Things seem to be going apace with y’all… a bit of soul crunching, load blowing, and adult conversation to boot… glad to see it… here’s a fresh space for some more, as a lovely day in Seattle calls. 4 movies yesterday… good day. Really interesting film called Terribly Happy. More on it, and others, to come…
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"]
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
Have a happy NSFW Memorial Day Weekend: http://mutinycompany.com/unimaginative/cigarette.jpg
I’m looking forward to a lot of reporting about Seattle. Particularly after pointing out how all of the attention given to Cannes takes away from attention that could be given to fests like Seattle, I hope to see a lot of updates about the films and the festival. From a brief glance, Terribly Happy does look interesting.
What’s happening Seattle again?
djk,
I have some SIFF coverage yet to come as well. Seattle’s my home base and thus, it’s not a travel fest for me, which means real life sometimes gets in the way of covering it as I would other fests. This weekend and next, real life = 4 kids and my husband all performing in Oliver!, which is putting a serious crimp in my festival screening time.
Briefly, went to the opener, In the Loop, on Thursday night. It’s kind of crazy … very fast-paced, insults hurled back and forth and whatnot, but smart and searing in its depiction of the machinery of government/war. James Gandolfini kind of surprised me in it, as the peace-loving general, and Anna Chlumsky was good as well (and man, has she grown up … down, Lex, down.)
Hoping to catch The Immaculate Conception of Little Dizzle tomorrow night, and some stuff next week before the play stuff takes over again on the weekend.
I missed Little Dizzie the last time I had a chance to see it, but I’ve liked his short films. In the Loop looks funny. For some reason the “difficult, difficult, lemon, difficult” line in the trailer cracks me up.
fwiw — i’ve been ignoring a screener of ‘anvil!: the story of anvil’ for weeks because i just couldn’t muster the interest…i caved this evening and it’s now on my short list of faves for the year so far…really, really entertaining and thoughtful….i don’t even know if it’s still in theaters but if you get a chance it’s well worth checking out….just a thought…..
Has anyone commented on the cinematography on Terminator Salvation? I haven’t seen the movie, and won’t due to the reviews, but the DP had his as chewed out for the world to see. Who represents better here Bale or the DP? Just asking.
Here’s a big question for you guys:
Has your favourite book been adapted into a movie, and if so what did you think.
I just watched the film version of mine and… it was bizarre. So much had been taken out that changed the entire idea of the book.
When I was a precocious/pretentious English minor, my two favorite novels were CATCH-22 and GREAT GATSBY. I read both before seeing the then-15/20 year old movies… Nichols’ somewhat divisive, now-heralded movie (in my opinion) did it justice for the most part, thanks largely to strong casting and an feel for the material that balanced the epic moments and the quirky surrealism nicely.
The ’74 Gatsby movie with Redford and Waterston is a sluggish bore and almost made me question why I liked the novel so much.
On the flip side, when I was a kid/teenager I’d do the classic amateur-reader move of reading books AFTER I’d seen the recent movies made out of them, then the whole time envision the famous actors… But imagine my confused horror reading the TERRRRRRIBLE Benchley original novel “Jaws” and reading that Hooper wanted to get into Mrs. Brody’s pants and Quint was bald as Mr. Clean.
On a semi-related note, hilarious/depressing that to this day, Stephen King thinks that shoddy-effects, style-less, leaden/overlong TV miniseries starring STEVEN WEBBER and RICHARD THOMAS and TIM REID are more valid adaptations of his work than those by serious auteurs, merely because they adhere to his every precious word.
KamCamel: Adapting How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days was probably pretty tough, considering it was a non-fiction, self-help parody book–they basically had to invent a whole narrative, not to mention the characters for the film. But I can understand your disappointment.
Less Than Zero actually, but your points are all valid.
when i was a kid, one of my favorite authors of pop fiction was james kirkwood…. every one of his books taken to screen was butchered….
that said…mel gibson’s film adaptation of the brilliant y/a novel ‘the man without a face’ is a crime that should be met with some kind of physical punishment….
‘valley of the dolls’…perfect
Anvil is terrific.
And I’ll just bring up A Confederacy of Dunces into this thread too.
Less Than Zero??? Shit, at least the movie has an AWWWWWWWESOME soundtrack.
Saw that in a THEATER in 1987, at the ripe age of 14, and thought it was a four-star masterpiece. Probably because Ebert ranked it four stars so I went along with it. It’s not really that good but Downey is ACES in it and it’s certainly way the fuck better than THE INFORMERS.
I haven’t read the book The Man Without a Face is based on, but the movie was terrible.
Valley of the Dolls was a dreadfully dull movie.
kam — you might want to, at least, check out holland’s book as it was an excellent early example of teen homo lit….gibson, of course, eviscerated it…
it doesn’t surprise me at all that you see yourself above ‘votd’……
Camp has changed a lot in 40+ years.
ouch…..
gibson a homophobe? no…
i’m too wishy washy to have one all-time fave book-turned-movie, but one of my most treasured novels is herbert’s ‘dune’, and i love the brilliant bastard that is david lynch but i think coming out of his ‘dune’ as a teen was one of the most disappointing experiences of my life. i felt completely bereft, in disbelief that something so AMAZING could take on another life as something so WRONG, i almost felt sick – which is of course hugely over-dramatic but i was just a kid.
i have since grown to know that feeling of bitter disappointment better than i care to admit but the first time was a shocker (and these days i don’t find the movie dune as big an abomination as i did then but it still hurts)
Whoa, scoot, why the harshness? I hardly think I’m the only one who doesn’t like Valley of the Dolls. Not because I’m “above” it, but because it’s incredibly dated and, well, just isn’t very well made (according to me – feel free to like it all you may).
My mother always said it was her favourite movie and then I received it in the mail and we watch it together and I just looked at her funny and she went “It was better 20 years ago.” I’m inclined to believe her.
ANYONE ELSE WATCHING PRINCESS DIARIES ON CABLE RIGHT NOW?
ANNE HATHAWAY = QUEEN OF THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD. HOTTER THAN ANYONE EVER IN THE HISTORY OF TIME.
GUESS WHAT I HAVE. You get TWO GUESSES but you can forget the first one like you forgot GOTTA FLED.
kam– love your site….really, really dislike you….(based on your posts)…
How very odd. To each their own.
Land of Laughs by Jonathan Carroll is the only book I want to adapt. We tried to option it years ago but Saul Zaentz has been sitting on the rights for two decades. Shit or get off the pot Saul!
I somehow missed Lex’s reply. Yeah, it wasn’t that good, but it had something in it that worked on a certain level, but when compared to the book it was like a complete 180. If it weren’t adapted from a book I might’ve liked it… perhaps. Gone was the utter barrenness of Clay’s life and instead was this love-struck puppy character that was completely and utterly wrong for the world the movie was portraying. Somehow the main character went from being a drug addict who hates his girlfriend to a sober party pooper who wants to runaway with his girlfriend.
Although I wasn’t expecting the final scenes of the book to be there (the rape scene), the existence of Rip and the life he was pushing Julian into felt quite vanilla compared to how they’re portrayed in the book (and by different characters too).
And apart from the Julian whoring plot all references to homosexuality were erased. I saw the character Trent show up in the credits list but I don’t remember him at all from the actual movie. Very odd.
I liked the tagline though! “It only looks like the good life.” And the soundtrack was quite good too.
This summer actually has two books-to-movies that I’m worried about because I loved the books so much, though neither of them are all-time favorites. Actually, Time-Traveler’s Wife might be. I know that seems kinda silly/cliched for a book that came out in the past bunch of years and was a big hit, but I completely adored the book and I’m dying to see if they ruined it for the movie. I like the casting of the leads (McAdams = perfect choice, although I’m told that I tend to fantasy-cast her in just about anything; Bana is less perfect, wouldn’t be my first choice, but I can see it working) but this from the director of Flightplan/screenwriter of the Notebook thing… yikes. And of course the delays and all of that. But I really hope it at least kinda does justice to the book.
The other book-to-film I’m worried about is I Love You, Beth Cooper — although the author (a Simpsons writer) wrote the script, I think; I’m mainly concerned about the Chris Columbus factor. The trailer seemed really cartoony, and while it seems true to the *events* of the book, it seems like they’re being played broad instead of more vaguely believable, a la Superbad. I hope they’re just giving it the dumb-teenager sell, because the book was hilarious and wildly enjoyable.
I have to say, though, I do sometimes see the movie first, because often I find seeing the movie first won’t diminish a book, but sometimes reading the book first will lead to unfair disappointment in the movie, either from not being able to recognize whether changing the tone or the point or the plot of the book worked for the movie (I try to play it off like I’m enlightened and understand that certain changes must be made, but check back with me after I see Time Traveler’s Wife), or just being distracted by little differences. I read Little Children before I saw it, and while I liked the movie a lot, there were things about it that distracted me (mainly the narration, which is straight from the book) and made me think more about the adaptation process than actually just sit still and watch the damn movie.
The Lord of the Rings pictures were immensely satisfying to everyone I know who had read the book they were based on, which is a major reason why the pictures were so successful.
Having tried to read the book, I was actually amazed someone was able to carve out an actual story from Less Than Zero. It’s the only film to properly use all of Andrew McCarthy’s manerisms to great effect. Look closely, and you’ll see that McCarthy’s Clay used to party, but has outgrown the life. (Spader’s Rip hands some blow at a party.)
A classic soundtrack. Some of my favorite highlights are Public Enemy, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, and perfect closing-credits song by Roy Orbison.
I learned at a very young age that you’ll drive yourself crazy if you expect a movie adaptation to be anything like the book. The only reasonable expectation is for the film reflect the spirit of the source material.
The film version of This Boy’s Life is a terrific adaptation. Trainspotting is another. Coppola’s version of The Godfather, The Outsiders, and Dracula are top-notch. Hell, his Apocalypse NOw does a fine job of suggesting Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.
I’ve always felt Branagh’s Frankenstein was underrated.
Clockers is excellent.
No Country for Old Men is a pretty good film version. Louis Malle’s Damage. Pakula’s All the President’s Men and Presumed Innocent are well-crafted.
Zodiac. Out of Africa. The Grifters. After Dark, My Sweet. L.A. confidential. The Age of Innocence. Howards’ End. The Remains of the Day.
Despite what the author may think, The Shining is amazing.
“The Rules of Attraction” is really, truly an awesome adaptation. Avary takes Easton Ellis’ literary style and transposes it to film better than anyone. And Easton Ellis isn’t easy to adapt…check out the atrocious “The Informers” to see what I mean.
Stephen King’s an odd one. He didn’t like Carrie either, right? Didn’t he have some hand in the labourious TV miniseries remake?
In regards to Less Than Zero, I didn’t buy Andrew McCarthy for a second as the book’s version of Clay, although he was fine as the film version, which – as i said before – I didn’t think was anything like the character in the book.
Brannagh’s Frankenstein is fantastic. Most annoying reviews I ever read in my life…
There were countless critics who ripped on this element or that, not realizing that said elements were from the original story. Many critics complained that the film ‘ripped the old man and the soup’ scene from Young Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, not realizing that said moment was in the original novel! Moreover, countless critics carped about the South pole bookending scenes, again not realizing that they were from the original novel. And yes, Boris Karloff memories aside, the creature spoke fluently in the original Mary Shelly novel as well.
I still think Dangerous Liaisons is one of the great adaptations in the last 20 years (jeez, I’m stretching that now… 21 years). Okay, I know Liaisons was adapted from the play, but when Hampton was doing the script, Frears had him go back to the novel. Here’s another from Frears, The Grifters. One of my favorite “small” novels.
LESS THAN ZERO completely altered the theme of the boook, that of excess wealth and privilege in tandem with moral apathy. Drugs were the effect, not the cause. But they weren’t going to make THAT movie in Hollywood. The only good things about it were Downey, who you knew instantly was something; James Spader; and the actual score by Thomas Newman, not that rather bland pop collage.
Kenneth Branagh’s FRANKENSTEIN is one of the great comedies of the 90’s.
JBD: A Carroll fan? I love that man’s books so much. Easily my favorite author. Would love to see adaptations of Outside the Dog Museum (favorite book of all time), From the Teeth of Angels, After Silence, Marriage of Sticks, Voice of our Shadows, and Sleeping in Flame. Any of them could result in a brilliant movie. Oddly enough, Land of Laughs is one of my least favorites.
I’m a fan of major parts of Branagh’s Frankenstein too, but if you’re not 100% with it, it does have its silly moments. They should have never tried to shoehorn DeNiro into it and gone with an unknown instead, but that was probably commercially unfeasible.
@manwithnonname – huge HUGE Carroll fan. I think all his novels are truly unique works. Personally I think AFTER SILENCE is his weakest but even his weakest is still leagues ahead of other authors toiling in his distinct field. LAND OF LAUGHS is his masterpiece though, it sets up his universe and most future works echo it in some way. Its childlike sensibility and sense of wonder of literature and family is breathtaking. LOL and Dan Simmons SONG OF KALI were two books that had a big influence on me years ago.
Caught Wolverine today and enjoyed it as a pumped-up popcorn movie. But I have a couple of questions. I realize it’s never a good idea to be too literal-minded about this stuff — like, Jackman’s character would have never had hair that long as a grunt in Vietnam — but what is the timeframe we’re supposed to be thinking here? Hugh and Liev are recruited by Danny during the Vietnam War — which would be, at the latest, around 1974 or so — and they join Danny’s special unit for, what, about three or four years? More? Less? Then Hugh takes off, and becomes a lumberjack for about 7 or 8 years. So does this mean the bulk of the movie is meant to take place in the late ’80s? The ’90s? It’s all supposed to take place before the first X-Men movie, so presumably it’s some kind of period piece. But did I miss something, or did they just totally neglect to make this clear?
Also: I stopped reading comic books on a regular basis back when I was in high school, so I know nothing about the X-Men after the adventures of the original line-up (with Angel and Iceman). So this Gambit dude — what, specifically, are his powers? OK, he can use cards as lethal weapons. But what’s with the big stick? I hate to sound like a complete doofus, but was this ever made clear? Or was the entire movie more or less preaching to the choir?
From the movie, I judged his power to be jumping in and out of a New Orleans accent.
Trust me: That was no New Orleans accent. At any point.
Wolverine is possibly the least convincing period movie ever. I think it was supposed to take place in the late 70s and early 80s. But this didn’t click until after I saw the movie and then thought about it for a few minutes (bad idea)
There are humvees in it – I don’t remember humvees existing until the first Gulf War (1990). Yeah, best not to think about it too much.
“I suddenly beheld the figure of a man, at some distance, advancing towards me with superhuman speed. He bounded over the crevices in the ice, among which I had walked with caution; his stature, also, as he approached, seemed to exceed that of man. I was troubled: a mist came over my eyes, and I felt a faintness seize me; but I was quickly restored by the cold gale of the mountains. I perceived, as the shape came nearer (sight tremendous and abhorred!) that it was the wretch whom I had created. I trembled with rage and horror, resolving to wait his approach, and then close with him in mortal combat. He approached; his countenance bespoke bitter anguish, combined with disdain and malignity, while its unearthly ugliness rendered it almost too horrible for human eyes.”
i thought i’d share that terrific little excerpt from mary shelley’s ‘frankenstein, or the modern prometheus’. in a most bizarre koinkidink, i have the book right here in my handbag as i’m currently re-reading it (i’m right near the end, frankenstein has just found his beloved elizabeth strangled to death). i can safely say for my money no one has ever made a proper film version of shelley’s book, branagh’s overblown poopfest wasn’t even close
Agreed Jeff, from what I’ve seen Wolverine takes place in the early 90s. I guess that’s a change from the comics, but the time period does not seem that significant to the actual story being told.
I can’t believe I am giving this so much thought, but: In the establishing shot of Bourbon Street in New Orleans, you can clearly see Cats Meow — the world’s greatest karaoke bar — which did not open until 1989. So I have to assume Wolverine takes place after 1989. Well, unless the filmmakers made a mistake by choosing this particular establishing shot…
“Stephen King thinks that shoddy-effects, style-less, leaden/overlong TV miniseries starring STEVEN WEBBER and RICHARD THOMAS and TIM REID are more valid adaptations of his work than those by serious auteurs, merely because they adhere to his every precious word”
Because in most cases (IT being the exception) he wrote those precious words. The only things worse than his prose are his teleplays. He is good at concept and ideas (to some degree), but terrible at character, structure and execution. And his dialogue! Sweet Baby Christ his dialogue!
Most likely we’ve devoted more thought at this point to the time period in which Wolverine is set than the filmmakers, which I guess is sort of the problem.
BTW: Watched the original X-Men on DVD just now. And I have to say: It’s a rather smooth segue from Wolverine. That is, if you simple ignore Liev wasn’t really supposed to be Sabertooth after all, so that that the character that appears in X-Men is… oh, never mind.
There’s another version of Frankenstein being made atm by an Aussie director called Peter Carstairs who made a lovely Days of Heaven rip-off (it was still very good) called September. It’ll be interesting. The pre-artwork states it’s based on the novel “Frankenstein, or the Modern Protheseus” so I imagine it’s going to be faithful even if it is set in “modern day”.
All of Wolverine takes place on or before March 28, 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
“Or or before” or “On or after”?
Where’s that Stainless Steel Rat movie?
Not that his books were ever considered literary works of at, but I read a lot of Robert Ludlum’s stuff in my teens. I started with the Bourne Identity. Followed that up with the Osterman Weekend then watched the movie with Rutger Hauer for the comparison. While the movie was basically a shell of the book, it was light years ahead in terms of staying true to the source material than the Bourne movies. That’s not to say it was a good movie. It just managed to stay truer(is that really a word?) to the book than any of the Bourne flicks. I eventually read Supremacy and Ultimatum. They were great fun and I had always been interested in seeing them on the big screen.
Fast-forward to the Bourne Identity. In my opinion, they really got that one right. It hit all the right beats and was fun as all hell. But it bared no resembalance to the book. Initially, I was a bit pissed at how badly they had screwed up the translation. But after a while I grew to accept it on it’s own terms. By the time Supremacy came out, I knew it would have nothing to do with the book but damn if it and Ultimatum weren’t incredibly entertaining.
At this point, I think it would be interesting to see a true adaptation of all three books done. But I doubt it will ever happen. I think this is an absolute rarity that we aren’t likely to see anytime soon again. Normally, when a book is adapted for the screen and completely rewritten, it fails horribly.
I agree HoopersX. I read almost all of Ludlum’s books too, and was always anxious for a Bourne movie (rumored to have starred Burt Reynolds at one point). Ludlum was the American Fleming minus his impressionistic flair, but I loved the global conspiracy plots.
GREATEST IDEA EVER, and any producer who concurs can just mail the check to lex_mch@yahoo.com:
Sasha Grey IS Wonder Woman.
Watching the trailer for T2ROTFLMAO, that sand sucking machine-lazy math. There’s not nearly enough reaction from other physical objects, there’s not enough sand flying around, and the sand flowing into the transformer is all blurry and has no grain as it were.
I guess Bay thinks all flowing sand looks like coke flying up a $100 bill off a hooker’s ass.
Maybe that scene’s an allegory?
HEY LEYDON:
I’m excited about The Hangover but how much of that Zack Galafawhatthefuck do I have to endure? WHY does that dude have to have that BEARD all the time? It makes him look not like a fun comic dude, but more like Steve Zahn playing that pirate-wannabe Rupert from mid-era “Survivor.” It HAS to go if this dude’s gonna keep being in movies.
LexG: What’s scary is, in some scenes, with that beard and those shades, he looks a bit like I did in my 30s. Yikes. Just imagine him with red hair.
Wolverine’s last act definitely takes place at Three Mile Island, but since they pretty much demolish it in the movie, and historically the place is still standing, I don’t think any exact date can be determined (or make any rational sense).
Yeah, but Cyclops appears to be about 15-20 years younger than he was (30ish?) in X-MEN 1, which seemed to feature the cars and technology of its 2000 release date. I know this hardly scientific, but IMDB’s FAQ section claims (or did a few weeks back when I read through it) that the movie definitely takes place in 1979.
But, yes, there appears to be no evidence of this whatsoever in the actual film… Aren’t the weapons and technology (and did someone above say cars?) contemporary to 2009?
Never trust an author’s assessment of an adaptation of his work. Nine times out of ten, he’ll judge it strictly on fidelity to the source and will be completely oblivious to quality.
“WHY does that dude have to have that BEARD all the time?”
Because without the beard, he bears a somewhat uncanny resemblence to the guy that hosts those Bachelor/Bachelorette shows (Chris Harrison). I always used to think that Galifianakis was probably a good looking guy way too into letting his face go to seed in a hipster-bohemian kind of way; but if you look at some of his VH1 clips on YouTube, he’s kind of disconcerting to behold by comparison.
Behold…: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ywNaGpqZw
Well, the 1979 date would kinda-sorta make sense, since that would place the action close enough to the Three Mile Island near-disaster to make it logical that people were scared to go near the place. But as LexG and others indicate, the technology on display suggests 21st century.
Of course, it could be that the makers of the film figured most people who go see comic book movies are so freakin’ stupid that they wouldn’t know when the Vietnam War took place. Whatever.
hallick, that youtube clip is hilarious (or maybe it’s just me. at any rate, i’ve got a crush on that dude now)
yes, good clip, even if Zach stole that one joke from Woody Allen (except for the “then I pooped on his head” part).