Previous Comments

[1] On Jan-25-2004, Rob wrote:

It's a damn shame that someone like Avery is directing Glamorama. Avery would be nothing if it wasn't for the fact that he worked the same video store as Tarantino. The man has little talent hence his missplacement of the ROA story and his overly-frenetic and chaotic style with Killing Zoe. Why not get a real diretor like P T Anderson to do Glamorama? Now that I would pay to see.

[2] On Jan-25-2004, SuicideMartini wrote:

I disagree about your underestimation of Avery. He's a very talanted director and writer. I thought he did a good job with RoA.

However, i dont think he should do Glamorama. I dont think his style fits. I hope he surprises me and proves me wrong

[3] On Jan-26-2004, Rob wrote:

So your entire case relies on TROA, I film he butchered by putting in the 80s and giving the characters personality.

[4] On Jan-26-2004, Graham wrote:

Vincent Gallo should direct and act in more films. River Phoenix should be alive and well. Jack Kerouac should be served by having Coppola finally make On The Road into a movie (he owns the rights). Jean Michel Basquiat should be alive and well. I am obbessed with Bret's characters in his books.

[5] On Jan-28-2004, suicidemartini wrote:

RoA isn't set in the 80s unless i was really late to get broadband. Also, i'm judging him as a filmmaker, not at his ability to adapt a novel. Any adaptation is going to change alot of things. I think he made a film that can stand on its own and doesnt require a love of the novel to be accesible. It will inspire lots of people to go out and read the book and they'll probably like the book more.

...and my case for his film sensibilities is based on Killing Zoe, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, and Resevoir Dogs.

Regardless, i don't think he is the right guy for Glamorama, a film that i think should be sleek adn ultra-cool, more like American Psycho's aesthetic.

[6] On Jan-28-2004, Rob wrote:

Okay, the broadband reference in the film isn't in the novel hence my point that an 80s story is missplaced by setting the film in the 90s. You judge Avary on Killing Zoe, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, and Resevoir Dogs? He directed one of those, co-wrote another (to a small extent) and has almost nothing to do with the other two! (you must admit it's beyond minimal). There are much better people for Glamorama.

[7] On Jan-28-2004, Matt wrote:

"Co-wrote another (to a small extent)"? Where in the hell did you get that idea? I suppose Quentin wrote all of 'Pulp Fiction' and he managed to talk the Academy into giving Roger a statue because he's such a great guy -- right? Give me a break. Avary is incredibly talented and he did a *phenomenal* job capturing the spirit and the tone of Bret's novel... far more successfully than any of the other Ellis film adaptations so far. Is he the man for 'Glamorama'? It'll be a stretch, to be sure, but that's what artistic growth is all about -- isn't it? Your criticism of Roger seems (to me) based on something other than a solid appraisal of his body of work.

[8] On Jan-29-2004, Rob wrote:

Yes he co-wrote it to s small extent. To be precise he wrote the first draft of one quarter of the film; the Butch storyline and even then Quentin made final adjustments after he had written it. So yes, small extent indeed.
Avary is not "incredibly talented" and you clearly know nothing about films. He is talented. Incredibly so? Not a chance. As for the "phenomenal" job he did with TROA, it was okay, I'll give it that but the film barely registered in the public consciousness. Mary Harron's American Psycho was a far better adaptation which stayed true to the original text (as much was possible) and actually came out as a good film in its own right.

lenny_audaer@hotmail.com

[9] On Jan-30-2004, Lazy Lisa wrote:

I agree with Rob about the American Psycho film -- it did not let me down at all. The RoA film was better than I expected, but since I expected it to really suck, that's not saying much. There was a lot of good things about it, but many more things that left me scratching my head and going "huh?" Like that whole long scene where two of them are dancing on the bed to George Michael. I mean... huh? And why the hell was Lauren a virgin? Can I get a "wtf"? Trust me, even if I hadn't read the book I'd be rolling my eyes. I think Avary meant well, and a lot of it was spot-on, but overall it just didn't work out.

[10] On Jan-30-2004, Rob wrote:

I couldn't have put that better Lisa, it just didn't all come together for me. Let's face it, none of BEE's novels actually film literally because they concern the minutiae of life and circumstance over plot and character but AmPsych was a valiant attempt which worked.

[11] On Jan-30-2004, Matt wrote:

Lauren was a virgin in the film because... she was a virgin in the book.

[12] On Feb-08-2004, Tony wrote:

Lauren lost her virginity at the start of the book at the party that is now the end of the movie, it's confusing. She had sex with Sean and a bunch of other guys.

[13] On Feb-11-2004, Matt wrote:

You're exactly right, Tony -- but it should be noted that the party at the beginning of the movie is the same party that is at the end of the movie... the whole thing is circular, ala 'Pulp Fiction'. (Which should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. :)

[14] On Mar-06-2004, Nathan wrote:

I thought "Rules" turned out to be a great film. In particular, I thought Kip Pardue made the perfect Victor, which is what gives me great hope for the "Glamorama" film.

[15] On Mar-07-2004, Rob wrote:

Does anybody actually think Glamorama will get made? Avary tells me that people just won't fund it post 9/11 so it looks pretty shaky to me.
audtrad@hotmail.com

[16] On Mar-24-2004, Adam wrote:

I've been hearing a lot of mixed things about "Glamorama" the movie. I have friends in California who are telling me its on the way, but I haven't seen much of anything in the last few months......what? is that robert blake murder trial thing causing a stalling? (Robert Blake = Palakon supposedly?)

Does anyone have any new insight on the progress?

[17] On Mar-26-2004, Tony wrote:

Regarding the movie.

From what I've heard, Roger is having trouble getting the funds for the movie due to reasons like:

1) Rules of attraction did terrible at the box office
2) Glamorama is a very long and complicated book
3) it's about terrorism and bombings. With all that's going on in the world now, this is the last movie anyone wants to make

So I'd be very surprised to see this movie made this year.

[18] On Mar-27-2004, Adam wrote:

Hey Tony-
Do you have any confirmed reports of the terrorism thing?
The way things are going right now overseas, it may be months or even years before tensions settle.
I remember when Collateral Damage was released (post Sept 11th)there was a lot of controversy....but eventually it was.
I don't know how far intp the production they have gone with Glamorama so far!

[19] On Mar-29-2004, suicidemartini wrote:

Robert Blake never = Palakon, that was just someone having some fun submitting to imdb.

as far as the status of things, just check avary's own site. he'll mention anything certain in his journal, but so far...

"Greg Shapiro and I have optioned the rights and the surreal screenplay has been finished. Imagine it as "The Bourne Identity" meets "Repulsion" as imagined by Bret Easton Ellis and Roger Avary. In our post 9-11 nightmare reality it's not going to be easy to raise the financing for this comment on our post 9-11 nightmare reality."

[20] On Jun-02-2004, susan wrote:

David Fincher should be directing Glamorama. He was able to make Fight Club into an amazing movie that was just as good as the book. I wish David Fincher would also remake Less Than Zero since they royally messed it up in the 80s.