April 28, 2003

I saw the first great movie of the summer this weekend…

In anticipation on next weekend’s junket, Warner Bros. sent, under really cool lock and key, a preview copy of The Animatrix.  As far as I know, the studio is not releasing the film into theaters domestically.  I would rethink that.  Even if it is 250 screens in July, this is a film that many people would love to see on a big screen. 

Moreover, this film needs to be qualified for the Academy Awards.  Because even though it is a series of short films put together, there is a unifying theme and the film should make the cut.  And it should, I will venture to guess, win the Oscar for Best Animated Feature. I have not seen Disney/Pixar’s Little Nemo or DreamWorks’ Sinbad or any of the other sure-to-be-excellent animated product that will be in theaters this year.  I am really looking forward to those two summer films.  Yet, I cannot imagine that any animated film will be as powerful, visually compelling, complex or thought-provoking as The Animatrix.

Final Flight of the Osiris played in theaters with Dreamcatcher, so there has been an opportunity to experience it “the right way.”  But until this weekend, I had only ever seen three of the other Animatrix films on the studio website in Quicktime.  Quicktime on my 17” inch screen is okay.  A DVD on my 38” screen is truly glorious. 

Each of the nine animated shorts brings something different to the table.  The Final Flight of the Osiris has already been positioned as The Matrix 1.5, making me wonder whether it will be tagged on front of The Matrix Reloaded next month.  But all nine of the films add significantly to The Matrix Universe.  If you are serious about the idea of integrated media, this movie, combined with a truly integrated video game, marks a key moment in the evolutionary history of film.

The Second Renaissance, Pts 1&2, tell the story of how The Matrix came to exist in the first place.  It is a bit reminiscent of The Terminator films, but with an incalculably greater degree of intricacy.  The films have all the pathos and toughness of The Matrix film itself, showing us a recorded history that we might well see on a series about World War II, albeit in animated form. 

The imagery of the film takes and adapts from not only television, but from human history from Ancient Egypt to WWII Germany to the Jewish Holocaust to Vietnam to Tiananmen Square.  Even the Titanic and Terminator seem to turn up. 

You even get to see how, as was referred to in The Matrix, the humans “darkened the sky.”

Program, which is on the web right now, combines what we know as classic anime imagery, with a color palette that makes your eyes water with pleasure.  It is the most elaborate “program” we’ve seen in The Matrix Universe.

World Record tells the story of a gifted athlete who is pushing the boundaries of The Matrix so far that he may wake up without a red pill.

Kid’s Story, according to the notes, introduces us to a character, Mr. Popper, that will turn up in the next two films.  He goes through some of the same steps as Neo does in the first film, but he has his own style.  And the animation, which combines impressionistic images with remarkable three-dimensionality will blow you away. 

A Detective Story is a great black & white noir about a private eye hired to track down Trinity.  Would you want to find her?

Beyond is a delightful side story about some kids who find a glitch in the Matrix program that allows them, for reasons they don’t understand or care to understand, to do amazing things.  

The final film, Matriculated, from Aeon Flux director Peter Chung, seems to be an exercise in style… a riff on the Matrix themes.  But it turns out to be a lot more than that.  The film takes a fascinating look at a rather raw version on the construct programs we saw in the first Matrix.  Not only do humans enter them, but machines can enter the construct as well.  Ultimately, the story gives a more “human” face to machines and,perhaps, a more mechanical face to human beings… intriguing stuff.

There are few things more exciting than truly unique, profound, challenging filmmaking.  The Matrix Reloaded is a few weeks away.  But you couldn’t ask for a better stage to be set in anticipation than The Animatrix.  A true must-own.

ABOUT THE “DANGEROUS” REAL CANCUN:  The hysteria… and it has been hysteria… about The Real Cancun is so bizarre to me as to make it virtually incomprehensible.  I can only assume that people have been suckered into the idea that there was something revolutionary about the film… that it was, in fact, a marker of a change in the industry.  It is, in reality, just a movie. 

The sad reality is not that a successful opening for the film would put lots of writers and directors of “real” movies out of work.  The relative failure of the film portends only two things.  1. Universal will spent almost nothing on marketing their T&A reality movie, if they release it into theaters at all.  And 2. Whatever momentum Bowling For Columbine might have brought to the idea of documentaries being legitimate theatrical product is now gone. 

The people who should most be ashamed of themselves are the journalists who led people down the path of believing that if The Real Cancun succeeded, that it would cause a seismic shift in the business.  These are the same Chicken Littles who told us that the sitcom business was over on television just before Seinfeld, that hour-long business was over just before E.R. and Law & Order, that game shows would overwhelm all other formats when Who Wants To Be A Millionaire made its one –season stand and now, that “reality TV” will end fictional programming.

Besides the obvious fact that television, like all other entertainment, is very trend-driven and that formats heat up and burn out every few years, people in the business of making money-making TV want everyone to forget why the industry is in the position in which it currently finds itself.  Back in the mid-90s, in the heat of the Seinfeld insanity, the deals that were made to secure showrunners who were considered top notch were absolutely excessive.  On top of that, networks got the right to more ownership of primetime programs and there was a paradigm shift.  Studio after studio saw their television operations suck the life out of their balance sheets.  Some major players got all the way out of the game. 

Then there is history, which reminds us that television was a more diverse place long before “reality television” trend even started.  There were sitcoms and dramas.  But they shared primetime with game shows and news interest shows (remember when the news divisions were going to own primetime a few years back?) and variety shows much like American Idol and The New Star Search. 

You want to know what is killing this business?  Movies cost too much to make and to market.  Period. Exclamation point. 

If you think that a business in which a $40 million launch of a new product can lead to a breakeven result (or even a loss) is a sane place to invest, I’ve got some beachfront space in Baghdad for you. 

Want to blame the actor’s salaries?  Want to blame the unions?  Want to blame video?  Want to blame quality?  We can have all of those discussions.  But focusing on The Real Cancun as a source of real trouble is like focusing on the burglars at the Watergate.  Guilty, yes.  Important, no.

The film business is not much different than television.  Launching a movie is harder, I think, than launching a TV show.  Most of the well loved TV shows that have trouble building audiences turn out to be niche shows that will always be loved but never break the Top 20.  Without a great ad campaign, a product that can be sold simply and lots of money to get penetration, a movie can easily be lost.  However, the basic reality is the same.

Romantic comedies were dead.  Interracial romance could not be sold.  Kate Hudson was “over” and Matthew McConaughey was fading.  Then, Bringing Down The House and How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days became $100 million hits.  Lots of arguments can be made about why these films took off, but I will suggest two things: 1. The yellow dress and a recognizable modern romantic problem and 2. Gene Levy talking like a rapper.  The films were launched.  And once launched, they served their target audiences well.

Does that mean that all we will see from now on are romantic comedies featuring large breasted black women, small-breasted white women and a variety of fading male stars?  Of course not.  Some people will put their toes in that water.  But they will still have to prove themselves all over again.

Does The Matrix Reloaded mean that we will see a series of R-rated action movies suddenly breaking the $200 million mark again?  No.  If T3 does really well, there may be a few more Soldiers made again.  And they will fail.  And we will move on to the PG-13 business again.

Keep an eye on Fox if X2: X-Men United does not show a significant improvement on the original at the box office.  Second thoughts about Daredevil 2 might creep in.  Because although the first Daredevil broke $100 million in North America last weekend (somewhat pathetic after a $40 million opening), $180 million worldwide means that all the profit will be coming in video.  Add an inevitable bump of $20 million (minimum) to the cost of the sequel and the film becomes a risk.  Of course, Fox, like other studios, may be willing to take that risk, hoping that the sequel is better and that an easier marketing job gives them big upside potential with minimal risk.  And they would be right.  Even if the sequel cost more and the box office dropped off 20 percent, it would still be likely to break even in the ancillary markets.  If it did better (see the Terminator 2 wet dream), they could have a franchise.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that The Real Cancun would have had to do better than Jackass: The Movie did to make any real mark at all.  And that was always unlikely.  Some New Liners convinced themselves otherwise.  They were wrong.  So be it.

But the beating this film is taking – which is very reminiscent of the beating that the $2 million Full Frontal took last summer – is no less stupid than the movie.  Even if the film had opened to my predicted $10.3 million, it was still a $25 million domestic grosser.  Yawn. 

Full Frontal got reamed because Miramax decided to position it as an important film.  It was an experimental video by a very talented director.  People who would fight to the death for an experimental film to have a chance to be seen kicked that movie like it had just bitten their dear old granny right on the ass while foaming at the mouth.

Want to know what makes me angry?  Just Married making $56 million.  That is of a lot more concern to me than The Real Cancun turning a profit.  Everyone in that turd of a movie will work again at salaries higher than the entire production cost of The Real Cancun because of its success.  That is offensive.

Want to know what pisses me off?  That Colin Farrell, whose fan club I have now joined, is getting paid more than Reese Witherspoon, who has generated a lot more money with a lot less support. 

What is worth getting riled over?  Identity will do more box office in this country than Bend It Like Beckham and The Good Thief combined.

Wanna smack in the face?  The highest grossing film from an art house distributor so far this year is Deliver Us From Eva’s $17.5 million.  Only 13 such films have grossed as much as $1 million.  

So bitch at me about The Real Cancun and how it is going to kill the business again.  But before you embarrass yourself, get some perspective and keep your eye on the real money. 

READER OF THE DAY:   PD NOT NY writes:  “Marc Caro's review of The Real Cancun could not possibly be any better, or more accurate. He gets it completely right. I've never been a huge fan of his writing before, but now I'm his biggest fan. Great work, Marc. Nice to know that at least one movie critic is sane.

THE OTHER MJ writes: “RE: The Real Bomb - I have never, EVER been so happy that your revenue forecasts were off.  Is there yet hope for the American Moviegoing public?!??”

AMERICAN PI writes:  “Let me get this straight.  You hate "Confidence" and promise to insult anyone who defends it, but you like "The Real Cancun"?  Sounds to me like you're begging to be insulted yourself.”

And About Friday’s ROTD, J-HASS writes:  “As an avid, oft-unimpressed reader of film criticism, as well as a young guy trying his own hand at it, I read with interest your Reader of the Day's critique of reviewers.   First, I'd like to thank him for pointing out the "book review" (I'm not aware of many "short-story reviews") style of film writing, where the writer seems to maintain a quasi-intellectual distance from the subject he or she is reviewing. I think this ties in heavily to his other key observation-- that many film reviews simply fail to address aspects of a film apart from the routine "performances" and

"plot" which, as anyone who's seen and loved, say, Starship Troopers knows, are less necessary to a film's artistic success than some might like to think.

But his middle point, I think, is pretty off base. Specifically, where he notes that "why I'm reading the review - prior to seeing a film - is to make a judgment about it as a candidate for my attention. I need enough of a description across the different aspects of film - irrespective of the critic's appraisal - to make my own call. Knowing too much about the

critic's taste acts as a barrier."  He then goes on to say this is more permissible, essentially, if a critic does it in "a way that implicitly acknowledges everyone's inability to ultimately judge art."  I may not disagree with these statements in theory, but I certainly do in practice.  The idea that film reviews are mainly for the public to read as part of a decision-making process for how to spend their Friday night is, I think, what leads to so many simplistically written, impersonal reviews that include at least one paragraph of plot summary where a sentence or two would do, followed by cursory, quasi-objective notes of the film's strengths and weaknesses, basically reducing a film review to a chart in paragraphed form... here's what's good, here's what's bad, here's the rating out of four, five, ten, whatever (and, if you're writing for USA Today, at least one pithy one-sentence paragraph). 

Now, again, I have no real problem with star ratings or even, necessarily, plot summaries.  But the idea that the film critic's main purpose is to serve as a consumer guide... I object to that.  Or rather, I object to that being explicitly stated.  The idea that someone can read a film review and, from that review, size up if they would personally be interested in seeing that movie is fine, but isn't that sort of implied with any decent critic? 

What your reader here touched upon is my biggest complaint about film critics: The real lack of joy.  Most of them just don't sound engaged.  Maybe they think they're supposed to operate with critical detachment and "objectivity."  Roger Ebert once wrote something to the effect that film reviewers who don't feel right using "I" in a film review are adhering to a sort of false objectivity and as a critic you should feel comfortable with your objectivity. I've taken that to heart, and I now really enjoy the possibilities of owning up to the first person, but several editors since have certainly encouraged me otherwise.  Or maybe they shouldn't really be film critics. 

Finally, a word about individual critics.  Roger Ebert is a favorite; Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader (what is it with these Chicago people) also has the right attitude, I think, even if his tastes (and writing style) are far more intellectual than I'm personally interested in... he doesn't love a lot of movies, but he doesn't hate a lot of them either.  He's always interesting, and rarely snotty.  Pauline Kael, of course, personified many of the traits I look for in a critic.  Apart from those, though, there aren't many reviewers who I personally follow. I used to like Owen Gleiberman at Entertainment Weekly, until I realized how many of his reviews sound exactly the same, using the words-dashed-together-instead-of-actual-individual-adjectives style of describing things, and, worse, that it was infecting my own writing.  I would like to say, however, that Christy Lemire of the Associated Press is particularly awful-- plot summary, short paragraphs, cursory observations, lots of talk about story and plot, and doling out star ratings (lately "one and a half stars" seems to be what almost every movie gets; it's been a crappy year so far, I know, but still).  I know it's just a mainstream, mass-market syndicated sort of thing, but still... the AP can do better. Her writing is bland, her taste is dull, and I want her job. Literally.  I think they should give her job to me.

You might not agree, though; I had a lot of fun at Confidence this weekend.”

E ME:  Any one else want Christy’s job?