MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

What Would Be Funniest?

A. A major release being sent to a web site for repeated viewings with no embargo while the entire NY media was forced to sign paperwork holding to a Wed. embargo date
B. One of the trades hiring an aging gossip columnist
C. A company hurt by the premature release of CG images on a huge film releasing CG images prematurely on an even bigger film

Be Sociable, Share!

58 Responses to “What Would Be Funniest?”

  1. joefitz84 says:

    I go with B. A is just sad. C is their own fault and their own dumb luck. Gossip columnists don’t get better with age. Ask Liz Smith. She is still writing about Liz Taylor for christsakes.

  2. Joe Leydon says:

    An “aging gossip columnist,” David? Well, OK, I guess ageism is the last respectable prejudice in our society. But remember: You live by demographics, you die by demographics. The day will come when your words will be flung back in your face. And, trust me, they’ll hurt.
    Now, you’ll excuse me: It’s bingo night here at The Old Film Critics Home. And later, that smart and sassy young ‘un Lota is coming by to hear me tell her stories all about the 1970s. That is, if I can stay awake that late.

  3. Mason says:

    You seem to be pretty much the only journalist out there who is so ticked off at the embargo that he is giving the movie a negative review.
    Check out rotten tomatoes — WOTW may just be the best reviewed movie of the year.

  4. David Poland says:

    Would “veteran” be less offensive, Joe?
    I guess the truth is, at a place like Variety, where there are many critics working, they aren’t building name brand loyalty, so hiring any age or status is not an issue. But like anointing a pope already well into his 70s, there are moments when age is surprise.
    The flip side is a major publication giving a big job to someone with no experience… which is much, much worse.

  5. David Poland says:

    Well, then I will be proven wrong…
    But it is sloppy thinking to say that because I don’t like the movie and I am not afraid to say publicly what all of these writers are SCREAMING privately, that my review is based on the screening policy.
    I screamed about the Hulk screening policy, but liked the movie more than most.
    I had no problem with the Kicking & Screaming screening policy, but hated it with venom.
    I was not given easy access to The Longest Yard, though almost everyone else on the planet was… paid to see it in a theater… didn’t much like it… and didn’t feel a need to come online to attack it. (And I still haven’t bothered with that piece of shit, Bewitched, which I paid for since I was travelling when the all-media happened.)
    Accusing me of behaving badly because you disagree is a reall rubber/glue thing. You can disagree, but play fair.

  6. Joe Leydon says:

    Look to your Big Book O’ Journalism Cliches, Dave: “Veteran” is OK only as long as it is accompanied by the adjective “grizzled.”

  7. Angelus21 says:

    There is another type of veteran than grizzled?????

  8. Joe Leydon says:

    It’s sort of like, TV newscasters never talk about someone making “a discovery.” It’s always “a grisly discovery.” (Unless, of course, what’s discovered is not a corpse, but a cure for cancer).

  9. Geoff says:

    Honestly, guys, I don’t think Dave has an agenda or axe to grind with his panning of War of the Worlds. I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
    Just my thoughts, but I think the usage of 9/11-esque imagery, without a real point, might have really rubbed him wrong about this one. And I can relate.
    Not going to get too detailed, but my family was “affected” by 9/11 and I am quite sensitive to references to it, just used for shock effect.
    Man, I still can’t get over that ridiculous comment by Hugh Grant at the beginning of Love, Actually about how 9/11 victims calling on their cell phones meant that “love was all around.” And what followed was 2 1/2 hours of cliched, misogynistic scenes of lust, not love. If you’re gonna start a movie that way, you better have the goods and I could have smacked Richard Curtis for even trying, considering the clap trap that followed that opening. I don’t think that Nora Ephron could have crafted a more pointless romcom.
    I sincerely hope that Spielberg wasn’t just using that imagery for “effect.”

  10. Lota says:

    Mr Leydon, I realize you are wandering in the vast fields of Dementia, but you need to be overtly civil to DP just for giving WOTW a realistic review(There are very few people who have.), regardless of any & all else. So no duels at least for 72 hrs as a personal favor. Jump up and down on the nearest couch. Do the Cruise.
    Wells is currently turning in his grave I think. what’s left of him.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    I agree with Geoff 100% on Love Actually. Tripe.

  12. Joe Leydon says:

    Lota: You want to know about BAD Wells adaptation? Drop me an e-mail, and I’ll link you to some really, REALLY bad Wells.

  13. Lota says:

    gossip columnists can get dirt at any ages. They just get it in different places than the youngsters.

  14. Lota says:

    if you are talking about Riding With Death from the early 70s, that does take the cake for painful, but ole Stevo coulda been somebody in the Wellsian world.
    I also saw a Korean adaptation of a short story, only parts of it, and that was nuts.
    And Ben Murphy, however 70s cute, will never be my Gemini Man.

  15. Joe Leydon says:

    Ah, but have you seen the two new direct-to-video versions of “The Wareof the Worlds”?

  16. Joe Leydon says:

    Er… “The War of the Worlds.”(Hey, maybe dementia really is sneaking up on me.)

  17. FollowThemToTheEdgeOfTheDesert says:

    Joe, stop refering to your, member, by the name ‘Wells.’ It leads to countless jokes, and you deserve better. Besides that, AICN somehow has been given the push with WOTW. I give it to those folks. They have berrated FF in such ways due to their WOTW appreciation. It borders on the ridiculous, but not like that would stop Eric Vespe and Co.. Also, Drudge has about a dozen reviews on his front page. Most of them slagging WOTW. Again, smells like ASS, dies because of our wonderful atmosphere, and insults Europeans. Man, thank god for Mr. and Mrs. Smith. We can distract them with a Brad Pitt film. Hopefully they will focus on his whiteness, and not be overly offended by WOTW.

  18. To claim that DP (or any worthwhile movie critic) would judge a movie based on “screening policy” is just moronic. Writers who would do so are pure bush-league, and not long for their position. Isn’t it just possible that one guy liked the movie LESS than the majority seems to? Or is it more realistic that one would construct a massive facade of hatred (or, in this case, relative indifference) and force it upon his readers — motivated almost entirely by spite? Seems like a lot of heavy lifting for no discernible gain.
    I’ll be the first to admit that I disagree with Dave’s opinions with some regularity, but the idea that he’s “semi-knocking” WotW because of the screening policy … makes no sense to me.
    Between MCN, THB, and the blog, Dave covers the industry, the box office, the “gossip” stuff, and he also offers his own opinions on the actual movies. If you feel he cannot separate those things into very distinct piles, then I don’t know why you’d even bother to read his stuff. If I thought a website was run with unprofessional bias and outright bullshit, I’d simply never go back there again. And don’t think I’m ass-kissing here, because I gain nothing by ass-kissing, and I’m also a cynical bastard who’d never brown my own nose. Just tired of seeing writers being trashed for the sin of stating their own opinions.
    Oh, I totally loved War of the Worlds and I thought the King Kong trailer was pretty freakin’ great, too. Seriously. Flame on!

  19. jeffmcm says:

    I have liked Dave Poland for a long time, but between Mutiny City News and his inability to call reporters and critics by their names on the front page – “The Man”, “The Tiger”, “A-Train” – he’s losing my respect.

  20. FollowThemToTheEdgeOfTheDesert says:

    Jeff, the guy just likes giving people nicknames. You dont seem like the type of guy associated with giving people nicknames. Yet, some of us, like doing them. Plus, Poland has a great one ready made at any given point: D-Po! Now that’s fat, yo. And no one has to watch Mutiny City News. I have never watched one episode. You keep watching them jeff. That equates to eating something horrible, and wanting other people to try it. D-Po always has my respect. Even though some people dislike him, and claim he’s drunk.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    You’re right. I hate nicknames.

  22. Lota says:

    Well then Dave will have a long successful life in American Culture. Look at all the other successful D-Po s in this country.
    Office D-Po. Home D-Po. WIne D-Po. Sports D-Po.
    He’s Movie D-Po. Right On. That’s the first sensible thing you’ve ever said, L&DB.

  23. bicycle bob says:

    good heavens. what will dave do without jeff’s respect???? heavens to betsy

  24. LesterFreed says:

    You can’t cover the movie industry without delving into gossip. It is part of the game.

  25. BluStealer says:

    So who is the aging gossip columnist being hired by whom?

  26. Terence D says:

    The NY media should be signing paperwork holding them to something. You ever read those rags?

  27. Lota says:

    sorry Mr Leydon, didn’t see what you wrote last night re. WOTW editions.
    I have not seen any direct-to-vid WOTW. can imagine they might not be pretty. I stay away from direct to vid unless it’s Miike’s stuff.

  28. bicycle bob says:

    i don’t think u can blame dave for mutiny city news. if u don’t enjoy it why watch it?

  29. MF says:

    The tomatometer has fallen to 79% so I think Dave had some good points about what is wrong with WOW, and it looks like plenty of other critics agree that it’s not so great.

  30. bicycle bob says:

    what??? i thought it was at a 100??? stella what do u have to say for yourself now?

  31. Stella's Boy says:

    What are you talking about? I never said anything about its rating at rottentomatoes, other than the reviews that were written as of yesterday were entirely predictable.

  32. bicycle bob says:

    its funny how u wait for ur name to be called out. also funny that u forget what u went on and on about one day ago.

  33. Stella's Boy says:

    It is funny that you are once again making things up. I never once went on and on about the movie’s rating at rottentomatoes. Prove me wrong, or shut up.

  34. bicycle bob says:

    posted yesterday by u in defense of rotten tomatoes and the ratings for War. the one and only stella:
    I’d say the current sample is fairly predictable, too, in terms of who is writing the positive reviews thus far.
    Posted by: Stella’s Boy at June 28, 2005 09:41 PM

  35. bicycle bob says:

    now please quit ur lying stella. i know its a solid liberal trait but what happend to apologizing when u are wrong??? or u too proud for that?

  36. Terence D says:

    Get an apology or an act of contrition out of Stella’s Boy? Better chance of a Wayans brother comedy winning the Academy Award.

  37. Stella's Boy says:

    I am laughing my ass off right now. bi-bob, are you being serious? Or can you not read? That post is not a defense of the rating at rottentomatoes. Read it slowly and carefully. I was saying that the positive reviews at that point were not surprising, considering who wrote them. They’re people who I expected would rave about it, and therefore it’s hard to take them seriously. Do you understand now? Need me to explain it to you using smaller words? Will you apologize for being wrong, or will you keep acting like a typical know-it-all conservative?

  38. Stella's Boy says:

    Terence, seriously, read what I said and tell me who is owed an apology. Or do you just automatically side with bi-bob on everything? Every single time I think you’re above his shit, you prove me wrong by saying something stupid.

  39. bicycle bob says:

    never met a guy so unwilling to give in when he knows hes done for. ur like a 2005 nixon, stella. that must make ur skin crawl. now hows it doing at rotten tomatoes now? still going to defend that??? probably.

  40. Stella's Boy says:

    Well, that settles it. bob can’t read. You try to explain something to him slowly and carefully, but he just doesn’t get it. You have no idea what you are babbling about at this point. Anyone with at least a first-grade reading level can understand what I meant in that post.

  41. Terence D says:

    Stella’s Boy, I was here yesterday and was involved in the discussion where you defended the small sample size of Rotten Tomatoe’s. What is so hard about admitting that? Are you now saying you don’t think the sample size was large enough for the 100% to be taken seriously?

  42. Stella's Boy says:

    Terence, please refer to the post where I defend the small sample from rottentomatoes. I’ll wait. If it’s the post bob is referring to, then you are as clueless as him. Read that post carefully and tell me what it’s saying. I explained its meaning above, but maybe I need to do so again, for the slower folks around here.

  43. bicycle bob says:

    do u whine over everything? we were all here yesterday. its like u forget what u even argue about because its so off the wall.

  44. BluStealer says:

    I can see how a person would like and respect Rotten Tomatoes. But at least wait til the movie is open for a week. Just makes no sense to believe 10 reviews from before it opens.

  45. Stella's Boy says:

    No, bob, I didn’t forget what I argued about. I know exactly what I was saying in that post. And I stand by it. Again, I stated that the reviews were not surprising considering who wrote them. I expected the AICN and CHUD boys to go crazy over the movie. Didn’t you? Please, tell me, how does stating that defend the small sample of positive reviews?

  46. Terence D says:

    If you would just said that yesterday no one would be caring right now. It is not hard. You just need to be clearer in your posts. Like I said, the blind hatred for all things Bob clouds you. I could make a good Star Wars joke right now but I don’t think you would get it.

  47. Anonymous says:

    Oh, so now you’re saying that you understand what I meant? But it’s still my fault for not being clearer? Please. That is ridiculous. Read that post. It is obvious to anyone with a brain what I meant. I didn’t need to clarify anything. And Terence, your insistence on always defending bob clouds you. He owes me an apology, not the other way around, but I bet you would never admit that.

  48. Stella's Boy says:

    That’s not anonymous. Oops.

  49. Stella's Boy says:

    Let’s change the subject. Anyone else see that AMC is offering a money back guarantee for Cinderella Man?

  50. Lota says:

    i wish I saw it at an AMC theater then.

  51. Terence D says:

    You just weren’t clear yesterday. As you can see more than one person thought they understood you to have said something different even by your own words. I just want you to be clearer when you post because you do have interesting takes on things and no one wants it jumbled.
    And Cinderella Man will go down as one of this years best. Maybe not this year but in the future it will.

  52. patrick says:

    Why was Tom Cruise on the BET awards last night? Being Oprah’s hug buddy and starring in a movie with Jamie Foxx do not make him a BET star.

  53. BluStealer says:

    Besides the fact that he is WHITE? Nothing.

  54. David Poland says:

    I hope the cycle of personal violence in this strong is over…
    Movie D-espot

  55. FollowThemToTheEdgeOfTheDesert says:

    Tom Cruise isnt white! That brother’s Scientologist off-white!

  56. Gowan Comon says:

    WOTW? I could swear he was talking about Kong.

  57. KamikazeCamel says:

    I kinda love the start of IMDb’s review rundown for War of the Worlds.
    To paraphrase: “Despite getting extremely positive early reviews on Rotton Tomatoes the critics seem to have cooled”
    …kind of funny in retrospect, non?

  58. Henry says:

    “i know its a solid liberal trait but what happend to apologizing when u are wrong??? or u too proud for that?”
    The word “Liberal” could be replaced with the word “Republican” and it would still be accurate. We’re all the same.
    Oh yea, the last 10 minutes of this movie were really really really really bad. Nothing else stands out because of it.

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