Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News


Alrighty folks, and as it's getting close to dawn here at my end of the world, I leave you with a smorgasborg of Moriarty musings. From a bit of a mission statement, to the work of the Coen Brothers, Sam Hamm & Henry Selick, John Sayles, a film from Germany called RUN LOLA RUN (aka LOLA RENNT) and more... Seems the devious one has been busy. And now... It's time for the dear professor....

Hey, Head Geek...

"Moriarty" here.

Strange days indeed here at the Moriarty Labs. Major pieces of my Evil Master Plan To Rule The World have started falling into place, and as a result I've been lax with my coverage. I've been reading scripts and seeing films, and I figured I'd try to play catch-up by tossing out a fistful of reviews all at once.

Before I do, though, I'd like to address an ongoing topic of conversation over at The Hot Button, David Poland's daily column on the TNT Rough Cut website. It also came up this weekend at the WGA's Words Into Pictures conference, but Poland is the one who's been coming at us hardest. Using AICN as his prime example, David seems to lately be questioning the idea of covering the process of filmmaking instead of just the end result. It's things like script reports and reviews of early test screenings that seem to have him worked up. Why should I write about the three scripts I read last week? After all, according to David, they're not finished. They're not ready.

But that's exactly the point. Film is collaboration. From idea to script to set to screen, film is an evolving, living thing. The final result, the version that gets released, is something that everyone can experience. The developing, evolving film is something that people are fascinated by, even though very few people are in a position to peek inside that process. We offer that glimpse inside and we try to call attention to the most interesting projects in the works, no matter what phase they're in when they catch our attention. Besides, studios count on test screenings to create buzz for films. That's part of the point. Just because that buzz is now online doesn't mean we're doing something wrong. They set the rules up. We're playing by them. Public screenings are fair game, or they shouldn't be public.

Now... about us somehow "corrupting the process," as Bill Mechanic and his fellow panelists said this weekend, I have to say that's nonsense. Do political correspondents only report the outcome of a campaign race? You work in a business that fascinates the public, gentlemen, and as such, you're going to have to accept the microscope you now work under.

I also think it's funny that we are somehow both the worst thing that's ever happened to Hollywood and too insignificant to have any real power. Both charges have been leveled against us, and sometimes even by the same person. I think the real level of influence this site has on films is somewhere between the two extremes... but I'm sure it exists. I've seen it close up several times now, and it's wild to watch.

In the end, the most compelling reason I write about these things is because they interest me. If that offends or outrages Poland and his ilk, that's no concern of mine. My interests and the interests of our readers remain the same.

Allow me to illustrate by example. Let's see what caught my interest this week, shall we? Near the beginning of the week, one of my mutant henchmen procured three scripts I'd been looking forward to reading. Of the three, there was one that I literally couldn't wait to read. As soon as I got it home, I sat down and tore into it, reading it cover to cover before looking up. I am, after all, a rabid Coen Brothers fan, and I'd been dying to learn more about their latest film, the now-shooting O BROTHER, WHERE ARE THOU?

Just from the cover page, it's obvious the Coens are up to more of their particular style of demented inspiration. The title itself is a nod to the Preston Sturges classic SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS, while the page reads "Based upon 'The Odyssey' by Homer" right under the Coens' shared screenplay credit. I would assume this is either the shooting draft or damn close, being as it's dated this past February.

The top of the very first page sets the mood right away.


A title burns in:

Sing in me, Muse, and through me tell the story
Of that man skilled in all the ways of contending,
A wanderer, harried for years on end...

Head titles play as a guitar plunks and Harry McDaniel sings 'The Rock Candy Mountain.'"

That contrast of a Depression era folk song and the formal, almost ancient phrasing of the language certainly captures the strange folksy feel of the script. This is no simple update of Homer's story with obvious one-to-one parallels. Instead, it's a comedic exploration of the same themes that manages to be equal parts profound, touching, sincere, surreal, political, and profane. Like the best films in their body of work, this script refuses to be pinned down.

The central figure of the script is Ulysses Everett McGill, known to everyone as Everett. The script opens when he escapes a chain gang with two other men in tow. George Clooney is playing Everett, but I have no idea who's playing Pete or Delmar, his companions as he tries to rid himself of his chains and make his way home.

Much of what I find really funny about this script is the language. Nobody pens dialogue like these guys. I don't know if I like their ear for character or their command of the mise en scene better. In each case, they always seem to make right choices. There's some really edgy material in this film, racially charged material that goes into places the Coens have never dared before. They seem perfectly at home, though, and they never seem to flinch from any of the corners they paint themselves into. This is one of the most human stories they've ever told -- the simple quest of one man to be with his family, who are starting to move on, forget him. Everett does anything he has to, and by the end of the film, this comic character has become deeply affecting. If Clooney pulls this off, it's going to be another career high for him, equalling or even surpassing his work in last year's wonderful OUT OF SIGHT.

The script left me in such a good mood that I also read MONKEY BONE in that same sitting. This is the very latest draft of this film, the seventh, and I wasn't really sure what to expect. I know it was called DARK TOWN at one point, and that Ben Stiller was attached to star for a while. I know that visual mastermind Henry Selick is directing the film now, and that Brendan Fraser ended up with the lead. I know that Paul Reubens, Whoopi Goldberg, and Chris Kattan are all playing comic roles. And I know the whole thing was inspired by a comic book I've never seen or read at all.

Other than that, I had almost no idea what to expect from the script, and I ended up enjoying myself immensely. MONKEY BONE reads like a filthy version of ROGER RABBIT for the first third, a very surreal combination of HEAVEN CAN WAIT and BEETLEJUICE for the middle section, and THE MASK if the script had been as funny as the star for the last act. I know it sounds a little schizophrenic, and in some ways it is. Doesn't matter much, though. Scripter Sam Hamm has crafted a remarkable funhouse that Henry Selick was born to bring to life. This is a very visual piece of work, and I can imagine some of the extraordinary sights and sounds we're in for. There's all sorts of fun material about where nightmares come from and the nature of death and there's some grim gallows humor about Fraser's character and his coma. Overall, I think this film could be made into an astounding spring hit. Given a few weeks to find an audience, and granted that Selick takes this blueprint to the next level, this may be one of the first wicked thrill rides of the next millennium.

It wasn't until a few days later that I was able to read the last script in the bunch, another project I'd been excited about since first hearing rumors about it. It was just a few weeks ago that Columbia announced the cast for the new Mike Nichols film WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? Greg Kinnear, John Goodman, Ben Kingsley, Linda Fiorentino, Nora Dunn, Annette Bening, and Camryn Manheim are all set to join Garry Shandling in the film he scripted, with additional work done by Michael Leeson and Ed Solomon.

This is the earliest draft of any of the scripts I read. In fact, it's a couple of years old. It is my sincere wish that the draft I read caused a radical and successful rewrite to be undertaken. I personally believe that THE LARRY SANDERS SHOW is one of the highwater marks of television comedy writing ever, and one of the more sophisticated character studies I've ever seen. That's why I was so bitterly disappointed by how dull and uninvolving every page of WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? was. It's basically the story of an alien sent to Earth with a humming mechanical penis who is told to breed with a human woman. We've seen this kind of setup (okay... maybe not the mechanical humming penis part) before, time and time again. Jerry Lewis, Robin Williams, Ray Walston, ALF, Christopher Lloyd, the current THIRD ROCK FROM THE SUN... they've all played off the idea of the alien observer who manages to make comic observations about our culture by trying to fit into it. Shandling's focus seems to be on relationships and sex specifically, which at least indicates a point to the satire. In the script I read, though, there is no ultimate point.

I guess the thing that shocked me most was just how deeply unfunny I found it all. It's not that I think it has to be howlingly, laugh-out-loud funny all the way through. It doesn't. The best moments on LARRY SANDERS were often the brutal, honest, unfunny ones. But this script isn't sharp enough to be considered brutal or honest. It's just dull.

I hope Elaine May came in and worked some serious voodoo on this script. The cast is amazing. I can imagine Mike Nichols finding the right comic tone for the film, making it slightly sophisticated, slightly silly, and if May did rewrite it, maybe there's some life and some fire to the dialogue. Maybe further drafts found the focus, made it work. With that many talented people along for the ride, I sure hope so.

I did see some finished films last week, too. One of them is a film I've seen a couple of times already, but never in English. Finally understand the dialogue made all the difference in how much I enjoyed RUN LOLA RUN, the German sensation that was written and directed by Tom Tykwer. I knew that it was a ripping visual experience with a propulsive sense of energy, but I didn't know it was also funny, clever, and even just a wee bit melancholy.

The strong, charismatic face of Franka Potente is the center of attention in this picture, and she's worth investing the time in. As Lola, she opens the picture on the phone with her boyfriend Manni (Moritz Bliebtreu). He's frantic, hysterical. He's just lost 100,000 marks that he is supposed to give to someone in half an hour. If he doesn't, there's every chance he'll be killed. Determined not to let that happen, Lola hangs up and runs to meet him, determined to find some way to show up with the 100,000 in hand.

Like many young filmmakers, whether they're here in America or working in Europe, Tykwer seems drunk on the very possibilities of film. He plays with time here in a number of innovative ways, always pushing to entertain the audience. So many people in America think of foreign films like medicine -- they may be good for you, but they're hard to swallow. No one should have any trouble being engaged here. This isn't a deep film, but it's a confident, showy one. Lola is forced to repeat her run not once but twice, and each time Tykwer shows us a world of possibilities, each one hinging on the slightest variation in fate.

I had as much fun watching this film as I did when I saw Danny Boyle's first two movies. There's this infectious sense of "I can do anything." Tykwer and his female lead also collaborated on much of the driving techno music that energizes the film, something I'd be afraid of if I'd known it going in. It's perfect, though, and Tykwer joins John Carpenter in the ranks of filmmakers who know exactly what their films should sound like.

As Sony Classics rolls this one out around the country, it's well worth catching. At the same time, the new Screen Gems arm of Sony has just released their first film, LIMBO, the newest film written, directed, and edited by John Sayles, who will most probably continue to be virtually unknown to the filmgoing public despite having created another polished little poetic gem. CITY OF HOPE, EIGHT MEN OUT, PASSION FISH, THE SECRET OF ROAN INISH, LONE STAR... with film after film, Sayle inches closer to being our only true film novelist. He writes meditative, introspective films that ring true in every frame. Despite setting his new film in Alaska, Sayles has once again delivered total authenticity. I watched this film with friends who literally just returned from an Alaskan vacation in the last three or four days, and they were startled by how real it all felt. Even if they hadn't been there, I would have been able to believe it. Sayles has an amazing ear and a perfect eye.

He also has the ability to get spectacular work out of actors. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, David Strathairn, and young Vanessa Martinez all deliver stunning turns. There's not a false note among them for the entire length of the film. It's the relationship between them that is the heart of this confounding, oddly-structured little film. It left one of the people I saw it with angry, it left a few of the others wanting more definite resolution, and it left me elated. This film is about emotional connection, and how impossible it is to move through life without engaging. No one can live in a constant state of waiting. No one can live without some form of connection. The film ends on what seems to be almost a cliffhanger if you're not paying attention. In fact, Sayle gives us one of the most powerful, direct resolutions I've seen on a screen in a long, long time. There's no explosions, no shootouts, no big climactic confrontations. Instead, we simply see decisions being made. We see life being embraced, if only for a moment. We see a moment of grace, and I feel better for having shared it.

And that's what I've been up to this week. I'm not even going into my current ongoing adventures with MYSTERY MEN yet, or my upcoming article that's sure to cause a massive uproar -- "Why I Love THE PHANTOM MENACE, And You Should, Too." Those are just a few of the things we will come back in the next couple of weeks. Until then...

"Moriarty" out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 7, 1999, 4:54 a.m. CST


    by Meat Takeshi

    Hooray, can't wait for a new piece of escapism Coen style. I'm not hugely au fait with Sayles stuff but Lone Star was an emotional ride and more of that ilk is eagerly awaited. PS, should i be making a big deal about being nearly first?

  • June 7, 1999, 5:08 a.m. CST


    by Anton_Sirius

    They don't know when to quit, do they? Hudsucker is the Coens least successful, most critically reviled film, one that nearly destroyed Jennifer Jason Leigh's career, and yet they've come back for a little more of that post-Depression-era cookin'. Good for them- Hudsucker is criminally underappreciated, and O Brother, Where Art Thou? should do just fine with Clooney on the poster. And hopefully it'll get a few more people to rent some Sturges classics- not just Sully, but the Great McGinty, the Lady Eve and a dozen others. I just hope Joel & Ethan cribbed the Pittsburgh line for this one. You know- "It'll never play in Pittsburgh." "Well, what do they know in Pittsburgh?" "They know what they like." "If they knew what they liked, THEY WOULDN'T LIVE IN PITTSBURGH!"

  • June 7, 1999, 5:54 a.m. CST

    Everett McGill

    by John Shaft

    Wasn't he in Twin Peaks? And The People Under The Stairs? And Silver Bullit? And other stuff as well. What gives? You Dig?

  • June 7, 1999, 6:04 a.m. CST

    Run Lola Run clips

    by artsnob

    I've been singing the praises of RUN LOLA RUN (and dying for a second viewing) ever since seeing a showing at the Toronto Film Festival hosted by Tom Tykwer last September. My review is on file here somewhere if you search on "Run Lola Run" (include the quotes). All I want to add to what you say is that the English website for the movie is now up and running at Anyone with a fast web connection and Quicktime 3 or 4 on their machine can see six minutes of the movie spread out over three clips, including the phone conversation at the start and its immediate aftermath. The clips do an excellent job of showing what a fantastic fusion of sight and sound the movie is, and the final one includess one of the many "and then ... " fate-revealing photo sequences that Tykwer uses so effectively throughout the film.

  • June 7, 1999, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Hudsucker Industries

    by Martin Blank

    I can't wait to see all these movies -especially Lola and Brother. It will be interesting to see Fraser in MB. I loved The Hudsucker Proxy and I liked JJL in it.I am a bit worried about Clooney in Brother.His range is limited as an actor although he was good in Out Of Sight but I'm sure the Coens know what they're doing.

  • June 7, 1999, 7:09 a.m. CST

    Moriarty is off base.

    by AcidGuru

    Quite frankly, Moriarity is dead wrong. What is wrong with the film industry today is studio execs, and artists let sites like this give information to the public that should wait until the film is near the end of production. Too many people like Moriarity start hyping a film when it should not be put under the microscope by the public. For chrissakes you are reviewing scripts! Leave that to the people that make the films, not the people that have very limited tastes to what they define "art" to be. Tell me, how could you even review a Henry Selick or Coen Brothers film in script stage? Both are visual directors and what you think is going to happen on screen is probably different than what both Selick and tbe Coen brothers visualize. Would Degas, Picasso, or Pollock want their paintings reviewed before they met the artists final vision? I dont think so. Why do you think Kubrick has been successful? He never let information leak out about his movies during the production phase. This kept him focused and entitled him to meet his vision. When you give away information to joe q. public during the initial stages of the movie, you are bastardizing the filmmaking process. Why dont you just let joe q. make the movies? Ummm... because he cant and wouldnt know where to start. So leave it to the artists that can. Its obvious that Harry and Moriarty are not true artists, they dont understand the process it takes to create and its quite evident in their posts and reviews.

  • June 7, 1999, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Sayles, Coens, and Acid Guru, oh my

    by quiscustodiet

    First, the Coens are brilliant, everytime I watch Hudsucker or Fargo, I am inspired to attempt to create that lush feel of scenic brilliance that only they get (I'm a set designer in theatre). But their brilliance also includes great characters, fascinating story lines, and the destruction of filmic stereotypes and cliches (the "chase" scene in Fargo kills me everytime). Sayles has come a long way since Alligator (as funny as it was in moments) and continues to amaze with his storytelling process, Lone Star is so good that it leaves your mouth hanging open. For the Acid Guru, I believe that what Harry and the gang are doing here helps people understand the process behind creating a film, from script to post. A lot of people have no concept of what it takes to make a film or how many people need to take part in it. Film is not like painting or any individual art (though people insist on comparing it to them, it's like comparing tennis to hockey, they are both sports but the approach of individual to team is much different). By dissecting the process (maybe too deeply, sometimes) they give the "average" (non-artist) person a more knowledgeable way to approach film, not unlike some courses that students take in high school or college. To hold the artist above society, as you seem to be doing, or at least seem to be doing with the process, is to take it away from the people for whom it is created. It keeps art elitist and that is never good!

  • June 7, 1999, 10:30 a.m. CST

    On "elitism" in art

    by Serdar Yegulalp

    I need to post a couple of comments to this thread about art and elitism. First off, elitism is one of those words that's become cheapened by too many people throwing it at everything that they see even vaguely fitting the definition. It wasn't too long ago that people railed against musical notation as being "tyrannical" and "enslaving" (what?!), despite the fact that this cheapened what genuine tyranny and slavery were. If an artist is elitist -- i.e., taking very tight control of their work until its conclusion -- that's probably a good thing, because HE'S THE ONE THAT CAME UP WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. If he *chooses* to admit other people's opinions, that's up to him. But it is not mandatory. In a world where too many things are cheapened by dilution, by too many cooks in too small a kitchen, allowing people to have total control of their art is a good thing. (Then again, I thought George Lucas could have used the help of a competent screenwriter this time around, but that's just me...)

  • June 7, 1999, 11:43 a.m. CST


    by quiscustodiet

    I believe that elitism has nothing to do with believing in your art, I believe it has to do with believing that you are above others, and it is that sort of elitism that can destroy art. The belief that you don't have to explain your work is borne out of two issues, one that your art should be self-explanatory, in the case of Naturalist or Realists, it's simple, in the case of surrealism or dadaism, it's a little more complex but with a little knowledge (on the part of the viewer), it should be understandable. In some cases artists have far more knowledge of complex art styles and forms and therefore an explanation may be neccesary but they feel they are above explaining it because people should simply understand it, forgeting that it took them years of study to understand the form. This leads to elitism. The second situation is when an artist is not comfortable or unable to explain their piece, sometimes due to lacking the verbal or oral ability to do so or because the piece has no explanation and the artist is basically the public (this happens more than you can imagine). If it is a case of lacking the ability to explain, the artist will sometimes choose to allow someone to put into words for him or her their interpretaion of the piece (again this happens frequently, visual artists come from a different part of the brain than writers). Sometimes they choose to let the piece stand on it's own which may lead to understanding from the public or confusion as to what the artist is attempting. If it is confusing and the artist claims that people should just understand his art and they are crass for not doing so than he is creating a situation of elitism, those who have not wanting to share with those who do not have (in this case, a knowledge of art). If they are the public and hide behind the same defence, then they are creating the worst kind of elitism, a false elitism where one holds oneself above others due to a false sense of importance. Sorry for the long post but this is a topic where I get frustrated by some of my fellow artists who believe themselves above criticism and hide behind the phrase "They just don't understand me!"

  • June 7, 1999, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Film is and will always be..

    by -Z-

    a public medium. Definitions of the word "elitism" aside, film is a medium that employs more than one person in it's creative process. As such there will always be "spies" leaking out info about the film they have worked on. There will always be folks that leak out a copy of the script, there will always be people who go to an advanced screening and talk about it. If this bothers you, then go into your garage and make a film all by yourself. I guarantee, nobody will talk about it that way. I totally agree with the comments about film and other art forms. Like theatre, film is a collaborative art form. It is NOT the deeply personal art form that music, painting, poetry etc.. are. Sometimes, on rare occasions, a director (like john sayles) is able to create a personal film which sticks very closely to his/her vision. NEVER forget, however, that he did not do this alone. So now that is agreed upon. Film is unlike any other medium. It is a combination of every other art form, painting, sculpture, music, photography, prose, poetry... and as such can have an enormous impact on people's thoughts and minds and lives. SO it is only natural that folks will have curiousity and excitement about an upcoming project. Harry K and other people act as gatekeepers for info they find out about films, giving us readers some, but not all the details (like when harry read the script from ep 1). If you feel this hurts the film making process, I could not more strongly disagree. Film is not just about art, because of it's prohibitively expensive costs, it's also about commerce. So, when Corporation X spends millions of dollars on a film, they want it to be successful. I don't know about you, but leaking out bits of info on an upcoming film only heightens my interest. It makes me giddy to know when there are cool projects on the horizon. And it probably makes production companies (lucas film among others) giddy to know that people are building up hype about their film. Yeah kubrick kept his films tightly under wraps, but even if you told me the whole plot of a kubrick film, I would still have not experienced it, my enjoyment would not be lessened by knowing, only my curiousity peaked.

  • June 7, 1999, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Go Clooney!

    by Princpl Kahotec

    First off I'd like to say that I hope Clooney pulls off another good movie, I was sorely dissapointed that Out of Sight didn't get more attention, because both George and the filmed deserved it. So I do hope that Clooney can take on another role that might better establish him as a great Hollywood presence, I like his style and think he has a lot of promise to be one of the best if used properly. Second I am actually very interested in seeing Limbo, especially after seeing Lone Star, because I think Sayles brings a style to pictures that demands the audiences full attention and makes them become more involved. Few directors can do this, so I am hoping Limbo will, thats it out!

  • June 7, 1999, 1:26 p.m. CST


    by quiscustodiet

    I've been looking for a way to say what you just said about films being a combination of art and commerce but have failed each time I tried (I'm way to wordy sometimes). Thank you!

  • June 7, 1999, 1:28 p.m. CST

    What Planet are you From in my neighboorhood

    by knute123

    Hey, I'm a daily visitor to AICN and lo and behold they are filming this movie in Phoenix where I live. I tried to go down and get a look at things, but the set seemed pretty closed off and I'm not brave enough to weasel my way in. I did see John Goodman in Walgreen's but didn't talk to him...seemed to be in a hurry. Anyway, I'm going to keep going down there until they pack up and leave...I'll tell you if anything looks good.

  • June 7, 1999, 2:28 p.m. CST


    by AcidGuru

    Whether it is painting, computer programming, photography, cooking, sculpting, or film it is all created by the same process. Film is created by a group instead of by a single hand, however the same process is still used. Now is it fair for the producers, directors, actors, etc. to accept early critiscism by people that have little knowledge of how to perform this complex task-NO! What this site does is very dangerous. It allows people like Moriarty, and Harry to jump in and stir major amounts of hype before the director yells "action". Is this fair? No! And its quite harmful to the process of filmmaking. If a studio exec (another type that knows little about film, yet has the money) hears early public rumblings, you better believe they will run out and change the direction of the film. Want to know why? Because it could mean that millions of dollars is at stake. Right now, we are at one of the all time lows in cinema. In todays world, all that matters is pacifying the audience to something that is a safe bet. Gone are the days when film was an expressive medium. Art is dead in hollywood and it seriously doesnt look like its coming back. However, its just not film. One can look at music, books, and television and point out the same problems. America is on the decline, and quite frankly this is due in part to our acceptance of art that doesnt stimulate, but instead pacifies.

  • June 7, 1999, 3:35 p.m. CST

    David Poland's a hypocrite. He annalyzes the box office all the

    by paragonian

    I love what AICN does most of the time. I do think that this information can be seriously abused, but Harry usually doesn't do that. He warns us about spoilers and lets us know what films are in or about to begin production. I don't know many films that are gonna suck at every stage and then miraculously be masterpieces when released. A studio's gonna try to trick the public into seeing their bad movies with a shitload of different devices, Harry warns us about these things and saves us from wasting money on trash which will in turn make the studios make better films. This early information gets people knowledgable about a good film before it comes out and so they can spread good word of mouth. These types of sites are a retaliation for studio trickery which "they" started. This site has already gotten me excited about five movies which won't be out for quite a while and I'm already spreading good word of mouth. David Poland usually has good things to say but he's dead wrong about this issue and box office numbers have been A LOT more destructive than early information.

  • June 7, 1999, 4:05 p.m. CST

    acid guru

    by -Z-

    I apologize in advance for any disrespect, but what you said was whacked! Having been a student of history (art history, film history, american history etc..) the argument you make (about film and art on the decline) has been made by every generation since we've been writing it down. I'm sorry, but artists have ALWAYS had to contend with the commerce aspect of their trade. And yes it is a trade. Some brave, few souls go it on their own, but they are always in the minority. Personally, I think the last 10 years has seen some incredible movies come out. Now I don't know specifically what era you are referring to as the "good old days" but I can guarantee you that as someone who has read about and watched ALOT of old movies, that time period (which ever one you refer to) had more than it's share of crap. I recently heard friends of mine(all 25+in age) waxing poetic about the great films made in the 80's, and how all the movies today are shite. Hehe. As people get older, they inevitably turn to the "they just don't make things like they used to" theory and crumble and stiffen with age under the weight of their own polished turd which is nostalgia. I visit Harry's site daily, and if ANYTHING it has gotten me to see films I may never have watched of my own accord. So if a few artists have to fight a little harder to get their visions made, I think it's worth it for those who are brought greater success by fan sites such as this one.

  • June 7, 1999, 10:18 p.m. CST

    John Goodman is playing one of the leads in 'O Brother'...

    by Martin Q Blank

  • June 7, 1999, 10:26 p.m. CST

    Moriarty, how would you like it if someone got hold of your roug

    by Martin Q Blank

    That's really what it's like reviewing someone's script for an unfinished film. You are right in saying that film is a collobarative medium, but are you saying that you are collobarating with them? If they wanted your help they'd send them to you. By the way Moriarty, something's really going to your head. We appreciate your writings, but I'd never call it your duty. AICN now seems to be ego-centric, rather then standing aside from the industry and commenting, you all seem to be clawing your way in at any cost.

  • June 8, 1999, 1:18 a.m. CST

    American Paradoxes

    by TomTomb

    This whole debate about being elitist or not as an artist is so typically American, I can't help laughing. Americans live in a paradox of on the one hand being a group oriented and conformist society and hating anybody or anything that stands out and going out of its way to destroy anybody or anything that tries to rise above the general shit stream and being proud of this egalitarism of mediocrity. On the other hand, the people that despite this mentality were able to do what they wanted to do in life, are later recognized and canonized as national icons by the same people that tried to shackle them in mediocrity. Funny thing that. As far as movies go, I agree with -Z- that every older generation complains about how things always used to be better and every time it's crap. Every decade has its pearls, even when they are often thrown before swine, but eventually a consensus forms and we find the gems that were trodden down in the muck.

  • June 8, 1999, 1:23 a.m. CST

    Anyone got the Jabba Porno?

    by Gardulla da Slut

    Allegedly there is a cgi porno out there that features a very horny Jabba the Hut going at it with his Fat Slut of a girlfriend, Gardulla. Anyone know where I can get my hands on one of these?

  • June 8, 1999, 9:19 p.m. CST

    George Clooney

    by Skitzee

    I get so sick of hearing how limited Clooney's talent is! Has anyone watched his performances!?! Sure, some of the vehicles have been less than stimulating, but his abilities are readily evident in a wide variety of charachters. Perhaps this will be the role that silences those unwarrented comments!

  • July 30, 2006, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Hutt porno? I'm out.

    by Wolfpack