May 6, 2004

When do the toys stop assisting the artist and replace the artist?

The last five years of Stephen Sommers' career can be charted with a straight line. The Mummy was centered around five charming actors (Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, Arnold Vosloo, John Hannah and Kevin J. O'Connor) who often looked like they were on Hollywood backlots, but added spice to the well-trod material with some sensuality from Weisz and an occasional dash of really fun CG effects.

The Mummy Returns offered four of the originals, plus The Rock and Patricia Velasquez as some brown sugar. Plus, they added the Short Round character, in little Alex O'Connell. The idea was to change the stakes. But love of family meant that romance was dead, even if there were sweaty, swarthy efforts. But more importantly, the rule of "bigger, faster, funnier" was thrown into the CG machine and whatever "aw, shucks" charm the original held was swept away in the computer.

For me, Van Helsing became a lost cause in the first two scenes and most surely within the first 25 minutes. We open on a black & white scene of Dracula at Frankenstein's castle that has all the dramatic panache of a supervillain gathering in an old episode of Batman or perhaps Scooby-Doo. Worse, by zooming into the situation, we get the classic creature feature characters as 2nd act icons with none of the emotional richness of the originals. Frankenstein is just trying to get the machine to work… the townspeople have their torches, but no real fear or rage… and to call Richard Roxburgh, as Dracula, the "William Hung of Van Helsing" would be unfair for two reasons. First, I think William Hung has actually hit one or two correct notes in his life. And second, the horribleness of Hung's performance skills is charming, in at least a goofy way. I was a fan of Roxburgh's performance in Moulin Rouge, as he was playing the opera character that Baz Luhrman wanted. But here… Gutter Gott! He's not sexy or scary or smooth or powerful or anything other than flat. He is a yellow tape mark waiting for CG to be put in.

The iconic march to the windmill, which we know will be torched by the villagers (no spoilers there), manages to be anti-climatic, because we've seen it all before. Giving the familiar beats a series of different, inferior motivations does not make them magical. The thing that worked about The Mummy was that although it had modern elements, it was still, at its core, not revisionist. It wallowed in tradition. Here, right off the bat, Dracula is nothing but a murderer who has magical powers and Frankenstein is nothing but a functionary (as essentially, The Monster will be also).

The second scene is the "reveal" of Van Helsing… which has all the impact of the Olsen Twins' eighteenth birthday on Michael Jackson. And what is our new scarf-faced hero (not Alec Baldwin, thank God) out to handle? A really large, freaked-out Quasimodo. Uh… no. It's Mr. Hyde… which we finally realize because… well, because the dialogue tells us who he is. (Sommers does manage to squeeze in a Quasimodo joke - "The Bells!!!" - but the audience is so busy shaking its collective head, trying to figure out why Hyde is in Quasimodo's tower and how he got out of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, that it can't be bothered to laugh. (Actually, I took the time to roll my eyes in disgust.)

But this is all relatively harmless… the trouble is that Hyde is not only a completely CG creature that is vastly inferior to last summer's Hulk, who was derided as too cartoonish for some but, in fact, looks when fighting Van Helsing as though he just arrived from Roger Rabbit's Toonville. There is not a second nor a part of a second in which the audience can be expected to consider suspending disbelief, much less actually suspending disbelief. It is a fight between a man and a cartoon that looks exactly like a scene from a video game, though perhaps Van Helsing himself looks slightly more in focus.

Through dialogue, we come to realize that Van Helsing is the professional monster ass kicker of the era. And Hyde… he's just a big, fast moving bad guy cartoon. And as they flip around this giant gothic set, I just sat there wondering what I was supposed to be feeling, other than being so visually overwhelmed that I was numb.

And don't get me started on the acid that boiled up in my stomach when I read that Robbie Coltrane played the role of Hyde, which is perhaps the saddest moment I have had watching a great actor disgraced in a long time.

The rest of the movie is more of the same.

David Wenham (LOTR's Faramir) slums in the wacky religious sidekick role that had me anticipating a guest appearance by the late Benny Hill. It is the role you might expect Sommers regular Kevin J. O'Connor to have, but he was busy being unrecognizable under pounds of make-up as Igor. If there were a God and a Frankenstein, Marty Feldman would have been brought back to life for some valuable comic relief in this CG dirge.

But all of that aside, there is just nothing to care about here. Kate Beckinsale is introduced with, literally, a series of shots of her ass. She has a terrible accent and her character, while endlessly inexplicably athletic, says, does and feels nothing that sticks. The romance isn't romantic. The fighting is pumped up so much that there is not a second of legitimate threat. And worst of all, the characters that we know so well are wasted by losing all of their back story in favor of being action villains with all the skills that vampirism or werewolfism can bring… but none of the depth.

It's real easy to say, "What were you expecting from a big, silly summer popcorn movie?" And the question is real easy to answer. I expected what all the best big dumb movies offer… solid storytelling, compelling characters and a sense that everyone is having a real, if hyper-real experience. Do I believe in the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man? Of course not. But the movie did. And that's what kept you in that silly comedy. If the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was real, how would real people react to him.

Even given the lame story of Van Helsing, it was possible for it to play real. At one point, there is a vampire attack on Ye Old Town. A smart big dumb movie might have this town, where it is established that this happens often, be prepared for the attack, as opposed to having all the locals just run around like chickens with their heads cut off. At that point, there are more options. Either our heroes, who are going to do all the heavy lifting anyway, are left alone to face the threat, thus giving personality to the town which turns its back on them or they get some help from some brave villagers who see the potential of winning with the help of these heroes or the villagers usual preventative tactics fail, forcing them to fight… or anything other than nothing. My point is not to write Sommers' script, but to say, make smart choices. All the CG in the world means nothing if you don't relate to what is happening to the people involved.

I wish I could think of any redeeming value in this movie, but I can't. Reading Harry Knowles' "kid on Christmas morning" review of the film makes me sad, in a way. I wish I could see what he so loved. For me, it is this year's Dinosaur (which made $138 million n the U.S. and over $350 million worldwide), which is to say, audiences are supposed to admire the very expensive and very complex magic of technology and forgive the story flaws. I just can't. There has never been a movie that has been more enamored of its technology and less aware of just how relentlessly inhuman it has become.

READER OF THE DAY: THE RAFF writes: "This is all hype for Moore and his inevitable orgy-adulation in Cannes. His main concern, though, is not theatrical, (how many theaters will actually carry this?), but the DVD release where he really reaches a larger audience. If the movie doesn't come out until August, contractual obligations would stunt his much-wanted October/November DVD release. Personally, I think Eisner is doing the right thing for the company, (and himself), and Moore...the odds are greatly against this going in his favor. Not because of some corporate conspiracy, but because - as you said - he has a penchant for lying. I don't dislike the guy for his politics, (I agree with a number of his stances on corporations, and really liked TV Nation), it's his continual need to distort and then claim it under the banner of satire and comedy, (which he has done already in his blog today). The damage he does to parody is eventually going to end up with someone in court trying to strictly define it. Also, he better have some solid facts - really solid facts - because there's going to be a vivisection applied to this flick, and if he turns out to be going beyond the his usual blurring of reality, it could end his career, (in a populous sense)."

While J-n-N writes: "Look David, Everyone knows that Michael Moore is a wind bag and everyone seems to have a story about what a pain in the ass he is to deal with and how he's such a hypocrite.

But the fact that Moore was going after the Bush-Bin Laden connection in his next film has not been a secret to anyone in Hollywood. It was all over the press when people were wondering why Icon was involved. So we're now supposed to think that Miramax gave $6 million to Moore without anyone from corporate knowing about it. Just think about it, Eisner's completely unaware of both the content of Moore's film AND the fact that his sometimes controversial art-house label has written a check to make it. Jeez, no wonder Roy Disney's pissed.

Then, you criticize Moore for taking Miramax's money, as if to say "you should have known, Michael". Should have known what exactly? Moore has been on the record numerous times saying that he's always surprised that corporations that he knows to be conservative fund his movies - but he knows they do it because they are guaranteed to make their money back.

Next, you keep mentioning the $6 million and imply that this price tag is somehow unheard of for documentaries. Really? IMAX movies routinely cost as much. The Metallica movie cost $4.5 million.
Standing in the Shadows of Motown was $4. And none of them have a star director as big as Oscar winner Moore. And your claim that no one will pay $6 million to take this off of Disney's hand seems ludicrous at best.

I agree with everyone who claims this is a publicity stunt on the eve of Cannes to get a good distribution deal with someone. And so what?

But why is no one questioning Disney's quote of: "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle" when they, on their Disney O&O KABC radio in Los Angeles air 12, count em, 12 straight hours of Bill O'Reilly, Al Rantel, Sean Hannity and Larry Elder? For anyone not familiar with Rantel and Elder, let's just say that O'Reilly is the most liberal of this bunch.

While I disagree with them, I don't think Disney should decide not to air these shows, primarily because I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, and because they clearly make money for the company, and I am a capitalist.

Yes, it's fun to beat up on Michael Moore and he certainly deserves it on occasion. But to criticize Moore for pretending to be shocked and dumbfounded and a hypocrite while simultaneously giving Disney a free pass for same isn't an honest argument."

DAVID RESPONDS: The key fact missing from J-n-N's argument is that Disney has always been on the record as knowing what the movie would be and saying that Miramax would never distribute it. Both sides acknowledge that this was clear before the deal was done. Disney gives Miramax a budget each year and Miramax spends it. They could not keep Miramax from investing the $6 million… nor, I assume, will they be able to keep Miramax from getting a return on their money. But production and distribution are not always the same thing. Disney drew the line that they chose before the deal was done.

And the budget is twice what Moore's last film cost. And IMAX films routinely outgross all other documentaries. Columbine is not the highest grossing doc if you include IMAX. I do not.

I am happy to debate Disney issues in detail. But the distribution of this film is not about KABC radio. And if you really can't see that this film would be very dangerous for any corporation… well, you know better… and I offer the following final ROTD for today…

THE PHOENIX writes: "You ask - A way out for Moore?
Sure - tell him to stay in France!

This exposed prevaricator will take Disney down with this bloated documentary if Miramax/Disney distributes this film. If they choose to make a stupid decision supporting blowhard Moore - I will support a boycott of everything Disney including:

Walt Disney World
Disneyland
Walt Disney brands
Buena Vista brands
Capital Cities/ABC brands
Touchstone Pictures
Hollywood Pictures
Caravan Pictures
Miramax Films
The Disney Channel
Hollywood Records
ESPN
A&E Television Network
Lifetime Television Network
Disney Publishing
Hyperion Press
Chilton Publications
Anaheim Mighty Ducks hockey team

Moore's hatred and ugliness of everything American is sickening. Maybe Canada will take him back?

E ME: I will not be boycotting anyone over any film. But the author of the last ROTD letter is not a whack job and she is also a committed moviegoer (not to mention being a longtime THB reader and participant). While I do not support this kind of boycotting, this is what Disney - or any other multinational - would likely face as a result of releasing what is surely a P.O.V. documentary.

Moreover, look at Variety's response to Lars von Triers' Dogville at Cannes last year… attacking a film I found quite universal as deeply anti-American. How will America respond to a film that launches in France and stands as a direct, intense attack on the current administration? I have no answer and either do you. But on a risk/reward scale? Let's just say that there was a reason why no one else wanted to finance this film, even with the huge success of Bowling For Columbine. That's not to say that some risk-taker is not going to step up and release the film. But I would be shocked if that risk-taker was a dependent studio or God knows, a major. And that ain't because everyone in Hollywood is a right winger. Or is it?