MovieChat Forums > Childstar (2005) Discussion > McKellar: Canada's Welfare Mom Film Indu...

McKellar: Canada's Welfare Mom Film Industry Poster Child

posted 20 years ago by Magnificos
32 replies | jump to latest

(or: Why this film will fail miserably to attract an audience.)

I met this guy once. Like most of the Canadian Film Mafia who have a stranglehold on the funding agencies, he's insecure, arrogant, obsessed with an artificial status quo that exists without merit.

Don McKellar rates a near zero in on screen charisma. His writing is trite and artifice artsy. Mildly amusing comedy.

Don McKellar is probably the ultimate example of failed Canadiana Celebrity. Gigantic ego. Dorky. A mediocre talent. He shamelessly sucked up to everybody at one time or another early in his career. He is known and pushed mercilessly by a tiny group of people in Toronto somewhere, gets the world on a silver plate, and makes one disasterous film after another that goes nowhere. He even gets his own pointless TV show that nobody watched. Why???

Canadians as a whole could care less who he is, don't go to see his movies. In fact, ask the average man on the street and he'll tell you what an annoying cross-eyed dork McKellar is -- if they have any clue who he is. And if they've ever met him, like I have, they'd think even less of him. It was laughable him saying, as he has in interviews as well, that he doesn't want American success. The truth is, in a Hollywood film he'd play the dorky computer nerd and get three minutes of screen time.

I for one am very angry that Don McKellar got 5 million bucks, most of it from my tax money, to make yet another road movie staring himself. This is what CHILDSTAR is. Why? The box office performance of road movies staring Don McKellar speak for themselves: complete failures. The only reason is Telefilm's misguided belief in promoting a Canadian star system. Newsflash, Telefilm: all Canadian stars anybody would pay to see jump ship to Hollywood without hesitation! There's maybe a hundred or two people in Canada who would go see a film because Don McKellar is in it. IF THAT.

A film without a bankable star, devoid of a unique concept in a bankable genre. And then add that it's probably filled with McKellar's brand of faux intellectualism and cutesy, mildly amusing humour. It has no chance.

Until we are rid of McKellar and his cronies sucking up Telefilm funds, we will continue not to have a viable film industry. Him and his buddies have failed us. Time for some new talent to be given a chance.

There -- an opinion you won't get every day. The hard truth.

[–] Sam-240 20 years ago

You seem to judge the value of a film only on its commercial success, but you'd better see Last Night again with open eyes (if you ever saw it, cause I really don't get how you can consider it as a road-movie). It's obvious that it doesn't care much about what seems important to you (like a wallet), but rather with uneasy sides of contemporary life. Maybe it's because I'm belgian, but this film is one of my favourites and I'm part of a group of people jumping on every appearance by Don Mc Kellar. Please, don't take your personal experience for universal (I don't either, I respect your opinion though you express it in such a definite way). It's people like you who ruin any will for something new in the artistic field.

Posthal

[–] Magnificos 20 years ago

>>You seem to judge the value of a film only on its commercial success,

I'm judging movies on here as somebody who is paying for them. Because that is what I as a Canadian am doing with McKellar and the rest of the Canadian Film Mafia's pretentious garbage. I'm paying through the nose and seeing nothing in return.

>>but you'd better see Last Night again with open eyes (if you ever saw it, cause I really don't get how you can consider it as a road-movie).

Who's talking about LAST NIGHT? Is this post listed under the film LAST NIGHT? Who needs to open their eyes? I'm talking about CHILDSTAR. It's a thinly disguised road movie. Disguised by its description only.

>>It's obvious that it doesn't care much about what seems important to you (like a wallet), but rather with uneasy sides of contemporary life.

You lost me here. I'm talking about that cross-eyed phoney-baloney poser dork Don McKellar.

>>Maybe it's because I'm belgian, but this film is one of my favourites and I'm part of a group of people jumping on every appearance by Don Mc Kellar.

You're from Belgium? Well I'm glad you like the film you seem to be talking about (ie. LAST NIGHT). I understand that we here in Canada only lost a small bundle on it as much of it came from other sources.

>>Please, don't take your personal experience for universal (I don't either, I respect your opinion though you express it in such a definite way).

Of course I express it in a definite way, or it wouldn't be an opinion. Mostly I express it the way I do because I'm the only person out out here expressing it. Most Canadians, 95% based on who goes to actually see Canadian films, ignore this whole thing and turn a blind eye to this little empire that the Canadian Film Mafia have built for themselves. They wouldn't waste their time because they have no clue who the hell this cross-eyed dork Don McKellar is, nor do they have any idea how many millions of their money have been squandered by these people. It is nothing less than second-hand government corruption. They are spending the people's money on things the people never see and have no interest in seeing.

>>It's people like you who ruin any will for something new in the artistic field. Posthal

No, it is people like me who speak out when enough is enough when they see under the table cover-ups and government agency handouts in an old boys network like Canada has who change things for the better.

Socialism applied to film means that film must be for the people in the society who pay for it. The Canadian Film Mafia have proven dozens of times over that they are incapable of delivering. They need to be outed, confronted, and removed. It's coming off my taxes -- and yours if you're a Canadian. Is socialized medicine intended only for psuedo-intellectual elitist snobs? No. Should socialized movie-making be?

[–] Sam-240 20 years ago

The reason why I was talking about Last Night is that this film is the only piece of material allowing anybody to judge what Mc Kellar's new film will be like.
Huge amounts of money (much more than for this "pretentious canadian film mafia" you're talking about -which I suppose also stand for Egoyan, Rozema, or Cronenberg-) are spent to make pyrotechnical films that don't talk about humanity at all. If you prefer paying for those, no problem, but let access to the persons interested in films that are not really intellectual, but just take their viewers for thinking persons.
The reason why a lot of persons are not interested in canadian "auteurs" is that they're not given access to these films. If they had, most of them would probably be surprised by these uncommon movies. But discoveries require a little bit of research and will, not only a cooperative consuming of what's found easily.
Before talking about socialism, please read a little bit more about alienation (this is exactly what the traditional film industry is at hands with for some years).

Posthal

[–] Magnificos 20 years ago

I would never lump Mr. Cronenberg with these fakes. He has proven himself many times over by making world-class, viable, and profitable cinema many times over which are innovative and stand the test of time. The fakes and big fat nothings who make up the Mafia (Egoyan, McKellar, McDonald, Rozema, et al) have gone out of their way in attempting to associate themselves with a real filmmaker who is worthy of praise -- his occasional misstep like SPIDER being completely pardonable.

His overall track record can't even be compared to those individuals.

Here's something for everyone to ponder. Cronenberg is a product of the "tax shelter" days of Canadian filmmaking. It was all about profit and making a buck. So, by the way, was Ivan Reitman one of his first producers.

Maybe there's something to be learned here? 1 + 2 = 3. Art + Commerce = Great Filmmaking. The entire AFI Top 100 tells us that. All of those films made a profit.

Godard, Bergman, Trufaut -- you name it from the '60's -- the "autuers" that Canadian cinema has tried to pathetically immitate -- those guys made MONEY with their films because their was a market for them and they were actually GOOD. If there wouldn't have been a market they would have died out instantly. But in Canada, we keep backing losers. Again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and...

Just like the infamous United States inner-city Welfare Mom. They keep on popping out kids that amount to nothing, and we the public keep on paying for them.

But now it's even worse because we've got a bunch of idiots trying to make "commercial" film here now. So what happens in that scenario? Do we get fresh, innovative approaches to genre films -- which the entire history of low budget filmmaking has shown us is the key to financial and artistic success? NO -- we get:

a) Horrificly bad copies of American formula movies that are even worse because they're using formulas from a decade or two ago! They even make them so they SEEM like they were sitting on the shelf for a decade or two. The astonishingly bad FOOLPROOF (what was that? 1983 vintage filmmaking?) and the despicable GOING THE DISTANCE (gee -- could you try any harder to make a bad mid-nineties American teen comedy you idiots?). And, to add insult to injury, we have the "great Canadian auteurs" putting their hat in their to collect a big payday as a "executive producer"(Egoyan for FOOLPROOF)! And all of it REALLY a plan to scam Telefilm Envelope money (see my insider report under GOING THE DISTANCE or MEN WITH BROOMS discussion boards for a real eyeopener on why exactly those films were made).

b) We DOUBLE, TRIPLE, QUADRIPLE the budget of people like Don McKellar to make yet -- AAAAHHHH! -- another road movie starring -- himself! Is there a more sure-fire equation for box office disaster than assigning Don McKellar as a lead actor in a feature film? It's astonishing how LUDICROUS that is.

That's why I'm on here from now on. SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE IN CANADA HAS FINALLY GOT TO SAY SOMETHING. Guess it's going to be me...

[–] Sam-240 20 years ago

Guess it really ends our "conversation". Congratulations, you've got the ultimate truth and are able to tell everyone what's good and what's bad. That's a quality given to few people, I admire it. If only the "canadian film mafia" could think as rigidly as you do...

Good luck!

Posthal

[–] Magnificos 20 years ago

I thought about updating my last post because of numerous typos, but it's unneeded. I wrote it in a couple of minutes in one pass. Easy because it's 100% true from up close observation.

Where you fail utterly and completely is that you have no persective like I do. I've got right up front, met everybody involved, real life persepective. I'd give up too if I were you. You really have no chance conversing with me on this subject. It's like trying to argue that the Earth is flat and a scientist showing up with a truck-load of facts and experiments and deductive logic! LOTSA LUCK!

I have no ultimate truth. What I DO have is what nobody in the history of imdb has. What I'm doing is what nobdoy has ever done. I am an actual Canadian filmmaker with produced credits who has met EVERYBODY and I mean everybody. I know all their games. All the scams. They've even admitted/revealed them to me while drunk in parties (some just the past week at TIFF -- believe it, or not).

Unknown to them, however, I'm the first ever to tell the truth and use facts and back them up with references easily researched on the net that are indesputable as to how things are in my country. And it is awful and very sad and anger producing for any sincere filmmaker and anybody who's got a brain in their head and/or pays ridiculous taxes off their paycheque because they've got a real job.

Stursberg, the suddenly former head of Telefilm, had the right idea. Reward viable filmmaking. 90% AT LEAST of all great movies ever made were economically viable. Hell, even CITIZEN KANE is an exploitation movie. Give me a break. Unfortunately Stursberg made enormous blunders. Two actually, the first likely out of his control which he realized too late:

a) He didn't clear house of those below him. Likely it was impossible. Entrenched fully and completely are the cronies of the mafia. Sad, pathetic suck-ups who have been cultivated over a decade plus of failure films. From the readers on up to the top. They will reward the made members of the mafia first and foremost. Funniest I found was a tiny incident where they made a huge deal out rejecting one of the mafia's scripts because it "wasn't ready yet". They made a gigantic deal out of it because the "made member" protested furiously, insisting on his "status" (McKellar, my sources tell me). Stursberg had no chance. Instead of realistic assesment of quality and a "target audience", instead 5 to 15 million dollar movies were railroaded through that were headed by the same people responsible for the disasterous state we're in! Insead of $500,000 dollar financial failure (THIS MEANS REJECTED BY THE CANADIAN PUBLIC) road movies staring Don McKellar, we've now got a 5 million dollar road movie starring Don McKellar. This is because part of Stursberg's mandate was to increase budgets! Absoultely INSANE results, demonstrating the classic "old boys network" in full force like nothing else.

b) His other blunder is recorded in detail in my expose of THE GREAT TELEFILM SWINDLE under the discussion boards for GOING THE DISTANCE and MEN WITH BROOMS. It is absolutely vile how the powerful have taken advantage of Stursberg's miscalculation here. Instead of rewarding economic viability -- at least the ability for a film to break even (as long is it pays back its taxpayer investment, nobody can really complain)-- he made the gigantic blunder of basing Telefilm rewards on Canadian box office performance. Something incredibly easily manipulated by Canadian media megacorporations without even trying! It's horrible to watch in action. But I've exposed it in the discussion boards mentioned above.

Yes, Sam, I'd back off, too. You have no chance of refuting a damn word I say. Nobody does! And I'm truly not happy about it.

I personally challenge McKellar, Egoyan, damn it, even -- especially -- Lantos to show up here and go head to head with me! They will lose. A landslide of facts and logical deduction will bury them.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kelly_J 20 years ago

Look, you’re obviously a moron, and an illiterate one at that, but I am glad that you have finally said the truth – that you are a bitter, failed filmmaker. If you disagree then post your name, Mr. “actual Canadian filmmaker”, and your “produced credits” and let us be the judge. Or are you scared that the big, bad movie mafia will take out a hit on you.

Your argument is silly and ignorant in countless ways. Your main problem is that you are attacking the Canadian directors that are most known and most popular. All the people you mention – McKellar, Rozema, Egoyan, McDonald – have had films that have played around the world. They have been sold theatrically and to television. They have won countless international awards and received glowing reviews from important critics. I completely disagree with your claim that money is the most important criteria for success, but even if it was, all the above have had financial successes internationally. In other words, if I was a taxpayer in your country, these are exactly the people I would want to support. I would be infuriated if they weren’t. By your argument, it’s the directors with no profile, the telefilm investments that don’t get distribution – and there are lots of those I’m sure --- that the taxpayers should question.

I love Don’s work. He’s brilliant and original. I saw a retrospective of his stuff at a museum in New York and I was blown away by the experience – I don’t recall being coerced by the “mafia” into enjoying myself. Twitch City was one of the best TV series I ever saw. By the way, it too sold all over the world and got great ratings in may countries, including yours I think you’d find if you did the research. I just heard a great discussion about Childstar on the NPR here in L.A. and I’m really looking forward to seeing it. What’s more – and I can say this with authority – women find Don attractive and charming. Perhaps – judging by your childish insults -- you are also intimidated by his success as a man.

As I say, your irate taxpayer rant is ill informed. You don’t understand how movies make money these days and telefilm – it’s easy to check, if you care -- is by no means the sole investor in the films you are talking about. But, even if they were, as an investor, I’d take my chances with Atom Egoyan, for instance – an Oscar winning director – over…say…you – a sad, bitter, unattractive fool.

Please shut up now. For your own sake, relax. I won’t reply if you continue. You’re too dumb to engage in a fight.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Magnificos 20 years ago

I'll waste too much time responding to somebody who isn't a Canadian getting soaked for this garbage. BTW, how long do you think a tax-money supported film mafia like we've got would last in "your" country? About 10 minutes.

Alright let's examine the brilliance for a one-time reply to you.

------------------------
Look, you’re obviously a moron, and an illiterate one at that, but I am glad that you have finally said the truth – that you are a bitter, failed filmmaker.
-----------------------

No. I'm making a decent enough living at it.

------------------------
If you disagree then post your name, Mr. “actual Canadian filmmaker”, and your “produced credits” and let us be the judge. Or are you scared that the big, bad movie mafia will take out a hit on you.
------------------------

Not a hit in a physical attack or shooting. It will be silent. With some choice words to entrenched associates in funding agencies and film festival juries. They survive as they do by sticking together in symbiotic relationships as they have no actual success to stand on.

------------------------
Your argument is silly and ignorant in countless ways. Your main problem is that you are attacking the Canadian directors that are most known and most popular. All the people you mention – McKellar, Rozema, Egoyan, McDonald – have had films that have played around the world. They have been sold theatrically and to television. They have won countless international awards and received glowing reviews from important critics.
------------------------

Huh? The most known and most popular Canadian directors are people like James Cameron, Ivan Reitman, Norman Jewison...in other words, people who got the hell out.

"sold theatrically and to television"

That's an interesting point to examine. The only time McDonald's films with McKellar turned a profit is when they were sold to CBC in the case of, say, HIGHWAY 61. Until that happened they never made a penny. Is one government funded agency buying another government agency's funded failed product a means by which that film is deemed a success?

Also what does that mean: "played around the world"? Played to tiny film festival groups. One or two screenings in this country or that to a hundred people. Maybe.

This groups films are in a gigantic deficit. Just a single example. Egoyan's ARARAT disaster cost $15 Million dollars and returned a gross of a little over a million and a half worldwide. His lifetime deficit added up is enormous. And then there's his FELICIA'S JOURNEY snoozathon and, my God, there's McDonald's $11 million dollar theatrically unreleasable PICTURE CLAIRE. Wow is that bad. What's the point of going through this film by film, however? I'm considering doing that in the future when I've got some time on my hands in another post somewhere. The facts and figures are available to anybody on the internet who cares to examine them. There's no hiding it, but the Canadian public continues to care less how much they get soaked in this and other areas.

And really, we're specifically talking about McKellar here. Canada's Welfare Mom Filmmaking Industry Poster Child. Have you seen CHILDSTAR? Did you read the review in Variety? What do you think is the fate of this 5 million dollar movie written, directed, and staring Old Cross-eyes? Only in Canada could such nonsense occur after the track record of films written and starring this individual. Absolutely ridiculous.

------------------------
I completely disagree with your claim that money is the most important criteria for success, but even if it was, all the above have had financial successes internationally.
--------------------------------

Overall, they owe millions to the Canadian public in the form of Telefilm loans which they haven't paid back.

--------------------------------
In other words, if I was a taxpayer in your country, these are exactly the people I would want to support. I would be infuriated if they weren’t. By your argument, it’s the directors with no profile, the telefilm investments that don’t get distribution – and there are lots of those I’m sure --- that the taxpayers should question.
--------------------------------

Thanks for hypothesizing about being in a situation you aren't in. You have every right to your opinion in this hypothetical scenario.

My argument includes that director profile means nothing as far as Canadian films go. Nor do Canadian celebrities. The public at large could care less. Unless either one of them have made it in Hollywood, then they have some clout with the public. But because I am against such reliance on Hollywood indirectly deciding who has clout and who doesn't with regard to Canadian filmmaking funding, and I am even more opposed to a Canadian Film Mafia of Failures like we've got and their undeserved entrenchment in in Canada's funding machinery, I support finding fresh talent and supporting them. Identify them, give them a chance or two. If they don't deliver films that at least pay back the taxpayer's loans (which is what we're talking about -- these are loans just like a bank loan to be paid back), then cut them off and give somebody else a chance. But first you have to cut off these made members of Canada's filmmaking elite and make them earn their own way.

--------------------------------------
I love Don’s work. He’s brilliant and original. I saw a retrospective of his stuff at a museum in New York and I was blown away by the experience – I don’t recall being coerced by the “mafia” into enjoying myself.
-------------------------------------

Good for you. Yes, McKellar spends a lot of time organizing such things, doing a lot of favours. Cultivating friendships with elitists.

-------------------------------------
Twitch City was one of the best TV series I ever saw. By the way, it too sold all over the world and got great ratings in may countries, including yours I think you’d find if you did the research.
--------------------------------------

It was a ratings disaster.

--------------------------------------
I just heard a great discussion about Childstar on the NPR here in L.A. and I’m really looking forward to seeing it.
--------------------------------------

I'm sure you'll love it, no matter how awful it is by all unbiased accounts. Good for you.

--------------------------------------
What’s more – and I can say this with authority – women find Don attractive and charming. Perhaps – judging by your childish insults -- you are also intimidated by his success as a man.
-------------------------------------

So this is why you're so upset, you've got a crush on this guy. Well, that makes any logical argument against him hopeless, doesn't it?

-------------------------------------
As I say, your irate taxpayer rant is ill informed. You don’t understand how movies make money these days and telefilm – it’s easy to check, if you care -- is by no means the sole investor in the films you are talking about.
-------------------------------------

Of course they aren't. It's their significant investment which triggers investments from other funding agencies, Canadian distributor and broadcaster investment -- which comes out of more government sources and funds. You're the one who has absolutely no concept about how this game works. I've outlined how one of the biggest of these scams works under various threads here and on boards for films like GOING THE DISTANCE. One of them I dub THE GREAT TELEFILM SWINDLE. I simplify it so anybody can understand it. Even you. Nobody has exposed this stuff before.

---------------------------------------
But, even if they were, as an investor, I’d take my chances with Atom Egoyan, for instance – an Oscar winning director – over…say…you – a sad, bitter, unattractive fool.
---------------------------------------

a) Take your chances? Based on his overall track record he'd never make another film anywhere but in Canada. His new one, WHERE THE TRUTH LIES, is a 30 million dollar disaster waiting to happen. It's going to be a nightmare for any investors outside of Canada. It has no chance of making any hint of a profit.

b) Atom Egoyan won an Oscar? What for? Considering how nonsensical and wildly irrational your whole post is, I guess it isn't at all a surprise that you would get this wrong, too. Atom Egoyan has never won an Oscar.

----------------------------------------
Please shut up now. For your own sake, relax. I won’t reply if you continue. You’re too dumb to engage in a fight.
---------------------------------------

I'm glad you won't reply, because I'm not going to reply again. Nya nya nya. How childish.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Magnificos 20 years ago

*Sigh*

A few questions,

Maginfico Santo - out of curiousity, why do you call yourself Magnifico?
-------------------

Personal entertainment.

-------------------
In 10 words or less, what EXACTLY is the bottom line of what you are trying to accomplish with your above essays? I'm afraid I find your writting style a bit awkward to follow.
-------------------

Personal satisfaction knowing the truth is somewhere permanently for everyone.

------------------
And finially, I'm sure you'll find this question elitist or choose not to respond but what is your educational background?
------------------

Clearly an attempt to try and narrow down who I am. None of your business. I do belong to MENSA, and that fact about me has not been publicized in any way I'm aware of, so it's safe to reveal that. I don't make that public nor make any note of it to anybody I meet in real life or in my professional life as I think telling "real" people that makes me look insecure. Why would I tell somebody that? My original testing was part of my "gifted student" schooling when younger, and I took a test out on a lark a few years ago and scored at so-called "genius" level again. I have a real problem with the word "genius" which is so overused and hardly accurate in the film industry. The extensive use of it, tells us about the lack of perspective and intelligence of the person using it, rather than much about the person whom they're talking about -- who is more often than not a complete mediocrity who is no more than competetent at best. However, I guess it's safe to reveal that I have multiple degrees from multiple universities and published papers in subjects ranging from economics to astronomy to Canadian history. Believe it, or not.

As an aside, Don McKellar is a university drop-out. He's only in film because he knew the right people at the right time, and then manipulated his way to the top of Canadian film. Bruce McDonald never even actually read his work before hiring him to do the lame-o ROADKILL. He was desperate for a script and incompetant at writing one himself, yet had money thanks to sucking up to Norman Jewison (as his driver) and Mr. Jewison putting in a word for him with Telefilm. Also the reason that that nothing of a film got into TIFF. Go ahead and research that. It's all true.

As far as my writing style on here goes, I suppose you're pretty much internet illiterate. I'd use a lot of emoticons and abreviations, but that would throw a lot of people off. Spelling and exact grammer are non-requirements for webboards such as this. I write my posts in a matter of minutes, first draft, and have little time for people like you who are clearly either not very bright, or fishing for information.

Whom do you work for or are trying to score brownie points for, anyways?

[–] Magnificos 20 years ago

I just read over my response to you and perhaps it might be missing the real intent of your post. Just in case, I don't want to be overly defensive.

If you really mean that you don't understand my writing style and find it hard to follow, it is likely a result of not being familiar with essay writing and other writing styles of critiques. There are many books available to help. Also, there's nothing wrong with keeping a dictionary near your computer.

I certainly don't mean this to be elitist or arrogant. Any time I found somebody's writing style hard to follow who was clearly pretty intelligent, provided they were not ESL, I found it was due to a lack of familiarity with one or a variety of literary styles and needed some more perspective and educated myself.

I hope that my informed and provocative and authoritative writing on the topic of the unfortunate Don McKellar is easily understandable by the average, unbiased, thinking Canadian. I'm pretty certain it is.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Magnificos 20 years ago

I meant to write "grammer" to make a point about the language of webboards. I thought it was kind of amusing.

No, I won't tell you how old I am or what age bracket I fall into or any more clues about myself. In fact, I'm not going to talk about myself on imdb again, but rather stick to the topics on hand.

I continue to wonder why people who strongly support my stand against this unjustifiably public fund supported clique/old boys network/"mafia" either only send me private messages or end up second-thinking their support and end up deleting their posts? However, thinking about it, I know what they know about how difficult it will be for them to get a film made in Canada once taking a stand against them. There are many examples of people being cut out of the picture when it comes to any chance of funding or film festival play. But I won't be bullied. Instead, I'll keep on telling it like it is on here. Don and Atom and Bruce and their circle of cronies' worst nightmare come true. It's time for them to replaced by viable filmmakers. Them and the powerful producers who support them need to be cut off from the public coffers. The era of Welfare Mom Filmmaking has to end at some point in Canada.

As far as making a film about it, why would somebody throw away hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on a project like that? You're not going to be able to get it shown anywhere in Canada, first off. Certainly not at any festival for starters. People are too frightened. So you'd accomplish nothing except making sure you are properly identified and future action is taken behind closed doors against your later attempts at making another film except out of your own pocket and it will sure never be seen in Canada, either! Talk about Canadian filmmaker career suicide.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] man-man-dot-org 19 years ago

Dude, if you put as much energy into working on improving the system as you do into ranting and raving about it, you'd be (a) very successful and (b) actually making things better.

Everything about you -- I just looked at your post history -- screams "miserable failure casting desperately about to pin his lack of success on a 'corrupt system' rather than his own blatant ineptitude."

Less time whining about the system and more time working on positive solutions, mmmkay?

[–] Magnificos 19 years ago

I'm actually one of only a handful of people in Canada who make their living 100% as a creative principal -- DUDE.

I do it by writing for people mostly down south -- DUDE.

I am a "success" -- DUDE.

It is because I am a success, and have to do it elsewhere, along with a hundred other Canadian successes, that I write some of the only true, authentic reviews and critiques of people like Don McKellar and his whole little "group" who make it their business to make sure people like me who are a lot better than they are (and there are a lot of us who are a lot better than they are making the LA commute) who are blocked from making films in Canada. And here I am, paying 6 figure taxes -- a fraction of which goes to pay for one disaster Canadian film after another.

IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.

That's why I'm on here, DUDE, telling it like it is. I am here, because it is one of the only free forums in the world that enables me to do that. Sure, there are papers like the National Post and whatnot in Canada who are critical, but the critics are scared of going all the way because they're sure of losing their free invites to shmooze the TIFF so they just don't say a whole lot about the millions (I MEAN MILLIONS) thrown away at McKellar and his buddies to make garbage -- they're really deeply entrenched with the TIFF group. It's a tight little family sucking on the government funding teet.

So, I will remain, a voice of reason, facts, logic, and reality on this site. I don't know how much good I'll do, but I'll do a little. Somebody has to -- DUDE.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Magnificos 20 years ago

Anybody read the Variety review of this disaster? One of the worst slaughterings of a feature film since Battlefield Earth.

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_review&reviewID=VE1117924867&categoryID=31&cs=1

A 5 million dollar road movie staring dorky cross-eyed Don McKellar. Indeed.

I'd be laughing really hard right now if a nice chunk of my *beep* tax dollars didn't go towards supporting this pompous son of a bitch and his self-indulgent garbage and all of his buddies. How much longer can this insanity go on?

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Siahera 19 years ago

Holy S****t man get a life!! I found that all your postings, of Don Mckellar,pretty sad, infact, I find it not worth you ever making any oppinions on him or anyone else.

As other "posters" have noted, you are a very sad person, & knowing that, yeah,"everyone has a freedom of speech", whatever, eh! But for god's sake , don't ever "put" anyone down at all like that agian,

Now, I have had the "pleasure" of Meeting Don McKellar, at the TIFF & he , was a really nice guy, very honest, truthful & funny as all heck.

You are the only & probably "last" person , who has thought otherwise, I mean if your gonna put someone down, why not try a person, that in too many times has been "rude" to his fans, ect. I could name you "plenty" of them but since I'm not like you, I won't even "bother " to print them out.

I find that you are a "waste of time" & really need to get off onto other matter's that everyone else can agree with you on.

By the "looks" of your answers to other posters & myself, you really need to "get a life" or get out( of here)!!

Sincerely, The "last poster" who will dish ya out!!

[–] Magnificos 19 years ago

I'll admit, it's very difficult not to talk about Don McKellar and friends without sounding like one of those flakes on Coast to Coast with Art Bell or George Norry going on about the illuminati stuff -- LOL. But that's what we've got in Canada. That and the tiny handful of wannabes writing reviews and getting all worked up over somebody telling it like it is. These are the same people who have no problem sucking up and playing the game -- like this guy who wrote the film with Old Crosseyes. That's a whole other story...but I'd bet money those who are coming to Old Crosseye's defence are marginal Canadian film wannabes looking to score brownie points. That's the way it works in Canada.

This film will be yet another abysmal financial failure and filmic mediocrity at best. Common sense will not prevail and Don McKellar will not be cut off and self-serving Canadian film production from his little group will continue as a public-funded non-entity, almost all paid for by a public who rejects it outright. My prediction for 2005.

Let's check back this time next year to see if Magnifico is right on this prediction, shall we?

[–] nordiqueboy77 19 years ago

Get a life dude!

[–] Magnificos 19 years ago

Just an update on this one. I hate to be 100% right all the time on anything. It gives me a kind of uneasy feeling. But here I am again. With Canadian film, I can call it every single time! From the very moment I hear about the project at the development stage! I have never, ever been wrong.

$5 million dollars invested. $23,623 returned. No, I didn't forget a zero.

I've posted a seperate thread on this important issue. Call me crazy, but being upset about FIVE MILLION DOLLARS in wasted money that's coming off my and other Canadian's paycheques is really anger inspiring. I care too much about Canada and where my hard earned money goes not to be angry, especially when I know it DOES NOT have to be this way with Canadian film.

[–] graceblue23 18 years ago

Just an update on this one. I hate to be 100% right all the time on anything. It gives me a kind of uneasy feeling. But here I am again. With Canadian film, I can call it every single time! From the very moment I hear about the project at the development stage! I have never, ever been wrong.

$5 million dollars invested. $23,623 returned. No, I didn't forget a zero.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Could you link to your data, I know you've mentioned it's available, however, doing a Google search is overloading me with information and I can't find a site that's meaningful.

[–] oft_I_am 16 years ago

It gives me a kind of uneasy feeling.

That unease is the feeling that you're a failure creeping up on you.

$§ "Germany invaded Poland, France invaded Belgium, and Russia invaded everybody." ~o~

[–] Magnificos 18 years ago

the craziest proposal ever. will we burn a scawny stick puppet with that pretentious fake Don McKellar's cross-eyed face on it at the wedding reception?

all i have to go by on you is your other post about Fritz Lang and, I'll admit, you are 100% right. Fritz never matched his amazing work co-written with Thea. it was filled with dazzling wonder.

[–] BobStage 13 years ago

This is a late response, but I find you to have a very slanted view on Don McKellar, and even more so on Atom Egoyan and Canadian film.

Granted, I've only seen one of Don Mckellar's writing/directing films (Last Night) but that was one of the best Canadian films that I've ever seen. I haven't seen "Childstar", but I'm sure it found its audience somewhere.

And that you lump Atom Egoyan into this is also unfair, in my opinion. Atom Egoyan is a respected film maker who has made films that while not always successful, are mostly very well made and/or thought-provoking. He has been Oscar nominated twice for "The Sweet Hereafter", which was a profit at the box office. Exotica made its budget back several times over, and Chloe got all its money back from pre-sales alone. Yes, Where the Truth Lies didn't make its money back, but the movie was still good. Ararat wasn't a financial hit either, but it was hailed at Cannes for its quality. It's also a personal film by Egoyan to bring to light the horrors of a genocide.

The biggest reason that David Cronenberg (whom you praise as so much better than Egoyan) is so much more successful financially than Egoyan was that he went abroad. He made films in the US and Europe, using mostly funding from those respective regions, gaining more attention from the far bigger film-going populations in the States. In fact, a number of his films can't even be called Canadian since they use mostly non-Canadian funding, non-Canadian actors, and (sometimes) non-Canadian locations.

Egoyan keeps his movies in Canada and gives more local jobs to such people as my friend's father, a gaffer. While they might not always do successfully at the box office, Canadian movies made in Canada by Canadians do help the economy in alternative ways. Hell, that's one way how we make money from American movies- when they film in our country and contribute to the economy.

And the fact that Canadian films don't always make financial success cannot be blamed on the filmmakers themselves. Consider the audiences they have to work with. Less than 30 million of them go to the movies, and of that, most of them don't care about more artistic films. They hear about the latest Hollywood movies and go see them instead. Canadian films have to work really hard to even get noticed, and even then people just pass in favour of foreign (American) movies. You can't blame their apathy on the film makers. Their movies are good, people just don't go see them (outside of Quebec, which is why "Bon Cop Bad Cop" was a miraculous success). So they make the movies they want to, and the people interested will go see them.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ChazzJazz 15 years ago

wow thats harsh

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]