ReelThoughts
Choose the month you would like to access:
| New Movies | ReelThoughts | Video Views | The Archives | 2008 List | Top 100 | PRICE novels | FAQ |
ReelThoughts
|
Double-Dipping with Dr. Jones (Video Views)
Beginning this week, I have decided to re-structure the "Video Views" weekly column so it no longer represents a prose catalog of new releases but instead concentrates on one or two hot topics or something interesting associated with a new release. Hopefully, readers will find this more interesting. The other format, while informative and more comprehensive, wasn't a lot of fun to read.
George Lucas is once again pissing off his loyal fans. When it comes to the process of "double dipping" (re-releasing a differently packaged version of a movie), no one has perfected the art better than Lucas. Long-time, Star Wars stalwarts know whereof I speak. The original trilogy was released in pan-and-scan on VHS some time in the mid-'80s. A few years later, it came out in widescreen VHS. Then there were the original laserdiscs, the "last chance to get the originals" versions released shortly before the theatrical openings of the special editions, and the box set which included the special editions. With DVD, Star Wars has already seen two releases and there's at least one more coming. So it's not unreasonable that a true believer could own as many as seven copies of each installment of the original trilogy. How does Lucas do this? By savvy marketing and an understanding how the fan mind works. The obsessive, completist need to have everything assures that any new release, as long as it offers even a crumb of something not previously available, will be successful. (To be fair to Lucas, he's not the only one to do this. Paramount has been similarly milking Star Trek fans.)
Our pal George is at it again, this time with Indiana Jones. This week, the Indy movies are arriving as stand-alone special editions. If you're a fan of Dr. Jones, you may wonder whether you should buy these "new" versions or whether the four-disc box set from a few years ago is good enough. It goes back to the completist question. Lucas is betting that enough Indy fans MUST have it all, so they'll buy the new special editions to complement their existing box set.
So what's different? Not the movies. They are exactly the same transfers that came to DVD a few years ago. So, if you're like me and don't care much about special features, there is no reason whatsoever to even consider these special editions. No deleted scenes, no outtakes. Yes, the title of Raiders of the Lost Ark has been changed to Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, but that was true of the first DVD release as well. (Given Lucas' history of revisionism, perhaps we should be glad that's the only thing he has changed.) The content of disc #4 of the original set is entirely missing. Instead, it has been replaced by a series of featurettes on each movie disc. So, if you want the featurettes, you have to buy the new special editions.
What's curious is Lucas' decision to release the Indy trilogy in standard DVD rather than Blu-Ray. Okay, maybe considering Paramount's HD-DVD flirtation, that wasn't possible within the allotted time window, but what better way to market both high-def discs and the series than by making 1080p versions of the first three films available a week before the fourth opens? Of course, that doesn't fit Lucas' m.o. of milking his properties for all they're worth. This is only the fourth version of the Indy films to be released (VHS, laserdisc, two DVD editions). Why go straight to high-def when there's still a segment of the standard DVD market left to be conquered? Originally, the movies were available only as a package. Now, viewers can get them individually. One might assume that Raiders will outsell the other two by a significant margin.
If you don't already own these movies, by all means go out and buy them. Join the Lucas gravy train. I'm on it, although I will be giving these special editions a pass. I'm happy with my box set and I can wait until the high-def versions arrive. It will be interesting to see what Lucas does in the fall when Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull comes out for home viewing. Does he release it in both Blu-Ray and standard DVD or does he buck the blockbuster trend and go standard DVD only? And if it comes out in Blu-Ray, what about the earlier films?
The problem with this release is that Lucas isn't giving us anything truly new. He's not doing anything for the fans. He's using this as an opportunity to fatten his already-bulging purse and to market the new film. He could have accomplished the same aims with a Blu-Ray release (plus providing a gift to those fans who have adopted the new format), but that's not the direction in which he chose to move. If George Lucas wonders why his name is dragged through the mud in fan circles, all he has to do is look at the price tag associated with loving his films.
The Lost Art of Sneaking
October 1982. My seventeenth birthday was nearly two years in the future and, unlike many of my contemporaries, I looked younger than my age. On that fateful afternoon, I was standing in the lobby of a single mega-theater (2000 seats), awaiting my opportunity to pass the ticket to the usher and have it ripped. An older friend had purchased two, allowing me to bypass the crabby old woman at the box office who surely would have asked to see my nonexistent driver's license. The movie I was in line for was First Blood. The MPAA's rating: R. (For those unfamiliar with United States movie rating system, R designates "Under 17 not permitted without parent or guardian.")
First Blood was not my first R-rated movie. That was Conan the Barbarian, which I had seen some five months earlier (in the same theater with the same crabby woman at the box office and the same middle-aged usher). On that occasion, I had done it legitimately, dragging my poor father with me. I'm sure there were many things he would have preferred doing than watching the future Governator hack and slash his way through the hoards of snakes and men led by Darth Vader without his black costume. (Side note: While I liked Conan, the highlight of the afternoon was the preview for Star Trek II - "Beyond the darkness, beyond the human evolution, there is Khan, a genetically superior tyrant...")
The doors were open. My hands were sweating. With my friend in front of me, I shuffled forward with the line, trying to appear as inconsequential as possible. Suddenly, I was there, ticket proffered to the usher. I tried to keep my eyes fixed on the floor but I couldn't resist glancing up. My eyes met his. For a moment, he regarded me skeptically. Time stood still. My heart thudded so loudly that I was sure everyone could hear it. Then the beginnings of a smile touched the usher's lips. He ripped the ticket and I was in.
Twenty-six years later, that theater is no more. The crabby old lady at the box office has shuffled off to other realms. (She died in the early '90s.) I have only a fuzzy memory of the movie. But I recall with crystal clarity my first (and only) experience sneaking into an R-rated movie. I also wasn't the only one. When the movie started that Saturday afternoon, there were about 900 people in that theater and at least one-third of them were underage. A good portion of that group was not accompanied by a parent or guardian. Some got in the same way I did. Others entered via a more clandestine means: getting a compatriot already inside to open the exit door – the time-honored way to beat the system or avoid paying for a ticket.
Today's underage movie-goers don't have to work so hard. The advent of multiplexes and megaplexes made Sneaking a lost art. Now, all one has to do is pay for a PG-13 movie and wander down the endless halls of the theater to an auditorium showing the R-rated movie. Budgetary constraints at the 24-plex mean there are only two ticket takers (one at the entrance to each of the two wings) and no ushers to check for unauthorized patrons viewing R-rated films. At a Saturday evening showing of an R-rated movie last year (300), more than 50% of the audience was comprised of teenagers. None of them looked like they had endured sweaty palms and heart palpitations to get in.
There's a paradox at work here. Even as it has gotten pathetically simple for a 14-year old to see an R-rated movie, the number of such films in which this segment of the audience might be interested has dwindled to nearly zero. In 2008, the average male-centered action/adventure yarn (the R-rated staple of the Schwarzenegger/Stallone era) is no longer rated R. It's PG-13. The violence and sex have been toned down just enough to cross the thin line between what's acceptable and what corrupts. So no sneaking is necessary.
Still, once in a while, along comes a Matrix Reloaded or a 300 - R-rated movies that 15-year old boys are dying to see. In 1982, I had to strategize a campaign for entry, from having someone else buy the ticket to the far-fetched story I was going to tell the usher if he stopped me. (Don't ask what it was. I don't remember, but I do recall it was outlandish. Fortunately, I didn't have to use it.) Today's teens don't have to worry about such things. They don't even have to dodge into the bathroom then furtively head for the R-rated auditorium.
All of this makes me wonder if there's even a point to the R-rating. If a boy or girl wants to see an R-rated movie, there's nothing stopping them. And things are more lax on home video. How many Best Buys check ID when a 15-year old buys an R-rated DVD? The idea that the R-rating is preventing anyone from seeing a title is an illusion to comfort out-of-touch adults. The only rating where entry is policed by theaters is NC-17, and there aren't many movies with that classification. (Plus, most major chains don't show them.)
The "R" classification is worthwhile only in that it allows viewers to know that the content is "harder" than in a PG-13 movie. It therefore has some (dubious) informational value. In terms of actually limiting a portion of the movie-going public from seeing the films, it's a failure. Theaters don't have the manpower to enforce the rating and, even if they had it, one doubts they would aggressively pursue such action. Because the majority of multiplex revenue comes from snack sales, it doesn't make a difference to the local AMC whether a teenager is actually seeing a Disney cartoon or torture porn. The rule when the bottom line is involved: don't mess with the revenue stream. Don't force teenagers to go elsewhere because of a strict policing policy.
This summer, there won't be any teenagers wondering if they're going to be caught in the act of jumping from a PG-13 movie to an R-rated one across the hall. (In fact, they could probably see both without paying twice. Theater jumping for multiple features is as frequent an occurrence as misrepresenting what's being seen.) The first and most obvious reason relates to the lack of high-profile R-rated movies arriving during the next few months. The second reason is that the art of Sneaking, like so many other relics of the pre-multiplex world, is a foreign concept to today's movie-goers.
Theatrical Releases: May 9, 2008
This was supposed to be the weekend of Speed Racer - or at least that's how it looked a few months ago. May was supposed to be neatly compartmentalized. First weekend: Iron Man. Second weekend: Speed Racer. Third weekend: Prince Caspian. Fourth (Memorial Day) weekend: Indiana Jones and the Too-Long Name. Fifth weekend: Sex and the City. Looking at things from a closer perspective, it appears that Speed Racer isn't going to hold up its end of the bargain, resulting in Iron Man claiming the Box Office Champion badge for a second weekend in a row. It won't be three-for-three, however. Narnia, regardless of whether it's good or bad, has enough magic to knock the superhero into second place.
So why is Speed Racer unlikely to win the race? The simple answer would be that it's not very good but, when it comes to summer blockbusters, that's not a realistic explanation. Instead, this is a movie without an audience (or at least without a large audience). While the style and ADD-friendly race sequences might seem like the kind of things that would appeal to children, the lengthy, exposition-riddled dead spots will cause restlessness and the 135-minute running time will prove to be insurmountable in many cases. Keeping kids seated and quiet for the 90-minute length of a Disney movie can be a challenge (depending on the youngster); try multiplying that length by 1.5. Speed Racer is a cult movie. It just happens to have cost and lot of money and was foolishly positioned as a would-be summer blockbuster. The film is going to get favorable reviews from those viewers who are "into" this kind of thing. But it doesn't work for everybody (including me). In fact, it won't work for most people. The problem: while the visuals are disorienting and exhilarating for a while, once you get past the opening euphoria, there's nothing left except two hours of dull cinema. Contrary to what one might expect from the name, Speed Racer is slow going.
Counterprogramming comes from a romantic comedy for the second week in a row. Last week, Made of Honor stared down Iron Man and got blown away. This week, it's What Happens in Vegas, which will probably do as well. If one assumes the same number of people will go to multiplexes this weekend as did last weekend, the May 2-4 Iron Man audience will probably be split about 55/45 between those who go back for another dip in the superhero pool and those who brave Speed Racer, leaving the Made of Honor audience to venture into the Cameron Diaz/Ashton Kutcher rom-com. More people will watch Patrick Dempsey on TV this week than in movie theaters. What Happens in Vegas is a more enjoyable experience than Made of Honor but it has problems, especially during the early-going.
So what's a critic to do when it comes to making a Pick of the Week when there's nothing new that's worthwhile? Fall back on Iron Man again. Hey, Robert Downey Jr. is worth seeing a second time. That's exactly what a lot of teenage boys and older men will be doing this weekend. Women and girls might give it a shot, too, since it's got more going for it than the average superhero movie.
Next week: Aslan roars again as The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian opens unopposed. But the guy in the fedora is just around the corner, coiling the whip to strike.
Video View: May 6, 2008
A bit of consumer advice: if you don't have a Blu-Ray player at this time and you live in the United States, don't use your stimulus rebate check to buy one. Wait until November - that's when price cuts and sales will drive down prices into a range that's close to reasonable. Right now, if you walk into a Best Buy to get one, the cheapest unit you'll find is $400. There are several stand-alone players available at that price as well as the PS3 (which, because of its upgradeability, is the best choice at the moment). However, by the time the holiday buying season arrives, there will be a big push to sell Blu-Ray players. A $100 drop in price is not out of the question, and there may be opportunities to nab something as inexpensive as $250. So, if you want to go high-def but have six months' worth of patience, you'll be rewarded. Besides, there are not a lot of exciting titles arriving on Blu-Ray in the next few months, even with both Paramount and Universal entering the market.
This week's roster of new titles is dreadful, but that's to be expected now that Hollywood is drawing on the early 2008 theatrical release roster for their prime DVD titles. Movie-goers showed little excitement for films that came out between late January and late April. DVD watchers will have the same complaint from now until August. Iron Man could show up on DVD any time between late August and early October. Until then, don't get too excited about home video. If you avoid theaters and simply wait for the DVDs, now you'll see why so many people were unenthused this past winter.
Leading the way this week is a late-2007 leftover, P.S. I Love You, an insipid romantic weeper that is being released in both standard and Blu-Ray formats. This week's other dual format release is the comedy First Sunday. The artsy Bob Dylan bio-pic I'm Not There, which features Heath Ledger in one of his final roles, is available in standard DVD only. Also out: Teeth, an offbeat coming of age story about a girl with a unique defense system that ensures she'll never be raped, and Over Her Dead Body, which sounds like a horror movie but is actually a romantic comedy. Then, for those who want to see how bad it can get, there's The Hottie and the Nottie.
Three catalog titles arrive on Blu-Ray this week: Twister, which should benefit greatly from the enhanced video and audio - this is an event movie that's entirely driven by spectacle; The Devil's Own, a Harrison Ford/Brad Pitt vehicle; and Shall We Dance, an inferior American re-make of a Japanese film. I can readily understand why Twister is being released in high-def, but who's going to buy the other two?
The TV-to-DVD roster is light this week as well. There's The 4400 Season 4, Bewitched Season 6, and Crossing Jordan Season 1. Now that virtually everything from the TV vaults is available, I'm wondering how long it will be before the Blu-Ray repackaging starts. HD-DVD already tried with Battlestar Galactica Season 1 and Star Trek Season 1, so how many months until we see the Fonz in high-def?
Consistency as a Hobgoblin
Generally speaking, consistency is a desirable quality in a film critic. It's how individuals use reviews to determine the likelihood of liking or disliking a movie. If a reader doesn't have a barometer for a critic, it's impossible to tell how well his/her opinions will mesh with the reader's. On the other hand, when the critic is a known quantity, it becomes easier to make a comparison. It's not necessary to regularly agree with a critic for a review to be valuable; it's merely necessary to understand where the similarities and differences lie. This is the reason I always preface a discussion of my "star" ratings with the following qualifier: "Recommended/Not Recommended/etc. for someone whose preferences closely match my own." That's why the meaningfulness of a star or numerical rating is highly subjective. It's the review text where the valuable information is to be found.
If a critic is inconsistent, he or she may still have value as a writer, but his/her ability to function as a recommender is compromised. Roger Ebert is an excellent scribe and his understanding of film is arguably without peer, but his recent trend of doling out four-star ratings to films he would likely have been harsher to ten years ago makes it difficult to trust his reviews with respect to recommendations. A decade ago, my views correlated strongly with Roger's. Now, we disagree more often than we agree. Have I changed? Perhaps - I have moved twice, married, and grown more cynical since I was 30. But Roger's recent and ongoing health issues have more likely given him a deeper appreciation of life and a sense of mortality. (This is speculation, of course.) So it's understandable if his perspectives and priorities have shifted. He has become more forgiving. But this makes comparing Roger Ebert 2008 to Roger Ebert 1990 a difficult and puzzling task. On the other hand, there are many critics I agreed or disagreed with in 1998 that I still agree or disagree with at about the same rate.
Going forward, let me concentrate on myself rather than speculating about Roger. I would estimate my consistency rate at about 98%. That means that 98% of the time when I watch a movie a second time, I have the same opinion of it as when I first watched it. So, while my feelings don't often change, they do change. Apply that 98% to 3500 movies and there are about 70 reviews where the star rating would shift one way or the other by about 0.5 star. In some ways, it's amazing that I feel the same way about so many titles I saw when I was 25 as I do about them at 40. Certainly, the same would not be true of the prior 15-year span. My tastes at 25 did not match those when I was 10. (Favorite movie at 25: Patton. Favorite movie at 10: Star Wars.)
As a general rule, I do not re-write reviews or re-rate movies even when I know my opinion has changed. There's value in the review representing a "snapshot" of my opinion at the time I write it. I can recall having changed three reviews after their publication (although there may be one or two more that I don't remember): Casablanca ("upgraded" from 3.5 to 4.0 stars), Crash ("upgraded" from 2.5 to 3.0 stars), and 3-Iron (rating unchanged but significant changes to the write-up). I have long toyed with the idea of authoring new reviews of select movies I have previously written about; it would be interesting to see whether I notice the same things. This project has ended up on the back-burner but may at some time end up as a regular feature.
I am aware of the titles over the years for which I have diverged the most widely from the consensus. Heat and The Sixth Sense top the list of movies about which I was considerably less enthusiastic than many of those who read this site. I have revisited both more than once in the privacy of my home theater and my opinion remains the same. Maybe I'm just stubborn. On the other hand, I admit disagreeing slightly with three of my six Star Wars reviews - I would knock a half star from Return of the Jedi, The Phantom Menace, and Attack of the Clones. I'm also not as bullish about Forrest Gump as I once was, but my enthusiasm has increased for The Story of Qui Ju. Twister would no longer get three stars but The Mummy might.
The importance of consistency in a film critic is largely a function of what one believes the primary responsibility of such a person to be. This opens up the argument about whether a critic should be "scholarly" or "popular." I think there's room for both types - one to provide broader views about a wide number of movies and the other to explore the dry corners for a select audience that chooses to delve deeply into the nuances of cinema. Consistency is one of the most important characteristics for one who would define himself as belonging in the former category. It is easily trumped by knowledge and experience for those who set themselves up as members of the latter. Scholarly and Popular critics both employ the same tools - film theory and opinion - but they weigh them differently and there is some tension between the two groups as a result. (Scholarly critics belittle Popular critics as having anorexic critical facilities. Popular critics call Scholarly critics elitist and out-of-touch.)
Do film critics change their opinions over the years? Probably more than they're willing to admit. Age changes everyone. That's why so many 20-year old liberal Democrats are conservative Republicans by the time they turn 60. It would be a fascinating project to examine ten critics by having them re-review a few movies today that they initially reviewed during the 1980s (without allowing them to re-read what they once wrote) and see what changes emerge. Ultimately, such a study would be an examination of consistency in all its forms: consistency of style, consistency of opinion, and consistency of film knowledge. My sense is that the critics who are regarded the most highly will be the ones whose 2008 re-reviews track their 1980s original reviews closely. (I'm sure there's a book or a doctoral dissertation in here somewhere.)
Theatrical Releases: May 2, 2008
This is the weekend of Iron Man. Anything else is pretty much inconsequential. This opening has been awaited for a long time by a wide variety of people. Web publishers who operate movie-related sites have been holding out for May 2 because increased interest in movies represents more traffic, which translates into a greater number of clicks on advertisements and more revenue. Hollywood is in desperate need of good news; there hasn't been much since January. And the average movie-goer has been waiting for something worthwhile to abandon the sofa and head for the multiplex. It's not much of an exaggeration to label Iron Man as cinema's 2008 savior - provided it meets expectations. If it fails to come close to what's being projected, we may be in for a bleak summer.
What's encouraging about Iron Man is that not only is it highly anticipated but it's also best summer-opening blockbuster in years. When all is said and done, 2007's Spider-Man 3 will still rule the roost (with an opening weekend grab of $151 million) but, in terms of quality and general audience appeal, Iron Man trumps his older and better-known sibling. The future of the Spider-Man franchise is in question but, barring an unforeseen and unimaginable box-office disaster, Iron Man should be back with its creative team intact in another two or three summers. If the superhero movie trend holds true and the second film is the strongest of the series (as has been the case with Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and X-Men, that means there's something to look forward to. Meanwhile, Iron Man is this week's uncontested, projected Box Office Champion as well as the Pick of the Week.
Common wisdom dictates that Iron Man is aimed at a primarily male audience, although the film has a broad enough appeal to cross age and gender lines. Nevertheless, Columbia has decided to counterprogram with the feeble romantic comedy Made of Honor. The mediocre quality of the movie is irrelevant; some people will see it because it isn't Iron Man or because they can't get into Iron Man and don't want to wait around for the next showing for which tickets are available. The film's main draw is Patrick Dempsey; there really isn't anything else worth mentioning. The script and lack of chemistry between the protagonists are major downsides.
There are three movies opening in various stages of limited release. Fugitive Pieces was the 2007 Toronto Film Festival's Opening Night feature, but its lukewarm reception with critics and film-goers north of the border resulted in it being passed by the major distributors. It opens this weekend in very limited release and probably won't go wider. For those who are intrigued by the premise, DVD availability should be just around the corner. The other two limited releases will be going wider in the next few weeks, and both should expand to enough theaters that anyone with a desire will be able to see them. The first, Son of Rambow, is an endearing, if a little unsurprising, coming-of-age story that arrives with Sylvester Stallone's official "Rambo" seal of approval. The second, Redbelt, has David Mamet dabbling in Mixed Martial Arts. This may not be a marriage made in heaven but the idea alone is almost worth a trip to a theater. The concept isn't bungled but it's not an unqualified success.
Ultimately, however, all these secondary films are footnotes. This weekend is all about Iron Man. Perhaps the more interesting question is not how much Marvel's newest superhero grosses this weekend, but what it does next weekend. Conventional wisdom indicates that Speed Racer is the Big Event for May 9, but the advance buzz is tepid and there are early indications it may underperform. (The Wachowskis have long since lost their Midas Touch.) If that happens, it could open the door for Iron Man to take the top spot for two consecutive weeks - something almost unprecedented when the competition is this hot.
|