The Hot Blog

I just don't understand how Dreamgirls could be the only movie to make splashy awards presentations of itself for months now.

I was just reading some reviews for Pedro Almodovar's Volver and not in any of them do they reveal the twist, yet I keep remembering when Roger Ebert blurted it out in his Cannes wrap up. Not to kick a wounded man, but god that was stupid.

What is people's thoughts on Penelope Cruz getting a Best Actress nom. We've been hearing absolutely stellar word since Cannes and now that the film is rolling out across the world it's getting better.

I don't see Children of Men escaping it's genre to get Cuaron a director nod, however I suppose Caine could get in considering they love him so much.

"followed by Supporting Actrss nominee Jennifer Hudson"

Are you saying she's a lock or just extremely confident (as most oscar predictors are) of a nod for Hudson?

Here's an interesting article to discuss:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/cl-et-goldstein15aug15,1,2186060.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews

Can't be too specific because I have read neither the book it is based on nor seen the film (obviously), but the Children of Men trailer looked...ridiculous.

I'm sure it is beautifully shot as Cuaron has a great eye, but if it is what it appears to be it seems about as realistic as having Charlton Heston star in a film as an anti-gun activist who tries to stop a war.

If of course it is as it appears, which I am sure it is. Guess that means an Oscar nom is a lock.

Nicol, can you clarify a little? I saw the same trailer and I kinda have no idea what you're talking about. What is "what it appears to be"? It seems like you're alluding to something, but I'm assuming if you haven't read the book or the script or anything, it's not a spoiler type of situation (though if it is plot-twist speculation, nevermind!). What's the deal?

Nicol has concluded that Children of Men is nothing more than silly liberal propoganda.

ED, that article is interesting but I found it a little condescending with quotes like this:

"This puts them in perfect sync with the ethos of the Internet, whose great art form is the movie-trailer parody."

Or this:

"But today we're in an era in which shared enthusiasm matters more than analysis, stylistic cool trumps emotional substance."

I happen to agree that the public ususally gets it right. The sample size is big enough that the probability of error is reduced. That doesn't prevent mistakes, such as Bush being elected twice (although the public didn't elect him the first time).

Anyhow, my point is that how good a movie is for most people is based whehter they enjoy themselves and feel they got their monies worth. That is far different than what most critics offer. That is not to say critics don;t go a good job just that they don't serve the larget body public all that well.

Enlighten me, please - I'm a fairly conservative guy, and saw nothing from left field in the "Children of Men" trailer.

Is Clive Owen gay? In the film or in reality? Maybe that would fit into Nicol's analogy.

I have no idea, and I'm just guessing here.

"Anyhow, my point is that how good a movie is for most people is based whehter they enjoy themselves and feel they got their monies worth. That is far different than what most critics offer."

How can critics know whether they enjoyed themselves or got their money's worth when most of them don't have to pay to see the movie and when sitting through movies (good or bad) is considered "work"? Then again, I'd be even madder if I had to pay for some of the bad movies I've seen, so not sure if the current trend of making them pay to see it on Friday helps much.

I read the screenplay for "Children of Men" and I didn't notice any political subtext. It's a really good sci-fi movie set in "the not-to distant, yet very bleek future." I think it's going to be great. There's no reason to put a film in that back of the season unless you want someone to notice it, or unless you want it to be counter-programming to everything else (as Scream so famously did).

Sad to see Fox is burying Mike Judge's "new" film, Idiocracy. How bad can it be?

Apparently VERY bad, from what has been going around the campfire for about a year now. Surprising, given his talent.

Maybe this will kickstart "Office Space 2," though. That movie could be made for $10 million, and would gross $50 million MINIMUM. (Judge said he had an idea for a sequel at the time of the original's release).

Patrick still can't see past the L.A. Times... note that the only interviews are Manohla and Kenny... so maybe Patrick can't see past the LAT 3 yeas ago.

He also avoided his company's weakest spot... firing experienced critics (Wilmington, Caro) to hire inexperienced, somewhat disaffected critics and worse, in a market like LA, abandoning art house movies by dumping Kevin Thomas (as problematic as he was, he fought for space for those films) to run half-page pictures (free ads?) for whatever studio release is coming that week.

The internet isn't the LA Times'critic problem. A lack of creativity, aggression, and daring is.

Did PG have lunch with himself at the Ivy? Full disclosure, please!

Where to start...

After reading quite a bit on the novel and excerpts from it since I last posted, the changes Cuaron has made to the concept of the film seem illinformed if not dealt with in a way that actually understands the world we live in.

I have my doubts.

POTENTIAL SPOILERS IN EFFECT: IF YOU DON'T LIKE'EM, EXTRA SHOULD BE ON PRETTY SOON! I HEAR PARIS HAS A RECORD OUT!

In the book the protagonist is a former Oxford intellectual and James herself is a Conservative who sits in the British House of Lords.

The book critiques the notion that one can have an egalitarian government and sets out upon the hypocrisy of a government that says all are 'equal' when none are.

It critiques nations who are not proud of thier culture and heritage (ie. patriotic). It says without the ability to pro-create, the world would lose concepts of nationhood. She says this would be bad.

A huge subtext to the book apparently is that once you take the notion of pro-creative male/female sex out of the equation, humanity would lose interest in it. Hence the modern notion that sex is just for recreation first, where any orifice is applicable and pro-creation being incidental is blown out of the water.

The book also vilifies the concept of euthanisia of the elderly and infirmed.

Sounds like a great read. I am going to get it from the library.

Now in the movie it would seem, Cuaron changes the protagonists to left-wing anti-war activists and the government to right-wing totalitarian. He keeps the general themes/plots.

Ask yourself...

Do you know any left-wing, anti-war activist types who do not buy whole-heartedly into the notion that a government can provide and define 'equality'?

Do you know of any left-wing anti-war activist types who believe that sex is first and foremost for pro-creation and not recreation?

Do you know of any left-wing anti-war activist types that are not for euthanasiaa of the elderly and infirmed?

Do you know any left-wing anti-war activist types who would encourage a woman to have a baby for a cause greater than she, and value the notion of family and male/female relationships as the cornerstone of humanity/society?

Again, I now will read the book, and I may ultimately be wrong about the movie.

I realy hope I am.

But based on everything I know of Cuaron's work, Hollywood politics and how paranoid the modern New Left view of the world is...I'm not betting on it.

Do I know any right-wing pro-war type who doesn't generalize everyone left of center every chance they get? Sounds like you have already seen the movie Nicol. Thank you for the laugh though. Every time I read another one of your posts that lazily generalizes everyone on the left I have a good chuckle.

I'd like to provide a lenghty reply to Nicol D...but I'm busy. I've got some abortions to perform, some troops to undermine, and Bush to blame for it. I'm swamped.

I'm a right-wing, pro-choice, pro-war, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-Harry Potter, pro-procreation, pro-recreation, pro-legalization, pro-Kevin Costner, pro-patriotism dude.

So I'm confused, but I'm professional about it.

Typical liberal Hopscotch. You are all the same.

Don't simplistic labels annoy you then Josh, as someone who apparently is difficult to categorize? That is why Nicol annoys me so much. If someone used simplistic labels against someone on the right, he would go nuts. But then he constantly resorts to these ridiculously broad generalizations of the left, lumping them all into one group.

It's far more interesting to live within the shades of gray.

"Cuaron changes the protagonists to left-wing anti-war activists and the government to right-wing totalitarian. He keeps the general themes/plots."

He changes the protagonists from what? "Former Oxford intellectual" and "left-wing anti-war activist" don't exactly sound mutually exclusive to me.

And if Cuaron keeps all the themes and plots, what exactly are you worried about since that's all you really seem to care about in your critique?

Right Josh. And I think it goes without saying that many, many people live within those shades of gray. Apparently some believe that complexity and gray areas only apply to the right. Lefties are all exactly the same.

Well, I'd argue that folks on both sides of the aisle are guilty of that. I'm sure some think that because I voted for Bush I hate blacks, gays and left-handed people.

And I totally don't hate left-handed people.

I agree that both sides are guilty of that. Definitely not specific to one party or political persuasion. I, however, do hate left-handed people.

Wow, that was one of the most convoluted things I've seen from Nicol yet. He must have been up all night.

"Do you know any left-wing, anti-war activist types who do not buy whole-heartedly into the notion that a government can provide and define 'equality'?

I do know a right-wing, pro-war activist administration that buys whole-heartedly into the notion that a government can (by force) provide 'equality' and 'democracy' in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon (after the Nov. elections) Iran.

"Do you know of any left-wing, anti-war activist types who believe that sex is first and foremost for pro-creation and not recreation?"

Actually there are quite a few devout Catholic anti-war types out there who are opposed to the war and typically vote liberal for reasons of social justice (much as they disagree with abortion, etc.). I admit you don't hear as much from them as in the 60's but they're still out there. Presumably they agree with the Vatican about the primarily procreative purpose of sex.

"Do you know of any left-wing, anti-war activist types that are not for euthanasia of the elderly and the infirmed?"

Lots. I'm not sure where you're going with this one - the euthanasia issue is definitely not right/left. As you saw in the Schiavo case, lots of people both left & right were appalled at the government's involvement. Lots of us pinko's are against euthanasia.

"Do you know of any left-wing anti-war activist types who would encourage a woman to have a baby for a cause greater than she...."

Whoa! I'm having a little trouble with this one. Who exactly WOULD encourage a woman, etc. It sounds like something you'd have heard from Hitler in the 30's, but also Stalin, Mao, etc. I can see it from an authoritarian state, or a messianic type, but not particularly right or left.

Nicol, I enjoy your posts but the only time I agree with you is when you espouse your Leading-Man-Roles-Now-Played-By-Juvenile-Leads-Theory. Speaking of which I'm a little surprised you didn't take the opportunity to defend the virility of your man Clive Owen (as per Eric's post above). Last I heard, didn't you have a man-crush on the guy? Not that I'd disagree with you about that...

Cheers.

I love the unintentional irony that Nicol creates, in an extrapolation of a movie that he has not seen based on a book he has not read, drawing the conclusion that the film will be "ridiculous",
this was my favorite line from what he wrote: "...how paranoid the modern New Left view of the world is..."
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Josh, I wouldn't assume because you voted for Bush that you hated blacks/gays/left-handers... but I would definitely ask *why* you voted for Bush if you are pro-gay rights, pro-environment, and pro-choice. Or how someone who seems to have a pretty measured and nuanced understanding of shades of gray would support a candidate who sees so steadfastly in black and white?

Especially considering how not-particularly-lefty most recent Democratic candidates have been.

I know it's a silly argument since the guy was elected a couple of years ago, but I am honestly curious.

For once I'm glad I'm not in the middle of a political flamewar.

Did anybody read the weekend box office roundups in Variety? The arthouse roundup said "Little Miss Sunshine" was #1 at the Regal Union Square in Manhattan. That theater is also playing "World Trade Center". Imagine that -- a heavily promoted movie about 9/11 is playing in an important NYC theater and doing worse than an indie-pickup comedy!

Naturally the pundits couldn't be bothered.

I wouldn't expect World Trade Center to be doing especially well in a theater within walking distance of the events it chronicles, plus Little Miss Sunshine is still only on 153 screens and has a higher per-screen than any other movie in the top 20.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: