By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
Talk Amongst Yourselves…
Getting back into The Full L.A. has been an epic challenge this week…
So here is some space for your own agendas…
April 19, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
So, what’s that notoriously bad movie you wrote about almost a year ago? If it hasn’t come out yet, it seems inconceivable that the movie was finished, unless it never got distribution.
If you still can’t tell us what it is, how about a rough idea as to when you can?
I saw School for Scoundrels last night. It is easily one of the worst movies of the year. An abysmal mess on every level.
I saw Tideland a few days ago. I’m sure School of Scoundrels is like (FILL IN THE NAME OF THE MOVIE YOU CONSIDER A MASTERPIECE) compared to it. I still feel bad about my snarky response to the publicist when asked what I thought.
I saw SCIENCE OF SLEEP on Tuesday and just LOVED it!
I don’t intend to answer that bad movie question. At this point, there is no consumer value and only cruelty to the filmmakers. I will say that it has now been released and quickly forgotten.
You really shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place. Was there ever anything to your comments on it aside from mockery?
“They can take our lives, but that can’t take our…”
My guess, at least.
Josh,
What line is that from? I’m drawing a blank.
DP,
We don’t ask for much. However, I think you owe us this one. Was it Idiocracy? Or, maybe 10th and Wolf?
Who else thinks DP owes us this one?
Braveheart?
All the King’s Men has neither already been released nor forgotten.
Wish I could have you around all the time, J-Mc. I need moment to moment advice on all I do, from breathing to wiping my ass. Not sure how I get through a while day without you telling me how I should do it.
Truth is, it wasn’t worse than Edison. But then again, Edison will never get a theatrical release, I don’t think. (Maybe it already has… maybe it’s not worth looking up…)
P.S. I’ve seen and written about Idiocracy. BZZT!
Maybe we should just talk about our least favorite movies of the year so far, that might be fun. Mine is the imminently-released FLYBOYS, followed by LADY IN THE WATER and the numbingly boring WHEN A STRANGER CALLS.
Edison was already released direct-to-video as EDISON FORCE.
DP, nice to see you care. It appears I can’t write anything without you taking it personally, even when you deserve to be chided for bad journalism, which it strikes me this is an example of, and when you’re constantly dishing out criticism of other journalists. Or was this a case of you taking off the journalist hat and putting on the critic hat, and therefore exempting you from criticism?
I saw Idiocracy at the Arclight last week. And I’ll go along with the majority of people I know who’ve seen it and say that it’s not as bad as Fox treated and I semi-recommend it. However, if it got the usual big-summer comedy push and I had seen it as it is, I don’t if I would have liked it that much.
James Carville has been doing the talk show rounds, you’d think some of the attractive cast members would do it. Or maybe Jim just likes being on TV.
The link belows goes over interesting similarites between Last Kiss and Garden State.
http://www.brianmpalmer.com/blog/2006/09/07/the-gardening/
J-Mc… exactly what journalistic tenent did I break or bend here?
And as I ask of all people who start down the “you criticize journalists too much” road… do you disagree or do you just want me not to point it out? Or do you just want to find an angle from which to criticize me so you can assert authority you haven’t earned?
My first guess on the mystery stinker was FREEDOMLAND, which, given the timing of the mention, still seems the most likely candidate. And it really is that bad.
DP, I don’t know how to respond to your statement except to say that, as a reader of the site, I felt ripped off by your promise of something that was never delivered.
D-Po is a dick. And not the good kind.
I also loved The Science of Sleep. Bernal is such a fantastic actor. Tideland can’t be much worse than School for Scoundrels. Simply isn’t possible. Gilliam had to do something right. Even a shot that is framed well puts it ahead of Scoundrels.
D-Po is tired (often) of people who make big accusations and then have nothing to back them up.
Yes, I am sure I am a dick sometimes. But is part of my life supposed to be being an anger sponge?
I may be a prick, but I am not a petty prick.
Nothing to back up? What do you need? You promised something and never delivered and now are refusing to apologize. Maybe that’s not journalism, but it certainly is bad business.
I think there’s a communications disconnect here.
DP, Edison was released to DVD a few months ago with the title “Edison Force”… I just wish I could have been at the meeting when they decided that tacking “Force” on the end of the title would make it sell better. I still haven’t seen it.
Yes, J-Mc… because you’ve mythologized something that never happened.
I never promised to reveal the title of the movie in question. Nor did I write a tanalziing piece about it while keeping it secret.
Last October I wrote:
“Sweet googly moogly, that was bad!
I saw a movie this week that was so bad
I can see why you don’t want to mention the movie DP. Old news, serves no real purpose, etc. But writing something like that can’t help but make your readers curious and it does imply that you will write about it in the future, after it opens. Otherwise, why even mention it at all, if you never intended to tell us what it is? Not a big deal though, to be sure. Like you said, plenty of other shit to rut through around here.
Oh dear. Mommy and daddy are fighting again.
I think the issue JeffMCM has here Dave,
(And lord knows I have my disagreements with J-Mc, he starts shit just to start shit, and loves to argue to hear himself sound erroneously smart)
– is that this is another example of you pulling another empty promise move.
Maybe you impulsively write things and then post them and decide later against it (God knows I do that all the time, esepecially here)
But as the “Content Creator” of these sites, we come here because we want your take, and when you pull your empty promise syndrome (Truly my only bone to pick with you Dave, and it is albeit a small one) it sets up expectations that are undeniably met with disappointment.
The thing that’s disconcerting is that this empty promise thing is somewhat repetitive with you. This feels like the third time at least you’ve pulled this.
If you want another example, I’ve still wanted to read your take on Matrix Revolutions after your insightful review of the second film, but again, we know it’s not coming and the sting of disappointment is familiar in this aspect with you Dave.
Perhaps in the future, you should monitor and decide on whether or not to post something if you may not want to follow through on it later; or if you do post and decide against the follow up, you should follow up anyways and roll with the consequences.
And this is your blog, you have the freedom to say or not say whatever you want. Follow through on topics or not, and I respect that right and support it.
But everytime you pull an empty promise move, it feels like a smidge of integrity gets lost in the process. And that’s not meant to be a diss. In a town that has very little, you demonstrate integrity more often than not.
Like I said, small potatoes, but the fact that it’s happened more than once, is disconcerting.
Ahh, I’m just bitter I never got to read the Revolutions review after that cliffhanger on the Reloaded one.
Of course I wrote all that before reading your response to JeffMCM. I agree no reason to diss or hurt the filmmakers again. And editorial judgement is important. So please take my above post as a matter more of principle than specifics.
I think we’re all curious as to what that picture is. But in the greater scheme of things, BFD–it doesn’t keep me up at night, and I respect DP’s decision not to hurt the filmmakers’ feelings further and unnecessarily.
I’m still trying to figure out what the third “Broken Promise” was…
Zen Noir. IN THEATRES NOW! SAN FRANCISCO RUN EXTENDED! OPENS FRIDAY IN L.A.! — Anyone seen this who recommends it???
A nameless “noir” detective (Duane Sharp), still mourning the loss of his wife, investigates a mysterious death in a Buddhist temple, but his logical, left-brained crime-solving skills are useless in the intuitive, non-linear world of Zen. Increasingly confused, haunted by his dead wife’s ghost, and with his investigation going nowhere, the detective finds himself drawn into a deeper, darker, more personal mystery, where he must confront terrifying questions about love and loss. This leads to a startling realization: the mystery he’s there to solve isn’t a murder at all, but the mystery of death itself. Written and directed by Marc Rosenbush.
So, it’s another empty promise. I’ve learned to live with them in the time I’ve been reading Poland. Like when he tells us when he plans to post a late column, and never pans out. But somehow, I’ve learned to cope.
Just joshing you, Dave. I enjoy your writing, and I don’t really care about the mystery movie. But you have to admit, every time you post in the Hot Button that a coulmn is late, and give an actual expected time of delivery, it’s pretty much a garuntee that it’ll be next day at the soonest.
‘I’m still trying to figure out what the third “Broken Promise” was…’
Truthfully, me too. That’s why I typed “feels” like three times.
I coulda swore JeffMc had another, so I was kinda waiting for him to step in (And Jeff, Hope you know there is a modicrum of respect for all the ball busting I throw you)
My personal example is the Revolutions review. Just cause you had a take on the story and where it was going that felt accurate, that no other critic/journalist had. I wanted to know if what you thought of the final execution.
I’m not much into playing scorekeeper. So I may be wrong.
Jeff? I know you know.
At least one other broken promise . . .
DP promised to dish some hot Tom Cruise gossip a while back and was even quoted by Defamer. Then he quietly retracted and clammed up. Maybe the Scientologists got to him. 🙂
I don’t lose sleep over what the mystery movie was either BUT…
If you write something like you wrote, DP…it’s like a tease when you throw to commercial. I understand (and respect) your reasons for not wanting to mention it now, but as was mentioned…maybe you shouldn’t write things if you don’t think you want to pursue the story.
This whole thing is almost funny. I mean, we all come here because we either value or like to disagree with your opinions. Plus, you’re like…the only movie blog runner type who fights back intellegently, which is always fun. But it’s almost like you’re saying we shouldn’t expect you to follow through all the time.
And the gossip finally came out in the New Yorker.
Fair enough on that one.
And yes, Story… that was one reason for the shift to three days. And I think it has been more consistent since then.
Third broken promise? Beats the hell outta me.
To beat this rotting horse a little bit more, I have gained the impression (especially since those iFilm pieces) that DP is a somewhat impetuous personality, that sometimes he gets excited about certain things (the first 2/3 of the Matrix trilogy, the badness of some unknown movie) and writes in the heat of emotion and then later realizes that he has perhaps gone too far in praise or in loathing, and then tries to move past things with as little fuss as possible. Hard to blame him, but it can cause irritation as others have stated better than I.
Oh, THX: Thanks for your words. Have you figured out that point about Jaws yet?
As of right now — 5:28 CST — “jackass number two” is getting 69 percent approval on Rotten Tomatoes. No kidding.
I said something like this on the other thread, but I can’t imagine Jackass Number Two being worse than Flyboys.
I just watched the first Jackass again with a bunch of guys, and everybody loved it. I think it gratifies the mischevious teenager in you in a peculiar but primal way. It’s also better when you’re a little drunk.
I loved Jackass, even helped 2 underagers get into the theatre. I wish someone would expose home grown back-yard-boys-hurting-themselves as the male anorexia and cutting epidemic. Know what I mean?
David, I respect your wish not to hurt the filmmakers. On the other hand, I have to side with those calling you out on a broken promise, although it is true you never made one.
Here’s what I mean. You are *constantly* calling media outlets out for masquerading filler and gossip as news when they should be reporting actual news or shutting up. This feels exactly like that. That Hot Button column — without Part II that names the movie and elaborates on what, specifically, makes it that bad — is not news. It’s not even an editorial. So you saw a bad movie — great, so what? Without the movie being named, why would ANYBODY care about that column? Why did I waste my time reading it? Who gives a flying flip about any “information” in that column if there will never be context for it?
I hate to be calling “hypocrite” here. I’ve read you daily since the Rough Cut days, and by and large I think your RotD’s and blog respondents are way too hard on you. With the recent “Hot Button From a Hot Blog Response,” among many other things, I was in your camp 100%.
But I don’t know how you can bash Scriptland #2 for being useless one moment and then turn around and defend that Hot Button column about *nothing*. True, the LAT is the LAT, and The Hot Button is not. But surely you must recognize a conflict of principles here? I’m not saying you have to now turn around and name the movie, since it seems you have respectable reasons for withholding it, but to do so while refusing to admit that that Hot Button column was a journalistic error is inexplicable to me.
see Dave, if you want us to talk amongst ourselves give us a topic so we don’t decide to talk about you.
“I have to side with those calling you out on a broken promise, although it is true you never made one.”
see Sam, this is the perfect reason to let it lie. Who f*cking cares what the movie is already! There are more and more horrific small and big budget waste-o-money flicks every year with good casts but horrible results–it could be a long list now what that movie is.
In fact the only reason why I’d be annoyed if Dave concealed the identity of a movie was if it were a GREAT movie…cuz there aren;t too many.
I am going to see Haven this weekend. I have a friend who saw it at Toronto last year and liked it, and one who didn;t like it.
I am going to see it because in the world of LA moviemakers, many of whom are either difficult to tolerate for more than 5 min or they are just interested in money, Frank E. Flowers is a very decent guy so I want to see his movie.
He sounds sensible enough he should be making more movies too so I hope this is the case.
He can’t do any worse than Freedomland or Black Dahlia.
You’re right, Lota, that we should be celebrating the good and not lingering over the bad.
Uh, has anybody seen anything good lately?
I don’t understand necessarily how calling a movie unmitigatingly bad is cruel, unless they are your buddies eagerly looking to you for approval and then you rip them a new one. I don’t care what the bad movie was, because I’m okay with secrets that are dangled but remain secrets. But I think the mystery here is more why naming the movie constitutes breaking a heart and possibly a friendship. Care to comment Mr. Poland?
What I continue to scratch my head over is that the column was not about the movie. The column was about the idea that bad movies can be as exciting as good movies.
If that is not a conversation of interest to you, Sam (etc), I don’t know why you would be reading me for very long, since there isn’t a lot of gossip in here.
To me, what I find interesting my work, is the initiation of conversations like that… can there be joy in shite?
I think I need to have a needlepointed pillow made from: “I have to side with those calling you out on a broken promise, although it is true you never made one.”
I am amused.
Pull my finger! Come on!! Pull it!!!
I think the question is, why did you mention the awful movie in the first place? Were you just looking for a column topic? Did you not figure you would be offending whoever the filmmakers were?
It’s like talking to a brick.
The. Column. Was. About. Getting. Excited. By. Bad. Movies.
The movie inspired a column. The column was not about that specific movie.
The issue of what movie it was became a thing in here. But not because I pushed it or asked for it.
I understand your interest. But you do not get all of my secrets just because you post more than I do. Sorry.
My mistake is that I ever try to explain myself. My fatal weakness.
I don’t weigh in too often but count me in for feeling cheated regarding the mystery bad movie. I remember reading David’s teaser and having my curiosity piqued. I had to take a cold shower when I realised it wasn’t coming. I haven’t been that hot and bothered since my junior prom.
Seriously though, I’ll tell you why this is important. I can only speak for myself, but it’s been a long summer for me without Roger Ebert. I read Roger religiously, I didn’t always agree, but from 20 years of reading, I knew where he was coming from. Finding out what David considers gut wrenchingly awful helps me qualify his reviews.
Dave, you could have written the column and started it, “For various reasons, I was thinking about really bad movies today…”
It’s like talking to a brick that refuses to think it ever does anything wrong.
Jeffmcm, you’re an artist, now shut up. “I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze…. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: The Devil’s Recipe.”
If you want to qualify DP’s opinions, look for his pull quote on the MIAMI VICE trailer. I honestly thought MIAMI VICE was the bad mystery movie. It’s still the worst movie of the summer. Well, worst of the ones I saw anyway.
Which issue of The New Yorker had the Tom Cruise gossip? Does anyone know the date so I can check the archives?
Jeff, David was just keeping honest. Saying he was just thinking about a bad movie instead of telling us a little on what is on his mind is lame.
Petaluma, Miami Vice was the best movie of the summer. Aren’t opinions that get run into the ground FUN!? NO? WOW!
Jimmy, I think this was all about Spielberg’s and Cruise’s falling out. Just start from there…
Is it just me, or is everyone here taking this all seriously just for the hell of it?
Yeah, imagine how much better it would be if we were actually talking about a movie.
Flyboys is bad? But the commercials make it look so good!
It’s amazing what they’re doing with computers these days. The effects look better than The Last Starfighter’s.
Flyboys is bad? But the commercials make it look so good!
It’s amazing what they’re doing with computers these days. The effects look better than The Last Starfighter’s.
I am supremely grateful there isn’t a lot of gossip on this site. I wouldn’t read it if there were. But I’m perplexed by why you’d think naming the title of what you consider a bad movie “gossip.” Don’t reviewers do that every single week, including yourself? When Siskel & Ebert & Roeper list their ten worst movies of the year on a special annual show — surely a difficult pill for the filmmakers to swallow — is that gossip? I call it entertainment journalism, or film criticism, or something like that, and that fits in squarely with what The Hot Button’s agenda has always been.
But, ok, I think I get what you’re saying about the purpose of the original column, that was about the joy of bad movies, not a prelude to a review. Maybe what you’re encountering here, people like me pestering you for the title again and again in the months since, is nothing more than the purpose of the column not being clearly presented. If that’s all this is about, I get where you’re coming from now.
I still don’t understand (or agree) that putting a name to a harsh opinion qualifies as gossip, but I withdraw my charge of hypocrisy with apologies.
So, the 300 trailer…crappy quality, but still pretty cool. Watched it a couple times last nite on AICN and now with the new link provided on the MCN page.
Anyone else looking forward to it? I haven’t read the source material, but I’ll definitely make an effort to before the movie comes out.
“Which issue of The New Yorker had the Tom Cruise gossip? Does anyone know the date so I can check the archives?
Jimmy, the New Yorker issue I think you’re inquiring about is July 24, 2006.
The article is titled “Annals of Communication” and primarily covers the controversy over Pellicano and Super Lawyer Bert Fields:
Fields is known for sending letters hinting at legal action if the recipient does not alter course. When he learned that the New York Post’s Page Six was preparing an item on Spielberg and Tom Cruise, he wrote to the editor:
We have received word that you are planning a report that Steven Spielberg was upset with Tom about Tom’s speaking out about his views on children’s use of drugs
Folks, the worst movie of the year is one you’re all thankfully never going to see released in your country. It’s an Australian mess called Footy Legends. Truly terrible. Not one single redeemable feature about it. Ugh.
My least-favourite movie other than that was V For Vendetta. Soulless and ridiculous.
It is annoying when somebody says something like what Dave said and then just dismisses it. It was probably some non-major feature that was dumped around Jan/Feb.
The worst movie of the year is Lady in the Water. Night was too in love with himself to cast himself in the film. Besides that, I can’t find any other that doesn’t have at least one good thing about them.
I noticed that no one has brought up Jim Carrey firing his agent yet. I just read it from the link from mcn. It sounds pretty ugly. Is this common in Hollywood?
“You’re right, Lota, that we should be celebrating the good and not lingering over the bad.”
well it looks like that resoultion lasted allof a half-an-hour
seen anything good?…Brick was ok, Will Farrell’s race car movie wasn’t bad…mny other movies were just okay…
but I haven’t seen anything really magnificent
I have a feeling that the high points of 2006 might be The Departed or Hana yori mo naho (Kore-eda’s new movie) or the Science of Sleep.
“They can take our lives, but they can’t take our…” was hinting at “Freedomland.”
Sorry, a little thick, and it didn’t help that I screwed up the quote.
>>It’s like talking to a brick.
The. Column. Was. About. Getting. Excited. By. Bad. Movies.
The movie inspired a column. The column was not about that specific movie.
The issue of what movie it was became a thing in here. But not because I pushed it or asked for it.
I understand your interest. But you do not get all of my secrets just because you post more than I do. Sorry.
My mistake is that I ever try to explain myself. My fatal weakness.< Funniest post I've ever seen on this blog, and I've seen most of them. You know, I don't really care if Dave had wrote, "I saw the worst movie in the world and I'll tell you what it is tomorrow morning at 9am, right here on this site," and then didn't post it. He was provided with new information (i.e. his comments had been received as hurtful) and decided not to follow up on something that may or may not have been his intention in the first place (it's still not clear from the original column that he *ever* intended on revealing the name of the film). If that damages his credibility for you, then take that into account when you read his stuff - or stop reading it outright. But to come on here to bitch and moan like a bunch of petulant children that didn't get enough toys for Christmas is ludicrous. This is a place where you can come and read a bunch of funny, informative, entertaining, infuriating, and pointless shit about movies, FOR FREE. The fact that the omission of some bit of information on this site would cause anyone pain, anguish, or anxiety points to serious maladjustment among the readership. (Come to think of it, the entire REASON for the omission was because the information had caused pain, anguish, and, possibly, anxiety.) I know Dave has perceived this "We Demand You Disclose The Name of That God-Awful Movie" campaign as being motivated by a desire to slam him ("THAT'S the movie Poland hated so much?!?!? That movie's not so bad! World Trade Center is much worse. So is Dreamgirls, which no one has seen yet. Man, Poland has the worst taste in movies.") but I think it's much more base than that. It's a case of unsatisfied schadenfreude. Dave tantalized everyone with a tempting fruit. "Boy, isn't it going to be fun when we can shit all over this terrible movie and its makers?" When he decided the fruit was rotten, he robbed his readers of what they hopped would be a maliciously fun time. A year later, those sad souls still haven't forgiven him. In the end, Dave's ultimate flaw was believing that a line still exists between desire and gratification.
Oh, could the mystery movie possibly be Kinky Boots. I remember him barely mentioning it and when he did it wasn’t positive. I only thought of that because I watched it tonight and I can totally see people hating that movie. I merely thought it was passable. Now I’m gonna go watch Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction.
I realise the oddity of that choice.
KamiCamel, I HATED Kinky Boots but I doubt that’s the mystery movie just because its badness is in no way thrilling — it’s just as routine and cutesy and formula as all get out, with little spice to redeem it.
Anyway, I think guessing is more fun than knowing at this point. 😉
I seldom make up worst-movie lists, because I have the luxury of skipping films I feel reasonably certain I’m going to dislike. However, I was compelled to see PULSE, and not even the presence of my beloved Kristen Bell could save it from being a total, unmitigated disaster.
Sam: Ebert and Siskel/Roeper’s Ten Worst Lists are not quite a fair comparison. It’s one thing for your film to be grouped in with 12-15 others, it’s another to be singled out for approbrium.
Kinky Boots is flawed, but Chewy Elijofor is great in it and no, not even close.
Still haven’t seen Fredomland.
Cadavra, I feel similar to you about worst-of lists — I can rarely muster more than 5 movies per year that I feel are worthy of singling out as “worst of the worst,” simply because while I’ll willingly go see something I think might be flawed or a mixed bag or mediocre, if I think something looks like something I’d really hate, I do stay away. But I don’t know what’s happened this year; right now, I could easily put together a Ten Worst list for ’06, and it’s only late September (granted, a lot of the dregs are released by now in any given year, but even so). But I don’t even know if it’s the dump seasons, because I just saw Driving Lessons, another Brit movie (coming otu in October), and really hated it.
I also agree with you about Pulse — not only did it have K-Bell, but Neil from Freaks & Geeks! I thought even if it was dumb it would be entertaining because of them. Nope! I’m learning to stop trusting a good cast — especially after Trust the Man, another worst-of-the-year candidate — with four charming and/or excellent actors at its center.
DP, Elijofor is good in Kinky Boots… as far as the cliched, vague, desexualized, flavorless role can take him. He’s better in Inside Man in a role about one-fifth the size.
He does have a great singing voice that made me wish that at least the movie was a musical.
Chiwetel Ejiofor was one scary mofo as a world-class badass in “Four Brothers,” a movie I shamelessly embrace as a guilty pleasure. (Mind you, not as guilty as “jackass number two,” but pretty damn guilty nonetheless.
I don’t think you need to feel guilty about FOUR BROTHERS. It’s a solid, well-made, entertaining genre film, period.
I don’t think you need to feel guilty about FOUR BROTHERS. It’s a solid, well-made, entertaining genre film, period.
Sorry for the double post. Computer acting up again.
“Sam: Ebert and Siskel/Roeper’s Ten Worst Lists are not quite a fair comparison. It’s one thing for your film to be grouped in with 12-15 others, it’s another to be singled out for approbrium.”
Splitting hairs. Each of those movies were singled out on previous shows and previous print reviews. Look, the job of a reviewer is to report how good or bad a movie is in that reviewer’s opinion. If it’s agonizingly terrible, that needs to get reported, and it’s not “gossip” to say so. I’m still aghast David thinks it is.
Roger Ebert has a great story about being on the Tonight Show. Chevy Chase was on, promoting Three Amigos, and IIRC, Siskel & Ebert came on after. Carson asked what the worst movie was he saw that season, or year, or something, and Ebert said, “Uh…Three Amigos.” Carson said he wished he hadn’t asked, and Ebert said he wished that, too.
It wasn’t a comfortable situation, but Ebert did his job honestly when it would have been easy to lie. Was *that* “gossip”?
By the way, about that quote of mine you want a needlepoint pillow of — your comment amused me, but what I said can’t be that funny if you took the time to get where I was coming from. You did not *technically* make a promise, but *practically* speaking, you created an expectation in your readers you did not deliver on. That is a form of betrayed trust, whether or not anybody can pin you on it in a legalistic sense. Based on what you’ve said here, though, it sounds like it wasn’t intentional, like I originally thought, hence my subsequent apology.
I have no problem telling a director or talent what I thought of their movie or beating a film to death in print. I have even been put in the awkward position of confronting directors after the pan, as though they should explain away my concerns
Sure, obviously Ebert would withhold mentioning the movie until it had been seen. But come opening day, his review would appear for all to see, and it would present his opinion of utter hatred.
Nobody (well, to my knowledge, and certainly not me) ever asked you to name the movie before its release. After, I still don’t understand why it’s not fair game.
I wish Chiwetel Ejiofor would get some bigger roles. I totally see him as a very big star (even if his name is funny). He’s great no matter what the role.