Lane on "Reign"

email this story
read comments (109)
post a comment

"Of all the things to make you pause, hand on wallet, before shelling out for a movie ticket, try this: a film about the aftermath of 9/11, starring Adam Sandler. What possible cultural need, one might ask, could be met by such a project? It is thus with a degree of amazement that I find myself nominating Reign Over Me written and directed by Mike Binder, as a movie that might be worth your time."

A near-rave review of Reign Over Me from New Yorker critic Anthony Lane? I know it's a good and uncommonly haunting film with a surprisingly powerful performance by Sandler, but for some reason I'm startled that the snooty Lane not only agrees, but has found other particular Reign things to praise.

Across the Universe<< previous | next >>Alamo is down

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 20, 2007 at 9:03 PM

comment #1

CambridgeCat says ...

Bob Dylan's in REIGN OVER ME?

Posted by CambridgeCat at March 20, 2007 9:20 PM

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

An Anthony Lane rave holds as much value for me as a Gene Shalit rave.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 20, 2007 9:24 PM

comment #3

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Cambirdge Cat: Yes, exactly -- a very close approximation of Bob Dylan in his "Blond on Blonde" phase costars in "Reign Over Me."

Posted by gruver1 at March 20, 2007 9:43 PM

comment #4

raj says ...

i'm no anthony lane, but i'll say again that i thought 'reign' was sketchy, tentative and schematic. sandler does well with some mediocre writing, but the other actors don't stand a chance of making characters out of what they're given, cheadle included.

Posted by raj at March 20, 2007 9:51 PM

comment #5

scooterzz says ...

to call this movie 'mediocre' is to pay it a compliment.....the story of loss and post-traumatic stress has been told so much better, so many times...this movie has 'lifetime' tv written all over it......30 minutes into the movie, all i could think of was how much i wished sandler's character had taken the plane instead of his family.....

Posted by scooterzz at March 20, 2007 10:28 PM

comment #6

Dan Revill says ...

And the haters are out in force tonight!

I still can't wait to watch it. :P

Posted by Dan Revill at March 20, 2007 10:39 PM

comment #7

berkguru says ...

Wells we get it. You dont have to keep posting reviews by people because you are friends with the director. If we want a compilation of positive reviews we can go to Rotten Tomato. The bottomline is that Adam Sandler is an awful actor and all of his baggage will ruin the movie for most people with half of a brain even if it has other redeeming qualities. Also, Don Cheadle is turning into the new Morgan Freeman with his sidekick to the white man routine in his latest efforts. Tedious stuff.

Posted by berkguru at March 20, 2007 11:01 PM

comment #8

erniesouchak says ...

Yes, America, you are now officially ready for a glib and superficial portrait of post-9/11 traumatic stress. Thank you, Mike Binder, for recognizing this readiness in all of us.

Posted by erniesouchak at March 20, 2007 11:09 PM

comment #9

Joe Leydon says ...

Jeff: Just think -- erniesouchak, berkguru, scooterzz and raj are the people you're writing for. Gaze upon their comments, and despair.

Posted by Joe Leydon at March 20, 2007 11:14 PM

comment #10

scooterzz says ...

why should someone 'despair' because someone else has a different opinion?...how very 'fox news' of you....

Posted by scooterzz at March 20, 2007 11:56 PM

comment #11

Mike Binder says ...

Scooterzzzzzzzz,

Here's the problem. It's not that it's like Fox news, it's that you're just a basher. You come on with a lame fake name. That's the best name you can come up with? You don't even have the balls to use your real name and you just keep basking this film. How does that somehow make you better than Jeff Wells who is not just a friend but a supporter of the film? You have hit this one again and again to the point that I know you have a personal connection to me or the film. Did I not give you a job? Did Sandler beat you up in high school? I would hope for you that would be the answer because if not it's real sad to sit home and hate that hard with no personal animus. At least the anonymous jilted actor or a.d. has a right to hate, you just need a spot on the wall to kick and I don't dig it being my film pudhead. Your 'reaction' is different than ninety percent of the moviegoers that have seeen it. That being said you have the right to have one, but to hit it on here everytime an item comes up, under a fake name like scooterzzz isn't going to do anything to help you. If you're looking to make a name for your self by bashing a film then you're going to need to come up with a better one.

Posted by Mike Binder at March 21, 2007 5:05 AM

comment #12

Mike Binder says ...

I never get mad when a critic bashes me. I don't. It's their job to have an opinion. Sometimes the bashing helps. I even chuckle and take it with a grain of salt when a commenter takes a swipe. Goes with the age. But to throw so many of them out for the same film is taking it too far. Under a fake name. Use your name. Show your link. People do it all the time here. It's not so hard. After that if you need to kick and kick and kick then do it, but I wouldn't suggest it Scoot, there's little upside to it.

With that said, email me at my production company with your name and address and I'll refund the money you spent on Reign Over Me. (Which opens Friday nationwide)

Love you Scooty

Posted by Mike Binder at March 21, 2007 5:11 AM

comment #13

Rich S. says ...

Was watching a trailer roundup on HDNet last night and was surprised by the trailer for Reign Over Me. The extended trailer was much better than the one currently playing on most TV stations. I have no doubt that it's a quality film. Upside of Anger was flat-out terrific.

What surprised me, though, was that nowhere in the trailer was 9/11 mentioned. It says only that Sandler's family was killed in "a plane crash." Maybe the marketers learned something from all the "too soon" dustup that surrounded United 93.

Posted by Rich S. at March 21, 2007 5:19 AM

comment #14

Josh Massey says ...

Damn. Well, I've just made the decision to support this one in its opening weekend.

Posted by Josh Massey at March 21, 2007 6:13 AM

comment #15

scooterzz says ...

binder--you need to chill out...it's not that the movie is bad...it's just not very good...and i'm not alone in that thought...most of the people at the press screening i attended were pretty unimpressed and if you think otherwise you're just delusional...as far as reimbursment goes, fuck money i'd like my two hours back...

Posted by scooterzz at March 21, 2007 6:32 AM

comment #16

Mike Binder says ...

All I want is a name and URL Scoot. Then I'll chill. It's not that hard.

Posted by Mike Binder at March 21, 2007 7:41 AM

comment #17

Mike Ock says ...

Hey Binder,

You need to chill man. Don't go getting all Kevin Smith on us. I hear Don Cheadle is amazing in Reign. Sandler, not so amazing.

What ever happened to your show on HBO? That was like the best fucking show and then it just got cancelled.

I love the stuff with the massages, and the happy endings. And why isn't that drop dead gorgeous blonde with the British accent who played your wife working anymore?

Posted by Mike Ock at March 21, 2007 7:58 AM

comment #18

CambridgeCat says ...

Y'Know, I can see where it must be hard to work on something (put yer heart, soul, yada, and yada into it) and have anonymous strangers bash it on the internet. I'd also imagine that making your ideas into movies, getting paid well for it, banging hot Hollywood broads, and such is a pretty nice life. One would seem to be the price for the other, so I would recommend anyone working in Hollywood who reads internet chater should do so knowing the way it goes. Why does a poster have to post their name and URL to criticize a movie? It's a ridiculous concept. You don't want to hear people talk shit about you, don't read the internet (and really, why would you?). If you do read what people have to say about your work on the internet, eat it. Don't come in suggesting Marquis de Queensbury rules apply because they don't.

Btw, haven't seen the movie and probably won't (unless I catch it on cable). Adam Sandler is, IMO, a fucking scourge on cinema to the point I still haven't seen PUNCH DRUNK LOVE yet. And, no, he didn't beat me up in high school. Wish he had tried, though. Adam, if you're reading this ... just kidding, baby. I love ya, kid, don't change a thing.

Posted by CambridgeCat at March 21, 2007 8:31 AM

comment #19

Josh Massey says ...

I hate to sound like I'm kissing director ass, but why can't he speak up against criticism? Granted, I'm not a filmmaker, but if I thought somebody unduly bashed my work - whatever it was - and didn't even attach a name to the opinion, I'd verbally spar as well.

I understand people in the industry might not want to use their real name on message boards, but the anonymous nature of some of these bashings is a valid complaint.

Posted by Josh Massey at March 21, 2007 8:44 AM

comment #20

CambridgeCat says ...

Well, people can do whatever they want, who am I to say? The thing about the internet is that there are no rules or etiquite. Sure, it brings out a lot of cowardly cunt wads and must be annoying, but isn't that the nature of the internet?

Also, I don't see a "bashing" I see someone saying they saw the movie and really didn't like it, which is their right. It's not like the poster made personal attacks on the director's life or character (ala what happened to Kevin Smith). The later I could see taking serious umbrage with, but not the former.

All I'm saying is if you don't want to read anonymous crticisms of your work, don't read what people have to say about it on the internet. It's not hard.

Posted by CambridgeCat at March 21, 2007 8:57 AM

comment #21

bipedalist says ...

Binder, you just give energy to the person when you debate them. The last time a director was on here (another friend of Wells') his debate was splashed all over the web and it made him look lowly and petty. Not saying you're in that territory, but you have to remember, you are out there doing it. You're putting it on the line and trying to say something the world. Who cares what a handful of people say in the comments section of fringe blog? The only notable thing about this entire post is that you contributed to it. I think it's great that you defend your work and use your real name but seriously, this kind of stuff will haunt you. Don't be dragged down.

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 9:03 AM

comment #22

bipedalist says ...

And p.s. I love Adam Sandler and believe him to be horribly underrated. I hope he is great in this. But please, don't give me Dylan in Blonde on Blonde, for god's sake. After the debacle that was Factory Girl can we leave Bob Dylan and his memory alone? Yes, he had scraggly hair but he was a kid. A skinny kid with a harp around his neck going electric. How is that Adam Sandler in this film, other than the hair?

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 9:06 AM

comment #23

malibugigolo says ...

Binder did The Search for John Gissing!!!!! A Comedy classic in my book (that sadly each publisher keeps rejecting)

I've seen all his movies since then.

Thanks Mike for that movie and all of them for that matter!

Posted by malibugigolo at March 21, 2007 9:06 AM

comment #24

scooterzz says ...

y'know, i think binder's over zealous response (did he actually type 'pudhead'!?!) is because he knows (in his heart) that what many of us are saying is true...
i've often wondered how film makers can sit through interview after interview smiling and pontificating like nothing's wrong when they know their movie isn't good....i guess it's because they have to......

Posted by scooterzz at March 21, 2007 9:07 AM

comment #25

bipedalist says ...

Who is "many of us?" As far as I can see the movie is getting a mixed to positive response.

The thing I have always thought was weird was the "with us or against us" mentality in Hollywood. If you don't like a movie that means you don't like the person or it is somehow personal. There is such a thing as one's personal truth. For many of us, that is all we have and we hold on to it tightly. When you lose that, you lose everything. It isn't easy finding people who tell the absolute truth about they feel, particularly in this business. But I agree with Binder the opposite can sometimes be true. The vendetta against his film on this blog could be due to a vendetta against Wells himself.

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 9:30 AM

comment #26

Josh Massey says ...

"Sure, it brings out a lot of cowardly cunt wads and must be annoying, but isn't that the nature of the internet?"

Why contribute to that, though? I try to limit myself to websites where that isn't the nature.

Posted by Josh Massey at March 21, 2007 9:32 AM

comment #27

MoisesChiu says ...

scooty scoot,

The fact remains that you're not willing to stand up for your opinion on this one. Hundreds of people at the Paramount Theater in Austin last week loved the shit out of this movie. I'd been watching folks get up and leave prior to Q&A at lots and lots of screenings all throughout the festival, including the ones where marquee names were around. People kept their seats for this one, and that's saying something.

Posted by MoisesChiu at March 21, 2007 9:34 AM

comment #28

CambridgeCat says ...

John Massey,

Who's contributing to it here? The guy said he didn't like the movie and based it on the movie, and the movie alone. How is that being cowardly or a cunt?

Dollars to donuts, if he posted that he liked the movie and didn't use his real name this wouldn't be an issue. Why the fuck does a person have to use their real name on an internet message board???

Posted by CambridgeCat at March 21, 2007 9:43 AM

comment #29

nola says ...

cheadle is now morgan freeeman and playing sidekicks? right. I guess he was the "sidekick" to Nick Nolte in Hotel Rwanda.

Posted by nola at March 21, 2007 9:45 AM

comment #30

Craig Kennedy says ...

Unfortunately, it's easier to get attention by being an asshole and tearing something down. Negative comments are rewarded by getting reactions and postive stuff often gets lost in the shuffle...unless the response is by an asshole looking to tear you down.

I'm guilty of it myself (I've been so tempted to unload on 300 for example) and frankly I think the host of this site fosters a combative environment by being a button pusher and by mainly only responding directly to direct attacks. That's his schtick and it seems to be working.

I've also been guilty of getting defensive and pissed when someone trashes something I really liked.

As for Mr. Binder, I like to think that a filmmaker should be able to defend themselves and their film, though I agree with Bipedalist that they run the risk of making themselves look foolish. However, I for one like to know that people are passionate and proud of what they've done, even if it's not my cup of tea.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at March 21, 2007 9:46 AM

comment #31

NYCBusybody says ...

"Who will improve on Sandler? Who can do for New York, in the wake of 9/11, what the young Scorsese, De Niro, and Keitel did for the city in earlier years, and under less threatening skies?" - from Lane's review

I hate this nearly orgiastic need to glum onto 9/11 in NYC as some sort of all-encompassingly haunting, grim reaper feeding on the soul of New York. It's the exact same impulse that drives housewives to watch true crime shows, or for people to watch OJ in the Bronco, or for the insane, maudlin response to the Diana crash that "The Queen" so deftly portrayed. People get off on tragedy.

That's not the reality, though. I've only lived here for a few years, but I can tell you that VERY few people live in constant fear of some sort of terrorist attack, and the mood of the city is INCOMPARABLE, I'm quite sure, to what it was in the late 70's, Scorcese's "heyday". Then the city truly WAS under threatening skies, from skyrocketing crime rates, drugs, filth, and poverty due to the fact that the city was under the vicegrip of Stalinist liberal social/economic policies.

The city now is grooving. I still don't like it (it's too dirty, and there's no working class culture - it's all limousine liberal trust-fund white kids, at least in Manhattan) but it's a much happier city than it was in the 80's.

Posted by NYCBusybody at March 21, 2007 9:49 AM

comment #32

Breedlove says ...

I was addicted to this site already, and now that actual directors are on here arguing with fanboys is just wildly entertaining to me. Jeff, your site is genius. I spend way too much time on it. Most entertaining movie site on the Web.

Posted by Breedlove at March 21, 2007 9:51 AM

comment #33

count.olaf says ...

we'll all have egg on our face when we find out Scooter Libby is a Zinedine Zidane fan and posts on hollywood-elsewhere.

Posted by count.olaf at March 21, 2007 9:53 AM

comment #34

ArchiveGuy says ...

I'd like to remind Mr. Binder that some of us work in the industry and value our anonymity since what we post here might not fall under the party line of the studio/agency/creative circle that we're involved with daily. To call scooterzzzz out on using a "fake name" is completely besides-the-point. I've got no dog in this particular hunt (haven't seen RoM; probably will eventually) but that particular argument is specious at best.

Best of luck opening weekend, btw.

Posted by ArchiveGuy at March 21, 2007 9:59 AM

comment #35

Rich S. says ...

If I were Mr. Binder, I wouldn't worry too much about it. While he is certainly entitled to defend his work (especially if he believes a smear campaign will keep people from seeing it), ultimately the work speaks for itself. Unless it is completely suppressed, the work will ultimately find its audience, or not, based on its merits. Most movie "classics" were lambasted upon release by at least one critic or another. If the work is valid and important, it will rise above such attempts to tear it down.

Posted by Rich S. at March 21, 2007 10:10 AM

comment #36

Craig Kennedy says ...

Back on topic, I'm skeptical about critics who express such shock that maybe Sandler can act a little. Are they really that narrow minded to think the guy might not have some untapped potential? I'm no Sandler apologist and no fan of his comedies, but it's not like he's Carrot Top suddenly performing Eugene O'Neil.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at March 21, 2007 10:13 AM

comment #37

jeffmcm says ...

This is called "the fray". A director would be well-advised to stay above it. If Binder wants to contribute to film culture he's better off going to upscale sites (which this is not) or writing pieces for magazines or doing audio commentaries for his favorite movies a la Soderbergh. Responding to Scooterzzz is one step removed from getting in an argument with DarthLeonidas69 on Ain't It Cool News.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 10:34 AM

comment #38

dixiedugan says ...

I'll try and see it this weekend, providing it opens near enough to me and I don't have any domestic complications. Then I'll make up my own mind.

Posted by dixiedugan at March 21, 2007 10:37 AM

comment #39

Breedlove says ...

DarthLeonidas69 is among this country's most astute and respected scholars of film and film history. How dare you? Although in fairness, I myself tend to lean more towards the DarthSiskel school.

Posted by Breedlove at March 21, 2007 10:46 AM

comment #40

Josh Massey says ...

Cat: Nobody here is living up (down) to your description - at least in this thread. However, I don't see the need to defend that behavior either, saying it's just par for the course on this thing we call the internet. We should work against that kind of nonsense, or just try to leave it in the dust of the AICNs and "High School Musical" messageboards.

I also understand valuing anonymity, if in fact your comments could in fact bite you in the workplace ass. I'm just saying I understand Binder's desire to know the name behind the (sometimes) vitriol.

Posted by Josh Massey at March 21, 2007 11:37 AM

comment #41

gruver1 says ...

Wells to jeffmcm: Hollywood Elsewhere isn't an upscale site? What is it then? A meeting of snarly junkyard dogs? In the company of salivating wolves? In my mind, any place in which the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (which always coagulates on this site sooner or later, depending on the honest/quality levels in my original postings) surfaces with every post is about as upscale as it gets.

Posted by gruver1 at March 21, 2007 12:34 PM

comment #42

jeffmcm says ...

Sorry to break it to you.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 12:37 PM

comment #43

jeffmcm says ...

If it makes you feel better, MCN isn't upscale either - no movie site that posts boxoffice guessing games and 98 Weeks to Oscar could be.

Your site is Entertainment Weekly and Binder should be aiming for The New Yorker.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 12:38 PM

comment #44

MoisesChiu says ...

jeffmcm,

We'll have a martini ready for you with your slippers next time you come back to the site. Maybe a warm towel, too.

Seriously, though, what constitutes "upscale" on the internet, home of unbridled savagery and a complete lack of consistent standards?

Posted by MoisesChiu at March 21, 2007 12:40 PM

comment #45

jeffmcm says ...

I hate to clog Wells' site up with links so I won't. Suffice to say I have in mind other websites that are less about Obama and Wells' (or Poland's) personal obsessions and more about discussion of movies and actors and culture.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 12:51 PM

comment #46

iamjoe says ...

Mike Binder has done great film with this and The Upside of Anger. And I LOVED Mind of a Married Man. If some of you think this film is flawed and want to Internet hen-peck it apart, try stepping into the next auditorium over and watch Norbit. You head will implode.

I posted this on my mySpace, the biggest reason 300 blew up like it did. If I can go get three other people to support a good film like Reign Over Me, I'll be that much happier.

Hey, Reign Over Me

People always complain there are no good movies out in the theaters. But still they go out and see goatshit movies like"Norbit" and "Wild Hogs", giving them a good opening weekend. Can you be surprised why studios keep making crap like that.

Reign Over Me stars Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle, directed by Mike Binder. It opens on Friday.

Go see it this weekend, support a good movie.

Posted by iamjoe at March 21, 2007 12:56 PM

comment #47

David Ehrlich says ...

wells may get a bit caught up in his egocentricity (on both cinematic and anthropological points), but at the end of the day, this site - as uncommonly informative as it is - is a blog, and thus reflects the host's personality by definition. Moreover, that very personality (for all of it's questionable facets), is the reason so many of us return here throughout the day, every day. On another note, I second that Mind of the Married Man was fucking brilliant.

Posted by David Ehrlich at March 21, 2007 1:01 PM

comment #48

nemo says ...

"Hollywood Elsewhere isn't an upscale site?" Hey, like a fine T-shirt, Hollywood Elsewhere has the highest thread count on the web!

Inquiring minds want to know what jeffmcm considers an "upscale" movie web site. I'm still having trouble reconciling this statement at the top of the thread:

"An Anthony Lane rave holds as much value for me as a Gene Shalit rave."

with this statement near the end:

"Your site is Entertainment Weekly and Binder should be aiming for The New Yorker."

Posted by nemo at March 21, 2007 1:06 PM

comment #49

jeffmcm says ...

I don't think Myspace is the reason why 300 opened so well - strong trailers/commercials are a lot more likely.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 1:07 PM

comment #50

bipedalist says ...

Obama is finished. The dems are finished. Unless Al Gore runs. Sorry, just sayin.

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 1:13 PM

comment #51

David Ehrlich says ...

ps, regarding the site's "scale," i used to have a column on here, and as far as being afforded self-maintaned column space on a prominent pre-existing site is concerned, i'd argue that there is little available real estate of such quality anywhere on the net. if you're looking for film comment, then there's already a source for you, but if you want to temper academia with some flavor, this is the place. in other words, it's not EW, it's just jeff. Besides, arguing with owen gleiberman or lisa s. is about as fun as a self-performed vasectomy - but calling wells out and watching hickenlooper fly off the handle about his exceptionally mediocre film (save the brilliance that is edward herrmann)... that's priceless. mock jeff all you want, but leave the site alone. and with that completely unwarranted or unwanted defense, i'll go quiet until he trashes marie antoinette again.

Posted by David Ehrlich at March 21, 2007 1:18 PM

comment #52

Chicago48 says ...

Don't get me started on 9/11 and Adam Sandler, but I will say this - after Click I will never see another Sandler movie in my life. He has that smug look on his face, like he's making fun of you, or like he knows the joke and you don't. And he practically sleep walks through his movie roles. Sorry, I love the h*** out of Don Cheadle but teaming him with Adam Sandler just lost a movie customer.
Now about 9/11 - will it ever go away! Geez! How long will this sh**YT last until my grand kids have grand kids have grand kids. New Yorkers (and Americans) need to get OVER IT. Anybody making a movie about 9/11 today is just commercializing on it.
IT's ALL OVER.

Posted by Chicago48 at March 21, 2007 1:18 PM

comment #53

DarthCorleone says ...

Is that really Mike Binder posting? That'd be cool. Prove it! Mike, what's your favorite color?

Seriously, I enjoyed The Upside Of Anger and am looking forward to Reign Over Me.

Posted by DarthCorleone at March 21, 2007 1:32 PM

comment #54

nemo says ...

"Now about 9/11 - will it ever go away! ... New Yorkers (and Americans) need to get OVER IT."

But, but, but ... if we get over it, what will the Republicans have to run on in 2008? They *protect* us, don't you know?

Posted by nemo at March 21, 2007 1:34 PM

comment #55

nola says ...

chicago48 , Reign is not commericializing 9/11. And yes your grandkids will have to read about it in history books, just like we read about Pearl Harbor.

People are moving forward with their lives but to say we need to "get over it", is fucking stupid. If we had paid attention to the first tower bombing maybe my friend would still be alive today. if you don't get how 9/11 changed this country forever I don't really know what to say.

Posted by nola at March 21, 2007 1:39 PM

comment #56

jeffmcm says ...

Nemo, I think Anthony Lane is a crummy film critic, because his primary appeal is to people who don't like or watch movies - which is part of what makes him upscale.

If Binder must go to a website to talk about his movie (not a good idea in the first place because that way lies madness) it seems like a better idea to go someplace like a New Yorker-esque site without the kind of sustained personal arguing and a more elevated tone of discourse than you get here.

No site where NYCBB is a regular is upscale.

Bipedalist, who are you thinking will be unbeatable on the other side? John "I hate the Club for Growth" McCain? Rudy "Three Marriages" Giuliani? Sam "Smear the Queer" Brownback?

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 1:47 PM

comment #57

storymark says ...

"Obama is finished. The dems are finished. Unless Al Gore runs. Sorry, just sayin."

A year and a half before the election, that's a pretty silly thing to say.

This long before the 2000 election, no one was talking about Bush. Same thing was true with Clinton.

Way, waaay too early to be making such statements.

Posted by storymark at March 21, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #58

iamjoe says ...

jeffmcm-

Strong trailers & commercials are what closed the deal with moviegoers, but mySpace made them pay attention in the first place. Warner Bros & 300 sponsored the new feature that made it so people could post up to "300" pic on their profile, opposed to the like 16 or so before that. And they splashed the 300 logo all over it right then, giving all these people the new toy they had been asking for. All of it wrapped with a 300 bow. mySpace brought the awareness up in a huge way, paving the way.

Posted by iamjoe at March 21, 2007 1:59 PM

comment #59

bipedalist says ...

"This long before the 2000 election, no one was talking about Bush. Same thing was true with Clinton.

Way, waaay too early to be making such statements."

Maybe. It's not looking good, though. But god love you for keeping the hope alive.

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 2:05 PM

comment #60

Mike Binder says ...

Maybe I shouldn't get into the fight, rise above it. Who knows? But I am a movie lover and people that read this site a lot know that I read it regularly and post when I have an opinion and I have that right and the right to pop off at a guy that keeps sniping week after week. I read Wells and MCN and Cinematical. I never read anything until my friend Rod Lurie turned me onto them and the truth is sometimes it's interesting as hell. Sometimes it's a world full of incredibly opinionated smart and funny people looking at the bizarrely unique world of cinema, and sometime it's the chicken fight in back of the manure plant in a county without Jews, laws, or Kleenex. It's the anonymity that gets the place into the tilt mode if you ask me. I've never ever posted one thing under a fake name and never would. You can say you have the right to do it but if you can't post your name to a statement then for my money you shouldn't make it. The reason all the babies are thrown against the walls here is that it's real easy to spew blood without having to have the dna come back as yours and, yes, the law is on your side Cat, but that doesn't make for good dialogue. This is a good site. These are all good sites and the criticism for my money is good and smart and instructional for me as a filmmaker across the board. It hurts when Peter Travers or AO Scott or Wells or anyone punches me but I can take it and use it or dust myself off and ignore it. It's the little slime on the floor that I think stinks. The nameless slitherers.

But then again, you are right, no one asked me to do this, to make films, to read sites or to even wake up this morning. I just maintain my right to piss and moan like the rest of you kids.

Peace to all.

Check out REIGN OVER ME. En masse.. Please...

Posted by Mike Binder at March 21, 2007 2:05 PM

comment #61

MoisesChiu says ...

Mike, drop me a line when you have a chance. I'm the guy who came up after the Q&A last Wednesday.

Posted by MoisesChiu at March 21, 2007 2:16 PM

comment #62

rocco says ...

Should I or shouldn't I? Oh what the fuck...

Looking forward to 'Reign...' and enjoyed 'Upside...'.

But Mike...may I call you Mike?...listen to what you are saying. By your own logic the opinion of an anonymous chowderhead shouldn't matter; why legitimize it by asking for a name?

For the record, I can relate to anonymous posting...I post here in disguise because I am not a public figure and to offer my name for such casual fare would be pointless and an unnecessary invitation into my private life and a minor risk to the security of my identity...hey, that's just the reality of web-life.

Getting upset over the white noise of internet banter is kinda like going to England and then complaining about the voltage...it's endemic, it's reality, there's no way to change it...it's fun and frustrating, but ultimately futile to crack through the lack of accountability and expect a positive result from message-board engagement.

Anyway...good luck with the box office, although I'll probably catch a matinee...

Posted by rocco at March 21, 2007 2:27 PM

comment #63

jeffmcm says ...

Bipedalist, why so glum re: the election? I don't know what your reasoning is.

Iamjoe, I'm sure Myspace helped with awareness on 300 but i have a hard time believing that it was as important as you think. They showed clips of it last summer at Comiccon and trailers for the movie started running last October but Myspace didn't kick in until January - that's months and months of initial impressions before the gimmick of the photo thing kicked in.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 2:58 PM

comment #64

PanTheFaun says ...

I don't mean for this to turn into a Q+A for Mr. Binder, and I say this as someone who's seen the film twice (once at a test screening in August in Union Square and once last week at a press screening in Baltimore) and loved it... but I have to wonder about the TV spots.

I thought the film (and the trailer) dealt with the subject matter of 9/11 remarkably tastefully, making it clear that Charlie's family was a victim of that tragedy without making the film all about 9/11 or exploiting the event. Then I flip on the TV last night and catch two commercials which feature the phrase "He lost everything in 9/11". I was frankly shocked, since the film itself doesn't even use the phrase "9/11" at any point.

What was the thought process behind bringing 9/11 to the forefront in the marketing, and couldn't this make audiences even more resistant to a project they might have been skeptical of to begin with?

That said, it really is a great film, and I hope enough people show up this weekend to at least compete with piece-of-shit "Shooter."

Posted by PanTheFaun at March 21, 2007 3:06 PM

comment #65

jeffmcm says ...

I actually want to reverse myself a little and say that it's great that Mr. Binder is willing to chat, I just hope he can avoid the standard pitfalls of blogging, like arguing with morons.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 3:08 PM

comment #66

ArchiveGuy says ...

"You can say you have the right to do it but if you can't post your name to a statement then for my money you shouldn't make it."

Again, a crock that ignores the point I made earlier. I may be a "nobody" in the industry, but a nobody with an IMDB listing, a boss and colleagues in the creative community, an NDA clause in my employment contract, and an inclination to have my own opinions be free and separate from whatever organization or projects I'm affiliated with at the time.

That may not apply to everyone, but the assertion that an "anonymous" opinion is valueless ignores a whole variety of personal priorities, preferences, and intentions. What would a name mean to you anyway, Mr. Binder? If it's an opinion you didn't respect from a name that didn't mean anything in the first place, what is the difference?

Posted by ArchiveGuy at March 21, 2007 3:19 PM

comment #67

nemo says ...

"If Binder must go to a website to talk about his movie (not a good idea in the first place because that way lies madness) ..."

That is sound advice for Mike Binder. (By the way, I did like "Upside of Anger", I was surprised at how good Sandler in "Punch-Drunk Love", though I've never wanted to see his smirking mug in any of his comedies, and I plan to see "Reign" when it finally reaches the boonies where I live.)

"... it seems like a better idea to go someplace like a New Yorker-esque site without the kind of sustained personal arguing and a more elevated tone of discourse than you get here."

The only places I know of on the web where you'll find no sustained personal arguing and a more elevated tone of discourse are sites that don't permit comments, or else are so little visited that nobody bothers to comment there.

Does the New Yorker's web site even feature any blogs with comments turned on? How would Binder post there anyway?

Even if he could, I don't think it would be that hot an idea for Binder to respond to his critics even at a place with an "elevated tone" like the New Yorker. It's just too much like explaining a joke. Even if it's a successful funny joke for people smart enough to get it, it doesn't help you to explain it to people who don't get it.

"No site where NYCBB is a regular is upscale."

Well, gee, it feels funny to be defending NYCBB's adolescent natterings. Most of the time he does drag down the level of discourse here. But even he occasionally says something insightful. His comment in this thread to the effect that New York City is not in some deep permanent funk over 9/11 seemed true to me when I visited Manhattan a couple of years ago. His comment was pretty well stated, and was worth thinking over. I can't believe I just said that!

(However, I have to disagree about his statement that the city is too dirty. I spent a lot of time in NYC during the late 70s and throughout the 80s. I've visited twice since 9/11, and I can't get over how clean the place has become. Compared with 1980, it's as if you could eat your breakfast off the sidewalks! And the inhabitants are so much more polite than they used to be! It's spooky.)

(But I also found the inhabitants of Paris much more polite recently than they were back in 1980. Maybe New Yorkers and Parisians are more polite just because I have more money now.)

The more I think about the word "upscale", the less I know what it means. Usually it just means "costs more money". Which again may be why I get better treatment in NY and Paris than I did 25 years ago -- I can afford better treatment!

"Upscale" reminds me of the word "uptown", the way Max Perlich used it in "Drugstore Cowboy", when he asserted, "I ain't paying no uptown price for no downtown crank."

In the comments section of most blogs you're always going to get a lot of downtown crank from a bunch of downtown cranks. From a meeting of junkyard dogs, in the company of salivating wolves. I humbly count myself in their number. Anonymously yours -- nemo.

Posted by nemo at March 21, 2007 3:25 PM

comment #68

bipedalist says ...

HE is a pretty decent site, but I come here for the commenters, I must say. Anonymous or not, they give me a laugh every time I come here.

Jeff, McM - the election, maybe in some other post or maybe I'll see you over at Daily Kos or Firedog Lake where the hope really is alive. Gore vs. Rudy G. That's how it will go down and Gore might win. No one else can take him though, imo, if he indeed runs. Is he running for sure?

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 3:25 PM

comment #69

jeffmcm says ...

When I say "upscale" I primarily mean "fewer idiots". And I never meant NewYorker.com, I just meant what I said: this website is Entertainment Weekly and Binder might want to go to the web's equivalent of the NYer if he doesn't want to deal with anonymous h8rs.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 3:28 PM

comment #70

nemo says ...

"Binder might want to go to the web's equivalent of the NYer if he doesn't want to deal with anonymous h8rs."

I'm still wondering where this New-Yorker-like, but not NewYorker.com, high-level-discourse movie-oriented web site lives. I've never seen such a beast. All of them tend to have their trashy side. It goes with the territory -- both the web and the movies.

A lot of the contributers here run their own web sites. Are your referring to one or more of them? You don't have to name any names, if you don't want to hurt Jeff's feelings by making invidious comparisons.

As for the anonymous postings, I've always thought of it more like the CB handles everyone was cooking up back during the CB radio craze. For you kids too young to remember the 70s, there was a period of year or two when everyone and his grandmother wanted a CB radio and a cool handle to use while tooling down the interstate. Punk rock and disco were both popular back then. It was a crazy time.

Posting with a funny handle may be a form of cowardice, although a desire for privacy should not be dismissed. But I think Binder is missing the point of the anonymous handles. Most of the time the handles are more in the spirit of wearing a mask and a costume at Halloween or Carnival. It's Mardi Gras all the time in the comments section of a popular blog.

Posted by nemo at March 21, 2007 4:05 PM

comment #71

Sean says ...

Nemo - hard as it is to agree with NYCBB on anything, the city has definitely gotten dirtier under Bloomberg than it was under Guiliani. (But Guiliani cleaned it up a whole helluva lot from the '80's.) My understanding is Bloomberg drastically cut sanitation funding; I believe it was because he had to under-fund everything in order to make it even remotely feasible that he could build that West Side Stadium idea, about which I believe Bloomberg was the only person in Manhattan who was excited.

Posted by Sean at March 21, 2007 4:13 PM

comment #72

Sean says ...

And y'all are missing Binder's point. He's not literally asking the guy to post his name, he's calling the guy a coward for being unwilling to stand behind his own statements. It seems to me that most people who post anonymously-for-a-reason (job security in the industry) aren't the ones ripping movies apart, because they either (a) got into the industry because they love movies, and so they don't revel in ripping movies apart ever, or (b) understand how hard it is to make a movie and, thus, don't like to rip them apart. The exception is, of course, people with specific grudges, and it's definitely possible this guy's one of those ... but, in that case, it's still cowardice to not stand behind your words.

I should say, though, I'm not going to be seeing this movie, because it hits to close to home for me. I wish it well, and if I go see something else this weekend, I'll buy a ticket for 'Reign O'er Me' and sneak in to whatever I'm seeing, just for you, Binder.

Posted by Sean at March 21, 2007 4:18 PM

comment #73

tholl-yung says ...

Has this been linked anywhere, yet?

Posted by tholl-yung at March 21, 2007 4:38 PM

comment #74

nemo says ...

"... the city has definitely gotten dirtier under Bloomberg than it was under Guiliani."

I guess it has been longer than I thought since I was last in NYC. I was there in November 2001, just after 9/11, and then again a year later, early in the Bloomberg administration.

Well, dirty or not, I'm overdue for a return trip! I'm off to Orbitz to check for April flights to JFK and LaGuardia.

Posted by nemo at March 21, 2007 4:41 PM

comment #75

bipedalist says ...

T. Holly, no not yet. :-) I feel the clock ticking down on it though.

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 5:14 PM

comment #76

drgogol says ...

http://blog.oregonlive.com/madaboutmovies/2007/03/mike_binder_needs_a_hobby.html

Posted by drgogol at March 21, 2007 5:27 PM

comment #77

rocco says ...

"He's not literally asking the guy to post his name"

Oh, he is...

...I can't peel myself away from pointless debates, so I can imagine what it's like to see some anon trash your baby...although at some point one needs to grow a thicker skin, you know, like Eddie Murphy, who remained silent despite thousands of malicious and venomous words, proving either he has the thickest skin of anyone in Hollywood, or H-e truly is fringe...hmm...

...but like I said, most of us are on here having a good time, posting and commenting with impunity...we might squabble with one another, sure, but it;s all in good fun, and there's no need to exchange licenses and registrations...let's get real...how is one of us to know that a particular director might take offense to an otherwise innocent and honest expression of opinion? If the same pseudonym is all over the site badmouthing and slandering and getting very personal, well, then maybe it's appropriate to ask for an explanation...from what I saw, however, Rizzuto's (ie. scooterzzz for all you sports fans at home) comments were pointed at the movie itself and were fairly benign, lacking the malice that I would expect to provoke a response from someone in the industry.

..and nemo...fly into newark...much easier trip into the city...

Posted by rocco at March 21, 2007 5:32 PM

comment #78

Griff says ...

Sorry, dudes, but I have to say "Bravo" for Binder. To quote Teddy Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if
he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

Binder is putting it out there, with his name on it. And, if any of you critics are trying, too, then Bravo for you, as well.

Posted by Griff at March 21, 2007 5:36 PM

comment #79

rocco says ...

Teddy Roosevelt? I'd rather drink bleach than take advice from a Republican!!!

(I'm kidding of course...T.R. is one of the presidents whose greatness transcends [or should transcend] party lines)

Sorry, thought we could use the levity...

...one last word...Mike, if your movie bombs, just remember: you've (presumably) got your health and your wits about you; you've got a major motion picture in your name; on this earth, you've essentially won the lottery, be thankful you're not a coalminer in Siberia...

...yeah, yeah, so cliche, so square...

Posted by rocco at March 21, 2007 5:46 PM

comment #80

bipedalist says ...

Oh. I didn't know he also posts at Cinematical. I think Mike Binder is an internet person at heart.

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 5:57 PM

comment #81

CambridgeCat says ...

I'd pay cash money (or maybe even see REIGN OVER ME) to see scooterzz posts his real name and have Binder write: "YOU'LL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN!"

Posted by CambridgeCat at March 21, 2007 6:26 PM

comment #82

scooterzz says ...

he'd probably write,'you'll never eat lunch in this town again, PUDHEAD' (i still can't believe a grown man called someone that...i think i'll steal it as my new nom de blog)....check out the invective over at cinematical...it's kind of amazing....

Posted by scooterzz at March 21, 2007 7:00 PM

comment #83

bipedalist says ...

Indeed, it's hardcore. I understand where Binder was coming from - I too can lose my cool and attack, especially when I'm defending someone or something I believe in passionately.

Nonetheless, that argument over at cinematical reminded that you can get too close to the movie industry to the point where you can't be trusted to have an accurate point of view - this is where critics come in. They're supposed to be writing about the films themselves, not the good intentions behind them. And when they say they don't give a damn what the critics think - is that entirely honest? If theirs was the best reviewed film of the year woiuld they still not care? Bloggers like Wells and Poland are not film critics. Their opinion seems to be influenced by their friendships. I can't say this for sure but it's always been my impression. They don't deny it nor make claims to objectivity. Critics ARE objective, or should be, whether we agree with them or not. I hope their jobs are secure.

Anyway, critics have little to no impact on a certain kind of box office. But we commenters on movie sites have a right to speak our minds, whether we do it behind a nickname or not. That's the beauty of the internet: freedom of thought. No one is going to cave when someone, high profile or otherwise, confronts them.

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 8:11 PM

comment #84

bipedalist says ...

p.s. people who post here aren't entirely anonymous because they have to go through typekey. You should see how bad it gets on a site where there is no authentication.

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 8:15 PM

comment #85

Mike Binder says ...

You know what, fine. I concede. You're right. I think in hindsight the CB analogy is real and good and I think the notion laid out that people in the industry are only protecting their own anonymity is fair and that they by and large aren't bashers. If a guy like Scooterzz wants to bash he should be able to bash. I should stay about the fray. I was wrong. (I still think there's some personal connection with me or the movie to Scootz)

But I will give it up for that notion. This is the internet. This is a message board. Let it rock.... Fuck it.

Reign Over Me. Friday March 23rd. Bring a friend.

Lots of love!!!

Posted by Mike Binder at March 21, 2007 8:31 PM

comment #86

jeffmcm says ...

Mr. Binder, I hope you stick around and address peoples' comments once more have seen the movie - and I mean more thoughtful comments than "I want my two hours back".

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 8:50 PM

comment #87

scooterzz says ...

binder--i promise you it isn't and was never 'a personal connection'....i was just responding to the movie and remarks made about the movie...
props for being willing to participate but, honestly, i tell anyone coming out here for work to 'stay off the boards'...it'll make you crazy.....thanks for the love,
pudhead

Posted by scooterzz at March 21, 2007 8:51 PM

comment #88

scooterzz says ...

j--i'm not sure you can wrap your mind around this but there will come a time in your life where money isn't that important and time is...i don't pay for movies, books or dvds so my only investment is the time i spend or waste dealing with them...there really are times when 'i want my two hours back'......(yesterday's screening of 'the reaping' was an 'i want my 97 minutes back')......

Posted by scooterzz at March 21, 2007 9:16 PM

comment #89

jeffmcm says ...

Please tell us what that 'time in your life' is for you. We aren't all so lucky as to have our movie tickets, books, and CDs paid for by other people. (I actually suspect I will never have that time in my life).

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 9:28 PM

comment #90

jeffmcm says ...

And I think you must admit - "I want my two hours back" is neither a constructively critical thought, nor a useful in-point for discourse. Maybe if you were to elaborate on what you didn't like about the film...?

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 9:32 PM

comment #91

nemo says ...

"Reign Over Me. Friday March 23rd. Bring a friend."

Hey, the wife and I will be there. She's the one who dragged me to see "The Upside of Anger". I'm still blown away by the ending when Joan Allen finally learns what became of her missing husband. And it's one of Costner's best performances (I say this ducking, since I know how much a lot of people around here hate Costner).

Posted by nemo at March 21, 2007 9:34 PM

comment #92

scooterzz says ...

uh, actually i said dvds (i don't cover music so much)...but you kind of missed the point...what i meant was that there will come a time when you have money but you're very old and so you don't have a lot of time (this really is the best i can do)....

Posted by scooterzz at March 21, 2007 9:37 PM

comment #93

jeffmcm says ...

And I said I don't think that's likely to happen. I expect to die penniless thanks to our bankrupt Social Security system.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 9:46 PM

comment #94

scooterzz says ...

j---putting your eggs in the ss basket may not have been the best move--but, trust me, film coverage is not the answer (well, you'll never go hungry but.....)

Posted by scooterzz at March 21, 2007 9:53 PM

comment #95

bipedalist says ...

Let it rock, bruthah. I'm so there opening day. I hope I can take my kid. I plan to show her the Upside of Anger when she's a wee bit older. I loved that movie. Joan Allen was robbed. :-(

Posted by bipedalist at March 21, 2007 10:05 PM

comment #96

jeffmcm says ...

Scooter: it's not a matter of choice. But at least now Binder can narrow down who you are (a movie reviewer who also gets books and DVDs delivered to his house but finds time to grouse about the fact).

Posted by jeffmcm at March 22, 2007 2:47 AM

comment #97

Mike Binder says ...

Yeah but now I don't care. Scooter and I are in love.

Posted by Mike Binder at March 22, 2007 2:56 AM

comment #98

dixiedugan says ...

Amen to Joan Allen being robbed, best performance that year.

Guiliani...do people really care that he's been married umpteen times? Doesn't bother me in the least.

Posted by dixiedugan at March 22, 2007 9:23 AM

comment #99

rocco says ...

...what a thread...kind of like a dinner conversation...

Giuliani seems like the least divisive candidate on either side...social liberal with an (r) next to his name...or is my perception skewed? Does the threat of evangelical influence sully his appeal to liberals? Does McCain's precedent of going belly-up loom over him like the shadow cast by an Exxon-Mobil oil rig at dusk?

I don't think we know enough about his platform or his policies to be judging him just yet...if he can smooth-talk the stiffs in his own party to nominate him, then let's chat (although if he can manage that, it would seem like winning over blues should be a walk in the park)...

Posted by rocco at March 22, 2007 10:43 AM

comment #100

christian says ...

i love it when the filmmakers chime in here. why shouldn't they engage their potential audience?

i'm certain warren beatty is posting here...

btw, i agree with mike about website annoymity often being a refuge for scoundrels...

i use my real name. just because it's fair.

Posted by christian at March 22, 2007 12:06 PM

comment #101

christian says ...

"annoymity" being a code word for "anonymity"...

Posted by christian at March 22, 2007 12:09 PM

comment #102

jeffmcm says ...

On the one hand, it seems unlikely that the Republicans would be excited to nominate a pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-gun control guy who's been married three times and regularly appears in drag. On the other hand, if he does enough snarling and bending iron bars with his bare hands, they might not care.

I do sort of expect Giuliani to snap at a press conference or have some unfortunate remark recorded unintentionally (like "Macaca" but not necessarily racist) within the next year. He's like that.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 22, 2007 12:57 PM

comment #103

christian says ...

well hey, newt gingrich now says we now have to leave "personal" issue out of politics.

give that man a gold-plated set of brass balls...

now back into your slime pond, newt...

Posted by christian at March 22, 2007 1:06 PM

comment #104

Craig Kennedy says ...

I disguise my first name because no one actually gives a fuck who Craig Kennedy is. I could use a real disguise like my old Yahoo ID, but I like people to have to read my comments before they realize I'm a dork.

As for Giuliani, I agree with Delbomber that it seems unlikely he'll make it out of the primary and if he does it'll be because he caves in and starts sucking up to the extreme religious right thus turning off the other side.

It's possible guns, gays and abortions aren't the hot button issues for both extremes that they once were, but I doubt it.

If he makes it through the primary without bending on those hot button issues, I could see the wingnut conservative element putting up their own Ralph Nader as an independent.

Wait, how'd we get onto politics again?

Posted by Craig Kennedy at March 22, 2007 1:18 PM

comment #105

dixiedugan says ...

It's my fault cj, I brought up Rudy. I honestly think we've got a bit of time here til the fever of election malaria starts hitting high, but it'll be interesting to watch him as the months go by.

Uhhh...I just like dixie dugan, but then I'm a member of that cult.

Posted by dixiedugan at March 22, 2007 4:12 PM

comment #106

rocco says ...

...and my first name's delbomber...my mother was a big fan of Ken Wahl, what can I say...

...but seriously, I stopped using my real name here because I'm not participating in anything of consequence, so why invite the headache? It's not about empowerment while hiding behind a veil so much as discouraging contact outside of this particular arena...I used to attach my email address too until I got spam out the ass, so why risk it?

Posted by rocco at March 22, 2007 4:18 PM

comment #107

The Movie Man says ...

I agree with some of the recent comments regarding the assumed name. I'm not particularly interested in every Tom, Dick and Harry who reads here knowing my name, but I agree with Mike and others in that it can certainly make controversial comments easier to say. I generally try to steer clear of easy insults or anything particularly vicious, or decontructive.

And why shouldn't the filmmaker get to debate the guys trashing his movie? I think it makes things more interesting, and its certainly fair. Though I think one should keep in mind that a viewer has just as much right to dislike a movie as like it, provided he voice that opinion like a gentleman.

Posted by The Movie Man at March 22, 2007 5:04 PM

comment #108