MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by 2x Da Man Klady


Be Sociable, Share!

23 Responses to “Friday Estimates by 2x Da Man Klady”

  1. LYT says:

    Bummer for The Pirates. Guess i better see that one quick.

    Also, Aardman to me is consistently better than Pixar. Shame they can’t generate that reputation further.

  2. Krillian says:

    No Fast Five among these.

    I never did see Uptown Saturday Night. Is it worth tracking down and seeing before Adam McKay puts Will Smith & Denzel Washington in the remake?

  3. Rob says:

    I’m surprised Five-Year didn’t open better, but won’t be surprised when it sinks after this. I love everyone involved, but it’s so boring.

  4. Joe Leydon says:

    Krillian: I remember Uptown Saturday Night being quite funny back in the day. Seriously. But Let’s Do It Again had a better title song.

  5. JS Partisan says:

    Yeah FYE is so not boring. That’s a relationship in a movie, and it has a rousing finish. This just turned out to be one of those cluster fuck weekends, but this time it involved romcoms. Nevertheless, it’s coming, and it may set records. GOODY GUMDROPS!

    Oh yeah, LYT, that’s a very interesting perspective. Could you expand on it and give some examples? I’m intrigued to read more about it.

  6. LYT says:

    Well, JS, I admit I haven’t seen Arthur Christmas, but Aardman otherwise, in features, is…


    In NONE of those cases do I feel like I’m getting the generic hero’s journey formula, at least in an obvious way. In most Pixar movies, I do feel that – albeit in the funniest and most fun way they can come up with (not a fan of Monsters Inc or the Cars movies, though, as they seem to rely on stereotypes way more than I care for).

    Flushed Away is the closest, but I honestly feel that if Pixar had done it, the main character would have found his way back to being a happy pet.

  7. JS Partisan says:

    I’m glad you brought up Flushed Away because that movie rules. It’s very under-appreciated. That aside, I get the point about the hero journey, but that journey needs to be told. It’s one of those things that fuels the human psyche and Pixar does it better than most. It is a bit repetitive, but they gave a hero’s journey to a rat and a trash compacting robot. That’s impressive.

  8. JKill says:

    I really liked FIVE YEAR ENGAGEMENT. It’s very funny and surprisingly real, and it features good work from the entire cast and an ambitious premise. I agree with JSP that the overload of releases probably hurt it (not that it did terribly), plus I think the fact that the film cuts pretty deep to the bone at places and doesn’t sugarcoat everything makes it a tough sit for those who go to romcoms purely for the escapism. Still, it’s more strong work from Segel/Stoller and more than worth checking out.

  9. Joe Leydon says:

    I think I’ve figured out why LexG fears Asian women.

  10. Krillian says:

    Arthur Christmas is a worthy addition to the Aardman family. And probably the most journey-ish. Actually, Arthur’s fairly guileless; it’s the rest of his family that needs to learn something.

  11. movieman says:

    ..yet they’re all happy in the end.
    That’s why I love “Arthur Christmas.”

  12. anghus says:

    did you guys see that Avengers International number?

    178 million.

    And that’s without China, Russia, and Japan.

    That billion dollar number is looking far more realistic.

  13. Matt P. says:

    Uh, Monsters Inc. is so effortlessly awesome it is ridiculous. It is easily one of Pixar’s top efforts

  14. JS Partisan says:

    Seriously Ang, the fact that it could be a billion dollar film is so freaking crazy, but in a total good way.

    Jkill, yeah, the cutting to the bone is why I dig it so much. It gets right at the problems people have and the Elmo and Cookie Monster talk in FYE, might be the honest conversation ever about marriage and fears about finding that right person, ever put to film in Sesame Street character voices.

  15. PH says:

    Is any one of you over the age of 14?

  16. JS Partisan says:

    Wow, really? You are a facepalm.

  17. Rob says:

    An “epic” facepalm?

  18. JS Partisan says:

    Could be a double. We will have to get in contact with the judges to see if it’s “EPIC”.

  19. hcat says:

    Monsters Inc. is a remarkable movie just in the way it updates the Laurel and Hardy type buddy humor and makes it digestible for today’s audience, just as Wall-E took the spirit of silent slapstick comedies and created a new world with it. Its odd that the only people that seem to be influenced by early film comedies anymore are animators.

    And I do know of the existance of The Artist but wouldn’t that be more of a homage than a continuation of their spirit?

  20. Yancy Skancy says:

    hcat: To me, THE ARTIST is a drama with some light comic elements. There’s practically nothing of the Chaplin/Keaton/Lloyd spirit to it. Not that it tries and fails to capture that spirit; it’s simply a different genre. It really has very little that could be considered slapstick.

    I’m still bewildered by how many people opined that it was purely a charming trifle, when the majority of the screen time chronicles the lead character’s descent into despair, alcoholism and attempted suicide.

  21. JS Partisan says:

    Come on Yancy, that’s stuff is fun for the entire family :D!

  22. jesse says:

    LYT, that’s an interesting point about Pixar’s (top-notch, perfectly executed) use of formula vs. Aardman. But I think that may be also why I have trouble really LOVING Aardman pictures, even though I’ve liked all of them, and in fact find Arthur Christmas and Flushed Away somewhat underrated, and might like The Pirates! best of all of them. But it’s hard for me to latch on to any of their characters emotionally beyond finding them cute and appealingly odd.

    You could reduce The Incredibles or Wall-E or Ratatouille or Up down to a “hero’s journey” fomrula, I guess, but it’s not nearly as transparent as most live-action movies that try the same thing. So I do think it’s strange to ding Pixar for, essentially, making great mainstream studio pictures. I see a lot more complexity in The Incredibles than I do in Chicken Run, neat as that movie is.

    Both The Pirates! and FYE are solid mainstream entertainment, so it is a bummer that they’ll be outgrossed by, say, The Lorax and New Year’s Eve (to say nothing of other rom-coms that aren’t as bad but are actually big hits compared to NYE’s mild underperformance). Not that I expected either of them to do massive business, but they both seemed like easy bets for $50 million or so.

    Also, I don’t know if CinemaScore is just getting reported more often in the last few years (EW used to report it back in the nineties, and then I feel like I rarely heard about it, and now Box Office Mojo is ALL ABOUT IT because they like to imagine you can quantify something as intangible as how much “audiences” like something), but good lord is that a frustrating read, finding out that “audiences” gave FYE a B- (which in CinemaScore parlance is apparently basically a D), but Safe and The Raven more favorable ratings (and I actually kind of liked both of those movies, too, but the notion that they’re a more satisfying experience than FYE or Pirates! is kind of sad).

  23. cadavra says:

    Yancy, you’re exactly right. In no way can ARTIST be considered a comedy. It’s literally A STAR IS BORN but with–IS IT STILL A SPOILER AT THIS POINT?–the suicide foiled at the last second so it can have a happy ending. (END MAYBE SPOILER) Yes, there is humor in it, but there’s humor in almost any good drama. People called it charming because that’s what the characters are (as opposed to the characters in most American films these days, who are largely immature cretins or violent psychos) and a trifle because it wasn’t about a Very Serious Subject like the Holocaust or racism.

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