Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Ten Ways to Make Hollywood Hate Your Cinematic Masterpiece

By Sheerly Avni, Truthdig. Posted January 13, 2007.


How do you make the best movie of the year -- possibly the decade -- and still get pummeled at the box office by Ben Stiller and a CGI dinosaur? Hollywood's complete obsession with the box office is the answer.
01132007story
01132007Story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sheerly Avni

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Here's how Hollywood's "creative tension" between Commerce and Art really works: Commerce lures Art into his lair with roses and chocolate, swears his undying love, and then quickly leaves her for nights away at a nearby strip club called The Bottom Line. Then he throws the furniture and smacks her around the kitchen a bit, just to let her know who's boss, and when she's finally got her bags packed, to move back in with her sister The Theater perhaps -- Commerce shows up with another batch of roses and convinces her to stay.

There's not a lot of love there, but it's how the babies get made.

Take "Children of Men," for example, by Alfonso Cuarón, the Academy Award-nominated director of both "Y Tu Mamá También" and the only good Harry Potter installment. His movie boasts stellar performances by Clive Owen, Chiwetel Efiojor, Julianne Moore and Michael Caine. It's based on a critically acclaimed novel by P.D. James, and what a story: a desperate chase set in a dismal England of 20 years from now, on a dying Earth that has been devastated by nuclear bombings, immigration conflicts, plague and environmental damage.

Not to mention the looming end of the human race -- for the past 18 years, no babies have been born. Enter a young pregnant illegal who is therefore mankind's last hope, and you have the kick-ass sci-fi premise of a lifetime. By all rights, "Children of Men" should be a blockbuster.

But as J. Hoberman wrote in the Village Voice last month, Universal has done everything it can to bury its treasure, treating the movie "like a communicable disease." Dumped in limited release on Christmas Day and finally released wide this past weekend to just 1,200 theaters, "Children of Men" still managed to come in third, after "Night at the Museum" and "The Pursuit of Happyness." It has also been included on several critics' top-10 lists, and is currently ranked number one on the New York Times' viewing poll.

Cuarón has pulled off the near-impossible: He's made a big-budget, politically charged, visually stunning film -- complete with hot leads -- that grips as much as it entertains. By following these 10 easy steps, you too can make your own $80-million unpromoted masterpiece.

You don't stand a baby's chance in 2027 of winning an Oscar, but hey, at least you'll keep your integrity.

1. Show no mercy. The fascist government of future London (one of the few surviving nations) supplements its citizens' rations with anti-depressants and a suicide pill called Quietus, which is plugged on the ravaged city's moving billboards with the slogan, "You choose when."

Heroes do not take Quietus. They trade in the right to choose when to die by choosing what to live for. In cinematic terms, that means death can come at any time -- even to someone you love, even in the first act.

2. Crack a Joke. Grim settings do not require grim performances. Joan Didion says that we tell stories in order to live, but Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor knew that jokes are how we bear it.

The humor in this movie, and there is much of it, doesn't lessen its dramatic impact -- rather it helps us connect with these men and women as they struggle to hold on to their humanity in world with no human future. Significant portions, including a car chase in which none of the characters can get their vehicles to start, play like high farce. And even the most essential plot point of the film is revealed not by a text at the bottom of the screen or by a last-minute printed prologue but by a very stoned and barely recognizable Michael Caine telling a joke.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: discrimination, art vs. commerce

Sheerly Avni is a San Francisco-based writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: Jordon on Jan 13, 2007 12:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The movie was pretty good (the fight scene in the immigrant ghetto being the highlight), but it didn't make sense in some areas. For instance, as fascist and evil as the British government must have been, if they were presented with a chance at saving mankind (even if they only kept it for the British), they would most certainly do so. If I was Theo, I would have taken the pregnant girl to the authorities, and let them figure out how she got pregnant. They certainly wouldn't keep it secret once they found the cure. Sure they might have failed to mention that the girl was black, but the future of mankind is more important than any race issue. Theo (though he did initially argue for my position), and the rest of the fishes, put the girls life in far to much jeopardy than was necessary.

Oh yeah, and anothe thing, how was this Human Project funded???

Anyway, still a good movie, but there were some inconsistancies. The movie was incredibly successful in making me hate some of the characters, such as the pregnant girl's friend who came along with them initially. All that new age crap. I can't stand hippies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book Posted by: marxalot
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book Posted by: aonghus36
» Hippies... Posted by: Naomi
Watch this film.
Posted by: cordas on Jan 13, 2007 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its great. I would put it into the same mould as 12 Monkeys, Brazil and 1984.

I really am stuck to desribe what I loved about this movie and basicaly it comes down to everything. It looks great, sounds great and keeps you thinking from the start to the last second about what this film means and says about the human condition. Whilst it uses most of the clichies available to this genre they never intruded and there wasn't a whiff of gorgonzola about them. Also the casting and acting was brilliant.

All I can say is this is a must see film that is going to become one of those cult classics like the above mentioned films. PLEASE PLEASE go and see this, try and make hollywood understand that the global public want films that make them think and aren't all nicey nice romcoms, farce comedies, huge budget specail effects or talking animiated animals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Watch this film. Posted by: sigridfroid
it's pretentious crap from a pampered snob's novel
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 13, 2007 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
P.D. James loathes poor people. Her books are hideous tripe which are puffed up as "real literature" by gullible and elitist critics. The movie is incoherent garbage. Whatever, you don't like Hollywood, wow that's so interesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disturbingly Breath-taking
Posted by: Kate_24 on Jan 13, 2007 4:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched this movie in a local theater more than a month ago (and it had been running for a good month then) and wondered why nothing about it had been written on AlterNet ... the release date, of course, explains a lot.

I don't think that any government would have come forward, abolished its anti-immigrant policies just because one of them had gotten pregnant. It runs contrary their interests, it would ruin their superior position. It has been happening like that forever, it's happening today, and I doubt there are many people at all who really would let go easily of their own wealth for others. Of course, there are always idealists. But idealism has long since died for most people. We're all subject to our own interests ...

... but back to the movie: In case you haven't seen it, you might not want to read on, because I'm giving away tiny bits and pieces of what happens ...

I went in initially to see Clive Owen, but was also interested in the story itself, although I haven't read James's book. I thought the movie was very-well produced; the special-effects looked extremely real. And the acting was superb.

Of course, the story is - to a degree - predictable. The movie has also been accused of using very simplistic Christian symbolism (although less than the book apparently): Fishes, the Tomorrow, Kee almost like the Virgin Mother, the soldiers kneeling down as if to pray as they hear the baby cry ... which made me think that of course that is simply because Western cultures lack other symbols.

And one should assume that the birth of a child suddenly stops all the violence and destruction, but it does only for a few seconds before the killing continues. It's woeful, and it is pathetic, too, but it's what humans do, it's what we've been doing all the time ...

Anyway, what got me most was the very end of the movie, after the screen went black: hearing children laugh and play. Can you imagine to never hear that wonder-full sound again?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A great (and progressive) film
Posted by: ctguy on Jan 13, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been interesting to read posts about this movie, since there are plenty of people who think this is the worst film of the year, and are angry about having seen it.
To me, this is a great film -- incredibly filmed, great acting by all the players, a riveting, fast-paced story with a lot to think about behind it.
There are "gaps" in the explication of the situation -- but I did not feel the need to have it spelled out why people mistrusted the government, or how the general degradation of our environment led to global infertility. The arc of the story follows the same curve I see today in the papers, just further on down the line.
This is a movie that will end up in cinema courses and watched for years to come. If you want a terrific action film without a lot to think about, rent "Crank." If you see film as an art and a craft, as well as a way to convey some righteous reactions to our fascist power structure, you should see "Children of Men."
There are two, one-take, extended tracking shots that are by themselves worth the price of the ticket. Go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Crank....sweet jesus Posted by: Elmowilcox
Over Rated Film of the Year.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 13, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"This is a movie that will end up in cinema courses and watched for years to come."

Yeah, for what NOT to do in a film. The plot brought new meaning to ennui, the acting contrived, the cinema photography common, the special effects cheap.

The only good thing of the movie was the ending credits.

People who like this film should get out more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what? cinematography! Posted by: Ghoulman
Blade Runner Is Better And Got Worse Treatment
Posted by: hole11 on Jan 13, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By far I am sure Blade Runner blows this recent movie out of the way though I haven't seen it. You want the human condition but can't handle it even if you are a replicant. Sadly the movie leaves out the religious themes in Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep," which the movie is based.

Anyhow, we don't want to see bleak futures like what were produced during the cold war (if there was one). I remember seeing reporters or newclips of USSR and China and it always looked bleak and cold, but guess what? There is just as much color and flowers there as any capitalist system. All in all the use of the Orwellian bland future has been overpayed and it's the main reason why I don't want to go to the movies to see Children Of Men or whatever it's called.

Chase movies don't make much sense either. Someone is always running and being chased by everyone and anyone. Sure I can understand a fight scene or two and the hero running away, no problem but an hour of more of being chased is not my kind of movie. Battlestar Galactica is probably the best science fiction on television now but the humans being chased by robots make the plot unappealling.

Firefly (series) and Serenity (movie) for which the series is based on is better than nearly anything I have seen since Blade Runner and the short series on Fox network called The Profit. These shows also got very short runs and are more interesting than any cop, attorney or reality based entertainment being produced yesterday and today.

Why the short lifespan and shun by the general public? I would guess that these shows do not have good product placement for advertisers and get people thinking about or against government approved medicine and systems.

But for some reason cops and attorney shows will always be with us to remind everyone that we have a system that will chase you down, catch you and convict you if you should go against the grain. Oh, and the only bleak future is for those who wind up behind prison bars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» YOU ARE A PINHEAD Posted by: angstotheclown
» RE: YOU ARE A PINHEAD Posted by: Dboy
» WYSIWYG Posted by: hole11
This will not enhance the viewership
Posted by: blugene on Jan 13, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm going to see this movie today, can not wait. This article almost ruined that plan, as it gives away most of the film's details, the word 'spoiler' is exactly what it says. Retelling a story is not a review, and it is the last thing that will put butts into seats. I had to skip the article and comments to preserve the ability to enjoy the film.
I'd love to read an article that was actually about what the title of this article said it was about, but I really feel that rehashing someone else's story and giving away a film's plot and suprises is not a good way to promote a film. Spoilers should be clearly marked, not slipped in under a misleading title. The author would promote a mystery film by saying 'it is great, because the butler did it and you never see it coming."
Writing about and reviewing film and theater does not require a retelling of the story when a skilled person is doing the writing. See GB Shaw as an example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A question:
Posted by: CriminallySane on Jan 13, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Hollywood's complete obsession with the box office is the answer."

Hollywood doesn't make movies explicitly for smart people because there are fewer of them.

I would here remind those readers who have waded through the comments to this point that Hollywood is in fact the present incarnation of "show business". As in the business of putting on shows. And when you're in any business, you work to succeed in that business by that business' measures - in Hollywood's case, that means selling movie tickets, and getting TV ratings.

Blaming someone because their product is too popular is just plain silly. Of course, in this case, it probably feels a whole lot better to say that than saying anything disparaging about those people who buy the tickets to the movies featuring Ben Stiller or animated dinosaurs. Can't slag them, on the off chance you have of scolding them into buying into your movie of choice rather than the usual shipment of Hollywood escapism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Hollywood" and Ms. Avni Posted by: rsmithandco
the public doesn't WANT a quality film....
Posted by: Voicedude on Jan 13, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...

.....they want "Borat"!


(at least, that's what Hollywood would have us believe!)

Last night, I was at a 10 PM showing of "Pan's Labyrinth" which, for all intents and purposes, should have been empty. But it was packed! Who knew that a WWII / Fantasy film in Spanish with no stars could have done it? Maybe audiences want more substance than Hollywood thinks. After all, three of the year's most interesting films (Babel, Children Of Men, & Pan's Labyrinth) came from the afore mentioned Mexican directors....

VIVA LA CINEMA MEXICANA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» bad example... Posted by: Michael in CA
» Correción Posted by: Mex
» It's a little of both... Posted by: vangogh69
Hollywood isn't smart enough
Posted by: Gregor on Jan 13, 2007 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There aren't any good movies coming from Hollyweird because they focus on mindless bimbos (still) and flashy jocks (still) and don't think that the youth of America has any brains at all. They themselves can't think either. They are all aging directors who won't let anyone into their inner circle, have no idea what America really wants and just can't get past their money or their egos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hollywood isn't smart enough Posted by: CriminallySane
Go See this movie
Posted by: fischbach on Jan 13, 2007 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saw it last night and cannot get the images and story out of my head. Beautifully done. It was the first truly adult movie I've seen in a while. It would be folly to allow the book, spoilers, clips and/or reviews to prevent anyone from seeing this flick. The movie will take you in completely unexpected directions; mixing humor with horror and surprise with sorrow. I will own this one when it comes out in DVD.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

these films are buried because they tell a truth...
Posted by: angstotheclown on Jan 13, 2007 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the present course of the world's owners is toward the extinction of our species FOR PROFIT. What do these men care if the world and the human race ends after they are dead? They lived like kings. Brazil was the best example of that. A know nothing producer shelves the greatest movie of that year [and still one of the best up there with Strangelove] because it shows the true nature of his masters, the fascist banking interests who own the fascist governments. Breed fear among the population, fake terrorists and their attacks, and the royalty live above it oblivious to the suffering. These are dark times kiddies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Talk about buried treasure
Posted by: Boomerang on Jan 13, 2007 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had never heard anything about this movie except the title. After skimming your quick summary of it, I'm now using my other browser tab to see if it's showing in my city. I love movies like this, and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

I didn't read the rest of the article, but don't be so hard on Hollywood, they're focused on the money. They have to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not release this in more theaters?
Posted by: unitedstatesofstupidity on Jan 13, 2007 2:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The top ranked movie, Night at the Museum, which enjoys a very wide release with 3,730 theaters showing it, made $6,366 per theater last weekend.

Children of Men, in a pathetic excuse for "wide release" showing in only 1,209 theaters, raked in $8,435 per theater!

I think it's very clear that if Children of Men was put out in 3,000+ theaters it would do very well, especially with pretty much every critic out there LOVING it (91% rating at rottentomatoes). No matter how controversial the message is, it seems like a no-brainer to expand the release just looking at raw economics.

So why isn't this happening? Are the distributors brain dead? Do they not want to make money?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Although...? Posted by: vangogh69
» a bankable babelicious blonde Posted by: Artkansas
Show the way
Posted by: Melvin on Jan 13, 2007 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After V for Vendetta also about post Blairbush ; its interesting that this movie is also in the UK. Are we expecting the UK to show the way??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Show the way Posted by: babs
Avni's writing is absurd
Posted by: gellero on Jan 13, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You'd think anyone who would write a 'bitch & moan' piece like this would have called the producer and asked the questions she poses. I'm sure the people who put up their own money to make this movie would be more than happy to answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A moral and cautionary story that requires suspension of disbelief...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 13, 2007 8:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, I haven't seen the film. The actors are all good - though I would say that Clive Owen in "Inside Man" is stellar, and worth seeing for what it will tell you about the actual history of many American financial institutions...but "Inside Man" is believeable.

This is the general problem that arises with films like this - they are not quite science fiction, and so they attempt to be believable - but the notion that 'No human babies have been born for 18 years' is just not believable. Somewhere there'd be human babies... maybe with a higher incidence of birth defects, but it really isn't believable that no babies would have been born. It's a nice plot twist, but I'm guessing you are just supposed to believe it.

Take the Matrix movies, for another example. Very nice plot line - the machines live off the humans, because the humans blasted the sky blocking off the sun... except theres the problem of what the humans eat - since we get all of our energy from eating plants (or animals that eat plants) and plants need the sun... so you just have to suspend disbelief if you want to enjoy the movie and the underlying themes.

I mean, this movie might have been better if aliens had been involved - you know, an alien species in spacecraft come and sterilize the human race as part of their nefarious plot to take over the world, and one human manages to have a child - now that would fly, being complete science fiction. Might be a little cheesy, and the aliens would have to be defeated somehow...whatever.

Basically, if there was so much radiation released that no woman could have children for 18 years, everyone would be dead; all animals on the planet would also have died out (and the plants too), and the only thing left alive would be radiation-resistant bacteria.

Still, I'm going to go and see it. Sometimes you just have to suspend disbelief - imagine you are a stalwart Republican listening to Bush's speech the other night, for example. There are people out there who swallowed every single word of it - imagine those people running the world. Now that's a frightening possibility for a movie! But wait... Blair is backing Bush... that's already happened??!!!

Who needs horror movies these days? Just look around...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Art left hollywood decades ago.
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Jan 13, 2007 9:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was with her Thursday. She seemed ok. But, when I switched on the TV, she disappeared. She said something about possibly going to Memphis.
If your out there babe, thanks for the songs!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

video game
Posted by: wildeyes on Jan 14, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
did this feel like a video game to anyone else? i mean, i know it's perhaps a sign of our times, but i felt like i was playing half life two.

in some ways i liked the movie, but i thought the criticisms of this age and governments like this one simply weren't compelling. i don't know. i wish i liked this movie more, because i love dystopia films (Brazil!), but this one just didn't do it for me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: video game Posted by: vangogh69
IF THE MARKET REALLY DETERMINED WHAT MOVIES WERE MADE THEN....
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jan 14, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My friends, I wish to make several points:

1. There has been plenty of promotion of this movie on Dish Network. It sure sounds like an interesting theme but like millions of others, my family does NOT go to R rated movies. I personally went to see Matrix. You know what. That movie would have been just as interesting and insightful if the two hyped up violent scenes which caused it to be rated R were edited out????
2. IF one investigates the top twenty money making movies of all time, you will find very few R rated movies on the list, yet the majority of movies made by Hollywood are R rated.

From these facts and having a doctorate in business, I deduct that Hollywood is NOT driven by the market but has other non-monetray motivations. Either that or they don't seem to learn from their many failures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course Hollywood would much rather let the pro-war forces dictate or else
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 14, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they wouldn't be raking in all the money they'd want. You see, Hollywood pretends to be anti-war when in fact their focus on maximizing their SELF-INTERESTS as they've shown on the money PROVES that they are really pro-war.

Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" perfectly nails Hollywood for rubbing off voters the other way and LAUGHING their ways to the bank. Do you really think they oppose the cons?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hollywood establishment loves Mexicans
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 14, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but only to be nanny to their spoil brat children while they are out on the town eating in fancy restaurants (tables bussed by Mexicans) and doing drugs (imported by Mexicans.) Oh yes, they also love Mexicans to landscape their yards with chemicals that kill the environment and maintain non-native plants that need to be over-watered depleting our aquifers. They also like Mexicans to clean their billion dollar multi-roomed homes- in which 1 or 2 people live. But they do not want them to make movies or make money from movies. That is reserved for only certain ethnic types and Mexicans need not apply.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Moronic Statement about the film industry.
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2007 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FYI the late actor Anthony Quinn was from Mexico. The money to finance films is usually from individuals via the producers....that's their job. Any Mexican with talent and financing can make it. So what if some industry folks have big homes...it's their money, they earned it. But that's just the mega celebs. Most non celebs lead reasonally normal lives. And the above poster could too.....if he had any skills and talent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another for Albrecht above
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2007 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And who are these 'certain ethnic types' Wesley Snipes?? Mel Gibson?? Martin Scorsesee? Oliver Stone? Harold Ridley?? Or do you mean to say Hollywood is a 'Zionist Plot' since there are many Jewish folks in the industry. Kirk Douglas and Edward G Robinson were Jewish. So is Spielberg. But George Lucas isn't. They're there because they have talent. The cream rises to the top....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another for Albrecht above Posted by: albrechtkrausse
COM was a good flick, and...
Posted by: vangogh69 on Jan 14, 2007 5:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can say that on the whole, Hollywood is producing tripe. Overall, they've evolved little in the 70 years they've been making movies (Hollywood). Technically, Hollywood films are quite sophisticated but psychologically, emotionally, and analytically, they progressed not far at all. There are of course many reasons for this but I think we can say that Children of Men is the exception, not the rule. That said, it's good to see Hollywood at least making the effort to release films that ask a little more of the audience and I hope the trend continues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shameless Plug for a Mediocre Film
Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon on Jan 14, 2007 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This film was mediocre at best, idiotic at worst -- 5 out of 10.

Just another sorry-ass example of the 'apocalyptic fervor' and pessimism (read: deathwish for the World) currently sweeping certain segments of the leftist populace in The West.

It was also rife with pathetic, pseudo concentration camp-esque imagery, no doubt inserted by the Jews that were largely responsible for ther making of this film (yes, I watch the credits and notice the names) -- there is no doubt that these filmmaking Jews were trying to work out their own unconscious feelings and not-too-distant collective memories regarding dirty huddled masses in cages and in camps being mistreated, sickening ghettos, ghetto uprisings, etc.

Again, this was a mediocre and totally bland film, even wince-worthy many times throughout. Surely we as a society/culture can figure out better ways to spend tens of millions of dollars rather than dumping it down the drain to make dumb, even borderline ridiculous films that sear ultra-violent, 'scary' imagery in to the oh-so-sensitive brains of the hoi polloi?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shoot H'wood Politics Through and Through
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jan 14, 2007 9:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't seen this film and cannot comment on it. However, a friend of mine worked on the shoot (camera department London unit) and hated the experience. Whatever political merits the film may have on aesthetic grounds, the production certainly didn't transcend the venality of a typical commercial picture -- arrogance of those in supervisory roles toward subordinates, exploitation of labor etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Three Amigos was better
Posted by: jaby on Jan 14, 2007 11:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went to see this movie. It was ok, nothing special. Rent the movie if you're feeling the need to see it, it ain't worth $9. The story had lots of holes and didn't really hold-up for me, so I guess that would be why it's getting no love from the studios, because I am sure that lots of others feel the same. It was sold out, at least that was the rumor, but the kids next to me said that was because "Night at the Museum" was sold out and the start times were similar.

I do have to say, though, Clive Owen is hot and Michael Caine did an excellent job as the only remotely interesting character in the movie. Best movie in the past decade? I don't think so. Did the author not see "Team America: World Police?" What about some love for "The American Astronaut?" The good news was that when I came home "The Three Amigos" was on. Ahh, that's better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just from the previews...
Posted by: cmaciain on Jan 15, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It looks mildly interesting. Oh, could Hollywood make a woman hero who doesn't get pregnant or drool over a child or something else related to being reproductive? That would be ground breaking!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

missing link in story...
Posted by: JDMB on Jan 16, 2007 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The link in point 8, "...See all three interviewed on Charlie Rose, " sends you back to the same article, not to (presumably) a video or transcript of the interview mentioned. This is the correct link:
see all three interviewed on Charlie Rose

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why people really hate children of men
Posted by: gerdhansel on Jan 17, 2007 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw Children of Men twice and loved it. But this remarkable film does make you work, make you pay attention to details.

Hollywood simply doesn’t like films that make you work. Their primary target audience is adolescent males who like their entertainment nice, simple and obvious. When it comes to entertainment, most Americans are aging adolescents who also refer to put their brains in neutral when they got to the movies.

Film critics are another matter. I’ve read a lot of reviews about great films like Children of Men and Apocalypto, and I think a lot of these critics are simply not being honest about their reactions to these films.

Take Apocalyto. One critic will say, “The acting was wooden, the storyline was hackneyed and the characters were stereotypes.” His real reason for hating the film: “I hate that bastard Mel Gibson, and I’ll never give that anti-Semite jerk a decent review, ever!”

Or consider Passion of the Christ. One review might read: “Pornographic violence is not entertainment. Ethnic stereotypes were an awful distraction. Pace of film was too plodding.”

What they really feel is: “All movies about the crucifixion of Jesus are by definition anti-Semitic. The nerve of this drunken Catholic Aussie -- making a Passion-play movie in