MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Trailering Firth/Rickman/Diaz/Coens/Hoffman “Gambit”

Michael Hoffman is one of the few American directors who actually knows how to shoot a farce. The Coens certainly know how to write one. Is this going to be the True Romance-type match-up that creates a “forever” movie? We’ll see…

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “Trailering Firth/Rickman/Diaz/Coens/Hoffman “Gambit””

  1. movieman says:

    I love Hoffman’s “Some Girls.”
    Montreal has never looked more inviting on film.
    And “One Fine Day,” “Restoration” and “Soap Dish” are very good, too.

    I don’t remember anything about the Caine/MacLaine “Gambit.”
    But does anyone 46 years later? It’s not like it’s a “classic” or anything.
    Which definitely bodes well for this one since it’s basically starting from scratch.
    I hadn’t even realized the Coens wrote it. Hip-hip-hooray.

  2. storymark says:

    I had never even heard of Gambit a few months ago, but was lucky enough to catch it while it was Netflix instant, and found it fairly entertaining.

    This trailer doesn’t look much like the original anyway. I am curious if the remake keeps the first act structural trick the original utilized, but otherwise Im not terribly interested.

  3. The Pope says:

    Storymark,
    Yes, the first act of the original Gambit works because the trick takes so long to kick. But after that, it’s a mundane 60s heist. This version seems utterly lame. DIaz seems miscast and the old British gag of walking around without your trousers is crudely topped by sitting at your desk and showing your knackers to your employee. It says a lot that the Coens wrote this over a decade ago and have shown no interest in ever making it themselves… or even being part of the press-kit. Speaking of which, when does it is open? The UK is November 2012 and the some places around Europe in 2013. But west of the Atlantic… bupkis.

  4. Krillian says:

    Gambit’s scheduled to open February 22 in the US, last I saw.

    Looks kinda fun. Never saw the original. I’d heard it was on Netflix but by the time I got around to go see it, it was gone again.

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