The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies
MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

BYOB: Is The Light Winning?

byob_truedetective

12 Responses to “BYOB: Is The Light Winning?”

  1. leahnz says:

    i’m more into ‘Murdoch Mysteries’ personally

  2. Amblinman says:

    Watching some corners of the internet go into hyper-whine mode because the series didn’t end with Cthulhu molesting a kid in a bathtub has been great.

  3. EtGuild2 says:

    So, early reactions are in for “Captain America” and “Noah” and they are fantastic for the former, and very good for the latter, though critics are warning that many conservative Christians will HATE “Noah.”

    Also, the two highest profile SXSW movies got very good, if somewhat disposable notices….the Favreau/Downey Jr. “Chef” and Rogan/Efron “Neighbors.”

    I’m a big fan of Warner Bros.’ recent run…but major props to Paramount for standing by Aronofsky’s vision, especially in the wake of WB’s abandonment of the Brad Pitt/Cate Blanchett production of “The Fountain.” This could flop hard. Aronofsky made “Black Swan,” “Pi,” “Requiem,” and “The Wrestler” for $26 million combined and has 5 times as much money to play with here. Anytime one of the majors puts art ahead of pre-screenings though, it deserves to be recognized.

  4. Hcat says:

    When Black Swan was released someone more astute than myself noticed that each DA release makes more than all the previous ones combined. That puts Noah at a completely doable $150 million.

  5. cadavra says:

    “many conservative Christians will HATE ‘Noah.’”

    Many conservative Christians will hate ANYTHING. Some have even attacked “Son of God.” There is no winning with these people. None.

  6. Hcat says:

    Conservative Christians are simply another stripe of fanboy who will never be pleased with hollywood interpretation of their beloved property. Just as there could never be a watchman adaption that will please the most rabid fans, there is never going to be a biblical movie that is up to snuff for a portion of those folks.

  7. SamLowry says:

    This is a joke, right?

    4 Reasons This New Movie Is Everything Wrong With Hollywood.

    Santa Claus versus the Vikings? Wasn’t Pia Zadora in that one?

  8. hcat says:

    So I am glad that television is better than it was (though this has always been the case), but articles like this one from the vulture drive me a little batty;

    http://www.vulture.com/2014/03/tv-stars-dont-need-a-movie-career-anymore.html

    Maybe the reason that Williams, Clooney, and Aniston got lead roles instead of the supporting ones offered to Cranston and Hamm is that the first group where household names that were watched by 30 Million people every week, while this new breed of crowned king if they hit three million viewers? The whole article reads like it was from someone in an insulated bubble where Taylor Kitsch and Benedict Kumberbatch are actual recognizable stars as opposed to good actors who where in strong quality marginally successful shows.

  9. YancySkancy says:

    The title of the Vulture article is absurd as well, since it seems to imply that Williams, Clooney, Aniston, et al, “needed” to have movie careers. Obviously, the networks would have been just as thrilled back then to keep TV stars on TV.

  10. cadavra says:

    Nothing wrong with being a TV star anymore. There are plenty of actors who’ve remained on TV (with an occasional movie role tossed in) and have maintained their popularity and stardom. Ted Danson, Tom Selleck and Betty White are three of the most obvious examples.

  11. SamLowry says:

    I wonder how many studios are trying to snatch up the rights to The Night They Took Miss Beautiful.

    Has anyone checked the manifest of flight MH 370 to see if it was carrying anything interesting? Wouldn’t it be a hoot if there was nothing thrilling on board and the hijackers just wanted to sell everyone into slavery?©

  12. SamLowry says:

    It’s always stunning when you read a piece like “The Sex Scene Is Dead”, you Google the writer and discover they’re not a kid.

    While slagging NYMPHOMANIAC and BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOR, this thirtysomething twit presents his thesis, which is that widely available internet porn has desensitized folks to the point where sex scenes in movies are no longer shocking, without realizing that a) mainstream directors put sex scenes in their movies even after porn was available at video rental stores across the country, long before wieners and clits appeared on the internet, and b) who said sex scenes are supposed to be shocking?

    It comes off as unintentionally humorous hand-wringing, like the assertion that 9/11 killed irony forever. Grow up, kid. Even after porn becomes tactile and fully interactive, sex scenes will still appear in mainstream movies.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Yes, good movies sprout up, inevitably, in the cracks and seams between the tectonic plates on which all of these franchises stay balanced, and we are reassured of their hardiness. But we don’t see what we don’t see; we don’t see the effort, or the cost of the effort, or the movies of which we’re deprived because of the cost of the effort. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice may have come from a studio, but it still required a substantial chunk of outside financing, and at $35 million, it’s not even that expensive. No studio could find the $8.5 million it cost Dan Gilroy to make Nightcrawler. Birdman cost a mere $18 million and still had to scrape that together at the last minute. Imagine American movie culture for the last few years without Her or Foxcatcher or American Hustle or The Master or Zero Dark Thirty and it suddenly looks markedly more frail—and those movies exist only because of the fairy godmothership of independent producer Megan Ellison. The grace of billionaires is not a great business model on which to hang the hopes of an art form.”
~ Mark Harris On The State Of The Movies

How do you make a Top Ten list? For tax and organizational purposes, I keep a log of every movie I see (Title, year, director, exhibition format, and location the film was viewed in). Anything with an asterisk to the left of its title means it’s a 2014 release (or something I saw at a festival which is somehow in play for the year). If there’s a performance, or sequence, or line of dialogue, even, that strikes me in a certain way, I’ll make a note of it. So when year end consideration time (that is, the month and change out of the year where I feel valued) rolls around, it’s a little easier to go through and pull some contenders for categories. For 2014, I’m voting in three polls: Indiewire, SEFCA (my critics’ guild), and the Muriels. Since Indiewire was first, it required the most consternation. There were lots of films that I simply never had a chance to see, so I just went with my gut. SEFCA requires a lot of hemming and hawing and trying to be strategic, even though there’s none of the in-person skullduggery that I hear of from folk whose critics’ guild is all in the same city. The Muriels is the most fun to contribute to because it’s after the meat market phase of awards season. Also, because it’s at the beginning of next year, I’ll generally have been able to see everything I wanted to by then. I love making hierarchical lists, partially because they are so subjective and mercurial. Every critical proclamation is based on who you are at that moment and what experiences you’ve had up until that point. So they change, and that’s okay. It’s all a weird game of timing and emotional waveforms, and I’m sure a scientist could do an in-depth dissection of the process that leads to the discovery of shocking trends in collective evaluation. But I love the year end awards crush, because I feel somewhat respected and because I have a wild-and-wooly work schedule that has me bouncing around the city to screenings, or power viewing the screeners I get sent.
Jason Shawhan of Nashville Scene Answers CriticWire