Friday, 29 October 1999

WEEKEND PREVIEW

This may be the most interesting weekend of releases so far this fall.

All six releases, wide and limited, have a return-engagement feel. Being John Malkovich is the most original Top Ten list quality film you will have a chance to see all year. Yet, it is still about being in the head of an actor we all know. Princess Mononoke is a wonderful movie, but it's a Japanese hit rescripted and dubbed for America. House on Haunted Hill is an out and out remake, though technologically emboldened. Music of the Heart is a true story last seen on "60 Minutes". Man of the Century is about a guy stuck in the past (simplified explanation, I know, but...) And The Legend of 1900 has been sitting on the shelf at Fine Line for a year, where they have spent a lifetime trying to come up with the right title to attract an audience. I don't think this is it.

You and I will both have to wait for Box Office Extra, available after noon ET, to find out for sure, but I think that House on Haunted Hill is the only one of these films that will have a huge screen count (over 2000). And the funny thing is, Warner Bros. is quite worried about showing this film to critics, yet the film is not that bad. It's not great. But it isn't the worst haunted house film of the year. But come Monday (or Saturday in some papers), watch out for a full-scale nuclear attack caused by the restrictions that WB put on seeing the film. Not too many critics pull out their big knives for what they know are critic-proof movies that will either live or die on their own, but telling the charging bulls that they can't see the red cape...that's dangerous.

I'd also like to remind you to keep an eye out for The Limey, Boys Don't Cry and The Straight Story, three movies worth anyone's attention and money. Jeff Wells recounts Anthony Lane's review of The Straight Story in his column this week (a column which is, overall, perhaps Wells' weakest effort, focusing almost completely on the negative) and I found Lane's comments just about as obnoxious as they could be. Was he reviewing the movie or was he trying to tell us how funny he could be? Or try to be? I certainly don't mind pithy, but when I read a review like that, I wonder whether Mr. Lane really likes movies. Even Andrew Sarris' two-paragraph dismissal of Fight Club, which I obviously disagree with vehemently, showed a little passion for what he wants movies to be. Drawing lines, drawing lines...it's a hard, hard business. When do you drop from passionate to butt-kissing and when do you fall from dislike to self-congratulatory attack? Perhaps y'all will tell me.

THE GOOD: Being John Malkovich is a movie so inventive and full of motion that when the obvious happens, even that takes you by surprise. How would I describe a movie that is beyond description? The simplistic notion is that people find a tunnel that leads into John Malkovich so that you can see the world through his eyes for 15 minutes before being spat out onto the side of the New Jersey Turnpike. But as in any great film, the device, as bizarre as this one is, is not really what the story is about. This is a story about control. Of ourselves and of others. The virtually unrecognizable Cameron Diaz is obsessed with caged animals. John Cusack's puppeteer longs to be controlled. Catherine Keener's bitch goddess even controls her out-of-control passions. And why is John Malkovich the best person for a person to be in this movie? Because you always have the sense, whether in a movie or in life, that he, almost more than any other actor, demands control of his surroundings. Perhaps Being Robert DeNiro would be equally as fun, but I don't suspect that DeNiro would allow his real life to be ridiculed with the good will Malkovich has brought to this movie. Watching him order towels is so horrifyingly believable as to bring a tear of joy to your eye. Truth is, between this movie and Ed Margulies screed about Malkovich daring to turn down Movieline Magazine (geez, I have to stop laughing at that one or I'll never finish the column), I like, as much as one can from a distance, John Malkovich: The Man, more than ever. I respect his need for space. I understand why he doesn't want other people in his head. (He has enough going on up there already.) And I would love to sit across a table arguing the finer points of life with the guy. That's about the highest compliment I can offer.

But I digress...

Everyone is talking about it, but it is true. Spike Jonze kept his directing style out of the film the way a great director does. Insanity reigns, but you never feel you are watching an auteur at work. Just a great film. And Charlie Kaufman's script is magical. Ironically, this film is the Charlie & The Chocolate Factory for the millennium that WB is now trying to get off the ground. Only the action takes place in Willy Wonka's head. Well, I guess that's pretty much the same also.

There are a number of films as great or greater than this one this year. But you will not have a better moviegoing experience than Being John Malkovich this year.

THE BAD: What can one say about Music of the Heart that one hasn't said already? Not much. Why beat a lame horse into the ground? My comments, from back at Toronto, are here.

THE UGLY: I'll let these two letters speak for themselves: Gordon wrote: "Dave: shame on you. Irish cinemagoers were in fact able to see Lars von Trier's The Idiots earlier this year, so I'm at a loss as to why you ran the story now. I think it's gone to video already over here. The movie was screened at the Irish Film Centre, a Dublin cinema which shows foreign/arthouse/non-mainstream works. The controversial French drama Romance is running there as I write. The IFC operates on the basis that you have to be a club member to see movies shown there, a process that circumvents the censor's office as films to be shown in clubs don't have to be rated. (How do you become a member I hear you ask? You pay £1 extra at the door-I'd call that an Irish solution to an Irish problem!) OK so it's not an ideal situation but then, we didn't have to look at the Austin Powers version of Eyes Wide Shut and we all know what a hooha that caused.

And this came in from Will: "Er... Dave? The Idiots finished its cinema release last month! True the Irish cinema network can by-pass the censor but it's highly unlikely that it would have... Under Irish law, a film is only open of a particular 'cert' if the Irish Film Censor's cert appears at the beginning of the film. However Irish law also allows for 'clubs' where members can view non-passed-by-the-censor films. Just wondering, where did you get this? I'll check out the dept. of Justice anyway, but there is little point in banning a film AFTER it's finished in the cinema.

Later, Will wrote: "Sorry, just to correct myself, (I just got off the phone from her office). It turns out that the film was put on the prohibited list on the 15th of October. At least 6 months after it finished in the cinema. I presume that the ban is on the video release. Note: I'm assuming here. If you want to contact the film censor's office her number is... + 353 1 676 19 85.

DAVID RESPONDS: So, that explains why the story hit America this week. And why, as so often is the case, those of us reading this stuff must look closer. I thank you two for doing just that and I will try to hold to that standard more effectively in future.

THE CHAT: Next Wednesday, Emily Procter from Body Shots will be chatting with us. And on Monday, November 8, look for Jennifer Esposito, who is co-starring in The Bachelor. Hmmm...both women get tough and get sexy in their movies. Is this the new chat trend?

RADIO RADIO: You can tune in on the 'Net every Saturday at 10aPT to hear me and my co-host, the lovely and talented George Pennacchio on KABC-790 radio here in Los Angeles. If you missed it last week, you missed my partner telling me to shut-up over and over again on the air. Ouch.

GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY: Next Thursday, November 4, here in L.A., there will be a 25th reunion screening of Young Frankenstein, one of the greatest of the great Mel Brooks films. In attendance: Cloris Leachman, Peter Boyle, Kenneth Mars and of course, Mel Brooks himself. Other surprise guests are scheduled (one of my favorite PR pitch lines). It's all at the American Cinematheque. You can find out more by clicking here.

HAPPY TRAILERS TO YOU: Just watching the trailer for American Movie reminded me just how much I loved this film. I wrote above about passion for movies...this movie is about as wonderful an example as you could see of the kind of love that knows no bounds. Or sanity. But that's the passion we all go into the dark looking for, isn't it? Click here to see the trailer.

BAD AD WATCH: Speaking above of columns that make me cringe (again, Wells qualified for that dishonor for this column only...at least until the next time...smirk, smirk), Edward Margulies makes me gag. But he had a good point this week about an ad campaign that I think will scare away more potential moviegoers who aren't core audience members for the film than it will attract. And I'm sad to say that the film is the great and original Being John Malkovich. Scroll down past the silly gay screed after you click here and take a look. And by the way, I think that Margulies is, as usual, off his rocker when it comes to the one-sheet for The Messenger, which I think is an award-winner. But Three Kings was not great. And as young Mr. Wells loved to go on about back in his Mr. Showbiz days, the poster for Rushmore was probably the last great misfire of this degree. If you are going to make an anarchic movie, the poster has to make an audience feel a little safe, just to get them into their seats. I love BMJ and Rushmore and I have movie posters plastered in my kitchen, but I have no urge to look at either poster every morning before coffee. Yuck.

READER OF THE DAY: J.J. wrote: "After you ended your paragraph on Matthew McConaughey, I was kind of disappointed you didn't make the obvious salacious conclusion. But my faith was restored by the extremely funny closet screen doors comment a few paragraphs down.

As a gay man, I firmly believe that everyone has a right to privacy up to a point. And that if Matthew hadn't been arrested we really would have no business knowing what he does in his residence with some weed, bongo drums, no clothes, and other participants. But the story has been reported. What bothers me is that the inevitable "Is he Gay?" conclusion is never explicitly stated. Is it any of our business? Not really. But look at the George Michael situation from last year. Why was the "Is he Gay?" conclusions ok there and not here? Because Michael's homosexuality has been an open secret for years? Or if this situation involved a woman instead of another man, there would be a fury of Eddie Murphy/Hugh Grant jokes, comments, and "What was he thinking?" type articles. How are gays and lesbians ever going to be able to be considered "normal" if there is this hands off double standard when situations like this come around? I'm not advocating digging for trash, but when a situation like this is right in front of your nose, I don't think closing your eyes and pretending it isn't there is appropriate."

And on the same topic, this came in from Big Al: "While I'm not making any specific assumptions about Matthew McConaughey, it amazes me that the media still aids and abets all of the closeted movie, music and TV stars out there...

Sure, there's still a stigma (more-or-less) attached to being gay, but when Hollywood helps to coddle closeted celebs, they're helping to create and maintain that stigma: maintain the intolerance and self-loathing, the gay-bashing and the teen-suicides... Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but they're putting profits and career before people's lives in the most direct way..."

E ME: What do you think about the screen door? Anyone going to stand up for Music of the Heart?