list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around For Your Consideration on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/For_Your_Consideration/267166/default.aspx Title: For Your Consideration
Year: 2006
Director: Christopher Guest
Plot: Mockumentary mastermind Christopher Guest turns his satirical eye away from dog shows, small-town theater, and folk music to offer a hilarious take on Hollywood award season in this comedy focusing on trio of actors whose lives are turned upside down when they discover that their performances in an independent film are generating a sizable buzz in the entertainment industry. Jay Berman (Guest) is in the process of directing his first feature film -- an intimate family drama set in the 1940s and detailing the tempestuous reunion of an estranged Jewish family that is reluctantly drawn together to celebrate Purim at the behest of their dying matriarch. The cast soon comes down with an infectious case of award fever when rumors on the Internet claim that "Purim" stars Marilyn Hack (Catherine O' Hara), Victor Allan Miller (Harry Shearer), and Callie Webb (Parker Posey) may be delivering Oscar-caliber performances. When "Hollywood Now" co-anchors Chuck Porter (Fred Willard) and Cindy Martin (Jane Lynch) perpetuate the buzz on national television, the entire film crew starts to see stars in their eyes. Subsequently convinced that they have a sleeper hit on their hands, unit publicist Corey Taft (John Michael Higgins), talent agent Morley Orfkin (Eugene Levy), and producer Whitney Taylor Brown (Jennifer Coolidge) immediately cave to requests from Sunfish Classics president Martin Gibb (Ricky Gervais) to alter the film so that it may appeal to a larger audience. Now, while "Purim" screenwriters Lane Iverson (Michael McKean) and Philip Koontz (Bob Balaban) are forced to watch helplessly as their original screenplay is plundered in order to cash in on the positive buzz, awards season draws near and the production takes a most unexpected turn. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 22
Number of Lists: 11
Number of blog posts: 9
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:20:35 GMTFor Your Consideration2006Christopher GuestMockumentary mastermind <a href="/players/P____92825/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christopher Guest</a> turns his satirical eye away from dog shows, small-town theater, and folk music to offer a hilarious take on Hollywood award season in this comedy focusing on trio of actors whose lives are turned upside down when they discover that their performances in an independent film are generating a sizable buzz in the entertainment industry. Jay Berman (Guest) is in the process of directing his first feature film -- an intimate family drama set in the 1940s and detailing the tempestuous reunion of an estranged Jewish family that is reluctantly drawn together to celebrate Purim at the behest of their dying matriarch. The cast soon comes down with an infectious case of award fever when rumors on the Internet claim that "Purim" stars Marilyn Hack (Catherine O' Hara), Victor Allan Miller (<a href="/players/P___111073/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harry Shearer</a>), and Callie Webb (<a href="/players/P___187028/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Parker Posey</a>) may be delivering Oscar-caliber performances. When "Hollywood Now" co-anchors Chuck Porter (<a href="/players/P____76341/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Fred Willard</a>) and Cindy Martin (<a href="/players/P____43934/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jane Lynch</a>) perpetuate the buzz on national television, the entire film crew starts to see stars in their eyes. Subsequently convinced that they have a sleeper hit on their hands, unit publicist Corey Taft (<a href="/players/P___230480/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Michael Higgins</a>), talent agent Morley Orfkin (<a href="/players/P____99559/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eugene Levy</a>), and producer Whitney Taylor Brown (<a href="/players/P___225744/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jennifer Coolidge</a>) immediately cave to requests from Sunfish Classics president Martin Gibb (<a href="/players/P___373404/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ricky Gervais</a>) to alter the film so that it may appeal to a larger audience. Now, while "Purim" screenwriters Lane Iverson (<a href="/players/P___102180/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael McKean</a>) and Philip Koontz (<a href="/players/P____80466/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bob Balaban</a>) are forced to watch helplessly as their original screenplay is plundered in order to cash in on the positive buzz, awards season draws near and the production takes a most unexpected turn. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide22Tag Target (>10)1193http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u49668o2ttc.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/For_Your_Consideration/267166/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/25/37651.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/25/2008 7:01:14 PM
Body: We can thank Christopher Guest for pulling her out of obscurity and casting her as a lesbian dog trainer in Best in Show. Or we can just thank her incredible talent for stealing scenes by way of riotous awkward comedy. Either way, this week we should remember to be thankful for Jane Lynch. You may have seen her recently in Role Models as the formerly coke-addicted founder of a mentoring organization. Or maybe you’ve seen her in The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Talladega Nights or Guest’s A Mighty Wind and For Your Consideration. In most of her roles, she plays opposite the best comedians in the business, yet she still supplies her films with some of their most memorable moments. I can’t wait to see how she does against Meryl Streep in next year’s Julie & Julia, when she plays the Oscar-winner’s sister. Lynch is hardly a celebrity, but she’s given the star treatment, jokingly, in the video below, the second episode of FunnyorDie.com’s “The Laurel and Meg Show.” And though the SNL-level internet talk show parody is not the funniest thing in the world, it is interesting to see Lynch kind of a victim of her own kind of schtick. For once, she’s not the most awkward character in the room. Although, she does create a nice deadpan awkward moment at the end. This Thanksgiving, many of us are likely to face a number of awkward situations courtesy of forced family bonding. If only we could have Jane Lynch by our sides to ease some of that tension, even if by being more inappropriate than your relatives ever could be. See more funny videos at Funny or Die Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:01:14 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/25/2008 7:01:14 PMWe can thank Christopher Guest for pulling her out of obscurity and casting her as a lesbian dog trainer in Best in Show. Or we can just thank her incredible talent for stealing scenes by way of riotous awkward comedy. Either way, this week we should remember to be thankful for Jane Lynch. You may have seen her recently in Role Models as the formerly coke-addicted founder of a mentoring organization. Or maybe you’ve seen her in The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Talladega Nights or Guest’s A Mighty Wind and For Your Consideration. In most of her roles, she plays opposite the best comedians in the business, yet she still supplies her films with some of their most memorable moments. I can’t wait to see how she does against Meryl Streep in next year’s Julie & Julia, when she plays the Oscar-winner’s sister. Lynch is hardly a celebrity, but she’s given the star treatment, jokingly, in the video below, the second episode of FunnyorDie.com’s “The Laurel and Meg Show.” And though the SNL-level internet talk show parody is not the funniest thing in the world, it is interesting to see Lynch kind of a victim of her own kind of schtick. For once, she’s not the most awkward character in the room. Although, she does create a nice deadpan awkward moment at the end. This Thanksgiving, many of us are likely to face a number of awkward situations courtesy of forced family bonding. If only we could have Jane Lynch by our sides to ease some of that tension, even if by being more inappropriate than your relatives ever could be. See more funny videos at Funny or Die Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/13/36265.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/13/2008 4:00:59 PM
Body: In a crowded year for Best Actress contention, Anne Hathaway could be the only first-timer to receive an Oscar nomination in the lead category, possibly going up against mainstays such as her Devil Wears Prada costar Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet, as well as the less-nominated vets Nicole Kidman and Kristen Scott Thomas. Her main competition for the outsider, dark horse position is Frozen River’s Melissa Leo (who may benefit from her film’s initiatory screener campaign even though River’s theatrical release was early and hardly noticed), and Happy-Go-Lucky’s Sally Hawkins, whose film just debuted to favorable reviews citing her brilliant (as in talented and bright) performance. But Hathaway is sure to be the victor –– even though her performance in Rachel Getting Married is hardly deserving of such an honor. The Oscar buzz for Hathaway has been high for weeks now, enough that the actress apparently joked about it in her Saturday Night Live monologue earlier this month (I thought of it as less a current-year expectation than a general career goal, but it’s made Risky Biz Blog’s Steven Zeitchik compare Hathaway to Catherine O’Hara’s buzz-afflicted character in For Your Consideration). The fact that she’s a well-known movie star should make Hathaway’s buzz continually more reportable by the press and more noticeable by both the public and the voters, which gives her some advantage over Leo and Hawkins in terms of cultural consciousness. As much as the Academy loves Streep and Winslet (and Kidman and Cate Blanchett), and as much as voters like an Oscar comeback from a relatively M.I.A. past nominee like Scott Thomas (see Julie Christie, Sissy Spacek, Ellen Burstyn, etc.), the Academy really seems to have a thing for young, pretty, popular actresses who suddenly find their (probably once-in-a-lifetime) Oscar-worthy role. Hathaway will follow the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Winona Ryder, Elizabeth Shue, Helen Hunt, Renee Zellweger, Reese Witherspoon, Ellen Page, Charlize Theron and Keira Knightley (not to mention all of those in the Supporting Actress category), some of who have actually gone on to more nominations and therefore proven themselves deserving of their original transition into Oscar territory. However, for Hathaway it isn’t simply about box office beauties who take a pay cut and/or go bad (or at least more adult), as Tom O’Neill claims. If it were that easy, Hathaway should have been nominated for Havoc or Brokeback Mountain. Instead it’s more to do with the Oscar-favored tradition of recognizing the serious turn from the beauty-stripped Hollywood princess. And it helps Hathaway that Rachel Getting Married is additionally a strong film with countless strong performances, among which she stands out the most. But does she stand out because she’s that much better or because she’s that much more famous? To call Hathaway’s costars in Rachel comparative unknowns is a bit of an understatement. Plus, there’s the matter of Hathaway standing out because her character selfishly butts her way into attention-seeking situations. Yet despite this trait in her character and the basic plot of the film, a less-celebrated actress might have seemed more a part of the ensemble while still being the focal point of the story. It’s easy to notice Hathaway’s performance when you’re constantly reminded, thanks to star status, that it’s Hathaway as you’ve never seen her before. The sudden display of Oscar-worthy talent is what needs to be questioned, because oftentimes a surprisingly great turn by an otherwise fine actress is more the handiwork of the director than the actor or actress. Rachel helmer Jonathan Demme has a long history of nudging merely decent actors toward a nomination. Some of his one-hit-wonders include Mary Steenburgen (Melvin and Howard), Christine Lahti (Swing Shift) and Dean Stockwell (Married to the Mob), and, of course, he’s the guy who first really convinced us that Tom Hanks could be a serious actor with Philadelphia. Demme shows his talent as an actor’s director best with Rachel, as the majority of the film’s cast could just as well receive Oscar buzz if only they had more familiar names or faces. Even Oscar vet Debra Winger might have had a better shot at another nomination if she were more recognizable (seeing Rachel at a matinee filled with old folks had me hearing the “is that…?” question almost as much as I heard it during Tropic Thunder). It’s actually a bit of a shock that relative newcomer Rosemarie DeWitt, who plays the film’s titular role, appears to be gaining heat in the Supporting Actress race, though that category’s major contenders include a number of unfamiliar names, according to In Contention’s Oscar Prediction Chart. Without Demme’s direction, Hathaway might not have delivered the goods, as possibly evidenced in her lack of Oscar notice for Brokeback Mountain. Ang Lee is hardly an actor’s director, and yet Hathaway’s three main costars in that film (Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams) were each nominated by the Academy. Hathaway also stood out in that film, mostly as miscast and out-of-her-element, but she was extremely overshadowed performance-wise. A year later, she was upstaged in Prada by Streep, who went on to receive her 14th nomination. Now, with Rachel, she’s the upstager, but it’ll only be enough to get her into the pool of nominees.  Up against Streep and the other more experienced contenders, her celebrity alone won’t help her actually win. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:00:59 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/13/2008 4:00:59 PMIn a crowded year for Best Actress contention, Anne Hathaway could be the only first-timer to receive an Oscar nomination in the lead category, possibly going up against mainstays such as her Devil Wears Prada costar Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet, as well as the less-nominated vets Nicole Kidman and Kristen Scott Thomas. Her main competition for the outsider, dark horse position is Frozen River’s Melissa Leo (who may benefit from her film’s initiatory screener campaign even though River’s theatrical release was early and hardly noticed), and Happy-Go-Lucky’s Sally Hawkins, whose film just debuted to favorable reviews citing her brilliant (as in talented and bright) performance. But Hathaway is sure to be the victor –– even though her performance in Rachel Getting Married is hardly deserving of such an honor. The Oscar buzz for Hathaway has been high for weeks now, enough that the actress apparently joked about it in her Saturday Night Live monologue earlier this month (I thought of it as less a current-year expectation than a general career goal, but it’s made Risky Biz Blog’s Steven Zeitchik compare Hathaway to Catherine O’Hara’s buzz-afflicted character in For Your Consideration). The fact that she’s a well-known movie star should make Hathaway’s buzz continually more reportable by the press and more noticeable by both the public and the voters, which gives her some advantage over Leo and Hawkins in terms of cultural consciousness. As much as the Academy loves Streep and Winslet (and Kidman and Cate Blanchett), and as much as voters like an Oscar comeback from a relatively M.I.A. past nominee like Scott Thomas (see Julie Christie, Sissy Spacek, Ellen Burstyn, etc.), the Academy really seems to have a thing for young, pretty, popular actresses who suddenly find their (probably once-in-a-lifetime) Oscar-worthy role. Hathaway will follow the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Winona Ryder, Elizabeth Shue, Helen Hunt, Renee Zellweger, Reese Witherspoon, Ellen Page, Charlize Theron and Keira Knightley (not to mention all of those in the Supporting Actress category), some of who have actually gone on to more nominations and therefore proven themselves deserving of their original transition into Oscar territory. However, for Hathaway it isn’t simply about box office beauties who take a pay cut and/or go bad (or at least more adult), as Tom O’Neill claims. If it were that easy, Hathaway should have been nominated for Havoc or Brokeback Mountain. Instead it’s more to do with the Oscar-favored tradition of recognizing the serious turn from the beauty-stripped Hollywood princess. And it helps Hathaway that Rachel Getting Married is additionally a strong film with countless strong performances, among which she stands out the most. But does she stand out because she’s that much better or because she’s that much more famous? To call Hathaway’s costars in Rachel comparative unknowns is a bit of an understatement. Plus, there’s the matter of Hathaway standing out because her character selfishly butts her way into attention-seeking situations. Yet despite this trait in her character and the basic plot of the film, a less-celebrated actress might have seemed more a part of the ensemble while still being the focal point of the story. It’s easy to notice Hathaway’s performance when you’re constantly reminded, thanks to star status, that it’s Hathaway as you’ve never seen her before. The sudden display of Oscar-worthy talent is what needs to be questioned, because oftentimes a surprisingly great turn by an otherwise fine actress is more the handiwork of the director than the actor or actress. Rachel helmer Jonathan Demme has a long history of nudging merely decent actors toward a nomination. Some of his one-hit-wonders include Mary Steenburgen (Melvin and Howard), Christine Lahti (Swing Shift) and Dean Stockwell (Married to the Mob), and, of course, he’s the guy who first really convinced us that Tom Hanks could be a serious actor with Philadelphia. Demme shows his talent as an actor’s director best with Rachel, as the majority of the film’s cast could just as well receive Oscar buzz if only they had more familiar names or faces. Even Oscar vet Debra Winger might have had a better shot at another nomination if she were more recognizable (seeing Rachel at a matinee filled with old folks had me hearing the “is that…?” question almost as much as I heard it during Tropic Thunder). It’s actually a bit of a shock that relative newcomer Rosemarie DeWitt, who plays the film’s titular role, appears to be gaining heat in the Supporting Actress race, though that category’s major contenders include a number of unfamiliar names, according to In Contention’s Oscar Prediction Chart. Without Demme’s direction, Hathaway might not have delivered the goods, as possibly evidenced in her lack of Oscar notice for Brokeback Mountain. Ang Lee is hardly an actor’s director, and yet Hathaway’s three main costars in that film (Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Williams) were each nominated by the Academy. Hathaway also stood out in that film, mostly as miscast and out-of-her-element, but she was extremely overshadowed performance-wise. A year later, she was upstaged in Prada by Streep, who went on to receive her 14th nomination. Now, with Rachel, she’s the upstager, but it’ll only be enough to get her into the pool of nominees.  Up against Streep and the other more experienced contenders, her celebrity alone won’t help her actually win. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/11/33867.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/11/2008 4:00:43 PM
Body: Lists of movies within movies are fairly common on the internet, enough that I now realize I need to finally see Bowfinger simply because I’ve counted about a million list makers in love with something titled “Chubby Rain.” And the lists are likely to keep on coming thanks to this week’s hot release, Tropic Thunder, which actually features two movies within (the Vietnam War film “Tropic Thunder” and the festival-winning making-of documentary “Rain of Madness”), as well as the upcoming How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, which has spawned a popular fake movie trailer for an NC-17 film titled “Mother Theresa: The Making of a Saint” (previewed above). Yet until someone makes a Wikipedia page for “List of Fictional Films,” these blogged and forumed lists are necessary to keep us movie fans remembering those non-existent movies we wish existed. Narrowing down to ten seemed to be difficult — fictional films have been at least nominally been created for tons of films about filmmaking, otherwise reflexive films, sketch comedies, spoofs, etc. — until I realized that a lot of these films within films are appropriately nominal or trailer- or clip-sized gags and would in reality be terrible (imagine actually watching the entirety of “Asses of Fire” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut). Even “Je Vous Présente Paméla” (”Meet Pamela”) from Day for Night and the sci-fi film being made in 8½ would probably be major disappointments in actuality if you expected from them the work of Truffaut and Fellini, respectively. So, I went mostly with fictional films that would probably be bad, but would at least be amusingly bad — though I purposefully avoided fictional porns, including those from Boogie Nights and The Big Lebowski, of which there are literally thousands: “Gandhi II” from UHF - There’s just something about watching good people gone bad. But while the idea of the Good Will Hunting sequel, subtitled “Hunting Season”, thought up for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is pretty ingenious, it just doesn’t have the same level of ludicrous exaggeration that a bloodletting follow-up to the Oscar-winning Gandhi has. Dude drives a Ferrari, can punch completely through a guy’s abdomen, and of course he knows how to party. He even eats meat, now. It’s not only funny because it’s the antithesis of what the Indian leader was all about, it’s also funny because it reminds me of all those straight-edge and vegetarian kids you knew in high school who now drink way too much (oh, yeah, I’m one of them). “Odyssey” from Contempt - When Fritz Lang showed up as himself in Jean-Luc Godard’s Contempt, he’d already given the world his final film as a director (The 1,000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse). If only he’d really given us this one additional adaptation of Homer’s epic poem. Either as an art film, as Lang originally intends, or as a more commercial picture, as desired by the American producer played by Jack Palance. “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ from Sullivan’s Travels - The other famously named film within this film, “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” was, at least in title, already made by the Coen brothers (see the side-by-side comparison in the video above — interestingly enough, their O Brother, Where Art Thou? is also an adaptation of Homer’s “Odyssey”, uniting #2 and #3 of this list). But I always try to imagine what a film titled “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ would have looked like. I always picture a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley, yet it’s got to be more shallow than that, according to how it’s referenced in Preston Sturges’ movie. “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure” from Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure - What fan of the real Big Adventure wouldn’t like to watch it all over again as an action picture starring James Brolin and Morgan Fairchild? Maybe it wouldn’t be as good, but it does have ninjas. Anyway, because I love to relate seemingly unrelated movies via lists, let it be known that an episode of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse was titled “Ants in Your Pants”. And now that I think about it, that show was kinda like a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley. Kinda. “Habeas Corpus” from The Player - It’s a common staple for lists like this, and pretty much all Bruce Willis movies from the first half of the ’90s were awful (obviously Pulp Fiction is an exception), but I’d definitely watch the whole of this fake film, even though I’ve already seen how it ends. As with Fritz Lang’s “Odyssey”, I’d be curious to see both the originally planned version and the commercialized final version. “Crossed Sabres of Truth” from The Big Picture - Forget “Home for Purim”, that lame movie within a movie from Christopher Guest’s For Your Consideration. This earlier satire of Hollywood from Guest had far greater fake films, most of them fake student films, such as this one, made by the full-of-himself character played by Dan Schneider. It may not have starred Elliott Gould (as does “The Trial of Janet Kingsley”), or been an overly avant-garde work titled “Afterbirth of a Notion” (which reminds me of the opening to Pee-Wee’s Playhouse), or the actual winner of the National Film Institute’s student film award (that would be Kevin Bacon’s character’s “First Date”), but it has the fat kid from Head of the Class and Better Off Dead riding a horse in a 19th century war movie. How could you not want to see more? “See You Next Wednesday” from The Kentucky Fried Movie - I’m probably a bigger fan of weird movie theater gimmicks than the average moviegoer, but that’s probably because I didn’t get a chance to live through things like Smell-O-Vision, which sound neat in theory but which were reportedly very obnoxious in reality (I recently wrote elsewhere about how the return of Smell-O-Vision in pre-show advertising sounds terrible). The joke about “See You Next Wednesday” (a fake movie title referenced in most of John Landis’ films) is that it’s in “feel-around”, a gimmick that’s clearly annoying to experience. I’d definitely be willing to try it out once, though. Especially if it’s the closest thing I could get to one of the Feelies (tactual motion pictures) from Huxley’s “Brave New World”. “MANT” from Matinee - Movie theater gimmicks also have me curious about experiencing the schlock horror film shown in Atomo-Vision and Rumble-Rama. This is one of those film within a films that you get to see more than enough footage of, but I want to actually suffer it as it’s intended to be seen. “Jews in Space” from History of the World, Part I - Mel Brooks eventually did make a Star Wars spoof, one that featured a lot of Jews in space (Spaceballs), but that doesn’t mean this earlier parody idea wouldn’t also be worth seeing. I’d even settle for seeing the apparently hilarious 2005 Argentine film Jews in Space Or Why Is This Night Different, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to actually take place in space nor, tragically, involve spaceships shaped like the Star of David. “Those Darn Amigos” from ¡Three Amigos! - Because the synopsis of Tropic Thunder reminds me of the plot to Three Amigos, I feel it appropriate to include one of the fake films from the underrated comedy. At the beginning of the movie, we see one of the silent movies starring the Three Amigos (see the clip above), but I’m more interested in the trio’s flop, which diverted from the usual premise to be about three wealthy Spanish landowners who take a little vacation in Manhattan. If it didn’t appeal to the masses, I’ll probably love it. I’d also settle for seeing one of the early shorts featuring Ned Nederlander (Martin Short) known as “Little Neddy’s Knickers.” Considering ¡Three Amigos! is set in 1916, and Short was in his mid-30s, I believe it impossible that Ned could have been a child star of any younger than 30, so I’m pretty curious. BONUS: “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” from Lost in La Mancha - It isn’t a fake film, but it is technically a film within a film. And it’s so far non-existent, really. Terry Gilliam’s attempted loose adaptation of Cervantes was actually being made, with Johnny Depp in the lead. However, due to multiple complications, the production was canceled after shooting had begun, and all that remained was Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe’s depressing documentary Lost in La Mancha. Because sometimes the gods are good to us Gilliam fans, though, it was recently announced that the film is on being attempted again, reportedly still with Depp and possibly also starring Michael Palin. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/11/2008 4:00:43 PM Lists of movies within movies are fairly common on the internet, enough that I now realize I need to finally see Bowfinger simply because I’ve counted about a million list makers in love with something titled “Chubby Rain.” And the lists are likely to keep on coming thanks to this week’s hot release, Tropic Thunder, which actually features two movies within (the Vietnam War film “Tropic Thunder” and the festival-winning making-of documentary “Rain of Madness”), as well as the upcoming How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, which has spawned a popular fake movie trailer for an NC-17 film titled “Mother Theresa: The Making of a Saint” (previewed above). Yet until someone makes a Wikipedia page for “List of Fictional Films,” these blogged and forumed lists are necessary to keep us movie fans remembering those non-existent movies we wish existed. Narrowing down to ten seemed to be difficult — fictional films have been at least nominally been created for tons of films about filmmaking, otherwise reflexive films, sketch comedies, spoofs, etc. — until I realized that a lot of these films within films are appropriately nominal or trailer- or clip-sized gags and would in reality be terrible (imagine actually watching the entirety of “Asses of Fire” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut). Even “Je Vous Présente Paméla” (”Meet Pamela”) from Day for Night and the sci-fi film being made in 8½ would probably be major disappointments in actuality if you expected from them the work of Truffaut and Fellini, respectively. So, I went mostly with fictional films that would probably be bad, but would at least be amusingly bad — though I purposefully avoided fictional porns, including those from Boogie Nights and The Big Lebowski, of which there are literally thousands: “Gandhi II” from UHF - There’s just something about watching good people gone bad. But while the idea of the Good Will Hunting sequel, subtitled “Hunting Season”, thought up for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is pretty ingenious, it just doesn’t have the same level of ludicrous exaggeration that a bloodletting follow-up to the Oscar-winning Gandhi has. Dude drives a Ferrari, can punch completely through a guy’s abdomen, and of course he knows how to party. He even eats meat, now. It’s not only funny because it’s the antithesis of what the Indian leader was all about, it’s also funny because it reminds me of all those straight-edge and vegetarian kids you knew in high school who now drink way too much (oh, yeah, I’m one of them). “Odyssey” from Contempt - When Fritz Lang showed up as himself in Jean-Luc Godard’s Contempt, he’d already given the world his final film as a director (The 1,000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse). If only he’d really given us this one additional adaptation of Homer’s epic poem. Either as an art film, as Lang originally intends, or as a more commercial picture, as desired by the American producer played by Jack Palance. “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ from Sullivan’s Travels - The other famously named film within this film, “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” was, at least in title, already made by the Coen brothers (see the side-by-side comparison in the video above — interestingly enough, their O Brother, Where Art Thou? is also an adaptation of Homer’s “Odyssey”, uniting #2 and #3 of this list). But I always try to imagine what a film titled “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ would have looked like. I always picture a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley, yet it’s got to be more shallow than that, according to how it’s referenced in Preston Sturges’ movie. “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure” from Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure - What fan of the real Big Adventure wouldn’t like to watch it all over again as an action picture starring James Brolin and Morgan Fairchild? Maybe it wouldn’t be as good, but it does have ninjas. Anyway, because I love to relate seemingly unrelated movies via lists, let it be known that an episode of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse was titled “Ants in Your Pants”. And now that I think about it, that show was kinda like a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley. Kinda. “Habeas Corpus” from The Player - It’s a common staple for lists like this, and pretty much all Bruce Willis movies from the first half of the ’90s were awful (obviously Pulp Fiction is an exception), but I’d definitely watch the whole of this fake film, even though I’ve already seen how it ends. As with Fritz Lang’s “Odyssey”, I’d be curious to see both the originally planned version and the commercialized final version. “Crossed Sabres of Truth” from The Big Picture - Forget “Home for Purim”, that lame movie within a movie from Christopher Guest’s For Your Consideration. This earlier satire of Hollywood from Guest had far greater fake films, most of them fake student films, such as this one, made by the full-of-himself character played by Dan Schneider. It may not have starred Elliott Gould (as does “The Trial of Janet Kingsley”), or been an overly avant-garde work titled “Afterbirth of a Notion” (which reminds me of the opening to Pee-Wee’s Playhouse), or the actual winner of the National Film Institute’s student film award (that would be Kevin Bacon’s character’s “First Date”), but it has the fat kid from Head of the Class and Better Off Dead riding a horse in a 19th century war movie. How could you not want to see more? “See You Next Wednesday” from The Kentucky Fried Movie - I’m probably a bigger fan of weird movie theater gimmicks than the average moviegoer, but that’s probably because I didn’t get a chance to live through things like Smell-O-Vision, which sound neat in theory but which were reportedly very obnoxious in reality (I recently wrote elsewhere about how the return of Smell-O-Vision in pre-show advertising sounds terrible). The joke about “See You Next Wednesday” (a fake movie title referenced in most of John Landis’ films) is that it’s in “feel-around”, a gimmick that’s clearly annoying to experience. I’d definitely be willing to try it out once, though. Especially if it’s the closest thing I could get to one of the Feelies (tactual motion pictures) from Huxley’s “Brave New World”. “MANT” from Matinee - Movie theater gimmicks also have me curious about experiencing the schlock horror film shown in Atomo-Vision and Rumble-Rama. This is one of those film within a films that you get to see more than enough footage of, but I want to actually suffer it as it’s intended to be seen. “Jews in Space” from History of the World, Part I - Mel Brooks eventually did make a Star Wars spoof, one that featured a lot of Jews in space (Spaceballs), but that doesn’t mean this earlier parody idea wouldn’t also be worth seeing. I’d even settle for seeing the apparently hilarious 2005 Argentine film Jews in Space Or Why Is This Night Different, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to actually take place in space nor, tragically, involve spaceships shaped like the Star of David. “Those Darn Amigos” from ¡Three Amigos! - Because the synopsis of Tropic Thunder reminds me of the plot to Three Amigos, I feel it appropriate to include one of the fake films from the underrated comedy. At the beginning of the movie, we see one of the silent movies starring the Three Amigos (see the clip above), but I’m more interested in the trio’s flop, which diverted from the usual premise to be about three wealthy Spanish landowners who take a little vacation in Manhattan. If it didn’t appeal to the masses, I’ll probably love it. I’d also settle for seeing one of the early shorts featuring Ned Nederlander (Martin Short) known as “Little Neddy’s Knickers.” Considering ¡Three Amigos! is set in 1916, and Short was in his mid-30s, I believe it impossible that Ned could have been a child star of any younger than 30, so I’m pretty curious. BONUS: “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” from Lost in La Mancha - It isn’t a fake film, but it is technically a film within a film. And it’s so far non-existent, really. Terry Gilliam’s attempted loose adaptation of Cervantes was actually being made, with Johnny Depp in the lead. However, due to multiple complications, the production was canceled after shooting had begun, and all that remained was Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe’s depressing documentary Lost in La Mancha. Because sometimes the gods are good to us Gilliam fans, though, it was recently announced that the film is on being attempted again, reportedly still with Depp and possibly also starring Michael Palin. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/9/30957.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/9/2008 1:10:14 PM
Body: Satire can be the hardest genre to work in. Too much tweaking and the result is unintentionally cruel. Not enough and it looks like the writer is trying not to offend. Writer/director/actor Christopher Guest's latest, "For Your Consideration", falls somewhere in the middle: it is a slight indictment against studio bosses who interfere in a production when awards buzz starts, yet it is also terribly depressing when the inevitable happens. One-time movie stars Marilyn Hack (Catherine O'Hara) and Victor Allan Miller (Harry Shearer) headline an indie drama called "Home for Purim", a movie which centers on a Jewish holiday. Hack is permanently stuck in her glory days, going as far as to re-watch her films seemingly every day. When an internet spy gets on the set and writes about her chances for an Oscar nomination, she and the production become obsessed with awards. Soon, the drama's name is changed to "Home for Thanksgiving" in an attempt to make it more audience-friendly. Then, the unbelievable happens: Callie Webb (Parker Posey) is thrown into the Oscar speculation mix, throwing Hack's nomination into doubt. The production studio launches an all-out media blitz to support "Home for Thanksgiving"…including throwing its stars into the deep end of their own personal oceans. Being a Guest virgin (his previous films include "A Mighty Wind" and "Waiting for Guffman", among others), I was unsure of what to expect. Would this be an all out comedy that appeals to the mass audience or would it be a more refined, understated comedy like the currently airing "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip"? The trailers would have us believe it is the former more than the latter. While "For Your Consideration" does have its share of laugh out loud moments-most notably with Fred Willard as an "Entertainment Tonight"-type show host-the rest is decidedly un-Adam Sandler. The fact that the out of control spiral the crew of "Home for Thanksgiving" find themselves in is the result of the marriage of an internet spy and the stars own hubris. When the word Oscar starts getting thrown around, they morph from people who signed onto the film because they had a passion for the material to a group obsessed with the gold statue. Lead among them is Hack, where the buzz starts. It moves to Webb, her younger costar. In the best tradition of "All About Eve", Hack doesn't turn into a bitch like Margo Channing rather, she goes through all the motions to be seen as a supportive costar. A similar thought to what happened in real life for Bette Davis and Anne Baxter (they competed in the same category, ultimately both losing) ran through my mind during all the Oscar talk in "Consideration": why wasn't there a push for Hack to get the Best Actress nomination and Webb the Supporting Actress one? That possibility isn't even mentioned, which comes off as a little bit of a shock. For a film with tongue planted firmly in cheek and pretending to be a part of reality, why isn't anyone thinking like a real person? Satire is defined as "a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule". What Guest and his company of actors is satirizing here is human ego. This is no more evident than near the end during the full-fledged Oscar push. Webb is a guest on a raunchy radio talk show she is clearly too civilized for (let's just say the two hosts mention morning wood more than once). Miller, who is portrayed as a classically trained actor, finds himself on a "Total Request Live" program, dancing to hip hop music in a room full of the under-20 set. Perhaps the biggest fall from grace is that of Hack, the one person for whom the nomination means the entire world. She changes from an older, mature actress-think Annette Bening or Katharine Hepburn-into someone wearing flashy, low cut clothes and copious amounts of makeup…all in an attempt to court younger-skewing Academy members. Hers is the most depressing transformation, a woman who has basically changed everything about herself for this one chance. She has completely sold out. Because this is a satire, a bit of irony wouldn't be unexpected. The one main cast member who doesn't seem to care about nominations-Christopher Moynihan's Brian Chubb-turns out to be the only person to actually get recognition. The last the audience sees of Brian is the phone call telling him he was nominated. We're never told if he wins the award or what anyone thinks about it. In the end, it doesn't really matter since the story isn't about the people who get what they want it's about the people and the extraordinary lengths they go to in order to achieve their dreams. Ultimately, I can't quite decide if their individual transformations and journeys are funny and worthy of the laughs they initially generate or if they are so sad and depressing we should feel dirty for chuckling. Seeing Miller come out onto the music show set in a t-shirt and highlights in his hair is initially hilarious, but as the scene continues, it dawns on the audience how demeaning this entire act is for him. He's a fish out of water, in a setting he never expected to be in and, frankly, is beneath him. I do want to spend a minute talking about Willard, who I mentioned a little while ago. He is consistently the funniest part of the entire movie, even though he had no more than ten minutes of actual screen time. When he is utilized, his Chuck Porter is so completely over the top and supplies the type of humor the audience expects out of the movie. He also serves as a counterpoint to the understated humor throughout the film, not to mention a lighter side to the second half of the production. Sitting through "For Your Consideration", I felt as though I was watching a more satiric version of "Studio 60". The humor isn't the blatant comedy other films like "Borat" flaunt. The script reaches as high as the film can really go in terms of making comedy that isn't screwball or slapstick. As the definition goes, the laughs come from watching human's do stupid things for the benefit of their individual ego. At the same time, the things we initially scoff at become a sad commentary on the state of human affairs when they're watched for any length of time. With a stellar cast that also includes Parker Posey, Ed Begley, Jr., and a whole host of other recognizable actors, "For Your Consideration" does tweak the Oscar push we get every year. Maybe because the end credits seem to come out of left field and the movie is entirely too short (a paltry 86 minutes), "For Your Consideration" leaves a bad taste in the audiences mouth. This is, perhaps, the textbook example of a movie having its parts better than the whole. The elements are there, admirable things are done with those elements. It just feels…incomplete. Maybe that was the intention: leave the audience feeling empty just as the three Oscar hopefuls feel at the end of their journey. "For Your Consideration", on a scale of 1 to 10, rates a 6.
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:10:14 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/9/2008 1:10:14 PMSatire can be the hardest genre to work in. Too much tweaking and the result is unintentionally cruel. Not enough and it looks like the writer is trying not to offend. Writer/director/actor Christopher Guest's latest, "For Your Consideration", falls somewhere in the middle: it is a slight indictment against studio bosses who interfere in a production when awards buzz starts, yet it is also terribly depressing when the inevitable happens. One-time movie stars Marilyn Hack (Catherine O'Hara) and Victor Allan Miller (Harry Shearer) headline an indie drama called "Home for Purim", a movie which centers on a Jewish holiday. Hack is permanently stuck in her glory days, going as far as to re-watch her films seemingly every day. When an internet spy gets on the set and writes about her chances for an Oscar nomination, she and the production become obsessed with awards. Soon, the drama's name is changed to "Home for Thanksgiving" in an attempt to make it more audience-friendly. Then, the unbelievable happens: Callie Webb (Parker Posey) is thrown into the Oscar speculation mix, throwing Hack's nomination into doubt. The production studio launches an all-out media blitz to support "Home for Thanksgiving"&hellip;including throwing its stars into the deep end of their own personal oceans. Being a Guest virgin (his previous films include "A Mighty Wind" and "Waiting for Guffman", among others), I was unsure of what to expect. Would this be an all out comedy that appeals to the mass audience or would it be a more refined, understated comedy like the currently airing "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip"? The trailers would have us believe it is the former more than the latter. While "For Your Consideration" does have its share of laugh out loud moments-most notably with Fred Willard as an "Entertainment Tonight"-type show host-the rest is decidedly un-Adam Sandler. The fact that the out of control spiral the crew of "Home for Thanksgiving" find themselves in is the result of the marriage of an internet spy and the stars own hubris. When the word Oscar starts getting thrown around, they morph from people who signed onto the film because they had a passion for the material to a group obsessed with the gold statue. Lead among them is Hack, where the buzz starts. It moves to Webb, her younger costar. In the best tradition of "All About Eve", Hack doesn't turn into a bitch like Margo Channing rather, she goes through all the motions to be seen as a supportive costar. A similar thought to what happened in real life for Bette Davis and Anne Baxter (they competed in the same category, ultimately both losing) ran through my mind during all the Oscar talk in "Consideration": why wasn't there a push for Hack to get the Best Actress nomination and Webb the Supporting Actress one? That possibility isn't even mentioned, which comes off as a little bit of a shock. For a film with tongue planted firmly in cheek and pretending to be a part of reality, why isn't anyone thinking like a real person? Satire is defined as "a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule". What Guest and his company of actors is satirizing here is human ego. This is no more evident than near the end during the full-fledged Oscar push. Webb is a guest on a raunchy radio talk show she is clearly too civilized for (let's just say the two hosts mention morning wood more than once). Miller, who is portrayed as a classically trained actor, finds himself on a "Total Request Live" program, dancing to hip hop music in a room full of the under-20 set. Perhaps the biggest fall from grace is that of Hack, the one person for whom the nomination means the entire world. She changes from an older, mature actress-think Annette Bening or Katharine Hepburn-into someone wearing flashy, low cut clothes and copious amounts of makeup&hellip;all in an attempt to court younger-skewing Academy members. Hers is the most depressing transformation, a woman who has basically changed everything about herself for this one chance. She has completely sold out. Because this is a satire, a bit of irony wouldn't be unexpected. The one main cast member who doesn't seem to care about nominations-Christopher Moynihan's Brian Chubb-turns out to be the only person to actually get recognition. The last the audience sees of Brian is the phone call telling him he was nominated. We're never told if he wins the award or what anyone thinks about it. In the end, it doesn't really matter since the story isn't about the people who get what they want it's about the people and the extraordinary lengths they go to in order to achieve their dreams. Ultimately, I can't quite decide if their individual transformations and journeys are funny and worthy of the laughs they initially generate or if they are so sad and depressing we should feel dirty for chuckling. Seeing Miller come out onto the music show set in a t-shirt and highlights in his hair is initially hilarious, but as the scene continues, it dawns on the audience how demeaning this entire act is for him. He's a fish out of water, in a setting he never expected to be in and, frankly, is beneath him. I do want to spend a minute talking about Willard, who I mentioned a little while ago. He is consistently the funniest part of the entire movie, even though he had no more than ten minutes of actual screen time. When he is utilized, his Chuck Porter is so completely over the top and supplies the type of humor the audience expects out of the movie. He also serves as a counterpoint to the understated humor throughout the film, not to mention a lighter side to the second half of the production. Sitting through "For Your Consideration", I felt as though I was watching a more satiric version of "Studio 60". The humor isn't the blatant comedy other films like "Borat" flaunt. The script reaches as high as the film can really go in terms of making comedy that isn't screwball or slapstick. As the definition goes, the laughs come from watching human's do stupid things for the benefit of their individual ego. At the same time, the things we initially scoff at become a sad commentary on the state of human affairs when they're watched for any length of time. With a stellar cast that also includes Parker Posey, Ed Begley, Jr., and a whole host of other recognizable actors, "For Your Consideration" does tweak the Oscar push we get every year. Maybe because the end credits seem to come out of left field and the movie is entirely too short (a paltry 86 minutes), "For Your Consideration" leaves a bad taste in the audiences mouth. This is, perhaps, the textbook example of a movie having its parts better than the whole. The elements are there, admirable things are done with those elements. It just feels&hellip;incomplete. Maybe that was the intention: leave the audience feeling empty just as the three Oscar hopefuls feel at the end of their journey. "For Your Consideration", on a scale of 1 to 10, rates a 6. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/2/4/24703.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/4/2008 12:01:04 PM
Body: Trailers for novels aren’t the newest idea in the world, but I still think they’re a neat concept. Unfortunately, they can sometimes actually do harm to a book’s appeal, as in the case of Amanda Goldberg and Ruthanna Khalighi Hopper’s Hollywood-set novel Celebutantes, which arrives in stores tomorrow. The book has four dramatized “trailers”, or clips, pulled from its pages, the best of which is viewable above. Yes, I said the best of which. And if you think that one is bad, then check out the three other truly embarrassing clips at the book’s MySpace page. So if they’re so bad, why am I sharing them (and possibly helping to promote the book)? Because I wanted to point out that these are the work of McG, who directed the two Charlie’s Angels movies and is currently working on the next Terminator sequel, titled Terminator Savlation: The Future Begins. The actors in these “trailers” are Katrina Begin (featured in the above spot), Cloverfield’s Mike Vogel, My So Called Life’s “Rickie”, Wilson Cruz, and TV actresses Autumn Reeser (The O.C.), April Bowlby (Two and a Half Men) and Michelle Borth (Tell Me You Love Me). None of these people are completely talentless (yes, even McG is better than this), so I’ll state the fault is with the writing of the two authors. After four seasons of Entourage, could this novel be any less interesting to fans of film-industry-set fiction? Celebutantes seems even dumber and less relevant an Oscar-themed satire than Christopher Guest’s recent disappointment For Your Consideration. It’s no wonder that Entertainment Weekly called the book “silly” and gave it a “C+” grade (it was reviewed alongside another Hollywood-themed novel titled Oscar Season, which fared a little better with a “B”). The magazine also notes that the book’s authors are the offspring of producer Leonard Goldberg (Charlie’s Angels) and actor Dennis Hopper. You’d think they would have a little more insight. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:01:04 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/4/2008 12:01:04 PM Trailers for novels aren’t the newest idea in the world, but I still think they’re a neat concept. Unfortunately, they can sometimes actually do harm to a book’s appeal, as in the case of Amanda Goldberg and Ruthanna Khalighi Hopper’s Hollywood-set novel Celebutantes, which arrives in stores tomorrow. The book has four dramatized “trailers”, or clips, pulled from its pages, the best of which is viewable above. Yes, I said the best of which. And if you think that one is bad, then check out the three other truly embarrassing clips at the book’s MySpace page. So if they’re so bad, why am I sharing them (and possibly helping to promote the book)? Because I wanted to point out that these are the work of McG, who directed the two Charlie’s Angels movies and is currently working on the next Terminator sequel, titled Terminator Savlation: The Future Begins. The actors in these “trailers” are Katrina Begin (featured in the above spot), Cloverfield’s Mike Vogel, My So Called Life’s “Rickie”, Wilson Cruz, and TV actresses Autumn Reeser (The O.C.), April Bowlby (Two and a Half Men) and Michelle Borth (Tell Me You Love Me). None of these people are completely talentless (yes, even McG is better than this), so I’ll state the fault is with the writing of the two authors. After four seasons of Entourage, could this novel be any less interesting to fans of film-industry-set fiction? Celebutantes seems even dumber and less relevant an Oscar-themed satire than Christopher Guest’s recent disappointment For Your Consideration. It’s no wonder that Entertainment Weekly called the book “silly” and gave it a “C+” grade (it was reviewed alongside another Hollywood-themed novel titled Oscar Season, which fared a little better with a “B”). The magazine also notes that the book’s authors are the offspring of producer Leonard Goldberg (Charlie’s Angels) and actor Dennis Hopper. You’d think they would have a little more insight. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jakestevens/archive/2007/12/13/22798.aspx Post By: JakeStevens
Post To: JakeStevens Blog
Post Date: 12/13/2007 7:55:18 PM
Body: I don't know why, I just really, really enjoy Christopher Guest's films, and here he and his usual band of misfits step away from the "mockumentary" style of his previous three films (excluding, of course, Almost Heroes). He is one of filmdom's most underappreciated chameleons, as his looks is VASTLY different from film to film. But most of you probably already know that if you're reading this review or have seen this film, because unfortunately, this film was not as widely received as Best in Show or Waiting for Guffman. As I said, if you liked those films, chances are you'll find this one humorous as well. I did!
]]>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:55:18 GMTJakeStevensJakeStevens Blog12/13/2007 7:55:18 PMI don&#39;t know why, I just really, really enjoy Christopher Guest&#39;s films, and here he and his usual band of misfits step away from the &quot;mockumentary&quot; style of his previous three films (excluding, of course, Almost Heroes). He is one of filmdom&#39;s most underappreciated chameleons, as his looks is VASTLY different from film to film. But most of you probably already know that if you&#39;re reading this review or have seen this film, because unfortunately, this film was not as widely received as Best in Show or Waiting for Guffman. As I said, if you liked those films, chances are you&#39;ll find this one humorous as well. I did! http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviebabe/archive/2007/7/19/15380.aspx Post By: MovieBabe
Post To: MovieBabe Blog
Post Date: 7/19/2007 11:04:00 PM
Body: By Tricia Olszewski After exposing the silly sides of small-town theater, dog shows, and has-been folkies, Christopher Guest has now targeted Hollywood—which is kind of like a class bully picking on the headgear-wearing kid with asthma. But just because its concept is easy doesn’t mean For Your Consideration isn’t funny. This mockumentary takes place on the set of Home for Purim, a World War II–era piece about a Southern Jewish family getting together to celebrate its dying matriarch’s favorite holiday. After the camera’s been rolling for a few days, word trickles out that somehow, somewhere on “the thing with e-mail” known as the Internet, a gossip site has mentioned that Marilyn Hack (Catherine O’Hara), the actress who plays the sick mother, is turning in an Oscar-worthy performance. (It does take a certain something to deliver lines that include both magnolia similes and such Yiddishisms as “meshuggah.”) And so begins the skyrocketing media exposure that can result from a bit of buzz, especially the forest-for-the-trees kind over an actually terrible film. Consideration is crafted in Guest’s usual style—the story’s broadly penned by the director and Eugene Levy, but the dialogue is largely improvised. Ricky Gervais joins Guest’s sizable go-to ensemble (which most notably includes Jennifer Coolidge, Parker Posey, Fred Willard, John Michael Higgins, and Michael McKean) and unleashes one of the best lines when his studio suit tries to persuade the writers (Bob Balaban and McKean) to tone down Purim’s “Jewishness.” But nearly everyone enjoys a moment of excellence: Jane Lynch nails the posture and set-in-stone expression as the Mary Hart-like host of an entertainment show called Hollywood Now, Coolidge injects absurdity into her portrayal of an airheaded producer who once “fell over the side of an escalator,” and Carrie Aizley lobs perfect softballs as a dippy celebrity journalist. Willard and Guest are funny enough as sight gags: Guest, as Purim’s helmer, sports long shorts, a potbelly, and a Jewfro while Willard rocks a fauxhawk as Hollywood Now’s co-host—though Willard runs away with Consideration’s end as his TV personality tackles a segment of cringe-inducing interviews. Guest’s mark might be huge, but his characters remain distinctly and expertly oblivious.
]]>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:04:00 GMTMovieBabeMovieBabe Blog7/19/2007 11:04:00 PM By Tricia Olszewski After exposing the silly sides of small-town theater, dog shows, and has-been folkies, Christopher Guest has now targeted Hollywood&mdash;which is kind of like a class bully picking on the headgear-wearing kid with asthma. But just because its concept is easy doesn&rsquo;t mean For Your Consideration isn&rsquo;t funny. This mockumentary takes place on the set of Home for Purim, a World War II&ndash;era piece about a Southern Jewish family getting together to celebrate its dying matriarch&rsquo;s favorite holiday. After the camera&rsquo;s been rolling for a few days, word trickles out that somehow, somewhere on &ldquo;the thing with e-mail&rdquo; known as the Internet, a gossip site has mentioned that Marilyn Hack (Catherine O&rsquo;Hara), the actress who plays the sick mother, is turning in an Oscar-worthy performance. (It does take a certain something to deliver lines that include both magnolia similes and such Yiddishisms as &ldquo;meshuggah.&rdquo;) And so begins the skyrocketing media exposure that can result from a bit of buzz, especially the forest-for-the-trees kind over an actually terrible film. Consideration is crafted in Guest&rsquo;s usual style&mdash;the story&rsquo;s broadly penned by the director and Eugene Levy, but the dialogue is largely improvised. Ricky Gervais joins Guest&rsquo;s sizable go-to ensemble (which most notably includes Jennifer Coolidge, Parker Posey, Fred Willard, John Michael Higgins, and Michael McKean) and unleashes one of the best lines when his studio suit tries to persuade the writers (Bob Balaban and McKean) to tone down Purim&rsquo;s &ldquo;Jewishness.&rdquo; But nearly everyone enjoys a moment of excellence: Jane Lynch nails the posture and set-in-stone expression as the Mary Hart-like host of an entertainment show called Hollywood Now, Coolidge injects absurdity into her portrayal of an airheaded producer who once &ldquo;fell over the side of an escalator,&rdquo; and Carrie Aizley lobs perfect softballs as a dippy celebrity journalist. Willard and Guest are funny enough as sight gags: Guest, as Purim&rsquo;s helmer, sports long shorts, a potbelly, and a Jewfro while Willard rocks a fauxhawk as Hollywood Now&rsquo;s co-host&mdash;though Willard runs away with Consideration&rsquo;s end as his TV personality tackles a segment of cringe-inducing interviews. Guest&rsquo;s mark might be huge, but his characters remain distinctly and expertly oblivious. http://www.spout.com/blogs/hairylime/archive/2007/3/1/5884.aspx Post By: HairyLime
Post To: HairyLime Blog
Post Date: 3/1/2007 9:24:00 AM
Body: Watched this one the other night (probably should have watched it on Sunday, before the oscars, it would have made Nicole Kidman's face all that funnier).Not quite as side splittingly funny as his previous three films. This one abandons the 'mockumentary' format and tries for... well, I suppose 'mockudrama' would be a way to describe it. Interviews are still a big portion of the show, although it is frequently the interviewers who are the focus of the parody a lot of the time.Catherine O'Hara is brilliant as usual, and undergoes the most depressingly familiar transformation, from hard working underappreciated thespian uncomfortable with the 'fame' part of the actor's life, to absolute publicity hag, botoxed and tucked beyond recognition. Fred Willard is cluelessly hilarious as usual, and the usual gang of regulars have their moments (I love all the older characters confusing references to that mysterious thing called the 'internet'). Ricky Gervais joins the improv troupe in this one, and I was thinking he would be a great addition to the team, but his scenes kind of fall flat for some reason.Overall, not quite as satisfying as Mighty Wind, Best in Show or Waiting for Guffman. I hate to pigeonhole the director, but this group of improvisational talents seem to shine better in the documentary format, the characters seemed to be much more 'real' despite their quirks, where in this format, the acting seemed much more forced and caricatureish. Still, funnier than a lot of the crap out there that passes for comedy.
]]>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:24:00 GMTHairyLimeHairyLime Blog3/1/2007 9:24:00 AMWatched this one the other night (probably should have watched it on Sunday, before the oscars, it would have made Nicole Kidman&#39;s face all that funnier).Not quite as side splittingly funny as his previous three films. This one abandons the &#39;mockumentary&#39; format and tries for... well, I suppose &#39;mockudrama&#39; would be a way to describe it. Interviews are still a big portion of the show, although it is frequently the interviewers who are the focus of the parody a lot of the time.Catherine O&#39;Hara is brilliant as usual, and undergoes the most depressingly familiar transformation, from hard working underappreciated thespian uncomfortable with the &#39;fame&#39; part of the actor&#39;s life, to absolute publicity hag, botoxed and tucked beyond recognition. Fred Willard is cluelessly hilarious as usual, and the usual gang of regulars have their moments (I love all the older characters confusing references to that mysterious thing called the &#39;internet&#39;). Ricky Gervais joins the improv troupe in this one, and I was thinking he would be a great addition to the team, but his scenes kind of fall flat for some reason.Overall, not quite as satisfying as Mighty Wind, Best in Show or Waiting for Guffman. I hate to pigeonhole the director, but this group of improvisational talents seem to shine better in the documentary format, the characters seemed to be much more &#39;real&#39; despite their quirks, where in this format, the acting seemed much more forced and caricatureish. Still, funnier than a lot of the crap out there that passes for comedy. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 607

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 940

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:10 GMT607316940Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 91

Number of times used: 122

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT7891122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Good/MemberTagFilms.aspxGood
Number of films tagged: 97

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 113

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:00:47 GMT9771113Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/in/MemberTagFilms.aspxin
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 46

]]>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:45:00 GMT444346Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hollywood/MemberTagFilms.aspxhollywood
Number of films tagged: 623

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 86

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT6234086Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/not/MemberTagFilms.aspxnot
Number of films tagged: 28

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 29

]]>Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:55:41 GMT282929Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mockumentary/MemberTagFilms.aspxmockumentary
Number of films tagged: 28

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 35

]]>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:38:42 GMT282535Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/oscar/MemberTagFilms.aspxoscar
Number of films tagged: 110

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 103

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:03:17 GMT11024103Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/show/MemberTagFilms.aspxshow
Number of films tagged: 370

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 21

]]>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:08:19 GMT3702021Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ok/MemberTagFilms.aspxok
Number of films tagged: 19

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 19

]]>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:27:58 GMT191419Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/as/MemberTagFilms.aspxas
Number of films tagged: 12

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 12

]]>Wed, 07 May 2008 17:49:44 GMT121212Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ChristopherGuest/MemberTagFilms.aspxChristopherGuest
Number of films tagged: 5

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 18

]]>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:32:29 GMT51218Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mediocre/MemberTagFilms.aspxmediocre
Number of films tagged: 39

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 41

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:43:18 GMT39941Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/guest/MemberTagFilms.aspxguest
Number of films tagged: 176

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 8

]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:01:49 GMT17668Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thanksgiving/MemberTagFilms.aspxthanksgiving
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT4666Tag