ReelThoughts

ReelThoughts

Choose the month you would like to access:

June 4, 2005 (Saturday):

In the Company of Liars

During the course of my recent trip to Manila, I read two books. The first, read from cover to cover during the trip over, was Sue Grafton's R is for Richocet, the latest (and 18th) in the "Alphabet Murder" series. There's not too much to be said about this book: it is what it is. It's an easy read with a plot that has just enough twists and turns to make it interesting. And the first-person narrator is someone readers have gotten to know over the course of the last 20-or-so years. (I started reading these around the time that the "D" volume came out, so I have been with Kinsey Millhone for quite some time.) It would have been nice had P.D. James' next novel been available. Alas, The Lighthouse isn't due to be published until November, so it wasn't ready for airplane reading. But the more prolific (and less demanding) Grafton will do in a pinch.

The book reserved for the ride home was more intriguing. It's called In the Company of Liars and is the second title from lawyer-turned-novelist David Ellis. (I have not read his debut, Line of Vision, which won the Edgar Award for Best First Novel, but I will likely now seek it out.) Written Memento-style, it unfolds in reverse chronology, starting at the end and working its way back to the beginning. Initially, this seems like both a cheat and a gimmick. After all, how many surprises can there be when you know how things are going to wrap up? But give Ellis credit - he knows what he's doing and has things meticulously planned out. The result is that you may not know everything you think you know. The book contains a lot of surprises and is capable of confounding more than a few expectations. When I don't see a twist coming, I am appreciative - and there's one in these pages that blindsided me. And it works, by God!

In the Company of Liars concerns the web of deceit surrounding the death of lobbyist Sam Dillon and the subsequent murder trial of best-selling mystery novelist Allison Pagone. But there's more going on than meets the eye. Was Sam's death the result of a lover's quarrel? Was he involved in a scheme to bribe three U.S. Senators? Or was there something deeper, something involving a cocaine-addicted doctor and a well-funded group of Middle Eastern terrorists? And, as the old saying goes, just when you think you have everything figured out...

In the Company of Liars is not a masterpiece, but it offers a solid 360 pages of entertainment. It's long enough to allow for character development, but short enough that it doesn't require a major time commitment to read. I don't know if I would consider this "beach reading," however, since it requires concentration (such is the case with anything written using the reverse chronology method). And it's the kind of book that stands up to (demands?) a second reading. The thing I appreciated the most about In the Company of Liars is that Ellis has the guts to move away from the John Grisham-inspired literature equivalent of fast food (which bores me) and into new territory. Not since Len Deighton's Faith, Hope, and Charity trilogy have I been this engrossed in a thriller. If you enjoy this kind of book, In the Company of Liars is worth the money and time.

June 5, 2005 (Sunday):

The Character Assassination of Max Baer?

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" - that's a good motto for narrative film makers to follow. While it's always nice to re-create history, sometimes a better story results from some improvisation. However, there are certain lines that are better left uncrossed, and, according to some, Ron Howard's ballyhooed and overrated Cinderella Man crosses one of those. It's certainly reasonable for Howard to do everything possible to bolster the heroic deeds of his main character, James Braddock. However, is Braddock's story amazing enough in itself that the film did not have to manufacture a villain where one may not have existed? (Spoilers for the movie follow.)

According to Cinderella Man, Max Baer Sr. was a nasty, arrogant man who relished his reputation as a killer in the ring. He had beaten two opponents to death and appeared ready to dole out a similar fate to Braddock. Of course, in the movies, good usually wins out over evil, so, in this tradition, Braddock defeats Baer. That's the way it happened in real life. The basic facts are not in dispute. What is in contention is the film's representation of Baer's character. The real Baer was actually as much of a hero as Braddock, having attained a revered status after beating German fighter Max Schmeling in a 1933 bout. This was during a time when anti-Nazi feeling was on the rise, and, to many, anything German was anathema. (Schmeling was Hitler's favorite boxer, although the fighter would later help hide Jews during the war.) According to Baer's family, he was tortured by the deaths he caused, although others claimed he boasted about those victories. (One thing not in dispute is that, after killing Joseph Campbell in a 1930 match, Baer donated purses from his next several fights to the dead man's family.)

Cinderella Man demonizes Baer in order to make Braddock's victory sweeter. After all, it's easier to root against a one-dimensional bad guy than someone who is being portrayed as a human being. But is this taking legitimate license or is it irresponsible? Is it one thing to do this with a distant historical figure (Napoleon, for example), but another to do this with someone whose children and grandchildren are still alive? Or should Cinderella Man have changed the name of the opponent in the final bout to that of someone fictional, thus deflecting criticism? All legitimate questions, none of which are easy to answer.

Max Baer was not perfect, but, by all accounts, he was not the ogre that he is depicted as in Cinderella Man. At a minimum, the movie shows insensitivity to Baer's family, but it could also be seen as besmirching a decent man's reputation. Exaggerating the qualities of a protagonist is a common enough practice, but what about turning an antagonist into an outright villain?

The filmmakers' argument is that by representing Baer in the way they have, they have told a better story. (It's certainly a more simplistic one.) Friends and family of Baer claim that Cinderella Man commits character assassination. The lionization of Braddock comes at the expense of Baer, and this lopsided portrayal is how today's generation of movie-goers will see a man who hasn't fought a bout in more than 60 years. It's hard to deny that they have a point, and it raises questions about what responsibility, if any, filmmakers have to the historical record when they use the names of real people. And that's a thorny briar patch into which I am not yet prepared to leap. But Cinderella Man has highlighted an issue that I will remember the next time I watch a movie that claims to be "based on a true story."

June 7, 2005 (Tuesday):

Introductory Notes: The Price of the Crown

Just a few random thoughts about the book. If you're not interested, you can skip to tomorrow, when I'll provide my thoughts about the final episodes of a few TV series.

The Price of the Crown was written in late 1990 and early 1991, approximately a year before I started writing movie reviews. At that time, I could churn out about 4 pages per day, which enabled me to complete the book in less than six months. It was subsequently revised around 1993, then again in 2001. After discussing publishing it with my agent, I realized that a significant (third) revision would be required. I decided not to "re-open" the book because once I started revising, I would tinker endlessly with it and it might never reach a "finished" state. So, rather than pursuing publication, I decided to post it. I am currently writing something that borrows ideas from The Price of the Crown, but it is in many ways different. That one is designed for publication.

Three of the most obvious problems with the book are typos (there are probably about a dozen per chapter), minor grammatical errors, and too many adjectives. (He was a "big, hearty man" instead of merely a "big man.") I am aware of these, but, as I mentioned, I elected not to re-open the book to do another round of editing. So if you notice any of these issues, there's no need to let me know. I am, however, interested in knowing about any continuity errors, since it's possible that a few escaped my notice.

There are two primary influences: Katherine Kurtz's "Deryni" series and Robert Graves' I, Claudius and Claudius the God. The book is not very Tolkien-esque. It contains magic, but lacks a presence by the non-human races that are commonplace in most fantasy novels. This is a political book, in that a lot of it deals with the mechanations to sustain or topple a rulership. My goal was to start out with a basic fantasy setting and a straightforward set-up, then begin twisting things mid-way through. I hope that anyone reading the early chapters will not be able to predict how things will turn out in Chapters 35 and 36.

The book is carefully structured: six sections of six chapters each. The first section introduces one group of characters (the ruling family and those associated with them). The second section introduces another group of characters (farming peasants). There is a parallelism between Chapters 1-6 and 7-12. By the third section, I start mixing things up. The downside to this approach is that the characters from Chapters 1-6 disappear until Chapter 13. The upside is, hopefully, balance. But I realize some readers will be frustrated by having to wait six chapters to see where things go immediately after Chapter 6.

There are two sequels, each of which is intended as a stand-alone novel. The first, called The Price of Magic, has undergone one revision. The second is The Price of Terror, which is only about 3/4 done. If reaction to The Price of the Crown warrants it, I'll post the second book later in the summer. Posting of the third book could happen in the fall, if there's enough motivation for me to finish it. (I will not post one chapter until the entire thing is done.) The Price of Terror has a more ambitious scope than either of its predecessors, which makes it a challenge.

One of the most common questions I have received thus far is about the three-letter names. That's merely a convention I decided upon as a means of differentiating humans from other races. (Elves, for example, have four-letter names.) I was also asked about religion. The predominant belief is that souls are re-incarnated, but there is no deity. The backstory I developed for Devforth (the land where the story takes place) references a cult of monotheists, but they have never shown up in any of the books. I wanted to write a series where religion was a non-factor.

June 10, 2005 (Friday):

Ending the TV Season

Jet-lag is an annoyance, and my recent penchant for taking evening naps cuts into my writing time. I saw two 7:30 movies this week, and, without coffee, never would have stayed awake through either. That's the explanation for this week's slowdown in ReelThoughts. It's a situation that shouldn't persist. Now, on to today's topic - one that a number of people have asked me about via e-mail.

The last full week in May saw the two-hour season finales of the two TV series that I regularly watch: "24" and "Lost." One satisifed; the other disappointed. No points for guessing which is which. As regular readers know, I have grown annoyed with "Lost" over the course of its last 10 episodes (and the constant rerun breaks didn't help - it became a chore to recall when a new episode was going to be on), and the season's final episode cemented my decision to give up on this series. I will not be watching "Lost" with any regularity when it returns to screens in September, and I suspect I won't be the only one.

I didn't expect everything to be resolved, but the show offered nothing except a peek into a hole in the ground and hints that the island's Jolly Green Giant might be a machine. The final three hours, instead of providing a few answers, built exclusively to a ho-hum cliffhanger. The idea is, of course, to get viewers to return in September for more of this silliness. But, in terms of generating suspense, this isn't "Who shot J.R.?"

It didn't take me long to go from a "Lost" supporter to a "Lost" detractor, and that's because the series, which got off to a promising start, began spinning its wheels. The flashbacks became monotonous, killing the pace of the island segments without offering a lot in the way of character development, and the stories in the "present" didn't go anywhere. Maybe the problem is too many characters. Maybe it's that the writers have only a vague idea of where they're going. I know one thing: I probably won't be checking out any J.J. Abrams TV series in the near future. He seems to be a classic tease: tantalize but never offer release.

"24" is another kettle of fish. I will be back to watch Jack Bauer when he starts his fifth season next January, but this series got stupid towards the end. And I don't mean "slightly stupid"; I mean "monumentally stupid." Still, because the writers understand the concepts of suspense and momentum, even the obviously dumb plot contrivances didn't derail "24" on its lightning-fast excursion that turned Mr. Bauer into a modern-day version of Dr. David Banner, walking along that lonely road.

Unlike "Lost," "24" managed to keep us interested in next season without leaving unsatisfying dangling plot threads. The terrorist threat was resolved (albeit a little too easily) and the Chinese government got their pound of flesh (sort of). Tony and Michelle received their happily ever after ending, and it was great to see David Palmer again, even if the circumstances of his return were suspect.

On the down side, "24" has shown an increasing reliance to cheat on its formula. Apparently, every location in L.A. is within five minutes of every other location, except when the cavalry is supposed to arrive. They're usually about 20 minutes too late. And this season's villain, Habib Marwan, contrived a few escapes too many. His ultimate end was impressive, but the guy had more lives than a cat.

In an earlier post, I mistakenly called "24" an "intelligently written" series. It isn't - it's well-written (a different designation), but not especially smart. It keeps its viewers involved, but is best placed in the "guilty pleasure" category. The suspension of disbelief quotient is high. The fourth season didn't approach the first or third in terms of overall writing or tension, but it still had plenty of moments. And I ended the season feeling as positive about "24" as I was negative about "Lost."

It's probably also worth noting that, after losing "NYPD Blue" to retirement, I picked up another Tuesday show to replace it. That would be "House" - probably because I have an affinity for misanthropic characters with few redeeming qualities. And I have liked Hugh Laurie since the early days of "A Bit of Fry and Laurie." Amazing how many people don't recognize that this guy is British. One hopes the writers resist the obvious temptation to soften the character next season - that would be a mistake.

So that's where I stand on television. Now it's time for me to take a break until "Battlestar Galactica" returns during the middle of next month. That's why reruns don't bother me - they give me a time to do other things, like catch up on the stack of unwatched DVDs that has been piling up.

June 11, 2005 (Saturday):

The Gossip Pages

I have often wondered why people care so much about the private lives of actors and actresses. This is not a recent phenomenon - in fact, it predates movies - but the increasingly intrusive antics of the paparazzi have elevated it to new levels. Frankly, though, who really cares if Tom Cruise is head-over-heels in love with Katie Holmes? Congratulations to the pair if they have found true romance, but spare me the details. I don't need to know. And so what if the chemistry between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt spilled off-screen from their on-screen pairing during Mr. and Mrs. Smith? Considering what overexposure did to Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, it's no wonder they're keeping a relationship under wraps, if such a relationship exists.

Tabloids are everywhere. You can't walk into a grocery store without seeing them prominently displayed. And you can't surf the TV spectrum without running into an "Entertainment Tonight" or an "Inside Edition." There's even an entire network devoted to gossip. As a population, we are fascinated by the antics of stars, but why? Is it jealousy? Envy? Or some kind of preceived void in ourselves that causes us to seek validation by peering into the lives of those we idolize.

Idolization is acceptable - even expected - in kids and teenagers. But the older one grows, the more unseemly and pathetic it becomes. It's one thing to admire the work of an actor, but quite another thing to follow their every move. Actors are not their characters, nor vice versa. The Internet has now allowed millions of people to become stalkers from the comfort of their homes. It's kind of scary, and it's easy to see why some stars lament their loss of freedom.

Over the years, the paparazzi have grown from being nuisances to being menaces. Incidents like when Sean Penn went on the offensive seem almost quaint by today's standards, when even high speed flight isn't enough to dodge a determined photo-snoop. Everyone knows that paparazzi harassment led to the grisly death of Princess Diana, yet even that public disaster hasn't resulted in a reduction of the feeding frenzy. It doesn't seem to matter if someone is hurt or killed, as long as the picture is taken.

While it's in vogue to blame the photographers, they're only making a living, albeit in a parastic fashion. The real people to blame are those who buy the tabloids and watch tabloid TV. Take away all these readers and viewers and the appetite for candid shots drops away. It's a simple matter of dollars and cents, but no one wants to hear this. The person who turns on "Access Hollywood" doesn't believe they shoulder any portion of the responsibility (no matter how small) for Lindsay Lohan's recent car accident.

Another unfortunate byproduct of this tabloid obsession is the phenomenon of individuals being famous for no reason other than that they are famous. In particular, I am referring to Paris Hilton, whose porn video merely extended her fifteen minutes. By now, she's past the 30 minute mark and hopefully down to her final few seconds. Aside from her willingness to appease the paparazzi, she has no descernible talent (at least nothing I can remark upon in a column that might be read by children). She can't sing or act, and, at least in my opinion, she's not especially attractive. But she's famous. Most people I know think of her as a joke, but I wonder whether she belives we're laughing with her rather than at her. There's a difference, but maybe the subtlety of it escapes her.

I wish I had an answer for why the "cult of celebrity" is so potent. Why is it a big deal to people who have never met them if Brad and Jen get a divorce? (See - I didn't even have to use last names.) Why is Lindsay Lohan's breast size a topic for discussion? Who cares if Demi Moore is pregnant? It boggles the mind that these things are more important to some people than events in their own lives. Why not let the stars live their lives while we live ours?

June 13, 2005 (Monday):

The Missing

It has come to the attention of several of my readers that I am skipping a few of the "high profile" summer releases. These are not accidental misses, but calculated ones. It's true that if I was a paid reviewer, I would have to force myself to endure these films, but I'm not generating any direct revenue from my writing. Every dollar I earn is collateral, and won't be impacted by whether I see a disposable Hollywood sports comedy that everyone will have forgotten about by the end of the year (if not the end of the month).

I am referring to The Longest Yard, a remake of a mediocre Burt Reynolds football film from the '70s. I didn't care for the original - it was okay for what it was, but hardly worth a second look. So when the "opportunity" came to miss Adam Sandler's re-imagination of the story (I was in Manila), I decided to skip it. On my return, I saw Layer Cake instead. To be fair, I checked whether it was opening in the Philippines during the same weekend it made its U.S. bow. It wasn't, but if it had been, I probably would have seen it there.

The Honeymooners is arguably the best-loved TV sitcom of all time, alongside I Love Lucy. Its stature should make it immune to remakes. (Although "stature" isn't held in great regard if Hollywood senses the potential for $$ - both Casablanca and It's a Wonderful Life have been remade. It wouldn't surprise me if someone is trying to figure out a way to dumb-down a new version of Citizen Kane.) Yet one of this weekend's "bright ideas" was not only to remake The Honeymooners for the big screen, but to employ an ethnically diverse cast, with Cedric the Entertainer as Ralph Kramden. Turn over in your grave, Jackie Gleason. This is an iconic role. I like Cedric the Entertainer, but the cynic in me thinks the only reason he was chosen is because Hollywood saw the opportunity to lure in what is euphemistically called the "urban audience." At any rate, I find the concept of remaking The Honeymooners so distasteful that I have avoided the film. It may (or may not) be a fine piece of lightweight cinema, but I'm not losing any sleep over missing it.

Had Robert Rodriguez stuck to old fashioned 2D cinema for his The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl, I likely would have seen it, even though the story's co-writer and target audience are three decades younger than I am. But his decision to film about 2/3 of the movie in ugly 3D cemented by decision to avoid the film. Rodriguez's third Spy Kids movie employed the same gimmick, and it ruined parts of the picture. Not only are the cheap cardboard glasses uncomfortable to don for more than a few minutes at a time, but they wash out all of the color. The film might as well be in brown-and-white. I like Rodriguez, but I hope the movie tanks at the box office. That way, maybe no one else will go in this direction. Good 3D, such as what plays in some I-MAX theaters, is an expensive process, and should be used sparingly. Meanwhile, Rodriguez must be channeling the ghost of schlockmeister William Castle.

Finally, there's The Perfect Man. It stars Hilary Duff. That's reason enough to skip it. A few years ago, I vowed never to see a movie starring the talent-deprived, teen-beloved "actress." Thus far, there has been no reason to break this vow, because she hasn't appeared in a movie that has grabbed my attention. I'm waiting for Quentin Tarantino to cast her. Now that would cause a dilemma.

Will I see Herbie: Fully Loaded? I'm agonizing over that choice. I don't put Lindsay Lohan in the same garbage container as Duff. She has shown ability in the past, and I'm curious to see whether it's possible to detect her computer-deflated breasts. (Probably not: these CGI artists are good. If they can spraypaint a seemingly-real bikini on a nude model, shrinking breasts should be no problem.) Odd that the movie's selling point might be its star's breast size.

One final, unrelated note: don't expect early reviews for two of the summer's remaining blockbusters, War of the Worlds or The Fantastic Four. I'm currently having "issues" with both Fox and Paramount and have to tread carefully (not in terms of content, but in terms of review availability) with both of these companies. Expect the reviews on the days the films open. The Batman Begins review will be available tomorrow (Tuesday), so at least those who want to read it before the midnight showing will be able to do so. For those who want an early "peek" at my opinion, all I'll say at the moment is to go see it. It's one of the best - if not the best - superhero movies made thus far.

June 15, 2005 (Wednesday):

Crash Course Change

One question I am asked often enough that it should probably be entered into my FAQ goes something like this: Do you ever change a rating after going back and seeing a movie for a second time? The answer is "yes," but only rarely. The truth is that my feelings about movies are remarkably consistent. Typically, no matter how many times I see a picture, I feel the same about it on subsequent viewings as I did the first time. This includes films where I'm out-of-whack with the mainstream opinion. But there are exceptions.

Over the course of more than thirteen years of reviewing, I have changed five reviews. Although I don't advertise the re-writes, I am open about them any time I am asked. Three have gone up and two have gone down. The "losers" are: Total Recall, which slipped a half-star between when I initially reviewed it (after a second viewing) and when I did the re-write (after a third one), and Scent of a Woman, which also lost a half-star. (As a point of curiosity, Scent, at the ***1/2 equivalent of 8.5 on my old numerical rating scale, was the first review I ever posted on-line.) The "winners" are: Casablanca, which ascended from ***1/2 to **** when I came to my senses; Pitch Black, which gained a half-star; and now Crash (the Haggis version, not the Cronenberg one).

I first saw Crash last September at the Toronto Film Festival. In that setting, I found it to be too contrived, and Paul Haggis' repeated (and intentional) use of coincidence bothered me. So, when it came time to write the review, I awarded **1/2 based on festival notes. I had no plans to re-see the movie or re-consider the rating, at least not until the film was available on DVD.

Then I was asked to give a talk on the film. Not trusting my nine-month old rusty memory, I ventured into a theater this past weekend to once again see Crash. Lo-and-behold, it turned out to be a better movie than I remembered it to be. The coincidences are still there, but this time I saw what the director was doing with them, and it worked. (So much for my ability to recognize such subtleties at an 8:30 am festival press screening...) Recognizing that my original review did the movie a grave injustice, I re-wrote the text (changing about 50% of it) and "upgraded" the rating to ***. (Anyone interested in reading my initial take on the film can access my original notes from last year's Toronto Film Festival.)

So that's all there is to it. I have never believed any review to be immutable. It is subject to change if I think I have misrepresented the film in question. I'm a little less philosophical than Roger Ebert in this respect. Rather than publically engaging in self-flagellation (as he did in his review of The Longest Yard), I would just change the rating and be done with it. So I now annoint Crash with a recommendation. What are you waiting for... go out and see it!

June 16, 2005 (Thursday):

TV Nostalgia

These days, it seems that almost every TV show known to man is available on Region 1 DVD. Even some of the most abysmal excuses for entertainment are showing up. ("T.J. Hooker," anyone?) Oddly, however, four of my favorite TV shows from the mid-to-late-'70s are nowhere on the "to be released" roster. To be fair, a couple of my '70s favorites have been available for some time ("I, Claudius" and "Fawlty Towers"), but I often wonder if/when the other four will show up.

"Poldark" is a BBC import that initially aired over two seasons on "Masterpiece Theater" in 1977 and 1978. (Those in the U.K. saw it in 1975 and 1977.) There are a total of 29 50-minute episodes, and it's based on the first seven novels in a 12-book series by the late Winston Graham. (His best-known work may be Marnie, which was filmed by Alfred Hitchcock.) Of those reading this, I'm guessing about three people are familiar with the subject. In its day, "Poldark" was one of the most popular "Masterpiece Theater" series (although host Alistair Cook once commented it was his least-favorite of all the MT programs), but it has long since been forgotten by nearly everyone. I have VHS copies of all the episodes, but that's about as much as I can hope for. The U.K. recently saw a substandard DVD release (a crappy transfer of the VHS originals), but I don't expect to see something on Region 1 - ever. Or at least not in the near future.

"Cliffhangers" ran during the summer of 1979 and lasted about 10 weeks. It was an anthology series that included episodes of three recurring serials, each 20 minutes long: "The Curse of Dracula" (with Michael Nouri as the Count), "The Secret Empire," and "Stop Susan Williams" (starring model-turned-actress Susan Anton). I don't remember a lot about "Cliffhangers," except that, at age 11, I was addicted. Of course, in keeping with the name of the program, each episode of each serial ended with a cliffhanger. As best I can recall, "The Curse of Dracula" was horror lite (with a little romance), "Stop Susan Williams" was contemporary action, and "The Secret Empire" was an homage to the '40s movie serials. I believe the episodes of "The Curse of Dracula" were edited together into a TV "movie" that was shown on some UHF and cable stations in the early '80s. I think I may have seen it on the Late, Late Show during my college days and shuddered at how bad it is.

My favorite comedy during that era was not "Happy Days" or "Three's Company." Instead, it was something called "CPO Sharkey," which, although not much of a Neilsen hit, managed to survive for two seasons, largely on the strength of Don Rickles' acerbic sense of humor. As with "Cliffhangers," my memories of this show are dim, but I know it had me laughing as much as any American TV program. One year, I remember it being shown back-to-back with Richard Benjamin's "Quark," which I found to be amusing, but not up to the standards of "Sharkey." ("Quark," incidentally, was developed to piggy-back on the success of Star Wars. Unlike Battlestar Galactica, it took a humorous, rather than serious, approach. Like Battlestar Galactica, it was a ratings disappointment.)

Finally, turning back the clock a few more years, there's "The Six Million Dollar Man." I started watching this in 1974 at about age seven, and was hooked. I stayed with it until the end, by which time it had re-defined cheesiness. For a while, I watched "The Bionic Woman" spin-off, but, without Colonel Austin, it wasn't the same. (I may have had a crush on Lindsey Wagner, but, all these years later, I can't really remember.) A few years ago (actually, about 10 years ago), I caught a few episodes when the Science Fiction Channel was re-running the series, and found that, all things considered, they held up pretty well. I'm surprised Universal hasn't released this series yet, but I suppose that the thinner their vaults get, the more likely this is to see the light of day. Hey, I'd buy it, if only for old times' sake.

June 17, 2005 (Friday):

It Ain't Cool News

You have to hand it to publicists (the smart ones, anyway): give them an opportunity, and they'll slurp it up... Recently, I was watching TV and an ad for a movie (I think it was Unleashed, but I'm not 100% sure) came on screen. Included among the quotes of lavish praise were a couple of slavish snippets attributed only to "Ain't It Cool News." No name, just the website. And this got me thinking.

Not knowing the access figures for Ain't It Cool News, it's impossible for me to say whether or not it is the most freqently visited movie-related website, but it's certainly one of the best known. Once upon a time, it was a maverick site, but it has long since lost its "underground" status and has become a clearinghouse for officially sanctioned pre-release rumors, screening reports, and other assorted gossipy paraphernalia.

In order to maintain the steady stream of information needed to keep readers coming back, AICN must rely on anonymous screening reports. These reports often have limited traceability, and, considering some of AICN's past blunders, I'm not sure they do much fact-checking. The truth of the matter is that some of these reports come from publicists, cleverly disguising themselves as fanboys. They report in glowing terms how good an upcoming movie is, then let readers of the site lap up their praise. But now there's a new wrinkle.

AICN is being used as a source for movie quotes, even though it's not a movie review site. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the AICN-attributed blurbs were actually the product of a publicist. So that means it is possible for a movie ad to quote a publicist of the movie, with AICN acting as an (unwitting) agent of legitimization. One is tempted to say that the integrity of AICN has been compromised, but I'm not sure it has much "integrity" to begin with. This is the website that gave all movie-related websites a bad name. Those of us who don't deal in gossip and rumors have been suffering from the fallout for years. (My own "issues" with Paramount and Fox are an indirect result of this.)

A few years ago, Columbia Pictures invented a fake critic, then circulated quotes from him in advertising materials for their films. It didn't take long for the secret to be discovered, and the "critic" was never heard from again. Apparently, the publicists have found a new loophole. Other than applying a more rigourous fact-checking policy (something that won't happen), there's little that Harry Knowles and his sidekicks can do to stop this kind of fakery. So my advice is that when you visit AICN, be skeptical of any praiseworthy comments. And when you see an AICN quote in a movie ad, give it as much weight as you might attribute to the words of any garden-variety quote whore. Considering the possible source, the value is the same.

June 18, 2005 (Saturday):

Sameness

It's a well-known truth that there are no new stories to be told. But I wish Hollywood would do a better job of dressing up the old ones so it doesn't seem like every movie is a carbon-copy. As if it isn't bad enough that seemingly 1/3 of the high-profile motion picture are re-makes or sequels, a majority of the other 2/3 stays so close to formula that they seem like remakes. There are few things more disheartening than to know from the beginning how a movie is going to end, and to anticipate nearly every step of the plot. This sameness is one of the many things that's killing motion pictures, and rendering the experience of watching them a shadow of what it once was. In the past, I have focused on the negatives associated with seeing a movie in the increasingly viewer-unfriendly environment of a multiplex. Now it's time to examine the other side of the equation of dwindling attendance figures: the negative impact of an inferior product.

The viewing public has a greater tolerance for repetitive garbage on DVD than they have in theaters. That's why many formulaic box-office disappointments recoup their costs once they reach home video. (A few even become bona fide hits.) It's a matter of tolerance and learned behavior. Over the years, we have been taught not to expect too much from TV. Mild entertainment is a success. A trip to the theater requires effort (and sometimes a significant outlay of money, especially if dinner is involved), so we expect more. And, when we get "TV fare," we grumble and think twice about going again. That's human nature.

Back to the "sameness" issue. Risk-aversion has become a common pasttime in Hollywood. Common sense dictates: don't make anything that might scare away viewers. The core problem is that movies are so damn expensive to make that a flop can be devastating. And no one knows beforehand whether something offbeat will be a success (Million Dollar Baby) or a disappointment (The Jacket). At least with a formulaic film, there's a reasonable chance that, once video proceeds are factored in, it will at least break even. No one considers the long-term effects of this policy on the industry in general. One might as well hand out cookie cutters.