?
The super cheesy 1979 Casio-style theme music OWNS. It sounds like some shit that would have played on local commercials at 1am THIRTY YEARS AGO in between ads for the Money Store.
I CANNOT GET THE NEW AT THE MOVIES THEME OUT OF MY HEAD.