394 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

I cant wait for this, although I think Ewan (we are on first name terms) is not like the man I had in my head when I read the book. Bloody good book by the way!

Wait, you know him?

[Judo chop]

Better trailer than AVATAR.

[DamnCoffee]

Great stuff indeed. It's nice to see Brosnan in a Post-Bond role. Is there a release date yet?

[Tybre]

Great stuff indeed. It's nice to see Brosnan in a Post-Bond role. Is there a release date yet?

Nothing definitive. They're shooting for a 2010 release and I've heard rumours they're planning to release it in November, but there's nothing confirmed yet.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Who is the lead?
Ewan or Pierce?
Not familiar with the book? What is it an action thriller or a policital movie?
Does much blow up?

[jaguar007]

Does Pierce play the ghost of James Bonds past

[Tybre]

Who is the lead?
Ewan or Pierce?
Not familiar with the book? What is it an action thriller or a policital movie?
Does much blow up?

Ewan is technically the lead. The unnamed ghost writer is the protagonist of the piece. It's a political thriller/mystery, I suppose you could say.

From Publisher's Weekly:

Spoiler

Displaying enviable versatility, Harris, who first achieved acclaim with his alternative history, Fatherland, and who more recently showed his mastery of the historical novel in Pompeii, hits one out of the park with this dark paranoid thriller. Former British prime minister Adam Lang (clearly modelled on Tony Blair) is up against a firm deadline to submit his memoirs to his publisher, and the project is dangerously derailed when his aide and collaborator, Michael McAra, perishes in a ferry accident off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. To salvage the book, a professional ghostwriter is hired to whip the manuscript into shape, but the unnamed writer soon finds that separating truth from fiction in Lang’s recollections a challenge. The stakes rise when Lang is accused of war crimes for authorizing the abduction of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, who then ended up in the CIA’s merciless hands. As the new writer probes deeper, he uncovers evidence that his predecessor’s death may have been a homicide. Harris nicely leavens his cynical tale with gallows humor, and even readers who anticipate the plot’s final twist will admire the author’s artistry in creating an intelligent page-turner that tackles serious issues.

There's no real big spoilers there but I figure I'd put it there anyway, for those who want as many secrets/surprises as possible.

Positively fantastic book. One of the best I've read this year. Highly recommend it.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Who is the lead?
Ewan or Pierce?
Not familiar with the book? What is it an action thriller or a policital movie?
Does much blow up?

Ewan is technically the lead. The unnamed ghost writer is the protagonist of the piece. It's a political thriller/mystery, I suppose you could say.

From Publisher's Weekly:

Spoiler

Displaying enviable versatility, Harris, who first achieved acclaim with his alternative history, Fatherland, and who more recently showed his mastery of the historical novel in Pompeii, hits one out of the park with this dark paranoid thriller. Former British prime minister Adam Lang (clearly modelled on Tony Blair) is up against a firm deadline to submit his memoirs to his publisher, and the project is dangerously derailed when his aide and collaborator, Michael McAra, perishes in a ferry accident off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. To salvage the book, a professional ghostwriter is hired to whip the manuscript into shape, but the unnamed writer soon finds that separating truth from fiction in Lang’s recollections a challenge. The stakes rise when Lang is accused of war crimes for authorizing the abduction of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, who then ended up in the CIA’s merciless hands. As the new writer probes deeper, he uncovers evidence that his predecessor’s death may have been a homicide. Harris nicely leavens his cynical tale with gallows humor, and even readers who anticipate the plot’s final twist will admire the author’s artistry in creating an intelligent page-turner that tackles serious issues.

There's no real big spoilers there but I figure I'd put it there anyway, for those who want as many secrets/surprises as possible.

Positively fantastic book. One of the best I've read this year. Highly recommend it.

Amen to that, brillaint book!

[Stephen Spotswood]

For years, I've wanted to see Roman Polanski do a movie version of Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

Back in the early 90's I envisioned it as Patrick Stewart as Merlin, Timothy Dalton as King Arthur and Bill Murray (possibly Steve Martin), as the Connecticut Yankee.

I think if it were Dennis Miller, the audience would be too eager to see the Yankee die.

Now that was one funny, but dark book.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Polanski's past catches up with him. I take it all work has finished on The Ghost?


http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/8277176.stm

[Tybre]

Well at least now we know why they were filming in Germany instead of London and New England.

[SecretAgentFan]

Oh, boy, that is really ridiculous - the Swiss arrest him and want to bring him back to the US?

[Loomis]

Why is it ridiculous? Polanski has been a fugitive from justice for many years. Why should he not be arrested?

[Righty007]

Oh, boy, that is really ridiculous - the Swiss arrest him and want to bring him back to the US?

Just because a fugitive leaves a country doesn't mean the charges are dropped. Had he faced the music 31 years ago, he would have been out of jail and free now.

[Loomis]

France's culture minister is reportedly upset and "dumbfounded" by Polanski's arrest, issuing a statement expressing "regret that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them". President Nicolas Sarkozy "is following the case with great attention and shares the minister's hope that the situation can be quickly resolved".

http://www.cbc.ca/ar...witzerland.html

In addition, something called the Swiss Directors Association has slammed Polanski's arrest as "not only a grotesque farce of justice, but also an immense cultural scandal".

http://online.wsj.co...MIDDLTopStories

One law for the rich and "artistic", another for the poor?

[Harmsway]

Just because a fugitive leaves a country doesn't mean the charges are dropped. Had he faced the music 31 years ago, he would have been out of jail and free now.

Not necessarily. The judge on the case wanted to send Polanski to jail for up to fifty years.

It seems most people don't actually know the details of Polanski's case and departure, and just make a knee-jerk reaction based on hearing that he had sex with a minor and that he's currently under the legal status of fugitive. I recommend people read this article to get a sense of Polanski's side of the story:

The Curious Case of Roman Polanski

[Loomis]

Some might say that fifty years in prison for the rape and sodomy of a thirteen-year-old would be.... fair enough.

Anyway, whether the judge acted inappropriately is irrelevant. That Polanski's victim has called for the charges to be dropped is also irrelevant.

Why should people have any sympathy for this man? I'm not calling for his castration or for him to be locked up for the rest of his life (although I'd understand people doing so), but at the same time neither do I think he should be given a pass because he directed KNIFE IN THE WATER, CHINATOWN and a couple of other decent films. And that members of the great and the good of the European cultural establishment seem to feel he's some kind of political prisoner, a sort of Aung San Suu Kyi with a director's megaphone, is utterly nauseating. There are better causes to support than this pseudo-intellectual poltroon of a man.

[Tybre]

I agree. Just because the man's directed some films that several people apparently enjoy (I wouldn't know, I've never seen a single Polanski film) or just because he was married to Sharon Tate at the time of that awful incident is no reason to let the bastard off. I could care less if she was thirteen or thirty. If he genuinely raped a woman, there damn well better be retribution, and honestly even that judge who, admittedly, acted immensely inappropriately would be far better handlers of this case than I. The French president, Swiss folks, etc calling for these charges to be dropped is...moronic, to put it in terms this board would allow. Now, if the sex was consensual, that's a different matter, and then we run into murky waters I'm not going to tackle. But, not knowing every last little detail about this case, if it was indeed rape, lock him up, if that's what the justice system wants. If it were up to me, I would see to it he was given the Le Chiffre treatment. And no, for the record, that's not me trying to be some sort of "internet white knight" or whatever. I have personal reasons for often being rather cruel towards rapists, and no, it's not because I was raped either, because I haven't been.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Some might say that fifty years in prison for the rape and sodomy of a thirteen-year-old would be.... fair enough.

Anyway, whether the judge acted inappropriately is irrelevant. That Polanski's victim has called for the charges to be dropped is also irrelevant.

Why should people have any sympathy for this man? I'm not calling for his castration or for him to be locked up for the rest of his life (although I'd understand people doing so), but at the same time neither do I think he should be given a pass because he directed KNIFE IN THE WATER, CHINATOWN and a couple of other decent films. And that members of the great and the good of the European cultural establishment seem to feel he's some kind of political prisoner, a sort of Aung San Suu Kyi with a director's megaphone, is utterly nauseating. There are better causes to support than this pseudo-intellectual poltroon of a man.

I will never respect your opinions again.

[Skudor]

Ouch - 50 years seems a bit harsh. I never realised there was a plea-bargain etc. and that it was basically down to the judge going back on the deal.

So I assume Polanski is being hauled back to serve his 50 or are there some processes still to be gone through?

[Righty007]

Some might say that fifty years in prison for the rape and sodomy of a thirteen-year-old would be.... fair enough.

Anyway, whether the judge acted inappropriately is irrelevant. That Polanski's victim has called for the charges to be dropped is also irrelevant.

Why should people have any sympathy for this man? I'm not calling for his castration or for him to be locked up for the rest of his life (although I'd understand people doing so), but at the same time neither do I think he should be given a pass because he directed KNIFE IN THE WATER, CHINATOWN and a couple of other decent films. And that members of the great and the good of the European cultural establishment seem to feel he's some kind of political prisoner, a sort of Aung San Suu Kyi with a director's megaphone, is utterly nauseating. There are better causes to support than this pseudo-intellectual poltroon of a man.

I will never respect your opinions again.

I'm sure Loomis could care less whether you respect his opinions or not. CBn is a forum where many people are allowed to share their opinions. Acting like a baby because you think Polanski isn't a pedophile is your prerogative.

Ouch - 50 years seems a bit harsh. I never realised there was a plea-bargain etc. and that it was basically down to the judge going back on the deal.

So I assume Polanski is being hauled back to serve his 50 or are there some processes still to be gone through?

He's not going to serve 50 years unless they add on charges for fleeing the country, which could be likely but I'm no expert.

[tdalton]

Well said, Righty.

To say that someone's opinion shouldn't be respected because that someone thinks that that a person that pleaded guilty to a crime should pay his debt to society is way over the top.

[jrcjohnny99]

I agree. Just because the man's directed some films that several people apparently enjoy (I wouldn't know, I've never seen a single Polanski film) or just because he was married to Sharon Tate at the time of that awful incident is no reason to let the bastard off. I could care less if she was thirteen or thirty. If he genuinely raped a woman, there damn well better be retribution, and honestly even that judge who, admittedly, acted immensely inappropriately would be far better handlers of this case than I. The French president, Swiss folks, etc calling for these charges to be dropped is...moronic, to put it in terms this board would allow. Now, if the sex was consensual, that's a different matter, and then we run into murky waters I'm not going to tackle. But, not knowing every last little detail about this case, if it was indeed rape, lock him up, if that's what the justice system wants. If it were up to me, I would see to it he was given the Le Chiffre treatment. And no, for the record, that's not me trying to be some sort of "internet white knight" or whatever. I have personal reasons for often being rather cruel towards rapists, and no, it's not because I was raped either, because I haven't been.

In all fairness (and I'm not condoning Polanski's actions) we're talking about statutory rape (because the girl was under age); just abouty everyone close to the case (including the victim) acknowledges there was a certain amount of entrpament involved in the whole incident; Again, I'm not condoning Polanski's actions, but to see it as a black & white 'rape' is to misunderstand the events.
I strongly recommend the documentary "Wanted & Desired" for a detailed review of the whole thing...

[Tybre]

I agree. Just because the man's directed some films that several people apparently enjoy (I wouldn't know, I've never seen a single Polanski film) or just because he was married to Sharon Tate at the time of that awful incident is no reason to let the bastard off. I could care less if she was thirteen or thirty. If he genuinely raped a woman, there damn well better be retribution, and honestly even that judge who, admittedly, acted immensely inappropriately would be far better handlers of this case than I. The French president, Swiss folks, etc calling for these charges to be dropped is...moronic, to put it in terms this board would allow. Now, if the sex was consensual, that's a different matter, and then we run into murky waters I'm not going to tackle. But, not knowing every last little detail about this case, if it was indeed rape, lock him up, if that's what the justice system wants. If it were up to me, I would see to it he was given the Le Chiffre treatment. And no, for the record, that's not me trying to be some sort of "internet white knight" or whatever. I have personal reasons for often being rather cruel towards rapists, and no, it's not because I was raped either, because I haven't been.

In all fairness (and I'm not condoning Polanski's actions) we're talking about statutory rape (because the girl was under age); just abouty everyone close to the case (including the victim) acknowledges there was a certain amount of entrpament involved in the whole incident; Again, I'm not condoning Polanski's actions, but to see it as a black & white 'rape' is to misunderstand the events.
I strongly recommend the documentary "Wanted & Desired" for a detailed review of the whole thing...

Yes, well like I said, I don't have all the details of the case, so just going off of "he raped a 13-year-old girl" whether she wants it dismissed or not, it's enough for me to want to use a carpet beater on the fellow. Which is actually considerably lighter than past reactions. But it's a moot point. I've no say in the case, nor do I know all of what's happened in it, so therefore I'm not quite fit, or really able to, judge.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well said, Righty.

To say that someone's opinion shouldn't be respected because that someone thinks that that a person that pleaded guilty to a crime should pay his debt to society is way over the top.

Read this, then:

http://www.chud.com/...NSKI/Page1.html

[tdalton]

Well said, Righty.

To say that someone's opinion shouldn't be respected because that someone thinks that that a person that pleaded guilty to a crime should pay his debt to society is way over the top.

Read this, then:

http://www.chud.com/...NSKI/Page1.html

That's beside the point. The personal attack on Loomis just because he doesn't feel the same way as others regarding this matter is what was uncalled for.

[Loomis]

Well said, Righty.

To say that someone's opinion shouldn't be respected because that someone thinks that that a person that pleaded guilty to a crime should pay his debt to society is way over the top.

Read this, then:

http://www.chud.com/...NSKI/Page1.html

Harmsway already gave a link to that article.

How about this one?

http://www.wnd.com/i...hp?pageId=17027

[Loomis]

In all fairness (and I'm not condoning Polanski's actions) we're talking about statutory rape (because the girl was under age); just abouty everyone close to the case (including the victim) acknowledges there was a certain amount of entrpament involved in the whole incident; Again, I'm not condoning Polanski's actions, but to see it as a black & white 'rape' is to misunderstand the events.

I thought he drugged Samantha Geimer. And in a 2003 interview she explained: "I said, like, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No,' and then I didn't know what else to do.

"We were alone, and I didn't know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I'll get to come home after this."

She was drugged, did not give consent and tried to resist (and let's not forget we're talking about a 13-year-old female and a man in his forties, and a wealthy and powerful man as well). How, then, is this not rape but "only" statutory rape?

[jrcjohnny99]

Well said, Righty.

To say that someone's opinion shouldn't be respected because that someone thinks that that a person that pleaded guilty to a crime should pay his debt to society is way over the top.

Read this, then:

http://www.chud.com/...NSKI/Page1.html

Harmsway already gave a link to that article.

How about this one?

http://www.wnd.com/i...hp?pageId=17027

Loomis; c'mon, WND? hardly the most balanced viepoint...at best conservative and in the case of their op-ed pieces (like the one you linked to) right-wing bible bashing....

In all fairness (and I'm not condoning Polanski's actions) we're talking about statutory rape (because the girl was under age); just abouty everyone close to the case (including the victim) acknowledges there was a certain amount of entrpament involved in the whole incident; Again, I'm not condoning Polanski's actions, but to see it as a black & white 'rape' is to misunderstand the events.

I thought he drugged Samantha Geimer. And in a 2003 interview she explained: "I said, like, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No,' and then I didn't know what else to do.

"We were alone, and I didn't know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I'll get to come home after this."

She was drugged, did not give consent and tried to resist (and let's not forget we're talking about a 13-year-old female and a man in his forties, and a wealthy and powerful man as well). How, then, is this not rape but "only" statutory rape?

Over the years her story has changed A LOT....Most recent interview suggest that it was her mother's idea to get them together and that she certainly gave Polanski the impression of consenting...
again, I'm not condoning the actions, but I do not beleive for one minute it's as black and white as people like to make out.

[Loomis]

Loomis; c'mon, WND? hardly the most balanced viepoint...at best conservative and in the case of their op-ed pieces (like the one you linked to) right-wing bible bashing....

Really? As a Brit, I don't know, to be honest. But that isn't to say that conservatives and Bible-thumpers are necessarily always wrong, or indeed that the pro-Polanski camp doesn't go in for propaganda of its own.