“Wilson” screening tonight
Charlie Wilson’s War will have its first elite media look-see screening tonight in Los Angeles. Universal reps are “pretty confident” about it so “nobody’s expecting an embargo.” I don’t see what the big deal is about being the first to respond, although there’s always one or two eager beavers who drive right home and put something up by 11 pm or 12 midnight.
So are you part of the “elite media” or not, Jeff? Tapley’s going.
TheJeff — I guess we’ll find out about 11 or 12.
Last Friday I was waiting in line to catch a showing of The Mist when a swarm of pass guys showed up. They literally could not give away free passes of tonight’s showing to anyone. They must have asked hundreds of people in a span of an hour and I didn’t see one person bite.
I don’t know what that means.
this invite went out to pretty much everyone i know….hardly ‘elite media’ (in some cases, ‘barely media’)….
If Universal is so confident than why is it they are not doing a press junket for it?
Total BS. The movie will tank!
Jeff ask Universal tonight why is it that Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts won’t do any press for this…
universal is sticking to the line, ‘tom hanks doesn’t do junkets’ (even though he’s always, at least, done press conferences)…. roberts hasn’t done anything but press conferences and tv for quite some time and now she has ‘family’ to use as an excuse…and, according to the studio, nichols is doing select print and tv…… but, yes….i’d love to hear if wells gets a different line of patter…..it would be interesting to hear a new spin…..
I expect Kris Tapley to scam his way in and have a review up before midnight West Coast… the guy has absolutely zero self-control.
Well they were both on Oprah last week. That’s some kinda press.
I actually think when stars do ENORMOUS amounts of press junkets and interviews, that the film is in trouble.
Kinda curious why so many people are waiting to pounce on this movie…
Julia Roberts is longer that Julia Roberts we loved in the 90′s. She has become this nasty starlet that hates the press except those who kiss her royal feet like Oprah!
Tom Hanks image also now stinks. Does he think he is now so big and good now that he doesn’t have to do press now for a movie that needs it?
This movie needs all the help it can get. A movie about a war even though it’s not about the Iraq war will turn people away. Ask Depalma, and the cast of Rendition
This movie will bomb and I hope it does…..
like i posted (and got flamed for) before, the word ‘war’ in the title is probably going to hurt it….
and gr8 is right, the press pretty much hate hanks and roberts now….
Hey, that word didn’t hurt “War of the Worlds” at the box office!
But, seriously….I saw the trailer for this in a packed theater for “American Gangster” and you could just hear the ‘thud’ as the audience lost all interest in whatever this movie is about. NOTHING in that trailer worked…and I’ll bet not a single member of that audience could tell you what “Charlie Wilson’s War” is about. It seems to be about Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts doing….something. And somehow bombs drop on Afghanistan. And Philip Seymour Hoffmann is in there, too. Hmmmm. I predict this movie will tank HUGE.
i caught charlie wilson’s war this afternoon, and can’t stress enough how the film doesn’t deserve to be lumped in with the group of films that jeff’s wraith-like “too-soon” brigade will ignore / detest. while it’s ostensibly about the cold war-era afghani border and one freewheeling congressman’s attempt to allot the situation appropriate attention and aid, it’s really a blisteringly paced and furiously dry attack on the squabbles and trivialities that prevent both citizens and (more importantly), people of considerable power from attending to truly important matters… sure, bible-thumpers take a hit as they preach the sins of sex and booze while ignoring the truly moral issues at hand (the official concerned enough to see wilson about the endangered nativity scene hammers this home… sorkin must have loved clinton)… but its a film about the power that america has to do genuine good, the many reasons which they blow the many opportunities to do just that, and (in the scene that bookends the film, first triumphant and then decidedly melancholy), how even our nation’s successes result in blunders down the line. also… PSH is outstanding in this. from top to bottom (roberts’ irksome presence, aside) a crackling breath of fresh air that may not garner the academy attention it deserves, but that may join persepolis as the only major films this year that depict the middle east rather than exploit it.
Aguirre, “The Kite Runner” surely isn’t a film that exploites the Middle East.
Aguirre,
I’m glad you liked it but, no offense, I can’t imagine your description…rave though it is….persuading ANYONE into going to see it. It’s ‘ostensibly about the cold war-era afghani border and one freewheeling congressman’s attempt to allot the situation appropriate attention and aid?’ I’m sorry, but any movie description containing words like “allot” and “aid” simply do not leave me all excited to see it. But I’m sure I’ll watch it when it comes out on DVD…depending on the reviews, of course….
Do they use the words “victory” at all? Then I’ll go.
perfectommy i knew i was leaving out a movie or 3, and i’m sure the kite runner is among them.
stephe96… well, sure, this movie is never going to bring the “transformers” crowds out in droves (i’d call them red-staters, but for my money being a fan of that drivel is far more indicative of one’s inability to appreciate the finer things than hailing from fly-over land), but my point is simply that the film is not about a recent issue that some viewers aren’t quite ready to broach, but about the fundamental american practices that guarantee such issues will continue to exist.
Larry King will be the first to review it. “Mike Nichols is a master.Hanks dazzles. My only complaint: It didn’t go on forever.”
Tom O’Neil’s reaction:
http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2007/11/oscars-appraisa.html
Kristopher Tapley’s reaction:
http://www.variety.com/blog/890000489/post/750017875.html
I expect to see a lot more of these types of reactions over the next week. Reminds me a lot of how Elizabethtown was hyped up in 2005 and then fell flat at Toronto. Don’t ask my why I thought that.
it’s not a capital G “Great” movie, but it’s certainly better than these reactions let on. They might feel it amputated or simply truncated from its script, but there is FAR more going on during its brief running time than tapley and o’neil seem to be cognizant of… not that that bodes well for its Oscar chances… but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that the Oscars are a reliable indicator of a film’s quality.
“97 minutes of keep-a-smile-on-your-face pleasantry, at best, but packing a hell of a performance from Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the film left a number of Aaron Sorkin’s best lines on the cutting room floor while coming off much more impotent than one might have expected from a reading of the 145-page script that made the rounds over the past two years.”
OK, so applying the highly suspect (i.e. Bullshit) one page = one minute of screentime equation, that means essentially 48 pages were lopped off from the shooting script, or nearly an entire THIRD.
How did this happen? Did Nichols just get overzealous in the editing room, or is there another story behind the final runningtime?
m’k…i’ll do wednesday’s screening but even the kind reviews make it sound like it sucks….i’ll consider this payment for thursday’s double feature of ‘sweeney todd’ and ‘i am legend’….
Maybe Nichols, having done PRIMARY COLORS and CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR, should try for a trilogy and make the Billie Sol Estes story (colorful Southern con man).
gr81: “Julia Roberts is longer that Julia Roberts we loved in the 90′s.”
I didn’t love her in the 90s. She was always condescending and fake to me. I know I like to rag on Kidman, but at least I believe her performances.
“Tom Hanks image also now stinks.”
We won’t know that for sure until Angels and Demons.
“This movie needs all the help it can get. A movie about a war even though it’s not about the Iraq war will turn people away. ”
It’s more about espionage than war, but those don’t do well nowadays, either.
“Ask Depalma, and the cast of Rendition”
Bad casting and Magnolia’s lackluster P+A are always an hindrance to success.
Zach: But Charlie Wilson hasn’t really had much hype since the get-go.
“An hindrance”?
You suck.
Yeah jeff, “An hindrance” was a horrible moment where DZ took on a british accent and merged with Tremayne’s Sinclair alterego into one big troll monster.
Also, REDACTED’s cast had nothing to do with it. They truly were awful, but it was just a putrid script terribly executed. DePalma has never been an actor’s director, though occasionally he’ll pull of a tonal miracle filled with tight performances, such as THE UNTOUCHABLES or CARLITO’S WAY. Here it was just not to be. If you took the best male cast of up and comers today, say Paul Schneider, Jeremy Renner, Casey Affleck and Garret Dillahunt (who can all be found in one of the year’s best films), it still would have sucked.
“It’s more about espionage than war, but those don’t do well nowadays, either.”
*coughcough* Bourne *coughcough*