April 16, 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 thought Rampage would make a good matinee on a crappy day. I enjoyed San Andreas, I like The Rock, and the trailer suggested dumb fun. But mostly it’s just dumb. It’s pretty unimaginative and the spectacle isn’t anything special. It looks cheap at times and this is as close as The Rock gets to phoning it in. There’s not even all that much mayhem after the monsters make it to Chicago. OK at best. Not surprised by its box office. Anecdotal but my screening was nearly empty despite perfect moviegoing weather.
Warner’s marketing never explained what’s going on in Rampage. I have no idea if this is just a 2018 thing, but Rampage having trailers that never explained what the movie is about, other than marketing based around the Rock. I know we all love him, but goofy movies need more than just, “Hey! Rock!” You need to explain this premise, and hope people get invested. Rampage fell into that marketing trap, and people seemingly don’t go for just star power anymore. Malin Ackerman is the villain in that movie, but god forbid they explain some villain motivation!
A Quiet Place sold itself remarkably well, and people showed up. Good on Paramount for figuring shit out.
OK so Malin Ackerman and her brother… I can’t. It’s too stupid.
Is “Sgt. Stubby” going to have one of the lowest opening weekend grosses for a wide-ish release?
Did someone actually think a theatrical release was good business?
Btw, what is “Fun Academy” anyway?
I wondered that too. Apparently they are a Georgia-based distributor focusing on family films.
SB, I know stupid, but audience want to know WHY it’s stupid. Trailers that explain the whole film are the worst, but audiences in 2018 want some explanation. They want a, “Why?” The studios keep answering with, “Why not?” That’s just a stupid strategy.
I had completely forgotten she was in it and had no idea Jake Lacy is in it. It’s a weird movie but sadly for the most part not in a good or fun way.
Ehh. I didn’t hate “Rampage” (I did hate “San Andreas,” but that’s another story).
Found it generally tolerable, if distinctly, even stubbornly unmemorable.
My 6-year-old self might have loved it, though.
Not surprised WB essentially tossed it away in the narrow window before “Infinity” storms theaters like the D-Day invasion.
Really wanted to see “Beirut” this weekend. (Love Hamm, Pellegrino and Whigham.) Too bad it’s not playing anywhere remotely near me
“Borg Vs. McEnroe” is available as a VOD on many PPV sites, including Amazon. Which probably explains its barely discernible “theatrical” footprint this weekend.
Sgt Stubby had 5 people in our viewing.
Everyone I know hates San Andreas. I don’t think it’s particularly good, but I enjoy the destruction porn and find it easy to watch. Agree on Rampage though. Stubbornly unmemorable is a good way to put it. Giant monsters attacking Chicago should be way more fun.
Bring on The Meg!!!!! Maybe that can succeed where Rim and Rampage failed.
Meg is a Chinese production, so it will be fine.
The Meg is going to be awesome.
Sgt. Stubby actually is entertaining. But I wonder if this is one of those films that would have found a bigger audience back in the day when more distributors bought newspaper ads — and more people read print editions of newspapers?
You’re probably 100% correct Joe. The older folks who actually still read newspapers would also be more interested in a WWI film.
The whole reason I even knew about the film was one of those Front & Center features when you get to the theater early.
One thing I appreciated was that the dog was a dog. Animated yes, but he didn’t talk or act human.
The funny thing is, I thought the WWI subject matter would help the movie so soon after Wonder Woman reintroduced a new generation to The War To End All Wars. And yes: The dog was a dog, and that was a good thing.