Friday, 11 December 1998

WEEKEND PREVIEW

It's Star Trek time again. Speculation has it that this one, Star Trek: Insurrection, must be bad because they didn't use ILM to do the effects and every third one sucks or something like that. I am not a Star Trek expert. Not by a long shot. And I haven't seen the movie yet because Paramount decided this column was some kind of threat. Anyway, the film should be No. 1 at the box office this weekend, with A Bug's Life heading under the $15 million mark, as the last two Treks opened with $23 million and $31 million.

The only other wide opening is Jack Frost. How can I tell you just how bad Jack Frost is? Believe me, it's not easy. I'll just pass along this story: At the screening I attended, as the film ended, a group of about a half-dozen non-industry invited viewers got up and hugged each other, crying mock tears and shrieking, "I love my dead snowman daddy!" before falling into their seats in gales of laughter. Warner Bros. is trying really hard to market this movie, which may have a massive box office drop by Saturday.

Paramount abandoned plans for an exclusive two-week window in New York and L.A. (that was to start last week) in order to open A Simple Plan in limited release (That's as best as I can tell as of this writing. Check the Box Office Extra at noon EST for specifics). Some people say they are just dumping this film, opening it opposite the black hole of teen boys (Star Trek) a product of their own studio. Others say this is a show of faith. I'm staying out of it, except to say that the performances are quite good. In fact, the actors so humanize their characters that the story suffers a loss of real tension in what is a great story. Finally, Sam Raimi is not meant for "normal" directing. He is an inventive, unpredictable visionary who has restrained himself into mediocrity here. C'est la vie.

Three contenders for Oscar nods (Shakespeare in Love, Rushmore and Still Crazy) hit the coast (or coasts) this weekend. I haven't seen Shakespeare in Love, but the comments from those who have are as mixed as Ben Affleck's English accent. I'll judge for myself over the weekend. Still Crazy is a movie that I really enjoyed. A surprising little gem with a real star-making turn from Bill Nighy, an actor almost none of you have ever heard of, I'd venture. He's already in mid-life, so don't expect the next Ben Affleck, but he gives one of the true breakthrough performances of the year. Finally, a classic in the making, Rushmore. It won't get nominations, I don't think, but it deserves them. I was not a big fan of Bottle Rocket, but the same guys made Rushmore (Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson) and now I am a major, major fan. If you want something fresh like you've never seen before, this is your movie.

THE GOOD: After being all but invisible since he stole the show in Amistad, Djimon Hounsou is back in big business. He'll co-star as second-in-command to Russell Crowe in Ridley Scott's Gladiator. He'll also show up in a five-show arc on "ER" later this year. Besides being mesmerizing in Amistad, Hounsou is about the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. This is good news to me.

THE BAD: I don't know how bad this is, but it looks like Chloe Sevigny will be sliced up by Christian Bale in American Psycho. Hey, a role is a role, but let's look at Sevigny's unfortunate career. She had AIDS in her first film, kids. In Trees Lounge, she has an affair with Steve Buscemi. In Palmetto, she gets killed in a fake kidnapping plot, as I recall. And she was in Gummo, insult enough. She didn't get killed, maimed or murdered in The Last Days of Disco, but she did get one-upped over and over again by Kate Beckinsale. Tough road to hoe.

THE UGLY: Accountants at Universal have put the tab for red ink on Babe: Pig in the City and Meet Joe Black at $65 million between them. That's enough to make two Waterboys, a There's Something About Mary, a Full Monty and a Player's Club.

QUOTE WHORING USA: For Jack Frost: "The dead parent turned snowman movie of the decade!" "Michael Keaton is snow-riffic!" "There's never been a wet spot like this!"

For Rushmore: "Rushmore is the hippest comedy of the year." "Bill Murray's best since Groundhog Day!" "Jason Schwartzman is the comedy find of 1998." "Olivia Williams finally gets to play opposite an egomaniac worth watching!"

HAPPY TRAILERS TO YOU: Ravenous: The trailer has hit theaters and theaters hit back. Just what is this movie about? Is it a Sam Raimi shock comedy or a John Huston-esque comedic drama about desperate men? This trailer can't decide. It took me a few shots to recognize Guy Pearce, who doesn't look anything like Ed Exley anymore. Robert Carlyle seems like a "from the studio that gave you The Full Monty" stunt. And David Arquette as Pappy Yokum is more than a little bizarre. (No wonder Courtney Cox can't resist him.) On a Saving Private Ryan note, Jeremy Davies is barely seen in the trailer and, as I recall, his name is never mentioned. So much for that bonus baby. (He still may well be nominated, even though supporting actor may be the most competitive category of this year.) This trailer isn't enough to write this film off, but Fox had better decide what they are selling if they want buzz to really start humming.

BAD AD WATCH: I happen to know that there are more people than Jeffrey Lyons, ABC Radio's Bill Diehl and Liz Smith who like Shakespeare in Love. But that's who is in the ad. Not much of a start in the Oscar chase.

READER OF THE DAY: Alison wrote: "I saw Elizabeth recently and I have to say that I didn't like it. I thought the lead actress was amazing, but that the directing was very flat. One scene didn't thrust itself into another. Now, I'm a huge fan of slow-moving films like Matewan and The Sweet Hereafter, but they had more of purpose for me. It was very evident that the filmmakers had a strong desire to tell those stories. In Elizabeth, I felt that the director very politely directed each scene without any sense of rising action or forward thrust. I thought it was beautifully shot and loved the many high angles he used, but the film just didn't work for me.

"I also felt the film was a history lesson, rather than a filmmaker's interpretation of someone's story. The intentions and the throughlines of all the characters were very clear, but I wanted to know about the nuances of these amazing human beings. What makes them tick? I think we could have gone into more depth of the nature of the characters. The transformation was so good and so beautiful, that I felt that the director could have given us a better journey. How often are we given such transformations in films? I was so bored by the time we got to the climax that I couldn't thoroughly appreciate it. What specifically moved you about this film, David?"

ANSWER OF THE DAY: Well Alison, what moved me was the complexity that I felt was in the picture, starting with the directing. It's hard to break down in this short space just what Shekhar Kapur brought to the picture as director, other than to say, look at the performances, look at the way the story holds together and smoothly (no mean feat) and look at how the camera moves, watching Elizabeth's life come together like another character in her story. The movie itself is a coming-of-age movie set around this complex character of Elizabeth. She is the queen, but she doesn't want to take the responsibility. She wants to be a person first. Is that possible? (Ask Bill Clinton.) I felt the stakes in the story rose from scene to scene as Elizabeth and her reign hung precariously over the precipice, the unclear future. And nuance? The scene of Elizabeth prepping for the meeting with the bishops (which means nothing to those of you who haven't seen the film). Magnificent. Playing with fire in the boat with the French prince just a few feet away. Evolving from the figurehead to the decision maker. Perhaps we will have a more thorough discussion on the film some day. Until then, thanks for writing and please continue to feel free to disagree with me. Disagreement is part of the heart of this column.

---

E ME: What have I done to piss you off today?