ReelThoughts
Choose the month you would like to access:
| New Movies | ReelThoughts | Video Views | The Archives | Top 100 | PRICE novels | FAQ |
ReelThoughts
|
---
Feb. 1 (F): Weekly Theatrical Releases: February 1, 2008
Weekly Theatrical Releases: February 1, 2008
According to sources, the box office this January is up 18% over last January. No doubt, this makes the Suits in Hollywood very happy. Unfortunately, I suspect they may not be divining the right message from the increased dollar amounts. Their read is probably that they're making a great product and movie-goers are deliriously happy about it. To me, that's at least a partially fallacious interpretation of the tea leaves. Meteorologists might agree with me.
While it's true that some of that percentage is the result of unusually strongly performing 2007 holdovers (Juno and No Country for Old Men in particular, both of which have greatly exceeded expectations) and a rare January "event movie" (Cloverfield), there may be something at work that no movie studio can control: unseasonably warm weather. The fact is that the majority of the United States was stuck in a snowless pattern for the majority of the month. The brutal cold and wave of storms that molested the Great Lakes region and Northeast during December backed off after the first of the year. Two major cities typically buried in white by now had telling numbers in January: Philadelphia 1" of snow; New York 0" of snow. The most densely populated portion of the United States had multiplex-friendly weather in January, and there's no doubt that contributed to the upsurge.
If Hollywood thinks January is a harbinger of things to come, I would advise caution. Four months are not good barometers: January, February, August, and September. If the numbers are still up in March, then a little excitement is warranted. But, from my position, there hasn't been enough of an upsurge in either quality or viewer excitement in January to merit the movie execs throwing a ticker tape parade.
What about this weekend?
Super Bowl weekend is typically a slow three days for multiplexes. Certainly, the two most widely distributed features would seem to support the historical trend. Neither The Eye, a Jessica Alba-starring Asian ghost story remake, nor Over Her Dead Body, an Eva Longoria-starring ghost story romantic comedy, is the kind of feature that will set the box office afire. But there's something else out there, a powerhouse in teenage clothing (her own line, no less)...
Conventional wisdom indicates The Eye should make the most money. It's a popular genre for teens and is opening in the most number of theaters. But anyone making that prediction didn't see what I saw at 11:00 this morning when I arrived to view the unscreened-for-critics The Eye. Every show of the day for Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour was sold out. Before noon. In a multiplex where the digital theater seats 400. Think this movie doesn't have punch? It's so review-proof I didn't bother and neither did anyone else. Every tween girl in the country will want to see this. The impediment for Hannah Montana is that because it's digital-only, its number of theaters is limited to 700. Still, let's do the math. 6 shows per day x 300 seats (average) per theater x $6 admission price (averaging student, parent, and matinee prices) x 700 theaters x 3 days. That's nearly $23M. That assumes sold out shows all weekend but, considering the popularity of this phenomenon, there's no reason to doubt that's possible. $23 million, or even 75% of that should be more than enough to trounce the competition. For that reason, I'm willing to go out on a limb and crown Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus as this week's Box Office Champion.
When it comes to recommendations, I have to go to the indie box. Caramel is an okay diversion but not really reason enough to head for the local art house. Honeydripper, on the other hand, is a good excuse to spend a few hours away from home - if you can find a theater playing it. It offers a solid story, excellent character development, and some great music. This isn't going to get the February box office off to a roaring start (we'll leave that to Hannah), but it's the best thing opening this weekend and is my Pick of the Week.
Next week: the release schedule starts getting busy again, but is anything good? And could the Paris Hilton movie possibly be as bad as it looks? (In a word: YES!)
Short Clips
This is a new regular (or semi-regular) feature for ReelThoughts that's intended to provide some weekend content as well as more interaction with readers. The idea behind "Short Clips" is for me to reply and react (in general) terms to e-mails from the past week. Since it's my policy not to quote e-mails (except for the occasional "hate mail" columns I post), I'll paraphrase where necessary.
When the week started, I was getting occasional e-mails from HD-DVD supporters railing against my assertion that Blu-Ray has become the dominant high def format. When I look at the numbers - both in terms of January software and hardware sales - it's hard to come to another conclusion. Warner's defection has given Blu Ray control of 70% of content (not that they're being aggressive in terms of releasing desirable titles). It's tough for Paramount and Universal to make a business case for staying HD-DVD exclusive and when they shift, HD-DVD becomes a footnote. It's not a matter of my being a "Sony lover" (in fact, I rejected Sony for both of my new TVs; their quality control isn't what it once was); it's a matter of looking at the landscape and making an informed, rational decision. If you're looking to get into high def DVD, Blu Ray is unquestionably the way to go. As for HD-DVD, I'm holding off on buying any new discs until the inevitable clearance sales. At that time, I should be able to get titles I would pay $25 for now at less than $10.
Advertising was the next big topic after I mentioned my decision to add pop-unders. Several readers advocated becoming an Amazon affiliate. I had decided to go with DVD Planet because they offer better terms, but I'm wondering if Amazon's domination of the market makes them a better choice. Of course, since there doesn't appear to be any exclusivity involved, maybe I'll go with both.
Then there's the question of a main page re-design, which was mentioned in numerous e-mails. The current movies.html is functional but its visual appeal is marginal at best – I'm aware of that. It will have to be reworked. I previously mentioned an idea proposed by one e-mailer about a contest, and this is the direction in which I will proceed. If nothing else, I'm curious to see whether I'll get any submissions and what the ideas will look like. The "prize" will be non-monetary: a prominently placed citation (with or without a link – winner's decision) something along the lines of "This page was designed by xxxxxx." My expectation is that entrants will be those who do this sort of thing either as a hobby or as a second job and are looking for exposure. In 2007, movies.html received 3.6 million visits, so a lot of eyeballs see the page. I'll officially announce the contest (with rules) in about a week (Probably Wednesday, February 20). Entrees will be accepted the first two weeks of March with the eventual goal of having the new page up by mid-April. If I don't get any entrees, I'll have to do the re-design myself, which will take considerably longer.
"The Boob Tube" received some interesting responses. Some were from Christians who believe that nudity such as Charlotte Ross' is at the top of a slippery slope that ends with porn destroying the family structure. I have heard the argument before, usually supported by skewed statistics. (That's the thing about statistics – you need to look not only at the numbers but at the methods used to derive them.) My rebuttal is to point to Europe where nudity is accepted as a natural facet of the human experience and civilization as we know it has not collapsed. Another valid point made by e-mailers is that the U.S. views sex/nudity the way Europe views violence, and vice versa. There might be a column there some day, although I certainly wouldn't be the first person to express an opinion about the issue.
By the way, I want to clarify something that's not apparent in the NYPD Blue YouTube clip (since it's soundless and short). Taken in context (I have seen the entire episode), the scene is supposed to be humorous. Charlotte Ross does not play the kid's mother; she's his father's (Dennis Franz's) girlfriend. Eventually, her character would marry Franz's character, creating the ultimate Beauty and the Beast story. But the fact that a kid sees a naked woman isn't what the FCC has a problem with; it's the "naked woman" part of the equation. Apparently, no one on that board has a sense of humor because the scene is funny.
Finally, it looks like my proposed numbers were very close on the Hannah Montana film. The movie is making a killing at the box office. One wonders if Disney is in the process of striking film prints so they can expand it to 2000 theaters next weekend. I always wondered if the decision to go all-digital was a mistake. I believe the film could have easily pulled in $50-70M if it had opened wider. Then again, there's something to be said for limited distribution and sold-out shows. But, while that did The Blair Witch Project a world of good, I'm not sure it makes any difference here. The audience is built in and sold-out shows merely cause frustration for those who can't get in. And, since girls will want to go back time and time again, there's a goldmine sitting here – as those who paid $1000 to ticket brokers for seats at the concert know.
Rewarding the Pirates
The following applies specifically to the MPAA and the computer game industry, but it wouldn't take much imagination to extend it to the RIAA as well...
If we're going to face reality, which is something the MPAA religiously fails to do, it's necessary to acknowledge that piracy is here to stay. Someone likened going after piracy sites (like The Pirate Bay) to playing a game of "whack-a-mole" - when you knock one down, two will pop up in different places. Yet the MPAA doggedly continues to pursue the impossible-to-succeed "stamp out piracy" approach rather than trying something different, like changing their revenue model to reduce the appeal of obtaining pirated material. Why? Because such an approach flies in the face of the MPAA's current greed-above-all mantra.
I've presented this statistic before but it's worth repeating. The average cost (manufacturing, royalties, etc.) of one DVD is about $2. It's higher for some titles and lower for others, but all are in that range. So if it costs $2, why does a heavily discounted disc sell for around $17? The retailer purchases it from the distributor at about 50% of list price. So if a DVD lists at $25, Amazon.com is getting it for $12.50. If they sell it at 30% off, the consumer is paying $17.50 and Amazon is getting $5. The studio, however, is picking up about $10 in pure profit. Per disc. This isn't capitalism; it's highway robbery.
One obvious approach to making a dent in piracy (not wiping it out - that simply won't happen) is to stop looking at DVDs as opportunities to fleece movie-lovers. There's no reason a DVD can't be sold for $10. With that price, the studio and Amazon.com would both collect about $4 each. Or, when it comes to downloads with the middle man eliminated, $6 is reasonable. But we don't live in a world where "reasonable" is in the vocabulary of those who have been blinded by green. "Greed is good," said Gordon Gecko, and he was right - until that greed results in short-sighted decisions that lead down the road to potential ruination.
But price isn't even the most insidious thing at work here. If I buy a DVD, that's all I have - a DVD. It's in nice case so I can display it on a shelf alongside my other DVDs. But I get one copy and one copy only. What happens if I lose the disc in a move or if I take it with me on an airplane and it is damaged as a result of today's "security measures" (which apparently involve 400-pound guerillas jumping up and down on suitcases)? Tough luck. The disc is copy protected so I can't make a backup copy. If it's lost or damaged and I still want it in my library, I have to fork out another $17.
If, however, I download the same movie illegally via BitTorrent, I have a clean copy on my hard drive. I can copy it to a DVD and watch it on my TV or my laptop. I can make copies whenever I want. There are no restrictions. If my DVD is somehow destroyed, no problem - just burn another one. There are a lot of benefits to this kind of freedom, even if I'm not considering giving a copy to anyone else.
So here's the situation. If I steal the movie, complete freedom is conferred upon me. But if I do the right thing and buy it, I'm stuck with a single copy that I have to guard carefully lest it become lost or stolen and I'd have to re-purchase it at the same price. Is there something wrong with this picture? Am I missing something? How is it that the legitimate customer is being penalized but the pirate is being rewarded? The MPAA would smugly answer, "That's why we have to stamp out piracy" without thinking that the real solution might be to remove the copy protection and allow DVD buyers to make copies of their movies.
The argument against this used to be that copy protection was necessary to discourage piracy. That's actually funny when you think about it. All pirates have sophisticated equipment that makes a mockery of even the most complex anti-copy software. So what's the point? The only ones being penalized by copy protection are those who don't invest in illegal anti-copy software. Once again, the law abiding citizens are the ones being punished. And the pirates keep laughing.
It's a similar situation with computer gaming. I'm one of those straight arrows who pays the going rate for a game I like because I want to support the men and women who invested their time and effort into creating something I enjoy. But the distributors have thrown in an annoying wrinkle. Although I have spent $40 on the game and have loaded it onto my hard drive, I still have to put a damn disc in the DVD drive every time I want to play it. So what happens when I move and I can't locate the original disc? (It's in that one box way up in the attic that didn't get unpacked.) I now can't play a game I legitimately purchased. This has become so ubiquitous in the industry that when I find a user-friendly game like GALACTIC CIVILIZATION that allows me to play without inserting a disc that I want to jump for joy.
However, if I go on-line and pirate a game, I don't have to worry about these restrictions. I can play the game without having to hunt for the disc and stick it in my DVD drive (which isn't working consistently to begin with - it's a six-year old drive on a six-year old computer). There are times when I get so mad at some of these companies that I can understand why some people would steal from them. But not with the makers of GALACTIC CIVILIZATION. For their simple act of friendliness, they can have my money whenever they come out with something new.
This is the way it is. The MPAA, the computer gaming industry, and the RIAA are so out of touch with reality that they don't realize how badly they're screwing the consumers they're trying to keep from running to The Pirate Bay. Yes, a new revenue approach will make a big difference, but here's another suggestion: consumer friendliness. The idea is to make the customer like not only the product but the producer (rather than like the product and hate the producer). Do that, and the desire to pirate will decline. It's only one step but it's an important one. But, cynic that I am, I doubt it will happen any time soon.
I eagerly await the next GALACTIC CIVILIZATION expansion pack.
The Video View: February 5, 2008
There's not much on the format war front this week except for an observation. As I prepared this column, I noted the placement of Blu-Ray titles versus HD-DVD titles relative to each other on Amazon's Top 50 list. Blu Ray discs are consistently higher than HD-DVD ones (although standard DVD versions of the same title are much higher than the high def version in either format). It will be interesting to see how the next big HD-DVD exclusive movie, American Gangster, performs. That should provide a good gauge of whether there's any gas left in the tank or whether the format is merely running on fumes.
In terms of new releases, this week has more high-profile films than TV shows, making it the first week in 2008 when that has been true. A bunch of films that premiered at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival are reaching DVD, making it about a five month span from festival debut to home video. I can recall when the differential between the theatrical opening and the VHS "priced for rental" release was 6-8 months. The window has now closed half of that, but I don't see it further contracting in the near future. At any rate, the five TIFF titles are: Across the Universe, the sappy musical excursion through the '60s with a Beatles-free soundtrack of Beatles songs; The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, with a running length as long as the title; Elizabeth: The Golden Age, the disappointing sequel to the art house hit; The Jane Austen Book Club, a chick flick that is less erudite than it pretends to be; and The Brave One, Jodie Foster's searing and disturbing revenge movie. Of those, Across the Universe, The Assassination of Jesse James, The Janes Austen Book Club, and The Brave One are available on both Blu Ray and standard DVD. Elizabeth: The Golden Age is available in standard and HD-DVD formats. Other DVD-only titles are the underrated Fierce People, which received a criminally small theatrical release; Feast of Love, which has a slim plot but lots of fully naked women; and 2 Days in Paris, Julie Delpy's disappointing attempt to do Richard Linklater.
Moving to the TV front... I would describe most of what's coming out this week as obscure, marginal, or "cultish." There's the final season of Beauty and the Beast, the first two seasons of Perfect Strangers (is there a burning desire out there for this show?), season #1 of Third Watch, season #3 of Soul Food, season #1 volume #2 of the oldie Route 66. There's also the fifth season of something called McLeod's Daughters, which I have strangely have never heard of. There's also the complete Canadian import that makes fun of Shakespeare, Slings and Arrows. None of these are available in either high-def format.
There are two double-dips this week. Don't be fooled by the marketing - neither has enough new content to be worth re-buying for someone who already owns a copy. They are The Apartment and Tootsie. Both are good films so if you don't have either title in your library and are interested in obtaining one or both, now is as good a time as any.
Finally, there are couple of box sets worth mentioning. Kino (not Criterion) offers "The Films of Sergei Paradjanov," a collection of four of the Russian filmmaker's most acclaimed titles: Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, The Color of Pomegranates, The Legend of Surma Fortress, and Ashik Kerib. These span about two decades, from the mid-'60s to the mid-'80s and are for fans of artistic cinema. The set is a little pricey at $65 (discounted) but worth it for those who appreciate classic Russian cinema and Paradjanov in particular. For lovers of bad movies with witty commentary, there's Mystery Science Theater 3000 10.2, which features four beloved features: Giant Gila Monster, Swamp Diamonds, Teenage Strangler, Giant Spider Invasion. It's price about $20 less than the Paradjanov collection, but something tells me the audience may not be the same one.
Next week, there's an intriguing direct-to-DVD release called I Could Never Be Your Woman. It stars Michelle Pfeiffer and Paul Rudd and is directed by Amy Heckerling. There's a detailed write-up about its distribution travails in the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly. I haven't been provided with an advance screener (so no early review), but I have decided to get a copy of the disc once it becomes available. That review will be up late next week.
Blu Ray: No White Knight
Thus far, most of the talk about high-def has related to the format war. It's well known that the studios are investing a lot of hope on the success of the Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD market. Standard DVD sales are lagging badly, primarily because nearly all of the desirable movie catalog titles are available as are many of the high-profile TV series. As time passes, there's less product to be released, resulting in fewer units sold. In 2007, recent theatrical releases accounted for a higher percentage of DVD sales than ever before. So, with the DVD market contracting, new revenue sources are needed. We're not close enough yet for downloads to be a major player (most experts peg that date as being anywhere from 5-10 years away, depending on the aggressiveness of marketing and content availability). The hope has been that 2008 would be the year high-def would start ramping up and invading middle-class homes. However, while the format war could be less of an issue by year's end, there's a bigger factor that none of the studios counted on: a recession.
A shrinking economy is not good for discretionary (non-necessity) spending. The average middle-class family that might have considered buying a PS3 or HD-DVD player 12 months ago is now looking in other directions. Food, fuel, and other basic necessities come first. Then, rather than dumping a few hundred dollars on something they don't need, that money will go into a "rainy day" fund so that if someone gets laid off, they can afford to eat for another few weeks. People don't buy high-def DVD players when there's uncertainty about the job market or concerns that they may not get a raise or a bonus this year.
Not only will high-def DVD player sales take a hit, but so will disc sales. Those who already own a high-def player will be less likely to purchase and more likely to rent, especially considering how much more expensive high-def discs are than their standard counterparts. This is good news for NetFlix and Blockbuster but not so good for retailers that make their money from software sales. A lot of people enjoy watching high-def versions of new films but there aren't that many titles people want to own.
Of course, there is a segment of the population whose buying decisions are not impacted by a recession. Unfortunately, most of them already own at least one high-def player, if not more. The fat cats I know with annual incomes of more than $500K already possess really nice home theater set-ups complete with Blue Ray and HD-DVD players and a bunch of discs. They adopt early because they want the newest, coolest stuff and because they can afford to be wrong if they buy something that doesn't catch on.
The bottom line is that the people who really want high-def have already taken the plunge. The middle-class fringe, which was so important to Hollywood's plans of high-def expansion, won't be moving off the sidelines in large numbers until the economy improves. The weakness of the current high-def market is a direct result of the format war. Had the studios gotten together and agreed on a single format two years ago, that format would now be firmly entrenched and there would be a lot more households with high def players next to their TVs. Keep in mind that the holiday seasons of 2005 and 2006 provided high-water marks for HDTV purchases. Christmas 2006 in particular could have been a banner season for high-def DVD player purchases, but confusion kept many people from trying the waters. Others waited to see which format would emerge supreme.
Now, in early 2008, we know that Blu Ray will eventually take the crown. But it's starting to look more and more like a pyrrhic victory. Unless the recession is short and consumer confidence comes back in a storm, Blu Ray may never find the purchase it needs in the market to spread from home-to-home. It has long been rumored that Microsoft backed HD-DVD as a way to slow the progress of high-def DVDs. The reason: Microsoft wants to be on the cutting edge of downloadable movies; Blu Ray/HD-DVD was a direct competitor. What better way to promote their position than to undercut the competitor?
The crystal ball is too clouded now to see whether Blu Ray will have enough opportunity to catch on before the downloadable wave pulverizes it. It's all a matter of timing, technological advances, and pricing. After all, who can resist a cheap, high quality movie downloaded in 10 minutes for less than the price of a multiplex ticket? When we get to that point, Blu Ray will be in trouble. But is it two years away? 5 years? 10? In any case, the reality is that 2008 is not going to be a good year for the high-def DVD industry. Studios had better hope they have a record-breaking year at the box office because they're not going to be making as much money in the home video market as they have in years past, and the economy will ensure that, at least for now, Blu Ray won't be a White Knight.
Weekly Theatrical Releases: February 8, 2008
Why, people are asking, did I see a movie starring Paris Hilton? The answer to that one is easy: I enjoyed her performance so much in her previous starring role that I was hoping for something of a similar nature. The Hottie & the Nottie won't be setting any box office records this weekend (it's only in about 100 theaters) but it probably will attract some attention from self-described Paris Hilton fans and those who seek out cinematic train wrecks. I am firmly convinced that Hilton not only starred in and partially funded the movie, but had a hand in writing it as well. (Despite the general incompetence of the direction, I don't think she got involved in that aspect of the filmmaking process.) Really bad movies like this are always curiosities because they come along about as rarely as four-star films. I didn't give The Hottie & the Nottie my lowest rating because it doesn't quite belong in the select company of those titles populating my zero-star list. Still, it's hard to imagine that 2008 is hiding any worse bombshells.
Roger Ebert has given In Bruges four stars, which means he has chosen not to be baffled or annoyed by the contrivances necessary to bring the story to a close. For my part, the film's final act damaged its enjoyability quotient. Dumb endings always bother me, especially when it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out how things could have come to roughly the same point without insulting the audience. Nevertheless, in a weak week like this, In Bruges is strong enough to be the Pick of the Week, although it's not my most enthusiastic pick ever. If you're lucky enough to be in a market where 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is opening, that's the title I'd make a real effort to see.
The two biggest releases of the weekend - Fool's Gold and Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins - have something odd in common. In general, they're very different movies, with the former being a comedy adventure about undersea treasure hunting and the latter being a dramatic comedy centered around a family reunion, but there is a mutually binding thread. In both movies, the leads (Matthew McConaughey and Martin Lawrence, respectively) repeatedly get their asses kicked. It doesn't only happen once or twice or three times. It happens throughout the movies. I can't see that happening to Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sly Stallone. Maybe this heralds a new trend in what it means to be a leading man: he has to be wimpy enough to take a beating and like it. Wonder what Humphrey Bogart or John Wayne would think of that?
Also opening this week: Vince Vaughn's Wild West Comedy Show. I skipped this one because neither the title actor nor the documentary subject matter hold any real interest for me. (One wonders how I can say that with a straight face after admitting having watched a Paris Hilton movie...) Word on the street is that it's okay but not as funny as one might expect. I suppose it might be worth a shot if you consider yourself a fan of Vince Vaughn - just remember that this is not a feature film and it's more about the show than it is about the actor.
So, which of these films will emerge from the jumbled mess to rule the box office? I'm guessing none of them. Hannah Montana is still out there and every tween in America will be wanting to see the movie a second time this weekend. And can anyone really see Fool's Gold or Roscoe Jenkins challenging that 15-year old powerhouse? A local theater manager told me that the movie was doing surprisingly well during the week, with better than half-full houses during late morning and early afternoon showings, when kids are supposed to be in school. My gut feeling is that the Hannah Montana domination will continue and the movie will end up with its second crown as Box Office Champion. Never doubt the persuasive power of little girls, especially on weekends when there's not a lot of severe weather around.
Next week, for Valentine's Day and President's Day Weekend, we get the first genuinely good romantic comedy of the year, George Romero goes hand-held, Hayden Christensen learns how to spontaneously teleport, and a children's fantasy favorite arrives. Maybe the most interesting story of all, however, is the potential showdown between Hannah Montana and U2. The U2 concert movie is due to go wide on February 15, but Hannah Montana is currently occupying all the digital theaters that U2 was supposed to move into. If Disney extends the Hannah Montana run for another week (a good bet if this weekend's box office is healthy), then what happens with U2? Stay tuned...
Short Clips
Has the writer's strike actually ended, or are those just rumors flying around Hollywood? Tentative agreements are such fragile things; let's get an actual settlement before rejoicing, if that's what we're supposed to do. Actually, I was hoping the writers would stick it out another couple of weeks. I would have enjoyed seeing the "alternative" Oscars show. Alas, it looks like it will be business as usual, which means I'll DVR it and watch the whole thing in 30 minutes starting at 12:30 am.
I received a number of e-mails debating my stance regarding DVD copy protection. One reader tried to argue that copy protection was designed to keep a seventh grader from buying a popular DVD and making copies for his classmates. Newsflash: Seventh graders are probably more savvy than their parents when it comes to Internet tools such as software to break copy protections. It's not as if that stuff isn't out there and readily available. The recipe is simple. Use a search engine to find the software and download it. Put a copy protected DVD in the computer's DVD drive. Use the copy protection breaking software to upload a clean, unprotected copy onto the hard drive. Burn as many clean DVDs as you like. This isn't a secret. It's something that every seventh grader and more than a few sixth and fifth and fourth graders know. Kids are generally more knowledgeable about computers and the Internet than adults because it's in their social DNA. Put bluntly: the only people being restricted by copy protections are those who don't care one way or the other, those who don't know the basics of how to break it (the innocent or computer illiterate), or those (like me) whose computers are so old that they don't have recordable DVD drives. Copy protection isn't doing a thing about piracy. It has become an archaic annoyance.
One topic noticeable by its absence during the week's e-mail dialogue was my suggestion of running a contest regarding re-designing the site. I believe that idea generated a single e-mail, and it was from someone who said he wouldn't participate because he only knows html. Given the lack of interest, I have decided to reconsider the contest. I have started doing "deep" research so I can accomplish a re-design that will hopefully make the site appear more professional (without losing the ease of functionality) and integrate the ads in a less clumsy fashion. How radical will the changes appear? That remains to be seen. It will probably take me several months before I put together some alternate designs. At that point, I may open a "beta" site to select readers so they can comment on how things look and work.
Advertising was another big e-mail topic of discussion this week, likely as a holdover from last week. A number of readers are promoting the idea of allowing donations. My feeling about this is that it's an alternative to advertising, not a complement. I think it's a little tacky to ask for donations and advertise. For me, it's one or the other, and advertising, although impacted by how much attention readers pay to it and what the rates are, is more stable than donations. So I'll continue to rely on ads and hope that readers don't religiously ignore them due to ad blindness. If the ad market crashes and burns, then maybe donations will be the way to go but, at the moment, I don't feel comfortable with them.
With respect to the Kontera ads (the double-underlined blue text), I am probably as dissatisfied with them as a number of my readers. It's not the blue text or the underlining that bothers me; it's the quality of the links provided. Kontera is supposed to be "contextual," which means the links should theoretically be related to the words they are linked to. However, I have recently seen "Jack Black" linked to a gambling site (blackjack) and "Penny Lane" to "J.C. Penny." I like the idea of well targeted in-text ads since they can potentially match a reader with a related site. But these irrelevant links are crap, and I have told Kontera as much. They have a couple of months to get things straightened out. If this unacceptable behavior continues, I'll drop them as part of the re-design regardless of how well they pay. I am concerned about quality and many of the moves forward are designed to make the advertising less obtrusive.
Finally, a reader suggested doing a weekly/daily/several-times-per-week audio "minute." It's an intriguing idea and it would bring a little multimedia to the site. Again, that's the kind of thing that could enhance the re-designed site, so it's worth consideration. I have plenty of experience with radio and public speaking so my voice is well trained. (A video blog is also a possibility although, at this point, it's a little beyond my technical capabilities.)
Tomorrow in ReelThoughts: Do movie-goers really want film characters to talk the same way real people do?
Reel Talk
Just about everyone I know adores Juno. They don't all think it should win Best Picture, but they agree it's one of the most enjoyable movie experiences out there. All except one. He believes it's overrated and the more accolades it gets, the more he seems to sour on it. His main complaint has to do with the dialogue. Too clever. Too scripted. Not at all "how real people talk." I have read something similar in Roger Ebert's "Ask the Answer Man" column. And, for me, this enters into the kennel of one of my pet peeves.
Juno is not meant to be a reflection of real life. This isn't Ken Loach or one of the many disciples who have adopted his warts-and-all approach to filmmaking. This is a lighthearted fantasy/comedy that exists in a pale, idealized imitation of our universe. In other words, it's like 99.9% of the comedies out there. What Juno gives us are endearing characters, an interesting situation, and dialogue that's appropriate for both. Sure, there are a few awkward moments (especially during the opening convenience store scene) when things don't quite "click" but, for the most part, I can believe that a bright, hip girl is saying these things in this movie even though the logic center of my brain might argue that no one I have ever known has talked exactly like that. As to the argument that the dialogue is too "clever," I have two things to say. First, I'd rather listen to clever dialogue than banal or clichéd conversations. It would seem more fruitful to complain about stupid dialogue. There's enough of that around. Second, generally anything other than "clever" isn't going to get me to laugh (unless the inanity of the lines are such that the movie enters the realm of the unintentionally comedic).
The fact is, when I go to a movie, unless I'm in search of a particularly realistic experience, I don't want to hear people talk like my next door neighbor or my boss. I want to hear clean, smart, clever dialogue. I don't want to hear "ahems" and "likes" and throat clearing, which are all parts of everyday conversations. Occasionally a movie delivers this and it's annoying as hell. Real dialogue is people not finishing sentences. No punctuation. Bad pronunciation. Awkward pauses and coughs. When you're involved in it in real life, it often passes without notice. But it's a different thing when you're watching it on screen. Does anyone want to be subjected to that?
When people complain about dialogue not sounding real, I think it's the flow of the words more than the words themselves that viewers are reacting to. David Mamet is a classic example of a director who has a very specific way in which he wants his characters to talk. His clipped, staccato method drives many viewers up the walls but others love it. It's a matter of taste and there are people who dislike Mamet because his characters "don't talk the way real people talk." But this is a movie, not real life, and Mamet's cadences can become almost hypnotic if you let them. It's like Shakespeare. When was the last time someone complained about people in Shakespeare not sounding like they do in real life?
Yet the criticism persists for Juno. When it comes down to it, I think the problem some viewers have with the movie isn't that the dialogue doesn't sound "real" or that there's a problem with the flow, but that we're so unused to teenagers saying such smart, self-aware things that it boggles the mind. There has never been a movie teenager quite like Juno. At times, she seems almost too good to be true. Yet when I was that age, I knew two girls who were a lot like her (neither was pregnant; I don't know whether either was sexually active, whatever that means). They were smart, they were nice, they could make you laugh, and they could cut you to shreds with a well-placed barb. I suppose they spoke like "real people," but in my mind's ear, listening back through the echoes of 25 years, they sound a lot like Juno.
I'm not advocating that all dialogue in movies be given a pass. Some of it is just badly written. Some is purple prose. But no one is going to label that sort of thing "too clever." They'll use words that might be found in a thesaurus under the "antonym" category for "clever." And there are times when "clever" dialogue seems forced and out-of-character (usually when a writer is showing off), but those are the proverbial exceptions rather than the rules, and I can't find many examples in Juno (except during the aforementioned convenience store scene, which works less for me each time I see it).
I'm less concerned about the words than the way in which they're delivered. "Realistic" doesn't have to do with how LCD (least common denominator) the language is but whether it's delivered in a convincing, natural manner with a flow that mimics real speech patterns. That's a lot different than "real dialogue." Good actors can smooth over a lot of bad scripting. If you want to argue that you don't like Ellen Page's delivery, we'll have to agree to disagree since that's a matter or preference. (I happen to think she's perfect, or nearly so.) On the other hand, if your argument is that you have a problem with Juno's lack of believable dialogue, I'll just roll my eyes and pop a couple of orange tic-tacs.
The Video View: February 12, 2008
Every war, regardless of its nature, is comprised of a series of battles. Yesterday, HD-DVD lost two big ones. Early in the day, Netflix announced that it would no longer support HD-DVD. To salt the wound, Best Buy indicated later in the day that they would be "emphasizing" and "recommending" Blu Ray. Translation: They'll still sell HD-DVD players - at least for the time being - but that hardware will be hidden in some dark corner of the store. If you go to Best Buy and ask for high def DVD, you'll be steered toward Blu Ray. The ramifications of this are far-reaching. It's hard to imagine Paramount and Universal not taking note of this. The moves by Best Buy and Netflix represent a direct attack on their bottom line.
On to this week's titles...
Lots of new movies on DVD this week. Gone Baby Gone is the best of the bunch. If you didn't see it theatrically, it deserves a look at home. It's available in both standard and Blu Ray formats. Also worth watching: the Catherine Zeta-Jones food-themed No Reservations, which isn't as good as its inspiration, Mostly Martha, but is still enjoyable; and We Own the Night, a credible police drama. Both are available on standard DVD and in Blu Ray. Becoming Jane tries to turn Jane Austen's life into Pride and Prejudice, and is primarily for Austen fans (standard and Blu Ray). Two films little seen in theaters that deserve a shot on DVD are the Australian import Introducing the Dwights and John Turturro's delightfully offbeat musical, Romance and Cigarettes. If you're looking for something to rent, you could do worse with either. Also out: Kenneth Branagh's somewhat disappointing 1992 non-Shakespeare Peter's Friends (possibly being released now because of the presence of Hugh Laurie in the cast) and John Cusack's even more disappointing Martian Child, which is tough to recommend even for a rental. I haven't seen - and thus can't comment on - Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?, but that's out this week as well.
HBO's talky and nearly hardcore Tell Me You Love Me leads this week's TV series. Dallas does season 8 - I didn't realize it lasted that long. Was that the season dreamed up by Patrick Duffy? The Equalizer - a show I used to watch on a black-and-white set while I was in college - debuts season 1. Girlfriends and Family Ties both release season 3. And animation fans can rejoice that the complete series of George of the Jungle is now available. Watch out for that tree!
There are four notable box sets. The first, from Criterion, is the Lubitsch Musicals and includes four titles: The Love Parade, The Smiling Lieutenant, One Hour with You, Monte Carlo. It's nicely priced at about $42 (discounted). For about the same number of deflating U.S. dollars, you can get the non-Criterion Stanley Kramer Film Collection, which is comprised of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Ship of Fools, The Member of the Wedding, The Wild One, and The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T. The Joan Crawford Collection is a little cheaper at about $38. It includes A Woman's Face, Flamingo Road, Sadie McKee, Strange Cargo, and Torch Song. Finally, Charlie Chan aficionados will want to get The Charlie Chan Collection #4, with Charlie Chan in Honolulu, Charlie Chan in Reno, Charlie Chan at Treasure Island, and City in Darkness. It runs about $35.
Finally, a word about Amy Heckerling's direct-to-video I Could Never Be Your Woman. I haven't seen it yet - a copy is sitting on my kitchen table and will go into the DVD player after I post this column. This was never intended to be a home video title, as one might guess from the cast and crew. As detailed in last week's Entertainment Weekly, it became a victim of circumstances and bad management. Test screenings were positive and the film came thisclose to getting a theatrical release. So... is it deserving of its direct-to-DVD status or is it a hidden gem? I'll know before the night is over and you'll know when I get the review posted later this week. But keep the title on the rental radar screen. It has the potential to be among the best direct-to-DVD titles thus far. (Alas, no high def.)
Next week: Why the hell isn't Focus releasing the gorgeous Lust, Caution in high def? If ever a movie deserved 1080p treatment, this is it... I'd even go the HD-DVD route to get it.
The Romantic Comedy File
When it comes to genre films, a certain amount of formula isn't a bad thing. Such is the case with the romantic comedy, where plot has always taken a back seat to two more important characteristics: chemistry and character likeability. For a romantic comedy to work, all that's needed are two actors who generate sparks and romantic tension when they're with each other, playing characters viewers root for to get together. Of course, the screenplay will likely throw all sorts of "romantic complications" in their way to keep them from finding bliss until the end of the last reel, but that's part of the convention. Couples leave the theater smiling and holding hands.
In order for a comedy to make the leap from a good romantic comedy to a great one, a little more is needed than perfect casting and likeability. Great romantic comedies typically have sparking screenplays that either invest effort into doing something interesting with the storyline without violating the basic formula and/or inject the dialogue with wit and intelligence. While there are plenty of good romantic comedies, there aren't that many great ones. Unfortunately, every year also produces a series of dogs. These are usually the result of poor chemistry between the leads or bad casting. This is the kind of thing that happens when filmmakers are influenced more by the names of the actors than by a consideration of how well they work together.
Romantic comedies are all about buying into the fantasy. They may not begin explicitly with "once upon a time" or conclude with "happily ever after," but that's what they're selling, which is fine. Viewers attend a romantic comedy with the expectation that they will spend the next 90+ minutes falling in love with characters who are falling in love with each other. Real-life romance isn't like what we see in romantic comedies, but it's not supposed to be (anymore than the dialogue in Juno is supposed to replicate real life dialogue). Romantic comedies are intended to make us giddy while bringing a smile to our faces.
Over the years, the phrase "romantic comedy" has become an umbrella term for any movie that features hugs and kisses. A lot of romantic comedies aren't especially funny nor, in some cases, are they intended to be. Consider the duet of Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, which gets my vote as the most romantic cinematic saga of all time. It's pretty much a straight drama, with occasional moments of humor coming out of natural character interaction. Nevertheless, I have repeatedly seen this referred to as a "romantic comedy." Putting that up against Judd Apatow's The 40-Year-Old Virgin seems a little unfair, since the movies have much different goals. Nevertheless, playing by the rules, it seems that if a romance makes one smile, it's considered a romantic comedy. That generally exempts romances where one or both of the leads die at the end. It would be more than a stretch to consider Titanic to be a romantic comedy. Romantic, yes, but not funny (unless you're focusing on Billy Zane's overacting).
So, in honor of Valentine's Day, here are a dozen notable recent "romantic comedies." All of these titles were released within the last 25 years - not because there were no good romantic comedies before then but because I'm trying to make the list contemporary enough that some of my younger readers might consider renting the movies rather than laughing at them because they're in black-and-white or feature actors who now look more like wrinkled prunes than romantic leads. These are alphabetical and include some very well known titles and a few that are more obscure.
The 40-Year-Old Virgin: Judd Apatow proves that it's possible to combine raunchy humor with affecting romance. The love story between Steve Carrell and Catherine Keener is touching and there are plenty of hard laughs in between the gentle scenes. Could be described as a "guy's romantic comedy."
Before Sunrise/Before Sunset: For my money, Before Sunrise is the most romantic movies of all time. The chemistry between Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke couldn't be better. The only downside for some viewers is that the films are talky (although, for me, that's a major plus). Before Sunset is an epilogue to Before Sunrise, answering the question of whether the characters meet in six months and where they go from there.
The Cutting Edge: Sports and romance are a popular combination. This movie succeeds because Moira Kelly and D.B. Sweeney work so well together. It's always a lot of fun to see two characters dancing back and forth over the line between love and hate. While some might argue that the film ends with the perfect romantic moment, I would have liked to have seen an epilogue. (Ignore the sequel, which features none of the original actors. It is, quite simply, an abomination.)
Definitely, Maybe: This may not be one of the best romantic comedies of the last 20 years, but it's worth seeing and is the only one on this list currently in theaters. If you have an urge for a multiplex date, this is your best bet so far in 2008.
Kissing Jessica Stein: What happens when a bisexual woman and a heterosexual woman fall in love? This movie not only offers laughs and tenderness but asks some pointed questions about sexuality. It's one of the more unusual titles on this list.
Little Shop of Horrors: At its heart, this is a romance between nerdy Seymour and slutty Audrey. Yes, it's silly but it's also surprisingly sappy. The leads are so likeable that director Frank Oz couldn't bear to stick to the original ending (which he famously filmed then abandoned) and the revised one makes for the perfect romantic wrap, even if Audrey II doesn't get to chew on the Statue of Liberty.
Love Me if You Dare: For those who like their romantic comedies leavened with twisted black comedy, this is a great choice. It's French, though, so there will be subtitle reading. Still, a lot of fun for those who want romance but with a little bit of an edge.
Love Serenade: From Australia, this is more a parody of romantic comedies than an actual one. Like Love Me if You Dare, it's a little off the beaten path and doesn't necessarily go for the "happily ever after" ending. It stars Miranda Otto from her pre-Lord of the Rings days.
Pride and Prejudice: Jane Austen is both funny and romantic - the original romantic comedy writer. Whatever version you opt for - the epic 1995 adaptation with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle or the more recent Kira Knightely one - you can't go wrong. Of course, women melt at this story. So do a lot of men, although I'm not sure how many will admit to it.
Saving Face: A lesbian romance with an ethnic twist - both participants are Asian. The movie is unquestionably a comedy but it has a lot to say about cultural issues and the pressure of expectations. It shares some thematic similarities with Ang Lee's The Wedding Banquet, about a gay man entering into a marriage of convenience.
When Harry Met Sally: Arguably the best pure romantic comedy of the last 20 years. Everyone knows about this film, which qualifies as both funny and romantic. It's Nora Ephron's best script, one of Rob Reiner's best outings as a director, and the chemistry between Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan is peerless. If you haven't seen it in a while, it's worth another look.
Wimbledon: I never understood why this film was ignored at the box office and buried on DVD. Like The Cutting Edge, it combines sports and romance, with tennis standing in for skating. Kirsten Dunst and Paul Bettany are delightful together and, while the film doesn't take m(any) chances, it works on a number of levels. Plus, it has the kind of epilogue I wish The Cutting Edge had given us.
Weekly Theatrical Releases: February 15, 2008
Jumper isn't the worst movie being released this weekend but it's not the best, either. That won't prevent it from taking the crown as Box Office Champion. This is the kind of movies that will attract teenage boys like flies to manure. The fact that it lacks an ending won't be a detriment until it's all over. Plus, it's got that snake killer himself, Sam L. Actually, based exclusively on titles and commercials (and ignoring the critics), if I had to pick one movie to see this weekend, it would be Jumper. Good marketing for a mediocre movie.
The Spiderwick Chronicles will generate some interest because it's both family friendly and filled with popular fantasy monsters. The movie is geared more toward children than adults but it won't bore older movie-goers. Still, it's not "hip" like Jumper, so there won't be a strong teen component to the audience, and it's not a deep fantasy, so stalwarts of the genre aren't likely to be enthralled. It's good enough to be worth a recommendation but that recommendation is strengthened for parents who want to accompany their pre-teens.
Two movies not opening in many theaters are likely to generate meek box office numbers. Diary of the Dead suffers from being a little too much like Cloverfield in intent and approach. It's a shame because it's a better and more intelligent movie, but George Romero couldn't have picked a worse time to make it. The audience is likely going to be limited to his die-hard fans. I'm not sure who the audience for Step Up 2 the Streets is supposed to be. Dance fans? Those who hold the first movie in high regard? The movie looks and feels like something that should have gone straight to DVD, which is where it will probably end up pretty quickly.
Finally, my Pick of the Week is the cleverly constructed Definitely, Maybe, which offers its share of small pleasures and surprises. It's not a great romantic comedy but it's a good one, and easily beats 28 Dresses for the date movie of the year (so far). Despite its Valentine's Day opening, this is the kind of movie that may struggle to find an audience. It's low-key and lacks star power. The best it can probably hope for is a modest run in multiplexes followed by a period of "discovery" on DVD. Maybe four months from now people will be talking about the "gem" they just rented from Netflix.
In other box office news, this appears to be the last week for Hannah Montana, which didn't do as much repeat business last weekend as I and many others expected. Phenom movies can be like that - once everyone in the core audience has seen it, there's no one else. I'd bet nearly everyone who watched it last weekend was going back for a second dose and everyone who sees it this weekend will be on their second or third showing. The movie has enough muscle to push back U2 by a week. That concert film was supposed to open wider this weekend but all the digital theaters lined up to play it are occupied, so Bono's fans will have to wait another week.
Finally, looking a little into the future, Paramount's decision to delay the release of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek from December 2008 to May 2009 has the rumor mills buzzing. The uninformed consensus is that there must be something seriously wrong for there to be a six month delay. Certainly, there will be re-writes and re-shoots, but consider the time table. Would eight months of post-production have been enough to get a special effects-heavy movie in cinema-worthy condition? Recall that James Cameron's Titanic was postponed for six months and it was far from a disaster. Interestingly, this will be the first May release for a Star Trek movie. Installments #1, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10 were all Thanksgiving/Christmas releases. #2, #3, and #5 were June babies. May is a tough month and, despite its rabid fan base, Star Trek is not a proven mainstream commodity. We'll see if J.J. Abrams gets this grizzled veteran in shape to play with the big boys.
Short Clips
Three topics dominated the mailbag this week: site redesign, advertising versus donations, and HD-DVD. I'm also amassing a nice collection of hate mail, some of which I plan to share in the near future. The irregular "hate mail" features of this column are popular, but I don't get enough really juicy material to present them more than a few times per year. (In order to qualify, the mail has to be brilliant in some way or another - either in its eloquence or its stupidity. A mere "You Suck!" doesn't qualify. Yes, it's hate mail. No, it's not memorable or worthy of a wider audience.)
First, the site redesign. After further consideration and a lot of advice, I have decided to abandon a contest. What's more, I'm moving forward with the graphical portion of the redesign myself. Currently, I have Photoshop mock-ups of what the main page and review pages will look like (tentatively, that is). Functionally, they're similar to the current site. Visually, not so much. The next step is, of course, to transform the purely visual representations into real pages. To do that, I have to brush up on CSS but that shouldn't take too long. Then will come the real challenge - deciding whether to port all 3600 reviews into a database. This is a likely development, but it forces me to learn PHP and mySQL. I know there are tools that make a lot of this stuff transparent but I'm a hands-on person. I have never used Dreamweaver or Front Page, preferring to code my html by hand. At any rate, the database learning/work will take a while - well into the summer, I suspect. (I can't use a script to automate the conversion because there are tweaks that have to be applied to about 80% of the reviews.) After that chore is done, I have to tackle ReelThoughts, which will probably go to a page-per-entry rather than the current monthly scroll. Then there are all sorts of miscellaneous pages that have to be converted or discarded, as appropriate. My best guess is that the new ReelViews will debut in August. Along the way, I will solicit input from a select core of users. A few of you have already volunteered specific help and I will almost certainly not turn away offers.
One of the primary purposes of the redesign is to better integrate advertisements into the fabric of the site. I mentioned a week or two ago a growing dissatisfaction with Kontera, the company that provides the in-context (blue highlighted) ads. My issue is that there's no apparent correlation between what's highlighted and what the link is for. I sent this complaint to Kontera and was greeted with silence. In fact, I have never had a reply to any e-mail sent in their direction. My growing dissatisfaction with their lack of professionalism has brought me to the point of an ultimatum. Either they start responding to my issues by the end of the month or they will be removed from the site. As I have previously stated, I think the idea behind contextual advertising is a good one. It brings people and relevant products together. But Kontera isn't doing it right. If anyone was to approach me regarding a recommendation about the company, I would advise them to steer clear. My experience has been largely negative.
A number of readers have urged me to put up a "donation" link because they have blocked ads and therefore don't have means of providing revenue via normal ad-related means (such as clicking on links). As I have indicated in the past, I don't feel comfortable about asking for donations as long as the site is commercially sponsored. I'm appreciative of those who don't participate in the commercial aspects of the site wanting to support it but, for the time being, my position on donations remains the same. I will solicit them if the online ad market collapses. Until then, my preference is that readers do what they can via the site as it is currently constituted (and will be constituted in the future). If economic hardships force a change to that policy, those reading this column will be the first to know. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that I have capped the ads, meaning what you see is what you get. No additional space will be devoted to them, either with this site or with the re-design. The "proliferation," as one reader eloquently put it, has stopped. So the goal is to maximize revenue with what's here, not by adding anything more. (Actually, with Kontera on the bubble, the ad base for the site might decrease, which makes production from the other ads more important.)
Finally, HD-DVD. I don't want to write much about this today because I plan to address it at greater length in an upcoming column. (Probably on Thursday. I'm planning to discuss - sort of - the end of the WGA strike on Monday.) However, it does appear that HD-DVD is on its last legs. We haven't yet reached Appomattox Court House, but the day can't be far away. Wal-Mart's decision to discontinue support is a mortal blow. If Toshiba is considering stopping production of HD-DVD players, then it would be fiscally foolish for Universal and Paramount not to jump on the Blue Ray bandwagon as quickly as possible. (That's what would signal the final, irrevocable end to the format war.) We're in that gray area where everyone recognizes the war is about to end (including the participants). Now, it just a matter of negotiating terms so that, on the corporate level, no one looks too bad. Unfortunately, as always, the consumers end up being screwed. Those who took a chance and went with Toshiba are now stuck with a white elephant that will soon have no new software being produced for it. Time to start scavenging the bargain bins to beef up the HD-DVD library.
Doctorin' the Pirates
Now that the WGA strike is over, I feel remiss that I haven't even hummed a few bars of the "Hallelujah" chorus. The fact is, though, that the writers could have stayed on strike for another six months and it wouldn't have bothered me. In fact, I was just getting excited about the possibility of a totally different form of the Oscars when word came out that it was going to be the same old thing. Questions about the Academy Awards' continued relevance are fodder for another column but anyone hoping for something different than the usual snooze-inducing marathon will be disappointed.
So what does it mean that the writers are back? A few more episodes of powerhouse TV series like House in April and May. But my favorite new show of the season, Pushing Daisies won't be seen again until September. And 24 has been placed on a one-year hiatus. (Considering that 24 uses a fly-by-the-seat-of-its-pants approach, why are writers necessary? The formula is well established. Jack shouts "dammit!" then shoots someone. A mole is revealed in CTU. Chloe scrunches up her face like she sucked on a lemon. Jack shouts "dammit!" then shoots someone else. Kim dodges a dangerous animal before getting amnesia. Jack shouts "dammit!" then fires another round. Why do they need writers for that stuff?) Battlestar Galactica is coming back in April but only for a half-season. (The decision to show 10 episodes now and the balance in 2009 has nothing to do with the strike and everything to do with the Sci-Fi Channel's desire to stretch things out.)
Maybe there are some viewers out there who felt the impact of the WGA strike like a knife to the belly and who whooped and hollered when the agreement was announced. If they're out there, I don't know any of them. Freedom from watching TV allowed me to do other things. I don't feel the same connection with scripted programs that I once did. When all the big guns come off their enforced hiatuses, will they find the same number of viewers awaiting their next moves?
That brings me to one show whose debut has not been impacted by the WGA strike because it's a British import. I'm referring to Doctor Who (redux) which is probably a little too popular to be considered a cult show but isn't big enough to be mainstream. This is the fourth season for New Who and, as with the other three, it is being carried on the Sci-Fi Channel. The idea is to pair it up with Battlestar Galactica, although it's not clear which show is intended to prop up which. (Because of the bifurcation of Battlestar's season, it will stop running new episodes several weeks before Doctor Who concludes.) Viewers will note the closing window between the U.K. and U.S. airings of the Doctor's adventures. Season #1 had a one-year gap. Season #2 was down to six months. Season #3 started on this side of the Atlantic around the time it was concluding on the other side. On to season #4...
Two characteristics of the average Doctor Who fan are that they're impatient and computer-savvy. Back in the '80s, that meant getting bootlegged copies of new episodes. The fan network was sophisticated enough that all you had to do was get on a mailing list and a grainy VHS tape would arrive in your mailbox about two months after the U.K. airing - long before PBS showed it. Today, it means BitTorrent. The average Whovian based in the United States can download and watch an episode with only a 6-hour (or thereabouts) delay from its U.K. transmission. So, by the time is eventually airs on Sci-Fi, the die-hard community has already seen it (and may or may not be watching). This has been an issue from Day #1 for Sci-Fi and they apparently pressed the BBC about it during recent negotiations.
No debut dates have been announced but speculation is that season #4 of Doctor Who will start on Saturday, April 12 in England. It is known that Sci-Fi wanted Doctor Who to start on the same day as Battlestar Galactica: Friday, April 4. (The first Sci-Fi episode will be the U.K. Christmas special.) Using that schedule, all season #4 episodes would show in the United States one day before their U.K. airing. Think the BBC is going to allow that? No way. They don't want BitTorrents used against their most popular non-soap/non-sports program. So it looks like Sci-Fi has two choices: delay airing Doctor Who by one week or move it from Friday to Sunday. In either case, it means that episodes in the United States are likely to air "week of" their first BBC showing.
This occurrence - which is a major boon for fans - is a direct result of the growing power of piracy. How does one reduce Doctor Who downloads? By giving North American fans a chance to see the show on TV before it has become stale. The closer the U.S. date is to its U.K. counterpart, the fewer copies of the episodes will be downloaded. Those who might not be eager to wait weeks or months may be willing to wait days. And, while a loss of 250,000 viewers to downloads might not be a big deal for something like House or the mind-numbing American Idol, it is significant for a show that only draws 1.5 million on average.
So, while bashing Sci-Fi for what they're doing with Battlestar Galactica, I give them props for their handling of Doctor Who. They are reacting to the 21st century rather than trying to fight it. They understand that BitTorrents are here to stay and that creative solutions are necessary. This one's easy: give the fans what they want. When it comes to movies and other areas where piracy's footprint is growing, the same basic principle can be applied: consumer satisfaction. That's the way to fight piracy effectively but it's a tactic most executives haven't figured out. Congratulations to the Sci-Fi Channel for uncovering this booty.
The Video View: February 19, 2008
Before discussing what arrives on DVD this week, I want to write a few words about the status of the format war. Contrary to what some people are claiming, it is not over. Admittedly, Toshiba's decision to abandon HD-DVD has left the format on life support but, by definition, the format war exists as long as at least some of the studios continue to provide software (movie titles) for HD-DVD and not Blu Ray. That remains the situation. Paramount and Universal are still officially HD-DVD exclusive. Now, I don't expect that to last. In fact, I would be surprised if both studios don't make an announcement in the next week indicating that they are either (a) abandoning HD-DVD altogether and going Blu Ray exclusive, or (b) going dual format. Once both Paramount and Universal have made such an announcement, the format war will be officially over. But it hasn't happened yet and I long ago learned a lesson about counting chickens before they hatch. (I ran a homemade incubator in my basement in sixth grade, then again in eighth grade.) Hopefully, the next time I write something about high-def DVD, there will be only one format.
For releases, this week is heavily skewed toward theatrical stuff. There are only two TV shows releasing seasonal box sets and both are weak: season 3 of Coach and season 4 of Walker, Texas Ranger. We know Mike Huckabee will be purchasing a copy of the latter. I got a question this week about the likelihood of seeing The Six Million Dollar Man/The Bionic Woman on DVD. It will happen but not soon. There's a rights issue. Universal owns the worldwide rights to the TV series and some other company owns the North American rights to Cyborg, the Martin Cadin novel upon which the property is based. As yet, the two companies have not come to an agreement, although Universal would like to release these (and they are available overseas). Eventually, some kind of agreement will be reached but, judging by the stubbornness of the Hollywood studios (as evidenced by the format war), I wouldn't pencil in those box sets for delivery by Santa this year.
The biggest movie release of the week is Michael Clayton, which is arriving just in time for the Oscars on both standard DVD and Blu Ray. Another high-profile title is American Gangster, which may represent the last hurrah for HD-DVD. The film is being released in three different versions: two-disc and three-disc collector's editions, both of which feature extended cuts of the movie, and a combo DVD/HD-DVD version. In the Valley of Elah, which spotlights a good Tommy Lee Jones performance, is available on standard DVD and Blu Ray. Another Iraq-themed movie, Brian DePalma's poorly-received Redacted, is out only on standard DVD. Ditto for Margot at the Wedding. The most curious issue of the week is how Lust, Caution is being handled. Although this was easily one of the most gorgeous 2007 features, there's no high-def version. Maybe this has something to do with the distributor, Focus, being Universal's art-house arm and Universal being stuck in the HD-DVD camp, but the lack of a high-def edition is hard to fathom. There are two different standard DVD packages: the theatrical NC-17 one and a neutered R-rated cut. I assume the latter is for Blockbuster only. I can't figure out why anyone would rent or purchase anything other than the print Ang Lee wanted us to see.
There are a couple of other interesting movie releases. Jean-Luc Godard's Pierrot le Fou gets the Criterion treatment. Fans of the contrarian French director will appreciate this offering, which dates from 1965 during Godard's most fruitful period as a filmmaker. This week is also seeing the Blu Ray debut of Run Lola Run. This has, of course, been available on standard DVD for some time but it's notable because it represents a catalog title being released in the high-def format. To-date, most Blu Ray releases have been newer theatrical releases.
Finally, there are a couple of offbeat selections. Les Miserables - 10th Anniversary is a must-have for fans of the musical. It's not my cup of tea, but it's pretty high on Amazon.com's list of most purchased discs, so there are a lot of people out there who want a copy. Less high profile is something called Helen Mirren at the BBC, which features nine programs on five discs spanning the years 1974 through 1982. Curiously, the North American version differs from the British one (adding one title and deleting three others). The reason apparently has to do with rights issues. Fans of Mirren, especially from her younger days, will adore this set. In my opinion, it's a better rental option than one for purchase, since it carries a rather hefty $60 (discounted) price tag.
Can You Stay Awake through the Whole Thing?
That's the most pointed question I can think of regarding the Oscars. My solution is to record the thing then watch it late at night, skipping over commercials, filler, and speeches that turn into lists of names. When you think about it, that's probably 80% of the telecast. The Oscars have become so controlled and carefully programmed that the chance of anything spontaneous happening is close to nil. Even such minor moments of unplanned glee - the Palance push-ups, the Benigni route to the stage, the Brody kiss – are frowned upon by today's circus masters. Tight control and whitewashed predictability have become the defining characteristics. Never again will a David Niven be surprised by a streaker, a George C. Scott refuse an Oscar, or a Sasheen Littlefeather take the stage. Gone are the little things that once gave the Oscars a sense of the unknown and provided the ripe potential for something unexpected. These days, we know exactly what's going to happen - right down to who most of the winners are going to be.
Are the Oscars still relevant? Yes, but not in the same way they used to be. Once upon a time, it meant something to win an Oscar. Not so much any more. Now, Oscar winners make their speeches then end up appearing in Daddy Day Care or Catwoman. Anna Paquin keeps her Oscar in the bathroom, which probably says more about the award in general than she intends. Even the Best Picture winner suffers from here-today-gone-tomorrow syndrome. How many non-die-hards know that The Departed won last year, or that Crash won the year before? Ask ten random people that question. Last year, I did that to see who remembered Crash's victory. It was largely forgotten (10%). In fact, more people thought Brokeback Mountain had won (30%). That says a lot about Oscar's relative prestige value.
People have called the Academy Awards the "Superbowl for Women" (before women started watching the Superbowl). Now, it's more like the Amerian Idol finale, except the audience doesn't vote. Viewers are more interested in wardrobe than winners. Consider 2001. What won Best Picture? Who knows (looking it up, it was Gladiator)? Who hosted? Best guess: Billy Crystal (oops... it was Steve Martin). Who created the biggest wardrobe stir? That one's easy: Bjork. This year, you'll hear Vera Wang mentioned more often than Viggo's wang. The Oscars are a big deal Sunday night for ABC and Monday morning around the water cooler. (Do those exist any more?) Then they're forgotten. Next February, ask a few random movie-goers what won Best Picture in 2008 and the likely replies will be: (a) "What do I look like? A film encyclopedia?" or (b) "Something like No Old Men Allowed." There will be more of the former.
Before I get to my predictions, I have to gripe about the selection process for the Best Foreign Language Film nominations. For those who are unaware, here's how it goes. Step 1: Countries submit entries. Step 2: A select group of people see all 60+ entries and choose their favorites. Step 3: The "finalists" become nominees. This year, this maligned process resulted in FOUR films being rejected for various reasons. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days was knocked out because the committee didn't vote it in. (An omission called "a travesty" by the committee's own president.) The Band's Visit was declared ineligible because, despite being an Israeli film, it contains too much English. Lust, Caution and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly weren't allowed because there was too much American involvement in the productions, although neither movie is in English. Every year, the Academy tweaks the Best Foreign Language Film process, yet this is the result. It's time to stop tweaking and go for an overhaul.
Here are the predictions for those who like to play along and earn the bragging rights of saying they're more savvy than I am... (I do not pick the short subjects)
Actor (Supporting): Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)
Weekly Theatrical Releases: February 22, 2008
Fans of Larry the Cable Guy, this is your weekend! Witless Protection was not screened for critics and that's probably a good thing because it's not a movie I had an overwhelming desire to sit through. Sometimes the studios do critics a favor by not presenting advance screenings. I wish they had done the same with The Signal, a horror/comedy that can't figure out what it wants to be or where it wants to go. In the realm of bad films, this is among the more watchable ones, but it's not a good way to spend 90 minutes.
There are two good movies opening this weekend. The first one enters theaters four months after its original late-2007 release date. It's easy to see the marketing problem with Charlie Bartlett - it has no target audience. Or, to be more specific, its target audience can't see it. That's because it's aimed at teenagers but carries an R-rating. So the theatrical release appears to be little more than a preamble to the eventual DVD unveiling. The other good movie is my Pick of the Week as well as the front-runner to win the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar on Sunday night. I'm referring to The Counterfeiters, a drama about the Jews who worked for the Nazis during WWII forging British pounds and American dollars. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with foreign films, this one is only opening in a few theaters. If it wins the Oscar, it will go wider fast, however.
The weirdest release of the week is Michael Gondry's Be Kind Rewind. Gondry wrote as well as directed this, which is not necessarily a good thing. He's a much better director than writer - his most impressive film to-date is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which was written by Charlie Kaufman. In Gondry's two post-Sunshine movies (this one and The Science of Sleep), it feels like he has been trying to recapture the bizarre tone of Sunshine and not really succeeding. The movie is opening in a middle-of-the-road number of theaters but doesn't have much buzz or a large target audience, so expectations are deservedly low in terms of how it will do at the box office.
The big gun and almost certain Box Office Champion for the weekend is the adequate but repetitive Vantage Point. The movie starts out strong but soon spins its wheels and concludes with a monumentally contrived incident. It features familiar faces (Dennis Quaid, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Forest Whitaker) but possesses no real star power. The marketing campaign has been clever and this will lure a few people into theaters but this isn't the kind of motion picture that will display legs.
With Hannah Montana giving up some showtimes in the nation's 600+ digital theaters, there's now room for the U2 concert film. It's unclear how long this will be around - that probably depends on how well it draws this weekend. My hours on Saturday and Sunday are spoken for but if the movie is still around next weekend, I'll check it out. 80 minutes of U2 concert footage in 3D doesn't sound like an unpleasant prospect and, for a middle-aged guy like me, it's more appealing than an equal amount of time spent watching and listening to Miss Montana.
Traditionally, Hollywood avoids releasing big movies on Oscar weekend, since they don't want to compete with themselves. This is supposed to be the weekend when we celebrate the biggest and brightest of last year rather than the new kids on the block. While that may be the case, I'm not sure what the explanation is for next week's pathetic roster.
Short Clips
Not much in the mailbag this week about advertising or the site redesign. There is one question I want to address, then I'll move on to other things. When I recently mentioned that I intended to "cap" ads, what did I mean? Simply, that the number of ads per page will remain at the level where they are now, and that no new ad "spaces" will be created. It does not mean, as a few people have assumed, that I will not entertain new advertisers, just that any new ads will occupy currently existing spaces. In working on the new design, I have kept this cap firmly in mind; there will not be an increase in ads when I move to "ReelViews 2.0." If revenue from the existing ads jumps significantly, that would allow me to pare back on space devoted to advertising, which would be a desirable development. But I believe the site has reached the maximum number of ads it can support without the commercial space beginning to overwhelm the content. (Some feel this tipping point has already been passed.) As always, the success of the advertising approach is determined largely by how readers respond to the ads.
One e-mailer pleaded for fewer reviews of movies like The Hottie & the Nottie and more reviews of obscure fare. His assertion was that no one would read The Hottie & the Nottie review anyway. That's incorrect. Based on stat tracking, it's possible that more people read the review than saw the movie. I have readers who enjoy perusing reviews of movies they have heard about but don't intend to see. When it comes to choosing which films to review, I have to balance personal preference against commercial appeal. Reviews for The Band's Visit and Romulus, My Father (both of which will be posted this week) won't generate much in terms of reader interest or advertising revenue. (About 5000 people will read each.) So be it. But the site can't be all about smaller movies or my audience would plummet. So it admittedly skews toward multiplex movies. That's what the majority of the readership is interested in. So, while I did not experience Hannah Montana (mainly because it is unseemly for a 40-year old man to sit in a theater full of pre-teen girls, even if he's not wearing a raincoat), I will take one for my readers and see Horton Hears a Who. Also, don't make the assumption that because I don't review something, I haven't seen it. In a typical year, I watch about 100 movies that I don't write about.
A number of readers have asked if my stance regarding the Academy Awards - a mixture of boredom and indifference - is how I actually feel or whether it's a position I have taken to make me seem more contrary. Unfortunately, it's reflective of my genuine view. I didn't always dislike the Oscars. In fact, back in the early years of this site I used to do "live" updates throughout the telecast. I think the incident that severed any affection I had for the Academy Awards was the victory of Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. That taught me a lesson about the value (or lack thereof) associated with winning an award. After that, I stopped caring who won or lost, and when you don't care about the winners, what's left to be interested in? So I started focusing on other things, and became aware of how dull, dragged-out, and self-indulgent the program is. It's a curious situation for a film critic to be in because I am expected to write about the Oscars and I have a speaking engagement this week to provide an autopsy. So I wait in hope that some year someone will attempt "Oscar telecast reform," although ratings will probably have to dip significantly before such a thing is contemplated.
Finally, I was asked if I had seen the Lindsay Lohan faux Marilyn Monroe nude photographs. Yes, and I think it's some of the best work she has done in a while. I have read opinions that this might hurt her career, but I'm trying to imagine how a series of tastefully done, artistic semi-nude photographs can possibly do more damage to her than her drug and alcohol induced period of self-destruction. The paparazzi have already taken far more explicit pictures of her, so anyone who wants to see certain portions of her anatomy doesn't have to search far or wide. This is an opportunity for her to get naked on her terms and assert some control. The paparazzi don't care if their subjects look good, but professional photo spreads make an effort to present the most flattering images possible. Why is it that ex-starlets and pop singers pose for Playboy when trying to make a comeback? There are two reasons: Playboy shoots still generate buzz even though the magazine is fast becoming irrelevant in the Internet age, and the photos are digitally altered to make the actress/singer/whatever look better than she ever could in real life. This might not work for a modest individual or someone with a virginal reputation but for someone with fewer inhibitions, the "tasteful nude" approach can be an excellent way to re-align a career. For Lohan, it allows all those ugly, unintentionally scandalous images to be replaced by professionally-shot photos. It shifts public perception, if only slightly. And it allows her assert her sexuality in a positive way.
Hollywood's Hangover
First, let me say that I enjoyed "I'm Fucking Ben Affleck" more than the entire Oscar ceremony. Okay, so it wasn't as good as "I'm Fucking Matt Damon," but it was about as good as a rebuttal could be. Also impressive was the star power Jimmy Kimmel managed to pull in – Ben Affleck, Cameron Diaz, Harrison Ford, and Robin Williams (among others). They aren't the B-list celebrities who normally occupy the guest slots on his show.
Using a DVR, I watched the Oscar telecast in 65 minutes, and I don't think I missed much (other than montages, film clips, and Best Song performances), which supports my contention that the show could easily be two hours if the fat was trimmed. Still, it clocked in at about three hours fifteen minutes, which isn't bad considering how long some recent shows have been. I believe the program's producers need to eliminate the opening monologue, however. It's a clone of how the late night hosts start their shows.
Assessing Jon Stewart's performance is difficult because it has become apparent that the Oscars strive for mediocrity in a host. I doubt Stewart has much creative freedom. I'm not sure that bringing in someone "outrageous" would solve the problem. We've seen Steve Martin and Chris Rock neutered by the experience. The Academy is afraid of Robin Williams because they're not sure they can control him. I favor the multiple host approach; it at least provides variety. Or how about having Michael Moore fill the function? I can't stand the guy but he certainly would liven things up. Still, given the restrictions hampering him like an albatross, Stewart did okay. He balanced off duds with zingers and avoided saying or doing anything that would make him persona non grata for future shows. (Rumor is, though, that Billy Crystal might be willing to work next year's show, and if Billy's interested, Oscar won't look elsewhere.) Here's a thought: How about a Sarah Silverman/Jimmy Kimmel tag-team? They could bring along Ben Affleck and Matt Damon.
The 80th Academy Awards didn't have many memorable moments. For me, two instances stood out: Marion Cotillard and the Once singers. Cotillard's emotions were so unrestrained that I couldn't help but be moved. In an era when reactions are carefully controlled and speeches turn into thank-you lists, her tearful acceptance represented the evening's highlight. The leads from Once showed a similar exuberance; I don't think they expected to defeat Disney, but it's likely that the Enchanted vote got split too many ways. As for Tilda Swinton... What was that costume? Is she auditioning for the role of Heat Miser in a live-action version of The Year without a Santa Claus?
There's irony to be found in that one of the montages celebrated 80 years of unexpected happenings at the Oscars. The irony is, of course, that the production has become so pre-packaged that spontaneity has been wrung out of the experience. Oscar night used to be an evening full of surprises or potential surprises. No longer. Now, the only question is how many acceptance speeches will be cut off by the band.
Ethan Coen delivered the best acceptance speech of the evening when he went on stage to accept the Best Director statue. His brother ruined the effect a little by rambling. There's still room to beat Hitchcock, however. When the Master of Suspense received an honorary award in 1968, he used two words: "Thank You." "Thanks" is still available for anyone who wants to claim the new record. It's sad that so few Oscar winners have anything worthwhile to say. Now, it's just a long list of thank-yous.
Had No Country for Old Men done better in the technical awards, I would have had an excellent night of predictions, but the film lacked coattails, so I messed up a bunch of the "lesser tier." My final tally was 13 out of 21 (62%), which is about par for the night. Five for six in the major awards group isn't anything to be excited about since only two (Lead Actress, Supporting Actress) were in doubt. That puts me at 50% there, although I'm aware a lot of pundits were 0-for-2 (having predicted Julie Christie over Marion Cotillard and Ruby Dee or Amy Ryan over Tilda Swinton).
Finally, a thought about the Best Picture. No Country for Old Men deserved the win - it was the best of the nominations. But how will history remember it? My sense is that it will fall in the middle ground of half-remembered titles. It won't end up in the "What were they thinking?" category, which includes The Greatest Show on Earth, Around the World in 80 Days, Out of Africa, Shakespeare in Love, and Crash. But it won't stand above most of its fellows, either. When it comes to remembering 2007 in a few years' time, I suspect the titles that will come to mind will be Transformers and Juno. No Country for Old Men may have won the two biggest awards but Juno won viewers' hearts. Not to downplay the Coens' victory, but that lasting affection will ultimately mean more than all the gold statues the Academy can hand out.
The Video View: February 26, 2008
With the format war officially over, it's now time to start thinking about when some of the really desirable titles will start showing up on Blu-Ray. This is where Hollywood faces its biggest challenge - convincing movie buffs to re-buy catalog titles. For example, while it's possible people will re-purchase movies like Revenge of the Sith and The Lord of the Rings to get the best possible video/audio on their "show" titles, what about films like The French Connection or To Have or Have Not? The fact is, it's hard to justify replacing a good standard DVD transfer with a Blu-Ray high-def one for many, many movies. I'll buy Patton when it comes out in Blu-Ray later this year, but that's mainly because it's my all-time favorite. I'm not expecting it to look a lot better than my current DVD copy. The first thing studios have to do to get high-def off the ground is to bring down disc prices. People aren't going to pay $10 or $15 premiums. Day-and-date is important but day-and-date-and-price is more important. Given a choice between a popular new title in standard DVD at $18 and one in high def at $30, how many will choose the latter? Only die-hards. Get the price differential to about $5 and there will be a lot of casual movie buyers who will go for the Blu-Ray. Equalize the prices and it's a no-brainer that anyone who owns a Blu-Ray player will get the high def disc and those who don't own players will consider buying them (assuming they are reasonably priced).
For the second straight week, there are more high profile movie titles than TV series box sets. Beowulf is at the top of the pile with an unrated version that is likely to show some of what got cut to achieve the PG-13. Rumor is that the original director's cut was close to NC-17 so the decision to release an "unrated director's cut" could be more than a mere marketing ploy. The theatrical cut is also available but I'm at a loss who would buy it - maybe the same people who purchased the R-rated Lust, Caution. Sadly, the high-def version is in HD-DVD, which presents a bit of a conundrum since this is one movie where high-def is almost a must. So the question becomes: Buy it in a dead format, slum by getting the standard DVD, or wait for who knows how long for a Blu-Ray edition? For the record, I went for the middle option even though I own an HD-DVD player. I can't abide the thought of spending more than $5 on an HD-DVD disc during this time in the format's life cycle.
Other movies this week: the vampire story 30 Days of Night, which is one of the better horror movies to come along in recent years (also the only one of this week's major releases to also show up in Blu-Ray); the weird-and-not-so-wonderful The Darjeeling Limited, which epitomizes pretentiousness; and the lightweight and occasionally very funny Death at a Funeral. Stinkers include Silk, which doubles as a cure for insomnia, and Goya's Ghosts, which proves that Best Supporting Actor winners can turn in truly horrific performances.
TV shows include volume 2 of season 1 for The Fugitive, episodes 71-105 of the gothic soap opera Dark Shadows, season 4 of Punky Brewster, and the series final of Extras (it's only one episode but it's also pretty cheap - around $13 discounted). Then there's the one I'm sure everyone has been awaiting: the debut season of the immortal B.L. Stryker. Better hurry and put in an order before that one's sold out.
Finally, there's a trio of otherwise interesting releases. Criterion is giving The Last Emperor special treatment. This is one of those editions that is a can't-miss for lovers of the movie and a don't-bother for those who are indifferent. It's not cheap but it is packed. Of course, if you're thinking about dropping $50 on this set, there's the disturbing question of whether it might show up in Blu-Ray over the next couple of years. Probably not, but who knows? Still, that's the kind of uncertainty hurting the industry right now. Justice League - The New Frontier, an animated direct-to-DVD feature, is one of the bestsellers at Amazon.com, indicating that this kind of cartoon isn't just for kids. It's available in Blu-Ray as well as standard DVD. Finally, football fans who don't live in the Boston area will enjoy picking up the official Superbowl XLII DVD. Undoubtedly, Giants fans who make their homes in Beantown will have to mail order it.
Bigger Theaters, Smaller People
While out driving yesterday, I passed a building that once housed a movie theater. The theater closed in the early '80s and, since then, it has been a self-storage locale and is currently a pet supply store. I was taken by a momentary pang of nostalgia. I didn't see many movies in the place but I remember one viewing experience in particular because I had looked forward to it so strongly: Clash of the Titans. Isn't it sad, I reflected as I gazed at the building through the car window, that no child today would be able to walk up to that box office and buy a ticket?
Actually, no.
To be frank, it was a terrible place to see a movie. The screen was small, the speaker system was tinny, the seats were uncomfortable, and the stickiness on the floor was so extreme that there was a lingering fear that one might leave behind the soles of one's shoes. The only good thing about the place was its location. What's surprising is that the building still stands and is being used for something else. Old theaters are notoriously difficult to convert for alternate use. I'm aware of a couple in Philadelphia that have been shuttered for a decade but inside remain as they were the day they closed (except there are now more rats and mice). The big, beautiful Uptown theater in Toronto was torn down to make way for condos. That's the way it is with old theaters - most of them either fall or are boarded up.
During my youth, I frequented (to the degree that the word "frequented" can be used to describe my erratic movie attendance) five South Jersey theaters. All of them, plus the nearest drive-in, are no more. One - a mall theater - became a store. Three are now parking lots. (One of those had been standing vacant for a seeming eternity until the wrecking ball got it last year.) The fourth is now a multiplex, although the footprint and configuration are so different that it's not really the same place it once was. Standing at the site of one of these ex-theaters threatens to bring on another wave of nostalgia, but then I recall that they weren't such great places, either.
There was one exception: a 2000-seat mammoth of an auditorium. Excluding movie palaces protected by historical preservation statutes, those are damn near impossible to find these days. It was an amazing place in which to see a movie, especially when most of the seats were filled. That's when the sense of a "communal experience" kicked in. I remember the magic of opening weekend there for The Empire Strikes Back and Star Trek II. Most nights, however, there were only a hundred-or-so people in the theater. The balcony was closed, but not for Siskel & Ebert. And the place seemed empty and cavernous. Still there was no sadder day than when they cut the theater in half, creating two bizarrely proportioned 900-seat twins (90 rows of 10 seats each).
Memory makes us (or at least me) remember the theaters of my childhood and teenage years with a greater fondness than they probably deserve. The fact is, today's multiplexes are superior in almost every way - bigger screens; brighter images; digital surround sound; reclining, wide-backed seats; stadium seating; and comfortably large lobbies. The theater game is one of upgrade or perish, and that's why all those theaters I used to attend no longer exist. They couldn't compete because the owners didn't want to invest the money to stay ahead. But there is one area in which the old movie theaters were superior: the people.
Employees used to be courteous and knowledgeable. Projection problems, when they occurred, were fixed promptly and it was never difficult to find someone to help because there were - gasp! - ushers. If you loved a movie, you could sit there all day and watch it repeatedly, and the ushers would come over in between shows and chat with you. Today's theater employees treat customers like cattle and if there's a problem, they glare at you for interrupting their phone conversation. I'm convinced one of the reasons people my age recall the theaters of the '70s with such a sense of loss is because the people working there still cared about what was being put on the screen.
Then there's the audience. Maybe the reason employees treat patrons like cattle is because that's how they behave. 50% of the time when a movie is ruined for me, it's because of my fellow viewers, who too often treat the auditorium like their living room. If you want to believe that common courtesy is dead, spend a Friday night at a 24-plex watching the latest big release. As a kid, I was always aware that I wasn't the only one in the theater and I did my best to make sure that no action on my part hurt the viewing experience of the others (although I will admit to having made the occasional whispered comment to whoever I was with). I can't decide whether people today are oblivious or so self-centered that they don't care. In the end, it doesn't matter. The effect is the same.
Over the years, the movie theaters have gotten bigger and more sophisticated. It's too bad the same thing can't be said of the people.
Weekly Theatrical Releases: February 29, 2008
It's a wasteland out there. The tundra of the local multiplex is as barren as the surface of the moon. When I say that, I'm not referring specifically to the quality of new theatrical releases (although that's nothing to get excited about), but the level of anticipation. There's nothing out there - good or bad - for audiences to get excited about. Unless you're a 12-year-old girl, February has been a wasted month. It's as if Hollywood has stopped caring and is just throwing garbage down the chute, hoping that gaudy marketing campaigns will make viewers forget that what they're watching isn't worth the price of a rental, not to mention a full-price ticket. There's better stuff on TV, and that's a damning contention. The year started out with bang and the fat box office receipts from the December holdovers and Cloverfield and Rambo had the studio execs dancing on their desks to the tune of "Happy Days Are Here Again." February, however, has given it all back, and March has the reek of failure hanging over it. It approaches slowly, like a toxic cloud. None of this fills me with joy. My website's traffic ebbs and flows with the level of audience anticipation. I'd like nothing better than for excitement to fill the land, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen for a while. Attending screenings night after night while watching this menu of mediocre fare is enough to give even the most optimistic critic indigestion. It's not fun right now, and that's a sad thing to admit.
So what's out there this weekend? Well, it's not all bad. Unfortunately, the Pick of the Week is only showing in about a dozen theaters across the nation. It's The Band's Visit, a comedy-drama from Israel about communicating and bridging cultural gaps. It's mostly in English, so that eliminates the need to read subtitles (it also made it ineligible for the Foreign Language Film Oscar). As an alternative, the Best Foreign Language Film winner, The Counterfeiters is also expanding its run this week - but not enough to make it generally available. Still, at least some people not living in New York or Los Angeles have a shot at it. Another limited run movie inching out of the starting gate is Romulus, My Father, a standard-order coming-of-age story which is reasonable DVD fare but hardly worth rushing out to an art house to see.
This is Eric Bana week. Not only does Bana star in Romulus, but he's also one of the featured three performers in The Other Boleyn Girl, a costume drama about Henry VIII and his second (of six) wife. Bana's co-stars are Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman. The movie is respectable and entertaining but it's not great drama or a substitute for a reliable history book. Nevertheless, in a week like this, it's not a bad choice for an evening out. It gets a recommendation, although not the most enthusiastic one I can muster. Those looking for a little more fanciful romance can find it in Penelope, which features Christina Ricci wearing a pig's snout. It's a cute movie with a nice message but, like Romulus, it feels like a better DVD choice than a reason to go to a theater.
This week's slam-dunk Box Office Champion will be the Will Ferrell '70s basketball comedy, Semi-Pro. I can't recommend it. It's like too many recent Will Ferrell comedies – sporadically funny at best. When I see a comedy, I want the laughter to bubble up from within, the spontaneous reaction to something fresh and creative on screen. I don't want to laugh because everyone else in the theater is laughing or because a voice in the back of my mind says: "That's a joke. It's supposed to be funny. Laugh." I used to be one of Ferrell's supporters but his last few movies have soured my opinion. He has become lazy. He has fallen into a rut where he applies the same formula to every movie, regardless of the topic. If nothing else, Semi-Pro will answer the question of how strong Ferrell's appeal is. At the height of their respective popularities, Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler could dominate the box office for weeks on end. Can Ferrell get the $40M+ necessary to land in that category? It seems unlikely. A comfortable $20M-$30M is more likely, putting him closer to Ben Stiller territory. But, no matter how much money Semi-Pro pulls in, the question remains: Are viewers laughing because it's funny or because there's an obligation to laugh that accompanies the work of a popular comedian?
©2008 James Berardinelli
|