The Hot Blog

And pretty much everyone will reply to this with a big ol' yawn.

That running time is almost as weird as Lions For Lambs being minus 90minutes.

Heat dropped this in this review; "But here was the covert funding of the war in Afghanistan that happened during the Reagan Administration, leading to The Taliban, who we are still chasing. But it was right at the time… at least on some plane." I have no idea if the phrasing at the end of that sentence is intended or not. Yet it does read like one of the more interesting subconscious slips to appear in one of your reviews. A review that once again demonstrates your ability to ramble, rant, and give a movie a six out of 10 at the same time. A most impressive feat... indeed.

Wow, that movie sounds boring. Pass.

What is the running time??

97 minutes.

I can't wait to see it.

It is a shame Julia roberts has refused to embrace her sexuality along with her star power. Who knows how many great performances we've lost because she refuses to be sexual. I had thought she ws toying with the idea after Closer, She was the only fully realized character in the entire movie. Only in Brokavich has she dared to stur her stuff.

Better actresses who know how to combine sexuality with dramatic force include Frances MacDormmand, Joan Allen, Patricia Clarkson, Julianne Moore, and Ellen Barkin. Melanie Griffith is great when properly directed. Kim Basinger could've been great. Why not Mirren? Wouldn't this have been the right moment to get Debra Winger back onscreen?

Unlike Lumet, Nichols seems to be more comfortable when working in the medium of TV.

Why is 97 minutes a weird running time? After some serious bloat last summer, I would have thought people would welcome a bit more economy in the storytelling

97 minutes? Frigging sweet! I was nervous that it might be another epic-length year-end movies.
Not that there's anything wrong with epic-length movies (I personally can't wait to see "There Will Be Blood" next week), but short and sweet can sometimes be the pause that refreshes.

I love that people are mentioning the 97 minute thing!

I have nothing against long movies but I am getting tired of big, bloated Oscar wannabe films being epic length on principle alone. That 97 minutes shows some sort of courage.

I finally saw American Gangster last week. I liked it but after commercials and trailers the damn thing was nearly a three hour sit and the film did not earn that run time. A good film, but it could have easily been a stronger film if it hovered at the 2 hour mark. I think that the bloated run time of American Gangster is a large part of why the film does not achieve greatness although Washington is great in it.

Again, I loved Knocked Up, but 2 and a 1/4 hours it did not have to be.

Poland writes: "Julia Roberts is game and doesn't cheat with the Big Julia Smile, but she is really miscast here."

You could tell she was miscast from the uneven trailer. Jimmy is right in that she should take more chances like "Closer." Some will work, some won't.

It was the Jimmy Carter gov't that goaded the USSR into invading Afghanistan. The invasion occurred on Xmas Eve 1979.

As Hop said, I can't wait to see it.

Xmas Day 2007 in USA/Canada, wide release. All Universal has to do now is not stick "Academy Award Winner/Nominee" before the stars' names.

I know that's why a lot of people come here, but I really don't care about the oscar chances of this movie, or whether it plays honestly with politics. As a Sorkin fan, all I'm after is a fun, fast-paced dialog, relatively intelligent movie. If it succeeds at that, I'll happily fork over my $10.

"All Universal has to do now is not stick "Academy Award Winner/Nominee" before the stars' names."

So until that happens it'll be a good movie, and after that happens it'll be a bad one?

I pester Chucky about this all the time because it never makes any sense.

This movie will flop. It will have an ok opening and just fade away.

Just like Lions For Lambs big stars movie bombed.

Universal has done a horrible job markteing this movie.

jeffmcm: Oscar-whoring is a crutch for the motion-picture industry. It's being used too often and the results are plain to see.

gr81lives: Go to any theater any day from Xmas Day through New Year's Day -- every day will be just like a Saturday.

Chuck that's what they said about The Good Shepard last year....which is a very good movie

Countdown to Jeff getting flustered about Chucky soon to follow, I'm sure, but this Chucky name-checking shtick HAS to be a "joke," right? I mean, it's amusing and all ONLY in how riled up it gets Jeff and others, but it's gotta be just some low-wattage form of "trolling," right?

Either that, or just the Aspbergeriest internet persona in the history of time.

If it's a joke, the joke is on me. I mean, I really should just give up on trying to make him make sense, but I'm stubborn.

Lex, you must not have come across Daniel Zelter.

Chucky, a movie's marketing department trolling for awards has nothing to do with the quality of the movie itself (The Good Shepherd is a good example.)

Nichols, Nichols, Nichols, but not a single mention of Sorkin, who, given a resume stuffed with politics (THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, STUDIO 60), is probably far more the auteur of this film than the director.

I don't know about that, Cadavra.
Nichols has been THE auteur of all his films since "Virginia Woolf?"
He just hasn't gotten as much credit for it as more obvious auteur directors like Spielberg, Scorsese and DePalma.
I think he's one of the all-time greats, and every movie he directs gets my full and undivided attention.
Hell, I even paid to see "Day of the Dolphin" and "The Fortune" twice back in the 70s!

I wasn't knocking Nichols as a director, but I don't find him to be an "auteur" in the least. He most often puts me in mind of studio vets like Clarence Brown who did "classy adaptations." Look over his resume: almost every film makes you first think of the original author and/or the screenwriter instead of the director: VIRGINIA WOOLF, GRADUATE, CATCH-22, CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, BILOXI BLUES, HEARTBURN, POSTCARDS, BIRDCAGE, ANGELS IN AMERICA, CLOSER, even PRIMARY COLORS. And even a total wipe-out like WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? will make you think Shandling before Nichols. The guy's great, but he leaves no footprints.

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: