comment #1

actionman says ...

It's great that both films have found distribution. But the fact that none of the majors picked them up says that nobody really thinks they'll make any money in the theaters. IFC and Summit? They'll be on DVD before you know it, which, in some cases, is a great thing.

I am extremely excited and anxious to see both films, but I am not a regular-joe movie-goer.

comment #2

chicbn872 says ...

There was an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" in which Wanda Sykes' character wanted to make sure that Larry David told a producer that was reviewing her script that she was black. Wanda said that it makes a difference because a white person will hire a black person to show off how liberal they are.

That tactic has worked on you Jeff.

comment #3

jeromejohn says ...

Where the hell is Joe Biden? He needs to go on the attack - it is pretty insulting how low the bar has now been set to see that Palin may be one heartbeat away from the presidency. His qualifications blow hers out of the water, and unless Barack defends his qualifications some more, it will look like he is conceding that all he previously was was a "community organizer" - which NY's governor is calling code word for "black" and therefore "dismissable".
http://wcbstv.com/politics/paterson.mccain.palin.2.813646.html

comment #4

gruver1 says ...

Wells to chicbn872: You, sir or madam, are fortifying the malignancy. You are also, I dare say, a supporter of "conservative" (code word, that) principles. I don't believe in the Christian myth of "end days," but if they do come and the wicked are indeed purged, you will surely feel the terrible swift sword.

comment #5

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

FOUL!!!!! - no sneakin' political posts into film ones. I am following the rule of not bitchin' about them by avoiding them, so no stealth postings.

Man, Che Pt I must have gone for pretty cheap if IFC is picking it up. You would have expected that to be reversed, considering that The Hurt Locker only cost like $15M.

Then again, good news for Locker as it means there's a good chance Summitt will put some elbow grease into their marketing and adverting of it.

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

So CHE will go on TV mainly? What's the release plan?

Also, on an unrelated subject, since the server switch I've had to sign in a lot more. Anybody else have the same problem?

comment #7

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Burma - yep, same here.

My post ended with some questions regarding Jeff's stance vs other reviewers and whether he'll end up pulling a "KING KONG" and reverse himself. But when I went to send it, not only did it fail but hitting the back button only recovered what I ended up posting.

comment #8

moorish says ...

Can I just ask a question about Jeff's "last May" turn of phrase. I am an Englishman, so forgive me if this a quirk of American speak. But "last May" to me, means LAST May - i.e. May 2007. If you mean May 4 months ago, you'd say "I saw it in May", if you meant you saw it in May 2007 you'd say "I saw it last May." Not seeking to demean American use of the language here, but this is literally the only site I have ever been on where the turn of phrase is used with this meaning. Is this a Jeff thing? Do other Americans do it? It's daft.

comment #9

Catman says ...

Since there's not much point in responding to Jeff's liberal mirror-maze delusions about the real world (I hope this isn't what happens when you've been in the film world for too long), I'll just say that it's great news that Kate Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" is getting such good reviews. I really believe she is one of the bravest, most original, and underrated directors working. I hope this gets her career going full force again. She's too good to be on the sidelines for so long.

comment #10

EnglishBob says ...

Any chance IFC On Demand will be showing 'The Hurt Locker' while it's in theaters? I believe they've done that for other films...

comment #11

btwnproductions says ...

That might sabotage its Oscar chances, if IFC thinks it has any.

comment #12

plastiqueelephant says ...

I'd just like to point out that thirty years on, Heaven's Gate looks awful like an absolute masterpiece. Went to a rep screening last year and feels like the work of a meglomaniacal director, who's extreme hubris has taken him pretty darn close to heaven before his wings've been burned off. In the same vein of Apocalypse Now, but just a shave off. I'd take one of these plays for greatness than the solid two base hits most of our A-listers swing for.

So count me one gagging for Che.

comment #13

btwnproductions says ...

Update: CHE will get a one-week Oscar-qualifying run in December in NY and LA, then hit IFC in Theaters (and screen in theaters) starting in January.

comment #14

York "Budd" Durden says ...

Plastiqueelephant: I agree wholeheartedly about Heaven's Gate. It is a flawed but amazing bit of cinematic art.

I think the right cut of HG is somewhere in between the two versions (leaning of course toward the longer).

comment #15

EnglishBob says ...

btwnproductions,

Thanks for the info! Something to look forward to.

comment #16

BurmaShave says ...

moorish, you're damn right. Should definitely be last May, this May, next May. Perhaps my biggest pet peeve.

comment #17

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Anyone who claims that Heaven's Gate is some sort of masterpiece just waiting for a new generation to discover it as such has taken a big gulp of the kool-aid. The problem, considering its reputation, is that many go in expecting some sort of unmitigated, horrible looking disaster and when it fails to disappoint they swing the other way. But for all the film's pluses, the minuses keep it from coalescing into the narrative epic it was designed to be.

I'm a sucker for the undiscovered gem and an even bigger sucker for underdog, artist vs studio narratives but plastiqueelephant has the Apocalypse Now example upside down. Cimino isn't Coppola who came back from with a masterwork from the "wilds" of Montana.

No, he was Kurtz and when critics rightly firebombed the film, the collateral damage was the last vestiges of studio-financed personal vision cinema because of his hubris.

comment #18

cameron_murray says ...

moorish:
that is not just a Jeff thing. It's just another example of the inefficiency/inconsistency of the (American) English language. Someone would say last tuesday and mean sept. 9th or 2nd just as commonly. Often times have to clarify during conversation.

On the subject of (wtf) is going on politically, I think Damon nailed it. http://defamer.com/5047923/informed-voter-matt-damon-demands-to-know-sarah-palins-thoughts-on-jurassic-park

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

chic: "Wanda said that it makes a difference because a white person will hire a black person to show off how liberal they are. That tactic has worked on you Jeff."

So how about that Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas?

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/09/09/tomo/

comment #21

diesel says ...

d.z.: oh man, does that mean this post is good for mccain? and what not, is this blog good for mccain?

bollocks, as moorish would say.

comment #22

Sweetbubba says ...

"It's one of the most exactingly reconstructed and truthfully told historical epics ever made"

Jeff, you sound like a troofer in the midst of a nervous breakdown - what a crazed stream of consciousness. You know perfectly well that the statement excerpted above isn't true, or at the very least, that you're ill-equipped to make that assertion, despite your legitimate excitement for a movie you feel is being overlooked or judged harshly. And then segueing into a bunch of disconnected gibberish about Palin? It just sounds like you're having a temper tantrum and are lashing out without even bothering to organize your thoughts, let alone filter out the nonsense that just diminishes the credibility of your opinions.

Anyway, feel better.

comment #23

Sweetbubba says ...

>On the subject of (wtf) is going on politically, I think Damon nailed it. http://defamer.com/5047923/informed-voter-matt-damon-demands-to-know-sarah-palins-thoughts-on-jurassic-park

Are you kidding? That was one of the craziest things I've ever seen a celebrity do. For one thing, a grown man saying over and over how he is "scared", "terrified", is just pathetic. I don't understand how that became a common liberal meme, to claim they find everyone "scary." Have they no pride? Or sense of how ridiculous they sound?

The rest of the video was sleazy unsubstantiated rumors, and disgusting fear-mongering and stereotyping of someone different than a hollywood liberal. All his loathing comments about stupid hockey moms, make it obvious what an elitist snob he is. And his "I want to know if she believes that dinosaurs roamed the earth 4.000 years ago because her finger's going to be on the button." was grotesquely bigoted. He would sew his mouth shut before ever saying "I want to know if Obama really believes there are 72 virgins waiting in heaven, because his finger's going to be on the button." What he said is just as bad, but he can't see past his prejudices. and can't believe he's not ashamed of that video. I can't believe that more people aren't ashamed for him.

comment #24

Richardson says ...

"What he said is just as bad, but he can't see past his prejudices."

No it's not. Obama is not a Muslim, and has openly discussed his actual faith numerous times. Sarah Palin is a creationist who has made comments that would suggest she is a young earth creationist, and they're not letting her talk freely in public in order to confirm or deny her beliefs.

It's a genuine question, and a valid one to ask: Is Sarah Palin a young earth creationist? If not, there is still plenty of other science she does openly dispute with nonsense. He's just picking an extreme example.

comment #25

Sweetbubba says ...

The US constitution requires that we value and respect the religious choices of others, whether or not we personally agree with them, and deriding and publicly mocking someone for having religious beliefs we don't share (let alone encouraging others to be prejudiced against that person) is as morally offensive as it gets, and it contravenes the principles of freedom of religion that this nation was founded upon. Just shameful.

comment #26

plastiqueelephant says ...

Deathtongue_Groupie: I'm not disputing the horrific repurcussions of Heaven's Gate for personal filmmaking that the "the collateral damage was the last vestiges of studio-financed personal vision cinema because of his hubris." And maybe it was partly cause I'd read the Steven Bach book first and I was expecting a train wreck and had a clear sense that Cimino was a dick. Plus I HATED The Deer Hunter which always struck me as right wing and racist. But I was born in 1978, I've never seen a such a grand piece of folly, it feels to me like looking at the Taj Mahal... something ludicrously grand and pointless and beautiful. I loved Kris Kristofferson and Isabelle Huppert. And the technical aspects of it were spellbinding. Just floored me.

comment #27

Richardson says ...

"The US constitution requires that we value and respect the religious choices of others"

No, it doesn't. It says that the government can neither restrict the individuals right to practice their religion nor can they enact an official religion for a state or the country as a whole. Nothing about forcing individuals to respect other people's beliefs (which, to my eye, sounds as if you're suggesting free speech should be limited).

But that's beside the point; rejecting science because of religious beliefs is still rejecting science. No matter how you try to spin it, it IS a valid question to ask a presidential or vice-presidential candidate whether their religion precludes them from believing in scientific fact, because that has bearing on what policies they will enact while in office.

comment #28

Sweetbubba says ...

>But that's beside the point; rejecting science because of religious beliefs is still rejecting science.

All religion is inherently unscientific, but that doesn't mean we should fear-monger and be bigots by presuming that a person's faith somehow disqualifies someone from being capable of rational leadership. The amazing scientific developments of the 20th Century were overwhelmingly produced in societies that were far less secularized than today - it's demagoguery to imply that religion is antithetical to advancement, let alone rational thought as Matt Damon implied.

Again, what he said is as offensive as calling someone incompetent on the basis of race or sex, and you certainly wouldn't have heard Damon or anyone else challenging someone's religious beliefs if they were muslim, which just highlights how wrong and offensive it is in this context.

We're better than this, and should aim higher than criticizing someone's religious beliefs.

comment #29

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of sql high availability