MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYO New Year's Eve Blog

Add, 2:15p – Too good not to link… Fox is launching its Night At The Museum II trailer… at

Be Sociable, Share!

134 Responses to “BYO New Year's Eve Blog”

  1. a_loco says:

    Inglourious Basterds opens on Aug. 21…
    That can’t be a good sign. 🙁

  2. jeffmcm says:

    A release date like this doesn’t mean a huge amount re: quality of the movie – I mean, they haven’t even started shooting it yet, right? It probably means that the Weinsteins’ ability to grab screens is heavily diminished.
    Also, this probably means that Morricone can do the score, right?

  3. mutinyco says:

    Die 2008! Die!

  4. Rothchild says:

    Please explain to me how that could be a bad thing. And they’re almost done shooting. They’ve been shooting for months.

  5. adorian says:

    With people naming six or seven actresses who should be nominatedfor Best Actress, why hasn’t Catherine Deneuve’s name been mentioned for A Christmas Tale?
    I didn’t think Angelina Jolie stood a chance at a nomination until I finally saw Changeling today. This is going to be a very difficult year to narrow it down to just five actresses.

  6. a_loco says:

    How could Aug. 21st be a good sign?
    This movie isn’t Superbad, it isn’t gonna take advantage of the dog days of summer. A release date in late August for Basterds could mean that the Weinsteins aren’t happy with what they see. They’re probably still pissed about Grindhouse, too.
    Or it could be nothing, but a release date on Aug. 21st can’t mean confidence.

  7. a_loco says:

    Also, I just noticed at BOM that Bolt has over $100 mil in the bank. Is this the quietest $100 mil earner ever?

  8. IOIOIOI says:

    August is still the DUMP month. August 21st for IB is not bad, but it’s coming after a 3 month barrage of AWESOME. Any movie coming out in August is asking for it. Unless it comes out in that first week like GI Joe. Nevertheless; people will go see this movie. It’s QT. He’s a draw alon even for an August release.

  9. Rothchild says:

    This is a great date for the movie. You guys are overthinking this.

  10. LexG says:

    Seven hours remain until my deadline and I am still not banging a Russian escort.
    How pathetic is going to a strip club solo on New Year’s Eve? Maybe I’ll do that before tying the noose. Or drive to that Dennis Hof place in the desert.
    New Year’s FUCKING SUCKS.
    Forecast for 2009 if I don’t commit suicide tonight: Still not being famous, still not fucking actresses.

  11. LexG says:

    Can’t wait to get home and dig into my BURGER KING and PABST BLUE RIBBON and watch LICENSE TO WED on cable.

  12. BurmaShave says:

    LexG, with a PBR and Burger King, you have made the two best decisions you could as far as fast good burgers and beer. Don’t give up yet. And fuck her if she wanted to marry a pilot.

  13. yancyskancy says:

    Lex, if you’re looking for a new reason to live, may I suggest Teresa Palmer in Bedtime Stories? You may well find her mega-hotness inspiring. Plus, the word “palm” is right there in her name, ripe for bad, naughty puns. Regardless, hang in there.

  14. a_loco says:

    Just looked at a list of the years top earners and suddenly realized that Horton Hears a Who came out this spring. It seems like its been much longer.
    Anyways, that reminded me of the Animated Film Oscar, it’s obvious that WALL-E’s gonna win, but what will the other two spots go to? Or, if they’re lucky, the other four spots?
    Kung Fu Panda
    Waltz With Bashir
    Will the Academy be stupid and nominate Madagascar over Bolt?
    Will Waltz be this year’s Persepolis?
    I figure Kung Fu Panda’s a lock, and the last spot will be fight between the last four (on my list)

  15. IOIOIOI says:

    “Fuck the world. I have failed.” Good lord Lex, that’s some wicked dark sad and funny shit. Happy New Year to you brother, to everyone here on the blog, and to David Poland.
    David Poland: a man, not like any man, but a man who has this blog. This blog that we all enjoy discussing things on. So thanks to him, thanks to all of you for posting, and let us have a good 2009 with limited fighting!

  16. Joe Leydon says:

    Dick Clark looked worse tonight than he did three years ago. I can sympathize with the guy’s wanting to keep in the game and all that, but I’m also sad that, for many people — like, people the age of my 22-year-old son — this is their first exposure to him, and this is how they’ll always think of him. Like people of a certain age who remember Bette Davis most vividly from her post-“What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?” period.

  17. Happy new year, indeed. etc.
    a_loco, the final spot will go to Waltz, Bolt or $9.99. Not five nominees this year. What I’m looking forward to is the animation of 2009!
    Mary & Max
    Monsters vs Aliens
    Ponyo on the Cliff
    The Princess and the Frog
    Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
    and I’m not a fan of the series but I’m sure Ice Age 3 will be very popular.
    Plus titles like The Illusionist (Silvain Chomet, based on an unproduced Jacques Tati screenplay), Poe and Astroboy could be completed in time. It’ll be a very busy year for animation fans and a trying one for any animation fans who happen to read this blog as, no doubt, Lex will go on his usual ridiculous rants about said genre.
    In regards to Inglorious Basterds, what’s the issue with the date? At least it’s not December 31 or some crazy december-centric date. Maybe the Weinsteins have clued into the fact that december LA/NY releases just don’t work the way they used to and, shock, allowing people to actually SEE a movie and to possibly have it become a success is a far better way of making the most of scant advertising dollars than spending another five months pretending the movie is a classic and then releasing it on two screens in NY.

  18. In all seriousness guys (and leah)…
    Thanks for having a (usually) smart place to go and shoot the shit about movies. I really have ZERO real life film fanatic friends in my real life and this has and continues to be, a great outlet.
    I think the core group of us are now to the point where we’re like old palns busting balls at a local bar….or, something, In any case, I appreciate the Hot Blog. It feels weird cheating on Film Threats forums but….they’re just dead and when they aren’t dead, I often wish they were.
    I think Dave deserves a NYE toast for putting up with us over at his house, drinking his booze, messing up the carpet and being rude. He’s a good guy for putting up with us. Then again, dudes NEVER wrong so he kind of deserves us 😉
    Peace all!

  19. !!!
    Criticwatch’s Whores of the Year countdown has been released. Always one of the funniest reads of the year. Brilliant stuff. The bit about Jim Ferguson is particularly hilarious considering how much I hate the BFCA. I actually had no idea all the critics got up on stage to announce the Best Picture winner together? That’s is so pathetic. The man who gave The Love Guru a positive grave will have a handing in helping to give the “Best Picture We Think the Academy Will Award” prize. Yikes.

  20. christian says:

    I didn’t mind seeing Dick Clark — he’s alive and I think Americans are way too image-oriented. The dude also produced PSYCH-OUT!
    And Lex, resolve to act on your ambitions, you have something inside driving you…
    Happy New Year to all my invisible film fanatics!

  21. jeffmcm says:

    Re: Joe’s post earlier, yes, Dick Clark looked terrible tonight. And I was making fun of him and his ghastly appearance – until midnight happened, and his wife walked on-camera to give him a big kiss, and then it didn’t matter anymore. Here was a man who knew that he looked a little ridiculous, but was doing what he loved to do and was with his life partner and everything sank into perspective. So happy new year to all.
    Also, IOI, I don’t think you should be laughing at Lex’s misery so openly, that’s cruel of you.

  22. movieman says:

    I wouldn’t stress too much over that August 21st “release date.”
    It’s only January, and there’s still plenty of time to change the date (repeatedly) between now and then. Look at “Valkyrie.”
    And QT hasn’t really played the awards game since “Pulp Fiction.” He makes movies for fanboys (and hipster critics), not Oscar voters.

  23. LYT says:

    LexG, if you exert the effort offline that you do on, I don’t see why you can’t make some kind of impact. Hell, I’m SAG eligible at this point, and it sounds like I’m a year or two younger than you.
    I have no idea how much of you is persona versus real, but work the persona in places other than this. I bet it’ll hit somewhere.

  24. lazarus says:

    Lex, you can become famous AND kill yourself. Just do one of those webcam suicides, but make it more entertaining than that other kid did.
    Call it “Baby New Year Go Bye-Bye” and they’ll be talking about you for at least a couple weeks.

  25. leahnz says:

    happy new year everyone, may 2009 bring joy to the world and peace on earth!
    (it’s been 2009 here for a couple days now and it already feels kinda old hat, but clean slates and fresh starts are neato)
    any new year’s resolutions out there?

  26. a_loco says:

    Happy New Years, Hot Blog!!
    Anyways, not that my question about the animated Oscar started much discussion, but I feel I’ve got a few more things to say.
    1. Badagascar won’t get nominated. I thought the first one was, but I was mistaken, thus, #2 doesn’t have a huge chance.
    2. Joe: $9.99 doesn’t have a chance in hell, although it does sound interesting.
    3. Last year, the Academy nominated Surf’s Up over The Simpsons and Beowulf, and in 2003, they nominated motherfucking Brother Bear, and in 2004, they nominated motherfucking Shark Tale, all leading me to believe the Academy has a penchant for mainstream family movies, leading me to believe that Horton is still in the running.
    4. I haven’t seen it yet, but Waltz doesn’t look like it will have an endearing, audience-friendly tone like Persepolis, giving it a disadvantage.
    5. Still, Bolt and Horton seemed really quiet to me, even considering their formidable grosses. I’m gonna predict Waltz gets the nod, just for something different.
    6. You guys are right, I read too much into Basterds release date. It doesn’t mean anything, but it also doesn’t mean a show of any confidence.
    7. How many of you are really expecting QT to finish it in time? When was the last time QT finished anything in time?

  27. anghus says:

    Inglorious Bastards will top out at 75 million domestic. Running time alone will dictate that.
    If he could turn in a 90 minute cut, and why would he, it could go over 100 million.
    Personally, if you took Brad Pitt out of the equation, i couldn’t see it doing any more that 30-40 million.
    World War 2 films have a kind of reverence to them. Mainstream film people aren’t going to love the idea of tongue in cheek and uber violent for the one war that still has some sense of honor and dignity to it. It’s not a playground the typical American moviegoer has a sense of humor about.
    As for international audiences, who knows. This film sees like an odd fit for Tarantino, and in all honesty could be a train wreck. Everyone projected great numbers for Grindhouse. I could see a very similar fate befalling I.G. I think if you look at the post Miramax Weinsteins, they keep trying to market the same kind of whimsy. All of it feels so regurgitated. What does the future hold for Weinstein? Is I.G. really a departure for what they’ve been selling? And has anyone been buying it?
    How many times can you go back to the well?

  28. montrealkid says:

    Aug. 21 for Inglorious Basterds is a smart move on the Weinstein’s part because it means they won’t be competing with any other tentpoles and won’t have to worry (as much) about the second week audience dropoff.
    That said, it remains to be seen if summer audiences are going to want to sit through a 2 hr + WWII exploitation flick when they didn’t want to sit through the 3 hr Grindhouse….

  29. Chucky in Jersey says:

    QT hasn’t really played the awards game since “Pulp Fiction.”
    Guess what, movieman? “Jackie Brown” was released on Xmas Day 1997.

  30. christian says:

    “Mainstream film people aren’t going to love the idea of tongue in cheek and uber violent for the one war that still has some sense of honor and dignity to it.”
    See THE DIRTY DOZEN. Criminals as war heroes. HUGE hit.

  31. movieman says:

    Yes, indeed it did, Chucky.
    And “Jackie Brown,” not “Pulp Fiction,” was the last time Tarantino allowed himself to enter the awards scene fray as a willing participant. I don’t think he ever got over the fact that Pam Grier didn’t get a Best Actress nomination (although Robt.
    Forster’s supporting nod was richly deserved).
    I’m sure that if Grier hadn’t factored so heavily into the Weinstein Brothers’ Oscar-jockeying game plan, Tarantino would’ve been content with an October, February or–why the hell not?–August release date.
    Also note that Weinstein had considerable success with a similar August date this year for Woody’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” so it’s not unprecedented.
    I still stick with my original assertion that the date will probably change (maybe more than once) between now and August 21st.

  32. David Poland says:

    August 21 is, pretty much, a $19 million max release date.
    Is that good or bad for the basterds?

  33. Cadavra says:

    “See THE DIRTY DOZEN. Criminals as war heroes. HUGE hit.”
    Indeed. And a fabulous movie to boot. But that was 41 years ago, Christian, and times and tastes have changed. The majority of WW2-era movies in the past decade have been less about the battle than the Holocaust, or the human condition in general, and haven’t exactly been popcorn movies. In this respect, there’s a lot riding on BASTERDS to resuscitate the genre.

  34. dietcock says:

    re: basterds
    Y’all are sorta casually forgetting that QT has actually self-imposed a MAY deadline to make Cannes. Assuming he makes that date, how long do you really expect the studio to sit on the pic? Word, good or bad, will be out everywhere after Cannes. Universal (remember: they are releasing it, not Harvey, thank god, which means they can actually get and hold theatres) is wisely avoiding June and July, which are blockbuster demolition derby months and the movie, even if brilliant, is too irreverent to be classical Fall/Winter Oscar bait. So actually, August makes a lot of sense. Best case scenario: ride a wave of good p.r. coming out of Cannes and slip in after all the mindless summer behemoths have run their course and audiences are starved for something a little different. The script is nothing if not a rousing crowd-pleaser and 2 1/2 hours is a totally appropriate running time for a story with so many characters and setpieces. Stop the hate and give the man a chance to surprise us.

  35. dietcock says:

    Also, re: GRINDHOUSE
    The reason it bombed was because PLANET TERROR was fucking unwatchable and most likely left everyone so exhausted that they cut out before the mock trailers, let alone DEATHPROOF. Why does QT get all the Grindhouse hate, while Rodriguez breezes through it unscathed? Just wonderin’…

  36. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Happy New Year to one and all.
    QT gets hate for Grindhouse because Planet Terror was dumb fun, whereas Deathproof was a masturbatory affected pileup.
    Finally caught up with Benjamin Button. What a treat to start the new year. A moronic empty vacuous film that could lose 140m of its ponderous 165m length without sacrificing anything. It’s like a handsome idiot trying to articulate some of life’s mysteries that they overheard a smart person saying.
    My curdled cock cheese has more warmth and meaning than BB.
    Happy 09 !

  37. The Big Perm says:

    Dietcock, the quality of Grindhouse had nothing to do with its bombing since it bombed the opening weekend. No one wanted to see it, pure and simple…regardless of the quality.
    Death Proof was just so damn awful. Why did we have to see the same argument for ten minutes and then it turns out that the amazing super dangerous stunt that we knew they were going to fucking do was just laying on the hood of a car? We did that when we were 16! I tend to think only internet movie people really loved Deathproof. I have the idea that the general audience found it boring. We had a lot of walkouts during our showing.
    And I’m glad Tarantino is finally giving WW2 a shot in the nuts. I’m tured of these Oscar bait WW2 movies with the sad horns and close ups of watery eyes. Let’s have some Dirty Dozen shit and get it on!

  38. christian says:

    I don’t think audiences have had a chance at an action WW 2 adventure for awhile, so I think there will be an audience. I would also say that RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is a WW 2 action film in disguise…

  39. a_loco says:

    Only idiots didn’t like Death Proof. And by idiots, I mean “the general audience”. The general audience fucking ate up Without a Paddle (srsly, go to BOM and look at the legs on that fucker), so I wouldn’t put too much stock in using them as a barometer of quality, Perm.
    I know I’m being condescending, and I don’t care.

  40. The Big Perm says:

    Well, I hated Death Proof too. I guess by your logic The Dark Knight is a piece of shit because it had great legs and the general audience loved it.
    I hate the fuck out of Lex, but he has a great point when he says that a lot of internet movie buffs really go for movies that they know a regular audience will not like, a lot of times because it will make them seem superior and smarter than “the sheep.”
    Didn’t Ebert dislike Death Proof? He’s not stupid. Come on, it was a boring pointless movie. How long do we have to listen to a couple of women argue about something we KNOW they’re going to do, and when they do it, it sucks? It’s something only a nerd who’s never done anything wild in their lives would think was edgy and risky, especially for a stuntwoman character.
    I know a lot of people say that Death Proof was supposed to be like the old grindhouse movies where they talked a lot, but I;’m sorry, that isn’t true. Sure they talked a lot in those movies, but at least every 15 minutes or so there would be a fight in the mud or a fight or a shower scene. Well, maybe if you counted Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things…damn, that was a lot of talking.
    Anyway, at least Planet Terror knew what we were there for.

  41. Man, I’m surprised so many of you hated “Death Proof.” I LOVE that movie and watch it once a month at least. Weird.
    And JBD….amen on the B. Button comments. What a crock that movie is.

  42. The Big Perm says:

    I can’t imagine watching any movie once a month, not least of all that one. But different strokes and all that!

  43. EOTW says:

    Man, I just got done watching CITY OF GOD. what a great film. I hadn’t seen it in a least 2 years but it just flies by. I just love every single thing about it and what makes it grand is that the technique is flawless but that is hardly the point. Normally a film that looks and feels so tightly, perfectly edited would make the viewer sit up and take notice but the story is griping that you don’t think about how the story is told until long after it has sunk in and you’re finished with it. I’ll say this: It makes SLUMDOG look even lessworthy of the praise it has gotten. COG, one of the ten best fo this decade. Bank on it!

  44. EOTW says:

    Count me among the “idiots,” I guess. I thought the fiom was a dang shame. While I liked the Russell perf in the gar scene just fine, the rest of the film was crap.
    QT hasn’t done a good thing since JB. That’s a fact. with each release, he has given in to his weak spots more and more. Now, he is just a joke. Honestly, if you were to show PF and then show DP to someone who never knew they were made by the same guy, they’d never get that. some folks just can’t improve, so instead, they tread water.

  45. jeffmcm says:

    I adore Death Proof. But I also dislike City of God, so what can you do.

  46. a_loco says:

    Perm, I said that the reaction of the general audience WASN’T a barometer of quality. Apparently you’re too stupid to understand what that sentence means.
    And if you’re actually claiming to have pulled that shit as a kid, I’m gonna have to call you full of shit. Riding on the front of a car? Maybe. At those speeds on those roads around those corners? Bullshit.
    And the reason you see a QT film in the first place is the dialogue. That’s why we see them arguing for so long, because it sound good.

  47. “I don’t think he ever got over the fact that Pam Grier didn’t get a Best Actress nomination” And rightly so.
    I LOVE Death proof. It was my #5 film of 2007 (released here seperately so perhaps that was a reason) and I even had a Death Proof t-shirt. And I’m one of those people that thinks Jackie Brown is the flatout masterpiece that everyone else says Pulp Fiction is.

  48. christian says:

    GRINDHOUSE was my favorite film of 2007.

  49. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    EOTW. I’d even go so far to say that JB is his best film if it wasn’t for how strong a debut RD was. Apart from those two films I’ve disliked the rest of his filmography. DP was a complete embarrassment and anyone who thinks the dialogue was good in that film is tone deaf. Funnily enough, DP lovers are the same people who think Kevin Smith writes good dialogue and that Chasing Amy nails the female perspective.
    I suspect IG is going to be the proverbial train wreck with xeroxed scenes from Navarone, Eagles, Dozen intercut with ones of GIs arguing about whether the Stooges are funnier than the Marx Bros.
    The Emperor will be naked.

  50. LexG says:

    Has anyone checked the complete cast list for “Bastards”? Tarantino’s been talking this thing up for over a decade, he usually has great, eclectic casts that combine B-movie legends with legit badasses, and it’s a “men on a mission” flick…
    So WHY are the top-listed men on said mission: SAMM LEVINE (from Freaks and Geeks), BJ Novak (from The Office) and ELI FUCKING ROTH??????
    I’m assuming the movie’s fairly far along in its shoot, so no roles are left to be cast. I don’t know, I was just expecting some roll-call of ownage in terms of the actors. If he’d made this a decade ago, I’d have expected Sizemore and Madsen and De Niro and Jackson, with maybe Reno or Cassel or Stellan Skarsgaard in the mix.
    Pitt is huge, Til Schweiger is pretty awesome (though not a name), and the inclusion of Mike Myers actually sounds surprisingly interesting and awesome… I like Diane Kruger… but who’s the “team”? That cast list is awfully lightweight and contains few if any of the macho, Method maniacs I’d have expected would be banging down the door to get cast in a new Tarantino movie.

  51. EOTW says:

    “But I also dislike City of God, so what can you do.”
    Jesus, really? No offense, cause I do believe everyone has a right to their opinion but you’re one of the people I’ve heard say that. I’m amazed anyone CAN dislike COG. It’s so damn economical in its storytelling. That alone makes it a feat, given all the crap put out in the world today. Wow, I’m pretty floored.
    Hey, what did you think of THE LIVES OF OTHERS, just out of curiosity?
    I’m impressed with anyone who thinks GRINDHOUSE was the film of the year. That is ballsy and insane, but go for it, dude. I’ve never, EVER heard anyone say that.

  52. The Big Perm says:

    aloco, I know you said the general audience wasn’t a barometer of quality. I didn’t say they were, dipshit. What I am saying is, who cares if a general audience liked some bad movies a few years ago, you know what I mean?
    By the way, what speed were they going on those roads, anyway? Cause it seemed like 40mph tops. You can call me full of shit if you want, it doesn’t matter to me what some guy on the internet who I don’t know thinks about me. You fat fuck, just because you’re a coward doesn’t mean I am!
    Yeah, I like the doaligue in QT’s movies too…but not when it’s endless and pointless. Which he had always avoided. And it doesn’t sound good when the actors are mediocre. Let’s face it, those girls were not Sam Jacksons.
    Tarantino does seem to have missed the ball in terms of putting together an awesome cast for his movie. There’s no cool guys to stick in supporting roles in his mvie?
    I guess for old school carnage with an anazing lineup, we have to look to The Expendables that Stallone’s making. I heard it’s going to be PG-13 though, which is a shame. That cast needs to be in a movie with Rambo levels of carnage.

  53. yancyskancy says:

    JBD: FWIW, I loved Death Proof but can’t stand Kevin Smith’s films.
    There’s a thread on dave kehr’s blog in which a number of noted film writers (not fan boys) extoll the virtues of Death Proof (with plenty of disagreements, too, of course, but less condescension).

  54. jeffmcm says:

    JBD, we’re the inverse of each other re: Tarantino, I think Reservoir Dogs is his weakest film (which still means that it’s a good piece of work, but not up to the level of his later stuff). And also, I think Chasing Amy is fairly crappy. Kevin Smith is a director who I’m happy to say has been a one-trick pony who peaked at his first movie, Tarantino not so much.
    EOTW, my reaction to City of God is that it’s a very well-crafted, excitingly made piece of work that nonetheless felt pretty hollow and derivative to me – I kind of think that Meirelles is the indie-world equivalent of Michael Bay, in terms of making glossy, impersonal films, which I know puts me in the extreme minority.
    As for The Lives of Others, I think it’s handsomely made, well-acted, but a little lacking in the story department as well because I didn’t buy the main character’s arc (his entire character development seems to happen in one too-short montage where he learns to stop being a nasty Stasi guy because he listens to some Mozart).

  55. leahnz says:

    say what you will about ‘death proof’ but don’t fuck with zoe, she’d kick your ass with big smile holding a beer in one hand without even spilling it
    and why didn’t max cherry go to spain with jackie brown, dammit?!

  56. LexG says:

    I think Jackie Brown is Tarantino’s masterpiece. Pulp Fiction kind of is, too, but I’m an even bigger fan of that lived-in, middle-age-and-beyond weariness that Forster, Grier, De Niro, Jackson, even the comparatively younger Keaton and Fonda, all bring to JB. It’s his most human and resonant movie, genuinely touching on top of being a good crime story, full of great dialogue and all kinds of little “moments” and even allowing for QT’s expecting popcult references, but without overdoing any of it.
    Guess I kinda wish he’d gone on in that warmer vein instead of full-on geek pastiche mode.
    Kind of how Tarantino is the video store wiz who’s gonna force his grindhouse and exploitation 70s fetish on all of us, to increasing mass audience indifference, I can’t wait for some 90S VIDEOSTORE/NETFLIX/CINEMAX KID to make a big splash at Sundance and go all indulgent like QT has.
    Just imagine like a 15-, 20-year-later Nouveau Tarantino, reared on the cable movies of the late 80s/early 90s, peppering his stuff with visual references to Matt Dillon “Kiss Before Dying” and pilfering soundtrack snippets from Michael Douglas’ “Shining Through.” Like NO ONE IN THE WORLD getting it or caring or even REMEMBERING that shit, but five movies later “Jensen Farrentino” is still doing motormouth interviews on Carson Daly, all extolling the virtues of Stallone in “The Specialist,” Eric Roberts in “The Immortals,” Patrick Dempsey in “Run,” or Christian Slater in “Kuffs,” and how he and his pal are gonna make a four-hour opus that pays homage to the mid-90s Steve Baigelman/”Keys to Tulsa”/”The Underneath” era of down-home crime flicks, with career-resuscitating cameos by Morris Chestnutt, Jennifer Rubin, James Duval, Allen Payne, Alicia Silverstone, Skeet Ulrich and Loren Dean.

  57. lazarus says:

    So much for SuicideWatch.
    But hey, how about that “unsurpassed” knowledge of film history? We wouldn’t want to have to go on without that. Who else would be able to roll off a list of references to shitty films that are better off unremembered?

  58. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Lex – your final paragraph is some sort of deranged brilliance.
    Jeff – Yes and no. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you in the same sentence sometimes. I do prefer JB and think its a mature work. But I can never forget how fucking impressive RD appeared on the scene. Did you see the film the year it was released? You’d feel differently if you did, I assure you. I won’t rewatch it, because some memories are best left untouched. I’ll revisit JB soon as it’ll hold up but I will never watch RD again. It was a piece of its time.

  59. Triple Option says:

    I remember riding on my friends’ cars’ hoods when I was 16! We’d play a game called Matt Houston. You’d throw all your weight into a swing, like you’re going to punch through the windshield, (did he actually do that? I barely watched the show) right as the driver slams on the brakes. The trick was to try to counter balance the forces so you’d just kinda pancake down on the hood and not get thrown off. At the time, we thought we were exercising some safety measures because we’d only slam on the brakes right before we were to hit someone’s yard, so you’d only get thrown off onto some grass. You know, not land in a way that’d potentially kill you. Hitting the curb was pretty much like the warning track and signal to start the punch.
    The best was one time this big meaty guy off the football team, Kenny, (we called him Country cuz he talked kinda slow), swung too soon. Crack his knuckles on the windshield. Then my friend who was driving got kinda freaked out, did a stuttering stop-go-stop thing. First I see Country starting to scream from busting his hand, then he gets this “oh sh#t” look on his face when he starts flying backward but then my friend guns it to keep him from falling off short of the grass, so then Country falls forward, bounces his chin onto the hood right as my friend hits the curb and slams on the brakes for good, sending Country tumbling ass over teakettle like Charlie Brown having the ball pulled away by Lucy. I will never forget Country’s “why?” face as he bounced off the hood. Oh man, I hadn’t thought of that in YEARS!! It still makes my sides hurt.
    We also used to bumper hitch in the snow. You know, grab onto your friends’ bumper as he starts to drive off. Then after he’s built up a little speed you’d let go and see how long you could kinda ski along in your tennis shoes until you slowed to a stop or just wiped out. You

  60. leahnz says:

    ‘res. dogs’ is a hard-out debut, no doubt about that, blood-spattered brilliance. here’s a brainwave: tarantino should get back to crime, that’s his calling, the rest is just bullshit.
    (i love the ‘madonna’ debate in ‘dogs’ between mr. blonde, mr. brown and eddie…i think, i get their colours confused)

  61. leahnz says:

    and possibly the biggest fuckarow ever:

  62. a_loco says:

    JBD: “I tend to think only internet movie people really loved Deathproof. I have the idea that the general audience found it boring. We had a lot of walkouts during our showing.”
    Me: “Only idiots didn’t like Death Proof. And by idiots, I mean “the general audience”. The general audience fucking ate up Without a Paddle (srsly, go to BOM and look at the legs on that fucker), so I wouldn’t put too much stock in using them as a barometer of quality, Perm.”
    JBD: “Well, I hated Death Proof too. I guess by your logic The Dark Knight is a piece of shit because it had great legs and the general audience loved it. ”
    Me: “Perm, I said that the reaction of the general audience WASN’T a barometer of quality. Apparently you’re too stupid to understand what that sentence means.”
    JBD: “aloco, I know you said the general audience wasn’t a barometer of quality. I didn’t say they were, dipshit. What I am saying is, who cares if a general audience liked some bad movies a few years ago, you know what I mean?”
    I’m just gonna let this one speak for itself

  63. jeffmcm says:

    JBD, saying that you agree and disagree with me at the same time actually makes me pretty happy, so thanks. I saw Reservoir Dogs on video, I’m pretty sure before Pulp Fiction came out, but I was only 15 or 16 so it didn’t make as much impact on me as it might have otherwise. Pulp Fiction and Clerks, on the other hand, both struck me as the real fresh, original stuff from both of those guys that has never been beaten. The acting in Clerks is just as bad as the acting in Clerks II, but since it was all so unusual it wasn’t as noticeable.
    Lex, I think you might be the very person you’re describing.

  64. So glad to hear so many people name Jackie Brown as their favourite QT film, like me. I always think I’m so alone in that regard, but I guess not. Such a great classic movie that – pardon the awful cliche – every time I watch it just gets richer. That heist scene (of sorts) is all sorts of masterful.
    I just got back from City of Slumdog. It’s not as good as we’re being told.

  65. EOTW says:

    but I will never watch RD again. It was a piece of its time.
    That last sentence makes complete sense to me. I was 19 0r 20 when RD came out and I didn’t get to see it until a year later on VHS. I lived in a crappy little town (and now live in the bigger crappy little town a few miles north) so I never got to see this little films til they hit video or got them throug hthe HOME FILM FESTIVAL (remember that? My first two films I got from them was MAN BITES DOG and BURDEN OF DREAMS).
    So, I’m at the local vid shop and see RD. I grab it, stop off at the best burger joint in the world, and then head home. I sit down and pop the film in and get ready to chow down and from the first frame, I didn’t take a bite for over an hour. I had never seen anything like that opening scene around the table with the killers. And if that didn’t blow my mind away, all that blood in the back seat really floored me. I just had never seen anything like it in my life, really. I remember how Tim Roth was crying “she had a baby!” and I knew what he meant without having to see it later in the flick. i was just blown away. Few films have ever grabbed me like those first two scenes did.
    Yes, JB is a classic and might be his best if it weren’t for PF.
    LEx: I agree with the dude above. that last paragraph was great. You are the most entertaining guy on here. I’m glad you’re still alive and kickin’!!!

  66. mutinyco says:

    Pulp Fiction wasn’t original. In fact, I found it to be a tedious rehash of everything Tarantino had already done — only with a bigger budget and mainstream agenda.
    After seeing RD, I got copies of his scripts for True Romance and Natural Born Killers from a vendor at the JV Mall who sold Xeroxes. Loved both.
    Then, about 6 months before Pulp Fiction came out, I got a Xerox of that, too. And it just never did it for me. Bloated. Slow-paced. Shallow. He was already riffing on himself, recycling the pop culture and characters from his previous scripts — only those were fast-paced, economical, violent and funny as hell.
    His first three scripts were badass. They were pure blasts of nihilism. Pulp Fiction, however, was about hope.
    Pulp Fiction was for everybody who hadn’t read his first three scripts.

  67. mutinyco says:

    BTW/ what Lex said. Yeah, I was kind of onto that in the NYFF46 series (linked above). Made a point of throwing in references to Raw Deal and Leon, among others. Figured it was time to move past the ’70s references and to start using ’80s/’90s.
    I kind of got off when Jeffrey Wells ranted about the Leon reference, not having any idea who “Mathilda” was…

  68. T. Holly says:

    “In Spring” was the best short of ’08. Mutinyco ’09: at Sundance locations, LexG reenacts scenes from Sundance ’09 movies. Words/photos leak and Jeffmcm disses the short and gets banned from press screening by Don Lewis. Direwolf produces.

  69. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    a_loco – you just attributed various passages to me. It weakens whatever point you’re trying to make when you can’t even get your facts right.

  70. christian says:

    Watching RD on tape right after it came out in 92 was a revelation. Just watched it again and it’s still great and audacious. I love PULP FICTION more because it’s really a great black comedy Los Angeles movie movie with scenes I like to watch over and over. And I saw JB on Christmas Day and was as moved then as I still am by it. The ending brings tears to my eyes every single time — and I told Bob Forster that. What a lovely guy.
    And EOTW, as per GH, I just had the best time in a theater I’ve had in years. I really appreciate what GH was trying to do, remind newbies of the past fun of movie-going. I saw it three fucking times! And I’m PISSED we don’t have it here on DVD in its full version. That is TOTAL NON-OWNAGE. I’ll have to get the outta control bad-ass Japanese release…

  71. The Big Perm says:

    I bet aloco is wrapped up in bubble wrap right now in case he falls down.
    Hey, I agree that Jackie Brown is Tarantino’s masterpiece. I could watch that movie any day. It’s not the revelation that Pulp was when it came out, but it’s such a perfectly made movie. I also wish Tarantino had explored that territory more, although when we watched Kill Bill my buddy turned to me and said “this is the greatest movie ever made” during the nightclub fight. I agreed at the time!
    I don’t care if Pulp Fiction is original or not. Of course it isn’t, we’ve seen those stories a million times before. Originality is overrated. Shakespeare just used old stories too. It’s how the stories are done. I can’t think of an original way to tell an original story any more. It’s impossible.

  72. a_loco says:

    Sorry about that, that should be TBP, not JBD.

  73. The Big Perm says:

    I still didn’t say that because a movie is a hit or not makes it good or not. I say we had walkouts and I’ve only really heard people defending Death Proof who are web movie lovers, I haven’t heard anyone defend it in actual life…which doesn’t mean much, but still. You pointed out some piece of shit from way back when made lots of money, and that general audiences are stupid. So then I said that the same stupid general audience made a big hit out of a good movie, so does that make it shit? See where I’m going with this?
    Godo movies flop, bad movies flop, godo movies make money, bad movies make money. Things depend on the whim of the day, not an audience that you look at with comtempt because they are so much dumber than the genius known as a_loco (from the internet).

  74. leahnz says:

    hey, is there a finer example of a modern urban crime trilogy than QT’s consecutive ‘reservoir dogs’, ‘pulp fiction’ and ‘jackie brown’? (trilogy in the ‘three consecutive films set in the same time & place’ sense, not the traditional ‘sequel’ sense, obviously) if so, i can’t think of it. legend.

  75. christian says:

    Good point!

  76. berg says:

    the dog dies …

  77. jeffmcm says:

    Mutiny, every aspect you mentioned above re: Tarantino’s early scripts/Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction are exactly why PF is his best film (up to that point). God you’re shallow.

  78. frankbooth says:

    I remember first reading about RD in some magazine as I stood at the rack in a bookstore. I figured this Quentin Tarantino had to be some dude from Europe, with a name like that.
    This is how buzz got around before the internet. Magazines and TV, word of mouth. Conversations at the video store. Now I get my tips from people I’ve never met.
    So anyway, I went with a friend (the girlfriend I was with at the time wasn’t interested, though she hopped on the PF bandwagon with a vengeance a couple of years later; she used to drag me to stuff like Malice and Just Cause — oh, the painful memories!) and we were pretty wowed. The individual components and the tone weren’t THAT original — maybe if you had never seen a Lynch or Coen brothers film (or Scorsese, for that matter). But it was still not quite like anything we’d experienced in terms of the way these elements were combined and presented, and it was incredibly entertaining, disturbing and funny. This was clearly a guy to watch.
    I saw it most recently a couple of years ago on DVD, and it holds up just fine.
    PF was kind of a fuller realization, but also a bit of a rehash, like T2 compared to Terminator. (Well, not quite. It wasn’t the same exact movie with a giant budget and better effects. But it’s the best analogy I can come up with.)
    I initially thought that JB was too sluggish and heavy for a Leonard adaptation (after thinking QT’s earlier films were textbook Leonard in style) but have come to really appreciate it.
    And I like Kill Bill as one long movie, as self-indulgent as it is. It’s fun, only occasionally draggy, and it’s even moving when Carradine buys it. But QT should have put the whole Seventies exploitation thing to bed after this one. This is where he began to paint himself into a corner.
    A 45-minute Death Proof would have been dandy. The version that exists (even the shorter one) is a painful slog. The diner scene makes my ears withdraw into my skull as a protective measure.
    I agree with Lex’s comments about the casting of IB. Cause for concern. His stock is falling. I hope he’s not becoming convinced he’s the star of his own movies, like Jackson when he cast King Kong and made sure there were no handsome, A-list leading men to upstage his CGI camera antics. (That was how it struck me, anyway.)
    Maybe QT is The Ramones of film. As long as we expect nothing more than variations on the same album over and over, we won’t be disappointed.

  79. frankbooth says:

    Triple Option, your stories remind me of some guys I used to know. They would take apart shotgun shells or M80 firecrackers and make their own sticks of dynamite, which they would explode on the outskirts of town.
    Kids in the middle of nowhere are crazy. They have nothing better to do.

  80. a_loco says:

    Perm, you suggested that Death Proof was bad because the “general audience” disliked it. Whether or not that was your intention, that’s what you said.
    I pointed out an instance that disproved your suggestion that the general audience could determine the quality of a movie.
    You then figured that when I said the reaction of the general audience wasn’t a barometer of quality, that I actually said that it was a barometer of quality, just inversely related.
    I pointed out the flaws in your logic
    Then you said “who cares if a general audience liked some bad movies a few years ago, you know what I mean?” thereby agreeing with what I said in the first place.
    And while we’re at it, no, the general audience is not stupid (I did admit to being condescending), but people who are not knowledgeable about film don’t know what makes a movie good or not. For the same reason, I can’t tell you what makes the Mona Lisa so great,… because I just don’t know.

  81. christian says:

    Funny, I saw it with audiences who seemed bonded in pleasure and on opening night, the females in the crowd wildly cheered Kurt Russell’s beatdown. I agree it should have been a lean mean 90 minutes, but it’s just like one great big QT fest at the Alamo. Fun!

  82. Rothchild says:

    Seeing Grindhouse in Burbank of all places was one of the best times I’ve ever had in a theater. The haters can hate, and the people that saw the movies individually have no perspective, but that was the shit.
    TWC is useless and if there was anyone Poland should be grinding axes at it would be those has beens.

  83. Joe Leydon says:

    Any chance there will be a Blu-Ray edition of “Heaven’s Gate” ready for next year’s 30th anniversary?

  84. The Big Perm says:

    What I was saying a_loco, is that the general audience agreed with me. Whether that makes a movie good or bad is besides the point…because good and bad are subjective anyway.
    I think audience participation made Grindhouse so muc better in the eyes of some people…a great audience will do that. When I hear someone say Grindhouse was awesome, they tend to talk about the cheering and hooting audience they saw the movie with. I saw the movie with a regular audience, which of course laughed and gasped and whatever, but they weren’t due hard geeks that applauded when Kurt Russel showed up.

  85. Geoff says:

    This is definitely one of the best blogs done this site – just a fun discussion of some of the best movies of recent years. My two cents on the films in question:
    Death Proof – saw it for the first time just a few nights ago on HD cable. Much better than I though, overlong, but Kurt Russel was great. Still – SPOILER – did any one really buy the left turn his character took after getting shot???? I mean, the guy is a stuntman with a scarred face, for christ sakes. That said, it is probably Tarantino’s best film of the decade.
    Kill Bill – ….given the statement above, that is not saying much. What you guys are saying about Tarantino giving into his fetishes is dead-on. I mean, wow, you could parallel this guy’s career with the band Oasis – both showed great promise in the ’90’s, but just started riffing on themselves. I didn’t want to believe that until Kill Bill Volume One – I would put that film among the top five most angry/disappointing moviegoing experiences I have ever had. I was just pissed – six years of build-up, slambang cast, and THIS was the result? Hardly any dialogue???? I walked out angry and Volume Two was only much more satisfying because my expectations were lowered.
    City of God – the BEST film of this decade, though Eternal Sunshine gives it a run for its money. Did some one actually compare Mereilles to Michael Bay???? Wow, that takes some balls. It is truly an amazing film and I heard a crack about Slumdog – loved that movie, too, though it’s not as good. Not a completely fair comparison, but you could say they are in the same sort of subgenre. I am actually going to see Slumdog tonight for the second time to see what my wife thinks of it – I think it’s the best film of the year!
    Jackie Brown – extremely underrated, or so I thought after reading this blog. It just got lost in a sea of Good Will Hunting/Titanic hype -if the film came out a year later or a few months later, it would have made much more and probably gotten more acclaim. DeNiro gives such a unique performance, one of his best.
    Pulp Fiction – best film of the ’90’s and deserves all of the praise it has gotten. I think the backlash never really set in against this one, because it got overshadowed in Oscar season by Forrest Gump, which will be its eternal villian in a lot of film lover’s minds.
    Kevin Smith – really enjoyed Dogma, but sorry, the guy REALLY could never direct. His films look uglier than Alexander Payne’s, which is saying something. His writing usually pops though and he draws good stuff from his actors, have to give him credit for that. Guess I’ll always have a soft spot for him for giving George Carlin a bunch of roles late in his life.
    LexG – that paragraph you wrote made me laugh out loud. It is funny that enough time passing can make certain people nostalgic for even the worst crap – read Aint It Cool News, there is a hysterical article with a one of the writers waxing about The New Kids!!!! Hey, I had a crush too on Lori Loughlin and would see anything with her in it, too…..when I was 10!
    One more thing to add that could stir controversy – saw The Wrestler today. Pretty good, Mickey Rourke is as good as the hype, but….the last hour has some iffy melodramatic touches, which hurts it. Have to admit that I find it a bit overrated, kind of reminds me of the Oscar hype for Monster a few years back – a solid film that was not as good as the central performance, but got a lot of Top Ten acclaim as a result.
    The problem I have with films like this and Rachel Getting Married is that when you go the verite’ docudrama route, you have to keep the story/writing on that level to make it truly work – gritty realism just doesn’t come from the way you shoot, so you have very little margin for error on the story level to maintain that. And that’s where I think both films fell a bit short. Believe me, I love Aronofsky and Demme and both films are easily in my top 15 of the year with performances that deserve awards, but they could have been better.
    Ponder and discuss.

  86. leahnz says:

    i LOVE heaven’s gate, though i remember it being viewed as something of a disaster in its day…i saw in a double feature with ‘the long riders’ at a tin-pot little cinema and the two movies are inextricably linked in my memory.

  87. Triple Option says:

    frankbooth: It was actually just plain ol’ suburbia but a little before conform everything to the same subdivision blueprint and specs. I’m sure having all choice eliminated from people’s lives and putting everything up in the two shades of mauve, teal or tope is first step to sucking the creativity out of people and the demand for any kind of artistic excellence.
    I guess we were prolly a little too cosmopolitan to mess w/firearms but God bless flag day when we could start purchasing fireworks. We’d be happy w/black cats and lady fingers. Only because they were so cheap compared to the M80’s – but yeah, some trash cans did take a beating.
    I remember we’d go to this one reservoir around dusk and take these pipes, I have no idea where we got them, but put duct tape on the end. They were like 2 ft long and made the perfect launchers for pop bottle rockets. We’d run around firing at each other like paintball wars. Usually if you ever got hit it’d feel about the same as someone shooting a paperclip out of a rubber band at you and then the thing would explode by your feet. One time one managed to hit and explode by someone’s face. It was only a small cut but he was kinda freaked out because he had his senior pictures the next day. He was perfectly fine the next day. I just wish my body had the ability to heal myself now as when I’d scrape myself up running through the thicket.
    I hear what you’re saying about kids living way out in the stix though. I knew far, far more kids from real rural areas with cases or under probation than ones from low inc, inner cities.
    I was slow to see Kill Bill Vol 1 and I think it was right before Vol 2 came out that I rented it and I just thought it was horrible. I thought there was no way I was going to sit through another dose of that. People kept saying 2 was better than one and I didn’t want to listen. Finally, I think I got a free coupon for Blockbuster or Hollywood and it was about 8:40 at night on a Friday so there wasn’t much in. I grabbed Kill Bill Vol 2 and thought, we’ll, it’s free.
    Holy cow, Uma Thurman was soooo amazing. I loved her and even thought Daryl Hannah was good, which how many times had I thought that since Bladerunner…which was when I was too young to even know better. I thoroughly enjoyed Vol 2. I don’t know how much of an overall fan of Tarantino I am. Like, definitely not a hater but maybe I’ll like elements out of some of his stuff. I don’t know if I res dogs got too much hype as why it didn’t live up to it for me. Pulp, I’m sorry but a lot of characters sounded the same to me. Nat born killers even had its moments from what I read was his from the script but I’m not one to head out to Mann Chinese at 9 PM opening Friday night to catch his latest. Kill Bill Vol 2 though I think was very memorable. I would’ve loved to have seen Uma gotten more love that role, she totally made the film.

  88. Triple Option says:

    Geoff: i gotta agree w/you on The Wrestler. I did think it was a better overall film than Monster, which was kinda like Boys Don’t Cry in that aspect of a strong lead outshining the rest of the blah film. Only Boys would’ve been unwatchable w/out Hilary Swank. Oh, and The Bluest Eyes in Texas sung by Nina Persson in the soundtrack was pretty amazing.
    But like Evan Rachel Woods in the Wrestler…I didn’t know who she was. I was thinking it was the director’s gf at first. Some of those “high emotion” scenes were so, I don’t know, sledgehammerish. Other places I thought she was more natural. Big ups to Rourke, though, throughout.

  89. jeffmcm says:

    “Did some one actually compare Mereilles to Michael Bay????”
    Yeah, that was me. I certainly think Bay is a lot worse, in terms of being insecure, having zero interest in the real world, and insulting to his audience. But I have yet to see a Meirless movie that I actually liked beyond the cinematography and editing.

  90. BurmaShave says:

    jeffmcm, that’s some crazy shit.

  91. Geoff/Triple O-
    I think you guys just hit on what I mentioned earlier on another entry about how awards season-and the proliferation of prognasticators and sites dedicated to that-ruins movies.
    Can’t “The Wrestler” just be a great movie without us having to judge it based on how everyone is saying Rourke deserves an Oscar nod? Can’t “Gran Torino” just be a silly movie that people enjoy rather than see it fall all over itself for some arbitrary award?
    Obviously I’m shooting myself in the foot because I still enjoy gathering with family and friends to watch the Oscars. But it’s getting to the point where the game is stepping all over the players and that’s irritating.

  92. If I had my way Jackie Brown would have gotten five acting nomintions – Greer, Jackson, Fonda, DeNiro and Forster. That cast really are working at phenomenal levels. They say certain actors make acting “look easy” and I would say that, out of everyone, Bridget Fonda is the best. “helloitsforyou” being the best line reading in any QT film, which is saying a lot. Her parking lot scene is also really quite fascinating to watch.
    In regards to Death Proof, I’m not sure why the general public’s reception of the movie means anything. So what if the film’s only real fans are film obsessed nuts on the Internet? I’m sure a movie like The Class isn’t going to find much love outside of that circle too, but does that make it any less worthy of the acclaim it does get purely because it’s out cars and babes and the greatest car chase every put onto screen? Actually, where would people place the Death Proof car chase on a list of said chases? I’d be quite interested.

  93. martin says:

    Jackie Brown is my favorite Tarantino movie as well. Reservoir Dogs knocked me out when I first saw it. And I liked PF, but it didn’t quite live up to the crazy amount of press that it got. JB I read the script for beforehand, and I actually thought the script was better than the finished product. But still, the best QT film IMO. When it wasn’t the major success that he hoped for, he went all genre/b-movie on us. Inglorious feels like an attempt to get back to the JBs and PFs perhaps.

  94. martin says:

    Kami, I think the casting on Jackie was exceptional, and QT was also in a place in his career where he was HOT and everyone wanted to do a really great job for him. A so-so acting job in a Tarantino movie would have been a bad situation, so everyone from Bridget to Deniro really made the effort. Since then the heat on Tarantino has slowed (inevitable) and he’ll get actors here and there that just phone it in.
    Ironically there’s that whole weinstein/tarantino/deniro phonecall about bobby d making a ‘career change’ do just flicks just for the $$ and drop the whole method thing. But for Jackie, DeNiro definitely brought his a-game. People talk about Grier and Forster on that movie, but bf and deniro were just as great.

  95. leahnz says:

    poor michael keaton, he never gets a mention.
    two classic parking-lot scenes with parallel uses of the gun: louis shoots melanie to shut her up, louise shoots the would-be rapist to shut him up. interesting that neither louis nor louise really makes a conscious decision to shoot their victim, both scenes use the gun more as an extension of the hand, the trigger pulled on the spur of the moment to lash out at the tormentor, silence the taunting.
    random, i know. i’m always thinking about weird shit like that.

  96. leahnz says:

    shut your mouth! bang bang bang
    (oops, i meant to add that after ‘silence the taunting’)

  97. jeffmcm says:

    Burma, I would love it if somebody could give me a reason to feel otherwise.

  98. christian says:

    Actually, Keaton’s best scene is when he’s going over the money with Jackie Brown. The look on his face when she asks if he’s ever been tempted is fantastic.

  99. mutinyco says:

    Jeffmcm, you’re a cunt. If you’re going to make a point, then make it.
    What’s your point? That because PF offers hope instead of nihilism, it’s a better film? Or because he’s boringly rehashing everything he’s already done up until that point and already riffing on himself?

  100. jeffmcm says:

    Okay: I think you’re arrogant, pretentious, and untalented.

  101. jeffmcm says:

    Oh: and yes, all other things being equal, a movie about ‘redemption’ is better than a film about ‘nihilism’. Pulp Fiction was QT’s most mature work up to that point and best. To laud movie because it’s ‘nihilistic’ is like something for the wrong reasons, and more than a little immature.
    In my humble opinion.

  102. mutinyco says:

    Jeff, remember that time when I busted you for shit-talking me on Hollywood-Elsewhere? You were commenting using multiple names, saying how untalented I was, etc…
    But you were so unintelligent that you had forgotten to remove the link to your own website…
    You’ve always had a hard-on about me. Go rub yourself off and get over it.

  103. Kim Voynar says:

    JeffMCM, mutinyco, settle down, boys … jeez.
    I love QT, especially Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and both Kill Bills. Hate Reservoir Dogs with a passion, though, almost as much as I despise Last House on the Left (though both occupy spots on my “least favorite films” list).
    And JeffMCM, comparing Meirelles to Bay? Seriously? Good god, man. Methinks perhaps you ate too much sugar over the holidays, and it’s affected your brain. You don’t like Meirelles, okay, but at least have the respect to compare him to someone with some actual talent.

  104. CaptainZahn says:

    Jackie Brown is my favorite Tarantino film. Having said that, I wish Grier’s performance was stronger. She has tons of presence, but her line readings often leave something to be desired.

  105. T. Holly says:

    If “In Spring” didn’t take so long to load, more people might see it? Why so long, what’s it connecting to for like forever? I’m very paranoid and the video has a paranoid feeling.

  106. mutinyco says:

    Yeah, been having server issues. Sometimes the videos load slowly. You can try it from here too:

  107. T. Holly says:


  108. mutinyco says:

    No. Budget cutbacks.
    A lot of the regular indie pubs aren’t even going this year.
    At least traffic might be better…

  109. T. Holly says:

    Oy, I see a rise in the number of posts about karaoke fun with bffs.

  110. Joe Leydon says:

    “Jeff, remember that time when I busted you for shit-talking me on Hollywood-Elsewhere? You were commenting using multiple names, saying how untalented I was, etc…
    But you were so unintelligent that you had forgotten to remove the link to your own website…
    You’ve always had a hard-on about me. Go rub yourself off and get over it.”
    This is too funny. Too damn funny for words.

  111. jeffmcm says:

    Actually, I don’t think that ever happened, perhaps Mutiny is mistaking me for somebody else.

  112. jeffmcm says:

    By the way, Joe, you still owe me an apology too but for my New Year’s resolution, I’ll forget it.
    You’re welcome!

  113. Joe Leydon says:

    Mutinyco: You wouldn’t lie, would you?

  114. mutinyco says:

    Try clicking the links to both “dave l” and “jeffmcm”…
    This was pretty classic…

  115. Kim Voynar says:

    “Oy, I see a rise in the number of posts about karaoke fun with bffs.”
    T Holly, the karaoke action at fests is one of the best parts of being there! Bring on your inner rock star!

  116. Joe Leydon says:

    Mutinyco: Gosh, Jeff looks like a real pussy. I’m shocked — shocked, I say.

  117. Even though the netosterone is flying high in here, I gotta say “Jackie Brown” is not that great. It’s o.k…at best. The kind of movie you hardly ever think about again once you see it.
    Saying it’s QT’s “masterpiece” or even his best film is like trying to impress the cool kid table by saying like….George Harrison was the most talented Beatle.

  118. Joe Leydon says:

    David: It appears to me that either Jeff or Mutinyco must be lying. Would you agree that either one who is the liar should be permanently barred from the blog here?

  119. mutinyco says:

    Am I missing something?…

  120. Joe Leydon says:

    “Jeff, remember that time when I busted you for shit-talking me on Hollywood-Elsewhere? You were commenting using multiple names, saying how untalented I was, etc…”
    — Mutinyco
    “Actually, I don’t think that ever happened, perhaps Mutiny is mistaking me for somebody else.”
    — Jeffmcm
    There is only one person here telling the truth. So who gets the boot?

  121. mutinyco says:

    Well, considering that I posted the link above, which is the evidence of what I was talking about, and said evidence is well over a year old, I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Joe.

  122. Joe Leydon says:

    Mutinyco: Then it means you are the one who shouldn’t get booted. Right?

  123. mutinyco says:

    Joe, I made a reference to something.
    You asked me if I was lying.
    I provided a link to what I was talking about.
    End of the story from my end.

  124. Joe Leydon says:

    As I said: You are not the one lying. If David wants to police his blog to keep off those who bear false witness, well, you’re safe. But as for Jeff…

  125. christian says:

    “The kind of movie you hardly ever think about again once you see it.”
    Yeah, totally. Boy, you nailed it. I wish it had helped Robert Forster’s career more. But nobody thought about it. Ever again. Ever. Forgotten.

  126. David Poland says:

    Uh… no… not a cop… not interested in being one… nor do I care what happens on Wells’ blog, though ironically, Wells pulled that same stunt when he started fan-mailing me over a decade ago… mail from him was full of praise… some other guy wrote to call me names… one day, the “other guy” turned up from Wells’e-mail address.
    The internet makes cowards brave.

  127. T. Holly says:

    I wouldn’t let not being there stop you, Jamie, because footage can be sent to you.
    Kim, you need to be more serious and critical. It’s okay for me to call Tom O’Neil a gaping Oscar hole, isn’t it?

  128. jeffmcm says:

    Joe, I think the exchange above makes it clear that you’re a much more dishonest person than I ever could be – in a fundamental, intellectual, soul-deep sense. You’re a vulture. At least Jamie Stuart has the balls to be sucky on his own terms, but you choose to be a suck voyeur (so to speak).
    I really regret ever being friendly with you. It was an unfortunate misjudgement of character.

  129. jeffmcm says:

    Oh yeah – and the exchange on H-E did happen. I completely forgot about it because I don’t stay up at night finding ways to needle people, and then harvest grudges years later. And I would apologize to Jamie except…why?

  130. LexG says:

    Jeff, I have no current beef with you nor do I wish to re-open one, nor to prolong a tangent Poland obviously doesn’t want to indulge, but why not just concede that you kinda got owned here, and move on?
    Because this defense:
    “I don’t stay up at night finding ways to needle people…”
    …is absolutely PRICELESS coming from a guy whose 2am nitpicks of my every syllable over the last year could provide a more accurate watch-setting service than the Greenwich Mean Time web site.

  131. Joe Leydon says:

    “The internet makes cowards brave.”
    Very true, David. Actually, I think the term “Internet brave” would be an altogether apt pejorative term for many posters on many — most? — websites.

  132. Chatillon says:

    god what i’d do to sher

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