May 19, 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
Taken solely as the trailer to a much anticipated action flick, it definitely hits all the right notes and then some.
However, taken in its real world context of, more likely than not, planted DoD “rah, rah, rah” propagandist half-truths and a fundamentalist Muslim world that’s already set fire to the world in protest against a mere YouTube video, things don’t seem to bode nearly as well for it.
Sweet commando-style Burka ambush, though. Fox is probably already getting ideas for what their next female driven half-hour procedural could be.
So spoil it for me, do they get Bin Laden?
Pc, I’m wondering how rah rah you felt Hurt Locker was. This is a movie that is probably going to be as truthful a military film as we get.
Also, considering that the vast majority of the ME is not al queda or a supporter of terrorism, I don’t know why this would have any more of an effect than that Peter Berg movie did. Sounds like you bought into some propaganda of your own and don’t believe Muslims will be able to deal with anything reasonable.
Loving me some Chris Pratt right about now!
-Sloan
While “Hurt Locker” was certainly no “Act Of Valor,” I did think that the film was by and large sold to the general movie going public on the basis of its fantastic slow-mo bomb diffusion and sniper scenes (the latter of which I wouldn’t exactly call the height of military realism).
It’s overall thematic message was anything but “rah, rah,” and very much worth exploring, but its execution felt lacking due to several rather obvious and hokey plot developments (and also, if your film can be completely summarized by an opening quote, why make the film in the first place?). So no, I wouldn’t describe “Hurt Locker” as being pumped full of any propaganda, so much as it is a very well made action film that tries a little too hard to be taken seriously (a description that I think applies to most of Bigelow’s other films as well).
Where “Zero Dark Thirty” differs, is that the beautifully shot action is now centered around actual events that still largely remain classified (and keep in mind that many OSS related WWII documents were only declassified in 2005 after years of lawyer-churning legal battles). So when you take into consideration that the build-up and aftermath to the assault on the Bin Laden compound was (and still is) one of the most covert operations undertaken in modern U.S. history, and the fact that the Department of Defense has the right to vet and block any book or film which they believe has “the potential” to reveal “state secrets,” I’d be especially wary of any film purporting to give a completely accurate summation of said still secret events just one year after they took place (also, the governmental hoops a production has to go through just to include a shot of the NSA building in a film [as shown in the above trailer] are just short of mind bottling, and also don’t bode well with the filmmakers’ claims of providing a supposedly raw and unfiltered look into the Zero Dark operation).
And as to any political backlash against the film, I’m not so much concerned about the general Muslim world, as I am the much smaller, but also much, much more vocal, slice of Fundamentalists, who have historically had a definite proclivity towards being easily influenced by agenda driven clerics and imams (who are now seen as the ones largely responsible for the rise and eventual violent escalation of the “Innocence Of Muslims” protests). Granted, the film will probably have little to do with any or sort of portrayal, of the Islamic faith, but devoting a large Hollywood expose on the take down of the man who many of the most fervent and violent fundamentalists still consider to be their supreme leader and ultimate martyr just might have the potential to generate some retaliatory blowback. Afterall, the President wasn’t just being coy when he decided against releasing the pictures of Bin Laden’s corpse to the public.
Looks ok. But I’m not doing cartwheels yet…
I always chuckle at the “Director of Hurt Locker”
how about the “Director of Point Break!”
P.S.
I don’t know how much more “rah, rah, rah” a supposedly grounded and balanced film can make itself out to be than by releasing an “Osama Compound” branded map pack for an upcoming modern warfare styled FPS:
http://www.gamezone.com/products/medal-of-honor-warfighter/news/bin-laden-themed-zero-dark-thirty-map-pack-announced-for-medal-of-honor-warfighter
P.P.S.
I think this Vice piece provides a candid glimpse into the surrounding area of the actual Bin Laden compound, and tells a far more interesting tale of how the world’s most wanted man could spend so many years hiding in relatively plain sight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-W_kAfRLlQ
I liked the first trailer but this trailer is worrisome, the VO seems to imply that the film is firmly on the torture-worshipping bush bandwagon, I hope that’s not the case and they show interrogation that is realistic and not 24 style bullshit.
The thing is, Hurt Locker had characters and something to say. This is just a procedural about getting a guy, which we all know the end to.
Not saying it won’t be good, but I’m concerned that they spent too much time and energy getting the details right that they didn’t bother to get the story right.
I thought the ending of this was the best money shot I’ve seen in a trailer in as long as I can remember.
looks awful
I can already hear the sound of empty cinemas
go k-big. it’s not really a secret that the story focuses mainly on how they got the intel that led to bin laden’s location – from what i remember they were already well into pre-production with a completed story when bin laden was found and whacked, really just a happy accident for the movie that they were then able to put the ultimate exclamation point on the tale. it looks quite procedural and focused on chastain’s character, which is fine by me because she’s the real deal.