April 27, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
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
SOMEWHERE POWER.
Give LITTLE ELLE a nomination.
GOOD IDEA.
The fact that you lot are throwing Inception under the bus, pretty much demonstrates why you all suck. The End.
Just saw Black Swan. If Natalie doesn’t win, it is because Annette will win with sentiment over artistry. Portman’s performance is a tour de force and f-ing untouchable this year. I also think it should be Best Picture (haven’t seen True Grit though). I was riveted from start to finish and I am not always a fan of Aronofsky but he won me over this time with a very compelling piece of art.
The girl from Winter’s Bone should win but this year they have finally decided to give Natalie an Oscar. It’s the perfect time to give it to her before she starts making embarrassing raunchy female comedies.
I really don’t get the Best Picture love for Social Network. The lead character is as clueless at the end as he is at the begining. SPOILER: The last line, “You’re not an asshole. You’re just trying so hard to be one.” Well, I think he succeeded admirably.
I really don’t get the love for The Social Network either, not that it’s a bad film, but IT’S CLEARLY ALL MADE UP BULLSHIT! Zuckerberg is a lot of things but he will straight up tell you parts about his life story and seeing as he has shared so much about his life this year, and it’s proven this movie to be an out and out lie. This alone should keep it out of contention on every fucking level. It’s a good movie, sure, but it’s a lie. It’s a lie that WE KNOW IS A FUCKING LIE, and there you go.
IOv3,
by your rationale, Lawrence of Arabia is not a good movie. Neither is Chariots of Fire, Gandhi, Amadeus, Out of Africa, Platoon, The Last Emperor, Schindler’s List, Braveheart, Shakespeare in Love, Titanic, or A Beautiful Mind.
Martin Pal,
Who says a character has to be less clueless at the end of a movie than at the beginning. By that logic you can discount almost all of Scorsese’s best movies: Travis Bickle does not change, neither does Jake LaMotta, Rupert Pupkin, Henry Hill, Newland Archer, or Ace Rothstein. We just learn more about them.
The Pope, that’s not my fucking rationale at all. My rationale is this: what happens in this movie occurred over the last seven years. If you are going to make a movie about events that happened recently and are STILL OCCURRING, try not to bullshit them. The Social Network is a fine film but it fails because of being grade-A bullshit.
Beautiful Mind was still occurring at the time it was released. Your rationale appears to be: recentness for Social Network is important because it is. You still haven’t said why.
I did state why right above you knucklehead. These people were accessible and instead of using their life, they used a book that got a lot wrong, and then Sorkin decided to keep base facts and alter the story even more with his mundane old ass man take. That’s bullshit. It does not change that the movie for what it is, is fine. However, given that the TIME MAN OF THE YEAR pretty much has given more interviews this year than ever before. It taints the movie to me and I believe it should be held in that light.
You sir, are a stinker.
A Beautiful Mind was ‘grade-A bullshit’, too. I’ve complained over the years about studios (usually Universal, ‘home of the bull-shit biopic’) altering the truth to make the main characters appear more audience friendly/sympathetic. This is the rare case where Sorkin and Fincher altered the truth to make the main character look like more of a tool/less sympathetic than he arguably was, all in the name of making a relatively generic ‘gee, woe is him, he’s a social introvert who can’t score’ story. Even Sorkin admitted that the film wouldn’t have been that different if it had been about a guy who invented a random gadget, making the whole ‘this film is about who we are now’ line utter nonsense. Good, entertaining movie with witty dialogue and strong acting, but nothing more alas.
Word up to that Scott. Seriously, A Beautiful Mind would have been so much better if they kept the more interesting aspects of that character’s life intact. The fact that they turned Mark Zuckerberg into a douche when really, after reading as much as I have this year about him, he’s just some guy with a girl he’s loved for years and not that introverted just quiet. Well, sorry, that taints the movie. It’s not relevant, it’s not hip, and since all of the old fuckers are scared by Inception. Here’s hoping The King’s Speech wins fucking Best Picture, so this fucking Academy sinks even lower into the depths of geriatrics than it already has.
I’m not that hardcore into Inception (damn good, I just liked The Prestige and Memento more), so I’m pulling for either Winter’s Bone or Toy Story 3. Haven’t seen King’s Speech – it may be quite good – as I’m just waiting till it goes wide over the weekend.
IO you DIDN’T state why, nor did you mention recentness in your original post.
Here’s an example to illustrate: the excruciating pain from Platypus venom cannot be managed with any known painkillers. Why? Because it contains D-amino acids.
Note that the answer I gave does not answer the “Why?” on its own. You need extra information: if you made every single protein in every single mammal 1million times bigger and laid them all down on the floor, every single one would “face” to the left… except one. Platypus venom. It’s the only protein in mammals that “faces” to the right, and is the only one that painkillers are not designed to deal with.
That’s what you did – “Because what happens in this movie occurred over the last seven years” isn’t sufficient on its own to answer “why”. You need the second bit of information.
“Seriously, A Beautiful Mind would have been so much better if they kept the more interesting aspects of that character’s life intact.”
So now you’re agreeing with The Pope?
FS, the answer is right there. You, being the fucking dick that you are, do not like the answer I gave. These people are accessible and Sorkin does some bullshit that’s no different than a toaster? Come on man, good movie, but total grade-A bullshit.
You do know that we are arguing over a movie that only I have seen right? The fact that you completely ignored my first post in this thread is beyond. I am also agreeing with Scott, who seems to also disagree with The Pope.
Again, I have seen the movie, I like the movie, but it’s total well made grade-A bullshit.
Movies are not meant to be reality, they are dramatizations of people’s lives and events.If absolute reality is what is wanted then perhaps a documentary or mini-series would be better overall.Dramatic license has been around a long time.
Go read what Scott wrote again and thanks for being condescending. Yeah I understand dramatic license but sometimes, real life, is more interesting, and the real story of Facebook’s creation is most likely more fascinating than that movie.
IO, thanks for once again proving you’re a complete ass by being the first to insult other people.
Can’t we all just get along?
FS, if you stop being a confrontational ass, everything will be fine. Seeing that’s almost impossible for you when it comes to me, and that you HAVE NOT SEEN MOST OF THE MOVIES YOU ARE DISCUSSING! Well Sonny Jim, here’s one, and here’s two to you! MERRY XMAS!
What is truly horrifying is that with a plethora of choices every group feels the need to be part of the oscar herd. Only three movies have received more than one significant award this year? that’s pathetic, particularly in a non-wave year. (is the herd trying to manufacture a wave with Social Network and ending up with a modern day Tom Jones winner as a result?)
Critics are like the Brontosaurus in Jurassic Park, “they’re moving in herds… They DO move in Herds!”
Not that this is any great revelation this year in particular. But charts like this always remind me why I think the bitching about “the horrible tastes/choices of the academy” is ALWAYS overcooked nonsense. If anything the precursors are worse than the academy, as all of the groups stumble over each other in their attempts to predict the academy, rather than suffer the truly unprecedented torment and horror of having an original opinion.
And since I might as well put up or shut up, my top ten of the year is:
1. Inception
2. Flipped
3. Temple Grandin
4. If God is Willing and the Creek Don’t Rise
5. The Karate Kid
6. Kick-Ass
7. Exit Through the Gift Shop
8. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
9. Waiting for Superman
10. Black Swan
The Harry Potter one really surprised me, I hated the last two movies, but loved this one, go figure.
You need to do a DP/30 with Mike O’Malley
and get it on the S4 DVD of YES DEAR
IO, you’re the one who starts shit by calling people names when they disagree with you. Once again, you’ve shown your knack for taking a perfectly reasonable response and turning it into a personal attack as a justification for your infantile behaviour.
First you say “IT’S CLEARLY ALL MADE UP BULLSHIT!”, then when Pope points out that the same applies to many other biopics you say “that’s not my fucking rationale at all. My rationale is this: what happens in this movie occurred over the last seven years” – you’re DISAGREEING WITH YOURSELF. It’s hard to have a discussion with you when you’re not following your own conversation. Scott’s post is perfectly fine, and if you wrote like that instead of your usual “throw 20 things on the forums and then claim that you meant THIS one all along” then I wouldn’t point out that you’re not making any sense.
And I have seen The Social Network, so thanks but no thanks for the condescension. Check your facts next time.
“Critics are like the Brontosaurus in Jurassic Park, “they’re moving in herds… They DO move in Herds!” ”
lol movielocke
FS: here is what you have admitted to –
You have admitted to lying.
You have admitted to being an INSTIGATOR.
You also do not want to have a conversation with me. You just want to attack me on every single point because I apparently did you wrong or something. Again, excuse me for not appreciating that kind of treatment.
You slamming me for being able to DIFFERENTIATE between the Social Network and Lawrence of Freaking Arabia! If you go by just what Sorkin has admitted to with this script, it’s bullshit. Other biopics seems to, I don’t know, try to capture the essence of their fucking subjects. Does TSN do that with Zuckerberg and company? FUCK NO.
Again, FS, excuse me for having a differing opinion from you. Also, excuse me for getting pissed off at you, because you are clearly insulting and attacking me every time you ever respond to me.
Just to clarify, since this has gone nowhere fast:
1) You’re misquoting me regarding lying. What I said was “Everyone says things that aren’t true. Heck, I do it all the time”. “Everyone” includes, you, me, Poland and The Pope (both of them) – because people believe things that turn out to be false. So welcome to the lying club.
2) I’ve never “admitted to being an INSTIGATOR”. You’ve accused me of being an instigator and I’ve ignored you because apparently you don’t have access to a dictionary. That’s not the same thing.
1) Yeah I go out of my way to be as truthful as possible.
2) You admitted to stirring shit up. That’s an instigator.
Seriously, my main problem with you, remains your absolutely milly-mouthed way you respond to me. If you didn’t just pop your head out to take a shot at me then we would be fine, but that’s what you do. You show up, take a shot, then leave for 18 hours, and take another shot upon your return.
If you want to have a discussion with me then stop the way you have been treating me for more than a year.
I take shots at everyone, if what they’re saying doesn’t make sense. I have no personal vendetta against you – you’re just the most frequent poster, and combining your tendency to write something that’s different from what you mean with your tendency to read everything as an insult (like the time you insisted that we were insulting Iron Man because we pointed out that Hancock grossed more) means you sulk all the time. Not just with me, you sulk at EVERYONE – Poland, Pope, Leah, Mendelson, even Lex frequently.
And I’m not going to apologize for actually having work that frequently prevents me from responding to you quickly. Stop being such a baby.