WEEKEND PREVIEW

The only new films on the coasts today are art house flicks Jump Tomorrow, Lost And Delirious, Everybody's Famous! and The Vertical Ray Of The Sun, plus Fox’s wide release, Li’s Kiss of the Dragon, starring Jet Li and Bridget Fonda.  And I have seen a total of… zero of them.  I will actually be trying to see a couple of them over the weekend… probably not the Jet Li flick.   But your opinions are, as always, welcome.

THE GOOD:  I haven’t been overwhelmed by Michael Solomon’s new-look Premiere Magazine… until this month.  And it isn’t because Reese Witherspoon is on the cover.  This is the first month where I really feel Solomon’s emerging style.  The front of the book is loaded with short stories.  But they aren’t pure fluff.  There is a certain insider feel without reeking of “we know better than you” ism.  The A-List section is chock full o’ photos, but it is also weird, focusing on the Paramount Hotel instead of the party at it and embracing the freak show of a 7 foot Shrek at the New York premiere.  Anna David doesn’t have quite enough space to really roll, but she brings her own odd charm to her Party Girl briefs. 

The Witherspoon spread stinks of Vanity Fair, but I have to say that Premiere is the only outlet that made me feel like I missed anything by not going to Cannes this year.  Revisiting Carrie is bizarre and interesting and fun.  I loved the 50 Greatest Movie Posters of All Time feature, which was both very visual and terrifically movie-loving.   (One note: There was no mention of the fact that Universal actually did some canvas posters for Out of Sight… I should have made more of an effort to land one back then.)  The look at the “cinemap” of a different town each month is a solid feature and again, film-loving, very visual AND inclusive of more than just L.A and New York.  Good show.

THE BAD:  I wish I could say that Baby Boy was a particularly good movie.  I can’t.  Except for its unnecessarily long 2:09 running time… it seems like longer.  Thing is, there is a truly great performance by Ving Rhames, a breakthrough performance by Taraji P. Henson and a lot of nice work by Singleton.  But what’s the point? 

Singleton tells you where he is going quite literally.  The movie opens with “Baby Boy” Jody, played by Tyrese, in the womb, a full grown man awaiting his birth.  Are black American men infantilized and how can they grow up?  (His question, not mine.) 

And here is my basic problem with the film… Jody IS an infant in the film.  He is unmotivated.  He has children by two women and sleeps not only with both of them, but with other women as well.  And he lives with his mother, escaping to her home whenever he decides he wants space.  All he is really concerned about is who is going to give him sex, who is going to give him money and whether he is going to be throw out of his mother’s house when her new boyfriend moves in.   By the end of the movie, Jody has grown up.  Great.  But what was the point of taking this particular journey?  I’m still not sure. 

The thing that made Boyz in the Hood a sensation was that it brought attention to a world that white America hadn’t really seen.  It seemed tough and real and the daily demands of survival were palpable.  Baby Boy is missing that kind of urgency.  The excuses for Baby Boy’s self indulgences are lame.  There is no way to be on his side unless, as the women of the film discuss, you are in love with him.  Not me.  And so, I was left with a lot of interest in the secondary characters… who were truly secondary.  

Ving Rhames’ character is fascinating.  He’s a man who has seen the darkest side of life and survived and is determined to move on, even though he is still haunted by his past every minute.  Unfortunately, we only know him through Baby Boy Jody, and while the scenes are the best in the film, I would be more interested in the Melvin (Rhames’ character’s name) movie.  Omar Gooding is Sweet Pea, a guy who doesn’t have the charm and looks of Baby Boy, but whose heart is huge.  (And yes, Gooding is Cuba’s brother.)  But we don’t get enough of him… his movie would have been far more interesting.  Heck, we meet the young matriarch of the family in the first scene… and she never comes back again.  She might be fascinating.

But what we get is a selfish young man who is given chance after chance after chance by everyone who loves him until he finally gets a little wisdom… but not until everyone he loves gets to suffer some more at his hand.  Baby Boy just isn’t the guy I’m ever going to care about.  The story of a person who just doesn’t appreciate anything… not that interesting.

THE UGLY:  Ed Weiner of the Philadelphia Daily News wonders aloud about the move by Inside.com to being a relatively inexpensive pay site.  The basic question asked is, even if $3.95 a month doesn’t seem like much when you want to read a particular site, how many sites will we pay for before a distinct unwillingness to pay a premium for online content sets in?  Good piece… ugly problem for the business model.  (Read the whole story here)

GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY:  (From the press release…) “Telluride IndieFest 2001 announces its "LAST CALL" for entries - so, if you want to *participate* in this year's event - please *register* your entry online (ASAP) at http://tellurideindiefest.com.  Just click on "Year 2001 Entry Forms" and you are on your way!”

BAD AD WATCH:  I really like The Anniversary Party… but Fine Line seems to be trying to trick potential audience members into thinking that it’s a happy, light romp.  They are using a smiling, laughing photo of Jennifer Jason Leigh and Alan Cumming up front and then the entire cast, pictured below, is also smiling (except for John C. Reilly, who smirks).  There are definitely laughs and good times to be found here.  But the film is a pretty hard core emotional journey for most of the characters and not a light romp. 

JUST WONDERING:  Think you’ve read everything on A.I.?  The Washington Post’s Sharon Waxman brings a perspective that I haven’t seen anywhere else.  Read it here.

READER OF THE DAY:  Not Bananas writes:  “The three pro-A.I. defenses presented by your Reader of the Day are nothing like what I have encountered.  I have read tons of interesting theories and responses--especially on the AICN talkback.  I have not been so interested in interpretations since 'Fight Club.'  Funny, but the FC supporters seem to be AI bashers.”

ShaJ adds:  “Just saw it the other day and here's one thing that struck me that I haven't seen mentioned thus far -- except for the opening scene, there appear to be no people of color in the film.  Not the kids who attended the birthday party, or the spectators at the Flesh Fair or the people on the street in Rouge City.

Even the kids David and Joe hitchhike with all appeared to be white.  Now this is not a topic that I'm particularly sensitive about, and I might not have even noticed it if I'd been more engaged in the film, but I did notice it.  And I can't help but think about what Whoopi Goldberg has said about seeing Lt. Uhura's character on Star Trek when she was a kid -- that "we" made it into the future.  What this movie unintentionally  (I believe) says is that "we" didn't make it.  At least not in any real, substantive way.  Just food for thought.”

E ME:  What do you have to say about the films that aren’t A.I.?