ReelThoughts

---

Choose the month you would like to access:

Return to Current

January 5, 2004 (Monday):

What is "ReelThoughts?"

This is the newest feature offered by this website, and it has a couple of purposes. First of all, it will allow me to have a more open and immediate dialogue with readers. It will also permit me to address any issues that pop to mind without having to sit down and write a lengthy, formal commentary. Secondly, it will fill the "void" of new content left by the completion of the Top 100.

At this point, I'm not sure how often I will be adding to this feature. On busy weeks, maybe only once or twice. During "down times," perhaps every day or other day. Some entries will be only a paragraph or two; others will be long. Although most of my musings will deal with film, I'll occasionally venture into current events, politics, and/or sports. Whatever I need to get off my chest. (Originally, I was going to call this the "ReelViews Soapbox.") I will also address provocative topics that are raised in e-mails from readers. My goal is not to offer scoops about up-coming productions. After all, this isn't "Ain't it Reel News."

Upcoming Website Improvements

In the near-term, I have added the "ReelThoughts" column and will be re-instituting the links section. I intend to write between 20 and 30 reviews of older movies during the course of 2004 (approximately one every two weeks). I won't be adding many commentaries, since "ReelThoughts" will fill that void. (Exceptions: I will be doing a "live" Oscar night column, as well as the usual end-of-the-year essay.)

Then there's the issue of adding pictures to the reviews. This is an enhancement I have been considering for some time. Even though there will only be two or three small (<20kB) pictures per review, the amount of work required to select and re-size the graphics is not inconsequential; it will increase the time to write a review by 15-20 minutes. Based on e-mail responses to my first review with pictures (Chasing Liberty), this approach is not without controversy. To quote from the e-mail of a dissenter: "Most film critics' sites have pictures alongside the reviews, and that's what makes them so unpalatable... Sir, being a very regular reader (on average twice a day), I beg you... to kindly undo this atrocity." Since I do not take comments like that lightly, I have decided to make January a "trial period" for the picture-enhanced reviews. If there is an upsurge of negative e-mail, I'll discontinue the new style and go back to the old one. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, as they say. (I will note that, to this point, the majority response has been positive.)

Why No "Baby?"

Over the course of the first two weeks of 2004, I will see about six movies. One of them will not be Miramax's My Baby's Daddy. Why not? (I am often asked this question about films I choose not to review.) Simply put, there are enough lackluster movies out there at this time of the year that I pick and choose to avoid drowning in mediocrity. The premise and previews for My Baby's Daddy make it look awful. Plus, the press screening is at an extremely inconvenient theater (easily a 90-minute drive, each way - or 25 minutes longer than my usual trek). I only go to that particular locale when there's something I want to experience, and this doesn't fit the bill. And I'm not willing to pay $9 to see it once it opens. So, barring an unexpected development (such as someone I trust telling me it's not to be missed), don't expect a review here. However, I will be seeing such fare as Chasing Liberty, Torque, Along Came Polly, The Butterfly Effect, and Win a Date with Tad Hamilton. That's enough of a penance for past misdeeds.

January 6, 2004 (Tuesday):

OFCS Awards

Yesterday, the On-Line Film Critics Society (OFCS) named The Return of the King as Best Picture. Peter Jackson was selected Best Director, with his film sweeping through most of the non-acting categories. Bill Murray won Best Actor for Lost in Translation. Naomi Watts took the female counterpart award for 21 Grams. Supporting citations went to Peter Sarsgaard (Shattered Glass) and Shohreh Aghdashloo (House of Sand and Fog). [For a complete list of the nominations, go to The OFCS website.] That's the information that's found in the press release. Here are some random thoughts...

Obviously, the majority of OFCS-ers voted, like me, to name the third Lord of the Rings film as the cream of 2003's crop. There were dissenters, some of whom seemed inexplicably bitter in comments posted on various internal OFCS members-only bulletin boards. One minority sentiment is that the OFCS should somehow be "above" giving awards to something as popular as The Return of the King. But box office has no relationship to film quality. It's just as feasible for a blockbuster to be a great movie as for it to be a poor one. The key here is for members to have voted their true feelings, rather than attempting to make a political statement. There are too many of those already. I'm not saying any OFCS-ers did this (in fact, my guess is that, if any did, they represented a very small percentage), but some voters have expressed the kind of deeply rooted rancor that is most often associated with politics and religion.

It's interesting to note that many of the non-LotR rewards went to films for which screeners had been provided. This makes for an interesting sidelight concerning the recent MPAA flap. Would Peter Sarsgaard have had a chance without screeners? What about Naomi Watts or Capturing the Friedmans? Gristle to chew on, but it's clear that those distributors who were able to provide screeners got their films in front of all the voters. Anyone who doesn't believe screeners have an impact on any voting body (be it the OFCS or the Academy) may want to look carefully at some of these results. As a counter-example, a big loser may have been Monster. It's hard for me to believe that anyone who saw the film would not have voted for Charlize Theron as Best Actress. The problem is, the movie has thus far only opened in New York and Los Angeles, local press screenings have been scattered, and Newmarket was unable to produce screeners. So not enough OFCS members saw it. As a result, Naomi Watts' impressive work in 21 Grams took top honors. (I would have given her second-place.)

In the end, the OFCS awards are just another tally to throw into the bursting hopper of pre-Oscar honorees. Because of its relative newness (this is the seventh annual) and the residue of the Harry Knowles-based stigma that still clings to on-line journalists, it's near the bottom of the food chain. But I think it shows three interesting things: (1) The Return of the King has the most broad-based support since Titanic (although that still doesn't guarantee a Best Picture Oscar); (2) Support for Kill Bill, a favorite of many vocal on-line posters, is lukewarms amongst on-line critics (it garnered a lot of nominations, but no wins); and (3) No one could figure out in which category or for which movie Scarlett Johansson should receive recognition (so she got nothing).

To Picture or Not to Picture

I'll admit to being surprised by the flood of e-mail I have received over the past 24 hours advocating me to (on one hand) drop pictures from the reviews and (on the other) to forge ahead with this enhancement. Those on the negative side seem a little more passionate, stating that the inclusion of photographs cheapens the site. Those who like the new format say that it livens things up and brings the site more in line with its flashier competition. (At heart, I'm not a purist when it comes to things like this - stagnation can mean death.) The split is thus far about 50/50. I should mention that one impetus for adding photographs is to provide visual cues for lesser-known movies. Admittedly, nearly everyone knows what Mandy Moore looks like, so her picture doesn't add a whole lot. But what about shots from the upcoming Goodbye Lenin! or some obscure indie production that I'll review in May or June? Or some classic (but not overpublicized) stills from my first Video Views movie of 2004, To Have and Have Not? Sure, those can be found elsewhere if you look, but isn't it better to have them on hand as you're going through the review? Whichever way I go, I'm looking for some degree of conformity, so if I add pictures for one review (going forward - I will not be "doctoring" existing reviews), I want to add them for all reviews. By the same token, if I decide not to use pictures, I will go back and remove them from the dozen-or-so January reviews.

You Gotta Bereave

Tug McGraw, ex-Mets and Phillies pitcher and the father of country music star Tim McGraw, died yesterday afternoon, losing his ten-month battle against brain cancer. Although this headline will be overshadowed in the baseball world by the confession of pathological liar Pete Rose, it's a cause for great sadness for anyone who followed the Mets in the late '60s and early '70s, or the Phillies during the late '70s and early '80s. Strangely, there is a "movie" connection, although perhaps only in my mind.

McGraw's death recalls the similar passing of critic Gene Siskel. Both men had well-publicized struggles against brain tumors that involved surgery and lengthy recuperations. Both appeared to be on the road to recovery before suffering an unexpected (at least in the public's perception) fatal relapse. I was as shocked and saddened upon hearing of McGraw's death as I was when the radio news announcer informed me that Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel had passed away. The almost-universal reaction in both cases: "And I thought he was getting better..." As cliched as the observation is, it goes to show how indiscriminate this form of cancer is, and how nothing about life is assured.

January 7, 2004 (Wednesday):

The Seemingly Daily "Picture Update"

I have now logged more than 200 votes in the "picture/no picture" tally, and the current results are within 5 of being an even split. Both sides have presented some compelling arguments. Thankfully, no one has threatened to boycott the site if I make an unpopular decision. One compromise under consideration is to tailor the number of photographs to the movie being reviewed. All reviews would contain a replica of the one-sheet (poster), when available. Photographs within the text would be restricted to smaller, foreign, and/or independent films, and possibly older movies. This idea has met with less resistance from those most strongly opposed to the idea of any graphics. Someone also suggested creating two versions of each review: one with graphics and one without. However, unless I can find a short-cut, that sounds too work intensive to be feasible.

Video Views 2004

I am frequently asked which older movies I intend to review in the near future (the request is often accompanied by a "helpful" suggestion or two). Although I don't do reviews by request (unless you want to commission one...), there has been such a preponderance of interest in my opinions of One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest and Apocalypse Now that reviews of those films will almost certainly make an appearance on this site during the next 12 months. I will also be looking at a few Bogart films (starting with To Have and Have Not, the review of which should appear within the next week or two) and at least two by Kurosawa (see below for a hint on what these might be). Beyond those titles, I'm still picking and choosing. Unfortuantely, I have more than 100 solid possibilities for 25 slots, so some films are going to get pushed out.

Oscar Night

There is a possibility that I'll end up in a chatroom on Oscar Night instead of doing a running commentary. Both approaches have their advantages. The latter gives me a little more freedom, while the former allows real-time interaction. No voting on this, please. I'll make the decision on my own. The pull of nostalgia and an unwillingness to be chained to a computer all night may keep me from transitioning to a fully interactive forum (at least this year).

DVD Recommendation

Three of Kurosawa's films barely missed my Top 100: Red Beard, Ran, and Ikiru. Criterion, the king of DVD producers, has just released a spectacular special edition of Ikiru that would be worth seeing if only for the new digital transfer. In addition to the movie, the disc contains a pair of documentaries that promise a detailed look into the director, his approach, and Ikiru in particular. At $39.95 (list), it's a little expensive, but it's worth the money. Like the extended The Lord of the Rings versions and the remarkably deep Alien Quadrology, this is a must-have for anyone who likes a mix of film and background material. If only all so-called Special Editions could be this special.

January 8, 2004 (Thursday):

Roger Ebert's The Great Movies

There's something daring - almost pompous - about calling a book The Great Movies, but that's precisely what Roger Ebert has done. Originally released in hardback during 2002, the volume (which is a compilation of retrospective reviews previously published in The Chicago Sun-Times) is now available as a trade paperback, which makes it a little less bulky (although, at over 500 pages, it still has heft). In fact, my only real quibble with the book is the title. The word "great" (something I carefully avoided for my own recent Top 100) has an objective connotation which implies that all 100 titles in this book have been agreed to as masterpieces by some sort of critical consensus. In reality, these are movies that Ebert believes to be great. Would everyone agree to the inclusion of Bride of Frankenstein, Todd Browning's Dracula, and E.T. under the umbrella of greatness? No, and there might be arguments about other titles, as well. Nevertheless, I will admit that naming a volume "Roger Ebert's The Great Movies" sounds better than "Roger Ebert's Favorite Movies."

Ebert's style, as always, is comfortable and friendly - more than conversational but less than formal. He brings a great deal of knowledge and background to this book, and, although you may not agree with his assessment of certain films, you're guaranteed to understand why he holds a particular opinion. The reviews frequently exceed 1200 to 1500 words, which is more than double the length of a day-of-opening Ebert review. And, surprisingly for something that is so fragmentary, The Great Movies is a page-turner. Once you have read one review, you compulsively want to move to the next one. And, in short order, all 100 are behind you and you're on the web looking for more. Clearly, a great deal of thought and craft has gone into every one of the essays. The titles include the expected (Citizen Kane, 2001, Casablanca), the offbeat (Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, Peeping Tom), and the less-serious (Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, Some Like It Hot). Because these are part of an on-going series, one can safely expect a Volume 2 of The Great Movies in about another two years, after the total number of titles exceeds 200.

Ebert makes it clear in the introduction that these are not "'the' 100 greatest films of all time." He goes on to write that "all lists of great movies are a foolish attempts to codify works which must stand alone." (This is precisely the reason why my own Top 100 represents my list of favorite films, not a catalogue of greatness.) For this reason, the titles do not have numbers, although we know from experience that Ebert's #1 movie is Citizen Kane. The length of his 3000-plus word essay, by far the longest in the tome, bears this out.

So why buy the book (which lists for about $16) when the text can be had for free at the Sun-Times website? The reasons (which I also offered in defense of my own book) are simple. Sometimes it's a lot more pleasurable to read from the written page than from a computer screen. Portability is a factor; it's a lot more pleasant to curl up with a good book than with a laptop, and who wants to risk getting salt and sand on the viewscreen or in between the keys at the beach? And, if the power goes out, what then? Plus, each review is accompanied by a nice black-and-white photograph (here we go with pictures & reviews again...), a feature that cannot be found on-line. If you didn't get a copy when it was available in hardcover, my advice is to spend the $11 (discounted) at Amazon.com.

January 9, 2004 (Friday):

The Great E-mail Flood

My apologies to anyone who has e-mailed me in the past few days and hasn't yet gotten a response. I have been flooded by votes for the "pictures/no pictures" question, and it's been a little tough keeping up with the volume. I'm used to getting between 30 and 40 non-spam e-mails per day. Since I instituted ReelThoughts and posted the review of Chasing Liberty, the number of e-mails has tripled. I'm not griping about this - I love hearing from readers - but it is slowing the response time. As for an update on the results - those in favor of pictures have pulled ahead by quite a bit, but I'm looking at some possible compromises. I still have about three weeks to make a decision, and, to date, I have only composed two picture reviews. Next week, I'll do three more. The next one to be posted will be towards the middle of next week.

The Case for Theater Viewing

This represents the first of three parts of an essay I'm writing to discuss the pros and cons of watching a movie in a theater versus watching it on home video. With the advent of excellent home surround sound systems and bigger widescreen TVs, the experience of viewing a movie at home is becoming closer than ever to that of seeing it in a theater. The root of this article comes from a comment made by an acquaintance of mine. He's a big "Lord of the Rings" fan, so I asked him if he had seen The Return of the King yet. His response: "No. And as much as I want to, there's no way I'm going to traipse to the mall to see it. I'd rather be tortured than have to go through that. I know it will be out on video in another six months, so all I have to do is wait, then I can be comfortable."

That got me thinking about a number of things, not the least of which is, if I was given the choice, would I see a movie in my home, or still go to a theater? The question isn't as easy to answer as it might initially seem. So, over the next three days (actually four, since I'm not publishing a "ReelThoughts" column this Sunday - have to watch the Eagles game), I'll ponder this issue. Today, I'll look at the pluses of theatical viewing. Tomorrow, I'll look at the drawbacks. Then, on Monday, I'll draw a few conclusions.

Every year, I see about 400 movies, more than half of which I watch at home. My theatrical diet varies between 160 and 190 films. About 75% of those are shown at press and/or publicity screenings. (Press screenings occur in normal theaters, but with only a sparse crowd of journalists. Publicity screenings are the circus-like "free giveaways" from radio stations.) I attend the rest in multiplexes and/or movie houses, just like everyone else. I tend to despise AMC and Loews for their poor quality control. The seats are comfortable and the sight lines are good, but God forbid anything should go wrong with the picture. The untrained employees have trouble fixing even minor problems, like an out-of-focus picture. If the film breaks, ask for your money back. At best, it will take them 30 minutes to figure out that they need to splice. My favorite theater is the Ritz 16, part of a local chain of art house theaters in the Philadelphia area. It's a beautiful place to see a movie, with courteous employees. And, wonder of wonders, they care about things like projection and sound! The seats are nice and any problems that occur are quickly fixed. Unfortunately, the Ritz tends to specialize in less mainstream fare, so if I want to see The Return of the King, it has to be elsewhere.

At a place like the Ritz, seeing a movie can be an enjoyable experience. There's something communal about going to a movie theater. Yes, watching the film is a personal experience, but you're always aware that there are others on the same journey. For dramas, we cry together. For action films, we cheer together. And, most importantly, for comedies, we laugh together. TV executives long ago figured out that laughter is contagious; hence, the "laugh track" for sit-coms. The same is true in a movie theater. You're far more likely to have a good time if everyone around you is laughing. I can recall guffawing my way through Noises Off until my sides hurt when I saw it at a multiplex. Watching it again, a few yeas later on video, I tried to figure out what was so funny.

Then there's the spectacle and majesty of it all. The screen is big. It looms over you. I have never been a proponent of the "rule" that states you should sit a distance of one and one-half times the height of the screen. I want to be closer to the action - as close as possible without experiencing neck strain. I want to be overwhelmed. If I'm going to sit that far back, I might as well stay home. The idea is for the experience to be immersive, especially if the movie stylizes itself as bigger-than-life. The Return of the King is a good example - no matter how good someone's home theater is, it's not going to be able to duplicate what it's like to sit in the sixth row of a stadium theater and gaze up at Mount Doom.

There's something esoteric to be considered here, as well. It's the state of mind that a movie puts us into - a so-called "reverie." Watching the same images on video doesn't do the same thing. It has to do with the way the mind processes the image. (Film flickers as 24 frames per second; video requires the constant "repainting" of the picture from top left to bottom right. The rates are fast, but the subconscious is doing more work.) We are not as engaged at home as in a theater. Distractions come more easily. Of course, it's crucial to have the right audience around you, and that's where the problems begin, because all-too-often, your fellow movie-goers don't feel the same way you do. And that brings me to tomorrow's topic: reasons why it might not be so bad to stay home and watch a rental from Netflix.

January 10, 2004 (Saturday):

The Case against Theater Viewing

There are really two separate problems with seeing movies in theaters. The first has to do with the setting; the second has to do with other patrons. Many theaters have extremely poor quality control. They do not properly calibrate their sound systems; they turn down the projector bulb wattage in a misguided attempt to save money; they employ minimum wage workers who care only about getting a paycheck; and they don't have trained projectionists. Older theaters offer additional drawbacks - poor sight lines; seats with low backs, uncomfortable padding, and insufficient leg room; and floors that seem to have been lacquered with melted sugar. Put all these things together, and the movie-going experience can be decidedly unpleasant.

Let me hasten to add that good theaters don't have many of these flaws. The Ritz 16, which I mentioned yesterday, has excellent sight lines and comfortable seating. It employs legitimate projectionists who constantly roam the projection room, checking to make sure everything looks and sounds the way it should. The employees are, at a minimum, polite. Some of them also have a fairly well-rounded knowledge of film. If you ask for a recommendation, many will be able to give it based on first-hand knowledge, not hearsay.

But, no matter how good the theater is, the experience will only be palatable if you see it with the right crowd. To borrow the cliché, one bad apple can ruin the bunch, and one discourteous patron can turn an otherwise enjoyable evening into an unpleasant one. We all know these people: the idiot who forgets to turn off his cell phone; the jerk who won't stop talking; the loser who gets up fifty times to empty his bladder, stepping on your feet each time without so much as an apology; the kids who kick seatbacks; the mother who brings her screaming too-young-to-be-there children to the movie; and the teenagers who laugh at inappropriate times and make snide comments throughout. Generally speaking, the rule of thumb becomes that the fewer people who attend a screening, the less likely it is to be interrupted by one or more of these offenders. So much for the "communal" experience.

It's a terrible idea to attend any movie, especially one at a multiplex, on a Friday night, Saturday, or Sunday. (This assumes that you have any desire to actually see the film.) Weekday afternoons are the best choice for those who have the opportunity. Weekday nights will also do in most cases. There are discourteous people all over, but the biggest offenders are teenagers, so avoiding times when they are likely to be at the theater offers the best bet to have a decent experience. Of course, it's no guarantee. When it comes to manners, the guy in the three-piece suit can be a bigger ass than the bubble-gum popping 13-year old. (My apologies to the teenagers who observe proper decorum when attending movies. They are out there, and they don't deserve to be lumped into the group as a whole - but they're probably just as annoyed with their peers as we are.)

Oh... then there's something I almost forgot (because the Ritz doesn't have them): commercials. Assume for argument's sake that you arrive 10 minutes early for a 7:00 showing. So, for 10 minutes, you get to watch a slideshow of ads and lame trivia questions. Then, the lights dim, but instead of the movie starting, there are five minutes of commercials, followed by 10 minutes of trailers. If the movie starts by 7:15, consider yourself lucky. If you go to a "brand name" multiplex, plan to arrive at least 10 minutes late... unless you actually enjoy all of the pre-show material. I find it to be a waste of time, as I remind myself every time I mistakenly arrive on time for a multiplex movie. Meanwhile, steel yourself to inhale the "aroma" of what theaters call "buttered popcorn," and, if you're remotely hungry, prepare to pay through the nose for anything bought at the concession stand. Although I don't advocate moving from one theater to the next to see a movie you haven't paid for, I'm not against sneaking in a few outside snacks. Not only are they more reasonably priced, but the odor is unlikely to offend someone sitting nearbye.

On Monday, I'll look at some of the alternatives that a home theater does and doesn't offer to these problems, and where things might be headed in the future (both near-term and far-term).

January 12, 2004 (Monday):

Upcoming

Just a few quick notes about what's on the way as far as reviews are concerned. January is a pretty thin month for new releases, and much of what's coming out isn't very good to begin with. (Studios always hedge their bets with January movies, figuring it's not a good box office month. Cold and storms in parts of the country keep a lot of people home, there are post-holiday blahs, and weekends offer football playoff competition. Plus, many of the big late-December films are still drawing audiences.) This week, I'll only have two new reviews: Along Came Polly and Torque. Both will be posted during the second half of the week.

Why It's Still Necessary to Go to Theaters (Sometimes)

When I line up the pros and cons of getting in my car and driving to a theater, I occasionally ask myself why I bother. The main reason (aside from my being a film critic, which, admittedly, is a huge factor) is impatience. And I'm not the only one afflicted with this characteristic - that's why the box office tally is usually the highest on opening weekend. The idea of waiting six months for a movie in which I have some interest to show up on DVD is painful. If I really want to see it, I'm willing to undergo all sorts of indignities. That attitude, more than any other, will keep movie theaters thriving for the foreseeable future.

As appealing as it may be at times to watch something in a home theater, there are disadvantages, because, unless you spend six figures on your A/V equipment, you're not matching (theoretical) multiplex quality. Plasma screens and rear-screen projection TVs are nice, but even 65" falls far short of the smallest screen at the most mediocre theater. And, until HDTV becomes an everyday reality and HD DVDs are widely available, there is a video drop-off. Plus, on a fundamental, technical level, the way a home video display works is different from how a theater projector works (frames versus pixels - I'm not going to give a primer here, at least not now). You may not think it's noticeable, but the way your eye and brain process it is different, and, since video requires more "work," it more easily leads to subconscious fatigue.

Despite all the griping I have done (and will continue to do) about theaters, they are still my primary locale of choice for seeing a movie. However, although impatience usually trumps convenience, there are exceptions. There have been instances in the last two years, usually with small films, when I have eschewed the lengthy drive and theater experience to wait for a film to arrive on DVD. And this is where the lure of home theater is the strongest - not with the technically superior Hollywood blockbusters (as bad as some of these are, they almost have to be seen in the biggest venue available), but with smaller movies that do not rely as much on enormous screens and superior sound. Watching an obscure French film or cheaply made indie on a home system can be better than seeing it in an art house (when one considers the drawbacks of the latter). That's where the gap is narrowing, and most distributors of smaller films recognize this.

Although the home market is still not Hollywood's primary market, it is no longer the tertiary one it used to be. In another ten years, when the landscape has changed, it may well be seen as the co-equal of theaters for first-run material. Theaters will eventually go away, except as a novelty, once home video has caught up and once projection has gone digital. These things will happen - it's just a question of "when." My best guess is that this will take at least two decades. Even cutting edge technology isn't where it needs to be yet (the best digital projection can't match the quality of film), and marketing is always years behind the innovation curve. If you're a young adult, it's likely that your still-unborn children will be going to the movies. As for your grandchildren... that's another story. For movie houses to stay alive long-term, someone is going to have to come up with a reason for people to attend beyond what's there today. Perhaps they will evolve into pseudo theme parks, with movies that are more like rides than passive experiences. Perhaps they will become service-oriented, with an environment where clients are pampered and catered to. (For $50, you can sit back in an exceedingly comfortable chair, enjoy a glass of fine wine, and watch a movie projected at 48 frames per second with crystal-clear sound and no interruptions...)

The cold, hard truth is that the lack of quality control by many multiplex chains is hastening the demise of theatrical movie viewing. Most people crave the home alternative. Movie theaters are currently viewed by many adults as teen hangouts, so viewers over the age of 30 are increasingly staying away. The industry needs a wake-up call, although it may already be too late. The death of the movie complex may still be beyond the horizon, but, like the sun at midnight, it's out there, and its inexorable approach cannot be stopped.

January 16, 2004 (Friday):

Ode to Sundance

For four years, from 1998 through 2001, I was a regular attendee at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. My sojourns began in 1998 (less than six months after I first went to the Toronto Film Festival), when I was starting to explore the film festival circuit - a sort-of "coming out" as a critic. At the time, I believed it was my responsibility to check out this festival, even though its reputation vastly outstrips its actual importance. I went for a few days, mainly to sample what Sundance had to offer. Intrigued, I returned the following year for a longer stay. But I quickly soured on the experience. My trips in 2000 and 2001 were obligatory, and I almost didn't go in 2001. Park City in January can be an inhospitable place, and, with long lines and many of the festival venues all-but-falling-down, it quickly became obvious that at least 50% of the movies being viewed there were going to be physically unpleasant experiences. After my 2001 trip, I stopped going. And I have never once regretted that decision.

Looking back, some of my Sundance commentaries (all avilable through the archives) seem like angry rants - which is what many of them were. I didn't enjoy being in Salt Lake City or Park City a few weeks after Christmas. The plane ride is long and the weather is unappealing. But the real problem is the movies - rarely do they live up to the hype. For those who dig, there are good films to be unearthed, but moments of greatness are few and far between. Why travel 2500 miles and spend $1000 (or more) just to see stuff I might skip if it came to a theater near me?

Sundance 2004 opened yesterday, and, if anything, the buzz is quieter than in recent years. Attendance at Sundance declined when the economy went south, and hasn't recovered. (It's expensive to rent anything there.) Park City in January isn't about the movies anymore. It's about publicity and glitz, trying to turn a frigid winter resort town into a snowy Disneyland. Given a choice between a 9:00 pm screening at the Eccles and a party, most people would choose the latter. (Not that there are many 9:00 parties; 11:00 is a more likely starting time.)

This year, the weather is a wash - temperatures here in the icy Northeast are about the same (maybe a little colder) as in Park City. Yet I still prefer slipping and sliding around on my driveway, shoveling 4 inches of white powder, than traipsing from the Eccles to the Library and back again. Will I ever return to Sundance? The saying goes, "Never say never," and I'll abide by that. But, at this moment, I can't envision what cataclysmic event would result in my once again making the long drive up the canyon to the little hamlet in the mountains where Harvey Weinstein holds court and Roger Ebert meets persistent filmmaking kids in hotel lobbies.

Nimoy and Shatner - Together Again

Those who have followed my site for years know that I once was a big Star Trek fan. This isn't something I have tried to hide, although my enthusiasm for the venerable science fiction series has dimmed considerably over the years. I have always favored the original series over its incarnations from the '80s and '90s (and beyond). I enjoyed Star Trek: The Next Generation, but it lacked the mystique of the 1966-69 version. For me, it has always been Kirk & Spock, Spock & Kirk. When their characters were phased out of the movies in the early 1990s, my interest waned.

I readily admit that few actors are hammier than William Shatner. He can be as pompous and over-the-top as they come. But he's not beyond poking fun at his own image, and, despite the assertions of his critics, he is capable of giving a good performance. Leonard Nimoy is a better all-around performer than Shatner, but he's no Olivier, either. Yet, for an old Star Trek fan like me, there's nothing better than seeing these two together. And, after more than ten years, it has happened... in a television commercial, of all places.

Priceline.com (the direct link for a webcast is at this location) already had Shatner on board as a pitch man (he has been the spokesman for Priceline since 1998), so it probably didn't take a lot of convincing (other than that of the dollar) to bring Nimoy into the fold. (Other than doing nude photo shoots of women, what has he been up to lately?) The first commercial, which ends with a silly cliffhanger and features Shatner at his hammiest (complete with several of his trademark "dramatic pauses"), can be seen on TV and on-line. We are promised that more such ads are on their way. (I am surprised Priceline didn't debut this during the Super Bowl, but maybe they can't afford the $2.5 million needed for a 30-second spot.)

For those whose interest in Star Trek is dead or non-existent, the commercial won't mean anything. But, for those who, like me, spent the 1970s scouring the UHF frequencies for a station that aired re-runs of the series, it will provoke at least a smile. And, for a commercial to do that, it must be hitting the mark.

January 19, 2004 (Monday):

Resolution: Pictures or No Pictures

Recently, after assembling eight or nine reviews with pictures (five of which have been posted to date), I came to a decision about how to proceed. The ultimate vote was roughly split, with a slight majority of 5% urging me to retain the pictures. Only one e-mailer indicated that he would boycott the site if the pictures were not promptly removed. Thanks to everyone who shared his or her opinion... even those of you who were utterly ruthless in your assessment.

My original decision was to keep the one-sheets at the top right and retain a limited number of other pictures, where appropriate, within the text body (primarily for foreign and/or independent films). However, a possibility raised in an e-mail from Andrew D. Myers intrigued me - use javascript and cookies to hide or reveal pictures at will. Still, considering my knowledge of javascript (which, if I was being kind, I would call "rudimentary"), it seemed like an awful lot of work, consuming time that could better be spent doing other things. Then Eddy Carroll came to the rescue. Over the course of two succinct e-mails, he gave me enough tools to be able to accomplish this goal with minimal difficulty. Hopefully, in the true spirit of "having your cake and eating it," this will now provide everyone with what they want.

You have a simple choice: view the site with pictures enabled or disabled. The default is for the images to be shown. (If you have javascript disabled, you will never see the images. If you have cookies disabled, you will always see the images.) To make them vanish, simply click on the link that says "Hide Images" (this can be found on the main ReelViews page or at the bottom of any review that contains pictures). To cause them to reappear, simply click on the link that says "Show Images" (found in the same places). You can go back and forth as many times as you want. Without the images, the reviews look exactly as they used to.

One option I considered, but decided against, was to allow the display of the one-sheet without any of the "internal" images. That takes customization a little too far (although this was probably the most popular "compromise" option expressed by e-mailers). So, if you want to see the one-sheets, you'll have to endure the one or two small pictures that I include within the text. Finally, if you have any problems, let me know. I spent some time testing this approach while licking my wounds from the Eagles 14-3 pasting at the hands of the Carolina Panthers, but I only have a couple of browser versions available, so the checking wasn't thorough.

No Pet Zone

A few faithful viewers noted that I did not review Teacher's Pet, which did abysmally at the box office this weekend. The reason is threefold: (1) it screened on a Saturday morning (and there's nothing I dislike more than having to get up early on a Saturday to see a movie I'm not enthused about), (2) I'm not a "dog" person, so any movie featuring a canine protagonist is likely to be ignored, and (3) I avoid animation whenever possible. Combined, these factors placed Teacher's Pet very low on my "want to see" list. Yes, it has gotten fairly good reviews, but that hasn't enhanced my appetite for it.

Refreshed Links

This week will mark the debut of my refurbished links section, which I expect to be ready by Friday. The concept of the "Site of the Week" is gone (too much unrewarded work), but I will keep to its spirit by adding one new link per week (although there will be several new ones at re-launch). All defunct links will be removed. Submissions for consideration will be evaluated in the order they are received. I will visit each site and make a determination whether it meets my subjective criteria. Please don't expect that just because you link to ReelViews, I will reciprocate (likewise, if I place a link to your site, there is no requirement that you link back to ReelViews). I do not participate in so-called "link partnerships." However, if you have sent me a link during the page's hiatus and I indicated I would add you to the list, you'll be up later this week - provided you have sent me a reminder in the last seven days.

Coming Up

Over the next month, I'll be tackling several (hopefully) interesting issues. One will be to finally explain exactly what my rating system means. Another will be to question when box office tallies became a spectator sport. In what will be a multi-part commentary, I'll grapple with the piracy problem, with an eye towards being as unbiased as I can be. (That means I'll be saying at least one thing that the MPAA will not agree with.) On the 27th, I'll have something to say about the Oscar nominees. Shortly thereafter, I'll write about "Nudity and Nominees," a topic that piqued my interest after someone commented that Diane Keaton's bare-all scene in Something's Gotta Give marks the latest example of non-sexual nudity becoming more accepted in mainstream films. (I'm researching this now, and it's not as exciting as one might suppose.) Finally, although there will be quite a few new "ReelThoughts" this week, there won't be many next week - too many movies to see and reviews to write.

January 21, 2004 (Wednesday):

54 Minutes

Was that 54 minute speech last night by President George W. Bush really supposed to be the "State of the Union?" It sounded more like the kick-off his 2004 re-election campaign. No substance, unless you count the ludicrous suggestion that maybe a Constitutional Amendment is needed to protect the "institution" of heterosexual marriage. (Since when did the Constitution have anything to do with marriage? And, considering the inherent difficulties in passing any kind of Constitutional Amendment, it's empty rhetoric. On a similar note, Arnold will never be President.) Not to single out Bush, the Democrats' response was equally vapid, filled with fire-and-brimstone, signifying nothing.

It has been years - maybe longer - since there was a reason to listen to the State of the Union speech. It has turned into an empty opportunity for chest-thumping instead of a clear-eyed appraisal of where we are and a chance to elucidate where we'll be going. And, especially in an election year... forget it. Watching the State of the Union is like watching the Oscars: overlong, hollow pageantry that leads to an ultimate sense of dissatisfaction. (There's the obligatory movie link.)

Twinkle, Twinkle...

There are pros and cons to using a movie rating system. At various times during the dozen years I have been reviewing movies, I have considered dropping it and going the New York Times route. After all, I want people to read my opinion of a movie, not just look at how many stars I give it. But, as easy as the shorthand is to misrepresent, it still offers advantages. The most important of these is that it forces me to focus my writing, so that a three-star movie gets text appropriate to a three-star movie, not a two-star one.

When I started in this business, I assigned ratings based on a 100-point scale (0 to 10.0, with one signficant digit to the right of the decimal place). I kept this up for a few years, but eventually grew dissatisfied. Frankly, if I was having trouble telling the difference between an 8.2 and an 8.3, how could the reader be expected to do it? So I cut the scale back so I was only assigning half-points (0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, etc.). But even that was problematic, as I was basing the ratings on an analysis of the film rather than a "gut feeling." I was trying to find a cookie-cutter formula that I could apply, when there isn't one. From the beginning, I was aware that ratings are essentially subjective, but I kept trying to find a way to add a dimension of objectivity - a quest that was doomed to failure. Finally, I gave up and converted to the more common four-star system, and there I have been for seven or eight years.

But all four-star systems are not created equal, and it's past time that I give a full accounting of exactly what mine means. The number of stars is not intended to evaluate a movie's "greatness" or "quality," although there will be an imperfect correlation (four star films will almost always be "better" than one star films). Instead, the number of stars represents how strongly I recommend a film to someone with similar tastes to my own. That's why reading the text is so important. For example, I gave The War Zone four stars. But going out and blindly seeing this film is not a good idea, because it contains subject matter that some viewers may not be able to deal with.

The less you agree with me on movies, the less meaningful the star rating system becomes, and all you're left with is the text. But, if you understand where I'm coming from (just read about 10 random reviews and you'll know how close we are in likes and dislikes), you can still make a valid determination of whether you'll like a film based on the review. Comments like "How could Berardinelli give that four stars?" or "What is missing from the film that keeps it from being four stars?" indicate a basic misunderstanding of what I'm trying to do with the system. So here's a primer for my version of the rating system. (Keep in mind that all of this applies to viewers with similar tastes to my own.)

  
• 4.0 stars: A must see. Do not miss. Drive 100 miles if you have to. If you can't see it in a theater, snap it up as soon as it arrives on video.
    
• 3.5 stars: Highly recommended. Make time to see it.
    
• 3.0 stars: Recommended. Worth seeing.
    
• 2.5 stars: Recommended with qualifications. Worth seeing if you have a particular interest in a participant or the subject matter. A more likely choice for home video than theatrical viewing.
    
• 2.0 stars: Recommended for home viewing only (usually when bored and have nothing better to do). Not recommended for theatrical viewing.
    
• 1.5 stars: Not recommended (unless drunk).
    
• 1.0 stars: Not recommended (even if drunk).
    
• 0.5 stars: Not recommended. A painful experience.
    
• 0.0 stars: Ugh. A torturous experience not to be wished upon anyone.