April 26, 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
Hell of a take for Flight. Paramount is sure to be thinking that they left money on the table with the small amount of screens. It almost equaled the per screen average of family flick Wreck It Ralph.
And where the fuck did that hold come from for Taken 2. I was completely wrong about the trajectory on this piece of shit of movie. The 2nd best hold of the weekend after only Argo. I honestly have not met any regular folk who have liked or recommended it so the hold is bizarre. It’ll come much closer to the original’s $145m than I thought it would.
Yes, the theatre count for “Flight” really is baffling, especially when you consider this will be Denzel’s 13th $20 million+ opener (non-animated). Only Adam Sandler has more (Tom Cruise is tied).
FLIGHT is unimaginably awful and that out-of-nowhere anti-Christianity scene in the middle is going to turn off a lot of people. I can’t remember the last time I saw a movie so bafflingly misguided especially after it opens so strong.
It’s been a month since I saw it and I can’t even remember the anti-Christianity scene you’re referring to. But I’m all for it — now I want to see it again.
Are you referring to the hospital scene w/ Brian Geraghty and his wife?
Yeah, that was mighty peculiar.
I couldn’t tell whether we were supposed to mock them for their in-your-face Christianity; pity them for being such poor deluded souls; or be moved by their unflinching declaration of faith.
It was just one of many WTF?! moments I had during the film, though.
perhaps said scene is a litmus test for the person watching it ….. after all how many people will see Red Dawn and say it’s pro-war; no it’s anti-war!
FLIGHT is one of the most spiritually complex mainstream movies in a long time. That hospital scene is a test for both the Whip (Wahsington) and the audience. The movie is about Whip acknowedging God’s sintervention in his downward spiral. Whip has a choice to believe he landed that plane or God helped him as a way to realize he has a problem. Cheadle’s Devil-like character is very seductive because he seems so reasonable. All Whip has to do is tell one more lie and he’ll be fine. If you remember the line he says right before he answers Melissa Leo’s final question, you’ll understand the real trajectory of the movie. The great stairwell scene is about three people at three very different stages of their relationship with God. Given Washington’s very strong faith, I wa not surprsed to hear how much he watned to do this movie. I think even non-believers are open-minded enough to acknowedge FLIGHT is a very thoughtful movie about the complexities of having faith.
You’re not the first person who’s made that argument to me about the film, Aaron.
I just wish I’d seen that I’d seen that movie. It sounds far more interesting –and complexly layered–than the one I saw.
Of course, I had a hard time believing the film’s entire set-up.
Consider: would any major U.S. airline operating out of a major U.S. airport in the pos-9/11 world really have let that flight take off in such inclement weather? They’re far too worried about potential lawsuits to take those sort of risks.
In the past 12 years, I’ve had flights indefinitely delayed (and sometimes even cancelled) because of far less severe weather conditions than the hellacious storm Washington takes off in at the beginning of the movie.
I also had a hard time accepting the fact that his co-workers had apparently been turning a blind eye to his drinking problem, knowing that he was putting their lives–and the lives of passengers–at risk. That just didn’t compute.
Oops; sorry.
Meant to say, “I just wish I’d seen that movie,” and “post-9/11,” not “pos-9/11.”
Despite my problems w/ “Flight,” it’s always gratifying when serious, adult, R-rated movies like this (and “Argo”) open so well in general release.
The scary truth is pilots like Whip are not that uncommon. I had not problem believing his co-workers would turn a blind eye to his drinking. Also, the weather situation is pretty well-established as being not looking as bad it turns out. Also, Whip goes through a bad patch of clouds in order to get to good weather. Back in the day, Air Traffic Controllers would do this al the time. Whip is just doing what controllers usually do. And the storm isn’t the cause of the plane’s problems. Finally, it is a short flight–45 minutes. I have no problem believing the airline would go ahead with that flight plan.
My unwillingness to suspend disbelief in those key areas stopped me from climbing aboard, Aaron.
But everything else–the incoherent/inconsistent characterizations; choppy editing; tonal schizophrenia; the fact that the entire movie is wildly over-directed–just grated on my nerves.
I’m wondering if the high marks my critical brethren are giving “Flight” might stem from their collective sense of relief that Zemeckis has finally returned to flesh-and-blood actors and live-action filmmaking.
Still, I’m always glad to see a serious, “R”-rated adult movie open this well.
Washington is truly one of the closest things we have to a bona-fide “star” working in H’wood today.
Everyone who gave FLIGHT a pass will feel really stupid about it when they catch it on cable in a few years.
For me, FLIGHT is a beautifully edited movie. It’s pacing is similar to the first 2/3rds of CAST AWAY. There was only one edit that bothered me. There a 9-day jump in time that we are told about, but not shown. We need to see those nine days dramatized in order for what happens to have will weight. Washington sells it, but a brief montage would’ve been more effective. Or, at the very least a title card saying “Nine Days Later.” We need a pause before the final plunge. This kind of time-jump is a Zemeckis trope. It’s not nearly as distracting as the final 20 minutes of CAST AWAY, which almost ruins that movie. I make it a rule to turn the channel right when Hanks’ character is floating and we see that big shop come up behind him. The next shot is so jarring that it never fails to take me out of the movie. We NEED to see Chuck talk to someone for the first time and put on his first set of clean clothes in four years. I hunger for the moment of him shaving his face. Couple these deletions with the plot development of Helen Hunt’s character being married with two little girls, and the final act of CAST AWAY is a total bust. I mean, there’s no way a Hollywood movie was going to allow a mother of two leave her husband for the man she loved. There would’ve been genuine suspense if she had just been married without kids.
As for FLIGHT, can we all at least agree that Goodman should get a Best Supporting Actor nomination. I mean, if Judi Dench can (deservedly) win one for less than 10 minutes of screen time, Goodman should at least get the nod.
Have not seen Flight yet. Please stop with the spoiler comments.
Couple these deletions with the plot development of Helen Hunt’s character being married with two little girls, and the final act of CAST AWAY is a total bust. I mean, there’s no way a Hollywood movie was going to allow a mother of two leave her husband for the man she loved. There would’ve been genuine suspense if she had just been married without kids.
Uh, this is actually a great thing about the movie. The “Hollywood” thing to do, would be to have her not be with anyone the whole time he was missing. Or even to have her married to a jerk without a kid. She’s happy, and moved on, like an adult. The fact that he tells her she has to go home, is important and 100% what any right minded individual would have done. The movie is called “Cast Away” instead of “Castaway” for a reason.
It’s all about the math. In four years she met a guy, fell in love, got married, and had two kids. Two kids takes up two years of the four year gap. Let’s say another year for dating, courting, and marriage. That means she only grieved for 12 months for a man who vanished off the face of the planet. That just feels like not enouch, especially since they were going to get married.
She didn’t have two kids, she had one little girl.
I dated someone at the time who REALLY didn’t like Cast Away because she hated the Helen Hunt character at the end. People have very romantic notions about these things, but even twelve months is a long damn time to let mourning grate on you. Her world doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The world constantly moves and she has to eventually move on with it, and that moment is faster than you’d think. And if you lose the object of your affection and you have this well of emotion, eventually, it has to go somewhere. I think the reason it feels like such betrayal is because Tom Hanks’ character DOES exist in this vacuum where the only reason he survives is he holds onto the hope of seeing her again. Unfortunately, people don’t live like the wife from The Odyssey.
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen it, so my memory’s a little foggy in how I remember it all coming together, but I was able to go with it and obviously, it really repelled others.