Cool News
A Quick Hit Of SPUN!!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
The trailer for this movie... the one where it’s the cooking show hosted by Mickey Rourke... is one of my favorites currently playing. I hope the film is half that fun.
Just came back from seeing at midnight advance screening of the new Jonas Ackerlund movie “Spun” starring Jason Schwarzman, Mickey Rourke, John Leguizamo, Mena Suvari, Brittany Murphy... hell, they even wheeled out Eric Roberts for a few minutes, playing what seemed to be a young Rip Taylor...
The film is unrated and unless they do some serious cutting, (which they shouldn’t) like the scene of Leguizamo jacking-off into a sock and one of Mena Suvari’s shit logs plunking into a toilet…its gonna stay NC-17 or unrated...
This is a drug movie. Schwarzman is a speed addict and Mickey plays “cook”, a small time meth cooker...
The way Ackurlund shot and edited Spun will inevitably necessitate comparisons to another drug movie: the highly overrated piece of shit “Requiem for a Dream”. Including no shortage of the, now-tired, post-drug taking jump cuts of dilating pupils. Some of the “young ambitious film student with a big budget” trickery gets pulled off, like the animation sequences, but much of the fancy shenanigans get old fast. Ackurlund, a former video director, certainly assembles an eclectic cast... Billy Corgan, who provided the soundtrack and contributed a few original, appropriately haunting songs, shows up in one scene as a doctor. Rob Halford from Judas Priest plays a fey xxx video store clerk, etc. The tone of the film careens between near slapstick parody as in the scenes with Peter Stormare and his partner as bumbling narcs being trailed around by a "cops” like video crew…and other times it feels like it wants to be serious... net-net, it ultimately lacked the substance and real character studies of two, much better drug movies: the seminal Drugstore Cowboy, and the unfortunately underrated “Another Day in Paradise”.
The film is worth seeing for the cast assembly alone which even includes Blondie/Debbie Harry as a Bull dyke and the previously MIA Patrick Fugit (Almost Famous) who, like Vincent Kartheiser from “Another Day in Paradise” should fire his agent because he isn’t working enough. Why are there no shortage of Brendan Fraser movies, but Fugit and Kartheiser can barely manage to make their S.A.G. dues payments?
Spun wont make much dough at the b.o. but enough people will see it for Ackurland to maintain his “soon to direct a major feature” path, and, more importantly, for some of the actors (most notably, Mickey, who only looked more endearingly ridiculous in Animal Factory) to revive some well deserved street-cred.Dude, you should check out ANGEL, where Kartheiser has a recurring role right now. And thanks for the review.
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
What is the big deal with Vincent Kartheiser? He doesn't exactly blow everyone off the screen on "Angel," plus the guy looks like he just walked in off the street. What happened to movie stars that looked like movie stars?
-
I know I'm not alone on this.
-
Requiem had some nice effects, but they lost their sheen after the first time they were used. Plus it is just not natural for a film to be that aggressively horrible to everyone in it. I realise that the Hollywood mainstream candy effect is not the be-all and end-all of cinema, but there have got to be better ripostes than this. I have never seen, and never want to see, a film as unrelentingly negative in its portrait of humanity.
-
what what what?!?!? how can u guys say that??? that film left me so headfucked and depressed at the end, that i had to watch it again. Aronofsky is a great director and i cant wait 2 see what he does next.
-
...and Aronofsky's next film should be "The Emperor's New Clothes" starring himself, Richard Kelly, M. Night SHAM-alamadingdong, and Jonas Akerlund. The film should end with the above "filmmakers" being banished to some arid Chilean desert to make nature documentaries for the rest of their natural life.
-
Mar 10, 2003 11:47:29 AM CST
I got MONGED Mickey Rourke and John Leguizamo last weekend
by erik_richmond
Well i got MONGED with someone...
-
I saw this piece of shit at Sundance a couple months ago. What a cloying, overbearing mess of quick cuts and scenes that last no more than 15 frames. The scene of Mena Suvari taking a shit is especially nice. What's the fascination with junkie films? I mean, aren't they kind of a forgone conclusion? I enjoy films with antiheroes as much as the next twentysomething, but watching two hours of one depravity compounded upon another gets really tiresome. This bloated mess requires crystal meth to watch. Fuck it, I'm sure you'll all love it.
-
Mar 10, 2003 12:35:35 PM CST
how about supplying a smidgen of evidence to back up your facile
by duanejones
...i'm not saying _requiem_ was the greatest film of all time, but aronofsky & co. succeeded on many fronts: 1.) showing the metabolic impact of drug use -- overused in the film, but an unique trope of the sort unseen since, to some degree, _liquid sky_; 2.) showing the _pleasure_ of drug use, without making its users seem less human, moral lightweights, etc. -- already, that distinguishes the film from 90% of the addled pack; 3.) the existential despair fueling so much of the characters, making drug addiction seem ancillary, or of a piece with their desperation; 4.) brilliant cinematography -- mr. returnofdp, from a purely photographic perspective, exactly where is there hackwork in ANY frame of aronofsky's two films to date? fact: he IS unique, and owes nothing to nobody in shaping the cinematic frame; 5.) BRILLIANT PERFORMANCES -- also something that distinguishes both his films, and particularly in _requiem_: will jared leto, jennifer connelly, and, for god's sake, marlon effing wayans EVER be better than they were in this film? and, this leaves out the best, most fearless performance of the emsemble, viz. ms. ellen burstyn's, in what has to be the best, most fearless performance of her career. _
-
..., which many people in critical circles feel it is, than it might be better described as a literary failure. Just like Naked Lunch or Friedkin's Sorcerer, these are films that are hemmed in by their respected source material. Hubert Selby Jr's text is dense and full of violent imagery, the film just takes it all by the word. The fact that the film is designed to be despised for its ugliness alone voids personal critiques. The film is difficult to approach either as art or entertainment. If you feel the need to bash it, maybe you should point out its contempt for the audience before wasting your time arguing over style. Off the topic, this has been one of the better talkbacks...bravo fanboys!
-
If you require "evidence" supporting the distain of Requiem, then I suggest that you consult previous Talkbacks, as most people are exhausted from going over every thematic and technical detail for or against Requiem. The best might be the Talkback following the report on the Fountain losing favor with WB. That said, one aspect of the film which I never had the time or inclination to attack is the performance of Ellen Burstyn, which you specifically praised. While Burstyn is a capable actress, certainly in her performance in "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", her work in Requiem was an embarrassing emotional geek show fit for the circus, rather than a brave, honest portrayal. Aronofsky, who is solely to blame, sucked any realism or nuance from Burstyn's character and left her with nothing but a series of groaning twitches. Simply, Aronofsky has no sense of humanity and no room in his films for it anyway. His jittery camera and AVID system are the main characters in his films, plowing through the people in the story as if they were a obstacle to his technique rather than the focus of the narrative. With a moniker like duanejones and the references to Romero's "Night of the Living Dead", I know there is some good in you. Dig deep down and exorcise this temporary bout of bad taste. Watch NOTLD again and see the light.
-
since i SINCERELY do not want to dominate a _spun_ talkback by discussing _rfad_ in ye olde back-n'-forth fashion that can eat up alot of space -- although it is alot of fun -- i will endeavor to be as brief as possible in response to my respondents. hp: right, old boy. first off - let me suggest one thing to you; read irvine welch's _trainspotting_. i would assume that you have already seen it, but your overly generous opinions on the film-of-the-book don't suggest as much. anyone who has read the book and misses the utterly conformist tack boyle took in bringing the original to screen -- particularly someone who talks such a tough, "non-conformist" line -- makes complaints about _rfad_ pretty mystifying to me. not that it matters, but heroin addicts have occupied a good portion of my own "close proximity", as well; so much for this "qualification". as to your comments on my comments: 1.) "Its counter productive and is merely there for the purpose of style. And, in all probability, also to stick two fingers up at his (very wealthy) parents." excuse me, and you're accusing ME of failing to "combine the analysis of the film language with" personal reflections? let's just say i disagree about the drug-taking trope's counter-productiveness, to say nothing of being generally dismissive of appplying, say, "probabilities," or presumed parental motivation, to my analyses. 2.) all of the characters in _rfad_, bar one, live -- although the relationship this has with my comment surely hasn't been said clearly enough on your part. 3.) maybe i wasn't clear here -- i DON'T support knee-jerk moralizing on drug use and i believe this film tries to align its character studies and overall social critique with addiction, and without pandering to a "drugs are bad/ya shouldn't do drugs/m'kay?" moralizing that is the hallmark of the afterschool-special approach. you may feel differently, but i don't see the pandering to cheap moralization in my comments or the film; baggage, schmaggage. 4.) nice elision of my direct question to you -- who said anything about nice-lookingness? i said there's no hackwork in his engaged, passionate (which you'll at least admit to) filmmaking, not "lookit the purty, presentable pictures". let's try it another way -- show me where aronofsky is a hack, your opinions of _trainspotting_'s thematic superiority notwithstanding. 5.) i won't stick my neck out for marlon wayans again, but i'm glad you admire burstyn's performance. but railing against "mainstream" as a perjorative seems to me to be a posture, not an argument -- come on, we're not talking about _cocksucker blues_ or _chelsea girls_ here. i could scarcely imagine a more mainstream film than _trainspotting_, regardless of its virtues (which it has, let me hasten to add -- it's just not the book, and superior work of art, irvine welch wrote). and, mr. split, i agree that burstyn's twitchy, but i also believe that's her contribution, not aronsky's -- hell, try _the spitfire grill_ on for size if you want twitchy geek shows. actually, don't, unless you idolize alison elliot to the extent that i do. but that's how our Method standard-bearer approaches The Work these days, and i found it scary and revelatory in this film. what more can i say -- i found _rfad_'s ending heartbreaking after all that came before it, so the human aspects of the story sure seem more than a succession of AVID tricks. let me reiterate that i consider _pi_ (so much for my windows character map's greek fonts...) to be an eerily humane and multi-faceted meditation, not mere film-school slieght-of-hand. aronofsky definitely showboats, but there's much to show in those boats. i could see the arguments you both use against aronofsky as applicable to david fincher, maybe, but darren a. strikes me as a major talent whose impressive technical facility never supercedes an abiding emotional involvement in his characters. (& actually, cal, what i need to see is _california split_, an altman work i've yet to track down on video -- believe me, _notld_ has been completely seared into my psyche forever..._ganja & hess_, also.) sorry, guys, but i remain unpersuaded...so, what about _spun_?
-
Well, gee, I would much rather a film maker not be able to relate to his or her material. Then, since they can in no way relate to it, neither can the audience. Wow, what damn good films that would come from this brilliant mind! No more life experience prior to film scripts! Just plain old guessing as to what happens next!
I haven't seen Requiem enough to really defend it. I just kind of don't agree with the reasons behind the distaste mentioned by TheReturnofHP.
Aronofsky didn't lose an arm in reality, yeah, nor go crazy and get shocked, sure. And as the fan of a skinny former cokehead who would in no way be considered to star in a porn who did a "porn" movie, maybe I should shut up. But I don't come off as an asshole by saying "he lived through this! who cares?" I think these movies are made so people don't want to go through the possible outcomes which aren't always bright. AND despite my love for Trainspotting, I have to point out one last thing: THE BABY DIED TOO! soooooHA!
PS so if the story is masturbatory, what is an example of a sexually induced plotline?? -
Mar 10, 2003 5:27:53 PM CST
duanejones has earned my respect, but I must agree with TheRetur
by california split
Even though I cannot agree with you, duanejones, on Aronofsky, you put forward reasonable, thoughtful arguments as to why he may be admired and must respect that kind of genuine, civilized discourse. And you like NOTLD and Ganja and Hess, so I'll have to agree to disagree with you about Aronofsky. TheReturnofHP's comments are more in line with how I feel about Requiem. And I love the comparison to Trainspotting, which for me boils down to the fact that Requiem is about stupid, desperate people who take drugs and Trainspotting is about smart (at least articulate), desperate people who take drugs. Dumb folk strung-out is pathetic. Bright folk strung-out is tragic. That's why Trainspotting is more affective. Spun will not even have the humanity offered in Requiem, it will be a total hipster geek show with nothing to redeem it.
-
I really can't believe how many people on here don't get what Requiem For A Dream is about - even some of the people who like it. I mean, if some of you have decided that it's basically an unrated after school special you're really not thinking. It's all about people who are seeking fulfillment in things as opposed to a purpose in life. To even call it a "drug movie" - whatever that means - is just silly. This has more to do with the themes of Fight Club and American Beauty than Trainspotting.
It's about a bunch of people too messed up to realize they're messed up. They're in denial and rather than face the fact that they either are lazy, have no ambition, are lonely, or are overweight and should do something about it take another hit. I'm sorry, there are people who experiment with drugs and are no worse for it. But there are also people who become addicted to drugs and are killed by it (and I'm so thrilled to say I've known a few), do horrible things to themselves or others as a result of or to keep up their habits (and I've known some of them too), and on and on. And they didn't go into it wanting to get fucked up anymore than a gambling junkie, or a sex-addict, or etc., etc. did when they got hooked on their vice. They started out looking for fun, then that fun became solace.
And yeah, it is brutal, but that doesn't make it any less art. There are plenty of brutal movies out there with nothing much to say (Irreversible for instance - ironically since Aranovsky is a big fan of Noe) but Requiem for a Dream - the American Dream is what it's referring to btw - is a story that really applies to anyone who seeks pleasure in things over achievement.
How many times a day do you flick to a new channel when you could be trying to connect with those around you or really do something meaningful in your life. We all do it, at least some of the time. This movie is not just about drug addicts, it's about people who have stopped saying, "I'll get to it tomorrow" and now say "what was it I wanted to do?" -
I'll admit, main reason I wanna see this is because Corgan does a chunk of the soundtrack -- actually its songs from his new band Zwan, but its not anylike like on the album they just released. That album was standard rock stuff. The songs for "Spun" are from the "Djali Zwan", the other more acoustic incarnation of the band. I think some tracks on there are mellower ones like "wasting time" and an "W.P." Also, it'd be cool to see him with a wig and glasses. Oh yeah, and drug movies rule (ala Trainspotting or Fear and Loathing, not self-indulgent grap like Requiem)
-
off the top of my head I know he did "The Everlasting Gaze" video for The Smashing Pumpkins -- very cool and kenetic style which bodes well for a fast-paced feature. he did the "Beautiful Day" video, nothing fancy, but very nice looking. And he directed a short film called "Try" which is based on the video for the Pumpkins "Try, Try, Try" video that he also directed. Out of all 4 of those, the only one I really like is the video for "The Everlasting Gaze" but I think he shows enough potential here and there to make an entertaining flick.
-
(in a professional capacity) and in all honesty, their lives would not make for particularly interesting movies. Trainspotting is a great film, but it is not very realistic in its portrayal of drug addicts, who are rarely that witty and articulate (but they know a lot about Sean Connery). I have not seen Requiem For a Dream, so I cannot really comment on it, but a truly realistic drug movie would probably be both boring and harrowing. It might work, if it were in a similar manner to Nil by Mouth, but that film was not really about drugs. One thing that movies about drug addicts rarely seem to capture is the physical appearance of addicts. Bad skin, bad teeth, bad all sorts of things. A long standing heroin addiction wreaks havoc with a person's hygeine and grooming skills. Also, from my conversations with my clients, usually conducted in the cells at court as they awaiting sentencing for yet another opportunistic burglary, it seems that the need for a hit stems not from a need to get high, as such, but from a need to ameliorate the symptoms of withdrawal. A need to feel normal, in other words. Consequently, I'm not sure that a great deal of flashy camerawork really captures the essence of the experience. Now I hasten to add that I have never been a drug addict (nicotine excepted) and so its entirely possible that I don't know what I'm talking about. This film does appear to capture some degree of the sordid desparation which comprises much of the life of an addict, but whether that means I want to watch it is a different thing. Having said that, it's got Rob Halford out of Judas Priest in it, so I might watch it just for that.
-
Why does this guy have a problem with Brendan Fraser films? See 'The Passion of Darkly Noon' and revise your opinion.
-
As far as I'm concerned, Trainspotting is a much better film than RFAD. I'm a recovering heroin addict, and to me the film rings a lot truer than RFAD. Hell, even The Basketball Diaries is better than RFAD. Naked Lunch, Clean and Sober, Less than Zero, most afterschool specials, the Lifetime movie event: Little Billy's Heart Exploded, G.I. Joe's "Knowing is Half the Battle" and several of the NBC "The More You Know Spots" pull in ahead as far as I'm concerned; but hey, thats just my opinion.
-
...but i notice you aren't throwing around the "fact" that aronofsky's "the biggest hack in hollywood" with such cavalier disdain anymore. nor are you addressing any of my points that don't directly relate to _trainspotting_, welch's or boyle's. i guess we'll have to chalk it up to the incoherence that obtains from reading grammatically whimsical posts with one or two spelling errors -- rude newsflash: this ain't fifth-form composition class, britski. "motherfucker, did i sound abstract?/ i hope it's more confusing than that!" -- el-p, "tuned mass damper". meantime, i'll bask in the glow of calsplit's respect, and agree to disagree with all y'all. and i will lay odds we'll ALL agree that _spun_, even with (or, more likely, because of) its world-record number of edits, won't even rise to the level of _requiem_. but, humpysmurf, man, bismol kills! i hope you're cooking that shit up and using a cotton ball -- you don't want an abscess in your duodenum...
-
temper, temper...let's not be in such a hurry to point out another's retardation when yours is just as quickly revealed. i'm sure you're sure you stated your self-contained response beautifully. you just didn't respond to my counter-arguments. that's all. and, fine, i'm sure you'll find _spun_ greatly superior to aronofsky's oeuvre forever more. that's great for you. since this is utterly beneath me, and i'm feeling the love so thoroughly, i'll even let you have the fiercely -- excuse me! i mean, of course, "fiercy" -- excremental last word.
-
First, Aronofsky's Requiem For A Dream based on Hubert Selby Jr.'s impressive memoir of the same title is the greatest anti-drug film-as-horror movie ever made.
Second, Spun is Drug Store Cowboy with humor. More than that, it's an amazing character(s) study as written by a guy (Will De Los Santos) whose backstory is every bit as frighteningly amusing as the film. (Note: Jason Schwartzman's incredibly nuanced performance right down to his torn cuticles.)
Third, the movie to watch for is another Sundance 2003 gem called "Thirteen." That one will make a lot of money for Fox Searchlight if they stage an exploitative marketing campaign geared toward the underage MTV set.
Fourth, and most importantly, whatever happened to my thread on rape movies that appropriately disrupted some earlier Quint sludgery? Why not continue that here?
Finally, all of you commenting on drug movies deserve a group procto exam -- if only for me to find your heads and laugh in your faces.
- Best of Luck! -
Can't there be ONE argument in Talkback that doesn't degrade into some pointless, juvenile, petty fight? Why is it you two feel that everyone must conform to your personal interpretations of movies. The entire point of film is that everyone in the audience connects with a film in their own individual way. Both of your arguments have fallen to a simple critique of one another's spelling and calling each other a "retard".
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts