Friday, 6 August 1999

WEEKEND PREVIEW

Oy, what a weekend! There's gonna be some blood on the floor at the end of this box office weekend for sure as five 1000-plus venue new releases and three major holdovers fight for your dollars. Now, I usually reserve such common box office chat for Box Office Extra (available right here after noon, e.s.t.) and I will today, but let's see how it structures the weekend. Figure that Runaway Bride and The Blair Witch Project will both take in more than $25 million. So, do any of the five newcomers have the juice to even compete for the top slot?

Of the five new releases, only Warner Bros. The Iron Giant and Universal's Mystery Men seem to have the market awareness to get up over the $20 million mark. The Iron Giant has pretty open road in a hungry kids market that has only the quickly sliding Inspector Gadget in the way. Besides, the film is terrific. Mystery Men should have market penetration by now, but without major stars, it could be a victim of the weekend. On the other hand, in light of Blair Witch mania, Janeane Garofalo may now be the biggest movie star on the planet. (No, she's not in Blair Witch, but she is quirky, comes in multiple formats and can catch you by surprise over and over again.) The Thomas Crown Affair could come close to the $20 million mark, but I haven't seen it, so I can't say much. That is, other than to remind you all again that the ad campaign is all that matters on opening weekend. The quality of the film is pretty much irrelevant. And as marketing goes, MGM has not opened a single non-Bond film to $20 million in this decade. Not The Birdcage, not The Man In The Iron Mask, not Get Shorty. Not one.

Disney's The Sixth Sense has got some good word of mouth going on in the creative community, but the film seems like a candidate to get lost. I honor the idea of an ad campaign that isn't Bruce Willis obsessed, but right now, it's "the other spooky movie." And last, but likely least, Dick is unlikely to do dick. Satire. The Presidency. "Dawson's Creek" meets All The President's Men. I still haven't caught it (this one I was invited to), but it could be the greatest film of the year and still not do any business.

For more specifics and all the venue counts click on Box Office Extra.

THE GOOD: The Iron Giant is a terrific movie. I don't think it is the movie of the decade, but it does have a unique vision that sets it apart from any of the other wannabe-Disney animated films from other studios. The movies it most reminds me of are the Disney live-action comedies of the early '70s in which Kurt Russell (most often) ended up being computerized, sped up or somehow brought into superhuman form. (Of course, Jan Michael Vincent was the world's greatest athlete.) Here, the Kurt Russell character gets a mechanical friend and an older Kurt Russell to watch his back, not to mention the Barbara Harris babe of a mother. But I don't want to diminish Brad Bird's accomplishment here by being too Disney focused. This film has its own place.

The story is set in the '50s, but couldn't be more current. A single mother, struggling (not completely realistically, but hey, it's a cartoon) to feed and shelter them and stay connected with her son, too. A kid who is savvy enough to be doing more than just playing with a new giant toy. Of course, then you get the classic characters. A hipster who isn't quite as aloof as he plays. The caricature of the government and especially the one government operative out to get the giant. But so what? This movie is smarter, more thoughtful and less interested in pandering to kids than pretty much any animated film since American Pop (a bit of failed genius that was completely meant for adults). It is hard to imagine anyone hating this movie or even feeling disappointed that they went to the theater and paid to see it. Your life probably won't be changed. But it will be enriched the way movies can enrich you.

And now, my family's last review of the week:

Amy (age 34): What kind of a name is Hogarth anyway? It was a heart-warming tale. It was good movie. It's good for kids. A little scary. And I don't think the children get the perspective of the Cold War generation. It's very geared towards the parents also to be sure we have a "family cinema experience." It bridges the intergenerational gap, "man." I'd see it again, even if I had to pay. I would. I liked the music. Now maybe my kids won't think it's so goofy when I sing along to the music I already know.

Charlie (age 10): It was very exciting. The giant could do almost anything. Hogarth is a cool kid. He wants to have friends, but he doesn't really and he wants a lot of pets, but he can't have them. The Iron Giant (himself) was intense. I liked the guns. I liked the ammunition that people put on him. I didn't think the violence message was necessary.

Alli (age 8): I liked it. I liked the Giant. He could put himself back together. I liked how friendly he was. Why do I have to be on the Internet? I don't think the Iron Giant would like to be on the Internet. I don't want to be on the Internet.

THE BAD: Was I missing something or is the New York Post off their nut? In The Iron Giant (this is a minor, minor spolier, I suppose), the Giant is designed and launched as a weapon. When he ends up crashing back to earth, he is damaged. He was not designed to be a weapon that only fires when fired upon. He is a weapon that no longer knows he is a weapon. The New York Post manages to attack the film twice (on Wednesday in Rod Dreher's review and on Thursday in an actual editorial. Dreher seems to like the film a lot, but manages to get to The Rosenbergs in paragraph two and closes: "The animation, while nowhere near Disney's sophisticated standard, is exuberant and as appealing as the movie's history and politics are appalling," managing in one sentence to explain why he has a problem with the film (I am, of course, projecting this on him)...he identifies with the irritating government guy who questions anything that is different and misunderstands the significance of political threats. More to the point, The Post (owned by Rupert Murdoch of Fox, though I suspect that this is not a business-driven editorial) and its editorial writers have decided that The Iron Giant is an apologists view of the Cold War. Again, that the Iron Giant was built as an innocent defensive weapon, proving that "the commies" were really nice guys after all. Maybe they didn't see the movie and only read Dreher's review, which says: "...the Iron Giant seeks peaceful coexistence and will only use his sophisticated weaponry in self-defense." The editorial says "We discover that this seemingly threatening figure is a weapon - but a peace-loving weapon with a soul, who fires only to defend himself." Again, in my minds eye, the Iron Giant was a product of the arms race which crashed and was broken, losing its war-like objectives in the process and becoming a "sensible" and yes, even "peace-loving" machine with a heart. Or did I miss the threat?

THE UGLY: What becomes a growing legend least? Usually sequels. The guys who did The Blair Witch Project told me just a month ago that they were looking forward to doing their next film, a comedy that won't use any of the Blair Witch techniques. Now the Hollywood Reporter reports that Myrick and Sanchez are in discussions with Artisan about bringing four potential Blair Witch storylines to the screen, including two prequels. "One would explore the ancient Blair Witch legend, and another would recount the legend of a 1940s serial killer who murdered seven children (and is mentioned in the original film)," Says The Reporter. If you ask me, take these four ideas and add more and create a cable TV series based on the film. This is the first chance we've had in quite a while to have a legit successor to "The Twilight Zone", generated by a younger filmmaking demographic. I'd hate to see this film diminished by sequels that aren't magic and I feel strongly that The Blair Witch Project is magic in a bottle...luck mixed with preparation matched with a great idea. In other words, Microsoft before it started to try and take over the planet. TV, it seems to me, is the best forum to allow for experimentation and growth for an idea like this, rather than likely stagnation based on attempts to recapture what was captured by improvisation the first time around.

THE CHAT: Next week, Detroit Rock City takes over at roughcut.com and Yahoo! Chat. On Tuesday, we have Melanie Lynskey, whose first big film was Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures which also featured the debut of Kate Winslet. Melanie plays a young woman looking for a very different kind of trouble in Detroit Rock City. Also, Sam Huntington, one of the four guys the film is centered around. On Wednesday, the stunning Shannon Tweed joins us, followed by one of the hottest comic actresses working today, Lin Shaye (you might remember her from a little film called There's Something About Mary). I'm looking forward to chatting with all four of these members of DRC's breakout cast.

READER OF THE DAY: There was a DVD letter delay, but here are a couple. First, from Jimm: "At last, a subject I can expound upon! With a modicum of insight, at any rate. I assume you think the DVD format is short-term because of the scheduled arrival of digital broadcasting and HDTV. The edge that DVD has is the special edition features that can't be found anywhere else. It seems more likely that VHS will go the way of Betamax in the next decade, while DVD supplants it in rental outlets such as Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. I've never been into collecting movies in the past, but VHS never offered commentaries and documentaries and storyboards and trailers and all the other goodies found on special edition DVDs. Also, the Internet makes access to offbeat and international films very convenient, whether for rental or purchase. I may not be willing to shell out $35.00 to $50.00 for Hong Kong action movies, but I'll gladly pay Netflix $3.50 plus shipping for a chance to see stuff I could only read about a year or two ago. Showtime graciously offers its viewers the letterboxed subtitled version of Hard-Boiled periodically, but they'll never show the audio commentary featuring the director and producer Criterion offers DVD owners.

As a film buff, I'm grateful to the industry for starting this format off properly, and I tend to buy DVDs as often as renting them just to support the companies producing and distributing extra-packed DVDs. I have hooked up with another DVD buff in town and we trade our DVDs free of charge to share our joint appreciation for this format. That makes me feel better about buying obscure stuff with limited appeal that I'll never find at any of the local DVD rental outlets. I tend to scour the Web looking for coupons and special deals (usually starting at dvdpricesearch.com, which is a terrific source for bargains), but the bottom line is that my library of DVDs keeps growing. And my appreciation for the amazing quality of DVD sound and video is renewed with each film I experience (or reexperience) on DVD. Granted, I have not done HDTV yet. But I can't imagine being able to afford that for another five to ten years. DVD is the next best thing to it, and I hope it continues to flourish in the years ahead."

And now, from Big B: "I finally decided to get a DVD player this past Christmas. I don't regret the purchase, and do feel that it's a wonderful format, but I also have my reservations. The picture is NOT perfect. Part of it is my player, I'm sure, but there are places where the compression is visible. It's a field I work in, and I know compression artifacts when I see 'em. The players and/or DVDs can be buggy. This is scary. I never thought I'd have to worry about bugs when I was watching a movie. Due to a combination of bugs on DVDs and in my player, I've seen all kinds of artifacts and problems. Annoying jumps between tracks. Parts of the DVD that you can't access from the menus but have to go hunting around the DVD to find (the worst example I've seen of this is the City of Angels DVD, which has a wonderful amount of material - if you're motivated enough to find it). DVDs that you can't play without actually going into the stupid MENU and playing it from there. Menu options that go nowhere. Etc. etc. etc.

Finally, and the thing that disturbs me the most, is that since DVDs are essentially computer programs (to some extent), the makers of the DVD can define what you watch in what order. Sure, for now they just make me sit through that STUPID FREAKING warning from the FBI every time. No, you can't skip it, or fast forward, or stop it, or anything. You just have to wait EVERY DAMN time. What's next? Ads? Messages from the director? They could put all this crap in there and we'd just have to sit and watch it before we got to the opening credits. Hell, I hate to give them ideas, but I bet they could even disable pause and frame advance if they wanted to, and prevent people from looking for bloopers and the like. 'I'm sorry. You can't stop the movie during this sequence, the director has negotiated a contract that forbids stopping or pausing his movies during car chases.' In any case, I don't regret buying my player, but don't by any means think it's the end-all-be-all of formats. It will do for a while, though."

E ME: Iron Giant, Blair Witch and DVDs may become perennials in the column. What about the other movies opening this weekend? What is your perspective on anything from the quality to the meaning of a Brit filling Steve McQueen's shoes? Shouldn't the New York Post be writing an editorial?