Steve McQueen's Corpse Rolls Over, Cocks Loaded .45
It seems Brad Pitt is remaking the Steve McQueen classic, Bullitt.
I like Brad Pitt. Even though it makes my job that much harder, I have to admit, he's good. In theory, he's hate-able. In execution, he's actually a laid back-seeming guy, underrated actor and a pretty good movie "tough guy."
What he isn't, is anywhere close to as cool as fucking Steve McQueen. They could've done worse, but, ideally, they wouldn't have done it at all.
McQueen was and is, the coolest. His movies should be left alone, in some place where awesome things go to be awesome. I'd sooner see you remake the bible with a wise-cracking "Hay-zeus" who sports a goatee and drives a jet boat-Ark... Or re-do the Mona Lisa with indiglo paint, a hidden eye gimmick and Waldo. (I found these references in a book on 1998. It was pretty good.)
How about a remake/re-imagining called Citizen Cane, featuring the animated misadventures of a lovable walking stick and the people he helps, voiced with re-cut Orson Welles' clips. How about you take that idea...
Or the umpteenth variation on one of those poignant, "We thought we were teaching him.. but he was teaching us... Hold on, we actually were teaching him after all," feel good films about a mentally-challenged, Native American Martian. (See, he was Native American but raised by Martians who, at some point, accidentally damaged his brain.)
But no, they had to go and try to remake a classic. Did Alec Baldwin do such a good job on The Getaway? Did Pierce Brosnan hit The Thomas Crown Affair, out of the park? The answers are "no" and "no." Oh, I'm not linking to their imdb pages but if you crave mediocrity, go take a look.
I know it's been said far too many times but please stop remaking movies. This film is as kick-ass as it will ever be. '68 Mustang, iconic turtleneck, Steve McQueen playing "Frank Bullitt," and the greatest car chase ever put on film.
Get ready for '08 Mustang (as well as every other car Ford makes thanks to the inevitable product placement), a shirt unbuttoned to the waist for no apparent reason, Pitt playing "Ray Gunz," and a CGI cluster-fuck. No doubt set to the this song, which one guy loved so much in Kill Bill he decided to put it in his own movie. That's cool, right?
Without McQueen this is a standard idea. Renegade cop crosses the line to protect a witness, drives cars fast. Is this a story Hollywood has yet to tackle post-Bullitt? It is? Then go make it and call it something else.
According to legend, McQueen and the film's director were allowed to ride along with the San Francisco Police. The cops didn't care for McQueen and tried to spook him by inviting him on a tour of the city morgue. Unfazed, McQueen showed up carrying a sack lunch... I had a hack joke involving Pitt bringing a vomit bag all set to go, then came to my senses. Like I said, I like Pitt. So, let's just say that maybe Pitt would've shown up with an apple, but I'm betting McQueen ate oysters.
TheCoolerKing, who took his very own name from a McQueen film, is guessing not enough people know who McQueen is to bother clicking on this article.
Supreme Court Rules that High-Speed Car Chases are Fucking Awesome
Everyone loves a sweet car chase. Remember the one in Bullitt with the Mustang on the streets of San Francisco? That kicked ass. Or that one in Bourne Identity where Will Hunting was driving the Mini through Germany or something and he kept spinning that little thing through all the tight little streets and bouncing off shit like a fucking pinball? Totally rad. I didnt see the movie remake of Dukes of Hazzard, but my buddy Carlos told me there was some fun shit in there too. Lots of cars, lots of damage, lots of mayhem and a slow-motion jump over a broken down bridge or two with the General Lees Dixie horn blaring. Sign me up, baby!
Well it turns out that not just you and I and my buddy Carlos like movies with car chases. In fact, even those wacky kids on the Supreme Court are into them. Fuckin A! I wonder if Justice Ginsberg wants to go see Cannonball Run at a drive in with me sometime. I bet she'd put out. Car chase movies are like Spanish Fly.
The police did not violate a speeding drivers rights by ramming his car and causing an accident that left him permanently paralyzed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday by a vote of 8 to 1.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that despite the fact that the 19-year-old driver was suspected of nothing more than speeding, the decision to force him off the road was reasonable in light of the need to protect pedestrians and other drivers from a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort.
Heres where the Court and I differ. Im with them on the rest of this stuff, but Hollywood-style? Hardly. As you can see from the video of the chase in question, the production quality on this scene is utter shit. I mean, the lighting was awful, there were no huge and unnecessary explosions, and you could barely make out the pedestrians scurrying out of the way in the nick of time. Hell, it doesn't even look like there ARE any pedestrians! At the 6 minute mark we get a horrible angle of our first crash, and then nothing comes after that. Weak sauce. Don't even get me started on the soundtrack. Bor-ing. If the Court wants to see Hollywood Style, they should rent The Blues Brothers. I love the part where they drive through the indoor mall. Classic.
Justice Scalia said the videotape demonstrated the danger posed by the efforts of the driver, Victor Harris, to elude the police on a narrow and winding Georgia road. Justice Scalia added that the federal appeals court in Atlanta, which ruled that Mr. Harris was entitled to a jury trial on his constitutional claims against the sheriffs deputy who forced him off the road, should have viewed the tape with more care rather than accept Mr. Harriss version of how the chase proceeded.
Mr. Harriss benign description of his actions during the chase, which according to Justice Scalia gave the impression that he was attempting to pass his driving test rather than fleeing the police, was blatantly contradicted by the record so that no reasonable jury could believe it, the justice said.
The lone dissenter, Justice John Paul Stevens, said that to the contrary, jurors could well have concluded that the late-night chase endangered no pedestrians, since there were none, and no other motorists, since the police sirens warned other cars to pull off the road. The Court has usurped the jurys fact-finding function, Justice Stevens said, adding that whether a persons actions have risen to a level warranting deadly force is a question of fact best reserved for a jury.
It should be noted that Justice Stevens is really, really old, so he probably cant appreciate the nuances involved in a top-notch car chase. That must be why hes whining about how questions of fact, like whether the police were using reasonable force in deciding to ram Harris off the road, are traditionally left for a jury rather than the Court. Thats probably also why hes willing to believe that a reasonable jury could have found that Harris constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when the police used deadly force in pursuit of a simple speeding violation.
I think I even read an article somewhere that hed never seen Smokey and the Bandit. So obviously, he doesnt know what the fuck hes talking about.
Justice Scalia said the rule of the case was that a police officers attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.
In response to Mr. Harriss argument that the police had his license number and could have avoided more danger by abandoning the chase, Justice Scalia said that such an outcome would give a perverse incentive to fleeing motorists who would get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other peoples lives in danger. In any event, Justice Scalia said, it was Mr. Harris who intentionally placed himself and the public in danger and gave the police the choice between two evils that they confronted.
Bottom line is that this ruling gives police more leeway to use their cars as battering rams and inflict more mayhem upon all sorts of people so long as it is reasonable to assume that they are putting people in danger. The initial offense for which the police are undertaking the pursuit is immaterial. It could be murder, burglary, smuggling moonshine or just running off with the sheriffs daughter, it doesnt matter. If youre running, the cops are coming after you.
And that means demolition derby time, yo! Pass the popcorn.
Hat tip: magpieboy