Friday, 8 December 2000

WEEKEND PREVIEW

I am always amazed by how readers can break my heart. I got an e-mail that you can read down in the ROTD slot, which I have already responded to here, yet it is sticking in my heart like too much arterial plaque. At moments like this, I start to question why readers engage in this odd relationship with me. But if I think about that too much, I find myself frozen in time and space, unable to move an inch. And so, I shall go on. But I just thought I’d over-share before getting to the movies.

I haven’t seen Dungeons & Dragons, but we do have a Mark Wheaton feature on the making of the movie and some trading cards for those of you who dig such stuff. Proof of Life I have already weighed in on (THB 12/5) and it has weighed on me.

I really wanted to see Vertical Limit again to make sure that the effects shots, particularly in the beginning, were as lame as they appeared when I first saw the movie. The worst of it comes in the opening sequence, which looks like a set in front of a green screen. After Mission: Impossible 2, how can audiences be expected not to laugh at the sequence?

Then you have the bizarre relationship between Chris O’Donnell and Robin Tunney. Can’t wait for the sex scene? Wait... they are brother and sister. And the creepy sexual subtext writhes through the whole film. You feel like he is trying to save his ex, not his sister, because we never get that kind of brother/sister intimacy that is so easily recognizable. Making matters worse, O’Donnell’s character isn’t all that hot for Izabella Scorupco’s character, who after all, lives in Ms. Scorupco’s remarkable human vessel.

All of this makes me quite unhappy, since I think Martin Campbell is one of the best action directors working today. For a $100 million–plus movie, it sure seems like they were trying to cheap it out. Besides not bringing in a single big, opening-level name, the marketing has seemed almost passive, particularly on the promotional level. The big question continues to be, did Columbia focus so intensely on Charlie’s Angels that they left a $200 million investment on The 6th Day and Vertical Limit (before P&A) to slide into oblivion?

Box Office Extra is here.

THE GOOD, THE BAD, & THE UGLY: It is usually about this time that I start mocking the National Board of Review as an out-of-touch, irrelevant group of disconnected wanna-bes who manipulate the Oscar season by doing everything they have to do to be the first award given out. It’s an annual rite (THB 12/10/99; page 2). The argument is always the same. They have a terrible record of predicting Oscar winners; they have this elaborate system of talent presenting themselves as though they were show ponies; and they have absolutely no significance as a group... except for being the first every year. And to me, that is kind of like putting "Premature Ejaculator!" in a personals ad.

Every year, people try to look into this group, but they never get clear answers about who they really are. I gather that Mike Clark from USA Today and a couple of other working critics are part of the group. But the group is made up mostly of retirees, only a few of whom have ever had anything directly to do with the movie business. So, why does "the business" put up with the absurdity of people taking this group seriously? Because it’s good for business. Any group that has a name that "sells" in print provides another opportunity for your film to be a "winner." Just because the 81-year-old group started as the National Board of Censorship of Motion Pictures is no reason to worry, is it? Just because their primary goal is self-promotion and a really good party at Tavern on the Green? No problem. Of course, it is impossible to put together an awards group that competes with the National Board of Review, because any group of industry professionals who consider themselves legitimate would never vote this early. Of course, that has changed as critics groups have jumped on the bandwagon, voting earlier and earlier so as not be seen as irrelevant.

Ironically, this board made choices that I can feel pretty good about celebrating. Quills as Best Film. Javier Bardem as Best Actor. Julia Roberts as Best Actress. Joaquin Phoenix as Best Supporting Actor. Steven Soderbergh as Best Director for both Erin Brockovich and Traffic. (I can’t get behind Chuck & Buck’s Lupe Ontiveros as Best Supporting Actress, much as I respect her body of work.)

Of course, then there are the stupid choices, like making Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Best Foreign Film instead of Best Picture, as well as the absolute shutout of Finding Forrester, Almost Famous, and The Contender. And the group’s insistence on covering the entire waterfront when giving awards (10 Best Films, 5 Best Foreign Films... 21 awards in all, with 40 films getting something). And then you have anomalies, like Erin Brockovich taking Best Actress and Best Director but not making the Top Ten list.

With love to many of the winners, this award is a joke, and the way the media falls all over it is an embarrassment.

PAGE TWO: More Stuff