July 11, 2005

Can a movie that has all the bells and whistles of a big summer movie, directed by a guy who hasn't had a film gross less than $134 million domestic in a decade, with the full force and focus of a clever and creative marketing team, miss?

Probably not.

But after seeing The Island at a sneak preview with a paying audience this weekend and then trying to get a sense of how people are feeling about the film… I don't know.

The movie is pure Michael Bay. It is big, loud, well shot, relentless, with a few chatty less-than-beautiful characters, has big set pieces, plenty of wrecked cars and lots of running. Truth be told, it may be his best work as a director in many ways. It is, perhaps, too complex for its own good at times.

Bay spends pretty much the entire first act developing the premise… a bunch of fit, well taken care of people are living in a safe haven after the world has an environmental disaster and the one thing they look forward to is passage to The Island, the last place on earth where you can breath the fresh air. Ewan McGregor's Lincoln Six Echo is having bad dreams and wanting to break the rules. The ideal world they are living in is not only a bit boring, but a bit fascist. Men and women can't touch. Outbursts are seriously frowned upon. Eating is regulated. Exercise is enforced.

But there is more going on… something bad.

Ultimately, the second act is a long chase, as McGregor & Scarlet Johansson head to Los Angeles, circa 2080something. Here, Bay seems at his most comfortable. The endless running and flying and driving and crashing and jumping and falling and exploding is actually quite compelling. As crazy as it all is, only one stunt really defies movie credulity. (Hint: If you fall dozens of stories, you could be squashed.)

The third act promises the best of all… the resolution of the story in a clever, compelling way. There are some nice moments, but this ends up being the most disappointing part of the film. This is, oddly, where it doesn't quite come together.

And that is probably the answer to the whole film… all those well thought out, well built pieces add up to less than expected. It's not enraging, but it is frustrating.

I intend to see the film again this week… maybe it will come together more effectively. But the last part of the movie feels like a big reshoot, leaving Ms. Johansson's role thinner than Steve Buscemi and lacking in cleverness.

It seems, from this vantage point, almost impossible that there was not a different and better conclusion to the Johansson part of the story. I would elaborate, but there would be little point with so few of you having had a chance to see the film. The very ending of the film could be virtually the same with a coda, involving Ms. Johansson, that would add some of the sci-fi creepiness than keeps a movie like Blade Runner so far beyond this one.

We'll discuss this further later.

But the great curiosity of this film is that it is completely competent - falls a bit short - but is classically entertaining in that summer way. How does one gauge success for this film?

Minority Report, a better movie with a big star name and Spielberg at the helm, had to fight to get to $130 million domestic. That kind of gross would make The Island the least successful of Michael Bay's films, aside from the first Bad Boys in Spring, 1995.

In the last five years, the lowest opening figure for a summer movie getting to (and past) $130 million is $35 million. The lowest in the last three summers is $44 million. Right now, it doesn't feel like the movie can be expected to open that well.

My sense is that DreamWorks' marketing is sitting on the solution to the film's puzzle of "What's really happening?" That's one of the reasons I am being so careful about spoilers of any kind here. If it's not in the marketing, it's a spoiler. But the truth is, there is no reason to be so careful. The Island is not, effectively, a sci-fi movie, but rather an action film. My sense is that they have to give up the Big Question and get on with selling the second and third act.

"How far will human beings go to survive?"
.
"What price are we willing to pay for happiness?"

"Is one life more valuable than another?"

I can think of just three images of Michael Clarke Duncan in this film - a winner, crawling on the floor, and on the wall of a building - that tells the story better than any of the ads I've seen. How do all three images fit together? I'd go to the movies to see that question answered?

The Island challenges our sense of ourselves. (Or at least, it aspires to.) In order to grab the audience before they see the film, I think the advertising needs to do the same. I expect that most audiences will have a decent-to-very-good time with the film. But it isn't a word-of-mouth home run. Triple opening is where this one is going… I'd bet my free Pumas on it. But man, it is too big and too solid to miss… I think.

And I really like my ending so much better.

READER OF THE DAY: JW MARRIOT writes:"After seeing The Fantastic Four. It has left me dumbstruck to the criticism this film has received. Of all of the Marvel comic book adaptations sans one (Spidey 2. Even though that film filled me with dread until MJ told Pete; "Go get'em Tiger.") this one film absolutely leaving me feeling that THIS IS THE FANTASTIC FOUR! This would be enough, but we are dealing with the internet. With the internet; moments of glee and joy just do not carry enough weight with some people.

Which leads to some of your points. Such as the utterly pedantic one about the FX being on TV level. Again, how much TV do you watch? Where do you see FLAME fx such as this? Where exactly do you see all of that excellent plate work? Please. Point it out to me. Those FX are on the same level of the first sorry Spider-Man film, but with a fraction of the budget.

Your comments about Julian McMahon are absolutely ridiculous. You are telling me friggin WEATHERING HEIGHTS Dalton could be Bond? Yet a guy who exudes that much charisma cannot be? May I recommend the ULTIMATE FF. So you can be aquainted with the NEW DOOM.

I could go on with these all day. Yet not one critic has mentioned the COUNTLESS GHOSTBUSTER HOMAGES. Nor has anyone given Ebert an email stating how his review proves once and for all that he does not have the time or patience for genre filmmaking of most kinds.

Which leads to this: Film critics continually prove to me each and every weekend of this Summer that they want the leaves to start falling from the trees. That they want that ache to return from those thoughtful and instrospective films that only come out at the end of the year. Blame certain journalists for continuing to bring up this supposed box office slump. Yet, when do the critics receive some, criticism, for acting like Vince Carter in Toronto before the Fall/Winter? What service do they provide? When they appear not to care until awards season."

E-ME. I care a lot... when a piece of crap like the Fantastic Four threatens to use its one super power - the ability to suck money out of people's wallets - I feel like writing about how I feel. I'm all for good crap. It's fun... it's summer... it's not this movie... sorry. But opinions are just that. I'm glad you liked the movie. I wish I had. It makes neither you or I or Roger Ebert disingenuous. Or does it?