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 can’t answer your last question because 1) I haven’t seen PIXELS, and 2) I never will see PIXELS.
You’re far more tolerant than I am. I’ve never seen one of his films, except perhaps ANGER MANAGEMENT, that didn’t seem like a complete friggin’ waste of time. And one of the blessed things about retiring from my studio job is that I no longer HAVE to sit through his rubbish.
But if you think he would have been a big star in the 30s or 40s or 50s, you’re flat-out wrong. Study the great comics of that era. They may have played stupid, but the films themselves were extremely well-made and intelligently written. I’d rather sit through the execrable Harry Mimmo short “Down the Hatch” than any Sandler film.
current mood: cranky
At the risk of appearing dangerously unhip (or is it too late for that, Hot Bloggers”), I found “Pixels” surprisingly bearable.
I’d go as far as to say I had a better time than I did at “Ant-Man” or “Jurassic World.”
2 reasons not to hate “Pixels:”
(1) the period details in the opening (1982) scenes are spot-on;
(2) although the climactic battle between Sandler & Co. and the pixel monsters takes place in NYC, the action is restricted to Manhattan streets and no iconic buildings are fetishistically destroyed. (Take that, Marvel.)
The hypocrisy of the media fawning over Caitlyn Jenner’s transformation and then condemning Sandler for just wanting to be the 14 year old boy that he was born is stunning.
You’re confusing a life choice with a business model.
Sandler is best when he goes full blown weird. The Waterboy is a classic. Zohan is good, and even Little Nicky had its moments. Then he did his normal guy films like Grown Ups and got lazy.
I’ve liked more Sandler movies than I’ve disliked over the years: “Zohan,” “Billy Madison,” “Happy Gilmore,” “Big Daddy,” “Wedding Singer” and “50 First Dates” are all pretty terrific.
And his rare forays into more “serious” territory: “Punch Drunk Love,” “Funny People,” “Men, Women & Children”? Awesome.
Speaking of the (Jason) Reitman flop, didn’t you mean to say “MW&C” instead of “Grown Ups,” Dave?
.”..admire the effort of a couple (Funny People, Punch Drunk Love, Grown Ups)”
Shocked to find the words effort and grown ups in the same sentance. But I do have to admit that Zohan was fantastic and I seem to be the only one who thought Jack and Jill was exceptional (despite the go to Sandler flaws like having Spade show up).
MW&C was terrible. But yeah, Sandler has some interesting serious films under his belt. Even Click was strangely emotional and not just the throwaway comedy it was marketed as.
I really liked “MW&C,” Palm, even if I realize that’s a minority opinion.
I think the only reputable critics–besides me, natch, lol–who praised it were Todd McCarthy and Owen Gleiberman.
Pacino’s recent career rejuvenation started w/ “Jack and Jill.” It was his funniest, most enjoyable performance in years.
Hcat: I’ll also own up to thinking that Jack and Jill fell rather short of being the end of cinema. Sorry, Sandler haters–there’s some funny stuff there, and Sandler’s performance as Jill is borderline inspired, not lazy drag shtick. Al Pacino’s self-parodying supporting role is a true hoot and another surprisingly inspired touch. Sure, the film suffers from the same over-reliance on product placement and fart jokes as many other Sandler vehicles, but I laughed, and I didn’t find the sweeter moments to be overly cloying.
Critics’ noses start crinkling whenever a new Happy Madison project is announced, and most could write their negative reviews in their sleep without bothering to actually watch the film (no offense, cadavra). But I honestly don’t see what’s so offensive about Jack and Jill, unless you’re inordinately squeamish about the occasional silly fart gag.
I loved Zohan and Funny People, liked Billy Madison and The Wedding Singer and even Just Go With It had its points. 50 First Dates, Click and maybe even Bedtime Stories could have been great in other hands. I couldn’t make it through The Waterboy, and haven’t bothered to see many of his films, including Big Daddy, Little Nicky, Chuck and Larry, Grown Ups, etc. So I’m hardly a kneejerk Sandler apologist. But I do think a lot of people dismiss him out of hand, with no true consideration of the appeal that his work occasionally has to a classic and arthouse type like me.
MW&C is the only recent film of his I truly detest. It actually, following “Labor Day,” made me worry for the mental health of Jason Reitman. The luddite earnestness seeping from his last two features is in such opposition to his first four that I truly wonder if he’s had some kind of break with reality.
Yancy, no offense taken. But when someone makes 20+ awful movies in a row, the evidence provided in the trailer of the next one is sufficient for my purposes to make it eminently missable. Now, had it gotten 85+% on Rotten Tomatoes, I might have taken a shot at it just to see what made the critics change their minds about him. But that hasn’t happened. And this one seems all the more depressing since, as I noted elsewhere, it’s a nifty premise and might have worked with real actors or action stars (a la RED) instead of the usual Happy Madison crotch-grabbers.
Well, I know Sandler is the big star here, but the premise is enough to get me in the seat. I don’t care who’s in it. The stars are the video games, period.
Sandler is one of the rare stars that’s also a lightening rod of hate for some. Sure some aren’t fans of Hanks or Cruise or Smith or Depp or RDJ, but rare is the contingent that poor bile over the man.
I can’t stand him, never have and I’m of the “all of my friends quote Billy Madison religiously” generation. All of his schtick never connected with me. He personfies big, dumb studio movie high-concept comedy. Not to mention that he rules with Michael Bay on the “product placement” award for most egregious placements in a movie.
Funny people got a HUGE pass from so many critics on it just being ok. Sandler’s dramatic scenes in it are laughably bad.
In the 1940s would Adam Sandler be the Red Skelton or the William Bendix of Hollywood?
Neither. More like El Brendel.
I enjoyed his period of being the adult that didn’t grow up in his early films (Happy Gilmore is hysterial)…but the problem really rests with the fact that Sandler’s movies about middle age are just kind of sad. Playing the 40/50 year old doofus isn’t appealing, whether it is Sandler or Jerry Lewis. And if he isn’t playing a character with some schtick attached to it…if he really is playing it as a dramatic actor, he just sort of blends into the background. He is definitely someone that needs career rehab (whether or not his movies make money, his name has almost come to mean ‘bad cinema’). Too bad Paul Mazursky isn’t around to write Sandler his own Down And Out In Beverly Hill-style reviver.