The Hot Blog Archive for October, 2005

Happy Halloween

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

213 Comments »

Cruel & Crude, But Funny

A Zipperfish Attack On Scientology

12 Comments »

Weekend Estimates – 10/30/05

Not much new to add from the Friday analysis

42 Comments »

Annie Dull

I don

12 Comments »

Early Friday Estimates – 10/29/05

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

31 Comments »

Whose Weekend Is It Anyway?

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

60 Comments »

20 Weeks To Oscar 3

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

24 Comments »

Example #2372

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

47 Comments »

Sarris Raves Jarhead

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

74 Comments »

Munich… The Color Blue?

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

29 Comments »

Bad Subject Line Of The Day

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

2 Comments »

A Terrific Review

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

6 Comments »

Again…

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

Odd

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

More Internet Junk

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

12 Comments »

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin