Flip

If I recall correctly, Howard Stern once blamed the film Awakenings for being the point in time when Robin Williams elected to mostly forego comedy and DeNiro chose to mostly forego serious roles.

I did like the scenes between Justin Timberlake and Amy Adams. They're both pretty charming on screen.

The fact that scenes between Justin freaking Timberlake and Amy Adams were likely the best written, acted and directed scenes in that movie (a baseball movie starring Clint Eastwood) is in and off itself pretty damning.

OTOH, I didn't realize that the bad guy assistant GM was Matthew Illiard until right at the end, he was pretty useless as a heavy, but it wasn't until the end that he actually stepped out of character to do his patented Illiard-doofuss face mugging that I realized who he was- for Illiard that's a massive improvement, one day he very well may become a competent mediocre role player.

I mean who on earth (other than Uwe Bol) would cast Illiard as your main heavy???
The fact that he managed to play it almost straight while shaven and wearing a suit was actually quite remarkable...

OTOH Robert Patrick's hissy fit upon discovering that his team had just blown the #1 overall pick on a guy who couldn't hit a curve OR CATCH UP TO A POPCORN VENDOR'S FASTBALL, was likely similar to what a real GM would do under such circumstances... or maybe not (who signed Matt Bush?)

An interesting question is who are the current twenty or thirty-something actors who are going to maintain long careers and/or establish themselves as directors, and generally be guys that remain relevant into their 60s.

Ben Affleck is 40 and may not qualify, but whomever else is a candidate has a lot of catching up to do on the directoral side.

Pale Rider came out the next year, and while it had echoes of High Plains Drifter, it was also well received.

Echoes? I assume Pale Rider was the answer to abet where some said, "what kind of film could you make if you combined Shane* with High Plains Drifter?

I also kind of see High Plains Drifter as a sequel to the alternate universe version of High Noon (one where Gary Cooper gets killed)

Then in 1993, he made A Perfect World with Kevin Costner (although I don't think they are in a scene together until the very end), which was also a departure from his normal work.

Near the end when Eastwood realizes that Costner's hand gestures were going to be misinterpreted by the police marksman- there was a look of genuine terror Eastwood's face- that I don't believe that Eastwood had ever displayed before (granted in most of his signature roles his characters were supposed to be fearless badasses...)

*How many people watched that film and don't realize that Shane dies at the end? That he rides off because he knows he's a goner and doesn't want the boy to watch him bleed out and die?

*How many people watched that film and don't realize that Shane dies at the end? That he rides off because he knows he's a goner and doesn't want the boy to watch him bleed out and die?

Probably lots as a discussion of this very scene was in a movie not too long ago.

Saw an interview with Michael Caine where the interviewer actually asked him why he'd appeared in so many awful movies. He looked surprised for a moment and then said something very close to, "their checks cleared". (and added something like I act for a living)

he a good impressionist, too

Ben Affleck is 40 and may not qualify, but whomever else is a candidate has a lot of catching up to do on the directoral side.

First name to pop to my mind. What a great career revival for Affleck, from sort of a joke as an actor to big-time director. I really enjoyed all three of his movies he has done so far.

Sarah Polley will probably maintain a career doing indie type movies, I know both of her movies she has directed have been solidly acclaimed (Away from Her and Take this Waltz). Mark Duplass and Lena Dunham also will probably do well in the indie world as well.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt directed a movie that premiered at Sundance, Don Jon's Addiction. I know the AV Club Review hated it, but it has 3 fresh reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

The nearly perfect Lake Bell also got good reviews for her movie In a World..

Ben Affleck is 40 and may not qualify, but whomever else is a candidate has a lot of catching up to do on the directoral side.

after gigli and pearl harbor i had him written off. he's done a neat career save since then.

coke to inge.

he a good impressionist, too

thats a riot.

Guess I should add James Franco who has decided to take on both As I Lay Dying and Child of God to adapt to the screen (and Franco has directed before, but nothing big).

"What's going on out there that we can sell"
"Product"
"Hype"
It's tough to sell outside of 'core demand' so it was surprising we didn't hear and see something about 'socialism' where everyone jumps into the bushes
that bends to a percentage of GDP
and inflation
laments and the threat of Iran

Red Sox and Dodgers and Marlins in 2013 !

I thought Franco was trying to do Blood Meridian?

I just saw Argo the other day in the annual "watch the Best Picture nominees before the Oscars so I can kvetch about who wins." It was incredibly well directed, with very good ratcheting tension for a film you already know the ending to. Affleck is a very solid director these days.

I also saw Zero Dark Thirty, which is like Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation, a brilliantly made movie endorsing horrific behavior and policy. #### Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal.

Guess I should add James Franco who has decided to take on both As I Lay Dying

For a long time I really hoped somebody, someday, would cast Eastwood as Thomas Sutpen in Absalom, Absalom!
Now he's just too damn old.

EDIT: several good young filmmakers that I'm looking to see how things turn out for them - Sarah Polley, Sofia Coppola, and (now) Ben Affleck.
I guess Coppola doesn't really count as an "actress," but I'm glad she started directing movies.

#### Kathryn Bigelow

Leni Riefenstahl redux.

I saw Zero Dark Thirty last week and was sorely disappointed. The script was bad and the performance by Jessica Chastain was terrible. Way, way overrated movie.

That it portrayed torture by CIA agents as though it was SOP was the cherry on top.

That it portrayed torture by CIA agents as though it was SOP was the cherry on top.

As SOP and also the only way to get information, I turned against the movie fully when the CIA guy was whining to the stand in for Donilon about how they couldn't get any information about the Abottabad compound without torturing people. #### you, Boal.

eta: Of course, having Stannis Baratheon as the NSA was also off-putting, and not merely because he couldn't hide his accent.

I guess Coppola doesn't really count as an "actress," but I'm glad she started directing movies.

She's was okay in The Phantom Menace. Better than Jar-Jar at any rate.

She's was okay in The Phantom Menace. Better than Jar-Jar at any rate.

She did okay as the baby during the baptism scene in The Godfather.

he a good impressionist, too

Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, from The Trip, trying to one up each other with their Michael Caine impressions.

At least Meet the Parents had the sense to derive from something occasionally hilarious, the estimable There's Something About Mary.

Meet the Parents is a remake of a film produced by comedic genius Emo Phillips.

It's like they filmed the cliffs notes instead of the script.

That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking on my way out of Argo. Perfectly good 2hr movie, but it seems like a LOT got cut out, particularly on the characters. There's a few throwaway lines by the hostages that hint at backstories that aren't explained, and Affleck's relationship with his wife is reduced to "Look folks, he got the girl, you can cheer now!" I mean, apart from movie cliche, why even include that at the end if you're not going to set it up? I'd have loved a 3hr cut (####, maybe a miniseries) that fleshed out the relationships between the hostages, explained Affleck's fam situation, etc....; seems like rather than do a full take on either, both got truncated. Still a perfectly enjoyable film, but meh. Not sure if that's on the writer or the director or the studio or whatever.

She's was okay in The Phantom Menace. Better than Jar-Jar at any rate.

She'd have to channel Meryl Streep for a good long while to even begin to remove the stain of GFIII.

I also saw Zero Dark Thirty, which is like Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation, a brilliantly made movie endorsing horrific behavior and policy. #### Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal.

Wow. Totally the opposite of how I saw the movie. I'm not sure how you could watch the torture scenes and feel like the movie was endorsing torture. It seemed like a story about obsessed people pursuing a perhaps laudable goal, but by the end you're supposed to be asking yourself whether it was worth it.

The fact that the CIA guy ####### about not having the detainee program anymore didn't seem like an editorial stance in favor of the program, just like something a CIA guy would do. The main torturer on the other hand was the least confident Osama was in the complex because he didn't believe in the reliability of the information gained from the program.

The entirety of ZDT was a paean to how we need monsters to protect us, there was literally nothing shown about how torture is incredibly unreliable.

edit: Obviously this is from my viewpoint. But I went in expecting a hell of a lot more nuance than there was, and more given to how the process of intelligence work is (from my understanding) the long slow cultivation of datapoints into a coherent picture. Instead it seemed to me that it was mostly "torture works, and we'd have gotten Bin Laden sooner if we'd been more willing to torture and listen to the lady who inspired Maya" with the caveat that it showed how monomaniacal Maya was about the topic and that her certitude exceeded the evidence.

I found Argo to be dull, slow paced, no real tension, no real characters, and no real story. Barely got to know any of the characters, barely got to know what was happening or why or what it all meant and it all builds up to what, a phone ringing? Not a good movie at all.

barely got to know what was happening or why or what it all meant

Even if I disagree, I can understand the other criticisms. This, however, what?

Leni Riefenstahl? Jesus.

I found ZDT gripping, but I do understand if people disagree with how you see its relationship to the behavior of its characters.

I liked Argo fine. Won't be upset if it wins. I honestly liked all seven BP nominees that I have seen (I've seen Les Mis on Broadway and that was enough times; will get around to Amour eventually).

Note: This has never happened to me before. Usually something winning would really bother me. Les Mis would, I guess, but as I haven't seen it I can't really say much.

I also found ZDT gripping. It was really well done. I just feel gross having watched an excellent movie that I believe at it's core is aimed at justifying torture.

I just feel gross having watched an excellent movie that I believe at it's core is aimed at justifying torture.

I get this notion, but I have never felt like the case against torture was that it was ineffective. Whether it is effective or ineffective should be irrelevant. We should be repulsed by it because it is grossly immoral, and from what I have read (still haven't seen the film yet), the film does a good job showing how repulsive torture can be.

Even if I disagree, I can understand the other criticisms. This, however, what?

I'm talking big picture. The Canadians and their roles, the danger, what it meant to America, the fallout, the aftermath, so on and so on. In the end it was several people looking kind of nervous in a house while several recognizable actors quipped some one liners in California.

I believe "at its core" it was about a Pyrrhic victory.

Wow. Totally the opposite of how I saw the movie. I'm not sure how you could watch the torture scenes and feel like the movie was endorsing torture. It seemed like a story about obsessed people pursuing a perhaps laudable goal, but by the end you're supposed to be asking yourself whether it was worth it.

I feel the same way about Saving Private Ryan. My GF thought it was a rah-rah-U-S-A, pro-war movie. I found that baffling.
GRAVEYARD! FLAGS! "TELL ME I'M A GOOD MAN"! ETC!

Jack Carter is to Eastwood what Bill James is to Rogers Hornsby :-)

Pshaw, sir!

Unforgiven is a tremendous film. I just don't see it as the residue of cinematic excellence, but rather the result of hard work and a lot of luck, the same way a .275 hitter who busts his ass will have a .360 season more often than a .275 hitter who coasts. Oh, and as godawful as its script was, Gran Torino was great fun to watch.

First, stretching a bore like Harry to five films was a filmically depraved thing to do.
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before. Saw an interview with Michael Caine where the interviewer actually asked him why he'd appeared in so many awful movies. He looked surprised for a moment and then said something very close to, "their checks cleared". (and added something like I act for a living)

Also explained that he didn't direct for much the same reason. He could act in many more movies than he could direct (and was always in demand)

Also said that he'd take some roles without even reading the script if they were being shot in an interesting location.

If someone can pick up a mil or three for a months work, or hang out with fun people in Rio and get paid, more power to them. It's reasonable to expect your rep as an artist to take a hit, though, in some measure because when you're always working, and don't distinguish between things of value and utter shite, your work suffers. I don't know anyone for whom that's not true. Imagine if between novels Pynchon was writing commerical jingles. There's the occasional Dickens, but everyone else needs a break, or they pay.

The popular opinion of Eastwood actually began to change when he made "Tightrope" in 1984.

That's my recollection as well. A friend dragged me to Tightrope and I was expecting the worst. Instead there was this intriguing look at a haunted man and his doppelganger, who had all the man's flaws but none of his guilt and therefore none of his restraint.

That bit at the end with the severed arm was a little much, though.

At least Meet the Parents had the sense to derive from something occasionally hilarious, the estimable There's Something About Mary.

Meet the Parents is a remake of a film produced by comedic genius Emo Phillips.

I like Phillips, but the Stiller Parents is only very loosely based on the earlier version, and draws very heavily on the shtiks in Mary for its best scenes, especially those where a scene spirals more and more out of control (for the fake cat in Parents, see the resuscitated dog in Mary, and so on).

She'd have to channel Meryl Streep for a good long while to even begin to remove the stain of GFIII.

Or, for me, the superficial, clownish, Lost in Translation. What a godawful movie. Bill Murray's really tall. The Japanese are really short. Hahahahaha. The Japanese director says 100 words. His translator says three. Hahahahaha. Repeat.

There's no sense of pain, of loss. No sense of desire in the middle aged man for the beautiful young woman. What a fraud that was.

"I saw it on a plane flight, and even with all its faults, it was still better than the alternatives."

Me, too. For the limited offerings SAS had on trans-Atlantic flight, this was great entertainment. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

then again, i am almost constantly in a sentimental mood, and a father-daughter thang works for me.

then there was Looper.. whoa.. cool movie..

I'm talking big picture. The Canadians and their roles, the danger, what it meant to America, the fallout, the aftermath, so on and so on.

Well, this was simply a different film you were looking for, I think.

Yeah, it never seemed to be about that to me at all.

Well, this was simply a different film you were looking for, I think.

Yes. I was looking for something that didn't feel like a mediocre conversion to film of an off broadway play but that is what I got.

I also found ZDT gripping. It was really well done.

See, I didn't think it was all that well done. The script was very weak. Most of the individual scenes were well-crafted, I'll give Bigelow that much. But some of them were absurd, too. Like, when they are finally having the big meeting with Panetta to convince him they think they found the compound where Bin Laden is living and Pinetta turns to Maya and says "Who are you?" and she says "I'm the ############ who found this place.". That would never have happened. Never. I suppose the scene was made to make Maya seem tough and obsessed but all it did was make her seem unprofessional and straining to project false bravura. And Chastain's performance was very stiff, wooden and uni-dimensional. All she did was look serious and intense. Nothing else. And the character itself was absurd. If the information provided to backfill her bio was correct, it appears she joined the CIA as an intern right out of high school and was leading the Bin Laden investigation when she was like 22-24 years old. Yeah, right. And I have a bridge to sell you.

There was no time spent on the preparation of the raid. There was no time spent on a discussion of the implications of going in without telling the Pakistanis. There was no time, as Scott points out, spent on the "soft" interrogation techniques that professional interrogators will tell you yielded most of the useful information. I thought it was a bad movie trying to be a good movie.

Speaking of movies and Posnanski he has reportedly inked a movie deal for his book "Paterno" to be directed by Brian DePalma and starring Al Pacino.

I assume Pale Rider was the answer to abet where some said, "what kind of film could you make if you combined Shane* with High Plains Drifter?

Aside: I saw this in the theater with my step father, and at the end he loudly exclaimed "Come back Shane". It was awesome.

One of the things I found amusing about ZDT was the trailers and commercials for it. In the trailers they make the film seem like the focus of the moving was going to be on the special forces and their assault on the compound and instead we got this movie about torture and, well, something else.

I've always felt that if they ever did a movie about Sherman or the march to the sea or anything really involving Sherman that Will Patton would make a perfect Sherman. Unfortunately he might be getting a little too old to play him.

Speaking of movies and Posnanski he has reportedly inked a movie deal for his book "Paterno" to be directed by Brian DePalma and starring Al Pacino.

Financially, Pos was sure in the right place at the right time, no?

So in other words, ZDT is like Starship Troopers in that you can't tell if they're kidding or not?

Pass.

Yes. I was looking for something that didn't feel like a mediocre conversion to film of an off broadway play but that is what I got.

You were expecting a bigger film, and you didn't get it. Not the film's fault.

You were expecting a bigger film, and you didn't get it. Not the film's fault.

No. I was expecting a film to deliver something and it largely delivered a mediocre film. Who were the hostages? What pressure were they under? We don't know. I doubt if anybody in the theater knew their names or could identify with them at all. Who was Ben's character? Was he making sacrifices and if so did we feel that? Not really. And the tension? It comes down a phone ringing. How cliche. About the only good scene that sort of showed the danger and tension was the scene where the whole group was pretending to be the film crew and wandering around Tehran but Ben did such a piss poor job building up to that point that it largely means nothing because we have nothing invested in the characters.

For the most part the film ran like they took the wikipedia entry for this event and filmed it.

<Speaking of movies and Posnanski he has reportedly inked a movie deal for his book "Paterno" to be directed by Brian DePalma and starring Al Pacino.

Sandusky is presumably being played by Jeffrey Jones.



So, aside from critical analysis of ZDT, how graphic is it? If you're slightly (or more) squeamish about blood and gore, is it a tolerable movie?