MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

El Mummy Tres Sucks And Sucks Hard

Just when you thought it might be safe to go back to a Rob Cohen movie

104 Responses to “El Mummy Tres Sucks And Sucks Hard”

  1. Drew says:

    They screened it for the media about two and a half weeks ago, actually, Dave.
    And, yeah, it’s wretched.

  2. Noah says:

    The best thing Rob Cohen ever did was that Rat Pack movie on HBO. It’s not exactly a good movie, but it’s fun to throw on and Cheadle and Mantegna are great in it. Other than that, he’s been pretty awful.
    Drew, you visited him in the cutting room right? Was the footage you saw in there different from the full movie or did the context kill it?

  3. Drew says:

    Noah…
    I didn’t particularly praise the footage I saw in the editing room. I described it. That’s what people don’t seem to get… an editing room visit isn’t a critical piece. It’s informational. I wrote about their take on the film and what they were hoping to accomplish because that’s what an editing bay visit is about.
    Cohen talks a great game and seems like a decent guy, and I’ve got interviews I’ll be running all week with the cast. Regardless of any of that, it’s a wretched film, and I’ll say so in the proper place… a review.

  4. David Poland says:

    Well, Drew, they were smart enough not to screen it for this media. Are you sure you weren’t at a junket screening, because the trades saw it with me tonight…

  5. Noah says:

    Drew, I wasn’t disparaging your visit to the editing room. I just thought you liked what you saw there and was wondering if that footage you saw was good when placed in the actual film or if it was only good as a stand-alone. You had said, if I remember correctly, that it looked like a fun ride or something along those lines. So you were judging a bit while providing the information, but that’s not a bad thing…I was just curious.

  6. LexG says:

    OK, I am going to make a point RIGHT NOW about ROB COHEN and you will LISTEN.
    This dude FUCKING OWNS. Yes, you assume I am being facetious, but FACT: This guy has a WAY more interesting backstory than his detractors would believe. The quick-quote shortcutters of the world insta-rope COHEN in with Ratner and Bay and Schumacher and whoever else is on their groupthink shit list that week.
    But Cohen has been in town for over THREE DECADES, all over the place, just eclectic and awesome and interesting… I think it was scooterzz who pointed out this dude was directing intimate character flicks like SMALL CIRCLE OF FRIENDS and some Robert Hayes comedy like 25 PLUS YEARS AGO, and all the groupthinkers are acting like he’s some neo-hack speed racer dude.
    The guy’s well into middle age and has bounced from serious director to journeyman to action dude to AWESOME MIDDLE-AGED MIDLIFE CRISIS BADASS ROLLING WITH B-BOYS AND SHIT BEING AWESOME AND STONE CHILLING IN CLUBS.
    On the XXX or FAST AND THE FURIOUS commentaries, this dude is FUCKING RIVETING, talking about CLUBBING and PARTYING and rolling with fuckers 3 decades his junior. I’m sure to many of you that a hack makes, but to me it’s an INSPIRATION, that well into middle age a man can say FUCK IT, I’M CLUBBING and OWNING ASS and ROCKING THER HAWAIIAN SHIRT YEP YEP.
    COHEN FUCKING COMMANDS YOU. Much like bitches pissing on about ROLAND JOFFE “selling out” to make TATU MOVIES WITH MISCHA BARTON, I ask, WHAT IS THE CRIME HERE? You’re 50-some years old, WHAT DO YOOOOOOU want to do, make some RAINFOREST BULLSHIT, or HANG OUT IN NEON-SOAKED CLUBS FILMING HOT CHICKS IN HIGH HEELS DANCING WITH LONG LEGS AND LITTLE DRESSES AND SHIT?
    EMBRACE HONESTY. EMBRACE YOUR VISION.
    Of course, none of that has much to do with a YEARS-too-late Mummy sequel, a franchise I always thought blew anyway, but still… RESPECT COHEN, who is in a position any 50-something should ENVY, when they’re all housebound to some ‘frau and boring and getting OWNED. COHEN IS DOING THE OWNING. YOU WILL NOT DENY.
    And this shit looks INSANE as fuck. Both the first two MUMMY movies were BORING and BEIGE and LAME and WACK AS HELL, but from the trailers it looks like COHEN has amped it up to some condescending, ass-kicking soulless level of insanity, as opposed to that earnest Sommers bullshit. YOU CANNOT DENY THE POWER. YOU WILL BOW TO A MAN WHO IS SUPERIOR.
    ROB COHEN OWNS YOUR FUCKING ASS and if you DENY IT you are just trying to impress your significant other. COHEN HAS THE LIFE ALL MEN SHOULD ENVY.
    COHEN. MORE LIKE COWNEN.

  7. GlueShoeJohnson says:

    My sister saw this a couple of weeks ago in LA, probably the same screening as Drew. She liked the first two films and said this one was atrociously bad. It definitely wasn’t a junket screening, btw.

  8. Joe Leydon says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together and give it up for the manic comedy stylings of LexG.
    And please remember to tip your wait staff. Good night.

  9. Drew says:

    Oh, no, I understood your point, Noah. I’m just saying… I’ve been attacked in the past for editing room pieces, and the point is more about giving the filmmakers their chance to offer up what they want to regarding the film… what they’re trying to do, how they think the film works, etc… without me imposing much critical spin on it at that point. There’s plenty of time for that in a review, published separately.
    And in this case, I’m sure I’m embargoed till day of release. This week will be more about publishing the interviews.
    The sad part is that there’s a fun pulpy movie lurking in there somewhere… some fun ideas and not a terrible idea for a villain… and Cohen’s genuine obsession with China should have paid off more. It just… doesn’t. The film’s inert from start to finish.
    With the possible exception of a few moments with the Yetis. Yes, they’re ridiculous, but they’re sort of fun for a few minutes. And then they do a “touchdown” joke that reminds you how bad the movie is, and the moment’s over.

  10. LexG says:

    Thanks, Joe.
    Fucking TRAGEDY that a hilarious persona and perspective like this is WASTED working some workaday tape-dubbing posthouse douche job when there are pencil-necked, tweed-sporting 19-year-old nerdz on the ‘Net getting PAID for their BORING SHIT when I could be COMMANDING THE NETIVERSE WITH MY GENIUS.
    ROB COHEN IS YOUR GOD. BOW TO HIM. BOWWWWWW.
    CLUBS RULE. BE YOUR OWN GOD. DRINK UP.
    DKA FOR LIFE.

  11. LexG says:

    OH AND WHAT’S WITH D-PO juxtaposing Spanish and French when talking about a MUMMY movie set in China?
    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK.

  12. yancyskancy says:

    I find it hard to believe that Mummy 3 can be worse than Mummy 2. But I liked the first one, and we’re big Jet and Michelle fans here, so I guess I’ll pony up and cross my fingers.

  13. LexG says:

    This shit should’ve had MAGGIE Q because she FUCKING OWNS.
    MAGGIE Q OWNS YOUR ASS.
    SHE OWNS IT.

  14. LYT says:

    It’s bad, David…but Love Guru was indeed worse.

  15. Joe Leydon says:

    LexG: I’m just amused that anyone else remembers Scandalous, surely the worst movie on the resumes of Robert Hays, Rob Cohen and John Gielgud.
    LYT: But could it possibly be worse than Wicked Lake?

  16. doug r says:

    Lex, he made a Jessica Biel movie almost unwatchable. You’re right, that does take real talent.

  17. Tofu says:

    Now I’m far more interested in finding out just what the hell that screening Drew viewed this Rob Cohen pile of suck was supposed to be by definition. Can’t wait to read that negative review too. I mean, Cohen even copied that annoying Sommers habits of having anything and everything scream into the camera? DO NOT WANT.

  18. repeatfather says:

    So my question to all the Inside Baseball people here is how does such a clearly horrible director keep getting movies to direct?

  19. the keoki says:

    I love when Mori shows up here…it’s like when a character from one of my fav TV shows guest stars on another one of fav TV shows. Like Magnum and Simon&Simon, or when The Critic showed up on The Simpsons. I read Mori’s editing piece and was excited to see what he saw on the big screen. What a bummer that it sucks. Is it critic proof? Or is TDK number 1 again this weekend? If it is…can it be number 1 next weekend against an R-rated comedy. Seems like it. When was the last movie that went four weeks at number 1? I can’t remember.

  20. The Big Perm says:

    I rather like Schumacher. The man’s got style.
    Of course I’m excepting his Batman flicks.

  21. hcat says:

    Wow, being the worst movie on Robert Hays resume, topping the gaping abyss that is Take this Job and Shove it. I might have to watch that just to see how low the bottom actually is.

  22. Tofu says:

    The Critic showed up on The Simpsons
    Sadly, this was the episode that caused a rift between Groening & Brooks, as Matt feared viewers would “see it as nothing but a pathetic attempt to advertise The Critic at the expense of The Simpsons”.
    Thankfully, the episode gave us this,
    Sherman: How do you sleep at night?
    Wolfcastle: On top of a pile of money, surrounded by many beautiful women.
    Sherman: Oh.

  23. SteveWarren says:

    The Atlanta media screening isn’t until Thursday night, so critics can see geeks lined up for the midnight show on their way out.
    LexG, SCREAMING about ROB COHEN’S MIDLIFE CRISIS in his private life doesn’t make his movies suck any less.

  24. The Pope says:

    The Keoki,
    I think the last time a movie was No 1 for four weeks was The Passion of the Christ. Course, an easy bet would be Titanic which went on for months and months and months. But summer movies, I have not a clue. Forrest Gump? Back to the Future? ET?

  25. mutinyco says:

    Home Alone.

  26. Joe Leydon says:

    Hcat: Trust me, Take This Job and Shove It (which, as I recall, was a modest box-office success in its time) is Citizen Kane compared to Scandalous.

  27. the keoki says:

    great ep and great line.

  28. Chucky in Jersey says:

    The last summer release to have a long run at the top? “The Sixth Sense.”

  29. Yeah. Saw this Sunday and couldn’t even bring myself to write anything. AWFUL.

  30. Oh, and making it doubly shitty: Universal CityWalk on a Sunday is death. I was more interested in the Griffith Park fire raging down the street than this mess.
    Don’t forget the Yetis. Holy shit.

  31. Spacesheik says:

    The trailer looks like a big, lavish action blockbuster – surely MUMMY 3 cant be worse than the INDIANA JONES AND THE NUKE THE FRIDGE movie, a Spielberg slapstick, inept ‘adventure’
    lacking thrills, visceral action and decent plot and characterization.
    Rob Cohen *has* been around for decades, I remember reading about him in the Julia Phillips YOULL NEVER EAT LUNCH IN THIS TOWN AGAIN Hollywood slamfest book – he was working on THE BEAT or some 70s drama, I can’t recall, but he is a survivor and has been around for decades – didnt he direct the Bruce Lee bio flick – that was pretty decent.
    I wonder what happened to his plans to do a Sindbad adventure with Keanu Reeves…
    I waas really hoping MUMMY 3 delivered the goods that NUKE THE FRIDGE couldn’t….

  32. Goulet says:

    Haven’t seen MUMMY 3 and probably never will, but I just wanted to say that Rob Cohen isn’t a *total* hack. DRAGON: BRUCE LEE was quite good, and THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS is one of the best B-movies of this decade.
    Then again, xXx, THE SKULLS, DRAGONHEART…

  33. I know it’s ad nauseum at this point, but what possible service to readers could an editing bay visit to Mummy 3 serve? Like you’re going to go there on the studio dime, see the shit Cohen is slinging and then chit chat with him and then run back to AICN saying how awful it was.
    You’re ridiculous, Drew.

  34. Rothchild says:

    Everything’s on a studio’s dime. Every interview is spin. Every press conference is bullshit. The job’s about staying passionate about film, reading between the lines, and sticking to your gut instincts.
    And Drew never said Indy IV made him cry and changed his whole life. That was Harry. Get off his back.

  35. Spacesheik says:

    Once upon a time Drew used to do masterful analysis (and some of his best writing) on unused scripts such as John Milius’ CONAN THE KING, now he praises shitfests like INDIANA JONES and does unforgivable things such as lumping two mini reviews of HELLRAISER II and THE DARK KNIGHT in *one* post – if any movie deserved a full critical treatment from Drew it was KNIGHT but they had to throw in their buddy Toro’s sequel – AICN never ceases to amaze me.

  36. mutinyco says:

    Hellraiser II came out 20 years ago…

  37. David Poland says:

    I know it feels like 4 weeks, Keoki, but this is only The Dark Knight’s 3rd weekend.
    And National Treasure went 5 straight weeks in Dec/Jan. Night at the Museum went 5 weeks straight the year before.
    The last 4 week run in summer was, indeed, The Sixth Sense, which went 6 weeks at the top (2 in Sept)
    3 weeks – Pirates 3 (and 2, for that matter), Disturbia, Stomp The Yard, Sith, Kong, Harry Potter’s Goblet, Treasure 1, Fockers, etc.
    And though I will be attacked for it, Mummy is allegedly tracking beyond the 40s, so it has a real shot of pushing Dark Knight out this weekend, no matter what a shitfest it is. TDK winning just 2 weekends would not be a negative stat in any way.

  38. the keoki says:

    showbizdata has TDK at 10.5 on mon. Damn.

  39. the keoki says:

    And come on folks, leave Mori alone. He’s entitled to his f******* opinion. And his “lumping” of the movies together served a point. Comic book movies that pushed the medium forward. I’m sure you knew that and you’re just trying to be difficult. Why did TDK deserve critical treatment? anymore than what he provided? i thought that was a great review. but that’s what’s called an opinion and apparently we can’t have one of those.

  40. Jeff says:

    I love the episode when The Critic goes on The Simpsons….”I Was Saying Boo Erns.”

  41. I preferred The Fast And The Furious in its original incarnation, when it was called Point Break.

  42. SJRubinstein says:

    This actually depresses me. I had no illusions – I figured this would suck – but watching the trailer, I was hoping for mindless, B-movie fun that would make up for “Indiana Jones.”
    OH FUCK – EARTHQUAKE!!!!

  43. SJ-
    If you read McWeeny’s AICN piece, you’ll see that apparently Mummy 3 was made just to satisfy those pissed off by Indy 4. If you hated Indy 4, you’ll love Mummy 3…according to Drew. Maybe that will make the trailer?

  44. Dr Wally says:

    As soon as Sommers and the gorgeous Rachel Weisz bailed on this, i think we knew what the deal was here. Shame, as the first one is a terrific lark, and even the much-derided Mummy Returns has it’s moments (the London bus chase, the ‘Are we there yet?’ scene on the train).

  45. Joe Straat says:

    So, is it a crapterpiece or just plain bad? Stealth was nearly an amazing feat of stupidity that almost made it an overall entertaining watch in its awfulness until the last part in Korea killed it. I mean, it’s called Stealth and its only objective is to be as loud and splashy as possible. I know people like Noah don’t find bad movies enjoyable in that way, but surely someone around here occasionally watches movies like The Core for shits and giggles.

  46. Noah says:

    Hey Joe (…”where you going with the gun in your hand”), I never said I didn’t like movies that are so bad they’re good. I have guilty pleasures like everybody else. I mean, I’ll be watching The Happening more often than any other movie this summer because I so enjoyed its awfulness (10,000 BC was pretty good for laughs as well). The Black Dahlia is another movie I can’t seem to turn off when it’s on TV. That’s not to see that I think these are good movies, but that I can’t help but rubberneck at a car wreck.

  47. Joe Straat says:

    My apologies. I must’ve misinterpreted something you wrote.

  48. Noah says:

    No worries. I would also like to know the answer to your question about whether or not Mummy 3 is enjoyably terrible.

  49. Rothchild says:

    I’ve been told over and over again that Mummy 3 is to be avoided. I like Fraser in almost anything and I dug the trailers, but I’ll be somewhere else.

  50. MDOC says:

    I like Drew and the AICN news stuff and I love the fact he’s part of the converstaion here. I’m not going to rip the editing bay stuff, that qualifies as “cool news”.
    What I will be watching closely is when his negative review gets posted. I noticed Harry’s pan of X-Files was posted on Sunday after the X-files was already safely branded a bust. Why not last week? Maybe it’s the conspiracy theorist in me but it seems like a favor.

  51. Drew says:

    A favor? For Fox?
    The reason Harry posted when he did is because Fox prescreens absolutely nothing for us. So he paid to see it over the weekend like anyone else.
    It really is that simple.

  52. the keoki says:

    If folks are so against Harry’s reviews….don’t read them. If he LOVES something he gets crap….and if he HATES something it’s because he wasn’t given preferential treatment. Change the channel folks.

  53. MDOC says:

    Drew,
    Fair enough, makes sense, sorry for assuming the worst.
    Keoki,
    If you were responding to me, you misunderstood my point.

  54. the keoki says:

    Totally cool. Not taking swipes at you just the overall anti AICN vibe that, for whatever reason, this post has brought up. Sorry you got caught in my outburst.

  55. the keoki says:

    Missed your post DP, thanks for the stats. I knew it had been awhile since anything went more than 3 in summer. and it was my assumption that TDK would be competetive this weekend and then set-up a possible 4 straight.

  56. christian says:

    COHEN. MORE LIKE COWNEN.
    You kill me, LexG.

  57. David Poland says:

    I think The Happening is close to craptastic. Just thinking about Betty Buckley is making me jonze to see that part again.
    If you don’t like Speed Racer, it is certainly craptastic. (But I do.)
    But Mummy… it’s more what’s not there than what is. I just kept expecting for Maria Bello to de-pants her son and show him her english accent… but no. If the Yeti spoke like The Beast… that would be a good start in the right bad direction.
    That’s really the thing about Rob Cohen. If he only knew how bad his taste was, he could make great popcorn movies. But he thinks he is making art.

  58. Why you eyeing my lemon drink, DP?
    MDOC-
    I agree that the proof in the credibility of Drews editing bay visit pudding will be how Mummy 3 is reviewed on AICN. I can’t wait and said as much here:
    http://www.filmthreat.com/blog/?p=1114
    Lets sit back and see what’s what…

  59. Devin Faraci says:

    I didn’t hate it. I have zero attachment to the rest of the series, and I expected to be tortured throughout the running time, so the fact that it was so bizarre in many respects won me over. Just a lot of odd choices.
    It’s better than CRYSTAL SKULL, though, at least as entertainment.

  60. Drew says:

    You know, Don, you might have a point if you weren’t such an ignorant child about even the basic reality of working in this business.
    Your truly amateur hour rant is filled with such transparent bitterness and lack of comprehension that I’m trying to figure out how to address it. Since I don’t publish dirty-diaper editorials where I whine about other people’s content, I don’t have a forum to respond, but you truly are out of your fucking mind.
    “Having a writer visit your set or editing bay and then agree to an embargo is ridiculous. Of course they

  61. SJRubinstein says:

    Not to step into an argument, but when I worked as a reporter, there was a press visit to see the editing bays on “Sky Captain.” What we saw was incredibly impressive and hearing various artists and concepters talk about their visions matched that – which was reflected in my reporting of the effect (I was there for the UK’s “Starburst” magazine – cover story of issue #309).
    I saw the finished film and thought it was garbage – a bunch of cool-looking images with no story, which is what a movie is supposed to tell. I could’ve just bought the “making of” book.
    I don’t mean to say anything against you don_lewis, but – for me – I don’t think there’s a reason to call Drew’s judgement into question here. You write the story as you find it. You then review the movie as you find it. I remember being incredibly impressed in the effects editing suites of “Dungeons & Dragons,” “Red Planet,” “Blade: Trinity,” etc., and then not liking the movies that much.
    I similarly remember seeing dailies from “Charlie’s Angels” and thinking the movie would be absolute shit, but then I found the completed film pretty solidly breezy and entertaining.

  62. the keoki says:

    wow! that guy is a tool. i stopped reading filmthreat awhile ago and now i remember why. keep doing what you do mori.

  63. SJRubinstein says:

    I just re-read Drew’s editing suite story and have to say that it isn’t the “cheerful reporting” I referenced doing with “Sky Captain,” but could be characterized as “cautiously optimistic” at best.
    For example:
    “And I

  64. Devin Faraci says:

    Holy shit, Don Lewis, you’re super ignorant. That’s an embarrassing blog entry.

  65. IOIOIOI says:

    See? I am not here all freakin day and PEOPLE FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! Lex also dropped some silly, but people fight up in here. Nevertheless, I held out hope for a funny good time from this film, but Cohen pulled balls again. Oh well, might as well watch TDK or maybe check the little robot out again.

  66. Drew says:

    And, yeah, SJR, I did hope it would be good. Like D-Po, I always hope for the best when I sit down to watch something. You have to, or you really shouldn’t do this for a living. Cynicism is death when you’re watching this many movies every year.
    Oh, well. I’m looking forward to Don coming back and insulting me personally some more, yet somehow trying to make it sound like it’s about “ethics.”

  67. Drew-
    Did you or did you not choose to promote Mummy 3 by saying it seems like it’s going to be a better movie than Indy 4? Yes, you did.
    Do you, as you stated above in this very comment section, have an issue with FOX because they do not grant you early access. Yes.
    By that notion, in what way is your piece of writing anything more than a puff piece designed to drive fanboys to Mummy 3 by preying on their disdain for Indy 4? I just don’t see the point of that. Why would you promote a movie you haven’t seen if you aren’t paid to do so? Why would you hold the firct act up against Indy 4 when you haven’t even seen the whole movie? it’s bad writing and shady business and you know it or you wouldn’t be so defensive.
    As such, I feel it’s extremely childish, unprofessional and downright Jeffrey Wellsian of you to drag Indy 4 into the fray under those issues you have with FOX. I have to highly disagree with your statement about my integrity when your Mummy 3 pre-review is rife with body shots to your integrity.
    You claimed above I’m bitter and my “rant” is transparent. Is there any sort of transparency to what you do? I know David pointed out years ago than AICN is basically a group of industry PR flaks without the paycheck and I admit, I’m late to the party on getting that. And I usually don’t care.
    You do what you do, whatever. But sometimes it annoys me and I feel like saying so. Just like when I got on your case a few months back when you used AICN to have a public hissy fit because your Playstation 3 wasn’t getting fixed in a timely manner. Ohhh…that stack of blu-ray discs you could be watching and reviewing should your free PS3 ever get back from the studio that gave it to you. Sigh. And you say you don’t have a forum to respond to things?
    How is what you wrote about MUMMY 3 not in and of itself a glowing review of what you saw? How is that not breaking the embargo? As was discussed here a few weeks back, we’re (journalists) all working under the notion that embargoes are set up to keep it fair for all sites and publications to break the story at the same time. But we all know AICN thrives on getting special passes to sets and whatnot so they can be FIRST! and when they are, it’s ALWAYS POSITIVE. That’s PR, not a review.
    I honestly have nothing personal against you and I think you’re a pretty good writer. Hell, I was one of the only people who truly loved CIGARETTE BURNS and I had your back on that from day 1. But your site is a piece of shit that runs itself like a bull in a China factory and it’s irritating. The worst (or, best) part is when you don’t get access or a preview or whatever it is you desire and then you have a meltdown.
    As I said in the blog piece, the proof of in the AICN pudding will be when the review drops. I’m willing to bet $10 you don’t review it Drew and I’ll add $10 on top of that if you do review it and come close to describing it the way you did here.
    And Devin, way to run to the aid of a guy that writes for a site that your so badly wishes to be. C.H.U.D..hah hah…that fanboy joke for a name was hilarious for about 5 minutes when your site first hit.

  68. movieman says:

    Fucking awful.
    When the Yetis showed up, I thought, “Hmmm; maybe this is gonna turn out to be ‘so bad it’s good,’” but nah. It just sucks donkey dick.

  69. Drew says:

    “Did you or did you not choose to promote Mummy 3 by saying it seems like it’s going to be a better movie than Indy 4? Yes, you did.”
    I wrote about the irony that INDY 4 embraced CGI to the extent they did at the same time that the MUMMY films were trying to move to more practical stunt work using the STUNT COORDINATOR OF RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.
    If you don’t understand why that is significant or worth discussion, I can’t help you. But it’s not because I “chose to promote something.” It’s because that’s the story.
    “Do you, as you stated above in this very comment section, have an issue with FOX because they do not grant you early access. Yes.”
    No. I don’t have any access to Fox, early or otherwise, because of my issues with them. You’ve got it backwards, hoss. I hate the way the studio is managed, and because I’ve said so, they melted down and broke off contact. Not the other way around.
    “By that notion, in what way is your piece of writing anything more than a puff piece designed to drive fanboys to Mummy 3 by preying on their disdain for Indy 4? I just don’t see the point of that. Why would you promote a movie you haven’t seen if you aren’t paid to do so? Why would you hold the firct act up against Indy 4 when you haven’t even seen the whole movie? it’s bad writing and shady business and you know it or you wouldn’t be so defensive.”
    Nope. As I said, these series have been connected since day one. Archeology and the supernatural in an adventure series set around the ’30s and ’40s. The comparisons have always been made, and this summer, for the first time, both series have films in release.
    It’s a valid comparison, especially when they start trading key personnel.
    “As such, I feel it’s extremely childish, unprofessional and downright Jeffrey Wellsian of you to drag Indy 4 into the fray under those issues you have with FOX. I have to highly disagree with your statement about my integrity when your Mummy 3 pre-review is rife with body shots to your integrity.”
    Um, Fox has nothing to do with any of this. Not sure why you keep harping on that.
    And your integrity would be a lot less assailable if you knew what you were talking about.
    “You claimed above I’m bitter and my “rant” is transparent. Is there any sort of transparency to what you do? I know David pointed out years ago than AICN is basically a group of industry PR flaks without the paycheck and I admit, I’m late to the party on getting that. And I usually don’t care.”
    Then so is anyone else who writes anything about the industry. Period. If I am a “PR flack,” I’m a bad one, because I tend to piss off people in this business left and right for actually having an opinion.
    And I draw a paycheck. Moron.
    “You do what you do, whatever. But sometimes it annoys me and I feel like saying so. Just like when I got on your case a few months back when you used AICN to have a public hissy fit because your Playstation 3 wasn’t getting fixed in a timely manner. Ohhh…that stack of blu-ray discs you could be watching and reviewing should your free PS3 ever get back from the studio that gave it to you. Sigh. And you say you don’t have a forum to respond to things?”
    I wrote about a piece of expensive high-end equipment that broke repeatedly and shitty customer service. This affects my readership and anyone else considering getting into the HD market. Again… pardon me for actually writing about a real experience with something I paid for.
    The PS3 was never free. And I buy far more movies than I am sent.
    There’s that bitter creeping in again. You sure it’s not just that YOU want a free PS3?
    “How is what you wrote about MUMMY 3 not in and of itself a glowing review of what you saw?”
    Because it’s not a review. Moron.
    “How is that not breaking the embargo?”
    Because it wasn’t breaking an embargo. Moron.
    “As was discussed here a few weeks back, we’re (journalists) all working under the notion that embargoes are set up to keep it fair for all sites and publications to break the story at the same time.”
    There were several other outlets who also visited the editing room and who also ran stories that same week. In fact, mine ran after a few others.
    So it was fair. Moron.
    “But we all know AICN thrives on getting special passes to sets and whatnot so they can be FIRST! and when they are, it’s ALWAYS POSITIVE. That’s PR, not a review.”
    Actually, we don’t know that. You say that. Doesn’t make it true. In this case, you’re factually wrong about everything above, so there we go.
    And since an editing room visit isn’t a critical piece but an informational one, you are out of your mind if you think I’m going to go review the final film and slam it based on what amounts to about as much footage as two trailers.
    “I honestly have nothing personal against you and I think you’re a pretty good writer. Hell, I was one of the only people who truly loved CIGARETTE BURNS and I had your back on that from day 1. But your site is a piece of shit that runs itself like a bull in a China factory and it’s irritating. The worst (or, best) part is when you don’t get access or a preview or whatever it is you desire and then you have a meltdown.”
    That didn’t happen here at all, but yet you’re making personal attacks on me. Go read your piece again. It’s nothing BUT personal.
    “As I said in the blog piece, the proof of in the AICN pudding will be when the review drops. I’m willing to bet $10 you don’t review it Drew and I’ll add $10 on top of that if you do review it and come close to describing it the way you did here.”
    Get your money ready, then, bitch.
    And seriously… you got every single thing in your response wrong. Well-played. Thank you for proving my point and giving me all the ammo I needed to show exactly how wrong you are.
    “And Devin, way to run to the aid of a guy that writes for a site that your so badly wishes to be. C.H.U.D..hah hah…that fanboy joke for a name was hilarious for about 5 minutes when your site first hit.”
    But it’s not personal… right?
    At least Devin has a solid understanding of the reality of the way films are made and sold.
    You… do not.

  70. chris says:

    Back to the worst movies of the summer argument, is there no love/hate for “Swing Vote?” I’d say it’s way worse than “Mummy” or “Guru” or “Space Chimps.”

  71. Devin Faraci says:

    don, what does the name of my site have to do with you being woefully ignorant?
    And I’m not running to anybody’s defense, I’m running to laugh at you while you’re humiliating yourself in public. It’s a little different.

  72. the keoki says:

    this guy is amazing. everytime he types he is making himself look dumb and dumberer. DO WHAT YOU DO MORI!

  73. Why am I woefully ignorant because AICN sucks up to studios and picks and chooses who to snuggle up with in order to gain access? It’s bad form…but then again as I said, I’m just late to the party on bitching about it.
    And I am reckoning that you’re taking my bet, right Drew? I’ll pay up if I’m wrong.
    p.s. I’m hoping that wasn’t *really* you who wrote that comment on the FT blog. Seriously hoping.

  74. the keoki says:

    that post on your site don is what is wrong with the internet. sorry man, and there is no way mori did that.

  75. frankbooth says:

    I can’t decide if this thread is fun or just embarrassing.

  76. mutinyco says:

    Mary Ellen Moffitt: She broke my heart…

  77. the keoki says:

    show me the way to go home….

  78. Jeremy King says:

    I read Drew’s editing room visit piece on AICN, and the impression I got from it was that he thought the movie was looking suprisingly good, and it had a lot of good stuff going for it, and it might be worth seeing. And that’s fine, it wasn’t a review, just his impressions from his short visit and limited screened footage.
    However, if he’s going to write an actual review and slam the shit out of the finished product, I think that review should come out as soon as possible so that people who read about his editing bay visit and came away thinking “Hey, maybe that movie WON’T suck complete ass!” can read his actual review in time so that they can say “Eh, nevermind” (and by people, I simply mean people who respect him as a critic and film writer, like myself).

  79. the keoki says:

    well said JK

  80. the keoki says:

    i bet when DP wrote this entry he said to himself, “My Mummy blog post is cause a massive shitstorm! Perfect!” yeah, i know thats what he said right as he pressed enter. that said dave, somebody mentioned your lack of review of WALL-E…let us have it. maybe that will cause another tornado of turds.

  81. David Poland says:

    I keep meaning to go see it again… I have written more than a little about it in the piece about the right wing fat people stuff.
    But yes, I would like to do a proper review at some point. I do feel comelled to see it again first however.

  82. the keoki says:

    thanks man. maybe it will be written about at the end of the year…wink wink, nudge nudge,

  83. SJRubinstein says:

    From Dictionary.com:
    com

  84. David Poland says:

    And as for the shitstorm… unlike a lot of the Batman stuff lately, this is a substantive, if angry, argument. So I am glad it’s getting an airing.
    I don’t feel compelled to participate in the personal debate about this particular movie, but I do think Drew is a serious guy. I do think that AICN has changed massively in how it does business and how studios do business with them over the years. I think that Drew has a somewhat selective memory about where the site came from vs where it is now. I think Drew has the arrogance – not inherently a bad thing, sayeth Mr Arrogance – of insisting that he and his be trusted to make editorial judgments without any question when, in reality, the man who doesn’t show much doubt is usually the one you have to worry about.
    For instance, to hear Drew scream when the site’s intimate relationship with Paramount is to experience some of the greatest comedy of the era. Now, I don’t care whether Par has this relationship and milks it until the cows come home. I don’t care how much they spend on AICN ads. I don’t care how early prints go to Austin (at a cost of thousands of dollars each time, since a publicist

  85. Drew says:

    Read David’s response above, Don.
    Then go back and read your own.
    You’ll see the difference between someone who I may disagree with, but who makes points grounded in reality and the rant you ran, which was little more than an ill-informed and petulant tantrum about nothing.

  86. Drew says:

    And, yeah, Don, of course it’s really me on your blog. Just like it’s the real Jeremy Smith right under me.
    I didn’t actually know you could comment on FT until now. Color me surprised.

  87. Drew-
    I admit to being pissy in my blog entry…but I honestly don’t think I ever called you a moron or implied any such thing. I definitely impugned your site, but I don’t think I disparaged you as a writer. You repeatedly calling me a moron just goes to show I’ve struck a nerve. But I also wouldn’t resort to nerdy gradeschool namecalling because (for what it’s worth) I honestly really do think you’re a solid writer with his head in the game. I don’t have an issue with *you* specifically, just your site and it’s intentions.
    I will say that if you think it’s honest to gosh-darn fair and balanced to be reviewing a movie you’ve had far too much early access to before it comes out then, well, I think you’re crazy. And I echo what Jeremy King said-you should be telling people it sucks now rather than baiting them into a bad product with puff pieces.

  88. jeffmcm says:

    Well, I’m glad to see that the amount of insane arguments around this blog doesn’t increase or decrease when I’m not around for a few days.

  89. EDouglas says:

    Maybe I had low expectations from hearing a colleague say how bad it was but I don’t think it’s anywhere near the D-movie that some people claim. True, Bello is worse than she’s ever been in any movie (that accent UGH), but I found plenty of things to enjoy including Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh who are both excellent… If you compare it to the last Mummy movie or Van Helsing, this isn’t a terrible action/FX movie… if you compare it to some of the recent movies like Hellboy II, then yeah, it’s not great. I definitely don’t think it’s as abysmal as David says… just mediocre at best.

  90. EDouglas says:

    yes, and I agree with Devin re: it being better than Crystal Skull. I didn’t hate that much as others and the CG was better in that, but I thought The Mummy was generally more unpretentiously entertaining which is all it’s meant to be. David Poland proves the reason why fewer studios screen movies for critics and bloggers.

  91. I really want to know when Maria Bello became the lesser of Rachel Weisz, that’s what!
    Also, such a shame that Luke Ford is in this as he apparently (I have yet to see it unfortunately) gave a really great performance as an autistic teenager in The Black Balloon.
    Man, I hated The Mummy Returns so much.

  92. Tofu says:

    David Poland proves the reason why fewer studios screen movies for critics and bloggers.
    Uh, I think not screening it until Monday night the week of release is in itself proof as to why few Studios (apparently now) screen movies… Because they know word of mouth travels faster than ever when they created giant steaming pile. Early negative reviews aren’t exactly new.

  93. RocketScientist says:

    Oh my God, McWeeny’s just a petulant kid. Seriously … does anyone who is actually in the industry not know how flagrant of a whore he is? Some of what Dave said is definitely true, i.e. AICN’s presence changing the way some studios operate, but Drew’s always been a little wet shit. Any chance a person has to spit on him, they should take it. Period.

  94. David Poland says:

    Please elaborate on how I illustrate why studios don’t show movies to critics and bloggers.
    If I were Universal, I would hide the movie too.
    On the other hand, I don’t think bad reviews – of which there will be many – will cost the movie much at the box office… unless they had reviews out there a month ago and the negativity grew into a constant part of the chatter.
    Not screening for critics is how studios tend to release bad movies these days. And I have no problem with that.
    If Paramount had pushed me to see The Love Guru, I probably would have wasted those hours of my life. On the other hand, seeing Meet Dave was instructive, even if it was 2/3rds junk.
    When it gets interesting is when the studios think they have a critical winner and start showing it openly… and then get slammed. The countdown to Tropic Thunder reviews is the most interesting thing I am anticipating this summer. Will “they” give it a pass? Will “they” savage it? Will “they” love it?
    We soon shall see.

  95. Zac Bertschy says:

    Anyone claiming that there was a worse movie this summer than “The Love Guru” hasn’t seen it.

  96. sharonfranz says:

    I actually like the first two. With Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh, I’ll have to check it out, even if the Tomatometer is zero percent.

  97. sloanish says:

    Harry said it was okay. Here we go…

  98. Well, looks like I owe Drew $10! Damn. I won’t proceed to be arrogant and say my “stupid blog” forced his hand (like Drew saying his harshness towards the FOX mucky mucks is cause for them to ignore AICN) but I will gladly pay up.
    My email is dlewis@filmthreat.com and I can pay you via paypay, money order or whatever’s convenient. Also, I’ll be down in L.A. in September as well if you want to take your winnings out in drinks.

  99. Drew says:

    I don’t want your money. What I wrote had nothing to do with you. I came in here and commented on how bad I thought the film was before you said a word, so don’t flatter yourself.
    And despite having been wrong, you still take another shot at me regarding Fox. If you’re trying to imply that have somehow misrepresented the situation with Fox, just say it. Either call me a liar, which I’m not, or stop with the shitty insinuation game. You were already wrong once this week. Fox banned me from all media screenings because of my criticism of the studio. Period. That’s not an opinion, Don, that’s what happened.

  100. Drew says:

    You really care about “paying up,” you’ll go fix the factual errors in your original piece, where you accuse me of breaking embargos and other collusions that simply aren’t true.
    But you won’t do that, will you? You’ll act like it’s enough to say, “I owe you $10″ even with the lies still up on your site, and like it’s okay to print lies as “opinion,” and you’ll beat some other drum about MY shaky ethics later.
    I get it. I’m an easy target, and it makes no difference if you’re wrong or right. And when you leave up something filled with lies like that, it leads to more posts from pinheads like “RocketScientist” above who read that garbage and assume it’s based in some sort of reality.
    At no point in this thread have you copped to the profound FACTUAL inaccuracy of what you wrote. Not your opinion in the piece, but the actual FACTS you got wrong.
    So, yeah, like I said… keep your $10. Either do the right thing for the right reason or don’t.

  101. I still think it’s not fair to print information about a film you’ve seen (or the first act of a film you’ve seen) ahead of other outlets. Based on my assumption that an “embargo” is meant to keep the playing field level for all…I think you broke an embargo. We can argue back and forth all day with “I did not,” “Yes, you did” but if you don’t see what I’m saying and I don’t agree with your assessment of the embargo, we’re at an impasse. And you’re not solely to blame-if a studio creates an embargo, it should apply to everyone, not just sites who continually give them good press.
    On another note, I also seriously doubt FOX gives two shits about what you think of their studio. In fact, every time I think back to your comments here regarding your “banning,” I seriously LOL. I think FOX just realized they don’t need you or your suck up antics so they cut you loose. Looks like Indy 4 did prettty well at the box office without your keen insights.
    However I still stand by the OPINION that I stated in my original blog that you were taking shots at Indy 4 because you are pissed you had no early access to it. If I’m wrong, can you at least see why I (and many others) think that? Let me help you since you undoubtedly won’t get what I’m saying…
    My assessment was that you aligned Mummy 3 AGAINST Indy 4 and I read that to be “If you hated Indy 4, you should check out Mummy 3.” Considering who your target audience is (disgruntled fanboy sheep) do you see how I would think you were pushing Mummy 3 at the expense of the much maligned Indy 4? If you don’t agree with what I’m saying about that, go read your fucking comments section where over 3/4 parrot back that Indy 4 sucked so Mummy 3 might be good. It’s right there.
    A blog is an opinion, much like an op ed, at least that’s the way we run it on FT. I think you’re a low end studio marketing tool disguised as a journalist and like I said in the blog, I grow tired of it from time to time. But as my editor at FT said when I talked to him and said that he said, “yeah…well, what’s your next blog gonna be? Water is wet?”
    My point in rattling your cage is that the “cool” stuff you do for the site is great and no one covers it better. However I think it leads to doubts about your honesty and integrity when it comes to reviewing films. At FT I focus in on smaller indie films and festival stuff, etc. If I befriend a filmmaker, I don’t review his or her stuff any more. I’m not holding myself up to some noble or moral code, I just think it’s a conflict to be “in bed” with a filmmaker before his/her film comes out and then report on it.
    That’s just me.

  102. Drew says:

    *sigh*
    This isn’t a semantics game.
    An embargo is a date set by a studio for publication. Period. That’s what it means.
    Universal asked all the outlets who went to the post-production of THE MUMMY to publish on a certain date. They did. Including us.
    Hence, no broken embargo.
    Is that clear enough for you?
    We were NOT the only outlet to publish based on that same round of visits, so we did not publish something that “no one else could.” And we didn’t break an embargo to do so.
    So you see, Don? It’s called a factual inaccuracy. It’s not about how you define the word, either. It’s simply a fact. And you are wrong.

  103. Drew says:

    And also, again, since you just don’t seem capable of parsing the simplest of facts…
    FOX…
    DID NOT…
    HAVE ANYTHING…
    TO DO…
    WITH INDIANA JONES 4.
    So you can stop with the insane fucking conspiracy theory about me and INDY 4 and Fox.
    Jesus, Don, are you really this dense? Or is it just your blind spot of personal hatred for me?
    “Oh, it’s not personal.”
    Right. That’s why everything you’ve written takes stupid personal shots at me.
    You’re welcome to your opinion, Don, but at this point, you’re actually demonstrating an open aversion to even trying to understand facts, so your opinion becomes ill-informed and based on personal malice.
    Way to go. You are the bottom of the barrel, and you aren’t even interested in figuring out why.

  104. Whoop…you’re right, I got carried away with the Fox thing, my bad, truly. But how many set visits or special access did you get to Indy 4? That was the point in my blog entry (I didn’t mention Fox till here). And if there’s no correlation to the way you (and have yet to admit you haven’t) used dislike for Indy 4 as a way to PROMOTE Mummy 3…well, again. We’re at an impasse. Again, go read your own comments section. The whole thing becomes another round of Indy bashing. Granted, those folks can say what they like, but you lead them to the Indy 4 comparison.
    I’m still apparently unclear on what an embargo consists of as well. But then again, I think there’s special rules for PR and those that are doing studio PR to get out there and promote a film. Like your site. I think the idea of an embargo is bullshit since obviously the rules (or, access) is unfair and undefined. Again, maybe AICN (and similar sites) aren’t to “blame” for what’s given out to certain places, but still, seems a lil fishy to me. Always has too. Even David gets shit from the blog when he gives out early reviews of movies that he doesn’t name.
    Still, I can’t see how visiting a set or editing room and writing about the parts of the movie you saw wouldn’t be preferential treatment or seen as unfair to other sites. Not FT per se (mainstream stuff isn’t our bread and butter) but other sites. More critical ones. Like, say, this one. I did give you credit for publishing your feelings on Mummy 3 though and admit I had you pegged wrong.
    And again, I don’t feel I’ve insulted you personally and I don’t ever *hate* faceless internet people. If we meet, I might be able to truly *hate* you or have a personal grudge. As it is, I’m just pointing out some things *I* don’t see as fair or balanced in terms of what’s getting reported and how. All I know of you is what you write and sometimes what you write gives me cause to get irritated.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

Julian Schnabel: Years ago, I was down there with my cousin’s wife Corky. She was wild — she wore makeup on her legs, and she had a streak in her hair like Yvonne De Carlo in “The Munsters.” She liked to paint. I had overalls on with just a T-shirt and looked like whatever. We were trying to buy a bunch of supplies with my cousin Jesse’s credit card. They looked at the credit card, and then they looked at us and thought maybe we stole the card, so they called Jesse up. He was a doctor who became the head of trauma at St. Vincent’s. They said, “There’s somebody here with this credit card and we want to know if it belongs to you.”

He said, “Well, does the woman have dyed blonde hair and fake eyelashes and look like she stepped out of the backstage of some kind of silent movie, and is she with some guy who has wild hair and is kind of dressed like a bum?”

“Yeah, that’s them.”

“Yeah, that’s my cousin and my wife. It’s okay, they can charge it on my card.”
~ Julian Schnabel Remembers NYC’s Now-Shuttered Pearl Paint

MB Cool. I was really interested in the aerial photography from Enter the Void and how one could understand that conceptually as a POV, while in fact it’s more of an objective view of the city where the story takes place. So it’s an objective and subjective camera at the same time. I know that you’re interested in Kubrick. We’ve talked about that in the past because it’s something that you and I have in common—

GN You’re obsessed with Kubrick, too.

MB Does he still occupy your mind or was he more of an early influence?

GN He was more of an early influence. Kubrick has been my idol my whole life, my own “god.” I was six or seven years old when I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I never felt such cinematic ecstasy. Maybe that’s what brought me to direct movies, to try to compete with that “wizard of Oz” behind the film. So then, years later, I tried to do something in that direction, like many other directors tried to do their own, you know, homage or remake or parody or whatever of 2001. I don’t know if you ever had that movie in mind for your own projects. But in my case, I don’t think about 2001 anymore now. That film was my first “trip” ever. And then I tried my best to reproduce on screen what some drug trips are like. But it’s very hard. For sure, moving images are a better medium than words, but it’s still very far from the real experience. I read that Kubrick said about Lynch’s Eraserhead, that he wished he had made that movie because it was the film he had seen that came closest to the language of nightmares.

Matthew Barney and Gaspar Noé