The Hot Blog Archive for October, 2005

Happy Halloween

Really, nothing in the movie business seems that important today, as the left supported the right in getting rid of a treat and now has stuck America with a extreme rightist trick in The Supreme Court.
Sometimes, it is horrible to get what you ask for. And the ideologue that the left demanded from George Bush is now in place.
I know that I am off topic and that a small war could start in the comments section between some of you. So in this case only, as soon as I see the first comment that is not a comment about how YOU feel and is instead an attack on someone else’s opinion, I’ll be shutting down the comments section on this topic.
But I do feel that I needed to make comment on this issue. I am deeply sad about the left’s current inability to get out of its own way.

213 Comments »

Cruel & Crude, But Funny

A Zipperfish Attack On Scientology

12 Comments »

Weekend Estimates – 10/30/05

Not much new to add from the Friday analysis

42 Comments »

Annie Dull

I don

12 Comments »

Early Friday Estimates – 10/29/05

Horror Porn is a hot category and Lions Gate is the king of the genre.
Saw, Cabin Fever, House of 1000 Corpses, box office disappointments Undead and Haute Tension, The Devil

31 Comments »

Whose Weekend Is It Anyway?

Zorro 2 & Saw 2 both involve sharp instruments. Prime involves Uma Thurman, a young penis, and Meryl Streep as a Jewish mother in a wig. And The Weather Man is… well… cloudy.
Whaddya think?

60 Comments »

20 Weeks To Oscar 3

It’s amazing during this time how many movies go from 0 to 50 or from 50 to 0 in 3 seconds flat. This is that time when every movie “screened great for the Academy” or was ” a disaster at the Academy” or there are “problems in post” or “they are withholding it because they can and want to build tension” or “no one saw it” or “they are showing it to people.” Lies will be told and apologized for. Truths will be discounted and then seem too obvious to have doubted.
More & Charts…

24 Comments »

Example #2372

This is why I find the NYT so frustrating.
The first problem with Sharon Waxman’s piece on King Kong is that it makes old news appear to be new news… and more so, surprising news. People have been talking about a 3 hour running time for six weeks now

47 Comments »

Sarris Raves Jarhead

Or something like that.
He seems to be writing mostly about the book and other influences… and not very much about the film… except he liked it… he really, really liked it.
Interesting.

74 Comments »

Munich… The Color Blue?

colorpurpleblog.jpg munichblog.jpg
“All my life I had to fight. I had to fight the Egyptians. I had to fight Torquemada. I had to fight the Nazis. A Jew child ain’t safe in the family of men, but I ain’t never thought I’d have to fight in my own Olympics!”
(The Munich poster shown above is the international poster… not domestic… and not fake.)

29 Comments »

Bad Subject Line Of The Day

From WallStreetJournal.com
TECH ALERT: Supreme Court Rejects RIM Request
Subhead – But Justice Thomas Admits To Being Bi Curious
(Real Subhead – “The Supreme Court rejected Research In Motion’s request to freeze lower court proceedings in a patent dispute between the BlackBerry maker and NTP.”)

2 Comments »

A Terrific Review

You may or may not agree with Matt Zoller Seitz‘s take on Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but regardless, I think that Seitz shows great insight on the less than thrilled perspective, making the review well worth a once over even if you disagree. To wit:
“The result is an oddly underachieving movie. Black balances mayhem and silliness so expertly that he could have taken us much further from the beaten path if he’d wanted to. But it seems he didn’t want to. Kiss Kiss is rudely amusing but never dangerous; it’s as self-aware as Hollywood action movie screenplays can get without actually being smart. The title is misleading; while there’s bang-bang galore, there’s not much sex and even less sexual chemistry. The real excitement comes from the sight of Harry and Perry and Harmony busting each other’s chops while Los Angeles explodes around them

6 Comments »

Again…

Variety reports that Aaron Eckhart will star opposite Catherine Zeta Jones in anEnglish remake of Mostly Martha.
And as I responded when CZJ was first announced, GREAT! Eckhart is perfect… as the Martha character. And Jones is perfect as the charming chef who won’t take “no” for an answer.
It is possible that the original sex roles will work… but it would be so much better, especially with these actors, the other way around. And it would be innovative as well.

Odd

A story runs in The Hollywood Reporter today about Eric roth signing on to adapt Shantaram, which came to WB via Graham King, who bought it specifically for Johnnt Depp last year.
Meanwhile, on the Reuters wire, the story is presented as being about Johnny Depp being attached to the project… which is not news.
I have been aware that Reuters edits down THR stories for the wire, but this is actually embarrassing in a real way, making Borys Kit looking like a goof for re-reporting old news, when in fact, he is doing a new element in the story.

More Internet Junk

This came over the transom today…
Here’s another game that is not Halloween-related, but is a good test of your concentration. There are two pictures nearly identical to each other; you have to find three differences between them. I was able to find two before I gave up…you have to look very closely…look at the town.
If you can find three differences, then you are part of an elite group of individuals. This has been tested on 8,000 people, and supposedly only 19 people out of 8,000 found all three differences. There is no trick, all three differences exist.
Click here:
http://members.home.nl/saen/Special/Zoeken.swf

12 Comments »

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