April 25, 2024
BYOB
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
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” â 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 â 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 â he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” â and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging â I was with her at that moment â 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 namedâ” “Yeah, sure â 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 Iâm on the phone with you now, after all thatâs 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 didnât seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereâs not a case of that. He wasnât using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had â if that were what the accusation involved â 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. Iâm not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, âYou know, itâs not this, itâs thatâ? Because â let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, thatâs what it lacked. Thatâs 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
I saw Quarantine last night at a midnight show and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was the most-packed midnight show I’ve been to since the summer blockbusters.
I suspect it’ll do better than many are predicting.
I think the five green lights next to Blindness guarantee that I’ll never take this new feature of MCN very seriously…and two greenlights for Hounddog? REALLY!?!?!
Well if Ed Douglas doesn’t take it seriously, then I guess we better scrap the whole thing until we find five opinions that match up perfectly with his đ
I wonder if Body of Lies would be getting such harsh treatment if it was directed by Tony Scott. I’m thinking the reviews would be more positive because people then folks wouldn’t expect something Oscar-caliber.
Could someone please tell me why the advertising folks decided to give away the final scene of Quarantine in the theatrical trailer — and on the lobby poster?
Also: Considering the reviews that are rolling in, do you think Screen Gems may have dropped the ball by not press screening this one?
I haven’t seen any reviews yet (I loved it), but I was wondering the same after I saw “Quarantine.” I’m not sure SG even cares if it gets good reviews.
As the only horror movie this month aside from the sure-to-be-execrable Saw V, they should be guaranteed to make a decent amount of return from it regardless of reviews.
I’m thinking the reviews would be more positive because people then folks wouldn’t expect something Oscar-caliber.
Are you saying that reviewers were expecting something Oscar-caliber because its Ridley Scott? From my vantage, Scott does minor, non-Oscar bait with some regularity (A Good Year, Matchstick Men, etc). Is it a combination of Scott and the cast? Or the early buzz?
“Could someone please tell me why the advertising folks decided to give away the final scene of Quarantine in the theatrical trailer — and on the lobby poster?”
I-didn’t-know-that-yet. Hmrumphh!
Asideways, I suppose it’s the money shot of the movie, and halfwits that the promotional people are, they threw entertainment to the wind and ran with it. Somebody really go at photoshop could go to town with this idea and make some funny ass one sheets for The Crying Game, The Third Man, The Usual Suspects, etc.
Hallick: You know what? Seriously — I compounded the offense. And I apologize. David, if there’s any way you can remove my earlier posting, please feel free to do so.
Mr. Leydon: if you go and check out one of the REC trailers over at You Tube. You will see that Screen Gems were just following the trailers that film had early this year.
Joe:
“Also: Considering the reviews that are rolling in, do you think Screen Gems may have dropped the ball by not press screening this one?”
The problem is that virtually all distributors at this stage have decided that horror movies never get a fair shake from critics. Good or bad, they’re not shown.
Save for those distributed by Magnolia, at the moment. But they’re relatively new on the horror scene; Lionsgate used to screen their horror too.
SPOILER
As for Quarantine spoilers, much like Blair Witch and Cloverfield, the movie is presented as footage found after the fact. Not hard to guess it ends similarly.
saw Burn After Reading last night, hilariously stupid characters, sooooo much fun seeing those actors playing against type!
“I think the five green lights next to Blindness guarantee that I’ll never take this new feature of MCN very seriously…and two greenlights for Hounddog? REALLY!?!?!”
Yes, really, Ed. So, what, you don’t take a site seriously because its critics don’t happen to agree with your personal take? Seriously?
I can’t speak for anyone here but myself, but re “Blindness,” if you read anything I wrote about that film at TIFF, you know that I saw the film first at Cannes and absolutely hated the voiceover the film was burdened with in that take of the film, and that there were some plot and character problems I took issue with as well. Meirelles recut the film before TIFF, and yes, the new cut, which eliminates the voiceover entirely and tightens up some of the other issues, is a much better film. Is it my favorite film of the year? No, but it’s good enough now that I would recommend it to others, which is one standard by which I give a film a green light.
As for Hounddog, I wrote pretty extensively in my column last week about what I thought about the new cut of that film. The cut we saw at Sundance nearly two years ago was abysmal, largely because they rushed through post and the editing was crap. The recut cleaned up many of the problems with the original cut, particularly with regard to story flow and the heavy-handed use of symbolism, and focuses much more on Fanning’s performance, which is really first-rate. Again, not Oscar-worthy.
It won’t end up on my top ten at the end of the year, but the recut is a considerably better film, and I think it’s worth seeing for Fanning’s performance alone. That film got really shit on at Sundance, not just because it was bad but because of the whole BS “rape controversy” thing, and I would hate to see people stay away from the film just because of the wretched Sundance buzz. Have you seen the new cut?
No I haven’t, though if you see “Lakeview Terrace” you will not want to move to Cali for as long as you live.
LYT: Actually, I was able to think of at least two alternative endings while I was watching Quarantine. And considering how much it looks like the movie will make this weekend, I fully expect that one of them may turn out to be the “real” ending, to enable a sequel. (Sorry, I can’t be more specific without again posting a spoiler.)
Yes, I saw the new cut of Hounddog and thought it was only slightly better. They got rid of the ridiculously creepy scene of David Morse crawling into bed with Dakota, which was a good thing, and I did think some of the performances were better (Deborah used many different takes) but the movie still had many of the same problems I had with it originally including a completely unsatisfying resolution.
I didn’t say I didn’t take MCN seriously, I’m saying that I’d have trouble taking the NEW FEATURE (and the critics taking part) seriously, which goes the same for any publication that seems to constantly go against the grain with their opinions. (Poland lost me with his contrarianism towards Iron Man)
Then again, MCN has always been L.A.-centric and maybe that coast is seeing something different in Blindness than the NY critical crowd, who have mostly loathed the movie. I was at the Toronto premiere and entire rows of the guests and those involved with making the movie cleared during the screening. It is not a good movie.
This from the guy who liked Death Race…
By the way, I’m in NYC and I liked Blindness too, so it can’t just be the water out on the West Coast. I’d expect some who had been a critic this long to be appreciative of divergent viewpoints and understanding of the subjective nature of film. Some of my favorite critics are the ones that I don’t agree with, but make cogent points while disagreeing with me. In other words, poo-pooing someone’s point of view on film just because it’s often different from yours is kind of silly; rather, it’s about the way they say it. It’s okay to be in the minority sometimes – even on a film like Death Race – and it’s not something to ashamed of.
People have different opinions when it comes to movies. That’s what makes it so wonderful. Instead of blasting the opinion because it’s different, offer your own.
Are you sure about that “footage found after the fact” thing, re: “Quarantine”? I don’t remember any indication of that — my recollection is that, throughout the film, we don’t know if the footage was found later or if the participants put it on the air. Small matter, but it’s significant in light of the spoiler talk — i.e., that the trailer/ads contain a spoiler but that it doesn’t actually play like a spoiler unless you have been told that it is. (That’s a little labored, but I’m trying to avoid respoiling, as much as possible.)
“I didn’t say I didn’t take MCN seriously, I’m saying that I’d have trouble taking the NEW FEATURE (and the critics taking part) seriously, which goes the same for any publication that seems to constantly go against the grain with their opinions. (Poland lost me with his contrarianism towards Iron Man)”
Well, the “new feature” has been around for a while now, but that aside, you’re still saying that you don’t take these particular critics “seriously” because they disgree with your POV on these particular films, which, frankly, is a ridiculous thing for anyone who writes about film to say.
We “constantly go against the grain” with our opinions? Really, Ed? You might also note that we all like Happy-Go-Lucky and Rachel Getting Married, all of which have had generally positive response, which pretty much throws your over-generalized statement out the window.
Maybe you judge a critic by whether their take on a film tends to agree with the majority — or yourself; I don’t. I base my judgement on what a critic has to SAY about a film, whether I disagree with their response to the film or not. And I don’t base my judgement of a film on how many other critics happen to agree with me; that, to me is the ultimate form of dishonest critical hackery.
And for the record, while I live on the West Coast, I don’t live in LA, I live in Seattle. Last time I checked, our water doesn’t come from LA.
“I base my judgement on what a critic has to SAY about a film”
And all we’re going by with this feature is if the five of you gave it a green light, a yellow light or a red light… so what does that say about these movies? Not a hell of a lot.
I don’t care if a critic agrees with me or not but regularly giving decent movies that have commercial success negative reviews and giving difficult problematic movies that have no popular appeal good reviews definitely makes me wonder where a critic is coming from. (Like all those praises for David Lynch’s grueling Inland Empire… what the fuck was THAT about?)
“Are you sure about that “footage found after the fact” thing, re: “Quarantine”?”
I believe the original ads, posters, standees said something to the effect that this was a case that had been successfully covered up until the footage was found. Granted, I don’t think they’re explicit about it in the film itself, but it was definitely in the promotion.
It may be tough to do a sequel. Blair Witch faltered on that score, and Cloverfield 2 is still a question mark. The “gotcha” aspect of the found-footage format is tough to do a second time once you know what the threat is, and going to a conventional movie form afterwards doesn’t feel quite right either.
“And all we’re going by with this feature is if the five of you gave it a green light, a yellow light or a red light… so what does that say about these movies? Not a hell of a lot. ”
The feature is a tool, nothing more. It gives you a quick idea of what our individual takes on the films is (and David, btw, gave Hounddog a “red”), but doesn’t tell you why we thought that, anymore than “fresh” or “rotten” rating on RT tells you why that critic thought that. If you want to dig deeper, you have to read the actual write-ups. I said a hell of a lot about both Blindness and Hounddog beyond the green lights, if you’d care to read more, and then have actual arguments against the points I made there, feel free.
But Ed, if you were really interested in why these critics felt differently than you, you can click on the green light and find out why (if they’ve in fact reviewed it on the site). It’s a shorthand for people to decide whether or not they want to look further into the film and decide whether to see it.
I will agree with you that you shouldn’t give decent films with commercial success negative reviews, but maybe some folks on this site just didn’t like a particularly commercial film. I don’t think anyone at MCN has a particular bias that would make give a bad review to a film for any reason other than they just didn’t like it. And if it makes you wonder where the critic is coming from, then read a little bit further and find out what their point of view is. If it’s one that doesn’t jibe with yours or offends you, that’s cool, but we have lots of different voices at MCN and sometimes we’ll agree and sometimes we won’t.
Oh, I see… on the main site front page, the image David posted on his blog actually has links to the reviews.. that makes much more sense. I didn’t realize that since all I was seeing here was the graph/chart ala the one done in EW and other publications… yeah, let me go read some of those thoughts then.
Not all of them do link, ED, but many do.
The idea is for it to work as both a quick overview and a way to link to everyone’s reviews. But we do allow everyone to rank movies they have not written about.
For readers who do have some history with each of us as writers, I think it in an interesting tool. And I have encouraged the use of similar tools for organizations like The Tribune Co for a while. How many movies does Carina see that Ken reviews or vice versa? If Ken hates it, might Mike Sragow or Michael Phillips love it? I know that I’d like to know. Same with movies Manohla sees and Tony reviews and vice versa.
No, it does make more sense in the context of how it appears on the front page. I tend to have your blog bookmarked but not necessarily MCN’s front page and that image here was the first time I’d seen the MCN Critics Roundup… my initial post was merely a gut reaction on seeing five positives for Blindness. The concept of the Critics Roundup is certainly a sound one (like the Gurus of Gold)… I was just reacting to seeing a movie I loathed getting so much support. đ
“I was just reacting to seeing a movie I loathed getting so much support. :)”
I can certainly understand that. I’ve had much the same reaction to critics who loved “Serbis,” which I postively loathed on every level. Mahnola Dargis loved it, she told me it was her favorite film at Cannes, and Tony Scott, I understand, also loved it. I shook my head in disbelief, and the things she loved about it were things that I very much did not like, but that doesn’t mean I think she’s a terrible critic for liking what I see as a terrible film.
Likewise, I loved Che and will continue to support that film, no matter how many smart people who I otherwise like and respect think it’s shite.
“Like all those praises for David Lynch’s grueling Inland Empire… what the fuck was THAT about?”
It was a gorgeous nightmare. Glad to see I don’t need to take this new feature of EDouglas seriously.
You sure you’re not thinking of “Poughkeepsie Tapes,” LYT, which definitely used that gambit? Or maybe I’m just forgetting the early “Quarantine” marketing.
BLINDNESS MOTHERFUCKING OWNED, DON’T BE A DOUCHE EDOUGLESS. MAN THE FUCK UP AND EMBRACE OWNAGE, STOP BEING A PUSSY. GET MORE HARDCORE.
INLAND EMPIRE WOULD’VE OWNED IF LYNCH CAST A YOUNG HOT CHICK INSTEAD OF BIG BIRD DERN.
LIKE WHY IS THIS OLD WOMAN TRYING TO ACT SEXY>
IT’S A KNOWN FACT THAT WOMEN OVER 30 CANNOT BE SEXY UNLESS THEY ARE NAOMI WATTS.
ALL WOMEN NEED TO BE MORE YOUNG AND HOT AND NOT BE BORING AND OLD.
FUCK YEAH, YOUR COMMANDER HAS SPOKEN.
LEX FOR PRESIDENT, THE ONLY THING I’LL TAX IS THAT ASS.
THE ONLY THING I’LL TAX IS THAT ASS.
THE ONLY THING I’LL TAX IS THAT ASS.
I’VE BEEN AWAY FOR FOUR DAYS AND THERE WASN’T ENOUGH DISCUSSION OF ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT AND FAMOUS MEMBER OF THIS BLOG.
I AM THE STAR. BOW TO ME. YOU ARE WEAK.
LexG: You are WRONG, sport. There are lots of sexy women over 30. Hell, there are lots of sexy women over 50. All you have to be is man enough to appreciate women, not girls. Sigourney Weaver? Helen Mirren? Growl, you cougars, growl!
Leydon rules.
OK maybe I was harsh; there are a handful of women who are between 30 and 35 who are still mildly attractive.
Just don’t have kids and LAY OFF THE ‘TOX. That shit makes you look like Johnny Handsome.
lex — you can’t rehab in four days (ask britany)…go back and do your time…..
and, i’m still a fan….
s.
“LexG: You are WRONG, sport. There are lots of sexy women over 30. Hell, there are lots of sexy women over 50. All you have to be is man enough to appreciate women, not girls. Sigourney Weaver? Helen Mirren? Growl, you cougars, growl!”
Joe, you’re officially my hero. And Lex, real grown men don’t want to be with 20-something sexpots with no life experience and little in the way of intellect. 40’s the new 30, and a lot of men know that there women with experience and brains are both more challenging and more fun …
Hey, Kim, what can I say? As I’ve posted elsewhere: I’m at that point in life where the Maxim cover girls don’t really do it for me. The Playboy cover girls don’t really do it for me. But the women on the cover of More are smokin’ hot.
“…LAY OFF THE ‘TOX. That shit makes you look like Johnny Handsome.”
Gold.
Don’t ever change Lex.
Lex is a dumbass, plain and simple. Isn’t that fairly common knowledge by now?
INLAND EMPIRE was actually quite amazing if you’re in the right headspace. I’m actually just about to watch Lynch (One) the documentary by some mysterious fello called blackandwhite who people think is actually Lynch himself.
BYOB LEX FUCK YEAH:
CHRISTINA RICCI GIVES ME A BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONER
FUCK YEAH THAT SHIT IS IMPORTANT
YOUR COMMANDER HAS RULED.
Lex… you’re cut off for the night… go to bed.
You will be returned to status as a “trusted commenter” in the morning.
Ha… insult to injury. Blindness doesn’t get the rave reviews of Meirelles’ other movies (except here), the movie bombs big time…. and now Miramax has removed it from its awards screening schedule.
http://www.miramaxhighlights.com/