Intolerable Cruelty (Now Polling)

AlguienEstolamiPantalones · March 18, 2003, 10:34:58 PM

Quote from: Pedro the Wombat
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetDa Ali G show is funny as hell. I didn't like the hip hop character that much before, but the show changed my mind completely.

~rougerum

That is the funniest show I have ever seen in my life. I am now obsessed.

do you think he is even close as far as his parody of hip hop ?

his questions are funny, but i feel like he is winking the whole time, it takes away from the satire, i want to think that the guy asking the questions is really that out of it that he thinks what he is asking is legit questions, what i see is a guy just acting dumb. so the joke suffers for it. Now i can see how people who dont know anything about rap would find him funny, because they think that what he is doing is a funny impression of what a rapper is like . He is not takeing the piss out of anything, ali g is no different then some wacky sitcom where the uptight white dad has to pretend to be " street" so he can protect his son, its something i could see going down on john ritters new sitcom. At least warren beatty had good coach's in the movie " bullworth". so that is my problem with ali g.

but i do like the guy from Kzahstan, or however the fuck you spell it.

if you ask me spinal tap to me is a example of a parody being perfect.

Him · March 19, 2003, 03:27:47 AM

good grief.

are you guys aware that he has his own movie? did it make it over to the states? you may like it now, but the act will grom pretty thin, very quickly.

dufresne · March 25, 2003, 12:11:41 PM

Quote from: Butterscotch Jones
but i do like the guy from Kzahstan, or however the fuck you spell it.

this thread is DERAILED

his name is Borat btw.

Cecil · July 21, 2003, 07:30:32 PM

trailers up

modage · July 21, 2003, 07:50:00 PM

wow, was i excited for this movie. wow, does that trailer blow. it seems like ONE) the coens most mainstream effort and TWO) the least coen-y movie yet. what the hell is up with that trailer? it looks like some weird mainstream crapola. i think its the narrator that ruins it, along with the motown song making it seem like some light mid-ninties julia roberts fluff. but, ummm.... what? i'm sure the movie will be good, but i thought they usually cut their own trailers? they obviously didnt touch that one, brought to you by the terrible folks at NRG. i guess handling universals money means, they market your movie. ugh.

"when a marriage hits the skids. and there's a fortune to protect. miles massey is the best there is."

"now, a man who is used to winning...is about to lose his heart, to a woman. who is ready to bite back."

"intolerable cruelty."

modage · July 22, 2003, 12:29:28 AM

okay i just noticed something after watching the trailer for the umpteenth time, trying to figure out whats wrong. i came up with a few things...

the BIGGEST OF WHICH! being the credits.

screenplay by: Robert Ramsey & Matthew Stone & Joel & Ethan Coen

what the fuck is that all about?

story by: Robert Ramsey & Matthew Stone & John Romano

what the fuck? no wonder it doesnt seem like a coen brothers movie. they didnt hardly write the fucking thing! now what is that all about?!? is there anybody else that realized this, before now? cause i had no idea. uhh, they've never written one of THEIR movies with anybody before (except sam raimi on hudsucker). but what is the reason for this? why are they even making it? what the fuck?

another thing is that with the exception of blood simple and raising arizona (their first two flicks), all the rest of their movies are period pieces. whereas this one is the first in over 15 years that takes place at the time that it was made. something about the periods they dive into really helps the characters they write fit into the perfect surroundings. whereas, there isnt really anything exciting about 2003, so it'll be interesing to see how some coen characters fit into today.

what is going on here?

Ghostboy · July 22, 2003, 12:42:52 AM

The script's been around forever. I'm sure all the other credits are just mandated by the WGA. Also, the movie's a remake to begin with (although of what, I'm not sure, since there's only one Intolerable Cruelty on IMDB).

Big Lebowski wasn't period, and Fargo was only barely period.

MacGuffin · July 22, 2003, 12:46:24 AM

Over the past four years, "Intolerable Cruelty" has come close to a start several times, and it has been a magnet for A-list elements. Ron Howard and Andrew Bergman are among the directors who developed it. Most recently Jonathan Demme seemed poised to make the film with Hugh Grant and Tea Leoni. Later, he organized a script reading that was to include Will Smith, with whom he has long wanted to work. That reading didn't happen and Demme has departed.

The Coens have a long history with the project as well. They were brought in years ago to rewrite the original script by Robert Ramsey and Matthew Stone. While other versions of the script have been commissioned since, the parties kept returning to the version that has the kind of dark bite a Coen script tends to possess.

The Coens never got more serious than screenwriters, however, because they were committed to directing Brad Pitt in "To the White Sea." When that film fell apart, the producers and the studio moved to lock in the siblings, who had enjoyed working with Clooney and were seeking to do another project with the actor.

modage · July 22, 2003, 11:29:16 AM

Quote from: GhostboyThe script's been around forever. I'm sure all the other credits are just mandated by the WGA. Also, the movie's a remake to begin with (although of what, I'm not sure, since there's only one Intolerable Cruelty on IMDB).

Big Lebowski wasn't period, and Fargo was only barely period.

Big Lebowski took place back in the early nineties-- just about the time of our conflict with Sad'm and the Eye-rackies.

Fargo took place in Minnesota in 1987.

thats a specific time frame other than when it was filmed/released. period.

MacGuffin · July 23, 2003, 11:55:59 PM

Ghostboy · July 24, 2003, 12:45:15 AM

Okay, I'm squinting real hard here....is it just me, or are the Coen Brothers' names absent from that poster? And is every name other than the cast completely illegible?

Is the trailer up anywhere else yet? Don't see it on Yahoo or Apple...and Cecil's link seems to be broken...

MacGuffin · July 24, 2003, 01:31:43 AM

Quote from: GhostboyIs the trailer up anywhere else yet? Don't see it on Yahoo or Apple...and Cecil's link seems to be broken...

Try it now.

modage · July 24, 2003, 11:05:47 AM

Quote from: GhostboyOkay, I'm squinting real hard here....is it just me, or are the Coen Brothers' names absent from that poster? And is every name other than the cast completely illegible?

yeah, you're right. all the other names arent there. its just random made up letters. thats what a lot of test posters look like when studios are trying out like 6 different versions of the poster to see which one tests well, the graphic designers will sometimes skip out on taking the time to put in the actual credits, and just type in random letters under the credits. (or perhaps also to not let people know anything beyond the poster, like they dont want people to know who was involved). mac, is this the final version? or is it possible they havent decided yet? (please let it be NOT this one).

jokerspath · July 24, 2003, 11:57:25 AM

CZJ sure is pretty...

aw

Ghostboy · July 25, 2003, 02:00:36 PM

That was indeed a pretty mild trailer...it looks good for a mainstream movie, but underwhelming given the names attached. But there are little Coen-ish touches here and there, though, enought to give their fans confidence that the movie itself will be great (I remember reading a test screening review that claimed it was one of their funniest movies yet). I wish they'd saved Billy Bob's cameo for the movie, though -- it would have been a nice surprise, since I'd forgotten he was even in it.