April 19, 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
I think you can squash the “It was really the pairing with Ice Cube that carried Ride Along” talk that I bought into. Or at least Hart can thank Mr. Cube for being the next level boost he needed. “About Last Night” will have a better 3-Day than all but one (Madea Goes to Jail) of Tyler Perry’s movies. Hart is a phenom.
The “Monuments Men” postponement worked out great…similar to “Shutter Island.”
Also, now that FROZEN is about to pass FINDING NEMO’s cume, is $400 million out of the question? Look at the first HUNGER GAMES movie’s trajectory. I’d say it’s possible…it would be the 5th non-sequel/prequel (Avatar, Titanic, Hunger Games, Spider-Man) to reach that level, not counting re-issues. Also, even if you only use inflation as a ballpark, pretty clear that LION KING and ALADDIN are the only two bigger theatrical Disney Animation hits since the sixties.
Also, how much of the ENDLESS LOVE gross consists of LexG buying out his own auditoriums in the ArcLight?
Speaking of Ride Along, that is remarkable. It will significantly improve on its previous weekend in week 5? Hart is a superstar, and I agree that the Ice Cube pairing gives the movie another level. Obviously a huge crossover finding new pockets of fans at this point. And I know many won’t agree, but I found it every bit as funny and knowing about its genre as 21 Jump Street.
About Last Night, Monuments Men, Lego, even Endless Love. Lots of good news out there.
REALLY good hold for Lego, I’m thinking a lot of it has to be repeat business from adults as much as anything….this seems to be the rare case of an animated mega-hit like Toy Story 3 that adults actually like better than kids, making them more than happy to bring their kids again and again.
Shockingly good hold for Monuments Men…gotta figure it’s for the under-served older audience that really never got into some of the Oscar contenders like Dallas Buyers Club and 12 Years a Slave…they want serious movies, but they still want them to SEEM fun.
And Kevin Hart is in full-on phenom mode…he’s almost on the level of Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey at their peaks now. Which means that expectations are just going to get higher and higher…..Sony is obviously looking for a $40 million plus opening from him from Think Like a Man 2, why else would they release it in June??? The big question is when is he going to get asked to carry a big budget movie….hmmmm, I gotta think Fox might go for him to topline Independence Day 2, he’ll still be a lot cheaper than Will Smith would have been.
You gotta think with all the reboot talk that Kevin is the front runner for a Beverly Hills Cop reboot.
He`s a different animal to Will Smith however and so him being in ID4 makes that movie very different. He is more a direct successor to Eddie Murphy, but having said that, the announced Bad Boys 3 would certainly receive a kick if he was the 3.
Kind of surprising to see “The Lego Movie” be the number one movie on a Friday which is Valentine’s Day.
Am I the only one who’ll admit to enjoying “Winter’s Tale”?
Sure, it’s batshit crazy and choppily edited (probably the result of squeezing a doorstop of a novel into a 2-hour movie), but the damn thing kind of works. At least it did for me.
It’s gorgeously shot (Caleb Deschanel), splendidly (and even imaginatively: Will Smith as the Devil?!? That’s freaking awesome!) cast and precisely the type of sweepingly romantic movie-movie supposedly nobody makes anymore.
I was especially taken with Jessica Brown Findlay. She reminded me of how much I’m missing Lady Sybil on “Downton Abbey” this season.
It kills me how so many of my critical brethren routinely give passes to formula flotsam like “Ride Along,””The Heat” or “Marvel Comic Book Sequel #237,” yet treat movies that dare to think outside of the box like “Winter’s Tale” (or, yeah I said it, “Lone Ranger”) like they were a case of the clap.
This is not really directed at you Movieman, but why is EVERY ONE on the web seem to be just GLEEFULLY spoiling the Will Smith cameo in this movie??? I mean, Warners was obviously hiding it for good reason….it actually sounds like a very nifty surprise and now if I see the movie, I know I’ll just expecting it to happen. Best comparison I can make goes back to Zombieland when every one and their mother loved dishing on the Bill Murray cameo.
And I know this sounds super-early and silly, but I gotta think that Warners is going to launch a major Oscar campaign for The Lego Movie later this year….if they got Gravity and Inception major nominations, there’s no reason they can’t make a major push for this one. Just think about it: they could do a big re-release late in the fall just before it makes a splash on blu-ray/DVD….they’re going to stretch every possible dollar out of this film for as long as they can. A nomination for Best Animated Feature (and likely win) is pretty surefire at this point with no major Disney animated releases coming out this year, besides the Marvel-affiliated one. Am I crazy to think this?
“I mean, Warners was obviously hiding it for good reason…”
That reason being most likely contractual, such as Smith only agreeing to do the film if they agree not to use his name to sell it.
I mean it’s not like his involvement was ever being kept secret. Way back when the film was greenlit, all the trades mentioned him agreeing to take a small part as a favor for Goldsman. He’s always been on the film’s IMDB page. The only place his involvement was being ignored was promotional materials.
Sorry, but again, Ice Cube has a solid track record in comedies. If Kevin Hart is so on-fire, why didn’t he bring more people into GRUDGE MATCH?
MONUMENTS MEN’s hold is no shock. Like all movies that appeal to older audiences, it opens decently and holds terrifically as the AK’s slowly venture out to the malls.
Dear Whoever:
PLEASE stop remaking Verhoeven movies until someone in present day big league film-making figures out how to go beyond the boringly literal and write/direct using sharp irony and satire as invaluable tools in peeling back the layers of the social commentary onion.
Thank you.
yours in Christ,
me
Movieman, I’ll probably wait until DVD or maybe go to my 2nd run theater to see it, but reading the scathing reviews of Winter’s Tale has been pretty amusing.
My fave review is this one, where the reviewer calls it “an abomination” and even puts that in bold print.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/11006-Winters-Fail?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all
Surely this movie will develop a cult following in later years.
I just came back from Robocop and I do not understand what all the hating is about. If it was the Verhoven picture shot for shot, what would be the point? It was nice to see competent police officers for a change and the quick draw in the office was positively Bass Reeves.
Totally agree, Doug.
I liked “Robocop 2.0” well enough, too. The cast is first-rate and Padilha has action chops to burn.
Bizarre that the stillborn “Total Recall 2.0” actually opened better last summer.
P.S.= Would everyone please stop calling “Endless Love” a remake? It bears zero resemblance to the 1981 “EL” (which, as bad as it was, at least attempted to be an adaptation of the Scott Spencer novel it’s allegedly based on).
Did Universal actually buy the rights to Spencer’s book twice? If so, why did they even bother since the only thing(s) it has in common are the names of the lead characters and a title” Or does Universal own the rights in perpetuity? I’m confused; and depressed, since I’ve been waiting 30+ years for somebody to get “Endless Love” right.
I still think Spencer’s novel has the makings of a “Splendor in the Grass”/”Sterile Cuckoo”-style YA classic.
Maybe if they’d taken my suggestion(s) and hired Sofia Coppola to write/direct and Elle Fanning and Alden Ehrenreich to star, it might have come true.
ftr i didn’t hate the robo reboot, it was…fine. the action was fine. the actors were fine. it was all perfectly competent and straight-up. and bland. there is talent there, what a waste of it.
i don’t want or need a shot by shot remake of verhoeven’s weirdly heart-breaking, gleefully satirical, shockingly violent commentary on the human condition depicting murphy’s journey from human to cyborg, that would be silly, why bother. so why bother at all? seemingly because you’d have something new and relevant and compelling to say about society and the human condition going forward into this brave new world of rapid technological advancement and applications, with the inevitable meld of artificial intelligence/humans. if your going to do a new Robocop for the new millennium, do SOMETHING unique, say SOMETHING relevant, be bold, strike a nerve, be shocking and outrageous, the way verhoeven’s Robocop was in 1987, because that would be the reason to remake it, right? i can’t think of a single other reason. risk-averse competency as the default in mainstream film right now is scaring the living shit out of me.
“…risk-averse competency as the default in mainstream film right now…”
You hit the nail on the head, Leah. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
That’s probably the reason I appreciate the bursts of weirdness, even insanity that occasionally emerge from the H’wood factories.
The “Winter’s Tale”s, the “Lone Ranger”s, the “Cloud Atlas”es.
However imperfect they may be, the filmmakers are definitely risking SOMETHING. And concerns about “competency,” and maintaining the 21st century status quo (i.e., terminal blandness), are the farthest things from their minds.
As satisfactory as I found “Robocop 2.0” to be, you’re right: there’s no raison d’etre. It’s just well-tooled product, gussied up w/ some really good actors.
yes it’s weird isn’t it, as if the ‘powers that be’ see something and have the following rationale: “hey this movie was interesting and even ground-breaking in ‘insert year here’ and a) either a hit, or b) built up a cult following, so let’s just redo that with cooler stuff now! whew, then we don’t have to think up anything new, we’ll have to strip out the elements that made it higher than a PG13 rating of course and adhere strictly to convention because it’s going to cost a gazillion dollars to make, but we know fear-based film-making is safe film-making!”
i agree, i so applaud the bigger flicks that try for some bold, stylish vision and reach beyond convention and don’t quite work or even fall flat on their face, by far preferable to being stuck in a vortex of middling, tolerable fare pumped out as a ‘safer bet’ for eking out a profit down the road.
PG-13 is the devil. Always gratified to see Canadian provincial ratings that are more rational, including turning a blind ear to swears.
“Also, how much of the ENDLESS LOVE gross consists of LexG buying out his own auditoriums in the ArcLight?”
Hahaha! Really glad it’s doing well. Pettyfer is a boss and Gabriella Wilde is the single most beautiful woman in the history of the world; Also a fun tour de force of hamming for Bruce Greenwood, and beautiful hazy visual style; Disagree with Movieman a little bit, in that it retain some beats from the ’81 movie, although obviously turns David into a big softie who only throws an occasional haymaker to defend his girl. And the big fire obviously doesn’t go down as before, and Pettyfer doesn’t bang the mom in this one. Semi off topic, but I’ve always wondered if the ’81 movie has been semi-disappeared over time by Cruise himself… He NEVER EVER mentions it, always refers to TAPS as his debut; Between the squeaky voice and dorky shorts in his very brief bit, wonder if he exercised some Cruise Power to keep it off DVD all these years?
I don’t get the ‘Robocop’ hate. Is the original a much better film? Of course, but this reboot is not a bad stab at the property.
The new ‘Robocop’ has all the right elements, a great cast (Samuel Jackson, Michael Keaton, Jackie Earle Haley and Gary Oldman – who is the real heart of the movie)and is well shot, the action set pieces (albeit bloodless) are kinetic and well choreographed.
The problems with the new film revolve around the lack of a real villain (a Kurtwood Smith type) and the lack of a *major action setpiece montage* of ‘Robocop’ cleaning the city up – we are suddenly led to believe because he tazers a guy in a crowd the whole crime rate in Detroit suddenly shoots down – its lazy filmmaking – the audience demanded to see Robocop in action (following a more or less action-less first hour, with the exception of the Tehran opening which was brilliant, gritty and chaotic).
The fact that the flick used the Basil Poledouris original theme scattered about was a welcome addition.
It was great seeing Michael Keaton back in action.
The movie could’ve been a hell of a lot worse, guys.
Lex- If “Endless Love” had been called something else (e.g., “Photogenic Young People Falling in Love” perhaps), I might have given it a pass.
It’s certainly not the worst movie I’ve seen lately.
But that title brings expectations the filmmakers were simply not interested in even half-way meeting (at least among those of us who know and love the source novel).
An “Endless Love” with a–g&d help us all–happy ending?!?!
Blasphemy.
Like a proper “Lovely Bones,” I guess I’ll just have to keep waiting for somebody to do Spencer’s book justice on the big (or cable) screen.
“If Kevin Hart is so on-fire, why didn’t he bring more people into GRUDGE MATCH?”
Excellent point. It wasn’t like they were hiding him in the trailer and TV spots.
I’m guessing that Hart fans thought they could give a pass to a film toplining two 60-something white guys. I didn’t see it, but surely it’s a supporting role. Did we expect 12 Years a Slave to do World War Z numbers because Brad Pitt’s in it? Not an exact comparison, but you get the idea.
Speaking of Verhoeven, hasn’t there been talk of a big STARSHIP TROOPERS remake/reboot? Ugh.
Maybe this time Starship Troopers will be based on the book. James Cameron’s “borrowed” enough elements from it, maybe he can produce.
It’s pretty clear that no one regarded “Grudge Match” as a “Kevin Hart movie.” Yancy’s point is well taken, and it’s preposterous to hear people in the year 2014 suggest that Ice Cube was equally responsible for “Ride Along’s” success.
Ride Along made a lot more in its debut weekend than About Last Night. So Ice Cube may be responsible for at least 14 million of that opening boxoffice. Maybe more if you attribute part of About Last Night’s success to David Mamet fans.
So much goes into the equation of next-level hit and star making. Ride Along is a combination of an appealing pairing with Ice Cube, a type of character Hart has never played before (the sympathetic lead as opposed to “the funny friend”), a movie that is conceptually hooky that delivers for its audience, and obviously great word of mouth. Hart has shown that he can be the center of the audience’s experience with this movie, and that’s why it’s his break out.
BTW, movieman, CLOUD ATLAS was not a “Hollywood” movie–it had a “$102 million budget provided by independent sources, making Cloud Atlas one of the most expensive independent films of all time” (from its Wiki page).
So it turned out pleasantly weird because it was not a Hollywood movie.
Meanwhile, this weekend provided THREE Hollywood remakes and we saw how well that turned out–not a one came within spitting distance of a “kiddie” movie in its 2nd weekend, and at best they were described as “adequate”. Most, in fact, drifted so far from the source material that many asked why they bothered to buy the rights to the original in the first place (the Screen Junkies clip I linked to in the Sunday thread even had a part where the severest critic said he’d embrace this movie if it called itself “Police Cyborg” and didn’t pretend to be a remake of any other particular film).
I hadn’t realized “Atlas” wasn’t an in-house WB production, Sam.
Figured WB was still cutting the Wachowskis some “Matrix”-ian slack, even after their previous labor of love (“Speed Racer”) stiffed.
But I stand by my point: crazily ambitious, albeit imperfect movies like “Atlas,” “Ranger” and “Winter’s” are generally more interesting (and certainly more laudable) than the formula swill that seemingly comprises 75% of most major studio’s release slates per year. And I find it unconscionable that so many of my fellow crix routinely give “It’s OK for what it is” type reviews to a “Heat” or “Ride Along” while treating (most recent example) “Winter’s Tale” like it had leprosy.
as is so often the case, vision and imagination begin with the writing process, developing conceptual ideas to explore and drive the narrative while also entertaining the audience. i think an updated Robocop actually had the potential to say something subversive and relevant to today/our near-future about for instance the growing influence and globalization of the military industrial complex and privatisation/corporatisation of ‘peace-keeping’ forces for profit, and the very real and rapid expansion of and reliance on artificial intelligence and our questionable ability to ‘control’ it or even contain it going forward, even as possible human/machine hybrids.
in the 87 verhoeven take, the as-yet relatively uncharted cinematic waters exploring ‘the cyborg’ and themes of man vs machine – what it means to be human (is it our emotions, our memories, our actions, our compassion, our cruelty), the morality of ‘playing god’, the easy prey of a decaying, increasingly divided, violent society of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ exploited by a greedy, power-hungry corporation, etc – were tackled with brazen satire and unabashed verhoeven nastiness, which made the pathos and pain of murphy’s journey all the more surprising and engaging (and bizarrely humorous) — so what does the reboot do? rather than take advantage of the realities of our new world order to expand on the original robocop concepts to say something pointed and specific about where we’re headed today, the remake just rehashes the exact same concepts – now a bit tired and cliché after decades of various versions of ‘the cyborg’ in cinema – only slicked-up and sanitised and de-fanged and played literally and entirely conventionally with nothing new to say. is there any more tired and unimaginative screenwriting cliché than having to use the presence of murphy’s wife and son as emotional bait right through till the end of the story? good grief who is hiring these writing drones, what a downer
David Mamet can go on FOX and whine about Hollywood commies again.
It’s funny I remember being a teen and seeing the poster for Robocop and thinking it looked like the dumbest movie ever. That was probably the biggest surprise of the late eighties, that this terribly titled terminator wannabe looking film was actually a intelligent though demented thrill ride. Everything I read about the remake leads me to believe they actually made the film I thought the original would be. They did t update robocop as much as improve on robocop 3
i remember that too, hcat, it looked kinda clunky and dorky from the promos (and here’s the original Robocop trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIHcB1n0qCM that music… can’t quite place it hahaha), what a surprise weller’s murphy turned out to be
Is Verhoeven retired from features? Or, like David Lynch, is he just unconvinced that he can get funding for anything he truly wants to make? I adored “Black Book,” so that would be a bitter pill to swallow.
“PLEASE stop remaking Verhoeven movies until someone in present day big league film-making figures out how to go beyond the boringly literal and write/direct using sharp irony and satire as invaluable tools in peeling back the layers of the social commentary onion.”
No question that straight remakes are inferior by comparison, but to imply that Verhoeven knows how to use irony and satire for social commentary goes too far.
What Verhoeven knows how to do is to use satire as a hook to sell sex and violence. Most of his American movies (Starship Troopers, RoboCop, and Hollow Man, to name a few) start off with a great idea and establish a tongue-in-cheek tone — but then, instead of paying off the satirical hook, dispensing with it entirely to concentrate on spraying blood and/or jiggling body parts.
I do prefer Verhoeven to the many visionless hacks out there, but a hack doing hack work is easily dismissed. Verhoeven is ever so much more frustrating for having so much more potential and doing so little with it.
His hooks are good cons, though, for sure.