Less Than Zero is obviously bad, and we don’t need to talk about why that didn’t work. And American Psycho—that is, I think, an impossible book to adapt. But whatever, it was the greatest hits from the book, more or less. Mary did a very good job of keeping that movie together, as did Christian Bale, and I think Roger did a terrific job. And with The Informers, I think there is really an outstanding movie floating out there somewhere, and I hope one day people might be able to see it. But it’s very interesting. I am not comparing The Informers to The Godfather on any level, but there’s that famous story where Paramount asked Coppola to cut like an hour out of the movie, because they didn’t want to release a three-hour movie. And Coppola did, and showed it to the executive, and it was terrible. It moved very slowly at two hours. And then when he put the other hour back in, it moved very quickly. And that’s all I want to say about The Informers.
Scott Tobias has a very interesting interview with Bret Easton Ellis at the A.V. Club, in which the author/screenwriter of this week’s The Informers admits to not liking the cut of that film that’s being released, and assesses the other filmic adaptations of his work, concluding that Roger Avary’s The Rules of Attraction is the only one that “fully works.” He also describes the upcoming American Psycho musical as “like a multimedia rave situation,” so take that for what you will…
In better news for the legacies of Andrew McCarthy and James Spader, there’s a new Pretty in Pink video game, and it’s apparently awesome. Or, at least, better than a Clueless video game made by the same people. It also allows complete lunatics with a thing against upward mobility to rewrite history by having Andie end up with Duckie instead of Blaine. Insert mid-80s version of “FAIL” here.
I don’t smoke weed, but if I did, I’d spend today getting high and watching a marathon of movies that are (supposedly) better when you’re stoned. Why? Because it’s 4/20, the high holy day for marijuana fans. You’ve probably seen a billion of these lists, which recommend the same bunch of psychedelic classics beloved by stoners everywhere. So, instead of including such obvious choices as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, and other familiar titles, I’ve picked some alternatives to the usual 4/20 favorites, because after awhile, the same old visuals just don’t do it for me — I mean, those sick, degenerate reefer addicts — anymore. …Read more
There is a good reason Hollywood continually makes Animal House wannabes and avoids producing films that actually focus on academia. Kids prefer their college movies to be about the fun stuff. And so a movie like Old School grossed $75 million while another Luke Wilson comedy called Tenure currently lacks a distributor. The latter film may also be hilarious, as a satire of the tenure process, but if it doesn’t concentrate more on beer bongs and naked co-eds, it won’t attract as big an audience. And according to some scholars, it may not even resonate with them, because it couldn’t possibly be what the process is really like. Film blogger and associate professor Chuck Tryon was quoted about the film last year as saying, “my ongoing pursuit of tenure typically involves me sitting in front of my laptop until 1 a.m., I don’t know how interesting that would be to watch.”
And evident by the scathing reviews from Sundance of John Krasinski’s Brief Interviews With Hideous Men, it appears another film about academia has failed to make a strong case for the subject matter. Too bad for the late David Foster Wallace, whose stories were adapted for the film, that Gus Van Sant wasn’t at the helm. A decade ago, in an interview with Van Sant, Wallace pretty much gushed that Good Will Hunting is the most accurate film about academia ever made. Do we agree with him? Let’s just say there’s not a whole lot of competition for such an honor. But in our attempt to recognize the ten best films about academia, Good Will Hunting doesn’t quite make the top spot. …Read more
UPDATE: The trailer has been removed under request by the copyright holder.
I can’t explain what attracts me so much to the highly unlikable characters of Bret Easton Ellis’ fiction — or, in my case, since I’ve never actually read his books, of movies based on Bret Easton Ellis’ fiction — but I absolutely love Less Than Zero, American Psycho, and especially The Rules of Attraction. However, I have to give more credit to the filmmakers behind each of these films, because all three adaptations have their own appreciable style that helps me to enjoy the stories of these horrible people.
The Informers may look like it fits in with the rest of the filmed versions of Ellis, but I’m skeptical. I was quite bored with director Gregor Jordan’s war satire Buffalo Soldiers, and I fear that he’s going to fail again at holding my attention here. I am eager to watch Brad Renfro in his final, posthumous role (maybe it’s Oscar-worthy!). I am anxious to see if Winona Ryder can regain my favor (she’s fallen pretty far in my mind since her days as my celebrity crush in the early ’90s). And I’m interested to see an Ellis film that the author actually co-adapted. Yet I’m maintaining low expectations after watching the new trailer, because it just looks like a dark movie about vacuous people without anything extra like the era-defining production design, the iconic performance by Christian Bale and the clever post-production tricks featured respectively in Less Than Zero, American Psycho and The Rules of Attraction.
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
