I have been pretty happy with the column lately.  It occurred to me that part of what I have enjoyed is a lack of anger about what passes for entertainment journalism these days.  I’ve been seeing some really good movies, pretending not to have seen some really bad movies, and have generally been loving movies.

And then, I read Nikki Finke’s column in the L.A. Weekly…

(Here’s where you hear that sound of the needle being dragged across the record mid-song to end the happy music in the trailer of my life.)

Nikki Finke has brought her brand of raging Liz-Smith-on-steroids “journalism” to a popular Los Angeles outlet.  And she’s quickly making Tom King seem like entertainment’s Stephen Hawking.  She delivers a lot of hard talk and almost no hard questions… because Ms. Finke already knows the answers. 

What I can’t understand is why the L.A. Weekly, an outlet that has made huge strides in retuning to its early leftist glory, is printing this bile.   Besides Finke’s easily read tendency to base entire columns on self-serving spin by this or that executive, she seems to have a dangerous taste for getting right up close to the libel window and watching her breath steam up the glass.  But worst of all… in this man’s opinion, she doesn’t do a very thorough job as a reporter. 

Here is my rule – If you want to write meaningless, ass-kissing junk, go to town.  If you want to write smart, well reported but dry stuff, go to town.  But if you want to smack people around, you better be above the fray and you had better work your ass off to be fair – not just “right,” but fair - because otherwise, the truth will be a hard pill to swallow. 

Before I get the threatening e-mail from Ms. Finke’s cadre of always-ready lawyers, I will explain just one thing – truth is an absolute defense.  It’s Nikki’s best defense as well.  Because she doesn’t print outright lies.  What she does do is to take the facts and to spin them into near-libel.  Near.  If I were Vanity Fair’s Bryan Burrough, I would be pushing to sue Ms. Finke for just that after her first attack column for L.A. Weekly, a vicious and personal attack on Mike Ovitz.  The potential libel claim came from Finke’s reckless collateral attack on Burrough, his work on the story and her misleading analysis of what Burrough wrote and how he wrote it. 

I am going to analyze the entire run of Finke’s columns today, but I am putting the rest of this on another page.  For more casual readers, I can understand that deconstructing Ms. Finke may feel like reading a college dissertation and that even if you can scroll down, it’s depth may feel like an assault.  If you want to read more on Finke, click here. 

On to happier things…

CRUSH DAY:  It seems like I have has a crush on Universal’s new film for months now.  No more beating the drum.  It’s time for you to see the danged thing.  Coincidentally, there is an excellent article about the film in today’s Wall Street Journal by Bruce Orwall.  It’s an unusually light-hearted piece from Orwall in these days of economic turmoil.  He details some of Universal’s choices in pursuing this new-millennium genre film.  If you have a subscription, the story is here.

BUYING IN:  Michael Eisner wanted to show his faith in Disney, so in a year when he is taking “only” $1 million in compensation, he’s purchased $10 million worth of Disney stock.  How long will it take for this to be spun as an act of desperation?  Who knows?  Who cares?  Read the story here.

BIG CITY PROJECTIONS:  Great story by The New York Observer’s Rebecca Traister about The New York Film Festival, for better or for worse.  It is an interesting time in the film festival world and right and wrong are getting blurrier, not clearer.  Read it here.

SIGHT & SOUND:  The film magazine has done its annual critics and directors TOP TEN film lists… and I couldn’t care less.  Consensus is… consensus.  I’m not a big fan of quantifying movies.  They are too complex.  But what was fascinating was wandering through the pages of this thing and seeing what this director or that critic had to say.  Some of the films that got votes were so heinous that I considered hunting down the voters and removing their fingers so they could never type again.  But c’est la vie… kids say the darndest things.  I enjoyed seeing what directors’ tastes seemed to fit surprisingly well with my own, who was stuck in the 60s, and which critics were suckered into the latest revisionist history of greatness.  Take a look yourself right here.  

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE:  It’s not very complicated this time out… you got your two big pictures, Blue Crush and The Adventures of Pluto Nash.  You want to know about Pluto Nash?  Have you heard anyone say the film’s one-sheet tag line?  Have you said it out loud?  “The MAN on the moon!”  The MAN!  Try saying it out loud without laughing derisively… come on… dare you. 

As for Blue Crush, Universal delivers a movie for people who want to think or people who want to think with their dicks.  I have to admit, it works either way.  A little sexy.  A little sassy.  A lot of fun. 

Focus releases Possession into 270 theaters.  So far, every fifth movie that Aaron Eckhart has made has been worth watching.  So, I have high hopes for Elias Merhige’s Suspect Zero.  This weekend, I’ll go unpossessed.  (If you need to know, read Ray Pride.)

WEEKEND GUESSTIMATES

1. Blue Crush – 3002 venues – new - $22.71 million

2. XXX – 3388 venues – off 49 percent - $22.7 million

3. Signs - 3344 venues – off 45 percent - $16.2 million

4. Spy Kids 2 – 3307 venues – off 40 percent - $10 million

5. Goldmember – 3113 venues – off 55 percent - $5.9 million

6. Pluto Nash - 2320 venues – new - $5.2 million

7. Blood Work – 2525 venues – off 40 percent - $4.4 million

8. My Big Fat Greek Wedding – 1060 venues – up 5 percent - $3.3 million

9. Road to Perdition – 1914 venues – off 39 percent - $2.5 million

10. Master of Disguise – 2137 venues – off 59 percent – $2.1 million

READER OF THE DAY:  SCOTT WEINBERG writes: “Various movie studios (mostly Universal, it seems) have had employees visit popular movie sites and pose as 'fans' offering enthusiastic comments. This practice has LONG been a thorn in the side of www.HollywoodBitchslap.com, where I am an overworked senior editor and proud reviewer. Two or three times a month, these comments pop up from someone calling themselves "Film Freak" or "CineFan" and the IP addresses always lead back to a particular movie studio.   Each post is GUSHING with praise for an upcoming film, and it's obvious that these are 'plants'.

The IMDb ran a news piece today in which HBS' Head Honcho (my buddy Oz) was quoted extensively, and I was thrilled to see that this despicable practice was finally being brought to light. ( http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/#2 )

Want some background? The full skinny is available through these two articles:

http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/hbs.cgi?feature=598
http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/hbs.cgi?feature=608

 Would I love for you to attack this issue in your daily column?  You bet!”

DAVID RESPONDS:  “Shocked… shocked!”  I was just discussing this with a friend today… the downfall of the “outlaw” websites has been, in part, an invasion of false reader reviews to go with the real reader reviews.  Frankly, I think that anyone who would run an anonymous review deserves to be played. 

The question that we all must ask ourselves on the web is, “Why are we doing this?”  The funny thing is, I think that people who buy movie tickets sort through everything and make up their minds through whatever system they are comfortable with.   I trust the audience members.  

So, why should my opinion mean more than some unknown person who sends in a review?  And for that matter, what if the studio flack who typed up the “fake” review was sincere?  Is it still fake?

THE PHANTOM adds:  “As you are probably aware, EVERY STUDIO DOES THIS!  Whether mandated by the PR departments, or just interested crew members, friends, family, you name it -- all the studios have people writing fake reviews of their movies.  It's done for numerous reasons: good buzz, of course, but also because of all the shit written by 14-year-old morons to AICN's "Talk Back", etc.  The studios wouldn't care if the mainstream press didn't take Net rumors so seriously.  I haven't had one journalist visit the set of a movie I've worked on who hasn't first gone to AICN/Dark Horizons/Coming Attractions to see what the geeks were saying first.  In the end it's all meaningless in the end since films these days are review-proof anyway (ie Scooby-Doo).  But between the studio chiefs and the powerful filmmakers & actors, there is A LOT of pressure to turn the tide on negative buzz BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.”

HONG KONG STEVE writes:  “Dear David: I wonder why there are so many people who don't like the film.  Well, Shyamalan is the Hitchcock of 21th Century. He knows how to scare moviegoers, by their own imagination.

"Signs" is like "Psycho" meets "Birds". Touchstone smartly misunderstood everyone about the plot, when they get in cinemas then find out it is not what they expected. Remember Hitchcock killed Janet Leigh in the middle of "Psycho", then everyone scared and wonder what would happen next. Shyamalan twisted the whole plot of "Signs" in the beginning of 15 minutes, made you really wonder what the story would go.

And just like "Birds", Hitchcock never explain why birds attacked people. There's no need to any reason. Because it is a thrill. So everyone felt so scared and survived animal attack with the characters, it's the roller coast ride. Shyamalan did not explain why green men from outer space wanted to attack the earth. If you really need a reason or motive of aliens, go to see "ID4".

So the real point of "Signs" is family crisis. It's about Human. It's about Faith. It's about a family how to face and survive the pain of losing someone very close in an accident. You see, Hitchcock always scared us, He's the master, but he never let us have any chance to explore the characters' mind in a thrill or disaster film, except Norman Bates. Shyamalan did in the reverse way, he made a film looks like a thrill but explore the characters' inside, we not just felt their fear, pain, also the journey to reborn to joy and peace.

If you really want to enjoy the fun of scary, you can go to "Scream", "Psycho", and many other horror films. If you need the answer to aliens exist or not, go to see "X-files" or "ID4". But if you want to see how a new film master is born, You must review "Signs" with your heart, again.“

E ME:  Good to see you, Stevie.  Is anyone going to see Pluto Nash?  Tell me about your Crush..