MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

One Big Lesson

Since it’s come up in two different entries today, I thought I would address the biggest public misstep I’ve made in recent years… the Phantom of the Opera Oscar column.
Reading back, I can only laugh at the hyperbole, my arrogance at throwing my track record into it, and my own stupidity in being that definitive on anything I had no control over.
There were very specific qualifiers in the column. But one of the lessons is that no one reads the fine print.
The half dozen or so bad calls that some readers love to throw in my face endlessly as proof that I am failable, almost all of them were failures of enhthusiasm. The Terminal, Win A Date With Tad Hamilton, The Rundown, Phantom… each made major marketing and/or distribution mistakes, in my opinion. But only The Rundown has had an upbeat afterlife… beyond the Phantom cult.
On the flip side, I still am amazed that Miramax was able to back into such a success with Hero after stumbling with the film for so long. The Day Ater Tomorrow still shocks me every time I think about its undeniable smash hit status… that piece of shit did $100 million after its huge opening weekend. I just don’t get it.
But the big lesson is… don’t promise a win when you don’t get to market the movie… or to handle the media… or to not reshoot two weeks out…
Okay… the real lesson is “don’t promise what you can’t deliver.”
Meanwhile, I’m sticking with Rachel McAdams, Ellen Pompeo, and Ginifer Goodwin to find their way to stardom. (That’s Joe Leydon’s cue to accuse me of drooling… thanks, Joe.)

Be Sociable, Share!

85 Responses to “One Big Lesson”

  1. Gary says:

    Who the hell are Rachael Mcadams and Gennifer Goodwin? If there pornstars I’ve never heard of em. As far as box office predictions, I find this to be quite amusing:
    This is a good, solid opening I think for this film,” Lewellen said. “It played well particularly in the middle of the country, which always bodes well for it holding up.”
    Wayne Lewellen always cracks me up, but this ones a goldmine. That being said, his statement SHOULD be legitimate if their cracker of a director/producer team didnt spend double the budget it should have been. Who the fuck spends $140 mill. on a Matthew Mcconaughey/Steve Zahn movie? Thats downright insane. I mean, maybe it will play well outside the US.. but it aint sticking around here much longer.
    And am I the only one getting a less than gigantic feeling on the new Batman? It just feels too.. adult to me to do the kind of business the last few did. Dark, humorless, unsexy, no great villain.. To be honest, I’m very interested because it looks almost like a legitimate “film”, but at the same time I do not think it will play well to the kiddies or the date-crowd at all. If BB makes $150 mill., is that a disappointment?

  2. L&DB says:

    First off Bats has all sorts of humour in it. If
    you were breathing in the 90s and watched the animated
    series. Then you will see that this movie has
    not only copped the look but the humour as well.
    This flick will do around 250 to a slightly possible
    300 in this country. Have faith in the Bats movie
    that people have really wanted to see since Burton
    F’ED up Bats with his first two films.
    Secondly, Poland, you best be watching Grey’s Anatomy.
    Ellen Pompeo dominates on that show. She proves she
    has the mettle to be a top talent (as they say in
    the wrestling industry about people who “have” it).
    As the other Ellen Pompeo fan out there. The fact
    she has a TV show, that has become a hit. Makes
    me all sorts of happy.

  3. Joe Leydon says:

    Geez, Dave, you still don’t get it about “Day After Tomorrow,” do you? I’ll try to explain one more time: It was, deep down, a political movie. Really. It was revenge of the Red States. Think about it: What happens? Los Angeles is wiped out by tornadoes. New York is hit by a tidal wave and then frosts over. And, meanwhile, the good righteous folks in the Red States can look at this movie and go: “Aha! Los Angeles, New York — Sodom, Gomorrah. The Lord really does work in mysterious ways.”

  4. David Poland says:

    I can only assume you are kidding, JL, since I don’t really think you are that off the wall.

  5. Joe Leydon says:

    Dave: Well, it makes about as much sense as saying a movie that drops over 50 precent in its second weekend can’t possibly be getting bad word of mouth. Right? (Yeah, yeah, I know YOU aren’t saying that.)

  6. Joe Leydon says:

    P.S.: If those four wrong calls are the worst you ever make, God bless you. (Remember: I’m the guy who predicted — in print, alas — that “Office Space” would be a smash hit, “Josie and the Pussycats” would be hailed as a razor-sharp satire, Kevin Costner would be an Oscar nomiee for “A Perfect World” and “Standing in the Shadows of Motown” would WIN an Oscar as Best Documentary.) We just to bring them up because it’s so funny when you get pissed off.

  7. jeffmcm says:

    First, I love David Poland.
    Second, I think it’s amusing that every few months he selects some new starlet as an up-and-comer…never any male stars.
    Third, let us not forget his enthusiasm over the Matrix sequels and his stony silence about them after the release of Revolutions…his greatest case of wild overenthusiasm, to me.

  8. KamikazeCamel says:

    “This flick will do around 250 to a slightly possible 300 in this country.”
    er… i highly doubt that. $175 is my rough prediction.
    And, anyway, seriously. Yes, you were wrong about Phantom being an Oscar big player but it still made roughly $50 in the US and a lot overseas. For a musical starring nobody famous, that’s pretty damn good.
    And I’m saying that as someone who didn’t even like it as much as my friends who loathe-to-modestly dislike musicals.

  9. L&DB says:

    Oh yeah. I needed to add to my Bats statement that
    the film has a recurring theme song. Any movie
    that uses “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” as a theme
    gets all sorts of props. If only Rodriguez threw
    away his bloody awful score for Sin City, and used
    the Servant’s “Cells” instead. The possibilities
    are endless on that one.
    So let me get this straight. This post deals with
    Poland getting stuff wrong? At least he puts himself
    friggin out there. Name me a critic, besides that
    lunatic Laydon and maybe Ebert and his pseudo-critic
    Roeper, that openly root for films? You can say
    a top 10 list counts, but how many critics really
    ever say; “I WANT THIS FILM TO SUCCEED!” Or say
    either praise it, diss it, or leave you feeling
    ambivalent about their feelings. Will we ever see
    Liza Schwartzbaum defend her B rating to Crossroads?
    Uh no.
    But Poland did see the remake of Texas Chainsaw
    Massacre succeeding before anyone else really. And
    that movie sucked bricks.

  10. Joe Leydon says:

    L&DB: Of course I freakin’ root for films. I truly, madly, dearly want EVERY film I see to be great. To me, when the lights dim, the magic begins. And if I see something that really IS great, that I want the world to know about — that I want everybody to get off their asses and see — I say so. As does David. As does Ebert. And, yes, I’ll admit it: just like David, just like Ebert, it breaks my heart when something that really is good gets ignored. Film isn’t just my hobby, it isn

  11. L&DB says:

    But Laydon, Martin says we come across as “creepy.”
    When we say bitchy things to one another! WE DONT

  12. Wild guesses are great.
    Enthusiasm is a virtue, right?
    I must admit that I’ve grown more timid about going out on a limb… Otherwise I would be yelling everywhere that Woody Allen will get an Oscar nomination for the MELINDA AND MELINDA screenplay and that Radha Mitchell will be nominated for Best Actress. But that’s probably wishful thinking.

  13. Joe Leydon says:

    That’s right, Kevin. You’re being silly. Nobody ever gets an Oscar for acting in a Woody Allen movie. Well, except Diane Keaton. And, well, Michael Caine. And Diane Wiest. And Mira Sorvino. And Diane Wiest again. Hell, nobody even gets nominated for acting in a Woody Allen movie. Well, unless you count Martin Landau. And Mariel Hemingway. And Geraldine Page. And Maureen Stapleton. And Jennifer Tilly. And Chazz Palminteri. And Judy Davis. And Sean Penn. And Samantha Morton. Boy, you sure are dumb.

  14. Joe Leydon says:

    Er, Kevin.. You do realize I’m making a joke, and being ironic, right? That, you know, I’m actually supporting what you’re saying, OK? L&DB warned me not to creep anybody out anymore. And if I cross him he’s going to call me “THAT ACCURSED LAYDON” again.

  15. L&DB says:

    Hey I did not type that you were creepy Laydon. I
    just typed that Martin, in another thread, said
    we were ALL a bunch of creeps. So to sum up; I
    am a creepy asshole or Thomas Hayden Church in
    Sideways. HOORAY!
    I hope to see Melinda and Melinda, that accursed
    limited releasing. Shenanigans.

  16. Matt P. says:

    “Have faith in the Bats movie
    that people have really wanted to see since Burton
    F’ED up Bats with his first two films.”
    You really can’t believe that, can you? For most people in the country, Burton interprentation now defines what Batman is. It didn’t mess up anything. It was a cultural phemonon because the country fell in love with that movie. No one, save for Frank Miller fanboys, looks back on the original Batman with any sort of regret, especially Warner. They probably wish they had bottled up that formula more than anything else.
    Look for this flick to get to about $200 million, maybe $175-180 if word of mouth is luke warm. The one thing that needs to happen is a money shot in the trailer to get people in the theater. The previews have been fairly pedestrian for the most part.

  17. KamikazeCamel says:

    “But Poland did see the remake of Texas Chainsaw
    Massacre succeeding before anyone else really. And that movie sucked bricks.”
    1. Surely anybody with eyes and ears could see that Texas was brewing towards a big success once they saw the trailer (one of THE best trailers ever created – don’t deny) and heard the buzz.
    2. It was good! Or, ya know, a lot of people under the age of 21 think it is.
    I think that’s annoying when older critics talk about all the older movies that they repeatedly say are scary and they say that nobody finds stuff like this scary anymore, but truth is a lot of younger people haven’t seen them and so they do find stuff like this scary.
    The absolute never-ending dread in that movie is horrific. You’ll find a lot of people my age or younger (i’m 19 btw) saying they almost couldn’t stand it (in the good way) – watching the brutality. You just keep hoping that the killing will stop so you don’t have to see another character die. That is why I think it succeeded (as a film) and at the box-office because people actually said “That was SO scary” to their friends and they see it.
    And no matter what Ebert says, the movie was meant to be that way.
    (but there I go being all defensive of a film i liked, and we can’t have that now can we. Especially considering it’s just a stupid teen horror remake. Admiting i liked it is like cineast suicide omg.)
    (sorry if it sounds like I just insulted anyone over the age of 21…)

  18. Geoff says:

    I really am not sure about what Batman Begins will do. Since it’s Christopher Nolan, I would absolutely love for it to do bigger business than the vastly overrated first one from Tim Burton. (I rather liked Batman Returns.) But I am not so sure. I sometimes get the too-serious Hulk vibe from the previews that could doom it to bad word of mouth. And there is no way it is doing Spiderman-type business. I think Warners should be happy if it does $175 to $200 million, ecstatic if it reaches the heights of X2.

  19. bicycle bob says:

    the rundown. still can’t get over that one

  20. L&DB says:

    Bringing up The Rundown again just pisses me off.
    Seriously. May Peter Berg come to your house Bob,
    and beat you at your favourite video game. If not,
    then maybe in a game of Monopoly or the board game
    of your choosing! Maybe Jenga, which probably
    makes you happy due to it’s analogous reference to
    the Toward of Babel! But he must beat you at

  21. Terence D says:

    So Mr Poland has made some bad calls. Who hasn’t?

  22. Joe Straat says:

    I picked Gonzaga to be a surprise Final Four team this year. Boy, do I want taht pick back.

  23. Marc says:

    Poland, I love ya, but sorry, I feel like the biggest mistake you made was not addressing the last Matrix sequel. I shared your enthusiasm for the second, but your refusal to address the disaster of the third was really disappointed and smacked of serious stubborness. It’s alright, let it out, and let’s hear about how much you hated it. 🙂

  24. Geoff says:

    I agree with Marc. I absolutely loved Matrix Reloaded, even more than the first. Probably one of the most underrated films of recent years and I agreed with Dave on it.
    That lead to my extreme disappointment with the overly simplistic war epic that was Revolutions. I have a feeling that Dave felt this way, too, but was none too eager to write that review.
    It’s ok, Dave, you’re not the only one who felt bamboozled by what the Wachowski brothers pulled from the second film to the third film. You can admit it, now.

  25. Mark says:

    The Matrix sequels were the two worst sequels in history. Really ruined all the good stuff from the first one.

  26. David Poland says:

    I felt then and I still pretty much feel like I said it all in my preview piece.
    The second and third Matrix films were of a part. The Wachowskis made two movies that were less audience satisfying and just said what they wanted to say.
    The third Matrix was about acceptance. This is not great drama. Revolutions was not a disaster for me. I didn’t hate it. But like Reloaded, it didn’t do what was expected. And I guess, after analyzing and overanalyzing Reloaded for months, it was a let down… it didn’t answer my questions… Neo went from man to superman and back to man.
    The central figure of the trilogy became a major second and third act problem. How do you do a Superman movie that isn’t about him learning about his powers without it being absurd? The answer was, eventually, that even Superman must give up any preconceived notion of the self in order to achieve balance. Not exactly a thriller, which is why Superman 2 ends with him getting his powers back and using the power to put everything back in place.
    I respect the right of The Wachowskis to go after this conclusion. It ends the series with a thud and not a thrill… unless you are excited by rebirth. But I don’t have a lot to say about it… it is oddly complete… and judging it seems to be precisely a reversal of the point of the film.
    I still can’t completely explain my reticence to dig in… I watch the film when it is on cable… I quite like parts of the film… but in truth, 2 & 3 are really one movie and much of 3 is filler… still, it does get to the end they chose…

  27. L&DB says:

    To anyone who has a problem with Reloaded or Revolutions.
    May I suggest that you go and rent the Ultimate
    Matrix Trilogy. Once you have it. Watch the
    sequels with the commentary by Corneilus West and
    Brother Ken Wilber. Those two answer every question
    anyone might have about those two films.
    Revolutions, unlike say Return of the King, is
    hardly filler. That whole movie deals with a choice
    set-up in the first film. A choice Neo has to make
    on his own. No other hero in any other trilogy has
    to make that decision. It’s all thrusted upon them
    , but Neo chooses. HE chooses to fight for humanity
    due in large part to the love of Trinity.
    If that film is filler, then that term needs some
    heavy reviving. Revolutions ranks as the best film
    of the series. Claiming the sequels ruined all
    the good stuff of the first one. Demonstrates to
    me; the meaning of these films escaped you.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    I think the meaning of those films escaped the Wachowskis and they began floating on clouds of their own pretentious egos. Where Matrix #1 is buoyant and light on its feet, Revolutions is ponderous and repetitive. At least Reloaded kept most of its action inside the Matrix, where the Wachowskis could come up with more inventive action scenes, instead of the “real world” where they succumbed to sci-fi/action cliches.

  29. Joe Straat says:

    The thing about Revolutions is that most of the theories that circulated around the Internet could’ve been compounded to make a better movie than what was actually released. When they name the voice of the machines “Deus,” you have to admit it seems like even the directors knew they were taking the easy way out. The first half-hour was pretty good until the Train Man, which was probably the Wachowski’s worst attempt to make an interesting character in the entire trilogy. Then came the nightclub fight which, while trying to take an interesting twist on the lobby fight from the first movie, came off as stiff and unconvincing (I could even see the styrofoam on the pillers). The payoff was a cheap and unsatisfying exit for the Merovingian and Persephone.
    The war on the outside world looked good, but it droned along and got tedious. The Matrix parts were desperately missing Gloria Foster’s personality punch. Then there was the showdown with Bane, where Neo takes an ridiculous 2 minutes of “Mr. Anderson” taunting before his mind starts to work. Following was Trinity’s death, which was shot rather blandly and needed a lot more punch than it got. Then there was the ending, which brought the religious allegory that had been a secondary thing for most of the series and used it as an obvious and boring lynch-pin for the whole damn series, complete with a Neon Genesis Evangelion visual reference that was a shallow throwaway in the first place. It just didn’t satisfy.
    I don’t hate it, honestly. Just, for a movie that had so many expectations, so much to accomplish, and to come out as simply “Meh?” That doesn’t quite cut it.

  30. Geoff says:

    Joe Straat, I am very much in agreement with you over Revolutions. Reloaded created several interesting new characters and presented several new ideas and then Revolutions just pretty much dropped them for an epic war third act. I truly believe that they wrote themselves into a corner at the end of Reloaded, so they just took the easy way out with Revolutions and made it all a Christ allegory.
    And another big issue I had with is is that the focus completely shifts to the people of Zion. Now, I know these are the last 200,000 humans that are free on Earth, but wasn’t the whole big point to free BILLIONS of minds? At the end of Revolutions, that’s just an afterthought, with a half-assed quick conversation between the Oracle and the Architect.
    Don’t get me wrong, the dock battle scene was impressive and Mr. Smith showed some genuine menace, but it was truly the most conventional of the trilogy. Reloaded, believe it or not, for its budget and hype, really was quite original.
    And sorry, Dave, but I still do NOT buy the party line from Warners, Silver and the Wachowski’s that these two sequels were each halves of one long film. Reloaded and Revolutions, in their scripts, visuals, tone, and depth, have about as much in common as Aliens and Alien 3.
    Seems to me that the ‘W bros. probably made a compromise with studio and producer that they would be able to indulge their pretentions with the second one, but would be required to deliver a simpler wham-bang war epic with the third, in exchange.
    The first half hour of Revolutions drops just about every interesting concept from Reloaded with a bunch of throwaway dialogue and gets right to the battle with the machines that the pure action audience was biding its time for, anyway. No wonder Harry Knowles prefered Revolutions, it had about as much depth as Armageddon.

  31. L&DB says:

    First off; if you see the films as they are intended
    as being “Birth, Life, and Death.” I just think
    some of your views on Reloaded misses the entire
    point of that flick. Reloaded, through the view
    of Neo, has to be seen as nothing but wish fullfilment.
    He stands down the machines. Decides to do what
    he wants to do because he believes HE IS RIGHT. He
    brings Trinity back to life. He faces down certain
    doom repeatedly. That whole film should have been
    titled; “WHAT NEO REALLY WANTED!” Revolutions deals
    with the reality of the situation. Neo had never
    really accepted his role as the One. He thought
    he had, but he had lied to himself. In Rev, he has
    to accept his fate. He has to take hold of his
    Geoff, saying Revolution had no depth proves to me
    you totally missed out on what the movie is about.
    Go listen to Brother Wilber and Brother West, and
    they shall set you free. But believe what you wish.
    Only a trilogy dealing with Father and Son issues
    via a wife who still believes in said Father means
    as much to me as the Matrix Trilogy. I know I get
    it. Just trying to spread that along, but even
    the Wachowski have written everyone is entitled to
    feel about the way they want.

  32. jeffmcm says:

    Sorry to drag this out, but what does this mean:
    “Only a trilogy dealing with Father and Son issues via a wife who still believes in said Father means as much to me as the Matrix Trilogy.”
    What other trilogy are you talking about here?

  33. bicycle bob says:

    as a fan and audience member i don’t really care what the directors were trying to do. they had a responsibility to their massive audience and fans. they dropped the ball. if u want to work in different themes and stories thats fine. but make them entertaining or develop different films. they ruined a classic movie.

  34. KamikazeCamel says:

    I think the reason Dave hasn’t reviewed The Matrix Revolutions is because it’s actually STILL PLAYING, those giant squid/sperm things are still attacking Zion as I type and when the movie actually does finish in a few years or so, he’ll have a good ol’ fashioned review for ya.
    It’s not like a journo to review a movie half way through!
    (The session of Revolutions that I went to is, i’m fairly certain, still playing. Those sperm just DO NO QUIT!)

  35. Terence D says:

    Can anyone think of two more worthless sequels to a great movie? Even the Die Hards and the Lethal Weapons were highly watchable and actually decent.

  36. oldman says:

    ” Rachal Mcadams, Ellen Pompeo, and Ginifer Goodwin” finding their way to stardom??? when, where, how, why, and in what?

  37. Stella's Boy says:

    Lethal Weapon 3 and 4 are absolute garbage. Worthless pieces of crap the both of them. And Die Hard with a Vengeance isn’t much better. Reloaded is a great flick. I’m not die-hard Matrix freak, but the first two are great movies. Revolutions, however, is terrible. Didn’t care for that one at all.

  38. Mark says:

    How can you say Reloaded is great? How is this possible? Is there one scene in there thats great? One fight? The first 45 minutes is utter boring crap. The acting isn’t much better. Everything that made the first one so great was gone in the next two.
    And Rachel McAdams is a big time star. The Godwin girl is a good supporting actor. On tv.

  39. Stella's Boy says:

    I can say it’s great because I like it. It’s just do much fun bashing it though, right? Can’t help yourself.

  40. L&DB says:

    I just do not believe Mark or Bob really understand
    how much DEEP AND PHILOSOPHICAL thinking resides in
    The Matrix. That part just blew right over some
    people’s head. It just did. They got the action
    but missed out on everything that led into Reloaded.
    Disagree all you want, but thems the fact. JACK!

  41. Jeff McM says:

    I don’t think movies are that great at providing philosophy…emotion and beauty, yes, but for deep and philosophical thinking I’ll read a book.

  42. Jeff McM says:

    Don’t get riled up…I wouldn’t go to a painting or a symphony for deep philosophical thinking either. Even a film like 2001 isn’t about the specifics of Kubrick’s philosophy of the universe as much as it is about him sharing the emotions evoked thereby.

  43. L&DB says:

    You see JeffMCM. You have already provided a bias
    towards any film or TV show that has a philosophical
    bent to it. You have also stated yourself as an
    elitist due in large part in your belief that film
    cannot handle philosophy. I find that totally and
    utter ridiculous.
    Buffy the Vampire Slayer has five philosophy books
    return about it. The Matrix Trilogy deals with
    fundamental philosophical questions of existance
    and humanities place in all of it. How on earth
    can you be so judgemental towards art that tries to
    do something more than capture emotions and art?
    Oy to the vey. I cannot go on any forth. JeffMCM might
    be two moments away from giving me a “Poland slagging
    SW again” headache.

  44. Jeff McM says:

    Just because you can write a shallow market-driven fan-oriented book about something means jack. I thoroughly enjoy Buffy as both camp and serious drama, but I wouldn’t use it as a building block for a happy life. Films cannot contain philosophical ideas. They can only reflect them. I say again, the same is true of a painting or a symphony. Tell me what Picasso’s grand statement of life was or Beethoven’s, and then compare them with Bergman or Hitchcock.
    Maybe this is all just semantics.

  45. bicycle bob says:

    please don’t give me this great pyscho babble on the matrix sequels. we all watched the films. they’re boring, pretentious crap that sapped all the fun and energy out of the first classic. u want to muse about philosophical stuff don’t make blockbusters. obviously they couldn’t do both. anyone that says its good because of that is as prententious as the brother filmmakers

  46. Terence D says:

    I like deep films as much as the next guy. But I want to be entertained most of all. And those movies did not entertain me. Thats a filmmakers job isn’t it? To entertain? We got sold a bill of goods. We thought we were getting a trilogy that would blow us away. Instead we got a triolgy where no one will ever sit down to watch the two sequels.

  47. Stella's Boy says:

    You guys can bash the sequels all you want, but I liked Reloaded. It has nothing to do with philosophical reasons or how “deep” it is. I found it entertaining. Revolutions, however, is another matter entirely.

  48. bicycle bob says:

    stella i’m all ears. why did u find it good? was it the 45 minute boring beginning? the needless exposition? the fight between neo and smith that looked cool but resolved nothing? the “cliffhanger” ending??

  49. jesper says:

    truely a great read. love some great discussions… a bit different to AICN posting 😉

  50. Stella's Boy says:

    I didn’t find the first 45 minutes boring. I loved the freeway chase and enjoyed the twins and Lambert Wilson. It’s not perfect, but when I left the theater I felt like I had gotten my money’s worth. I was entertained. Not sure why you’re so hung up on this.

  51. Joe Leydon says:

    Hey, you want to talk about disappointing sequels? How about “Weekend at Bernie’s II,” huh? And “Amityville II: The Possession” — yikes! And “Alfie Darling” — I had to shut off the videotape 20 minutes into the thing!

  52. Mark says:

    If Stella liked the boring parts they must have some kook liberal sayings in there. Maybe Mike Moore made an appearance while I was asleep.

  53. Stella's Boy says:

    Mark, are you capable of a civilized, normal conversation? Are you a dick to your friends, too?

  54. Joe Straat says:

    The first 45 minutes were fine with me. They weren’t great, and filmmakers need to get the point that elder councils are NOT a good way of dispensing exposition.
    The fight with Smith was establishing his threat. Neo was pretty much Super Man in the Matrix, right? People even whined about how it ws a flaw. So if he’s Super Man, what does it take to stop him? The movie showed it. People complain that Neo could’ve flown away at any point, but don’t think, with his ego and his powers, he wanted to, you know, STOP them? He flew away only when they became too much for him to handle, so he had to get the hell out of there and regroup. It was showing what exactly Neo was dealing with and one of the first building blocks to the final confrontation (which was disappointing, but that’s another story).
    As for the cliffhanger ending: It was two movies that were established as the continuation and conclusion of the stories. If you expected finality, I’m sorry, you definately had the wrong idea coming into this thing. That’s about as bad as the college kids who sat behind me during Fellowship of the Ring who shouted, “What the fuck?! It’s over?!” during the credits sequence.

  55. jeffrey boam's doctor says:

    joe – as any genre fan knows – Amityville 2 is the easily the best of the five flicks, featuring great atmos, ugly incestual overtones and Burt Young sweating up a storm before getting his head blowsd up.
    re; Matrix – I don’t need to hear any dimestore philosophy from some dude who can’t work out what gender he is, let alone deal with the answers to the universe. Which as we all know is 42.

  56. L&DB says:

    So no everyone here has essentially said they want
    the “flashy flashy” over any film with substantial
    depth? Interesting. Excuse some of us folks out
    there for being interested more by the story in the
    film; than the explosions.
    MCM, you still reveal yourself to be nothing more
    than an elitist. A funny elitist that states to
    all filmmakers; “You are pretty when youre quiet.”
    Your statements still boarder on the utterly ridiculous.
    You also seemingly miss the point Buffy has all of
    those philosophy; the show deals with MAJOR THEMES
    I am have to ask; how can something be pretentious
    crap? If you do not grasp said pretentious crap?

  57. bicycle bob says:

    any film with burt young sweating is good in my book.

  58. Terence D says:

    Good point, Doctor of Jeffrey.
    If you tell us you saw the two sequels and expected to see the crap they put up there, you’re lying. I know I expected an entertaining continuation. Didn’t get that. Not even close to that.

  59. bicycle bob says:

    the term repeat viewing will never come into play on a matrix sequel

  60. Lota says:

    The Matrix sequels weren’t the worst sequels out there, but they perhaps were the most intense disappointments. The gritty goth human elements (fear, loss, hope etc) of the first were sort of swept aside in favor of the bigger budget techno elements plus the fact that everyone was donning such nifty garb, refusing to smile or act human (except for that awkwardly placed sex scene).
    It was like a journeying group of hippy truth-seeking goths (first matrix) fell under the spell of Moonies (by the end of third Matrix).

  61. Mark says:

    Ok. I challenge you to name two worse sequels than the Matrix ones.

  62. Lota says:

    i do have other things to do, but at least two others from 2003(yr of matrix sequel release)can be considered less enjoyable than matrix sequels:
    Bad boys 2, tomb raider II cradle of life,
    Darcula II ascension, 2 fast 2 furious, 101 dalmations II:patch’s london adventure,
    anatomie 2
    there’s more but don’;t have time to look up

  63. Joe Leydon says:

    “Deep Throat II.” And no, I’m not making that one up. It was R-RATED, for cryin’ out loud!
    And who could forget “Grease 2” (no matter how much they might try)?

  64. Lota says:

    well if we are talking about all time bad sequels I could give a lot longer list, I was just thinking of ones that scarred me for 2003 the yr the matrix seqs came out.

  65. bicycle bob says:

    2 fast 2 furious was at least watchable. good action and eva mendes. what more do u want?

  66. Stella's Boy says:

    You bitch and moan about the Matrix sequels and then defend 2 Fast 2 Furious, with fucking Tyrese?! Yikes.

  67. Terence D says:

    I cannot name two sets of sequels that were more boring and useless than the Matrix. It is such a shame after the first one too. It is still one of the best.

  68. Stella's Boy says:

    Beverly Hills Cop II and III maybe? III for sure. I haven’t seen II in a long time and don’t really remember if it’s any good or not. I’m sorry, but The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones are awful movies and I’d take Reloaded over either one any day of the week. How about Batman Forever and Batman & Robin? We’re not talking trilogies only right?

  69. Mark says:

    You can’t go and say Phantom is good then it ruins the whole arguement. Phantom is average. The Matrix was great. Attack was good and improved on the lameness of the first one. Reloaded and Revolutions didn’t. And lets see Ep 3 before we throw out the Star Wars movies shall we?
    But you are right. The Beverly Hills sequels were god awful.

  70. Stella's Boy says:

    I would watch Revolutions again before Attack of the Clones any day of the week. That isn’t even a choice. Wouldn’t even have to think about it. I have no desire to see Episode III after sitting through Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. Could not care less.

  71. Angelus says:

    I think it is fair to say that the Matrix sequels have disappointed everyone. Whether you took some good out of them or not. You are disappointed in them.

  72. bicycle bob says:

    don’t say that. stella might call u slow and retarded. since he thinks it should have won oscars. and we all know what he thinks is right.

  73. Terence D says:

    I hope Ice Cube can read. Would really make me lose faith in the rap industry.

  74. Stella's Boy says:

    bi-bob, please refer to the post where I stated that the Matrix sequels should have won Oscars. Oh, wait, I never said that. I even said that I didn’t care for Revolutions at all. I can only conclude that you can’t read very well and are, in fact, slow.

  75. Mark says:

    Do you call everyone who doesn’t agree with you retarded, Stella? Thats not the correct way to argue your point.

  76. Stella's Boy says:

    Mark, show me where I called someone retarded. Do you honestly take bi-bob at his word? That’s a scary thought. And you are the last person here (other than bi-bob) who should be telling someone the correct way to argue a point. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Don’t throw stones in a glass house Mark. And take your own advice.

  77. bicycle bob says:

    its ok stella that ur a bigot. all u libs are hypocrites anyway. another example of u knowing whats best for people. lock up all the retards and throw away the key u say. what happend to letting people live their lives and showing compassion?

  78. Mark says:

    Stella, you have repeatedly called Bob a retard, slow, and stupid. Why deny what you say now? You’re a mean spirited bigot. It’s ok. Be who you are.

  79. Stella's Boy says:

    bob, when have you ever shown compassion? Can you name a single instance? And Mark, once again, show me where I called anyone a retard. If you can’t, then you need to shut up, because you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s really touching that you run to bob’s defense though. Very sweet. And do either of you even know what bigot means? I repeat, don’t throw stones in a glass house boys. We all know who the narrow-minded ones are around here.

  80. bicycle bob says:

    i don’t go around calling people retards like u do stella. if u disagree with someone u call them stupid and retarded and slow. thats real compassion u show. i thought liberals cared about everyone out there??? ur just one big hypocrite when it comes down to it. practicing what u don’t preach. showing ur real self is good though.

  81. Terence D says:

    After reading thru all the posts here I see examples of Stella’s Boy making disparaging remarks about people here. That is not the way to get your point across. There are better ways.

  82. Mark says:

    See Stella like I just stated. You can’t make a point without trying to bash someone. I think its fine. It is who you are. But try to overcome it. You will be better off in the long run. I’m just looking out for you.

  83. bicycle bob says:

    he hurts my feelings when he calls me retarded. sigh… cry.. sniff…

  84. Terence D says:

    Calling anyone stupid or dumb isn’t right. Unless you are Stephen Hawkin’s.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon