>>> I'm pretty sure you are familiar with the "Reply" button and the difference
>>> between it an the "Reply All" button. ...I am sorry that you have been let
>>> down. Perhaps if you wrote him a polite letter he would refund your
>>> tickets. <<<
Evan - I hit "reply all" on purpose because your "pick on Woody Allen" note was
sent to the entire group. If you can dish it out in public, then you should be
able to take it.
However, I'll take your advice and get a refund for my "tickets." I'll then
ship the proceeds to you - so that you can go to a school that can raise your
remedial communication skills to a more customer-friendly level.
More good news: the amount of money it will take to help you will be
significant enough to allow me to claim a nice deduction under Schedule A of my
tax return. In the meantime, while awaiting those funds, please apply a
liberal dose of Preparation H four times/day to relieve the itch from whatever
part of your body is expressing itself at any given snapshot in time. Always
happy to help. -d.
-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:52:02 +0000
From: evanzwei...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
I'm pretty sure you are familiar with the "Reply" button and the difference
between it an the "Reply All" button.
I still pay to see his films in the theater and especially enjoyed "Vicky
Christina Barcelona", "Whatever Works", "Match Point", "Curse of the Jade
Scorpion", "Deconstructing Harry", "Bullets Over Broadway" and "Mighty
Aphrodite".
I am sorry that you have been let down. Perhaps if you wrote him a polite
letter he would refund your tickets.
-----Original Message-----
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:29:49 -0700
From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
@Evan -
What? I'm the biggest Woody Allen fan in the world! I'm CONSTANTLY defending
him among work colleagues. However, I consider "Annie Hall," "Manhattan,"
"Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors" to be his quartet of
"comedy-drama masterpieces" that he'll never top even if he lives to be 100,
which is likely, given the genes for longevity he inherited from his parents.
Going to a Woody Allen movie used to be a major event; we never missed paying
to see a Woody picture from 1971's "Bananas" to 1997's "Deconstructing Harry."
I got my wife, who hated to even see him on the screen, to fall in love with
him. (Her favorite film is "Hannah and Her Sisters.") We still liked him in
lesser pictures like "Mighty Aphrodite" and the "Curse of the Jade Scorpion."
The "stake in the heart" was sitting through three pictures that made us feel
ripped off at the box office: 1) "Hollywood Ending" (despite a great promo
poster featuring 52 images of the endings of great film classics), 2) "Anything
Else" and, 3) "Whatever Works."
OTHER than "Midnight in Paris," when is the last time anyone you know has PAID
to see one of his films in a THEATER? You're damn right I'm bragging. If
there is a Woody Allen picture that I've missed, I'd like to know. I've seen
all of them and I don't consider "Midnight in Paris," for which he won his 4th
Oscar, worthy at all. But my opinion does not matter; the Academy chose. I
had a stone face watching that picture. (I'll never forgive the Academy
picking "Platoon" as the Best Picture in 1986 over "Hannah," despite "Hannah"
having 9 nominations and picking up awards for best screenplay and best
supporting actor and actress (Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest.) Honestly, the
BEST Woody Allen picture I've seen during the past 20 years (other than "Small
Time Crooks" and "Match Point," which I like a lot) - wasn't even directed by
him. It's a 2011 picture called, "Woody Allen: A Documentary." This
three-hour opus flies by in a flash, features Woody being interviewed about
EVERYTHING, warts and all, and includes clips from all of his movies including
"Midnight in Paris." It's a sophisticated, big budget documentary that aired
on PBS late last year in two parts - and is now available on DVD. This is a
film that's worth BUYING, it's that damn good. Hell, we even saw Woody in
person during one of his rare visits to Los Angeles - when we scored tickets to
watch him play a one-hour jazz concert at the Jazz Bakery in Culver City during
his "Jade Scorpion" publicity tour. Please visit the two links below; even
though the quality of his output, in my view, has been erratic since about
1990, I still think Woody Allen is a living legend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8YaMwUumII
http://www.amazon.com/Woody-Allen-A-Documentary/dp/B0064NTZKI/
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:33:11 -0500
From: brucehershen...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
It's funny, because I was just going to ask if it was "be kind to Woody Allen"
day, because I personally think his last really fine movie was in 1980!
But I imagine that we can agree that his streak of ten straight incredible
movies from 1969 to 1980 was something no one could live up to:
1980
Stardust Memories
1979
Manhattan
1978
Interiors
1977
Annie Hall
1975
Love and Death
1973
Sleeper
1972
Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask
1971
Bananas
1969
Take the Money and Run
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Evan Zweifel <evanzwei...@comcast.net> wrote:
Is it pick on Woody Allen day? Mostly mediocre output since 1989? Really?
He's been nominated for 11 Oscars since 1990. Granted 8 of them were writing
-- suggesting that he's doing something right.
Evan
----- Original Message -----
From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:04:21 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent
That's an excellent point, Dave. I hadn't thought of that. Meanwhile, the NY
Times delivered its verdict today. Despite better returns expected from the
overseas market, "John Carter" is going to be one of the biggest financial
disasters in film history. The AP also grimly noted that most of "Carter's"
fans are men OVER 25, which is terrible news from a business standpoint for a
film the NY Times now says cost $350 million to make AND to market. How can
you make a profit from that? You need younger patrons who are more avid movie
goers than older people, who tend to stay home.
This afternoon's article further infers that while Disney is today adopting a
"point no fingers" stance, director Andrew Stanton was given a blank check
based on his past performance with "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E." Disney
apparently so feared angering a box office golden boy like Stanton - that the
result was a Mike Cimino-like "Heaven's Gate" fiasco (which occurred after UA
gave Cimino a blank check after his prior success with the "The Deer Hunter" in
1978-79).
While Hollywood has always cared about overseas box office, production chiefs
still craft their films foremost with U.S. audiences in mind. This is a
country, after all, of 300 million. This explains the American-centric drive
of U.S.-financed pictures that puzzle sophisticated audiences in the U.K., for
example, e.g., the casting of William Holden in "Bridge Over the River Kwai,"
the singular U.S. perspective of the D-Day landing in "Saving Private Ryan,"
the casting of Steve McQueen and James Garner in "The Great Escape," etc. Even
today, a U.S. film that does poorly here but makes up its investment overseas
is considered a blemish to its prestige in the industry, e.g., Costner's
"Waterworld," last year's "Cowboys and Aliens" and 1963's "Cleopatra" - the
latter which nearly destroyed Fox. (Incredibly, the #1 overseas market for
U.S. films is not in Europe - but in Asia, specifically Japan.) In the end,
for all the clamor for better made pictures, the Hollywood model is still
geared towards making money by targeting young people, resulting in an overall
poorer quality product unless you purposely chase mature audiences (as in
temperament, and not necessarily age) - such as independent films which can
still make money because of low production budgets. It's why Woody Allen is
still making films despite a mostly mediocre output since 1989. One thing for
sure - despite the quality of "John Carter," Disney's and director Stanton's
original plans to make two sequels of this film in the years ahead are dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
----- Original Message -----
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:55:41 -0400
From: posteropo...@bell.net
Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
True, "John Carter" is meaningless except to ERB fanboys, but Disney has had
terrible luck with any movie with "Mars" in the title. Both last year's Mars
Needs Moms and, from years ago, Misson to Mars were major flops. So Disney may
be shying away from the whole Mars thing. And if they weren't before, they sure
will now.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: David Kusumoto
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent
The sad thing is a film like "The Artist," which has done poor business in the
U.S. despite winning the Oscar last month for Best Picture - is not considered
a flop because it had a modest production budget. (BTW, if you haven't seen
that film yet, hold your dollars; the film is being released on DVD next
month.) But "John Carter," despite its merits, is headed toward becoming one
of the biggest box office flops in Disney's history. Some say the film, which
cost a whopping $250 million to make, may even lose this weekend's Friday
through Sunday box office in the U.S. to "The Lorax." CinemaScore, the market
research firm, says "John Carter's" demographic is running at 65 percent male,
indicating the picture turns off women. The business projections for "John
Carter" are so dire - that there's talk Disney may lose $100 million to $165
million on the picture. Audiences have no clue about much of this negative
chatter of course, but some analysts say Disney made a huge marketing mistake
with the film's title, which only resonates with Burroughs fans and to
comic-book fanboys - by dumping its original working title, which was a more
intriguing and mysterious, "John Carter on Mars" - and not just "John Carter."
Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-disney-carter-20120310,0,2000583.story
Entertainment Weekly:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/10/box-office-john-carter/
----- Original Message -----
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:14:38 -0800
From: ariricha...@yahoo.com.au
Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Very happy to hear these comments, as a long time Edgar Rice Burroughs fan.
Always thought the Barsoom adventures would be fantastic on the big screen.
Ari
--- On Sun, 11/3/12, Richard Auras
<ilovefi...@flash.net> wrote:
From: Richard Auras <ilovefi...@flash.net>
Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Received: Sunday, 11 March, 2012, 3:14 AM
Caught it last night myself and can echo your sentiments.
Best movie I have seen in a while.
----- Original Message -----
From: "kainb...@aol.com"<kainb...@aol.com>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Sat, March 10, 2012 7:17:47 PM
Subject: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent
What an amazing science fiction movie...maybe one of the best for some
time...highly
recommended.
Philipp
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
