<![CDATA[for this being a mediocre film.]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — City by the Sea

markfilipak — 16 years ago(February 24, 2010 06:52 PM)

for this being a mediocre film.
I can see it now. Some pretty credible money men (i.e., executive producers) and a $60-million budget. A story by a Pulitzer Prize winning author. A pretty decent script, if in the hands of the right director. They talk De Niro into the film because they want a big name and he wants a big payday (but he also expects a decent film because he can demand a decent film). McDormand talks herself into it because she wants to do a straight dramatic film that's against type. So what happens?
City by the Sea
happens. And the director allows a television scriptwriter, Ken Hixon, to produce some miserable dialog like what comes out of John Doman's mouth (as Chief Henderson).

  • I don't ABSOLUTELY KNOW about any of this, but I can smell it -
    I can't fault the actors and I think it's a sign of naivety on the part of some people to fault De Niro and McDormand. A film is put together from out-of-order takes. I'll bet it seemed like a winning project while the filming was going on.
    I think that Michael Caton-Jones is entirely responsible for the mediocre film he made.
    Interested in collaborative work on a new type of film rating system? Contact me
]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/234063/for-this-being-a-mediocre-filmRSS for NodeTue, 12 May 2026 17:01:51 GMTSun, 03 May 2026 20:31:47 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to for this being a mediocre film. on Sun, 03 May 2026 20:31:51 GMT]]>jeanniemotherof3 — 14 years ago(May 15, 2011 08:52 PM)

I agree on everything you said, except De Niro "needing" a big pay day! Doubt that. I also predict McDormand loved a chance to be in a movie with De Niro. All your other input is great and I really believe you were right on.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1960084https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1960084Sun, 03 May 2026 20:31:51 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to for this being a mediocre film. on Sun, 03 May 2026 20:31:50 GMT]]>jeanniemotherof3 — 14 years ago(May 15, 2011 08:54 PM)

I as well totally agree with the OP. Although I loved this film, and of course De Niro, it totally looked as though it was a made for TV. It was the directors issue, I agree.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1960083https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1960083Sun, 03 May 2026 20:31:50 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to for this being a mediocre film. on Sun, 03 May 2026 20:31:49 GMT]]>markfilipak — 15 years ago(July 26, 2010 05:58 AM)

You're very kind. If I ever screw up a project, I want you around to make my excuses.
Notice that I don't blame the scriptwriter. I likewise don't blame the producers. I blame the director. It has to be that way. Otherwise, you would have the U.S. Congress!
Interested in collaborating on a new type of film rating system? Contact me.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1960082https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1960082Sun, 03 May 2026 20:31:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to for this being a mediocre film. on Sun, 03 May 2026 20:31:48 GMT]]>John-367 — 15 years ago(July 25, 2010 07:11 PM)

The director rarely, if ever, has the final say in what script is used. Caton-Jones was also one of several producers on this film but still would not solely have the final say. Certainly if one or more of the companies financing the film wanted this script shot then Caton-Jones would have had to accept, walk away from the project or try to persuade all the other parties to try to find the financing elsewhere.
The auteur theory has a lot to answer for in people's misconceptions about how much power directors actually have most of the time.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1960081https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1960081Sun, 03 May 2026 20:31:48 GMT