MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

It's Hot…

Sorry to leave you guys to your own devices…

20 Responses to “It's Hot…”

  1. PandaBear says:

    Thats the Summer for ya. Dave’s in a slump! Call EW, the E Channel, the Times…

  2. Joe Leydon says:

    It’s a shame, really. But ever since he started mixing steroids with his malt liquor, his batting average has gone way, way down.

  3. PastePotPete says:

    Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal seemed to enjoy Brothers Grimm a great deal. I’m not really sympatico with Morgenstern’s tastes but when he likes something there’s usually something there. Going to give it a shot.

  4. joefitz84 says:

    If you’re someone who sees a lot of movies then you pretty much have to give Grimm a shot since there is nothing else of interest. Unless you’re into The Cave. I’ll wait another week or two for Grimm. See how the word of mouth is.

  5. David Poland says:

    Actually, I saw Morgenstern’s shocking positivity… then I saw, it isn’t Joe. It’s a fill in of some kind.

  6. Our local theatre has converted to a second run $2 theatre and we’re getting all movies about a month late, which is fine with me $2 movies and a $1 hot dog. Gotta love that. Just saw Wedding Crashers. Very funny, but I HATED THE GAY CHARACTER. Why do these macho movies always have to turn the gay character into such a pathetic minstrel for the straight boys to laugh at? I guess they figure their target audience needs the masculine validation.

  7. Angelus21 says:

    He put his name on someone elses review and passed it off as himself?

  8. Stella's Boy says:

    I have to bitch about two awful theater experiences in the last two nights. Maybe this is why some people have stopped going to the movies. Thursday night I saw a screening of The Exorcism of Emily Rose (which I liked). Two teenage girls on my right giggled and talked through the entire movie. I asked them at least three or four times to shut up, with varying degrees of politeness, and each time they looked at me like I was crazy and went right back to talking and giggling. Also, a group of teens in front of me sent and received text messages the whole time (the guy checking for cell phones at the door did a pretty bad job) and a middle-aged guy behind me kicked my seat repeatedly.
    Then, last night I went and saw The Aristocrats at a Landmark Theatre. It was nearly a full house. This guy sitting next to me brought a backpack into the movie, and inside was a 12-pack of Pabst. He drank nine beers during the movie and was drunk as hell by the time it was over. He belched more times than I could count and acted like a complete moron. I have never enountered that during a movie before.
    I’m not going to stop going to the movies because of those incidents, but they sure were a pain in the ass, and made the theater experience a little less enjoyable.

  9. PandaBear says:

    Stella’s Boy you are definately that guy in the theatre. That is really funny. But a little advice. The more you politely tell teenagers to be quiet. The ruder and more brzen they will be.
    You have to be loud, firm and authoratative. Right away. They need to be semi afraid or your experience will be ruined. A little advice from the heart to help ya.

  10. PandaBear says:

    I can’t get over the second by the way. On one level I respect that he came by himself and pounded 9 PBR’s. But on another I genuinely feel sorry for him in a way. You do that at a movie where there aren’t many people in the theatre. That is really sad.

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    You’re right Panda. Next time I’m putting my foot down immediately, rather than hope that some idiotic teenagers will respond to politeness.

  12. Joe Leydon says:

    Stella’s Boy: You might also try brandishing a weapon. That often works for me.

  13. PandaBear says:

    You have to be firm and scare the beejesus out of them. They think you are a push over if you don’t. A weapon wouldn’t hurt.

  14. Stella's Boy says:

    What do you guys recommend? A shiv of some sort? Something I can easily sneak in. Sounds like that’d be easier and more effective than asking them to shut up.

  15. THX5334 says:

    Stun Gun

  16. Joe Leydon says:

    A 32-caliber semiautomatic. Small enough to keep in your pocket. Potent enough to make your point.

  17. cullen says:

    where the hell are the box office estimates for Friday night?

  18. Joe Leydon says:

    Title/ Daily /Total
    BROTHERS GRIMM, THE 5.8 5.8
    40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN, THE 4.7 37.2
    RED EYE 3.4 25.9
    FOUR BROTHERS 2.1 49.3
    DUKES OF HAZZARD, THE 2.0 73.1
    CAVE, THE 2.0 2.0
    WEDDING CRASHERS 1.8 182.8
    SKELETON KEY, THE 1.4 34.7
    MARCH OF THE PENUINS 1.3 52.5
    VALIANT 1.0 9.1

  19. Sanchez says:

    If you use a weapon on an unruly audience member , please remember to get rid of the evidence. You don’t need a murder charge on you for seeing Emily Rose.

  20. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    If somebody’s drinking alcohol in the cinema the staff will remove him. It’s one of those times that actually getting the staff would help.

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