April 24, 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
Anyone forced to sit through “Planes?” It made me yearn for the pre-Lasseter years when Disney’s third-string animation studio was doing sequels like “Lion King 1.5” and “Cinderella 3.”
No, luckily my kids didn’t get hit by the marketing for whatever reason, so no ask to date. I did throw ET on this week for them for the first time and they lost their mind with pleasure.
During the “meet cute” scene between Linda and Chuck in “Lovelace,” I groaned when 1971’s “The French Connection” was referenced… especially since the filmmakers went out of their way to identify the year as, uh, 1970.
That stuff drives me crazy.
I thought the movie was nicely done overall (and I can’t fault any of the performances). But I couldn’t help thinking I’d seen it all before in “Star 80” and “Boogie Nights.”
And with the kind of visual/stylistic flourishes clearly beyond the skill set of this former doc directing duo.
I was also confused as to why they opted to go the theatrical (well, sort of) theatrical versus premium cable route.
If “Lovelace” was an HBO Movie, I could definitely see it sweeping the Emmys/Globes. (Sharon Stone would have been a shoo-in for “best supporting actress in a mini-series or television movie” category.)
As with ONLY GOD FORGIVES, TWC-Radius apparently opening on a handful of screens. At 107 screens, LOVELACE looks like a VOD play, $5.99 on VuDu, etc.
“If “Lovelace” was an HBO Movie, I could definitely see it sweeping the Emmys/Globes.”
Ehhh…I think “Candelabra” has a pretty commanding position…but that still may have been a better route.
Re: Disney…I can’t remember a quieter Disney Expo…especially considering the studio is box office champ this year, has a new animated release this week, and there originally was buzz of Marvel news (like hey, the film they’re releasing 2 years from now they’ve been promising for a decade) they were withholding from Comic Con.
Heck, I forgot the expo was even happening…but hey…new Tinkerbell movies….and some abstract concept movie about “animals in human clothing” 3 years from now….yay?
Hey, remember when Pixar used to to release its teasers a year in advance and now can’t do it until 6 months away?
No love for ripping heads off robots?
I’m sure tomorrow they’ll release live action/Touchstone news…but jesus I’ve never seen such a lack of enthusiasm from the studio itself. A studio that has already taken a critical beating this year aside from its Marvel/Pixar product no less…..
We’ve already seen the “Captain Phillips” update and enough of “Saving Mr. Banks.”A “Maleficent” trailer is probably too much to ask for=/ “Muppets 27/ Need for Speed” news will have to do=(
You’re right about “Candelabra,” Et. It does seem pretty unbeatable.
But the distaff categories would have surely belonged to “Lovelace:” Seyfried, Stone.
And the film would have certainly received more attention if it had been an HBO Movie rather than a dog days of summer VOD/quasi theatrical release.
So they’ve already done costume tests with awesome
Josh Brolin as Batman. He looks pretty good:
http://hcd-1.imgbox.com/adbFveq7.jpg?st=mLzieT1LUfMUSWShx8McmQ&e=1376068631
There is going to be a Rifftrax (the current incarnation of MST3K for those who aren’t familiar) focusing on Starship Troopers. So they’re going to make fun of a movie that makes fun of itself.
We’re through the looking glass, people!
I’ve always kinda despised Rifftrax and MST3K – the guys are funny but the whole “Let’s mock this film because it’s old, dumb or cheap” is like the people who laugh in superiority at older films.
christian, i happened to catch ‘the devil’s advocate’ on cable late last night and saw rob bottin’s name as effects consultant in the credit scroll and thought of you. (that’s all really, i bet his hair was fabulous)
someone should do a schlocky blob-style horror movie about this ‘fatberg’ (makes me throw up in my mouth a little, gross total). fatberg, right ahead!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SOwi868XtL8
Not that I take anything Entertainment Weekly does seriously. But man, Owen Gleiberman’s column on how “great” this summer has been is bizarre.
Some choice quotes:
“Iron Man 3 is original without being origin-y, and the great fun of the movie is that it’s a blockbuster that always has something at stake.”
“A lot of the films I was seeing — Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z, This Is the End, Monsters University, 2 Guns — weren’t just “good summer movies” that succeeded in doing what they set out to do. They were good movies”
“The new summer movies aren’t dumbed down — they’re smartened up”
Christian: Actually, what I find kinda-sorta startling is when they mock a relatively good film. For example, I’d always considered This Island Earth one of the better 50s sci-fiers until they tore into it. (Did I laugh anyway? Well, yeah…)
‘starship troopers’ is a fascinating case of book-to-film adaptation, from heinlein’s controversial pro-military treatise to verhoeven’s satirical gung-ho gore-fest — i find it weirdly disturbing that in 96 or 97 (whenever ST was made) – when the internet/www was but a fledgling, the cyberspace explosion had just begun and the advent of ‘big brother’ and reality tv was still a few years off i think – starship troopers satirical ‘want to know more?’ device and tongue-in-cheek lampooning of the ‘new media’ seemed amusingly apt, but as far as a ‘prediction’ of the future look of media it’s sort of scarily spot-on; it’s always kind of funny when people don’t seem to realise ST is social satire but watching it now, when i saw it fairly recently i was struck by how much less certain elements look like verhoeven is taking the piss because they mirror the current media reality now much more than in the 90’s.
THIS ISLAND EARTH is actually what set me off against MST3K. It’s hardly a cheap and cheezy throwaway but seminal 50’s sci-fi with one of the most iconic film aliens….
Leahnz: I have never seen Patrick. Should I fill that gap before I try to catch the remake at the upcoming Fantastic Fest in Austin?
I can hear the Rifftrax when Neil Patrick Harris walks out in his Fourth Reich outfit: “Presenting this year’s Nazi wear….” as if that already wasn’t the joke.
joe: i didn’t even realise the remake was all done. can you see the original version of ‘patrick’? i think there’s a version that was dubbed for american viewers a la ‘mad max’ (clearly the powers that be in the late 70’s had little confidence in US auds’ ability to understand ozzy accents, rightly or wrongly) but the original undubbed version is better (obviously, dubbing is always a little dodgy), i have it on dvd but i don’t know if you’d have it there. i know nothing about the remake but from what i remember (i haven’t watched it in many years as is the case with so many of my dvds, note to self: watch ‘patrick’ again) the original is an interesting little character-driven psychological/telekinesis horror flick, well done, kind of slow but intense in parts – and for having a villain who’s lying in a coma for most of the movie i remember he manages to be pretty scary, no mean feat, and the female lead is quite good. i always thought ‘patrick’ would make a good dvd box set with crichton’s ‘coma’, late ’70’s psychological coma horror. putting together those dvd sets would be a good job.
yeah i must admit i rather like how while heinlein’s ‘starship troopers’ was accused of glorifying fascism, verhoeven’s so gleefully lampoons it
It’s funny: As far as most US cineastes are concerned, there was a kinda-sorta glory period — from the late ’70s to the mid-’80s or so — for Australian and New Zealand, when we got to see everything from Breaker Morant to Bad Blood, Goodbye Pork Pie to Travelling North, Smash Palace to High Tide in art-houses, but stuff like Mad Max and Patrick remained more or less stuck in the grindhouse/drive-in circuit.
back in the day. that’s weird though, i wonder why — i can’t imagine the dubbing with US voices/accents could be the reason for relegation to the grindhouse ghetto (i don’t recall any of those other flicks you mentioned getting the dub treatment for the US but i may not be aware of it), i suppose ‘mad max’ and ‘patrick’ are pulpier genre fare so maybe deemed too lowbrow for arthouse types
US exploitation distributers thought that the Aussie voices would turn off drive-in Yanks, hence the silly dubbing of MAD MAX and PATRICK, which if anything, hurt the films success here. Fortunately, the “Australian New Wave” rendered that idea moot by 1982.
This Island Earth is one of the funniest MST3Ks. It’s an okay movie but I think it’s a fine one to make fun of.
For the life of me, I can’t decide what is sadder: The lack of interest paid these days by David to this blog, or the lack of interest shown by posters. Can’t help wondering if this blog will even exist a year from now.
Christian, go listen to Tv’s Frank discuss those movies. The people who made mst3k, loved those terrible movies. If you can’t joke about movies you love, then what movies can you joke about?
Joe, i think he likes Twitter too much. Twitter is killing all the movie sites. To be fair, there isnt a lot to talk about. Summer is winding up. Most of the interesting films have been released and discussed at great length.
Anyone see Kick Ass 2?
Seventh Son now at Uni.
Only a matter of time before Uni buys WB’s stake in Godzilla.
You know, you say that every August, Joe.
I will be here next year and for many years after that.
Not every August, David. And I don’t recall there ever being quite as much lengthy stretches when no one (yourself included) posted a comment here. And BTW: Aren’t you the one who not so long ago posted that you were paying more attention to other things?
“To be fair, there isnt a lot to talk about. Summer is winding up. Most of the interesting films have been released and discussed at great length.”
WRONG! The two best wide releases of the summer drop next weekend! The best horror movie since CABIN IN THE WOODS, and the epic conclusion to Edgar Wright’s genre trilogy (the latter of which I haven’t seen, but I expect to be fantastic). Re: YOU’RE NEXT, I’m not sure the generic trailer is doing the film any favors, though it could be effective…I just hope audiences aren’t angry when they realize they’re getting much more than what they bargained for. (Now can we please, please get a stateside release for LIVIDE?)
As for KA2…man, what a letdown. I think inert is a good word for it. It just didn’t have that gleeful abandon of the first movie. But hey, at least it isn’t PARANOIA. Did Luketic hack the phones of Ford, Oldman and Dreyfuss and discover penis selfies or what?
Can someone at least report back on Aint them bodies Saints? Love the trailer and doubt it will come to my neck of the woods, but looked like the most interesting film this summer.
THE WORLD’S END is very good and as usual, has a point of view, albeit melancholy. In fact, I dare say that if you took out the genre elements, Wright and co might be getting even more bigger kudos. It’s certainly Simon Pegg’s tour de force with Nick Frost as Sammo Hung…
I reviewed AIN’T THEM BODIES SAINTS for MCN at Sundance: http://moviecitynews.com/2013/02/sundance-review-aint-them-bodies-saints/
I thought “World’s End” started out like gangbusters.
But like “Scott Pilgrim,” it began to feel increasingly repetitious: like I was watching the same scene(s) repeated ad infinitum.
The epilogue is killer, though, and I think Wright might have had a great movie here if he’d just cut 20 minutes out.
For me, “Shaun of the Dead” still remains his best work to date.
Dude needs an editor almost as badly as Peter Jackson.
SCOTT PILGRIM is one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years, so I’m delighted with any and all comparisons;)
OK, Et, lol.
But one movie we’re sure to agree on is “Closed Circuit.”
Yikes, what a flatliner.
“CC” has the feel of a second tier cable flick (or maybe a lesser BBC-to-PBS “Masterpiece Theater” transfer).
The first half of the movie is well-nigh impenetrable unless you’re hip to the intricacies of the British legal system. And the second half is merely thuddingly predictable.
It also proves that Eric Bana is a charisma vacuum incapable of carrying a film…or at least any film since “Chopper.”
how about a thread to discuss ‘elysium’ DP since you haven’t posted a review for some reason, instead of ‘kick ass 2’, who gives a shit.
rather fascinating to see how strongly critical opinion differs on elysium – there have been a lot of mild ‘meh’ reactions on movies lately either slightly positive or negative but elysium seems to have touched a bit of a nerve often receiving either elated praise or real disappointment/ridicule/disdain, which is interesting.
(i agree about ‘the world’s end’, if the kooky genre elements were removed it would play like a mournful dramedy and quite a different beast for wright and pegg – pegg’s really quite excellent – and also frost; on second viewing i appreciated frost’s sad clown andy even more)
Not surprising to me about CC…I don’t understand the love for Crowley. BOY A is a decent enough movie, but nothing radically special….
I really liked Crowley’s “Intermission,” and thought “Boy A” was perfectly decent. (Mullan and Garfield were fantastic.)
But whatever virtues he may have displayed in those early films have seemingly vanished. Both “CC” and that dreary Michael Caine movie (“Is Anybody There?”) could have been directed by one of the robots from “World’s End” or “Elysium.”
I love the fact that my favorite line from The World’s End — “Aw, fuck off, ya big lamp!” — makes absolutely no sense outside the context of the movie.
re STARSHIP TROOPERS – my European friends thought it was brilliant satire, my US friends mostly took it at face value and thought it was just stupid. To my mind, it gets more relevant each year – unfortunately.
“The epilogue is killer, though, and I think Wright might have had a great movie here if he’d just cut 20 minutes out.”
Fuck beans does that apply to everybody these days. Once you become an established director with a fan base, it’s like you’re handed twenty unneeded minutes that youre contractually obligated to insert into your movie.
Why cant people make good 1 hour 45 minute movies these days?
Anghus- “World’s End” is 109 minutes, but still felt needlessly padded (at least it did to me).
I think a 90 minute cut of the film could have been a masterpiece.
Yup. 109 minutes. That would 19 more than most comedies need. I think 90 minutes is the comedy sweet spot.
Sheesh, everybody’s an editor.
Thank God Orson Welles kept THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS down to 88 minutes! Oh, wait…
“Shaun” is still my favorite Wright movie, and it’s also the shortest/tightest (97 minutes).
“Hot Fuzz” was 112; “Scott Pilgrim,” 109; and “The World’s End” is 109.
Seems like a pattern, lol.
This is my biggest problem with Tarantino. 165 minutes for Django is unforgivable. Same with Kill Bill 2 at 136, Jackie Brown at 154, and Death Proof at 114. Absurd.
Oops.
I got a couple of those Wright run times wrong: “Fuzz” was 120 and “Scott” clocked in at 112.
Funny you should mention Tarantino’s tendency for bloat, Et.
I showed “Reservoir Dogs” to my class last semester (it was the first time I’d seen it since 1992, believe it or not), and was shocked at how lean, mean and damn near perfect it was.
While I still prefer “Pulp Fiction,” I can understand why some people insist “Dogs” is his greatest film.
“I love the fact that my favorite line from The World’s End — “Aw, fuck off, ya big lamp!” — makes absolutely no sense outside the context of the movie.”
ha that’s funny joe, i mentioned in a thread a while back that i’ve been incorporating some ‘the world’s end’ phrases into my lexicon (because why not – so far “let’s booboo” rules) and i was just waiting for the chance to somehow work “fuck off ya big lamp!” into the conversation. i’ve yet to take a crazy straw to the pub but by god i’m gonna do it
“re STARSHIP TROOPERS – my European friends thought it was brilliant satire, my US friends mostly took it at face value and thought it was just stupid.”
this…
i forgot to say movieman that’s weird i just watched ‘res dogs’ the other night (tho i’ve seen it lots since ’92, man that’s a long hiatus) with ‘true romance’ and the cleanness of RD never ceases to amaze me (nor the viciousness, but that’s another kettle of fish)
Gleiberman thought Star Trek Into Darkness was a “good movie”?!? Guess he never read Into Darkness voted worst Star Trek film by trekkies, beating even ST5, a feat I considered impossible:
“The poll results confirm what has long been obvious to Star Trek observers: by rebooting the series in 2009 as an action-oriented, fast-paced, big-budget blockbuster proposition, Abrams and his team have completely alienated the hardcore Star Trek audience…” which is what I’ve been saying since the first teaser in what, 2008? But Paramount couldn’t care less as long as folks who don’t give a shit about Trek are still willing to buy tickets for whatever tentpole is playing this weekend.
And though this is going a bit afield, since Breaking Bad has grabbed the zeitgeist by the nads (and scripted TV is often proving to be much better than most movies these days), I feel no problem calling bullshit here on the Whitman revelation. SPOILER ALERT for anyone else who hasn’t spent the last month watching all five seasons, but I don’t care how oppressed Skyler may have been during her fakey depressive spell, there is no way she could have been so wienerwhipped by Walt that she would allow him to bring that book into the house without a major confrontation.
Maybe I should illustrate how things would go down in my household. After seeing the book in my possession for the first time, my babymama will congratulate me for finally coming out of the closet, since she and apparently everyone else in the world know that Leaves of Grass was written by and for gay men. I could protest that times have changed and even straight people are allowed to read the book nowadays, but she will drown me out, calling me “faggot” a few times before asking me how it feels to have dick in my ass (to her, every gay man is a catcher, never a pitcher; you don’t need to take a statistical analysis class to realize there’s a flaw in this argument, just as you don’t need to be a defense attorney to realize that merely knowing the terms “pitcher” and “catcher” could prove collaboration with the enemy in many courts of law), then she will grab the book out of my hand, flip through it, and easily find the inscription.
I could insist the book is merely a gift from a co-worker and nothing more, but she’ll ignore me completely while she makes a quick, silent trip to the kitchen to retrieve a carving knife which she’ll use to castrate me or just stab me outright, and while I bleed to death on the floor she will repeatedly kick me in the ribs, making it difficult for me to breathe, let alone reply, while she screams “Who the fuck is ‘G.B.’? WHO THE FUCK IS ‘G.B.’?”
Okay, I’ll admit that things have been a little “rough” between us now and then, but still, that’s how the scenario would play out in any household, right?
You and your Star Trek friends have a few more stages of grief to go through Sam. This is something many of had to come to terms with when Man of Steel opened. You get hyped with the prospect of ‘not your fathers Superman’ and then realize that you’re the dad they’re talking about.
Well, as someone who watched the original series in his youth (and was roundly mocked by my classmates, who were hooked on BEWITCHED and THAT GIRL, which aired opposite it), I thought STID was fine, at least above the line. A movie is not a TV show, and I can live with the explosions as long as there’s enough time for the core characters and they behave reasonably like they’re supposed to. That poll is a joke; the newest film is almost always the one they’ll hate the most, and that’s not limited to STAR TREK.
I liked the push to disqualify Abrams’ movies from the list because they supposedly exist in an alternate reality and therefore don’t count. Meanwhile, GALAXY QUEST does count because it’s a feature-length riff on Trek culture.
GALAXY QUEST gets STAR TREK better than Abrams tho.
Leah- So true, huh?
Tarantino’s post-“Pulp” tendency to constantly gild the lily reached its apotheosis in “Django” which everyone but QT seems to know should have rightfully ended w/ Leo’s death.
Not “everybody,” Movieman.
Yeah, you have to love these recurring “everyone knows the movie should’ve ended here…” memes that almost always posit that the movie “should” end in the most unsurprising place possible. What is it about the surprise of a movie not ending EXACTLY when you think it will that seems to so vex some moviegoers?
Casual fans of Star Trek TOS, who never really jumped onto the TNG, DS9 or Voyager bandwagons don’t have much of a problem with this film…at least the ones I’ve encountered. I agree, you have to be hardcore (like me) to really appreciate the level of pandering/desecration Abrams has committed to here.
First I don’t buy that into darkness could be worse than generations which was a low point for cinema in general not just the trek series, but just overall the original Star Trek died in the nineties due to pack of interest. They are not going to make a more classical take on trek because there isn’t a large enough audience for it
Jesse: I have to admit — I did play that game myself. Once. http://www.movingpictureblog.com/2012/08/what-if-vertigo-had-been-shorter.html
I’ve never been a ST nerd at all. I rarely watched the show except to see lizard men , tribbles and mini-skirts but I “get” why people dig them so. I do love the first two ST films.
And if they think there’s no audience for a “classical take” then why remake Khan and use the series’s tropes for repeated effect? I don’t think a good ST script should be considered “classical.”
Yeah, Abrams’ latest made no sense at all–he didn’t give two shits about Trek fans but felt a bizarre need to wedge Khan into a storyline he didn’t fit into. Or…was Abrams preemptively sabotaging any attempt by his successor to do the Khan story right because he really hates Trek?
I’ll admit I was a really big fan of the original series (called TOS by Trekkies) and Enterprise, was okay with TNG but not at all interested in DS9 or Voyager. The last two felt like a desperate attempt to tell stories, any stories, in the Trek universe without including the major players, like setting a Star Wars series entirely in the Mos Eisley Cantina. (“What’s going down, Watto?” “My butt cheeks on that bar stool.”)
And though many couldn’t stand Enterprise, I liked it because the creatives pushed the boundaries without breaking them–The Borg?!? Are you mad? Hey, at least they were all destroyed with no evidence left behind. Abrams, on the other hand, didn’t just break the boundaries but set them on fire and peed on the ashes.
Joe- It seemed to me the only reason Tarantino didn’t end “Django” at the point I suggested (it should have rightfully ended) was because he hadn’t gotten to his (gauche) cameo yet.
That said, all complaints of bloat/gilding the lily aside, I’m a huge Tarantino fan, and have even grown to love his excesses.
I guess I just selfishly want every one to be as perfect as “Pulp” and “Dogs.”
what about ‘jackie brown’ movieman? it may be my fave tarantino – the conclusion of his urban LA trilogy – i’ve grown to love it that much. probably QT’s most conventional narrative (perhaps due to the adaptation of leonard) but the perfs – grier & forster in particular, their bittersweet ‘adult’ love affair is something seldom seen in pop cinema anymore – and the dichotomy of feeling both languid but well-paced, the wry humour, the fantastic music, the heartbreaking end…perhaps QT’s most understated work, maybe that’s why it hits my soft spot.
re: django, it’s a fascinating beast — on one hand it probably should have ended with calvin candy’s death, that would have made for a tighter show and i’m not overly fond of the laughably OTT bloodbath finale (rather literally a bloodbath, the walls of the manor are bathed in it) but in a way i applaud QT for having the audacity to keep it in – it’s so fucked up and random, and along with the 1001 ‘niggers’ he’s probably the only mainstream filmmaker who could away with it at the moment, so in a way good for him, get away with weird fucked up shit for as long as you can in these days of such creeping homogenization and mediocrity.
“I’ll admit I was a really big fan of the original series (called TOS by Trekkies) and Enterprise”
Wow…that has to be a first. Enterprise? Really? The series with the soap opera music over the opening credits? The series that nearly killed Star Trek? Respect for saying this publicly….
As for story, “Voyager,” actually had arguably the most compelling storyline of all 5 Trek series (with TNG in theory, not execution, the least compelling). The problem, to me with the series, was the wide gulf between a few compellingly good actors (Mulgrew, Tim Russ who for my money is a better Vulcan than Leonard Nimoy, Robert Picardo and yes Jeri Ryan) and the rest of the cast, which was without question uniformly terrible (Robert Beltran, Roxann Dawson, Robert D. McNeill, Ethan Phillips, Garret Wang). Jennifer Lien was also good, and I will never understand the decision to jettison her from the series instead of Dawson, who is undoubtedly the worst actor among over 30 regulars in Trek history. She makes DeForest Kelley look like Gielgud.
“Jackie Brown?” Really guys? I do think it’s better than “Kill Bill 2,” which has perhaps the most crushingly disappointing and drawn out finale in recent history, but yikes….also, it isn’t even CLOSE to the novel…
“Jackie Brown?” Really guys?”
Robert Forster and Pam Grier = yes, really
Leah- I love “Jackie Brown,” but I love all Tarantino movies (even “Death Proof The Extended Cut”).
“JB” was the first Tarantino where his propensity for shaggy dog storytelling really made itself known. Unlike “Pulp Fiction” where the discursive stuff was only seemingly discursive, in “JB” it was the first indication that it would become the guiding principle of Tarantino’s art.
Forster is so damn good in that, and you’re right about the killer soundtrack (which I’m proud to say I own, lol).
The Delfonics, Bloodstone, Bobby Womack, whoa!
Of the later series, I’m partial to DS9, because it was the only one in which guest stars came to the principals, rather than the other way around. Being situated in one place was a nice distinction that gave the series some grounding, and it got better as it went along.
ETA: And made it easier for crossovers from the other series.
Movies aren’t novels. I haven’t read RUM PUNCH, so I can’t make comparisons between it and JACKIE BROWN. But I agree with others here that it’s one of QT’s best, and would be an absolute must-see even if it had nothing going for it but Forster’s wonderful performance (which lost the Oscar to Robin Williams–now THAT’S worth a “really, guys?”).
I woulda given it to Robet Forster but Robin Williams is pretty terrific in GOODWILL HUNTING. The scene where he tells Matt Damon he’s just a kid is one of the best moments in 90’s film — and how he got that Oscar.
Just to clarify, I didn’t really intend to diss Williams’ performance, except to note my big preference for Forsters’. Burt Reynolds would’ve been my second choice in the category, but Williams was good.
yeah, i have a hard time begrudging Robin Williams his GWH oscar – it’s a lovely empathetic perf, he worked so well with young Matt and it was a supporting role in the truest sense of the word in that his role of maguire serves to help heal will hunting and support/guide him towards his destiny and becoming his best self even as maguire himself finds healing; i supposed one could make a similar argument for the character of max cherry re his relationship with jackie brown (forster gets so much praise but Grier is a force of nature in that movie, dynamite) but max is a more interior, less showy role – so much of what max is feeling is just in his eyes, amazing ‘eye work’ haha from forster – and goodness knows the academy loves to award more showy/emotional supporting roles.
“and you’re right about the killer soundtrack (which I’m proud to say I own, lol).”
me too movieman! i love getting all retro and groovy to it
eta YancyS and i posted at the same time, snap
I should also say that I was absolutely stunned that the Academy actually nominated Forster’s non-showy work and never thought for a second he had a chance to win. I’m sure he saw the nod as victory enough.
Hey! Leahnz! Look! http://bit.ly/16ekJPT
hey that’s all kinds of awesome, joe (and i get the feeling that we feel very much the same way about the film itself, always kind of gratifying when that happens for some reason) – and i must add that your photograph of nick, simon and edgar together is really very beautiful, i’d think they’d want a copy of that for posterity – capturing that moment in time in their youth when their collaboration was so special and things were the way they were, i think it’s really cool.
(just out of curiosity if you want to answer, do you edit down your interviews or use them in their entirety? only wondering because they seem so ‘well behaved’ for want of a better term, in ‘professional’ mode i guess; i briefly met frost and pegg after the premiere of ‘hot fuzz’ here at a thing when they’d presumably had a few drinks, and simon was just motormouth babbling while nick was sort of quiet with this weird grin on his face and he’d intermittently interject some profanity-infused comment with a nod — weirdly when i saw ‘tropic thunder’ after that, the bit with bill hader as les grossman’s assistant reminded me of it, where he kind of repeats/interjects during cruise’s rants, except of course simon wasn’t being a psychotic dickcheese just babbling about something, i can’t remember what)
I so wanted to like At World’s End more than I did. In the end I found it the weakest of the trilogy. I agree with someone above who mentioned the repetitiveness that got kind of stale after awhile. You felt they were having the same conversations over and over again. Shall we stay? Shall we go? Why are we here? Why are we doing this?
At my screening there were long stretches of audience silence, too long.
The thing about this movie is the payoff is quite big, as that whole lamp moment was equal to any of the best moments of Shaun and Hot Fuzz. It was such a genuinely witty, sarcastic, and true to characters moment that it almost singlehandedly saved the movie for me. Almost.
i did not like the parts where the movie just seems to come to a dead stop in order for characters to have a conversation. Where the pursuers seem to give the pursued all the time they needed to have deep realizations and epiphanies. I know it’s a comedy but Shaun of the Dead seemed to be able to handle all that juggling more deftly. I know it may be a small thing but it’s a pet peeve of mine.
All in all, the trilogy is a unique experience and a great commentary of film genres themselves from a team of people who seem to truly love moviemaking.