April 26, 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” — 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
The Incident: the best thing I will either see on TV or in a theater all year. Unless Doc and Jackson drop an Venture brothers episode this year. If not… John Locke is dead. GO PHOENIX STYLE JOHN LOCKE AND BRING JAKEY WITH YOU!
So any predictions on how badly Angels & Demons will underperform? The ads have been selling the mystery first, Tom Hanks second and Ron Howard (really?) third. I have no idea who is playing the female lead except everyone that I know says constantly, “Wait, it’s not Audrey Tautou?”
Angels and Demons, not T4 as some mentioned the other day, will be the Prince Caspian of the summer. It will by no means bomb, but it will not make the splash of its predecessor. Where the first openned to 77 mil…I’ll predict low 50’s to high 40’s for this. I see the ads for it everywhere though so there is definitely an awareness. I just do not get any sense of a buzz around it. It doesn’t have the controversy for it this time either although it does seem the studio was aware of this and tried to manufacture some.
I also think that Hanks’ star may finally be in the Tom Cruise MI3 phase. Still clearly bankable and still clearly a star, but not quite the weight he was before.
What is it tracking?
I’m not sure what it’s tracking, but box office prognosticators are guessing between $55-$60 million. Interest doesn’t seem to be there, nor does awareness. Until maybe a week ago, I had entirely forgotten that it’s opening this Friday. The pseudo-controversy seemed very orchestrated, and it also seems to have failed.
The Lost finale was kind of weak.
What the fuck ever anghus. Everything we thought we knew. Everything we were led to believe is WRONG! It’s been Steve the whole time. He put this plan in from the beginning, used poor Locke, and found his loophole. Now it’s up to the Seven to save the day, fix everything, and prove Steve wrong.
If you find a complete and utter change in everything you thought about this show, then you really are Debbie Downer. You sir… you sir… are a downer.
IO,
Why do you call that character Steve? Everything I can find about the finale online, seems to refer to him as a we mystery character. I missed most of second season. Has he appeared in the story before? If so, where? I’d like to check out the episode.
IO,
Why do you call that character Steve? Everything I can find about the finale online, seems to refer to him as a we mystery character. I missed most of second season. Has he appeared in the story before? If so, where? I’d like to check out the episode.
I agree, Nicol… Angels & Demons seems to be lining up with Prince Caspian pretty neatly. Like Lion/Witch/Wardrobe, I get the sense that the Da Vinci Code movie was something people maybe saw and enjoyed as sort of a visualization of the book but, even in general-audience terms, didn’t particularly satisfy or excite a lot of people. Lots of people saw it, not many hated it, but you couldn’t find many hardcore fans, either. So even though this one looks a little more fun, just as Prince Caspian looked a little bit cooler than the first Narnia movie, it’s going to be diminishing returns that vaguely discourage the idea of a third installment. Which is fine. Let ’em go, I say.
As for Hanks being in the Cruise phase… hmm. Maybe. I’m not sure if it’s a perfect one-to-one comparison since the Cruise thing was at least partially his own making, but Hanks is definitely in an odd place in his career. Following the Sleepless/Philadelphia/Gump run, he could pretty much do whatever he wanted, and went with that long string of commercial-but-classy, vaguely adult-minded pictures: Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile, Cast Away, Road to Perdition, Catch Me If You Can. And he could turn just about any reasonably accessible adult-minded movie into a pretty big hit in a way that most of his peers could not, at least not in a reliable way.
Then he had his financial disappointments of Ladykillers and The Terminal in 2004, both of which actually feature terrific performances from him… but I feel like he’s been a little bit lost since then. The Polar Express was cute enough and he did some nice spirited work, but it seems like it was a hit more due to the season and the IMAX 3-D than to Hanks himself. Da Vinci Code probably would’ve done 150 with anyone, so maybe he helped nudge it up a little, but it didn’t really feel like a Hanks movie — in fact, his appearance felt unnecessary as it wasn’t really a “fun” popcorn/movie star performance even though the movie is complete fluff. And then there was Charlie Wilson’s War, which is more in the Terminal/Ladykillers vein: an interesting movie that isn’t a resounding home run but has strong, idiosyncratic work from Hanks himself.
I guess what I’m saying is that throughout most of the nineties, he seemed to be synthesizing his artistic and financial interests uncommonly well. His reasonably good taste in material and eye for the commercial side worked together pretty well. Road to Perdition may have been perceived as a disappointment, but to me it’s a perfect example of movie-star drawing power because seriously, $100 million! For a somber hitman movie!
But now Hanks seems to be in more of a “one for me, one for them” mode, and the ones for “them” aren’t nearly so interesting: diminished go-rounds with directors he knows (Howard, Zemeckis). Maybe a typical “Hanks project” like Cast Away or Saving Private Ryan wouldn’t do as well now anyway, and he’s just reacting to the market: working niches rather than trying to get everyone to go see some big prestige picture. But I feel like he let it slip away somehow.
Not that he should only do big prestige-style pictures. Actually, I’d love to see him do a comedy again, with someone really good (so: not Shawn Levy or Nancy Meyers). Someone like Apatow or Baumbach (or if you want to keep with his more boomer-y tastes, James L. Brooks) who can be funny in a grounded sort of way.
Foul! Sorry for the double post.
Question: how predictive are weekday grosses during the first week of release? I ask because boxofficemojo has a Star Trek/Wolverine/Iron Man comparison (http://boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?view=daily&id=summer09vs.htm) which shows that over Sunday/Monday/Tuesday, Star Trek numbers dropped much less than for Wolverine. Does this give some idea of what the next weekend dropoff will be, or is it fairly random?
David said HUMP!
In my opinion humping involves BONERS and VAGINAS. Doing it!
“Actually, I’d love to see him do a comedy again, with someone really good…”
Yes, this is exactlty what he should do. Hanks’ 90’s run merged with the great love of his 80’s “wacky” phase made him the actor to beat for many people. Now, his projects seem way to self-serious. Like you, I did like the Lady Killers, and he is a wonderful performer, but his tastes seem off. Da Vinci was a solid hit…but it seemed to do more harm than good on a larger scale. It seemed to burn off a lot of good will that he had built up. I am not just talking the controversy which Hanks used to go out of his way to not court, but it seemed like such a money grab project that the Hanks of old would never take.
I definitely think the man is in need of a good comedy. I would pay to see it. I bet others would too.
We’ll see when the sequel opens.
Personally, I’d agree with you and wish he’d make something like The Burbs again. Although technically you could give him The Ladykillers…too bad it wasn’t so great.
Hanks should write/direct again as well “That Thing You Do!” is a mini-masterpiece. Well, it’s one of my faves anyway.
I liked his episode of Tales From the Crypt, because it had zombies and he got his head shoved into a tv and died. That was pretty surprising.
Re: Lost
Everything i knew was wrong?
SPOILERS….
That’s the entire center of the show. Everything this season has revolved around the paradox of time travel. There were some ludicrous scenes last night. When Miles asks “Maybe detonating the bomb is what causes the incident”.
Fucking Duh. Farady, arguably the most brilliant character on the show developed the plan Jack is following. I would think the guy factored that into the equation.
I also didn’t like the whole ‘fated to be there’ thing. Part of what was cool about Lost early on was the connections between these seemingly random characters. Yes, they should have ties. But to imply that their role there was predetermined, that every choice they made was predisposition. Warriors of fate or something. Hmmmmm. Don’t know. I can say without question, the first hour was absolute weak sauce. Realtionship mush that is getting old.
Rose and Carl said it best. There will always be a reason for them to be shooting at each other.
I liked most of this season, but they’ve kind of painted themselves into a corner. As for the concept that everything we know has changed, i can’t agree. What is clear is that no one on the island except 1 or 2 people understand it. Yet they all blindly follow and commit acts of unspeakable brutality for nothing.
I don’t think i can fairly judge the season finale until i see the final season and see just what seeds were planted. I find it interesting how quickly Jack was willing to turn into a brutal killing machine. This from a man who spent his whole life saving people.
Mixed feelings about this season.
I don’t watch Lost anymore but I’m pretty tired of the whole fate thing in every big sci-fi story. Was that one guy fated to be on the island to get sucked into the engine after being there for two minutes?
Hanks’ performance in Ladykillers was delightful and bizarre and totally unexpected. It was so repulsive– give him credit for really embracing the role. It was not a standard movie star move.
(The movie itself was pretty lousy, unfortunately, but I blame the Coens for that, not Hanks. Even great writers / directors, which the Coens are, can misstep sometimes.)
THX: the Jacob in the bible has a brother named Easu. Easu in English is apparently STEVE. I also just like referring to the grand evil or malevolent character on this show as STEVE. It’s just freakin funny to me.
Patrick Duffy, how’s Stacy Davidson doing?
“That’s the entire center of the show. Everything this season has revolved around the paradox of time travel. There were some ludicrous scenes last night. When Miles asks ‘Maybe detonating the bomb is what causes the incident’.”
You write for a living. You should know when the writers are using Miles as a stand-in for the audience. Also, there’s no paradox, but there is Steve. Who went through a lot of trouble to set up his loophole, and the loophole involved getting seven of the eight people as far away from John Locke as possible. Time travel was a tool for malevolence! That rules!
“Fucking Duh. Farady, arguably the most brilliant character on the show developed the plan Jack is following. I would think the guy factored that into the equation.”
Variables, man! FRAKIN VARIABLES!
“I also didn’t like the whole ‘fated to be there’ thing.”
Why? Why does the thought of something MORE bother you? You are not alone with this attitude, but it’s a rather weird one to have.
There has always been something MORE on this show. Disliking it for whatever reasons. Ignores the show you have been watching for the last five years.
“Part of what was cool about Lost early on was the connections between these seemingly random characters.”
It never was, and has not seemed that random from the moment Desmond ran into Jack.
“Yes, they should have ties. But to imply that their role there was predetermined, that every choice they made was predisposition. Warriors of fate or something. Hmmmmm. Don’t know. I can say without question, the first hour was absolute weak sauce. Realtionship mush that is getting old.”
Weak sauce? Jesus fucking christ. The whole first hour revolved around the attitudes of Jacob and Steve,. Everything that happened involved us seeing characters that reflected either attitude, and that’s weak sauce? Come on, man! It’s working on a higher level. Reach for the stars, man! REACH!
“Rose and Bernard said it best. There will always be a reason for them to be shooting at each other.”
Yeah, you on the lower rungs, if you have no idea it’s Rose and Bernard. Who happen to be following Steve’s lead. This is why Juliette left their camp, and did not drink tea with them. Juliette decided that the path of Jacob is better. It might be crappy from time to time, but it could make things better. Why not try and make things better?
“I liked most of this season, but they’ve kind of painted themselves into a corner.”
When your season five finale reference something from hour two of your entire show. I would believe that they have not painted themselves in a corner, but put themselves in the position they always wanted to be in.
“As for the concept that everything we know has changed, i can’t agree.”
It has. Every time we thought we came across Jacob. We came across Steve. Everything that Ben saw, is Steve. Everything that motivated Ben to do what he did, is STEVE!
Mr. Ecko dies because he refuses to be a vessel for Steve. John Locke is used and abused again to be a vessel for Steve. Everything from the beginning of this show has been STEVE! This is why the white LOST logo has most likely been on a black screen. Now it’s reversed. Now it’s Steve in control, and Jacob moving in the background. It’s all changed.
“What is clear is that no one on the island except 1 or 2 people understand it. Yet they all blindly follow and commit acts of unspeakable brutality for nothing.”
This a part of the pattern. You seem to be a follower of Steve, and do not believe anything can change. While Jacob disagrees. All of that brutality is supposed to lead to a better tomorrow. We just need to know more about why those eight people were selected to change the pattern.
“I don’t think i can fairly judge the season finale until i see the final season and see just what seeds were planted. I find it interesting how quickly Jack was willing to turn into a brutal killing machine. This from a man who spent his whole life saving people.
Mixed feelings about this season.”
Brutal killing machine? Dharma cleared everyone out. The Others obviously survived anything that happens with the incident. So who dies? People who would die in the purge? It happened.
You also miss that Jack does not believe in himself. He never has. So now he has to step up, get over his low self-esteem, and save everyone. If the bomb did what it’s supposed to do. Everyone who died live. If it does not work the way Daniel believed it would. Well, Jack brought everyone back to the island, and they will take down Steve. Oh they will take down Steve.
HANKS
I’ll admit off that bat. I’m a huge fan. I’ll also admit, I’m not a “drink the koo-aid” fan. He’s made bad films. He’s not without his limits. But when he’s good in a role, it can be a great movie-watching experience. His performance in Philadelphia is masterful, though the movie doesn’t quite hold up. SPR has amazing scenes, especially the taking of the hill sequence when Wade dies.
I’d argue against the comparisons to Cruise. Cruise did something to himself off-screen that made audiences question everything about his performances and roles. People still like Hanks.
I was disappointed to learn Hanks was doing Angels & Demons. I can’t see any other explanation than it’s a paycheck film. His performance in Da Vinci Code is so stiff. That and Polar Express I’d put as his worst.
Charlie Wilson’s War was mixed. Some of the scenes fell a little flat. But each scene with him and Philip Seymour Hoffman killed.
I’d also like to see him do something lighter. I don’t want to say another round with Meg Ryan and Nora Ephron, but maybe along those lines. Am I alone in the opinion that You’ve Got Mail is just one of the more enjoyable romantic comedies ever? Every time it’s on TV I watch and it’s just a movie you can smile through.
Also, there’s age. Hanks can’t go back to the nineties because he’s not in his 30’s/ 40’s. He’s in his early 50’s and he looks like it. I say embrace it. Do different stuff. Go Newman.
Matt… weekday numbers are good indicators of some things, less so of others. Yes, the Trek weekdays bode well for the drop. But more significant will be the weekend competition. I think A&D is, mostly, a different demo than Trek. So it should be a relatively modest drop. Next weekend, T4 is right in its wheelhouse, so the cut might be steeper then.
Off topic, Maxm Mag has released their Hot 100 list, Michelle Obama is #93, and no K-Stew in sight. Lex must be livid.
It is pretty remarkable to think that after a quarter decade movie carear A&D is his first sequel (I think only Redford and Costner are the current working actors without one on their resume).
He does seem to be a bit of afloat, he seemed to be trying to be a Cary Grant type and then abruptly shifted to a Gregory Peck type and now zig-zags all over the place.
And the mention of Ladykillers reminded me that, though unlikely to happen, I would love it if the Coens slapped the eyepatch on J.K. Simmons for their version of Rooster Cogburn.
IO, good points. I still think Miles being Captain Obvious was pretty ridiculous.
After reading your thoughts, i’m going to go watch it again. Especially with the Ecko stuff. I hadn’t thought of that.
is the smoke monster Steve? That would make the dharma fence an Anti-Steve Fence.
Anghus: someone always has to be Captain Obvious on these shows. There is no defense for it really, but it gave Nick Brendan a job for seven years. Since Xander remains one of the more Captain Obvious characters of all time.
That aside; Smokey would indeed be an anti-Smokey fence. This could also explain why Horus’ old lady did not want her former husband’s body going back to the Others. Who may have used the body, and put something in it.
Again, it’s all conjecture, but Smokey is obviously a bad guy. Steve is obviously a bad guy as well. It would make sense that they work in tandem some how to bring down Jacob. To what end remains a mystery, but they wanted Eko. He simply did not give in.
I have skipped all the remakes of the horror films of my youth, but finally found one to be excited about. They’re finally getting to Fright Night.
Yes, an anti-Steve fence. Even if Easu/The Man in Black is not named Steve. I am going to refer to him as Steve since an Anti-Steve fence may be one of the silliest things ever, and I love LOST because of it.
Anyone ever see “I’ll Be Waiting,” an episode of the old “Fallen Angels” series on Showtime, that Tom Hanks directed? Really good stuff, based on a Raymond Chandler story. Hanks was nervy enough to cast, of all people, Bruno Kirby as a seemingly stolid hotel detective who is underestimated by just about everybody
hcat, Denzel Washington is the other actor with no sequel that i can think of. Yeah…most big stars have a series (or 2 or 3).
Bruno Kirby…one of my favourite character actors who never really fulfilled his promise.
For whatever reason…that is a shame. Is the episode you talk about available on DVD?
Steve is apparently named “Samuel,” according to a blog post on Facebook by Meltdown Comics, who are friends with the actor and have apparently known about his role for a while.
take that for what it’s worth.
My wife somehow f-ed up our DVR recording of “Lost” last night and I was fuming. Yeah, 20 episodes of “Blues Clues,” “Oprah” and “Real New Jersey Housewives” are on there, no prob. The ONE thing I looked forward to all week…stops recording after 2 minutes. Ugh.
I can’t believe I’ve managed to miss spoilers thus far and was reminded of this as I caught myself on the posts above. Thanks for writing “spoiler warning!”
Don – you know abc.com posts ’em online at about 2:30, right?
hopscotch — denzel is in preproduction (for release next year) on ‘inside man 2’ bringing back the ‘frazier’…..
(actually, i’m surprised lincoln rhyme didn’t get picked up first)…..
I’m all geared up for on-demand tonight…but if it’s not up yet, I’ll be there! Thanks for the tip!
Nicol: Alas, no. Don’t know why, because some major talents were associated with the series: Tom Hanks, Steven Soderbergh, Peter Bogdanovich, Tom Cruise…
Come to think of it “The Ladykillers” was quite good for what it was.
I left my wallet in El Segundo …
holy crap, chucky, that may be the first comment of yours i’ve read that doesn’t mention name checking, whoring, new jersey cinema chains or guns! on ya
What’s wrong with Ben Stiller? Anorexia or cancer?
funny, Aris. I’m watching “Reality Bites” right now and he’s GREAT! Not all roided up….just a funny jew comic guy. He looks like death nlow. Those “funny” little ads with him and Jonah Hill are terrifying.
I thought he looked okay. The blondish hair seems weird, but he did not look like death. Reality Bites Stiller is the preferred Stiller, but Dodgeball apparently took him down a bad road.
I don’t get Jonah Hill. I barely get Seth Rogen, who i found funny when he was in one movie a year. The more i see of him, the less of a believer i become.
I’m with Anghus, Hill is repulsive. I almost had to turn off Forgetting Sarah Marshall because I couldn’t stand to look at him. He needs to wash the chicken grease off his face and shave his damn neck.
Hill’s performance in Superbad is terrific. Not just his rapid-fire improv-sounding line readings, which a lot of actors do in an effort to imitate Vince Vaughn, but the sort of breathless, addled delivery that totally sold him as a high-schooler for me even though he’s well into his twenties.
I’m not sure if he’ll be that good again (though I enjoyed him in Knocked Up, too), but that performance buys me a lot of good will for him. He was good when he hosted SNL, too. I like the idea of teaming him with Russell Brand in that Sarah Marshall spinoff (as a different character, I think, which is good because his Sarah Marshall guy was just a caricature).
I’ll third hcat and anghus. This Jonah Hill creeps me out big time.
He’s trying to play the lovable neurotic Jew but, from what I see, there’s nothing authentically neurotic about this guy. The act is all an act.
He recalls the Telly character from Larry Clark’s Kids… a sociopath in geek’s clothing.
make it 4 on Hill, but I feel like he’s getting ganged-up on so I will soften the blow by saying he will always get work in film by being a baddy, but I cannot warm to him in any other way. I think Rogen is past sell-by date as well.
Hill is brilliant in Superbad. Like any successful and busy comic actor, he’s becoming overexposed and he probably doesn’t have much range.
Man, creating a viable comic persona is really a thankless task, because even those who dig it may come to consider you a one-trick pony, unless you look like Cary Grant. Especially if, like Hill, you’re not interested in creating a conventionally likable character.
Oh, and Jacob’s brother was Esau, not Easu. And it’s Horace, not Horus.
This is part of my campaign to become the under-sheriff of the Hot Blog, spelling and typo division.
re. Hill “you’re not interested in creating a conventionally likable character”
Yes, why I think he has possibilities in the Evil department. He would be quite good in that kind of character acting.
Alas, only George Clooney can be a ‘Cary’, and I don;t know who else would fill that bill, there are some classy lookers male between 25-35 up-and-coming, but most seem like they aren’t too swift of mind. And part of what made Cary attractive was that he was ‘smart’ and wily, not just a Dude.
I know, some shallow wishes, but I am not a person of depth when I watch popcorn movies or big summer movies.
Hill can only be the bad guy in a banality of evil type of way. The pudgy middle management guy crushing the dreams of the rom com protaganist type of situation. But as far as anything physical, I doubt anyone would ever find him threatening.