With White Jazz seemingly shelved for the time being, Smokin' Joe Carnahan is in a fighting mood and not about to let anybody knock his Pablo Escobar biopic off its perch. And what exactly does he think of the Oliver Stone-produced Pablo biopic that's to be directed by Antoine Fuqua? The one that will focus on Pablo's relationship with his brother and start shooting in early 08'? Um, not much. On his blog, Carnahan takes that subject head on, stating that the movie is "getting turned down by a lot of folks ... memo to aspiring screenwriters, if you want to know how not to write a screenplay, pick up that piece of shit and use it as reverse tutelage." Ouch. But he's not done yet. "It not only does a disservice to the craft of writing, it mocks one of the greatest figures in Latin American history with a non-existent, wholly fictionalized Butch and Sundance angle involving Pablo and his brother Roberto. It's laughably lame."
Nope, he's still not done. "Good luck chumps. And it doesn't matter if you get out of the gate six months earlier than me. I will have an announcement after the new year that will absolutely break your hearts and kill whatever middling credibility you have ... and you deserve that heartbreak, trying to push a shitty, insultingly bad Pablo pic into production against mine and being nasty and conniving and devious about it." He closes his rant with a "war is war" warning, but isn't very specific about what provoked all this ire. Does anyone have any more info on this brewing Pablo biopic war?
I'm sure a lot of you don't care either way, but there's now a chance The Golden Globes ceremony scheduled to air live on NBC this January 13 may not show up on the boob tube at all. Anne Thompson reports over on her Thompson on Hollywood blog that word from within the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (or HFPA) is that one option -- should the writers still be on strike on that day -- is to not televise the ceremony in order to ensure a high celebrity presence. Call me a moron, but I'm not sure of the difference between televising an event and not televising an event as it pertains to "crossing the picket lines." Thompson's article makes it sound like actors are allowed to cross the picket lines if the Globes aren't televised, though I just assumed they wouldn't cross the picket lines regardless. Maybe I'm missing something though; feel free to clue me in.
As it stands right now, the Globes won't have any writers to pen those presentation speeches as the WGA has already turned down a waiver which would allow writers to work on the show. Additionally, it's believed that if the show was to go on as planned -- with the WGA out picketing in full force -- a good majority of actors and actresses would not cross the picket lines. Not televising the show, however, also brings into question what sort of contractual obligations HFPA has to NBC. As Thompson points out, "If the show is not televised, NBC will lose the revenue it would have generated via advertising (the Globes show earns strong ratings), and the Globes will lose the money they would have been paid. But at this point it is much more important to the HFPA (which has enough cash in its coffers to miss one year's telecast) for the Globes show to go on with celebrities walking down that red carpet (even with no writers to pen the presentation speeches) to present and accept awards than for them to face the possibility that most stars will not cross an active picket line."
Our big Best of ?07 stories run Sunday, but because I?m such a smug gasbag there wasn?t enough room to bloviate about the acting I loved this year. And there was a lot to love - so much, apparently, that I actually forgot a few (thanks, Mark Feeney). Some of the parts were tiny in movies nobody saw. Some of them everybody did. Even if the film didn?t really work, the actor really did. And the distinction between a lead role and supporting one seems arbitrary to me. I know the difference when I see it. But it?s really a combination of a character?s narrative function and whatever the actor brings to the part. Javier Bardem, for instance, probably has less screen time in "No Country for Old Men" than Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones, but, to my mind, his character fuels the chase. Plus, he?s just so good ? not to mention, with that haircut, so ready to paint my bathroom.
But you don't want to hear my spleen-venting, you want to know what movies to see. Well, ya can't see "There Will Be Blood" yet, like I said. But the kids will probably like "The Water Horse," even if it is "E.T." regurgitated and reshaped into the Loch Ness Monster. And "The Great Debaters," the new drama directed by and co-starring Denzel Washington manages to overcome its innate Oprah-ness and stand on its feet as a fine film. Recommended if you want a feel-good movie that doesn't make you feel like you've been played. Really.
Otherwise, grown-ups have "The Savages" (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney and that's all you need to know), "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (Julian Schnabel and cameraman Janusz Kaminski re-invent human consciousness), and "Sweeney Todd" (Burton and Depp do right by Sondheim, mostly) to warm the dark cockles of their hearts this weekend.
The Brattle is playing to the fan-boys by bringing back "Blade Runner: The Final Cut" through the end of the year, then kicking off 2008 with a Marx Brothers marathon. We'll probably all need a good laugh by then. Hey, is it still possible to retroactively elect Rufus T. Firefly President of the United States?
It's a sunny Friday morning but I'm in a black mood. The dog just threw up on the carpet for one thing, and it's not even my dog. (We're minding him for friends.) The Times says the Golden Globe ceremonies may not happen due to the writers' strike but I'm finding it tough to care given the state of the rest of the world. My boss sends me an e-mail wondering why there was such a disparity between movie quality and commercial success this year -- why, essentially, "Spider-Man 3" and "Shrek the Third" are the top box-office films of 2007 despite being measurably dreadful (and don't get me started on "300"; real no-brainer entertainment never needs to try that hard) -- and I hesitate to answer that American audiences are increasingly desperate to be diverted from current realities. (Why we don't actually engage said realities isn't much of a mystery; why change the world when you can change the channel, or the playlist, or the Wii)?
Like I said, a black mood. Not helped, either, by a reader e-mail getting all up my nose over my review of "Aliens vs Predator: Requiem" because, come on, the first "Alien vs Predator" sucked much worse and if you'd been paying attention you would have seen the PredAlien at the end of that installment and known that's why it showed up in #2. To which my response is mostly unprintable. Other than, dude: it's "Alien vs Predator". It means precisely nothing. Read a newspaper and get a life.
Oh, and one more thing: "There Will Be Blood," a movie that in its magnificent, eccentric way actually does manage to explore the roots of the American personality, the 20th Century, and why we love oil so much, is already playing in New York City but doesn't come to Boston until January 4th. Am I drinking the Kool-Aid on this one? Yes, gratefully, since so much else tastes like swill.
I know you're all puzzling over this scary Benazir Bhutto situation, but I found a clip (thanks, Slate) of Clive James and Ian McEwan talking about writing for the movies, an experience that's soured McEwan a bit. Still as James observes, his candor is refreshing. Curiously, "Atonement" doesn't come up. It'd be interesting to hear what McEwan makes of the abject tastefulness inflicted upon his book.
IndieWIRE recently published its year-end critics poll. Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood" was the winner, and will likely top the Village Voice/LA Weekly poll that's on its way. Anderson's movie opens here next week, and the Globe's "Best of" stories will rain upon you this Sunday. Bring an umbrella. There will be blood there, too.
Remember that Jessica Simpson film called Blonde Ambition that was supposed to be going straight to DVD after everyone involved pretty much agreed that it sucked, and wasn't worth a theatrical release? Well, according to Slashfilm, Blonde Ambition was given a theatrical release this weekend on 8 screens in Simpson's hometown of Texas. (In case you're interested, the film will officially hit DVD on January 22.) So you figure since the film is opening on eight screens in the gal's hometown, that all theaters would be packed full of hardcore Simpson fans, friends, random acquaintances -- what have you.
Yeah, well try this one on for size: The flick grossed a whopping $384 bucks on Friday, meaning the per screen average was $48. Slashfilm breaks it down even more: "Based on an $8 ticket price, that means that 6 people paid to see the movie at each of those theatres, and only 48 people went to see the movie! That's amazing! One of the worst performances a movie has ever had. I am projecting that Jessica's "star vehicle" will gross just $1,190 this weekend or $149 per location." Six people per theater? If that's not the definition of pathetic, I don't know what is. Additionally, Simpson ain't the most popular person in Texas right now, considering the fact that ever since she started dating Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, the guy's weekly performance has declined to a point where his teammates don't even want the girl near the stadium for fear she'll ruin the team's Superbowl chances. Yup, the next Julia Roberts she most certainly is.
UPDATE: Cinematical's Peter Martin, a Dallas resident, informed me of the following: "The film opened on three Dallas-area theaters -- all Cinemark Discount Theatres, with tickets on Friday and Saturday after 6:00 pm priced at $2.00 (matinee prices: $1.00). Still a pathetic performance, but means a few more people actually attended. That's balanced by the fact that it's the only new release playing at the bargain theatres, which is embarrassing in itself."
I haven't been following the strike issue nearly as close as I'd like, but I'm starting to get increasingly interested as it looks like there's less and less chance of a deal being cut to spare the Golden Globes and Academy Awards from the wrath of the writers. David Poland's blog is the place for some entertaining commentary on this issue. Like everyone else, he doesn't care about whether or not the Globes goes on, but he's absolutely enraged at the thought of Oscar being put in the crosshairs next. "There is a world of difference between f*cking with 100 'foreigners' with the collective journalistic weight of a sitcom sidekick's blog and taking on 6,000 of the town's most powerful people," he writes. He goes on to explain how the Oscar ceremony is a critical income generator for the AMPAS and attempting to derail it is tantamount to a declaration of war. "If the union tries to shut down Oscar, they will be messing with something more than money. WGA would really be tapping into the mass ego of the industry," he writes, before blasting off into an extended hyperbole that ends with -- I'm not kidding -- a picture of Moe Green about to get shot in the eye.
And what does Nikki Finke think about this line of argument? Not much. Her position is that the WGA simply has them over a barrel, and it's their own fault, although she does confine most of her argument to the Globes issue -- she hasn't said very much about Oscar specifically yet, but you can see where she's headed. "For the AMPTP to expect a groundswell of Internet anger aimed at the WGA for threatening the Golden Globes or the Academy Awards is naive not to mention downright laughable. The ratings for these shows keep going down almost every year so the public doesn't much care."
Yesterday afternoon I was thumbing through some Sundance e-mails when I came across an interview pitch for Brian Cox, known to one and all for his many acting roles including Stryker, nemesis of Wolverine in X2: X-Men United. For a while it's been known that the role Cox originated was going to be taken over by the younger Liev Schreiber in the upcoming fourth film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so how come Brian Cox has X-Men Origins: Wolverine as his top credit on the actor bio sheet I'm looking at right now? An attempt by me to follow-up with the publicist who sent me the bio has been met with silence, so who knows if this was something that wasn't meant to be leaked or just someone's dumb mistake? I can easily see a publicist accidentally writing down X4 when they meant to write down X2. But the wall of silence hasn't yet dissipated. I'll be keeping an eye on this.
The official synopsis for X-Men Origins: Wolverine -- what a clunky title -- states that the film "explores the claw-wielding character Wolverine's violent and romantic past, and his complex relationship with Victor Creed and the ominous Weapon X programs, as well as his encounter with other mutants." Filming is expected to start in a couple of weeks, so if there are any last minute casting decisions to be made, now is the time, I guess. I'd definitely like to see dueling Strykers, but is time-travel a big part of the X-Men universe, cause otherwise I can't exactly see how they'd pull that one off. More likely that if this is true, there will be a prologue or epilogue with Cox getting to shine for five minutes.
.jpg)
With White Jazz seemingly shelved for the time being, Smokin' Joe Carnahan is in a fighting mood and not about to let anybody knock his Pablo Escobar biopic off its perch. And what exactly does he think of the Oliver Stone-produced Pablo biopic that's to be directed by Antoine Fuqua? The one that will focus on Pablo's relationship with his brother and start shooting in early 08'? Um, not much. On his blog, Carnahan takes that subject head on, stating that the movie is "getting turned down by a lot of folks ... memo to aspiring screenwriters, if you want to know how not to write a screenplay, pick up that piece of shit and use it as reverse tutelage." Ouch. But he's not done yet. "It not only does a disservice to the craft of writing, it mocks one of the greatest figures in Latin American history with a non-existent, wholly fictionalized Butch and Sundance angle involving Pablo and his brother Roberto. It's laughably lame."
I'm sure a lot of you don't care either way, but there's now a chance The Golden Globes ceremony scheduled to air live on NBC this January 13 may not show up on the boob tube at all. Anne Thompson reports over on her 
Remember that .jpg)
I haven't been following the strike issue nearly as close as I'd like, but I'm starting to get increasingly interested as it looks like there's less and less chance of a deal being cut to spare the Golden Globes and Academy Awards from the wrath of the writers. .jpg)
Yesterday afternoon I was thumbing through some Sundance e-mails when I came across an interview pitch for 
