The debate over Almost Famous continues. Reader Joe Corey has his own theories on why the film isn't living up to its initial hype...

"If anyone is responsible for the poor box office of Almost Famous it's Cameron Crowe. Weeks before the release, he announces that the DVD will contain a version of the film with an extra hour.  Why do I want to blow $8 to see a film that isn't complete?  I can put that money toward picking up the DVD.  And if a bunch of us don't go, it assures us that the longer version will be out faster.  As much as I enjoyed the film, I couldn't help but wonder about the extra hour - especially during the butterfingered end montage. It also didn't help that weeks before the film was to come out, Crowe had no title.  The people at the Toronto Film Festival weren't sure if they'd have a title in their guide book.  Exactly how do you hype a film that you can't put a title to?  Sure Woody Allen gets away with it - but then again, name one Woody Allen film that made $100 million? And the poster was pathetic.  They would have been better off with just the shot of Kate Hudson walking up the arena's loading dock ramp." -- joe corey

DreamWorks has been taking a lot of heat recently over its new release The Contender. Many are claiming that the film's liberal bias is the result of studio meddling Steve has a few words to say about the studio and also continues the discussion about Almost Famous...

With all due respect to DreamWorks, I can't help but think that the studio bares a striking resemblance to 'independent' giant Miramax. In other words, the dreaded 'Harvey Scissorhands' allegations, whereby the film studio demands changes in order to make a more accessible (re: commercial) movie. I've read that Steven Spielberg has exerted his influence on numerous Dreamworks projects (Forces of Nature for one) and I know that he had a hand in the editing of The Contender. I haven't seen The Contender yet, but I have a problem with studio heads like Spielberg taking control of projects for whatever reason, be it political or otherwise. I know it's Dreamworks' money, but the bottom line is that many films are being pillaged because of constant meddling. Take Almost Famous for example. Despite having a great deal of affection for the film, I couldn't shake the fact that it fell to pieces at the end. The editing was choppy and the flow of the film seemed rushed in an unsuccessful attempt to tie everything up. I understand that the two hour and forty minute version of Almost Famous probably didn't stand a chance after the financial failure of films like The Insider and Magnolia last year. Pricey dramas which can only play a limited amount of times a day in theatres aren't usually good for business. But what disappoints me is that Dreamworks was supposed to be different. A studio for filmmakers with a vision and fresh ideas was promised. Which begs the question, why wouldn't they do everything in their power to support a film that was Oscar® bait the moment Cameron Crowe put his pen down? Furthermore, why wouldn't they want to make the best possible film? Keep in mind though, Miramax was once the proud home of Pulp Fiction and The Crying Game but lately has become synonymous with the next Freddie Prinze Jr. vehicle and Scream 3 (under Dimension label). I fear Dreamworks is following the same path. Gladiator and American Beauty illustrate what the studio is capable of, but Almost Famous clearly shows what they can take away. -- Steve Ottawa ON, Canada

A roughcut.com reader who simply goes by B isn't just concerned about DreamWorks. He's feeling a little cynical about all the studio films released this year...

"So what a relief that I never have to think about what major release to see.  This year I can just label them all waste.  Instead, I can indulge in the pleasures of picking apples and finding the best pumpkin in the patch.  One can't deny that it is better to have a nice slice of pie a la mode than to sit and watch people debate the probability of a vice-president once "covered in..."  Mmmm, yum.  Seriously, last year American Beauty ticked me off with its plot manipulations and trite liberalism.  And that was the 'best' movie of the year, undoubtedly leading us to The Contender and Pay It Forward.  Two steps backward, if you ask me." --B

Would you label all the films that were released this year a waste? Could you name five studio films that rank as potential Best Picture nominees? Not that indies can't be nominated, but let's keep to the studios for the moment. I'd be hard pressed to come up with five flawless films. I think it only fair that in order for a film to be considered the "Best" it should be flawless. Everything about the film should work. Believe it or not it's been done before. Granted November and December are the two months when studios trot out their Oscar fare, but buzz hasn't been that great on many of the films that will hitting your local megaplex in the next ten weeks. So, what do you say? Has this been a bad year for studio films? Or can you come up with a handful that were truly satisfying? Let me know and I'll post your thoughts in this weekend's Civilian Voices

 

Meghan McCarthy
Editor, Civilian Voices

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.