AdamLevenberg

Here's the trivia and production info article on COLOR OF NIGHT that Paul mentions: http://officialscreenwriting.com/fun-facts-about-color-of-night/ Incidentally, to correct the correction and omissions, Paul attributes my comment about shot selection/lighting to the director. So he disagrees with me, not Rush. I was simply pointing out the surprising factoid that most test audiences didn't see the end coming and if this had been an issue, the director might have been able to address that (to some extent). Paul was right to point out that a lot of commenters didn't seem to appreciate the director's cut, which is fair. I still think that version would have made for a better episode since Jason appreciates over the top, extreme elements and June often stands up for unique creative decisions made by filmmakers. The director's cut delivers plenty of discussion fodder on both accounts (the hang gliders, the gun blowjob, the four minute sex scene, Bruce Willis talking to himself, much more of Reuben Blades and Lesley Ann Warren's performances). The producer's cut got rid of that stuff and is just confusing. Here's another HDTGM article I wrote breaking down the types of films that the show covers. I think the director's cut of COLOR fits best into "auteur jumps the shark" while the producer's cut settles into the "incompetent" category. http://officialscreenwriting.com/how-did-this-get-made-the-categories/

I put together a trivia article about the production history of COLOR OF NIGHT: http://officialscreenwriting.com/fun-facts-about-color-of-night/

When I interviewed the director about his career, we spent about 4 hours discussing COLOR OF NIGHT. I was very interested in what percentage of the audience saw the twist coming. He said about 1/3 of the audience figured it out but that group's overall recommend scores were the same as the 2/3 who didn't see it coming. It was surprising to learn that of all the issues that were on the table during the test screening and editing process, the twist wasn't an issue that either side felt the need to address with reshoots (because the camera work and lighting of a certain character in the therapy scenes could have easily shown us a lot less without drawing attention to itself). Without delving too much into the definitions of camp and parody, it's interesting you mention a Paul Verhoeven film because Richard Rush actually recommended Verhoeven for the job directing ROBOCOP after passing on the project and there are a lot of stylistic similarities between the two directors. They're friends and big fans of each others work.

Anonymous 37 - It's not a parody of skinemax films but the film is intended to be funny. The director is famous for mashing up genres and using a heavy hand with physical comedy and punchlines. I think Ruben Blades is really funny in the film, the other actors were aware that the director's tone is incredibly quirky (as well as completely unrestrained) and played the roles accordingly. Unfortunately, the producers cut deleted about 20 jokes and punchlines between scenes as well as many of the quirkier elements that are representative of the director's personal style and vision. In every scene, he attempts to do something different or interesting just to keep the audience's attention. makes me sad the entire panel watched and discussed a confusing, abandoned version of the movie. There are so many problems with the plot in both versions but at least the director's cut delivers on the bizarre and off-kilter personal style that can be found in his earlier films.

Epic fail! Hopefully Paul can cover some of this during corrections and omissions because they watched the wrong version of the movie. The distributor seems to have accidentally (and illegally) provided iTunes with the long lost and much hated "producers cut". In short, during the editing process of COLOR OF NIGHT, the producers got nervous after lukewarm test screenings and created their own cut. The director found their version so unwatchable, he had a heart attack (seriously!). To head off a PR disaster, the producers and director came to a quick settlement. The producer's version would play in American theaters, then it would go away forever. The director's cut would play in theaters internationally, on VHS, cable, and any new formats to follow. So if you saw the film on cable, VHS, DVD, Netflix, or Amazon, you saw the Director's Cut that runs a full EIGHTEEN MINUTES longer than the awful "producer's cut". It's so different that many critics who panned the film in theaters wrote new reviews for the VHS release. So pretty much everyone who has seen this movie since 1994 watched a different version than the one discussed in episode 85. The Director's Cut of COLOR OF NIGHT is a camp classic because it features great talents in front and behind the camera going balls to the wall. The cinematography is beautiful, the transitions are clever, and the performances are deliciously over the top. Plus, the extra 18 minutes allow the mystery more room to unfold--there's too many characters/suspects otherwise. The producer's cut tried to simplify and shorten the film but only succeeded in creating an unwatchable mess. It's a shame the crew wasted their time on a confusing, inferior version of the film. I think they would have had a lot of fun with it if there hadn't been a screwup over at iTunes. If you haven't seen the film, it's worth watching, just make sure that you're looking at the 2hr 20min version.

The filmmakers also did FDR: AMERICAN BADASS which is avail on Netflix...I haven't watched POOLBOY yet but FDR, while incredibly low budget, is actually very funny.

Too boring....I rented GLITTER because I thought I was in for a Showgirls-esque so bad it's good viewing. I turned it off after 20 mins. It's DULL. And Mariah Carey isn't terrible in it...She has a very natural presence on screen and does fine. GLITTER would probably make for a lousy episode, it's like watching paint dry. Good HDTGM eps are based on movies where the ideas are ridiculous and the acting is hysterical and overblown.

Heads up CPiz, the Roger Ebert review you're referring to was on the 1hr50 minute producer's cut of the film, Ebert never went back and reviewed the 2hr20 min version that is the only available version on VHS, DVD, and pay cable tv...Based on admiration for the director and knowledge of the editing battle, many critics re-reviewed the director's cut when it came out on VHS and about half of em had nice things to say about the movie, which while still insane, made more sense and had more artistic integrity (example--such as how the director cleverly transitions from scene to scene) than the producer's cut.

There was a lot of discussion about a $60 million budget on In the Name of the King...It's bullshit, as are many budgets provided on IMDB. The reality is that this probably cost under $30 million, with 5-8 million going to Statham. Uwe Boll's financing for these films is entirely international and the only basis for the claim of $60 million is a publicity and financing decision on behalf of the producer. There's NO reality to it. It's a fictitious number created to make the movie sound more appealing to distributors who have signed on and paid up before filming starts. For example, "South America" is one territory. So they'll take the package which is the director, actor, script and bullshit budget to the distributors there and say "we're making a $60 mil movie starring Jason Statham directed by Uwe Boll, who wants in and how much do you want to bid?" Highest bidder wins...If they can sell it all around the world like this, they can often turn a profit before filming starts because if they bring in $38 mil in "pre-sales" and the movie costs $29 mil, they have made $9 mil profit up front. PLUS they have producing fees built into the $29 mil budget. (The South American distributors know the $60 mil is bullshit but don't care, they make a bid based on what they think Statham will bring in for DVD rentals/TV.) Case in point: BATTLEFIELD EARTH was repeatedly referred to as a 70 million dollar movie in all publicity and when the financier was putting the movie together. Once it bombed, the director went public claiming it cost $14 mil below the line and $35 million total. The only entity the actual budget mattered to was the German bank that the producer was working through and they sued him for inflating budgets by up to 50% on multiple films.

THE CHASE is a PERFECT movie for HDTGM! It's one of those movies that became a cult hit through home video and cable tv. There's a lot of escalating ridiculousness in the film, broad performances, and wild ideas that I think the crew would have fun talking about.

I don't think it's fair to compare WATERWORLD and THE POSTMAN. Other than they're both long post-apocalyptic Kevin Costner movies, they're not in the same league when it comes to quality. WATERWORLD has great action, fun sci-fi ideas, dazzling cinematography, and an interesting mission. THE POSTMAN, in contrast, is three very long hours of hero worship followed by the unveiling of a giant golden Kevin Costner statue at the end. The movie is so long and there's so little tension or buildup that right before the final showdown the villain says to the hero "Don't I know you?"

There's issues with this movie, but it's not worthy of HDTGM. Even critics are at 62% positive on RT and many of the negative reviews are 2-2.5 stars, meaning they didn't love it but didn't hate it either. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but this isn't a "bad" movie by any stretch of the imagination. Also, it doesn't fit into any of the categories I've come up with to represent the types of films on the show. To suggest OZ is bad is one thing but the reviews are good, it's making money and audiences like it... http://officialscreenwriting.com/how-did-this-get-made-the-categories/

I wish the pics of Jane March would come down. The reality is that COLOR OF NIGHT is a fascinating film and while critics and more advanced audiences have an easy time spotting the "twist", it generally comes as a surprise to viewers. Why ruin it for those who don't know. At USC, I did a full filmography study of Richard Rush and spent a lot of time talking to him about this film. Apparently, about 30% of the audience figured out the twist and didn't care--they were still entertained by the movie. Also, there's no definitive version of the film. The producer fired the director and did his own 1hr 50 minute cut...Rush sued and they settled with Rush having only two weeks to put together his own cut (and this is a guy who'd spend a year in the editing room for each film)...he put back EVERYTHING resulting in a 2hr 20 minute cut that became what went to international theaters and cable tv. Another casualty of this situation is the overblown score--it was never tested in front of an audience. The melody is beautiful, the bombastic orchestra approach is kinda silly. What does still come across is the wildly creative and playful cinematography--anyone, especially film students, should watch it for that. Watching the film years later (and having written a book on screenwriting) I now recognize the first hour is genius, the rest kinda runs in circles until the finale, unlike BASIC INSTINCT which keeps raising the stakes for the hero....But it's definitely worth a spoiler free look! I just did an article on the types of film categories found on HOW DID THIS GET MADE. COLOR OF NIGHT fits into the "Auteur Jumps the Shark" slot. Check em out here: http://officialscreenwriting.com/how-did-this-get-made-the-categories/