The Hot Blog

yep, I sure was dying to see Fartman and another Dumb and Dumber. These guys at Cracked read my mind. Unbreakable 2?? what are you f-ing kidding me. Know what could happen in Unbreakable 2 that didn't happen in Unbreakable? SOMETHING!!!

I think Confderarcy of Dunces should be lumped with "Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius". It's worth a try, millions have been spent on trying, but its likely doomed to failure and shouldn't be tried. Let's encourage some reading and NOT make those into movies.

Rama is the only film on that list that appeals to me. Dunces, I've read, and I just don't see how any adaptation could do it justice. The rest? Sequels, video games, who cares. Then again, the reason Rama isn't being made is b/c of people like me (and many on this board) who want to see it. Intelligent, well-read, and few and far between.

Switch out Fartman (what?) with the Arnie/Sly version of Inglorious Bastards, and you have a solid list, if still direly out of order.

Columbia Pictures not expanding on their Ghostbusters franchise is a high crime against entertainment.

Is "the sky is falling" on that list?

You guys are nuts...UNBREAKABLE is fucking badass and a trilogy would ruuuule. I'm willing to say it would be the best trio of superhero movies ever made. Well, I mean, it could be.

All those movies sounded kinda cool to be honest.

Fletch Won was definitely one I was looking forward to. The Gregory Mcdonald books were great at using little description and snaooy dialogue to tell a story. Sounds like a good fit for Kevin Smith to me. Fletch Won was my favorite of the series, though the one thing I would worry about translating to film considering Fletch's "film image" is the themes of judgment and the human psyche that are excellently woven into the book. Not something Kevin Smith fans and, heck, fans of the original movie would be so anxious about seeing.

Also, the ending would probably have to be changed the way the first movie's ending was changed from the book, since in both, the antagonist/killer of the story is made to be as much of a victim as the victims, which would be seen as something of a downer. However, it's much easier to make Alan Stanwyk a dick and make it work than to make the killer in Fletch Won--who brings everything the book is trying to say together in being how he is--an easily villainized jerkass. But Kevin Smith would be as good a choice as any, Jason Lee would be as good a choice as any, so it's a shame it never went down that path. Unless they absolutely botch selling it, I'll watch the version they're coming up with now, but I'm not getting hyped up too much.

And is it me, or did they come off as complete dicks? It's okay to have standards, but it seems that everything that isn't solid gold to them is complete shit. Then there's slagging on Ghostbusters 2--a bad movie that placed emphasis on special effects and horror elements over humor and character--and mourned the death of a Ghostbusters sequel that would've emphasized MORE special effects and focus on the horror element over humor and character. Oh, and there are REASONS Superman Lives is a horrid script that they didn't bother to mention in favor of taking one extra swipe at Smith because I suppose that's the cool thing to do. They might as well thrown in a comment about Smith's thighs while they were at it (And David, if I didn't loathe emoticons so much, there'd be a winking smiley next to that last sentence).

I'd forgotten about Rendevous With Rama. I remember seeing an early site for it a few years ago. Wasn't Morgan Freeman's production company behind it? (A quick peak at Wikipedia confirms that much - and apparently it's going ahead again?? Whaaaaat?)
I guess I'll just have to read the book in the mean time.

Yawn. Whatever. Who cares about movies that didn't get made. We're probably better off without PJ directing a computer game movie (it becomes a hit spawning even more adaptations) or sequels to bygone franchises (which do seem to be in vogue right now, actually, but nevertheless...)

They might as well thrown in a comment about Smith's thighs while they were at it

Clearly you mean Smith's child-bearing calves. I don't even want to think about what the man's thighs must look like but thankfully his shorts aren't short enough to expose them.

The whole irony about Fletch Won is that if it was in th works today it might actually be greenlit with Smith and (post-Earl) Lee on board.

I would have liked to have seen the Coen's "To The White Sea" on that list, along with that rumored "Westworld" remake with Arnie, Sly and Bruce.

I love that they rightfully called out Kevin Smith's Superman script as terrible. There's this myth out there that it's this great unproduced work -- probably because Smith keeps telling everbody it is.

There was a great profile in the New Yorker recently about Harold Ramis. He and "Billy" Murray haven't spoken in over 12 years and apparently had some sort of major falling out over "Groundhog Day."

So chances are slim that you've ever see a GB sequel given that two of the four aren't on speaking terms.

I'm still waiting for The Crowded Room and, yes, To the White Sea.

And didn't I hear Murray agreed to participate in a computer-animated Ghostbusters 3? Aykroyd was talking about that a few months back.

The New Yorker article was written over 3.5 years ago. I'm working on a Ground Hog Day dvd re-release, and of course, Murray wanted nothing to do with it.

Here's part of the New Yorker article:

Offscreen, Ramis and Bill Murray were trapped in a cycle of personal strains. Murray’s marriage was breaking up, and he was behaving erratically—the whirling, unpredictable personality that Dan Aykroyd calls “the Murricane.” Ramis sent Rubin to New York to work with Murray on the script, because he was tired of taking his star’s 2 a.m. calls. Rubin says that when Ramis phoned him to check in, Murray would shake his head and mouth the words “I’m not here.” “They were like two brothers who weren’t getting along,” Rubin says. “And they were pretty far apart on what the movie was about—Bill wanted it to be more philosophical, and Harold kept reminding him it was a comedy.”

“At times, Bill was just really irrationally mean and unavailable; he was constantly late on set,” Ramis says. “What I’d want to say to him is just what we tell our children: ‘You don’t have to throw tantrums to get what you want. Just say what you want.’ ”

After the film wrapped, Murray stopped speaking to Ramis. Some of the pair’s friends believe that Murray resents how large a role Ramis had in creating the Murray persona. Michael Shamberg, a Hollywood producer who has known Ramis since college and who used to let Murray sleep on his couch, says, “Bill owes everything to Harold, and he probably has a thimbleful of gratitude.”

Except for brief exchanges at a wake and a bar mitzvah, the two men haven’t talked in eleven years. “It’s a huge hole in my life,” Ramis says, “but there are so many pride issues about reaching out. Bill would give you his kidney if you needed it, but he wouldn’t necessarily return your phone calls.”

In early March, Ramis prevailed on Brian Doyle-Murray to ask his brother if he would take part in “The Ice Harvest.” Brian reported that Bill said no, thanks. When Ramis asked if Bill had said anything more, anything personal, Brian said that his brother hadn’t mentioned Ramis at all.

At around the same time, I reached Murray, after several attempts, and told him that I was writing about Ramis and would love to talk to him. “Really?” Murray said. It was hard to tell what he meant by that “really.” He suggested that I call back in a week. When I did, he said, “I’ve thought about it, and I really don’t have anything to say.”

I lament I never got to see Crusades. I remember reading the plot synopsis years ago and it sounded amazing.

As for Fletch Won: Thank god the talentless hack Smith was not able to ruin a great childhood memory.

As for Ghostbusters in Hell: I am a huge fan of that gang and will always quietly hope.

Man...that sucks. Ego sucks. But Aris, I got confused on if YOU were working on a GROUNDHOG DAY DVD and if that last paragraph was you or if it was all taken from the New Yorker article.

All that being said. I don't want to see a Ghostbusters III despite how much I love the first one. Especially if Reitman would direct it. So I'm glad that project is dead.

And there's been a Kevin Smith backlash brewing for awhile. I'd say everything since Dogma has been just horrible. And even Dogma isn't that great, in fact, NONE of his films age well, but he carries himself like this unappreciated artist.

Kevin Smith films are great if you are stoned, drunk, and have a knowledge of the world that comes from reading old issues of Crazy magazine with Obnoxio the Clown as your teacher.

Beyond that, they are a waste of money, time talent and earthly raw materials.

I've heard about Inglorious Bastards for roughly ten years now. I think with Grindhouse's failure it has a better shot of being made than ever before.

But sadly our pop culture is a little WWII extended at this point with SPR, Thin Red Line, Band of Brothers, Iwo Jima, Flags of our Fathers, and the new HBO mini The Pacific coming out next year I'm not sure anyone would spend $100M (or more) on a super long talkie WWII movie.

Have you noticed how all the "film artists" of the early 90's (Miramax's kids essentially) have all in some ways or another imploded? Tarantino can't seem to do anything outside of a fanboy film. David O'Russel LITERALLY imploded on a set, and I hear NO ONE wants to work with him. Smith will be making Clerks III within the next five years. Rodriguez is lined up with Tarantino. Maybe you guys see different, but I see lots of lost opportunity for great films.

I don't think this crew was ever as talented as we were led to believe. Some were great stylists (QT, RR) who touched greatness, but for the most part, they made films that were not about ideas but about the pop culture or tends at the time.

Even David O Russell, has never made a great film. I liked Disaster, but great? Hardly. Three Kings? Very good, but not the classic people wish it to be.

Great filmmakers usually find a way to merge great art with great commerce. Too many of this crowd were just caught up in the then burgeoning indie fest scene of the 90's that really was just a circle jerk between filmmakers, press, fests and turtle neck type cineastes.

They never really grew beyond that. There are some exceptions but very few. QT caught a zeitgeist wave but was never the thinker PF led us to believe.

At the end, too many of these filmmakers were every bit as formulaic as the blockbusters they sought to go against.

i think rodriguez has managed to break out a little with his "spy kids" movies.

personally, i really wish they'd stop re-making good movies. i hear there's a new "escape from new york" in the works. now, i know it's dated (set in the futuristic 1997!), but it's still fun.

can we at least get a moritorium on cult classic remakes? nobody know what made them popular to begin with. so, how can anyone recreate it?

Oh, man. To the White Sea. Loved that script, and would haved loved even more to see that on the screen. Maybe one day...

Zach Braff as Fletch makes me want to punch something. If they are trying to go back to the roots of the book, Braff (or any of the current Hollywood man-boys) are horribly wrong.

Though, actually, Ryan Gosling could pull it off. Not only is the book Fletch catnip to the ladies, but he's a medal winner for his military service, i.e., he has to have some sort of legitimate physical presence.

I think it's cute that the people who bash Smith like to attribute some massive ego to the guy - "he carries himself like this unappreciated artist", despite the fact that he's about the most self-depricating filmmaker out there, and will gladly discuss his shortcomings as a filmmaker to pretty much anyone who asks.

But yeah, what an asshole. He makes movies that all turn a profit (often by quite a large mulitplier), and lots of people like. That bastard.

Three Kings is a legitimately great film, and is one of the most influential films of recent years. You can trace the entire CSI aesthetic back to the way Russell filmed "sepsis" destroying a body. It pushed the envelope in terms of style (big time), storytelling, and along with Out of Sight, showed that George Clooney could be a true movie star. Also, it's politics, even though they were unpopular at the time, were quite prescient. In many ways it is a New Wave film made on a Studio budget, and it's a wonder it ever got made at all. For my money, it's the best action movie of the past 10 years.

As for Kevin Smith, he's completely talentless as a film director, and one would think he's not even the best director of his own scripts, much less something as fun as Fletch.

Dude,

The guy made himself into an action figure and at someplaces charged 50 bucks for it. And you don't even get a weapon. That's ego.

.... yeah, he personally sold it for $50. Not after-market mark-up in play at all.

He had a figure made of the character he plays, because it's his most popular character, for better or worse. yeah, a just-him version came along much, much later, after every other character in his films had one - and there was a fair ammount of fan demand for.

You don't like his movies, cool. Nothing is liked by everone. But just makin' up shit so you can bitch about him is childish.

Carpet,

I think - you - think it is a legitimatley great film, but I hardly think it can objectively seen as such.

The bullet CGI was quite overpraised and if Michael Bay had done it, it would have been called exploitation. As for the politics, well we've had that for almost what - five decades now? Not saying that is bad or good, just not new.

And it did not prove Clooney could be a true movie star as it was not a huge hit. It was a small hit that only became slightly more popular on DVD.

Again, it is a very good, not great film. And one demerit point for the always obnoxious Spike Jonze.

"But just makin' up shit so you can bitch about him is childish."

Uhhhh no...Kevin Smith's ouevre and his fan base are childish. They make up his talent in thier own minds.

Ah, yes. I forgot what mature responses one can expect from Nicol. Someone calls you out for making up things, so you insult them. And I'm sure his fans have made-up his success in their minds, too?

So, I'll say again, you don't like the movies, fine. Not gonna argue that. But if you have no way to express that than to lie about the guy and call names.... I'm thinking Smith and his fans still hive the high ground on you, dick n' farts jokes and all.

Smith trashes people left and right.

Bryan Singer for one.

Which is just laughable.

Storymark,

Making what up?

I went into a comic shop and saw his Silent Bob Action figure priced at the $50.00 range.

You were with me? You saw it was priced at 10.95 and I made it up? How can you possibly know what I did or didn't see? Are you Mr. Psychic with the electric third eye?

Even accounting for specialty shop mark up, that's pretty damned high for someone you say has no ego. Last I checked, Lucasfilm action figures weren't that high.

Sorry if Smith is your idol and hero and I broke your little poopoocaca world of Smith reality, but dems de dacts. Perhaps if you quit obsessing on Smith your perception of reality might be better.

The dude waaaaaayyyy overcharges for his action figures and merchandise. Which I have no problem with except that it shows the man has a massive ego and exploits his market to the nth degree. He rings every last buck out of his fans. Even Ben Affleck gave an interview a few years ago saying as much.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension, Nicol, or are you the type that just likes to misconstrue what others say into whatever fits your argument better.

Now, was it Smith's shop? Was he selling it pwersoanlly. Because the toys he sells are generally priced around $15. But, because they are popular, comic shops (that secondary market I mentioned before) have a tendancy to mark them up. And last I check, the guy the figure depecits has NO controll over the price a figure hits in the secondary market. You can go on ebay and find all kinds of figures for more than 50$ - you going to blame every actor who's image they depeict for that price. Or in other words - your argument is horseshit.

It's not just Smith's stuff they do this to. they do it with sought-after items. It's how the business works, and did long before Smith made any action figures at all.

Smith isn't my Idol. I like his mopvies, sure. But I wouldn't have spoken up on the subject if not for others' bullshit.

i am not a smith apologist. hell, i'm not a fan of many of his movies. but what does his action figure sales have to do with his ego as a film director? he may have set up the company to exploit the market ala todd mcfarlane, but he isn't involved in the day to day. he doesn't set up the price structure. and if the price is too high, then people won't buy them.

Smith on Singer:

“I think it was nice that [director Bryan Singer] got to make the exact version of Superman he wanted to make, which apparently was Superman as Jesus. Anytime a director can get their exact vision on screen, I applaud that. I was all for it in that way. I just wished to Christ [Superman] would have punched something.”

“I felt like it was a good first act. The next movie will rock.”

Yeah, he totally trashed Singer there.

Storymark,

Do you like work for Smith or something? You seem to be taking this a little bit too seriously.

I'll let Ben Affleck have the last word.

(Affleck) "told The Scoop, "It wasn't enough that I went to Vegas to play in his lame charity poker tournament for the DVD launch of Jersey Girl, but I also had to go out to his f***ing store where he's opening a store where all he's doing is selling more T-shirts of him and his jacka** friend (Jason Mewes) and he's roped in an entire generation of kids into thinking it's worth spending $30 on and $50 if he signs it. I mean the whole thing is a complete travesty and he wanted me to participate in it and I won't do that."

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2004-11-01#celeb7

Is this interview with Affleck a lie too? Is Affleck also making stuff up if it is not?

What are you, Smith's shill on the hot blog? I just can't believe how worked up you are over this.

Petula - I am indeed currently working on a re-release of the film for Blue-Ray and DVD. New interviews, new segments etc. The last paragraph was from the article, but I DID get in contact with Murray's people about 4 months ago. Never heard a word from them after repeated inquiries, as I knew would happen. No hard feelings, just business. Had I known about the article, I would have just skipped the entire attempt.

Nope, not worked up. Just bored. And I never claimed anything Affleck said was dishonest. Maybe Affleck was seriouse, maybe not - they are pretty good friends after all. I just pointed out that what you said was bullshit - and backed it up. you, meanwehile, have tried to deflect from your BS statement, which is telling.

So, for a 3rd time: You don't like his movies. Groovy. I honestly don't care. But at least get your story right, or you look like a chump.

And lest Nicole try to deflect with more BS about me being Smith's employee/little brother/pool man, I'll say this:

The guy has plenty of flaws as a filmmaker: He's a lousy visual director. His dialog relies too heavily on toilet humor and pop culture refrences. His dialog almost always has the same rythm. He seems to be afraid to work with actors outside his copmfort zone.... ect.

Smith has plenty of legitimate failings worth bringing up if you want to complain about the guy. But whining over the cost some comic store guys sells his toys for, as a way to critique his artistic merit, is simply retarded.

Aris- Sweeeeet. One of mine (and, well, everyone's) favorite films.

storymark-
You must be new here...welcome.

Trying to get an answer to a legit question out of Nicol is akin to getting one out of the Bush Admi...ah, screw it. I know Smiths figurines aren't $50, you know they aren't $50 and I'm sure Nicol "can't recall" where he saw it for $50 nor will he say he was wrong and whoever owned the comic shop he was in jacked up the price.

You said it best when you said "Do you have trouble with reading comprehension, Nicol, or are you the type that just likes to misconstrue what others say into whatever fits your argument better."

Answer: Yes.

Petalama - Yeah, I know about Nicol. I'm only sorta-new here. Don't post much, but I've been reading the site since it launched. So I've read plenty of Nicol's posts, here and on Well's site.

So yeah, I know....

two points

#1 - Kevin Smith bashing is rather en vogue lately online. I love Clerks and think Chasing Amy is a great little indie film. But debating 'talent' is just dumb. The guy has a fan base. Call them juvenile if you want, but obviously the guy has been able to spin his specific kind of whimsy into a solid fan base. To begrudge the guy for marketing himself well just seems kind of stupid.

#2 - Am i the only one who likes I Heart Huckabees? I see all this O Russell talk, and other than the meltdown and Three Kings, i don't see much mention of it. Is it perfect? no. But i think it's an enjoyable little flick.

re: Three Kings and "Also, it's politics, even though they were unpopular at the time, were quite prescient."

Actually, the movie argues for staying in Iraq and not abandoning the people there, which is exactly the opposite opinion of most of the people who will read this.

"Actually, the movie argues for staying in Iraq and not abandoning the people there, which is exactly the opposite opinion of most of the people who will read this."

Not really It argues for staying there under entirely different circumstances. And in Three Kings, the Iraqius are asking them to stay. Not so much the case now.

The film very clearly attacks Bush Sr. for leaving and abandoning the Iraqi people to fight for themselves. And if you don't believe there are a huge number of Iraqis that want us there now, you should stop getting all of your news from Daily Kos.

Three Kings most definitely does argue for staying in Iraq during the first war. This was not the popular position when the movie came out, when the first Iraq War was still seen as one that erased the ghosts of Vietnam and showed America could still weild it's power. The movie posits that this was done with almost no interest in the lives of actual Iraqis. Which seems to have been the case.

Today, it is also not a popular opinion, because many people want us to leave. Which is really the conservative position on foreign wars, if you actually care what conservatism means.

When I said that it's politics were prescient it was because the film foresaw in many ways the problems we are having in Iraq today. Even though George I and George II both dealt with the Iraq issue in different ways, each man presided over an operation whose propaganda machine said they wanted to help the Iraqi people but whose actions showed they didn't care at all about the people but rather geopolitics.

I have to say that I wasn't a big fan of Huckabees, which I thought was just too much of an esoteric lark to make much sense, though it it had some great moments and if nothing else was a very ambitious failure.

I do love Spanking the Monkey (who doesn't!) & Flirting with Disaster. Russell clearly hurt his career with his tirades, but for my money is still possibly the most talented of the "new wave" of American directors that includes Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson, among others.

"The film very clearly attacks Bush Sr. for leaving and abandoning the Iraqi people to fight for themselves. And if you don't believe there are a huge number of Iraqis that want us there now, you should stop getting all of your news from Daily Kos."

Never been to the sigt, but thanks for the generic talking point.

And yes, the movie argues for staying in Iraq durring the first war (a stance I agree with) - as I said, a different context. You are aware that this is over a decade later, with a different war... right?

And if you think the citizens of Iraq reeeeaaaaly want us there, maybe you should stop getting all your news from Rush and Billy O (see, that shit works both ways).

Iraqis want us there just as any civilization would want an army or, preferably, a police force to maintain order. Since we disbanded the Iraqi army four years ago, effectively laying off 500,000 men with semi-automatic weapons, american soldiers have provided that security.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

SCENE FROM A KEVIN SMITH MOVIE.

INT. MALL - DAY

Two Gen-X slackers are walking in a Mall.

SLACKER #1
Fuck this shit. Fuck. fuck. Pussy. That guy's harier than Chewbaca's balls.

SLACKER #2
Man what is it with you? Shit man. Fuck. Does everything have to relate to Star Wars?

Slacker #2 "breaks frame" and looks into the camera.

The End.

storymark,

you response confuses me. while it is two different wars, what makes staying in one different from staying in the other?

and if you are interested in reading a good, non-partisan take on the war, i would highly recommend reading michael yon.

but again, this thread is getting waaaay far away from movies

I'm a big "Unbreakable" fan, but I can't imagine a sequel and, in face, I think Cracked is mistaken about that one. I'm pretty sure Willis was referring not to an "Unbreakable" trilogy, but to a Willis/Shyamalan trilogy. Willis thought he was doing "Signs," too, but Shyamalan went with Gibson. That, I believe, would have been the final part of the "trilogy." ("Unbreakable" did not do "Sixth Sense" business, but it was a hit and it's hard to imagine Disney -- at that time, anyway -- not being up for a sequel if Shyamalan had wanted to do one.)

I'd throw in a pair of Joe Dante projects that never made it: THE BOYS OF TERMITE TERRACE, about the Looney Tunes crew, and JAWS 3, PEOPLE 0, which would have made fun of the franchise just when it needed it. Instead, they made JAWS 3-D. Ugh.

Ironically, Joe was also going to direct GODZILLA REBORN, which would have been the King's "Wrath of Khan"-style reboot. But that script (by yours truly) hasn't been circulated enough to gain much of a reputation.

Wow, nice job, Cadavra. It got circulated enough to get Dante's approval, which is something.

I liked "I Heart Huckabee's." Even looked forward to its 2-disc DVD release. I don't necessarily agree with all that Russel has to say in it but there are moments of great humor and pathos -- I found myself tearing up during the scene when Isabel Huppert confronts Thalia Shire with Jason Schwartzman in her apartment. And let's not forget some really terrific performances by Jude Law, Naomi Watts, and Mark Wahlberg (not to mention the perenially great Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin).

I think Kevin Smith is a bit of an egotistical ass sometimes, what with his constant self-promotion and how he either engages in "flame wars" with critics who trash his movies (it's been a while since I've read anything like that on his blog but those entries do exist) or the meticulous way in which he relates instances in which he's proven himself a pop culture savant over someone else. He recently posted about correcting a journalist who had the gall to write that Alanis Morissette did the song "One of Us," and when the lady didn't immediately acknowledge Smith's assertion that it was in fact a Joan Osborne song, Smith detailed the numerous lengths he went to and e-mails he wrote to the woman before she finally conceded that he was right. Sure, all of us will relate a story like that to our friends, but it's a different thing when you're the millionaire director who's branded himself into a sort of stoner/slacker icon. It reeks of the same pettiness and immaturity that Jude Law's character engages in when regaling his coworkers with his Shania Twain story in "I Heart Huckabee's."
That being said, I don't think Smith's ego is any bigger than any other notable director out there (or even un-notable director, for that matter), he's just more flagrant about it. I think he tried to expand his range a little with "Clerks 2" and when I saw it, I thought it might be better than the original. (I haven't seen either film since so I don't know how I'd feel upon revisiting them and don't really have the desire to do so.) He still is a little developmentally arrested, though, and the thing I respect about him the least is that he essentially makes the same movie every time.

Oh, Story, have you really dragged out that oh-so-tired phrase "talking points?" Wait, let me guess, I'm a "neocon" and "repuke" too, right?

You keep saying how this situation is soooo different than it was a decade previous. Please clarify.

Crickets...

Best to let it stay that way.

Thanks, Jeff, but in truth, Joe's a friend and I wrote it specifically for him to direct.

Lucky bastard.

Cadavra: Is the script online? If so, would you post a link to it? I'm a Godzilla fan from way back and would love to check it out.

Alas, no. E-mail me at cadavra@sbcglobal.net.

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: