April 30, 2024
BYOB
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
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
From Emmanuel Levy’s review of Youth Without Youth it sounds like this is Coppola’s Mulhulland Dr. I think he’s got to be a heavyweight frontrunner for best director, though the chances of getting a BP nomination are extremely doubtful, methinks.
http://emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=7246
Don’t forget that Lynch got a nomination but not a win.
Did a marathon day at the Vancouver International Film Fest today – five films. All in all, a good day, and a good selection of 16 films over the course of 12 days.
In order of preference:
Bliss (Mutluluk) – See it if you get the chance!
Atonement
Control
The Band’s Visit
Persepolis
The Edge of Heaven
Lust, Caution
The Savages
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
The Man From the Embassy
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
The Flight of the Red Balloon
Young People Fucking
Antonia
The Voyeurs
Ploy
Didn’t see everything I wanted to see, but did alright for myself I think.
who watches the office, earl, and 30 rock?
Simon Pegg is Scotty in the JJ Abrams STAR TREK reboot. That’s fun casting!
So I’m watching Altman’s The Player for the first time in a dozen or so years. And I’m sorry but the movie fucking sucks. Emptyheaded, unfunny, plotty.
Any other films that were only great the year they came out?
Interesting thesis invalidated by the fact that The Player is awesome.
“Jumper” trailer got me psyched. Can someone explain why Jamie Bell isn’t a superstar? He has all the charisma of Hirsch and Shia LaBoeuf and more chops than both of them combined. Is it the Britishness?
Yeah, The Player is awesome fun.
Absolutely, Ian – Simon Pegg was a surprisingly unconventional choice and he’ll be great.
Can’t argue against Eric Bana (MUNICH) as the villain either.
With a $150-160 million budget, the revamped STAR TREK holds a lot of promise. Now if only they could get William Shatner to cameo in this.
pegg is an interesting choice and, of course, JJ worked with him on “Mi:III”
Was watching the ST: TMP Director cut thingie by Robert Wise a while back, and as uninvolving the adventure seemed, it did have an epic quality and the special effects were top notch, JJ needs to use some of those ‘lingering fx shots’ of STTMP to give his new flick a wide screen quality – Jerry Goldsmith’s rousing score will be missed but I’m sure Michael Giacchino can deliver the goods.
It will be interesting to finally have eye candy in a ST movie that lasts more than 15 seconds.
pegg or cho?
Paramount it showing a lot of confidence in JJ if they are giving him $150+ mil for a Star Trek movie.
Is it justified though? is Star Trek still such a presence or important to people that it will be turn out for it? Paramount must think that they’ve got a Batman Begins type situation on their hands. I don’t think enough time has passed for this to occur.
I like the Jumper trailer a lot btw. The concept looks like it will be handled better than the DTV or Sci-fi channel nature of “The Covenant”.
Simon Pegg is great news, almost too perfect.
“Now if only they could get William Shatner to cameo in this.”
I hope you’re joking…
Altman is one of my favorite directors, but “The Player” is decidedly NOT one of my favorite films. If I can further the blasphemy, I’ll admit I think “Nashville” is overrated too.
Have you seen it recently? Sure, some of its potency may be diluted now because so many directors since have copied its style, but you know what? Many of them have improved upon it. PTA, for example, took the Altman template as inspiration, but added visceral kinetic energy and extended character moments. The “moments” in “Nashville” are so small they’re almost subliminal. I know at the time, the overlapping audio seemed revolutionary and gave the sense that in every offhand comment there was a stunning and incisive bit of revelation. But most of those little moments are lost amidst a veritable avalanche of terrible country music, which occupies some 65% (!) of screen time. The scenes that play longer are still brutal and nuanced, but even a hallmark moment like the singalong finale seems a bit obvious and ham-handed now… not to mention, more unlistenable music.
“The Player,” to me, suffers from the same self-satisfied smugness that afflicts most Hollywood and media satires. No wonder, then, the critical hosannahs– I can practically imagine the 1992 LA Film Critics tittering along in the screening room and lapping it up like parched horses at an oasis: “Yep, that’s how it is in our crazy little world.”
Much like when I saw “Adaptation” with a bowled-over Beverly Hills crowd trying to OUT-LAUGH each other just to prove how “in the biz” they were. But what does a papermill worker in Porland, ME, make of jokes about “points against the gross” or Buck Henry pitching “The Graduate 2”?
It’s “insider” as hell, but is that enough to make a great film? Is it truly a work of art, or just something that plays so strongly to people who share its worldview and frame of reference. You don’t have to be a Jersey goombah to love “The Sopranos,” but is “The Player” great or even amusing to people outside of the entertainment industry?
The cameos and inside jokes well overtake anything else that’s going on in the film, not that those things aren’t seemingly beside the point anyway. The murder mystery is perfunctory, no one’s performance is particularly great– Cynthia Stevenson has to be one of the most annyoing screen presences in all cinematic history, not to mention WHOOPI GOLDBERG is in the mix. And the Hollywood potshots are just kind of cheap and almost softball.
“McCabe,” “Long Goodbye,” “MASH,” “California Split”… even “Popeye” (!) easily trounce these two overrated gasbags to me.
I’m a giant Star Trek fan – I could pretty much recite any line from any movie, as well as anything from the original series. Ya I have a lot of “down time”. However, I don’t know if 150 million + is such a smart move. I think the franchise pretty much buried itself with way too much overexposure, specifically with the last 2 series, which weren’t good at all. Also, the franchise doesn’t seem to be too relevent anymore, especially not with the youngsters. I think the above 25 (above 30?) geeks like me will see it, but what does a “relaunch” have to do with the idea of Star Trek? Not much I’d say. If all they’re using is the names of the characters and some familiar sounding ships, then, to me, that’s not a new and exciting star trek film. Also, i’m not sold on JJ — sorry but MI3 really didnt do much for me, and Cloverfield doesn’t look all that original either.
As far as Shatner making a cameo, that would mean the plot has to do with some kind of parallel time-line, which I’m still unsure about. BUT if Shatner does make a cameo, i think it would get a lot more butts in the seats.
Lex G, that is awfully condescending of you to assume that paper mill workers wouldn’t “get” The Player. Neither Adaptation or The Player are too inside for your average American, or for international viewers either. The Players is very clever and fucking spot on. How sad that you have to see it as a class issue.
Simon Pegg is wonderful casting. Can’t say I give a shit about a new ST film though. I adore the first film for its epic scope and genuine science fiction ambiance. Plus Wise shot some of the most awesome graceful space scenes ever and Goldsmith’s score is simply spectacular. Plus, Spock cries! And they cut that out!
More details on “Young People Fucking” please.
Altman…I recently went through an Altman festival with my DVD player. “Nashville” is still great. “McCabe and Mrs Miller” is extraordinary, one of the great soundtrack choices ever. “Popeye” was probably more fun to make than it is to watch, but Shelley Duvall is wonderful in it. “The Player” lived up to my memories of it. I loved Whoopie carrying on about the tampon. The big surprise was “Thieves Like Us.” I guess I didn’t pay any attention to it at the time, and it seemed like a calmer alternative to “Bonnie and Clyde,” which I had also recently watched again.
adorian, here’s what my initial thoughts were that I wrote down on my comp:
Young People Fucking was something that I didn’t really think was all that great. Typically Canadian in its minutiae and execution, it embodies everything that people who love Canadian cinema love in Canadian cinema. Listen, I don’t have a problem with minutiae, but YPF was somewhat funny, had really good performances, and occasionally engaging as it follows 5 couples through their bedroom encounters, but it was too obsessed with the minutiae. None of the five stories are connected, and the only one that was somewhat touching was the “Exes”. I really think that if their segment had been fleshed out into a film, that movie would have been altogether more of an interesting time. Anyhow, it was in the end a pointless film, unworthy of any hype that may be associated with it because of the title.
Following the screening, the director/writer, co-writer/actor and two other actors were up on stage. Ironically they were much more engaging in their Q&A period than the film they were schilling for was. I was sitting in the row in front of them, and one of the actors was the female from the “Exes” segment and she was guffawing throughout the whole show. It was pretty annoying really. Actors. Anyhow, yeah, I didn’t bother asking what the point of the film was, because they even copped to the film being about the minutiae that happens in between sex…yet they made a completely unsexy film. Heck, when you have a stunning beauties like Diora Baird and Carly Pope, you’d want them to be as such…anyhow, if ever a movie didn’t live up to it’s title, Young People Fucking is it.
I’m a big Star Trek fan too, but I’m not looking forward to the JJ Abrams version. Too much money was what spoiled STTMP and it was slashing the budget and focussing on the characters that made Wrath of Khan so great. Plus, Abrams seems to be focussing on making Jim Henson’s Star Trek Babies which strikes me as an incredibly lame idea. I like Simon Pegg but his casting tells me that Scotty is going to be used for comic relief and nothing else.
I love Trek and the plot of this film is… BO-BO. Easily one of the stupidest ideas for a reboot that I have ever come across as a fan. Nevertheless; all of this casting news means nothing until the cast JENSEN ECKLES AS KIRK.
There is no question that The Player is not gonna play to “outsiders” the same way it does to “insider,” but the same is true of a lot of Altman’s films, including Prarie Home Companion, which personally I couldn’t stand. But then again, I’m an outsider who thought the radio show was corny as well. But to me The Player is still a whole lot of fun, and the best Hollywood satire I can remember.
I was never the biggest fan of McCabe & Mrs. Miller. Always thought it was coma-inducing. I probably need to see that again though. Too many smart people love it, but I’ve seen it three times “trying” to get it and failing.
But yes, I would put MASH, California Split (great movie, very slept on) and The Long Goodbye at the top of my Altman list, as I never really “got” Nashville either, and think it’s as corny at times as Prarie Home Companion. But I’m not a country music fan either.
But to say that Paul Thomas Anderson has surpassed Altman? Not in my book. Not by a long shot. To me, Magnolia was an embarrassment that is nearly unwatchable. I never understood the praise of that film, and really think those praisers are just drinking the cool aid. And just because PT Anderson uses the steadycam and cranes more than Mr. Altman doesn’t mean he’s expanded on Altman’s work. It just means he’s got more toys.
I could give a fuck about another Star Trek film. Ugh, dorkfest USA. But I gotta defend JJ Abrams, who should be able to orchestrate a dorkfest as well as anybody. I was never a fan of the Mission Impossible films, but thought he did a tremendous job on MI3, and really gets how to shoot action in big way. And he’s a good storyteller.
Flavor-aid, not Kool-Aid.
MI3 was a big, expensive TV episode with exactly one cool shot (Cruise running). Abrams is not a first-rate action director, if you ask me.
In action movies, I’m sick of the “cool shots” if it means what Michael Bay gives you, or what say John Woo gave you in MI2. Abrams style – which is almost to not have a style, in that he actually lets you understand what’s going on – was really refreshing for me. But I guess I went in thinking I was gonna hate it, and came out pleasantly surprised.
MI3 at least didn’t put me to sleep like MI2 did.
But no movie on Earth has put me to sleep as fast as Robert Wise’s original STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. To this day, that is the only movie I have fallen asleep to in an actual theater. The most rewarding aspect of that: I snore like a fucking chainsaw.
I actually re-watched the first trek film recently, for the first time in a long while, and it’s a real science fiction film. people who say it’s boring, especially as it pertains to trek 2, 6, etc, are missing the fact that it is an intelligent film. science fiction today has become synonymous with michael bay.
On another note, i’ve listened to the new radiohead album three times and i’m a HUGE fan of this band. but now i understand why they didn’t charge anything.
Yeah, the long version of STTMP is worth checking out. I’m going out on a limb here, but a new Star Trek could be like The Simpsons Movie-more latent interest out there than people realize. Simon Pegg as Scottie- COOl!
eugenen, it’s because while he occasionally makes a movie like Jumper or King Kong he’s far more interested in making movies like Hallam Foe or Dear Wendy or The Chumscrubber. God I love Jamie.
“I actually re-watched the first trek film recently, for the first time in a long while, and it’s a real science fiction film. people who say it’s boring, especially as it pertains to trek 2, 6, etc, are missing the fact that it is an intelligent film. science fiction today has become synonymous with michael bay.”
Couldn’t agree more. The first is the only one that really adheres to the ST credo of exploring strange new worlds and boldly going where no man has gone before. The uniforms are absurd, but the story is excellent. Definitely underrated. Personally, I much prefer it to the nonsensical critics’ darling “The Voyage Home.”
“On another note, i’ve listened to the new radiohead album three times and i’m a HUGE fan of this band. but now i understand why they didn’t charge anything.”
I’ve only listened to “In Rainbows” once so far, so I’ll need a few more listens. My expectations aren’t too high, though. I’ve liked their last three albums (some great songs to be found there), but they haven’t had a great album since “OK Computer.” Of course, that’s an all-time great album, so maybe I’m expecting too much.
Anybody else here also thinks that one episode of “Pushing Daisies” is way better than most, no, all of the romantic comedies out there? This show is amazing and heartbreaking.
I also watch “Earl” and it just had the gayest episode in the world. Loved it!
Pushing Daisies is better than most movies I have seen this year. Those first two episodes are tremendous and I hope the quality keeps up for the rest of the year. If so… it once again demonstrates how utterly and totally TV can obliterate any movie at any time.
Pushing Daisies is wonderful, the best new show in years.
Aladdin Sane – what did you think of ‘Ploy’? I haven’t yet gotten around to seeing it, but I certainly will. It was in theaters here for like 2 weeks. The DVD is out, I think.
“Pushing Daisies” could definitely be a little TV treasure this season, but DAMMMMMN if it doesn’t owe a great deal of its essence to the movie version of “A Series of Unfortunate Events”.
pushing daisies would have worked better as a film. i don’t see it keeping it up to uphold a great series. don’t get me wrong it has a great pilot and concept. but It will run out of steam and die. shame.
the office is a show that robert altman would have approved of. i think.
Speaking of Robert Altman and TV: How many of you folks ever caught his short-lived ABC series Gun? I confess, I didn’t see every episode, but I liked the few I did catch. Unfortunately, ABC dumped it into a late Saturday evening timeslot with minimal publicity, and it died. Sort of like Masters of Science Fiction (which, I admit, I didn’t see at all, but will try to cath on DVD).
Er, CATCH on DVD.
Just caught Michael Clayton. Quite an entertaining film, I must say. Tense, well directed, moody — a solid adult film. Tilda’s “devil incarnate” character seemed slightly simplistic, and the message that giant corporations and law firms are full of evil wasn’t very subtle, but overall a great job by Gilroy. Also Wilkinson should get an Oscar nomination for supporting actor – he was mesmerizing.
Ployp,
Ploy wasn’t all that I thought it could have been. Near the end it meanders and tries to be more than it should have been. Like all the sudden in this character drama, you get a kidnapping plot etc…still, I’ve seen worse.
Seen; this is a quality age of TV. They also have Diane Ruggiero working on the show. Trust me… she can carry the whimsy out for almost 3 years! Nevertheless; Joe I did watch maybe one or two episodes of GUN… on ABC… on SATURDAYS! That’s right; they aired it on Saturday. Also… why on earth did “Caribou Queen” pop into my head? Seriously… Billy freakin Ocean CARRIES ON like freakin KANSAS. Yep… good stuff.
So to meld the two discussions together:
Why did Paramount hire Abrams to do a Star Trek movie, when he would seem to be best suited at launching a new Trek TV series? Or will the movie be a very expensive pilot?
When it comes to Star Trek, I’m admittedly a C- student. I start with Wrath of Khan and make my way out.
But JJ Abrams has my blessing. He comes off as more than just another geek director with a hard on. He’s got heart and brains and my guess is Paramount wouldn’t have handed him the keys to the Enterprise unless he pitched them a fucking whopper of reboot. Let’s see if he can de-nerd this franchise.
(and guys, seriously, take another look at The Player, it doesn’t work in 2007)
Sure it does. It’s no masterpiece, but it’s fun.
“Now if only they could get William Shatner to cameo in this.”
“I hope you’re joking…”
Palm, The Shat is riding high on BOSTON LEGAL, he is absolutely great in that, has a few Emmys under his sleeve, etc — I don’t see a problem having him bookend the film or appear in a cameo (after all Leonard Nimoy is in this as well, and its a decent-sized role).
Shatner’s appearance will bring in the nostalgia crowd who steered clear of INSURRECTION and NEMESIS, extra bums on the seats = more money.
There are promotional/marketing considerations as well with having both Nimoy and Shatner appear = more magazine covers, online interviews, etc = more publicity.
It’s a no lose scenario for Paramount, his presence can only fuel interest not diminish it.
Apparently the writers are trying to squeeze him in but are having trouble doing it, as its a Spock-focused script, but it aint nuclear science, it can be done easily and effectively, no matter what the plot is, just flashback and bookend the flick with Kirk and Spock on the bridge a la GODFATHER II (where all the principals sitting at the table). That is just one way out of dozens.
Shat is great in Boston Legal, the best thing about the show, imo. I’m sick to death of David E. Kelly’s schtick.
Carpetmuncher, thank you for saying “But to say that Paul Thomas Anderson has surpassed Altman? Not in my book. Not by a long shot.” Have people lost their minds? PTA has potential but he’s got a LONG way to go before he is in even in the same country as Altman. Maybe There Will Be Blood will take him leaps and beyond what he is but for now, he’s got potential. I like what he’s doing but he is not “great” yet.
nah! spader won an emmy this year for a reason!
and give me David E. Kelly over Aaron Sorkin anyday. With Boston Legal he has proved to be a better writer.
Sorkin had Sport Night (overrated) and West Wing (bleh) and then Studio 60 (SUCKED)
On Pushing Daisies, I liked but didn’t love the pilot. It’s fun but totally contrived. Very precious. And the lead guy was only sort of interesting. Haven’t watched the second episode yet, but I’ve got it on TiVo and will stay with it.
Not really because of the design or the story, but rather because of Anna Friel, who is fabulous, a real revelation. I couldn’t take my eyes off of her.
Still think Mad Men is the best new show in awhile, as flawed as it is in terms of story drive. But everything else – the acting, the design, the dialogue – is impeccable – and the lead Jon Hamm is great, he’s got some of that Bogie thing in him.
West Wing was better than anything Kelly has ever done.
Carpetmuncher, I LOVE Mad Men. It is the best new show by a long way. I hope it finds an audience. Seanwithaw, Kelly repeats himself and spews his same sex scenes, dynamics, jokes and politics on every show he does. I still watch Boston Legal but mainly because I like the actors. The writing has gone way down hill. Sorkin is a genius.
Let me voice my support for Mad Men as well, best dialogue on television. We can’t quite know Hamm’s full range at this point but he’s great at playing a pretty complicated character. Definitely has old school movie star looks that he could be able to take to the big screen.
I haven’t watched AMC since they started putting commercials in the middle of the films, never thought I’d be on that channel again.
Let me just add that the Onion AV Club are a pithy bunch of motherfuckers. I just wanted to throw that out there.
Full of pith and vinegar, they are.
It’s bad enough you guys are slamming Kelley, but f’chrissakes, at least spell his name correctly!
I love Mad Men. Great show.
As far as Pushing Daisies goes, it is very precious, but it’s very enjoyable too. I’m a fan of the first couple episodes, hopefully they can keep it up.
Am I the only one who thought the Jumper trailer looked silly? The fact that it’s being released in February should be a warning sign.
The Jumper trailer had an air of TOMB RAIDER to it. It very much had a hokiness to it. So I am not sure if it will be anything more than a hokey movie, where Sam L. meat-hooks a motherfucker for trying to jump throw time and space.
I think they know that Jumper isn’t filled with the biggest explosions and the biggest stars so it’d probably make more money in February than Summer.
Does anyone know the budget on that movie. On one hand it looks like it’s very FX heavy, on the other hand they look a bit murky and have a first-year-student-making-them-on-his-laptop feel about them.
Still, the boyfriend looks like he’s having a ball in the trailer so I’ll still be seeing it.
i’ll see Jumper.
I don;t like Mad Men. God if you work with people like that , that show can only make you feel ill/uncomfortable (unless you are one of them). I do like the clothes howerver. I’m leaving LA today, goodbye sleazoid pimps. until next time.
Shatner really has had an amazing career, when you think of the mileage he’s managed to get out of what he’s actually done.
The greatest thing he has ever done was his spoken word version of Pulp’s “Common People”. Uh-huh.
and TJ HOOKER! Never forget… TJ HOOKER! Lota; I feel that way about Entourage. Those characters are about as skievy as they come. However; Mad Men is about a jewish boy — Richard Lipkin — that decides to make a conscious decision to be Don Draper. You also have the sexual politics of that time, that fascinate me to no end. Nevertheless; it’s still a quality show and if guys still exist like that… SOMEBODY BETTER CALL THE EEOC! WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!