May 3, 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
I was actually surprised by how fucking INFURIATED I was by that trailer for the remake. I had kind of let my initial anger go and was willing to give it a shot but as soon as I saw what Lurie did or is trying to do? Fuuuuuuck him and fuuuuuck that movie.
“I will not allow violence against this house.”
I cannot begin to tell you what a resonance that line had for audiences — never mind the trailer, but in the movie itself — back in the day. People in the theater where I first saw it (the old Cine Royale back in New Orleans) were ready to cheer ANYTHING Dustin Hoffman did after that. I’m amused/intrigued to see the new trailer ends with that line.
I’m not a big fan of the new trailer. Truth to tell, it makes the movie look like the remake of The Last House on the Left. On the other hand, I’m heartened by the fact that, like Sam Peckinpah, Lurie doesn’t try to make it easy for the audience the way the author of the original novel (The Siege of Trencher’s Farm) did to a certain degree. David (among others) will understand what I mean when I say: In the novel, the couple has a small child. Now you tell me: Doesn’t that give the protagonist a blank check to do ANYTHING to ward off the mob? (Also: In the book, the character played by David Warner did NOT kill the girl that the mob is all fired up about.)
BTW: I’m always afraid to come off like everybody’s drunken Uncle Charlie, who tells the same freakin’ stories at every Thanksgiving gathering because he cannot remember telling them before. But have I ever mentioned here the three actors who turned down Straw Dogs before Hoffman took the part?
Don… I don’t think the trailer really reflects what Rod was after. I have to recuse myself, as I am a friend of Rod’s. But I don’t think he was making a Corman film.
Joe,
Would two of the actors who turned down the Hoffman role be Donald Sutherland and Jack Nicholson?
Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould and Cliff Robertson. Those are the only ones I know for sure.
the IMDB message boards have lots of comments on this
film..
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0999913/board/?p=2
Those alternative STRAW DOGS leads are interesting, although I think Hoffman was ultimately perfect.
This is probably one of the odder, if not the oddest, of the remakes of the last 10 years. It seems like a risky proposition, and I’ll echo that I too think it looks a lot like the (surprsingly good until the awful, schlocky final moment) LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT remake. But it looks even more faithful than that movie was, which makes me curious as to why it was even made. I spotted quite a few repeat scenes. I like Lurie as a director and actually think Marsden could be brilliant casting. I’m not sold on it, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was interested.
Also it’s strange we may be getting KILLER ELITE and WILD BUNCH (!) remakes too…
i don’t think the remake will work if its just a copy ..
its like Let the Right One In / Let Me In
this is the type of role that can lead to an oscar for Kate Bosworth..
DP-
Respectfully disagree. That new trailer looks like (as Joe pointed out) just another home invasion movie. Granted, it could be a studio made tease to get butts in the seats, but still. Didn’t pique my interest at all.
I’m a fan of Lurie’s but his initial comments about the film pissed me off and the fact that this film was being remade at all pissed me off. As a cinephile and as a fan of film. I just don’t get the point if, as according to Lurie’s early interviews, he’s not going to go for the same emotional touchstones Peckinpah did. If the source material had a small child, why not add that into the mix and truly make it a fresh take? Otherwise I really don’t see how one can judge the new one without invoking the other one.
And I hate saying that because I honestly believe that remakes should be judged separately as should adaptations, but sometimes they’re tied together. I’ll of course see the new STRAW DOGS and look forward to Luries discourse on it, but as of right now I’m non-plussed and none too thrilled with what’s been thrown out there.
Plus the casting is off. I’m not a big fan of Bosworth and although I like Marsden, casting a fit and pretty boy in that role already takes the emotional whallop out of it before it even screens. The mere fact it’s a meek, Woddy Allenesque character under threat of physical violence ratchets the tension way, way up.
Not a bad trailer, actually. And Marsden has always been adept a “geeking” out a bit – he certainly pulled that off in the X Men movies, though it helped to be next to Hugh Jackman.
Speaking of Rod Lurie, have any of you folks seen Deterrence from ten years ago? A What If-thriller that he directed with Kevin Pollack as the President faced with the choice of nuking Iraq….wow, talk about being a TRULY dated movie that should just be watched for curiosity sake. Let’s put it this way: Saddam Hussein and his sons are the villains of the story.
The film is not poorly made and Pollack actually does a solid job, though Sean Astin almost sinks the film a really cliched role as a redneck….it take some bizarre turns, for sure. Check it out.
BTW: I hope nothing I wrote about the trailer implies that I’m not looking forward to the film. Considering the talent on both sides of the camera, I think it’ll be, at the very least, a substantial film.
On the subject of remakes: My initial knee-jerk reaction usually is, “Why bother?” That is, unless the first version wasn’t really that good, and a better film could be made with the same premise. I still wish someone would take another crack at Sidney Lumet’s The Appointment — even Sidney Lumet himself had unkind words to say about that one.
On the other hand: There are some remakes that I feel stand on their own merits, but never get a fair shake from critics (and audiences) because they’re remakes of bona fide classics. I’m know I’m in a minority, but I actually kinda-sorta enjoyed the 1996 remake of Diabolique, for example.
http://www.houstonpress.com/1996-03-28/film/fatal-femmes/
Are you guys not seeing Bosworth’s glazed, golden body and blonde hair in LITTLE OUTFITS snaking around being insanely hot? LOOK. AT. HER.
This looks great.
What makes STRAW DOGS “STRAW DOGS” is Peckinpah taking a standard revenge tale and turning it into a treatsie on class and domination – these remakes are usually pointless since they lack directorial tension and POV. Really, all the studios care about is The Plot. The best recent example is GET CARTER – where the script strips Carter of his basic amorality and tries to make you care about The Plot! Lurie is smarter than that, but I’m not as interested in his POV.
What he said. Exactly.
the point about the original was that Hoffman was broken by resorting to violence. he had nowhere to go when the film ended. he certainly didn’t have his wife anymore and Peckinpah skillfully managed to make what seemed celebratory actually an indictment. this is only a trailer, but it doesn’t look as if that’s where it’s heading
I don’t think the forthcoming KILLER ELITE has anything to do with the Peckinpah film.