Schoolio's Movie Corner

[Yablonowitz]

Then why aren't they doing it themselves? Especially after they make the paycheck films. Where are the independent passion projects? This is all on the filmmakers.

That's a good point. Not only that, but after establishing himself with a movie like Boyz, you would think he could have found some interested financiers in the independent arena. I think Singleton actually just isn't that good.

[Yablonowitz]

I really didn't like the first 2 episodes. Did you?

I've seen all four seasons and think it is one of the best serial dramas ever to air on TV. I was hooked right away...but the show is paced so that you get a feel for the characters and a sense of the complexities of their lives. But it's not just a sterile, academic study of social issues - it creates characters and storylines that linger in your mind for hours after you watch an episode. It's amazingly educational and gripping drama.

[menikmati]

Erik, have you shot anything else since the elevator short? If so, you should link us to it.

I have not...unfortunately, none of my classes this last semester don't have anything to do with filming shorts (and I don't have my own video/film camera)...instead I have an advance screenwriting class, film history, and an online cinema as a medium type of class...where we make websites and streaming movies for projects and stuff. But my elevator movie is finally in quicktime (better quality) format than previously (youtube)...on either my official site:

www.ebombfilms.com/movies/going_down

or my class website:

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~massie/compressions

hopefully my partner from last semester will have a digital edited version of our non-narrative film we did last semester...he says he's been working on it. So far all I have is the version I recorded off the moviola flat bed.

[schoolofruckus]

Anyone a fan of Kim Ki-Duk? I managed to nab a import copy of "Time" that I burned, but have not had a chance to watch yet. It's either that or "Quai Des Orfevres" tonight.

I've never seen any of his stuff. I've been told that "Spring Summer Winter Fall....Spring" or whatever the hell it's called is pretty damn great.

Then why aren't they doing it themselves? Especially after they make the paycheck films. Where are the independent passion projects? This is all on the filmmakers.

Touche. Clearly Mel Gibson is much more dedicated to his vision than John Singleton. And you're right, Greg - I don't think John Singleton is as good as "Boyz N Tha Hood". He clearly struck lightning once, and has been rather content to coast by making shit films ever since.

Erik, that's cool. Just be sure to show us any further projects you make!

[schoolofruckus]

Oh shit, Joe.

This is not good news for "Across The Universe". (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/movies/20roth.html?_r=2&ref=movies&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

I hope to God we get to see the version you saw, which I assume is Taymor's 2 hours, 8 minute cut.

[KungFuJoe]

Oh shit, Joe.

This is not good news for "Across The Universe". (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/movies/20roth.html?_r=2&ref=movies&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

I hope to God we get to see the version you saw, which I assume is Taymor's 2 hours, 8 minute cut.

Oh my god! this is terrible news! I would be extremely pissed too if I had someone who directed "Revenge of the Nerds 2" criticizing my film. That's total B.S.!!

I mean, I thought the film was pretty much perfect. Although, it may have dragged at parts and there were a couple of musical numbers not entirely necessary, I couldn't see the film working without them. I guess we'll see what they do with it, but this definately troubles me and I feel for Taymor. No one should mess with her genius. (edit = it was definately the March 8th 2hr 8 minute version I saw) And there's always hope for a proper dvd release.

I found it funny to see this article this morning because I finally went out and bought a used copy of "TITUS" yesterday and watched it again last night. Fucking brilliant film!! IMO this is easily one of the most underrated films ever made. I can watch the full 2hr40mins over and over w/o ever being bored. I feel bad though, because I should've bought a new copy in order to support Mrs. Taymor. Do artists ever get compensated for their merchandise that is sold from used goods stores? if not, isn't that almost as bad as downloading, if not worse??? makes me wonder....

[schoolofruckus]

I'm sure that they don't get compensated because used goods don't get the bar code scanned. If you buy something at Amoeba - which is a huge store - they just enter the pricetag price manually and it's listed as "used item". No way to keep track of royalties with that.

That said, I don't think it's anywhere near the same as downloading; let alone worse. If you own something that you don't want anymore, and you sell it to one person, then it's still the property of one person; same as if they had bought it directly from the store, and you, the original owner, had never been involved. That's a far cry from it being widely accessible on the internet, in which thousands of people partake in it without paying for their own copies.

[KungFuJoe]

You're absolutely right. I still feel bad for not buying directly from the source though and not having my money go to the artist. oh well...

[Yablonowitz]

Oh my god! this is terrible news! I would be extremely pissed too if I had someone who directed "Revenge of the Nerds 2" criticizing my film. That's total B.S.!!


Hey, Joe? Where are you going with that gun in your hand?

[KungFuJoe]

Hey, Joe? Where are you going with that gun in your hand?

If only I had a dollar for every time someone's said that to me.

[PotVsKtl]

Taymor is a moron for signing on without final cut.

[Yablonowitz]

If only I had a dollar for every time someone's said that to me.

Oh I hear you. It's the same with me with everytime someone calls me "old gregg".

[schoolofruckus]

Taymor is a moron for signing on without final cut.

Joe Roth is a moron for deciding that if Martin Brest can't make a final cut film that's worth a god damn, then no one can.

Actually, Joe Roth is a moron for a whole lot more reasons than that. I saw "Christmas With the Kranks" because I was home for the holiday and my little sister wanted to see it; as any one of us could have guessed, it was absolutely unbearable.

That said, I have no idea why any self-respecting director would accept less than final cut these days. I know Ronnie says that "NOBODY has it", but that's simply not true. Directors who don't make box-office hits (such as Paul Thomas Anderson) are able to get it. Directors who don't make huge blockbusters, or good movies whatsoever, (such as Martin Brest) can get it too.

[J~$$$]

Oh I hear you. It's the same with me with everytime someone calls me "old gregg".

I know you love me......you can learn to love me.....want some Baileys?......Creamy......yeah.....look at my mangina! IM OL GREGGGGGG!!!!

[schoolofruckus]

THAT'S OLD GREGG'S MANGINA!!!

[Yablonowitz]

I know you love me......you can learn to love me.....want some Baileys?......Creamy......yeah.....look at my mangina! IM OL GREGGGGGG!!!!

I showed my 4 year-old that video and he was perturbed by the mangina scene but got over it by the time they were singing that tune.

[J~$$$]

Kids luff old gregg.

PS. I know thats why you have a shoe for an avatar.

[mountmccabe]

That version was tested last week in Arizona, to a younger audience than the more mixed test group than saw Ms. Taymor’s cut in Los Angeles on March 8, according to an individual close to the film.

Dammit; I live in Arizona. I should've been invited to that test screening even if it was for an "experimental" cut.

[amyzzz]

Dammit; I live in Arizona. I should've been invited to that test screening even if it was for an "experimental" cut.
Are you on some special mailing list? Why should you have been invited? Just curious.

[All That I Am]

I just finished reading Quentin Tarantino's and my worst fears were realized. This story is shit, and I know that it's supposed to be a b-movie, but the characters are all really lame. He refers to about four of his own movies which is a sign that he's really losing it, for example, when someone gets a phone call the ring tone is that song daryl hannah was whistling in kill bill.
I think QT forgot his inner movie geek. In all of his movies I could see homages to other films, and i'm sure it came from working in a video store all those years and dreaming of how you would improve on things you already liked. It seems like all that is forgoten, every scene is littered with a bunch of film industry jargon and insider talk, its really lame. Especially how many times he has the characters say Cabo Wabo.
Oh well the story was too drawn out the characters are lame there's a couple of action sequences but i don't think the whole grindhouse idea is gonna work because we have so many poorly made movies now with gratuitus violence that this whole idea just falls short.

[schoolofruckus]

I just finished reading Quentin Tarantino's and my worst fears were realized. This story is shit, and I know that it's supposed to be a b-movie, but the characters are all really lame. He refers to about four of his own movies which is a sign that he's really losing it, for example, when someone gets a phone call the ring tone is that song daryl hannah was whistling in kill bill.
I think QT forgot his inner movie geek. In all of his movies I could see homages to other films, and i'm sure it came from working in a video store all those years and dreaming of how you would improve on things you already liked. It seems like all that is forgoten, every scene is littered with a bunch of film industry jargon and insider talk, its really lame. Especially how many times he has the characters say Cabo Wabo.
Oh well the story was too drawn out the characters are lame there's a couple of action sequences but i don't think the whole grindhouse idea is gonna work because we have so many poorly made movies now with gratuitus violence that this whole idea just falls short.

That last part is an especially interesting observation. Although I would contend that what dominates the culture now is a punch of poorly made movies with gratuitous violence that are also slick and hip and trying to convince us that they're better than they are. I think what draws Tarantino and Rodriguez to these films is that not only are they low-rent, but they're unapologetically so.

I don't mean to defend the movie blindly; I'm not a Tarantino homer (although I haven't seen anything by him that I don't like) and I wouldn't even call myself a Rodriguez fan. As far as I'm concerned, it could be anywhere from good to terrible; the only thing that would surprise me is if it turns out a fucking masterpiece.

[DRUNKOFFBREASTMILK]

its supposed to be cheese...tom savini is ACTING in it for christ sakes.

[codytwo]

That last part is an especially interesting observation. Although I would contend that what dominates the culture now is a punch of poorly made movies with gratuitous violence that are also slick and hip and trying to convince us that they're better than they are. I think what draws Tarantino and Rodriguez to these films is that not only are they low-rent, but they're unapologetically so.

I don't mean to defend the movie blindly; I'm not a Tarantino homer (although I haven't seen anything by him that I don't like) and I wouldn't even call myself a Rodriguez fan. As far as I'm concerned, it could be anywhere from good to terrible; the only thing that would surprise me is if it turns out a fucking masterpiece.

It seems to me that what Tarantino was doing with Kill Bill, what Rodriguez was doing with Sin City, and what they both are doing with Grindhouse is to elevate the genre out of low-budget status because they believe in it a little too much. There is somethign about those movies that they appreciate a little too much, in my opinion, and it seems like they are trying to bring it to a larger audience. It makes for cool-looking movies, and I really liked Sin City, but I don't know if they will succeed in the end.

[schoolofruckus]

It seems to me that what Tarantino was doing with Kill Bill, what Rodriguez was doing with Sin City, and what they both are doing with Grindhouse is to elevate the genre out of low-budget status because they believe in it a little too much. There is somethign about those movies that they appreciate a little too much, in my opinion, and it seems like they are trying to bring it to a larger audience. It makes for cool-looking movies, and I really liked Sin City, but I don't know if they will succeed in the end.

I think they're both really talented, although in my opinion Rodriguez has been nowhere near as successful bringing that to the screen as Tarantino has.

The problem, at least from my eyes, is that they've delved too deeply into the whole "genre" thing to do movies that really matter anymore. I have no beef whatsoever with genre filmmaking, but it's extremely difficult to make a movie that tries to adhere to stylistic conventions and still keep them interesting from a character/thematic perspective. I don't think either of these two ever have - or ever will - make a deep film that says anything of substance about the human condition, and that's fine. All I ask is that they keep the characters interesting and alive, so that it doesn't become a complete wank-fest of homages that feels like an exercise in trying to outgeek the world. Tarantino's been able to do that so far - I cared about the people in "Reservoir Dogs", "Pulp Fiction", "Jackie Brown", and "Kill Bill"; Rodriguez, not so much, although most of his movies are still at least some kind of fun. But after "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" and "Sin City", which were tedious on top of being mostly vacuous, I'm losing interest fast. Like I said above, "Grindhouse" could go just about any way. I have high hopes, but somewhat low expectations.

[PotVsKtl]

What is your definition of genre filmmaking in this case? Would that statement apply to film noir?

[mob roulette]

i wouldn't consider tarantino a genre director. he THINKS he is, but he's really not.

[SojuGorae]

are you both finished?

Anyone a fan of Kim Ki-Duk? I managed to nab a import copy of "Time" that I burned, but have not had a chance to watch yet. It's either that or "Quai Des Orfevres" tonight.

I loved 3-Iron and Samaritan Girl.

3-Iron was one of those movies that should have bored the hell out of me, but somehow didn't. Can't articulate what was so seductive about the pace of the film, but it just absored me in.

[breakjaw]

I can't wait for Paul Verhoeven's "Black Book",but check out this info for his next project (from IMDB):
Plot summary for
Azazel (2008)
Erast Fandorin, a government clerk turned detective, makes for an unlikely but gifted sleuth in late nineteenth-century Russia. The action opens a few years before the assassination of Czar Alexander II which begins the dark slide to war and revolution. A rich young man has killed himself in Moscow's Alexander Gardens, having spun a single cartridge in a revolver's chamber, pulled the trigger and lost at a game said to have been thought up in the Klondike gold fields and therefore called American roulette. The suicide note ostensibly explains the young man's motive: "Your world nauseates me, and that, truly, is quite reason enough." He has left his fortune to Baroness Margaret Astair, a British educator famed for her world-wide organization of progressive orphanages, which will shift the action for a time to England.

[schoolofruckus]

I don't care if you love or hate "Forrest Gump", this is awesome.

From Bill Simmons' most recent ESPN.com mailbag:

Q: Wondering if you could settle an argument between me and my buddies? We were discussing how many sexual partners Jenny had in "Forrest Gump." Everyone seems to think the over/under should be set at 250. I argued that it's got to be at least 500. And that's conservative. Keep in mind she was a hippie, drug addict in the '60s the time of free love. She was naked on stage playing an acoustic guitar. She was molested by her father. I'm pretty sure she took down that whole Black Panther rally. Am I way off here? I'm not saying she's a bad person. But if a hot girl has sex with someone like Forrest, chances are she's got a bad case of the "Ben Stillers" -- i.e. she can't say "no." Now that I think about it, I'm saying a grand easy.-- Keith, Hermosa Beach, Calif.

SG: All right, let's figure this out. According to Jenny's gravestone during the scene when Forrest says goodbye to her and it gets overwhelmingly dusty, she was born in 1945 and died in March of '82. We know that she went to an all-girls college in the mid-'60s (probably not a lot of sex at that point), that she got expelled for posing in Playboy, that she did the naked guitarist thing, and that she eventually became a traveling hippie in the late-'60s, leading to the scene where she spots Forrest speaking at the Washington Monument and runs across the water to see him. At this point, she's dating the guy from Berkeley who Forrest ends up punching in the face; you'd have to guess they'd been dating for a year or two, and the Free Love Era had just started ... so she couldn't have topped 25-30 partners at this point. We also know that she got knocked up by Forrest in the 1977-78 range, cooled things down and became a diner waitress to provide for her son over the next few years -- can't imagine a lot of sex happening for her from 1978 to 1981, and then we know that she moved back in with Forrest and their son Haley Joel Osment, married Forrest and died a few months later.

So Jenny's sexual prime happened from 1970 to 1978 and culminated in her turning into a coked-up disco queen and nearly jumping off a balcony. Even if she averaged 40-50 partners per year over that stretch -- which wouldn't have been a Chamberlain-esque pace by any standards -- there's no way you're getting to 500. Also, girls who sleep with hundreds and hundreds of guys inevitably start to look weathered and worn down. As my old Boston buddy Mark Fanning used to say, "You can usually look at a girl and SEE the number of guys she's slept with." That's why women don't last long in the porn industry; they're aging in dog years. So since Jenny looked relatively good even when she returned to Forrest's house in 1978, I'm putting the over/under at 220.5 and making a guess of 205 for her total number of partners.

(The bigger question: The movie implies that Jenny died of AIDS ... and yet, she died in March of 1982, nine months after the first recorded case of AIDS in the United States. So how did she get AIDS in the 1980-81 range if she was taking care of Haley Joel Osment and working in some random diner? Could that have been a bigger plot stretch? Or was she still throwing it around even as a single mom? On second thought, maybe we need to bump up that over/under.)

[jackstraw94086]

I can't wait for Paul Verhoeven's "Black Book",but check out this info for his next project (from IMDB):

sound a bit vague. I wonder what it has to do with the old testament demon.

[jackstraw94086]

(The bigger question: The movie implies that Jenny died of AIDS ... and yet, she died in March of 1982, nine months after the first recorded case of AIDS in the United States. So how did she get AIDS in the 1980-81 range if she was taking care of Haley Joel Osment and working in some random diner? Could that have been a bigger plot stretch? Or was she still throwing it around even as a single mom? On second thought, maybe we need to bump up that over/under.)

maybe Jennie's the one who gave AIDZ to that ape who bit the legendary first case. The film's a bit hazy about here whereabouts in the 70's

[atom heart]

I saw The Host last week.
It was enjoyable, but not very scary. The tone was uneven. The first part of the movie was pretty funny, the creature itself was gross but clumsy, then the movie became more serious with only a few bits of odd humor. It's in Korean, which I didn't realize, but I read quickly so I didn't miss much. As creature features go, it was the most imaginative one I've seen.

[wmgaretjax]

I loved 3-Iron and Samaritan Girl.

3-Iron was one of those movies that should have bored the hell out of me, but somehow didn't. Can't articulate what was so seductive about the pace of the film, but it just absored me in.

I'm pretty sure 3-iron was my favorite film of 2004. It's a pretty astounding film.

[Mr.Nipples]

i saw 300...my head hurts.

[thefunkylama]

I just watched the worst film ever, in all my life, and got paid a measley $5 to do so. And the guys screening the film made jokes about how we would pay to see worse in theaters. I tried really hard not to laugh in their faces.

[jackstraw94086]

i saw 300...my head hurts.

you gotta admit xerxes was a pimp though, huh? big pimpin.

[bumper31]

I watched delirious....

Pile of poo.......Just some bloke saying motherfucker shit a lot of times, with a few "jokes" and cock statements thrown in.

Is this comedy?

[codytwo]

I just watched the worst film ever, in all my life, and got paid a measley $5 to do so. And the guys screening the film made jokes about how we would pay to see worse in theaters. I tried really hard not to laugh in their faces.

title????

[thefunkylama]

Skid Marks.

[codytwo]

wow.











































wow.

[Mr.Nipples]

anyone see this? its director david russell going off on lily tomlin on the set of i heart huckabees...really going off...fucking hilarious...

F86s4Vq59Ks

[roberto73]

anyone see this? its director david russell going off on lily tomlin on the set of i heart huckabees...fucking hilarious...

I saw it a few days ago. It pretty much corroborates the horror stories Clooney told of the Three Kings set. Russell should be forced to direct high school theater for a while. I did it for ten years, and if there's one thing that teaches you patience, tact, and diplomacy, it's working with 16-year-olds.

[schoolofruckus]

I saw it a few days ago. It pretty much corroborates the horror stories Clooney told of the Three Kings set. Russell should be forced to direct high school theater for a while. I did it for ten years, and if there's one thing that teaches you patience, tact, and diplomacy, it's working with 16-year-olds.

Nah, never saw that one. (http://coachella.com/forum/showpost.php?p=106785&postcount=1175)

A couple other items:

AICN super-geek Neill Cumpson weighs in on "Grindhouse", with predictably hilarious results. (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32030)

Also, I watched Michelangelo Antonioni's "L' Avventura" last night. It was fucking great, as I expected. I'll discuss it in-depth below because I know most of you have seen it; those who have not but would like to some day, there are some spoilers, so proceed at your own risk.

This film is about the disappearance of a rich girl named Anna during a vacation and - more specifically - the effect it has on her best friend Claudia and her boyfriend Sandro. During their quest to find her, Claudia and Sandro begin to feel a quick-progressing attraction for one another, which eventually blossoms into a full-blown romance and a convenient abandonment of their search.

Much has apparently been written - by Antonioni as well as others - of the film's portrayal of the listless bourgeoisie, who act on their base sexual impulses out of a profound shallowness and lack of feeling. I felt that the concept of a privileged society that rots without values was well-rendered, but I also found a different, more tragic theme - that of the outsider who craves to join their ranks. There's a key exchange near the end of the film, when Claudia and Sandro are so enmeshed in their own hedonism that they have completely forgotten about Anna, and accompany all their old friends - many of whom were present when she disappeared - at a party. Their friends go on and on about the things their lifestyle has afforded them ever since childhood, but Claudia reveals that she comes from a more modest upbringing:

PATRIZIA
My childhood was like a tennis match; they
bounced me back and forth, here and there...

CLAUDIA
My childhood, instead, was a very sensible one.

PATRIZIA
What do you mean by sensible?

CLAUDIA
It means being without money.


I think that "the adventure" of the film's title is Claudia's masquerading into the life of her friend, which appeared on the surface to be mostly an enjoyable progression through the touchstones high society. Once Anna's out of the picture (literally), Claudia begins wearing her clothes (some of which were given as gifts), hanging out in her circle, schtupping her man....all without any consideration of the fact that Anna's disappearance may have been intentional.

I'm seeing more and more that having Antonioni's name on a film signifies all-encompassing viruosity - this film was excellent in all facets. I like the visuals on the three 70's films a bit more - they're a bit more free-form and hypnotic - but this one is still stunning, starkly photographed, and one would certainly be dishonest to refer to it as "conventional". The acting is outstanding, particularly Monica Vitti's lead turn as Claudia; I'm excited to see that she's in some of the other Antonioni films on my list. The story moves along at a quicker pace than that of "Zabriskie Point" or "The Passenger", but it's still never in too big of a hurry to miss a searing moment of introspection. As the other fans on this board and across the world have long proclaimed, this is one of the best movies ever made.

[wmgaretjax]

Glad you enjoyed it gabe, it truly is one of my favorites. Have you seen Catherine Breillat's "Fat Girl?" I watched it for the third time and was amazed how well the film stood up for me. Some thoughts below. beware... **SERIOUS SPOILERS.**

When I first saw the film a couple years back, the person I saw it with didn't really like it. She was disgusted with the manner in which she felt Ms. Breillat demeaned the destructive nature of sexual violence. She said that, as a victim of sexual violence herself, she felt the film would desensitize many viewers towards the true damage that sexual damage can have on a person. By having Anais display attitudes of sexual callousness, while still a virgin, and then to consciously deny that she was raped and claim consent (one could argue that it was post traumatic distress disorder or a similar psychological response that caused this. However, Ms. Breillat herself has stated that this was not her intention, not to mention it seems pretty clear.), Ms. Breillat would ultimately end up condoning this kind of behavior.

I disagree, I told her that as a person that had endured similar experiences to herself (and Catherine Breillat), I felt that her intention was not to demean the nature of sexual violence, but rather to elate the manner in which western culture and society diminishes the nature of emotional violence exacted by men on the female sex. Anais says very early on in the movie that she wants her first sexual experience to mean nothing to her, that way no man can hold it over her head as a kind of bragging right. As the film develops, Elena argues that it should be with someone she loves, and that it should be entirely meaningful. Her emphasis on the emotional element of sexuality arises largely after Fernando has begun to manipulate her. She is socially pressured, by him and cultural morays, to accept his sexual ambiguity, while maintaining that as a woman she must subject herself to a form of emotional and sexual frailty. The irony of this comes when Fernando wants to sleep with her, she refuses (as he seems to anticipate and expect) and he then coerces her into anal sex, arguing that she can still claim her virginity.

Both the audience and Anais see through Fernando from the very start, but we aren't very appalled by his behavior. It seems expected and contrived initially. It isn't until the symbol of the ring arises that we begin to become shocked by what Ms. Breillat is doing. The symbol of marriage is a pretty universal symbol, but few understand the history behind the ring. The wedding ring did originate as a form of binding between a man and woman, however, the emergence of the tradition is rooted in marriage as an essential contractual arrangement that emphasizes the ownership of the female. Initially, the woman's ring had her husband's name engraved in it, as a sign of ownership. This element was not extended to the man. Thus the ring becomes a symbol of Fernando's temporary ownership of Elena. Ultimately that is taken from her as well and she is only left with the emotional damage of his "acceptably" exerted emotional and sexual control.

These things understood, the conclusion of the movie comes into focus. Anais is raped by a complete stranger (in the wake of Elena's murder), and she tells him that he can't hurt her. She walks away seemingly unfazed. When the policeman tells a doctor skeptically that she claims she wasn't raped, she tells him that he doesn't have to believe her. Rather than demeaning the damage which sexual violence can exert upon an individual, I believe Ms. Breillat is attempting to point out the nature of the roll that sexual and cultural/emotional violence play in society. We elevate sexual violence to a level of abhorrence, while accepting the existence of traditional gender roles in society. Elena is owned by every man she will ever sleep with, because that is the nature of her role in society. Anais wants nothing to do with this. It isn't an elation of promiscuity, but rather a reanalysis of the nature of these traditional gender roles. Sexual violence is not diminished in any way, it's just placed in it's rightful place next to the destructive nature that our cultural values have placed upon women.

[PotVsKtl]

“Adults have fights and go through stuff,” Tomlin said Tuesday. “I know some people are more dignified in the world, that if you transgress against that kind of professionalism, that it’s some kind of great sin, but I don’t see it that way.”

She called the episode “in a way liberating… now it’s all over, and so what, and I don’t have to keep up some great pretention I’m the most dignified, eloquent, elegant, perfect, smart-thinking, kind, generous person. I’m just a plain old human with a whole bunch of flaws.”

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/blogs/?p=365

This time, the director turns on her angrily, calling her the crudest word imaginable, in front of the actors and crew. He shrieks: "I wrote this role for you! I fought for you!" Mr. Russell ends his tirade by sweeping his arm across a nearby table cluttered with production paraphernalia. He storms off the set and back on again, continually shouting. Then he locks himself in his office, refusing to return. After an uncomfortable, set-wide pause, Ms. Tomlin goes in to apologize, and Mr. Russell returns to the shoot.

Unbeknownst to both of them, a member of the crew has videotaped his tirade. The recording makes its way around the Hollywood talent agencies. Asked about the incident later, Mr. Russell says: "Sure, I wish I hadn't done that. But Lily and I are fine." For her part, Ms. Tomlin admits that both she and Mr. Russell lost control. "It's not a practice on his part or my part," she says. "I'd rather have someone human and available and raw and open. Don't give me someone cold, or cut off, or someone who considers themselves dignified."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/movies/19WAXM.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Russell is an artist. People appreciate his work because of that. Would it really be preferable if he was professional and controlled himself in all situations and acted in a manner befitting a 9-to-5 office manager? The whole cast is fine with him, in fact praises his methods in no uncertain terms in the Charlie Rose interview on the Huckabees DVD. Who gives a fuck if they yell at each other?

[schoolofruckus]

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/blogs/?p=365



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/movies/19WAXM.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Russell is an artist. People appreciate his work because of that. Would it really be preferable if he was professional and controlled himself in all situations and acted in a manner befitting a 9-to-5 office manager? The whole cast is fine with him, in fact praises his methods in no uncertain terms in the Charlie Rose interview on the Huckabees DVD. Who gives a fuck if they yell at each other?

Judge him or demean him based on it? No way. Care about it and be supremely entertained by it? Absolutely.

Roberto73 - who above says he deserves to teach high school theater - is crazy. Russell needs to make more films, period. His stuff takes forever these days - he was supposed to make a film where Vince Vaughn played a talk radio host - and the film world is worse off for it.

[PotVsKtl]

I just received this:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000KRMZBU.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

I will relinquish my tenuous grasp on sanity during the course of this boxset.

[downingthief]

FINALLY saw The Departed over the weekend. I won't go into it much, since it has been discussed many times on the board. Suffice it to say, I liked it. Best picture...eh, debatable. Acting was outstanding, however. Marty is a true Master at getting his actors to lose themselves in the part.

[schoolofruckus]

You know, I saw "The Discreet Charms of the Bourgeousie" a long time ago and I didn't think much of it. Care to offer a better starting point for Bunuel's work?

[breakjaw]

I'm sorry,but I have little respect for the supremely unprofessional behavior of the director in this case,especially in his treatment of Lily Tomlin,who is a fine actress (especially in"Nashville" and "Short Cuts").
When you see someone go off in this manner,it generally means they've lost control of their production,and after seeing the end-result of "I Heart Huckabees",I can see this clearly occurred.

[PotVsKtl]

That's your problem right there.

[Hannahrain]

Whomever it was that said "cunt" was the crudest word imaginable doesn't have much of an imagination.

[PotVsKtl]

I couldn't tell you where to begin, Discreet Charm is the only one I've seen as well and that was years ago in school, followed by the type of pretentious discussion you would expect. I just got the box because it was a good deal and I've been wanting to check out Bunuel.

[ghettojournalist]

i need to check out "the discreet charms..." for its influence on "metropolitan".
which i got into because of "kicking and screaming".
which i got into because of "the squid and the whale" and "gilmore girls".

[schoolofruckus]

.......and "gilmore girls".

:confused:

Pot, that's cool. Don't be shy about posting your reactions to those movies as you plow through them.

I'd be willing to admit that the satire in "Discreet Charms" was maybe over my head - I saw it a few years ago - and I also watched it at a friend's house right after viewing "Elephant" in the theater. So maybe I wasn't in the best frame of mind to get into something like that. But the descriptions of Bunuel's work that I've read over the years make it sound like stuff I'd highly enjoy.

[mob roulette]

bunuel>russell anyway. so far.

[mountmccabe]

i need to check out "the discreet charms..." for its influence on "metropolitan".
which i got into because of "kicking and screaming".
which i got into because of "the squid and the whale" and "gilmore girls".

OK, I've not seen the latter 3 but if you're talking about Whit Stillman's Metropolitan than I am intruiged.

He still hasn't done anything since The Last Days of Disco, right?

[ghettojournalist]

:confused:

what are you confused by?

Chris Eigeman played "Digger" in season 4 of Gilmore Girls.
Eigeman played my favorite character in "Kicking and Screaming" (95, not Will Ferrell).

He still hasn't done anything since The Last Days of Disco, right?

yes, that is the last Stillman film.

[schoolofruckus]

That's all.

Oh, and hopefully this one (http://movies.ign.com/articles/775/775737p1.html)doesn't take over 5 years to hit screens.

[amyzzz]

He still hasn't done anything since The Last Days of Disco, right?
That was an annoying movie. At least Kate Beckinsale looked hot in it.

[J~$$$]

HOLY COCKPUNCH BITCHES.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_atomic/28weekslater/index.html

[Mr.Nipples]

it actually looks really really good...i cant say the same for the day of the dead remake...

[JEllswo311]

I don't know if this was already mentioned but a good documentary that everyone should see regardless of their opinion of the war is "The Ground Truth".

[mob roulette]

questions for gabe:

1. if i contacted david lynch or his production company directly, do you think they would let me arrange an arizona screening of inland empire for like a flat fee? i have venue, cash, and interested parties. just not sure how this works.

2. the fuck is going on at the end of the across the universe trailer? the hand leaping out of the poster, the surrealistic touches, etc. lsd going to be part of the storyline or no?

3. quickly, where is children of men exactly on your top ten list from last year? i'm too lazy to go look. anything lower than #5 and you and i are going to need to have words.

ok thanks.

[schoolofruckus]

questions for gabe:

1. if i contacted david lynch or his production company directly, do you think they would let me arrange an arizona screening of inland empire for like a flat fee? i have venue, cash, and interested parties. just not sure how this works.

2. the fuck is going on at the end of the across the universe trailer? the hand leaping out of the poster, the surrealistic touches, etc. lsd going to be part of the storyline or no?

3. quickly, where is children of men exactly on your top ten list from last year? i'm too lazy to go look. anything lower than #5 and you and i are going to need to have words.

ok thanks.

1. Wouldn't surprise me, honestly. But be creative with your request. Remember, we're talking about a guy who sat on street corners in LA with a cow to promote this thing. Your pitch needs to go above and beyond to show how badly you want to see this movie.

2. KungFuJoe would be a better source for this question, so hopefully he's reading this. He's the only one of us (to my knowledge) who's seen "Across the Universe". I will go ahead and speculate that, given the 60's setting and the themes of young people coming of age in that era, the late Beatles tunes, etc.....yeah, LSD is going to factor in one way or another.

3. It was #2, second only to a movie that exceed six years' worth of expectations. I'll be buying it this week.

[amyzzz]

questions for gabe:

1. if i contacted david lynch or his production company directly, do you think they would let me arrange an arizona screening of inland empire for like a flat fee? i have venue, cash, and interested parties. just not sure how this works.

Please, please invite me if you can make this happen. :pulse :pulse David Lynch!

[mob roulette]

Please, please invite me if you can make this happen. :pulse :pulse David Lynch!

k. prolly downtown somewhere. will let you know what they say.

[schoolofruckus]

I think you should post video of your pitch on YouTube/the board/the Movie Corner.

[mountmccabe]

k. prolly downtown somewhere. will let you know what they say.

Yeah I def wanna be there too.

You can link Mr Lynch to this post to show how much enthusiasm there is for the showing.

Also I just realized that I have a lot more David Lynch to see. I'm kinda behind. Don't let him see this part, I guess.

[schoolofruckus]

Yeah I def wanna be there too.

You can link Mr Lynch to this post to show how much enthusiasm there is for the showing.

Also I just realized that I have a lot more David Lynch to see. I'm kinda behind. Don't let him see this part, I guess.

I do, too. Next up are "Eraserhead" and "Lost Highways". "The Elephant Man" should find its way in there. And maybe one of these days - after I've caught up with "Six Feet Under", "The Sopranos", "Lost", "Entourage", and all that other shit - I'll dive into "Twin Peaks".

[amyzzz]

Lemme see...I haven't seen Eraserhead, Wild at Heart, and I'm not sure if I've seen all of Blue Velvet (or if I did, it was too weird to remember). Twin Peaks (series) was amazing.

My husband and I just started the series Weeds. It's pretty damn good so far (not David Lynch related, but TV series related). My husband is trying to d/l Battlestar Galactica so we can check that out (yeah, yeah, if it's that good, we'll probably buy it later anyway like we did with Firefly).

[schoolofruckus]

Lemme see...I haven't seen Eraserhead, Wild at Heart, and I'm not sure if I've seen all of Blue Velvet (or if I did, it was too weird to remember). Twin Peaks (series) was amazing.

My husband and I just started the series Weeds. It's pretty damn good so far (not David Lynch related, but TV series related). My husband is trying to d/l Battlestar Galactica so we can check that out (yeah, yeah, if it's that good, we'll probably buy it later anyway like we did with Firefly).

Wait, wait, wait.....so if "Eraserhead", "Wild at Heart" and "Blue Velvet" aren't included in your David Lynch fetish, then what is? Personally, "Mulholland Dr." is my favorite of his movies, but those other three are his signature works.

[amyzzz]

I've seen Elephant Man, Lost Highway (which I adore), and Mulholland Drive. And I watched the Twin Peaks series WHILE IT WAS BEING SHOWN ON TV for the first time. Like I said, I may have seen Blue Velvet, but it was a loooooong time ago. Oh, and I've seen The Straight Story as well.

[schoolofruckus]

I've seen Elephant Man, Lost Highway (which I adore), and Mulholland Drive. And I watched the Twin Peaks series WHILE IT WAS BEING SHOWN ON TV for the first time. Like I said, I may have seen Blue Velvet, but it was a loooooong time ago. Oh, and I've seen The Straight Story as well.

"Wild at Heart" is pretty much insane....but not the dark/surreal/psychosexual kind of insanity that Lynch usually does. It's more funny and romantic, while at the same time being bizzare and extremely violent. It's glorious.

I predict that you would love "Blue Velvet" if you watched it again now. And you will probably also love "Inland Empire".

[amyzzz]

"Wild at Heart" is pretty much insane....but not the dark/surreal/psychosexual kind of insanity that Lynch usually does. It's more funny and romantic, while at the same time being bizzare and extremely violent. It's glorious.

I predict that you would love "Blue Velvet" if you watched it again now. And you will probably also love "Inland Empire".
I should stop doing this but...
I watched the beginning of Wild at Heart on cable once, and it seemed like it was going to be incredibly violent, and I wasn't in the mood for that, so I switched it off.

I also suspect that I would really dig Blue Velvet. I remember Kyle McLachlan and that blond chick (Laura Dern?) being lovers, but then Isabella Rosselini comes in to form some kind of bizarre love triangle, and Kyle and the blonde find a severed ear in a field or something. Right?

[schoolofruckus]

I should stop doing this but...
I watched the beginning of Wild at Heart on cable once, and it seemed like it was going to be incredibly violent, and I wasn't in the mood for that, so I switched it off.

I also suspect that I would really dig Blue Velvet. I remember Kyle McLachlan and that blond chick (Laura Dern?) being lovers, but then Isabella Rosselini comes in to form some kind of bizarre love triangle, and Kyle and the blonde find a severed ear in a field or something. Right?

Your chronology is mixed up, but those are all major plot points. For what it's worth, it's probably the most coherent and conventionally satisfying Lynch film I've seen - which has to be something that nobody in 1986 ever imagined they'd say.

[KungFuJoe]

2. KungFuJoe would be a better source for this question, so hopefully he's reading this. He's the only one of us (to my knowledge) who's seen "Across the Universe". I will go ahead and speculate that, given the 60's setting and the themes of young people coming of age in that era, the late Beatles tunes, etc.....yeah, LSD is going to factor in one way or another.

Precisely. There are moments in the film in which LSD factors in, but it's not at all what the story is about. Some of the surrealistic/trippy moments in the film are not LSD related at all. However, lets see what cut is released. Who knows if Mr. Roth cut out the LSD related scenes?

possible minor spoiler:
that would also mean that two celebrity cameos will also be on the cutting room floor.

[breakjaw]

Molly Ringwald turned down the Laura Dern part in Blue Velvet.
I've seen it maybe 12 or 13 times,The Elephant Man remains my favorite work of his.

Oh shit,sorry!TWIN PEAKS SPOLER BELOW!

























I knew Laura Palmer's dad killed her after the first season(because of the crazy dancing and all the coffee I was drinking).

[PotVsKtl]

Children Of Men has secured its place as the last DVD I buy based on critical acclaim of any sort. What a pathetic mutant abortion of a film.

[schoolofruckus]

Children Of Men has secured its place as the last DVD I buy based on critical acclaim of any sort. What a pathetic mutant abortion of a film.

Whaaaaat? Why? Why did you hate it so?

[wmgaretjax]

Children Of Men has secured its place as the last DVD I buy based on critical acclaim of any sort. What a pathetic mutant abortion of a film.

come on, back it up with some real analysis.

[PotVsKtl]

There's nothing that bothers me more than a movie that thinks it's important and doesn't care to back it up. There's no character development of any meaningful sort in the film. Everyone moves from point A to point B with no internal conflict. Solutions to any problems caused by external forces present themselves immediately with no deliberation or stress. Cop chasing you through a door? There's a car battery next to you. Just got in to the refugee camp? Your contact is 20 feet away. Need to stymie your pursuers in a flash? Just reach under the hood, you'll know what to pull. The only issue the characters imposed on themselves at any point is Clive Owen stepping on shit every 5 minutes, and they made sure to play that up like a flashing aluminum baseball bat to the balls. Even the motivational speeches are a single line. "I was there at the end of it." "Now you'll be there at the beginning of it." "Yes, now I'll be there at the beginning of it. Thank you." Give me a fucking break. Yes, the movie had some amazing technical shots. It's a good thing, because it sure didn't have a fucking story.

[ghettojournalist]

i guess you didn't get clive owen's backstory, the "present" situation of the beginning and his re-emergence in the underground.
the most obvious character development because it is the MAIN character.

[PotVsKtl]

I got it. It took up about 7 minutes of the film. It was contrived, obvious and woefully lacking.

[ghettojournalist]

well, the whole movie is a beautifully shot frankenstein's monster of sci-fi apocalyptic future plots.
i liked it and this how i've heard it described.

[wmgaretjax]

I don't think it was a film concerned with any traditional notion of a "story" or "character development." These are outdated terms (within the context of this film) used to describe a notion of history that is still moving forward and progressing. The movie represented a point in time where history has ceased, there is no development. The only motivation that exists for Owen's character is the facilitation of forward movement in history again. To analyze a film that is attempting to come to terms with a human civilization that is no longer moving (beyond any surface level display of progress) requires a different set of criteria.

Beyond that, even if we examine this film with the criteria you've set forward, I still think you are wrong. There is character development in this film, it is subtle, but it is most definately there. Clive Owen changes dramatically following the primary revelation of the film, and that change makes perfect sense within the socio-political context of the point in time he lives in. Also, the film provides a different kind of character development, and it's one that reaches backwards as the film's narrative advances. We are given glimpses of Owen's character as we see him responding to events that resonate with his past. All of these elements accumulate into a very subtle, but very rich, character study.

As far as this notion of a lack of realistic cause and effect within the situations presented to the characters, particularly Owen's, in the story, I think what I iterated earlier comes into play. This moment in history is consumed in necessity, whether it be simple financial sustainability coupled with alcohol abuse, or saving the only shred of hope that has come into your life in countless years. I think that's why the lack of traditional logic didn't bother me, logic doesn't exist in situations as these, because they exist entirely outside the fundamental laws of the systems that have been developed over time. From a traditional storytelling point of view, this can be frustrating, but it seems to me to be reiterating the notions and concepts that the film is rooted in.

I do however believe that the movie should have ended about a minute earlier. I won't spoil it, but I imagine anyone who has seen the film knows what I'm referring to.

[amyzzz]

I don't think the movie was concerned as much about character development as it was about the catastrophic end-of-world condition. Everything happens BOOM BOOM BOOM, so there isn't really time to go into everyone's personal journey. Doesn't it take place over a couple of days?

[amyzzz]

Thanks, wmgaretjax. You did that a hell of a lot better than I.

[PotVsKtl]

Logic doesn't exist or matter in desperate times? Basic principles of effective storytelling are negated in apocalyptic settings?

It's a ride film. There's no point to anything other than getting to the next setpiece, the plot is on rails and nobody is going to question direction or anything else that takes place. In the meantime they'll spout off tired platitudes like Michael Bay has a kree to their tits.

If Cuaron wanted to make a brainless action movie that's fine, but this film thinks it's an important religious and political parable.

Additionally, the mother cannot act for shit.

[mob roulette]

Additionally, the mother cannot act for shit.

i hate to admit it, but this is true. she's trite and completely unconvincing. having said that, i will stand by my original assessment of this being the best COMMERCIAL film released last year. i don't know enough about "underground" film to rate anything accurately nor have i seen "lady vengeance" or the aforementioned goddamned "inland empire". for a thrill ride though, pot, you've got to admit it's better than most. better than michael bay anyway. at least they tried. and the technical aspects of it ARE amazing. better camerawork than most films i've seen in the last five years or so.

btw, i didn't like it the first time i saw it either. that's how i knew it was probably better than i was giving it credit for. it has to sit with you for awhile. sink in. there is a story and there is an arc. you just have to look for it.

[PotVsKtl]

I know there's a story. I know there's an arc. They're both about as well developed as those presented in 80's masterpiece Commando.

[wmgaretjax]

Logic doesn't exist or matter in desperate times? Basic principles of effective storytelling are negated in apocalyptic settings?

You did not read what I said. I did not say logic does not matter in desperate times. I was remarking that the functional internal logic of the film is reflecting a conceptual foundation. I do not thing this movie is supposed to resonate with your logical understanding of how the world (or "effective storytelling" for that matter) works and functions. If it was supposed to be a logical, simple story, I believe you would have received some kind of explanation as to the cause of the turmoil in the film. However, you don't, and that is implicitly done by the director in an attempt to reject the aims of traditional stories and narratives. The rejection of traditional logic is in itself an attempt to create a functional internal logic that is being used to reference the notions of the "end of history" and "dystopia" that exist within the context of the film.

[wmgaretjax]

the best COMMERCIAL film released last year.

I agree.

[PotVsKtl]

There's no connection between logic and simplicity. I never expected or desired an explanation for the basic premise of the film. Not explaining worldwide sterility as the basis for a science fiction film does absolutely nothing to establish an internal logic, it's an entirely traditional setup for that type of story. I did read what you said, you misinterpreted the gist of my one sentence rhetorical rebuttal. Shame on you.

The conceptual framework you seem to be appealing to here is "stuff is hard, people got to keep on keepin' on." All of that is fine. On-rails plots are fine for action films. Where the film fails is at providing any sense of tension or strife that doesn't rely on explosions.

There was just too much crammed in. Yes, Clive Owen's character changes from our initial introduction. The problem is that introduction lasts about 10 minutes. Maybe if the film had another 45 minutes it could have succeeded.

[wmgaretjax]

The conceptual framework you seem to be appealing to here is "stuff is hard, people got to keep on keepin' on."


No, it's actually much more complex than that. Cuaron is working from a long standing history of thought that is examining this notion of the "end of history." His film is exploring a fallout in the way in which purpose as well as cause and effect play parts in everyday life as a result of this. What kind of disruptions occur? How does our understanding of out own pasts becomes influenced by a cease in developments in history? I think misunderstanding this as a "we will endure" picture results from Cuaron's mishandling of the final moments of the film, and it's a serious misstep in my opinion.

This notion of a lack of explanation for the sterility of mankind is not a simple one (it could be, but within the context of Cuaron's conceptual framework that is not the case). It is embedded within these notions of stagnance. It functions as a larger metaphor even in the most crude examination of the film.

Also, as a side note, the explorations of the roots Owen's character does not end in the first ten minutes of the film. We grow accustomed and are introduced to the sources of his behavior throughout the first hour of the film as we see him interact with the only characters that seem to have any bearing on his past.

[PotVsKtl]

Yeah, you're not understanding my position here. I get that they delve into his backstory throughout the course of the film. My position is that it is a shitty backstory. He had a kid, the kid died. His woman left, he is a sad man. Wait, his woman has returned! What will happen to them after he gets the papers. We don't know. She kissed him! They play with a ****-pong ball. Oops, she's dead.

What I don't get or accept is all this investment in the setting of the film being the concept, structure, and framework of some deeper meaning for the film as a whole, nor as a dismissal of responsibility in form. It's end times. That's a bummer. I'm not down with that being a reasonable basis for dimissing the need to properly engage me as a viewer in a manner that does not require 3 hours prep of squibs and dirt bombs.

If you're going to write a motivational speech that doesn't require memorization capacity beyond that of a 3 year old on PCP, just don't write it. If you're going to open your incredibly subtle film with Britain passing a "Homeland Security bill," introducing the importance of illegal immigration issues, and then show me, center frame, a "Don't start a war in Iraq" bumper sticker, don't try to convince me there's some greater mind at play.

I respect your involvement, but I'm calling bullshit on any notion of unplumbed depths. It's Rambo with more buses and an overdose of self-important posturing.

Edit: Why the hell is that word censored?

[J~$$$]

P.I.N.G.

[J~$$$]

Its PF favorite word.

[wmgaretjax]

Yeah, you're not understanding my position here. I get that they delve into his backstory throughout the course of the film. My position is that it is a shitty backstory. He had a kid, the kid died. His woman left, he is a sad man. Wait, his woman has returned! What will happen to them after he gets the papers. We don't know. She kissed him! They play with a ****-pong ball. Oops, she's dead.


Again, I question whether or not you even paid attention to the film. I'm not talking about "backstory," I'm referring to [the viewer] coming to terms with the character as a result of his interactions with people from his past. The difference between his interactions with these people (that have ascribed meaning because they began when history was still moving), people involved only in his present, and his interaction with the girl that has the potential to move history forward again.

What I don't get or accept is all this investment in the setting of the film being the concept, structure, and framework of some deeper meaning for the film as a whole, nor as a dismissal of responsibility in form.

Cuaron took something strikingly simple and understandable in an almost generical manner, and turned it into a much larger socio-historical study. I'm not referring to references of immigration laws or the pitfalls of unilateral conflicts, I'm speaking about larger notions that have emerged out of critical thinking in regards to the collapse of culturally understood progress in the age of capitalism and worldwide connectivity. How can we come to terms with notions of a barrage of "events" that contain very little meaning in describing the nature of our progress as a species? A kind of stagnancy has emerged as a result of this, and it is what I think the movie is pointing towards.

These aren't new ideas right? You have Hegel proclaiming this would occur (although in entirely different circumstances), and more recently you have assholes (brilliant ones) like Fukuyama recognizing that this potentially has happened. Cuaron seems concerned with this, and is exploring it within incredibly simple, extracted contexts. Maybe I just watch films differently than you, but large studio films like this rarely engage me. I was fascinated with the manner that Cuaron (who seems to be turning into one of the most prolific directors of our time) managed to incorporate some of these explorations into a incredibly simple, linear, and coherent story.

[PotVsKtl]

Your reaction to the film appears to be totally unrelated to the film itself. There is nothing about the actual movie in your last post, indeed you haven't addressed or acknowledged my points with any specificity. You're having a philosophical discussion with yourself about larger concepts than Children of Men is able to or even attempts to address. I'm not interested in exploring these concepts on the back of an unsubtle allegory with stilted dialogue and bland characters. Again, I'm glad it made you think about these things but I'm not getting into mans place or reaction in the face of destructive meaninglessness, primarily because I don't feel the film did on any level.

[wmgaretjax]

The lack of specific examples comes largely from not having seen it in 5 months. I will try and nab it sometime in the next couple weeks and make an ammendment post with specific examples. until then...

[PotVsKtl]

Also, and this is the last time I'm going to address this topic, what I mean by the fact that you've not addressed the specifics is how do you come to terms with bullshit like the main character being named Key and needing to get to a ship called Tomorrow? My entire argument here can be summed up by the phrase "don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining," but I try to avoid dialogue like that.

[wmgaretjax]

I can agree with you on "Tomorrow," and it's my biggest problem with the movie.

[thelastgreatman]

Dude, just stop arguing with Pot, seriously. This is stupid. If Pot felt nothing from that movie then he has no soul. I'd like to hear what movies he does laud, though.

The infertility is not supposed to be explained. It is a metaphor for hopelessness, nothing more. And there is some character development, but it's limited because the conflict of the movie is largely one of circumstances. Brilliantly constructed circumstances, executed flawlessly.

Her name being Key (actually Ki, as in short for Kiki) and the ship being The Tomorrow is a bit heavyhanded, but a lot of idiots didn't even get it so what do you want? There's tons of allusions, some more subtle than others, throughout the story.

When you get right down to it it's a very funny movie (if you have a proper sense of humor) with one of the finest constructions of conflict/need. They literally have the most precious thing in the world in their possession, and Cuaron does a fucking genius job of putting them through increasingly hellish circumstances. I mean fuck, when the man has to run INTO the building that's being shelled by a tank that is a wonderful moment if you know anything about the rules of increasing your characters stakes.

My only objection was that although having all the marines stand aside in shock at the baby, you would think some of them would've gone, "let's get this immigrant bitch out of the warzone" or something.

And Kiki was awesome, I don't know what you're talking about. "I'm going to name her Bazooka." Genius.

[thelastgreatman]

Also, the Zen music was one of the funniest fucking things I've ever seen.

[amyzzz]

I'm gonna buy that movie on my lunch hour. I fucking forgot to get it yesterday, and my man hasn't seen it yet. I hope it's still on Sale.

[PotVsKtl]

Dude, just stop arguing with Pot, seriously. This is stupid. If Pot felt nothing from that movie then he has no soul.

Yeah Forrest Gump makes me blubber like a laundry-toting typist too. Let's hold hands and listen to the Carpenters.

I'd like to hear what movies he does laud, though.

That wouldn't be particularly difficult to determine.

[wmgaretjax]

It is a metaphor for hopelessness, nothing more.

no.

[schoolofruckus]

I have nothing to add to garetjax's take, but I agree with it wholeheartedly. There were some minor details that were too obvious - "Kee", "Tomorrow" - but such was the film's strength of establishing its environment that I could give a fuck about nitpicks like that. From the first frame, I felt like everything in "Children of Men" was completely real and right in front of me. I'm not generally hard on films for narrative reasons if I believe what I'm seeing, and I also haven't seen it since November, so I can't comment on Pot's criticisms; I may weigh in after I watch the DVD this weekend.

[thelastgreatman]

no.

Yes. What kind of a response is, "no?"

They were not trying to suggest that the world might actually go infertile, which is why they never delved into how or why it happened. It was just a way to singularize the multitude of potential horrors the future could present if the world continues to go down some of the nasty paths we currently face. A world without children is a world without hope, quite literally.

[thelastgreatman]

Yeah Forrest Gump makes me blubber like a laundry-toting typist too. Let's hold hands and listen to the Carpenters.



That wouldn't be particularly difficult to determine.

Forrest Gump was godawful horseshit. Comparing Forrest Gump to Children of Men is just ridiculous.

[baddream]

Also, and this is the last time I'm going to address this topic, what I mean by the fact that you've not addressed the specifics is how do you come to terms with bullshit like the main character being named Key and needing to get to a ship called Tomorrow? My entire argument here can be summed up by the phrase "don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining," but I try to avoid dialogue like that.
Isn't this movie based on a book????

[thelastgreatman]

Isn't this movie based on a book????

Loosely. The book was apparently a big religious parable and they ditched most of that for the movie, rightly so.

[mob roulette]

i LIKE the carpenters. but i might be a pansy. hang on, i'll check.

[amyzzz]

Loosely. The book was apparently a big religious parable and they ditched most of that for the movie, rightly so.
Maybe that explains "Key" and "Tomorrow."

[schoolofruckus]

Maybe that explains "Key" and "Tomorrow."

Pot will respond - and rightly so - that the filmmakers could/should have changed those details if they didn't agree with them. Cuaron left them in because he's at least somewhat fine with them. Again, I have no problem with them either, but you can't say that just because they were in the book, they had to be in the movie.

[amyzzz]

Pot will respond - and rightly so - that the filmmakers could/should have changed those details if they didn't agree with them. Cuaron left them in because he's at least somewhat fine with them. Again, I have no problem with them either, but you can't say that just because they were in the book, they had to be in the movie.
I realize that, but maybe that's where the names originally came from. I personally like symbolic names in books and movies. It's ART; it's not reality.

[schoolofruckus]

I realize that, but maybe that's where the names originally came from. I personally like symbolic names in books and movies. It's ART; it's not reality.

Again, I have no problem with either name. My only point was that the names being what they are is on Cuaron and Timothy Sexton (the co-writer), not on P.K. James (the author of the book).

[PotVsKtl]

No, I'll respond that the filmmakers changed the story. There is no Kee in the book. Julian isn't his ex-wife either.

[amyzzz]

hahahaha

[PotVsKtl]

That was a factual statement.

[mob roulette]

julian being played by julianne moore confused the hell out of me. intentional?

what kind of name is julian for a girl anyway?

[mob roulette]

also,

clooneygate! (http://defamer.com/hollywood/george-clooney/theory-was-prankster-clooney-behind-the-huckabees-clips-247824.php)

well, not really. but in keeping with the previous discussion anyway.

[SojuGorae]

Just watched The Pursuit of Happyness. Really liked it. A lot of scenes got my eyes humid.

Will Smith was great as was his son.

[wmgaretjax]

Just watched The Pursuit of Happyness. Really liked it. A lot of scenes got my eyes humid.

Will Smith was great as was his son.

yuck.

[SojuGorae]

yuck.

Why didn't you like it? Too sentimental?

[KungFuJoe]

A friend of mine recently bought me two films by Japanese director SABU (aka: Hiroyuki Tanaka) at some Horror film convention. Unfortunately they were bootlegs, but at least they were quality bootlegs.

Anyways, to the point .... I can't believe I've never heard of or seen any of this mans films!!! If you are in the same boat and are a fan of Takeshi Kitano then I think you will enjoy the works of SABU.

The two films in discussion here are MONDAY & UNLUCKY MONKEY. The latter was a thriller / comedy of errors which was pretty enjoyable. I didn't love it entirely but it's still far better than a lot of films I've seen recently. MONDAY however was a masterpiece! If you like Japanese cinema I highly reccomend you seek this one out. I won't go into the long boring details about the films for those of you that could give two shits, but in short MONDAY is a fantastic darkly comedic social satire on guns, the media & what pushes people over the edge. Comparable to FALLING DOWN in some regards.

Other than that the only other film I've seen of late is REIGN OVER ME. I love Cheadle & Sandler. It was a very enjoyable and well acted film. Far less sentimental than I expected and a bit more funny than I expected. I wasn't expecting much and got a little more. It was a little bit to long, but overall a film worth seeing, though probably a better rental.

[SojuGorae]

Adam Sandler looks like Bob Dylan in Reign Over Me.

[KungFuJoe]

Adam Sandler looks like Bob Dylan in Reign Over Me.

that is very true.

[wmgaretjax]

Why didn't you like it? Too sentimental?

I didn't see it. I saw the trailer. And my mom loved it. Two things that set off serious alarms in my head (beyond the whole will smith thing). Sentimental is an understatement with these kinds of films, sensationalist is a better word.

[mob roulette]

will smith is not an actor. i can't believe this has to be pointed out to you.

[Abe Lincoln]

also,

clooneygate! (http://defamer.com/hollywood/george-clooney/theory-was-prankster-clooney-behind-the-huckabees-clips-247824.php)

well, not really. but in keeping with the previous discussion anyway.
This whole story reminds me of stories I heard about Yul Brynner being such a prick that the sound guy for the stage production left his remote mike on while he was taking a piss and talking shit about others in the cast,and the entire audience heard it!
This story was ripped off for an episode of Entourage,btw

[mob roulette]

This whole story reminds me of stories I heard about Yul Brynner being such a prick that the sound guy for the stage production left his remote mike on while he was taking a piss and talking shit about others in the cast,and the entire audience heard it!
This story was ripped off for an episode of Entourage,btw

i've heard this one too. also the one about harvey keitel masturbating on the eyes wide shut set and nicole kidman freaking out. true?

gabe, you should start a whole separate hollywood babylon thread.

[thelastgreatman]

will smith is not an actor. i can't believe this has to be pointed out to you.

Correction: Will Smith is not an actor anymore.

Six Degrees of Separation was really impressive.

[mob roulette]

Correction: Will Smith is not an actor anymore.

Six Degrees of Separation was really impressive.

disagree. good movie but still. will smith is not an actor. he's an entertainer.

getting jiggy wid it!!!

[wmgaretjax]

nana na na nana na

sorry.

[schoolofruckus]

Links aplenty:

David O. Russell's new project? (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ic8a667db1a35f3a0cc4564cd7d8077f7)

Clooney not responsible for posting those "Huckabees" tantrum clips online? (http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/03/the-huckabees-affair-clooney-speaks.php)

Clooney's new movie trailer? (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/oceansthirteen.html)

How's that for full-circle?

[mob roulette]

he also jokingly offered a million to find the "real killers". sort of funny, that clooney guy is.

[Abe Lincoln]

i've heard this one too. also the one about harvey keitel masturbating on the eyes wide shut set and nicole kidman freaking out. true?


I don't know this one,but with Mr. Keitel's reputation,do not doubt it.Tom kept his eyes wide open,though?

[roberto73]

Roberto73 - who above says he deserves to teach high school theater - is crazy. Russell needs to make more films, period. His stuff takes forever these days - he was supposed to make a film where Vince Vaughn played a talk radio host - and the film world is worse off for it.

Been out of town for a few days so I apologize for dragging this back into the thread, but if you read my original post, I didn't say Russell "deserves" to teach high school theater, I said he should be "forced" to do it, for the sole reason that he might pick up a thing or two about how to treat people with civility. "Deserves" connotes that high school theater is a step down; it's not. I did it, and it was the most rewarding thing I've ever done.

I love Russell's films, but I don't think being a brilliant filmmaker absolves you of the need to treat other people respectfully. Just wanted to clarify so I wasn't being misrepresented.

[Hannahrain]

I love Russell's films, but I don't think being a brilliant filmmaker absolves you of the need to treat other people respectfully.

There's a difference between respect and common courtesy. Respect is earned, and shouldn't just be expected because one person is older or more famous or what have you. But everyone deserves courtesy until they prove that they don't.

PS-you're BMOTW

[mob roulette]

i still say dustin hoffman has the best gig going in hollywood right now. and he need not take another dramatic role again. stranger than fiction, meet the fockers, i heart huckabees. he's basically doing caricature now. and good for him i say. good. for. him. he's certainly earned it.

[roberto73]

There's a difference between respect and common courtesy. Respect is earned, and shouldn't just be expected because one person is older or more famous or what have you. But everyone deserves courtesy until they prove that they don't.

PS-you're BMOTW

Point taken. "Courteously," "decently," "civilly," "politely": all would have worked better than "respectfully." In my defense, I flew from Toronto to L.A. yesterday, and then was woken up at 3:30 this morning by the cable company working on the lines outside my apartment. My word choice abilities aren't entirely up to snuff yet.

[schoolofruckus]

Been out of town for a few days so I apologize for dragging this back into the thread, but if you read my original post, I didn't say Russell "deserves" to teach high school theater, I said he should be "forced" to do it, for the sole reason that he might pick up a thing or two about how to treat people with civility. "Deserves" connotes that high school theater is a step down; it's not. I did it, and it was the most rewarding thing I've ever done.

I love Russell's films, but I don't think being a brilliant filmmaker absolves you of the need to treat other people respectfully. Just wanted to clarify so I wasn't being misrepresented.

Fair enough. I'm sorry I misquoted/interpreted what you were saying. But I don't like the idea of David O. Russell doing high school theater, because unless he's doing it at Burbank Central High School, I'm not going to get to see any of it. And I want to see what he's doing regardless of his prickhood.

[thelastgreatman]

Russell's put out some quite quality stuff, but I suspect I'm going to get into a fistfight with that jerkoff at an industry gathering some day for unforseen reasons. And I ain't Lily Tomlin or George Clooney, I'll gouge the tantrum-throwing cunt's eyes out. Let's see how well he directs then.

Although Lily and George could both be douchebags. But anybody that throws shit at and berates PAs needs to get their mouth burst.

[schoolofruckus]

PA's can be douchebags too. No, it doesn't excuse his behavior - nothing does - but I've met a great deal of PA's who aren't worth the price of their organs.

What do you do, lastgreatman?

[schoolofruckus]

So, after a Sundance festival that was widely regarded as weak, the universe restores order by toploading the Cannes film festival.

I'd be surprised if Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood" and/or Lars von Trier's "The Boss Of It All" weren't playing as well. It'll be a hell of a festival.

[wmgaretjax]

Russell's put out some quite quality stuff, but I suspect I'm going to get into a fistfight with that jerkoff at an industry gathering some day for unforseen reasons.

so why not avoid the "industry?"

Saw "Iraq in Fragments," best documentary I've seen in a long time. Done by a local director. Incredibly honest and observant.

[Mr.Nipples]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32096

i really hope it doesnt happen...

[wmgaretjax]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32096

i really hope it doesnt happen...

ugh...

[schoolofruckus]

I would rather have someone try to remake "The Godfather" than "Straw Dogs". At least with a "Godfather" remake, the surrounding negativity and outrage woud sufficiently punish the filmmaker. "Straw Dogs", I fear, may not be widely-known enough to ignite the riot that should ensue if Lurie or anyone else goes after it.

Actually, this ranks fourth on the list of films I've heard remake talks of that I would consider killing someone in order to prevent. Currently, that list looks like this:

1. The Fountainhead - An Oliver Stone project starring Brad Pitt. Yes, Pitt was actually mentioning this one a few years ago, as he's a big Fountainhead/architecture buff. Love Pitt as an actor.....he is NOT Howard Roark. And Oliver Stone would be one of the better choices to direct this movie, except two things: his idea of casting Brad Pitt as Howard Roark, and the fact that he's not me.

2. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie - "A Brett Ratner Film". Again, I'm not pulling this out of my ass; he spoke of this last summer in a hysterically appalling interview on CHUD.com. I believe he referred to it as a film that only cineastes and French people have seen. He said that it's good, but flawed. In other words, his moronic hubris once again speaks for itself. This is the guy who said his "Red Dragon" was better than Michael Mann's previous adaptation of the book ("Manhunter") because it was a little more "hip", a little more "cool". Getting back to "Bookie", Ratner said that Paul Thomas Anderson threatened to put a bullet in him if he tried this; I would load the rifle.

3. OldBoy - Justin Lin, the formerly gifted director of "Better Luck Tomorrow" who has since been wallowing in the likes of "Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift", was attached to remake this modern MASTERPIECE, until very recently. Whatever his reasons for moving on, I have no doubt that the daunting idea of trying to xerox one of the 10 best films of this decade must have lost its appeal at some point. I've heard rumors of Nicolas Cage playing the American, taco-eating (as opposed to dumplings) version of Oh Daesu; again, something he would be wise to stay as far away from as possible.

4. Straw Dogs - As attempted by Rod Lurie, who I've seen one film by. It was a short film that played the Crested Butte Short Film Festival the year I had a movie play there out of competition (it was something I made in high school, and I was a local boy; it's not bad for what it is, but I'm not trying to boast because it's not a big accomplishment). It was called "4 Second Delay", and it portrayed a fictional radio interview with Bob Woodward, in which he is threatened on-air by a caller who threatens to kill a hostage if he doesn't out Deep Throat. It was actually very good. It doesn't mean he should try to re-do Peckinpah. He will not be able to cast or shoot or edit a better film than the original.

[full.on.idle]

Somebody please go see Blades of Glory so I can trade hilarious lines back and forth with you. Please.

Also, I watched Don't Look Back last night and I want to be Joan Baez (circa 1965) because she's the coolest lady ever.

[PotVsKtl]

Are you implying there are hilarious lines in Blades of Glory?

[full on idle]

I challenge you to see it and not laugh. Heartily. At various moments.

[full.on.idle]

srsly

[wmgaretjax]

I challenge you to see it and not laugh. Heartily. At various moments.

no thanks.

[full.on.idle]

I wasn't challenging you, douchebad.

I'll even PAY, pvk.

[PotVsKtl]

Wait, what's going on here?

[full.on.idle]

general debauchery

[Jenniehoo]

I HATE THIS.

That kid makes me so damn angry.

[Jenniehoo]

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b160/Jenniehoo/boy.jpg

[tessalasset]

You hate me don't you Jennie.

[rage patton]

Somebody please go see Blades of Glory so I can trade hilarious lines back and forth with you. Please.

Blades of Glory was amazing!

*stuck on escaltor during chase seen*
So... who are you suposed to be?

[amyzzz]

I challenge you to see it and not laugh. Heartily. At various moments.Cool. I want to see that.

[Yablonowitz]

I wanna see you see it.

[amyzzz]

Shut up.

[Yablonowitz]

I didn't say anything.

[schoolofruckus]

I watched part of "Raising Arizona" last night, except I was too tired to finish it. I wasn't really digging it at all - it was too over-the-top and silly for what I was expecting from the Coens. What am I missing?

[wmgaretjax]

you know... I'm really mixed on the Coen brothers stuff. I did not like Raising Arizona, Ladykillers, Hudsucker Proxy, Miller's Crossing, and Intolerable Cruelty. I thought Oh Brother and Blood Simple were OK. And I loved Fargo, Barton Fink, and Lebowski.

I don't think you are missing anything to be honest.

[breakjaw]

I watched part of "Raising Arizona" last night, except I was too tired to finish it. I wasn't really digging it at all - it was too over-the-top and silly for what I was expecting from the Coens. What am I missing?

The script for that is pretty funny,I think.I watched the scene where Evelle is robbing the store and asks the clerk to throw in balloons:
Evelle: You got any balloons that blow up into funny shapes?
Clerk:Only if you consider round funny.

[schoolofruckus]

See, I think "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski" are two of the best movies of my lifetime. "O Brother Where Art Thou?" is hilarious to me, and "The Man Who Wasn't There" was good, if not anything particularly memorable. I've always wanted to see "Blood Simple", "Miller's Crossing", and "Barton Fink"...I'm sure I still will.

I also watched "Say Anything" yesterday. I thought it was great...one of the best "young romance" movies I've seen. One of the best John Cusack movies as well.

[wmgaretjax]

See, I think "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski" are two of the best movies of my lifetime. "O Brother Where Art Thou?" is hilarious to me, and "The Man Who Wasn't There" was good, if not anything particularly memorable. I've always wanted to see "Blood Simple", "Miller's Crossing", and "Barton Fink"...I'm sure I still will.

I also watched "Say Anything" yesterday. I thought it was great...one of the best "young romance" movies I've seen. One of the best John Cusack movies as well.

I forgot "the man who wasn't there", good film, but yeah, nothing special. All of the films are worth seeing, particularly "Barton Fink."

"Say Anything" is my favorite cornball romance film.

[breakjaw]

See, I think "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski" are two of the best movies of my lifetime. "O Brother Where Art Thou?" is hilarious to me, and "The Man Who Wasn't There" was good, if not anything particularly memorable. I've always wanted to see "Blood Simple", "Miller's Crossing", and "Barton Fink"...I'm sure I still will.

I also watched "Say Anything" yesterday. I thought it was great...one of the best "young romance" movies I've seen. One of the best John Cusack movies as well.
Get "Blood Simple" and watch it right away.I saw it in the theater when it came out and it is a good example of pure,joyous filmmaking.Don't read anything else about it,as there are numerous plot twists.M Emmett Walsh is great in it.

[Mr.Nipples]

I would rather have someone try to remake "The Godfather" than "Straw Dogs". At least with a "Godfather" remake, the surrounding negativity and outrage woud sufficiently punish the filmmaker. "Straw Dogs", I fear, may not be widely-known enough to ignite the riot that should ensue if Lurie or anyone else goes after it.

Actually, this ranks fourth on the list of films I've heard remake talks of that I would consider killing someone in order to prevent. Currently, that list looks like this:

1. The Fountainhead - An Oliver Stone project starring Brad Pitt. Yes, Pitt was actually mentioning this one a few years ago, as he's a big Fountainhead/architecture buff. Love Pitt as an actor.....he is NOT Howard Roark. And Oliver Stone would be one of the better choices to direct this movie, except two things: his idea of casting Brad Pitt as Howard Roark, and the fact that he's not me.

2. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie - "A Brett Ratner Film". Again, I'm not pulling this out of my ass; he spoke of this last summer in a hysterically appalling interview on CHUD.com. I believe he referred to it as a film that only cineastes and French people have seen. He said that it's good, but flawed. In other words, his moronic hubris once again speaks for itself. This is the guy who said his "Red Dragon" was better than Michael Mann's previous adaptation of the book ("Manhunter") because it was a little more "hip", a little more "cool". Getting back to "Bookie", Ratner said that Paul Thomas Anderson threatened to put a bullet in him if he tried this; I would load the rifle.

3. OldBoy - Justin Lin, the formerly gifted director of "Better Luck Tomorrow" who has since been wallowing in the likes of "Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift", was attached to remake this modern MASTERPIECE, until very recently. Whatever his reasons for moving on, I have no doubt that the daunting idea of trying to xerox one of the 10 best films of this decade must have lost its appeal at some point. I've heard rumors of Nicolas Cage playing the American, taco-eating (as opposed to dumplings) version of Oh Daesu; again, something he would be wise to stay as far away from as possible.

4. Straw Dogs - As attempted by Rod Lurie, who I've seen one film by. It was a short film that played the Crested Butte Short Film Festival the year I had a movie play there out of competition (it was something I made in high school, and I was a local boy; it's not bad for what it is, but I'm not trying to boast because it's not a big accomplishment). It was called "4 Second Delay", and it portrayed a fictional radio interview with Bob Woodward, in which he is threatened on-air by a caller who threatens to kill a hostage if he doesn't out Deep Throat. It was actually very good. It doesn't mean he should try to re-do Peckinpah. He will not be able to cast or shoot or edit a better film than the original.

this was painful to read...

[BoneDaddy]

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/transformers.html

[thelastgreatman]

Coens--masters. The fight scene in Raising Arizona is easily one of the funniest slapstick sequences ever. Fargo's second only to some Tarantino work as neo-noir. Lebowski gets funnier every single time, especially now that I live on Radford, near the In n Out Burger. But Barton Fink? Seriously? That's easily their worst movie. Okay, maybe Intolerable Cruelty was worse, but there is one absolutely hilarious look George Clooney shoots at the judge in a scene.

But ladies and gents, we got muthafuckin' Grindhouse coming out in a few days. Now here's the weird thing--my buddy says that some of the early reviews on the 'net are claiming Planet Terror is better than Death Proof. Anyone else think that that's just completely impossible?

[J~$$$]

Zombies>Car

[thelastgreatman]

PA's can be douchebags too. No, it doesn't excuse his behavior - nothing does - but I've met a great deal of PA's who aren't worth the price of their organs.

What do you do, lastgreatman?

Well my proven talent is as a writer, if I do say so myself. I've done a little bit of bullshit rewrite work on bullshit scripts no one's heard of and I wouldn't want to associate myself with anyway, indie crap that paid me just a little bit while I was polishing up my personal script which I finally became satisfied with in the last couple months. Of course I'm a control freak and it's dramatized autobiography, so I refuse to let it go without directing and acting in it too, but I've been getting insanely positive feedback and we're starting to circulate it.

What about you, Schoolio? You live one town over from me, I see.

[schoolofruckus]

But ladies and gents, we got muthafuckin' Grindhouse coming out in a few days. Now here's the weird thing--my buddy says that some of the early reviews on the 'net are claiming Planet Terror is better than Death Proof. Anyone else think that that's just completely impossible?

I've heard just the opposite. And yeah, I think it's impossible.

[schoolofruckus]

Well my proven talent is as a writer, if I do say so myself. I've done a little bit of bullshit rewrite work on bullshit scripts no one's heard of and I wouldn't want to associate myself with anyway, indie crap that paid me just a little bit while I was polishing up my personal script which I finally became satisfied with in the last couple months. Of course I'm a control freak and it's dramatized autobiography, so I refuse to let it go without directing and acting in it too, but I've been getting insanely positive feedback and we're starting to circulate it.

What about you, Schoolio? You live one town over from me, I see.

Basically, the same as you, without the writing pedigree. I've never gotten paid for writing anything, so my "career" thus far consists of working on my own stuff. I don't really have the acting bug, but I also plan on directing; I'll be damned if I'm taking four years to write something just to sell it off. My day job is as a site rep/department clerk at Warner Bros. Studios.

P.S. - Your "dramatized autobiography" description is priceless.

[downingthief]

See, I think "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski" are two of the best movies of my lifetime. "O Brother Where Art Thou?" is hilarious to me, and "The Man Who Wasn't There" was good, if not anything particularly memorable. I've always wanted to see "Blood Simple", "Miller's Crossing", and "Barton Fink"...I'm sure I still will.

I also watched "Say Anything" yesterday. I thought it was great...one of the best "young romance" movies I've seen. One of the best John Cusack movies as well.

Sorry for the late entry into this one...

I loved "O brother...", and Gabe, you MUST see "Miller's Crossing". Very underrated, in my opinion. "The Big Lebowski" is classic, but for purely amuserment reasons. It's not a perfect film, but it was never meant to be.

"Say Anything" is one of my favorites of that genre. It wasn't overly clichéd like most of that type of movie. Plus, when I saw it back in the day for the first time, I had a HUGE crush on Ione Skye...

[bumper31]

Give The Lady Killers a miss though

[thelastgreatman]

Basically, the same as you, without the writing pedigree. I've never gotten paid for writing anything, so my "career" thus far consists of working on my own stuff. I don't really have the acting bug, but I also plan on directing; I'll be damned if I'm taking four years to write something just to sell it off. My day job is as a site rep/department clerk at Warner Bros. Studios.

P.S. - Your "dramatized autobiography" description is priceless.

PM me if you're interested in exchang