The Hot Button by David Poland

Wednesday, 7 April 1999

RANTING & RAVING

I don't really have one thing that's riling me today, but I am riled. So, the list begins...
Rebecca Ascher-Walsh's Entertainment Weekly cover story on The Matrix is not only unhip (Hint: If the phrase "it rocks" is in your lead and you aren't Harry Knowles, you are out of touch) and inaccurate (I'll make you a list some day), it is an embarrassment to the magazine. The entire lead is a giant hypothetical that everyone involved knows to be false. It misunderstands the process of making movies. It misunderstands the talents of The Wachowski Brothers. It misunderstands the significance of the film for Warner Bros. And it, as usual, misstates the budget in an homage to WB's press department. The story is so busy being cute that they miss the significance of the most important movie to open so far this year. And it's not just that because the trailer "rocks." The cover photo of Keanu Reeves solo is deeply uninteresting and truly misunderstands the significance of the ensemble in this film (And that's no insult to Keanu. My bet is that he would agree.)
You know, I rarely pick up EW anymore (And barely did when I worked there, except to revel in being published there. What a punk I can be.) and now I remember why. Though this was about the worst article I've seen in there. Kissing butt is one thing, but this article mis-informs people and, unfortunately, much of the press will do its research for their Matrix stories by reading what has become the leading entertainment magazine on the planet. Fortunately, Lisa Schwarzbaum's "C+" rating will be overwhelmed by the success of the film. There is little doubt that the majority of critics out there really don't get this film. And I'm surprised. I give the over-40 set more credit than that. But I guess I was overreaching. (Miraculously, my 47-year-old sister fell asleep through one of the loudest movies in history.) Of course, what do you want from a magazine that is still spending space badly deconstructing the "loss" of the Oscar® by Saving Private Ryan. (Hint 2: The answers are in how Shakespeare in Love won, not in how Ryan lost.)
Speaking of critics who didn't quite get The Matrix, I was a bit surprised by Roger Ebert sticking to a kind of lukewarm take on the film. (Click here for the review, which does include spoilers. SO, be careful.) He gave the film three stars, but worries that the ending was too commercially influenced ("We want a leap of the imagination, not one of those obligatory climaxes with automatic weapons fire.") I would say that we did get a leap of the imagination. I don't want to cough up any spoilers myself, but shall we say, the ending is truly the culmination of the story and the last 10 minutes or so of the film doesn't include a single shot fired. In any case, I get the feeling that Roger was having a hard time with a film that answers all the questions that his Best of 1998, Dark City, absolutely failed to answer.
(Keep in mind that I like Dark City a lot and was disappointed and surprised by the reaction of audiences, both those who paid to see it and those who passed on it. It was, and always will be for me, like one of the -- and there's an Alien: Resurrection spoiler coming in case you haven't seen it -- early "versions" of the cloned Ripleys in Alien: Ressurection, while The Matrix is the evolved, ass-kicking final version. Alex Proyas is a great genre filmmaker and should get some WB franchise for his own. Like Batman or Superman, for those of you who can't take a hint.)
But I don't feel that Ebert entirely missed the boat here. You can feel his enthusiasm kind of bubbling over and my bet is that The Matrix will age like a fine wine over time in his mind. And he does have a fine mind. Which is exactly what his sidekick last week can make no claim to. Called "one of those mustache guys" by a director friend, Joel Siegel was an embarrassment to anyone who offers up their opinion on movies as a profession. By the end of the show, I got the feeling that even Roger was uncomfortable. It was like Siegel had given up his tush-smooching of his studio audience and realigned his entire thought process to buddy up to and compliment Ebert at every turn. (Their reviews matched on five of five films.) And the guy wouldn't just talk. It was like he had scripted his ad-libbed conversation and was waiting for his turn. And the bad puns! Dear God, save me from every falling into that trap!
You know, the slot next to Ebert is beginning to look unfillable. With all due lack of respect (Poland wrote smirkingly), it's kind of like picking a co-anchor to work with Walter Cronkite. For those who dream of fame and fortune in the critic biz, Siskel and Ebert is the Holy Grail. Anyone who lands this job, even a guy like Siegel, is looking at bigger bucks and as much power as any critic in this country has ever had. It kind of makes me feel bad for R.E. It's too much for any man to be faced with. Especially in the face of the loss of his partner after such a long run. And yet, he seems to have kept his sanity. Bravo for him!
I do think that both critics were too harsh on 10 Things I Hate About You, busy comparing it to other teen movies, when each film, no matter how derivative, deserves to be judged on its own merits. Ironically, I think critics are too kind to teen horror movies when there is anything remotely inventive in them, while they seem to be hard on romantic comedies because "they are all the same." 10 Things (or EDtv, for that matter) ain't brain surgery, but it is a fun, mindless time at the movies. And to give it two stars (in the Sun Times), the same as The King and I and The Mod Squad is a little scary. But Ebert's management of his newfound role as the business' only critical superpower and his efforts to bring more to his audience and not to just rest on his laurels, deserves our respect. Someone give this guy an intern!
Oh, yeah! And I have a beef that I would like to fully express here on some of these letters about the Star Wars: Episode One -- The Phantom Menace junket lock-out of Internet sites. Ultimately, I can deal with Lucasfilm snubbing the medium and, as a result, me. But some of these letters were just so off-base. One of the Internet phenomena that really gets to me is this idea that any negativity is somehow about jealousy. You know what? This isn't second f--king grade! I'm 34 years old. I've been paid cash money to work in and around the entertainment industry for more than 15 years. I've earned the right to have an opinion. I like Harry Knowles, but not liking everything he does on his site is not a form of delusion created by envy. I don't want to be on "Entertainment Tonight" asking celebrities their favorite color, even though my paycheck would more than double. And I'm not whining about Lucasfilm because I "didn't make the junket cut." I work hard to try to maintain my objectivity and to be extremely clear about the times when my opinion may be skewed by any kind of personal biases. I can forgive those of you who have judged me because you were reading me for the first time and had read no other columns to give you perspective. I can even forgive those of you who suggested that the planet would be a better place without me on it. (Forgiveness is not even an issue for those of you who disagreed with me and offered reasonable arguments. You, I honor.) But this jealousy stuff!? I'm rubber, you're glue, what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
Back in grown-up-ville, the issue of movie review embargoes is suddenly a hot issue. Terry Lawson of the Detroit Free Press did a story on Monday on concerns over whether print critics will maintain the review embargo on Star Wars after catching it on May 7. Good question. (Thanks to Marita for the tip.) On another side of the issue, Spike Lee doesn't have a question in mind. He has answers. He wrote in to complain about an article in the Los Angeles Times that gave away details of his summer release, Summer of Sam, that he says were based on an early screening he did for the Calendar staff in order to secure a valuable Sunday Calendar cover come release time. I guess we Internet people aren't the only ones who break the rules. Despite my regular practice of not linking to L.A. Times articles because they quickly start charging for them and when they don't, they break them into way too many pages, here are the links. If they aren't working by the time you click on them, I can only apologize. Let me know if you have any trouble.
My final homage to trouble is about Disney's trouble with Miramax's Dogma. Jeffrey Wells at Mr. Showbiz has been on this story since last summer. His take, in short, is that Michael Eisner will not let Miramax release the film and that Miramax has been trying to sell it. No other media wrote much about it last summer (though it created quite the brouhaha on Kevin Smith's View Askew bulletin board), but I guess it's a hotter topic now. Especially with Kevin Smith announcing that the film was screened this Tuesday for consideration by the Cannes Film festival. Assuming this is true, it's hard to believe that if Eisner, The King of All Things Mickey, really wants this film to go away. Why? Because letting Miramax send it to Cannes would be the worst idea possible. It might make the film more valuable, but it would also rip the lid off of any "quiet" sale of the film to another company. No one wants to get ripped as a censor like Universal and October did last year when they sold off Happiness. And where did Happiness get hot? Cannes.
Anyway, I went of on a rant within a rant. My point was that Wells' story got picked up by at least two outlets, The Drudge Report and the New York Post's gossip sheet, Page Six. The Post credited Mr. Showbiz, but not Wells, who was on the story before he even started his Mr. Showbiz column. (For the record, Mr. Showbiz started their Showbiz Confidential column about seven months after I started The Hot Button here at roughcut.com and Jeff took it over about six months after that.) On the other hand, the Internet-only Drudge Report didn't acknowledge anyone but "published reports" and bizarrely titled the report, "Alanis Morissette Film Debut in Jeopardy" Huh? Gee, Matt, not very honest move there, pal. Especially when you realize that he links to both Page Six and Wells' column. (No, he doesn't link to me. Tell him he should by e-mailing Matt at drudge@drudgereport.com.) In any case, Kevin Smith has responded openly to Wells and Premiere magazine, which has jumped on the story's bandwagon. For those of you who keep writing to tell me the film has a fall release date, Kevin indicates otherwise in this story, so read on.
That's the end of my rant. I feel better. And the beginning of Kevin's, I guess. And now, one of yours...
READER OF THE DAY: From B.i.G.: "Dave, Even though I do not know you, I think you saved your soul when you left the Sh--ty Weekly, errr, Entertainment Weekly. Every reviewer is on crack. I had no idea people could get paid that much for such non-informative columns. Lisa Schwarzbaum (whatever the spelling) and that Ken Tucker (or whatever his name is) are the prime examples of phoning it in. Twice I came close to getting a subscription -- oh, they almost sucked me in with the Star Wars issue (which was fluff, almost like eating a Softbatch cookie). Do you think the government has an extra laser guided tomahawk missile left? Because I have a target for them... EW's building. OK, I will even hold the laser on the building so they can take it out!"

E ME: Hey! I still have a couple of friends in there. Take out the printing presses. Plenty here to wind your clock, kids. What pushes your hot button?