Board index General Celluløid Output

The Great Ecstacy of Robert Carmichael

Film/Celeb/TV/DVD news, reviews & discussion.

Postby klimov on 02/08/05, 14:20:32

lol, ron howard's company are after our US video and tv rights... which i just don't get at all! what is the point of just sticking out a dvd without a theatrical release? the film has no profile to play off that way. VERY strange. ok, if they were some cheesy exploitation company, but these are the dudes who did 8 Mile, A Beuatiful Mind, etc... maybe opie just hates it and wants to sit on it! :)
klimov
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 22/03/02, 09:08:53
Location: Familyville

Postby darkness on 02/08/05, 14:49:47

Makes perfect sense to me. The film has little to no marketability here in the US, so why spend money on expensive film prints. It has a better chance of making money for them on dvd, where the cost of distribuition isn't as high. Lots of big studios do the same thing with foreign films (hell, Miramax alone probably has about 50 films just sitting on the shelf doing nothing). Assuming the money is reasonable, I'd say take the deal. It's probably the best you'll get here in the states.
Just cut them up like regular chickens
User avatar
darkness
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 5147
Joined: 27/02/02, 00:57:45
Location: In Heaven

Postby klimov on 02/08/05, 15:03:40

hmm. i get the idea that stuff sits on the shelf, sure. and i get the idea that DVD is where the money will be made. but, when/if the company does actually get around to releasing it how can they hope to make people aware of the film / sell DVDs without a token theatrical release? + since when did opie enter the straight-to-video market? hmm.

can you name any recent foreign stuff went straight to video in the US? What about Demonlover? La Vie de Jesus? La Vie Nouvelle? Clean? etc
klimov
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 22/03/02, 09:08:53
Location: Familyville

Postby TC on 02/08/05, 15:07:02

base-moi? [insert japanese horror film title here]?
User avatar
TC
Muad'Dib
Muad'Dib
 
Posts: 14748
Joined: 02/01/02, 23:08:48
Location: Sweetknuckle Junction

Postby klimov on 02/08/05, 15:27:34

no, Baise-Moi had the standard LA-New York release on 1st June '01 and 6th July '01 respectively.
klimov
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 22/03/02, 09:08:53
Location: Familyville

Postby TC on 02/08/05, 15:30:49

hm. so, if he gave you those two cities for a couple of weeks, that would make it better? just curious as to what would make it a good deal for you, barring nationwide release...
User avatar
TC
Muad'Dib
Muad'Dib
 
Posts: 14748
Joined: 02/01/02, 23:08:48
Location: Sweetknuckle Junction

Postby klimov on 02/08/05, 15:34:23

o yeah, i'd be happy enough even with a 1-2 print release in LA-New York. That means you get all the press reviews + it gives the film a greater legitimacy.
klimov
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 22/03/02, 09:08:53
Location: Familyville

Postby TC on 02/08/05, 15:52:32

that would be sweet. plus, that means you'd be over here for the premier, no? :)
User avatar
TC
Muad'Dib
Muad'Dib
 
Posts: 14748
Joined: 02/01/02, 23:08:48
Location: Sweetknuckle Junction

Postby darkness on 03/08/05, 18:26:04

klimov wrote:can you name any recent foreign stuff went straight to video in the US?

Not off the top of my head, but then I don't know the names of every foreign film made. But I assure you there are some. Probably more than you think.
Just cut them up like regular chickens
User avatar
darkness
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 5147
Joined: 27/02/02, 00:57:45
Location: In Heaven

Postby klimov on 05/08/05, 05:40:39

hmm, anyway we gave 'em a resounding N+O
klimov
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 22/03/02, 09:08:53
Location: Familyville

Postby TC on 05/08/05, 09:02:34

klimov wrote:hmm, anyway we gave 'em a resounding N+O

haha, maha turns down opie. how funny.
User avatar
TC
Muad'Dib
Muad'Dib
 
Posts: 14748
Joined: 02/01/02, 23:08:48
Location: Sweetknuckle Junction

Postby darkness on 05/08/05, 10:48:44

klimov wrote:hmm, anyway we gave 'em a resounding N+O

Because the money wasn't good, or because you weren't getting a token theatrical run?
Just cut them up like regular chickens
User avatar
darkness
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 5147
Joined: 27/02/02, 00:57:45
Location: In Heaven

Postby klimov on 07/08/05, 02:21:42

because no theatrical run, US agent advised against it.

also have my suspicions as to the motive... these are the guys who do 24, just saw some of series 3, has to be the most blatant right-wing Fox propaganda ever! the enemies in the program are basically psycho lefty British liberals, opposed to US foreign policy, lol.

:shotgun:
klimov
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 22/03/02, 09:08:53
Location: Familyville

Postby Pit on 07/08/05, 04:30:29

klimov wrote:the enemies in the program are basically psycho lefty British liberals


Oh jeez, now I have to see this. Are the psycho lefties still doing it for the glory of the Queen and the restoration of Empire? I find it hard to see any American production avoiding those fine Hollywood stereotypes.
Pit
The Beast Rabban
The Beast Rabban
 
Posts: 457
Joined: 19/03/02, 17:17:45
Location: nØØb

Postby darkness on 08/08/05, 01:51:58

Pit wrote:Oh jeez, now I have to see this. Are the psycho lefties still doing it for the glory of the Queen and the restoration of Empire?

If I remember correctly, and it's been a while since I saw season 3, but I believe the psycho in question wanted revenge because he was left behind on a mission let by the US and, specifically, Bauer.

As for Kilmov's claim that Imagine wanted to buy his film so they could burry it, I believe he's having delusions of his own importance as usual. Imagine has little to nothing to do with the actual story development on 24, and that's one hell of a paranoid leap from the plot of 24 to your movie getting bought. There'd have to be an awful lot of people involved on that conspiracy. You might as well have said aliens told them to buy it. Besides, given the reception this film is likely to have in the US, I doubt very hard anyone will have to specifically "bury" it for it to not make a dent on anyone's radar. If you had just made it a political film you might have had a chance, but by throwing in the graphic rape scene you're probably not going to get any theatrical showings beyond NY and LA. Too bad too, I wouldn't mind checking it out in a theater. But it looks like I'll have to import a dvd from the UK most likely. You should have taken Opie's money.
Just cut them up like regular chickens
User avatar
darkness
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 5147
Joined: 27/02/02, 00:57:45
Location: In Heaven

Postby klimov on 09/08/05, 03:16:37

oh no, lots of people are trying to bury it in north america. maybe not these guys, sure. but the head of one particular festival said that people would "never forgive him" if he programmed the film and that it was "not suitible" for the general public (having programmed Irreversible, Miike films and Kim Ki-Duk films in past years, so this has nothing to do with the rape scene)... yet we are playing most everywhere in europe: theatrical, dvd, etc.

n.b. the psycho and his cohorts are doing it because of their opposition to US foreign policy, but they throw the 'left behind on a mission' thing as well, to make the guy seem more unreasonable, as if his views have been twisted by the desire for revenge. it's pure propaganda and not without reason that the 3rd series was dropped from UK network television.
klimov
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 22/03/02, 09:08:53
Location: Familyville

Postby TC on 22/08/05, 09:14:54

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
I absolutely hated it, 6 August 2005
1/10
Author: annElise1007 from Poland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).

The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.

To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead.

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Uncontrolled schoolboy fantasy?, 20 June 2005
Author: Brixton75 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I have seen it. It's not "good" but interesting in an understated way. The boys in it are quite naturalistic but................the graphic/gratuitous final gang rape scene is repugnant and -oh yes- the arbitrary insertion of second world war footage is offensive in the way it attempts to compare real horror with this misogynistic contrivance. Real atrocity is real- this film is just atrocious. However, the film has a look which can draw you in. But it seems to me that is the "Emperor's New Clothes", but in fact in reverse. The film looks good, but the direction, story, content and final feeling you take away from this film is vacuous. If a feeling can be vacuous-this is it.

1 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
cowardly and dangerous propaganda, 8 August 2005
1/10
Author: (tellingtruth) from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This cowardly and unoffensive film had me intrigued to begin with. The characters are the familiar dispossessed young males frequently to be seen hanging around bored in a sea side town. Robert is an outsider but he has his music which could have been his soul. Instead Clay makes Robert into a freak who embarks on a journey into cannabis and ecstasy and getting in with the wrong crowd. Clay seems to believe in "reefer madness" and Robert ends the film as a homicidal rapist. One wonders how much experience of real life this young director has. No one can save poor Robert. Clay leaves us with the message that young British men are out of control. A very unsubtle link is made to the Iraqi insurgents; during the needlessly graphic rapes we are subjected to explosions and images of war. The film shows male peer group extremism pushed to it's limits. The young bombers in London draw a parallel with Clay's hateful depiction of modern male. Clay implies that men simply cannot help themselves from inflicting terrible acts of violence. It is a wonder the British film industry allows money to be invested in films which advocate divisive propaganda, when in London we are still reeling from the recent attacks. This is Clay's first film, I would be deluged if it is his last.


1 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Something stuck to the bottom of your shoe, 10 August 2005
1/10
Author: sunflower007-1 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I did watch all of the film through to the disgraceful ending even though I felt so angry at what I saw. I felt that the director was screaming for attention and the only way he could achieve this was to be as repulsive as possible. Since I have lived in the UK I have come to love this country but this film depicts British young people in the worst way imaginable. There is nothing to be said but avoid it, it will make you angry and sick. The people involved should be ashamed.

from the IMDB reviews. that's pretty classic, lol. i definately have to see this....
User avatar
TC
Muad'Dib
Muad'Dib
 
Posts: 14748
Joined: 02/01/02, 23:08:48
Location: Sweetknuckle Junction

Postby darkness on 22/08/05, 14:45:02

klimov wrote:oh no, lots of people are trying to bury it in north america. maybe not these guys, sure. but the head of one particular festival said that people would "never forgive him" if he programmed the film and that it was "not suitible" for the general public

I didn't think the general public went to festivals anyway.
Just cut them up like regular chickens
User avatar
darkness
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 5147
Joined: 27/02/02, 00:57:45
Location: In Heaven

Postby klimov on 27/08/05, 15:06:29

TorontoIFF is partly state funded, that's where the comment comes from.

Yes, lots of moronic comments on the imdb, and growing. the british film-going public is pretty stupid by and large. the hollywood indoctrination is too deep... btw, the public's fave at edinburgh was Serenity. everyone whose opinion i care about said it was unwatchable...
klimov
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: 22/03/02, 09:08:53
Location: Familyville

Postby darkness on 28/08/05, 00:07:48

klimov wrote:TorontoIFF is partly state funded, that's where the comment comes from.

Why would Canadians want to censor your film for political reasons? They hate Bush as much as the rest of the world. If it's not for the rape scene then there has to be some reason to "bury" it other than those two.

btw, the public's fave at edinburgh was Serenity. everyone whose opinion i care about said it was unwatchable...

You're asking for the wrath of Alexhead now. :)
Just cut them up like regular chickens
User avatar
darkness
Øne øf Us
Øne øf Us
 
Posts: 5147
Joined: 27/02/02, 00:57:45
Location: In Heaven

Next

Post a reply

 

Board index General Celluløid Output


Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron