October 6, 2003

Q: Why does Hollywood keep making bad movies?

A: Because we tell them to.

It’s a bit of a simplification, but it’s true. I am put in mind of this as I chew on the reviews of Kill Bill, the latest example of a movie that critics are bending over backwards to praise since they don’t want to be caught appearing unhip. This is not to say that every critic who likes the film is simply being vain or is wrong outright. There is a cadre of hardcore chop-socky-loving men who are just thrilled to see someone – anyone – attempting to bring some life to a dead form.

Actually, it’s not dead at all. Genre Filmmaking: Action Division, has never been more prevalent. Of the Top Ten for the year to date, it’s Pirates of the Caribbean, Matrix Reloaded, X2, T3, Bad Boys II and The Hulk. Four of the next ten are action genre. And five of the next ten.

Trying to position The Matrix Reloaded or CG as the trouble with the modern action movie is a cheap, short-sighted tactic. Without arguing the values of Reloaded, the vast majority of the film was done with the same techniques used in Kill Bill. Master Yuen Wo Ping is listed as “Fight Choreographer: Kung Fu” on Kill Bill and “Action Choreographer” on The Matrixi. Fighting, flying, wire work, CG erased wires. Reality? It’s not an issue on either film. But somehow, there is a group of people saying that Kill Bill is more real. It is to laugh.

A beheading followed by a blood fountain more appropriate to Chicago’s Grant Park is not real. Machine guns that never hit their target is no more “real” here than in a Bond movie. Murdering someone in a public building and going 14 hours without the police coming to look around is not reality.

How many critics will say, “There is no story… you don’t care about the characters… it’s obviously incomplete… but wow, it looked cool?” Are the standards to which we hold other movies met in Kill Bill, Volume One? No. Do critics sometimes review the scenery instead of the movie? All the time. Is there reason to hope that Kill Bill, Volume Two will be a good movie, by all standards? Yes.

Ironically, it is Miramax giving me the most hope. Their commercials tell you more about the story of Kill Bill than Volume One ever does. The clips they are sending out have more information, never acknowledging that there are images being shown in promotion that are not in Volume One. But still I must ask, is that hope a reason to give this film a pass? No. QT and Miramax decided to absurdly cut this clever 2 hour film in half and to inflate the running time to a preposterous 3 hours plus. I don’t need to do the heavy lifting for their greedy urge to make two $40 million movies out of one $80 million genre flick that however well reviewed was unlikely to get past $60 million at the domestic box office. More to the point, they will get to milk us for DVDs for the next couple of years, as we get Volume One, Volume Two, the combined DVD and - I wouldn’t be surprised – an actual 2 hour 15 minute version.

Every year, there are a handful of critics sucker bets. Kill Bill is one of them. Only someone who doesn’t understand budgets, geeks, drive-ins or classics could ever say, “Kill Bill is a big budget geek drive-in classic.” Kill Bill is Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle with more reasonable editing, actual performances and one of the best cinematographers of the decade. It is nearly as self-indulgent.

Me? I still believe that there is a movie version of Charlie’s Angels to be made that is everything that Ms. Barrymore thinks the first two films are. There is a real difference between a bottle of Cristal and three shots of Jack Daniels. But if your objective is getting drunk, buy the pint of Jack for $10 and leave the $100 bottle of champagne alone. Here’s the news, Hollywood. The world wants to go to your movies and get shit-faced. How did Scott Rudin spend $37 million on The School of Rock? I don’t know. But people are going to be giggling stupidly for a long time for less than a third of the price of Full Throttle.

Why do critics often mistake relentlessness for quality? I think it’s because so many films feel compromised and the relentless films at least feel like someone really meant to make a great movie. When that happens, failure gets overlooked. I respect Gary Ross’ intentions and passion on Seabiscuit. I do not admire his skill as a director. I certainly respect Quentin Tarantino’s passions and joy in the making of his films. I just wish that he had someone to explain to him that he was overdoing it.

Sally Menke is a fine editor and her work on Kill Bill is well done. But she was like the finest of deli meat cutters who removed all the fat from your corn beef and then replaced it with even more clean fat, only because the customer is always right. You might not know it, but there was an editor in recent years who was nominated for an Oscar after walking-off/being-fired-off the film because they would not cut the film the way the director wanted it cut. It was just not right, in this person’s opinion. There was no disrespect for the very talented director. But there was a stand for the best the movie could be, at least in this very talented person’s mind.

Of course, I am in the disadvantaged position of not knowing what is in Volume 2. I can only guess what’s there. It does seem, however, that most people will not think about the complete film. “We need the break after this intense 90 minutes” is perhaps one of the most pathetic excuses in the long history of movie excuse making. Big picture, please! Yes, three hours would be too much for anyone, no matter how many excuses one wished to make. But just because three was a three-hour cut does not mean that Kill Bill was ever meant to be a three-hour movie.

I hate getting into these pissing matches because there are things about this film that I admire, and I do have hope for the second film and I wasn’t ready to slit my wrists on the way out of the theater.

There was an inherent problem in the three-movie structure of The Matrixi. At the end of The Matrix, Neo was deified. In Revolutions, Neo will be pushed beyond his comprehension in an active way. It is true that in Reloaded, he was a passive character, since he was already established as indestructible so the dramatic drive of his character had to be about something other than action, since he could not lose in any action. Neo was taken out of the much of the Keymaker/Freeway Fight section, he was “the package” in the assault on the computer core to get him to The Architect, and he was knocked out in the final action of the film. In Revolutions, he will be able to act, still just hours from the presumed end of the human race.

The Wachowskis had to take Neo a step or two backwards on the Kubler-Ross emotion scale, back to bargaining and depression, in Reloaded. This was frustrating to audiences, as Neo (and they) had achieved acceptance in the first film. And once again in Revolution, acceptance. But they did develop a lot of interesting intellectual themes in this Neo-passive film… themes that are still being debated daily, more than four months after the film’s release. That may not answer all the doubts of some Matrix bashers, but there is something there to talk about for months.

In Kill Bill, there is no conceptual, structural or any other kind of reason for splitting the films, expect that QT’s 110 minute movie got fat, indulging every whim, and became a 200 minute movie in his head. Many of the delights for the chop-socky historians are the kinds of scenes that become DVD extras in the real world. And the greatest gag of all is that Kill Bill, Volume One is not only without an end… it is without a beginning, since we don’t know who The Bride is, what her relationship with Bill is, why she was getting married, why they wanted her dead or anything, really, about her prior relationship with anyone other than Elle Driver, who tells her that she never liked her. Of course, the very existence of Elle Driver in this film (one scene) makes no sense, since she is called off of a mission by Bill that had to be coordinated by Bill in the first place.

I hope people enjoy the movie. But don’t tell me it’s good or is enough or makes sense. You want to know why crap like Tomb Raider 2 or Daredevil or Kangaroo Jack will get greenlit again and again and again in this industry? Because the few influence peddlers there are in this game keep telling the studios that expensive, disconnected, illogical pap is just fine, so long as the punch line is shiny and bright.

We deserve what we get… we ask for it.

READER OF THE DAY: ONE GLAD MAN writes: “I wanted to throw in my 2 cents on the theatrical re-release conversation.

First let me say that I own a business as an Ebay dvd power seller (you read that right!!). I am also a large home theatre supporter and sometimes consultant (I know about setting up high end HDTV to THX and other specifications).

I have been on Ebay 2 years+ actively selling dvds since the format has really exploded. I have made over 10,000 transactions on EBay and have at least an "internet feel" for the average consumer.

I used to think that the studios were losing tons of money by not re-releasing many of their old classics, especially after Star Wars and even Grease (there are tons better than Grease) made good money. However after E.T.'s quick fall (even with a lot of marketing hype) and the oncoming dvd explosion I have changed my mind.

I think it is OVER, on a large scale, for the re-releases. The current dvd anamorphic widescreen (480p) home format is fully here and thriving, HD-DVD is probably only 5 years away, progressive scan dvd players are cheap, and widescreen High Definition TVs are becoming more commonplace by the day.

I love movies and I love the big screen and the theatre. HOWEVER, I have a perfectly calibrated Pioneer Elite 630 HDTV (here is the online link from Pioneer.)

With a 58 inch widescreen HDTV that is well calibrated, a progressive scan dvd player and component video output I no longer feel drawn to see basically any old movie on a "real" big screen. At the theatre people talk, prints get scratched, people move around, babies cry, etc. At home I am in charge, and if the dvd transfer is very good (a widescreen anamorphic transfer that is well done) I enjoy watching at home more.

I believe the average consumer is definitely on their way to joining me. As more HDTV widescreen TVs hit the market, and as HD-DVD (with even better resolution) moves to the forefront, consumers are beginning to see that a perfect home movie experience is preferred. This is especially true with deleted scenes, audio commentary, DTS tracks, interviews, etc. which add to the dvd experience. A lot of average consumers even loved VHS (which was awful), which shows the real power of dvd.

If you are a big bargain shopper then dvds can be often had for around $15 and lower. You then get to watch the movie forever in your nice home system, while you can't see a movie on a Friday night for 2 people just ONCE anywhere for $15.

I have over 500 dvd titles in my personal library. Almost every title that has been mentioned for re-release recently in your columns I have downstairs myself in the most current dvd edition. I can have that "big-screen movie" experience anytime I want, and as time passes more and more will join in. Even as a movie lover, I now find myself waiting for the dvd release instead of going to the movies more and more. I am sure in the year 2000 I would have seen all of these movies at a theatre, but today I am waiting for the dvd releases of Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Open Range, Bad Boys II, and many more. I am sure all will be great dvd releases.

In conclusion, dvd is a huge moneymaking cash cow for the studios, but it does have its downsides. The format can be owned forever (some people that just forked over $20 for Scarface will have it for MANY, MANY years) and the quality is so good that many may wait for dvd, instead of going to a theatre. DVD also could very well end the profitability and discussion of re-releasing older movies, when a very nice dvd edition is available. If there isn't a good dvd edition of a big movie available on the market, then you can rest assured that many consumers are currently screaming for one to be released on dvd, and NOT for a re-release in theatres.”

E ME: Ha YA!!!