Joel Schumacher Pretty Much Sucks Ass

Started by Mesh, June 29, 2003, 01:39:30 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions

Victor

#60
July 06, 2003, 05:10:34 PM
i dont know why Falling Down is getting all the praise it is. It had the potential to be great, Shumaccher fucked it up. Why were there so many Robert Duvall scenes? I like him in most movies but i mean god damn. His character was too marginal to be so prominent. A terrific idea and Micheal Douglas couldn't carry the lame script and hackneyed direction. A movie that could have had balls and tackeled a serious issue pussyfooted around it with a bunch of formulatic plot devices that we've seen time and time again.

And I dont know who's trying to assassinate GT, but i find it funny all the same.
are you gonna eat with us too?

Xixax

#61
July 06, 2003, 06:22:58 PM
QuoteRIP GT (banned July 3rd, 2003. Reasons unkown as of yet.)

GT, try it now. I think some of the tables got jumbled and I just did some work on them. I believe you will be able to get in now.
Quote from: Pas RapportI don't need a dick in my anus to know I absolutely don't want a dick in my anus.
[/size]

MacGuffin

#62
November 20, 2003, 12:23:45 PM


Joel Schumacher is crazy about actors. He's fiercely loyal to them, too. Stars like Mel Gibson and Jim Carrey may have flirted with the possibility of starring in Phone Booth, but when it came to casting the movie himself, the director insisted on his Tigerland star, then-unknown, now-notorious Colin Farrell. Schumacher pushed just as hard to get Kiefer Sutherland as the movie's menacing sniper -- he had worked with Sutherland twice before, The Lost Boys and Flatliners -- but couldn't convince the studio to foot the bill.

No matter. Schumacher went ahead with Ron Eldard in the part, but once shooting wrapped, he went back to the studio and made his case again. This time, the studio agreed, capitalizing on Sutherland's heightened profile after the success of his hit television show, '24.' Taking advantage of delays posed by current events, Schumacher went back through the movie with Sutherland, dubbing over the unseen sniper's lines. In the end, Schumacher got the thriller he wanted with the cast he'd originally requested. Looking at the other movies he admires, it's clear that performances are key for the director. Here, in Schumacher's own words, are five favorites that have influenced his work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover
(1989; dir: Peter Greenaway, starring: Michael Gambon, Helen Mirren)
Sometimes before I do a film, I'll watch certain films for inspiration or to steal great ideas, but on Phone Booth there was nothing. The only movie I could possibly think of (I didn't watch it again, and I haven't seen it since it came out) is Dog Day Afternoon in the sense that it was a standoff with the cops outside a bank, but that still isn't very representative of it. The reason I did Phone Booth is because I'd never seen this movie before, and usually you get offered movies that are like other movies. Now, my favorite movie of all time is The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. It's a definitive masterpiece about greed in the '80s, and it stars my No. 1 favorite actress of all time, Helen Mirren, and a lot of great actors. It's about greed, and it's about man's inhumanity to man, about violence, new money and the changing face of humanity. It's done almost as an opera (not that it's singing), but the theatrics of the art direction and the camerawork and the music are very theatrical. I think it's Peter Greenaway's greatest film.

The Three Colors Trilogy
(1993-1994; dir: Krzysztof Kieslowski, starring: Juliette Binoche, Irene Jacob)
Blue, White and Red -- I count them as one film. They're stunning, and what each one is about is so amazing, along with the way it comes together at the end. From The Decalogue, "A Short Film About Killing" is also brilliant. [Kieslowski] was truly a great artist, and he died way too soon. It's very hard to describe because it's a work of art. It's three very intense personal dramas that actually have a strange inter-linking at the very end of the trilogy, but that's really not important to the piece in the sense that each story stands on its own, so the human drama [comes forth]. There are themes of narcissistic mortification, themes of power and of loss. It's such a palette of human drama that I hate to put it into pedestrian terms, so I'm not going to do that. It's a work of art, and you can't go to a museum and describe a work of art.

Lawrence of Arabia
(1963, dir: David Lean, starring: Peter O'Toole, Alec Guinness)
Another masterpiece. The sheer spectacle of the film is beyond any comprehension. It's just bigger than life. It's bigger than everything. When David Lean took you to the desert, you went to the desert... in 70mm no less. That film invented images that will stay in people's minds forever. When you see that first shot of the desert -- you dissolve through this burning match in the officer's club and suddenly you see the desert -- and that music swells over it and you see this teeny tiny little camel going across the desert and you realize the size of the desert. It's an amazing film that could never be made today because people want to know who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. Things have to be very black and white, so it's interesting to see films with such a uniquely ambivalent, ambiguous character. Is he a hero, isn't he a hero? Is he gay, is he not gay? Is the story even worth telling? Did he die by suicide or accident? Was it all his ego and vanity or did he really have a sense of purpose? I do flawed protagonists in my films. I don't do perfect people. Life isn't like that. In Falling Down, a lot of journalists would say, "Is Michael Douglas the good guy or the bad guy?" and I would say, "Yes." So who you root for, that's up to you. You don't have to root for anyone. You could just enjoy it as a fun ride. You would never lie or spin or be deceitful, would you? So it's really great to see someone do it on film, because then you can sit back and think, "What a d---head."

Dance with a Stranger
(1985, dir: Mike Newell, starring: Miranda Richardson, Rupert Everett)
It's a devastating investigation of class, based on a true story about a woman who murdered her lover. She was the last woman executed in English history. Miranda Richardson plays this kind of low-rent madam who tries to look like Marilyn Monroe and becomes obsessed with this very handsome young aristocrat played by Rupert Everett. He becomes very obsessed with her, too, and they have one of those dance-of-death relationships. It's a love/hate thing. They are both people that when they come together, they form a toxic element that can end in violence. She murders him, but it's about so much more than that. Transcendent to that is her performance. Miranda Richardson is one of the greatest living actresses, and it's her first performance on film. It's pretty extraordinary.

The Conversation
(1974, dir: Francis Ford Coppola, starring: Gene Hackman, John Cazale)
It's this little movie that Francis just happened to squeeze in between the two Godfathers. He just snuck it in there between these two masterpieces. When you do a smaller budget movie [like Phone Booth], you can take bigger risks. If the studio's giving you tons of money to make a movie, it's fair for them to expect you to bring them a product that will get a--es in the seats. Conversation is so ahead of its time because it's about this lack of privacy. It's about this security and scrutiny that we've now come to live with. It's insidious and fragmented and paranoid, and it has a lot of great surprises in it. Also some great visuals: the beginning with the camera [gradually zooming] down on the square and [the scene where] the toilet [overflows] with blood are genius. And the twist is brilliant, but I think it addresses itself to what you accept today with Phone Booth. You know there are strangers out there who know everything about you, but at the time that Conversation was made, people weren't quite aware of that yet.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pedro

#63
November 21, 2003, 12:01:12 AM
ha

ono

#64
November 21, 2003, 12:10:44 AM
Quote from: Pedro el Fascolomisha
Second that "ha."  I find it so ironic that such a bad director would have such arguably decent (even great) influences in films.  Then again, I haven't seen Tigerland, which is supposed to be decent, but his other films pretty much cancel out any of the decent films he's done.

godardian

#65
November 21, 2003, 02:05:55 AM
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Quote from: Pedro el Fascolomisha
Second that "ha."  I find it so ironic that such a bad director would have such arguably decent (even great) influences in films.  Then again, I haven't seen Tigerland, which is supposed to be decent, but his other films pretty much cancel out any of the decent films he's done.

Yes... he's terrible. Right up there with Adrian Lyne and Paul Verhoeven in my Holy Trinity of Crap.

I always say that the best work he ever did in film was designing the costumes for Interiors.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SHAFTR

#66
November 21, 2003, 02:11:19 AM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Quote from: Pedro el Fascolomisha
Second that "ha."  I find it so ironic that such a bad director would have such arguably decent (even great) influences in films.  Then again, I haven't seen Tigerland, which is supposed to be decent, but his other films pretty much cancel out any of the decent films he's done.

Yes... he's terrible. Right up there with Adrian Lyne and Paul Verhoeven in my Holy Trinity of Crap.

I always say that the best work he ever did in film was designing the costumes for Interiors.

Paul Verhoeven is great.  Well, not great but he makes some films that I really do love.  He makes good trash.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

Pubrick

#67
November 21, 2003, 04:06:50 AM
adrien lyne is fine, and so is verhoeven.
under the paving stones.

NEON MERCURY

#68
November 21, 2003, 11:10:47 AM
.. :roll: ..damn, some of you guys need to lay off this guy...he is not nearly as bad as some out there..(larry clark anyone)......

and ONo, tigerland is damn good.....
.
and phonebo0th is way better than the convesation... :wink:
seriously,
there is nothing wrong w/these films:
tigerland, flatliners, the lost boys,
8mm and falling down.....

modage

#69
November 21, 2003, 11:30:55 AM
Quote from: SHAFTRPaul Verhoeven is great.

YEAH!  dont you be talkin' 'bout my Verhoeven, godardian!  :x
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

godardian

#70
November 21, 2003, 01:12:59 PM
Sheesh, I can't believe the people who made 9 1/2 Weeks, Fatal Attraction, Hollow Man, and Starship Troopers have such staunch defenders. But... good for them.

I guess if I HAD to pick one who is less shitty than the others, I'd pick Verhoeven. But still... yuck. All of them have bodies of work that are overwhelmingly rancid and tacky and, most damningly, no fun. Now, if you can make rancid and tacky fun and have your tongue in your cheek for it... Brian de Palma and Quentin Tarantino have proven that can pay off in spades.

Maybe Tony Scott should've been in there before Verhoeven... or maybe I need to just transform it from a Holy Trinity of Crap into a Quadrilogy of Crap.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#71
November 21, 2003, 01:20:16 PM
Quote from: godardianSheesh, I can't believe the people who made 9 1/2 Weeks, Fatal Attraction, Hollow Man, and Starship Troopers have such staunch defenders. But... good for them.

I guess if I HAD to pick one who is less shitty than the others, I'd pick Verhoeven. But still... yuck. All of them have bodies of work that are overwhelmingly rancid and tacky and, most damningly, no fun. Now, if you can make rancid and tacky fun and have your tongue in your cheek for it... Brian de Palma and Quentin Tarantino have proven that can pay off in spades.

Maybe Tony Scott should've been in there before Verhoeven... or maybe I need to just transform it from a Holy Trinity of Crap into a Quadrilogy of Crap.

Verhoeven is great. Plus, even DePalma has his share of shit movies. And the first act of Hollowman was awesome, with Bacon out doing evil. Putting the movie back in that underground complex was a terrible idea from a story point of view. Anyway, RoboCop and Total Recall are great, and Troopers is pretty good.

Plus, Tony Scott made True Romance, so hey, c'mon...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#72
November 21, 2003, 01:25:08 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen

Plus, Tony Scott made True Romance, so hey, c'mon...

He also made Top Gun, for which he will never be forgiven.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#73
November 21, 2003, 01:33:25 PM
You have got me there.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

©brad

#74
November 21, 2003, 02:15:41 PM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Quote from: Pedro el Fascolomisha
Second that "ha."  I find it so ironic that such a bad director would have such arguably decent (even great) influences in films.  Then again, I haven't seen Tigerland, which is supposed to be decent, but his other films pretty much cancel out any of the decent films he's done.

Yes... he's terrible. Right up there with Adrian Lyne and Paul Verhoeven in my Holy Trinity of Crap.

I always say that the best work he ever did in film was designing the costumes for Interiors.

dude, u didn't like unfaithful?seriously, i'm not being sarcastic.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions