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
Baldwin is torn between Lake Bell and Meryl Streep?
This movie shouldn’t run more than 11 seconds in resolving that predicament.
Yeah, but LexG, he’s aging, bloated ALEC BALDWIN – Meryl Streep, looking as good as she does at 60, is probably above his weight-class.
Now, if this were Red October-era Alec Baldwin, maybe you would have a point….
Also, Lake Bell’s character has a really annoying kid that isn’t Baldwin’s.
Saw it last week. Agree with most of the above except for one point:
The $750k addition to the $3mil house.
Trust me, in LA/Santa Barbara we’re talking a floor $1mil for the addition and that house? $5 mil.
And yeah, the movie’s all out of whack because we like Baldwin too much. And Lake Bell is one dimensional and villified immediately. There are no real choices in the film for anyone. And nothing recognizably human in any of the behaviors. Especially with the kids. The scene with the three of them crying in bed? Creepy. Scary. Unsettling. If only this were horror…
Oh yeah, and it’s gonna be a HUGE hit. Seriously.
the only reason i didn’t hate this movie is because i didn’t have to trek to a theater to see it…like every movie nancy meyers makes, this is all about a love affair with real estate….the woman never met an overbuilt piece of property she didn’t love….when i think of meyers, i immediately think of copper pots and real estate….
yeah, the third act is a problem.
If they had just excised the last two minutes (ending with the bench scene between Streep and Baldwin), it would have had a more satisfying ending.
It took me a good 30-40 minutes before I stopped resenting these perfect (and a tad smug) rich people with their perfectly manicured lives, perfect (adult) children, perfect homes/cars/jobs, etc.
Eventually my resistance was worn down–more from Baldwin’s sheer affability than Streep, although she’s definitely easier to take here than she was in “Mamma Mia!”–and I had a decent enough time. I still like “Something’s Gotta Give” and “What Women Want” more in the Meyers ouevre. “Holiday” has wonderful performances from Winslet and Law, but Black and Diaz were both a little icky for my taste.
But, oh my, is this thing gonna rake in the holiday (and January) bucks: 200-million minimum with better legs than, say, “Sherlock Holmes” (which I liked a LOT more than Dave, btw).
“Avatar,” “Chipmunks,” “IC” and “Air” will all hang around the ‘plexes longer than the usual holiday fare (“Air” mostly on the strength of its Oscar chatter).
The three early-20-ish “kids” who behave as if they’re 11 are, indeed, creepy. But I think the “Sex and the City” friends, yukking it up about vaginaplasty are much worse. Poor Mary Kay Place and Rita Wilson (although I guess Wilson could read the script and say, “At least I don’t have to pretend to be cross-eyed for the whole thing,” as she was in “Old Dogs”.)
Uh, movieman… you are guessing this will gross $200 million?
Really?
I keep reading the sentence, trying to figure out what I am misunderstanding.
David, I am not movieman, but I agree with him. This screams HIT. Again, if Meryl can bring Julie and Julia to a 100m. She can do the same with this film, and given who else is in it. They can all scratch and crawl it to 200m. Not stating it’s going to be easy, but I am still going with this for the weekend run down… Holmes, Complicated, and Avatar.
“Will anyone who isn’t white and rich like this movie?”
“No.”
Yeah, Dave. $200-million is definitely within reach.
Look at the business “Blind Side” is doing, largely from a notoriously underserved “mature” female demographic (and don’t forget that “Mamma Mia” reached $150-million-and-change domestically largely on the strength of that demo).
101, you’re discounting the “Chipmunks.” They’re going to be a formidable presence on the b.o. chart for weeks to come.
Fox will probably announce “Chipmunks 3-D” before New Year’s Day for June ’12.
(Huge) sigh.
Interesting anecdotal data:
I spoke with a number of “promo regulars” at last nite’s “Sherlock Holmes” shindig, and every one of them–mostly white, late ’50s-to-mid-’60s professional types–said that while they thought “Up in the Air” was “just allright,” they really, really loved “It’s Complicated.” Nothing I could say was able to dissuade them. (And they all hate-hate-hated “Where the Wild Things Are.”)
Re: “Sherlock.” While it probably won’t launch the franchise WB was itching for, I found it to be a generally satisfying movie-
movie. Ritchie has turned out a sumptuously crafted divertissement with eye-popping digital effects (this thing is gonna look frigging awesome on Blu-Ray), perfectly judged performances–both lead (Downey, Law) and supporting (Strong, Marsan)–and a terrific sense of playfulness. Also appreciated the fact that it clocks in at a circumspect 2 hours (before end credits) and never overstays its welcome. My only
real disappointment was McAdams, but that’s more the fault of Ritchie and the scriptwriters for not quite figuring out what to do with her (or even how large her role was supposed to be).
Strong is damn impressive, though: he’d make a great, old-fashioned cape-and-fangs Count Dracula if Hammer (does Hammer even exist anymore?) ever decide to relaunch their old Chris Lee franchise.
At times, I almost felt that Ritchie thought of “SH” as an elaborate audition reel to help land the directing gig on the next 007. Which, come to think of it, isn’t such a bad idea.
Up in the Air is going to need time to become a success.
I think Sherlock will underperform but get one of those small cult followings that pops up around mediocre movies.
Cipmunks will do fine but nowhere the business of the original.
It’s Complicated will be a hit out of the gate. I can see it doing $120-150 million. The audience I saw it with last week ate it up. They didn’t seem to mind the lapses in logic. The “stoner scene” makes zero sense. Why would Streep’s character choose the night of her son’s graduation party to get stoned? Because Meyers had introduced the prop in an earlier scene and couldn’t come up with a better way to bring it back into the story. I also hated the scene involving the laptop video-cams. To be brutally honest, Meyers’ work has suffered ever since she split from Charles Sheyer. Compare It’s Complicated to Irreconcilible Differences and it’s night and day in quality. Same goes for Baby Boom and the first Father of the Bride.
I did like Martin in the film. It was his most relaxed performance in years. I also liked that Meyers had the good sense to not have Baldwin hate Martin. (If she only had been that sympathetic Baldwin’s second wife.) Like Something’s Gotta Give, I kept wishing someone would take the raw material and play it smart–and adult. The issues of May-December romances or divorced women over 60 could make for some exciting, erotic cinema.
Finally, I hated the kids. They came off as smug brats. And their reaction to their parents’ affair makes no sense.
This is gonna be a huge hit? Universal relies on name-checking more than any other studio. That wasn’t working, so U changed the ad campaign to showcase Streep in bed. That’s gonna go over well in the Bible Belt.
I’m no prude, yet I can smell desperation when I see it.
The thing about Lake Bell’s kid is funny because it almost feels like a note to make Baldwin’s character sympathetic. As if, at one point, it was Baldwin’s kid with her, but then him cheating on the kid’s mom with Meryl wouldn’t work so there’s that throwaway bit of business where they say Lake Bell broke up Meryl and Baldwin’s marriage, then cheated on Baldwin for maybe five minutes – just long enough to get pregnant – and then went right back to him with the kid and ditched the kid’s father.
Chucky, I disagree. While this movie looks beyond dreadful to me, everyone I know in the target demo is SQUEALING with delight at the prospect of seeing it! More power to Meryl…
I can also see this movie doing $100 million-plus. Absolutely. Well marketed. Baldwin makes it less male resistant. Great.
But there is no planet on which I can imagine this doing $200 million.
A big part of Blind Side’s success is that it is a whole family movie. It’s not just older women going.
$150m is about the tip top of over-the-top exuberance on this one, seems to me.
Yeah, this is will do north of 100 mil. Easily.
Anecdotal evidence is one thing. Empirical data is another.
Unnecessary name-checking? Strike 1. Sexing up the ads? Strike 2. Getting an R rating from the hardline MPAA? Strike 3 — yerrrr OUT!
I would LOVE to see some empirical data to back up any claim you’ve ever made, Chucky. Since they’re all irrational bullshit, you won’t be able to come up with any, but…surprise us!
A.0. Scott named “A.I.” as his #2 for Decade’s best.
This made my week. Huge fucking props to Scott.
@jeffmcm: Strike 1 — theatrical trailer and original one-sheet. Strike 2 — current one-sheet, plus ads now on MovieTickets.com, Huffington Post and other websites. Strike 3 — click the link.
I don’t write irrational B.S. I tell the truth and if that means calling people out, so be it.
Avatar will top out at $15 million worldwide. Never mind that, anecdotally speaking, it’s already made more than that. I have empirical evidence:
Strike 1: It has a theatrical trailer! Trailers mean the studios are trying hard to sell the movie, and the audience can smell desperation!
Strike 2: The blue aliens look hot! Nobody likes sexy movies!
Strike 3: A Monday matinee screening at the Bungleton Cinema 12 Multiplex in East Norsothington, NJ, had an empty seat.
YERRRRR OUT!
Chucky, you obviously have a shaky grasp of causality, not to mention how ‘marketing’ works in the real world.
What box-office number does this have to pass for you to admit you were wrong, $300 million? A billion?
Next to the mouth-watering pastries, Baldwin is my favorite thing in the movie. But does anyone else secretly wish that Meyers had given Kevin Kline the role of Streep’s ex? How cool would it have been to see Streep and Kline star opposite each other for the first time since “Sophie’s Choice” (and under considerably happier circumstances)?
Yes, I know they were both in “Prairie Home Companion,” but that doesn’t really count since I don’t think they even shared a single scene together. Plus we all know that Kline is a master farceur.
Speaking of KK, why DOESN’T he work more often? The guy is fantastic.
I always felt Kline would’ve been fantastic opposite Streep in Mamma Mia! Unlike Brosnan, he could actually sing.
I hear ya, movieman. Kline is truly among the great underrated actors and I truly regret the fact that he isn’t in more quality movies (or movies period).
That said, I think that Brosnan was the second best thing about about Mamma Mia (after Seyfried) and there was something almost endearing about the way he sang.
Streep, on the other hand seemed to have way too much fun and as a result was pretty boring too watch. In fact, the only scene she was truly good in was the one she shared with Brosnan.
In other words, I’d have kept Brosnan and instead cast Kline in Streep’s role.
what is the blue-colored stone in meryl streeps necklace in it’s complicated?
what is the blue-colored stone in meryl streeps necklace in it’s complicated?
Wow.
Do I feel every bit the stereotype white, suburban mother, investment banker husband with aspirations of my life looking like a Nancy Myers movie. I saw Up In The Air and it bummed me out. Not the economic lay-offs, albeit heart wrenching, but the flat Wisconsin wedding scenes. Sorry, my friends, but if I want to see that crap, including a sink full of dishes and a chubby housewife sitting in the corner of her sofa pecking away on a laptop with aspirations of being a script writer for the next Nancy Myers movie I could …. never mind.
And regarding the three children, I have three step-children who are now 18, 20 and 21 and I found that the characters in this movie had a similar “style” that my step-children have. I admit that their smugness and immature reaction to a divorce that happened 12 years ago is absolutely annoying but, for me, it was spot on scary real.
The bottom line is that my husband and I loved, loved, loved It’s Complicated. I know that the reviewers hate that all of Nancy Myers’ movies are beautifully designed (wealthy, well-dressed, well-furnished and well-fed) but that is what I love, love, love about them. They are an escape. If I wanted to see that kitchen sink and the chubby middle aged lady I referenced earlier I would ….. never mind.
I could watch It’s Complicated with the sound off.
Denise Burks
http://www.successinthesuburbs.blogspot.com
PS I loved the art direction in Spanglish, too.
don’t hate me because i love beautiful
I have no problem with your love of this kind of movie at all. I think the disconnect comes when critics break down a film like this and it doesn’t quite add up, but wants us to think of it as a “great” piece of work.
I like cotton candy sometimes too. Not a bad thing at all.
I am also looking for the blue colored stone long pendant that Meryl Streep wore in the movie It’s Complicated. Does anyone know the designer or the type of stone?
The necklace is beautiful! I believe it was turquoise and gold–check my blog for an upcoming post on this piece!