Friday, 7 May 1999

WEEKEND PREVIEW

The Mummy is not a direct remake of the Boris Karloff classic. It wants to be Indiana Jones. But, it's not quite Indiana Jones either. It's a pleasant ride, complete with a terrific cast. My contention is that had Universal dropped another $20 million on the film, they could have had the movie they were so desperately trying to create. Some of the CG effects could have been done, more expensively but more effectively, with an integration of locations with some CG. Some of the roles, particularly in the secondary and tertiary slots, could have been filled with better known actors, creating a natural short-hand to make up for some thin writing. There was something exhilarating about a studio trying to make the first Spielberg movie since Spielberg stopped making them after Jurassic Park. But one of Spielberg's strengths, even when his "reality" was clearly being created on a set, was that he really sold every gag. When Indy was fighting on a boat, you didn't really believe that he was in the mid-Atlantic, but you sure believed that he was fighting for his life. When Brendan Fraser throws the ripely sensual Rachel Weisz over the side of a moving boat, your biggest worry is that she may land on a stuntman. All of which is just a first act issue. Arnold Vosloo (not Billy Zane) plays Imhotep a.k.a. The Mummy effectively enough, though seeing him wrapped in cloth reminds me of his turns in the Darkman sequels. And the effects are grand after some first act bumps. I like Fraser, Weisz is terrific and Kevin J. O'Connor is a hoot as a weasel. I don't think you'll be upset you spent your money on this film. Some will be quite pleased. All in all, The Mummy is a good way to save your place in line for The Phantom Menace. Where will it end up at the box office? Click here for Box Office Extra after noon ET for my estimate of this and the other films of the weekend.

The Mummy is the only new wide release this weekend, but another film, Election, is going wide for the first time and you should count yourself lucky. This is a smart, surprising, joyous dark comedy that deserves your attention. (Click here for Andrew Sarris' review, which has a few "spoilers," but hits the film on the nose. He also takes on A Midsummer Night's Dream brilliantly, though he is a little harsher than I might have been and he also writes about the Asian film The King of Masks, which I haven't seen yet.) In limited release, Miramax releases The Castle, Rialto premieres a re-release of Carol Reed's The Third Man in New York and Sony Pictures Classic releases The Quinn Brothers' This Is My Father The Mummy will battle Fox's Entrapment for the top slot, with The Matrix close behind and the long legged Never Been Kissed, Analyze This and 10 Things I Hate About You continuing to hang around. All the screen counts and more in Box Office Extra (click here after noon)

If you are in Los Angeles, there is a very special series called Return of the Japanese Outlaw Masters running at the American Cinematheque starting yesterday and continuing this weekend and next, ending May 16. Tonight at 7, the U.S. premiere of the Notorious School of the Holy Beasts, described as Dario Argento meets the Marquis de Sade. Then a double-feature of films from 1964: the erotic post-war story Gate of Flesh and the kung-fu noir flick Wolves, Pigs and People. I caught WP&P last week. Definitely worth the trip. On Saturday, it's Black Tight Killers, described as Josie & The Pussycats meets Austin Powers and then Hari Kiri, which paces a slow march to an honorable death by suicide. Sunday, it's Pale Flower (Melville meets Gun Crazy) and the erotic art thriller Blind Beast. Personally, I will be trying to catch every single one of these movies. Asian cinema is not my strength and these have been important stepping stones of cinema, however kinky, for more than 30 years. For more info, check out the American Cinematheque site.

Also, for you screenwriters in the L.A. area, there is a great program from a new entertainment group called Step Up. The event is a filmmakers' lab that will focus on 3 screenplays chosen out of 400 over the last 4 months. Workshops and seminars today, Saturday and Sunday, featuring top industry talent and talent assessors cost as little as $15 to attend. So make sure to check out the schedule at the Step-Up site and to come by to find out how aspiring screenwriters really blossom. And you're not just helping yourself: Step-Up has chosen The Revlon/UCLA Breast Center as the financial beneficiary of their efforts this year, so it's a win-win-win event.

THE GOOD: I'm not completely sure how to react to Leonardo DiCaprio's public decision to avoid working in violent films in the future, as reported by the London Mirror. The indication is that his concern is that kids may, in fact, imitate what he does on screen. While I worry that this may be a sign of admitting that art is somehow responsible for real life, a personal choice to take responsibility for anything in this culture today has to be applauded.

THE BAD: Miramax chose The New York Post, of all places, to let everyone know that the Kevin Williamson-directed (and written) Killing Mrs. Tingle has been retitled Teaching Mrs. Tingle. Well. That's a bizarre act of cowardice and a bad title to boot. Even more, the title is actually, in my mind's eye, worse than the original in terms of subtext. If you look at the story, of kids kidnapping and considering murdering their "evil" high school teacher, as a learning exercise, THAT would be the worst possible example. At least the original title admits where their minds are and implicitly says "thriller," not "Afterschool Special." Of course, Bob Weinstein tells the Post's Rod Dreher, "This is not a violent movie. This is a fun movie." Yeah. And maybe they'll be calling Scream 3, due this Christmas, Throat Clearing: Third In A Series. Apparently, there have already been threats (prompted, of course, by the media asking the question of people who were unlikely to be aware of Miramax's summer release schedule) that groups in Littleton will protest the movie on the basis of the story. Well, you know what? Maybe running the film in a Littleton theater would actually be in bad taste. So don't run it in Littleton. This is a time for sensitivity, but not for turning tail on artistic freedom, even for a stupid little thriller. The times, they are a-changing back. The pendulum swung too far in support of Clinton and the new conservatism is coming, frighteningly quickly, our way. Besides, if you have to change the title, how about something remotely clever, like "9 To 3." (I said, "remotely.")

THE UGLY: The Eisner/Katzenberg suit has become nothing more than an embarrassing little playground flight. It's making Clinton/Lewinsky seem deeply substantive. What is there to gain from knowing that Eisner called Katzenberg a "midget?" Nothing! And what does that have to do with a bonus? In fact, what does Katzenberg's attorney's obsession with the idea that Eisner was conspiring against his client out of hatred have to do with whether he earned his bonus or not? Nothing! Either he was promised the money or not. Either he forfeited the money by leaving early from his contract or not. Personalities mean absolutely nothing here. Why Disney doesn't want to pay means nothing here. Or maybe the two executives were inspired to act like fools by watching too many Tom & Jerry cartoons. They don't even have the substance here of Daffy Duck screaming, "Mine, mine, mine" as he shrinks into oblivion. And I'll tell you something else. Walt Disney's head must be spinning in its frozen bowling ball bag, because not even his Mickey and Donald would ever act this silly in public.

JUST WONDERING: Are you as sick of all the pre-reviewing of Star Wars by either unnamed sources or by people who haven't seen the movie as I am?

QUOTE WHORING USA: For The Mummy: "You'll Be Wrapped Up In Every Second Of The Mummy!" Or for Urban radio ads: "The Mummy. The Greatest Wrap Story Ever Told!"

HAPPY FEATURES TO YOU: Have you read my complete summer preview yet? It's hosted by Matthew McConaughey and features George Lucas, Mike Myers, Pierce Brosnan (whose The Thomas Crown Affair just got banished to the fall) and Godzilla. Read The Miss Hollywood Summer Movie Pageant 1999, Part 1 (to get the lay of the land), Part 2 (to find out what movies I think will lose big) and Part 3 (the winners).

BAD AD WATCH: First, I want to write about how much I love the moment in the Election ads when Reese Witherspoon, standing all but out of frame behind the principal, as he talks to the auditorium of students, still steals the scene. I'm really looking forward to watching this masterful performance again. Broderick's also. That said, here is reader, The Mad Hess-ian's comment: "I hate to say this, but were you just being a gentleman by not mentioning Maria Salas (CBS Telenoticias, whatever that is)? Her review, prominently displayed in the Lost and Found ad reads: "Hilarious! Spade is on fire with his razor-sharp wit." Whew. And it isn't the first time-- count on Maria for a rave of any dog. I'm sure she gets invited to all the junkets. Keep up the good work in pointing out the puffery."

READER OF THE DAY: From Woo to You: "You wondered whether adding foul language would make the South Park movie funnier than the TV series. Well, I've always thought that "The Spirit of Christmas" was the funniest South Park cartoon ever, because of the ability to curse. But of course, that was only five minutes long...an hour and a half...THAT I'm not sure of."

And from Jules: "Dave: Explain this to me. Is Notting Hill a Julia Roberts autobiographical film or is it a movie with a fictional story? I couldn't tell from the previews. When the trailer began, I thought I was watching a commercial FOR Julia Roberts. I hate this film already. I like the inside Hollywood thing when it's done right, but I don't think the makers of the film want us to sit there and think,''Oh, it's Julia Roberts with this bookstore guy. How nice, Julia Roberts has found an everyday guy and dumped that 'Law and Order' guy.'' I mean Hugh Grant has that every man look to him and you can forget that he's a movie star, but not Julia. What makes a great romantic comedy is falling in love with the characters and wanting them to be together (though, I'd have to say I couldn't stand Andie McDowell in ''Four Weddings'', but Hugh Grant made up for that.) By promoting the film around Julia Roberts as this Hollywood starlet is telling the audience, ''This is Julia Roberts,'' and that takes away any love for a character. I find the whole thing annoying. Also annoying, ''I'm just a girl standing in front of a boy, hoping he loves me.'' or whatever those lines are at the end of the trailer. Talk about gag! Who writes this crap? And can I get millions of dollars writing this stuff, too?"

---

E ME: I haven't seen the movie, but the buzz is good. Of course, if you've read my summer preview, you know how I think Notting Hill will fit into the landscape of the summer. How do you feel about the industry beginning to acquiesce to political pressure? Do you even care about Eisner and Katzenberg: The Spat? And what do you think of The Mummy?