The Argonaut wrote:Ben Affleck meets woman, develops crush. She is lesbian. He converts her. He finds out she banged two dudes at once before he knew her and he can't handle this because he is a little baby. He dumps her and is in general an asshole to her. Somehow she still wants to be with him. He tries to get his asshole homophobic best friend who doesn't deserve to have friends to have a threesome with the girl, because somehow that will help him. Maybe this friend is gay? Why is his asshole friend's opinion so important to him? I don't know how it ends. It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Yeah, that's it.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Sat February 11, 2017 9:28 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Sun February 12, 2017 5:42 pm
by epilogue
Maybe a lot of people took Kevin Smith way too seriously from the beginning?
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Sun February 12, 2017 5:45 pm
by epilogue
Strat wrote:Ugh
Universal Pictures announced Friday that it will release a remake of Al Pacino’s classic crime tale “Scarface” on August 10, 2018, filling in a slot previously listed as “Untitled Universal Event Film.”
The studio has Joel and Ethan Coen attached to the project to polish the script, which had been previously worked on by “Boardwalk Empire” creator Terence Winter.
The plot will follow the basic framework of Pacino’s film, but will change it from a Cuban immigrant in Miami to a Mexican immigrant in Los Angeles. Antoine Fuqua was originally brought on to direct the film, but had to back out due to prior obligations. Universal has yet to announce a replacement.
Martin Bergman, who produced Pacino’s “Scarface,” is returning in the same role. Marc Shmuger, Scott Stuber and Dylan Clark are also on to produce the film.
Pacino's film, as Jorge pointed out, was a remake as well. I kine of like the idea of visiting a version of this story every few decades and updating/changing the protagonist to explore a different background and current events.
I do wonder though, the original film had alcohol (prohibition era) as the "drug" he was peddling, and the Pacino remake had cocaine. Which drug will the modern update feature? Heroine? Meth?
I'm already interested. If it's true that Diego Luna is starring, then I'm all in.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Sun February 12, 2017 5:51 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Sun February 12, 2017 5:58 pm
by epilogue
tragabigzanda wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:Maybe a lot of people took Kevin Smith way too seriously from the beginning?
I think the praise for Clerks was warranted. He made the thing for $37K and managed to conceive of a film that worked really well within that budget. Credit where it's due is all I'm trying to say.
I suppose. But I feel like every criticism I've read in this thread so far (excepting his thin-skinned-ness) are all contained in Clerks. What he did with such a low budget might be impressive from a production and/or financial standpoint. But it's not impressive in terms of the art produced. Who cares how little he spent if the art is lacking.
When the best thing a critic can say about your movie is "hey, he only spent $X!" I'm not sure that's an achievement.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Sun February 12, 2017 6:05 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Sun February 12, 2017 6:07 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Sun February 12, 2017 7:08 pm
by wease
Saag paneer
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Sun February 12, 2017 11:58 pm
by Strat
wease wrote:Saag paneer
mmmmmmmmm
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Mon February 13, 2017 4:30 pm
by bune
The Argonaut wrote:you stupid dumbshit goddamn motherfucker!
I remember watching them play that live on...the Grammys? Some stupid awards show. I'm not sure it was bleeped, but then 20+ years later who can be sure of anything in your memory.
The Billboards, that's what it was. Little Googling never hurt anyone.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Tue February 14, 2017 6:22 pm
by VinylGuy
OMG The Bad Batch seems fucking amazing.
Is Keanu Reeves the only star that matters?
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Tue February 14, 2017 8:28 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Tue February 14, 2017 9:24 pm
by VinylGuy
tragabigzanda wrote:
VinylGuy wrote:OMG The Bad Batch seems fucking amazing.
Is Keanu Reeves the only star that matters?
Just watched a trailer, really not feeling it. Seems like the sort of hyper-stylized gritty story the seems to come out every couple of months now.
Gimme that my man, and im happy.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Tue February 14, 2017 9:27 pm
by Jorge
tragabigzanda wrote:
wease wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:The further along his career got, the higher the production values, which kinda magnified his amateur problems. The mistakes in Clerks or Mallrats added to the charm. In later movies, not so much.
Excellent way of putting it.
The combination of the super verbose dialogue with the awful ADR and audio mix makes Dogma virtually unwatchable.
It's because the shooting script was too fucking long. The original cut of the movie is like 3 hours (including a truly awful musical number), so a lot had to be chopped-up and ADR'd.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Wed February 15, 2017 3:39 pm
by epilogue
theplatypus wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
wease wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:The further along his career got, the higher the production values, which kinda magnified his amateur problems. The mistakes in Clerks or Mallrats added to the charm. In later movies, not so much.
Excellent way of putting it.
The combination of the super verbose dialogue with the awful ADR and audio mix makes Dogma virtually unwatchable.
It's because the shooting script was too fucking long. The original cut of the movie is like 3 hours (including a truly awful musical number), so a lot had to be chopped-up and ADR'd.
I've still go my fingers crossed for that 3 hour director's cut, though.
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Wed February 15, 2017 4:35 pm
by Jorge
All the deleted scenes are available on the special edition DVD... I got it for my 15th birthday
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Wed February 15, 2017 4:43 pm
by epilogue
theplatypus wrote:All the deleted scenes are available on the special edition DVD... I got it for my 15th birthday
Can I have it?
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Wed February 15, 2017 4:45 pm
by Jorge
I lent it to my friend Jose Lopesierra and he never returned it
Re: The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread
Posted: Wed February 15, 2017 4:46 pm
by epilogue
theplatypus wrote:I lent it to my friend Jose Lopesierra and he never returned it