Greetings, one and all. I have to start by thanking you for sending me so many great e-mails lately. Civilian Voices has really started to grow and take shape since its inception. For those who haven’t written yet, don’t be afraid. Everyone has something important to say. Everyone’s opinions are valid. The winter may be slow in terms of industry news, but it does bring an amazing slate of Oscar-hungry flicks. I’d love to get your views on these contenders for upcoming editions of the column. Let me know what you think of this weekend’s films as well as your hopes and fears for the films yet to be released.

On Thursday, roughcut.com reader Susan wanted to correct reader Woodge’s assessment of the usage of the F-word in Billy Elliot. Today’s column begins with a response from Woodge...

"Regarding Susan’s comments about Billy Elliot: I admit I underestimated the number of F-words flying around, but, as I saw the flick over a month ago, my memory was not as fresh as hers was. Still, it just goes to show how much one can tune that word out after hearing it so often. Personally, I wish that word wasn’t used so often, but what can you do? It’s how many people actually talk. (Shows a lack of imagination, if you ask me). But the gist of my earlier comments is that I thought the movie would have been better served with a PG-13 rating. "I too would like to express my shock and dismay at the practice of giving away a complete story arc within trailers. Cast Away is only the most recent example. One of the worst I remember was the trailer for Stepmom (a deservedly forgotten flick), which told you just about every key plot point in two minutes. Seeing these types of trailers is almost as bad as reading spoiler-filled reviews written by lazy critics, before you’ve seen the movie. One thing I appreciate about M. Night Shyamalan’s trailers is that they are well-designed teasers. They don’t give anything important away; they merely ratchet up your interest level in seeing the movie. "Surprises only increase my enjoyment of movies. I still remember when I saw When Harry Met Sally for the first time. I saw it in its first week of release and, as I watched it, I wasn’t sure the two of them would end up together. Why can’t movie marketers wait until the movie has been out a few weeks (like they did with that one) before throwing such blatant giveaways into a trailer? This way, they would give fanatical movie fans like me a better chance to enjoy the movie before trying to entice the occasional moviegoer. "(But maybe I’m being too idealistic and marketers figure giving away the whole movie makes more fiscal sense. But, jeez, I hope not.) Obviously, I feel strongly about this. ;-)" -- Woodge

I agree that trailers can really make or break a movie-going experience for me. Trailers for romantic comedies are notorious for giving away everything. Most of the time, even without seeing a trailer, you know that the boy is going to get the girl. Romantic comedies are pretty predictable that way. I don’t mind that. But does the trailer have to show us how the guy wins the gal? Aaargh. I’m with you, Woodge. I feel strongly about this as well. Have you seen a trailer that ruined the movie for you? Care to tell us about it?

Our next Civilian Voice is Ian’s. He comments on rumors of a big-screen Scooby-Doo, those silly faux celebs, and the best way to avoid those pesky trailers...

"How can anybody even think that Scooby-Doo could be a decent film, no matter who plays the roles? It’s a second-rate Saturday-morning cartoon with an endlessly recycled plot and gross sexual stereotyping. It could be nothing but a bomb, so I say let it bomb with talentless actors at the helm rather than damaging some more-talented person’s career. "As for the faux celebrities, I think this applies to most of the ‘young’ crop of stars that Hollywood recycles each three or four years. Their careers are generally graced with two medium-sized hits, then a run of poor work before a last grasp at a career by going ‘indie.’ Also, most of their origins are on semi-successful TV shows. "To my mind, the only actress who has the ability to make a career for herself out of these circumstances is Sarah Michelle Gellar. Not only is she seriously sexy (yes, that is my chauvinism rearing its ugly head), but her work on Buffy on WB has consistently shown what an incredible actress she is. She has taken her character through practically every painful emotional arc that a teenager has to go through with beautiful depth, whilst still kicking major a**. Do any of you think that there are any of these ‘manufactured’ stars who might make the grade? "By the way, for those who hate to watch trailers, do what I do: leave the cinema as they are coming on and spend that time in line for popcorn, etc. Thus, I was saved from having to watch the What Lies Beneath spoiler." -- Ian Sullivan

Anyone think Scooby-Doo could survive the transition from animation to live action? Small screen to big screen? I think it could actually be a lot of fun if done correctly. I don’t consider casting Freddie Prinze Jr. a step in the right direction. As for Sarah Michelle, her big-screen track record is so-so. She needs to take a few supporting roles in some non-teen flicks to break out. I think Kate Hudson is one of the few young starlets who will still have a career in her 30s. Which young stars do you think will still be gracing the cover of People magazine in 10 years?

He’s back. Iconoclast Matt returns to Civilian Voices after what seems like months, and he has his picks for this year’s Best Song...

"The best song of the year is ‘God Loves a Terrier’ from Best in Show. It’s short, sweet, and downright funny! It’s also the only song I’ve heard in a movie all year that actually had a reason to be in the film! I did like the songs in Dancer in the Dark, but I couldn’t name one as a nominee. Maybe for original song score, but this was the only musical to come out this year. I could also nominate "Flip, Flop, Fly" from Chicken Run. It’s got a good beat and you can dance to it. And another possibility is the Garth Brooks tune in Frequency. I don’t remember too much about the song at all, but at least I remembered there was one. Maybe New Line should have released that one in December instead of Thirteen Days. "On a side note, I finally saw Requiem for a Dream and Billy Elliot. Requiem is probably the most disturbing film I’ve seen in a long time. There is not one false performance or bad angle in the entire film, even if it’s very unpleasant to sit through. But Artisan had released two movies this year I’ve liked (Cecil B. Demented). I liked Billy Elliot all right, and it was great to see it in an almost sold-out auditorium for a Sunday matinee. However, I can’t see this one earning a Best Picture nomination. It has more of a Waking Ned Devine flavor than a Full Monty feel." -- Iconoclast Matt

"God Loves a Terrier" gets my vote as well. Who wouldn’t want to see that production number during next year’s Oscar telecast? If you ask me, everything’s better with a little Eugene Levy thrown in the mix.

I know I shouldn’t be admitting this, but I haven’t seen Requiem for a Dream or Billy Elliot yet. I know, I know. And I call myself a movie buff. But everyone I know who has seen Requiem has commented on how disturbing it is. I just haven’t been in the mood to be disturbed lately. And for some reason, seeing Billy Elliot has been low on my to-do list. Anyone care to tell me and everyone else why these are must-see films?

Moving on to Robin S. She spent quite a bit of time at the movies during the Thanksgiving break and has many a thought to show for it...

"Well, I ended up with six movie-ticket stubs to show for my Thanksgiving break. Unbreakable was far ahead in the pack. I was really thinking what a great Best Picture candidate it would be when, upon exiting the theater, each of the four friends that I had dragged along scolded me for talking them into ‘wasting $7.’ Oops. Anyway, while I spent so much time in theaters, a couple of random thoughts hit me: some about specific upcoming movies and others about current movies in general. 1. Does Universal have a clue what it’s doing with The Family Man? The movie is grossly under-advertised, and then they decide to move its release date back a week to compete against Miss Congeniality and Cast Away. I’m a Nicolas Cage fan and I hear the movie is good, so I’m not too happy. 2. I think State and Main might make some critical and box-office noise. The idea of Philip Seymour Hoffman and William H. Macy in the same movie is appealing, to say the least. 3. The Sony marketing department is going to have a fretful holiday season. Keeping Vertical Limit ahead of Proof of Life at the box office, pushing Sean Connery’s performance in Finding Forrester, and figuring out how to sell Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon will have them working overtime. 4. I miss my R-rated trailers before non-R-rated movies. If the PG-13 Dungeons and Dragons trailer before The Grinch can show stuff coming out of a guy’s ears, why can’t I see the innocuous new preview for Traffic before, say, Unbreakable? 5. After that All the Pretty Horses trailer, I really wish I could cancel the annual Christmas Day family gathering with my aunt and uncle. If Billy Bob Thornton gets it right, that movie is going to be unstoppable in the awards season, giving plenty of ammunition to the well-oiled guns of the Miramax PR department. 6. There were an incredible number of people in theaters over Thanksgiving -- more than last year, I have no doubt. The Grinch sold out at the local theater both weekends." -- Robin S

Great e-mail, Robin. Thanks for your sharing your thoughts. Anyone else think Universal was crazy to move The Family Man? Does the idea of seeing William H. Macy and Philip Seymour Hoffman together get you all in a tizzy? Can Vertical Limit hold off Proof of Life? Will Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon get lost in the holiday shuffle or emerge as a box-office hit? Does the trailer for All the Pretty Horses make you clap or cringe? The answers to these questions will appear in Tuesday’s Civilian Voices. That is, if you send me e-mails with your answers. Don’t let your fellow readers down.

Another hot topic is the big-screen adaptation of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I just finished the fourth book in the series and I am eagerly awaiting the next installment. I’ve heard that J. K. Rowling has started writing, but who knows when the new novel will be complete. Harry and friends are now very dear to my heart and, quite frankly, I’ll be livid if director Chris Columbus doesn’t do them justice. Zac F. and Joe G. are equally concerned...

"I share your concerns about Christopher Columbus directing Harry Potter. The casting of the characters has been terrific, but the choice of Columbus strikes fear into my heart. In every one of his movies, Columbus lays on the schmaltz and sappiness so thick that it drives me up a wall. Oh, how I wish Steven Spielberg would have taken the job. Then we could get a lean, mean adaptation that would combine great action with lean drama. A Spielberg version would be the best out of Hollywood. But the best versions overall would have to be those that we imagine in our minds. No matter how the movie turns out, it won’t be like the one we saw in our heads as we read the books." -- Zac F.

 

"With the announcement of Columbus as the Harry Potter director, the whole project just dropped off the radar of things I’m interested in. He’s arguably Hollywood’s least interesting hack. In the universe of film directors, he’s a hopeless Muggle. Terry Gilliam would have been the dream director here. He made the short list and was apparently J. K. Rowling’s choice, but it seems that Columbus was the more commercial choice. What a shame. Imagine what Gilliam would have done with the Dursleys alone. It looks like a missed opportunity to me." -- Joe Greenia Chicago

Keeping to the subject of adaptations, Kevin reminds us that sometimes Hollywood does get it right...

"On the topic of best and worst adaptations of books to screen, you said it’s very rare for an adaptation to be better than the source material. You’re right about that, but two big ones come right to mind: The Godfather and Jaws. Try going back and rereading those books -- they’re an enjoyable enough way to kill time at the beach, I suppose, but neither rises above the level of pulp. The movies will endure as two all-time classics (as I tell you something you didn’t already know!). A lesser case of this would be Shawshank Redemption, which was a good little story that became something special on screen. Ditto Rear Window. Bad book to good movie? Try The Bridges of Madison County. "Examples of good book to good movie translations: High Fidelity, Election, L.A. Confidential (how smoothly they pulled this off still shocks me), To Kill a Mockingbird, Out of Sight, Jackie Brown, The Dead Zone, Pet Sematary (incredibly faithful to the book -- maybe that’s why it turned off so many people), The Talented Mr. Ripley, Remains of the Day, Jurassic Park (though the movie was but a shadow of the book), Silence of the Lambs, Manhunter, A Simple Plan, Primary Colors, Donnie Brasco, The Sweet Hereafter, JFK (from two books), Goodfellas, Casino. I could go on and on, but you get the idea! "Good book to bad movie? An even longer list. The Bonfire of the Vanities comes right to mind. It’s too depressing to even go on." -- Kevin

And finally, I’m dedicating the second page of Civilian Voices to further discussion of the film Unbreakable. Once again, I remind those of you who haven’t seen the film that these e-mails contain spoilers that could ruin your movie-going experience. Read at your own risk.

PAGE TWO: Talk about Unbreakable >>>

 

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.