MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Too Funny Not To…

Image by Banterist.com, Found via Defamer
tomcruisexbox.jpg

27 Responses to “Too Funny Not To…”

  1. bicycle bob says:

    i wonder if the scientologists get a cut of this

  2. Joe E says:

    Can anyone remember a meltdown this sizeable from an A-lister like Cruise? Sure, lots of come-and-go famous people go nuts, but Cruise has been around for a solid 2 decades. What the hell?

  3. LesterFreed says:

    It is unprecedented. On par with Michael Jackson. Without the kid touching.

  4. Joe Straat says:

    Damn X-Box exclusives….

  5. bicycle bob says:

    the meltdown gets funnier everyday.

  6. teambanzai says:

    Can she back out of the relastionship if it doesn’t improve her career. She has been dropped from the Batman Sequel.

  7. sky_capitan says:

    Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise have both had 2 failed marriages to WOMEN, so they have that in common. But is Tom’s arrangement with Katie any creepier than Michael Jackson’s arrangement with Debbie Rowe? I’m not sure.
    And is L Ron Hubbard a better sci-fi writer than HG Wells? Sorry Wells, but Hubbard created a religion with millions of followers who view him as a prophet or a god, you didn’t.
    Like I overheard William Goldman at a Knicks game, “You know, I really think Jeff Van Gundy should come back to the Knicks, he’s a very underated coach. And about Scientology, I have Scientologist actors come over to my place all the time and they admire my two Oscars, but they don’t view me as a prophet or a god. I admire Hubbard so much for that; he was a true genius.”

  8. sky_capitan says:

    Maybe they’ll greenlight Abandon 2 for Katie.
    We can hope…

  9. Joe E says:

    The rumor mill in LA is that Cruise was caught in bed with Rob Thomas of Matchbox 20, and Cruise paid him millions for silence and did a contract with Katie Holmes.
    and if you believe all that, I have some magic beans for you.

  10. Mark says:

    She hasn’t been dropped. That is only internet speculation.

  11. LesterFreed says:

    There is always a Return to the Creek for Katie. Van der Beek always needs the work.

  12. joefitz84 says:

    Who will they cut her for? It is a nothing role anyway. Not like they need Merryl Streep in it. They can just kill her off in Act 1 and introduce Harvey Dent anyway.

  13. teambanzai says:

    Shhhhh They could be listening, we don’t want the rath of Xenu coming down on us.
    Hubbard was a complete and total mental case but I have to agree inventing a religion damn fine way to make a shit load of money.

  14. Angelus21 says:

    Scientologists scare the heck outta me.

  15. Joe E says:

    Scientologists don’t scare me nearly as much as Christian nutjobs with axes to grind and lax gun laws.
    Travolta had to suffer all this backlash when Battlefiend Earth came out. Frankly, if Tom thinks Scientology cured him of his dyslexia who are we to care. it’s his problem and his money.

  16. jeffmcm says:

    I’m pretty sure there was an official WB statement that said they were dropping here and going with a “stronger actress”. Fine by me.

  17. Anonymous says:

    There was no such statement. What studio would release something like that? No matter what they thought.

  18. jeffmcm says:

    You’re right, it was a gossip report. Still, she won’t be back.

  19. charliek says:

    There wasn’t a statement about replacing her. The original rumor was reported by the always reliable Page Six, as a part of their daily TomKat bashing. The official statement by WB (to Eonline)was that any sequel talk at this stage is premature.

  20. Panda Bear says:

    Why would they replace her? She is not Sofia Coppola here.

  21. charliek says:

    The gossip implied Wb was unhappy with too much TomKat during the pubblicity for the movie.

  22. Angelus21 says:

    That is your opinion and the opinion of a couple of gossip sites.

  23. joefitz84 says:

    Don’t remind us about Godfather 3. I am trying to forget it ever existed.

  24. J-Dub says:

    It exist. I just saw it the other day. Andy Garcia deserved better! DAMN YOU WINONA HOROWITZ! DAMN YOU!

  25. David Poland says:

    Page Six quouted imdb which mysteriously used WENN as their news provider even though WENN often reports Brit tabloid gossip (usually wrong) as news all the time.
    A company as powerful and wealthy as imdb should be using a real news service. It’s embarrassing.
    The Batman sequel hasn’t been greenlit yet. And all this other stuff is as real as the endless Bond “scoops.”

  26. Arc says:

    So, anyways… War of the Worlds…
    Wow…
    Was that movie ever dumb.
    Wow…

  27. KamikazeCamel says:

    Considering there’s been a new Batman Girl in each of the four prior Batman movies it would make sense to dump Katie under those reasons (yet really be harbouring regret at hiring her for the first on in the first place)
    The quotes about a stronger actress and such came from “a source at Warner Bros.”
    But, hell, if I was anyone involved with Batman Begins I’d want her away from the sequel like a plague. Even I felt insulted when she said she didn’t care if her love life overshadows her films.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin