WEEKEND REVIEW

There have to be some smiling faces at Fox this morning.  I don’t think anyone really believes that they are behind the alleged campaign against A Beautiful Mind (see below), yet they are beginning to look like a serious dark horse in the Best Picture race, edging ahead of Lord of The Rings, after both were assumed to be behind the Ron Howard picture.  Harry Knowles is already touting the next Star Wars picture.  Kissing Jessica Stein opened strong.  And Ice Age emerged from a shower of soft to negative reviews to a Top 25 All-Time opening, behind only Hannibal as a non-holiday, non-summer start.  An estimated $47.9 million.  That’s a spectacular result.  And even if the film limps to as little as $140 million, a film that was once a worry is now a winner. 

On the flip side, Warner Bros. has to be a little let down by Showtime.  Even if you write off the last couple of Eddie Murphy films, Shrek and Nutty Professor II, as untypical, Bowfinger opened to $18 million and Life opened to $20 million, so an estimated $15.4 million for Showtime is… okay.  (I’ve left out Holy Man as a horrible anomaly in Murphy’s career and in the motion picture business overall.)  The thing is, this is a movie that I should have been dying to see.  And though I do want to see it, I don’t have that must-see feeling.  Though I saw some good jokes, I never really felt like the hook for the film was clear in the ads and trailer.  Maybe the same is true in the movie.  But the only contact between Murphy and DeNiro, which is what seems exciting about this film, is a joke about wrapping someone up in Caution tape… pretty weak.   If DeNiro is Murphy’s Nick Nolte and Murphy is DeNiro’s Charles Grodin, this is a great movie that I am lining up for early. 

Somewhere in the middle is the estimated $18.2 million start for Resident Evil.  It was a stronger opening than the similarly positioned Final Fantasy and A Knight’s Tale and it’s a comparable start to The One and The Animal.  The only problem with that is that none of those films did more than $61 million domestic in the end.  Maybe Resident Evil will become as leggy as The Wedding Planner, which ended up doing about four and a half times its opening.  With an estimated $70 million budget, they’re going to need every dime they can get.

THE WHINY WAR AT HOME:  Things have gotten uglier in the battle over the battle over the battle over A Beautiful Mind.  On Saturday, The New York Times and The L.A. Times made this remarkably petty, unimportant story into front-page news and Time and Newsweek threw their 1.5 cents in for good measure. 

It’s classic.  First, you have the “it’s never been like this before” blather, which is the biggest lie in all of this.  After hosting a Los Angeles movie talk show for three awards seasons (two-and-a-half, really), I can tell you for a fact that these kinds of issues have come up every single year that I’ve been covering this beat.  Is anyone thinking clearly when they suggest that this year’s Beautiful Mind issues about anti-Semitism and homosexuality are somehow more ugly than the racial issues around The Hurricane or The Green Mile or CBS’ unhappiness with The Insider or accuracy issues that came up around Boys Don’t Cry or Erin Brockovich or The People vs. Larry Flynt? 

Is DreamWorks’ blatant end run around the Academy rules last year to promote Gladiator’s Oscar run last year by having a “DVD release” screening at the Academy with talent (screenings with talent are not allowed under Academy rules) and, furthermore, having “public” screenings with talent in attendance at the AMC Century City, more or less inappropriate than someone mentioning to Matt Drudge that homosexuality and anti-Semitism were in the book of A Beautiful Mind and not in the movie?  How do you balance the outrage?

Did DreamWorks break the Academy rules last year?  No.  They played within the rules, if not within the spirit of the rules.  And for their effort, they ended up with an Academy Award for a movie that will forever be seen as inferior to most of its competition.  But make no mistake.  They drove that train.

Here’s what’s happened in the case of A Beautiful Mind.  Someone dropped the gay bomb on Drudge a few months ago and the rest of the media basically let it pass.  No real effect.  A few weeks ago, after the nominations, someone mentioned the anti-Semitic thing to Drudge.  Or maybe they didn’t.  Maybe the anti-Semitic thing was discussed at the same time as the gay thing and Drudge himself decided to hold on to the non-story story until it would have maximum effect.  Everyone wants to say that there is a conspiracy, but no one has found a single, legitimate suspect.  If ever there was a case where there need not be a suspect, this is it. 

Anyway, the story hits Drudge.  Yawn.  Academy members do tend to be older and older people do not tend to surf the web.  But then the story ends up in the Daily News… then the Hollywood Reporter… then the L.A. Times… and now, this weekend, on the front pages of both top coastal papers.  Now, it’s a story.  Who is responsible?  Not Drudge.  Not the person who suggested the story to Drudge, whether that person was attached to another film or not.  The responsibility belongs to the editors of The New York Times, The L.A. Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Time, Newsweek and all the outlets that are going to pick up the story or assign reporters to get more quotes after this weekend’s explosion.  The responsibility is on Don Hewitt and 60 Minutes for re-interviewing John Nash so he could wield the double-edged sword of denial on national television this weekend.

The responsibility also lies, I am afraid, with the industry insiders who have blown this thing all out of proportion.  While Universal has fed the fire with “shocked… shocked” quotes up until now, Terry Curtin, who always seems to find sanity when there is little to be found, told the L.A. Times, “The first time this happens [next year], whoever is being attacked should put their foot down and say, 'Not again.' Everybody has participated in letting it get too far."

Indeed.

It’s funny that Jeff Wells quoted me about the media’s tendency to create controversy when little exists, in regards to Harry Knowles, just a couple of weeks ago.  And with due respect to Harry, he admits as much in his book, giving Chris Pula primary responsibility for “making” Ain’t It Cool by blaming the site for influencing box office for Batman & Robin.  The film opened to $43 million in three days.  Word of mouth on Ain’t It Cool meant nothing.  Word of mouth after 6 million people paid to see the film killed Batman & Robin.  But the media made Harry into THE story.

If you want serious Semitic issues, where is the squeal of outrage about the Oscar domination of Jewish themed documentaries?  The last time a doc won the Oscar and was not Jewish themed was in 1996, when When We Were Kings Won… with no Jewish themed docs amongst the nominees.  That’s four years in a row, while films like Buena Vista Social Club, Genghis Blues, On The Ropes, Regret to Inform, 4 Little Girls and Waco: Rules of Engagement all failed to take home gold.  (And no, this doesn’t even touch on the screwed up nomination system that left Hoop Dreams and many others un-nominated.) 

So is it a bastardization of the process for competitors of Promises, this year’s virtual lock doc, to suggest that the film has anti-Israel undertones?  The tone is there.  I very much wanted to the show the film in Miami before Cowboy Booking picked it up and made it a pay-for-play film.  It’s a terrific movie.  But even though it is made by an Israeli expatriate, it definitely leans towards the Palestinians in its sympathies.  Is saying so an unfair attack?  I don’t think so.

Rick Lyman’s New York Times story had one of the most disturbing comments of all. Miramax’s Mark Gill was quoted as saying, "I think what it will do is to force the studios to either make a story that adheres very close to the truth or just admit that it is an imagined piece that is inspired by a life.  You'll have to be very clear which is which. You won't be able to have it both ways." 

For starters, I think that Universal and Imagine have been quite clear about saying that this is a movie based on this man and woman’s lives and that it is not a straight biopic.  I remember that “we-a culpa” back in December when the film was being set for release.  I personally think I would prefer the version with divorce, homosexuality and delusional anti-Semitism… but that’s me.  

But what got me about Gill’s comment, even if it lurks somewhere in the subtext of his quote, are the ideas that: a) the studios will make artistic choices based on anything other than the vision of the artists involved and b) that these kind of movies need to have an Oscar component, since these issues only tend to come up when Oscar is breathing down a film’s neck.  Can studios make high-end dramas without them being Oscar movies?  The answer may now be “no.”

Back in Beautiful Mind-ville, “the only question now is whether Academy voters will: a) vote against A Beautiful Mind because they think it was inaccurate, b) vote for A Beautiful Mind because they feel the film has been unfairly defamed or c) vote for anything other than A Beautiful Mind because they are just plain sick of hearing about this stupid controversy.  My guess is that “a” and “b” voters will balance out, but that “c” voters could swing the vote against A.B.M. 

Of course, this too shall pass and we will all forget, until it happens again next year. 

MORE SYNERGY UGLINESS:  I saw a story in the L.A. Times on Saturday by Sharon Waxman of the Washington Post.  Okay.  In the middle of the profile of Guy Pearce, while discussing The Time Machine, I read:

“After three weeks on Time Machine, Bird was replaced with the director of Home Alone 3, Raja Gosnell. Says Pearce, ‘I couldn't quite understand the experience.’ “

Huh?  Raja Gosnell was on The Time Machine?  And who was Bird?  There was no other mention of Bird in the article.  I knew that Pearce had worked with Antonia Bird on Ravenous, so I started digging. 

I didn’t have to look any further than the original Washington Post story.  I found that the conversation about Bird was about Ravenous, not The Time Machine.  Very weird.  Then I noticed that the Post story was a lot tougher on DreamWorks.  Key quotes were missing -

“And sometimes Pearce wondered who was in charge. `I picked up early on that there were lots of cooks in the kitchen,’ says the actor. ‘I started to cringe a little. It sort of goes against how I need to work.’”

“Parkes denied that he was unhappy with Pearce's performance, though the actor said the producer found him ‘too erratic, too nervous, not his cup of tea’ during the daily review of footage.”

Overall, the Post version was about two and a half times as long and infinitely more compelling.  The point being that having all these papers sharing resources is not so bad.  But we must remember that we are all still at the whim of our local editors… and sometimes, they sell us short.

AD ON:  When did the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival, which has AOL Time Warner’s HBO division as a lead sponsor, become “critics,” as in “Critics say…”?  I guess I should as AOL Time Warner division Warner Bros., who are pulling a quote from said festival for the upcoming Death To Smoochy, which I reallyreallyreally want to love. 

READER OF THE DAY:  Brrrrrr writes:  “Re: your "Real Movie Weekend" question, I gotta say "No!"  Showtime is another disposable DeNiro-and-somebody-else movie.  (I'd call them comedies except that "15 Minutes" screws up the formula.)  I know actors have to make a living, and there are rumblings that De Niro's movie pace has quickened due to alimony payments, treatment for his autistic son, and the need to put money into his many businesses, but it's just plain sad.  Sure, it worked for Schwarzenegger for a short while too - exploiting a serious demeanor and a ready-made humorless persona for cold hard cash in a series of comedies with comedy-veteran collaborators on both sides of the camera - but the train'll stop runnin' soon, and by the look of Showtime's ads, this may be the one to do it.  I fear that his current string may seriously tamper with the great respect that everyone has for his talent, and he won't be able to bring his career to a close in the classy manner he deserves.

Resident Evil by the other Paul Anderson - well, Mila Jovavich is a 'hip allure' actress, like Barbara Steele or Nastassja Kinski, more heralded for her mysterious beauty than for her talent, which is actually considerable.  So, it stands to reason she'd put a fanboy gorefest on her resume, just like those two before her.  And maybe that's okay - M.J. makes me think of Jennifer Connelly too, another spectrally gorgeous actress, who might be loosing mystique now that Beautiful Mind puts her in/near/at least frequenting the big leagues.  And Michelle Rodriguez, with "RE" and "F&F" seems to be rapidly loosing her indie-"Female Brando" cred from Girlfight to be the next Jenette Goldstein (the bad-ass chick from Aliens).

Ice Age - mark your calendars, today is the day that computer animation proves it can be the medium of mediocrity just as easily as cell animation.  I'd say Jimmy Neutron began the CGI decline, but that was squarely aimed at the kiddies, and not the adults too, which was the hallmark of Pixar's stuff and Shrek.

By the way, thanks for saying what I've been too ashamed to say - that the CGI in Spiderman looks like CGI. ‘

E ME:  Which way would you go on A Beautiful Mind if you had a vote?  And did you see anything you liked this weekend?