ReelThoughts
Choose the month you would like to access:
| New Movies | ReelThoughts | Video Views | The Archives | Top 100 | PRICE novels | FAQ |
ReelThoughts
|
---
Jan. 1 (Tu): Fearless Predictions
Fearless Predictions
With the start of the new year, some people make resolutions while others make predictions. I've never seen much sense in resolutions. Does anyone actually hold to them all year long? If I want to do something, I'll do it regardless of whether or not it's January 1st. So this year, I resolve to make five fearless predictions. As with all predictions, the fun will be coming back next January 1st (2009) to see how laughably, absurdly wrong there are. (Why is it TV psychics never do this?) So, without further ado, here's another list (in the wake of the Bottom Ten and Top Ten of 2007):
1. The WGA strike will not be settled but the writers will go back to work. With both sides deeply entrenched, the likelihood of a settlement is slim – at least any time in the near future. However, the repercussions of a prolonged strike could elevate from being economically damaging to economically catastrophic (especially if the directors and actors join the writers, as could happen as the DGA and SAG CBAs run out) - another lost TV season, a shattered 2009 movie release schedule, farming out of duties overseas, scab hirings, etc. So it's in everyone's interest for the writers to return to work even without a CBA. The most likely situation is a temporary agreement while "good faith" negotiations continue. Ultimately, the language in the writers' contract will look a lot like what ends up in the directors' and actors' contract. It will be a three-for-one bargain, but the difficulty will be getting that first one.
2. The High Def DVD format war will not end in 2008. That doesn't mean we'll be in the same situation one year down the line. We may be a lot closer to a resolution, but anyone who thinks either Toshiba/Microsoft or Sony is going to throw in the towel during the next 12 months hasn't been studying the situation or paying attention to how stubborn the sides are. More on this in its own column next Monday.
3. There will only be one movie in 2008 that crosses the $300 million (domestic) mark. 2007 had four (almost five), but I only see one film on the 2008 roster with that kind of box office power: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Other contenders: Speed Racer, Prince Caspian, Sex and the City, Hulk 2, Get Smart, Wall-E, The Dark Knight, X-Files 2, Madagascar 2, Bond 22, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Star Trek. Many of those will reach $200 million, but $300 million? Consider these tidbits... The last few Harry Potters have all made less than $300 million. The first Narnia movie missed $300 million and sequels usually don't do as well as their predecessors. No Bond has made as much as $200 million. Madagascar made less than $200 million. The last Pixar film to make more than $300 million was Finding Nemo. Batman Begins crested $200 million but not by much - I don't see even the addition of a non-Nicholson Joker adding another $100 million. Hulk 2 is encumbered by the "bad taste" it left in many fans' mouths. Sex in the City and X-Files are both niche pictures. They will do well, but will not be explosive. Use The Simpsons Movie as a template. Get Smart will be one of the year's better comedies, but comedies rarely come close to $300 million. The wild card is Speed Racer. It could be a major bomb or it could be 2008's Big Unexpected Thing. We'll see...
4. The 2008 Box Office will be down compared to 2007. Without the heavy hitters out there, it's going to be tough for 2008 to keep up. Going into 2007, people were excited about the "three threes": Pirates 3, Shrek 3, Spider-Man 3. All made $300M. (The fourth member of the club was Transformers, which kind of came out of nowhere. It was predicted to do well, but not that well.) There's not the same level of excitement about any 2008 releases except perhaps the Indiana Jones movie. Time will tell whether there's a Transformers out there in 2008.
5. The new Star Trek will win a legion of supporters from the "non-fan sector" but will alienate many die-hards. Such is the risk when trying to mainstream an old, creaking warhorse. This is a last gasp chance for the Star Trek franchise. If this movie goes down like the Titanic, life will continue only in fan-made Internet episodes. What J.J. Abrams wants to do is satisfy long-time fans happy while bringing in millions of new viewers via action, stunt casting, and first-rate special effects. The question is whether, by doing this, he will isolate the fan base that has kept this series running for 45 years. Does it even matter? And at this point, is the Star Trek name an asset or a detriment? By the way, I don't think the December 25 release date is going to stick. Star Trek will either move up to the weekend before Christmas (December 19) or move out to the Summer of 2009 if Hollywood suffers a shut-down. If something needs to be shifted to May 2009, this film is a perfect candidate. (But that won't be an issue if Prediction #1 is accurate.)
Seasonal Box Office Disorder
Excited about going to the movies this weekend? Neither am I. Welcome to January, Wasteland of the Cinema. It's not a pretty sight.
There is no more uninspired month out there - not even February or August, Hollywood's traditional dumping grounds. Give a studio some credit for at least trying to generate excitement with the January 18 release of Cloverfield. Whether it will result in a 300-style mad dash to the box office or a Snakes on a Plane-style nosedive remains to be seen. We can only hope the movie and experience are half as good as the hype.
For me, January has always been a time to hunker down inside. I play video games. I write. I stoke the fire and curl up on the couch next to my wife to read. And, on days when luck smiles on me and dumps a few inches (or feet) of snow, I happily wander outside to shovel the driveway. (Something I enjoy as long as it doesn't become too repetitive, but that hasn't happened in years.) Getting in the car and driving to a movie theater - even the closest one, a decrepit 30-year-old 8-plex that uses the same seats today as at its inception - holds little thrill, especially when one considers what's playing there. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Hollywood knows that January is not a good month for theaters, so it goes with the flow rather than bucking it. The result: an extraordinary number of films not screened for critics and not viable for consumption for anyone.
The most disappointing thing about winter movies isn't that they're all bad but that so few are really good. Between now and March, there will be three-star movies aplenty but will there be any three-and-one-half star selections or even a four-star gem? Those are the kinds of films that reaffirm why I'm in this line of work. It's not the one-star debacles that get me down. It's the onslaught of two and two-and-one-half star films without a truly great one to break the monotony. That's why January and February (and, to a degree, March) can be so oppressive. Mediocrity is monotonous.
The DVD (or HD-DVD or Blu-Ray) provides an excellent antidote, however. Now, instead of bundling up, filling the tank with obscenely expensive gas, and dealing with rude employees and self-centered customers at the multiplex while waiting to see One Missed Call, it's possible to stay home, kick back, and enjoy Ridley Scott's final cut of Blade Runner in all its glory. Or snuggle up while the snow falls outside and enjoy all 11 hours of the extended Lord of the Rings. Or have a 15-hour Star Wars marathon. The possibilities are endless.
When one considers the options, one has to wonder why anyone bothers to go to the movies at this time of the year. Sure, there are still some late-year stragglers opening wide, but are they worth the aggravation? They'll be on DVD in another four months and who knows whether there will even be an Academy Awards celebration this year? It's times like this when I think the experience of sitting in a movie theater is archaic. I may be singing a different song in May, when the must-see-it-on-the-big-screen blockbusters are opening. This year, Hollywood is going the extra mile to put butts in seats by increasing the number of 3D digital productions and I-MAX theaters are getting ready to show huge versions of all the big movies (wish I had one within decent spitting distance).
When the weather's warmer and the days are longer, it's somehow a lot easier to justify a trip to a movie theater. But not in January with the winds howling and the thermometer plummeting. Now's the time for staying indoors and throwing another log on the fire while a beloved classic plays on the 52" widescreen HDTV. Leave the multiplex going for the time of the year when there's lawn mowing and gardening to do.
Weekly Theatrical Releases: January 4, 2008
It's a sad week for movies. The only new release is One Missed Call. Not only is the film pretty bad, but it's generating almost no buzz. Will anyone other than the ten people who joined me this afternoon see it? I can't recommend it even to die-hard horror fans and it won't come close to capturing this week's box office crown. That will almost certainly go once again to National Treasure 2 by default. But the total gross for the second rate Raiders should be down significantly from last week. This isn't movie-going season.
There are two films previously in limited release that will be getting wider exposure. (And Juno will be doubling its number of theaters from 1000 to 2000.) The first is The Orphanage, which could be described as the anti-One Missed Call. Both are ghost stories but The Orphanage does almost everything well that One Missed Call does poorly. If you feel a yearning to see a ghost story this weekend, there's no question which is the better choice, although it would be unfair not to mention that The Orphanage comes with subtitles along with its genuine scares. And it doesn't have Ray Wise in an inexplicable walk-on role. (If you can't find it this week, wait till next week when it expands onto 750 screens.)
My pick of the week goes to Paul Thomas Anderson's ambitious There Will Be Blood. It's flawed and overlong but it is compelling and features a great lead performance from Daniel Day Lewis. Many critics are overlooking the movie's obvious flaws and are rushing into "overpraise" mode. There Will Be Blood is something of an acquired taste and is definitely not mainstream. Nevertheless, if you have 2 1/2 hours, like Anderson's previous work, and don't mind a movie that's more about character than plot, this may fill an afternoon or evening, and it's unlikely you'll be bored.
That's it for this week's releases - not a full or impressive roster, to be sure. Next week isn't much better with a handful of new releases and one currently limited offering going wide. Two of the releases are of the "don't let critics see them" school of dump-and-run. (In the Name of the King, Rogue) I'll catch one on Friday but I can't promise to see both; my constitution may not be up to it. Right now, my gut is to avoid the Uwe Boll title (In the Name of the King). I have seen enough of his stuff to know there's not much hope for this one, although it would be interesting to actually review one of Boll's masterpieces (something I have yet to do).
Meanwhile, I have some more reading to do about the impact of Warner Brother's defection to the Blu-Ray camp so I can include that in Monday's discussion. I feel bad that my nice HD-DVD player Christmas gift may soon be gathering dust... More about that next week, although my prediction about the format war has not changed. We'll know the winner before the end of 2008 (in fact, we know it now), but it won't be a reality until the first half of 2009.
Is the Fat Lady Warming Up?
First, the obvious statement: it appears that the high def format war has been decided. However, like Japan in early 1945, it's unclear whether Toshiba realizes it. With Warner Brothers deciding to terminate HD-DVD support (starting in the late spring), the content split goes to 70/30 exclusive in favor of Blu-Ray. That's a crushing blow. Blu-Ray will be the winner; there's no question of that. (If you have been sitting on the fence but really want high def DVDs, this is your indication that it's okay to buy a Blu-Ray player.) But how long will it take to get to the point where it can be decisively declared that the format war is over? That depends on three things: When Toshiba and Microsoft decide to throw in the towel, when Universal decides to go format neutral (their next likely step), and what Paramount/Dreamworks does. Do they have an "out" clause in their agreement with HD-DVD or are they stuck until early 2009?
(As for the rumors that Sony paid huge amounts of money to Warner Brothers/New Line to make this decision, so what? It's the same thing Toshiba and Microsoft did with Paramount/Dreamworks. This is business, and money talks. In this case, it has a benefit for the industry as a whole and for consumers who yearned for format issues to be settled. By staying neutral as long as they did, this allows Warners to reap a stunning reward. By all accounts, had they gone HD-DVD exclusive, they would have gotten a similar financial package, so no one is playing unfair. To Warners, Blu-Ray simply makes more sense and, if it gets them some ready cash in the process, where's the harm?)
However... The format war ends once all the major studios agree to produce high def DVDs in one format. Only once everything is being made available in one format is the other one truly dead. That's when the Fat Lady Sings. Until then, it's officially still on, although that may be a formality. Indeed, at this point, it's a "when" not an "if." We could start seeing Paramount and Universal Blu-Ray discs as early as September or they could be delayed until next year. Even though I predicted that the format war would not (officially) end this year, the fact that I purchased a PS3 after straddling the fence for more than a year is an indication that I felt the direction in which the wind was blowing. (I received an HD-DVD player for Christmas and I have a small handful of discs - as long as it keeps working, I see no reason to mothball it, although I won't be building a large library of titles - not that there are many titles out there to whet my interest.)
At this point, I'm unwilling to back away from that prediction: the format war will not officially be over with HD-DVD dead and buried until 2009. One thing that keeps me skeptical is that we don't know how Toshiba/Microsoft will respond to this. Could they give up? Not likely. Radical drops in prices are possible, including a rumored drop to about $75 each for the cheap version of the HD-DVD player, making it a viable alternative to a standard upconverting DVD player. Unfortunately for Toshiba, the buying season is over. That kind of strategy might have worked a month ago. There's also the possibility of disc price-slashing. If HD-DVDs hit the shelves at $10 each, it will be tough to hold back on purchasing, even if the format is the "loser." Consider that someone who couldn't afford the price tag of about $350 for a Blu-Ray player and five movie titles might be able to afford a little more than $100 for the HD-DVD equivalent.
It comes down to how much money Toshiba is willing to lose to stay in the game. The financially sane thing would be to throw in the towel now, admit defeat, and start making Blu-Ray players. But that assumes a rational, profit-based approach. The format war isn't just about money. If that was the case, there never would have been one in the first place. Sony and Toshiba would have come to a compromise agreement two years ago and we'd be living in HD heaven now. No, this is about power, egos, and winning. And that's why it's unlikely that Toshiba will give up without a hell of a fight, even to the point of implementing a scorched earth policy. Whatever moves they plan next won't win the war but it could prolong the battles for another year. I feel confident that the format war will be over by March or April of 2009. I do not feel confident that it will be over by December 2008.
But there's another issue I haven't read about anyone addressing. It's whether the potential end of the format war has come too late to give high def DVDs the boost they need. There's a big shadow that now looms over everything. What if the United States slips into a recession (as is being predicted by some economists)?
By any definition, high def DVD is considered to be a "luxury" item, even for people with nice 42" widescreen TVs. If we tumble into a recession, no one is going to be buying $250 Blu-Ray DVD players and high def discs. Instead, they'll stick with what they have and what has served them well for many years. The end of the format war couldn't have come at a worse time. For two years, while the economy was running hot, people didn't buy players because of confusion. Now, with the economy cooling off, they might not buy because it's not a priority. Recessions bring belt-tightening. Belt-tightening is not conducive to selling this sort of high end product. In order to enter the mainstream, millions upon millions of units have to be sold (get it to at least 10-15% penetration). In a recession, the only way to accomplish that is to bottom out prices. Even in tough conditions, consumers might buy at a $100 level, but can Blu-Ray get that low? In the last three years, people have been spending a lot of money on electronics, but a recession will change that.
Enough gloom and doom. I just don't think the picture is as rosy as some Blu-Ray enthusiasts have painted it to be because they're looking only at piece of it, not the whole thing.
The hope is that we'll start getting some decent catalog titles on high def. There are a handful I would buy in the new format; none of those have been announced. Right now, my Blu-Ray disc collection is pathetically small - less than ten titles. Based on what's on the schedule, it won't be growing fast any time soon. And that's what it all comes down to - software. Get the titles out and people will come. Eliminating one format is a good start. Now it's time for the studios to open the vaults and release their A-list titles.
The Video View: January 8, 2008
The big news this week is more about what's happening in the high definition market that what's available on standard DVD. (In answer to the question of when I will start "publishing" new Blu-Ray titles on the VideoViews page in addition to standard DVD releases – in another few months. I'm also going to add links to an affiliate company which will allow a direct purchase for those who have requested that convenience. Don't worry, it won't be obtrusive.) The latest rumor is that Paramount/Dreamworks has an "out" in their HD-DVD contract and they are preparing to use it. So it appears that one of my 2008 predictions will be wrong less than a month into the new year. I will not apply to replace Carnac the Magnificent. At any rate, when Paramount/Dreamworks abandons the sinking ship (sources say the official announcement will likely come tomorrow or Thursday), Universal won't be far behind. One could argue that Microsoft has already given up, considering that Bill Gates mentioned nary a word about HD-DVD during his CES keynote speech. (He mentioned just about everything else Microsoft is involved in. The silence speaks volumes.) So it appears that at long last the format war is over. Nevertheless, my concern about the economic downturn impacting potential sales remains an issue. The time to have ended the format war was before the Christmas buying season, not after it. Still, what we have now is better than what we had a week ago.
It has been a slow past two weeks on DVD with little of note being released. It's typically this way at the end of the year. Studios rush to get their big guns out a few weeks before Christmas then have nothing left. The highest profile release while this column was on hiatus was The Kingdom, a film almost no one saw in theaters but which could make for an entertaining evening in front of the TV. This week, most of what's coming out is low-profile (marginal movies like Golden Door, Eye of the Dolphin, Death Sentence, Eagle Versus Shark) and worth a rental only for those who have exhausted all the other possibilities. A Director's Cut of Zodiac is being released in standard DVD and soon-to-be-defunct HD-DVD. It's only for die-hard fans of the theatrical version. The cult hit Sunshine is coming out in standard DVD and Blu-Ray. (Curious fact - at amazon.com, the Blu-Ray preorders outnumbered the standard DVD preorders. This says something about the audience for Sunshine.) Finally, the "big" release of the week is 3:10 to Yuma, which is worth at least a rental, especially if you didn't see it in theaters. It's available in standard/Blu-Ray.
This week's TV on DVD doesn't include a lot of show-stoppers. None of these titles are likely to enter the best-seller or best-renter list. (I'm still waiting for The Six Million Dollar Man, which is more high-profile than any of these, but rights issues keep it in limbo.) There's the second season of Two and One-Half Men, the sixth season of The Waltons, and the fifth season of the British series MI-5 (a.k.a. Spooks). Of those three, the only one I could envision watching is MI-5. After all, Two and One-Half Men is a bad situation comedy and The Waltons is only for those with a soft spot for sentimental nostalgia. Good night, John-Boy. Fans of British TV will also note that Season 2 of Lovejoy is available as are Seasons 1 and 2 of An Unsuitable Job for a Woman (based on a character created by my favorite author, P.D. James). The inaugural season of The Riches also arrives - that's the often praised and critically acclaimed series that played on a U.S. cable network last year and which received poor ratings. Old timers will be pleased to hear that Gunsmoke has finally made it to DVD - the first season debuts today.
There are no special package DVDs out this week unless you count the re-issue of a four-disc Cary Grant pack (Indiscreet, Operation Petticoat, The Grass Is Greener, That Touch of Mink) that has been widely panned for shoddy transfers and generally poor quality control. Buyer beware.
Beginning this Saturday and continuing throughout 2008 on most Saturdays, I will be posting a new review of an older movie - something available on DVD. Initially, these will be movie-only reviews but, as the year progresses, I'll include notes about special features and DVD transfer quality. I won't get overly technical - the intent is to provide something that's useful to everyone not just technophiles. The first such review will be available on January 12 - David Cronenberg's 1986 re-make of The Fly. These reviews will be a mixture of newer films, direct-to-video fare, classics, and just fun favorites that I haven't previously reviewed. Some will be topical (such as reviews of the "missing" Indiana Jones films); others will not be.
I normally take off Wednesdays from ReelThoughts but I will post something tomorrow if circumstances in the waning days of the format war warrant it.
HYPE!
Cloverfield has become the latest motion picture to try to build excitement and word-of-mouth via the Internet. An informal poll of movie-goers has indicated that anyone who spends more than an hour per day surfing the web is more aware of Cloverfield than anyone whose on-line time is less than that. (In fact, while all of the frequent on-liners knew what Cloverfield is, quite a few of those in the other category responded with a "What's Cloverfield?") There are conventional Cloverfield TV ads and trailers but these are nothing compared to the barrage of on-line promotional material. But does this approach to marketing work? Relatively speaking, it's cheap but is it effective? While past trends are no guarantee of future performance, it's worth looking back at four of the most heavily Internet-promoted motion pictures and how they fared at the box office.
The pioneer, if there can be said to be such a thing, for excessive on-line hype was the Granddaddy flop, Snakes on Plane. No movie was more relentlessly promoted across the Internet than this one. There were official websites, fan websites, blogs, and so forth. Forums were ablaze. You couldn't click more than twice without hearing Samuel L. Jackson yelling about getting those motherfucking snakes off this motherfucking plane. Yet, despite so many words being written and so many clips being played, the movie was a bomb. It seemed people were more interested in talking about the "phenomenon" than they were in seeing the film. (The fact that it was bad and had terrible word of mouth might have had something to do with it, but even the special night-before showings were not packed.)
The experience with Borat, however, was much different. The Internet fueled the film's ascension from curiosity to surprise hit. Impelled by blanket Internet coverage, Borat became the must-see movie for college-age viewers (the primary targets of the Internet campaign). Unlike Snakes on a Plane, people went to see Borat. Sold out showings were common as were lines that turned corners and snaked through alleys. Of course, it remains an open question whether the on-line explosion merely re-enforced an already strong interest in the film or whether the hype contributed to Borat's unexpected box office prowess.
The next test for the Internet was Death of a President, which had nearly as much written about it on-line as either Snakes or Borat and was one of the most hyped films at the 2006 Toronto Film Festival. Initially, the movie's prospects seemed bleak but it became such a huge hit in Toronto that distributor Newmarket decided on an Internet blitz to generate interest. Despite all of the chatter and controversy (most of which was overblown - the movie wasn't nearly as edgy as advertised), it vanished without a blip when it opened in theaters. Like Snakes on a Plane, this was a movie that bloggers and forum visitors enjoyed pontificating about but which few movie-goers had much interest in seeing.
2007's big Internet-fueled event was 300, a film that was marketed to on-liners in a smart, calculated manner. The campaign was in part modeled after the one that worked so well with Borat and it appeared to be equally successful for 300. The "red-line" trailer, generally not shown in theaters because of R-rated material, became so frequently downloaded that several trailer-delivery sites crashed from bandwidth overload. Fans sites multiplied until there were thousands of them. Ain't It Cool News went wild with publicity. Expected to be a modest success, the movie instead became a stunning early-year box office champion.
Interestingly, traffic to my site allowed me to make early projections about how successful these films would be. Snakes was not screened for critics so I had to attend the night-before showing. I wrote the review when I got home and posted it within two hours. It received surprisingly tepid interest overnight and during the next day. By 8 pm on Friday, I knew that this film wasn't going to do well. The interest wasn't there. Similarly, my Death of a President review received almost no traffic. No one cared. Borat and 300, however, were drawing thousands upon thousands of readers within hours after the advance reviews were up. Even before the movies opened, I could tell based on the number of readers that these movies were going to do extremely well.
But the question remains: Does Internet marketing really work? Can strong on-line hype result in additional butts in theaters? Will people leave their computers to travel to multiplexes? It can't be coincidence that the two successes were good movies while the two failures were not. The one lesson we can learn is that no movie is going to become a runaway success just because its primary means of advertising is on the Internet. But if the audience is primed and the movie gets good word of mouth, on-line hype can only help. Which brings us back to Cloverfield - but we'll have to wait another week to see whether this is 2008's first Big Event or whether this is just another motherfucking Emperor with motherfucking new clothes.
Weekly Theatrical Releases: January 11, 2008
This is the last of the dead Fridays for theatrical releases. There are only two wide releases this week and one limited title expanding to everywhere. There are still a lot of movies out there from the pre-Christmas period that viewers have not yet seen, which explains why attendance has been high the last few weekends. If the field had to rely on new releases to draw audiences, there would be a lot of empty auditoriums. Next week, which happens to be the three-day MLK Weekend, represents the end of the drought with no fewer than four significant releases and one re-release.
Note: Last week, I referenced a movie called Rogue that was originally scheduled to open today. It's an Aussie monster movie from the director of the effective little thriller Wolf Creek. For reasons known only to the U.S. distributor, Dimension Films, the release was pulled. Since no new date has been announced, that likely means it won't open for a long time or will go directly to video. It's a shame because those who have seen it say it's surprisingly good and I could have sunk my teeth into a crocodile movie this weekend.
The Bucket List is expanding its reach from a handful of theaters to an armful of them this weekend. It's my semi-reluctant Pick of the Week. This overly sentimental film isn't great cinema but it tugs at the heartstrings at just the right times and gives Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman opportunities to do The Jack and Morgan Show. There's nothing wrong with it and I gave it a recommendation (three stars) in the review I wrote a few weeks ago, but it's not the kind of thing that will get people rushing to the theaters.
When it comes to this week's Box Office Champion, I'm going to pick one of the two new titles, and it's not the one by Uwe Boll. First Sunday has a lot of heart and provides some solid laughs. In fact, it's not entirely unlike The Bucket List in the way it mixes humor and drama and, had it not been for a sloppy ending, First Sunday might have been the Pick of the Week. But it should have enough drawing power to finally knock National Treasure 2 from the top spot. Then again, there's always the chance that a dark horse like Juno could sneak in and nothing would make me happier. I love it when something unforecast happens.
The other new release is the cumbersomely titled In the King's Name: A Dungeon Siege Tale. It's another Uwe Boll movie based on a computer game. Actually, considering that Boll is reputed to be the most inept director since Ed Wood (an argument I don't subscribe to, by the way – there are worse filmmakers out there), this is actually watchable. It's strictly for die-hard fantasy fans and does pretty much the same things that The Lord of the Rings did better. Since Boll placed this in PG-13 territory, there's no female flesh to ogle. The film is in a lot of theaters but will have trouble making the week's Top 10 earners.
Next week: a monster movie, a romantic comedy, a tale of vaginal teeth, a new one from Woody Allen, and something starring Woody's ex. All that... and it's possible the Pick of the Week will be a re-release.
Odds and Ends
"Special" Sunday entry this week because this one covers a lot of miscellaneous topics, none of which deserves its own column...
The Golden Globes
For some reason, there's an expectation that I should have an opinion about the impact of the WGA strike on the Golden Globes. Truth be told, I don't care. I wasn't planning to watch them when they were scheduled as a ceremony and I'm not planning to watch them now that they're a press conference. It's a matter of complete indifference to me. I'm actually hoping the strike lasts past the end of February because I want to see how this might impact the Oscars, and I will be disappointed if some kind of waiver is granted or a special agreement is reached because it will spoil all the fun. I want to see what this "ultra secret" alternate plan is. Hopefully, such an eventuality will result in a shorter and more engaging program; after all, overplanning has killed many an Oscarcast. But that's a topic for next month.
The Blair Witch Project and HYPE!
I received a few e-mails wondering why I didn't mention The Blair Witch Project in my column about the Internet hype surrounding Cloverfield. While it's true that the 1999 horror movie had a nicely designed website that fed into the mythos, the on-line situation was different nine years ago. The Internet wasn't as sophisticated or widespread enough for an online marketing campaign to succeed. (Home-based Internet was primarily via dial-up and many people still got their log-on fix at work.) This wasn't a case of a new marketing frontier, but it was the first instance of legitimate web/film synergy. Plus, it's worth noting that Artisan (the movie's distributor) was terrible at marketing (that's one reason they're no longer around). Blair Witch became an unexpected success by the oldest of all publicity tools: word-of-mouth. The film opened huge in a small number of art houses, with lines around the block at ticket windows and sold-out showings a week in advance. Friends told friends and "must see" label spread like wildfire. When Artisan saw how well the movie was doing, they inadvisedly rushed it into multiplexes. It had a big opening weekend then crashed and burned as a backlash set it. The Blair Witch Project ended its run as it began it: in art houses. Ultimately, however, it was a major indie success story even though it left a sour taste in many mouths. Despite the interesting story of its distribution, however, it doesn't fit into the same category as Snakes on a Plane et al.
Advertising
I guess it's a good sign that I get complaints every time I tweak the advertising design of the site. It shows that people are passionate about ReelViews and what they're reading here. I can assure my readers that I carefully consider every change before I implement it for overall impact. Yes, the Kontera context links (the blue ones with the double underline) slow the loading of the pages by 1-2 seconds. However, as long as you aren't using your mouse pointer to scroll down the middle of the text, it shouldn't impact readability. (I always use the arrow keys so it never occurred to me that some readers might end up causing the little windows to pop up inadvertently.) However, if you think the advertising interferes with the site's usability, consider legitimate options I have thus far rejected: pop-ups, pop-unders, layer ads that crawl across the page obscuring text, audio ads that make noise for five seconds, and "intermission" ads (those that redirect you to an intermediate ad page before forwarding you to the desired link). Most of those are quite lucrative but I find them to be intrusive to one degree or another. With the exception of the Kontera ads (which are only on the text-heavy pages), the site's commercials remain comprised of text ads, video ads, and banners: old-fashioned stuff.
Website Promotion
It's a difficult task for an established website with a significant reader base to grow. Setbacks over the last 15 months have actually hurt my traffic flow. (The first instance - the debacle that forced me to move from Colossus without being able to leave behind a "forwarding address" because they pulled the plug - did major damage. The recent incident with Mojolingo, in which my Google link was hijacked, didn't help.) The Google Page Ranking for the ReelViews main movie page is a respectable 6. I'm not a believer in blind link exchanges, so that's not a direction in which I'm interested in proceeding. One suggestion worth exploring is for me to become active in some non-movie forums and include my URL in my signature. Meanwhile, the approach I have been using most aggressively is simply to increase the site's weekly content in the hope that those who typically visit once per week might now have a reason to come back more often. Here's the daily schedule of updates for those who aren't aware of them:
Monday: ReelThoughts update (random subject), sometimes a new review
The "video" page will undergo a redesign soon to add features and content requested by readers. I will release a "beta" version of the page that ReelThoughts readers (a minority of those who visit the site as a whole) will get a chance to comment upon.
Finally, I don't mean to discourage negative comments about advertising or anything else. All feedback, whether positive or negative, is welcome and you can be assured that I read every e-mail even if I don't respond. (There are times when the e-mail volume gets to be too large for me to be able to respond to everything.)
This is a busy week so there will be a new review every day Monday through Thursday (with two on Thursday). I'll be back tomorrow with advice for those like me who own an HD-DVD player.
An Expensive Doorstop or Paperweight
Like an improperly balanced see-saw, the high def industry is tilting toward Blu-Ray. It's happening in slow motion, but it is happening, and it's hard to imagine that any force can stop something possessing the momentum of inevitability. Paramount and Universal, not wanting to anger a cadre of consumers, have pledged on-going support for HD-DVD (and Warner isn't cutting off the format until May), but they have been conspicuously silent about their Blu-Ray plans (if any). The expectation is that both companies will soon announce they will produce titles for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, at least near-term. That will end the format war. Once every major studio in on-board the Blu-Ray bandwagon, it's all over - even if some of them are still supporting HD-DVD. It took Betamax a while to die after VHS won that war. Sony knows from experience that killing the enemy isn't necessary.
So what to do if you own an HD-DVD player, especially if it's newly bought? Hold a quick funeral before sticking it in some dank closet and purchasing its PS3 replacement? Use it as an expensive coaster or doorstop? Tell people it’s the latest in modern art? Offer it to a museum? Keep in mind that just because HD-DVD has lost the format war doesn't mean it's obsolete. The newer models provide 1080p as nicely as any Blu-Ray player. Watching something on HD-DVD is indistinguishable from watching it on Blu-Ray. 1080p is 1080p, irrespective of the source. Plus, it's an upconverting DVD player. There's value in that (even though Blu-Ray players offer the same benefit, Harry Knowles' claims not withstanding). The ideal would be for the HD-DVD owner to bite the bullet and purchase a Blu-Ray player, but such a decision requires cash that may not be available, especially in a time of fiscal belt-tightening. For those who have HD-DVD and can't afford an upgrade, there is a silver lining.
One way or another, deep discounts are coming. There are two possibilities. In a last-ditch, scorched earth policy to win the format war (or at least force a stalemate), Toshiba could elect to cut both hardware and software prices. Suddenly, there could be some really cheap HD-DVD titles available. Right now, the average HD-DVD disc costs around $20-$25, discounted. If Toshiba takes this route, $10 discs are not out of the question. At that price, it wouldn't take a lot of money to assemble a nice little library. Who cares if the format is going away? If you have the discs and a working player, you can enjoy them for years to come. It just requires one extra HDMI input into the TV or receiver.
Even if Toshiba elects to allow their product to fade away quietly, there will come a time when sellers will want to clear out their inventories. Clearance sales will spring up at some point and the prices will look really good. In addition, some HD-DVD adopters who want to make a clean break and covert to Blu-Ray will sell used HD-DVD discs at cut-rate prices. Patient HD-DVD owners should be able to pick up some titles for around $5 during this "dumping phase."
I will admit that the selection of available movie on HD-DVD isn't great. I only own four discs and wouldn't pay even the 33% discounted price for anything else. But if prices come down to the $10 range, there are some movies I would pick up. Even more intriguing would be if the high-def Season #1 Battlestar Galactica set dropped precipitously. Ditto for Star Trek. I wouldn't pay close to face value for either (especially the outrageously priced Star Trek), but that would change if they were slashed by 50% or more. Right now, if you have HD-DVD, it's all about maximizing opportunities rather than mourning one's loss.
I know a few collectors who made killings when DVD was replacing laserdisc. They picked up hundreds of LD titles at $1 to $5 per disc. (How about the 3-disc Criterion Brazil for $4?) Everyone was dumping their old laserdiscs and they could be had for pennies on the dollar. The situation isn't strictly analogous. Switching from LD to DVD represented a move to better quality and technology while switching from HD-DVD to Blu-Ray is largely a "lateral" shift. Also, laserdiscs had been around for over a decade when DVD arrived. HD-DVD has only been around for a couple of years and Blu-Ray is about the same age. Still, the point is easy enough to understand. Today, for $100, you might be able to add four titles to your HD-DVD library. In the not-too-distant future, it might be possible to add 15 titles for the same price. Don't buy anything now. Just wait. It will pay off in the end.
To those who are still on the fence, go Blu-Ray. It's the only way that makes any sense. Unless, that is, Toshiba cuts HD-DVD player prices to the point where they're cheaper than standard upconverting DVD players. Then one could make an argument that an HD-DVD purchase is a good buy. I have to admit, if I didn't have a player and I saw one available for $75, I'd buy it. You can never have too many upconverting DVD players; the HD-DVD capability is just a nice "extra."
Death is always painful, but the aftermath doesn't have to be. Two years from now, you might stumble upon an HD-DVD title in a discount bin for $1. For most people, that would have no meaning. But for the HD-DVD owner, it would be a nice little find.
That being said, I should mention that when I upgrade the "VideoViews" section of the website in the coming months, I will completely ignore the existence of HD-DVD and focus on Blu-Ray.
The Video View: January 15, 2008
This is another slow week for new movies on DVD. There are really only four worth mentioning, and none are very good. (I wouldn't even waste a rental on any of these. It's not the loss of money so much as the loss of time.) Good Luck Chuck is arriving in an unrated package on standard DVD and Blu-Ray. The new material, which made it unrated, doesn't result in a better film - just a longer one. Also on standard DVD and Blu-Ray is Mr. Woodcock. The Ten, a lackluster comedy, is one of HD-DVD's only releases this week; it's also on regular DVD for anyone who cares. Finally, there's the Jason Biggs/Isla Fisher romantic comedy, Wedding Daze. This movie never got a real U.S. release but I saw it at the Toronto Film Festival in 1996 with the title of The Pleasure of Your Company. This movie, by any other name, would smell as rank.
The rest of the DVD movie roster is comprised of re-releases. Hollywood is getting so desperate to revive the flagging DVD market that they're trotting out repacked versions of proven sellers, perhaps thinking we'll fall for the new covers and buy the same thing again that we already have. Often, there's little or nothing new in the package – the same commentaries, the same movie transfer, the same extras. This week's re-releases (all good movies) include: In the Heat of the Night, An Affair to Remember, When Harry Met Sally, and She's Gotta Have It. Finally, there's a worthwhile older movie arriving for the first time: Criterion is distributing Cornel Wilde's 1966 feature, The Naked Prey. And Dungeons & Dragons fans have something to consider (although not necessarily a reason to rejoice): a direct-to-DVD animated version of Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight, a popular D&D-related book that has been kicking around for about 25 years. According to reports, however, this features sub-standard Saturday morning cartoon quality animation that pretty much ruins the whole thing.
There are a lot of TV shows arriving this week, although none falls into the "highly anticipated" category. Family Guy: Blue Harvest is the stand alone double-size episode that spoofs Star Wars. The Rockford Files brings us Season 5, Sabrina the Teenage Witch debuts Season 3, The Adventures of Old Christine makes its DVD bow with Season 1, and 'Allo 'Allo shows its age with Season 7. The complete Extras is also available. Of these, the only one that tickles my interest is The Rockford Files, and that's for reasons of nostalgia (and it has a great theme song). Extras is popular with many film lovers but it has always struck me as too uneven. Family Guy: Blue Harvest is amusing but not well priced. It is, after all, only one episode (albeit 45 minutes without commercials).
Finally, if you're looking for something special, consider Criterion's box set, "Post-War Kurosawa." It contains five of the master Japanese filmmaker's least-known efforts: No Regrets for Our Youth, One Wonderful Sunday, Scandal, The Idiot, and I Live in Fear. While the set probably is too dense for general consumption, it's a must-have for Kurosawa completists. It's also very nicely priced. One doesn't have to look far to find this available at a discounted cost of less than $50. That's a good buy for any set of five movies, but almost unheard of for Criterion. As with all Criterion releases, this is standard DVD only. No word on when (if at all) Criterion will break into the high-def market.
In general, for those who like to sample the latest DVD fare, whether in standard or Blu-Ray form, this is not the best time of year. We're into the months when the September/October theatrical releases are coming to home video and those aren't Hollywood's best months. A few weeks' patience is needed, then the Oscar candidates will start showing up. February has a bunch of stuff - just wait for the groundhog.
An A/B Comparison
I normally don't write ReelThoughts columns on Wednesday, but I performed an "unintentional experiment" last night and I wanted to report on the results because they could be seen as contradicting a recommendation I made on Monday. Read on if you're interested...
Last night, I sat down in my cozy home theater to watch two movies: one on HD-DVD and one on standard DVD. I watched the high def film first. As expected, the picture was crystal clear and the sound was well balanced. Whatever Toshiba's faults, the HD-DVD format delivers what it claims to and the HD-A30 is a nice piece of hardware. Then, since the HD-DVD player was already warmed up, I used it as my upconverting DVD player and stuck in the standard DVD.
Admittedly, the transfer was crappy but the HD-A30 did a terrible job with the disc. There were motion artifacts, stutter-stopping, and all sorts of other problems. After eight minutes, I turned it off. Then, for the hell of it, I put it in the PS3 to see if the Sony had any better success. To my amazement, the DVD played smoothly and without problems, and looked about as good as I could expect given the poor quality of the transfer. This got me wondering about how good the HD-DVD player's DVD upconversion process is. So I decided to perform a little experiment. (For those who are wondering, the TV and receiver are the same and all connections are HDMI.)
For my next "test," I pulled 300 off the shelf. I have already done an A/B comparison of this movie on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and found there to be no difference. I popped the HD-DVD version into the HD-A30 player and, as expected, it looked great. No problems there. Then I went to work using the standard DVD version (which I purchased before going high def). Played in the PS3, it looked almost high-def. Not quite, but close. In the HD-A30, it seemed less impressive. Not bad to be sure, but to an untrained eye, not as good as in the PS3. So I dragged out an upconverting Panasonic standard DVD player (with an HDMI interface) and took a look at 300 in that. It looked similar to the HD-DVD presentation.
Admittedly, there's nothing scientific about this "study" but, as A/B comparisons go, it raised a few red flags. It makes me wonder about the quality of the HD-DVD's upconversion process, especially in comparison to that of the PS3. I have no axes to grind here. In fact, had I not noticed issues with the HD-A30's inability to effectively play a standard disc, I never would have put it in the PS3. Could it just be my player? That's a possibility, although there are no problems with the high def aspects of it. But if you're considering buying an HD-DVD player to use as an upconverting DVD player, this is issue that bears additional investigation. It re-enforces my belief that if you're considering buying a high def player, Blu-Ray is the way to go. (And, based on nearly everyone I have discussed this with, the PS3 is the best low-end Blu-Ray player available.) Even at an ultra-cheap price, I'm not sure I'd purchase a HD-DVD player if the DVD upconversion was a primary feature.
This surprised and disappointed me. I'd love to hear from others who have had similar or contrary experiences. If I get enough e-mails, I'll post a summary in a future column. But I won't be using the HD-A30 for watching any more standard DVDs. Doesn't make sense when they look better on the PS3.
The Slip-Sliding of Sundance
Every year, I get at least a dozen e-mails asking if I'll be attending Sundance. Some are from people hoping to meet me; others are from readers wondering if I'll be posting updates. It has been seven years since I have been to Park City and I don't plan to return. During the four consecutive years I attended the festival, I absorbed enough to last a lifetime. Plus, in the intervening years, the culture has changed. Sundance was once one of the premiere festivals in the world for debuting and highlighting independent film. However, that aspect of cinema, which was thriving in the '90s, is struggling. Most so-called successful indie films have some kind of studio backing so it's questionable whether they truly deserve the label. True indies, while not dead, are a rare breed.
At its height, which would have been during the mid-to-late 1990s, Sundance was a go-to destination, visited by critics and film lovers from across North America. Had blogs existed then, they would have been abuzz with Sundance news the likes of which would put today's daily commentaries to shame. It was a wheeling-dealing marketplace where films were overpaid for and careers (theoretically) made. Did it matter that even the most expensive sales rarely got more than a token theatrical release? Remember Happy Texas? No? Point made. It's tough to come up with more than a handful of genuine Sundance successes beyond sex, lies and videotape, which put Sundance on the map. People like to point to Memento, but while it's true that the film hogged the spotlight at Sundance in 2001, it actually premiered the year before at Toronto. And a lot of the brightest lights at Sundance arrive already signed, sealed, and delivered. This isn't unusual for film festivals, but it's hard to call something a "discovery" when a studio already has it on their release schedule.
Was Sundance ever a great festival? Probably not. But, during its best years, it was alive and electric. There was so much going on that sleep was out of the question. Satellite film festivals sprung up all around town, some held in converted buses - from the most famous, "Slamdance," to the most infamous, "Lapdance." Looking back on the late '90s at Sundance, I have to admit that the quality of movies even then was more variable than at Toronto. One of the reasons I stopped going is because the Sundance offerings didn't seem special anymore. For me, Utah is a long way to go for such a limited payoff. (Especially in the post-9/11 world where air travel has been turned from an inconvenience to a nightmare. I now drive to Toronto for that reason.)
Since around 2002, Sundance has gradually lost its luster. Its prominence has been in decline. Deals are no longer as widely circulated nor are the payouts as eye-popping. Fewer movies are sold each year. The acrimonious Miramax divorce took away a major Sundance player. (And the financially strapped The Weinstein Company doesn't have much cash to throw around.) Now, it's a marketplace film festival without much of a market. Gradually, Sundance is returning to its more modest regional routes. Few East Coast critics attend any more; it's not important enough. So it becomes the roaming ground of the West Coast reviewers, pundits, and bloggers. Sundance is a more attractive destination if you live close by - and if you like cold weather.
January is a popular month for film festivals. The week after New Year's Day, Palm Springs hosts a festival in which all of the would-be Best Foreign Film nominees are shown - not just the finalists but every movie submitted by every country. A few weeks later, Santa Barbara rolls out the stars and the Hollywood fare. Both of these festivals occur in mild, vacation-type destinations. The only reason to go to Park City aside from film viewing is if you ski. I get the impression that most critics are not skiiers. (Not being a cold weather person, I believe the majority of winter activities - snow shoveling excepted, which I find to be bracing - should be done indoors.) I'm sure many Sundance attendees love sloshing through the slush on their way to the bus stop that will eventually get them to their next film. Unless you're an A-list critic, transportation always has to be factored into any decision.
Then there are the economics of the trip. The closer you are to Sundance Central (which, since 1998, has been the Eccles Auditorium), the more you pay for a night's lodging. Affordability is not a characteristic of the accommodations. The cheapest way to "do" Sundance is to rent a four-wheel drive and stay in Salt Lake City. That requires a 90-minute round-trip each day but it saves about $2000 for a one-week trip. More than a fair tradeoff, plus there are Sundance screenings in Salt Lake City.
As Sundance's fortunes have fallen, other film festivals have risen. One of the hottest, hippest festivals in North America is Austin's South by Southwest, which grows more notorious and interesting each year. Seattle is arguably the best local festival in the United States, although there are others who would argue that statement. Telluride is known for its quality and exclusivity (no free press admittance, no prior revelation of the schedule). Then there's Toronto, which increases its visibility and importance every year. My personal synergy with that festival is hard to dispute. Take a look at my 2008 Top 10 List. Of the films on there, eight played at Toronto in either 2006 or 2007. None played at Sundance.
Some of the inherent weakness in Sundance's lineup comes from the time of year when it's held. There's not a lot of good stuff floating around in January, even on the festival circuit. Award fatigue has set in. The best of Sundance often looks very ordinary when set against the backdrop of a year's worth of motion pictures. The obvious solution would be to move the date of the festival (right after Cannes or right after Toronto are two prime slots) but Sundance has resisted that idea (among dozens of other suggestions to make it more "friendly"). It's doubtful that Sundance will ever fully lose its allure or its interest among fans of indie film, but those who hope for a return to the glory days of the 1990s may have a very, very long wait in the snow, ice, and cold.
Weekly Theatrical Releases: January 18, 2008
Call it the week of Cloverfield. Whatever else the movie may be (and it has sharply divided critics across-the-board), the is the first "must see" film of the year for males ages 11 through 40. If you're a member of that demographic and you don't know anything about Cloverfield, you're eligible for a Rip van Winkle Society membership card. I know how hot this title is based on periodic checks of my website stats - hits on the review are through the roof. About a week ago, I pondered whether Cloverfield would be more like 300 or Snakes on a Plane in terms of actual audience response. At least for the first weekend, it will fall into the former camp. Expect a big weekend for mayhem in Manhattan. The unanswered question remains how the shaky, hand-held camera work is going to impact viewer enthusiasm. Nevertheless, no matter what happens, Cloverfield should have no legitimate challengers for the title of this week's Box Office Champion. It's also this week's Pick of the Week, although that comes with a caveat. If you have motion sickness issues, this movie may not be for you, and if you go despite that, sit near the back of the theater. If you start to experience nausea, close your eyes for a short while. Since the room isn't actually moving, cutting off the visual signal will relax the nausea.
Counter-programming Cloverfield are a date movie and a "chick flick." 27 Dresses, a by-the-book romantic comedy, should grab a good portion of the female audience, do in no small part to the star power of Katherine Heigl. The borderline-dreadful Mad Money has Queen Latifa but little else. The other two headlining actresses in this caper comedy (Diane Keaton and Katie Holmes) are dreadful. I was taken to task by a reader for suggesting in my review that Holmes should stay home and play wife and mother instead of continuing to pursue acting. So I'll change that here: if this performance is indicative of what's left of her acting talent, she should find another line of work. I can understand the appeal of 27 Dresses, although I think it would have been better placed for a Valentine's Day release (although the superior romantic comedy Definitely, Maybe is arriving then). On the other hand, it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to see Mad Money, especially on a crowded weekend like that.
Michael Clayton returns to theaters after a few months' absence. The reason for this is obvious - to capitalize on the Oscar nominations it expects to receive. Strike while the iron's hot. No matter what happens with the Awards Ceremony, the studios still want to wring every last cent out of their prize cinematic dogs and ponies. Michael Clayton is very much worth seeing so if you didn't get a chance the first time around (it opened in September and closed in most markets before the end of October), this is a good second opportunity. It's also the most "adult" movie opening this weekend.
There are two smaller movies out there. The first is Woody Allen's Cassandra's Dream, a tepid attempt to re-create the recent success of Match Point. Over the last decade-plus, Allen has had a lot more misses than hits, and this is the film that makes me wonder if he has reached the point where he should either slow down or give up. It's sad watching someone with Allen's reputation repeatedly churn out sub-par motion pictures. If he's got a last great one left, he should make it his swansong. The other small film, which is getting a limited distribution this weekend (and will gradually go wider in upcoming weeks) is Teeth, the B-grade horror/comedy/teen angst/romance/female empowerment movie that is relentless in its parodies and fearless in its storyline. Two words: vagina dentate. Read the review for more.
Next week is one of those weeks when a lot of stuff won't be screened for critics, including Sylvester Stallone's Rambo, which might be mistaken for a comedy, and Meet the Spartans, which apparently won't. And animal lovers take note: cat torture provides a major plot point in another new release on January 25. It's not graphic but it is wrenching and it will cause walk-outs. More on that in a week.
Tuning Out
Is anyone still watching television? I suppose people are - ratings are down but not out. In my view, watching television is more of a habit than a form of entertainment. We watch bad shows not because we think they're worthwhile but because they're on. For years, my parents would sit in their easy chairs at 8:00 and watch TV until 11:00, when they went to bed. Some of the stuff they watched was dreadful but the experience was about relaxing and winding down from the day's stress more than it was about enjoying quality programming.
I come from a different generation and my mindset is different. I only watch TV shows that I genuinely enjoy, and that usually means only three or four prime-time shows each season. I will readily admit there are good shows I miss, but I don't think there are any bad shows I endure. I also don't generally watch TV "live." I use my DVR to record everything then view it when I want to - not when the networks say I should - and skip through the commercials. It's a pleasant experience not to have to wait three minutes for a story to resume. Back in the '60s and '70s, hour long TV shows contained between 48 and 50 minutes of content and 10-12 minutes of commercials. There were five commercial breaks (:05, :15, :30, :45, :55), all about two minutes long. Today, content in an hourly program is between 42 and 44 minutes. There are still generally five breaks (:07, :15, :25, :40, :50), but they're all at least three minutes long. The DVR is the great equalizer.
A strange thing has happened, however, since the effects of the WGA strike have crept beyond Hollywood. I have lost interest in scripted TV programming. Once House stopped new episodes (although I believe there are still three more in the can, awaiting February sweeps) and Pushing Daisies finished its inaugural season, there was little else to watch. I stopped watching TV. (I should also mention that I stuck with Journeyman throughout its entire short life. It had potential. Toward the end, it began to realize some of that as the plots started to explore the paradoxical nature of time travel, but its cancellation means we'll never know whether the show was really headed in the right direction.)
That doesn't mean the TV does nothing more than provide a dark, dusty mirror. I have a fondness for some of Discovery Channel's programs - Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs in particular. My favorite approach to them is to watch them after midnight and fall asleep while they're on (this inevitably happens during a commercial break). There are dozens of Mythbusters where I have seen the first 30 minutes but not the last 30 minutes. However, with the exception of Discovery Channel and election coverage, I haven't been watching TV. This has been such a lackluster football season that I haven't been bothering. Maybe when baseball resumes...
I have fallen out of the habit of watching television, even on my terms. The Sarah Connor Chronicles debuted last week to a huge audience, but I wasn't among the viewers. I liked all three Terminator movies but couldn't generate any interest in watching the series. I recorded the Tin Man mini-series back in December but haven't watched it yet. The desire simply isn't there. It has gotten to the point where I'm forcing myself to watch TV so I don't develop a bias against it. So two weekends ago, I endured the rather lackluster adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion on Masterpiece Theater (the '90s movie was much better), and yesterday I watched Northanger Abbey (the only Austen novel I have not read). Next Saturday, I'll watch Torchwood. When House airs its remaining episodes, I'll record them for viewing at some point and I'll stay with Battlestar Galactica whenever it returns. But TV doesn't seem as vital as it once did. It's more of an afterthought at this point.
And that's what the WGA strike is doing. It's slowly and surely eroding the current TV audience. The longer people get used to seeking other forms of entertainment - video games, the Internet, DVDs, etc. - the less likely they will be to fall into the habit. People adapt. In the late '60s and '70s, the impact of a WGA strike would have been seismic. Network TV was everything in those days. Not today. Now, there are too many other things vying for our attention. TV is hurting itself by allowing viewers to tune out. They may never come back.
In principle, I agree with the writers but what has happened in this strike is more about power than fairness. Both sides want to claim a decisive win, and with the balance of power being what it is, that results in a stalemate. Consider how quickly the DGA negotiations closed. Yes, the dynamic is different, but the rancor was also absent. Both sides were interested in reaching an agreement - something not evident in the WGA situation. Now, writers are flocking to the few companies that have signed interim agreements and the studios are beginning to hire non-union and foreign writers.
But, as the power struggles continue, one thing is clear: when the dust settles, the situation may be the same at the multiplexes but it won't be business as usual for the television industry. With the habit broken, quality shows will be needed to win back some viewers. And quality is a rare characteristic for small screen productions. Tuning out means moving on, and many who take that route won't be willing to look back unless there's a compelling reason to do so.
The Video View: January 22, 2008
First, my thoughts about the Oscar nominations: yawn. Has there ever been a more predictable roster? With only a couple of mild surprises, everything was as expected. My (unpublished) predictions scored 25 out of 30 in the main six categories, which is extraordinarily high for me. (I missed Cate Blanchett as Lead Actress, Ruby Dee and Saoirse Ronan as Supporting Actress, and Viggo Mortensen as Lead Actor. I got Tommy Lee Jones - but for the wrong film.) So I don't have much to say. Now we can move on...
With releases like this, it's no wonder the DVD industry is in trouble. I have one word for this week's new movie DVD offerings: Blech! There are only three and each is as bad as the next. I didn't even bother seeing two them early enough theatrically to review and I wish I had exercised the same good judgment with the third. The Game Plan - that's the Rock's version of Kindergarten Cop - suffers from an overdose of cuteness. It did surprisingly well at the box office due to its promotion of "family values," but that doesn't mean it's any good. It's available in both standard and Blu-Ray DVD formats. Sydney White is a re-telling of Snow White with Amanda Bynes as the title character. Take my advice and watch the Disney animated version instead. This one's only on standard DVD - no high-def necessary for the tween crowd. Finally, there's Saw IV, which is being presented to us "unrated." All that means is some stuff has been added to the DVD that wasn't in the theatrical cut (no pun intended). Don't ask me to suffer through the movie a second time to figure out what it is. Typically, only those who know the original by heart can recognize the minor tweaks that accompany an "unrated" tag. It's a marketing ploy. Available in standard DVD and Blu-Ray (so you can see all the blood and gore in crystal clear high-def - just what the format was devised for).
This is a huge week for TV on DVD. Where to start...? How about with Torchwood season one. The Doctor Who spin-off has achieved a life of its own. Season two just started last week in the U.K. and will debut next Saturday (Jan. 26) on BBC America, so now's the time for a 13-episode marathon to get caught up. Three season threes arrive this week: Hawaii 5-0, The Odd Couple, and The Girls Next Door (the promotional material does not indicate whether there's material on the DVD that was too explicit for television - one can only hope). Then there are two season twos: Barney Miller and Banacek (now there are a pair of blasts from the past). E.R. provides a more modern offering with season eight. Paris Hilton, who is far beyond overexposed (and I have to see her in a movie tonight), stars in a fifth season of The Simple Life, a show that never should have made it past the first season. Those with a penchant for Danish weirdness may rejoice that Season 2 of Lars von Trier's The Kingdom is out. And Jane Austen fans who missed Northanger Abbey on Masterpiece Theater a couple of nights ago can buy it today. Talk about fast turnaround.
The only special release of note is a Criterion Box Set: 4 By Agnes Varda. This includes: La Pointe Courte, Cleo from 5 to 7, Le Bonheur, and Vagabond. It's a nice set but the price isn't nearly as friendly as it was for last week's Post War Kurosawa collection. That one had five movies and could be found discounted at about $50. This one has one less movie and can be unearthed for $75. It probably has something to do with supply and demand. Criterion assumes there are fewer Varda fans than Kurosawa fans (and I believe they're correct in that assumption). Nevertheless, if the state of current movies is getting you down, this is a good choice.
This upcoming weekend's Video Review will be of the small indie film He Was a Quiet Man. Starring Christian Slater, Elisha Cuthbert, and William H. Macy, the movie played some film festivals in 2007 but never received a proper theatrical release. It arrived on DVD last week and, on a tip, I tracked down a copy and watched it. It's worth at least a rental. For what amounts to a straight-to-DVD feature, this is of surprisingly high quality. The review will be posted on January 26. The week after that, I'll review one of the ten most requested titles. (This should not be meant to encourage more readers to write in with review requests. I read those e-mails but almost never reply to them.)
Not an Obituary
Since Heath Ledger's tragic death on Tuesday evening, I have received numerous e-mail queries about whether I am planning to write something about him. The short answer is "no." There's a simple reason for that: anything I might have to contribute has already been written elsewhere, probably more than once. I'm not against writing obituaries in principle, but for me to commit one to paper, there has to be something unique I can add. With Ledger, as with most celebrities, that's not the case.
A relationship is a good place to start. If a journalist knows a celebrity, either personally or professionally, chances are (s)he has a perspective to present that will set his/her obituary apart from all the recycled ones making their way around the world. I know Ledger only through his work. I have never met him nor do I have a close relationship with anyone who knows him well. So any obituary I wrote would read like a clone of the A.P. one.
I could write about his acting in general terms, but that would result in the piece sounding like a cobbled-together string of clichés. Yes, it's tragic that he died at such a young age. Yes, he was a promising young actor. Yes, it's sad that he won't make any more movies. Yes, he made an indelible impression upon many people with his work in Brokeback Mountain. But all those are obvious statements and, while it's true that I sometimes resort to clichés and obviousness, I try not to embrace those characteristics in my writing.
Ledger's death doesn't touch me personally. A member of my family died about 24 hours before him. That had an impact upon me. That opened up a hole that will eventually close but will take some time. Compared to that, Ledger is a footnote. I feel for his friends and family. I am, however, less sympathetic where his fans are concerned. I don't doubt the genuineness of their grief but I have never understood how the passing of a public personality can cause the same outpouring of tears and pain that the passing of a loved one can. Few fans know the man; they know his characters, and those will endure for a long time. In the grand scheme of things, Ledger's death is no more tragic than that of an unknown 28-year old flagman who was hit and killed by a careless driver speeding through a construction zone. When it comes to celebrities, one can acknowledge the loss without shedding a tear. I save my tears for those who are close to me.
Something else I find unseemly - bordering on reprehensible - is the media's fervent desire to track down Ledger's family to obtain pictures and quotes. This is especially unforgivable in the case of Michelle Williams and her daughter. She should be given space and time to mourn. Let her make a statement when she's ready. Don't force her into hiding. The paparazzi are leeches, but those who feed on tabloids and tabloid TV (and ultimately pay their checks) are no less parasitic. One or two degrees of removal does not absolve responsibility. Having occasionally watched episodes of Entertainment Tonight, I must admit my own culpability.
"What's wrong with Entertainment Tonight?" you may ask. Nothing, if you like vapid, pointless television that mingles marketing hype with bottom-feeding obsessing over celebrities. Since he began his association with the show, I have lost a lion's share of my respect for Leonard Maltin. (E.T., it should be noted, pimps his name without ever calling upon his vast wellspring of knowledge. He must be well-paid to accept this kind of gig.) I recall watching an episode around the time of the release of The Da Vinci Code in which Mary Hart must have mentioned "an E.T. exclusive" (about a train ride with the stars to Cannes, where the movies was being premiered) ten times. These shows are so desperate to trump one another that they'll air any garbage. It's time for me to make PBS' Newshour my dinner background noise.
Admittedly, this has taken me far afield of my original topic, but it is germane. I believe that everyone - celebrities and their friends/relatives - has a right to privacy in the face of a tragedy and it should be their decision, not the media's, if and when they wish to face the cameras to discuss it. As for obituaries, there are a few I will write, but I won't commit something to paper unless there's a compelling reason for me to do so. That's not the case here.
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ledger, and may the media give some consideration to those you have left behind. Hopefully, your passing from this world will not be the opening of a gateway to their private hell.
Weekly Theatrical Releases: January 25, 2008
Seven days after the most robust weekend of the new year, the box office takes a step back for the final round of January debuts. Undoubtedly, Cloverfield and 27 Dresses will continue to make money. While it would be surprising to see either of them atop the money heap when Sunday's estimates are announced, the competition isn't that strong. There are four new major releases and one small one. In fact, the movie industry will continue running on low octane for the first two weekends in February, with little coming out to ignite box office enthusiasm. Then, on Valentine's Day, there will be an explosion that will help carry the multiplexes into March.
As is so often the case, the movie opening in the fewest theaters is easily the best thing around. The Romanian production, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, is bowing in only a few theaters. IFC, its distributor, had hoped to use the expected Best Foreign Language Film nomination to help the movie in a nationwide rollout, but it was snubbed by the Academy - as was every other movie anyone has heard of. Still, 4 Months won Cannes' Palm D'Or and got a Golden Globe nod, so it's not going naked into the cruel world. It's my Pick of the Week, although you'll have to live in Los Angeles or New York to see it right now. It will gradually expand over the next few weeks. How far the expansion goes, however, will depend on whether people come out to see the movie. For the record, it's my first ***1/2 film of 2008.
Nostalgia fuels Rambo, Sylvester Stallone's return to one of the two franchises that built his fame. The movie delivers what's expected of it, and Rambo still seems to have a pretty good support base – enough of one to allow it to edge out Cloverfield and take the trophy as this week's Box Office Champion. Betting against Rambo doesn't seem to be a good idea, especially in light of the long lines outside of a promotional screening a couple of nights ago. Ultimately, the movies is not going to be a blockbuster but it should make healthy money.
Meet the Spartans (unreviewed) was not screened for critics. Word on the street is that it's in much the same league as Epic Movie and Date Movie - which is to say, painfully unfunny. Considering how bad some of the stuff is that's being shown to us (The Hottie & the Nottie), I shudder to think what this might be like. Having endured Uwe Boll a couple of weeks ago, I feel justified in skipping it. How She Move (unreviewed) was screened for critics, but the screenings all conflicted with screenings of other movies (this happens occasionally), and personal issues prevent me from seeing it today. It's said to be a lively if unremarkable dance-themed movie from the same pool as Stomp the Yard and Step Up. Those who saw and enjoyed those productions will probably find this one worth checking out. It may or may not get a "late" review depending on how things go. The final new release is the thriller Untraceable, which is more noteworthy for its horrific cat torture sequence than for its second half plot implosion. Anyone with a soft spot for cats may find parts of this film difficult to sit through. The torture is not graphic but there's enough that the imagination can fill in the details, and they're not pretty. In cinema, it's true that everything is fair game, but I can't think why filmmakers would risk alienating an audience so early in the proceedings. It doesn't really matter, as it turns out, because the movie ends up in a death spiral during its second half. Untraceable isn't good enough for me to recommend it to anyone, but I advise cat-lovers to give this movie a wide berth.
Next week provides us with a Lebanese version of Salon, a new John Sayles film, Jessica Alba's latest not-screened-for-critics masterpiece, and a horror film that is being screened.
A Dozen Years and Counting
Today, ReelViews turns twelve. Next year, it will be a teenager. Looking back at my own life, I turned twelve in September 1979. Not a remarkable month as I can remember. Carter was President and the economy stunk, but at my age, I didn't care much about either. The Cold War was in full swing and we still sometimes called the U.S.S.R. "Russia." I had just started Junior High School - probably the most unpleasant two years in my academic career. (I liked grade school and high school but not what came in between.) I was into Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Dungeons & Dragons (an early adopter - that's when you had to go to specialty hobby shops to get the dice and books). I did a lot of reading and writing, watched a little TV, and spent about 30 minutes a day playing on my Atari video console (usually before dinner unless it was warm outside). Homework rarely took more than an hour, and frequently much less, so I had plenty of time for other things. I went to the movies about four times in a year. And my (future) wife wasn't yet born.
ReelViews didn't start until 1996, but I embarked upon a hobby of movie reviewing in late 1991. I graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in December 1990 with a Master's in Electrical Engineering and began working at the company that funded my graduate education. (I'm not sure that sort of thing happens any more, anywhere.) I moved into a dark, pokey three-room apartment that was actually a converted attic. There were squirrels in the walls. It was cold in the winter (the radiators didn't work well, so the landlady provided a space heater) and hot in the summer (with no insulation between my living space and the roof, it could get to 110 F on a hot day). I soon found that I had a lot of spare time on my hands after dinner. All the hours that had been devoted to solving partial differential equations and preparing for exams were open, and TV just wasn't good enough to while away the evenings. For more than a half year, I used my newfound free time to write a novel (The Price of the Crown, available on this site) but, by the end of the summer, I was looking for something else to do. Finally, in early September, I decided to embark upon a special "project."
At the time, I was still a Trekker (the preferred term for fans who don't dress up and otherwise go overboard). With Star Trek VI arriving in theaters in early December, I decided to watch one episode of the old series every day and write a few short paragraphs detailing my feelings about it. I added a numerical score. When I got to the movies, I did the same thing but the write-ups were longer. By mid-December 1991, I had finished the project but decided that I missed doing that sort of thing. So, I moved on to movies. During the latter half of 1991, I had been venturing to a local multiplex more often - once I got over the hurdle of going to theaters by myself. So, beginning in January 1992, I started writing capsule reviews (about 250 words each). None of these ever reached the general public arena (although I have edited and added a few to the website over the years - examples are Scent of a Woman and Enchanted April). My 1992 production was about 185 of these capsules. Beginning in January 1993, I "went public." I wrote longer reviews and began posting them to the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.reviews, which is where I resided for the next three years. Of the "regulars" from back in those days, there may only be one other who's still active in on-line reviewing. (There weren't that many of us to begin with.) My reputation, to the extent that I have one, is derived as much from my longevity as from my actual writing. It's tough to find anyone with a consistent 15 year track record of on-line scribbling.
At the beginning of 1996, I decided I wanted my own space on the web. It was a much smaller community than it is now, but growing every day. Not many people had personal web pages but that was also changing. Netscape was replacing Mosaic as the browser of choice. IE didn't yet have much of a foothold, if it had any. I don't think I started paying attention to it until 1997 or thereabouts. I acquired my personal web space just after New Year's Day and started playing with it. Then came the Blizzard of 1996 - 30" of snow keeping me inside for a Saturday afternoon through the following Tuesday. During this time, the website went from nothing to a modest collection of about 100 reviews. By January 26, the day it went live via a Usenet announcement, the archives contained about 800 reviews. Now, they're up to more than 3500.
Over the years, the website has given me many wonderful things. My wife found me through it. (Without it, I would never have met her - there's no way our paths would have randomly crossed.) Roger Ebert contacted me as a result of it. I gained a certain amount of notoriety in critical circles. And I discovered how cripplingly expensive a hobby like this can be. So, in order to keep it going, I had to turn it into a business. That decision was difficult to make because it meant getting rid of my tagline: "The largest non-commercial movie site on the Internet." But economics trumps aesthetics. With a larger mortgage and a wife in grad school to support, the choice was clear: either make some money from the site or give it up. I elected the former. So ReelViews lives on, albeit with commercials. Hopefully, the content has only improved.
Where do things go from here? If I can make this work as a business venture, I may be forced by circumstances to move into it full time. (As far as my "day job" goes, the writing is on the wall - I may be able to stay another year but it would be a surprise if I was still employed there in 24 months. It's a shrinking business and an economic downturn isn't going to improve things.) When that point comes, I'll have to make a choice: go all ReelViews all the time or scale it down and look for another "day job" that will absorb more of my time. A lot of what I'm doing with the website now is geared toward closing the gap between the revenue it currently generates and what is needed to keep me from seeking other employment. That gap has narrowed from a chasm to a fissure but it's not yet closed. Pop-unders (arguably the least intrusive of the advertising methods I haven't yet tried) are probably on the horizon, but I have decreed certain options to be forbidden (crawling layered ads, five-second audio "screams", ads with adult content, and so forth). I'd rather shut the site down than go in that direction. If it's unreadable, what's the point?
So those are a few random thoughts on this 12th anniversary. Lest the view of the future sound too gloomy, I think it highly unlikely that ReelViews will have to undergo a major downsizing (assuming the Internet ad industry doesn't collapse and readers keep supporting the site by visiting the advertisers). On the bright side, if I can make this work, the content will escalate. ReelThoughts would go to six times a week (although, recently, it has almost been there) and there would be 2-3 DVD reviews per week.
Finally, thanks to everyone who has bookmarked the site and read the content over the years. It's your faithfulness that keeps me going. And, although I may come across as militant and intransigent in my writing (it's a style), I'm actually humbled by the success of the site and by the number of people who keep coming back.
I'll return to this space on Monday with some informed speculation about when some of the highest profile titles might reach Blu-Ray. And, if you haven't already, check out the new DVD review of He Was a Quiet Man, an overlooked title that deserves more attention than it has gotten.
The Wish List
"Programming" Announcement: Starting next weekend, I will periodically have a Saturday or Sunday ReelThoughts feature called "Short Cuts" that will deal with various brief subjects raised in e-mails that are worth airing in broader forum. It will also give me an opportunity to discuss "administrative" things releated to the site, such as advertising and improvements (like the greatly expanded DVD section, which will debut in the late March/early April time frame) without eating up one of my regular ReelThoughts slots. It will also give ReelViews a little more life over the weekends, a time when many sites go to sleep. Now, on to today's subject...
With the high-def DVD format war lurching to a conclusion (one assumes that Paramount, Universal, and Toshiba are all in the process of formulating face-saving exit strategies, their rhetoric notwithstanding), it's time to turn to something more pleasant in the realm of high-definition - when will the "wish list" titles reach Blu-Ray? This is a key question for many consumers who are currently fence-sitting. They're waiting for a number of the high-profile, "sexy" titles to be available. How many people would rush to buy a Blu-Ray player if Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings was suddenly announced?
Those who have read my seemingly limitless posts about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have noticed that one thing I bemoan is the lack of worthwhile high def content. To date, I only have about a dozen high-def titles and, based on the upcoming announced roster of releases, I don't see that number increasing much in the immediate future. The problem is that studios are concentrating on releasing new titles into the high-def formats and are largely ignoring their catalog titles - and that's where a lot of the interest lies. How many movies from 2007 do I want copies of? Maybe 20, and many of those won't be released on either of the high-def formats because they're too "small."
The purpose of this column is not to delineate my personal wish list but to present a list of the generally most requested titles. In putting together this information, I have incorporated rumors and off-the-record information from a few legitimate inside sources. (Generally, people who wouldn't speak on the record.) Nothing here should be considered confirmed or even close to that. In fact, in the world of DVD releases, nothing is solid until there's an official release. So if it doesn't happen the way I speculate it's going to happen, don't send me nasty e-mails.
Please note: Although HD-DVD supporters won't like this, the underlying premise of this column is that Blu-Ray will eventually win the format war. While I don't speculate when that might occur, I treat it as a given.
The Lord of the Rings: It's tough to pin this one down because New Line doesn't know (and, in fact, New Line may no longer exist - rumor is that they're about to be swallowed up by their parent company, Time Warner). There seem to be two schools of thought within the company. One group would like to wait until 2010 and use this as part of the marketing strategy for the theatrical release of The Hobbit. Assuming strikes don't mess up the production schedule, this should start filming early next year for a release in December 2010. That would likely mean that the LOTR high-def DVDs (presumably the Special Editions) would be available about a month before that. However, three years is an awfully long time to wait and New Line is in dire need of money now. So there is a second group within the company that wants to move faster, possibly getting LOTR onto Blu-Ray and into stores by Christmas 2008. So either it's ten months away or three years away. Take your pick. New Line is already on the Blu-Ray bandwagon so there are no format war issues holding this up.
Star Wars: This one's easy. George Lucas is once again tinkering with his movies, although this time it's not just the original three - it's all six. They will be released in digital 3-D in the Spring of 2009. Once they are in digital form, it will be simple to create eye-popping Blu-Ray versions. Expect all three Star Wars movies to show up in high-def late next year, probably within two months of Christmas. Some have speculated that these will be "ultimate" editions with all sorts of additional scenes added back in. Maybe, maybe not. Lucas is unpredictable when it comes to content. Time will tell. Fox is a Blu-Ray supporter but Lucas owns the rights; however, indications are that he's fine with Blu-Ray.
Indiana Jones: Originally, there had been rumors that the Indiana Jones trilogy would be released this spring to coincide with the opening of the new film. Nothing begets interest in the new like a re-invigoration of the old. Then Paramount switched to HD-DVD. It is well known that Spielberg is a Blu-Ray supporter so if there was any truth to the rumors that Indy was on his way to high def, Parmount's re-alignment killed the project. If Paramount relents and joins the Blu-Ray fold, November would be the optimum time to see these films. That way the older movies could be packaged with the new one. Ten months is ample time to get the original trilogy in shape for release. The only real area of concern is Paramount's format allegience. As long as they remain HD-DVD only, there will be no Indiana Jones. If they go Blu-Ray only or format neutral, Indy will be riding in high def this Christmas, and you'll be able to see every wrinkle on Harrison Ford's face.
Star Trek (movie series): This is Paramount's crown jewel and cash cow. With J.J. Abrams' re-imagining of the series arriving in theaters in December, the time will soon be ripe for high def editions of these movies. Star Trek was reportedly one reason why the HD-DVD camp courted Paramount so aggressively. They figured that high-def versions of the movies would lure Trekkies/Trekkers to their camp in droves, and that fan group loves to spend money (and, based on demographics, has a lot to spend). It is known that high-def versions of the movies are planned, but the slide of the HD-DVD format has complicated matters. The original plan was probably to release HD-DVD versions of all ten films in November. Now...? Either November or May 2009 (to coincide with the DVD release of the new movie) seems most likely but on Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or both? Given the current climate, one doubts Paramount will unleash one of their prized possessions into a dying format.
Titanic: It's the biggest grossing movie of all time, but some of the shine has dimmed. Still, this is one I'd be eager to see in high-def, and I'm not alone. Although co-funded by Paramount and Fox, Paramount has the home video rights. So there's that format war issue again. Still, once it's settled, this is one release that Paramount will want to get out as soon as possible. Expect it to show up within six months after Paramount ends its association with HD-DVD. It will likely not be released during any interim period in which Paramount is format neutral.
The Godfather: Another Paramount release, and almost everything I wrote about Titanic applies here. As soon as Paramount has committed to Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray only, The Godfather trilogy will show up in high def, but likely not before then.
The there's Patton... I'm not putting it on the list because, although it's my #1 movie, I don't think it's one of the titles that early adopters are clamoring for. Nevertheless, it has been announced for Blu-Ray in June. Fox is producing some kind of Father's Day package that includes Patton and about five other titles. I hope it's sold as a single disc, though. While I wouldn't mind owning a copy of Master and Commander in high-def, I dread the thought of having Mrs. Doubtfire rammed down my throat.
The Video View: January 29, 2008
When it comes to DVD releases, this is yet another week when high-profile TV series trump high-profile movies, but that's not to say there aren't a lot of new theatrical titles available. In fact, this is the first week of the new year in which there are more than a thimbleful of previous theatrical releases to choose from. Lovers of classic cinema will be delighted by the release of a two-disc special edition of El Cid, although it is curious that there's no high def version of the set to go along with the standard one. The enjoyable documentary, The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters is a good choice to put on your Netflix queue. A couple of titles are marginally worth consideration for a rental: King of California, which hits the trifecta: standard DVD, Blu Ray, and HD-DVD; and Rocket Science, which is standard DVD only. Something you may not have heard of during its limited theatrical run but which gets a solid recommendation from me is the apocalyptic mystery Right at Your Door. Some titles better off ignored: The Invasion, the Nicole Kidman/Daniel Craig butchering of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers - in standard DVD and Blu Ray; Trade; Daddy Day Camp, which is inexplicably being released in Blu Ray as well as regular DVD - bet that will really get high def purchasers excited; and an unrated version of The Comebacks.
A couple of double-dippers have fearlessly entered the marketplace, hoping to bamboozle fans into thinking they're offering something more than a repackaging of previously available material. There's the 15th Anniversary of Groundhog Day, which proves that groundhogs have at least three lives (this is, I believe, the third DVD version of this film). Curiously, there's no high def version. Meanwhile, Monty Python's The Life of Brian is back yet again, although at least this time the umpteenth standard DVD version is being accompanied by the first-time Blu Ray edition. Whether you want to buy it one more time to get the high def version is up to you. Much as I love the film, I have already purchased it enough times. My standard DVD is good enough. On the straight-to-video front, there's Lake Placid 2. I didn't like its predecessor so there's not much chance I'll be checking this one out. Besides, I did my penance with respect to cheeky monster movies by recently reviewing Tremors.
On the TV show front, there are full season packages for Curb Your Enthusiasm (6th season), JAG (5th season), Emergency (4th season), and Damages (1st season, also available in Blu Ray). Masterpiece Theater's Mansfield Park (the one with Billie Piper) is targeted at Jane Austen and Doctor Who fans (an odd combination if ever there was one). Adult Swim aficionados will enjoy Aqua Teen Hunger Force Volume 5. Then there's a Disney money-grab. The Mouse that Roared is releasing a measly four episodes of the incredibly popular Hannah Montana on a single disc for about $15 (discounted). Sounds like what Paramount used to do with Star Trek.
The only notable special box set floating around this week doesn't come from Criterion. It's the Val Lewton Horror Collection, and features nine of Lewton's films: the original Cat People (not the remake), Curse of the Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie, The Body Snatcher, Isle of the Dead, Bedlam, The Leopard Man, The Ghost Ship, The Seventh Victim, and Shadows in the Dark. Plus there's a documentary called Martin Scorsese Presents Val Lewton – The Man in the Shadows. In all, that's ten films over six discs. Amazon is selling it discounted at less than $45. For that price, it's hard to find an excuse not to buy it, especially since some of those films are the best horror excursions made during the 1940s.
This weekend's DVD review will be of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which is the most-requested title I have gotten since I reviewed Raiders of the Lost Ark as part of my Top 100. I will review The Last Crusade before Memorial Day weekend, but not immediately. Upcoming I have Eastwood, Hitchcock, and Gilliam (although not necessarily in that order).
Things that Go Pop
If it's a Wednesday (my normal weekday blog entry day off), this ReelThoughts must have something to do with site processes or something of minimal general interest to movie-lovers. I don't like to "waste" my regular valuable columns for this less interesting stuff, so I occasionally provide "bonus" entries.
If you're reading this a few days late, you've probably already encountered the pop-under ads. For those who have been following the ongoing saga of my attempts to bridge the gap between the revenue generated by the site and what I need to make this a solo career, this is just another weapon I'm using. Most of you can guess that the last thing I want to do when I lose my day job is to give up ReelViews (or scale it down to a shadow of what it currently is), but reality bites hard. Home and family come first, movies second.
In choosing to try something new, I picked pop-unders over pop-ups. I find them less intrusive since they don't block what's being read (just create another browser window under the current one that has to be closed at some point), and those who truly find them offensive can block them. (It doesn't help my bottom line to provide that advice.) I have locked the frequency at 24 hours, which means that no matter how many times you visit the site and no matter how many pages you go to, you will only get one pop-under per day. You can check ReelViews three times a day and read 50 reviews and there will only be one pop-under.
I'm writing this column because the last time I added a new form of advertisements (the little double-blue underlined text), it caused an unexpected backlash. This time, I decided, better to explain than just implement something new. While pop-unders are relatively unobtrusive (especially compared to their more obvious siblings), they are hard to ignore. My original intention had been to wait for the actual loss of my day job to do this, but someone pointed out that it would be better to do it now and find out how much revenue it generates rather than be surprised that the "savior" wasn't as good as promised. That makes sense.
E-mailers have provided some interesting suggestions for making the site more financially lucrative. One suggested holding a "reader contest" for a re-design of the site's look – something that would be more "ad friendly." That one's under consideration. Another idea would be to convert ReelViews into a pay site and charge $5.00 (or so) for a monthly membership. I'm resistant to the idea though, because it goes against one of the founding principles of the site, which is to provide free reviews to everyone. Then there's the question of how many readers would actually become members. If it was to be 2000, I would be in good shape. If it was to be 200, I would be in trouble.
I'm aware that some readers are going to be offended by this new advertising tactic, but the intention is not to offend but to do something that will increase my revenue stream while not significantly impacting the readability of the site. When all is said and done, ReelViews is about movies and movie-related topics.
Tomorrow: Who remembers Charlotte Ross' butt? Apparently, the FCC does.
January 31, 2008 (Thursday):
The Boob Tube
What do Charlotte Ross and Billie Piper have in common (aside from both being attractive blond actresses)? Both have shown their butts on TV. But oh how different the reactions have been...
Piper, the teen pop starlet-turned-Dr. Who companion-turned serious actress, bared almost all during her recently completed ITV television series, Secret Diary of a Call Girl, which comprised eight 22-minute episodes and, based on popular appeal, will be accorded a second season. Piper played the title character and, as one might suspect from a program with that name, she was required to show some flesh. She was partially naked at some point in about half the episodes, showing enough of her breasts (side, front) and bum to heat up the inside of the TARDIS. Fanboys (and probably a few fangirls), one can imagine, were excited. The thing is, this was shown on "regular" British TV. Viewers didn't have to pay extra to see the goodies unveiled. It's part of a relaxed national view of nudity that has existed for a long time. (I recall breasts in I, Claudius and that was on British TV 30 years ago.)
Now, to Charlotte Ross. When NYPD Blue debuted on ABC in the early 1990s, it set out to be a groundbreaking show. There was (discreet) nudity, sex, and profanity unlike anything previously seen on network TV in the United States. It seemed that NYPD Blue was paving a new avenue. It was a badge of honor to be asked to bare one's butt for the show and, over the years, almost everyone did it, including Dennis Franz. Charlotte Ross joined the show in 2001 and departed in 2004. Her opportunity to display her wares occurred on February 25, 2003 and turned out not only to be one of NYPD Blue's most memorable "butt moments," but also one of its last. Less than a year after that, in February 2004, Janet Jackson suffered her infamous "wardrobe malfunction," an example of bad timing and crassness that effectively ended television's slow crawl away from prudishness. The FCC came down hard on all of the networks at the time and even Blue had to turn yellow. It felt like being back in the '80s. A couple of years later, NYPD Blue went gently into the night.
Now, suddenly, Ross's butt is back in the news. Five years after the event, the FCC has announced $1.4M in fines of stations who aired that impressive posterior. This has had the unintentional result of causing the scene to go viral on YouTube (link below) with well over a million viewers. Guess there are quite a few who weren't offended by what the saw (or didn't see and want a chance to).
The point - and there is one - is how something similar is treated so differently in countries that share so many things, including a language (despite what some might argue) and a history. The British are often portrayed has being stiff and pompous, yet they're capable of watching female nudity on television without hiding in the closet and wailing for Mommy to turn it off. Americans, it seems, are afraid of breasts. I can't understand why. I once heard a religious fundamentalist preacher attempt to argue that they're "reproductive organs" and that such things are too indecent to be exposed in public. As to the first point, I challenge him to find any reputable biologist who will support him. As to the second point, he can take it up with their designer.
I won't claim that the rest of the world "gets it," because a lot of countries are as backward as the United States when it comes to toplessness. It really comes down to prolonged exposure. Studies have shown conclusively that the more men are exposed to bare female breasts, the less power to arouse they have. Consider the foot, for example. In general (foot fetishists excepted), the sight of a bare foot in America does not cause sexual excitement. But there are cultures where the foot is considered to be erotic and must be hidden from sight. Sound strange? But it is all that different from how we treat breasts in this country? The demonization of toplessness has, to me, always been one of the strangest aspects of this culture.
What it comes down to is that if you live in England (or France, or Germany, or the Netherlands, or Spain, or Quebec, or…), you can see naked women on your TV without having to pay an additional monthly subscription fee. In the United States, you'd better shell out for HBO, Cinemax, or Showtime. The days when we can view something like Charlotte Ross earning her NYPD Blue stripes are long gone. That YouTube clip is a relic of the past, a reminder of days when TV viewers seemed to be coming to their senses. Maybe some day, the FCC will loosen up and people will realize that there's nothing indecent about a breast (it might be noted that nearly everyone has two of them).
Oh, and if you live in the United States, Secret Diary of a Call Girl is coming uncut to a TV near you - provided you're a Showtime subscriber.
YouTube link to Charlotte Ross in "Nude Awakenings" {Sorry, but I can't find any links on "legitimate" sites to Piper's nudity, but if you scour the search engines, you should be able to stumble upon it.}
©2008 James Berardinelli
|