I heard about both a while ago. At that point I thought Rourke seemed like the best fit for the role. But after Boardwalk Empire Shannon might be the better of the two. I wonder if one of the two movies will be axed. Other than the two Truman Capote pics I think the tendency seems to be that one gets canceled, their were multiple Alexander the Great films in the making and the same with Howard Hughes. The HBO specials are pretty chilling (forgive my shitty puns). It was scary to think a guy was that sadistic but he came off more as a braggart in my mind.
Mine too. But that's why we had those HBO specials, and now, possibly two feature films. There are equally or more dangerous guys out there sitting in jail, except they never felt the need to sensationalize themselves to the media. This one did, and while it didn't improve his life (in fact, it might be one of the reasons he was killed), he did receive a measure of fame from it.
Kevin Smith taking "Red State" on tour and attempting to distribute it himself. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Tucker Max do something incredibly similar? He took his movie on tour, did a Q&A before/after, ran minimal television ads (mostly due to lack of an advertising budget), and largely depended on word of mouth of his online fans to open the film? I think we see how well that worked out for him (short stint in a limited release, potentially made its money back if it had good DVD sales, but fuck if I know). The only difference is that Kevin Smith is purposely ignoring the media and television advertising, while I think Tucker would've gone with a lot more television advertising if he'd had the money to do so. Personally, I think Kevin Smith has his whole diatribe against critics and studios backwards. If you listen to his podcasts and his discussions of Zack and Miri, he clearly blames the Weinsteins and poor marketing for Zack and Miri not making what he thought it would/should (on a recent podcast, he called it "a Judd Apatow movie without Judd Apatow" and also implied that Apatow's movie style is lifted from Kevin Smith movies). Then he bitches at the critics for ripping apart Cop Out for being, lets face it, not that great of a movie (I'm sure some of you see this as an understatement). Basically, he has never written and directed a movie that has made over 30 to 40 mil at the box office, and I think this pisses him off, and he started feeling like none of his movies would EVER make more than 30 to 40 million, so why bother advertising, as either way, his fans will get his movies to at least that number, and no one else will go. The problem with this logic is he views it backwards. I'd look at it as 30 to 40 million is the floor for his movies. No matter what, his fans will show up, and his movies will make 30 to 40 million. Why not advertise more, and get more people there? If properly marketed (for example, don't put the word 'porno' in your title so you can't advertise without raising a stink), they might make more money. Either way, who the fuck knows what will happen out of this. Maybe his movie will make money, maybe it'll get killed. He is trying something (somewhat) different, which I give him credit for, but I feel like he is doing it for the wrong reasons, and is getting overly preachy in doing so.
Artie Lange did the same thing with "Beer League". Personally, I don't see the point; in order for a film to do well at the box office, a non-trivial percentage of the entire US population has to see it. It's not about getting one's hardcore audience to watch, but everyone else. Ergo, the whole reason studios spend on advertising. I think Smith is delusional, and from what little I have read, and also completely obsessed with the critics. To me, that screams insecurity; no quality director gets that agitated by bad reviews. Not even a crazy perfectionist egomaniac like Kubrick. And in his case, Smith is right to be; for the most part, his movies suck donkey dick. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=coupleofdicks.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... fdicks.htm</a> "Cop Out" made about $45 million domestically, and $55.5 million internationally. From theater gross alone, a small to moderate loss when factoring in production plus P&A budget. Potentially even made a small profit if it did well with the ancillary rights. By the way, how funny is the url for that link above? A very wrong way to look at it. Considering that both Clerks 2 and Chasing Amy made well below $30 (about $25 million each), and those were both with respectable amounts of advertising, I think he would be lucky to break $15 million without it. If you're a fan, what does it matter how much he makes as long as it's enough to continue making more of his projects?
No just no.... The Wachowski's had their trilogy and now they are done, but noooooooooooo. If they want to make I know they will find financial backing from somewhere, but the Matrix's story has been told, as mediocre as it was in the last two films, so please let it rest in peace. I would much rather see the rumored new Bill and Ted film over another Matrix.
Does anyone even remember seeing 2 and 3 in the theater? Has anyone sat through them since? Everyone knows the answer to those questions; unfortunately the Wachowski brother and tranny are not done making mediocre sci-fi. Close your eyes and listen to the dialogue in the first Matrix. Now that you can't see all the action shots it's pretty dull. If they must make another one, they desperately need to hire a decent writer.
Having been a fan of both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, I think this looks pretty good. Always liked the dynamism between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Seems like they also wrote it, which makes me hopeful. The director, Greg Mottola, has a pretty decent track record as well, directing Superbad and episodes of Arrested Development and Undeclared. The only downside is the voice actor for Paul. I'm not convinced Seth Rogen was the best choice, especially since he is essentially playing the same role he always does, albeit not in human form.
I do! I went to see Reloaded on opening day at a special Yahoo! employee screening, when I was in high school. Still have the shirt, too. Anyways, the 2nd was decent popcorn fun; it shouldn't be lumped into the same category with Revolutions, which was a nauseating, boring abortion. I'll say this; of all the shitty adaptations and money-grubbing sequels, Matrix 4 and 5 are far from the worse. Especially since Matrix 3 wasn't even a real ending per se; the inhabitants of Zion just continue living in their shitty, worthless stations, and the robots are still as powerful as ever. There isn't even any difference between that and them starting all over again.
The thing is, this story is on the home page of IMDB with the accompanying story at The Wrap. That's a decent level of Hollywood buzz for his film. What was the biggest Hollywood buzz Tucker got? Page nine on Variety, or something like that? Smith actually has a halfway decent chance of pulling this off since he has a pretty decent cult film following, and his films tend to make pretty good money on DVD and Netflix sales. I thought that I remember him saying that a lot of movies wind up making considerable amounts of money on the DVD side, so even if box office figures are disappointing, DVD figures can still easily redeem a movie, which is what has happened with a majority of his films. And a guy like Smith who, as I said before, has the built in fanbase to manage breaking even at worst. Whereas Max, let's be frank, didn't have the fanbase/word of mouth power to build momentum into anything decent. I can't really speak towards the quality since I've yet to watch it, but given the bo numbers and critical reaction its probably safe to guess the quality. So that probably played against financial success as well. While Smith, while he doesn't make the greatest films by any stretch, still makes some pretty entertaining flicks.
Films really don't make much from Netflix, and the ancillary rights market, especially DVD, has dried up considerably in the past few years. As I noted on the previous page, I'm sure most of Smith's films manage to eek out a small profit or something, but that fact doesn't make him unique or impressive to producers bankrolling projects. As for having an article on the home page of IMDB? That doesn't count as "buzz" or a significant amount of press. There are some films which accomplished this feat while grossing much less than Tucker's movie did. When you've gotten to the point where you let box office take and "critical reaction" determine what you think about a film without ever having seen it yourself, what's the point in even watching movies anymore? For the record, I found Max's film, while filled with flaws, much funnier and more entertaining than anything I have seen from Smith. Anyways, all sorts of interesting projects are made with famous stars, directors, and no mainstream press and advertising. What makes Smith's new movie so special?
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.aintitcool.com/node/48241" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.aintitcool.com/node/48241</a> Basically, Christian Bale as Roland in the Dark Tower by Ron Howard.....um, ok, but Ron Howard? Really? Also, ten minutes of Bollywood-sci-fi-what-the-fuck gold (dubbed in Russian, no less):
As much as I love Christian Bale, I definitely don't see him in that role. For one thing, he's not even the right age; Roland needs to be older, even at the very beginning of the story. I always though someone like Viggo Mortensen would be a more appropriate choice. That's not to say that Bale won't do an outstanding job, only that his look clashes too strongly with the mental image I have of Roland. My reaction exactly. He probably penciled this project in-between "The Dilemma" and whatever shitty hackery he is going to sign up for next.
I'm keeping my expectations low. In your video, the director talks about joining the project about a week before filming. Not necessarily a killer, but his lack of experience may be. Beyond the questionable choice of director, there are a few more red flags. 1) Gimmicky release date of April 15. This is transparent pandering to the Tea Party movement, which has co-opted Rand over the past couple years. I can only hope that contemporary political issues don't work themselves into the movie. In V for Vendetta, the Wachowskis added several political pot shots, which cheapened an otherwise awesome film. 2) No natural ending to the first leg of the trilogy. I loved Part I of the novel, but I don't think its climax will translate well to the big screen. Unlike LOTR, there's no mines of Moria that can be borrowed from Part II. Spoiler The looters try to stop Dagny from building a rail line. She builds it anyway. 3) From the video above, the director appears to have altered the script in major ways throughout filming. 4) Taylor Schilling will need to be damn near Oscar-worthy to pull off Dagny Taggart at such a young age (25 at filming). In her favor, she does have an older look that will make her more convincing. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
This was before you joined, but we had a discussion about "Atlas Shrugged" earlier in this thread, and here is what we found;
I honestly hope it isnt release ala the 94 Fantastic 4. I think a good movie could be made from it. I really don't believe Hollywood, in this era, is capable of making it though. I think it's only real chance of being made well was in the 70's. A time when creativity was handled much differently than it is today. There was also a set of actors in their prime that I could envision nailing most of all the parts in the book. Today it is a lot harder too pin down. If it comes out and is terrible then I dont see it ever being remade on the big screen. Maybe a miniseries, HBO might be able to pull it off, but big screen would be a no go.
Ive been seeing this pop up on the usual film sites for the past few years now and it looks like its going to get made this year. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.filmofilia.com/2010/12/14/martin-scorseses-the-irishman-starring-robert-de-niro-could-shoot-in-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.filmofilia.com/2010/12/14/ma ... t-in-2011/</a> Its called the Irishman (formerly called, I Hear You Paint Houses). Its a mobster movie directed by Scorsese with Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, and I heard somewhere else that Jack Nicholson was also in talks for a role. It hasnt been filmed yet and Im ready to buy my ticket.
So I just read this today and got pumped. The Stand movie I remember awhile back on the RMMB I listed this one in a thread about movies that need to be remade and got tons of responses from people saying the same thing. The TV movie miniseries is pretty bad considering how good it could be. Sounds like they aren't sure if it should be one movie or multiple but I have to think it needs to be at least two. You could break it up basically when they get to Utah or something and have easily enough for two movies. I just hope they don't go for PG-13 or some shit and really show some of the stuff the book has to offer.
De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino in a Scorsese directed mobster crime film? My erection just got an erection. Damn I hope this movie happens. Aannnndddd I quoted the wrong post. My brain didn't have any blood or oxygen due to my massive erection.
So after all my talk, I decided to get tickets to see Red State and the Q&A on Kevin Smith's tour. It's slightly costly, but at the same time, it'll be worth it for the movie and the Q&A afterward. Plus, it is a decent date and an excuse to get a hotel room in a city for the weekend away from the house. I'm hoping it is good. He seems really passionate about it, and he said that he is addressing the chief complaint of reviewers who saw it at Sundance; that being that he could tighten it up a bit, and lighten up some of the speeches.