November 4, 2003

Sometimes, more is more…

I spent Saturday – all of Saturday – watching the extended version of Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, followed by six hours of projected DVD extras. Well, to be honest, I spent three hours watching DVD extras. My 14-year-old nephew spent the entire 11 hours in the New Line screening room.

But it was the extended version of The Two Towers that really blew me away. Last year, when I saw The Two Towers, I was undeniably impressed. But it felt a lot like a “middle movie” to me. It just didn’t have quite the emotion that the original had that made Fellowship of the Rings just so surprising for me.

But lo and behold, the extended version fills all those missing needs. While the running time is now 3 hours and 42 minutes, 43 minutes longer than the release version, it felt faster to me than what I saw last year.

Now there is time for more time for the budding love triangle between Arwen, Eowyn and Aragorn. There is more time to develop Faramir’s pained relationship with his father. There is a huge improvement in the story of the Ents, whose relationship with Merry and Pippin now has some real time to evolve.

There is also a lot more humor in the film than before. Gimli’s role as the jester is expanded, so that, surprisingly, the moment where he says, “Toss me,” seems less like a one-note gag, playing on the previous movie. Likewise, there is a completely unnecessary bit with Frodo and Sam at the beginning, but that is wonderfully light. This version of Two Towers gains momentum by not driving forward as relentlessly.

I was pleased that Two Towers took the series back to the Academy Awards last year. But this version is the kind of film that wins. If I were New Line, I would never show the shorter version in the context of awards season again. I do not feel as strongly as The Fellowship of the Rings, for which the extended version was better, but felt more like it had added material. This version of Two Towers feels like the real version.

If there is a longer version of Return of the King, even if it is longer than 3 hours, and if it has the kind of emotional benefits in its expanded version, New Line would be well advised to let it all hang out as they make their run for the Big Award. The giant action sequences to come will surely be amazing. But it is the heart of this journey that draws in the Academy and a world of adult people. Go for that.

I BLAME MORLEY: After watching 60 Minutes’ somewhat limited look at movie piracy last Sunday, I decided to download Grokster, just to see how it worked. I had once had other peer-2-peer programs… and dumped them. It just isn’t my scene.

But 60 Minutes screwed me by allowing the Grokster jerk – that guy seemed like a complete ass – to explain that the service was paid for by advertising. What they didn’t explain is that it was supported by a highly invasive array of pop-up ad programs that remain on my computer, even though I have now removed Grokster and all its components.

I am pissed! I have spend hours now, removing programs and changing my startup to try to get rid of these irritating system attackers. Argh!

THE CHAINSAW OF IRONY: When Michael Bay was talking about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which has now made his Platinum Dunes Productions a hot, hot commodity, he mentioned that the film was first offered to Miramax/Dimension’s Bob Weinstein, who showed complete disregard to Bay and the idea for a Chainsaw remake. Now, just three weeks and $66 million later, Bob Weinstein has coughed up cash for a three-year first-look deal with Bay’s company.

Meanwhile, Massacre director Marcus Nispel has signed on for his next thriller, Need, which will star Diane Lane, who coincidentally (or not) fills out a wife-beater and a pair of hip huggers in very much the same alluring way as Jessica Biel. In a kind of flip on Unfaithful, Lane plays a therapist whose husband is having an affair… with one of her patients.

LIVING WITH TRADITION: Disney’s Home On The Range “Busts A Moo” in April with a traditionally animated comedy with music from Alan Menken. The film was moved from right now and pushed into 2004, so maybe there is some problem I just don’t see. Roseanne Barr’s gal cow is a leading character in the trailer, along with the k.d. Lang song. And it would be the first time that a trailer is better than a movie. But the energy seems great and I am hoping for a lot of traditionally animated fun, perhaps a little more WB than Disney.

SCREENER BATTLING ON: Beyond the rather goofy plan for some critics to meet face-to-face with Jack Valenti for one last spin in the spin machine, all is not fine on the Academy screener front. Word is that some members are offended by the agreement being sent out by the Academy and the MPAA, comparing it to a loyalty oath circa the blacklist era. One Academy member points out that if the screeners are permanently removed next year, there is some chance that thousands of Academy members will resign, preferring to save their annual dues if this benefit is lost. In other quarters, Academy members are trying to figure out how they will sign for these screeners when they arrive by messenger, since many of them have busy lives. And then there is word that at least two major studios are still toying with the idea of not sending out screeners at all. Don’t expect Valenti to sweat the details.

READER OF THE DAY: FILM FREAK CENTRAL’S BILL CHAMBER writes: “Re (Monday's) article, just a heads up: KISS THE GIRLS was not a sequel, unless of the quasi variety to SEVEN. ALONG CAME A SPIDER is a sequel to KISS THE GIRLS, however.

Technically, RED DRAGON is a prequel, but that does make it closer to a sequel than KTG.

THE HASSLER writes: “Looking at the numbers for the September and October films, what's most striking to me is just how many movies fell into the $30 million - $80 million range. In descending order: Texas Chainsaw Massacre (likely to top out around 80 now that Halloween is over), Kill Bill (likely to top out around 75), Brother Bear (ditto, just because of the sheer family-film competition), Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Underworld, The Rundown, Mystic River, Runaway Jury, Radio, Under the Tuscan Sun, Out of Time, Good Boy, Secondhand Lions, Intolerable Cruelty, Matchstick Men, The Fighting Temptations.

Look at that list; that's most of the wide-release fall movies, with the requisite couple of total bombs (Duplex, Beyond Borders). And none of these were particularly huge openers, either; all of them opened between 10 and 25, save for Chainsaw. In a way, I think this is encouraging. I've been disappointed by some of the fall films, but it's hard to argue that there hasn't been fairly diverse product out there, and that's more than a dozen films finding a decent-sized (though not sensational by any means) audiences.

I'm betting a lot of these movies will turn a profit, if an unspectacular, eventual one. I think sometimes box office analysts (not to mention studios!) forget that people spending their $8-$10 aren't taking the size of budget into consideration, and so the consistency (and odd democracy) of those figures is impressive, if unsexy to report about. Still, I've also been surprised that some movies didn't take it a little farther-- I saw an advance screening of "Fighting Temptations" (not even one of the paid previews), and it got riotous applause from a small theater filled only about 2/3 of the way. I didn't much care for it, but I thought it would be a bigger word-of-mouth hit. And I'm surprised "Matchstick Men" and "Out of Time" didn't hold on for a little longer (liked the former a lot, and enjoyed the latter), and even that your fave "The Rundown" didn't make it to 70 or so (again, the crowd seemed to dig it, when I saw it).

So I'm curious as to what you make of these consistent, slightly middling grosses: Are people not digging the movies, or is it simply a case of most people who want to see a given movie seeing it, and that being that? (I still use this to explain Mystery Men's $30 million. It's not that people who saw it didn't like it, so much as it is that most people who wanted to, did, and that translated into $30 million, no more).”

THE CANNY ONE writes: “Re: the two naysayers of your Kill Bill review, which I thought amidst all this Tarantino worship and heavy Miramax advertising was refreshing and rightfully pointed out that the Emperor Tarantino had no clothes to speak of. The reviewer who compared KB to Once Upon A Time In The West neglects to mention that in 1968 OUATITW was innovative. It broke new ground. It was the ultimate in the "out"

Western. KB is not innovative. It is a feverish, amplified rehash of maybe a dozen films. Even the cool trailer music is stolen (not the first time that word was associated w/Tarantino) from a Japanese exploitation movie. The script is probably Tarantino's worst, although the film might be his best directing job, which it needs to be, to cover up the writing deficiencies. To say the chop-socky genre lacks depth begs the question. This is not a cheapie, knocked-off Asian exploitation movie. The budget is over $100 million. Miramax is advertising the hell out of it, trying to make their investment back. Louder, faster, bloodier does not mean better. I wonder if, in 35 years, anyone will remember Kill Bill?

THE OGLER writes: “Count me among the many recently obsessed fans of "In America." Since seeing this beautiful film I cant seem to get PADDY CONSIDINE'S performance out of my mind. He is just so darn good! I am on a one-woman mission to get this man noticed as a possible contender for Best Actor. Please help Paddy get noticed. He deserves our attention and I believe in my heart of hearts he has a good chance this year. After all, who was Adrien Brody before The Pianist.”

E ME: Adrien who?