25 February 2000

THE UGLY: Welcome to "Who Wants To Martyr A Movie Critic?!!!" Here's the question: What's the best proof that 1996's The Island of Dr. Moreau wasn't a fluke? A. Marlon Brando hasn't been seen on a big screen since. B. It turned out that DreamWorks thought that Val Kilmer really was God. C. Reindeer Games. D. It was a fluke, Regis.

C is my final answer. Dear God, C! Remember I told you that I saw a movie that was sure to be on my Worst of 2000 list come year's end, but that I couldn't tell you what it was. It wasn't Reindeer Games. But it could have been. (Actually, the other film is still not out, but could be used instead of Zyklon-B if the Nazis ever get back in business.) It is stunning to see a director of John Frankenheimer's caliber make a movie where the shots don't match...where the story makes no sense...where he takes great and cooperative actors and embarrasses them. I mean, you sit there and you just can't believe it.

Start with the first unbelievable thing. There is no way in hell that Ben Affleck is going to be in prison for 5 years and not be either king of the joint or the local push pillow. No way. The guy in the cell with him: Sure, I'll buy that. But Ben is just not the type. I would buy him as a car thief, but his prison experience as played... no.

Gary Sinise played George Wallace for Frankenheimer to great acclaim, and was probably signing on to work with a friend who he trusted in a role he doesn't often get a chance to play. But Frankenheimer let him go too far over the top and shot him so that he looked like he was wearing a lot of make-up the whole time. That marks one of the other problems of the movie. There were 10 or so good jokes in the movie. But the movie overall couldn't decide whether it was an over-the-top comedy or a serious action movie. Now, if you look at Frankenheimer's tremendous history as a filmmaker, do you see any over-the-top action films? No. You see serious, realistic films with some extreme car chases, but even they are known for being real. Not here.

Charlize Theron remains one of the sexiest women ever to be put on celluloid. She is silly sexy. Get her and Angelina Jolie in a movie together and you could spark the next baby boom. But it's wasted here, as you don't really believe that there is anyone in this picture that she'd drop mini for except Affleck, who is the only one who doesn't seem to think he was entitled. (The funniest moment when I saw the film is when Charlize says "I never fu** anyone by mistake" and a moviegoer shouted out, "Yeah, you just fu** everyone!" This film will make great fodder for MST3K fans. )

Don't even get me started on the waste of Donal Logue, Clarence Williams III, Danny Trejo and Dennis Farina.

But still, the scariest thing about this movie was that Frankenheimer, shooting in extremely controllable conditions - almost the entire movie is shot on either a stage or a set that could have as easily been a stage - doesn't have the shots that make it make sense. There is a casino sequence and the whole thing is about where everything is in the casino. And he never looks around. The entire thing is played in close-ups and two-shots. Lives are at stake if the Affleck character doesn't get the lay of the land and yet, we don't even have the slightest idea where anything is in a room the size of your average ballroom.

And the ending? How could it have been any worse than what they have now? It couldn't have been any worse. That's my final answer.

JUST WONDERING: I don't know how many of you read Jeff Wells' story about our supposed feud and how I killed his fictional cat, Spencer. (Funny thing is, I had a dog named Spencer.) What Jeff leaves out of the completely made-up story (very creative, Jeff), was that by the time I was 15 in 1979, Jeff was old enough to have gotten in and out of graduate school after his five years of service in Vietnam. (Or was that Korea?)

Jeff and I have a very odd relationship. There are not many people who do what we do. So there is a strange kinship. On the other hand, the rules that we play by differ enormously, Jeff fitting in somewhere between myself and Harry Knowles in journalistic attitude. Also, we have very different reputations in town. Jeff has also been at this a lot longer than I, and he is much more into building relationships with talent. I guess that if I could be hanging with Soderbergh, I'd be happy to do so. But for the most part, I like to keep my distance. There's no doubt that it is hard to beat up someone you like, even when they deserve it. Not that it's ever stopped Jeff, who would beat up his mother in print if she said something he didn't like...you know, something that really goads him, like "Jeffrey, wash your hands before dinner." I can just see it now..."That bitch...what does she know about hands? If she really understood hands, she would never have allowed herself to get those stretch marks!"

And as for teaming up, I'm afraid that in real life, it would become the "Hear Jeff say something outrageous and listen to David eviscerate him" show. That would get boring in a hurry. Though George Pennacchio and I should invite Wells onto the radio show sometime soon. (And apologies to the whole Wells family if Momma Wells is sick or has passed away. She was not the target of my jibe.)

BAD AD WATCH: I'm someone who really likes The Green Mile, even if it was too long. But what is Warner Bros. trying to sell here in Los Angeles by running ads with Gannett Newspapers, North San Antonio Times, Omaha World Herald, WEVD Radio, Nashville Tennessean, SSG Syndicate and NY1 along with Ebert & The Movies. This, for a change, means no disrespect for the people who are quoted, but Academy members probably look a little closer at quotes from folks in the rest of the country. What this ad says to me is that major critics in big cities don't like The Green Mile. What kind of message is that to be sending?

READER OF THE DAY: One reader smartly pointed out that for all of Pat Kingsley's musings that Tom Cruise would not be campaigning for Oscar, that he is on the cover of GQ this month. `Nuff said.

Another pointed out that Bugsy was a Tri-Star movie. So another screw-up there. Very embarrassing. Only that one person figured that out, but it's a mea culpa kinda week.

And now, Ryan defends The Academy: "Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this year's Oscar race is this delusion that's gradually taking hold in which the race is between American Beauty and The Cider House Rules. Despite the fact that this notion is becoming increasingly pervasive in the media, I can't seem to logically make the same leap you do in suggesting that if enough people say it's a 2-movie race, it will be. I think that perspective overlooks two things. First of all, most members of the Academy hold these media-created assumptions (like the absurdity of a "Cider" vs. "Beauty" race) in a great deal of contempt. They seem to resent being told how they think, and accordingly enjoy voting for underdogs ...which might account in part for Shakespeare in Love's victory last year.

Secondly, the plain fact is that, so long as Academy members are actually WATCHING the movies, a majority of those members are not going to like The Cider House Rules as much as American Beauty or even The Insider. It doesn't matter how much gossip and buzz there is, you're still not going to get a winner out of a movie whose core constituency seems to be members over 60 years of age."

E ME: Well, I guess he was defending and attacking. I don't think the average age at the Academy is over 60. But it may well be over 50. Please write about anything that pushes your Hot Button, but I am particularly interested in perspectives on Wonder Boys this week.