In Contention

Tag: Larry Charles

  • 10/13 Oscarweb Round-up

    Marc Forster• Robert Abele gets Josh Brolin to reveal his inner ‘W.’ [The Envelope]

    • Tom O’Neil gnaws on the Oscar potential of Anne Hathaway in “Rachel Getting Married.” [Gold Derby]

    • Peter bart makes a lot of presumptions and assumptions about the craven mentality of duel performers in a given Oscar season. [Peter Bart]

    • Vulture kicks off this year’s Oscar Futures with pro on “Milk,” con on “W.” [Vulture]

    • Alonso Duralde studies the work of Leonardo DiCaprio as “Body of Lies” releases into cinemas. [MSNBC]

    • Brad Brevet does the same, but draws the conclusion that DiCaprio has never quite hit it out of the park. [Rope of Silicon]

    • Scott Bowles, meanwhile, draws up an obit on the box office performance of “Body of Lies.” [USA Today]

    • Jeff Dawson goes in depth with “Quantum of Solace” helmer Marc Forster. [The Times]

    • Lauren Schuker digs into the global investments on Oliver Stone’s “W.” [Wall Street Journal]

    • Larry Charles chooses his 28 most subversive comedians. [Entertainment Weekly]

  • 10/6 Oscarweb Round-up

    Toby Jones• Choire Sicha talks to Ellen Burstyn about “W.” and her new memoir. [Los Angeles Times]

    • A year later, Jeffrey Wells still very much hearts “Things We Lost in the Fire.” [Hollywood Elsewhere]

    • Peter Knegt profiles “Rachel Getting Married” screenwriter Jenny Lumet. [indieWIRE]

    • David Gritten corners the Coen brothers across the pond. [Daily Telegraph]

    • John Anderson details the Iraq war film as risky business with Ridley Scott tackling the subject in “Body of Lies.” [New York Times]

    • Doing more press for the Brits than Stateside these days, Oliver Stone chats it up with Oliver Burkeman. [The Guardian]

    • The diversity that is character actor Toby Jones. [Los Angeles Times]

    • Steve Daly talks with a Bill Maher-less Larry Charles. [Entertainment Weekly]

    • More fuel for the “‘Gran Torino’ is Eastwood’s last performance” fire. [Reuters]

  • SHORT TAKE: “Religulous” (***)

    Lionsgate Films\'s ReligulousI went into Bill Maher and Larry Charles’s “Religulous” expecting the usual close-minded schtick from Maher.  It seems the comedian is given to rational discourse on any topic except for religion where, indeed, it is the very notion of rationality that enjoys his full concentration.  He sticks his fingers in his ears and screams “La, la, la, la, I can’t hear you” and, for the most part, would prefer to relegate the subject to the extreme rather than see the gray area.

    To some extent, that is exactly what we get with “Religulous.”  Maher shoots fish in a barrel all across the globe, prejudice toward no specific faith; he runs the gamut.  Christianity, Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, all are accounted for.  But Maher does reach for a certain balance by kicking his journey off with a peek into his own religous background, which can go far toward explaining his detatchment from it all.  He was raised in a household that was 50 percent Jewish, 50 percent Catholic, and one that soon enough saw the error of organized religion.

    Maher finds a handful of level-headed practitioners of faith, from a kooky but understandably fatalistic priest outside the Vatican to a thoughtful, doctorate-holding Catholic who heads up an observatory and has plenty to say about the value of science.  But where Maher does his thesis of rationality a disservice is in his preference to go out and shoot those fish in a barrel rather than spend some more time exploring the thoughtfulness of these individuals .  It is clear their screen time serves only to buttress his account in some small way, but he has no interest in the idea that they, too, have a level of faith that deserves respect.

    It is, in many ways, the same frustration that played itself out on his program a few weeks ago, and here, it is prevalent throughout.

    But “Religulous” is a fun movie.  There are plenty of insane believers out there and for the most part, they have claimed a considerable ownership of this country’s progress.  As Maher said when he earnestly introduced the film to a modest crowd in Century City on Wednesday, we need to take our country back from these people.  There is something to that, even if he carries the reverse fire-and-brimstone over the top as his film concludes.  The attempt was noble, even if somewhat in the vein of expectation.

  • 9/29 Oscarweb Round-up

    Michael Cera• A happy ending of sorts for Matilda Rose in the wake of Heath Ledger’s death. [Agence France-Presse]

    • Kenneth Branagh is in talks to direct “Thor.”  Weird, but badass. [Variety]

    • Tom O’Neil traces Paul Newman’s frustrating quest for Oscars. [Gold Derby]

    • James Rocchi talks to “Miracle at St. Anna” director Spike Lee. [Cinematical]

    • The Los Angeles Times have hired an east coast outsider and called it awards coverage.  Well, we wish him well. [The Envelope]

    • Nikki Finke primises to report all the “juicy backstory” on the Rudin/Weinstein situation — because she’s a journalistic disgrace. [Deadline Hollywood Daily]

    • “Quantum of Solace” will have more product placement than any Bond film before it. [The Independent]

    • Mark Olson grills Jonathan Demme on “Rachel Getting Married.” [Los Angeles Times]

    • Meanwhile, Susan King takes on “Rachel” screenwriting Jenny Lumet. [Los Angeles Times]

    • Chris Lee gets some quality time in with Leonardo DiCaprio re: “Body of Lies.” [Los Angeles Times]

    • Michael Cera: heart throb. [Newsweek]

    • Or, Michael Cera: almost famous. [New York Times]

    • Greg Kinnear dishes on his roles in “Flash of Genius” and “Ghost Town.” [Associated Press]

    • Bill Maher Q&A’s it up on “Religulous.” [New York Post]

    • And again, with director Larry Charles in tow. [New York Times]

    …okay, I gotta cut it off there.  Tons of items out there today.

  • Andrew Sullivan takes Bill Maher to task on religion

    As much as I love and respect every perspective Bill Maher has on current events, I have been and remain skeptical that his upcoming film “Religulous” will represent any effort on his part to open up a bit from his skewed, incredibly insulting and borderline ignorant stance on the subject of faith and religion.

    As a believer in faith if not the organization of same, I’ve expressed these concerns before, but I was so happy to see someone really try to go toe-to-toe with Maher on his show, and doubly happy that the person was The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan.

    Here is a clip from last night’s “Real Time,” which featured a solid panel of Sullivan, Naomi Klein and Will.I.Am.  Around the 6:30 mark, Maher pulls out yesterday’s USA Today and points to an article about believers in guardian angels, and Sullivan takes the opportunity to strike.  It’s a good exchange, though painfully indicative of Maher’s resistance against any gray area where belief in a higher power is concerned.  At one point Sullivan tells Maher, “Bill, don’t describe my faith to me,” and I wanted to give the guy a round of applause.  Sadly that part is cut from the end of the clip below, but maybe it’ll pop up soon on YouTube.

    I’ll be seeing “Religulous” next Wednesday with Maher and director Larry Charles hanging around for a reception following.  I’d love to address some of these concerns in an interview setting, but I just haven’t seen evidence that the guy can get outside of his own head on the matter.

  • Tom-O chats up Larry Charles and “gangsta” Bill Maher

    It’s awesome to hear Maher talk about his infamous streak of Emmy losses here. It’s doubtful he’ll break the streak this year, but dammit, give this man the award. I’d say he’s probably deserved it year in and year out, with the exception of a few Jon Stewart victories:

  • ‘Religulous’: Variety is a believer

    Concerns have been expressed on this site that Larry Charles’ and Bill Maher’s “Religulous” would emerge as an exercise in left-leaning smugness, taking potshots at easy, cherry-picked targets to equate faith with absurd naivete. Certainly, the jokey, swiftly-edited trailer didn’t do much to shift this feeling.

    But Variety’s review of the film paints a decidedly different picture. Going so far as to call it “brilliant (and) incendiary,” they describe the film as a study that, while not neglecting its obvious comic angles, tackles its subject with appropriate profundity and inquisitiveness:

    To the film’s credit, Maher never engages in Michael Moore-style gotcha tactics, but rather asks questions that raise more questions, in the form of a Socratic dialogue. To believers expecting a blind hatchet job, this will prove both thought-provoking and a bit disarming; skeptics may be surprised (as Maher is) by the occasionally smart replies to his queries.

    Though the review does make reference to Maher’s occasionally flip comic tactics (contradictory subtitles accompanying interviews, and the like), the critic seems a little taken aback by a solemn conclusion to the film:

    Ending minutes, though, will catch auds up short: Suddenly, the laughs die down, and as in his closing monologues on “Real Time,” Maher turns deadly serious with a final statement that will stir raging arguments in theater lobbies.

    (more…)

  • Ridiculous

    You know, I enjoy Bill Maher’s work very much. More often than not, despite adamant opinions, he has the ability to come down in an even-handed manner on more than a few issues, hot button and otherwise. But one thing that has always driven me mad has been his absolute ignorance and over-dependence on hyperbole when addressing issues of religion.

    I respect feelings of atheism. I’ve been there. I’m no religious fruitcake that gets pissy when someone denounces religion, either. Indeed, agnosticism has never been unattractive to me. But I have my spirituality and I respect and admire what is actually inherent and shared in religions across the world (something I think plenty would benefit from simply noticing, rather than quarreling over differences).

    Maher has never been capable of this. Ever. And when he really digs into religion, he generally does it in the safety of a left-leaning panel on “Real Time” who wouldn’t exactly see fit to disagree with him (though there have been precious few exceptions).

    With that in mind, does anyone expect Maher and Larry Charles’s “Religulous” to be anything more than a surface level dissection of beliefs with clever editing to make people look like morons? Kind of like, oh, portions of the Larry Charles-directed “Borat?” My anticipation for this film has frankly been victimized by a sense of dread for some time because of all of this.

    Here’s the trailer:

    httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=kSa2j6UoU78