The Hot Blog

Good grief.

MGM is cursed. Period. Incredible how a major studio (well, a sort-of-real studio, anyways) WITH MONEY hasn't been able to get its shit together for the last 25 years.

Bond, Pink Panther, Legally Blond 1 and Barbershop. That's the legacy since Silence of the Lambs (that wasn't even really MGM, come to think of it). Hey Paula -- thank your stars you're out of there.

As a former employee, the day I started there I knew it was going to sink (2001). And sink it did. Numerous times, before and since. It's mind-boggling.

A few free-agent signings (Parent, Cruise) does not a team make. They're the Knicks of the movie world. They need to find actual nuts-and-bolts execs, DEVELOP a solid staff -- up and comers etc, not expensive "talent". But who's got the patience any more huh?

So much for building a team. Who the hell would want to set up a movie there anyway.

"In other words, if you need to shift things around to grab $380 million from another division, you probably don’t have enough to keep the railroad running very long."

Poland, that's absolutely right, that's in a nutshell.

This studio is indeed cursed, I remember in the 90s they brought Francis Ford Coppola as a board member - who also helped recut their $100 million sci-fi galactic bomb 'LIFE-something or other' - that movie made EVENT HORIZON look like CITIZEN KANE.

But then again Kirk Kerkorian really has exploited the studio since the early '70s when they sold of the backlot real estate and memorabilia. Thats really when the curse started.

I think you mean Supernova.

That's it - SUPERNOVA.

Francis hasn't made a watchable movie in 20 years, silly that he was brought in to help do anything. But his wine is all over the place now, is it any good? Heard Cruise treats his underlings really badly, Karma perhaps?

Youth Without Youth may not make a whole lot of immediate sense, but it's still a pretty good movie.

And Godfather III isn't great but it's at least 'watchable'. Turn off the sound and it's not bad at all.

His wine is pretty good. His winery is fun -- lots of movie memorabilia.

"Turn off the sound and it's not bad at all."

Perfect description.

Sorry, haters: The Rainmaker is one of Coppola's best. Just as The Gingerbread Man is one of Robert Altman's late-career best. I know it pisses some of you off to know that movies based on John Grisham material (credited or otherwise) could be worth a dman, but there it is.

And Coppola's Russo wine is pretty dang good, too.

YWY: He's been given a special mission to create a study of human consciousness/language because a nuclear war will take place in the future, and the survivors -- the next evolution of man -- will need this as a template. In the end, however, he fails in his mission by choosing love over his work. The moral: We all die in the end, and the greatest success in life is to experience true love.

Mutinyco: Maybe.

Joe: Yes.

The important thing is to pull yourself up by your own hair, to turn yourself inside out, and see the whole world with fresh eyes.

He doesn't do any of that though. He's self-centered and vain, only concerned about himself and his work. Until he falls in love and realizes the only way to finish his work is to kill her. So he lets her live. And after one final argument where his reflection scolds him for his decision and reminds him of the unavoidable nuclear holocaust, he breaks the mirror and dies shortly after.

Er, Mutiny: That was a quote. A facetious quote, but a quote nonetheless. Which is not to say, by the way, that your theory lacks merit. Indeed, it rings true.

Mutiny, that's a really interesting take on the film. For myself, having only seen it once, I was kind of awed by the beauty and the complexity of it. I didn't even care to really dissect it because I was moved on a kind of visceral level. The more I think of it, the more I admire it and I think of it often. I think the ultimate message of it would have to be that love can be distracting and also, important matters (such as his study of language) cannot be left to those who can be so easily distracted. But really, the themes in that film are myriad and it's saying about a thousand different things.

And Joe, I agree with you on The Rainmaker. It's got some moving parts, but it's really kind of a comedy for a lot of the running time. It's the only Grisham adaptation that has fun with it and doesn't take itself too seriously.

Noah: I love the way Damon baits Voight in that one. Also: Mickey Rourke steals every scene that isn't bolted to the floor.

Also DeVito is used effectively for one of the few times in his career. That's the movie that made me believe Damon could be a star because of how deftly he transitions from the poignant moments to the lighter ones. Plus anytime anyone uses Michael Herr to write narration, it's always a plus.

Hey Mutiny, I'm sure I don't remember every detail of Youth Without Youth, but where are you getting 'inevitable nuclear war'? That sounds like something that would have been notable.

Aris - I assumed you worked for MGM when you knew how to spell Yemenidjian's name correctly. 2001 means you walked in when the "For Sale" sign was just hung. IMO, they were always in trouble because of people on the board. Darren Starr's initial idea for a remake of The Party, (make it a black guy!), was the embodiment of derivative thinking. Once they lost all rights to Spider-Man, they gave up.

Coppola's stint at UA also included the re-editing of Jeepers Creepers. That deal was so fast, I never heard why he bailed. The UA label is always misused, no matter who's in charge.

I've always thought Spielberg was going to get Reliance to pony up so he could have the brands and a linchpin with Bond. But after reading the DW/Reliance deal, I'm no longer sure how deep those Indian pockets are. It's a hybrid of the original Paul Allen deal and what Marvel has going. I was expecting something more sediment.

There's an opportunity to cobble some pieces together and build a new kind of entertainment model, but it would take Google-like fortitude.

a) The Nazi scientist explains it to Dominic, as he's trying to convince Dominic to join him. This is still during the war, before Hiroshima. He explains the inevitable and what Dominic's mission really is.

b) Dominic's doppelganger reminds him again toward the end, as he's trying to convince him to finish his work. Dominic is unable to accept the amoral nature of nature -- he's unable to accept that millions/billions might have to die for humanity to evolve.

Dominic is supposed to be the first step in post-human evolution. After the nuclear war will wipe out most of humanity, a new, more evolved version of man, possibly influenced by the radiation, would emerge. And Dominic's work, tracing human language and consciousness, would be required for them as they try to put civilization back together.

William Goldman tries to remind everyone that the actual Deep Throat never said "Follow the money." That's Goldman's line inserted into the movie ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. It's not mentioned anywhere in the book.

BTW, Mutiny, I'm not saying that you're wrong, although I don't remember most of those scenes in the movie - but it strikes me that, if correct, they make the movie unnecessarily complicated and therefore, weaker.

Funny that I've turned out right about the direction this is all taking for MGM. Reliance looking was a given, but I remember saying a long time ago Kirk would come back into the mix.

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: