MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB 101613


Be Sociable, Share!

103 Responses to “BYOB 101613”

  1. Poland's Brew says:

    What happens when your Kickstarter doesn’t get as many sponsors as Harry Knowles’ shit Kickstarter? Do you cry or editorialize- or both?

  2. Geoff says:

    Ok here’s a pseudo-bold prediction: next year at San Diego ComicCon, Warner Bros/DC will announce that Academy Award-winning director Alfonso Cauron will be helming “Wonder Woman.”

  3. David Poland says:


    I’m not in a competition with Harry or anyone else. I haven’t asked any potential high-dollar donors to get involved. I haven’t asked any talent to get involved.

    I’m not asking for as much as Harry was… and at this point, I expect the Kickstarter to fail, though I do appreciate all the kind words and pending donations that have come in.

    What I will do is buy the equipment I need piece by piece over a longer period of time and just keep doing what I have been doing.

    Thanks for the snark, Poland’s Brew (guessing Don). I appreciate the kindness of strangers (and friends), but I do not rely on it. As I have noted before, I will be going ahead with the work regardless of the Kickstarter. And that is what is important to me.

  4. MarkVH says:

    Michael Mann’s Thief. Criterion Blu-ray. January. ‘scuse me, I need to go change my pants.

  5. Etguild2 says:

    Fox Searchlight announces release date for Wes Anderson’s “Grand Budapest Hotel.” March 7. Huh?

  6. Batjag says:

    Geoff- from your mouth to Tsujihara’s ear.

    I’ve been hoping for Cuaron to make the Wonder Woman movie for quite some time.

    Not only would it be epic, it would be exactly the sort of thing to keep on differentiating DC movies as the “classier” alternative to Marvel.

  7. Ira Parks says:


    I’d chip in if I was ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that Kickstarter wouldn’t fry my computer. All I want for my money: Captain Poland has to wear Belushi’s AWESOME red flannel from CONTINENTAL DIVIDE in ALL the update vids.

  8. Ira Parks says:


    dp is like captain phillips. Lex and sanj are like pirates. he wants us off his blog.

  9. movieman says:

    Oh, brother.

    Justin Bieber doc “Believe” to open Christmas Day.

    At first I assumed it was a Paramount release since they released a successful Bieber concert movie a few years back. But Open Road is doing the, er, honors.
    Question: Isn’t Justin Bieber completely over career-wise?

  10. YancySkancy says:

    I honestly thought that Bieber movie had come and gone already.

  11. PcChongor says:

    Anyone else feel like “Seventh Son” is just an elaborate attempt at a Lebowski prequel?

    Can’t believe Warners still went ahead with it considering how disastrous “Giant Hunter” was.

  12. cadavra says:

    If it’s any consolation, Dave, I asked for $20,000 for FRAME-UP and got a whopping $2200 in pledges. 11%! That’s just about where the Tea Party is right now!

  13. berg says:

    saw Carrie … the pacing is amazing and swift for the first hour …. Chloe has the ginger look down … by the ending, when we all know what is going to happen things slow down … nice imagery and the astroturf was perfectly lit …. no way it compares to the original, yet it’s not a van sant psycho paint by numbers narrative

  14. LexG says:

    It will be a five-star Chloe masterpiece.

  15. berg says:

    YOU cannot believe how much you will believe Chloe is the daughter of Julianne Moore … it’s all about the color of their hair (ginger) and the color of their car

  16. Etguild2 says:

    Trailer for GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL is out…ugh, not really feeling it. Has a DARJEELING LIMITED vibe, which to me, is not a good thing.

  17. Monco says:

    I’d much rather see Cuaron return to Harry Potter and direct the Rowling screenplay than do Wonder Woman. Prisoner of Azkaban is in my opinion the best big budget franchise film of the past decade other than Nolan’s Dark Knight films. It works totally as a stand alone film.

  18. movieman says:

    I’m surprised you didn’t like the “Budapest Hotel” trailer, Et.
    I thought it was fabulous: but I’m probably Wes’ biggest fan.
    And I didn’t get as much of a “Darjeeling” vibe as I did a “Fantastic Mr. Fox”/”Moonrise Kingdom” one.
    It’s officially a reason to stay alive until March.

  19. Breedlove says:

    Wait, I thought the first guy to mention Cuaron and Wonder Woman was kidding. Is that really a thing he’s been mentioned for or is interested in? Jesus. Eff that.

  20. Don R. Lewis says:


    Not trying to get under your skin but dude, you gotta do more than just start a kickstarter and hope it grows like a houseplant. You haven’t tweeted much about it or reached out in other places either. I hope it succeeds because I agree you need some better equipment given the talent you’re roping in and your terrific interviewing but still, you gotta WORK the campaign.

  21. celluloidkid says:

    I want to echo that comment. I’m not here every day but I do visit the site every few days and I guess I missed the kickstarter thing. I had no idea you were doing one.
    How about posting the kickstarter link to the top of the blog entries by your email or by the other social network sites?

  22. Hcat says:

    Why would Cuaron sign up for a franchise pic when he can write his own ticket after gravity. I don’t know if everyone notices the directors who signed up for marvel and potter films were not exactly setting the world on fire before taking the high profile near guarantee hit assignment. I’ d rather see him go back to non English indies than do a comic.

  23. BoulderKid says:

    Never got the sentiment that “Prisoner of Azkhaban” was head and shoulders above the rest of the series. I never bothered with the last film and one of the middle ones (Half Blood Prince?), but AZKHABAN was just a little tighter and visually more crisp version of the same thing. If anything I sort of dug Columbus’s overly long and sleepy miniseries vibe. Totally perfect for a Thanksgiving/Christmas time release just like LOTR, King Kong, Dragon Tattoo where it’s freezing out and you have the day off anyway, so you’re perfectly content to slump down and watch a 170 minute popcorn film.

  24. Etguild2 says:

    AZKHABAN is certainly better than the Columbus movies, and the unwieldy ORDER OF THE PHOENIX which suffered from a first time director tackling the longest book that was turned into a single movie of the series, and is slightly better than HALF BLOOD PRINCE imo…but I don’t see it as any better than the HALLOWS duology or Mike Newell’s GOBLET OF FIRE.

    Just got back from THE FIFTH ESTATE. Certainly more entertaining than the Wikileaks doc that came out this summer, but also waaaaaaaay more superficial. This would have been better as an HBO drama miniseries.

  25. Gus says:

    Also agreed about the Kickstarter thing. You need to kick this way up if you expect to make your goal. I don’t get the negativity from you or the “haven’t asked…” kind of excuses. There is not some nobility in only half-asking for money. I did a $20k Kickstarter for one of my films and was successful but I was hoofing it every single day for 24 days and I just barely got there.

  26. Joe Straatmann says:

    I’ve always liked CHAMBER OF SECRETS best. Yeah, it was standard filmmaking, but it was more perfected and varied instead of the first one which was boringly procedural to set up everything, and I feel it was the best adaptation in getting the story down without feeling like it’s missing anything and also being an effective movie. AZKHABAN is easily the best filmmaking of the series (Granted, the later ones really left me wanting more on the action and f/x side of things. It seems the people in charge of special effects had severe problems with the weight of things. You don’t just rip through a power line like melted butter, magic or not), as a person who never read any of the books, the story was sometimes muddled and I felt like I was left out of some key information. It got worse as the books got more massive, but Prisoner had a few little things that irked me.

  27. Etguild2 says:

    CHAMBER? Are you trolling? Not only is it the least liked book, but cinematically there is zero growth from the first film, which makes it worse by comparison. I will say, it’s a shame the CGI of Dobby and the troll were upstaged by LOTR, and that made it look worse…but still. Chamber of Secrets?

  28. leahnz says:

    the idea of a cuaron ‘wonder woman’ is quite intriguing and outside the square, i’m kind of wondering if there’s anything the mexican dynamo can’t do.

    i get hcat’s sentiment of wanting to see him go further with his smaller scale, more intimate stuff, but my turn to agree with Monco about ‘prisoner of azkaban’ – one of my all-time fave movies (and it really does work as a stand-alone feature), it just makes my heart soar. and it could be fascinating to see cuaron go ‘big mainstream’ again (though he may feel he’s done his dash in the pottersphere), sometimes directors whose roots are in smaller-scale, more arthouse/indie fare end up making interesting, successful big flicks – like nolan or recently mendes with ‘skyfall’; i know a lot of people may look at it as ‘slumming’ but i think they could very well look at it as a unique challenge to their abilities (and even just plain fun) to go big and tackle the technical complexities of large-scale film-making, to forge something bold and exciting and also dramatically satisfying at heart

  29. Joe Straatmann says:

    I’m not trolling. I realize it’s an unpopular opinion and I don’t intend to speak for anyone but myself, but I felt after they spent the whole first movie setting up everything, they used the second movie to let the characters and story go and it felt like the most complete movie out of the series. It was wasn’t a high bar because the filmmaking of the first movie was strictly basic, but I felt they improved on it by being able to do more with the established sets.

    Right around Prisoner was when I felt the “I’m missing something….” effect the later Harry Potter movies have. Nothing on the level of say, missing out on the World Cup of Quiddich, but coming from a person who hasn’t touched the books because they were at their peak of popularity when I was getting through college and had enough books on my plate, there were levels of context I could tell on a conscious level I was missing. I probably need to see all them again, but that’s just my take on the thing.

  30. Etguild2 says:

    Whatever he does, I’m pretty much on board with. I was pumped for Darren Aronofsky’s take on Batman and Wolverine, and was sad they fell through. I honestly wish more auteur directors would attempt big budget fare, because they usually enhance it quite a bit.

    Marvel has been willing to go in strange directions, with Joss Whedon, Shane Black, Kenneth Branaugh…and now the Game of Thrones guy for “Thor 2” and the guys who do “Community” of all things, for “Captain America 2”, plus Edgar Wright for “Ant-Man” and James Gunn (!!!!) for “Guardians of the Galaxy.” This willingness to think outside of the box is what’s kept the whole thing from sinking, in my opinion.

  31. Don R. Lewis says:

    I honestly don’t see how Wonder Woman can be an interesting or better, not laughable live action movie or series. Nothing against her character, not being a misogynist,but c’mon. Invisible plane (ie; a half-naked woman floating through the air), a golden truth lasso, bracelets that deflect bullets (single shot bullets mind you, I doubt she’s able to block an uzi) and super human strength. It’s just never going to work, I don’t care who does it.

    Again, not trying to be a male asshole, just stating how I see it from a cinematic point of view. It feels like they’ve been trying to force a Wonder Woman movie or show for years simply because female superheroes are underrepresented and that’s a dumb reason to make a movie or show.

  32. Etguild2 says:

    How is Wonder Woman any less ridiculous on paper than a super-intelligent Raccoon who dishes out one-liners while blasting aliens with a machine gun?

  33. Don R. Lewis says:

    Oh, I also think Rocket Raccoon is silly (but not as silly as the nerdosphere shitting their pants because Bradley Cooper wasn’t “right” for him) but there’s a big different between a gun toting, talking raccoon (fun, CGI, part of a weird world) then a 7 foot tall woman in a one-piece deflecting bullets with her bling.

  34. Etguild2 says:

    I’m assuming they would minimize the camp factor, as they did with Thor, who has a history of kinky sexual stuff in the comics.

    On another front, how is Wonder Woman stranger than a tiny man who can hitch a ride on blood cells and telepathically communicate with grasshoppers and bumble bees? All of this stuff is nuts. Every person probably has their own idea of what is most nuts.

  35. storymark says:

    Anytime someone says Wonder Woman can’t be done, but is okay with Thor…. its tough to take the seriously.

  36. Don R. Lewis says:

    I was shocked they pulled Thor off but again, he’s a God. They also made fun of his looks and attitude in the films. Didn’t mean to offend the WW fan base….jeeeez.

  37. Etguild2 says:

    Fan base? No. I’m just continually amazed by the bizarre excuses thrown up to prevent a female superhero movie, after 39 movies fronted by men.

  38. LexG says:

    Oops, read something wrong above, pointless post…

  39. AdamL says:

    Anyone else think the casting of recognisable names in so many roles in 12 Years… was a mistake? I found it off-putting and, for me at least, it partly reduced the cohesion of the film, turning it into a series of (hard-hitting and well crafted) vignettes surrounding one famous actor after another.

  40. YancySkancy says:

    I dunno, seems like the sillier aspects of Wonder Woman could just be dropped. Would more than a small percentage of geeks be pissed if there were no invisible plane, truth lasso, bullet-deflecting bracelets, etc.? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see those as essential, unlike Thor’s hammer, Cap’s shield, Spidey’s webs, etc. Just make her a super-strong woman in some variation of the famous costume. And I’m pretty sure she was never 7 feet tall, at least not in any iteration of it I’ve seen. Yeah, she’s technically an Amazon, but I don’t recall her being drawn that way.

  41. Joe Leydon says:

    But Yancy: If you drop these “sillier aspects,” then I think you have to ask yourself: Why are you doing Wonder Woman in the first place? Because if you think you can coast along with just a vaguely recognizable name… well, the folks who made The Green Hornet did that, and it didn’t work out that well for them.

  42. cadavra says:

    I may have told this story before, but back when a certain big-budget remake of an old TV show was tracking horribly, I opined that the problem might be that it looked nothing like the TV series. I was told, “Nobody remembers the TV series.” I replied, “If that’s true, then why did we spend all that money purchasing the rights?”

  43. leahnz says:

    geeze, really? why is WW’s shit non-esesntial and silly while her equally comic-dorky male counterparts’ stuff isn’t? the plane doesn’t literally have to be invisible, it could be some stealth camo device, like that flying thing in ‘the avengers’; the bullet-deflecting wrist bands aren’t hugely different from Cap America’s shield, and high-speed deflection of bullets could be visually dazzling and crazy in a modern gunfight; the lasso isn’t just for truth-wrangling, WW fights with it, so make it a laser/electrified lasso and slice shit up, wtf – plus unlike every other major male earth-origin superhero, Diana is the only one with superhuman strenght and ability, a true superhero. but i forgot, she doesn’t have a penis so it’s silly (always hilarious when a dude writes, “I’m not being a sexist male here..” and then tries to justify it by writing a bunch of sexist pap) christ if i had a shitload of $ i’d make WW myself

  44. The Big Perm says:

    It’s weird where people are hoping that Cuaron sticks with his smaller movies, when Gravity as a special effects filled movie that took like five years to make because of the tech. Yeah it may be two people in space, but it was still a big budget movie and it’s not exactly art house.

  45. Sam says:

    Now finding Wonder Woman’s accountrements uncinematic counts as sexism? The bar for sexism gets lower and lower every day. Last I heard, sexism was about discrimination or prejudice against women, not about finding one particular fictional woman’s magic lasso a bit cheesy.

    Wonder Woman might be my favorite superhero, and seeing a quality film production of her get made is my dream project for the genre. Leah, I fell for reading one of your posts, which starts out insightful and sound. You have good ideas about how to make Wonder Woman work on the screen, but they are not self-evident to every one. And then you go all bonkers again. Serves me right for breaking my rule about skipping your embittered rants. (That’s probably your cue to type out 20 lines of spitting imprecations against me. So be it.)

    Don, I 100% disagree with you about Wonder Woman being any cheesier than any of these other superheroes that have turned out fine, but I do think your reservations are legitimate hazards that anyone attempting to adapt the character must address. But it CAN be done. For example, Nolan’s Batman Begins takes a lot of Batman’s sillier accoutrements and finds a plausible basis for them, like the cape, etc. Thor went a different route: the movie never takes Thor as seriously as he does himself, resulting in some self-aware humor that makes everything okay. Wonder Woman would do fine with either of these approaches, and I’m sure there are other viable approaches, too.

    Where I am personally doubtful is whether anybody in Hollywood will actually pull it off. I had unrealistically high hopes and expectations for Electra and Catwoman, which turned out horribly. The problem isn’t with those characters, it’s with the people behind those projects treating those characters as fetish objects rather than people. It sucks. One of the best female action heroes recently? Salt. The movie did well enough to demonstrate that audiences will turn out for a female action hero if the quality is there. But the script was written for a man. That’s apparently what it took to get a well-written female part.

    That’s where the sexism actually lies, Leah. Little tip for if you ever decided to take up directing your venom where it is due, rather than just at every man everywhere all the time.

  46. YancySkancy says:

    Joe: I just think there’s more to Wonder Woman than those gimmicks, and good writing would trump them. If the movie’s good and the character well-developed, would anybody really miss the magic lasso? Do people criticize Nolan’s Batman because he doesn’t use his utility belt enough? Are we bummed that the filmic Captain America doesn’t have those little wings sticking out of his cowl?

    leah: Those are excellent suggestions for making WW’s accouterments play as less silly onscreen. I’d have no problem if they were thoughtfully addressed in that way. It’s the kind of thinking that made the sillier aspects of the male superheroes work. For instance, if Captain America had been made before it was possible to convincingly transform scrawny Chris Evans into brawny Chris Evans, I would’ve suggested dropping that aspect of the plot, or at least minimizing it (maybe hiring a slim but fit actor who could be made artificially buff with a padded costume, as in most of the Batman films).

  47. hcat says:

    Just to be clear about what I said earlier, it was not that I WANT Cuaron to go back to Art films, just that it would be perferable to him taking on a prepackaged entity like Wonder Woman or the Potter hybrid. I can’t wait to see what he has up his sleeve next and hope he gets to paint it on whatever size canvas he wants, but spending time making a action figure tie-in film would be a giant step back.

    Saying that Cuaron would be perfect for WW is like saying ‘Damn, Cameron made a lot of money on Titanic, maybe they’ll let him do a Grisham novel next.’

  48. glamourboy says:


    I’m in agreement with the sentiments here about your KS. I am working on one now and it has been taking up quite a bit of my time, getting the video right, the design of the page, setting up an early FB page, reading articles and books on marketing and social media. I already have a general awareness from my group and the campaign hasn’t even started yet. I have people writing me asking me when it is going up.

    You didn’t even let us know until 12 days into your campaign…and we are definitely one of your biggest bases. The video is so dull that it doesn’t really inspire one to donate money for you to do further videos. It lacks any kind of emotional connection.

    Think of it as a movie campaign…get the awareness out there early. Work your audience. Call in a few favors for your video and web presence. Your effort tells us that you are really conflicted about doing this and don’t really care if it works or not. Which is why I”m not donating $$ to it because I’d rather give my money to someone on KS who really wants it.

  49. leahnz says:

    yancysk, well thanks, diana could kick ass. of course if idiots make a cheesy, cliche WW with no imagination or ingenuity it will suck – but considering in a few cases film-makers have managed to handle the sillier aspects of the superhero accessories with a degree of aplomb and bring them into reality with some success, i’m not sure why people seem to assume the same can’t be done for WW with the right team to do it. the paradise island stuff could be super neato with the amazons, and while an ideal actress to play diana hasn’t hit me fassbender for rogers (if he’d do x-men and assassin’s creed, hey why not, live in hope)

  50. storymark says:

    “Fan base? No. I’m just continually amazed by the bizarre excuses thrown up to prevent a female superhero movie, ”

    Exactly. I wouldn’t call myself a Wonder Woman fan at all – but I can tell when a double standard is being hidden with the thinnest of rationale.

    And for those who keep bringing up the invisible plane as some sort of required element – folks, the comics abandoned that shit **30 freakin’ years ago**. She can fly all on her own – simple as that. A pretty damned clear cut case of one of the “sillier” aspects being abandoned – and yet the character remains the character.

  51. christian says:

    It’s all in how they alter the character to eliminate the high camp potential. An invisible plane could easily become a hi tech stealth plane, etc. Burton made sure the new Batman suit was not a blue leotard.

  52. Etguild2 says:

    This has turned into a timely discussion. Greg Silverman, the DC overlord at Warners (kinda like their Kevin Feige), hinted today that Wonder Woman may appear in the Snyder sequel.

  53. chris says:

    Did all critics get a look at “The Counselor” this morning? Wacky!

  54. anghus says:

    you could easily pepper her into Batman vs. Superman and set up the next one. In the comics they refer to Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman as “The Trinity”, so why not use that for the third film.

    First one is just Superman. Second one is Batman v. Superman. Third one is all three.

    Makes perfect sense to me.

  55. movieman says:

    “Wacky” doesn’t begin to describe it, Chris.
    McCarthy’s dialogue may have read well on the page, but doesn’t remotely translate when spoken by flesh and blood (at least that’s what I’m assuming Michael Fassbender is) actors.
    Speaking of Fassbender, this film proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s as incapable of carrying a film as Eric Bana (or Benedict Cumberbatch for that matter).
    Since Fassbender is essentially playing the Ralph Fiennes “Schindler’s List” role in “12 Years,” I think it’s safe to assume he’s being groomed as The Next Big British Leading Man Thing–the same way Fiennes was back in the mid-’90s.
    It took, what?, 9 years before the “Fiennes Leading Man Experiment” ended w/ the release of “Maid in Manhattan.” Methinks the “Fassbender LM Experiment” won’t last nearly as wrong; especially since there’s no “English Patient” on the immediate horizon to stall the inevitable.
    Except for two deliciously Grand Guignol-ish setpieces (no spoilers) and a juicy three minutes w/ John Leguizamo, there’s virtually nothing here to engage the heart or mind.
    Even making sense of the rococo plot (could it all really boil down to nothing more than a, snooze, labyrinthian drug deal gone sour?!?) is exhausting. The fact that McCarthy’s dialogue is so needlessly, annoyingly cryptic most of the time only compounds the absence of a compelling narrative and/or empathetic (hell, recognizably human) characters.
    For my money, this ranks w/ 1996’s “White Squall” as the worst film of R. Scott’s otherwise distinguished, often brilliant career.
    I know I should have downscaled my expectations considering the anti-buzz this has been receiving (literally) days before its release.
    But still.

  56. movieman says:

    Sony pushes “Monuments Men” to the first quarter of 2014.

    Now is it so hard for Paramount to issue a similar press release re: “Wall Street”?
    I’m guessing “MM” must be closer to Clooney’s featherweight “Leatherheads” than to “Good Night and Good Luck.”
    Sony probably didn’t want to waste any of their awards dept.’s energies on anything besides “Capt. Phil.”
    And maybe–if there’s anything left in their corporate coffers– “American Hustle.”
    (That’s still opening in December, right?)

  57. movieman says:

    It’s still uncertain whether Paramount also will move Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street” to 2014. The director is racing to finish the film and should know whether he can within the coming weeks, according to sources.

    “…should know whether can within the coming weeks…”?!?
    Guess that means November 15th is officially off the table.
    And does anyone really think Paramount–whose “Bad Grandpa” is their first release since June 11th–can (or will) release 4 titles in December,
    even if one of them (“Labor Day”) is “limited December/wide January”?

  58. Etguild2 says:

    Regarding Fassbender, what about “Hunger?” The unbroken shot alone in that movie is better than every Benedict Cumberbatch and Eric Bana lead-performance (aside from “Chopper”). Also, fyi, Fassbender is supposedly the lead in the biggest non-sequel/superhero fanboy wet-dream in some time, “Assasin’s Creed” so that’ll be a big test…

    Anywhoo, maybe this is a good time to bring up former Movie City News (hey whatever happened to him?) columist Noah Forrest’s well-written take down of Scott from a few years back:

    Also, on WOWS, IGN reported they’re moving it to Xmas, though that might change given “Monuments Men” is out. Maybe “Walter Mitty” backs up a week, if WOWS doesn’t jump on the slot or Paramount slips “Jack Ryan” back instead.

  59. Chris says:

    Weirdly, I agree with most of what you say about “Counselor,” movieman. It’s barely comprehensible. But I liked it, in kind of the same big-attractive-stars-spouting-trashy-and-insane-dialogue way that I like “Beat the Devil.”

  60. leahnz says:

    movieman i kind of see where you’re coming from re fassbender — i’m a fan and think he’s a real talent but i see his strength/potential much more in the vein of character actor than ‘leading man’; he doesn’t have that high-wattage movie-star charisma thing going on, his is more that ‘chameleon-like’ slow-burn charisma and sex appeal, and just based on my what i’ve seen of him, he himself appears more interested in the character rather than leading-man path (though yeah i mentioned him for ‘assassin’s creed’ in my last post, a bit of a surprise really – plus Fassy just seems too old to play desmond miles, my son has a strong opinion about this as a huge ‘AC’ player and fan haha, he likes fassbender but doesn’t think he suits the role so i wouldn’t be surprised to see a ‘fanboy-storm-in-a-teacup-revolt’ as a result)

  61. movieman says:

    If “WOWS” is indeed moving to Xmas, somebody should alert the Paramount awards office, lol.
    The last time I checked, the only films listed “for your consideration” were “Nebraska” and “Labor Day.” (Strangely, “WWZ” and “Star Trek” were both removed from their website within the past week.)
    Personally I welcome a move to 2014.
    Give Marty all the time he needs to whip it into shape.
    At this stage in his career, he’s entitled to do whatever he damn well wants.
    And a last-minute date/year change didn’t hurt “Shutter Island” or (more recently) DiCaprio starrer “Gatsby.”
    Anxiously waiting to see which studio jumps on November 15th.
    I’m still betting on Disney and “Delivery Man.”

    “Trashy and insane dialogue” sounds about right, Chris, lol.
    And what was up w/ Fassbender’s accent? Was he going for “neutral” American or aiming for some kind of citified Texan? I could swear I heard traces of his Irish brogue slip through from time to time.
    Rarely have I felt so disengaged from a movie directed by someone I admire as much as I do Scott; or one featuring such a fascinatingly eclectic (and talented) cast. For me it was pretty much a complete bust.
    I wonder if it will even reach “Killing Them Softly” numbers ($17-million?).

  62. movieman says:

    Yeah, Leah.
    Fassbender (like Fiennes) is a solid actor and, I suppose, handsome.
    Like Bana, he’s definitely more attractive w/ facial hair, though (e.g., his rocking ‘stache in “Basterds” and the scruffy/sexy look from “Fish Tank”).
    But he definitely seems charisma-challenged.
    Also like Fiennes, Fassbender has a cold, cold screen presence, and is someone who’s very hard to warm up to.
    Character roles definitely seem to be more in his (and Cumberbatch’s) ballpark.

  63. movieman says:

    Speaking of movies that may (or may not) open in 2013, has anyone seen a trailer for Spike Lee’s “Old Boy” remake yet? Anywhere??
    It’s supposedly opening in a month, yet I still haven’t seen a single trailer/teaser/anything.
    And that’s despite seeing the majority of my films these days in “regular theaters” w/ the standard-issue litany of 9-12 trailers before every damn movie. Usually the same damn ones (“WOWS,” “Hobbit 2,” “Anchorman 2,” “Thor 2,” “Hunger Games 2,” yadda yadda yadda).
    “OB” is looking more and more like another title ripe for repositioning in 2014.

  64. hcat says:

    I think Fiennes and Fassbender certainly have leading man chops and looks, but Hollywood just doesnt have much for them to do. You could substitute an age appropriate Fiennes into anything William Hurt or Jeff Daniels did in the eighties and he would be magnificent in it…but they don’t make those types of movies anymore so he’s going to have to settle for indie films and supporting roles in huge franchises.

  65. Etguild2 says:

    Decent reviews for “Thor 2,” most of which indicate it’s slightly better than its predecessor, and is more breezy and bonkers, less gritty and grim. Hopefully it delivers–the first three weekends in November look like a black hole at the box office otherwise, at a time where we’re already really suffering in the year-over-year comparison, which is currently flat overall.

    1st weekend–The troubled “Ender’s Game,” along with two of the most repellent looking films of the year, “Free Birds” and “Las Vegas.” Last year saw “Wreck It Ralph,” “Flight,” and “Man With the Iron Fists.”

    2nd weekend–“Thor” and Universal’s planned expansion of “About Time.” Last year was “Skyfall.”

    3rd weekend-“The Best Man Holiday.” Last year saw the “Twilight” finale, and the very successful expansion of “Lincoln.”

    If “Thor” underperforms, “Hunger Games” will probably have to match the first movie to bail 2013 out of a big hole at the annual box office. This actually means something, as Hollywood Reporter estimates put overseas box office at a negligible gain at the end of the 3rd quarter. This will probably be the first year in almost a decade without double digit percentage growth–at this point breaking even with last year might not be in the cards offshore.

  66. movieman says:

    I don’t think either Fiennes or Fassbender have the sort of innate warmth, accessibility, hell simple likability factor that audiences can embrace.
    “English Patient” notwithstanding (where the warmth I was referring to was chiefly supplied by supporting players Juliette Binoche and Naveen Andrews more than Fiennes or Scott Thomas), that’s probably why Fiennes never caught on with audiences the way some other (less talented) actors did during the same decade (roughly 1993-2003).
    Fassbender has an equally frosty–even forbidding at times–screen persona.
    I think the comparison was apt, and that both actors are better served in scene-stealing supporting roles. Hanging an entire (big, Hollywood-ish) film on their shoulders seems like a bad corporate investment.

  67. Smith says:

    movieman – I saw a trailer for Oldboy before Prisoners, and there have been a couple released on-line.

  68. movieman says:

    Weird that none of them seem to have made it here, Smith.
    Talk about a low-key ad/pub campaign.
    Makes me wonder if it’s really opening November 27th. (For various reasons, “OB” would probably benefit from a first quarter–2014 release.)

  69. Smith says:

    The Thanksgiving release date has never made a lick of sense to me. Seems destined to be a Solaris/Killing Them Softly style holiday bomb. They could’ve emphasized the kidnapping/mind fuckery and released it at Halloween as a cash grab – that would’ve made sense, at least. Otherwise, agreed that a January or February release makes more sense given the attention they’re giving to it.

    That said, since I’ll see it regardless, and would like to see it sooner than later, I hope they stick with the 27th.

  70. Joe Leydon says:

    On the subject of release dates: What the heck ever happened to that Gambit remake with Colin Firth and Cameron Diaz?

  71. Etguild2 says:

    It got horrible reviews, so it got pulled…but yeah, strange they haven’t dumped it on DVD yet. After that and “The Counselor,” Diaz gets back to her wheelhouse next year with Nick Cassavetes and something called “Sex Tape.”

    What I’m really dreading though is her taking on Carol Burnett’s Miss Hannigan in this “Annie” remake, which just looks ill-fated top to bottom.

  72. movieman says:

    Agree on principal, Smith.
    “Old Boy” is the only November 27th release I give a damn about. (If it’s indeed a “November 27th release.”)
    Spike Lee may seem passe in some quarters today, but he’s still “Spike Lee” to me, dammit.

    Yeah, it’s weird how “Gambit” never even got a dvd release stateside. How bad can it be? Really??
    I remain a Michael Hoffman fan, if only because of the wondrous “Some Girls” from 1988.

  73. LexG says:

    All I know is I’m mere weeks away from not having to sit through the ABOUT TIME trailer in front of every single movie (“…my extraordinary ordinary life…. Son…. Dad… It’s going to be a complicated life…. I think I’ll go with YES…) It’s reaching Departed-The Heat-Argo levels of overplay. Arclight Hollywood attaches it to EVERY SINGLE MOVIE.

    Who thought it was a good idea to pair Rachel McAdams with some TOTAL DORK who looks 11 years old?

  74. movieman says:

    Funny/ironic that a “Bad Grandpa” review was posted on the Variety website before a “Counselor” review.
    And the Jackass flick wasn’t even screened in my market.
    At this point, I’m guessing Knoxville & Co. have turned out a no-brainer programmer a damn sight better than Ridley’s stillborn “Counselor.”

    (Yep, I’ve just about O.D. on the “About Time” trailer, too, Lex. And I actually thought it looked cute/charming the first dozen times I saw it.)

  75. Etguild2 says:

    I don’t get it…is “About Time” a sequel to “The Time Traveler’s Wife?”

  76. LexG says:

    If you can sorta count “The Vow” and obviously “The Notebook” in there too, must be McAdams’ preference, sort of like Cruise always making movies where he can run or Gibson getting tortured or Leo as the grieving widower…. McAdams must love mooney time-based romantic dramas. Given how INCREDIBLY TERRIBLE she was in “Passion,” guess it’s good to stick with what works.

  77. movieman says:

    Seems destined to be a Solaris/Killing Them Softly style holiday bomb.
    Yep, Smith.

    Or “Faster,” “Hit Man,” etc., etc.
    But I thought Statham’s “Homefront” (dreadful title!) was this Thanksgiving’s designated sacrificial lamb/b.o. non-starter.
    What is it w/ Statham? Isn’t this his third movie this year? The last (“Redemption”?) barely made it into theaters. I’m assuming his films must do well on home video since that’s the only explanation for why he keeps churning them out. And why production companies continue to finance them.
    The only thing Statham’s latest seems to have going for it is what seems like another amusing slice of performance art from James Franco.

  78. Etguild2 says:

    That’s why Statham is getting a Captain Americaesque injection of box office prowess to reboot his career: a buddy actioner with Melissa McCarthy and Paul Feig.

  79. movieman says:

    I nearly vomited when I read that press release, Et.
    But I’m the (only?) person who absolutely loathed “The Heat,” and thought Kirsten Dunst’s “Bachelorette” was better than Feig’s overrated/overlong “Bridesmaids.”
    Speaking of Cruise, Lex, why in hell is Fox financing another car racing film after the ignoble failure of “Rush”?
    Also, why is Cruise (a) making another racing movie anyway? “Days of Thunder” was one of his rare missteps during the Golden Boy phase of his career.
    And (b) why is Cruise reteaming with his “Oblivion” director, Joseph Kosinski? Hell, he might as well saddle up with M. Night Shyamalan.
    The result couldn’t be any more inconsequential (or boring) than a Kosinski film.

  80. Etguild2 says:

    Hmmm, you’re alone on the “Bridesmaids” comparison. We’re already the only two people in America who didn’t loathe “Bachelorette;)” Rarely has a movie inspired such visceral hatred in my Netflix using friends.

    I thought “The Heat” was overrated.

  81. movieman says:

    I really don’t like “The Heat” was appreciably better (made OR acted) than those shitty old “Police Academy” movies.
    Gawd, I really, really hated that film.

    Thought “Bachelorette” was smart and funny: the very definition of a “sleeper.” It’s also beautifully acted by Dunst and Johnson from “Masters of Sex” (blanking on her name: Lizzy Caplan?)
    And unlike “Bridesmaids,” it didn’t overstay its welcome, clocking in at a circumspect 90 minutes versus two-hours-plus.

  82. movieman says:

    Meant to say: I really don’t THINK “The Heat” was…

  83. Etguild2 says:

    Reviews for “The Counselor” aren’t that bad overall, and after seeing it this morning I have to agree. Yes the dialogue was a mess, Cormac is banned from doing screenplays, but I kept wanting to know what happened next.

  84. movieman says:

    Loved this part of Variety’s “Counselor” review, Et:

    “…it’s a lousy story, ineptly constructed and rendered far too difficult
    to follow. The film doesn’t end so much as stop.
    Some might argue that “The Counselor” demands a second viewing, though
    the first is too unpleasant to recommend, even in a so-bad-it’s-good
    context. The industry is too often intimidated by intellect, and this
    project bears all the signs of perfectly smart, talented people putting
    their faith in a rotten piece of material simply because it bore
    McCarthy’s name. When the dust settles, heads are gonna roll, and it
    won’t be a pretty sight.”

    Where are these not-terrible reviews you’re referring to, lol? The few I’ve seen have been every bit as toxic as Variety’s.

  85. Etguild2 says:

    I’m not saying it’s a good movie by any means movieman. Richard Roeper claims it is a masterpiece, and I completely disagree. Beyond that, AV Club (my number 1 go-to if Dargis or Dave White aren’t available), indieWire, Slant and New York Magazine all give it good notices.

  86. Fitzerald says:

    Wow, Paramount throwing in the towel with Jack Ryan. That can’t be good.

  87. Etguild2 says:

    Or it means WOWS is such a winner they can’t withhold it…which to me clearly seems the case. I’ve never seen a studio so desperately try to hold a film in the awards window.

  88. Don R. Lewis says:

    The OLD BOY remake got a tonnnn of press stuff about 2 weeks ago. New website, cool trailer(s) and some little postcard/one sheet thing. But yeah, after that not much.

  89. movieman says:

    Roeper is a douchebag whose opinion means nothing to anyone except Richard Roeper (and maybe Chaz Ebert).
    But Dargis did make it a NYT “Critic’s Choice” which kind of blew my mind.
    The last I heard, it only had a 17% fresh rating on RT.
    Which actually seems overly generous to me.

    I’ll have to check the online trailer out, Don.
    Maybe a theatrical trailer will actually begin to surface in my local ‘plex.

    Yes, Paramount now appears determined to get “WOWS” into theaters by year’s end if it kills them. Instead of “DiCaprio’s May ‘Gatsby’ Slot,” they seem anxious to make it “DiCaprio’s Xmas Day ‘Django’ Slot.”
    Still keeping my fingers crossed that it’s held back until 2014, though.
    Kind of ironic considering the deafeningly bad buzz “WOWS” was accumulating earlier this fall.
    *Will it even take a full 24 hours for a competing studio(s?) to stake their claim to November 15th now that Paramount has finally–kind of/sort of–vacated that date?

  90. Etguild2 says:

    Well movieman, Manohla Dargis would apparently like to knock you through a wall, as it’s one of her recent faves. The Globe also signs on, with some reservations. Regardless, there’s obvious room for discussion on this film.

    It’s a very divisive film, with critics staking sides big time.

  91. Joe Leydon says:

    Jeff Wells likes The Counselor.

  92. scooterzz says:

    “Roeper is a douchebag whose opinion means nothing to anyone except Richard Roeper (and maybe Chaz Ebert)”

    really, paurich?…why be such a dick?…is there a personal reason for the ‘douchebag’ ref or are you just being a…well, douchebag yourself? really would like to read the elaboration of that comment.

  93. movieman says:

    Really, Scooter?
    Do I have to defend that comment?
    If Roeper’s a friend of yours, that’s cool.
    But seriously. He’s as serious a film critic as Ben Lyons.
    And just as unctuous.

    Et- I wish I had seen the “Counselor” Dargis did. It sounded a lot more interesting than the movie I saw, lol.

  94. Etguild2 says:

    Has Sony learned nothing from its scheduling fiasco this year? (They released 12 of their 15 films this year between Memorial Day and last weekend) It’s releasing four films between Christmas and May, and they are stacked right on top of each other–“Monuments Men” Feb 7, “Robocop” Feb 12, Screen Gems’ “About Last Night” Feb 14, “Pompeii” Feb 21.


  95. movieman says:

    That IS ridiculous, Et.
    But at least they’re decisive (albeit rather foolhardy, lol) about scheduling films.
    Unlike, say, Paramount.

  96. Etguild2 says:

    Paramount has rightly taken a lot of grief this year, but they don’t have a slate of disasters (White House Down, After Earth, Mortal Instruments, the worldwide decline of Smurfs) to their name. Sony self-inflicted its fate….why not move SMURFS out of an overcrowded summer to the ALVIN slot with no animation competition? Why release ONE DIRECTION on the most unfriendly kid weekend of the year? Why launch your new YA franchise, which has already started production on a second installment, at the end of August? Why release four movies over the course of five weekends? Just plain nutsiness.

  97. movieman says:

    Could somebody explain to me why Sony is barreling ahead w/ a third “Smurfs” movie? Could the international numbers have really been that great?
    If they really felt so strongly about perpetuating the franchise, wouldn’t a cheapie, straight-to-dvd route have made more sense?

  98. Hcat says:

    I don’t think a release date change would have saved smurfs. I know box office does not directly correlate to quality and I hate to judge films I haven’t seen but wasn’t the first smurfs a steaming pile of shit? And whatever lark people saw the first one on wasn’t enough to get them back in the same numbers.

    Is it difficult to see that drop coming? Sure the only precedent is that the previous Hanna Barbara franchise with a high nostalgic pull directed by Gosnell preformed in the EXACT same way, but surely a smurfs sequel would be immune to the same fate.

  99. movieman says:

    I know this is a little late in the day to join the “Wonder Woman” discussion.
    But did anyone else see Jennifer Lawrence’s latest “Catching Fire” photo on
    She looks awfully Wonder Woman-ish to me.
    Seems like pretty good casting if the movie ever happens.

  100. Hcat says:

    I know Reynolds did both dc and marvel(2) movies, but do actors have do not compete clauses in their contracts that they sign for multiple movies keeping them playing In one superhero universe?

  101. Etguild2 says:

    I think it’s straight by studio. After all, we now have two actors playing Quicksilver within a year of each other, in the Fox X-Men Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Chris Evans, despite being in Fox’s Fantastic Four movies, was apparently not under contract, given that Fox didn’t make a definitive decision to reboot until after he signed for “Captain America.”

    Marvel Studios may put in this type of clause for their Cinematic Universe movies, but maybe not, as Samuel L Jackson is starring in a Marvel-based movie, not as Nick Fury and outside the main Cinematic Universe, called “The Secret Service” later this year for Fox. No word on whether the movie is in Fox’s X-Men Universe, but given that the “Fantastic Four reboot” is, according to Fox’s team, and Matthew Vaughn is directing one and producing the other… I would hope this wouldn’t happen, as it could destroy whatever small chance there is of a Disney/Fox/Sony Marvel collaboration.

  102. Hcat says:

    Was only thinking about dc marvel. Since Lawrence is in X-men would it keep her from being WW, but you are right she works for fox not marvel.

    Though I would think your massive collaboration movie is still a far ways away. That will be when we know the cape and spandex movies have run their course, when they need to get absolutely everybody together to drum up excitement.

  103. Etguild2 says:

    X:Men sequel/prequel trailer is out. Stoked, but can they stop using Adagio in D Minor for every other sci fi/superhero epic released? It’s become an unfortunate legacy of Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine” in Hollywood.

    And “Wolf of Wall Street” moves to Christmas.

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