Pete Davidson returns to SNL, smuggling in pal John Mulaney to trash Clint Eastwood's The Mule
Aux Features Unknown
The last time we saw Pete Davidson on Saturday Night Live, it was an understandably brief appearance, introducing musical guests Mark Ronson and Miley Cyrus. Understandable because, earlier that Saturday, an unsettling internet post from the publicly troubled Davidson had a lot of people worried for his safety. Well, 2019's a new year, and Davidson had plenty to do on last night’s Rachel Brosnahan-hosted SNL, which had fans and those concerned about a young man struggling with his mental health in one of the most high-pressure, high-visibility show business jobs there is feeling relieved. And, luckily for Davidson, and us, he brought along some very funny help.
Introduced for one of his frequent Weekend Update spots as himself by Colin Jost, Davidson at first shyly joked about having “a really crazy month,” before announcing solemnly that he wanted to talk about something “that matters a lot” to him—Clint Eastwood’s newest film The Mule. Puncturing the in-studio tension as that curveball did, Davidson wasn’t kidding, bringing along real-life pal and former SNL writer John Mulaney to rave about what they paired up to call “the greatest, weirdest, most bananas movie ever made about a 90-year-old drug mule.” (Tough competition there, certainly.) First joking about their unlikely friendship, the married and settled Mulaney claimed he was showing his younger chum that “you can have a life in comedy that is not insane.” To which Davidson joked that seeing Mulaney’s “sober, domestic life” made him “publicly threaten suicide.”
Onto The Mule, which the duo eagerly saw on opening day, and which Mulaney called easily of equal insanity to that time Eastwood “berated and empty chair” at the Republican convention. Calling the movie essentially “a superhero movie for old people,” in that Clint’s 90-year-old man can drive unsupervised, and can do any job better than a Mexican (even drug smuggling), Mulaney and Davidson also noted that Eastwood’s character (who, again, is 90) has not one but two threesomes in the course of the movie. (“And he directed it!,” beamed Mulaney, in gleeful bafflement.) Basically the whole five minutes was a delightfully funny break from a middling SNL, so howsabout having these two on Update to review a different bonkers blockbuster every week. Good for Pete, good for SNL—good for America.
170 Comments
As someone that sadly sat through the mule, that was beautiful
Definitely one of the worst movies I saw in 2018.
you didn’t see many movies then did you?Oh wait. You’re the guy that loves The Favourite…
I watched 378 movies in 2018. Though most of them were not new. I’m sorry you have shitty taste. I’ll pray for you.
I don’t have shitty taste in movies. I saw, I don’t know, somewhere between 50-100 movies I had never seen before in 2018, and although The Favourite is not the worst it is in the bottom 25%. The Mule is a pretty good movie and better than The Favourite.Tell me. Are you on of those people who if a white man, Clint Eastwood for instance, cured cancer, you’d find a way to hate him anyway?
Well of course you don’t think you have shitty taste in movies. But thinking that a laughably unrealistic Baby Boomer fantasy movie with a meandering, tension-free plot and actors lazily delivering their lines with zero enthusiasm or commitment is better than a beautifully filmed, hilarious period film with three lead actresses giving nuanced and dynamic performances, then that’s a huge strike against your credibility as a viewer. Why would I hate white men? I am one. As is Yorgos Lanthimos, the director of The Favourite.
Clint Eastwood is too old to be a baby boomer. It’s also not a fantasy but a true story. An old man did become a drug mule after his flower business went under, and he did go to jail, though i’m not sure he martyred himself the way Eastwood portrayed it. As I’ve said I think both Weisz and Coleman were good or great or whatever I said in The Favourite but neither the movie nor Emma Stone’s performance were good.I just assumed you are one of those millennial SJW types who hate Eastwood because he is white, and for no other reason.
I just assumed you are one of those millennial SJW types who hate Eastwood because he is white, and for no other reason.That’s not a real thing. No one hates white people just for being white. You’re making me regret pulling you out of the greys.Excuse me. Eastwood is technically part of the Silent Generation. Though most of his audience is made up of baby boomers I would imagine. I’m aware that it’s based on a true story, but that doesn’t make it realistic. The actual point by point events of the film all seemed ridiculous.
There are lots of white people who hate white men just because they are white men and make assumptions based upon that alone. my roommate does it, as one example. I don’t know what pulling out of the greys means. you know you could have just said “yep” you know.
Why would I say “yep” when I don’t agree with any of the crap you’re saying other than the technicality about Eastwood’s age? I don’t know your roommate, but I very much doubt that they feel the way you’re describing them. Keep on fighting those straw men if you makes you feel righteous though. Maybe someday you’ll grow out if it.
Take your shitty right wing politics out of here. No one even mentioned anything political, but your snowflake ass got triggered because someone didn’t like a movie that you liked. No one dislikes the mule because Eastwood is white.
Uh, the favourite is widely acclaimed. By critics and audiences.
Worse than “The 2:15 to Paris?”
they could have taken a later train?
Clint could have used real actors instead of the real people from the terrorist attack
Why would I see The 2:15 to Paris?
Because you watch more than one movie per day and it’s a movie.
As I said in my other comment, the vast majority of the movies I watched were older films I’d missed. Only around 65-70 (depending on whether you count stand-up specials, etc.) were released in 2018. Of those, I’d only call a handful truly bad. The Mule being one of them. In fact, it received the lowest rating I gave to any 2018 movie, a half star better than Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Though both were comparably bad.
Do you review movies professionally?
No. I just log and review them for fun on Letterboxd. I don’t normally watch 300+ movies in a year. Last year just happened to be a prolific year for me in terms of watching movies due to a few factors, including the rise and subsequent fall of MoviePass and Filmstruck.
The 2:15 to Paris can barely be called a movie. More like a travelogue with a brief action scene. No point in watching it, if you already haven’t.
I thought having a threesome at 45 was impressive…I ain’t got nothin’ on Clint.
There’s a humblebrag if I’ve ever seen one.
Honestly, smuggling drugs in America is a job old white guys could definitely do better than Mexicans, for … reasons.
When I was a kid, I had an old white uncle who regularly smuggled cheap booze and prescription drugs across the border using an old police badge to bypass security lines, without question. So yeah, reasons…
There’s a drug pipeline leading through PA starting somewhere in the south and leading to NY and back. All the couriers are black. I know they are black because occasionally some of them get caught. Almost all of the time they do not get caught…for ah, reasons (?).
there are tens of millions of people of all races, creeds, and nationalities worldwide involved in drug trafficking. Only those who get caught are bad at it.
Personally I think it would be better if Davidson took a long long break away from SNL.
The thing is… Pete is not funny. He is just a lost SJW trying to learn how to be a Man… I don’t think he will ever figure it out
Yeah, he should physically and emotionally abuse his lovers and (allegedly) handover information on his co-stars to the FBI. Like a real man.
Who did that?
Lol no
Oh, Tim, please tell me, since you’ve got it all figured out, what’s the secret to being a Man? I’ll assume it’s something about hating things different than myself and never acknowledging that I am an emotional being?
Referring to yourself as an “emotional being” isn’t very Manly. Were you raised by your grandmother?
This take smells like swamp ass and I don’t give a fuuuuuuck about Davidson.
In the original draft, the threesomes are explained by Clint grumbling that it takes two Mexicans to do the job of one American.
This deserves all the stars.
LOL!
I’m assuming they watched it purely because they knew there’d be minorities in the movie, so they went in searching for ways to virtue signal. My god, the era of censorship we are entering. Move to the whitest suburb you can while calling out movies for… you know what. I’m wrong. Mexico is a wonderful place. Make sure you explore beyond the resort on your next vacay for instagram pics, guys.
Orrrrr yukking about bad movies is generally a comedy schtick that has now existed across multiple mediums for years and that’s generally even more successful when an objectively successful and subjectively even great filmmaker writes up a real weird one, even discounting said filmmaker’s dicey relationship with politics.But I guess you’re free to project any intent you want on these gold painted internet streets.
I’ve seen both “SJW” and “virtue signalling”, used without apparent irony, on this comment thread already, and this is not even an overtly political story. Did something rile the Redditers today?
What, exactly, did they censor?
I absolutely love how censorship has become as uselessly common in these kinds of comments as “virtue signalling”, “SJW”, etc. 5 minutes spent making fun of a movie is now censorship somehow.
Dude, I find Pete Davidson kind of annoying too, but making fun of a boring Clint Eastwood movie is so far from “censorship” it’s not even in the same multiversal plane of reality.
You’re either close to Clint’s age or you’re an unfuckable edge lord that doesn’t realize he has grandpa opinions.
I mean… technically he was never gone. Like, I’m glad he didn’t harm himself or anything, but even so. It’s not the Second Coming or anything.
Video unavailableThe uploader has not made this video available in your country.By ignoring peoples of great nation of Estazonia, NBC is leaving money on table!
The proud rebels of Bikini Fasto salute your honesty & wisdom, as we, too, have been denied access due to our geographic isolation.
We, up here in Kanuckistan feel your disappointment.
In Canada we can watch the clips on Global’s website, but it’s a lot less convenient than YouTube.
“…so howsabout having these two on Update to review a different bonkers blockbuster every week.”Because the entire history of SNL is that momentary hilarity becomes weeks of unfunny quite quickly.
Peye Davidson can feel free to fade into obscurity at any time. Please!
Davidson is not funny and he’s making his equal partner Mulaney unfunny. It was hilarious when Davidson was falling all over Jost and Mulaney to prove how hilarious this all was.
So, I know there keeps being this consternation over Pete Davidson, but beyond that, can we all admit he’s not funny?He’s a younger tattooed Jimmy Fallon. He laughs in the middle of sketches, he smiles a lot, and he’s not going to offend you in any way.He’s just not inherently funny – he ACTS funny. Mulaney is funny – that guy has such unique, insightful and just hilarious jokes, and his delivery shows real craft in his work. Davidson was a mess in that sketch, comedically, while Mulaney hit the beats perfectly. If you’ve seen Spiderverse, you realize how great Mulaney is at comedic timing and ability. His range is incredible, and he just knows how to be funny. Davidson seems like he could write for humor or be the funny guy at a party, but on-camera he’s insufferable.I’m tired of Pete Davidson. I hope he gets well. But I want him to actually get well in a committed way and not use social media to broadcast everything he’s going through, because that’s not helpful for others going through the same things. Sadly he’s going to keep getting time on SNL because Lorne Michaels will never say no to troubled young white men. Leslie Jones is the best thing about SNL right now and she still has to play “the black woman.”
His whole career has been about whatever personal story he could bring up next. His dead father, his marijuana fandom, his celebrity dating life. He’s an attention-chaser desperate for a fix, and now he’ll even use mental health issues in service of that goal. He’s gross.
Counterpoint: People can joke about their own issues if it makes them feel better about it and you can fuck right off.
A comedian opening up on-stage about their personal life to a roomful of complete strangers, for laughs? How novel.
Yeah whoever heard of a comedian using their personal life for their material. Or a monologuist for that matter, fuck Spalding Gray!I mean, you are free not to like Pete, but maybe just say you don’t like Pete instead of trying to be “smart” about it.
Speaking of, is the AV Club gonna do an article on how Leslie (apparently) said re-booting Ghostbusters is like “something Trump would do.”
just like when she did it?
Would a new Ghostbusters that continues the original storyline be a “reboot” or an “unboot”?
A “deglove.”
No.
Out here acting like “Mulaney” never happened on Fox and John’s just had a perfect career full of comic loveliness. Mulaney was a thing. It was godawful and it got canceled like, 5 episodes in. He’s only recently, through really hard work, become the touchstone of funny that he is. He couldn’t carry a multi-cam sitcom based on his standup though. Don’t get me wrong, I love him, but I hate this rose-tinted hindsight shit.
That Jones character in the Marvelous Miss sketch was so obvious. Can they not think of anything else to do with her? I mean, I think she sucks and can’t do shit but yell and act angry but still, give her something else to do or get her off of the show. Also, Jones may or may not like doing the same thing over and over again but she is getting a steady paycheck. So there’s that.
She does do other stuff, but sadly she and the writers go for the cheapest laughs. I thought she was going to be honest about her life (and racism) and get the complete opposite reaction that Maisel does.
Acts funny, says funny things. I think he’s funny. Unpolished, and far from the funniest/most consistent, but he still makes me laugh.
The fact that he looks and talks like a real-life muppet makes him naturally entertaining in small doses. It doesn’t really matter if he isn’t doing anything mindblowing. I actually like him better than much of the SNL cast, which is admittedly a very low bar to clear.
Agreed. Seems like a nice enough guy, but given how his personal life seems to prevent him from participating in multiple shows per year, I’m a little curious about how they justify his continued presence. Does he do a lot of heavy lifting in the writers room? Also, isn’t it weird that Keenan played two game show hosts this ep? I mean, are they going to transition him directly to daytime shows when he leaves SNL?
you had me nodding my head until the last paragraph about Leslie Jones, at which point I started shaking my head instead
I think part of the problem people have with her is that she’s fulfilling a stereotype we’re all annoyed with, including myself, but I can’t fault her for staying on SNL for the exposure. She’s basically a female Tracy Morgan, and while that worked for him in the aughts because it was a different time, SNL still does the “black roles” thing. They blew it by forcing out Sasheer Zamata, who was the epitome of what “This is what SNL needs but Lorne Michaels only knows an older way of doing things.” I honestly believe Jones, despite some weird Twitter rants, has more in her than just the Monique schtick, I just wish she’d get the chance, and the reason I like her is that she goes more against the SNL “type”than usual.
You have convinced me. While I think you are too generous with your characterization of “female Tracy Morgan”, the writing and Lorne’s dated comedy sensibilities are the clear culprits.
“[C]an we all admit he’s not funny?”No.“Leslie Jones is the best thing about SNL right now.”
Except for Kyle Mooney, Cecily Strong, Kate McKinnon, Heidi Gardner, and nearly every other member of the cast.
“… unsettling internet post from the publicly troubled Davidson…”As long as people are buying it, sure, anything for attention.
There seems to be a strange misconception that everything Pete Davidson does warrants an article.
The A.V. Club has a long history of shamelessly shilling for celebrities long after it becomes obvious they are being paid to do so. I really don’t know why they’ve decided that Not Funny Adam Sandler is the next big thing, but I’m going to love watching them back pedal after Davidson’s upcoming fall from grace.
But like, at least at one point Sandler was a box office champ. His new comeback stand-up special generated positive reviews from critics who famously hated him. I don’t see why this article wasn’t just a paragraph in the SNL review article.
Oh, I wasn’t clear: Pete Davidson’s publicists pay A.V. Club money to write these highly favorable but almost completely unearned puff pieces. I should not have made the Sandler comparison It confused things.
Ok, I got you. Yeah that would explain it.
Wait…this isn’t journalism?
Here’s the other thing: even if the over-saturation of Pete Davidson articles drive people bananas, they express that sentiment by writing comments about it, so then they look at their metrics and say, “Boy, those Pete Davidson articles get a big response. Let’s do more!”
“I don’t see why this article wasn’t just a paragraph in the SNL review article.” Don’t worry, it’s there too. It’s so important they covered it in two places.
Adam Sandler is still one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood. He’d still be pretty close to the top, outside of Ensemble franchises like F&F at this point.To downplay his success is folly.
For SEO reasons
Not Funny Adam Sandler? You mean Adam Sandler?Actually, I’m kidding, Adam Sandler is funny.
Happy Gilmore is fucking brilliant.
Ah, yes, like when they used to put up random articles about their crush on T.J. Miller, until… well, you know. (They still have Patton, at least).
Patton had best behave himself. He’s kinda all we have left.
I don’t think they are getting paid, I think they probably have some data showing Davidson stories have high engagement online re: entertainment news, likely due to his prior relationship with Ariana Grande. It’s not like the avclub is the only site spamming Davidson updates.
You’re probably right. I’m just cynical. At any rate, it’s clear they do not actually believe what they write.
Exactly its Sunday, its not like there is much of ANYTHING of note on Saturday except SNL related stuff. That 90 minutes is precious to them to keep the content flowing, even if its fluff that just gets engagement like this. However, engagement is engagement.
Yeah I don’t think SNL or Pete Davidson have reps handing out cash for coverage of him. It gets clicks and comments and I’m now guilty of it too.
“Fall from grace” seems rather generous given his credits. I’d go with “slip from the outer margins of notability”.
I see you bitching about some or another in pretty much every article on this site. Do you realize that nobody is forcing you to read this website? And that constantly bitching about it is most likely not going to change anything? Why do you punish yourself like this?
Puddinghead is a long time, consistent member of the AVC commentariat. Back when there was actually a community here it wasn’t uncommon to see multiple people read and comment on nearly every article posted. Unfortunately the quality has dipped significantly in the last couple years and all that has changed dramatically.
Again I ask: do you think constantly bitching is going to change anything? Why not find an online community that you actually like instead of showing up to the one that you don’t like anymore and whining? It’s like being a regular at a bar that changes ownership and clientele and being the old regular that sits at the end of the bar and complains about everything despite there being hundreds of other bars in town he could go to. Just leave. It’s never going to go back to how it was, no matter how much you whine.
Because there is no such thing as a good online community anymore, you nut. The smart people dont bother. Im only half smart so I only half bother.
Why did Statler and Waldorf go to The Muppet Show?
Its kinda funny to watch everyone turn on each other, in a sad way….
Yeah, but if he doesn’t let others know what he doesn’t like/care about, how will we know? He’s very important and we need to know all his opinions.
It certainly gotten you following him through the comments sections. Guess that’s something.
If you get us 500 Days of Petey D, I will never fucking forgive you.
You’re a fucking idiot.
Perkins has to put food on the table somehow.
Yeah, I think I read an article about something SNL-related once, so now my Google News feed curates me Pete Davidson constantly.
And an equally strange one that anything he does warrants an article.
He’s the Kardashian of comedy; famous for no reason other than being famous. I’m guilty of feeding it because I clicked on the article in my continued quest to find out why there’s an article about him.
moreso like AV Club always makes an extra SNL article highlighting a notable bit
No, that would be *too* easy. It must be a conspiracy.
I’m really getting tired of him.
Who? Davidson, Perkins, or Sandler?
Your comment cracked me up (much more than Pete Davidson ever has). Thank you.
This site continues to be the ONLY place that I hear about how great and funny John Mulaney is.
But yet here we are, replying. When it works it worksPS: I 100% agree that Pete Davidson is not worthy of all the attention and articles. Of all the SNL folks, really, this guy? I guess Kate McKinnon is old news?
Well, he’s funnier than you, and that’s nice to read about.
how dare you sir
Oh don’t worry, he’s funnier than me too, so you’re in good company.
I saw the Mule and enjoyed it. What their routine, which was just another round of making fun of the elderly, ignores is that this was based on a true story. Just a couple of kids who will, hopefully, be around long enough to regret this.
And as we all know, “based on a true story” always means that every single detail, even every line of dialog, is 100% true and accurate with no embellishment or exaggeration for dramatic effect at all. That 90 year old man really did have 2 threesomes. Not only that, but it was important enough to the story to be included in the film. Nothing gratuitous here.
Anyone claiming that the filmmakers just took the idea and filled in a bunch of details nobody knows about, changed timelines and characters to be more relevant, and introduced relationship dynamics that are verified to have never existed are clearly disrespectful young people just out to mock the elderly
Old people fuck constantly. It’s why everyone in senior care has STDs. Hell 90 year olds are probably having the majority of their life’s threesomes, going by the data.
Jesus, Clint, they were just having a little fun. And you’re movie was fucking ridiculous.
Clearly, only the harshest justice is sufficient for those who commit the heinous sin of… making fun of a movie for five minutes.
I took their bit like it was intentioned as being some light hearted fun.
Did the old guy really get onto that many threesomes, or was it just one threesome?
Yeesh. Be around long enough to regret… making fun of a movie? What bloody fate do you think such a horrible sin deserves?
I enjoyed it too but wish Eastwood didn’t go for a cop out ending. And yeah. Eastwood has a near 70 year career going and these two will not combine for half that probably. Eastwood is and has been a major player in the industry since the 60s. The two clowns making fun of him will never be.
Always an irrelevant non-point.
go to bed grandpa, you won’t remember any of this in the morning
Did you just call John Mulaney, who is 36 and married, a kid?
A true story of a 90-year-old man having two threesomes!Just because it’s true doesn’t make it not funny.
You just WISH you’d still be able when you’re 45.
I want you to look at how many “likes” your comment received. Then look at how many “likes” the next comment received. Now go to bed, old man.
had a lot of people worried for his safetySome people, not “a lot.” Honesty still matters, even in blogging.
Boy oh boy is Pete Davidson not funny
Is Dennis Perkins stupid or did he not watch the bit? Mulaney and Davidson did not trash The Mule. They had some fun with its premise of a ninety year old man being a successful drug mule. Mulaney said he liked the movie and their and I knew not take their nonsense about the movie seriously because they got the age of the mule wrong (movie, actor, real person) and expressed shock that the man was a well known prolific flower grower (in real life he was). The only thing trashy about the bit was the produces of SNL over estimating the popularity of Mulaney and Davidson and overestimating their comic abilities. Watching those two mug to amuse each other was not funny. It was a waste of time.
Did this article get posted on a conservative website or something? What’s with all the weird comments?
I love people bitching about Davidson not being funny. Sure, comedy is subjective, but is he opening for YOU on the road? No, turns out he’s opening for John freaking Mulaney, currently one of if not THE funniest standups working. If Mulaney thinks he’s funny, maaaaaybe he is?(FWIW I think the current best is Kyle Kinane. But Mulaney is amazing.)
Ah why dont you can that tired routine.
Why don’t YOU go can tuna?
Okay, fair enough, he can funny. It doesn’t mean we need an update about everything that happens to him.
Look, buddy, there was a time when people didn’t think we needed dozens and dozens of features on Cameron Esposito, but in retrospect all of that coverage has absolutely, positively justified itself.
lol the nail has been hit on the head
Fair.
I’m glad that whatever Davidson is going through hasn’t beaten him yet.
Yeah, so Clint Eastwood has become an old, sometimes disagreeable codger. That said, what the hell has Pete Davidson ever done? And dressing like a Soundcloud rapper isn’t an accomplishment.
Earned a spot on SNL?
Which is more than 90% of the population, granted, but put a record of his career up against most of the people he’s talked smack about, you’ll notice that there’s a skewing of the scales against one particular direction when it comes to overall accomplishments.
So you’re not allowed to criticize people who are more successful than you?
You can do whatever you want. However, that also means that when you do that other people can say “Yeah, shut up, you haven’t accomplished even half of what the person you’re criticising has done.” and have a point in doing so. Pete Davidson can talk smack about Clint Eastwood or whoever all he wants, and we can point out that Pete Davidson’s own lack of career highlights mean we don’t have to take him seriously all we want. Also: let’s not pretend you weren’t doing the exact same thing when you pointed out that Pete Davidson is on SNL as a reason why people shouldn’t object to him criticising Clint Eastwood.
What? Someone asked what Pete Davidson had accomplished in his life and I answered the question.In my opinion, anyone can criticize anyone, regardless of achievements, but seems you guys feel differently. Which begs the question, have you accomplished as much as Davidson has? Or should you be shutting up?
What? Someone asked what Pete Davidson had accomplished in his life and I answered the question.Fair enough, I may have been reading things that weren’t there on that one. Although it is possible to argue that, given the subject matter, there is a subtext along the lines that I suggested there, intended or otherwise. Nevertheless, I’ll withdraw that point. In my opinion, anyone can criticize anyone, regardless of achievements, but seems you guys feel differently. Which begs the question, have you accomplished as much as Davidson has? Or should you be shutting up?And this is where you lose me again, considering I originally acknowledged that Pete Davidson, by virtue of being on SNL, had accomplished more than most, began my reply to you with “you can do whatever you want”, and reiterated a couple of times that Pete Davidson has the right to say whatever he wants about whoever he wants. All I said was that it’s also possible and valid for people to in turn point out that, given the relative shortness of his resume, Pete Davidson might not necessarily be the best person to choose to throw around snark and criticism of a legendary actor and director responsible for a whole bunch of iconic characters and movies, even if those criticisms are fair. So I don’t think it’s particularly fair for you to accuse me of suggesting that anyone can’t criticise anyone else and, frankly, smacks a little of disingenuousness.Though for what it’s worth, while I’ll freely acknowledge that Davidson’s currently got me beat in the field of entertainment, I have earned a Ph.D so my life isn’t entirely without accomplishment. And I’ll also note that while, yes, I’m also criticising a much more accomplished entertainer, I’m only doing so in the comments section of a relatively niche blog and not on Saturday Night Live. I’m not expecting many people to seriously give a shit about my thoughts on Pete Davidson, but Pete Davidson’s clearly expecting a lot of people to give a shit about his thoughts on Clint Eastwood otherwise, well, he wouldn’t have broadcast them on live television to an audience of millions.
This thread is so dramatic. Did Pete go after Clint Eastwood and his entire body of work, or did he make tag team jokes about one movie? Does Pete really expect people to truly give a shit about his opinion of The Mule or does he just want them to laugh? And still, I disagree: while of course, it is possible (since people do do it) I do not think it’s valid to try to discredit fair criticism based on someone’s achievements. (That only Pete was called out is very telling.)Lol at me being “disingenuous.” I ask you a question and I’m somehow being unfair to you. I answer someone else’s question and I’m somehow using Pete’s success to validate his opinion. The subtext and ulterior motives you’ve created for these one-sentence responses are not there. Sorry.Not sure why you felt the need to inform me of your achievements since I maintain that they are irrelevant here. I don’t care what you’ve accomplished or where you’re sharing it: valid criticism is valid criticism.
This thread is so dramatic. Did Pete go after Clint Eastwood and his entire body of work, or did he make tag team jokes about one movie? Does Pete really expect people to truly give a shit about his opinion of The Mule or does he just want them to laugh?It can’t be two things?And still, I disagree: while of course, it is possible (since people do do it) I do not think it’s valid to try to discredit fair criticism based on someone’s achievements. (That only Pete was called out is very telling.)That’s fair. It’s fine that we disagree. Though Pete was probably called out because he’s the one who has overall accomplished less; while I wouldn’t necessarily stack John Mulaney’s accomplishments up against Clint Eastwood’s either, he’s accomplished more than Pete Davidson has.Lol at me being “disingenuous.” I ask you a question and I’m somehow being unfair to you. I answer someone else’s question and I’m somehow using Pete’s success to validate his opinion. And you’ll notice that I freely conceded this and dropped that point. The “disingenuousness” wasn’t that you asked a question that I misinterpreted; it was that you blatantly misinterpreted my position. If you’re going to argue and disagree with me, that’s fine, but at least do me the courtesy of bothering to read my posts and basing your disagreement on what I’ve actually said.The subtext and ulterior motives you’ve created for these one-sentence responses are not there. Sorry.Again; I acknowledged that one. But you still suggested I held a position that I didn’t.Not sure why you felt the need to inform me of your achievements since I maintain that they are irrelevant here. I don’t care what you’ve accomplished or where you’re sharing it: valid criticism is valid criticism.Never mind reading my posts, are you even reading your own? I shared my achievements because you asked what I achieved. It was, you know, a response to a question you asked. Here, I can even quote it for you:Which begs the question, have you accomplished as much as Davidson has? Or should you be shutting up?I was offering you a basis on why I feel valid in criticising Pete Davidson. Like, you know, you asked.And FWIW you’re right. Valid criticism is valid criticism. And personally, I think it’s valid to point out that Pete Davidson hasn’t done much to make it worth taking him seriously when he snarks at far more accomplished and successful people. You apparently don’t. It seems like we can leave it there, because this doesn’t seem like a productive conversation for either of us.
No, of course not. Happily, I may be of some assistance. I may appear to be a mere pseudonymous commenter on an entertainment website, but in actuality I have had roughly the same amount of public success in the entertainment world as Mr. Davidson has enjoyed to date, and in my professional estimation he’s….just ok.
“Roughly the same?” So less than him, right? Also, and? We’re discussing the fact that some people think you have to have superior achievements in order to criticize someone. No one’s saying Pete’s the end all, be all.
Still not as funny as Jebediah Atkinson reviewing movies.
That’s like saying a Pearl isn’t a diamond. You still want both.
Who knew we’d look back on the halcyon days of Taran Killam as favorably in comparison? Not I, not I.
Unpopular opinion: I like the stories about Pete, he’s interesting, he already was before all of the blowups, he’s talented as hell when he can keep it together, I look forward to seeing a full standup set by him (esp if he’s opening for Mullaney). He’s also fascinating because he’s got some serious overlap between loveable, likeable, and detestable qualities. Also, jokes about jerking off aren’t going to suddenly get old, it’s been since mankind emerged on the scene, only a meteor will cancel them.
I honestly didn’t get into Pete’s stuff until after all this attention started getting directed at him, and I think he’s really funny. That said, Mulaney is a national treasure.
I think Davidson is funny, but that wasn’t all that great.
And Andy Garcia will move his leg so I can get to my seat. Brilliant.
Pete Davidson is just staggeringly awful. John Mulaney is a national treasure.
So that it doesn’t get buried in the endless debate over Pete Davidson:…Wait, does The Mule – in the middle of the #MeToo movement – really have a prominent Republican male director / lead actor putting himself in multiple threesome scenes? How has this film been out for weeks now, and no one (other than John Mulaney & Pete Davidson) is talking about the threesomes? It’s not like the studio had Thanos tweeting out a letter asking people not to reveal spoilers for the movie. Yet, outside of the commercials and stories about the film’s box office, it’s been virtually radio silent out there for a film that I just assumed would be a Best Picture nominee. Remember all the “fake baby” talk for American Sniper? That is the level of discussion I expect when Dirty Harry has a pair of women (I assume, because he was the director) making his day….twice.
Man, what is up with the comments section today. It’s like a Fox news convention in here.
Did he smuggle in actual humour or talent, by any chance?
How in the hell did a guy as weird, strange, unfunny and down right butt ugly as Pete Davidson ever get a girl like Ariana Grande?!! I don’t know. Maybe she’s weird, strange and unfunny too. But she most definitely is NOT butt ugly.
Honestly, i like them as a comedic duo. I’d watch a buddy movie with them. You could make it interesting by making John Mulaney be the “slob” and Pete Davidson as the uptight one. BUT, have them look exactly like they do here. It certainly would not make any money, but i’d watch it.
Davidson looks kinda lit tho