21 August 2000

THE UGLY: "Access Hollywood" occasionally adds something of value to the world. Last week, it was Wesley Snipes smacking around this summer's Shaft remake. He told the TV show, "I was offered the film and the script was terrible. It was an insult not only to African-American culture, but it was an insult to the icon of what Shaft was. [The studio] didn't care and I told them to find somebody else." Ironically, Samuel L. Jackson, who did star in the movie, seems to have felt the same way by the time the film was being promoted. And Snipes seems to know that, adding, "Sam knows I'm not dissin' him. I'm dissin' the people who made the movie." Ouch. Now, if Wesley only had a director as talented as John Singleton on his new film, Art of War, he could have had a major franchise of his very own. Maybe next time.

HAPPY TRAILERS TO YOU: I caught the trailer for Keanu Reeves' next release, The Watcher. It's funny how both this film and The Replacements have the feel of being tiny movies in light of Reeves' mega-success with The Matrix last year. Go figure. Based on the trailer, I still have no idea of whether The Watcher will be a brilliant small film that resonates or whether it with be a forgettable piece of junk. It seems like a terrific role for Reeves, changing things up. But then again, James Spader seems to be doing a role we've already seen from him and Marisa Tomei looks a bit lost. The funny thing is, I am really rooting for Tomei to regain speed in her career and am a real fan of Brad Anderson's Happy Accidents, which still has no release date that I can find, and which co-stars Vincent "I have two movies that opened this weekend" D'Onofrio. But the trailer for this one seemed pretty much by the numbers. Just another late summer campaign for another "let's throw a name star out there and see who bites" movie. I hope The Watcher doesn't bite.

BAD AD WATCH: Did the Bring It On team at Universal catch an infection from the folks at Warner Bros. who came up with the print campaign for The Replacements? After looking closely at the tiny credits, I now know that it is Kirsten Dunst sneering in her cheerleader outfit. But that's still about all I can figure out about this movie. It's about cheerleaders, right? It's about white cheerleaders and black cheerleaders? It's about some sort of competition? It's about butt shaking? Well, they'd probably be better off just reprinting the Kirsten Dunst cover of Maxim that made me feel creepy when I caught Interview with the Vampire the other night. (When Tom Cruise tells the very young Dunst that she'll never have the mature body of the women he craves…well, she's sure proven him wrong.) All this makes me wonder about why there never seems to be a black woman on the cover of Maxim and almost as rarely inside. Hmmm. Anyway, the ad for Bring It On may be the least hard working ad in show business.

READER OF THE DAY: This came from Not Clark Kent: "I vehemently disagree with Mr. Lieberman and anyone who desires to play guardian to society. I believe in absolute freedom in speech. But I also believe there is a need for artistic restraint in filmmaking, now more than ever. Why do so many directors today feel it necessary to shock us, to shower us in images sick and perverse and graphic? Take The Cell. This movie disgusted me in a way no movie ever has. There was such a perverse darkness crawling onscreen that I came away feeling a sense of dread. It's frustrating to see movies like this, because I see a director who has been gifted with a richness of imagination that is suffocated by the new wave of shock filmmaking. There were moments of beauty and striking imagery in The Cell, but why contrast this with horror that could have been more powerfully implied?

I know you enjoyed the film, and I ask you this: how is a serial killer masturbating over his victim or gleefully wrapping human intestines around a barbed skewer to the tune of a music box entertainment? Should we accept such things with open arms? Roger Ebert was one of the few critics who also enjoyed this movie. He says in his review that he doesn't understand why it hasn't been embraced by critics. I respect Ebert's opinions and poetically incisive reviews more than any critic out there, but it bothers me, now more than ever, when a movie like this is hailed as 'one of the best of the year.' "

And this from the M&P: "Director Tarsem, screenwriter Mark Protosevich and their talented collaborators have created the modern equivalent of a Brothers Grimm fairy tale in The Cell. I thought that the film did not follow the 'real world' rules of serial killer-thrillers such as Se7en or The Silence of the Lambs; it followed dream logic or the rules of a fable. The 'real world' of The Cell is filmed with a similar strategy that Kubrick filmed Eyes Wide Shut where the 'real world' evokes the hidden desires/feelings of its characters. In fact, The Cell has more in common with reality-bending pictures such as 2001, The Seventh Seal, Metropolis, Dark City, Brazil (actually any Terry Gilliam picture), etc.

In my opinion, this type of picture is not remembered for great acting performances, great plot twists or insights in human behavior. These pictures are more about grand themes (ex. human evolution, man's relationship with God, fate controlling man's destiny, etc.) expressed in virtuoso images than about specific instances of human comedy/tragedy detailed by human behavior and realistic settings. The human characters in these films are archetypal; in The Cell, you have the empath/sprite/good fairy/witch (Jennifer Lopez), the wounded hero/champion/knight (Vince Vaughn) and the evil, troubled man-child/ogre/demon (Vincent D'Onforio). The themes that The Cell touches on are very universal: 'The child is father to the man,' we accept our own reality, good and evil exists in us all (and often are interconnected), cruelty to a child is cruelty to us all, the courage to help your fellow man even under impossible situations, etc.

Also, I believe that Tarsem is being unfairly criticized for being 'image excessive;' film translates its message more with images than any other medium. The Cell is not an impersonal, machine like edited film cloaked with cynicism and irony; it is a film where images are meant to evoke consciousness, desire, fear, love, empathy, etc. Tarsem's style elevates the substance of a simple but deep story by challenging the audience and not giving easy answers. Like Stone, Scorsese, Bunuel, Bergman, PT Anderson, Spike Jonze, Spike Lee, Altman, Kubrick, etc. Tarsem is trying to give the audience an vital and alive experience."

E ME: OY!!!! This guy really loves this movie. I would say that comparing Tarsem to Bunuel is like comparing a good high school football player to Dan Marino. And I found a lot of value in the movie. Anyway, what did you think of The Cell? And does anyone really know what Bring It On is about? (No fair if you work for Universal!)