MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Trailer: I Don’t Know Why She Does It

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Responses to “Trailer: I Don’t Know Why She Does It”

  1. LexG says:

    It’s a rarefied cinematic universe where Jessica Szohr and Olivia Munn are scampering about, but James Bond has to wrestle with Greg Kinnear over Sarah Jessica Parker.

    What a hideous sheen to that trailer.

  2. sanj says:

    seems like the entire movie is in the trailer – also looks like a made for tv movie but it has 2 big stars …
    Bond can do way better.

  3. yancyskancy says:

    Title is actually “I Don’t Know HOW She Does It.”

    Lots of films like this look painful in the trailer, then turn out to be okay. But I’m not expecting anything more than that.

  4. JS Partisan says:

    Lex is so right. Seriously, if someone beside SJP were the star of this film, maybe more than an “EH, but she just makes the entire thing seem pointless.

  5. Triple Option says:

    I can already hear the “call everybody out, I may not be perfect but deep down I’m OK,” wimpering speech.

  6. movieman says:

    I don’t know why there’s so much hate for this fairly innocuous trailer.
    Doug McGrath has done a lot of nice work (including “Emma” and cowriting Woody’s “Bullets Over B’Way”), and the cast is certainly an agreeable mix of familiar faces (Kelsey, Pierce, Kinnear, Hendricks, etc).
    Sure, SJP is possibly a tad, uh, mature for her role, but “S&C2” notwithstanding, I’ve still got enough residual affection for the lady to make this seem like a (hopefully) fun Manhattan romp.
    Of course, I genuinely liked “The Nanny Diaries,” too.

  7. Triple Option says:

    Movieman, I think you answered your own question. All that talent for what seems to amount to, at best, a forgettable movie. They would’ve had a better sales job putting all their names against a blank screen followed by the words “Trust us” than this milquetoast trailer. Age notwithstanding, is Sarah Jessica Parker an everywoman who can adequately represent the woman who must struggle between homelife and career? I’m with David on this. Without a glimpse of a twist or a point, I don’t know WHY any of them would do it either.

  8. yancyskancy says:

    Even if the film turns out to be okay, the trailer makes it look like the edgiest romantic comedy of 1988. I realize the homelife vs. career issues are still perfectly relevant, and likely to remain so, but the whole harried over-achiever thing just seems so tiresome at this point. The narration and fourth-wall-breaking don’t get my hopes up either.

The Hot Blog

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