Friday, 1 December 2000

WEEKEND PREVIEW

What’s to preview?

There’s only one new film coming out this week, and it’s 36 years old... exactly 53 days older than me, actually. Of course, last weekend’s Top Ten, which will probably remain intact, if reduced in dollars, is loaded up with golden oldies: The Grinch, the sequel to 101 Dalmatians, Charlie’s Angels, and the decades-old story of Carl Brashear’s breakthrough as a Navy diver. We also got the return of Bruce and M. Night, the Rugrats sequel, The Bennie and Gwennie Show, Ah-nuld’s resurrection, and a fairly familiar Adam Sandler movie. The closest thing to an original film, Meet the Parents, was a remake of an Emo Philips film. The Beatles’ A Hard Day’s Night pretty much fits in, huh?

Box Office Extra is here.

THE GOOD: It occurred to me while watching Michael Caine steal the show in his second great supporting performance of 2000 that this is The Year of Two. Two great Michael Caine performances. Two great Joaquin Phoenix performances. Two great Steven Soderbergh movies. Two Ah-nulds. Two English-language shots at American stardom for Penélope Cruz. Two career-damning Sylvester Stallone movies. Two Billy Bob Thornton movies spending many extra hours in the editing room. Mechanic and Sherak leaving Fox. Rothman and Jim Gianopulos taking over as co-chairmen. Two halves of Requiem for a Dream. Two distinct points of view on Dancer in the Dark. Two Bob Zemeckis movies. Take-two of The Exorcist. Two releases of Wonder Boys. Two Miramax Oscar movies (neither of which has been seen by anyone except Oprah). Two John Travolta bombs. Two Mars movies. Two Robert De Niro comedies. Two massive summer movies that seem like disappointments in retrospect. Two Jim Carreys in Me, Myself & Irene. Too much.

THE BAD: Still no president... even I’m getting bored by all this...

THE UGLY: So you don’t think the WAH! (War Against Hollywood!) will have any effect? You want to know how the WAH! will infringe on your right to see honest, valid media intended for adults? Is it all just political B.S.? The latest example comes from television but involves the MPAA, Hollywood’s ratings board, which really acts as a censorship board designed to avoid state-by-state censorship when the heat is on. The show is Channel 4’s Queer as Folk, a smash-hit Brit series about the gay community. The American outlet is Showtime. You know... the "No Limits" people. The Washington Post’s Tom Shales reports that Showtime has actually sent the series -- soon to premiere on its pay network (you know... the one whose ads claim "No Limits") -- to the MPAA to suggest cuts to get an R rating in America. Well, it turns out that Showtime told Shales that they have now agreed with cable operators not to run any NC-17 movies, so they decided that the TV series they bought should match. Showtime submitted the show to the MPAA twice, getting an NC-17 the first time and then resubmitting for the R. Now keep in mind, this is not about pornography. The level of sex was certainly no worse, according to Shales, than what’s found in something like G-String Divas on HBO, if that. Of course, if HBO wanted to show the NC-17 version of Eyes Wide Shut, they could... but they haven’t. (That may be, in part, because some idiots have argued that Warner Bros. was running a scam by adding those CG people to get the R, and that they would be "ripping us off" with a second, must-buy NC-17 rated DVD. That pretty much left WB in a no-win situation: damned if they released the uncut version and damned because they haven’t.) In any case, a great piece by Shales. Read it here.

RADIO RADIO: This Saturday at 11 am PST, KABC-790 in Los Angeles, or kabc.com. Who knows what will happen? Certainly not me!

GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY: This weekend at the American Cinémathèque in Los Angeles, 70mm showings of Ben-Hur; Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines; Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Kane (aka The Ninth Configuration); and My Fair Lady. Click here for more details.

QUOTE WHORE SCOREBOARD: I don’t know what my problem is, but I’m just not in the mood to rip the easily ripped. Maybe it’s because there are so many good movies around. I’ll be mean next Friday. Promise.

BAD AD WATCH: Perhaps the most talked-about ad right now is the trailer for Cast Away. People are worried that the trailer gives away the third act "surprise." I disagree, as I did on the trailer for What Lies Beneath. It’s a funny thing about Bob Zemeckis movies. People never expect them to be the hits they become, and they always claim the trailers give away too much. The reality is that the trailers are usually an exercise in misdirection. I guess we’ll see what happens when the movie arrives.

READERS OF THE DAY: D.C. Not From D.C. wrote in with a popular correction from Thursday’s ROTD -- "I wasn’t going to nitpick, but since a different reader is harping on Hollywood fashion, it seems safe. Laura Linney’s character in You Can Count on Me -- level of intelligence notwithstanding -- is a New York loan officer (in the fictional town of Scottville, which was confused, perhaps, with the all-too-nonfictional burg of Scottsdale) and not one from Arizona. Check the plates on her Subaru and on the bus that brings Mark Ruffalo to and from town. We don’t get much filmed-on-location credits ’round here. Just wanted to make sure we got our props."

Another popular take on the ROTD follows from The TON -- "In response to the attack on the Traffic panel’s dress code. Listen, my friend -- unless you’re attempting to spark interest for that new co-host spot on Joan River’s Post-Oscar Fashion Review, please do us all a favor and drop the fashion-police posing and talk about movies. If you want to worry about fashion, you might want to switch columns from David’s to Steve Kmetko’s Fashion Bonanza on Eonline.com, and drop a resume at the Kenneth Cole store in Santa Monica while you’re at it. (Oh yes, you can use your expertise in fine dressing all eight hours a day and even get paid for it...imagine the possibilities!)

"You should be counting your lucky stars that these talented filmmakers even decided to grace you with their presence at your cute little "KCET Film Series screening at the Television Academy Theatre in the NoHo Arts District." Get over yourself. I work in Hollywood and this is how I dress as well. If you want tap shoes and tiddly-winks, try a Texaco benefit. Now that’s exciting! And by the way, Requiem for a Dream is pretentious only to those who are waiting for it to be so..."

Finally, this missive came from Dave 2K -- "Why are the words "too slow" being accepted as a reason for disliking a film? Are we so accustomed to fast-paced, quickly edited M:I-2 pieces of garbage that we think that Unbreakable is slow? Another reader mentioned that he thought Traffic was "too slow." Go back and rent any film made pre-1985 and you’ll notice something different. Filmmakers actually took time to tell their stories the way they wanted to. They were not as caught up in getting to the next scene as they were in creating and enjoying the present scene. We should applaud filmmakers for taking their time with their stories these days. That is not to say that some movies aren’t too long. The Green Mile, for instance, was too long, because there didn’t seem to be enough story to warrant a three-hour running time. But still, the film was not too slow. We need to recharge our attention spans and appreciate when a film takes the time to tell its story."

E ME: Speed up or slow down.... Does either really matter? Or is every movie at its own speed?