The Hot Blog

He's just pissed off you dissed "Rent."

I agree the munich trailer sucks, but not for the reason's Wells mentions. For those not already interested in the subject matter, it offers nothing to tease them into theaters. Looks.. almost boring. And even worse, redundant.

So sayeth a relentlessly unpraised, obeisance-before-power, affluent-bubble-dwelling, 59 year-old "writer" named Jeffrey Wells.

He obviously has nothing against King Kong and Munich. It's the directors that clearly chap his ass. And it's too bad because now any real opinions he has on those films can't be relied upon.

There's nothing worse a critic can instill in his readers than "You really can't trust me on this one, I hate these guys, but hey listen anyway."

Film viewing is more of a chemical than intellectual process. The best critics soak up their own reactions as much as they would the aesthetics and excitedly attempt to relay them to the reader. The process is threefold: I'm in love/ I'm smart/I want you to know it.

But no true lover of film wants to hate any movie. Come on, that's like hoping to find a finger in your chili.

Am I the only one who thought the teaser was phenomenal? What were people expecting?

"He obviously has nothing against King Kong and Munich. It's the directors that clearly chap his ass." One can only imagine how he'd have reacted if George Lucas had directed it. Actually, I tried it and I imagined him exploding. It's nice, you guys should try it.

Wells sounds like a pissy teenager. I deem him irrelevant.

"Jewish-entertainment-journalists-who-want-to-see-Israel-kick-ass."

Geez, I've always wondered what the J in David J. Poland stood for.

Thanks Wells!

I TOTALLY wanted to comment on this at In Contention, but I held off because, I dunno, I had to wash my hair or something.

But seriously, I'm glad you bring it up, because it truly is the work of an incomprehensibly of-his-rocker individual. A tell tirade to be sure.

Fifty-nine? That sucks.

I thought the J stood for Jay.

Tee-hee. Jeffrey is nearly a sexagenerian. No wonder he's cranky. Perhaps he prefers his cinematic Jews as victims (even though that's the "old aesthetic").

Oh, and one of the nine athletes who were tragically "all gone" was an American.

If the trailer for "Munich" is indicative of the film in the way the trailer for Spielberg's last historical document "Saving Private Ryan" was, then we really, truly, absolutely have no idea what's coming to us.

?
What do you mean, Steve?

Movie looks pretty damn good to me. (But that's only because I'm a JEW, obviously. Woohoo! Go Israel!)

And Wells? One step above Medved on the Raving Blitherometer. I read lots of bloggers and columnists with whom I frequently and/or strongly disagree, but then there are the writers who just bore me with their smugness. Wells has the right to rant and rave about a freakin' TEASER TRAILER if he likes, while I have the right to chuckle and move on.

Life would be so much easier if we could write all our reviews just by watching the trailer. Think about how much time we can save sitting in theatres for ours at a time. :)

Me, I thought the trailer was okay and more than I expected. It gave us a good look at Bana and the general look and tone of the movie. I was skeptical of all the frontrunner stuff, but if Spielberg can pull this off, especially in the short time frame, then he really deserves another Oscar. But boy, he's really starting to make it look too easy :)

Of course, I mean "hours at a time"...

Maybe I'm missing something. Wells prefaces his comments both by saying "[i]mpressions can be misleading" and "[a] teaser is obviously its own thing." Ok, and then he posts his reactions to the teaser. So, what's the big deal? That seems appropriate to me. And what's the deal with people saying he's blatantly biased against Spielberg. He liked "Minority Report" a lot, and he really liked "War of the Worlds" up until the ending, which every person I know disliked. I like both Poland and Wells. Again, am I missing something?

"...the whole "wait for Munich....this is the big one...Oscar, Oscar!" drumbeat is based on little more than a generic kneejerk Spielberg kowtow."

Yes, and Jeff Wells making the great subversive leap of badmouthing a Spielberg movie (oh, wait a sec, every dummy who tries to sound smart about film does that) isn't a generic kneejerk reaction.

"I like both Poland and Wells. Again, am I missing something?"

Nah, so do I. Both are far up their asses from time to time, but that goes with the territory. You can't try to be passionate in your writing numerous times a day without some of it coming out wrong.

I too like reading both Poland & Wells. While I may not always agree with both or either of them, they both tend to make some interesting observations. Anyhow, as far as Munich's trailer goes, it looks good. I don't know what people want to see from Spielberg as far as a trailer goes. Maybe if a dinosaur or alien had shown up, then it would all be better?? It's a teaser, not a cure for cancer.

I wasn't planning on commenting, but now that this has been reduced to some sort of "both Poland and Wells go too far sometimes" bullshit...

(Goulet - I manage to produce 10 times the content Wells does every single week - without cribbing off of MCN - without ever smearing based on religion or age.)

I don't mind Jeff hating Spielberg. I don't mind Jeff being an agist. But I do mind when he argues that the only reason you can be supportive of Spielberg's movie (and personally, I have been plenty critical of WoTW, AI, etc) is to be showing obeisance-before-power or to be a "Jewish entertainment journalist."

Sorry, boys... this is a level beyond. I woldn't quite call it anti-Semitism, but the notion that - based on a trailer - that you can only feel strongly about this film if you are either kissing ass or allowing religious belief cloud your view is outrageously offensive. It would be no less offensive (or stupid) for me to suggest that Jeffrey can't understand Munich because he is not Jewish.

But then again, his show of obeisance-before-Sydney Pollack shows he loves Jews! Or is that, "Some of Jeff's best friends are..."

i don't know, it looks like a terrific political thriller to me. But what do I know...I just see them for that they are: MOVIES. nothing thats going to change the world or anything, but 2 (or 3) hours in a darkened theater. Sometimes people make way too much out of nothing. Do you think people will be squabbling over The New World and the depiction of Native Americans when it comes out? Damn, just be quiet and go to the theater and watch the freaking MOVIE.

"Do you think people will be squabbling over The New World and the depiction of Native Americans when it comes out?"

That was a rhetorical question, right?

I do worry that it could get a little too sentimental. A scene with Bana and his daughter towards the end of the trailer was a red flag. But I think it looks like an excellent film. Love the cast. Always nice to see Cirian Hinds.

Again I ask, when has Spielberg ever given the best of his movie away in the trailer? Like Private Ryan, the trailer for Munich tells you merely the plot...

http://www.movie-list.net/classics/saving-private-ryan.mov

The real question is what did Jett think of it?

Wells isn't really interested in movies. He's interested in making himself look smart and well-connected and taking photos of the buses he rides on. I have never read anything by him that made me think differently about a film experience.

His columns are tough to get thru. His hatred of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings really made him depressing recently. And the pictures? A 9 yr old take them?

Wells and Poland are both very good commentators, which is why I read both sites.

As for Wells in particular, I certainly do not share his political views...but I do appreciate that he is upfront about them. I know where he is coming from and can judge accordingly.

With regards to Munich and his comments...

One certainly does not need to be Jewish to look forward to this film. Spielberg is a brilliant filmmaker because of his talent...not his ethnicity.

As for the film and its content itself...I can understand why Wells thinks the film will play out the way he says. But...there is one crimp in this...Tony Kushner.

Kusher is a Marxist and very pro-Palestinian with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The question I think people will be looking at is...where does Spielberg stand?

I have no idea and do not purport to have an answer...but this question will be asked. The film, although historical, will be interpreted in terms of modern events. No way around that.

Spielberg is ethnically Jewish (although I do not believe religiously so) which makes people assume he will be pro-Israel. He is also presumed to be very left-wing in his politics which is usually associated with being pro-Palestinian. I have no idea where this film will settle (if indeed it does).

For better or worse however, the perceived politics of the film will effect how it is received. That is inevitable.

Spielberg has never made I film I was not interested in and this is no exception. I guess we will all find out soon.

I still just don't see it. And for what it's worth, I'm Jewish. Wells merely says that OSCAR bandwagon is for the most part based on "a generic kneejerk Spielberg kowtow," not that you can't get excited for it otherwise. And he prefaces the "Jewish-entertainment-journalists-who-want-to-see-Israel-kick-ass factor" with "to an extent." That hardly seems derrogatory to me. And really, besides the Spielberg pedigree and a teaser, what do we have to suggest it being showered with Oscar awards. And as Wells even says, the film COULD turn out great. he just doesn't see it from the teaser.

Wells starts out by talking about the Oscar hype, which would be a perfectly valid thing to discuss, but then shifts into a rant about how much he already hates the movie itself. I don't think anyone except Hollywood journalist types are oversaturated with Munich-as-frontrunner hype, and it doesn't look like that's really the argument he ultimately wants to make.

Wells writes from a much more personal aspect than Dave. It sometimes clouds all of his writing.

I think this Wells guy is spot on with this assessment of the movie. Does seem like the "woe is me, innocents killed, is this right?, who are we" type of movie.

There's nothing wrong with writing from a personal point of view. You just need to also have opinions and perspectives that are worth reading.

The list... isn't... life.

Nicol D, isn't it a mistake to equate pro-Palestinian with pro-PLO? However, Kushner's views on the matter may prove to be more controversial than Spielberg's. Here's a taste...

"I think the founding of the State of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity. Contemplating the possible destruction of Israel (civil war?) I feel at times if I could ever kill for a nationalist cause, I might kill for that one but at the same time I wish modern Israel hadn't been born; I am a diasporan Jew, not a Zionist; and I say this feeling that Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, is, its Zionist agenda and homophobia notwithstanding, Jewish history's best most eloquent single answer to Hitler and the Holocaust; and is so because it is in Jerusalem but I wish Jerusalem was an international city under a U.N. protectorate..."
From Tony Kushner's Commentary on the Klezmatic's recent CD, "Possessed"
http://inyomind.net/Chatterbox/possessed%20notes

That said, I hope Spielberg doesn't fictionalize the history too much. I'm worried that that young girl who answers the phone in the film will accidentally be killed as part of the plot, which would be a reckless thing to do just for the sake of drama. Reckless not simply because it never happened, but because it might cause a backlash from those who think it did.

kushner is going to ruin this project.

Arnzilla,

Thanks for the question.

I certainly do not equate being pro-Palestinian with being pro-PLO. I also do not believe that everyone who criticizes Israel is necessarily anti-semitic. Nevertheless...there is much anti-semitism on the extreme wing of the critiques of Israel and many extreme supporters of Palestine do support the PLO.

As for Kushner...he hardly is a moderate and the quote that you gave seems to back up what I said, not negate it.

I love Spielberg and will see this in the theatre (unless it is unforseeable bad but that seems unlikely). But Kushner is the wild-card on this project. I am not a fan of his and I will be very curious to see how this film and the way it is discussed plays out.

Tony Kushner is probably the worst guy I can think of to write this. Why not ask the PLO leader himself?

I'm intrigued BECAUSE it's Kushner writing it. Steven Spielberg directing a Tony Kushner script...I never thought I'd see the day.

I understand why you're all focusing on one of Kushner's political statements but not a single word about his artistry? The man can fuckin' write.

A lot of you seem to be pretty big Spielberg fans. Hasn't that earned him the benefit of the doubt? He must have had good reasons for selecting Kushner to write this project. I think he has earned some trust at this point in his career.

Mahmoud Abbas doesn't have an Emmy, a Pulitzer, and two Tonys.
Why don't we just wait for the movie to come out since everything that can be said about Kushner probably has so far.

What I'm not sure about is this. Spielberg knew that he was going to be under serious time constraints to get "Munich" released in 2005. Yet, he hired as his post-production coordinator Samantha Becker, whose only previous credit was as "assistant to director" on "Speakeasy" (yes, the Project Greenlight script that did not win).

Spielberg typically hires the best and brightest for re-write jobs. Steve Zailian, Tom Stoppard, Scott Frank, Frank Darabont. Kushner is a very famous Jewish playwright who writes a lot about the Jewish experience and seems like a perfect fit for the film's subject matter.

But let's be honest if this were another director what are the odds that this would just be a shootem up thriller about assassins. Imagine if this were a Tony Scott movie?

If you think Kushner is a perfect fit you obviously don't know where he stands on the issues and what he believes in. Still don't know why Spielberg chose him.

Let's be honest here. You can say he's a great writer but what has he written for the screen?

This is his first movie.

It doesn't matter much to me who is writing it until after I see it. A writer doesn't get me into a theatre. Directors, stars, and story do. The writer has an important job (some say the most important) but it doesn't give box office. Ask Charlie Kaufman.

I am a long time reader of both Wells' colund and Poland's. [return]

I've read and re-read the item under discussion and while in the past I've seen Poland's criticisms of Wells as valid, I think he has missed the mark there. Wells hedged his comments as mentioned elsewhere and certainly did NOT say:

" that the only reason you can be supportive of Spielberg's movie (and personally, I have been plenty critical of WoTW, AI, etc) is to be showing obeisance-before-power or to be a "Jewish entertainment journalist."

What he, in fact, said was:

"that while Munich may turn out to be good or thrilling or rich in morality, the whole "wait for Munich....this is the big one...Oscar, Oscar!" drumbeat is based on little more than a generic kneejerk Spielberg kowtow. (There is also, to some extent, the Jewish-entertainment- journalists-who-want-to-see-Israel-kick-ass factor.)"

How is that objectionable? "generic spielberg kowtow"? We did the same dance before Schindler's List, Amistad, Private Ryan, and now Munich ... all typical "awards bait" films that must have a Speilbergian or comparable pedigree to reach that status. What's wrong here about Well's calling that out?

Was it the Jewish-journalist/see Israel kick ass comment? I don't find that to be particularly objectionable especially since, as a jew, I have to confess to a certain degree of pride, albeit mostly in the past, at the ruthless precision with wich the Mossad was customarily heralded. Most drawing room jews won't fess up to this and many jews have over the years come to realize that truth and perception are quite different. Again, though what's wrong about a film journalist -- jew or gentile -- who writes with a deeply personal slant observing that pre-release oscar hype for an unseen film about the Mossad retribution for the Munich attachs being based "to some extent" on jingoistic zionism?

Dave, that may be sloppy journalism, but it aint anti-semetism or irresponsible.

phew.....

I'm tired now from reading that. I just went twelve rounds with Tyson. Phewwww.

If you read Wells consistently you know this is how he is. You either like it or you can't stand it. No real in between with him.

I've read Wells for the last five years, and I can see where you are coming from...but I do think there is an in between. Granted, I don't how many "Kong will suck" pieces Wells has done (probably as many "Lost in Translations sucks" pieces he did two years ago) and I get sick of it. But he's smart, and he has sources and I agree with him on some movies. Poland too. I disagree with him a lot, including Jarhead, but he isn't a fanboy on AICN, he's a writer with an opinion that he backs up.

He has something up his rump about Peter Jackson, George Lucas and big budget movies.

I think it's perfectly valid for Wells to bump up against the Munich-as-frontrunner hype. He has a perfectly legit point there.
But then, in the quoted piece, even though he says "while Munich may turn out to be good", he goes nuts and seems to indicate that he's not exactly going to see the movie with an open mind.

I think it's not big-budget movies that he doesn't care for, but sci-fi/fantasy adventure movies that aren't his cup of tea, and so he resents the successful ones.

Good call. And let's not forget his somewhat obsession with Wes Anderson.

And I'll give him some points for being very, very openly outspoken of his dislike of Tom Hanks. To speak out against one of the most popular entertainers in the last 10 years (deservedly so or not) takes some cajones. Though he really needs to get over those humps.

I'm crackin' up here...does no one realize that 'jeffmcm' IS Wells? He's referring to himself in the 3rd person and people are debating/agreeing with him.

Despite that bit of hilarity, I agree with him - it's a perfectly valid angle, and a typical bash against the zeitgeist that Wells always cynically shoots at. He has some valid points - it looks like it COULD be trite and cliche. I just hope it isn't.

I wish I had Wells' bank account, but that is where the connection ends.

I've said it for months that jeffmcm is Jeff Wells.

If I was Jeff Wells, it would be a sign that Jeff Wells hates himself. Because I think that he's a celebrity schmoozehound, a hack writer, and a worthless critic. So this is either an honest opinion, or a revelation of severe ego problems.

Just like Wells with the self deprecation and the apparent wit. How's Jett doing, jeff?

For a while we were pretty sure that you were the same person as Panda/Angelus/Mark Z, and I don't think that was ever fully disproved either.

Come on Well's. Is it time to cry and get all offended? Don't be sad that Hollywood Elsewhere isn't as good or successful as MCN.

Man, I wish Wells was reading this now and actually crying, while he discreetly hides his pile of blow from his sexed-up sons.

If this jeffmcm is really Well's? I don't think I could ever read his writings again without a twinge of "this guy is nuts."

Say it ain't so, Jeffrey. Please don't ruin Wells for me.

Would it bug you more if I was Wells or if I was just the pretentious liberal you've come to know and hate?

I'd be crying if I was said to be JeffMCM. The real Well's should come on here and defend his honor.

That is like a slap in his face. A duel would be called for.

It's obviously getting to you, "jeffwellsmcm". Why is that? You should be honored.

Thanks Lester, nice to know you could join the conversation and be really insulting.

Like I said, I wish I had Wells' money. But not if it meant dropping the IQ points that would require.

Since when did Jeff Well's have a big bank account? He's asking for donations on his site. That screams money problem.

wait, i thought jeffmcm was dave l?

I don't know if JeffMCM is Wells, or not. But I think it's pretty clear from his writing, the real Wells is as self loathing as anyone....

I got more respect for J Wells than to compare him to this airhead. No offense, jeffmcm. No offense.

Oh, of course, why would I take offense? It's not out of character.

Can we now change the subject from why I'm an airhead, to why Wells is a frickin idiot?

Public thanks to J-Mc for taking the high road...

I love that calling Wells names is part of 'the high road'.

Getting back to the original point, I don't think that Wells is biased against Spielberg, big budget movies, or sci-fi. Just look at what he wrote about War of the Worlds and Minority Report:

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2005/06/pulsepounder_wa.php

http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=movienews/confidential&pageid=20999

I remember a little while back when someone on here was making a similar comment about Poland being biased against horror movies, and Dave shot back with some horror movies that he really liked over the last several years.

I know that some people like to rail against each of these guys from time to time, but the bottom line is that these guys are respected writers for a reason. If they were as biased as some people make them out to be, they would have no credibility.

Nicely put Paul Hackett. You certainly have my vote for Senator...if I only lived in Ohio.

All I know is, in my opinion Wells merits little respect or credibility. His continuing employment as a writer is a mystery to me. I don't think he's necessarily biased about things, I just think he has worthless opinions.

Paul Hackett became more of a darling to the Dem's because he lost. But he lost "close". They're not about winning anymore. They're into moral victories.

Losing close in a heavily Republican district ain't bad.

Jeffmcm, why are you into this Well's thing? Every post makes me think you are really him. Let it go.

Losing is losing. Unless you're really into moral victories. Still means you lost.

Jets fans would definitely agree that Paul Hackett is not about winning.

Anyway, he has to beat Sherrod Brown for the Democratic nomination. That's an uphill climb.

As a Jet fan, I definately know all about that. He still gives me nightmares.

I hate Wells. He's a shitty writer. I'm sorry that Dave brought him up as a subject because my life is better off without him in it.

Does anyone remember the entertainment writer guy who passed suddenly away a few years ago and was kind of similar to Poland and Wells? Now HE was a bad writer. Sorry to be so vague.

Wells hates himself? Self loathing? Not cool.

Panda, that was yesterday's 'conversation', try and keep up.

I read Wells a lot. Probably too much. No way jeffmcm is him. Wells is actully talented and has something to say. I have to stick up for Jeff Wells here and dispute this.

I didn't realize these threads were supposed to take place in a certain time. I'm sorry, Mr Wells.

Anyone read Jeffmcms love song to Sara Silverman today? He took some terrible digital shots though. Did not like them.

I like Sarah Silverman as much as I hate Wells.

Hey, Richard Nash, new guy: what do you like about him so much? Out of curiosity.

Why did Jeffrey Wells take over the blog? There's nothing better to discuss than Wells/mcm?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)