MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

I Can't Let You Blog That, Dave

Keir Dullea as Dr Dave Bowman in 2001: A Space Odyssey
Anthony Mackie as Major William Bowman in Eagle Eye
What do they have in common?
Hint: It’s not the skill set of the director or screenwriters.
Another hint that is angering some as a spoiler, so it now after the jump…
(Edited, Sunday 6:37p)


Be Sociable, Share!

24 Responses to “I Can't Let You Blog That, Dave”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    They both have evil red eyes.

  2. yancyskancy says:

    Am I gonna have to see Eagle Eye to get the answer?
    I’ll take a guess: They’re both bedeviled by wacky talking computers?

  3. All due respect, that alleged riddle and picture is a pretty huge spoiler..
    I just got back from Eagle Eye, and I had no idea what the big reveal was until it was revealed. Had I seen this post ahead of time, I would have had a pretty good idea what was in store. I took someone (politely) to task about this on Wells’ blog yesterday, in regards to spoilers for Burn After Reading.
    I’ve always believed that hints or references to other movies constitute spoilers if a reasonably intelligent moviegoer can put two and two together. Saying that a movie is exactly like another movie (like the critics who compared Identity to the fake film ‘The 3’ in Adaptation) or saying ‘gosh, you won’t believe which major star dies 1/3 of the way through!’ is in fact a spoiler, since the moviegoer can take that knowledge in with them into a theater and quickly deduce what you’re talking about.
    Apologies if I’m being anal, but it’s something that’s always bugged me, major spoilers by inference.

  4. Joe Leydon says:

    Scott: This is not the first time David has done something like this. And David, before you piss and moan and disagree, I have two words for you: Red Eye. Mind you, you’re not as bad in this area as, ahem, someone else I could mention… but won’t…

  5. LexG says:

    DP, why do you have such a VENDETTA against this perfectly enjoyable-for-what-it-is if risibly-scripted Scott/Berg-esque potboiler?
    I mean, beyond the fact that it deigns to be a mass-audience movie dropping during a time of year your Polandscript commands that all movies must be wannabe-Oscar failures. Or that it’s coming out in the middle of your political season and you just simply feel it’s beneath you during this ever-so-serious time?
    Despite its obvious Lex-ness, even *I* wouldn’t go too far in championing it, with its LUDICROUS aci-fi elements, reminiscent of DEJA VU in the way it’s mostly a grainy, semi-realistic procedural, then drops this ABSURD fantastical element as part of its conspiracy plot.
    And don’t even get me started on its cheeseball finale, which makes ROBERT WUHL HOSTING THE OSCARS IN A 20-SEAT DINKY AUDITORIUM in THE BODYGUARD look high-end and uber-realistic.
    Caruso ought to have just thrown up some card tables and a few 60-watt bulbs in a ’70s wood-paneled game room and called it the floor of Congress.
    But it’s mostly fast-paced and amusing enough, filled with awesome character actors, and mercifully LaBeouf is reined in.

  6. frankbooth says:

    Robert Wuhl! Haven’t thought of him in years. But then I saw both Burton Batman films as a double-feature last week, and there he was. In the first one, I mean. He wasn’t as annoying as I remembered him being. Well, his character was (who wants to get sidetracked with this guy in a Batman movie?) but Wuhl was fairly likeable.
    I just watched the ending of The Bodyguard on youtube. Costner shoots a cameraman. Why does he do this? It isn’t nice.

  7. frankbooth says:

    Not that anyone cares, but I have still never seen a Shia LiBoof movie. I almost caved with Indiana Greenscreen and the Retirement Fund, but I still have a perfect record.
    Let’s see if I can resist this Beagle thing. Gonna be tough.

  8. Rothchild says:

    That’s a dick move, Heat. I’m glad I’ve already seen the movie. What’s the point of ruining the movie? Do you hate happiness?

  9. Well, I’ve got a free pass for this (and The Duchess) so I’ll see it anyway.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    Oh, so it is a deliberate spoiler designed by DP to make himself look clever and smug while those of us who haven’t seen it are intended to be steered away by how inferior it all is? Got it.

  11. chris says:

    Just to play devil’s advocate here, this is a tougher call than DP is being given credit for. For one thing, the reveal happens pretty early (earlier, for instance, than it did in “2001”) and that’s part of why it isn’t as elegant in “Eagle Eye” as in “2001” — the movie is still left with too much other stuff to explain away. And “Eagle Eye,” although I sorta liked it, is so much a compendium of other, better movies (mostly Hitchcocks) that it’s hard to know how to talk about this movie without alluding to those movies. I mean, if you steal the climax of your movie from another movie, can you really complain about someone pointing out that it’s an obvious steal?

  12. mutinyco says:

    Lex, meet the new Mrs. Scarlett Reynolds:,,20229417,00.html

  13. frankbooth says:

    (That was Lex, fainting dead away and hitting the floor.)

  14. anghus says:

    you know heat, that’s just a dick move.
    mind you, anyone who watched a single commercial for the movie could have seen it coming, but what’s the point in spoiling a movie for people?
    Is it fair to spoil a film as long as you don’t like it? Are those the rules? Would you rail on another site for doing the same thing and claim that it’s just another step in the erosion of journalistic principles?
    Hypocrisy is a bitch Dave, and in this case, so are you.

  15. ManWithNoName says:

    Funny thing is, anghus, I saw the trailers and still didn’t put two and two together. I kinda figured it wouldn’t be earth shattering, whatever the reveal would be, but it still would have been nice to be surprised. Oh well…
    The filmmakers should be more pissed than I am, seeing as how I’m not going to buy a ticket now.

  16. anghus says:

    what irks me about this is that this is the perfect example of how the internet does not contribute to the enjoyment of cinema.
    This just ruins things. This is Dave not liking the punch, and instead of not drinking any more decides to piss in it so no one else can enjoy it.
    It’s juvenile, should be well beneath him, akin to driving by a bookstore and taping yourself as you yell “DUMBLEDORE DIES” to a bunch of eager Harry Potter fans. He’s not the only one who did it. I saw at least 4 review summaries on Rotten Tomatoes that spoiled that aspect of the story.
    It’s just odd when Dave does it, as he spends so much time complaining about the lack of standards out there and harps on other sites all the time. It reminds me of him reviewing a bootleg of Hostel 2 last year. For a guy living in a glass house lately, he sure throws a lot of stones.
    But again, what it boils down to for me is that i come to this site because i enjoy film. Prematurely spoiling a movie, no matter how you view the quality of the final product, is a dick move.

  17. Harry Potter 1-6 spoilers.
    I never would have done it, but…
    On the opening night of Harry Potter And The Sorcerer’s Stone, when Ron’s pet rat is introduced, I desperately wanted to yell out ‘that rat killed Harry’s parents!!”
    To be fair, I’m pretty sure everyone knew that Dumbledore was going to die at the end of book six. But the circumstances of the death was the big secret, one that has been refreshingly withheld by fans and pr-people as the run-up to the sixth movie continues.
    I remember reading it on an airplane and I just broke out in a giant grin and started quietly cackling to myself, both at how I didn’t see it coming at all and how perfectly appropriate it was. I can’t wait to see it in a packed theater, theoretically filled with many people who haven’t read the books. It’s easily the biggest ‘holy crap’ shocker of the whole series, and I can’t wait to see the crowd reaction.

  18. Aris P says:

    A few things I dont get.
    Dave was an astronaut and we found out that Hal was running the show. Is that it, in a nutshell? So Shia’s running around all over the place for whatever reason and we find out a computer’s making him do it? Ok. I can see why people might be annoyed at DP giving this away.
    However, it doesn’t answer the other thing I dont get, which is:
    Who cares about Shia and this movie? Somehow I don’t see any of the posters on this site actually going to some random action movie starring Mutt Jones.
    Much ado about nothing.

  19. David Poland says:

    Oh drama.
    I feel a little bad about this. And I guess by strict rules that I usually believe in, this is a spoiler.
    My apologies… and an adjustment of the entry to try to make up for the sensitivity.
    To take you through my steps, it was the name Bowman that I really wanted to write about. And it’s such a blatant and poorly executed ripoff… though I admit, it is better than Stealth.
    The movie is pabulum, shot with the bad TV show version of car chases. I like good pabulum. This didn’t qualify.

  20. Aris, don’t be a pretentious git. It’s not a nice colour on anybody.

  21. IOIOIOI says:

    Eagle-Eye would have been better. If it had Barry Corbin and Dabney Coleman. Without those two; it’s mediocore at best.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    The ripoff of the name ‘Bowman’ will be invisible to 97% of the people who see this movie.
    I thought it was okay – the script has good material in it that a better director could have turned into something really special if they were actually interested in stuff like ‘themes’ and ‘subtext’. There was no good reason for Rosario Dawson’s character to exist except so that the audience could be spoonfed exposition that would have been better discovered gradually, through the eyes of Shia. And it’s not as good as Enemy of the State. So I guess this counts as faint praise which is just about right.

  23. David Poland says:

    Sometimes I love you, IO.

  24. I saw this last night. Thought it was above-average for this sort of flick although I could have done without the rapid editing. Yikes. Nevertheless, any movie that copies an action sequence from Toy Story 2 deserves praise, I say!

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