Continued ...
25 June 2001

MORE BAD:  Finally, the L.A. Times’ Robert Welkos takes his shot at the “David Manning” et al, embracing a point that has been expressed here and in other columns…. all the embarrassment to the studios and others in the last couple of months is unlikely to lead to any real change.  Welkos does make the important point that a lot of this business is done on handshakes and verbal agreements.  However, he doesn’t quite get into the interesting moral blending that takes place now in an era where movies are financed outside of the studio system based on these verbal agreements and how more and more lawsuits are cropping up when one side or the other changes its mind.  In “Old Hollywood,” suits like the Boxing Helena/Kim Basinger case or the freshly served Sharon Stone/Basic Instinct 2 suit would be unthinkable… if either actress ever wanted to work again.  Same with the aforementioned battle over the distribution of O.  The alleged threat of “you’ll never work in this town again if you don’t do what we want” may or may not be as weighty as it once was. Another oddity is that extreme moralist Neil Gabler seems to be apologizing for Hollywood’s traditional self indulgences.  I don’t think that was his intention.  I’m guessing he’s just saying how much worse it was in the old days.  But anyway… you gotta be careful how you’re quoted sometimes.  A very good piece, all in all.  Click here - to take a look.

THE UGLY:  Pearl Harbor is showing that its relationship to Armageddon is more than just the parentage of Bay & Bruckheimer.  When Armageddon opened, it fell of in the mid-30 percent range for six weekends, looking like the film would come up short of $200 million domestic.  And miraculously, in weekend seven, the drop fell to just 22 percent.  The next weekend was off in the 30s again… and then, in weekend nine, there was a 16 percent drop.  (To be fair, it was Labor Day weekend.)  But the next weekend, it was off just 7 percent!!!  Very unusual.  From then on, it dropped anywhere between 17 percent and 70 percent before it stopped domestic distribution with $201.6 million.  Pearl Harbor, which has looked like it wouldn’t get to $200 million after 50 percent drops on its second and third weekends, recovered last weekend with a 33 percent drop-off.  And this weekend, it’s down to a 29 percent drop.  Wow!  

What does it all mean?  You tell me.

BAD AD WATCH:  On Friday, I linked to Andrew Sarris’ front page, week early review  Warner Bros.’ A.I.  Over the weekend, the studio ran double truck ads featuring reviews from Time and Newsweek.  Most everyone else who sees the film is being told that the Friday embargo date is firm… very firm.  Some web critics who have contacted me indicate that the studio isn’t even letting them see the film.  I don’t quite get the strategy here.  And I am beginning to worry that the studio is forgetting to market to teenagers in a powerful way.  After all, even web geeks like myself aren’t necessarily going through all the very clever games that Spielberg & Co. have used to get a lot of buzz going on the film… even though the people who are obsessed with this stuff are already sure-bet ticket buyers come Friday.  Is the studio going after teens who aren’t that interested?  So far, we have “gee whiz, that’s cool looking” spots, with a little of Jude Law and lots of Haley Joel Osment.  Serious movie goers will surely be attracted in droves.  But will the crowds that have been lining up to watch Angie Bob and the hot rods and bods the last two weekends?  Funny thing is, I have gathered, though I don’t see the movie until Tuesday night, there is plenty of edge to sell.  Could the studio be playing this one a little close to the vest?  Remember Eyes Wide Shut.

READER OF THE DAY:  Not The UofM Cornerback writes:  “For the last several months I have embarked on what may be called a quest for quality cinema, and an attack on that which is mediocre. I am losing hope. Over the duration of my search, I have found nothing of value whatsoever in the "summer hit" section of the market, and of mainstream releases, have found only "Moulin Rouge" to be great in any way. "The Tailor of Panama" was also notable, but hasn't seen wide release. Why is it that I have found solace only in my DVD collection? Does this year get no "Traffic," no "Crouching Tiger," no "Fargo," no film worth arguments over what deserves Best Picture in March? I have watched the dregs of the most depressing cinematic bollocks in history. "Pearl Harbor," "Tomb Raider," "Freddy Got Fingered," "The Mummy Returns." In the last three months, Roger Ebert has given two zero-star reviews. Why? I've seen history bastardized and a man lick an open leg wound! Why? I can only hope to ignore it all, and go back to "A Clockwork Orange," "Raging Bull," and "Casablanca." I haven't found any reason not to.

E ME: He has a point… no Erin Brockovichs this March.  Hannibal didn’t come close to filling that void.  But the holiday season has films from Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh, Michael Mann, Cameron Crowe, The Coen Bros., Frank Darabont, Peter Jackson, Ron Howard, P.T. Anderson, Lasee Hallstrom and Adrian Lyne, among others.  (Rod Lurie will be chasing Oscar again this year… like it or not!)  Don’t give up on 2001 yet.  And stay steady knowing that at the least, you still have a Tim Burton film and Apocalypse Now Redux coming in the next two months.  Will that make you feel better?