Monday tracking

email this story
read comments (59)
post a comment

Rush Hour 3 (which I saw this evening...don't ask) is tracking at 91, 49 and 18. It'll do $40 to $50 million this weekend (not so bad) but New Line spent a fortune to make it, they're pissed at Ratner for going over-budget, they paid loads of money to Rats, Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker because nobody wanted to do it, and they all have huge back end deals.

Daddy Day Camp (Cuba Gooding revoltathon) is tracking at 82,16 and 2. Skinwalkers, the werewofl movie, is 26, 28 and 2. Stardust...61, 27 and 5. In short, no real competition for Rush Hour 3 among the newbies.

The Invasion (8.17) is tracking 52, 22 and...toilet time. The Last Legion is 21, 18 and nothing. Superbad is still struggling with 45, 28 and 3....definite interest has gone up only 1 point. Mr. Bean's Holiday is running at 46, 17 and 1 Rod Lurie's Resurrecting the Champ is at 27, 18 and nothing. September Dawn is 16, 14 and 0. The War....35, 35 and 2.

Julie Delpy "2 Days in Paris"<< previous | next >>Carlisle taking Schwartz's job

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 6, 2007 at 11:51 PM

comment #1

Dan Revill says ...

I'll definitely see Stardust this weekend.

And come on Jeff, tell us how much you loved Rush Hour 3. I will probably see it eventually...given that it'll be a convenient way to kill an afternoon. The first two were fun enough. Nothing memorable, but okay. No crime with that.

Posted by Dan Revill at August 7, 2007 1:03 AM

comment #2

Bob Violence says ...

The first two were basically made to be watched on TBS at two in the morning when you can't get to sleep and there's nothing on the other channels but infomercials. What did they spend on this one, $150 million? Geez.

Posted by Bob Violence at August 7, 2007 2:43 AM

comment #3

BurmaShave says ...

According to Quint over at Ain't It Cool, there is a bit of comic mischief involving Roman Polanski's character and an anal probe/rape. I rarely think this, much less say, but I am now boycotting this film. I'm past it, I think the man has suffered enough and he should be allowed to live his life, but to make light of it is taking it all one step too far. I hope he just didn't really know what was going on. I mean, I'm there for POMPEII on opening day, no question.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 7, 2007 3:55 AM

comment #4

Ogami Itto says ...

"According to Quint over at Ain't It Cool, there is a bit of comic mischief involving Roman Polanski's character and an anal probe/rape."

And the number of reasons not to see this movie continues to multiply.... What do you expect from Ratner, good taste?

So let me see: Ratner is pals with Polanski, Tucker is pals with Michael Jackson -- which sexual deviate is Jackie Chan pals with?

Posted by Ogami Itto at August 7, 2007 5:40 AM

comment #5

Breedlove says ...

Jackie Chan goes way back with the guy played by Bill Sadler in 'Kinsey.' They're tight.

Posted by Breedlove at August 7, 2007 6:26 AM

comment #6

Breedlove says ...

Also: Chris Tucker's career absolutely fascinates me. He blows up as a potentially huge, $20 million a movie comedy star, and then proceeds to turn everything down for the next decade other than the two sequels. Bizarre career management. I'm not sure what this guy's interests are, but it's not movies. Secondly, it would be a great little boost to the summer if STARDUST is great. Some say it is. The previews and tv commercials suck. It looks like it was made for tv. So we'll see. RESCUE DAWN is the best movie of the summer. See it.

Posted by Breedlove at August 7, 2007 6:30 AM

comment #7

source188 says ...

Agreed about Rescue Dawn, really captivating film with some career-defining performances. Ratatouille was also a favorite of mine this summer and year so far.

Posted by source188 at August 7, 2007 6:40 AM

comment #8

Breedlove says ...

Oops, you were writing about SEPTEMBER DAWN, not RESCUE DAWN. Well, the latter is still damn good.

Posted by Breedlove at August 7, 2007 7:38 AM

comment #9

D.Z. says ...

Burma: "According to Quint over at Ain't It Cool, there is a bit of comic mischief involving Roman Polanski's character and an anal probe/rape. I rarely think this, much less say, but I am now boycotting this film. I'm past it, I think the man has suffered enough and he should be allowed to live his life,"

He didn't go to jail, so has he really suffered? Anyway, the fact that he agreed to the sketch indicates he still doesn't have any remorse for his crime.

Posted by D.Z. at August 7, 2007 7:43 AM

comment #10

Don Murphy says ...

DZ- his wife and child were murdered for no reason along with his best friend and you question his suffering (this after his family was killed by Nazis). You are a pathetic little worm and everyone here knows it.

Posted by Don Murphy at August 7, 2007 8:04 AM

comment #11

Ponderer says ...

Amen. Polanski made a mistake with how he faced his charges, but between Manson and the fucking Holocaust, he's probably suffered thirty times what most of us will ever imagine experiencing.

Posted by Ponderer at August 7, 2007 8:09 AM

comment #12

The Movie Man says ...

Mr. Murphy can be a bit aggressive, but I would like to second his comment regarding D.Z. and third his comment regarding Polanski.

I didn't participate in the earlier Ratner threads because it seemed that everything had been said before I read it, but let me say this anyway. I think Ratner is a very, very average director who rubs people in such an extreme wrong way because he wants it BOTH ways.

He name drops Polanski, Herzog, Cassavetes, etc. in an effort to get cred while selling out for vacuous projects every chance he gets. Michael Bay and some of the others at least seemingly own up to what they do, and Bay has a technical proficiency that Ratner hasn't so far displayed. I think Ratner would get a little more respect if he just manned up to what he does.

All that said, I thought Rush Hour 2 and After the Sunset were thoroughly ok, no more, maybe less, but that's sort of Ratner to a tee.

Posted by The Movie Man at August 7, 2007 8:17 AM

comment #13

Don Murphy says ...

actually Ponderer he made no mistake- he cut a deal. Then when he learned that the showboating judge was going to scuttle the deal to make an example of him, he fled because he could.

And DZ is an incredible douchebag- nothing aggressive about it.

Posted by Don Murphy at August 7, 2007 8:22 AM

comment #14

Ponderer says ...

Right, Don. I say it was a mistake because, even though you're absolutely correct about the judge's antics (and it's unthinkable that Polanski would've been sentenced to 50 years), I believe that Roman could've appealed whatever crazy sentence was ladled out to him. I can't be in his shoes or privy to his decision-making process, of course, but I wonder if that option wouldn't have been preferable to 30 years of virtual exile.

Posted by Ponderer at August 7, 2007 8:36 AM

comment #15

DavidF says ...

I saw the trailer for RH 3 on the weekend and was stunned - STUNNED - at how horrible it looks.

I mean, I seem to recall seeing the first one and finding it entertaining enough for what it was but they're just doing the same shit...but, like, louder (and with 5X the budget).

What is the deal with Chris Tucker? HE doesn't get any jobs except for the $20mill the Rush Hour people throw at him every couple of years? Dude looks fat (since Jeff didn't say it already) and while his style kinda suited The Fifth Element I just don't get him.

Are there people out there who have RH and RH2 on DVD? Are people actually waiting for this movie to a degree that justifies it costing more than Transformers? As for Polanski being involved, I'm at a total loss.

If anyone can explain this whole thing to me, I'm listening.

Posted by DavidF at August 7, 2007 8:39 AM

comment #16

ScottMendelson says ...

To answer a much asked question about where Tucker's been... In between Rush Hour 1 and Rush Hour 2, he found Jesus (which explains why he barely swears in part 2). After wrapping Rush Hour 2, he spent the next few years in Africa doing AIDS relief work. Not sure what he was up to after he came back to the states, but you're right when you say he has other priorities than movies.

Scott Mendelson

Posted by ScottMendelson at August 7, 2007 8:53 AM

comment #17

Sean says ...

"but I wonder if that option wouldn't have been preferable to 30 years of virtual exile."

It's not virtual exile. He was a French citizen who always lived in France and never had a home in America who committed a terrible sex crime in America, in his friend's home, and then decided that he didn't deserve to be punished for it and went back to France, knowing he'd have no extradition because he was a French citizen.

The reason he anally raped the 13-year-old girl in Jack Nicholson's house was because he had no house of his own in America, because he didn't live here. It's not exile; he's just back at home now.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 9:10 AM

comment #18

Don Murphy says ...

Where was Jesus when he found him? What did he have to say for himself about all the bullshit in his name the last two thousand years?

Posted by Don Murphy at August 7, 2007 9:11 AM

comment #19

Sean says ...

"DZ- his wife and child were murdered for no reason along with his best friend and you question his suffering (this after his family was killed by Nazis). You are a pathetic little worm and everyone here knows it."

Don, while I would never side with D.Z. on anything, I believe his point was that he never "suffered" punishment for his crime.

If you think that the suffering that he went through in his life pre-1970 (which was surely epic) is enough that he earned the right to give Qualuudes to a 13 year old girl and then anally (among other places) rape her... well, that's your business.

In my mind, the fact that you were a victim of various cruelties at one time does not justify becoming a victimizer.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 9:19 AM

comment #20

Don Murphy says ...

Sean who knows little-

Thankfully, you can put your self righteousness back in your pants, seeing as the alleged (Polanski was never convicted) victim Samantha Geimer has forgiven him as of many years ago. Maybe you can discuss that forgiveness with the newly found Jesus that is staying at Chris Tucker's house.

Posted by Don Murphy at August 7, 2007 9:23 AM

comment #21

DavidF says ...

If Tucker's actually found Jesus and been helping AIDS victims in Africa, shit - good for him. Just tell him to keep up with that, don't make any more Rush Hour movies and everybody will be happy.

You have to have at least some admiration for the Hollywood people who take time off to like, do something with their lives. Even Julia Roberts stepped back for a few years (but then she made Oscar-type movies, instead of Rush Hour 3, but still....)

As for Polanski, it's amazing how upset people get about it. I wish there was a way for him to resolve this to everyone else's satisfaction. There was a statuatory rape; the judge broke the deal they made; he ran; the victim forgave him....what else is there to say, really? It's not that I don't understand someone like Sean's POV but once you find out the details you have to ask yourself just who is your anger FOR exactly?

And this thread has skipped over the Daddy Day Camp stuff. Jerry Maguire and even As Good as It Gets showed that Cuba Gooding can act. What the hell has been going on since? Can't he get a SINGLE good role offer anymore?

Posted by DavidF at August 7, 2007 9:32 AM

comment #22

mitch says ...

oh how I love those dems:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07bword.html?ei=5090&en=8bb9b60b7da0d2ed&ex=1344139200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

I'm guessing that, if anything, polanski would not have served time for the rape of his young victin but more likely for terming her *bitch* during the act.

Posted by mitch at August 7, 2007 9:40 AM

comment #23

SHR says ...

Murphy--Polanski drugged and fucked a thirteen year old---the victim forgiving him when she was 40 doesn't obviate the fact that he is slime---and its only an "alleged" crime because the defendant ran away and hid when he knew he was guilty.

Posted by SHR at August 7, 2007 9:52 AM

comment #24

Sean says ...

"Thankfully, you can put your self righteousness back in your pants,"

Yes, those of us who would never anally rape a 13-year-old girl do tend to get all "self-righteous" about criticizing those people who have.

I totally agree that they are ethical gray areas in life; the death penalty, for instance. Abortion, to some. I've never met anybody who would defend anally raping a 13-year-old girl as one of those ethical gray areas. But maybe it is... let's see what everybody thinks.

Am I wrongly judging Polanski by my own ethics when I criticize him for anally raping a 13-year old girl (a crime he readily admits)?
"seeing as the alleged (Polanski was never convicted)"

That's a pretty lousy defense, since Polanski himself has consistently said that he had sex with the girl, and a key component of his plea bargain was that he conceded his guilt.

"victim Samantha Geimer has forgiven him as of many years ago."

If you consider her statement to be forgiveness, that's fine. Of course, to accept that, you also have to accept that he did something wrong for her to forgive. But you won't even concede that he did anything wrong, so what, exactly, did she forgive?

"Maybe you can discuss that forgiveness with the newly found Jesus that is staying at Chris Tucker's house."

That's funny. It makes no sense, but it's funny.

Don, if you really want to get this worked up over defending Polanski on-line, that's cool. But you should probably stop and think about how silly the argument is.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 9:54 AM

comment #25

Breedlove says ...

Scott Mendelson - Chris Tucker spent "a few years in Africa doing AIDS relief work?" C'mon, man. Really? I'm sure the guy gives money and time to AIDS charities and has been to Africa, which I applaud. But that descripton's a bit much. It would annoy me if I was someone who really had been doing AIDS relief work in Africa the past few years. Are you SURE he didn't spend any of that time holed in some huge mansion in Atlanta eating cheeseburgers and fried chicken?

Posted by Breedlove at August 7, 2007 9:56 AM

comment #26

Sean says ...

SHR - thank you, you're right; I forgot to include "after dosing her with Qualuudes" every time I said that Polanski "anally raped a 13-year-old girl".

Now, keep in mind, I personally think that the fact that he anally raped a 13-year-old girl after dosing her with Qualuudes does not change the fact that he is a brilliant director, who deserved his Oscar. I am not criticizing Polanski as an artist. I am merely saying that he committed at least one horrible act that we know about, and that I personally believe that his horrible act can be justified or mitigated by the fact that horrible things were done to him as well. (If anything, I would think that being a victim would make him *more* sympathetic to other victims, but, of course, being a victim when you're young often turns people into sociopathic victimizers).

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 10:01 AM

comment #27

Sean says ...

PS to Don:

"Sean who knows little-"

Please, point out anything I said which was untrue. Also, I notice you didn't actually answer anything I said, you just responded to the fact that I would dare to say anything bad about Polanski. I wonder if you would defend Victor Salva this strenuously.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 10:04 AM

comment #28

Sean says ...

"can be justified" = "can not be justified" (obviously)

PS to Don:

"Sean who knows little-"

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 10:05 AM

comment #29

Don Murphy says ...

Sean- there are some people who are beyond saving. Jesus teaches that in the Epistle to the Bushes, 3:11. You are one of those people.

Chris will pray for the repose of your soul.

Posted by Don Murphy at August 7, 2007 10:10 AM

comment #30

christian says ...

RUSH HOUR 3?

isn't there enough suffering in the world?

Posted by christian at August 7, 2007 10:10 AM

comment #31

Bocephus says ...

More like Cuba BADDING Jr.

I don't think As Good As it Gets or Jerry Maguire proved that he could act. They just proved that he could charismatically read well-written lines.

And Chris Tucker uses divine powers to gain his $20 million RH paychecks, I believe he is the human reincarnation of some horrible ancient god of shrillness.

Posted by Bocephus at August 7, 2007 10:11 AM

comment #32

Sean says ...

"As for Polanski, it's amazing how upset people get about it. I wish there was a way for him to resolve this to everyone else's satisfaction. There was a statuatory rape; the judge broke the deal they made; he ran; the victim forgave him....what else is there to say, really? It's not that I don't understand someone like Sean's POV but once you find out the details you have to ask yourself just who is your anger FOR exactly?"

Are you asking me, or just in general?

Me, personally, I am angry for our country. It's the same anger I felt when O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty", the same anger I expect to feel when that football player is given a slap on the wrist for dog-fighting. It bothers me any time it is proven that rich people can get away with whatever crimes they want.

I also get angry when people try to defend his crime with stupid bullshit, like "oh, she forgave him" (which is a tough interpretation to justify), or "he was never convicted" (because he ran away before he could be). If you want to try to defend his action, go ahead; I find what he did reprehensibly immoral. Maybe you don't. But don't try to ignore the crime and paint people who think he should've been punished for it as zealots. I think people should suffer for the crimes they choose to commit.

Also, I think that this is one of those times where the line between "statuatory rape" and "child molestation" is very blurry. But, yes, I do tend to get angry about child molestors; something about the evil of the act blinds me to the merits of the person as a human being.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 10:18 AM

comment #33

actionman says ...

interesting to hear that stuff about what Chris Tucker has been doing with his time away from movies. I'd heard that he spends most of his time smoking weed.

Posted by actionman at August 7, 2007 10:20 AM

comment #34

Sean says ...

"Sean- there are some people who are beyond saving. Jesus teaches that in the Epistle to the Bushes, 3:11. You are one of those people."

Really? Can you ask Him, am I beyond forgiveness because I have never in my life believed in His existence?

Or is it *just* because I consider anally raping a child after drugging her to be an immoral act worthy of punishment? [Actually, being fair, it would be immoral whether he drugged her or not; the drugging is a tool by which he anally raped her.]

I would think Jesus would be against that sort of thing. Though it would explain some things about his flock, and their penchant for anally raping children.

I'm sure you defended Catholic priests as strenuously as you defend Roman Polanski, right? (And I'm going to assume that you *would* defend Victor Salva this strenuously, since you didn't say that you wouldn't.)

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 10:22 AM

comment #35

Dan Revill says ...

The article is a little old, but it does back up the statement that Chris Tucker has been over in Africa at least some of the time:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_1_102/ai_87855310

Posted by Dan Revill at August 7, 2007 10:39 AM

comment #36

christian says ...

dave chappelle has had an obvious spiritual epiphany. i'm not seeing that from tucker. but then his very voice instills havoc in my soul.

Posted by christian at August 7, 2007 10:45 AM

comment #37

Don Murphy says ...

you can assume anything you want on the internets Sean, so go right ahead. I've already assumed you were a fast food clerk with internet access.

Posted by Don Murphy at August 7, 2007 10:46 AM

comment #38

Josh Massey says ...

Tucker lives about 10 miles from me, and to my knowledge, he's only been in trouble with the law once. And check out the mugshot. He was pulled over for speeding on the way to church. I've met the man a couple times and was blown away by how friendly he was to everyone around him - not to mention how quiet he was. Say what you want about his movies, but the guy seems pretty genuine, and seems not to care about movies at all except as a paycheck. I don't have a problem with that.

Posted by Josh Massey at August 7, 2007 10:50 AM

comment #39

Fred Mounts says ...

Can someone update me on why Don Murphy is always such an asshole? Apparently disagreeing with him on anything is a no-no. Maybe the folks in San Diego should have ass-raped him when they had him down.

So...Don, please be creative with your insults directed at me. I would expect nothing less from one of the creative geniuses behind the opus that is Transformers.

Posted by Fred Mounts at August 7, 2007 11:26 AM

comment #40

NYCBusybody says ...

So, according to moral degenerates like Ponderer and Don Murphy (who, seriously, seem like they should be locked up a priori as potential sex offenders)....anyone who had parents who died in the Holocaust or has had family members/spouses/children murdered is given a free pass to rape children?

Anyone who defends Polanski in such a way should be suspected for child molestation themselves.

Posted by NYCBusybody at August 7, 2007 11:31 AM

comment #41

Sean says ...

Don - I really don't think personal insults, no matter how laughably off-base, are the way to go.

However, if you want to descend to that level, all I have to do is point out that you were a major component in producing 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' and 'Double Dragon', arguably the worst movies of their respective decades.

It's no wonder you defend Polanski so strongly; what you did to Alan Moore's works was the filmic equivalent of anal rape.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 11:31 AM

comment #42

Sean says ...

"anyone who had parents who died in the Holocaust or has had family members/spouses/children murdered is given a free pass to rape children?"

Loathe as I am to agree with NYCBB, I must confess I was wondering the same thing; is this like when Nixon got pardoned by Ford for *all* future crimes he might commit? Is there a certain number of rapes he is allowed (perhaps a complex ratio of number of rapes multiplied by the inverse of the age of the child?)? Is it a length of time during which he is allowed to commit whatever rapes he chooses? How does this moral justification work?

Just curious.

Allow me to seperate myself from NYCBB by pointing out that I would never accuse Murphy of being a sex offender merely because he defends an anal-rapist. I just think he's laughably wrong-headed about who he chooses to defend.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 11:36 AM

comment #43

NYCBusybody says ...

I didn't accuse him of being a sex offender. Just a potential one. I think that's fair. When you vociferously and gallantly defend, and seem to outright pardon raping a child, then spewing insults at people who want to see someone punished for that act...it just makes me wonder. That's all.

I've seen "Capturing the Friedmans". I'm no witchhunter. Just saying. Seems weird.

Posted by NYCBusybody at August 7, 2007 11:42 AM

comment #44

Sean says ...

As I said, I wish to distance myself from that part of your statement, while agreeing with the part about the odd moral statement regarding previous suffering (possibly limited to the Holocaust and the Mansons) giving a person a "commit immoral acts with no consequence" card.

I think Polanski should be punished, but I don't think Don Murphy (or anybody else) should be "locked up" for defending him, no matter how strenuously.

Of course, I'd also like it if Don Murphy offered a reason for his defense, rather than just insulting people who believe Polanski should be punished for anally raping a 13-year-old after dosing her with Qualuudes... but I don't expect that anymore. He doesn't seem interested in the conversation.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 11:52 AM

comment #45

DavidF says ...

I like how this thread has 3 rotating themes:

1) Chris Tucker is SO annoying! How is that guy so rich?

2) Cuba Gooding and/or Dave Chapelle are, like Chris Tucker, actors who are African American and who are often annoying.
They are not, however, Big Black Guys Who Like Big Violent Dogs. That's a whole other problem with blacks. Am I right? Who is with me? Why can't they all be like Michael Jordan. He seems like a nice guy...

3) Sean likes typing "anally raping," "raped anally" and variants thereof. Let's all be clear: It wasn't JUST some girl being raped - It was a 13 year old girl being anally raped. Everyone clear on that? No - let me repeat in point form:
Age or rapee: 13
Sex: F
Raped: Yes
Vaginal:No
Anal: Hell, yeah
Drugs involved: Quaaludes
Occupation of rapist: Oscar winning director (and occasional actor, Kitty Cat!)
People who think he should fry: Sean, board dude
People who think he's groovy: Don Murphy, producer of Transformers (YEAH!) and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (Noooo!)

Yeah, that seems to some up the gist of it.
I don't even totally disagree with Sean. It's just that we get the idea.

Posted by DavidF at August 7, 2007 1:23 PM

comment #46

DavidF says ...

p.s. Please pardon my stupid typos above.
And since the conversation devolved from how Polanski first got brought up lemme say that IF Polanski's RH3 role involves some kinda anal probe joke....yeah, I think that would cross a line.
Unless, of course, he'd like to read this great script I wrote which needs someone to play this funny serial killer type who digs The Beatles...Since I hope to avoid RH3 as long as I live hopefully I will never know the truth.

Posted by DavidF at August 7, 2007 1:29 PM

comment #47

Sean says ...

David - The reason I keep saying "anally raped a 13-year-old girl after dosing her with Qualuudes" is that people who defend Polanski tend to write it off, like, "Hey, no big deal, that sort of thing happens all the time."

I find that it becomes harder and harder for people to do that when repeatedly confronted with the reality of the horrible nature of the crime.

And let me say, for the record, I still personally think there is a big difference between a finger up an ass and anal rape; the fact that Quint couldn't see that difference says a lot about the reviewers at AICN, but I'm personally fairly sure that Ratner and Polanski are aware of that difference. (Polanski especially, since he's old enough to have had a medical finger up his ass, and has committed anal rape, he would be in a very good position to judge the difference.)

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 1:42 PM

comment #48

Sean says ...

But, also for the record, she was apparently vaginally raped as well, and I don't think Polanski should "fry"... I just think that he could stand to be punished for his crime.

I don't even think he should've been denied the Oscar, as many do. I do think the standing ovation was a bit much.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 1:44 PM

comment #49

christian says ...

i do think it's weird for polanski to partake in this sort of gag. first, from a taste/ethical stand, and second, it's shocking that the screenwriter was paid 3 million to come up with something so utterly unique as a character sliding on a white glove to perform an anal probe. why, i don't think i've seen that in every single bad comedy tv/film of the past 10 years.

and even michael moore used that image for SICKO.

Posted by christian at August 7, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #50

DavidF says ...

Finger up the ass jokes peaked with Chevy Chase's "Mooooon River..." in Fletch.
Not an opinion: An objective cinematic fact.

I don't understand why RH 3 is being made.
I don't understand why anyone is giving Chris Tucker more than everyone on this board (save Murphy) will see in their lifetime.
I don't understand who will go see this movie.
I don't understand why Polanski would act in it.

I don't understand a lot, clearly. And I kinda thought Ratner did a good job mocking himself on Entourage but it only counts if he never again makes a movie like this. Never. Red Dragon and X3 both had their moments even if neither was GOOD but the guy clearly needs to be stopped.

Posted by DavidF at August 7, 2007 1:56 PM

comment #51

Sean says ...

Polanski acted in it because he's friendly with Ratner and they were filming in Paris. It's not like he's usually busy, and I'm sure he made more for a day of filming that than he made for 'The Pianist'.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 1:59 PM

comment #52

Sean says ...

Also, David - I don't think he *was* mocking himself. Ratner lives exactly the sort of life that 'Entourage' celebrates.

I enjoy 'Entourage' a lot, but that lifestyle-porn aspect of it is the thing that makes it hard for me to own up to enjoying it.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 2:24 PM

comment #53

Don Murphy says ...

Sean - I returned here to see what cowardly concoctions you might be brewing, and found you as usual good for a laugh. Double Dragon attacks are my favorite kind. So 1996 of you.

The only person who has any right to have any problem with Polanski vis a vis what allegedly happened that day is Samantha Geimer. She went on Larry King (transcript on line)and indicated that he deserved time served and that that was the plea agreement. You can scream and cry that I should be anally raped (your new obsession) but that doesn't matter. What the victims says matters. She is over it.

Posted by Don Murphy at August 7, 2007 3:16 PM

comment #54

Sean says ...

"Sean - I returned here to see what cowardly concoctions you might be brewing, and found you as usual good for a laugh. Double Dragon attacks are my favorite kind. So 1996 of you."

You should've thrown in a 'statute of limitations' joke. (I could *totally* write your kind of shitty movies.)

That's a fair point, which is why I included two of the last three films you produced as well as the video game one. It just seems to me that, once you become a film producer, and decide "Hey, I'm going to make a movie out of Double Dragon," you lose the highground to criticize anybody's profession (but most especially when it is purely hypothetical, as in the above example).

"The only person who has any right to have any problem with Polanski vis a vis what allegedly happened that day is Samantha Geimer."

Let's take that to the extreme, just to see how absurd it is; I am not Jewish, so clearly I can't a problem with the Holocaust. Not living in California, I clearly can not judge the morality of Enron.

Nope, falls apart like a wet napkin. In fact, now *you're* the one sounding like a Republican, Don; "You can judge the morality of the president because you don't know what he knows."

I am a human being and, as such, am in a position to judge the morality of other human beings. As I said before, there are certainly gray areas; I don't see how this is one of them.

Beyond those other points, you're also factually wrong. The victim of a crime has no bearing on stating what, if any, punishment should be served for the crime, after the initial charges are filed. This goes both ways; frequently, victims want punishment beyond justice, but sometimes, victims feel that there are mitigating circumstances (for instance, a wife not wanting an abusive husband to be punished severely).

The person who can say what sort of punishment he deserves is, in fact, the judge.

No, really! Look it up! I know you dismissed the judge completely, because you have bought into the hype that he was "out to get" Polanski (but, really, that would seem to be your read on any moral human being who felt Polanski deserved to actually go to jail for anally raping (etc.)) but it is, in fact, the exact nature of his job. Isn't it a fantastic coincidence that he was there, doing his own job, in the very place to which they came to ask him to do it?

"She went on Larry King (transcript on line)and indicated that he deserved time served and that that was the plea agreement."

Is that the same interview where she describes a photography session which is no-bones-about-it child pornography?

Just kidding, I read the interview before writing this response, so I already know that it is. My favorite part was when she out and out says that she's only saying "Don't judge him by his actions" and "I want this to be over" because she wants everybody to leave her alone and stop bringing up the fact that he raped her 30 years ago...

So that really doesn't seem like much defense. I also honestly don't see how you can read that interview -- even on paper, let alone seeing her face when she's saying these things, let alone look at pictures of her as a 13-year-old-girl -- and not think he deserves more than "no time in jail" (which is the time he already served). That just seems inhuman.

Did you read the part where she's crying, and he says "Don't tell your mother about this?"

Did you read the part where he rushes her out the door because Angelica Huston gets home and is really angry with him for having a crying post-coital 13 year old there?

You read the part where she says "I said like, no, no, I don't want to go in there, no. I don't want to do this, no. And then I didn't know what else to do" and you said to yourself, "I, Don Murphy, have no problem with these actions."

Listen, I respect the idea of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That's a cool ideal. But it only really applies to little sins. "Don't judge that gossip, people will judge you for stealing office supplies."

Not, "So the 13-year-old girl he photographed naked and dosed with Qualuudes and champagne said no repeatedly... who am I to say he was wrong to have sex with her anyway?"

That's taking it way too far.

"You can scream and cry that I should be anally raped (your new obsession)"

Don, I will pay you $100,000 right now if you can find one post in this whole thread where I say anything remotely close to "you should be anally raped". *One*, let alone an obsession.

But I guess if you could read, 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' would've been a better movie.

"but that doesn't matter. What the victims says matters."

You are almost as good a lawyer as you are a film producer. They're neck-and-neck...
actually, lawyer is gaining... lawyer
might take it...

and it's PRODUCER. But it shouldn't have been that close.

Posted by Sean at August 7, 2007 4:59 PM

comment #55