MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland


I’m heading up to Santa Barbara again… and between being on the road and doing interviews (I’ll be doing an in-person Q&A with Oliver Stone along with the premiere of his new doc, sure to be Fox News’ favorite, South of The Border), I don’t know that I will be online, even by iPhone, all day.
So please, have at it…

Be Sociable, Share!

70 Responses to “BYOB”

  1. Stella's Boy says:

    Maybe it’s because I love the genre, or maybe it’s because I lowered my expectations significantly after the harsh reviews, but I found The Wolfman to be an enjoyable night at the movies. Sure it’s a mess that was obviously tinkered with too much, but I had fun. It moves along quickly and the initial attack on the gypsy camp is pretty damn cool. There’s a lot more carnage than I expected. The transformation is decent too. I would have preferred a little less CGI, but I have seen far, far worse in big budget movies. Overall the effects are acceptable and Baker’s work is good. In addition to the gypsy camp, the two or three other major set pieces are fairly exciting. Yes it’s easy to pick it apart. The acting isn’t stellar (though Weaving is OK), the love story is far from credible, and it is easy to figure out early on who the other beast is. That said, every time the wolfman attacked, I had a smile on my face. It’s not like I was ever expecting an instant classic, especially after the director was replaced and reshoots were announced. For an hour and forty minutes I enjoyed myself. After being snowbound for four days, that’s more than enough.

  2. Eric says:

    Stella, I’m amused by how much hedging there is in your comment, as if you want to stick up for the movie but not lose any credibility with anyone who doesn’t like it. I find myself doing the exact same thing with friends when I’m kinda-sorta recommending mostly-satisfying genre fare.

  3. Stella's Boy says:

    I suppose there is some hedging. I guess I just wanted to make clear that I recognize all the movie’s flaws, but like it a lot all the same. “Mostly satisfying genre fare” pretty much sums it up.

  4. LexG says:

    Just got back from Wolfman myself…
    Certainly didn’t hate it, enjoyed Hopkins’ and Weaving’s amusing hamming, and thought they carried the lifting acting-wise, as Del Toro seemed strangely uninvolved throughout.
    But one of those foggy “murk” movies where the desaturation and handsome gloom saps a lot of energy (though the photography and production design were excellent, but like Sherlock Holmes or most Burton or Verbinski movies, the monochromatic grunge of it all is oppressive).
    And the choppiness of the early acts, clearly the signs of tinkering, make it hard to get too invested in Del Toro (or anyone else’s) plight. Sometimes some bit of important dialogue would just SAIL over my head because I was indifferent to the characters anyway and thoughts kept drifting… namely drifting to how I’d be having more fun at Valentine’s Day because it features SHINY PEOPLE BEING GOOD AT THINGS instead of charcoal-sheened Victorian exhaust.
    But Blunt was hot and some of the images were effective, and yes, I too was surprised that it was an R with some decent carnage; Though I disagree about that gypsy camp setpiece. I couldn’t tell what the fuck was going on AT ALL– namely, at first I thought it was some flashback to the brother’s demise as told by Geraldine Chaplin, but nope, it was what was going on outside the tent in the woods. A lot of little moments like that where I wished there was a handy rewind button, because between the sludge and the choppiness and the lack of human element, sometimes I literally didn’t know what I was watching (or entirely care.)

  5. Stella's Boy says:

    Uninvolved is a good way to put it. Aloof is the word that kept coming to mind as I watched it. At first I thought his casting was perfect, but for me he gives the weakest performance of the leads.

  6. leahnz says:

    it’s like bugsy malone – but with real guns
    have you come to insult me in a different time zone?
    in the land of truth, the man with one fact is the king
    do yo want me to hole-punch your face?
    i’m fucking ZEN!
    what is this, surround bollocking?
    an anti-war shag
    i will marshal all the media forces of darkness to help you to an assisted suicide!
    there’s been a catasto-fuck here…
    (just a little tribute to the best screenplay nominee with hands-down the most hilarious dialog of any movie last year, or many a year for that matter)

  7. leahnz says:

    sorry, catastro-fuck

  8. anghus says:

    i thought wolfman was pretty miserable. the wolfman transformed looked like a reject from the Planet of the Apes remake.
    and the whole thing was murky.

  9. hcat says:

    and that stupid tool wandering around with the squash racquet. “I took your move for you, it was the best move possible but you still lost”. Saw it in a theater that had two other people in it and after twenty minutes I was alone. Its tough out here in the sticks, but I feel lucky we it played at all.

  10. hcat says:

    Has anyone noticed that television has pretty much decided on abandoning the practice of breaking new talent? I don’t watch a lot but every new show seems to star someone established, either a previous sitcom star or someone who washed out of the movie biz. Valentine’s Day has Alba, Biehl, Foxx, Latifah, Garner, Kutcher, Grace, Lopez all who came up through television. Now I don’t know if there is some batch of shows out there that I do not know about that might contain the stars of tomorrow, but it seems the tv to movie pipeline that has been in existance since the early live plays might be breaking down.
    And has the BYOB always been trademarked?

  11. hcat says:

    Sorry my earlier comment about the empty theater was referring to Leahz post, I am pretty sure there is noone playing squash in Wolfman.
    And just to throw it out there, I would love it if at the end of the credits of A-Team, Fox would run the old Stephen Cannell pulling the page out of his typewriter production logo. For some reason I would just find that wonderfully nostalgic and comforting.

  12. leahnz says:

    that would be a nice touch, hcat. you should send a memo (the a-team looks like it could be a hoot, a silly time with tongue firmly in cheek – at least i hope so – plus sharlto’s mad dog, be-still my beating heart)
    “Saw it in a theater that had two other people in it and after twenty minutes I was alone.”
    wow, that’s brutal (i must admit, it took me half the movie for my brain to figure out where i’d seen ‘liza’ before, the little girl from ‘my girl’ all grown up, anna chlumsky (sp?). time sure flies)

  13. LexG says:

    In those A-TEAM trailers, Neeson looks less like Hannibal Smith and more like Jamey Sheridan.
    I wish I had Bradley Cooper’s life. Even if he got royally RIPPED OFF with his subplot in THE MASTERPIECE, playing a gay dude in a movie with all that hot tail.

  14. You want Bradley Cooper’s life? He’s dating ol’ Squinty Eyes! Gross.
    The Wolfman is literally one of most hopeless movies I have ever seen. Every single aspect is so poorly done – even Milena Canonera’s costume are all so dark and all but unnoticable since the movie is photographed so darkly and everyone looks so dark. Del Toro is woefully miscast and Hopkins gives the worst performance I have ever seen from him. It was like they filmed the rehearsals he did on his way to a dinner party.
    The “scary” scenes are either too frenetically edited or are too reliant on CGI so that they fail to raise a fright and the constant reliance on the boo machine is appalling. Literally every few minutes something is jumping out from the dark or from behind a tree or from Del Toro’s hair.
    And then there was the scene where in the same night there is a full moon AND a crescent moon. wha…?

  15. LYT says:

    Lex – a post on all the A-Team power and no mention of RAMPAGE JACKSON?
    Granted, no-one else is Mr. T. But let’s give it up for Rampage Power!

  16. leahnz says:

    “Literally every few minutes something is jumping out…from Del Toro’s hair”
    darn it kam, just the thought of something jumping out from d-toro’s HAIR actually makes me want to see the damn thing more!

  17. LexG says:

    Kamikaze, you’re so DRAMATIC!

  18. Geoff says:

    LexG – thanks for giving away a major spoiler about Valentine’s Day – you actually gave me one mroe reason to NOT see it, looks awful.
    Look, I see your point about the hot ladies in it, but the movie is PG-13, let’s get real, here. If you’re looking for some Hathaway action, you’re much better off renting Havoc (nude scenes) than seeing a lame-ass Garry Marshall attempt to see her do phone sex.
    Took my wife out for Valentine’s Day, last night, the movie choice this year was Avatar – strongly recommended by me, with extreme apprehension by her. She was creeped out by the “blue people” in the ads and would rather see Dear John. Usually, she gets to pick, but we just got a cat (against my preferences to say the least) and part of the deal was that I could pick the movie. I figured she would like it, as she is huge into yoga, nature, etc. She even admitted to me before she was ready to hate it, but guess what?
    She loved the movie, was gripping my arm the whole time – it was awesome! Even though I had already seen the movie five times, this was the best one. Afterwards, we were talking about it over Indian food (her choice) and she was going on and on how I was right about the movie and the strong spirtiaul element – for the past two months, this had been pseudo playful argument about how she just had NO desier to see it the whole time.
    It certainly help that it had some actors she really likes like Ribissi and Rodriguez – the movie just holds up damn well and I actually believe it could be my favorite of 2009, right next to The Hurt Locker and A Serious Man. Such disparate movies, it’s really tough to pick one.
    Got The Hurt Locker on DVD and I hate to admit that the third act just bugs me a bit – the whole sequence of him going to that house just seems a bit off. But there are so many amazing scenes throughout (the sniper, the drunken bonding with the punches, him disabling the car), I am quite torn if this is really an exceptional movie or just a series of exceptional scenes. What do you guys think?

  19. Dr Wally says:

    *********HURT LOCKER SPOILERS********
    Geoff, i hear you have some of the same problems with the second half of HL as i do. That subplot of Renner’s character leaving the compound to chase after the insurgents that killed ‘Beckham’ is confusing and doesn’t really pay off (who was that professor who welcomed him into the house?). And here’s where i got confused. Renner bonds with the ‘Beckham’ kid that sells him crappy DVD’s, and then finds the ‘body bomb’ with the explosives fitted into the chest. He thinks that it’s the same kid that sold him the DVD’s and played soccer with him. This is why he leaves the compound, right? But then, a little later, a very similar-looking kid comes up to him and offers to sell him some more DVDs, and Renner acts all stunned . Question – is this kid ‘Beckham’ and the ‘body bomb’ that he thought was him actually someone else? I can’t tell if that was meant to be dramatically ambiguous or if it’s just a fudged bit of storytelling, either way there’s a few detours in that movie’s second half (the telegraphed fate of the desk-bound Colonel is something of a groaner) that cost it a place in my top five for the year.

  20. christian says:

    Since I wasn’t expecting much from THE WOLFMAN, I had an enjoyable Saturday afternoon romp at the movies. I was pleasantly surprised by the savagery of the attacks, and thought they were pretty effective, though the whole film has been more savagely edited. Del Toro was uninvolving and Elfman’s score was oddly lacking, but I rather enjoyed Hopkins. And the Rick Baker make-up was totally boss, and made me think if Paul Naschy had 100 million dollars, he’d make this film. The audience had fun too and even applauded at the end…

  21. mysteryperfecta says:

    Dr. Wally-
    I just saw Hurt Locker for the first time this weekend. To answer your question, my read was that Renner mistakenly thought the body bomb was Beckham. When he saw him later on, he realized it was a mistake to grow attached to the kid, and shunned him. The flashback ending the movie made it seem like he wasn’t attached to his wife or own kid, either.

  22. William Goss says:

    Wally: Yeah, I think he mistook the “body bomb” to be “Beckham”, only to later find out that he was still alive.

  23. The Big Perm says:

    Wolfman…wow, so sad. It could have been a great movie but they just rushed the fucker through. Who cared about anything. I don’t see the complains about CG though, as they only seemed to use it when he transforms (fine with me) or runs on all fours (better than doing it on wires). Well, no wonder why they wanted good ol’ Joe (I can shoot the movie quickly and in focus) Johnston.
    But the wolf rampages were great and fun. I wish they had more stuff of him as the wolfman when he wasn’t murdering people, like after his rampage in London where he’s under the bridge. I like seeing what Wolfman does on his downtime.
    The weird thing is, a lot of coll shots from the trailer weren’t used, like the funeral procession and I seem to recall Wolfman at a masquerade ball killing people. What happened to THAT?
    Wow, sounds like Lex wants his horror movies to look more like the color scenes in Wizard of Oz. Maybe he’d prefer Wolfman tapdancing and picking flowers.

  24. Yuri Kutsko says:

    Sorry for bad english.
    I thought that the boy’s story in Hurt Locker was pretty obvious and I’m quite surprised that it can be read differently.
    Iraqi boys are sent to american base to befriend soldiers, than they are killed and made “body bombs” that are supposed to be left somewhere near the base. While in iraqi home, Renner understands that it was the boy’s parents, who sent him to the base and made him shahid. Overwhelmed, he runs away. In the end Renner meets another boy trying to get americans attention, but this time he walks away.

  25. Dr Wally says:

    Thanks for the Hurt Locker responses guys – i’ll watch the movie again with those thoughts in mind.

  26. CleanSteve says:

    I thought Wolfman was slight, but fun. I appreciate that it was a period piece, and that they kept the classic wolfman look, for the most part.
    I don’t think it could have been a whole lot more than it was. I doubt I’ll go out of my way to ever watch it again. But I didn’t find it the disaster it could have been.
    Glad to see I was right on Percy Jackson. Not Harry Potter numbers but that’s a damn solid opening for a “generic” “studio-dumped” kids fantasy pic. It’ll have decent legs until Alice.
    Then again, compared to Cirque Du Freake (or whatever), and The Dark is Rising, $15 million would have look great. But this is a popular property with the youngsters.
    So is Diary of a Wimpy kid. Maybe even moreso. Stood in a line to get my daughter’s copy of the most recent book on it’s release date. So….don’t be hatin’ too soon.

  27. Foamy Squirrel says:

    “Wolfman…wow, so sad. It could have been a great movie but they just rushed the fucker through.”
    Given the number of times it was pushed back, I have no idea what the excuse is – they certainly had time to reshoot/reedit if they were unhappy.

  28. jennab says:

    Took the boys to see Wolfy…thought it campy, good fun despite the most woeful mis-casting (Del Toro) since Marion Cotillard in PE. Don’t know if it was the American accent or what (like Marion), but he was just…wooden.
    Hopkin’s performance was tossed-off, to say the least. Blunt seemed to be the only one taking the material seriously, and she was lovely.
    With that said, I thought the transformation was awesome…literally squealing with delight every time…rampages were decently scary (I mean, um, “sick!”) and the asylum set piece was freaky.
    Although…with all apologies to Mr. Baker, fully sprouted, wolfman mode (which looked like a practical effect) was pretty cheesy.
    The writers came up with a moderately interesting back-story…hey, cinephiles, was that in the Lon Chaney original? Apparently, that’s what inspired Del Toro to re-make.
    Does Danny Elfman even bother composing any new material, or does he just assemble modular sequences he’s saved in Garage Band?
    Anyway, with lowered expectations, it’s an enjoyable afternoon popcorn movie.

  29. CleanSteve says:

    They should be happy that Wolfman did what it did, on a crowded weekend.
    But it’s toast this weekend. Shutter Island will eviscerate it.

  30. LYT says:

    “The writers came up with a moderately interesting back-story…hey, cinephiles, was that in the Lon Chaney original? ”
    No. The one thing that is carried over is that in the original, Chaney is the very unlikely American son of the very English Claude Rains, returning to his ancestral home after being away a while. But he isn’t an actor, nor does he have the asylum background.
    Also, in the original, the wolf that bites Talbot is in fact “Bela the Gypsy,” played by Bela Lugosi.

  31. The Big Perm says:

    The wolf attack on the gypsy camp…in the hands of a real skilled director with an affinity for horror…like Raimi or Del Toro or any number of younger upcoming guys…would have gone down as a classic. As such, like the rest of the movie it was rushed and only halfway understandable and vaguely boring. Dear Johnston, scenes like that need a little bit of lingering…set up some suspense and mood, we don’t need a fresh kill every fifteen seconds. There’s my free directing advice for you, hit me up if you want more help on your next project.

  32. leahnz says:

    geoff: chicks dig avatar, that’s why the tills are still ‘kachinging’ with the sound of big bucks

  33. Joe Leydon says:

    Actually, I felt the whole “daddy issues” thing was uncomfortably close to Ang Lee’s Hulk. Just as the dueling werewolves bit harkened back to Mike Nichols’ Wolf. Still, I have to say: I appreciated the effort to make a dead-serious horror flick, with a lack of self-referential, wink-wink campiness overall. I’d give it a solid B.

  34. EthanG says:

    So…the trades rolled in with their “Shutter Island reviews” finally after genre sites were the only ones to review it (and Manny Levy of course)….and Variety gave it a perfect review and Hollywood Reporter a very positive review. We also know Travers will give it a perfect review….soooo how about “Shutter Island” making next year’s 10 best pics?
    It’s a genre film in February…but so was “Silence of the Lambs.” It probably isn’t as good…but Todd McCarthy compares it to “The Shining” and even if it isn’t as good…that film dominated awards…so maybe this one can sneak into a best pic slot?

  35. leahnz says:

    ‘the shining’ didn’t get a single oscar nom

  36. Wolfman felt very ‘Hulk’ to me, both in the father/son dynamic and the films’ respective fatal flaws. It also had the same issue where there was almost too much time spent on character and plot, and not enough time with actual werewolf action (all told, there was maybe just ten minutes of actual scenes of the wolfman himself). Same as Ang Lee’s film, the plot/character wasn’t interesting because we were constantly being TOLD who these people were rather than shown. But since Hulk had a unique visual style, much better acting, as well as a female lead that actually had a character arc of her own, I give Hulk the upper hand. The Wolfman was just the kind of film I should have enjoyed, and the fact that even I didn’t does not pose well for long-term prospects (which is, ironically, how I felt about Hulk).

  37. LYT says:

    And yet for me and many other LA critics I know, there is only ONE Shutter Island screening, Tuesday before opening, and we are not allowed to bring a guest (an unusual restriction).

  38. Stella's Boy says:

    I for one do not think there was too much character and plot in the 102-minute The Wolfman. I think the werewolf action is spaced out very well and if anything the movie lacks characterization.

  39. mutinyco says:

    “‘the shining’ didn’t get a single oscar nom”
    The lack of a cinematography nomination is one of the biggest ball drops in history. Should’ve been nom’d for the helicopter passing the VW alone.

  40. The Big Perm says:

    Scott, you thought there was TOO MUCH character development in the movie? What scene would you take out? Because as is, there was hardly any. There was one scene to show that Talbot and Emily Blunt were now in love, and like one real scene with pops and Talbot. Talbot didn’t even get a decent intro, it’s just like “here he is on stage, now in a carriage, now meets his dad for five seconds.
    I kind of hated the double werewolf thing too…instead of having one tormented werewolf we have to make sure we have a big special effects extravaganza where two of them fight for no reason. It’s just kind of stupid.
    It did need a little more wolf though…not even wolf attacks, just more moody stuff with Wolfman running around and villagers hiding in their homes. The whole movie just epitomizes half-assed.

  41. leahnz says:

    “The lack of a cinematography nomination is one of the biggest ball drops in history. Should’ve been nom’d for the helicopter passing the VW alone.”
    i agree. also, the editing in ‘the shining’ is the very definition of excellence, used masterfully to engage the viewer and build/maintain tension in such a confined setting. i’ve never understood how ‘the academy’ could fail to at least recognise the stunning photography and editing in kubrick’s film. i guess hindsight really is 20/20

  42. Joe Leydon says:

    Watched Tender Mercies for the first time in a long time tonight. Good God, what a movie. “You see, I never trust happiness. I never did, and I never will.” Oh, man, has there been another scene in the last 20 years that can rip you heart like that one?

  43. Perhaps I should rephrase that (twas typed in hurry…)
    There was far too much character interaction and theoretical attempts at development, at the expense of what we came to see (werewolf set-pieces). The problem is that none of the characters are interesting/developed so the effort is moot. If the characters had been interesting, then I would have commended the film’s focus on them. If the movie had been chockful of werewolf carnage, then I could have enjoyed the movie as a trashy piece of pulp horror. As it is, the film fails on both counts.

  44. The Big Perm says:

    Well that’s true…but I’d say that the movie shouldn’t have gone back on characters for the sake of carnage, because then I may as well have paid to see Resident Evil 4. There’s something about Victorian horror that I think demands characterization. If the movie took an extra 10-15 minutes to get to the first wolf attack, I don’t think anyone would have cared all that much. Especially if the opening wolf attack had been edited and cut with any care whatsoever. They could have made that a set piece, then had character stuff, then gone into the movie.
    And THEN, when you get wolfman, don’t just go for the murders, show the wolfman. At a time when every movie is over two hours, why did this have to be cut so short like a Friday the 13th movie? Even the wolf scenes seemed shortchanged as they just happened, no set up, no suspense, nothing.
    I wish Romanek had stuck it out. I would have liked to have seen a non hacky version of this movie.

  45. berg says:

    WOLFMAN gave good horror … especially liked the asylum sequence and that one part where Wolfie rips the guy’s arm off (still holding his gun) and tosses it out of the pit and up onto the ground, and the gun goes off …. oh yeah … I just got out of a double feature of The Wolfman and Dear John and the temperature outside had dropped over 35 degrees from when I went in … brrrr

  46. LexG says:

    Yes, I liked the asylum part in WOLFMAN; See, when they started going down and they lowered him into ice water and for a few glorious seconds Benicio WOKE UP and started ranting and mugging, I thought, FINALLY. I was hoping he’d start doing some Nicholson in Wolf-Shining-Eastwick type hamming and at least even PARTIALLY let the character have some fun as a werewolf… But after that fun stretch in the lecture hall and the rooftop chase, he just morphs back into being kind of a downer.
    Look, Del Toro is one of my favorites too and one of the coolest actors going, but THE DR. PEPPER GUY from Landis’ masterpiece acted circles around Del Toro and hit all kinds of notes — fun, scary, sad, giddy, suicidal.
    And Perm up above, re: bright colors and horror. I know your Wizard of Oz line was just a funny joke, but seriously… at least PERSONALLY, I’ve always thought “horror” was actually scarier in the broad daylight.
    “The Shining” has come up in this thread, and TO ME it’s maybe THE only actually ‘scary’ horror movie ever made; Might be that like most of its fans, I was a kid when I first saw it and it was traumatizing to a lot of young viewers (middle-aged critics never found it particularly scary.)
    But for such a classic, I’ve always wondered why more filmmakers didn’t rip off THAT approach to horror: eerie images perfectly lit in dead center of frame in broad daylight and in bold colors. And if that movie’s not your cup of tea horror-wise, Cronenberg, Lynch, Argento and Fulci also proved that you CAN do horror in sterile, sinister brightness and with saturated colors.
    I just find the whole business of skulking around in dark tunnels and underground, underlit lairs to be kind of predictable. Burton’s Sleepy Hollow isn’t a particularly great movie, and it mostly has the same foggy, charcoal-colored mise en scene as THE WOLFMAN, but there’s ONE SHOT of CHURCH DOORS in broad daylight, center-framed, in Hollow that’s scarier and more unsettling than all the frantic woodsy grunge that Burton works up a sweat to make menacing.
    Even something like Carpenter’s THE THING is snowy and white-and-blue, using that barren landscape brilliantly. Instead of what MOST directors do, which is IMMEDIATELY have all the characters rush into some underground bunker with no lights where you never have any idea where anyone is in relation to each other, and the lack of visual distinction and color scheme from shot to shot literally lulls a viewer to sleep.

  47. The Big Perm says:

    Well, complaining about horror movies being set at night is kind of like not like the songs in musicals…it’s just going to be that way, same as it ever was.
    Having said that, one of my favorite horror movies is Dawn of the Dead, most of which takes pace in the daytime so I can get behind that. And even Day of the Dead and Night had great daytime scenes…I think the first 10 minutes of NOTLD is the best part of the movie. But for me, the best horror movies are gothics like Sleepy Hollow and Wolfman (if it weren’t so sucky).
    But the place for an Argento or Fulci is done, making some campy neon-bright horror movie…although a lot of Fulci is dark underground shit anyway. I don’t think Cronenberg has ever made a genuinely scary movie. Lynch has made some of the scariest shit in the past 25 years and he does love his daytime horror and colors.
    But in general I think now you have two main modes of movies…way oversaturated colors like Michael Bay and every other action movie, and the bleached out brown or greyish movie. It seems so rare that you see a movie and it just looks like regular film stock anymore. I guess that’s going to be the look associated with the 00s.

  48. leahnz says:

    “Del Toro is one of my favorites too and one of the coolest actors going, but THE DR. PEPPER GUY from Landis’ masterpiece acted circles around Del Toro and hit all kinds of notes — fun, scary, sad, giddy, suicidal”
    but isn’t ‘the wolfman’ a traditional-style serious period monster flick? ‘american werewolf’ is anything but, an example of genre-bending at its finest with heavy comedic/splatter overtones in addition to serious monster/horror elements. comparing the emotional ranges of naughton and del toro, who play such different styles of protagonist with differing performance opportunities inherent to their roles, seems a bit wonky

  49. leahnz says:

    and lynch loves him some weirdness in the dark
    “I don’t think Cronenberg has ever made a genuinely scary movie”
    really? there’s this little remake he did called ‘the fly’ that’s some of the most fucked-up scary shit ever to play on the big screen. check it out.

  50. LexG says:

    Yes, but leah, then Lynch would ALSO go and do some awesome, unsettling, Kubrickian stuff like that bit in TWIN PEAKS FIRE WALK WITH ME where the little kid in the creepy mask walks into mid frame and menaces the ladies at the lunch truck.
    And for not recognizing that masterpiece of a scene, I am forcing you to watch THIS several times in a row. BOW (you will love it):

  51. leahnz says:

    that’s funny as fuck, lex
    (tho i’m having serious deja vu here, i’m pretty sure we’ve had this ‘naughton-in-makin-it’ discussion once before, but with a different link, to the TV show i think. i gotta say, that naughton is all kinds of quick on his feet, ‘twinkle toes dave’, hysterical)

  52. LexG says:

    We have indeed had the Makin’ It discussion.
    HUGE Naughton fan over here… even HOT DOG THE MOVIE.

  53. yancyskancy says:

    Lex, remember Dalt’s restaurant that used to be in Burbank? I had lunch one booth over from David Naughton there once, must be over a dozen years ago now.

  54. LexG says:

    Dalt’s RULED. Used to go there all the time.
    Lived close by too.

  55. LexG says:

    “Took a meeting” there once with some dudes about working on screenplay with another dude who worked for… Rysher? Was that a studio like 15 years ago???? RYSHER? When’s the last time ANYONE heard that or saw that logo?
    Wasn’t that like some mini-major studio a la Hollywood Pictures or Orion?

  56. LexG says:

    Lotta hot tang in this skating comp.

  57. Geoff says:

    If you want good cinematic terror, check out FROZEN, though it looks like it’s getting a piddle of a release.
    I’m on the fence about seeing The Wolfman – I’m off today and might check it out. Or would I enjoy From Paris With Love, more?

  58. The Big Perm says:

    leahnz, the Fly is an awesome movie, but I never found it “scary.” Like Scanners or a lot of Cronenberg’s other horror movies, I loved it, but not scary.

  59. christian says:

    Cronenberg’s early 70’s film are indeed scary as shit. Anybody seen RABID or THE BROOD?

  60. anghus says:

    kevin smith got thrown off a southwest flight for being too fat. then he went on twitter and accused the people who work for southwest of being liars.
    i feel kinda bad for the guy.
    a year or two ago he was playing in a poker game and went to the bathroom. he ripped the toilet from the wall.
    the thing is, he announces these things. he told the toilet story on Leno, and then he goes and makes a big stink about southwest being liars.
    if you caused a toilet to rip free from a wall, you’re fat. i think you lose the ability to argue that youre not fat enough to be asked to buy a second seat.
    southwest even apologized and he’s still freaking out.
    why would you let the world know this about you. it might be entertaining, but it does nothing to make people take you seriously.
    it’s sad when you’ve spent your career being undignified and then when you want it, everyone giggles.

  61. christian says:

    Airlines have been adding more seats to airplanes over the years. I’m the opposite of “fat” and I’m still cramped. My sympathy is not with Southwest.

  62. Joe Leydon says:

    Well, I’m a tad on the chunky side myself, and I don’t need to buy extra seats for myself (yet). So I can only imagine how huge Mr. Smith has become… (And before anyone asks: I fly Southwest quite frequently. Not for my LAX-bound flight today, but frequently.)

  63. anghus says:

    the mother fucker ripped a toilet off the wall.
    if that doesn’t disqualify you from defending yourself against allegations of being a tubby bastard, i don’t know what does.

  64. mysteryperfecta says:

    I haven’t followed the story closely, but apparently, Smith bought two tickets for himself on a flight that was canceled. He was moved to a flight with only one free seat, from which stemmed the conflict. It seems the airline and Smith both have valid points.

  65. scooterzz says:

    Lotta hot tang in this skating comp.”
    yes, that johnny weir is very k-stew like…..

  66. jeffmcm says:

    I see that Lex continues to nudge his way, bit by bit, closer towards his typical full-fledged rants about how horny he is, which teenagers he finds the most sexually stimulating, etc. Gotta love those low expectations for his behavior!

  67. LexG says:

    Jeff, you’re high or drunk again.
    I just CONTROL-F’d my name in this BYOB, and I see: me talking about Wolfman, me talking some more about Wolfman, me discussing bright vs dark horror films with Big Perm, me enjoying a delightful David Naughton discussion with leah, and a request that Poland talk about the Olympics so I can discuss the WAY OVER 18 likes of Sascha Coen and Tanith Belbin.
    So I don’t even know what you’re referring to.
    And if I’m NUDGING ANYTHING one way or another, I’m trying to NUDGE this blog semi-awake. Without you or IO around as much lately to get threads up to 100 comments of back and forth insanity, this place is almost quaint of late.

  68. LexG says:

    Look at the little YEP YEP go.
    Love her little moans and screams.

  69. Geoff says:

    Am I the only one hooked on Burn Notice? Love that show – lots of fun, smart writing, nice location work.
    I would love to see Jeffrey Donovan get more roles and Gabrielle Anwar has aged nicely – she has to be right up your alley, Lex, as she is very skinny, always wearing skimpy clothes, and always showing her feet.

  70. LexG says:

    Sorry to bump the old BYOB, but had to respond to Geoff: I don’t watch it on a regular basis, but it’s very entertaining, and I always wonder where and how the writers come up with all of Michael’s tricks.
    And Anwar has held up UNBELIEVABLY well; I would definitely make an exception to my usually airtight age rule there, even if once in a while on her closeups, I suspect just a HINT of Margot Kidder-in-Superman II soft-focus action going.
    Her body is PERFECT though.

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