| New Movies | ReelThoughts | Video Views | The Archives | Top 100 | PRICE novels | FAQ |
ReelThoughts
|
June Swoon
May, with all of its gargantuan, multiplex-eating releases, is in the rearview mirror. Despite the record-breaking that accompanied Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, I sensed an overall lack of enthusiasm for these titles. Sure, they fell into the "must see" category for many viewers because of their blockbuster status, but how many people, upon leaving one of those movies, felt the jolt of exhilaration that accompanies having seen a great movie? And, as important, how many went back time and time again? I visited a multiplex a few nights ago to see Gracie to find it pretty much as empty as one would expect on a weeknight. The eight auditoriums playing Pirates 3 were mostly deserted - a much different story from what things were like during the week after Pirates 2 was released. (Yes, the fact that schools are still in session plays its part, but that's not the whole story.)
Thus arrives June - a calmer, more sensible month. There are no sure-fire blockbusters on the horizon. In fact, the summer only has one more of those locked and loaded, and it doesn't open until mid-July. There are plenty of high-profile releases in June, but none are likely to top the $300 million mark or have the kind of explosive opening weekends that will get tongues wagging. Each weekend has one clear winner and perhaps a runner-up as well as a few smaller movies that will hope to capture a niche market and end up in the black.
June 1 offers what may be the most enjoyable comedy of the summer - Knocked Up. This is what could be termed a "romantic comedy for guys" - meaning that it has a heart and is about two people falling in love but is also more crude than one might normally expect from a rom com. It's a solidly entertaining follow-up to Judd Apatow's The 40 Year Old Virgin and should appeal to the same audience. Warning to the faint of heart, however: the movie shows an actual childbirth (not a simulation, although there is a "birth double"). The sequence isn't long but it's in there. Also opening this weekend: Kevin Costner's respectable Mr. Brooks and the formulaic Gracie, which is saved in part by a great performance by Carly Schroeder.
June 8's big movie is Ocean's Thirteen, another third movie in a series. I won't claim to be excited, despite assurances from all involved that it will be better than Ocean's Twelve (which I didn't think was half bad). It's just that I'm not overly fond of these characters and one movie with them was sufficient. There's enough talent involved to allow the possibility that I'll be pleasantly surprised, so hope springs eternal. Surf's Up may get swamped by Shrek 3 and Ratatouille and, to be frank, I'm more sick of penguins than I am of Danny Ocean and his crew. Finally, in a film that will not be screened for critics, there's Hostel 2. This will be next week's "Friday special."
June 15, likely the first school-free weekend in many areas, brings back The Fantastic Four for their second outing. Please let director Tim Story not ruin this one the way he did the first one. In my review of the 2005 movie, I wrote the following: "Bring on Galactus for the next film... but I'm afraid of what they'll do to him." Well, they are bringing on Galactus and I am afraid of what they'll do to him. Nancy Drew also opens that weekend. I wonder if I'll have trouble shaking the image of Pamela Sue Martin when I watch this new incarnation. Granted, she wasn't iconic but she was pretty hot back in the late 1970s. (Girls watched the Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Hour for Shawn Cassidy. Boys watched it for Martin. Kirstie Alley watched it for Parker Stevenson.)
The expected kingpin of June 22 is Evan Almighty. Hopefully it will be better - significantly better - than the underwhelming Bruce Almighty. 1408 is the latest in a long line of cinematic endeavors with a checkered history - movies based on Steven King novels. Generally, films derived from King's horror stories (which this one is) don't fare well, so skepticism is understandable. Captivity snared some nasty publicity for its Los Angeles billboard advertising campaign, but it's not clear whether critics will be allowed to see this before it opens (or whether they'll want to see it at that point). Eagle Versus Shark is being described as a Napoleon Dynamite-like romantic comedy. And A Mighty Heart has Angelina Jolie in serious acting mode making an Oscar bid as the wife of kidnapped journalist Daniel Pearl in Michael Winterbottom's "based on real events" tale. I used to look forward to Winterbottom's films. Then he made Code 46, 9 Songs, and The Road to Guantanamo. Now, I'm not so excited.
June closes with the big pre-July 4 weekend. Disney/Pixar's Ratatouille leads the pack. Directed by Brad Bird (The Incredibles) and featuring Peter O'Toole and Ian Holm, this has the potential to be the animated film of the year - in quality if not at the box office. It could the first animated film in years to truly offer as much to adults as to children. Live Free or Die Hard will see whether John McClane can survive a 12-year layoff. The question that needs to be answered: Is this really the John McClane we remember or is it a generic action hero who happens to be played by Bruce Willis? Two small films - the British Death at a Funeral and the American Evening - arrive along with summer. Then there's Michael Moore's Sicko. The title refers to the status of health care in America, not Moore's personality. As usual, it will probably be provocative, entertaining, and filled with factual errors. The key to watching Sicko is to think of it as an op-ed piece not a documentary.
That will set the stage for July - a month set to feature some big releases, but when bookstores will briefly become a bigger gathering place than multiplexes.
The Fat Lady Sings
SPOILERS for the final episode of The Sopranos...
So, for fans of the long-running HBO mob drama, the fat lady has sung, but did she hit a low note or a high one?
By now, the controversy has boiled over, being discussed in front of water coolers, on the Internet, and on TV and radio talk shows. Today, it was almost impossible to go anywhere and not hear someone venting or otherwise giving an opinion about the suddenly infamous fade to black. (I pity those who recorded the show last night but have not yet watched it.) If nothing else, David Chase's unorthodox conclusion to his series has done for The Sopranos what nothing else has accomplished in years: brought it to the forefront of pop culture (if only briefly) and gotten people talking about it. If that was his goal (and it certainly was at least part of it), then he had succeeded.
How did I react?
First of all, I wasn't impressed by the majority of the episode. I thought it was anticlimactic, poorly focused, and an unfit way to bring to an end one of the most celebrated TV shows of the decade. Then came the final five minutes... Brilliantly conceived and executed, they set up two possibilities: a simple night out for the Soprano family or a bloodbath. Chase, who wrote and directed the episode, ratched up the tension slowly but surely by cutting back and forth between Tony, Carmela, and A.J. at the table and Meadow ineptly parking her car. The camera caught nefarious looking men all around the restaurant. The Meadow entered, Tony looked up, and it all went black, with the strains of Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" cutting off as suddenly as the final image vanished.
My initial reaction: WTF? A moment's stunned disbelief, then a chuckle. The more I thought about it, the more I loved what Chase did. The kind of cajones it requires to end something like that - forcing the audience down the "choose your own resolution" path and turning his back on closure. Surprising everyone. When you think about it, almost any ending would have been a letdown, so Chase elected an approach that no one could have predicted. Those who received an early publicity copy of the episode were convinced that the final minute had been excised from the DVD. But, no, that's how it ended.
I don't lean one way or another where Tony's future (or lack thereof) is concerned. Maybe he lives (un)happily ever after, paranoid but surrounded by his loved ones. Maybe he goes down in a hail of gunfire. The series is over. Many believe that Chase selected this ending to leave the door open for a movie. I don't accept that. I think this is as final as it gets. Even another future minute of The Sopranos would violate the ending and render it pointless and impotent. I'm willing to take Chase at his word when he says that Tony and his family will never again appear in any form, be it on the big or the small screen. (And, yes, Sean Connery did say "never again" before Never Say Never Again.)
Two titles came to mind in the near-term aftermath of Made in America (the episode's title): Blakes 7 and Limbo. The former, a British TV series that first aired in the late '70s and early '80s, came to a sudden and violent conclusion that left things shockingly unresolved. The latter, a John Sayles film from the '90s, cut off at a critical moment and left it to each viewer to decide how things would turn out. I loved the endings of both Blakes 7 and Limbo, but many did not. In fact, during the screening of Limbo, people in the audience threw things at the screen when the end credits began rolling. I have never seen such an explosive reaction before or since in that theater, regardless of the movie or the crowd.
We demand closure from our TV shows, books, and movies. We feel cheated without it. I can't say I don't understand the impulse (and I often agree with it), but there are instances when the decision to go another route feels right. It also takes courage. Had Chase elected to gun down Tony and his family at the restaurant, he would have taken a lot less heat today, but how would that have been interesting or different? We've seen it in The Godfather saga and countless other gangster films. That would have been the easy way out, the sell-out. Paradoxically, although it would have provided the greatly desired "closure," it would have made for a less memorable fade out.
There are many reading this who disagree with me. Violently. They feel betrayed by Chase and are angry at him and HBO. In a way, I am also irritated, but not by the ending. The Sopranos has been treading water for a while now, meandering pointlessly here and there. It has come back into its own during the last few weeks but can three or four solid episodes dispel the sense of staleness that has grown over the past three years? Chase's mistake was in taking HBO's money and keeping the show running past its expiration date. Made in America should have aired in 2004, not 2007. Thank god Battlestar Galactica is going off after one more season. It will be spared a similar fate.
I'm not going to defend my opinion of the show. People will like it or hate it, with few falling in between. I can understand both sides. Above all, however, I'm pleased that there's finally something to talk about with this program, and that it didn't slip away quietly. Rage, rage against the dying of the light... Watching 24 this year was akin to viewing the slow, inexorable deterioration of a good friend. That show's final episode only underlined the decay. The Sopranos chose another way out. Like it or hate it, you will not forget it.
The fat lady has sung. Can she get off the stage without being lynched?
R-Rated Day Care
I'm sure many of those reading this have had a similar experience to the one I am about to relate... You're sitting in a theater showing an R-rated movie waiting for the feature to start. In walks a mother or father pushing a stroller. Also with her are two older children, ages around three and five. The movie starts. For a while, everything is okay. Then the baby starts fussing. And the older kids, becoming restless, start wandering around the theater, playing tag in the aisles. Meanwhile, the parent is either breastfeeding (if it’s a mother) or changing the baby in an attempt to quiet it down.
This is based on a real-life experience I had at a multiplex on a Friday afternoon not long ago. Sadly, this sort of thing is becoming increasingly more commonplace. I have seen young kids (under seven) at movies like Grindhouse and Hostel Part II. I'm not one to blame the ills of society on movies or television, but something inside tells me it can't be a good thing for a four year old to be watching a naked women hanging upside down while another naked woman cuts her up with a scythe and bathes in her blood.
I'm not blaming the filmmakers for this. Their job is done when the movie is in the can. I'm blaming parents and movie theaters. And perhaps the MPAA. The policy for an R-rated movie should be adjusted: no one under 17 allowed without parent or guardian (as is currently the case); no one under age ten allowed PERIOD. If the content is adult enough that it warrants an R, there shouldn't be any young children there under any circumstances. Movie theaters are not day care centers.
There are two problems with kids at R-rated movies. The first is the obvious inappropriateness of the experience. I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to exposing children to life experiences, but there's no way I think it's reasonable for someone in his or her single-digit or pre-teen years to experience Hostel Part II. It's not a question of whether this movie should have been rated NC-17 (and I think it should have); it's a question of what kind of parent would bring a three or four or five year old to see it, and how screwed up the rating system is to allow it. Seeing something of this sort may not scar a child for life, but it could certainly cause nightmares and contribute to other problems.
The other issue is the potential for the kids to disturb other paying customers. Even the best behaved children are going to get restless during a movie, especially if it's not filled with cartoon characters or specifically aimed at those with short attention spans. Any such disturbance, no matter how temporary, is unacceptable. It has also been my experience that parents who bring young children to R-rated movies generally don't have very good control over them, so once they start misbehaving, it's a lost cause to hope they'll be brought back under control. I expect a certain amount of this rowdiness at G, PG, and even PG-13 features, especially when they're designated as "family friendly." But not something that's rated R.
I won't get into the inappropriateness of bringing an infant to any movie, let alone breastfeeding or changing a diaper in a multiplex auditorium.
The most frequent argument given by parents who commit one of these infractions is that they can't get a babysitter. Okay, I can understand that problem. It's hard to find someone trustworthy who can be responsible for your child or children for a few hours. The solution is not to bring those offspring with you to Hostel Part II. It's not to go to the movies in the first place. If you're desperate to see a title and are having babysitter problems, wait for the DVD. It's only four months away.
Sometimes, I don't understand people. Even those who believe their kids should be able to see everything, irrespective of what rating the MPAA anoints it with, should show some courtesy to others in the theater. How selfish and irresponsible have we become as a society? I guess that's just another reason for avoiding multiplexes...
Similar horror stories are more than welcome.
Graven Images
In recent weeks, the rhetoric surrounding the high-def DVD format war has escalated to a new level. This is in part the result of two high-profile Internet "personalities" taking opposite sides. By throwing his full (and considerable) weight behind HD-DVD, Harry Knowles (of Ain't It Cool News) put Bill Hunt (of Digitalbits) in a position where he felt it necessary to respond - by suggesting that Blu-Ray would be the more likely victor. Having made their opinions known, these two have backed off the stage to let the battle cry be taken up by their adherents and detractors. And, in some forums, it has gotten really nasty.
Ultimately, there are three possible resolutions to this format war: (1) Blu-Ray woos Universal and wins outright, (2) HD-DVD uses lower pricing to pound Blu-Ray into submission, or (3) the war goes on until some other format arrives to make high def DVDs obsolete. My official stance is to counsel patience. Waiting to jump on either bandwagon will at worst get you a better deal and at best get you a seat at the winner's table. I expect both Sony and Toshiba to pull out all the stops in November; that's when the time may come to choose a side.
But this isn't a column about the pluses and minuses of going Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. I have written about those before and will write about them again. Instead, the purpose of this ReelThought is to discuss the intransigent attitudes of the most ardent supporters on both sides. What's going on out there in the trenches is nothing short of a religious holy war. Except, instead of Catholicism vs. Protestantism or Islam vs. Christianity, it's Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD. Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at the language used in some of the posts in any video forum. Those people take no prisoners and their rhetoric has the unmistakable ring of the call of the righteous.
Obviously, if you have purchased an HD-DVD player, you have a vested interest in seeing that format emerge victorious. The same is true for those who plunked down cash for a Blu-Ray player or a PS3. But a lot of people have more riding on this than their hard-earned dollars. Many of the most militant supporters have invested their egos in the struggle. They are no longer capable of seeing things rationally. Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have positive and negative qualities, yet to the pro-HD-DVD adherent, HD-DVD is without flaw and Blu-Ray is unworthy to be hooked up to anyone's system. On the other hand, die-hard Blu-Ray supporters see Sony as God and Toshiba as Satan.
We've seen this kind of thing before: VHS vs. Beta, Apple vs. PC, American cars vs. Japanese brands, and so forth. It always fascinates me to see how far people will go in these "wars" to win points for their sides. These days, with the relative anonymity of the Internet, things can get pretty heated. People refuse to admit not only that they could be wrong but that there might be some element of truth to the other side's position. It's a war of attrition where the winner takes all.
This isn't life and death. This isn't religion. Yet there are those who treat it as if it's more important than both. And I view that unwillingness to understand the position of another, that refusal to compromise, as a symptom of something potentially dangerous. If someone can become so entrenched when the subject is high def DVD formatting, what happens when the issue has real meaning?
Am I reaching in drawing these comparisons? Of course. But peruse some of those forums yourself and see if the vitriol doesn't leave you a little disturbed.
Of course, what needs to be said to conclude this discussion is how little the format war means to the majority of the DVD consumer base. High def DVD remains a niche format. The average consumer doesn't care about it, at least not yet. HDTV is just starting excite people; it will be a while before they start looking beyond the 45" flat screen TVs. So the format war may rage and the frontline soldiers may spew electronic bile, but most people don't care. In the war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the current victor is indifference. But you'd never guess that when reading the responses to the positions taken by Harry Knowles and Bill Hunt.
Sicko Pirates
By now, everyone is probably aware that an "unauthorized" copy of Michael Moore's Sicko has appeared on-line. But is this a case of brazen piracy or is it an incident of savvy marketing? If it is the latter, Moore will never admit it (nor will his distributors, the Weinsteins), but it's not as big a stretch as it might seem. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the version of Sicko floating around on the Internet may in fact be a new form of publicity. If it works, we may start seeing more of this sort of things for smaller movies.
Exhibit A is the quality of the "pirated" copy. This is a pristine version, not some muddy camcorder-captured video or work print. In order for something this good looking to get onto the net, it had to originate from within the distribution circle. It's hard to imagine Moore, a type-A personality, allowing something like this to slip through his grasp. Of course, it could happen - leaks can appear anywhere - but it seems unlikely. It's not unreasonable to believe that the source of the leak was Moore or someone who acted with his permission.
The financial impact will be negligible. The most rabid peer-to-peer downloaders are young men, and they're not in the film's target demographic. The average expected viewer of Sicko probably doesn't have a clue how to find a copy. The latest figures suggest that about 10,000 copies of the movie have been downloaded or seen on YouTube. Let's put that in perspective. Assuming an $7 ticket price and that an average of two people watch each downloaded copy, that means a loss of maybe $140,000. For an average documentary, that would be a big bite, but for something with the box office potential of $25M to $50M, it's less than half a percent of the total gross. That's actually less than might be lost as a result of studio-sponsored promotional screenings – you know, the things that radio stations and newspapers give out free tickets to. (100 nationwide screenings x 250 customers per screening x $7 lost = $175,000) To think that this is hitting Moore or the Weinsteins in the wallet is a mistake. And they know that.
The value of the publicity, however, is incalculable. It gets Moore some sympathy (poor guy, his movie was pirated). It gets news stories. Suddenly, people who had never heard of Sicko know about it. It gets people talking. Combined with the whole Cuba/investigation story, this keeps Moore in the spotlight - a place where he loves to be.
If this is a publicity stunt, it's a smart one. This is a unique way to build word-of-mouth. Moore himself has been subdued when discussing the matter. He has been quoted as saying that this was done by his "enemies" but it doesn't seem to bother him. The important thing is, after all, getting people to see the movie, no matter how they see it. So is Moore a victim here (who is doing his best to turn lemons into lemonade) or is he a master manipulator? I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but when I see something like this, it makes me pause and think. After all, isn't Moore known as a sleight-of-hand artist when it comes to documentary subjects?
On a related note, it was recently reported that Eli Roth is blaming piracy for the failure of Hostel Part II. Apparently, a work print of the film made it onto peer-to-peer networks a couple of weeks before the film's release. If one is to believe Roth, everyone interested in the movie had already seen it by the time it opened. This doesn't ring true. I have spoken to three people who downloaded Hostel Part II and all of them went to see it on opening day. That doesn't jibe with Roth's assertion. Odd that a man who has assiduously courted the Internet audience is now turning on them. Could it possibly be that Hostel Part II sank not because of pirates but because the movie wasn't any good?
Harry Potter and the Synergistic Month
For fans of J.K. Rowling's mega-bestselling Harry Potter books, July represents the best of times and the worst of times. The best of times - because there are two reasons to get excited: the opening of the fifth movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and the long-awaited arrival of the final novel. The worst of times - because the story will be told. Even though there are two more movies to come, the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows represents an ending of sorts. In this world with these characters, there are no more stories to be shared. An element of sadness always accompanies an ending, even if it's a good one.
The movie opens on July 11 (with early screenings late on July 10). Expect midnight showings to be packed. Those who were 8 when the first Harry Potter novel was published have now graduated high school and are capable of staying out late. The book comes out on July 21 (with early sales late on July 20). Hype from each will feed into the other, providing a perfect storm for publicists. Never before have a Harry Potter book and movie arrived in such close proximity. By themselves, each is typically an "event." Put them together, and it's all anyone will be talking about. But there could be a downside to this and, if it materializes, it will do so at the expense of the movie.
The typical pattern for a Harry Potter film is for all true believers to see the movie on opening weekend then go back several times over the next few weeks to see it a second time, a third time, and a fourth time. But no real fan is going to be spending a couple of hours in a movie theater during the film's second weekend out. They're going to be at home reading. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix may have a gargantuan second weekend drop-off because the only ones seeing it that weekend will be those who are casual followers.
Certainly, box office numbers the first weekend will be huge. There will be even more urgency than usual to see the film early. And weekday attendance between July 16 and 20 should also be high, with lots of Potter lovers returning during that period for a second or third dip. But once Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows hits bookstands, theater corridors will quiet. The big question is: what happens during the movie's third weekend? By then, most readers will be done with Book Seven. Will they feel the urge to return to the theater to re-live an earlier adventure, or will they be all Harry Pottered out? Thinking back to my days as a fanboy (of other things, not Harry Potter), I suspect the former is more likely. That is, unless Mr. Potter bites the dust, then who knows? (One could project that killing off Harry in Book Seven would be bad for business as far as Movies Six and Seven are concerned. Would it be depressing to watch films when it's known that the hero is fated to die at the end of things?)
Over the years, I have become a convert to following weekend box office tallies. It's not because I think of this as a competition (which is how the studios view it), but because it provides a window into the tastes of movie-goers and a snapshot of pop culture. Watching the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix receipts will be especially interesting because it will paint a portrait of how the nearly simultaneous release of the book impacts movie-going trends. Much will be written about this, I'm sure. In another month, we'll know whether the intermarketing of Movie Five and Book Seven will catapult Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix to the top of the 2007 charts or have an overall adverse impact.
©2007 James Berardinelli
|