ReelThoughts

---

Choose the month you would like to access:

Return to Current

November 3, 2005 (Thursday):

Disappointments All Around

My enthusiasm for various aspects of pop culture is wearing thin. I don't think it's that I have grown too picky. Instead, it's that the people producing it have gotten lazy, lost their inspiration, succumbed to greed, or some combination of the above. Sad as it is to admit, I find it more enjoyable to rake leaves than subject myself to some of what passes for disposable entertainment.

Let's start with movies, since that's what this site is primarily about. Not every release in 2005 has stunk, but my qualitative assessment is that this has not been a good year. 2004 wasn't good, either, but it was a little better. It's not just that there are no 4-star movies (at least on my scale) out there, but there aren't many films I'm excited about seeing. Too few event movies. Too few movies that make me smile because I'm a critic and get to see them early. Thus far, I can count on one hand the number of pictures I have been psyched to see this year. Most of 2005's films, even the good ones, fall into the category of: maybe I'll wait until it opens - then I don't have to drive so far to see it. Five years ago, such a sentiment was unthinkable. "Weekend movies" were those that I couldn't see at screenings because of conflicts.

I arrived early to a film last weekend (The Weather Man) and was subjected to a barrage of six previews (after the obligatory commercials). After sitting through them, I came to the conclusion that I had no desire to see three of the six, and only a marginal desire to see the other three. Previews are supposed to turn potential viewers on, not off. Life's too short to sit through one bad movie after another, even when thousands of people are waiting for a review.

On to books... Lately, I have been immersing myself in biographies because I have been unimpressed by what can be found on the fiction shelf. But late October through late November looked like a good time. First, there was the latest from Robert Jordan, followed by the next installment in George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, then capped off by P.D. James' The Lighthouse. Sadly, things have not started well. I'm still optimistic about the Martin and James novels, but Jordan's Knife of Dreams is slow going. (I'm only part-way through it at this time.) Maybe the previous, dreadful chapter of the saga killed my enthusiasm for Jordan's world, but the spark isn't there any more. I'm reading more out of a sense of obligation than out of a sense of wonder of excitement.

There are too many characters, and this has contributed to the story bogging down to the point of stagnance. In the beginning, Jordan wisely limited his scope to a handful of protagonists but, with each new volume, he has introduced more people. Now, there are so many individuals to keep up with that no one gets enough time or action. More and more, I find myself skimming chapters rather than reading them. It's sad, because I used to look forward to each new book with anticipation.

Finally, there's TV. At one time not too long ago, I was watching three or four shows on a regular basis. Now I'm down to zero. (I probably should have made more of an effort to get "into" Veronica Mars over the summer - that way I'd have something weekly to anticipate.) Battlestar Galactica is on a between-seasons hiatus. (The same is true of Doctor Who, although that's not available on TV in the United States unless you live near the Canadian border - or have friends/family in that area.) 24 has yet to return to our screens with new, more mind-boggling examples of contrivance. (Yeah, as silly as it can be, I still enjoy it.)

I started watching HBO's Rome, but tuned out after six or seven episodes. I was under the mistaken impression that this was going to be a dramatization of historical events. Instead, it has turned into a soap opera with two fictional characters taking center stage. Why concentrate on figures like Caesar and Marc Anthony when you can focus on two made-up soldiers? The show has a pair of saving graces: Max Pirkis, whose Octavian is a delight, and plenty of nudity. Alas, not even Pirkis and an army of breasts could encourage me to give up an hour of my Sunday nights.

House is one of those shows that's great as long as it doesn't get overexposed. But the plots are too similar and familiar - after a while, it becomes tiring to watch. Hugh Laurie is terrific, and he's the reason I still tune in if I'm around. But House is no longer "appointment TV," and I don't bother to program the DVR. Since I usually have a movie screening on Tuesday nights, that means I'm not spending much time at home with House.

Then there's Lost, which almost lost me as a viewer at the end of last season, then succeeded in throttling my remaining interest five episodes into this one. I watched the first five hours, sleeping through about 30% of the material, then gave up. Lost is great at making viewers think something is happening, when all that's really going on is that the characters are spinning their wheels. Call me back to the TV when something starts happening. This is the kind of show that can quickly go from tantalizing to tedious. Unless the writers start doing things with the characters, all but the most loyal viewers are going to lose interest. Remember Twin Peaks?

November 7, 2005 (Monday):

Last Gasps, or the Format War that Wasn't

The theater industry had better figure out quickly what to put in all those multiplexes. Rather than aiming nasty comments at Robert Iger and Steven Soderbergh for "turning coat," they should examine reality. The numbers, both at the box office and more alarmingly at the DVD store, don't lie. Home theater is fast overtaking the "theatrical experience" as the way to watch a film. It doesn't matter that the screen isn't as big and the picture isn't as pristine. The advantages add up: no screaming kids, no annoying talkers, no cell phone issues, no nearby customers with b.o., no one kicking the back of your chair, no missing two mintues of the movie for a bathroom break... Need I go on?

And the multiplexes are about to lose one of their few remaining selling points. HD is on its way with a vengeance, and there's nothing to stop it. This holiday season will see a dramatic upswing in HD TV sets sold. Front screen projectors can easily provide a 10-foot image. Not only are we talking about size, but clarity (both audio and video) of a kind never available in a home for a reasonable price. By the end of 2006, you will be able to purchase for $10,000 a similar system to what cost $100,000 just a few years ago. Die-hard film-lovers will argue until they are blue in the face that video isn't celluloid, but it's a losing argument, and one I have long since given up advancing. The more I see where digital technology is going, the more impressed I am. Film as we know it is a dying medium.

One thing that looked like it was going to inhibit HD - and help the multiplex industry - was a looming format war. 2006 was to see the debut of two competing (and incompatible) high def DVD fomats: Toshiba's HD-DVD and Sony's Blu-Ray. Toshiba argued that their version was better because it required minimal re-fitting of existing DVD factories. Sony countered that Blu-Ray compressed a lot more memory on the same size disc. The arguments went round and round. Then Sony delivered the first real punch.

PS3, a gaming system sure to be coveted by millions of people, will be Blu-Ray. This means everyone who buys a PS3 will, by default, own a Blu-Ray player. That doesn't just represent a market advantage. It means potential market dominence. HD-DVD's counter-annoucement that Microsoft was endorsing HD-DVD rang hollow, because the statement from Bill Gates' company was worded in such a way that if Blu-Ray won out, Microsoft would act like John Kerry and flip-flop.

Then, while Toshiba was reeling, the death blow came. Two of the biggest HD-DVD supporters, Warner Brothers and Paramount, defected to Blu-Ray, leaving Universal as the sole supporter of HD-DVD. And, just like that, the format war was over. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and all that's left is signing the treaty. The ultimate "compromise" format will be at least 90% Blu-Ray. The details will be ironed out in the next few months. We should see players and software in stores before the middle of 2006. Sony, loser of the last major format war (Beta vs. VHS), learned their lessons. Given another chance, they have emerged victorious... without a shot being fired.

That's when the real home video revolution will begin. And that's when theater owners will start to panic, knowing that, for some, their last gasps are about to begin.

(Note: I do not believe that home video will eliminate multiplexes. They are too valuable as teen hangouts, and exhibitors will eventually find a way to make them viable. But the number of screens will be greatly reduced, with all but the most high-end multiplexes closing due to a lack of business and/or product. IMAX has the best chance of survival. And if digital 3D can be expanded to a large enough number of venues, it may catch on. But that's a subject for a future ReelThoughts.)

November 9, 2005 (Wednesday):

Saw II Unseen

My decision not to review Saw II has generated a surprising volume of e-mail. Keep in mind that a decision on my part not to see and/or review a movie is not an attempt to make a statement about the film's quality. After all, until I have seen something, I can't make an assessment. In the case of Saw II, it was logistics.

During the final week of October, I saw five movies, which is an unusually high number. The Saw II press screening was in the morning on a Monday - a time that I cannot make because it conflicts with a regular meeting I moderate as part of my day job. That meant to see Saw II, I had to wait until it opened. But it wasn't first in line on my list of Friday titles - that was The Weather Man. Then, because it was a nice weekend, I decided to spend some time outside raking leaves. Once the weekend was over, I had lost interest in seeing it. Even in the best of times, theater excursions can be a pain. Maybe when it comes out on DVD...

The re-launching of "Video Views" in January will force me to curtail trips to theaters. Considering the relative quality of what's out there, it's warranted. DVD reviews will replace some of my theatrical reviews. Rough expectations for 2006 go something like this: 125 new theatrical reviews (generally 2-3 per week) and between 50-75 new DVD reviews (1-2 per week). I have written enough in ReelThoughts about how I believe that home theater will soon become a more important player in the movie industry than multiplexes, so it's time for the site to reflect that.

Some have questioned the late planned review date for Derailed. Since there's no local press screening, however, I have no choice but to see it on Friday. There's a chance the review may be up late that night but, being conservative, I'm "promising" Saturday. I don't know whether the absence of a local press screening is indicative of what's happening across the nation, but it raises alarm bells. The Weinstein Corporation is pushing this film with all of its muscle. It has star power, but TWC's unwillingness to screen it for critics may mean they have no confidence in what those stars do. Or it could mean that the local publicists don't want "second tier" journalists (everyone who doesn't write for a print daily) to see it beforehand.

For those who have missed it in the past, here's my policy on reviewing new releases. If I'm intersted in the film, I will see and review it. If I'm marginally interested the film and the screening doesn't conflict with one I'm more interested in, I'll see and review it. If I'm not interested, I probably won't bother, unless there are extenuating circumstances (nothing else opening that week, for example). I still see many bad movies, but my concern is that if I start pre-filtering too much, something good will slip through. I have to start paying closer attention to buzz and gossip - while not always reliable, those tools can help fine-tune my "bad movie radar" a little better.

Also, I rarely write a review for something I see after opening weekend. 90% or more of the traffic for a review occurs during the period from two days before it opens until three days after. If I post a review for a film on the Thursday before it opens, I'm writing that review for maybe 10,000 readers. If I post it a week later, I'm writing it for 1000 readers. Traffic is the life blood of any Internet site, regardless of whether or not it's commercial. One of the reasons I started ReelThoughts was to increase the amount of new content I can add to the site every week.

Back to Saw II... it's flattering that readers would like to hear my opinion of the film, but it doesn't fit into my hectic schedule and I'm not excited enough about the concept of the film to shoehorn it in. Yes, I liked the first one, but it isn't something I want to revisit, either by watching the first one again or experiencing the second. The next horror film I'm looking forward to on any level is Hostel, and that doesn't come out until next February.

November 11, 2005 (Friday):

The Mind of the "Enemy"

I recently had an e-mail dialogue with someone whom I'm tempted to call "close-minded," although that may be an unfair label. The topic of discussion was the recent film Paradise Now, which tells the story of two potential suicide bombers. The film, written and directed by Palestinian Hany Abu-Assad, goes out of its way not to condone the bombers' actions. It does not ask that we sympathize or empathize with them. Instead, it offers a window into their way of thinking and a chance to gain a measure of understanding about what would drive a man to mass murder in the name of a cause.

I was told in no uncertain terms that "No real American would watch such filth" and "the movie is nothing more than propeganda for terrorists." This, of course, is from someone who has not seen the film. That, by the way, is a pet peeve of mine - condemning something without seeing/reading it. The old Catholic League argument of "I don't need to see trash to know it's trash" doesn't sound any more rational today than when it was first put forth.

I have a couple of points to make. The first is that, if you're involved in war (which is what the struggle with terrorists is, albeit of a kind we have never previously engaged in), isn't it sound advice to gain the most thorough knowledge possible about the enemy? That includes an understanding of what drives them. Comprehension of the mindset of a terrorist will give a picture of how far they are willing to go. If the passengers on one of the WTC flights had realized they were being held hostage by would-be martyrs, that plane might not have reached its destination. In my view, Paradise Now never crosses the line into propeganda because the director condemns the actions of the main characters. But he does it in such a way that we can understand their motivations.

But the thing that concerns me the most about the e-mailer is his rigid unwillingness to see the terrorists as people. And that puts him on dangerous moral ground. One of the most horrific things about terrorists is that they don't see their victims as human beings. They are focused on their goal, and it involves killing people. The more, the better. But to the terrorist about to commit the crime, these aren't human beings. They are sinners and infidels. They have been demonized. Now, by demonizing the terrorist, we strip him of his humanity. His actions are inhuman, but it's important to understand the social, political, and religious context from which his murderous actions arise. One can condemn the actions of a terrorist while still trying to figure out what makes him do what he does.

Understanding not only better prepares us for this war, but it gives us a weapon that our enemies do not have - the ability to see members of the other side not as icons but as individuals. And, in a war like this, any weapon gives an advantage. That's why Paradise Now is an important film and should not be dismissed out-of-hand as something to be discarded. If you're looking for entertainment, you won't find it here. But if you're looking for something a little more substantive and disturbing, Hany Abu-Assad's movie has it.

November 16, 2005 (Wednesday):

So In What Order Do You Watch Them?

As of a couple of weeks ago, every Star Wars fan had the opportunity to add the final chapter to his or her six-volume DVD set. And, judging by the crowds at Best Buy, that's what everyone was doing. Shopping that day was an odd experience. Everyone (and I mean that literally) was holding a copy of the Revenge of the Sith DVD. Some people, like me, were buying that and only that. But even those who were purchasing multiple items had a least one copy of the DVD in their hands. I would love to know how many copies my local store sold that day.

But I digress...

One of the questions I have gotten over the past few months is in what order I would recommend watching the movies. If you have already seen the six chapters and are just interested in re-visiting them, it doesn't really matter. Watch them IV, V, VI, I, II, and III and wallow in nostalgia. Or watch them I, II, III, IV, V, and VI and see how the story holds up as a whole. Most Star Wars fans have probably done it both ways already. I have not - I don't have the time. In fact, when I watch Return of the Jedi, I typically skip through most of the Ewok scenes. (Don't tell George Lucas I wrote that.) And when I watched my brand-new Revenge of the Sith disc, I had to cram the entire movie into 90 minutes (the window of time I had available), so that meant selective skipping.

Ah, but what about the case of a poor, defenseless child you plan to indoctrinate into the world of Star Wars? George Lucas has said that newbies should watch the films sequentially (I-VI, in order). But a lot of Star Wars fans who once worshipped at the alter of George and took every word out of his mouth as a Greater Truth, have lost the faith. They feel betrayed by The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. They want to deny the existence of those films (can't think why - they're a lot of fun if you don't take them too seriously), even though (paradoxically) they have copies of them in their DVD libraries. (The non-hypocrite prequel trilogy hater will only own copies of IV, V, and VI.)

My advice, as it happens, is the same as Lucas'. Yes, there are issues with watching the films in the order of I, II, III, IV, V, and VI - namely in the realm of special effects and production values. Lucas can "dress up" Star Wars all he wants, but it still looks more primitive than Revenge of the Sith. But will an 8-year old being exposed to Star Wars for the first time notice? Possibly. Will he/she care? Less likely. The problem with showing the movies to a child in production order is that it will be confusing. Why show the story out-of-order when it can now be shown from start to finish. Children, even bright ones, don't do well with non-linear storytelling. Why needlessly complicate matters? When they're old enough to understand, you can explain the ins-and-outs of why IV, V, and VI look a lot different that I, II, and III.

For my part, I would love to find a block of time when I could watch all six movies back-to-back. It could be done in one day. But finding the time is the problem. I remember back in the early 1990s when I had a ritual on the day before Christmas that involved the original trilogy, which I owned on laserdisc. I had a half-day at my "day job," which left the afternoon free. So I came home, ate lunch, then watched Star Wars and Empire. After dinner, I finished it off with Return of the Jedi, Ewoks and all. Good luck finding that kind of free time today.

Bottom line: watch the movies however you want. But if you're introducing a virgin to the series, stick with the sequential order: I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. If nothing else, after Episodes I & II, you can rightfully claim that the best is yet to come. And kids generally like the Ewoks, so they won't be as bothered by VI as I am.

November 19, 2005 (Saturday):

Born Yesterday

Apparently, Universal Studios doesn't have a high opinion of its customer base. Or, to put it another way, they must think we were all born yesterday. Even if you believe that Universal is jumping on the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" bandwagon, why would anyone buy what they're proposing to sell?

I'm talking about Universal's recent announcement that, beginning in 2006, they are going to make about 100 movie titles available for rent on-line. No pricing structure has been announced, but we're probably looking at between $2 and $5 to download and view a film. Anything higher wouldn't make sense; no one would be interested. Anything lower seems unlikely, although price points of 50 cents to 99 cents might dramatically increase interest.

Universal plans to use peer-to-peer networking to facilitate the downloading. So, after years of decrying the horrors of this method of file sharing, they have reversed course and gotten on board. It's the typical Big Business view of things: technology is evil until they can find a use for it.

The Universal model calls for the full movie download to take less than an hour (it reamins to be seen whether they can deliver on that) - not instant access but quicker than waiting for the NetFlix envelope to arrive, and more convenient that taking a trip to the local video store. Once the movie is downloaded, you can watch it as many times as you want in a 24-hour window. After that, it becomes "locked out" and you have to pay again to get access. The details of this plan are similar to those proposed by a number of distributors looking to get into the on-line market. But here's the new wrinkle: you have to keep the movie on your hard-drive, hogging valuable memory, for 30 days. And for 29 of those 30 days, you can't watch it.

The reason, according to Universal, is that, using peer-to-peer technology, the more people who have a copy of the file on their hard drive, the faster a new download goes. This is true, but it raises two unsavory issues. First, even though I know it's relatively secure, this means Universal will mandate that I allow other people to download a file from my hard drive. Secondly, I'm not permitted to manage all my own files. Assuming DVD quality, about 1% of my 250 Gig hard drive will be compromised for 30 days. Not such a big deal, but what if I download 10 or 15 movies? Or what if I have a smaller drive?

Bottom line: why would anyone in their right mind agree to something with such ugly fine print? Sounds like DIVX all over again (and we all know how successful that was - although at one time there were fears it would damage DVD).

I'll stick to buying DVDs and, for marginal stuff, waiting a few days to get it from NetFlix. On-line downloading is a great idea in theory, but it appears it's going to take a while before someone figures out how to translate the theory to reality. Calling all visionaries: Universal may have a job opening.

November 22, 2005 (Tuesday):

ReelViews 2

And now for a word from our sponsor...

Since I don't accept advertising, that would be me. Pardon this shameless column of self-promotion, but I want to let those who care know that my second book, ReelViews 2 is available for purchase. It's the perfect holiday gift, although it's too big for a stocking stuffer, and some uncharitable recipients might mistake it for a lump of coal.

How does the second volume differ from the first? 150 reviews from ReelViews 1 have been removed to make way for 150 write-ups from late 2003, 2004, and early 2005. All of the new reviews have been personally hand-edited (by yours truly) to make them sharper, shorter, and more to-the-point. I am aware that I have a tendency to ramble. That's allowed in cyberspace, but is not a desirable quality in print.

One frequent comment about the first book was that it didn't offer any "new" content. Strictly speaking, that wasn't true, since all 1000 reviews (actually, I think the number is 1004) were reworked by me over a six-month period. Some were pretty much the same as their on-line counterparts, but others were significantly different. At any rate, I took the "no new content" comment to heart for Volume 2. This time around, there's an Appendix devoted to Director's Cuts and Easter Eggs. NONE of that material can be found anywhere else. It's exclusive to ReelViews 2, and will not show up on this website. (For those who have been asking me whether I liked the extended cuts of LOTR better than the theatrical releases, the answer is in the Appendix.)

If 2007 or 2008 sees a third edition of ReelViews, I would like to expand the original content section. Time pressures limited what I could produce this time but, given a few extra months, I could triple or quadrupole what's there. And I don't know how many books out there take the time to evaluate a Director's Cut/Extended Cut DVD in light of its theatrical predecessor.

The book has been available for over a month, but the publishers decided that the holiday season was the best time to make the "push" (hence the timing of this seemingly belated announcement). Personally, I think ReelViews 2 is worth buying even if you have the first one (and especially if you don't), but I can't claim to be unbiased.

One final thing - I do not have cover approval, so I'm not sure why there is a dog with a remote control. Maybe it's an attempt to attract dog lovers. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I should state that I'm a "cat person." This does not imply that I dislike canines (in fact, since my wife's lifelong dream is to have a dog, you can bet I'll eventually end up with one), but I prefer cats. I don't know whether the image of a tabby with a remote control would be as interesting.

Now back to arguing about whether the "surprise" of Star Wars V justifies watching the six films out of order...

November 23, 2005 (Wednesday):

Putting Off the Rent

Attentive readers will note that I originally had scheduled a review of Rent to be available yesterday, with the review of The Ice Harvest coming over the weekend. It didn't work out that way. From the beginning, since there was a screening conflict, I knew I wouldn't be able to see both in advance. Initially, I thought Rent was the better bet. But then I realized a few things.

Rent is opening at a theater near to me - six miles away, to be precise. All things considered, it's not a bad theater (although it shows commercials). The nearest theater showing The Ice Harvest is about 25 miles away. The advance screenings of both films were shown at theaters approximately 55 miles away but, while there was a $5 parking tag associated with Rent, parking for The Ice Harvest was free. Assuming that my car gets about 25 miles per gallon, and that gas is about $2.00, here's how the math works out: