May 28, 2004

It's a good weekend to get irritated…

You can start with The Day After Tomorrow, which is one of those summer movies getting a surprising number of passes by critics who know better. I'm still waiting to find a not-too-negative review that doesn't start apologizing within the first couple of paragraphs. The two big "mea dumba"s are "It's just a big dumb Irwin Allen/Roland Emmerich action movie… you can't expect logic or good dialogue" and "This is an important movie because it explains the dangers of global warming." This is quite different than my complaint about the critical fight over Kill Bill which came, I think, from a deeper place in the soul of critics.

It always shocks me… not when I find myself disagreeing with so many people that I respect, but when I get that "We don't really disagree, but…" feeling. Last year, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle was this kind of experience. Really, there are guilty pleasures to be pulled from any terrible movie, but I caught most of the film on cable in the last week or two and I sat there with one of my elder nephews (22) and we just were stunned at the utter idiocy and incoherence of that thing. Sure, I like the close-up of Cameron Diaz' ass as much as any guy or lesbian or even skinny-perfection appreciative heterosexual woman might. But the "Pussycat Dolls" sequence is still only a little less can't-dance pathetic than the trying-to-be-17 eye make-up of the unfollowable dirt bike sequence. If this film was seen as a success - and suck-up, research-challenged journos would still be calling it a $100 million success had Amy Pascal not given herself up - the result for commercial film would have been, in my opinion, disastrous. I really think the film crossed the line into an allegedly linear form that could have become a crippling filmic infection. However, Ms. Pascal admitted the error of her splay (at least on price) which allowed the Coalition Of The Vomiting to built. And before you could say, "S.W.A.T.," the angels had returned to McG's fresh hell. (McG has convinced at least one trustworthy exec that he can make a "real" movie, but I will still be on pins & needles as long as Warner's Superman franchise is in his childlike hands.)

Fortunately, this year I find myself in the same disaster zone with Joe Morgenstern - one of the bastions of sanity in an insane world - on The Day After Tomorrow, albeit Joe is less hyperbolic than I am about it. I do not see Day after Tomorrow as a Charlie's Angels-like influencer of style. Even the critics who seem okay with the film are clear enough to point out many of its flaws. And perhaps I have, with others, contributed to the "It's Not As Bad As" response by people who do not come out of the film praying they had bought cyanide with their popcorn or grabbing knitting needles out of granny's hands so they can gouge their own eyes out. Because The Day After Tomorrow is no Brown Bunny (though the oral sex in DAT is equally compelling) or a film festival experimentation that confounds and irritates to the point of self-loathing since any feeling that incredibly horrid "must be about me and not about the movie."

The Day After Tomorrow is simply a bad movie with big CG and a strong opening to come. Fox is saying the low 50s (millions) and probably guessing in the high 60s. And for a third time, that is a tribute to marketing and the existence of a few CG shots that can be effectively used.

Meanwhile, The Chronicles of Riddick is finally moving into its marketing campaign and I have to say each commercial I have seen is better than the last. There's no doubt that it will still qualify as a big, dumb movie. But the sense I am getting is that it is a big dumb movie with focus… which is the difference between DAT and ID4, for instance. Universal is selling it as an interplanetary version of Shaft. ("Who is the evil man who will give his life to his fellow species when all life is threatened… Riddick… can you dig it? Who's the night-vision sex machine who's making time with all the alien chicks… Riddick… can you dig it?") And for the first time, I am buying. So long as big and dumb does not slide into boring, self-indulgent and humorless, I am there. (No skiing this time, Vin.)

Meanwhile, Raising Helen has all the impact of the film's outdoor campaign. If you want to spend your money to watch Kate Hudson's ass for 90 minutes, you should have no trouble getting a ticket. This is another bad movie that isn't going to hurt anyone who isn't already diabetic. I prefer to like Joan Cusack in movies. The kids are appropriately adorable. Hector Elizondo's wig gets flipped… again! And John Corbett proves himself to be the single most boring love interest in a movie since, well, John Corbett. (You thought I was going to say Ed "Kookie" Burns, didn't you?)

I did get joy out of one release this weekend, but I must avert my eyes when telling you… but it's a good kind of shame. Soul Plane is some funny shit… literally. And if you don't think that being seated in "low class" is funny, you can stay away. If you aren't willing to laugh at white women getting excited about the notion of black men who need penile enhancement like they have a third leg, don't go. If the Tracey Ullman segments about the black security women at the airport don't make you laugh, therefore leaving you uninterested in someone topping them, let your boyfriend sneak in while you go see Raising Helen, because you are going to HATE Soul Plane. I, however, laughed my ass off. And that was just watching it on my bootlegged DVD.

On my list of things to get into today was a Michael Moore recap (I expect the deal to be complete by the time you all go back to work on Tuesday and if it isn't, you can expect Moore to go very ballistic very publicly), a chat with the director of Bukowski, the excellent documentary that is out in selected theaters this weekend, a chat with Ichi The Killer, who is out in July (maybe) in the excellent "Beat" version of Zatoichi and an extended look at what elements can lead to major stardom - or not - for an actress like Rachel McAdams or an actor like Ryan Gosling. But I'm late already. So… have a great long weekend… try not to get irritated… see you Tuesday… and read MCN all weekend, as it will be updated all weekend.

READER OF THE DAY: NOT MISS NOLAN writes: "Hope the flick is better than the book - couldn't finish it. I have to agree that Ryan Gosling escapes my interest - he doesn't have the magic you saw in the young Brad Pitt, Cruise or DiCaprio - heck, he doesn't have the magic in the eyes of a Freddie Prinze Jr or Ashton Kutcher, LOL."

THERE AIN'T NO "E" IN LUNG writes: "Wow, you are not the only one who noticed Rachel. I was struck by her screen presence ever since seeing the first trailer of The Notebook, and that was long before I went to see Mean Girls. She is a star alright."

G MUTT X writes: "regarding your column about Rachel McAdams I'd like to add that she seems to me to be an even bigger rising star (or at least an actress to keep an eye on) than you mentioned. Just go out and rent the DVD of "The Hot Chick" and focus on her while comparing her body-switching-performance with Rob Schneider's. (Ok, no contest.) And when you have finished then watch the deleted scenes which show much more of her, resulting in my opinion in some of the best deleted scenes I have ever seen.

In my opinion, "The Hot Chick" is still a relatively uninteresting movie, but McAdams' performance at least gave the film some quality."

And finally, this from THE DJ: "Can Ms. McAdams really control her movie career at this stage of the game and be selective in her roles to make it as a movie star?

Long time readers of The Hot Button know that you chronicle the rise and fall of many young actors. Some seem to go into a cycle of introducing themselves in a break out performance in some indie or art or small film project, maintaining that praise with a follow up performance in a major studio film and then that buzz takes them to the big dance, a lead role in a big blockbuster. This cycle is a way to that movie star status, but the problem is it can be a vicious cycle. The smaller movies or roles can showcase their talent and lead to roles in bigger movies, but it is the bigger movies that tend to focus on box office instead of performance. Without that box office their stars deem fast.

Can an actor really choice only worthy roles and be a movie star in today's Hollywood? I do think so.

"Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light."
--John Milton, Paradise Lost"

E ME: How was your long and winding road?