MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Klad & Pain


Be Sociable, Share!

12 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klad & Pain”

  1. Nick says:

    Confused about 42. Is it considered a hit for the studio? What about worldwide?

  2. Sideshow Bill says:

    Wow. Evil Dead just went “poof” and disappeared. I liked the movie, but I’m a horror geek. When fellow horror fans complain about a film being PG-13 they have another R film went belly up and could have used 14-16 y/o. Or maybe people are sick of horror, or remakes or both. For me, the best horror I’ve seen in the last few years has been foreign or limited release.

    Seeing the Rob Zombie film tonight, because it’s just about dead, too.

  3. Jermsguy says:

    42 hasn’t opened overseas yet, but I would think with its reported production budget of $40 million, it’ll wind up being considered a success.

  4. Think says:

    EVIL DEAD is awful. I was so excited for it and it’s just a wet fart. That Shiloh guy was excruciatingly boring.

    Jane Levy was great in the last five minutes, though.

    All the horror nerds I know were extremely disappointed with it.

  5. Joe Leydon says:

    I enjoyed Arthur Newman a great deal more than most of my critical brethren. Wish audiences were showing up for it.

  6. movieman says:

    Surprised that “The Company You Keep” isn’t listed since it did go wide-ish yesterday.
    Of course, there were only two other people at my matinee this afternoon, so maybe Sony Classics is keeping a lid on the b.o. figures.
    Wonderful, wonderful cast, but the damn thing just sits there. “Running on Empty” told a similar story infinitely better 25 years ago.
    And I generally like Redford’s stuff (as a director); even his Lincoln conspiracy movie.
    It felt as though the near-somnambulant pace was set by Redford’s ambling gait. He would have been perfect for this role 20, even 10 years ago. Today? Not so much.
    Julie Christie’s scenes are definitely the highlight of the movie. But not enough to lift it from middling “C”-grade territory.

  7. berg says:

    couldn’t get into Arthur Newman, the movie made no attempt to deglam Emily Blunt even though she’s playing a sleazy criminal cough syrup addict … but did like The Numbers Station

  8. anghus says:

    Man. Had a rough time with Company You Keep. Has Redford always been so deadpan? He seems like a zombie in this movie. It’s like a political thriller with laughable politics and zero thrills. Shia was suprisingly spry as was the entire AARP card carrying supporting cast. This might be the greatest assembly of senior citizen SAG members ever.

    Still, it fought hard to be average.

  9. Etguild2 says:

    I’m really not sure how EVIL DEAD went “poof and disappeared.” Other than the SAW films, I can’t think of a harder R-rated film that’s hit $50 million…ever.

  10. Joe Leydon says:

    Just saw — and thoroughly enjoyed — 42. And I can imagine it’ll have great legs theatrically — and a long shelf life on home video.

  11. Paul Doro says:

    This horror geek actually kind of liked Evil Dead 2013. It moves quickly and has some pretty great, squirm-inducing set pieces, and the effects are great. I wasn’t expecting much and found it surprisingly decent. Speaking of surprise, I came across Drew’s lament about its rating before I saw it, and now that I’ve seen it, I’m puzzled by his piece. Is it really any more gory than a Saw flick or Piranha or countless other offerings of the last 10 or so years? Plus, it’s so over-the-top. It’s gross, but more silly than disturbing. I’m not saying take a small child to it, but had I not come across Drew’s piece I never would have given a second thought to its gore. And $52 million seems like a decent if not spectacular number.

  12. anghus says:

    Self proclaimed horror geek, and i loved Evil Dead. Huge fan of the originals, and i thought it was bloody wonderful.

    Most horror that is not Paranormal Activity is POOF and its gone. Makes all its money in the first week and then slinks away. See Texas Chainsaw, etc.

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