Monday, 10 January 2000

WEEKEND REVIEW

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. You know, I've been covering box office in this column like an overactive hound dog for the last three January’s. And in all three, I found reasons to believe that a free-for-all on truth took place this time of year while no one was really, really paying attention. But this year is the worst by far. And not only are they cooking the estimates...I think there is little reason to doubt that they are cooking the "final" weekend numbers as well on some of these pictures. Some of these numbers just don't make sense, regardless of my opinion of each individual movie.

I'm going to remain non-specific here because I don't have hard proof. But there is clearly someone in the kitchen when films in slots 2 through 6, separated by total projected weekend gross ranging from $6.6 million to $9.8 million, all claim they will gross between $2.5 million and $2.7 million on Sunday.

One a brighter note, Stuart Little now projects out to a $135 million domestic gross, believe it or not. The Talented Mr. Ripley continues strong. Magnolia will probably have overestimated by around $1 million, but any start over $5 million had to be seem as a success for a three hour, hardcore, heavy drama. And Man on the Moon and Anna and The King continue to fade fast. This could be a year where Oscar® nominations have more fiscal impact on the films involved than ever before, since only American Beauty seems to be going into the nomination period with some serious money in the bank.

THE GOOD: The story that people will talk about, coming out of the National Society of Film Critics press announcements Saturday, will be that they chose Topsy-Turvy and Being John Malkovich as Best Picture, Mike Leigh as Best Director and Russell Crowe and Reese Witherspoon as Best Actor and Actress. Also awarded (you should be able to figure out which name goes with which award by now) were Christopher Plummer, Chlöe Sevigny, Charlie Kaufman, Conrad Hall, Autumn Tale and Buena Vista Social Club. But what they added that I find more important was an attack on the DGA's choice to remove D.W. Griffith's name from the guild's top award. The group's statement included this simple, clear and shockingly evident passage: "The DGA has explained its decision by asserting that Griffith 'helped foster intolerable racial stereotypes.' But that description applies to The Birth of a Nation (1915), only one among Griffith's hundreds of films. The DGA should note that in a multifaceted career, Griffith also made such ambitious, heartfelt pleas for understanding as Broken Blossoms and, significantly, the monumental Intolerance." You tell `em, gang.

THE BAD: Just as I've sensed that the millennial death race was over, a man who was way too influential in shaping my young mind has passed away. He wasn't a filmmaker, but a man whose ideas sprung (SPRUNG!!!!!) to life on the pages of Mad magazine. (BOING!!!!) His name is Don Martin, and he was one of the great pen-based character actors ever. (SPLAT!!!!) It's almost impossible to describe the work if you haven't seen it (FFFFPT!), but I bet you've seen it. Don Martin's stuff was always the thing I was most anxious to see when I got my monthly copy of Mad. I guess that I've already missed Don Martin for years, but even in death (SPLORKKK!!!!) he will live on for me. (BZZT!)

THE UGLY: Assuming that Moriarty of AICN is right, and the Sam Raimi deal to direct Spider-Man is a done one, I'm cool with the decision. The big question mark is whether we will get the Sam Raimi of Evil Dead or the Sam Raimi of A Simple Plan or some hybrid that he is now aiming at creating. If it is the first, my favorite notion, they better not let that budget up over $50 million (as though that was possible) or Sony will find out the hard way what "cult" means. If it's going to be Hollywood Sam, I have serious concerns about a truly mediocre, bland film. And if there is a Raimi hybrid coming, I am happy to wait and see what he comes up with. But could I give Sam Raimi a $100 million movie to do? I don't know. Probably not. Not even Spider-Man. And mind you, I was a big Darkman supporter and was happy to see that film succeed beyond initial expectations. So, what is "ugly?" Well, I'm not quite sure why Harry Knowles can't just post the news and not be so smug. ("So, why don't one of you busy reporters out there give Amy a call and get that headline out for...Monday...cool?") Firstly, this is not exactly front page, life-changing news. But even so, somebody in the Raimi family called Moriarty instead of Michael Fleming to get out the word. What's the biggie? AICN is more the Spider-Man audience than industry people or Entertainment Weekly or whoever. Anyway...it just sat wrong with me. I guess I'm not one to talk about being obnoxious, but part of what I do is to criticize the entertainment media. I keep church (the news) and state (my opinions) clearly separated or at least I always try to do so. I don't consider this a news column. It's an opinion and analysis column. So when I smack the media it's for what they've reported, not for personal reasons or based on personalities or a sense that I've been abused somehow. Oh well. I'm not Father Geek either. Harry will do what Harry wants to do. C'est la vie.

"Chats, Trips, Canadians & Rips"