Craig's MovieBlog

My Final Funny Games Post

I've ranted enough about Funny Games, and I feel wrong giving it any more attention, but I saw an interview with Michael Pitt over at New York Magazine's Vulture blog, and this section jumped out at me, probably because it's precisely how I feel when reading about the film or seeing the trailers:

When we saw [Funny Games], we have to admit that we felt like we were going to throw up the entire time.
Yeah. It’s a really hard film to watch. I find that parents in particular have a really difficult time to watch it, which is understandable. For Tim [Roth], especially, making the film was really difficult. He’s got a little boy about that age.

Also, over at Hollywood Elsewhere, Jeff Wells is very conflicted.  He says:

Michael Haneke's Funny Games is simultaneously the ugliest and most repulsive violent melodrama I've ever seen (including the thoroughly disgusting I Spit On Your Grave) and the smartest and nerviest critique of sexy-violent movies in the bang-flash vein of Quentin Tarantino, Tony Scott, Oliver Stone, Eli Roth and other purveyors and marketers of homicidal style.

A fair percentage of those brave enough to see this Warner Independent release this weekend are going to walk out on it -- trust me. It's a hateful and infuriating film, no question, and yet it has a worthwhile point. And you can't not respect Haneke for this.

It's certainly one of the ballsiest movies ever released by Warner Bros. (technically Warner Independent) in its 90 year history. I mean this in a sense that average people might come out of showings feeling enormous hate for Warner Bros. for having done so. Seriously. If the final effect wasn't so stunning and dispiriting I could imagine people beating up ushers on the way out.

I actually commented on his site (something I almost never do... what is this film doing to me?!?!) with, "I have no desire to watch a young boy tortured for two hours, and I have no desire to see that boy watch his parents get tortured either.  Maybe it's because I have two young sons, but if that makes me a film wuss, so be it."

Jeff Wells liked Cloverfield

Jeff Wells liked Cloverfield:

Cloverfield is a monster film unlike any other -- a complete original, but no less of a rock' em-sock 'em for that. It's amazing in that it's so short (by my watch about 74 minutes without credits), and yet so fierce. If Allen Ginsberg hadn't already used this I would suggest that they call it Howl. This is not your father's Ray Harryhausen rampaging monster flick. Those movies, comparatively, were parlor dramas for the tame of mind. This movie is REM madness. It is Guillermo del Toro on a tab of brown acid with a little crack thrown in.

Critics

Classic.  To me, this just defines the state of the entertainment blogosphere circa late-2007:

• Film Critics are Too Snooty
• Film Critics aren't Snooty Enough
• Jeff Wells takes a position
• Vulture covers both sides of the issue

No Country For Old Men Debates

I mentioned a few days ago (twice) how much I loved No Country For Old Men, until the ending just kind of took me out of the whole fantasy, leaving me with a big, "huh?"

Well, I don't want to go so far as to say that the film blogosphere elite has labeled me a "dullard" for not understanding what the Coen brothers were trying to do (well, they wouldn't be the first), but there is a spirited debate about the ending of the film going on at a variety of sites.  You can find people arguing over on Glenn Kenny's blog (from Premiere Magazine), David Poland's site, and Jeff Wells' Hollywood Elsewhere

If you saw No Country and were completely fulfilled by the ending, or if you were left wanting, there's definitely something to be learned from these conversations happening as we speak.

Oh, and if you haven't seen the film yet, don't you dare read these pages, as they are chock full of spoilerific goodness.

Charlie Wilson's War Finally Previewed

Universal finally showed Charlie Wilson's War to the press last night, and you can read what Jeff Wells, David Poland, and Kris Tapley thought of it.  The words "abridged," "cut and re-cut, "good but not great," "likeable," "terrific," and "Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a God... can do no wrong" keep coming up.  Sounds like a mixed bag but net-positive in the end.  I'm just wondering, when was the last time we had Oscar bait that was only 97 minutes long?

Sigh...

First I was depressed last week by Anne Thompson's piece on how Michael Clayton isn't making money at the box office, but I didn't want to write about it just yet.

But today, Hollywood Wiretap and the Los Angeles Times are both covering the issue on a broader scale.  No independent films are making money, and the major studio dramas are struggling also.  Here's a sampling, in no particular order:

In the Valley of Elah	Warner Independent	$6.6 million
Lars and the Real Girl	MGM	$0.3 million
The Hunting Party	MGM/Weinstein	$0.9 million
Sleuth	Sony Pictures Classics	$0.1 million
Reservation Road	Focus	$0.04 million
Lust, Caution	Focus	$2.1 million
Rendition	New Line	$4.1 million
Things We Lost in the Fire	Paramount/DreamWorks	$1.6 million
The Darjeeling Limited	Fox Searchlight	$3.8 million
Gone Baby Gone	Miramax	$5.5 million
Into the Wild	Paramount Vantage	$6.5 million
Elizabeth: The Golden Age	Universal	$11.8 million
Michael Clayton	Warner Bros.	$22.7 million
The Assassination of Jesse James...	Warner Bros.	$2.2 million
Eastern Promises	Focus	$16.9 million

There are plenty of excuses reasons for this - poor marketing, too many dramas in the mix, piracy, NC-17 ratings, some of these films haven't gone wide yet (but they won't if they don't perform well when they launch), poor reviews, and of course the easy way out: the depressing state of the world, "the war in Iraq, the housing slump, global warming, the fires..." says the LA Times.  What?  No Halo 3 to blame?  I enjoy pointing at the dumbing down of society, and we're all too busy at home worrying about Britney's kids and watching Dancing with the Stars or Deal or No Deal, but I think that's a scapegoat as well.

The theory that holds the most water to me, is that they are victims of their own success, causing a glut of films that were only attractive to limited audience already:

"Companies such as Miramax did so well that almost every entertainment conglomerate started its own specialty division, and a range of independent financiers, such as Sidney Kimmel Entertainment, also jumped into the fray."

It's also going to be crucially important for studios to keep costs low and perhaps think about this business model differently if there's a much more crowded market for competition.  There used to be a formula detailing how to platform release a film like Brokeback Mountain, The Queen, or even My Big Fat Greek Wedding, but with a limited audience, limited theaters and screens, and a much wider set of options for that small audience to choose from, studios may have to redefine what success means on this smaller scale.

Thank goodness Wild Hogs made $168 million and a sequel is on the way.  Shoot me.

UPDATE: Jeff Wells has jumped into the fray:

I slipped into a preview screening of [Before the Devil Knows You're Dead] last night. It was showing to a group of KCET subscribers -- an older, fair-minded group that likes adult prestige films -- and you just could feel the lack of excitement in the room as they walked out. You could cut it with a knife. They'd just seen one of the year's absolute best and most of them were thinking "hmmm, downer....not very uplifting!"

Creepy Things Are Afoot in the Movie Blogosphere

Ick.  Just plain icky.

• Nikki Finke published this.  How very low of her.
• David Poland commented about not commenting about it.  How very David of him.
• Jeff Wells responds.  How very gross of him.

But the best part is that New York Magazine's Vulture Blog has summed it up with this one question: "Who is Vinessa Shaw?"

"Oh."

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford Trailer

Just wow...  thanks to Jeff Wells for linking to the trailer.

And yes, unless Warner Bros. can figure out what to do with this, it will make no money.

The Bourne Ultimatum Might Be Good

Can't.  Freaking.  Wait.

David Poland, The Hot Button - "The Bourne Ultimatum is ultimately one the three best films of the year"

Kristopher Tapley, In Contention - "The Bourne Ultimatum is the most riveting, most creative, most stimulating film of what has already proven itself to be a thoroughly engaging series of films."

Jeff Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere - "I think it's an action movie milestone"

Todd McCarthy, Variety Magazine - "If they could bottle what gives The Bourne Ultimatum its rush, it would probably be illegal. The third and purportedly final installment in the mountingly exciting series is a pounding, pulsating thriller that provides an almost constant adrenaline surge for nearly two hours."

Early Oceans 13 Feedback

Jeff Wells says, "okay, yeah... meh."

Variety's Todd McCarthy says it "continues the breezy good times of the first two series entries without missing a beat."

Jeff Wells Adores 60% of Grindhouse

...but says that Tarantino's portion rocks.  Check it out.

More About 300, Film Critics, and the Box Office

Jeff Wells just posted an entry slamming Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times, who wrote that newspapers should hire some young Gen X/Y/Z/whatever writer whenever some big CGI movie comes out so that they can relate to it in ways that typical reviewers can't.

I don't want to discuss my agreement with Jeff's article (it's quite good - you should read it).  Frankly, if some stodgy paper wants to hire me so that I can explain Sin City or 300 to their full time film critic, I'd be fine with that.  I mean, do they really need help understanding why Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow sucked?

I do want to say once and for all, however, how frustrated I am about the continued mistaken belief that massive box office results on opening weekend equates to a good film (i.e. critics don't get it). 

I don't know how else to say this - opening weekend is a result of how good your marketing was... and nothing else.  And let's be clear: 300 had an AWESOME ad campaign.  The buzz was building on this film for months, with amazing trailers and a stylistic look and feel that told audiences that if they came to see 300, they'd see something they've never seen before. 

So, that's what happened.  The film opened on a over 3100 screens, so everyone who wanted to see it could do so, and about 10 million people paid $7 each, giving Warner Bros. their $70.8 million opening.  Congratulations to everyone involved.  Sincerely.  That's a ridiculously huge achievement, and it's now the biggest March opening of all time, and the 19th biggest debut ever.

However, please note that none of that had anything to do with whether the film was good or not.

I mean, did anyone ask those 10 million people whether they liked the movie or not?  I really liked the trailer (almost enough to make me see the film) but did I like the movie?  We celebrate one thing (the money collected from the audience before they see the film) as if it equates to something completely separate (one's satisfaction with the film).  This would be like paying for dinner first, ignoring whether the food was good or not, but after looking at how much money the restaurant made that evening, assuming that the food was fantastic. 

Why do we make this assumption when it comes to the box office?

Week two had a drop off of 54%, so about 4.5 million people were convinced to see it the following weekend, or went back for a repeat viewing.  My guess is that word of mouth either began to spread, or... there weren't actually that many people left who wanted to see the film.  Looking at other films that opened around $70 million, 54% is better than the 59% drop that The Day After Tomorrow had (an awful film), but worse than the 33% drop of Finding Nemo, 30% of The Return of the King, and 29% for The Incredibles (arguably very good films). 

[Let's not start comparing MPAA ratings, audiences, and seasons now.  I know they're relevant to any real box office discussion, but we're not really having a box office discussion now, are we?]

Look, I can't say whether 300 was good or bad.  I haven't seen it.  Just don't tell me that it's good BECAUSE it made $70 million opening weekend.  Don't tell me that critics are out of touch BECAUSE it made $70 million opening weekend.  Tell me that 300's print and media campaign were so freaking incredibly mind blowing that you (and 10 million other people) simply could not wait to see it.

That's what opening box office numbers can tell you.

Oh, how was 300, by the way?  Any good?

Sometimes, Someone Else Just Nails It

A few weeks ago, when the official Oscar poster was released, I read a few comments about how exciting it was.  I wasn't impressed, but not in a jaded, cynical way (my norm), but I just couldn't put my finger on why I was so nonplussed.

Then, someone else said it for me.  Both on Jeff Wells' Hollywood Elsewhere and on Movie Marketing Madness, they hit the nail on the head. 

The quotes they used are all quotes that I'm just plain sick to death of.  I mean, come on... haven't you seen this montage of quotes edited together in some Academy Award ceremony about 60 times already?

Find something original... I mean, "Show me the money"?  Really?  Even "you had me at hello" or "help me, help you" might have been better if they absolutely had to have something from Jerry Maguire.  Although, I would have been really impressed if they went with, "a real man wouldn't shoplift the pootie from a single mom."    ;)

I will admit to liking that they included, "No, if anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving."

Jeff Wells' Top 11 Films of the Year

Not only does he list of his top 11, but more interestingly, he goes through the year with other "mosts" and "bests" such as Best Romantic LSD/Mescaline/Peyote Button Movie in Years (The Fountain) and Most Agreeable Stylistic Exercise (The Good German), and most importantly, Best Sex Scene (go read the article to find out).

Studio Executives are Drunk or Stupid... or Both

Don't they understand that Steve Carell is funny?  Don't they understand that good writing is what makes people laugh, cry, or cheer?  Clearly not... because The New York Times and Jeff Wells are commenting today that the budget for Evan Almighty is now (good lord) $175 million, and they haven't even touched the marketing budget or distribution costs.

What could possibly be costing $175 million that would make that film funnier?  This is a sight-gag comedy!  It's not like Schwarzenegger is flying Stealth bombers and blowing up cities... All Universal is doing is repeatedly cutting into their profits!  When you see what happened to Superman Returns, a film that made lots of cash, but couldn't be profitable, why would anyone continue down this path?!?!

Of course, if they told me that the budget had a line-item for waxing Carell's chest hair, well, then... nevermind.  I completely understand.