28 February 2000

RADIO RADIO: Join me for KABC's Third Annual Academy Awards Viewing Party at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. It will be in the Blossom Room, which is where the very first Academy Awards were held. Tickets are only $45 and there are some major prizes, including a trip to Hawaii for the winner of the Oscar trivia contest. To find out more, go to KABC.com or call (310)839-4636.

JUST WONDERING: Is anyone else beginning to get the impression that The New York Times has made a huge error in judgement in deciding upon their new hires? It's like The Dense and The Defiant over there. A.O. Scott spent 5 paragraphs explaining how distracting Dogma 95 rules are before saying a single damned word about the movie, Mifune, and how the movie overcomes the rules. And how about this classic line: "It has also been, I hasten to point out, a staple of bourgeois cinematic false consciousness from Frank Capra to Barry Levinson." Yeah…exactly what I was gonna say! And is Elvis Mitchell the only critic in America who draws a paycheck and liked Reindeer Games? The carcass must look good on his mantle next to the rave for Gun Shy.

BAD AD WATCH: What could send even quote whores running from association with a movie? That would be a good question to ask the marketers of both The Next Best Thing and What Planet Are You From?, both of which are going into their releases this Friday sans quotes.

READER OF THE DAY: A tough pair of readers today. First, a different DP: "Once again, overhyped movie stars can't "open" movies. Why can't Hollywood learn that people don't like to have actors shoved down their throats and be told that we should love, envy and pay money to see this actor? I'm referring to Ben Affleck and Leonardo DiCaprio at the moment. I'm also referring to Brad Pitt and George Clooney. An obvious fact should be that the movie has to be interesting to entice the public. An actor will help publicize the movie but if the public isn't interested in the movie, no actor regardless of his overinflated salary or image will make the movie a hit. Examples: Eyes Wide Shut, Random Hearts, End of Days. I hope that Ben soon fades away and becomes a trivia question like Richard Grieco and Vincent Spano."

And now, the tough-as-nails, AD on "The Life & Times of Ehren Kruger": "His first big budget script gets hooked up with great names like Joan Cusack, Tim Robbins and Jeff Bridges. It's not THAT bad of a script, and it has a nice twist ending. Unfortunately, the directing of the movie left something to be desired (such as...originality), and the person who cut the trailer decided that the first hour's suspense didn't really need to be suspenseful. Critics decide that it's good, but not great. Cost: 35m, Gross: 4m(UK) + 25m(USA) = 29m. + video. Not okay.

His second big budget script gets hooked up to the final chapter in a franchise! What luck, this franchise MADE the career of a now famous screenwriter. It's perfect! Unfortunately, the script was not: It had some good things (I liked the Woodsboro set, I even bought the "mom was an actress" thing), but it had some not-so-good things (mom is a dream sequence, misuse of Heather Matarazzo as an all-too-obvious plot device that didn't really seem to parody itself). Oh, and the script had a twist ending! Wes Craven knows suspense, he does his best--but it shows he had trouble with some of it, too. It's a sequel, everyone goes to see it. It makes a butt-load of money, and still is making it. Cost: 40m, Gross: (so far) 60m. Pretty good, but what would've happened if K.W. wrote the final script? It was going to make big bucks anyway, being a sequel, but everyone who sees it says "bad" or "could've been better" or "I wasted my money on this sh**?!". Makes money, but is it really Kruger's money? No.

Enter Reindeer Games (formerly Deception). We get hot young stars: Charlize Theron, Ben Affleck. We get a great director: John Frankenheimer. We get...a pretty bad script...WITH A TWIST ENDING! blah blah blah, I don't waste my money. Cost: 42m, Gross (so far): 9m. Better start than Arlington Road, but...this time more critical disgust. But this time: Young hotties get it on, and we get to watch. Voyeur factor: Matinee screenings, gross.

More interesting credits: Impostor with Vincent D'Onofrio, Madeline Stowe, and Gary Sinise (who has fallen prey to 2 Kruger scripts). Never heard of this movie. Last IMDb update says "in production" June 8, 1999. Not sure who got last rewrite on this script, but...there's 6 or so writers on it, now. New World Disorder with Rutger Hauer and Andrew McCarthy--somehow this cast seems to fit better with Kruger's ability.

And yet, there's one more script in production: Texas Rangers, with hot young stars, and heck, most of the cast is from TV shows. Is it possible that Ehren Kruger's career is over? Highly. If Texas Rangers sucks major a**, will he ever work in this town again? Probably. Why? Because, his scripts attract big stars. Why? I have no freakin' clue. Can you explain it?

On the flipside: Wonder Boys. I'm with ya. There's just that homey feeling to it that makes it great. Maybe it's because my college is a little dinky liberal arts school, where we ask Frances McDormand's question ("Is this what we mean by a liberal education?"). I think what works about this movie is Curtis Hanson. He focused Kim Basinger to an Oscar, he focused Katie Holmes into being believable (to me, for the first time), and he created a drab atmosphere (notice the brown...everywhere) where strange things happen, just like in real life."

E ME: Do you agree with the ROTDs? Pretty rough, huh?