MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB Labor Day Is Coming


Be Sociable, Share!

73 Responses to “BYOB Labor Day Is Coming”

  1. tbunny says:

    tbunny’s year later reviews:

    Silver Linings: The first act was very good, then it got pretty formulaic. I guess once he goes on his meds everything is fine? Bradley Cooper was excellent. Jennifer Lawrence does fine but it felt like a fairly light performance, not as good as Cooper’s.

    Django Unchained: Overall a great Tarantino movie. Waltz is great in the first act then unfortunately sort of fades away. Foxx is excellent. DiCaprio is TREMENDOUS. The movie didn’t need the last scene of vengeance really. Maybe an abbreviated version where we see Broomhilde outside the mansion, hear gunfire, watch Django come out then the house explodes. I love how Tarantino edits in pieces of the story outside the timeline. I’m sort of disappointed Tarantino is doing another Kill Bill movie.

    DiCaprio CRUSHES Affleck as an actor.

  2. Hcat says:

    Was surprised at how sloppy I found Silver Linings. Tucker would just show up so randomly I thought he might be a hullucination of Coopers. The performances were strong but it’s a shame they were supporting such a trite story.

  3. leahnz says:

    having just seen ‘silver linings playbook’ for the first time the other night (only a year late, typical), i feel compelled to add: how on earth did lawrence get a ‘best actress’ oscar nom, let alone win it? i think she’s a rising talent and i like her, and she’s good in her role, but it’s not a lead role performance, it’s a supporting role to cooper’s Pat; Tiffany is a force – or ‘element’ or whathaveou, a catalyst – that changes pat in his character arc, tiffany has no character arc of her own, we see no interior life of tiffany, she exists solely as a force for pat to bump up against and come to realise he’s being a massive douche and fall in love, he’s the protagonist and tiffany is a supporting role; that enough members of the academy thought this is what a great lead actress role looks like these days is somehow quite disturbing. ok i feel better now having got that off my chest.

  4. cadavra says:

    I know my memory isn’t what it used to be, but didn’t Jean Dujardin win the Best Actor Oscar a year-and-a-half ago? Because he’s in two major holiday releases, but you wouldn’t know it from the trailers. He’s completely absent from WOLF OF WALL STREET, and is in one quick shot in MONUMENTS MEN. If it’s important for people to win these things to make them more marketable, the system ain’t working.

    Similarly, I’ve seen both trailers for THOR 2, and you’d think what with Kat Dennings now being a big TV star (and supposedly having her role expanded in this sequel), you’d think she’d be more prominently on display. Nope–once again, one or two flash cuts, no dialogue.

    We may have truly and finally come to that point where stars no longer matter.

  5. Etguild2 says:

    Agreed Leah…there were a lot of better choices. I’d have voted for Watts or Riva. Cotillard was deserving of a nom as well.

    So how about those ravegasms for “Gravity?” Been waiting sooo long for Cuaron’s follow to “Children of Men…” and looks like it was worth the wait! He even, apparently, pulled a great performance out of Sandra Bullock.

  6. christian says:

    Bullock is a smart terrific actress.

  7. GriffandKelly says:

    Team Leahnz: I am looking forward to Jennifer Lawrence’s work in the future, but all her work in Silver Linings was so wooden, so underwrought — maybe this was the script, but I was very disenchanted by her win. But that’s what happens when you’re charming at lunch.

    And it was an absolute TRAVESTY Cotillard didn’t get nominated. Riva deserved the win.

    What’s actress looking like this year? First thoughts: Bullock, Blanchett, and… a lot of the “awards season” predictions seem like, em, a bunch of middlebrow shit… Julia Roberts? Emma Thompson? Kate Winslet? I feel I’m just gonna wind up watching the Oscars on silent with “Valley Girl” playing on repeat in the background (eugheguh gag me with spoon).

  8. Chris says:

    Cadavra, would Dujardin have gotten either of those roles without “The Artist?” (I’ll answer that: Nope.) He’s doing fine.

  9. YancySkancy says:

    Phooey on the J-Law backlash. She was terrific in SLP; hardly “wooden.” And “underwrought” almost sounds like a compliment. That said, I still haven’t seen the performances of two of her competitors: Riva and Watts, nor the non-nominated Cotillard, so I can offer any opinion about that. Have no problem with her winning over Chastain and Wallis though.

  10. leahnz says:

    well, to be clear i didn’t find lawrence’s performance lacking – i thought she was fine in the role – it’s the fact that the character of tiffany is NOT a ‘lead’ role in the film. tiffany is a supporting character; she has no arc whatsoever, her character’s interior life is not explored in the slightest (she has very few shots/scenes during the entire film when she’s not interacting with cooper, whereas pat’s character and interior world is extensively examined), she exists solely as a constant force/foil to assist pat on his journey and character arc – she is a supporting player in every sense, which is fine, i have no problem with that but the role should not be winning oscars for ‘best actress in a leading role’, that’s bogus imo.

  11. brack says:

    Lawrence is in the movie quite a bit. I don’t see how she can’t be the lead actor. She didn’t just support Cooper. Just because Cooper is the main lead doesn’t make Lawrence a non-lead.

  12. leahnz says:

    maybe you can explain how she “didn’t just support Cooper”. because yeah, she does. explain how tiffany does anything other than assist pat in his character’s journey – how does her character have any arc/journey of her own, any interior life that’s examined to any extent in the film, which is what would make her character a leading role and not a supporting one (and tiffany falling for pat during their interactions is not a character arc)

  13. anghus says:

    SLP was a movie that i found confounding. The first two acts are dark and kind of sad. Wayward souls, mental illness, a father who can’t understand his son or make him better. Then the third act turned into a ridiculous rom-com with laughable plot points. For a moment i thought the entire third act was a post-breakdown episode from Cooper’s character thinking he had finally overcome his mental illness and gotten a normal life. I was waiting for the jump cut back to Cooper being led back into the institution having learned this sugary confection he had created were the product of his hopes and dreams. Not what was actually happening.

    I hate the phrase ‘tonally all over the place’ because its so fucking overused. But man, that third act felt like Harvey was watching the dailies and screamed “David, put a fucking bow on this thing and give everybody a happy ending.”

    Those final scenes at the dance contest with Deniro and family running around the hotel were cringe inducing.

    The only thing more embarassing than the third act of SLP was Weinstein pushing the phrase “an instant classic” out there to describe the film. When Nicole Kidman was introducing the film at the oscars and repeated that same phrase to describe it, i couldnt help but laugh. I didnt realize the studios get to write their own Oscar copy.

  14. LexG says:

    Timely discussions!

    Anyone wanna hit us up with their takes on Rich Man’s Wife or Mimic? Long as we’re all caught up on new releases? How about the Matrix sequels? Always a barn-burner!

  15. MarkVH says:

    Lex FTW (as usual). Hell, I didn’t even think anyone remembered last year’s Oscars.

  16. Sam says:

    Stoked for Mimic. Heard good things about this Del Toro guy, and Chronos was pretty good.

  17. YancySkancy says:

    leah: I was only referring to the backlash, not your point about “supporting” vs. “lead.” I will say, however, that for all practical purposes, the Academy treats those categories as “more screen time” vs. “less screen time,” regardless of who may be in support of whom. Lawrence is the female lead of the film, even if her primary purpose is to support Cooper’s character. Besides, let’s face it, if Hollywood insisted on an actress being a true lead in order to get a nomination, they wouldn’t be able to fill the five slots most years.

  18. YancySkancy says:

    As for the untimeliness of the discussion, it’s Bring Your Own Blog, and that’s what tbunny brought. Anyone’s free to change the subject.

  19. christian says:

    Lex trying to hijack a free-form discussion again. Talk about old.

  20. Etguild2 says:

    Public Policy Polling, which was rated the most accurate poll in both the 2012 and 2008 elections, is doing extensive movie polling. Interesting findings.

    *27% of Americans go to the movies at least once a month. 41% go a few times a year, and 32% go almost never.

    *Ranking the genres 78% of Americans like comedies, 72% dramas, 67% Rom-Coms (yikes), 56% animation, 49% action (wow), 41% comic book movies, and just 22% horror.

    *Streaming/Netflix is now a more primary way of seeing movies than in theaters. TV is still #1, theaters #3, kiosks #4 and store rentals now #5

    *50% of Americans said reviews were somewhat or very important when choosing whether to see a movie. Higher than I would have thought

    %Only 26% of Americans like 3D, 41% don’t, the rest are still unsure

  21. Bulldog68 says:

    Didn’t Tiffany have her own thing going on with the dancing competition? We did get to know her character’s history of mental illness quite a bit, and sure it was in service to the main story, but we did learn that she was using the dancing as a mechanism for self healing. No? That’s not enough?

  22. Triple Option says:

    What film was Marion Cotillard snubbed on?

    When was the last time any of you watched some of the MDA Telethon? It was such a big deal when I was a kid. I’d try to stay up and watch as much as possible. That was somehow a more important contribution than the money I’d pledge. Who’s the host these days, Ryan Seacrest??

  23. christian says:

    I’d watch just for Jerry when I wasn’t cringing. I even did phones once. Good times.

  24. Etguild2 says:

    “What film was Marion Cotillard snubbed on?”

    Rust and Bone

  25. anghus says:

    Lex has a fan. And he actually declared FTW.

    Man. That was good for a two minute laugh.

  26. leahnz says:

    “I will say, however, that for all practical purposes, the Academy treats those categories as “more screen time” vs. “less screen time,” regardless of who may be in support of whom. Lawrence is the female lead of the film, even if her primary purpose is to support Cooper’s character. Besides, let’s face it, if Hollywood insisted on an actress being a true lead in order to get a nomination, they wouldn’t be able to fill the five slots most years.”

    re: YancySk, yes this is sadly true, at least in terms of the types of movies and roles the academy likes to nominate for oscars. and films with two ‘true’ lead characters are fairly rare, they do get nominations from time to time (such as sarandon & davis in T&L) – then of course there’s the bizarro world example of foster (the true lead, who’s female) and hopkins, whose perf as lecter is legend but the fairly small role had no business being nominated for ‘best actor’ in terms of time or content as far as a lead role goes. then you have the reverse ‘jamie foxx’ incident, whose character of ‘max’ is the clear lead in ‘collateral’ – the film told overwhelmingly from his POV and with the most screentime – nominated for SUPPORTING actor (buuulllshit)…and interestingly max really has no character arc whatsoever, as he and cruise’s vincent both play ‘the unchanging force’ in conflict through the one night.

    bulldog: you bring up the dance thing with tiffany, which is actually a great example of the point i was trying to make, which is yes, she has her dance thing, but do we ever SEE her or learn anything about tiffany, or see her learn anything about herself, from her doing her dance thing in the context of HER life? no, she delivers some brief dialogue exposition about the dance thing she’s into TO pat, and we only ever see her dance WITH PAT as part of HIS character development/arc (please don’t mind the caps, i’d do italics for emphasis but they’re a pain in the ass). we see nothing of tiffany in her own life, i think the number of shots or scenes she has in the movie not physically with pat is less than can be counted on one hand, maybe only a couple.

  27. SamLowry says:

    And no one mentioned one of the worst cliches in SLP–it’s a sports movie, where the outcome depends on the outcome of TWO contests. Wonder how that works out.

    Another zinger, this time from Cracked:

    “I know it’s commonly laughed at as an example of frivolous lawsuits taken to crazy extremes, but the woman who filed a class action suit because Drive didn’t have the Fast and Furious-level automotive action that the trailer promised kind of had a point. Selling a movie based on the pulse-pounding car chases is a direct appeal to that segment of the movie-going public that only shows up to see shit explode. Promising that and then delivering what Drive ultimately was is about as close as Hollywood gets to an actual bait and switch scheme.”

    From 5 Recent Movies That Got Way More Praise Than They Deserved.

    (…if you’re wondering, the other four are Zero Dark Thirty, Pitch Perfect, Magic Mike, and… Silver Linings Playbook!)

    (Even better: “…both of the lead characters are depressed shut-ins who literally have no responsibilities outside of entertaining us by looking adorable onscreen. No jobs or anything of the sort. So why in the fuck can Jennifer Lawrence only practice her dance moves when the Eagles are playing? Is that the only time the dance studio they use is open for business? Nope. The “dance studio” is a room at her house….”)

  28. Etguild2 says:

    Telluride opens with a bang with “Labor Day,” which is being hailed as deeply affecting, and something entirely new for Reitman. Looks like Paramount has some decision-making to do between this movie, WoWS and “Nebraska.”

  29. tbunny says:

    As I get older and presumably crankier I tend to get hung up on the more general improbabilities. Like, ok, you’re a fucked up bipolar case with anger problems, living with your parents in a seemingly co-dependent state of delayed adulthood, and guess what? A gorgeous 20 something sex addict lives on your street and is way into you. She’s pursuing YOU.

  30. SamLowry says:

    That’s not an improbability, it’s a wank fantasy spewed into a word processor that people were actually willing to read!

    Ah, for the days of Penthouse letters.

    (And I’d recommend staying away from the comments section for that Cracked article–it’s a hornet’s nest of nitwits annoyed that one of their favorite movies got slimed. In just one day it’s had twice as many comments as a video posted earlier this week of “Hoedown Throwdown” played over Miley’s recent performance. The current consensus is that we shouldn’t make fun of a stroke victim, if we take all that uncontrollable tongue-hanging as proof of hemiparesis.)

  31. Keil S. says:

    Which is best: Rocky V, Robot Jox, Pacific Heights, or Shakma?

  32. Joe Leydon says:

    Let me throw this in: One of the things I liked about Silver Linings Playbook is that they didn’t win the dance competition. They scored just high enough to fulfill the terms of the bet, but not any higher. I found that to be refreshingly believable.

  33. christian says:


  34. Nat says:

    Geez, give Jennifer Lawrence a break. She deserved that Oscar Win period. Every scene she was on, she electrified it. And what really did anyone expect about a movie called SILVER LININGS playbook? It’s supposed to be happy and optimistic. I thought that David O Russell did a wonderful job with this movie, just the right amount of darkness and craziness. The movie could have teteered on the dark side but it did not, it deftly balanced the thin line between heavy drama and brainless eyecandies. I haven’t seen a movie like that in my lifetime.

  35. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Lex FTW again.

    There’s a shitload of goofiness in a lot of past Oscar winners. Why is this even being discussed? SLP was sloppy as all hell but won people over with sheer charisma.

    Arc schmark, who the fuck are you, Syd Field? Since when is there a rule book for these things? Characters must have a 3 act arc to win gold? I call bullshit on that. Hoffman had no arc in Midnight Cowboy, great performance though. You could go through all of the 70s nominees and not find this so called arc you speak of.

    I’m so bored with people spouting this sort of nonsense. It’s like that hate movies or something.

    Can we talk about Wolf Street please? Who’s seen it and were you as let down as I was?

  36. leahnz says:

    are ‘you’ talking to me, ballsweat, just too cool to type my name? always a pleasure. (anyone over 15 who says FTW in a discussion, well damn, kinda embarassing) anyway apparently not since i said nothing about a “3rd act arc”, and my point wasn’t just some sort of character arc (or journey) but that a leading role requires the portrayal of some kind of interior life and character development, a leading role exists not just in the sphere of another character, all of which i think i made pretty clear – and funnily enough much of which describes hoffman’s ratzo, if you want to argue that he has no arc or journey of his own in MC, which is debateable. and the rest of what you said about no character arcs/journeys in 70’s cinema oscar noms, christ what nonsense. what the fuck are you talking about.

    (joe, didn’t we pretty much know there’s no chance in hell of pat and tiffany winning after they walk in and see the flash twizzlestick pros rehearsing? i never felt like there was a chance in hell they’d win, just that they could maybe do better than ‘average’ (5) – and i just want to add when she crotch-plants pat in the face during the ‘lift’, that’s pretty fucking cringe-larious)

  37. Etguild2 says:

    Dito Monteil’s awful looking “Empire State” slithers into theaters this weekend, and gives The Rock his 5th theatrical lead role this year. He’s the new Channing Tatum!

  38. MarkVH says:

    Erm, yeah, I think Lex is funny, and he said something funny so I said FTW. What of it, anghus? You sad you didn’t get a FTW?

  39. movieman says:

    Saw another terrific movie last nite (“Thanks for Sharing”) which is the second film in as many weeks (“Drinking Buddies” being the other) that recalls classic early Jonathan Demme.
    First-time director/cowriter Stuart Blumberg beautifully finesses potentially icky subject matter (sexual addiction) that could have easily been played for queasy laughs or equally queasy bathos.
    And the cast is pitch-perfect (yes, even Pink and Josh Gad).
    I’m curious to see how it fares in the marketplace, and whether Roadside can take it to “Mud” numbers (or beyond).

  40. Joe Leydon says:

    Leahnz: That’s what I mean: Up until the competition actually begins, I was afraid the movie might pull some sort of miraculous upset thing. Guess I should have paid more attention to the earlier scene where it’s obvious that the conditions for both the dance competition and the football game bets were being dialed back. It’s almost as though the filmmakers were winking and saying to us: “Now look, we’re not gonna ask you to swallow too many improbabilities here…”

    BTW: I had no trouble believing that the very attractive young Miss Lawrence would be attracted to Bradley Cooper. Why? Well, for openers, he’s Bradley Cooper.

    And if we’re gonna tear into logic long after the fact: You do realize that mean old lady will return to the farm and grab Toto again, right?

  41. JLawless says:

    If by “electrified it” you mean “looked like she was on an oxy bender after repeatedly getting punched in the face” then sure… cue the “she’s fucked up mentally so that means she nailed it” bullshit that gives people a complete misunderstanding of mental illness through this movie.

  42. JLawless says:

    AHHH… so hateful… I actually enjoyed myself immensely when I saw SLP last fall… that last comment is total overkill… she was FINE…

  43. christian says:

    Hoffman had no arc in MIDNIGHT COWBOY? Talk about a timely discussion (FTW).

  44. anghus says:

    Im sad that people use expressions like FTW in an ongoing conversation like this is the talkback section of AICN. Sad about the sycophantic rambling as if lex walks into the room, make a comment, drops the mic, and one guy in the room is like YEAH! like a drunken Dane Cook fan. I’m sad because that comment exists, and by proxy that someone was inane enough to make it. Sad that there are people that view a movie forum as capable of having winners and losers rather than opinions. Sad that somebody felt the need to scream FTW. Sad that the person you’re making the comment about might be the most unhappy person on the face of the earth, and your FTW comment couldn’t be more ironic or less appreciated by the person you’re sucking up to.

    “You sad you didn’t get a FTW?”

    Not even a little. I don’t view participating in a conversation about movies as a competition. Though it’s weird that you do.

    Re: Jennifer Lawrence in SLP

    She was fine in the movie. But i still think the movie was a mess. I thought the same thing about Fighter. O’Russell is an interesting filmmakers because i always seem to like most of it, but there’s one thing that drives me nuts. Like The Fighter. I liked most of the movie but kept wanting to douse Amy Adams and Marky Mark’s sisters with gasoline. I realize their grating nature was intentional, but i kept hoping one of the boxers would punch any of them in the face.

  45. Etguild2 says:

    Day two of the movie poll…More people surveyed approve of Ben Affleck as Batman than disapprove! 30% approve, 21% disapprove, 50% aren’t sure. Also when polled on who the best Batman is, it’s a dead heat between Bale and the initially maligned Michael Keaton. Batman also remains the most popular superhero, and Iron Man has leapt to 2nd. Superman 3rd, Spidey fallen to 4th.

    Some interesting plus/minus favorable ratings among actors/actresses:

    Hanks: +73 (top actor)
    Denzel: +68
    Morgan Freeman: +67
    Will Smith: +66
    Streep: +61 (top actress)
    Eastwood: +60 (the chair didn’t hurt a lot)
    Halle: +51
    Hathaway: +49 (I thought people hated her?)
    Nicholson: +46
    Clooney: +45
    Leo: +41
    Depp: +34
    Jennifer Lawrence: +31
    Affleck: +26
    Mel Gibson: +20 (his demise may be overstated)
    Tarrantino: +12
    Sean Penn: +8
    Baldwin: +1
    Schwarzenegger: Even
    Jane Fonda: -8
    Pauly Shore: -11

  46. MarkVH says:

    Whoa anghus, easy there, buddy. You make it sound like you guys are debating world hunger or f’ing Chekov (not the Star Trek version). Lex came in, took the piss (which often needs taking), and I thought it was sorta funny, so I commented on it. You can call it whatever you’d like (sychophantic and sucking up are probably overstating it, but whatever, you’re upset, it’s cool).

    What’s really funny is that you get all riled up when somebody intrudes on this most hallowed of movie discussion boards, but let’s face it, this ain’t exactly the Oxford cinema society (I didn’t like SLP because it was dark and then it was funny wtf?; I didn’t like The Fighter cause I want to hit all the girls). Let’s try not to take ourselves so seriously, huh?

  47. Chris says:

    Wow, movieman. I love me some “Citizen’s Band”/”Melvin and Howard”-era Demme but I can’t see any connection between them and “Thanks for Sharing” (which I didn’t like at all).

  48. LexG says:

    GETAWAY: They saved the best for last this summer.

    A-plus. Hawke. GOMEZ. VOIGHT. Bow. Go see it five, six, seventeen times. PERFECT movie.

  49. LexG says:

    And Mark FTW (zing!) Really, anghus and I bat it around on Twitter now and again (he follows me, so he must be a “fan,” per his own logic) and he’s a solid dude. Not sure why he’s jumping down anybody’s throat for thumbs-upping my rather tame observation that it’s bizarre how SLP of all genial Oscar noms from a YEAR AGO is still some kind of lightning rod! on movie message boards, dudes all ferociously taking sides like it’s some scorched-earth/alienating/divisive piece of cinema.

    Mostly it’s sort of an amusing comment on the I SAW IT FIRST! nature of movie bloggery– guys like Wells and Billington and Faraci and DP all trying to hit the BIG SCREENINGS first for all these gems, trying to one-up each other with who got into what first, who was the FIRST! to call something’s Oscar prospects or whatnot…

    They do all this like it’s life-and-death, as if their ever-so-plugged-in insider readers are all likeminded… Then you scroll down to the comments, and it’s like dudes who just now redboxed Silver Linings Playbook 11 months later.

  50. movieman says:

    Really, Chris?
    I thought “Sharing” had the same non-judgmental, “everybody has their reason” humanism that filtered so strongly through most of Demme’s best early films.
    I got the same vibe from “Drinking Buddies,” too.
    Maybe Jonathan Demme will prove to be a more influential director to today’s generation of filmmakers than anyone would have previously imagined.
    Finally got a chance to see “The Grandmaster” today (as feared, it involved a 150 mile round-trip drive). Like all WKW movies it’s positively sublime.
    But I had a rather complicated reaction to it overall.
    The U.S. version is definitely the most linear Wong film to date.
    At times, I could almost feel WKW (under Harvey’s, uh, auspices) bending over backwards to make it as accessible as possible to American audiences (e.g., the almost omni-present title cards moving the action from points A to B and historically contextualizing every last nuance of character/incident). Yet “plot” has always been the least important feature in WKW movies. It’s the languorous (or hyperbolic) pacing, the lush romanticism, the extraordinary colors, the ripe sensuality. The whole WKW-ishness of the experience.
    That said, I loved the referencing of “McCabe and Mrs. Miller” near the end, and was pretty much transfixed from start to finish.
    Can’t wait to re-visit the film: not because I felt that I “missed” anything (or need any add’l clarification). But simply to further immerse myself in its density, textures, richness and overall physical beauty.
    I also can’t wait to see the original 130-minute version which will surely give more WKW bang–in every sense of the word–for the buck.

  51. Ray Pride says:

    Movieman, then you will be thrilled when you eventually get to see the radically different Chinese version. (Using Wong’s own math, 15 minutes added for the Americanized version, means that about 27 minutes were shorn.)

  52. movieman says:

    I hope that cut eventually makes it to (U.S.) dvd, Ray.
    Fingers crossed.

  53. anghus says:

    “but whatever, you’re upset, it’s cool”

    not even a little.

    this is where i come for amusement. the minute i stop laughing with or at this comments section is the minute i stop hanging around here.

    I dont know how people spend any time in a place they dont like or get something positive out of. And i was really just taking the piss with Mark.

  54. Etguild2 says:

    “Blue Is The Warmest Color” gets as good a reception at Telluride as it did at Cannes, rare for many recent Palme winners at American fests (See: Uncle Boonmee, L’Enfant, The Wind That Shakes the Barley).

    But I guess all anyone wants to talk about is lame-ass “Silver Linings Playbook,” an insincere mental illness quirkfest.

  55. christian says:

    Maybe because nobody here has seen the unreleased “Blue Is The Warmest Color” yet….

  56. scooterzz says:

    actually, i saw it a couple of weeks ago… it’s good and will probably be a player (to some extent) during awards season…. (it’s been screening for weeks)

  57. scooterzz says:

    in lieu of the current heatwave, i’m staying in and prepping for the comedy central roast of james franco by watching ‘int. leather bar’, ‘sal’ and ‘palto alto’…. i’ll then continue my own private outfest with ‘c.o.g.’, ‘g.b.f.’, ‘goegraphy club’ and ‘i am divine’…. i love screeners as much as i love my couch…..

  58. christian says:

    Just saw an episode of 30 Rock with Franco. He’s very funny. But the roasts today are even more phony and insincere than the Dean Martin days…

  59. Pete B. says:

    RE: Joe – “You do realize that mean old lady will return to the farm and grab Toto again, right?”

    That’s when Auntie Em decides she’s not as good a Christian woman as she thought and takes a shotgun to Miss Gulch.

  60. movieman says:

    Those Telluride reviews of “Prisoners” are kind of mind-blowing (and inordinately exciting).
    On the basis of the excellent trailer, I thought it had the potential to be a “class, but mass”-style “Taken.”
    But the comparisons to “Mystic River” and “Zodiac” immediately elevate it to Oscar bait.
    Didn’t see that coming.
    Nor was I expecting a 153-minute running time, lol.
    I wonder if WB will have a change of heart about their September 20th release date.

  61. Etguild2 says:

    I’m surprised too given the MPAA’s torture warnings.

    Amazing reception to “12 Years as a Slave” as well. This is the most impressive start to awards season in many years.

  62. movieman says:

    With the early raves for “Gravity” and “Prisoners,” WB looks to have a busy awards season.
    By December, “Getaway” will be just a distant memory.
    (If it isn’t already, lol.)

  63. Etguild2 says:

    “Philomena” debuts to raves…no letdowns yet.

  64. movieman says:

    The Kelly Reichardt and Jonathan Glazer movies don’t appear to have been universally beloved.
    But Francis Ford Coppola’s grand daughter seems to have come up with a corker in her adaptation of some James Franco short stories.

  65. movieman says:

    Weinstein must feel extremely conflicted.
    They’ve already got so many irons in the fire (so to speak).
    Will there be any room (or available Weinstein publicists) for “Philomena” once the awards season heats up?
    Can’t wait to find out.

    David Gordon Green’s “Joe” seems to be getting better reviews for Nic Cage than the movie itself.

  66. Etguild2 says:

    Very interested to see Reichardt’s move toward genre. Loved “Old Joy” and “Wendy and Lucy” but felt “Meek’s Cutoff” was too neo-neo realist….drove me nuts. Excited by her slight move to genre.

  67. movieman says:

    Yeah, “Meek’s” seemed a tad overrated to me as well, Et.
    Hope her eco-thriller is better than “The East.” That was my least favorite Brit Marling film to date.

  68. anghus says:

    i hadn’t heard of Prisoners before a week or two ago. And now stuff about it is creeping up through various outlets. Really interested in seeing it now.

    And maybe the reason people are talking old shit is because Summer is over and we’re entering dumpster season. Is there anything out there really worth talking about.

    Getaway? Ok, we could talk about Ethan Hawke suddenly being everywhere again. Before Midnight, The Purge, and now this. It’s not like Hawke ever went away, but he’s been on the low rung of the ladder for a long time. Before Midnight was a good indie success. Purge was one of those one and done horror films. Big opening, no legs. And i doubt Getaway’s going to do much. Hawke is starting to feel like one of those journeymen who you see in films all the time, but its always on movies that feel like a coin toss between theatrical and direct to dvd/VOD.

    Selena Gomez is a black hole of charisma. I’m trying to think of a historical equivalent for a girl with a big fan base that feels so awkward and wonderfully out of place with real actors.

  69. movieman says:

    While anticipating TCM’s first-time-ever airing of Hitchcock’s glorious “Marnie” tomorrow, I looked up the original 1964 NYT review.
    I was shocked to discover that it opened at “neighborhood” theaters double-billed w/ something called “Never Put it in Writing” (starring master thespian Pat Boone).
    50 years ago “The Getaway” would have opened on the bottom half of a circuit double-header.
    Now it’s practically accorded “Man of Steel” (or at least “Pacific Rim?) treatment, lol.

  70. movieman says:

    Anghus- I actually thought Gomez was quite good (and genuinely touching) in “Spring Breakers.
    But you’re right: “The Getaway” is certainly no better–and possibly a good sight worse–than, say, “Empire State” which essentially went straight to dvd. (Release date is next Tuesday.)
    It’s a complete throwaway that had no business cluttering up multiplex screens in the first place.

  71. Etguild2 says:

    “I’m trying to think of a historical equivalent for a girl with a big fan base that feels so awkward and wonderfully out of place with real actors.”

    Britney Spears, who was paired with Zoe Saldana, Dan Akroyd, and Taryn Manning (from “Orange is the New Black”) in “Crossroads.” Does Jordin Sparks (from Sparkle) count?

    I’m so sick of young female musical artists trying to make the jump into acting. Gomez claims she’s leaving music for movies..ugh. Only successful recent example is Gina Rodriguez, who rips up the screen in the otherwise humdrum “Filly Brown.”

    @movieman, the notices for “Under the Skin” mostly seem to be pretty strong.

  72. movieman says:

    My comment was influenced by Scott Foundas’ Variety review, Et, which wasn’t good at all.
    It did, however, make the movie sound fascinating. I personally can’t wait to see it (loved “Birth” and liked “Sexy Beast”). It may take awhile, though, since I can’t imagine a lot of U.S.-based distribs lining up to acquire it.
    Oscilloscope maybe? IFC or Magnolia?

  73. SamLowry says:

    It’s one thing if Gomez was merely playing stupid in SPRING BREAKERS (constantly whining that she wanted something different which she finally found in spring break parties!…which were cross-cut with parties back home to show they were identical), but she was annoying as well. The scene where she was in the pool and kept raising her mouth out of the water when she had something vapid to say made me want to slap the crap outta her.

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