ReelThoughts
Choose the month you would like to access:
| New Movies | ReelThoughts | Video Views | The Archives | Top 100 | PRICE novels | FAQ |
ReelThoughts
|
---
Fun and Games
First, a Mojolingo update: Based on the advice of a reader, I blocked Mojolingo's IP address so they can no longer re-direct to ReelViews. This means anyone accessing through them is getting nowhere. I just checked and the proper link has also been restored to its #1 position on Google. (The Mojolingo link is #2 but that doesn't matter because it's a dead end.) Thanks to everyone who helped with suggestions, encouragement, commiseration, and e-mails to Google. Now, on to today's topic...
From Roger Ebert's Answer Man, November 29, 2007:
Q. In your recent review of "Hitman," you boldly stated (again) the impossibility of videogames achieving the status of "art." I'm sure you again got flooded with e-mails arguing for one side or the other. What I'm wondering is, why bother? There is no universal definition of what art is or isn't. You can't possibly be surprised that a blanket statement that says "x isn't art" will elicit a contrary response. There is no right answer (especially in a world where a can of soup can be "art" if displayed as part of an exhibit). I do have a feeling you enjoy winding people up over this though.
A. Well, maybe I do. But it also involves deep love of movies and a regret that millions and millions of life-hours could be invested more fruitfully.
This is an old, old subject that comes up every few weeks over at Roger's site, and I have even discussed it here before. This specific question, however, raises a couple of issues I want to address. My perspective on video games is fundamentally different from Roger's. He tends to look from the outside, while I look from the inside. I am what would properly be called a "casual gamer." I have various gaming consoles and a selection of titles for the PC. Realistically, I have more games than I could ever play. When it comes to free time, I parcel it out according to what I feel like doing at a given time: reading a book, watching TV, (re)watching a movie, writing, or playing a game.
The first issue is the question of whether a game can be art. This is one that no one is going to be able to answer at this time, and it can be contentious. I can understand Roger's stance, although I don't necessarily agree with it. As yet, I have not seen a video or computer game that I would classify as being "art." However, I believe it can happen. As technology advances and people become more creative in developing games, something is going to come along that will astound and amaze with its artistic potential. The key, as Mr. Kozimor indicates, is a willingness to think outside the box when it comes to defining art. There were probably countless people living 80 years ago who believed cinema was a cheap trick and didn't deserve to be considered art. That may be where we are with respect to video games today. As an art form, cinema is young. Video games are still in the crib. Let them start walking and talking before condemning them for being unproductive members of the art society.
The other issue relates to Roger's comment about "a regret that millions and millions of life-hours could be invested more fruitfully." Although probably not intended that way, this sounds arrogant. Roger is implying that playing video games is a waste of time but watching movies is not. Two points need to be elucidated. First, there are people out there who consider the act of watching movies (even "artistic" ones) to be a waste of time. I'm obviously not one of them, but they exist. Secondly, I'm not of the opinion that just because something doesn't fall into the category of being artistic or educational, it is therefore a waste of time. People need to unwind. They need to relax. They need to have fun. Video and computer games allow them to do all three. If others are involved, it can be a social activity. Some of the best times I ever had playing video games were years ago on Sunday afternoons when my sister and I would spend a few hours in front of a TV swinging from vines and jumping on barrels. Not an intellectual or productive activity, but it made Sunday afternoons something to look forward to.
Given a choice, I would usually rather re-watch a favorite movie than spend two hours playing a video game. I say "usually," because there are times when I would prefer the latter. Just like there are times when I'd rather collapse on the couch and watch Mythbusters than slide a movie into the DVD player. Sports enters the equation too. Watching sporting events can be as easily considered wasteful as playing video games. I'm a big baseball fan; I watch a lot of Phillies games. Sometimes I multi-task but not always. If I recall correctly, Roger was at one time a big Chicago Bulls fan (don't know if that's still the case), so he understands the enjoyment that can come from watching sports. It's a lot like the enjoyment that can come from playing video games.
If there's a point to this, it's to urge tolerance. Just because something doesn't work for one person doesn't mean it fails for everyone else as well. Roger's hard-line stance has irritated many people. I'm not among them, but I'm easy. However, I think it's worthwhile to throw out a contrary opinion and indicate that not all film critics share Roger's beliefs regarding video games, art, and time wasting.
The Video View: December 4, 2007
In keeping with a schedule I recently revealed, I plan to write a short column every Tuesday remarking on some of the newest offerings on video. Each report will be divided into three sections: New Movies on DVD, TV on DVD, and Other Things of Interest. These columns won't be comprehensive, but will touch on things that I find interesting to mention for one reason or another.
New Movies on DVD: The biggest and baddest movie to appear on video store shelves today is the massively hyped, exceedingly long Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End. (Running time: 170 minutes.) Of the three May blockbusters, this one was the least disappointing but it still fell short of expectations. The action sequences were impressive but the narrative dragged. The pace will improve in the comfy confines of home where the "Pause" and "Fast Forward" buttons can be used as necessary, but the spectacle element will diminish (unless your home theater cost about $50K). Call it a wash. It's out on both standard DVD and Blu-Ray. This will undoubtedly further widen the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD software gap. Also getting the standard/Blu-Ray treatment is Superbad - a fun romp that's definitely worth a look if you didn't see it in theaters. The Nanny Diaries came and went in August without causing much of a ripple. It's a lot easier to recommend this on video than it was for theatrical viewing. It's disposable but not bad, and there are some clever aspects to the story. If you can just see one of those three, it probably will be Pirates but should be Superbad. Nevertheless, there's no clear must-see title available this week, so go where your intuition takes you.
TV on DVD:: There are a lot of season box sets available this week. I've never seen The Wire but I have been told by a number of reliable sources that it's fantastic. Certainly, for fans, the Season 4 set is not to be missed. Saturday Night Live is releasing Season 2 - you know, back when the show was inventive and funny (two things it hasn't been for a painfully long time). 24 is dragging Season 6 onto DVD. I don't recommend that anyone, even die-hards, spend money for this. It's best forgotten. One hopes that at the beginning of Season 7, Jack Bauer will awaken from a dream. Audrey can be in the shower when he pulls back the curtain. For me, the DVD to buy is Battlestar Galactica: Razor. It was pretty impressive shown on TV with commercials. Take away the commercials and incorporate some deleted material (including a kick-ass space battle that uses a version of the original series theme song) and you have the must-buy TV DVD of the week. Unfortunately, it's for Battlestar fans only. This is not the kind of made-for-TV movie that's friendly to newbies. For those in the HD-DVD camp, Season 1 of Battlestar is available this week.
Other Things of Interest: Finally, if you have $300 laying around (or $210 after applying a 30% discount), the Ford on Fox box set is enough to get any classic movie fan's mouth watering. The set contains 24 of John Ford's efforts for Fox, including a number of obscure titles, some not-so-famous early pictures, and a few genuine classics (The Grapes of Wrath, My Darling Clementine, How Green Was My Valley). This is the kind of box set that can keep a viewer busy from now until Christmas or, if found under the tree, until well into the new year. If there's a gripe, it's that some of Ford's best-known masterpieces, including the consensus pick for his pinnacle - The Searchers - aren't in this set (because they weren't made for Fox). Fortunately, they can be purchased as stand-alones. So, if you're buying this as a gift and the intended recipient doesn't have The Quiet Man, The Searchers, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, buy those three as stocking stuffers. If you're buying this set for yourself, chances are you already have the other titles.
The Nuclear Option
If the WGA strike was just about money, it would be over by now. In fact, money is only part of the equation. The other, more significant variable is power. The sides don't just want to settle; they want to win. They'll deny this, of course, but that's what it comes down to in almost any high-priced labor negotiation. That's why there was no World Series in 1994. That's why the 2007-08 TV show has shut down before 2008 begins.
As yet, the WGA strike hasn't severely impacted movies, and it won't for another few months. But let's consider the so-called "nuclear option." What if neither side gives in and this thing stretches on and on and on. What would the ultimate long-term implications be at the box office? No one knows for sure, but it's fascinating to speculate. Hopefully, we'll never have to discover whether these long-term predictions have validity.
We'll start with time lines. Many insiders and experts believe that the date when the strike starts impacting the movie industry will be around March 1. The blockbusters for 2008 are all written; March is when the writers would be needed to finish the screenplays for the summer 2009 season. If the strike lasts beyond March 2008, the probability is that no new blockbusters would be produced for the May-July 2009 period. Push the strike out to November 2008 (unlikely, admittedly) and we could be looking at no new blockbusters for all of 2009.
While blockbusters tend to take about 14 months from script to final edit, less prestigious productions can be rushed through in about six months. So if the strike ends in the summer of 2008, we might have a lean summer of 2009 in terms of high profile blockbuster, but we would be awash in smaller productions. (This could be a good thing or bad thing; depends on the quality of the scripts.) But what if 2009 became a complete write-off, with the strike progressing pat the middle of that year. What then?
The first line of defense will be a postponement of some November/December 2008 blockbusters. If it becomes apparent that the summer 2009 isn't going to have any "tent-poles," the studios are going to take a few of their big-budget holiday 2008 releases and shift them to the summer of 2009. Two likely candidates are Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (currently expected at Thanksgiving 2008) and Star Trek (currently expected at Christmas 2008). One of these will end up around Memorial Day and the other around July 4. Give them virtually no competition and we could see some truly amazing box-office results. Want to beat Titanic? That might be the way.
But what about the rest of the schedule? Let's use The Water Horse as a template. This is an "American" movie because it was made almost entirely with American money. But it was filmed in New Zealand and used British actors. If the strike goes on for a long time, there are going to be a large number of international co-productions - movies written by British and Australian writers and filmed outside of the United States. If there's a SAG strike next summer, American actors will be replaced by British, Canadian, and Australians. Since these movies typically cost Hollywood a fraction of the money of a similar "home-grown" movie, numerous such productions can be funded.
There's also the possibility of bringing in strike-breakers, although it's unclear how the other unions would react to that. If a non-WGA member writes the next Superman movie, would a member of the DGA direct it? Would SAG members appear in it? Or would the production have to be taken out of the country?
The bottom line is that the movie industry will not collapse completely. Plenty of titles originally scheduled to go direct-to-DVD will get theatrical showings. Older movies will have special repeat screenings. But multiplexes will suffer because teenagers won't be turned on by the new breed of motion pictures. These are things that will attract older viewers, but they have largely been driven away by the poor level of service and general neglect evident in most multiplexes. Theaters will close and the business as a whole will suffer. DVD sales, already slumping, will go into a nosedive once the new product is less appealing.
No one knows when the WGA strike will end, and whether next year will add potentially back-breaking DGA and SAG strikes. If the issues are resolved by March, no harm/no foul as far as movies are concerned. By June, there will be implications to late 2008 (with blockbuster push-outs) and 2009. By September/October, 2009 will start looking very bad. By January 2009, we have arrived at the nuclear option, with the entire calendar year undergoing cinematic nuclear winter. The two sides couldn't possibly be stubborn enough to let it get to that, could they? I mean, isn't that as stupid as two incompatible formats for high def DVDs cutting the heart out of that market?
If I were to guess, I'd say the strike will end in the February-March 2008 time frame. But that's just a gut feeling, and I certainly wouldn't wager money on it. And maybe we really will get to see an unscripted Oscars show...
Opening Today: December 7, 2007
To start with, I always mention September 11 when I write something on that day (usually a festival report from Toronto), so it's reasonable to note that today is December 7, FDR's "date that will live in infamy." (A.k.a. "Pearl Harbor Day." I am not recommending renting and watching the Michael Bay film as a means of commemoration.)
Now, on to the inaugural edition of the weekly "opening today" movie report, which summarizes what's showing up theatrically this weekend in the United States in limited and wide release. It's intended as a supplement to the reviews, not as a replacement. (However, there will be instances when I will mention a title here that I do not review – next week, for example.)
This weekend's biggest potential money-maker is The Golden Compass. It's opening everywhere, it features some big-name stars, its classification as "fantasy" puts it in a hot category, and it's entering a barren marketplace. Ignoring Awake, which isn't hard to do, there hasn't been anything new in wide release for more than two weeks. Thanksgiving leftovers, everything. Yet it's hard for me to envision a scenario in which The Golden Compass becomes a big success. This isn't a story to steal viewers' hearts and minds. I don't understand why, of all the fantasy series that could have been selected, New Line went after His Dark Materials. When I read the books, I recall thinking that they contained some nice ideas but, in terms of plot and character development, they weren't impressive. I don't know what New Line's "magic number" is for determining whether the other two books in the series will be transformed into movies, but if it's north of $100 million domestic, I don't think The Golden Compass will get there. Who should see it? Hard-core fantasy fans (not so much casual ones), those who are desperate for something new in multiplexes, and card-carrying members of Nicole Kidman's fan club. The Philip Pullman fans I have spoken to about the movie are either on the fence or unhappy. (They all attended last weekend's sneak preview.)
This week's best bet is showing in select theaters in major markets, but if you live in those areas, it shouldn't be hard to find. I'm referring to Atonement, from director Joe Wright and based on the Ian McEwan novel. It's a powerful film with some amazing moments and, while imperfect, it is a strong contender for placement on my end-of-the-year Top 10 list. It's as faithful to the book as one can imagine given the difficulties inherent in adapting this particular novel. Those unfamiliar with the source will not feel as if they've missed something. The movie is complete, absorbing, and stands on its own. If you can't find it playing anywhere close, it should go wider in the coming weeks.
If you're in New York or Los Angeles, Juno has opened near you today. I'll discuss it more next week when it opens wider, but if you get a chance to see it this weekend, don't miss it. And don't forget the orange tic-tacs. Grace Is Gone falls into a similar category - it's opening only in New York and Los Angeles this week. Unlike Juno, the wait for the rest of the country isn't just a week. Yes, it opens in a few extra markets on December 14, but it could be mid-January before it comes to a theater near you. Grace Is Gone is worth seeing when it arrives - just keep an eye on the movie section of your local paper.
Unfortunately, the unwatchable Revolver is opening in too many theaters - zero would be appropriate. Regardless of whether or not you consider yourself to be Guy Ritchie fan, this is something to skip. It's not fun on any level, not even on the "so bad it's good" level. It's just bad - painful and unfortunate. Not many people are going to see it (it hasn't been well marketed), so it should be here this week, gone the next. In this case, it's hard to mourn such a quick turnaround. No movie is more deserving.
Also opening only in New York and Hollywood today is Paul Schrader's The Walker. I have decided to postpone the review and discussion for next week, when it opens a wider. Actually, I haven't seen it yet (although I almost saw it in September at the Toronto Film Festival), so I can't write about it intelligently. By Monday, I will have rectified that oversight.
It's pretty obvious that this weekend's box office champion will be The Golden Compass, but the pick of the week is Atonement. Next week: Juno goes wide, The Kite Runner reaches screens, and Will Smith fills in for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"Programming" note: beginning tomorrow and for the rest of December, I will use the Saturday review spot that will eventually be reserved for DVDs as an opportunity to review 2007 releases that I have not previously written about. Tomorrow's entry will be The King of Kong. Other titles will follow on December 15, 22, and 29. In January, I'll return to "new old" reviews on Saturdays.
The Tarnished Compass
It has been widely reported that New Line Cinema staked a lot - perhaps even its solvency - on the success of The Golden Compass. Without applying any spin, the truth is that the movie underperformed. New Line may cheerlead about the film being #1 for the weekend, but that's not saying much when you consider how few people went to the multiplexes this weekend. And, not only did The Golden Compass tank in the United States, it didn't to bang-up business internationally. If this proves to be the ruination of New Line Cinema, I have only one question: What happens to the right for The Hobbit?
One thing is clear: there will be no more filmed chapters from His Dark Materials. This was a one-and-done, series interrupted. Anyone who wants to know what happens will have to read the books. Then again, so few people saw the movie (about 4 million in the U.S.) that there won't be a loud enough cry of despair about the fact that the movie ends part-way through the story. By the way, if you intend to read the series, don't skip the first book. The movie does a lot of cutting and condensing, and ends with about three chapters left to go. This is sort of like Peter Jackson leaving Shelob's Lair out of The Two Towers - except we knew we'd see it in The Return of the King. Here, the best we can hope for is that a director's edition DVD will include the footage that properly closes the first book.
One overwhelming question remains: Why His Dark Materials? New Line's stated goal with The Golden Compass was to provide an heir to The Lord of the Rings. What made them think this was it? When New Line initially announced that The Golden Compass would be their next major fantasy endeavor, I had to consult my library shelves before I realized I had read the series in early 2001, shortly after moving into my then-new house. It didn't leave much of an impression. Philip Pullman's novels contain some interesting ideas but, as fantasy, they're marginal. Thinking they could be converted into something with mass cinematic appeal was a flawed notion from the start.
What did New Line want? A family-friendly series like The Chronicles of Narnia or Harry Potter? Or a classic epic fantasy tale like The Lord of the Rings? Apparently, they thought they got both. In reality, they got neither.
It goes without saying that the best available property was The Hobbit, but the ugly situation surrounding that book has been well chronicled. Nevertheless, had New Line tried a little harder to make nice with Peter Jackson, they might have been looking at a $100 million weekend instead of a $27 million one. Still, even acknowledging that there were major problems with bringing The Hobbit to the screen near-term, there are still many, many better choices than His Dark Materials. David Eddings' The Belgariad is tailor-made for the audience New Line wanted to woo - likeable characters, no atheism, lots of magic, and a rather unoriginal plot that borrows liberally from Tolkien. (Ordinary young boy discovers his destiny is being controlled by a prophesy; he goes on a quest that will end with a showdown with The Dark God.) Because the protagonist is young, it would also have some appeal for the Harry Potter crowd. Or how about the Tolkien-esque Shannara books by Terry Brooks. Or some of Piers Anthony's early Xanth novels (before the puns got in the way). A Spell for Chameleon would seem to be an excellent choice.
Not all fantasy novels/series can be made into compelling movies. In fact, many can't. But there are some that, given a commitment from a studio, could. In addition to choosing the right material, there's something else New Line needed to provide that they didn't: the backing to make the entire series. It's a risk they took for The Lord of the Rings and it paid off big. One wonders if the reason it didn't happen with The Golden Compass is that the studio was privately concerned from the beginning about the viability of the property.
Does this represent a nail in the coffin of significant fantasy movies? No, but analysts look at this and the awful Eragon and see that the genre isn't as bullet-proof as it appeared when The Return of the King was cleaning up at the Oscars. The key is the same as it has always been: find the right story, tell it the right way, and people will come. The Lord of the Rings did that; The Golden Compass didn't. It's that simple.
The Video View: December 11, 2007
New Movies on DVD: This week, it's pretty much all Potter and Bourne. Harry's fifth adventure, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, has arrived on DVD along with Jason Bourne's third, The Bourne Ultimatum. Since the Harry Potter films are released by high-def neutral distributor Warner Brothers, they can be found in all three formats: standard DVD, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD. They can be bought singly or as part of five-movie gift sets. (All of the earlier movies are being re-released in the same three formats as the latest entry.) The Bourne Ultimatum is only available in DVD and HD-DVD. Like Harry, Jason can also be found as part of multi-movie sets, which are attractive to those who haven't bought the previous films but would like to. Moving away from the mainstream, it is worth noting that Ousmane Sembene's powerful 2004 feature, Moolaade, is finally available on DVD. For those who are admirers of this film and its director, this is a long time coming. Check out my review for more information.
TV on DVD:: Of the several TV series coming out this week, two occupy the top echelon while the rest are somewhat further down the totem pole. As faithful readers know, I gave up on Lost after its first season but fans of the show claim the program rebounded from a weak second season with a spectacular third. That third season reaches DVD (and Blu-Ray) this week. Also worthy of mention is the second season of Big Love, one of the most intriguing series around. The DVD is especially useful for those who don't have HBO, and one can make a case that the Bill Paxton series is one of the few reasons to keep subscribing to the movie network (at least until the George R.R. Martin program takes off in about three years.) Other TV shows this week: the tenth season of Frasier, the third season of Beverly Hills 90210 (of which I can proudly claim I never saw an episode), and the first season of dirt.
Other Things of Interest: There are a lot of intriguing box sets this week, and also a thing or two for baseball lovers. Both the Red Sox and the Phillies have new DVDs out this week. The Red Sox's edition celebrates the season and the World Series triumph. The Phillies' DVD is more subdued, stopping after they clinched the National League East (because there was nothing worth chronicling after that – hey, when you're a Phillies fan, you take what you can get.) Criterion is making four "Director's Best" box sets available, each containing three or four movies: Fellini, Jarmusch, Godard, and Kurosawa. All the movies in these sets have been previously released in Criterion editions, so there's no new material. They are also pricey, ranging from about $80 to $120. You have to love a director to pay that much. For those who are a little more budget conscious, there's the UA 30-Disc Deluxe Giftset. Despite the $290 price tag (it can be gotten for about $200 discounted), there's a lot here - 46 discs containing 30 movies. And a number of these are true classics (Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, The Great Escape, Twelve Angry Men, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, Fiddler on the Roof, Annie Hall, Midnight Cowboy, Rocky, Raging Bull, and a few Bonds). All of these are readily available elsewhere, but if you're just beginning a DVD collection or want to help someone else start one, it's impossible to find a better and more economical starting point. It would make an appealing holiday gift, to be sure.
Clear Blu
Consider this to be my initial first-hand report on Blu-Ray, and its nature may surprise a few people. To start, it's necessary to note that for many videophiles, the fervor that accompanies adherence to a new technology or format borders on zealotry. Some who bow at the altar of Blu-Ray will declare a jihad on anyone with the temerity to compliment HD-DVD. The opposite is equally true. So I know that by making what could be considered a pejorative statement against one of those formats could constitute a reason to go into hiding. How much more will I be at risk if I say something mildly negative about both of them? That's precisely what I'm going to do...
This isn't about Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD. Instead, it's about standard def versus high-def. Quite frankly, 1080p isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's a fair amount of hype involved when selling either high-def DVD format. That's to be expected since companies are going to do whatever they can to sell their products, even if it means practically giving away hardware.
The common in-store sales pitch goes like this: A salesperson shows you two identical TV sets showing the same movie. It's usually a recent title but not one that's too recent. On the left, you have a standard DVD of the movie. On the right, you have a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD version. The image on the right looks crisp, clear, and astoundingly better than the one on the left. There's no comparison. Time to buy the high-def player. There are a couple of details you're not being told. First, the movie chosen for the A/B comparison is usually one for which the standard DVD transfer is known to be sub-par (possibly one that has since been re-released with better video), so you're not getting the best DVD performance possible. Secondly, the DVD player is likely an old model: one that doesn't do progressive scanning (the procedure by which 480i signals are converted to 480p signals) and for which there is certainly no 1080p upconverting available. Some stores also tinker with the TV settings so that the set showing the standard DVD image may be improperly calibrated. All these things combine to degrade the standard DVD image and, by comparison, make the high-def one look so much better. Somehow, however, when you get it home, it doesn't look the same.
My experience is that the Blu-Ray image does indeed look clean, crisp, and clear. It's a beauty to behold. That wasn't a surprise. What was a little unexpected was how good many of those upconverted standard DVD images appear. Some were almost as clean, crisp, and clear as the Blu-Ray ones. When I first started watching DVDs in 1997, it took less than a month before I had boxed up all my VHS cassettes and put away my laser discs. The quality of DVD made its predecessors look shabby. That's not the case here. I can happily switch between standard and high-def without feeling that I'm missing much. Yes, the high def image is better (and given a strict choice between a Blu-Ray and a standard copy of the same title, there's no question which one I'd watch), but the delta is not world altering. A colleague mentioned he had read that the improvement is about 20% and that seems as reasonable a figure as any. As far as the audio goes... That's not my area of expertise but I can't notice much difference. (Then again, I am usually as happy with Dolby Digital as with DTS, so what do I know?)
It goes without saying that videophiles will desire a high-def player or two with all of their souls, and they will be happy with the hardware when they get it. But what about the average viewer who rents a few DVDs each month and has a small collection of movies to call his or her own? Blu-Ray/HD-DVD isn't likely to stir them to dole out the money. It lacks the "wow" factor that DVD provided. And there are those who, having been bowled over by the in-store demo, will feel cheated when things don't look that way in their living rooms. If the movie looked twice as good in the store, why does it only look 20% better now?
This is not a rant against high-def DVDs. I have my Blu-Ray player and am buying the occasional disc for it. The deal on Toshiba's HD-A30 ($240 with the discount plus 10 free HD-DVD discs) is almost too good to pass up. This is a 1080p player (unlike the cheap 720p/1080i version that Wal-Mart dumped a few weeks ago) with an effective price of about $40. If someone doesn't get me this for Christmas, I may order it from Amazon.com on the 26th. In for a penny, in for a pound, as they say. So I like high-def DVD, but I wonder – PS3 notwithstanding – whether it has mass appeal.
There are three problems. The first is the format war, which sows confusion and even a little disgust. The second is the lack of sexy titles, which limits interest. And the third is that the difference between standard DVD and high def DVD isn't going to blow many people away.
Opening Today: December 14, 2007
It's a busy weekend at the multiplex, in part because several films that have previously opened in only a few theaters are going wider. Two of those are Starting out in the Evening, an affecting tale of the relationship between an aging writer and a young woman with a great performance by Frank Langella, and The Walker, about Woody Harrelson in Paul Schrader's murder thriller about the only honorable man in Washington D.C. The third is Juno, upon which I have heaped effusive praise. This story of a witty, smart young girl who finds herself pregnant after one unplanned sexual encounter is one of the best acted and most endearing comedies of the year. It's on my end-of-the-year Top 10 list and is my pick of the week. It's opening wide enough that it should be playing at a theater near everyone.
Juno won't come close to winning the battle at the cash register. This week's box office champion will be Will Smith's I Am Legend, a generally compelling adaptation of the Richard Matheson novel and a better cinematic version than either of its predecessors (The Last Man on Earth, The Omega Man). It's a competent science fiction adventure. It loses a little steam toward the end but is worth plunking down ten hard-earned dollars. When it comes to big-budget movies, this and last week's dud, The Golden Compass, are the only players out there for the moment. (That will change next week.)
A close runner-up for pick of the week is The Kite Runner, a faithful adaptation of the bestselling novel. If you cried while reading the book, you'll likely have tears in your eyes by the movie's final frame. And if you aren't familiar with the source material, you owe it to yourself to spend two hours in a theater immersed in this examination of pre-9/11 Afghanistan.
There are a couple of high-profile movies I skipped this week. The first is Perfect Holiday, a film that seems in premise to be similar to This Christmas. After the debacle of Fred Claus, I soured on any Christmas-themed motion pictures, so don't expect me to see any more in 2007. It's galling how mediocre the field is, and I'm not just talking about this year. It's possible to count on one hand the number of good Christmas films released in the last fifteen years. Most are little more than money grabs – blatant attempts to cash in on the season. I leave them feeling like the ghost of Ebenezer Scrooge and since that's not a feeling I like, I made the decision after the Vince Vaughn debacle to give up the rest of the field for Advent. As for Alvin and the Chipmunks, I hated the squeakers when they were on TV and I don't think there's much chance that my opinion has changed. You'll have to go elsewhere for a review of that.
Next week: Nic Cage returns to go on another treasure hunt, Charlie Wilson goes to war in one of the year's best, Dewey Cox walks hard with a little help from Judd Apatow, and Johnny Depp turns in his pirate garb for a few straight razors and a singing lesson or two.
The Empty Box
When I was a child, the two most unfriendly terms that came with Christmas morning gifts were "batteries not included" and "some assembly required." For the most part, my parents were good about having a small mountain of AA, AAA, C, and D cells around so nearly any toy could be accommodated. (These days, many toys come with an initial supply of batteries.) I can recall one Christmas, however, when something left under the tree demanded a 9-Volt battery, and there were none to be found in the house. For a while, it looked like I would have to wait until December 26 to play with the toy (an eternity for a child), but there was a 7/11 open nearby and they had 9-Volt batteries, so the day was saved.
Then, in 1977, something strange happened - not to me but to my next door neighbor. 1977, as most readers are aware, was the year of Star Wars. The movie created an unexpected firestorm of merchandising and no one (least of all Kenner, which owned the toy license) was prepared for the demand. For Christmas, every SW fan was clamoring for "action figures" (a.k.a., little plastic dolls with moving arms and legs), but they didn't yet exist. Some brilliant marketer had an idea: sell empty boxes with promissory notes that could be redeemed for the real action figures when they rolled off the assembly line. Parents loved this idea. Kids, not so much. Nevertheless, 600,000 of these "I.O.U." packages were purchased. In 1978, Kenner sold more than 42 million of the actual action figures.
The SW merchandise I got that Christmas was confined to towels and bed sheets. However, Tom (the guy next door) got an empty box. He was not as excited as his parents expected him to be. Ideas like "wait a few months" or "have patience" don't work too well with young boys, and there's not a lot of playing to be done with an empty box. It's worse than having no batteries when batteries are required and being unable to assemble something for which assembly is required. No matter how hard you shook the empty box upside down, nothing fell out except a few lousy stickers and a "membership card." It was a real bummer.
For the record, Tom got his Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker, R2-D2, and Chewbacca action figures the next spring, in (I believe) late March or early April. (Those were the four original figures for which the I.O.U.'s were valid.) I remember how excited he was the day they arrived in the mail, but by then Christmas was a long-dormant memory. I hardly ever slept on my SW sheets after those first few nights (they were too rough) and I had moved to a plusher bath towel. I didn't get my action figures until my birthday in September, by which time they were readily available. For the next Christmas (1978), my parents got me a bunch of the Cantina creatures, which were supposedly difficult to obtain. I think my mother ordered them through the Sears catalog, but I can't be sure. At any rate, come Christmas morning, I had toys to play with rather than an empty box.
Now, perhaps in honor of the 30th anniversary of Star Wars, this marketing approach has been exhumed. This time, it's for Nintendo's Wii. The problem for the video game system is that demand exceeds supply (more about that in a moment). So there are three possibilities for eager Santas: get something else for the kids, go through hoops to find a Wii (most likely possibility - pay about $200 over list for one on e-Bay), or go to Game Stop, which is offering "rain checks." What is a rain check? It's a promise that some time in January, there will be a real Wii available for anyone who pays in advance. But on Christmas morning, all that will be under the tree is an empty box. Want to make matters worse? Buy the kids a game that they can't use until the Wii arrives. Now, their Christmas morning consists of an empty box and a game they can't play. That bummer makes my friend's absent SW figures seem like a dose of good cheer.
One has to wonder about the intelligence of the executives at Nintendo. They have a winner on their hands and they've blown it. Estimates are that they will lose up to $1.3 billion in sales because of equipment shortfalls. That money will fall into the outstretched hands of Sony (PS3) and Microsoft (XBOX 360). What's hard to fathom is how this has gone on for so long. This was an understandable problem last Christmas, when the console was new. But a year later...? Given twelve long months, how could production not have been ramped up to meet demand? Now, people are simply giving up. That's a marketing strategy worth trying: underproduce the unit, frustrate would-be buyers, then offer them an empty box for under the Christmas tree. Way to go, Nintendo.
No matter how hot a toy or video game system might be, here's a rule of thumb: it's better to have something tangible in that neatly wrapped package, even if it's not #1 on the wish list, than it is to have an box full of promises and I.O.U.'s.
The Video View: December 18, 2007
New Movies on DVD: This is the last chance for distributors to get their movies onto store shelves before the holidays, so there are a fair number of late-summer, high-profile titles debuting this week. After today, things get quiet for a while. The biggest bully on the block is The Simpsons Movie, which will have no trouble making the transition from the big screen to the little one. One could argue, in fact, that it will play better on a TV set, where the characters belong. Another film that won't be injured much by going smaller is one of 2007's Little Indies That Could: Once. A small musical that became known more for its soundtrack than its screenplay, the DVD arrival provides an opportunity for everyone to see it once or once and again. Rob Zombie's Halloween continues its bizarre chronology by heading to DVD at Christmastime. Consider this: a movie named "Halloween" arrived in theaters at the end of August, was gone from multiplexes by early October, then came out on DVD in December. Didn't someone think there might be value in synchronizing the movie with its namesake holiday? Wouldn't it have made sense to hold back the DVD until next October? Also on video: the enjoyable fantasy Stardust and the pallid and pointless Rush Hour 3. (Have people finally gotten tired of this lifeless series?) Finally, if you have kids, avoid the urge to buy them Underdog. There are plenty of other, better options available. This is a live-action money-grab designed to tweak the nostalgia of those who watched the "Underdog" cartoon. It wasn't all that good in short, animated sequences, but it's immeasurably worse when blown up and stretched out.
TV on DVD:: This week, there's almost nothing new when it comes to TV on DVD. The lone entry: The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones Volume 2. I guess it's for completists. The whole Indiana Jones canon contained one truly memorable adventure: Raiders of the Lost Ark. Everything else was disappointing, repetitive, trite, or some combination of the three. And the TV series, the second piece of which is presented here, didn't even have Harrison Ford.
Other Things of Interest: The big release this week is Blade Runner. The so-called "final cut" is available in countless versions: two-disc, four-disc, five-disc, collector's editions with swag, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, and so on... If you love Blade Runner, this is as "don't miss" as it gets. The centerpiece of all the versions is a newly remastered version of the film that's close in content and approach to the 1992 "Director's Cut" but has been carefully re-edited and touched up to eliminate errors both small and large. The five-disc versions contain no less than five cuts of the movie (the Final Cut, the Theatrical Cut, the International Cut, the Director's Cut, and the so-called "Workprint"). It also includes over 60 minutes of deleted scenes. Discs two and four are packed with extras and documentaries so those who want to immerse themselves in Blade Runner lore will get their chance. Over the years, only a few movies have gotten this sort of exhaustive treatment - this is one of the best box sets around and is worth purchasing as a gift either for someone else or yourself.
"Special" Features
When DVDs first arrived in the late 1990s, there were three big selling points: superior audio and video (at least compared to VHS and laserdisc), more compact packaging, and special features. It's the third advantage of DVD that I want to discuss here. Like everyone else, I was gung-ho about the early special features on some discs. One of my favorites was Little Shop of Horrors, which featured a rough cut of the entire 20-minute deleted ending. (This disc was pulled after being on shelves for about four days, but I was one of the lucky customers to get a copy.) There were gems like this on many 1997 and 1998 discs. Somewhere, however, things started to change.
Nowadays, the average "special features" amount to little more than promotional material for a movie. Want to learn about the behind-the-scenes controversies? Don't look to the special features, where the shoot will be presented as the greatest work environment in the history of Hollywood. And, while most discs contain deleted scenes, often the most interesting ones are omitted. DVD special features often include games and quizzes and similar things that appeal to 9-year-olds. This is understandable if it's a Disney disc, but on something that's rated PG-13?
For the most part, I no longer watch special features. Rarely do they reveal anything of interest, so slogging through them becomes an exercise in tedium. When I buy a DVD, I buy it for the movie so, of late, I have taken to buying the cheaper movie-only versions. Unless there's something truly compelling to be found on the second disc of a two-disc set, I'll save the $3-5 that separates the slim version from the fat one.
It is, of course, folly to dismiss all special features. There are worthwhile ones to be found; the trouble is sifting through the dross. Nearly all of the supplemental material on Criterion discs is worthwhile. (Considering the premium price paid for these titles, that had better be the case.) One supplement to look for is a documentary about the making of the movie. I'm not talking about a fluff piece or a made-for-HBO marketing package. Instead, I'm referring to an all-access, warts-and-all look at the planning, creation, and marketing of a movie. Often, such documentaries are as long or longer than the feature itself. One of the best of these, Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse chronicles the nightmarish shoot of Apocalypse Now. However, for reasons known only to a few (greedy) people, this is not a special feature on any of the AN box sets; it has to be purchased separately.
Once in a while, a lot of effort is put into a collector's edition boxed set, making the term more than a mere marketing ploy. Sometimes, it can take over a year assembling the materials. The wait, once it's over, is invariably worth it. For the rest of this column, I'm going to mention some of the best of the best. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list. In fact, I'm only going to discuss four (or nine, depending on how you count) titles. There are others out there, most of which I own. For me, though, these are at the top of my list, not necessarily because they're the best movies but because the most care and attention has been lavished on their complete DVD presentation. (By the way, had Hearts of Darkness been included in the most recent Apocalypse Now Special Edition, it would have been included in this short list. The omission is glaring and unforgivable. It's a slap in the face to have to pay an additional $20 for it.)
Brazil: Brazil is the granddaddy of this kind of special edition, and it's still one of the best. Initially released on laserdisc by Criterion, this migrated to DVD as a 3-disc package filled with goodies, including two radically different versions of the film and tons of supplemental information that details, blow-by-blow, the "Battle for Brazil." One of the most infamous instances of a director losing control of the final product, Brazil stands as an example of how studio interference can change a movie. This set not only provides all the behind-the-scenes details but allows you to view the cut the studio preferred and the one director Terry Gilliam laid claim to. The set is pricey (around $50), but it has been cut in half from what it was on laserdisc. I like it so much that I bought it twice – once on LD and more recently on DVD.
Alien Quadrology: For fans of Alien and its sometimes-brilliant, sometimes-disappointing sequels, this is the set to own. In addition to providing a full documentary about each of the four movies in the series, it offers extended cuts and other assorted goodies. There's virtually nothing about the Alien series that can't be found on the nine-disc package. And the best thing of all: now that a few years have passed since its original release, this set can be had for a paltry $30. That's less than $4 per disc.
The Lord of the Rings: There are three box sets: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. Each four-disc version provides an extended cut of the film (complete with enhanced audio and video) and a two-disc documentary exploring every phase of the production. They are available separately or as a 12-disc uber-box set of the trilogy. One can debate the merits of the extended cuts versus the theatrical versions. (I would argue that the longer Fellowship and Return are superior, but the shorter Two Towers is better.) Much has been written about the care and effort put into these special editions by director Peter Jackson and it shows. About $65 for the three films combined is still an extraordinarily good deal. (It's also worth noting that these films were mastered so well that they look good upconverted to 1080p. They're among the most impressive standard DVDs I have seen to-date. The mouth waters at the thought of how this might look if available in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.)
Blade Runner: This is the release that prompted me to write this. For fans of the movie, it's the holy grail. Five discs, five versions of the movie. Plus 45 minutes of deleted scenes and about 9 hours worth of supplemental material. This is one of the most important movies to come out in the last 25 years and this new, meticulously researched box set allows you to savor every aspect of it. Fans have groused for years about the lack of something definitive. This is it. Blade Runner aficionados who get this on the 25th won't emerge from their home theater until New Year's Day. The full five-disc version (without the nifty silver case) is available in Blu-Ray and HD-DVD for under $30. For standard DVD, to get the full thing, you have to buy the silver case (about $55) or you can get the four-disc edition (which contains everything except the "workprint," for $23).
If nothing else, a few readers may have come up with last-minute Christmas gift ideas...
Opening Today: December 21, 2007
The theaters runneth over. No matter what your likes and dislikes may be, there's something out there for you. Virtually every genre is represented: chick flicks, romances, serious dramas, comedy, horror, music, adventure, action, family fare, and so on. And as crowded a field as it is today, just wait a half-week and multiplexes and art-houses alike will be bursting at the seams. The downside is that after next week, things take a major downturn. It's entirely possible that for the first two weekends of January, nothing will be shown to critics. That will mean a lot of Friday/Saturday reviews.
A brief word about last week's box office. I expected a big weekend from I Am Legend, but the success of Alvin and the Chipmunks caught me (and almost everyone else) by surprise. If nothing else, this illustrates how badly mothers and fathers want to be able to find something "appropriate" to take their kids to see. The nostalgia element played into it as well with parents being able to flash back to their own childhoods. It raises the question of what a good movie with family and nostalgic appeal could make. Or maybe quality is irrelevant in this situation.
What about this week? I have to admit being disappointed by a lot of what's coming out. The pick of the week is Charlie Wilson's War, the sanitized but primarily true tale of how the United States ended up in a covert war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Regardless of whether or not Aaron Sorkin's script was toned down, the final result is nevertheless smart, compelling, and at times very funny. Aside from Julia Roberts' curiously lackluster performance, I can't find many negative things to say about this movie. It's not the greatest drama of the year but, because the films of 2007 have underwhelmed, this one stands a good chance of creeping into my Top 10.
The unquestionable box office champ will be National Treasure: Book of Secrets. This film, a virtual clone of its predecessor, is as dumb and predictable as movies get. It's an example of when people confuse action and movement with excitement. (The film has plenty of the former but none of the latter.) Nevertheless, people seem to enjoy turning off their minds and watching the pretty lights, so I'll concede that the worst picture of the week will be the most popular. But, as was observed with Transformers, there's no relationship between quality and popularity. (A lesson many of us learned in high school...)
A lot of people are going to like Sweeney Todd more than I did. I'm not knowledgeable about the musical (never having seen it on or off Broadway or having listened to a cast recording), so that limits my intrinsic desire to enjoy the film. I found it to be a mixed bag but I will concede that those who number themselves among the Sondheim faithful will appreciate the Burton/Depp interpretation. My wife loves the musical and I was concerned that when she saw the **1/2 review, she wouldn't speak to me for a week.
Walk Hard is an adequate comedy. It's not as good as the best from co-writer Judd Apatow's pen, but it's an improvement over many of the generic spoofs that have become increasingly tiresome over the last 25 years. (I'm referring to the likes of Date Movie and Epic Movie in particular.) There are laughs to be found here, and you don't have to wait too long for them. On balance, I thought Charlie Wilson's War was funnier but I'm not going to deny the amusement value of Walk Hard.
Finally, there's the makes-me-want-to-puke sentimentality of P.S. I Love You. The review says all that needs to be said. The film is going for the Ghost audience. In a less crowded marketplace, it might have a shot at attracting an audience, but with everything that's out there, it's likely to be D.0.A, which is what it deserves to be.
Those are this weekend's choices. Have fun. I'll be back next Wednesday (taking Tuesday off) with the year's final contenders for box office and awards glory.
Rewinding 2007: The Performances
In recent years, I have taken to splitting my end-of-the-year comments into three sections. Before addressing the best ten performances of the year, however, I want to make a general comment about the overall quality of the 2007 product. This is the sixteenth year in which I have written more than 180 reviews, and it's hard to find a less inspiring twelvemonth. In the period of 1992-2007, there hasn't been a more lackluster, disappointing year for theatrical releases. Your mileage may vary, but that's the way I see it. There were no four-star movies or candidates for my all-time Top 100. I had trouble finding titles to fill the bottom two spots of my end-of-the-year Top 10. (The two I chose plus three honorable mentions seemed to be relatively weak choices.) Of entries into this year's Top 10, only three would have made it onto 2006's list (with all except one title falling into the 6-10 slots).
This doesn't mean there were no good movies in 2007. In fact, I handed out 22 three-and-one-half star ratings, which means I labeled 22 movies as being "highly recommended." Another 72 achieved "recommended" status (three stars). Statistically, those numbers are comparable or in some cases better than in recent years. But you know the saying: "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Numbers don't always tell the whole story and all ***1/2 films are not created equal. So why was 2007 weaker? I can offer a three-pronged hypothesis. First, the number of true independent productions continues to dwindle. Second, with mainstream Hollywood fare on the upsurge, foreign films are being squeezed out as well. Finally, Hollywood loves playing it safe so that's what they do - make movies that are targeted at specific audience demographics. Formulas rule the day and it's rare that a studio will take a chance. A few movies with this mentality have always been welcomed. We all enjoy a little "vanilla" entertainment from time-to-time. But it can become tiresome when nearly every movie fits this model.
In the normal course of things, I don't see any changes for 2008, although there could be a four-star film or two lurking out there. But, if the WGA strike continues for a long time and those picketers are joined by their brethren from the DGA and/or SAG, 2009 could turn out to be a very interesting year. For those who are looking for things to be shaken up, a long strike might be the best thing to happen... I'll give up my blockbusters for a year or two if it means an overall increase in quality.
As is my preference when it comes to performances I do not differentiate between supporting and leading roles nor do I separate actors from actresses. These are the ten I have selected as the best of 2007, presented alphabetically (to avoid me having to rank one above another). Matthew Amalric (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly): One of the toughest parts for any actor to accept is one in which paralysis is involved. Admittedly, Amalric gets to move during the flashback sequences but, for the most part, his character is developed during those sequences in which only one eye can blink. This requires displaying emotion purely through the eyes – a difficult task for all but the most accomplished actors. It's an amazing film made all that more amazing by the central performance. Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men): Bardem has had an odd year. His work in No Country for Old Men deserves recognition as one of the best performances - creepy, bizarre, single-minded - but he also provided two of 2007's worst portrayals (in Goya's Ghosts and Love in the Time of Cholera. For the purposes of this column, however, let's dwell on the good. Bardem took an off-kilter character in the Coen Brother's latest motion picture and transformed him into an unforgettable monster who is so fascinating that he commands the screen every moment when he's on it. Bardem may not play the movie's lead, but he's the one you won't forget after the credits have rolled. Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose): A minority of critics have condemned Cotillard's interpretation of Edith Piaf as "mimicry." To me, such a label does her a major injustice. There's a lot more going on here than a mere impersonation. Cotillard is re-inventing the historical figure and, in doing so, she is paying homage to the real Piaf by matching her gestures and body language as closely as possible. However, this is also a full-fledged performance in the traditional sense, full of passion and anguish. It's great acting and the superior old-age makeup only enhances her work. Philip Seymour Hoffman (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, The Savages, Charlie Wilson's War): In 2007, Philip Seymour Hoffman gave three tremendous performances and it's both difficult and unfair to single one out. If I had to pick one, I'd give a slight edge to The Savages, but that's only because he has more lines and screen time than in the other two. If Hoffman hadn't already established himself as one of his generation's premier actors, this year would have accomplished that. Frank Langella (Starting out in the Evening): Every once in a while, an aging actor steps out of virtual obscurity and astounds with a performance of such depth and richness that it deserves to be recognized. Such is the case here for Langella. His acting in Starting out in the Evening causes one to take notice. The problem may be locating a print of the movie to watch. This is one of 2007's few genuine indies and it's not getting the distribution that is its due. Hopefully, Langella will be recognized with an Oscar nomination and that will encourage more viewers to see his work. Laura Linney (The Savages): Linney more than holds her own against Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Savages and, if nothing else, that deserves notice. It's also the best work Linney has done in several years, and she rarely (if ever) makes bad choices. She's very good in her other 2007 film, Jindabyne, but The Savages is her crown jewel. Her scenes with Hoffman represent some of the best give-and-take of any picture this year. Ulrich Mühe (The Lives of Others): Sadly, Mühe died in July of this year, depriving the world of more performances by an actor who had just left an international calling-card. At least he lived long enough to see his film win the Best Foreign Language Oscar. Since most of Mühe's career was spent in movies that didn't make it to the United States, I can't speak for his long body of work but, if his performance in The Lives of Others is an indication, he was a powerful and gifted thespian. Ellen Page (Juno): Page is the only actor to make this list two years in a row. Last year, I singled her out for Hard Candy. In 2007, she's back as the smart, incisive title character of a movie that's building momentum at the right time. The supporting cast in Juno is good, but this is Page's movie and it will put her on the map in a way that Hard Candy didn't. She has a lot of projects in the can and in progress, so there will be more of her to see in the near future. Christina Ricci (Black Snake Moan): There's a lot more to Ricci's performance than meets the eye (or involves disrobing), just as there's a lot more to Black Snake Moan than one might initially suppose. "Courage" is often an overused term when describing an actor in a certain performance, but I would argue that it applies here. Some have dismissed Black Snake Moan as a modern exploitation flick but that's too facile a description and, no matter how one views it, it's hard to deny that this is Ricci's most compelling and risky work to date. Carice van Houten (Black Book): Van Houten is well known in the Netherlands, where she has done a great deal of screen, television, and stage work, but this was her first widely distributed film in the United States. Film critics often lament the lack of strong female characters; with Black Book, van Houten gives us reason to applaud. Put her alongside Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton and the Action Heroine Hall of Fame. In Black Book, her forceful, nuanced performance caused director Paul Verhoeven to state that she is the most talented actress he has ever worked with.
Opening This Week: December 26, 2007
It used to be that Christmas was one of the year's most prestigious days for opening a movie. This was the day when true Oscar aspirants bowed. No longer, however. Now, a few movies get dumped unceremoniously into theaters but, for the most part, it's just another day on the release schedule. Most of the big Oscar guns have already fired their wads: Juno, No Country for Old Men, Atonement, Into the Wild, and The Kite Runner are all out there. The only award bait entry joining them on Christmas is The Great Debaters. The other two wide releases this week are a bloody awful science fiction sequel and a family movie about the Loch Ness Monster.
My pick of the week is The Great Debaters, which is less pious and more dramatically powerful than the commercials might lead one to believe. Whoever was hired to market this film should be fired. If I made a decision whether or not to see a movie based on the 30-second snippets on TV, there's no chance I would venture into a multiplex for The Great Debaters. Shame on the advertisers, since they have reduced what is easily one of the year's 15 best movies into something that only Oprah Winfrey fans would want to see. At any rate, my advice is to ignore what you may have seen and suppress what you think you know about this movie and see it. Odds are, you'll thank me.
My avoid at all costs citation for the week (not something I issue every week) goes to Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, the unwatchable sequel to the 2004 abomination, Alien vs. Predator. I guess that movie made money, so, as night follows day, we are thoughtfully provided with another one. This time around, the studio hired less competent actors, directors, and screenwriters in an effort to see whether a high-profile motion picture with no redeeming values might generate enough box office to make it worth the obviously small budget. At any rate, while Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem may top the box office for new releases, it won't finish #1. National Treasure will retain the box office champion crown for the second week in a row.
New release #3 is The Water Horse, a cute but sometimes clunky story of a boy who befriends the Loch Ness Monster. It's entirely suitable for families but probably won't get many into theaters. Parents will be too busy taking their offspring to Alvin and the Chipmunks for a movie like this to have much of a chance. Maybe it will be "discovered" once it makes its way to DVD - if, that is, the distributors spend enough money to make potential viewers aware of its existence. Sightings of TV spots have been as rare as glimpses of the actual monster.
There are also a few limited releases this week, all of which will spread out across the country in the next few weeks. The Bucket List is one of those movies that was made exclusively with the goal of snagging nominations. If you look carefully, you'll see "Oscar nominee" tattooed on the foreheads of both Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. The film is a decent tear-jerker, but hardly groundbreaking stuff. It opens wide in two weeks (January 11). There Will Be Blood is Paul Thomas Anderson's long-awaited follow-up to Punch Drunk Love. This one stars Daniel Day-Lewis in a partial adaptation of Upton Sinclair's Oil!. Oscar buzz has been strong for this one; however, while it has some great moments and performances, the movie feels overlong and falls apart in its final quarter. It's good but not great. It opens wide next weekend (January 4). Finally, there's The Orphanage, but I'll discuss that next week as it begins its slow crawl across the nation's theaters.
Speaking of next week, it's going to be slow, with only one major new release - a horror movie not being screened for critics (One Missed Call). So if you're feeling overwhelmed by the sheer volume of titles out there, you have a couple of weeks to catch up.
I'll be back with ReelThoughts tomorrow and Friday featuring the Bottom 10 and Top 10, respectively.
Rewinding 2007: The Bottom 10
People ask if it's fun compiling a Bottom 10 list. Yes and no. It's not fun being reminded of the year's dregs but it is fun getting in a parting shot at them. All Bottom 10 lists must be taken with a king-sized grain of rock salt. For major outlets, there's a lot of politics involved. Anyone who puts Pirates 3 on their Bottom 10 list is doing it not because it's really one of the worst movies of 2007 but because it was perceived by the general public as a disappointment. Major publications want to list films that everyone has heard of not obscure titles that came and went in a week. For other sources, the productions are usually drawn from an incomplete roster. When I assemble a list of movies I plan to review over the course of the next week/month/whatever, I try my best to include everything that could be considered "good" or "prestigious." Often, if a film has horrible buzz or isn't being screened for critics or just looks abominable, I may skip it (unless the roster is so thin – like in January – that I need to have something to write about). Obviously, if I don't see something, it can't appear on an end-of-the-year list. It's much more likely that I will miss titles that could be relegated to the Bottom 10 than the Top 10. So, for what it's worth, here is my Bottom 10 of 2007 (or, more accurately, the Worst 10 Movies I Saw in 2007). As is my fashion, I do these in reverse order, with the "worst worst" appearing at #1.
#10: License to Wed: There was a time when Robin Williams was drop-dead funny, but with each passing year that seems to be longer and longer ago. Then he got off the booze and drugs. Now, he's just a desperate middle-aged man trying to make people laugh, but the fuel's exhausted and the chamber's empty. However, nothing he has done to date has been as cringe-worth as this "comedy." Even Patch Adams wasn't so painful. In fact, put a couple of those cancer kids in Licence to Wed and it might improve the production. This is the first movie that has made me consider whether it's time for Williams to retire. He's looking more and more like the star athlete who has decided to keep playing until his arms and legs fall off.
#9: Primeval: Speaking of losing arms and legs... Going into Primeval, I was ready to get into the spirit of things. I watched a few Discovery Channel specials with dumb TV show hosts who swim with the crocs (and will probably get eaten some day – serves them right). The problem is, somewhere along the way, Primeval loses the monster movie angle and morphs into another picture - something about revolutions and genocide. The crocodile, perhaps pissed that he's being overlooked, tries to draw attention back to himself by eating a few people, but the damage has already been done. Imagine a marriage of Hotel Rwanda and Godzilla and you have a pretty good idea of the pleasures offered here.
#8: Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem: Are these the same aliens and predators that used to have their own individual franchises and, when directed by the likes of Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and John McTiernan, were actually dangerous? To call them a "shadow" of their old selves is to understate matters (even considering how weak those old selves got in things like Predator 2 and Alien: Resurrection). Of course, "shadow" is an appropriate term for this murky excuse for a motion picture because everything is so dark that shadows are the only things that can be seen. For those who love bad dialogue spoken into the darkness, the movie has more than its share of classic moments. If you close your eyes, you'll get roughly the same amount of visual information as if you keep them open.
#7: Revolver: Must be the Kabbalah. This Guy's first two movies were pretty cool in a bang bang sort of way. Then he married an over-the-hill Madonna and it all went to hell. Swept Away was almost unforgivable (especially considering how it raped its source material), but Revolver proves without a shadow of a doubt that either Matthew Vaughn was the real talent behind Ritchie or his new religion (and/or wife) has sucked him dry. Arguably the most muddled gangster movie of all time, this one had me praying for God to intervene and end my suffering before the halfway mark. If this is intended as divine punishment, it is amazingly effective. I never saw it coming and, halfway through, I desperately wanted to repent of a life spent watching movies like this one.
#6: Hannibal Rising: This movie teeters on the brink of being so bad that it's good. It's possible to have a lot of fun with it and it delivers one unintentional laugh after another. In the end, however, it's just too dumb and preposterous to avoid this list. We all had a good time howling our way through the press screening, though. Consider how far this series has fallen in just four installments. Really, they should have stopped after one. I'm expecting the next sequel to be called Hannibal versus Michael Myers. Thomas Harris, who seemingly has no shame, is probably already writing the novel.
#5: Kickin' It Old Skool: After seeing this, I felt pummeled and kicked, although I don't know if the punishment was old school, new school, or something in between. I guess all the laughs from Kickin' It Old School ended up in Hannibal, because they're not here. This movie challenges Epic Movie (see #4) as the most unfunny comedy of the year. If you want an example of the film's cleverness, look at the way the title is spelled. That's about as good as it gets. In the original review, I wrote something about Kickin' It Old Skool making the old Dudley Moore/Kirk Cameron movie Like Father Like Son seem enjoyable by comparison. Need I say more?
#4: Epic Movie: The only thing "epic" about this movie is its badness. I was warned about this film beforehand, but I held out a vain hope that there might be some laughs in there somewhere. And a few of the twelve-year olds in the audience giggled. Once or twice. Or maybe that was my imagination.
#3: I Know Who Killed Me: Here's one thing I don't understand. Lindsay Lohan has been photographed by the paparazzi wearing no underwear and in sheer tops. She has shown the entire world just about everything she has to offer. A Playboy spread would be a step in the direction of class and modesty. But when it comes to playing the role of a stripper in a movie, she won't take her clothing off. Does that make any sense? As it is, there's nothing here unless you're doing a sociological study on how a once promising young actress has thrown away all her talent. At least this represents rock bottom. Short of appearing in a porn movie, it's hard to imagine her doing anything worse. Then again, maybe I'm underestimating her...
#2: Norbit: Karma in action. According to all of my sources in Hollywood, Eddie Murphy is not a nice man. Ask the Spice Girl he impregnated if you want confirmation. At any rate, early this year, it seemed a lock that Mr. Murphy would run away with the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his work in Dreamgirls, but something happened on the way to the coronation. Norbit - a stupid, unfunny, painful "comedy" - was released into theaters. Academy voters were not amused. Although there's no proof, it is widely suspected that Norbit torpedoed Murphy's Oscar. Don't believe me? Sit through this shipwreck and you'll have no doubts afterward. There is, however, one individual who believes Norbit is the best movie of 2007: Alan Arkin.
#1: Captivity: Trapped alone in a dark room with nowhere to hide from the seemingly endless torture... Is this Captivity or the experience of watching it? Easily the worst movie in several years, this is one of those rare movies that left me feeling unclean. Movies almost never offend me but this one did, not only because of its misogyny but because it intentionally blurred Elisha Cuthbert's nude scene, depriving us of ten seconds of potentially watchable footage. I have written that Captivity is in Freddy Got Fingered territory, but there's one difference I can think of. Freddy has a single, fleeting moment of near-genius. Captivity can't claim anything close.
Rewinding 2007: The Top 10
I have previously mentioned that I believe this to be a weak Top 10. Let me clarify: every movie on the list deserves to be there. They are, in my view, the ten best movies of 2007. However, the list as a whole does not stand up favorably to past Top 10's. That doesn't mean this year's candidates are unworthy; all are excellent movies. But every Top 10 is a function of the year in which it is compiled and 2007's crop of movies impressed me less than that of any recent year. That's all I meant by stating that this is a weak Top 10. As usual with my lists, the best is last.
Runners Up: Bridge to Terabithia, The Kite Runner, Lust, Caution.
#10: Charlie Wilson's War: After posting my initial review of Charlie Wilson's War, I was informed by a reader that Aaron Sorkin's original screenplay had been considerably softened to increase mainstream appeal and to appease the actual Charlie Wilson, who was unhappy about how he was being portrayed. Irrespective of how historically accurate the movie may be (never let the facts get in the way of a good story) or how much of Sorkin's script was neutered, the result is still an excellent character study/cautionary tale. The central events happened pretty much as portrayed, the politics of the situation are as murky as ever, and the movie is filled with delightfully comedic moments and brilliant one-liners. There's also a surprising amount of insight here, especially for those who read between the lines (and it's not at all difficult to do so).
#9: Namesake, The: Mira Nair's ambitious adaptation of Jhumpa Lahiri's novel condenses 25 years and two generations into two hours. A lot of movies try to do this; few have the success that Nair achieves. The Namesake tells a single, coherent story that involves many characters and illustrates the inherent conflicts of meshing old cultures with new ones. It's a battle that every immigrant must confront at one time or another - how much to assimilate and how much to preserve the "old ways." It's rare for a motion picture to present such a clear and effective view of the situation from all sides. However, while The Namesake impresses with its approach to issues, this is first and foremost a character study, and an excellent one at that. It stars Kal Penn who is quickly evolving far beyond the Kumar role that first brought him to the public's attention.
#8: Atonement: Perhaps the most impressive thing about Atonement is that director Joe Wright succeeded in doing what many thought to be impossible: creating a faithful adaptation of Ian McEwan's novel. The movie is essentially divided into two "books," the first of which takes place on an English estate and the second of which occurs during World War II. The first act is better than the second but both have their emotional and visual high points. The epilogue pulls everything together while simultaneously delivering a harsh emotional punch. Atonement is not a happy movie, but it provides an experience the likes of which was difficult to find in any other theater during the 2007 calendar year.
#7: Gone Baby Gone: The majority of movies in my Top 10 are adaptations of well respected novels, and Gone Baby Gone is no exception. For a while, this seems to be a well-constructed but straightforward thriller but then the story introduces a moral quandary for which both sides are effectively argued. The film's conclusion leaves questions and issues wide open and invites the viewer to play along with the characters. This is the kind of movie that will have audience members arguing over coffee following the screening. It's a rare thing for any movie to provoke a discussion these days so when something accomplishes this, it's worth singling out.
#6: Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The: Maybe I'm a sucker for films about severely disabled individuals because I like seeing how a brilliant mind, limited by physical handicaps, can function undiminished. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has two amazing facets: the development of powerful lead character, played brilliantly by Matthew Almaric, and a detailed view of how he became able to write an entire book when his only means of communication was by blinking one eye. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, from painter-turned-director Julian Schnabel, offers fodder for the mind and the emotions.
#5: Black Book: Fed up with the limitations of the Hollywood system, Paul Verhoeven went home and the result is one of the best movies of his career. Filled with emotional ambiguities and stereotype contradictions, Black Book is a rousing World War II adventure with one of the strongest female leads to grace movie screens in a long time. Its willingness to concede that some Nazis may not have been evil and some resistance workers may have been self-centered and avaricious has provoked negative reactions to the film in some areas, but it's precisely Verhoeven's willingness to venture into those gray areas that makes this motion picture more than a standard-order black-and-white action/adventure film.
#4: Juno: She's not named after the city in Alaska; she's named after the wife of Jupiter. When Jason Reitman, Diablo Cody, and Ellen Page embarked upon the making of this wonderful, smart, funny comedy, the concept of taking the movie to the Oscars might have seemed an Olympian task. Now, it's a virtual certainty that the production will be represented in multiple categories. It deserves nominations for Lead Actress, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Picture, Director, and Original Screenplay. This is one of 2007's most delightful gems and, because it's not playing in every multiplex across the country, it still feels like a "find." The dialogue is witty and clever and stands up to multiple viewing. Most of the time, when I see a film four times, I'm a little tired of it (even if I like it a lot). I could easily sit through Juno a fifth time with no difficulty.
#3: Into the Wild: Had Sean Penn elected to make this little more than a condemnation of modern living, it wouldn't have worked for me. Instead, Into the Wild illustrates that while there are problems with the way the world works today, those who haughtily think they can walk into the wilderness and reject society will eventually learn to their detriment that it's the sharing of life's little pleasures that make them worth experiencing. Into the Wild is a road picture that is essentially a group of vignettes strung together. Some are little more than character pieces. Others illustrate one truth or another. In the end, the feeling is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Lead actor Emile Hirsch is powerful, but the acting show is stolen by Hal Holbrook, whose brief turn as a lonely old man brings tears to the eyes.
#2: No Country for Old Men: Leave it to the Coen Brothers to burn an imprint deeply on an adaptation of a Cormac McCarthy novel. Hypnotizing, tense, weirdly funny, tragic, and never predictable, this story unwinds at its own pace over a two-hour span. The ending, which concludes the story but not the lives of the characters, resolutely refuses to offer a catharsis and finishes with a moment so ambiguous that some members of the audience may feel cheated. For me, it's the perfect final note to such a varied and unusual symphony. For Coen fans looking to classify this, it's more Fargo than Raising Arizona, but no matter how you categorize it, No Country for Old Men, like Javier Bardem's scene-stealing supporting performance, is brilliant. It's the best American film of 2007.
#1: Lives of Others, The: Some may argue for The Lives of Others being a 2006 film, but I have already written extensively about why I don't buy that. With its powerfully delineated themes of control and redemption, this is 2007's most compelling motion pictures. There's nothing in it that doesn't work superbly. It satisfies in every way - emotionally, intellectually, and thematically. It is made by an adept filmmaker featuring actors (including the late Ulrich Mühe) at the tops of their game. It's one of the best-ever internationally released films made about the Cold War era in East Germany. I knew when I saw this movie in January that it would be in the Top 10 in December. Watching it after its mid-year DVD release confirmed my belief that it was going to take an amazing example of cinema to knock this from its perch at the top of my 2007 movie list. The Lives of Others was the seventh film I saw in 2007. Two-hundred movies later, nothing has topped it.
By the Numbers
In the wake of my recent statement that IMO 2007 was the worst year for movies since I started reviewing, I received a reader's challenge asking if I could come up with numbers to support that assertion. So I spent a few hours this past weekend crunching numbers. The results, while not earthshaking, do provide some interesting insights into what my star-rating system deems to be the best and worst years of movies in the period 1994-2007.
One of the first things I discovered was that the ratings for 1993 deviated so significantly from the norms that they couldn't be grouped with the rest of the years. The reasons for this aren't hard to understand. I started reviewing in 1992 but the reviews I wrote that year were short, incomplete, and not always accompanied by any sort of rating. (Any 1992 reviews that have migrated to this site have undergone an overhaul.) 1993 was the first year in which I began employing a systematic rating system. Those who remember that far back may recall that it was a numerical 0-10 scale, not a four-star one. In 1994, I changed to the four-star scale (although I kept a "dual system" for a short period). However, everything for 1993 was eventually converted to the four-star system and the conversion method was imperfect. This doesn't invalidate the 1993 review numbers; those that are "off" are within 0.5 stars, with the most typical divergence being a movie that today would get three stars being accorded two-and-one-half stars. I have no plans to go back and attempt to re-examine the entire year's worth of reviews for what would like amount to about 40 changes.
For the purposes of this study, I have divided ratings into three categories: recommended (3, 3.5, and 4 stars), borderline (2 and 2.5 stars), and not recommended (<2 stars). The 14-year average is 49% recommended, 38% borderline, and 13% not recommended. Almost every year during the span comes close to these averages; it's rare that any year is more than 5% off in any category.
So, based on the numbers, what were the best years? Those would be 1995, 1999, and 2002. Looking at the years purely on the basis of the recommended/borderline/not recommended categories, 1999 is the easy winner. An impressive 54.4% of the year's films were recommended, 34% fell in the borderline category, and 11.6% were not recommended. 2002 was in second place with 52.7%, 32.7%, and 13.6%, respectively. 1995 deserves special attention. The "recommended" category was only 46%, considerably below average. "Borderline" was 44.2%. "Not recommended" was a skinny 9.9%. The devil's in the details, however. 1995 had a whopping 9 four-star films (by far the largest number of any year) and an equally gaudy 43 three-and-one-half-star films. Those are big numbers. Add those percentages together and you get 22.4%. No other year is even close. Second place is 1994 with 19.2%. Putting all this together, I would rank 1995 as the best year for films since I have been reviewing, followed by 1999 then 2002.
Now, what about the worst years... Once the numbers have been crunched, there are really only two candidates. The first is 2000. The combined 4/3.5 score that year was 8.0%. The "recommended" number was 44.5% The "borderline" number was 40.8% and the "not recommended" number was 14.7%. The other candidate is 2007. "Recommended" = 45.4%; "Borderline" = 40.6%; "Not recommended" = 14.0%. The combined 4/3.5 score was 10.6%, although there were no four star movies. Nevertheless, based on the numbers, 2000 was worse than 2007. So even though my gut tells me 2007 was disappointing, maybe the passage of seven years has dimmed the memory of what 2000 was. A total of only 17 four and three-and-one-half-star movies combined! Yikes!
Bottom line: Even the best and worst years haven't deviated dramatically from the average, but it's possible to pick out the best years (1995, 1999, and 2002) and the worst (2000 and 2007). Here's hoping 2008 leans more toward the former category than the latter one.
This is the kind of column that results when I start playing around with numbers. No more like this for a while. Tomorrow, a few predictions for 2008, then back to a "regular" schedule starting Thursday. The lack of video columns for last week and this week is easily explainable by the lack of significant releases. The video column will return next Tuesday and continue every Tuesday for the foreseeable future. Also, reviews of older movies will begin this Saturday. Check the main page and the main video page for titles and links to the reviews.
©2007 James Berardinelli
|