Thread of Duplicity and The International

aka thank fuck awards seazzzon is over + clive fucking owen.

i think i liked the Princess and the Warrior, but I can't remember. Perfume was underrated.

man, im sure the international had more gunfights in the trailer. what a gyp.

the Princess and the Warrior

fucking awesome movie

the shootout in the guggenheim is pretty overrated also. too many came-out-of-nowhere guys with uzis.

Yeah, I couldn't follow why the baddies had a whole battalion there. Thought the scene was great though - good pacing, the video installation backdrop lifted it, and just watching it all get riddled with holes was a thrill.

The rest of the film was a bit pish, though. Really bad dialogue that swung from the wooden to the hopelessly pretentious.

Oh, I've forgotten the worst bit of all - the Noo Yawk cops and their banter.

Duplicity looks awful from the trailer and marketing, but I am a stan for Gilroy (let's do a poll after Duplicity!) so I hope this is just a marketing decision rather than representative of the film. This New Yorker piece gives me hope: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/16/090316fa_fact_max

Clive Owen is really good at playing himself, but nothing else. When it works its great.

i really enjoyed duplicity fwiw but i have terrible taste in movies.

interesting if true

The screenwriter William Goldman says of him, “Right now, he is as good as the game.”

yeah trailer looks awful and roberts looks miscast as hell but i have a big fat crush on michael clayton and this gilmore fellow so ill be there w/ bells on

It has the four quadrants: Gilroy stans, women, gay men and New Yorker readers.

im still scarred from the roberts/owen zingfest that was closer dont think i can deal w/duplicity even if guy did write the bournes - btw was inspired by that nyer article to watch proof of life yesterday - sucked pretty much - crowe and caruso are awz tho

it's a LOT better than closer.

paul giamatti is lol also.

that article about gilroy is only the latest example of a dismal transparent PR trend in the new yorker, which i felt (perhaps mistakenly?) used to be more resistant to the blandishments of press agents looking for long, free, and prestigious product placement.

i gotta read this article, i'm still pretty skeptical of this dude... max you a big cutting edge stan?

that article about gilroy is only the latest example of a dismal transparent PR trend in the new yorker, which i felt (perhaps mistakenly?) used to be more resistant to the blandishments of press agents looking for long, free, and prestigious product placement.

― Tracer Hand, Monday, March 16, 2009 5:50 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ya kinda reminds of me of that nyt magazine piece about how matthew weiner is america's greatest golden genius

the international was the shit - gugenheim set piece was basically the bomb and all the wide, sweeping shots of the eruo cities were typically great, altho i am a sucker. it's funny that there isn't as much action in this compared to bourne or the new bond (or any other clive owen film) but it's still pretty gripping. first 20 mins are great as well

clive and the woman snooping around post-assassination was great too

ya kinda reminds of me of that nyt magazine piece about how matthew weiner is america's greatest golden genius

― s1ocki, Monday, March 16, 2009 6:51 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i don't get what you and tracer are saying. does a magazine profile have to include negative comments in order to be authentic/meaningful? weiner is really fkn awesome. im not a gilroy stan but he is pretty dece and i don't think there's much to object to in the article.

Ha, I really enjoyed that article, and it did make me want to see Duplicity, but I felt sort of the same way -- it was like an Entertainment Weekly feature somehow wound up being re-written for the New Yorker instead. I'm not sure I'd even have thought twice if it had run at any other time -- any time that didn't seem PR-scheduled for right around the movie's release.

i gotta read this article, i'm still pretty skeptical of this dude... max you a big cutting edge stan?

― s1ocki, Monday, March 16, 2009 1:50 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

not a stan dude--just have a big crush on michael clayton & the last few movies gilroys done

big day for the new yorker on ILX today

that's how journalism tends to work, even at the NYer. ain't it?

xpost to nabisco

D.T. Max did write that heavy duty Foster Wallace piece, so he's a smart guy and perhaps he isn't an easy lay and he really does think he's writing about good stuff.

Having said that, "Tony Gilroy is fifty-two years old, six feet one, and handsome" suggests hand jobs may have been involved.

xpost - E, I don't think the objection is to the content of the article, really, it's just that the NYer is one of those magazines where you don't expect to see excitement-building profiles about whoever's releasing a product that week. You expect to see profiles of people in general, and reviews of new cultural products, but not those perfectly timed articles about the people behind what's about to happen.

Haha another xpost - yeah, E, it works that way, really transparently, lots of places, but ... I honestly don't think the NYer is usually like that!

yeah it's not the article per se, it's more that a guy who writes basic, tight, competent hollywood thrillers has a long-ass hagiography run about himself and his new movie opening in a cinema near you. this is the gold-standard of p.r. - do not delude yourself that david remnick or whoever was like "hmmm. i've heard this gilroy fellow is quite interesting. will someone interview him?" - it was the result of an endless series of sophisticated nudges and come-ons from the movie's p.r. peeps - and yes this is how most entertainment journalism works, but my impression of the new yorker is that it was different for most of its existence

xpost or what nabisco said

i don't get what you and tracer are saying. does a magazine profile have to include negative comments in order to be authentic/meaningful? weiner is really fkn awesome. im not a gilroy stan but he is pretty dece and i don't think there's much to object to in the article.

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, March 16, 2009 5:55 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

we're talking about puff pieces about mediocre writers that belong more in entertainment weekly than the nyer/nyt.

also i always get this "you're doing it wrong" vibe from them... like they're condescending to appreciate the genre's one true genius when they've just been fooled into thinking the latest pretentious vaguely competent dude is the real deal

yeah, nyt need to save their space for the groundbreaking trend pieces and hard-hitting investigative journalism, xp

the article made me think it was probably a combination of good publicity work behind the scenes and a genuine admiration for gilroy on dt max's part--i sort of doubt that remnick was like "listen dt, u need to write a piece on gilroy cuz i owe a favor to paramounts pr team"

I would bat an eyelash at this from the NYT -- it's a daily newspaper, of course they'll run articles pegged to release dates and whatnot

Hahaha I WOULDN'T bat an eyelash from a daily paper, obv

http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/seabrook.html

^^ people have being saying similar about the NYer for a while, no...?

i think gilroy's competence is a pretty rare quality, is the thing. low expectations there. but matthew weiner is not mediocre!

i have never read the new yorker regularly so i have no idea how much better it used to be, but it's sweet to see you guys worrying about a magazine's standards.

also they print those blasted PHOTOGRAPHS inside etc etc

Before you know it they'll be leaving the umlaut off the second "o" in coöperating.

they are writing in the vernacular

http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_8377

matthew weiner stans need to see this

like NOW.

lol wtf

gotta give props to a kid named "arlo weiner" who dresses like that.

hahahaha

beck following him down the street

we inhabit a sick world

oh dear that kid

interesting that gilroy is on non-speakers with paul greengrass. doesn't bode too well for bourne IV.

that boy is going to be addicted to cock crack before he's 15

if he makes it out of school alive that is

script for bourne 3 was pretty lame (pretty besides the point, too)

gilroy just wrote the 1st draft tho - got worked over by a bunch of other guys

i lolled and lolled at d-strath's lines

at or with

i guess tom stoppard worked on that script

pretty sure max did the final polish

;-)

was devil's avacado and adaptation or a gilroy original?

an original

i gotta say i love that script

"i'm a FAN of MAN!"

that film is ludicrous. love it.

we're talking about puff pieces about mediocre writers that belong more in entertainment weekly than the nyer/nyt.

sloc morbius

mike clayton is rad except for some bs about horses but im still pretty skeptical re: duplicity feel like that premise is too loaded with faux romance and empty sentiment ah idk what i mean i just looks like a clipse album of a spy movie

the final reveal in michael clayton was pretty lame - luvd it besides that

your opinion of the final reveal in michael clayton is lame - luv u besides that

^^^ "reverse"

aka the ol' switcheroo

There's a good interview with Gilroy in The Treatment archives. That must've been a fun piece for DT Max to write after spending all that time with David Foster Wallace's legacy.

the final reveal in michael clayton was pretty lame - luvd it besides that

― ice cr?m, Monday, March 16, 2009 9:19 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

can't remember what it was but it can't be as bad as the big twist in duplicity which is so bad i had to sign a piece of paper pwomising to keep it secret. it doesn't detract from the movie but it's pretty weak shit.

i had to sign a piece of paper pwomising to keep it secret.

so the chick is a dude, right?

clive owen is actually dead

nrq, didn't you like intolerable cruelty? how does this compare?

pwomising

^ that's a clue: R=W: Julia Roberts's character is actually George Bush in disguise

nrq, didn't you like intolerable cruelty? how does this compare?

― caek, Monday, March 16, 2009 10:35 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol yes i did. see my "i have terrible taste" post. there are clear similarities. i think this is better but really can't be sure.

intolerable cruelty to the audience

dudes duplicity is awesome... just saw it... like it so much more than michael clayton... its funny and rad and reminded me of out of sight

also so beyond weird bronson-liking shit like intolerable cruelty it shouldnt even be compared

the really bad thing about michael clayton was the tape recorder ending, so lazy screenwriter, yes i complain about it all the time but it was so so bad

duplicity has got solid reviews in variety and hollywood reporter, fwiw

ps. michael clayton is a flawless masterpiece, btw.

CLOONEY
i've got it aaaaaall right here on tape

*tilda swinton holds out her fist, turns it over and opens her hand. two single-A batteries. she lets them clatter to the floor and smiles*

CLOONEY
why you little

SWINTON
that's called a reverse, hombre

CLOONEY
i call it evil

SWINTON
i'm evil, duh

THE END

and then clooney goes officers arrest this sweaty lady

CLOONEY
ur under arrest

SWINTON
u cant arrest me

CLOONEY
citizens arrest

woah @ t-mac in the var:

"a "Trouble in Paradise" for modern times."

in re intolerable cruelty: 1) i was a young coen stan when it dropped 2) im still a george clooney stan 3) some of it was funny!

czj not so much.

angry young stan

i saw duplicity on my own on the last night of its two week run in oxford. i didn't like it. i felt like i was watching a clever screenplay. barely understood the plot and still guessed the ending. giamatti and wilkinson were good.

Duplicity was kind of great I felt. I really enjoyed that movie a whole lot more than I did The International. Yeah, its a clever screenplay but it still felt right. The ending is probably the worst thing about the movie though. But the entire cast is awesome, Julia Roberts, even though I usually don't enjoy her acting, was good and her interaction with Clive Owen felt great. Giamatti and Wilkinson were awesome yeah. Also, I gotta say the opening credits were amazing. It's a great start to the movie, Giamatti and Wilkinson fighting it out in such crap manner.

it's my job to write down the plot and i've got good at it, so was surprised other people didn't. it is pretty tricksy but in a really good way imo. i mean the twist is ridiculous; there's no way wilkinson's crew could have anticipated all that stuff. but the tone was just the right mix of light and not.

i dunno, clive own says "something like we're running a triple bluff" here, and i suddunly realized i) the ending is going to be them getting quadruple bluffed ii) more layers of bluffs != interesting

both these movies are huge pieces of shit fu guys

if duplicity had any integrity the final reveal wouldve involved frozen pizza

fU dogg duplicty ruled.

tedious banter packaged as transcendent zings - hopelessly convoluted intrigue - and a completely unforeshadowed final reveal - tom wilkinson did have a super nice desk tho

"a completely unforeshadowed final reveal"

this was my only problem with duplicity.

the rest of it: i understood EVERY SCENE and lolled and lolled.

braggin

duplicity was not particularly hard to understand - it just required attention to each element twisting off the assembly line - the products shittiness likely disinclined many to bother

also wtf is up w/julia roberts lips - have they always been like that - she appears to be missing an element common to all other humans

completely unforeshadowed?? have you ever seen a movie ft con artists before??

ignoring for a moment the absurdity of the true nature of the formula the ending wouldve been no more connected to the rest of the movie had the fbi popped out and said WEVE BEEN FOLLOWING U THE WHOLE TIME or if the buyers had said LOL REALLY WE ARE WORKING FOR YR ENEMIES

there were as i recall maybe two scenes that had some tenuous connection to the resolution - the fistfight opening demonstrating that the two ceos just really hate each other - and paul giamatti bragging to his shareholders that he is quite impulsive indeed implying that this utterly ridiculous plan just might work - of course that lil nuggett was delivered so late in the movie as to be generally useless

the whole movie is the two ceos dogging each other and pulling dirty tricks... how does it come out of nowhere that one of them was running a big trick all along

it was weird. it was both a predictable and completely arbitrary deus ex machina ending.

shitty movie, anyway.

the problem is really: OH WE JUST KNEW they'd get the record of all the flights made to georgia (or wherever) and so we had some guy there tell them a tall story, and all that scheming. in itself im ok with the idea of wilkinson gaming them all along. it's just that the mechanics are a biiit fucked.

but who cares, this film was lol as balls. idk how ice crm is hating on the script, i thought it was excellent.

*shrug*

honestly some movies i care if the twists make perfect sense, this one i just didnt

the ending was predictable because it was a movie - it had v little relationship to the films own internal logic and absolutely none to how the real world actually works - turning the whole thing into a tedious formal exercise - consequently gunning for a huge OMG RUG PULLED it just got a deflated ehhhhh

really just include a few hints during the film other than that it is a film that the protagonists are possibly being played - then you wouldve only had the ridiculous plot and who gives a fuck abt these tedious dicks problems to contend with w/o compounding them w/a giant wtf

clive owen gets played in teh first scene of the movie, it pretty well establishes that he can be a bit of a dupe imo, i mean do you really need it spelled out in neon lights

which is why the whole he was getting swindled by space aliens final revel fit right in

i did for the record predict the ending - this was mostly based on how lame the movie had been up to that point tho - rather than any sort of logic presented there within

me too

i just saw this. i liked it a lot but it was no oceans eleven. joe is being weird as usual.

i have not seen this movie yet and would like to know what this:

also wtf is up w/julia roberts lips - have they always been like that - she appears to be missing an element common to all other humans

means

one ridic thing abt this movie--clive owens jeans in the miami scene. His suits are all so nice--and then he goes and wears the worst jeans in the history of jeans.

shit

the international suuuuuuucked

yeah.

i still think duplicity pwens.

me too

mee too guys

I enjoyed the international more tho mostly only cos I'm a dummey and was just lolwtfconfused during most of duplicity up-till and including the end. clive owen was more smug in dupe as well

^^strait from my challopian tubes I kno

CLOONEY
ur under arrest

SWINTON
u cant arrest me

CLOONEY
citizens arrest

― ice cr?m, Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:03 AM (3 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

haaa

lololo

smiiiiiiile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXf0yIRcdnI&feature=PlayList&p=B2EA1339B51A4D1E&index=33

http://untossedcoin.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/grin-all-out-304114.jpg

some funny casting in the international such as that zaha hadid phaeno or whatever science centre in germany as the italian guys' HQ w/ some CGI cliffs behind

did u lol

had a wee lol like

duplicity was good fun

The International was a terrible conspiracy movie but brilliant as a catalog of nuEuro-commercial architecture.

Translation: "BLDGBLOG" is one of the IMDB keywords

One of the (many) likeable things about The International was that it didn't lay on the conspiracy element to heavily. Its mostly 'bad people deposit at our bank' which is no big news, its just that it was so much money that it got attention (this is what i could get from the comments on the DVD about the real life case its based on). Then it got the banking crisis slapped on it to give a contemporary weight, but it thankfully spent its time as a case to be worked on by two devoted agents.

Probably spent way too long decoding the buildings/their architecture in relation to points in the story. Clive goes into these amazing transparent monolithic structures = finds nothing/Clive steps where there is no building whatsoever = the shooter walks right past him/Clive walks into the most exciting (but older) building of them all and has main action sequence in it. The shootout, of course, was awesome.

Liked the lack of psychology and character and no relationship between Watts and Owen beyond the purely professional.

There were good parts of the movie, but mostly it made me wish I was watching the Paralax View.

duplicity was way better than the international

no doubt.

No way...enjoyed it enough tho'. Haven't seen Julia Roberts in ages.

is there a thread for state of play?

Liked the lack of psychology and character

hmmmm

"is there a thread for state of play?"

The lousy movie or the great original British mini-series?

i have a spoilery question about the movie, i haven't seen the tv series.

nrq, should i watch fair game or banksy tonight?

idk, haven't seen fair game, so i'd see fair game

^^^ booming post.

exit isn't until 11.15 and there is 2 feet of snow here, so fair game it is.

well, it was better than (1) lions for lambs (2) than i expected

last five minutes was a bit valley of elah

good

i haven't seen either of those

think the banksy was good, but partly because i REALLY expected to hate it and had no idea what it was about going in; it's kind of random it even played here coz in london it was shown under a bridge or something mad alt like that

it's a lot less didactic than i was expecting, and seems to handle the marriage aspect pretty well. naomi watts is a bit of a cypher (ha). sean penn is sean penn.