Z

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.

No Comments »

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.

No Comments »

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

Z

Quote Unquotesee all »

“The core fear is what can happen to you, personally. Your body. That’s what horror films deal with, precisely. We are a very thin skin wrapped around a pumping heart and guts. At any given moment it can come down to that, be it diseases, or somebody’s assault, or war, or a car wreck. You could be reduced to the simple laws of physics and your body’s vulnerability. The edged weapon is the penultimate weapon to disclose that reality to you.”
~ Wes Craven, 1996, promoting Scream

MAMET
Well, that, to me, is always the trick of dramaturgy; theoretically, perfectly, what one wants to do is put the protagonist and the audience in exactly the same position. The main question in drama, the way I was taught, is always what does the protagonist want. That’s what drama is. It comes down to that. It’s not about theme, it’s not about ideas, it’s not about setting, but what the protagonist wants. What gives rise to the drama, what is the precipitating event, and how, at the end of the play, do we see that event culminated? Do we see the protagonist’s wishes fulfilled or absolutely frustrated? That’s the structure of drama. You break it down into three acts.

INTERVIEWER
Does this explain why your plays have so little exposition?

MAMET
Yes. People only speak to get something. If I say, Let me tell you a few things about myself, already your defenses go up; you go, Look, I wonder what he wants from me, because no one ever speaks except to obtain an objective. That’s the only reason anyone ever opens their mouth, onstage or offstage. They may use a language that seems revealing, but if so, it’s just coincidence, because what they’re trying to do is accomplish an objective… The question is where does the dramatist have to lead you? Answer: the place where he or she thinks the audience needs to be led. But what does the character think? Does the character need to convey that information? If the answer is no, then you’d better cut it out, because you aren’t putting the audience in the same position with the protagonist. You’re saying, in effect, Let’s stop the play. That’s what the narration is doing—stopping the play… It’s action, as Aristotle said. That’s all that it is—exactly what the person does. It’s not what they “think,” because we don’t know what they think. It’s not what they say. It’s what they do, what they’re physically trying to accomplish on the stage. Which is exactly the same way we understand a person’s character in life—not by what they say, but by what they do. Say someone came up to you and said, I’m glad to be your neighbor because I’m a very honest man. That’s my character. I’m honest, I like to do things, I’m forthright, I like to be clear about everything, I like to be concise. Well, you really don’t know anything about that guy’s character. Or the person is onstage, and the playwright has him or her make those same claims in several subtle or not-so-subtle ways, the audience will say, Oh yes, I understand their character now; now I understand that they are a character. But in fact you don’t understand anything. You just understand that they’re jabbering to try to convince you of something.
~ David Mamet

Z Z