Monday, 04 October 1999

WEEKEND REVIEW

Two, two, two weeks in dung!

Double Jeopardy dropped just 26 percent according to estimates from Paramount on Sunday. You know what makes this a likely suspect for my Worst Ten of 1999 list? A likely $100 million domestic grosser. And I can't think of anything grosser. In fact, I just went through a list of all the $100 million movies in history (there are almost 200 of them now) and I must say that I'm pretty sure that, assuming it turns the trick, Double Jeopardy will be the worst $100 million domestic grossing movie in history. Quite a feat. Now on the flip side, I am happy to see Bruce Beresford, Ashley Judd, Tommy Lee Jones and Bruce Greenwood all benefit from the film's success. But on my list of things to choose to do rather than have my flesh eaten by rats, seeing Double Jeopardy again just barely makes the cut.

Sadly, the not-really-a-masterpiece-but-really-quite-good Three Kings didn't open as strong as the coastoids were figuring. This is an entertaining film, but George Clooney isn't quite the box office must-see that his very real star charisma seems destined to make him when the right extremely commercial vehicle comes along, Ice Cube's always-strong presence in what reads as a film about white people doesn't seem to be making the crossover, and Mark Wahlberg has become a better actor than box office draw. A $16.3 million estimated opening isn't chicken feed. That is, unless your movie costs $70 million or more and you had virtually every critic in America in your pocket. If the film hits $50 million, Warner Bros. will be lucky.

In third, DreamWorks is estimating a 37 percent increase for American Beauty after a 44 percent increase in screens. If that figure holds, this may be an indication that my $40 - $50 million estimated total domestic gross (without an Oscar re-release) may be $10 million short. Or maybe not. One thing seems sure. DreamWorks knows how much critics like this film and are starting to hear just how good some of the other Oscar entrees from other studios are. Joan of Arc, Sleepy Hollow and Fight Club are all very real competition, but each will need to become a phenomenon to compete as anything more than three nomination dark horses. But The Insider, The Green Mile, Man On The Moon, The Hurricane and Magnolia are all looking pretty damned dangerous. And that doesn't include the Miramax entry, which still might not be Cider House, despite ongoing and old speculation that is just plain out of date. All I'm saying is that DreamWorks is likely to fight tooth and nail to get to at least $60 million so American Beauty is not forgotten in late November. (That's when the critics' awards start humming with almost all decisions really made, at least individually, by the end of the first week of December.)

Melissa Joan Hart set TV crossover movies back to the status quo with an estimated $7.1 million start for Drive Me Crazy. (Also known as "Driving Me Crazy" in Variety's Len Klady's box office feature. At least, that's what he had up as of this writing. Oops!) Truth is, I think the campaign relied too heavily on Hart and didn't really do much to encourage interest in the story outside of suggesting that this was Number 207 of the 237 tricky teen love stories this year. Melissa Joan semi-nude on a magazine cover sells. As a movie bitch, she may sell. But not this weekend. Why Disney bothered releasing Mystery, Alaska is a mystery. But they should have a popular video release, if they wait until the spring to release it on video, when Russell Crowe will be odds-on-favorite against Tom Hanks for the Best Actor Academy Award. Elmo in Grouchland did about as well as could be expected for a purely pre-pre-teen "Sesame Street" movie with a $3.3 million estimate. The last purely "Sesame Street" film was 14 years ago (Follow That Bird) and managed only a $2.4 million start. And the Muppets, after a big opening for Muppet Treasure Island in 1996, saw Muppets From Space start with just $6.7 million mid-summer this year.

In the very limited world, Plunkett and Macleane managed 475 venues and an estimated $240,000. Again, another film that might have done well to take advantage of the big Robert Carlyle buzz that seems sure to come from the new Bond film. And Happy, Texas opened on just eight screens with a $69,000 draw. Miramax will have a busy promotional month with two films (Happy and Princess Mononoke) that have real box office potential even while walking the line between the specialized and the extremely commercial.

THE GOOD: I saw the two films that I believe will win virtually all the awards at this year's Independent Spirit Awards, one of which may well produce this year's Best Actress Oscar winner. And I got to see them back-to-back on Friday. Stunning, glorious day. Especially when I got to see another sure Oscar favorite, The Insider, on Thursday for the second time. A great week. And I'll give you all the details tomorrow when I have more space. Also, I turned 35 this weekend and I don't feel a day over 63.

THE BAD: I watched the speech by actor/director and self-described "drum majorette" Warren Beatty to the ADA this weekend. I taped it so I could watch it again. I watched it and tried to figure out what the upshot of all this fuss might be. And I still don't know. The first shock is that Beatty is not as good a public speaker as he is an actor. He seemed uncomfortable and unrehearsed, often tripping over his own words, whispering inexplicably and wandering off the page. He had a lot to say, but his method of communication was shockingly ineffective. And about what he had to say: there is something really bizarre about listening to a movie star complain about the distribution of wealth in America. There is no profession where the wage scale is so speculative while being so completely indistinguishable from the salaries of working class Hollywood. At least overpaid CEOs "earn" their money by increasing the value of their corporate stocks so that they get these enormous stock incentive pay-offs based on the success of their companies. Movie stars get "pay of play" deals that pay off even if the movie is never made, often forcing ill-prepared projects into production simply to suggest the possibility of recoupment.

Should there be campaign finance reform? Absolutely. Beatty should start his attack with the Clinton Administration and Al Gore instead of pussyfooting around if he is such a radical, fearless voice. Should there be healthcare reform? Absolutely. But his suggestion for passing it seems right out of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Locking Congress in the building until they say "Uncle Warren" is dramatic, but unrealistic. And while I agree that Maureen Dowd vacillates so often and intensely that President Clinton could use her column to lubricate his next extracurricular relationship, Beatty is equally difficult to pin down. Does he carry the torch of the past? Perhaps. But it seems to be the torch of an imagined past that was never quite that pure.

I don't mean to be too politically philosophical in this column. But the future of the Democratic Party -- and The Republicans, for that matter, if there is one -- is in the future, not the past. There is a reason why the economy seems to be so confused. We are in an economic revolution that has already led to massive changes in the way we live. Top to bottom, this has become a remarkably idle society. And when I look to find a new voice in the wilderness of politics, that person will explain to me how he's going to lead us to the better selves that the automated, paperless, less-physical-work-intensive future can allow us to be. Anyone can tell me what's broken and that it needs to be fixed. I need more than that. I need a vision. And I didn't get one in that speech. Sorry. Wish I did. And I certainly got no evidence of a man who can get the job done under unwieldy pressures. At least Ross Perot had changed some part of the world. Beatty has changed the reels. I respect the man. And I respect his ideals. But I'm not ready to sign on. Not yet. Not by a long shot.

THE UGLY: I have kept my column shut about the new "Showbiz Confidential" columnist at Mr. Showbiz, Ed Margulies because I think it's cruel to abuse the ... how to say this ... the intellectually challenged. I'm sure Ed is a great guy, but one gets the feeling that he's really looking forward to the 2020 reunion feature of "Sabrina, The Teenage Witch." But I read this week's column because I was interested to see if he had any interesting ideas about Being John Malkovich (one of tomorrow's movies). I live in hope. And while he did like the movie, he can't seem to have an opinion that doesn't involve a banal comparison to something irrelevant. But nothing as irrelevant as his bizarre attempt to paint John Malkovich as a crank because J.M. is not an idiot. No, I'm not saying that Malkovich is not a crank. Heck, he might be the biggest ass in the universe. I don't know him, so I can't tell you. But the story that Margulies tells is one that makes me respect Malkovich and lose any respect I ever might have had for the cele-journo-hack.

You see, Margulies used to edit Movieline, the glossy US Magazine wannabe-turned-Entertainment Weekly-wannabe. So, he starts his story with the inane presumption that somehow celebrities didn't let being ripped in a publication prevent them from doing interviews for those same magazines. Uh, hello, Earth to Ed: Ever tango with a publicist who actually wanted to protect a client from idiocy? You see, Movieline had proclaimed, in its infinite insight, that Malkovich couldn't play sexy. He could only play crazy. And they proceeded to disinclude from any consideration of his work two of his best roles, Paul Bowles in The Sheltering Sky and Jake, the husband to Andie MacDowell in The Object of Beauty. What the hell were you expecting from a serious actor? Thanks? Margulies goes on to tell a story that Jeff Wells would be embarrassed to print, apparently thinking he was right when he should be humiliated to admit that he was so self-invovled as to be that unaware of what was reasonably considered a trespass by Malkovich. He even includes the comedic "Movieline cuts deals with no one," which is perhaps as big a lie as has ever been printed.

The publications that cover the entertainment business often think that they are being funny when all they are being are catty and proving their lack of any real insight into the making of films or into the lives of those in the film business. Margulies thinks that Malkovich's ego needs piercing because Malkovich didn't want to cooperate with a third-rate magazine after that magazine slapped his work in the figurative face. Well, I wonder how Margulies would feel. I wonder if he'll receive this missive. I wonder if he'll be silly enough to write. Maybe, like some have in the past, he'll think himself clever enough to out-duel me in a battle of e-mail wits, rising above my insults. Don't bother, Ed. Won't happen. When you can do anything in life as well as Malkovich acts in his worst performances, then you will regain my respect and rate a public apology. Until then, consider yourself slapped.

BAD AD WATCH: I sure hope that DreamWorks and PDI are getting paid for the Antz-inspired Toyota Corolla spot that I saw this weekend on TV. It couldn't be much closer to a direct rip-off. On the quote whore front, I am increasingly amazed by the quotes coming from magazines in more and more cases that don't make any pretense to criticism. Even when I agree with the quote, I hate the practice. The lead quote for Romance, for instance, is from Gear. Stir of Echoes' lead is from Flaunt. Splendor leads with Detour Magazine (I bet I'll get an argument on that one, but ...). And then, there is the exit pull-quote from Rod Dreher, thankfully off the critic beat at The New York Post and onto being a fascist editorial writer, who reasonably loves American Beauty, but makes an ass of himself by proclaiming in September: "surely the best picture of the year," when everyone in this business knows that the "best pictures of the year" are just beginning to come out. He may feel the same way on January 1, but pronouncements of excess have become more important than enjoying the best that criticism has to offer. Even for good movies. And that's too bad.

READER OF THE DAY: From The Keizer Kid: "There were many memories for me this summer, but a few that will forever live in my mind are:
1. The Blair Witch Project: I had followed this film ever since I heard about the buzz at Sundance. I told everyone I encountered at school that this is the one film they have to see, I was hyping for my friends before there was hype. I, of course, loved the film. My friends, well, they beat me up the first day back from school for wasting their precious money. Boo Hoo. That's what was great, though, because I would sit back and listen to these people bitch and moan about how the camera made them sick and how it wasn't scary. What movie were they watching? Not scary? Sure it won't make you jump out of your seat like your other stupid, crappy teen slasher flicks, but it's truly horrifying. What's scarier, a man in a ghost mask or a human screaming for his life in the dark forest? And about the camera, uhhhhh haven't you people watched home videos before? Enough said.

2. Eyes Wide Shut: Surely not the greatest film of the summer, but it just goes to show how false advertising can be. This film was advertised all wrong, and it pissed me off to hear all those morons in the theatre after the film was over saying, "I didn't understand it!" and "What a stupid movie, what was the point?" Well, idiots, if you would quit talking during the movie and stop making out with your girlfriend maybe you might be able to grasp the genius of Kubrick, but what do you expect from people who don't know about Kubrick? They advertised this film as a Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman film, not as a Stanley Kubrick film, and that was [their] mistake. They should have a rule: if you don't know anything about the filmmaker, then you can't see the movie. Then maybe Armageddon wouldn't have made so much money."

 

E ME: Did you catch Washington Can Wait? ("Run, Warren, Run!" she shouts as Warren is chased by Pat Buchanan and the keys to Warren's Rolls magically fall from his pocket.) Do you empathize with Margulies or Malkovich? And what $100 million movie do you most despise?