MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Full Service Don Murphy

If you want a crash course on Don Murphy, it is offered on this recent thread at his website.
He manages to rip…
Jon Favreau
Avi Arad
Mark Steven Johnson
Tim Story
Kevin Smith
Tom Cruise
Katie Holmes
And Ain

23 Responses to “Full Service Don Murphy”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    Wouldn’t Hollywood be better if everyone was this open?

  2. RoyBatty says:

    Open is one thing, Murphy is belligerent just to amuse himself. Meanwhile, what does this ass-clown have to show for himself?
    Put it another way: Murphy produces Alan Moore = FROM HELL & THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTS. Alan Moore produced without Murphy’s graces = V FOR VENDETTA.
    ‘Nuff Said?

  3. jeffmcm says:


  4. EDouglas says:

    Someone should buy Murphy a copy of this book:
    And then force feed him it page after page.

  5. waveblue says:

    Harry deserves some ripping. The thing I find amusing, is why did Hollywood decide Harry had any power in the first place? Has anyone proven that he can drive any box office dollars?

  6. EDouglas says:

    I think they’re still blaming him for Rollerball…rather than blaming themselves for making Rollerball and allowing it to get so bad so fast.

  7. PetalumaFilms says:

    I couldn’t get through the Ratner interview to find the Knowles bash. Is there anyone more annoying than Ratner? Jesus, he name drops great directors and great films left and right and makes no *real* comment about them. He’s like that douche in your film class who knows names of great movies but hasn’t seen em. If he says his favorite film of all time is “Killing of a Chinese Bookie” one more time, I’m gonna hire a Chinese bookie and whack him.
    And that Don Murphy stuff is classic. I like “Favs,” but can’t help but think most of what Murphy says about him is right.

  8. MASON says:

    DM reminds me of Kevin Smith. It’s okay for them to rag on anybody they want, but if you say anything about them they go ballistic via their internet message board.
    Tarantino annoys the crap out of me, but I’m starting to see why he just couldn’t resist slapping the shit out of Murphy.

  9. Krazy Eyes says:

    Hmmm . . . the link to the Murphy thread is down. Has damage control already started?

  10. MASON says:

    DM is just mad at the world because he lost his deal at Sony and is a producer in name only on Transformers.
    Chill, Don. You’re still living the dream.

  11. THX5334 says:

    Yeah, he took the link down. Can somebody fill us in on what the gist of the Murphy thread was?

  12. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    The power of Dave. Silencing doughy Don with one link. Gis of thread.
    DM – IRON MAN will suck ass. Favreau is a tool. Avi Arad is a moron because he backs people like Favreau, Johnson, Story… more hate, more anger, more pettiness.
    He’s kinda safe from similar attacks from others as he has one thing all his enemies don’t have. An empty slate.

  13. EDouglas says:

    Murphy’s involved with Transformers (just not sure to what degree) and he’s developing Deadman with Guillermo Del Toro (which could be a very cool movie)

  14. SpamDooley says:

    Mason you sad ugly boy
    Murphy started Transformers oye oye
    You can slag him as much as you want
    You still are a loser fat cunt
    I am Spam Dooley and I feed my people.

  15. the keoki says:

    So what the hell did he say? It’s all gone.

  16. Spacesheik says:

    Yes, yes I see the subtext of KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE prevalent in masterpieces such as AFTER THE SUNSET.

  17. Cadavra says:

    Now that’s just silly. One can have an affection for Cassavetes without trying to imitate him in every picture. SUNSET is nothing more than a ’60s-style romp with beautiful people in beautiful locations, and on that level it works just fine. If you’re gonna dump on Ratner, at least do it in a way that makes sense.

  18. David Poland says:

    The return of Spam Dooley… it’s been too long.

  19. jeffmcm says:

    Well, I think it makes sense to wonder how Ratner can call Killing of a Chinese Bookie his favorite movie when there is absolutely no sense, in his own films, that he has any idea what it’s about or what is happening in it. It’s like when you hear that a guy on a street corner playing a kazoo says that his favorite musician is Stravinsky, you wonder ‘huh?’

  20. Cadavra says:

    Again, personal tastes are being mixed with work. One of my absolute favorite movies is TOUCH OF EVIL, but never in my wildest dreams could I even write, much less direct, anything remotely like it.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    Ah, but you are not a big-time, highly paid director, either, touting your favorite movie as something with an aesthetic that it does not appear, from your filmography, that you understand in the slightest.

  22. Martin S says:

    That Ratner interview is one the best things I’ve read in some time…I swear he’s Joel Silver’s bastard child.
    What I love is that Brett never mentions is who his family is. He can claim to be at one time minus 250K in the bank, but that really means nothing when you’re a Ratner of NY.
    Do you know why he and Knowles cannot stand each other? Because it’s the battle of the gluttons.

  23. Cadavra says:

    Again, not really trying to defend Ratner, but in fairness, none of his films to date have been an attempt to replicate the Cassavetes aesthetic. (Ask yourself this: could Cassavetes have made AFTER THE SUNSET? I don’t think so; that kind of breezy caper really wasn’t in his DNA.) If you wanna criticize Ratner’s movies for what they are, fine, but let’s not attack them for what they’re not. When the time comes for him to make his CHINESE BOOKIE-type film, I’ll be the first in line to rip him a new one if he mucks it up, but for now, I’m giving him a pass on this.

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