Archive for September, 2009

Best Picture Chart

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009
BEST PICTURE
Picture
Studio
Director
Stars
Comment
The Nomination 90% Locks (in alphabetical order)
Dec 25
Nine
TWC
Marshall
Day-Lewis
Et al
In a thin year, getting over the post-production fights, looking like the front-runner
May
Up
Disney
Docter
Petersen
-
Could the first animated film to get a BP nod in a year with an animated category get the win?
The Nomination 80% Locks (in alphabetical order)
Dec 11
Invictus
WB
Eastwood
Freeman
The Waiting Game…
Nov 13 Up In The Air
Par
Reitman
Clooney
Very well liked already… a reflective comedy
Nov 6
Precious
LG
Daniels
Sidibe
‘Nique
The race race
Toronto Contenders Looking Likely
Oct 9
An Education
SPC
Scherfig
Mulligan
Sarsgaard
Belle Of The Ball
Oct 2
A Serious Man
Focus
Coens
Stuhlbarg
Kind
It’s the Jewish Precious… but funny!
Nov
A Single Man
TWC
Ford
Firth
It’s the Gay Precious… but pretty!
Serious Contenders To Fill The Last 3 Slots(in alphabetical order)
June
The Hurt Locker
Sum
Bigelow
Renner
A great movie… will Summit spend to play?
August
Inglourious Basterds
TWC
Tarantino
Waltz
A more commercial film… but looking better and better as the “contenders” slide
Sept 25
Coco Before Chanel
SPC
Fontaine
Tautou
The strong small film for women…. could push out Streep’s Julia Child… or not
Nov 13
The Fantastic Mr Fox
Fox
Anderson
-
Fox Searchlight on it now!
Dec 18 Avatar
Fox
Cameron
?
Is it a gamebreaker?
The Still Blurry, Waiting For Focus
Dec 25?
The Lovely Bones
Par/DW
Jackson
Weiss
Ronan
Wahlberg
Tucci

Will get a late, limited release
Nov 6
A Christmas Carol
Dis
Zemeckis
Carrey
Oldman
A breakthrough?
Damaged Goods
Oct 2
Capitalism: A Love Story
Over
Moore
-
Folks are trying to get excited, but privately are dissapointed
Aug 7 Julie & Julia
Sony
Ephron
Streep
Adams
A modest hit… seen as all about Streep… could rise if others fall
Nov 25
The Road
TWC
Hillcoat
Theron
Mortensen
Not as problematic as righties claimed, but hard road for Oscar
The Walking Dead Since July’s Chart
June
Tetro
AmZ
Coppola
Gallo
Ehrenreich
People heard something was coming… didn’t know it landed
June
Cheri
Mir
Frears
Pfeiffer
Commerical miss
Aug 28
Taking Woodstock
Focus
Lee
-
Commerical miss
Sept 18 The Burning Plain
Mag
Arriaga
Theron
Too heavy for a theatrical…
Sept
Bright Star
BB
Campion
Whishaw
Cornish
DOR – Dead On Release
2010
Shutter Island
Par
Scorsese
DiCaprio
Moved to 2010
2010
Green Zone
U
Greengrass
Damon
2010
The Commercial Chasers (by release date)
May
Star Trek
Par
Abrams
Urban
Bloom off the rose with #4 summer finish
July
Public Enemies
U
Mann
Depp
Mann’s #2 high grosser ever has been tagged “a flop”
Feb
Coraline
Focus
Selick
-
Fighting the notion of 2 animated nominees
Sept
The Informant!
WB
Soderbergh
Damon
Tone is throwing some off
Nov 20 The Blind Side
WB
Hancock
Bullock
Bates
Could be a surprise
Dec 25
Sherlock Holmes
WB
Ritchie
Downey
Not likely… Guy Ritchie
Dec 25
It’s Complicated
U
Meyers
Streep
Baldwin
Martin
Could well be the surprise
The Arthouse Chasers (by release date)
Oct 23
Amelia
FxSch
Nair
Swank
No one is excited
Nov 20 Broken Embraces
SPC
Almodovar
Cruz
Excellent… but not a ground breaker
Dec 4
Brothers
Lions
Sheridan
Maguire
Gyllenhaal
It wasn’t at TIFF… how will it find wings with Precious as LGF’s true love?
Dec 4
Everybody’s Fine
Mir
Jones
DeNiro
Remake of a Tornatore classic
Dec?
Men Who Stare At Goats
Over
Heslov
Clooney
Bridges
Liked, not loved.
Dec 25 The White Ribbon
SPC
Hanaeke
-
Fine art
Unlikely To Race This Year (in alphabetical order)
Biutiful
U/Foc
Gonzalez-
Inarritu
Bardem
Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky
SPC
Kounen
Mikkelsen
Intrigues At Tire-Larigot (Micmacs)
WB
Jeunet
-
The Last Station
-
Hoffman
Plummer
Giamatti
Love Ranch
Think
Hackford
Mirren
Ondine
-
Jordan
Bachleda-Curus
Shanghai
TWC
Håfström

Cusack
Yun-Fat
Li

24 Weeks To Go Toronto Scores A Single, But Not Much More

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

That sound you heard coming out of the Toronto International Film Festival this year…

Near silence.

The films that came in hot (An Education & Precious) stayed hot, the new film expected to come out hot (Up In The Air & A Serious Man) came out hot, and a total of one title that went in unsure came out with some heat, A Single Man.

Just not that exciting, awardswise.

There were other good movies. But there was not much of a fuse lit. Studios started pushing away from the Gala events at Roy Thompson Hall, often preferring the less tony environs of the Elgin, the newly reopened for movies Winter Garden, and often the college theater energy of Ryerson Hall.

The Road wasn’t killed… but it didn’t come flying out of the week either. Capitalism: A Love Story wasn’t a car wreck… but it was a lot more Sicko than Fahrenheit 9/11.

At $1 million, A Single Man was the biggest sale of the festival… which tells you right away that there were no rush-it-out sure bets like The Wrestler or The Hurt Locker in play at the festival this year.

Creation, Agora, Chloe, Mother & Child, The Private Lives of Pippa Lee, Micmacs, Love & Other Impossible Pursuits, The Young Victoria, Triage, Harry Brown, The Joneses, The Vintner’s Luck, The Boys Are Back, Leaves of Grass, Life During Wartime, Ondine, and London River are part of the long list of high profile titles looking to break out at TIFF and just not doing so. Cannes hits Broken Embraces, Bright Star, A Prophet, and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus did fine… but didn’t have a next step, propelled by Oprah or anyone else.

The non-Best Picture arthouse breakout may turn out to be the Chinese-made City of Life & Death while the most commercial films might be Whip It (large size) and Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (small size).

But still… the only potentially significant awards story to emerge from TIFF 2009 was A Single Man.

And the only really bad news for a film that was looking for a push out of TIFF was Bright Star, which opened on 19 screens for a 3-day $9,984 per-screen average and expanded to 130 screens and a $5,168 per-screen. The film is running slightly ahead of Cheri, as an example, on weekend per-screen, though after 10 days, Cheri is running slightly ahead of Bright Star because of weekday numbers. I still expect Bright Star to outperform Cheri, but $5 million seems like the high bar domestically. That is unlikely to be enough to make the Best Picture leap, especially in a season with an unusual number of strong female-driven films (Nine, Precious, An Education, Coco Before Chanel, Julie and Julia, Amelia, It’s Complicated and more).

Outside of Toronto, there have also been casualties of timing. Films from Martin Scorsese, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Lasse Hallstrom, Neil Jordan, and Paul Greengrass all are out of the game because they won’t be released this year.

What is clear is that there is plenty of room to fight for a slot at this point. Of my Top 12 – which is really my entire top group at this point – only three of the films are unseen as of this writing (Nine, Invictus, and Avatar). In addition, there are a couple of completely blind items, like Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol and Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones. Traditionally, films like Sherlock Holmes, The Blind Side, and It’s Complicated are commercial films and not Oscar films… but there is always room for a pop.

What finally smashed me in the face up in Toronto was that with 10 Best Picture nominees and only five in each of the acting slots, it could get pretty weird. Nine and Precious are actress fests. Invictus, A Serious Man, A Single Man, and The Hurt Locker are actor parties. But at the same time, you have to assume an Oscar nomination for Daniel Day Lewis in Nine and for Julianne Moore in A Single Man. How many of the 8 star actresses can be nominated for Nine?

If it’s Day-Lewis, Clooney, Firth, Renner, and Damon… what happens to Mortensen, Wahlberg, Sarsgaard, Stuhlbarg, and Maguire?

If it’s Streep, Mulligan, Cotillard, Weisz, and Sidibe… what happens to Tautou, Cruz, Cornish, Swank, and Theron?

Supporting Actor is looking like the softest category with potential in Gyllenhaal, Tucci, Molina, Duvall, and Kind.

Best Supporting Actress is a MONSTER… Just Nine has Dench, Loren, Hudson, Cruz, and Kidman. Add Ronan, Farmiga, Kendrick. Moore, Adams, Portman… and God knows who else?

So here we are… about two months from things really locking in… and while The Ten doesn’t seem to be in for a whole lot of changes, there are some big fights brewing in the other categories. With 10 nominees, all of these films are more likely to be seen by Academy voters.. making it all the more interesting.

- David Poland
September 30, 2009

Sad Legal Turn, Whichever Side One Supports

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Roger Avary was sentenced today to a year in jail in the sad story of a gathering of friends, a few drinks, a too-fast drive home, and the death of one of the friends and serious injuries to another.
I have to say… there are no winners here. Jail time and money will not make a parent’s grief any less painful. The punishment for Avary started the moment he realized what he had done at the wheel of that car.

Waxman Pushing Hard To Be Finke

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Quite a day for Sharon Waxman and The Wrap.
This morning, the big headline was “Despite Denials, Big Change Looms at Universal,” hypothereporting that Shmuger & Linde were moments away from being dumped for Fogelson and Langley. By the afternoon, the entire company was being sold, deal points being hammered out already in Exclusive: Comcast in Talks to Buy NBC-Universal from GE.
Will either actually happen? Who knows? There will be another story soon enough.
This morning’s Ad Age interviewed Waxman, headlining, “There’s Not Going to Be Room for Press Release Journalism Anymore”. By the afternoon, there was this press release, rewritten and bylined by Wrapper Lisa Horowitz and this direct steal from Variety, which generously (as in “Polanski generously offered the girl half of his quaalude”) gave a link to the paper at the bottom of the story whose only news value was given away in the part The Wrap made into their own page.
I guess there is no room for press release journalism… better to just lie about the press releases you run or to just steal news from other publications.
In fact, a full half of the stories in the news section of The Wrap is either press releases pretending to be reported or stories from other outlets, key content stolen and placed on a Wrap page.

Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

The Vampire’s Assistant, based on the popular series of books by Darren Shan, is a fantasy-adventure about a teenager who unknowingly breaks a 200-year-old truce between two warring factions of vampires. Pulled into a fantastic life of misunderstood sideshow freaks and grotesque creatures of the night, one teen will vanish from the safety of a boring existence and fulfill his destiny in a place drawn from nightmares.

The New Fantastic Mr. Fox Trailer

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Click here for the new trailer!

Fantastic Mr. Fox

More About A Christmas Carol

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Defending Jennifer’s Body

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Spoiler Warning: This column contains spoilers about the film Jennifer’s Body. Consider yourself forewarned and forearmed.

Is Jennifer’s Body really as bad as some critics say, or are some folks just lime-green Jell-O over anything that has Diablo Cody‘s name attached?

I thoroughly enjoyed this film from start to finish, in part because I thought I was a fun romp that kept me engaged throughout, but also because there were specific things about the film that I liked. For starters, Jennifer’s Body is a horror film in which no innocent female character gets stalked, raped, tortured or brutally murdered by a psychotic or sociopathic male. Granted, a few guys become the victims of Jennifer’s lust for blood, but she’s possessed by a demon, so is that really her fault? Even better (though no doubt plenty of horny adolescent boys — and their grown-up male counterparts — find this a serious flaw with the film) there’s no gratuitous female nudity in the film. In fact, compared to a lot of horror films, it’s downright chaste.

With sexpot Transformers babe Megan Fox in the role of the sexy high school chick from hell, a lot of directors would have been tempted to slip some Fox-y nudity into the film to satiate the perpetual desire of the male sector of the audience to see as much of Fox as possible. But aside from one from-a-distance shot of a nude post-cannibalism swim in a lake (hey, a girl has to clean up after a big meal) and some revealing outfits, director Karyn Kusama presents Fox as physically attractive and unattainable without gratuitously sexualizing the actress in the way Michael Bay has with the Transformers flicks.

I also liked that Jennifer’s Body has some smart ideas about female relationships underneath the surface of the story. While it’s about a girl who gets possessed by a demon and develops a taste for snacking on boys, it also has a lot to say about the nature of female friendships and girls who are like Jennifer, even before she was possessed.

Jennifer is one of those insecure pretty girls who attaches herself to a less-attractive “best friend” so that she’ll look even better by contrast. She’s the kind of friend who subverts and subtly undermines her BFF, then tries to make it appear as though her friend is the one imagining or over-exaggerating slights or offenses. In a piece about the film on the blog Girldrive, the author addresses the girl-on-girl kiss between Jennifer and best pal Needy (Amanda Seyfried) in the film, astutely observing that this scene, “boner bait” though it may be, is about the sexual tension that often exists in female friendships, particularly in adolescence. Jennifer’s Body goes there, and that scene is actually pivotal to best friend Needy’s arc as a character, not just a titillating moment to appease the horny boys.

I found it particularly interesting that the script in general defines the female characters much more as they relate to each other than by their relationships to male characters, something rarely seen in films of any genre. Needy has a great boyfriend, but she’s driven and defined more by the pull of her friendship with Jennifer than anything else; we see from both the sandbox flashback scenes and the girls’ later friendship that Jennifer is and has always been the alpha, with Needy filling the role of admirer, server of Jennifer’s needs, cushion against Jennier’s insecurities, and feeder of her ego. Boys, of course, also serve the role of feeding Jennifer’s ego, and there’s an edge of cruelty to Jennifer’s interactions with males even before she turns into a man (or is that boy?) eater; that underlying self-satisfied smirk of callousness that lurks beneath the surface of her relationship with Needy as well.

When Jennifer is possessed by the demon and is hungry for flesh, she can’t bring herself to devour Needy, so she feeds instead upon the boys who’ve ogled and objectified her (though I find it not insignificant that Jennifer — not unlike Fox herself –  objectifies herself by the way she dresses and acts). As a demon-possessed cannibal, she lures her meals in with her curves and “heat-seeking missles,” but even befoe her possession Jennifer is a girl well aware of her own sexual power and the ways in which boys can be controlled by the allure of tits and ass. Ultimately, though, what brings Evil Jennifer’s dark soul the most satisfaction is taking and consuming the boys that Needy likes — especially her boyfriend Chip.

What Jennifer becomes after being possessed is who she really was all along, magnified. Like an alcoholic or drug addict whose addiction frees their inner asshole to come to the forefront of their personality, Jennifer’s demonic possession doesn’t really change her at all; it just allows her inherently cruel and selfish nature to blossom. And when Jennifer goes after Chip — the one thing in Needy’s life that is hers alone and not Jennifer’s — Needy is finally able to cut the cord of their dysfunctional friendship by taking out her friend. In the end, she does escape the institution to go after the indie rock band who caused Jennifer to be possessed, but is she avenging Jennifer, or Chip, or herself?

I also liked that Amanda Seyfried — the less overtly physically attractive of the two female leads — has by far the stronger, more interesting role. Okay, the character name, “Needy,” was perhaps a notch over-the-top. But as a character, Needy undergoes a pretty kick-ass character arc from “less attractive BFF to the hot cheerleader” to boldly confronting her lifelong friend and taking her down. It’s a role — and a performance — that I think is every bit as good asJess Weixler‘s in Teeth or Amber Heard‘s in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane.

Believe it or not, I actually liked Megan Fox in this film, too; where in the Transformers films she’s been little more than eye candy, in Jennifer’s Body, she actually does give a credible and pretty smart performance. In interviews, Fox has alluded to being aware that she’s perceived primarily as a sex object, and has said that she wants to avoid that over-exposure; perhaps that’s partly what led her to take the role of Jennifer, which required her to be a little fun and campy, and to give a performance that didn’t just rely on her physical assets.

But what about that annoying Diablo Cody dialogue? Oh, c’mon. Yeah, teenagers really do talk in secret teenage code, both to sound “cool” and identify verbally with their tribe — and to make sure the adults around them are befuddled by the phrases they come up with in their conversations. Teenagers are solipsistic and therefore are certain that any adults in their vicinity have little else to do besides listen in on the fascinating conversations they’re having, therefore they must talk in teenspeak. Cody gets this.

On a purely anthropological level, it’s not much different than the language film critics (particularly those of us who frequent the fest circuit) use when we talk loftily over dinner about whether we’re going to see “the new Denis” or “the Desplechin” tomorrow, or what we thought about “the latest Harmony Korine.” We have our little codes and quirks of language that we use to identify ourselves as “smart” film people, and teens have theirs that they use to identify themselves as cool teens. Big deal. Cody’s particular ear for dialogue may annoy the hell out of you, but she’s right that teens, like the rest of us, stratify ourselves socially in part by use of language.

Is Jennifer’s Body the most terrifying horror film to come down the pike lately? Nah, it’s not. It’s really not that scary at all, in fact — but neither do I think it was intended to be. I’d put Jennifer’s Body in the same horror category as other indie horror films like Teeth (82% on Rotten Tomatoes), Black Sheep (71%), Dance of the Dead (80%) and All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (it might surprise some of you to learn that Mandy Lane only has a 50% RT rating). All of these films, by the way, were fest-circuit horror flicks with at least as much campiness as scariness. Jennifer’s Body, which is a campy, fun romp, has been criticized by some for not being scary enough — but I’d be willing to bet many of those same critics didn’t take issue with those other films.

I honestly feel that if Jennifer’s Body hadn’t had Diablo Cody‘s name attached to it and was just another campy little indie horror flick on the fest circuit, it would have had a very different critical response. But hey, prove me wrong. If you liked any of the above films (especiallyTeeth, which has some very similar themes and execution) but hated Jennifer’s Body, I’d love to get responses from you detailing why, in purely objective terms — preferably without any reference to Diablo Cody or lime-green Jell-O.

- by Kim Voynar

So quiet…

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

It really is odd how quiet things are right now… September is ending… we’re past the Jewish holidays… so very quiet…
I enjoyed getting through the Stradella Road Theatrical Market Study, but I’m a bit disturbed to find at least two online outlets of note misreading the results in significant ways. The Wrap is blaring a headline – “Do Movie Marketers Waste Their Money on TV?” sub-hed, “Study finds that youth learn about movies online and from friends, not from television”- that is no only a gross oversimplification of the findings, but factually inaccurate, according to the study.
Plenty of bad studies come out every year and get overhyped, but when a good one lands and the media rushes to mischaracterize it… oy.
All this hoo-ha about Summit going on a buying spree… I mean… people… math. But Summit eating Lionsgate or MGM right now would be similar to AOL eating Time-Warner or, in movieland, Artisan eating Lionsgate (the opposite happened, in reality). As far as Summit eating WeinsteinCo… good luck with that. What, exactly, would Summit be buying?
The reason that Summit is floating this notion that they are buyers is that it is the takeover target, not the other way around. They should be cash-flow-heavy on the presumed Twilight-franchise revenue and they have no costs that need to be continued. The company would likely be valued at over a billion dollars by Time-Warner or Viacom on the basis of that franchise alone at this point and with all due respect to the management… will never likely be worth more than it is worth RIGHT NOW.
The smartest movie in Hollywood right now, similar to Mark Cuban selling Broadcast.com when he did for what he did, would be selling Summit to a major. But it would not be the first company that got itself obsessed with empire building over the smart financial play.
Specifically, trying to consume the MGM library or the Lionsgate library would lead to a company like Summit going down exactly the same road as Lionsgate and MGM… anxiously trying to sell for year after year after year… never able to build the company to being bigger than the library, no matter how many great and successful opportunities come their way, from Saw to Tyler Perry to Bond to The Hobbit.
Everyone who is in the financials of the movie business wants to have the opportunity that Summit has right now… getting out with a big fat payday after hitting the home run on one property early in the history of the company. The scale can be different. For someone to come along and eat WB, they would be eating Potter and DC, etc, and so the movie side alone would have to be valued at more than $10 billion on that, the library, and the synergistic values alone.
This is why, ultimately, Time-Warner got out of New Line, which had finished its likely peak franchise and from there on, would just be in the movie business. And heck, look at the year already produced New Line product had after the company was shut down! But not enough to keep a second business in business. Not for Time-Warner. (I think this was a short-sighted mistake… but that’s another column.)
Anyway…
What The Weinsteins were offered by Disney back before the split would be snapped up in seconds by TWC now. But no one is offering. And if Summit isn’t thinking about funding Dimension/TWC to a few hundred million a year, what is the point, really? But why would Summit want to be eaten alive by The Weinsteins… makes no sense.
And LOOK, what a surprise… another hack is out there taking a shot across the bow at Universal… now pimping the idea that the head of production and head of marketing should take over from the former head of marketing and former head of distribution from Focus… a ha… production and marketing come up short this year, so they promote the leaders of those departments… interesting strategy… sounds a lot like the one that led to where things are right now.
My take… Universal was slow to respond to the changing economics of the industry and greenlit a handful of movies at exaggerated prices that ended up losing money. Only one lost A LOT of money. In a cyclical business, the Universal situation is not desperate. But God knows, the media wants it to be. And NBC/U management may be listening to that hum. If they are going to make a change – and they might – they need to make a big change. If they just keep pushing junior (albeit very high ranking) staff into higher positions, nothing much will change… by definition.
I am not calling for this change. I believe Universal will rebound without it and that all the drama about this summer has been way overblown. But if new leadership is coming, if it’s not a sea change… a new vision… that the choice to change is not really a choice to change at all.

Press Release – Stephanie Kluft Goes Trojan

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

kluft.jpg

Polanski III

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Steve Lopez’s LA Times column sent me back into the Polanski grand jury transcript.
I suggest that anyone who wishes to defend Polanski as a victim read the whole thing.
Clear your mind of all the other frou-frou… and ask yourself… does a 13-year-old girl saying “no” to a 43-year-old man mean ‘no” or does it mean “maybe” or does it mean. “yes?”
That is the question that those who defend this man right now are answering… same as the answer the left had to whether an extremely powerful older man was morally and legally right in secretly allowing a 20-year-old intern in his organization who had a crush on him to perform oral sex on him in a back room and then perjuring himself about what happened.
I don’t think the people defending Polanski actually realize that they are aggressively fighting the notion that rape is possible in any circumstance other than by physical force… that there is no “date rape”… that it is not a woman’s right to choose her sexual partners… and that the only way to prove you don’t want “it” is to come to the police with skin under your fingernails and a bruised or otherwise bloodied body.
Because what did Gailey/Geimer do that any rape victim would not? She went to the police. She testified… and has never refuted the facts. She got a private financial settlement when the legal recourse was at what seemed to be an end. And first and foremost, she said, “no.” A lot.
We are a forgiving nation… way too forgiving when it comes to people we like… way too disinterested when it comes to people we don’t like or don’t personally know or know about. But what sickens me most is that we are willing to throw out our standards at times, picking one principle over another and fighting to claim moral high ground when we do. Sometimes, when there are conflicting moral issues, you have to choose a side. But when you do, you must be contrite and respectful of the morality you are putting to the side. if not, you might as well be waterboarding, humiliating prisoners, and lying about your intent in invading a sovereign nation.
I am going to lay out just some of the instances of where Ms Geimer, nee Gailey, said “no” and Polanski kept moving forward on this 13 year old.
After the jump, a wider swath of the transcript.
trans1.jpg
—————
trans2.jpg
—————
trans3.jpg
—————
trans4.jpg
—————
trans5.jpg
—————
trans6.jpg
—————
trans7.jpg
—————
trans8.jpg
—————
trans9.jpg
—————

(more…)

A Survey Worth Chewing On

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Former New Line web guru Gordon Paddison

The Fourth Kind

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Wilmington on DVDs: The Wizard of Oz, Monsters vs. Aliens and more…

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

PICK OF THE WEEK: CLASSIC

The Wizard of Oz (Four Stars)
U. S.; Victor Fleming, King Vidor (Unc.), 1939 (Warner)

Some movies appeal to just about everybody — like the heart-stoppingly entertaining and wonderful 1939 musical that MGM made out of L. Frank Baum’s American fairy tale, The Wizard of Oz (now released in a deluxe 70th anniversary DVD edition by Warner).

It’s a movie most of us saw for the first time in childhood and then grew up with though the years. I was 10 when CBS televised it nationally for the first time (in 1956), and I still remember the shock of joy that came over me as I watched it in the living room on Parkhurst Place, in Williams Bay, Wisconsin, with my Grampa Axel, Gramma Marie and Mother Edna — all of whom were already very familiar with it — especially when Judy Garland, as Dorothy Gale, stared at the sky above her Hollywood-Kansas barnyard backdrop, let loose those incredible 16-year-old pipes and brought down the house once again with Harold Arlen‘s and E.Y. Harburg’s hair-raising ballad “Over the Rainbow.”

What a song! What a singer! What pure, shattering emotion wrapped in rapturous show biz kitsch and MGM bliss! For years, Esquire Magazine made fun of that ballad in their annual Dubious Achievement issues, by recounting exactly how many times Garland had now sung it. (Who was keeping track?) But in fact, I’ll bet those smart alecs were sort of knocked out by it too: The crystalline notes, Judy‘s yearning, faraway gaze toward a somber sky with a storm brewing, and lyrics like “If happy little bluebirds fly beyond the rainbow, why oh why, can’t I?” that should have made you snort but instead broke your heart.

Then there was her fantastic supporting trio: Ray Bolger as the flopsie-mopsie, always-resourceful Scarecrow (“I would not be just a nuffin‘, my head all full of stuffin‘…), Jack Haley, Jr. as the metal-bod, sentimental Tin Man (“I hear a beat! How sweet!”), and Bert Lahr as the boisterous scaredy-cat Cowardly Lion. (“Oh, it’s sad, believe me missy, when you’re born to be a sissy…” Meeting Dorothy one by one, Singing the three parts of another Arlen-Harburg masterpiece — “If I Only Had a Brain/Heart/the Nerve” — followed by the lusty chorus of “We’re off to see the Wizard!“ the four grand companions, instantly became the most appealing quartet of adventurous buddies since the Three Musketeers and D’Artagnan. (Hovering sadly over them all, though, is the ghostly image of their absent comrade, poor Buddy Ebsen, cast as the Scarecrow, who cheerfully switched parts with the original Tin Man, Bolger, and then lost out completely when he got poisoned and sickened by the spray powder used to make his flesh tin.)

You‘d also be stumped to find a better nasty, evil witch with a more memorable creepy cackle than Margaret Hamilton‘s supremely malicious Wicked Witch of the West, aka Miss Gulch, or a shinier good witch than Billie Burke‘s winningly sweetie-pie Glinda. Or a more spectacular piece of Midwestern humbuggery and medicine show eloquence than Frank Morgan as Professor Miracle and the Wizard himself (and three other parts too). And what can you say about the Munchkins? (Better not say too much. This is a family movie.)

Judy Garland, just plain great as Dorothy, beat out the most popular child star in America — the most popular Hollywood child movie star ever — when she took the role away from Shirley Temple. And she makes the movie of course; it’s really one of the all time best movie musical performances (and part of Garland‘s own career top three, with “Meet Me in St. Louis“ and the 1954 “A Star is Born“). Judy‘s Dorothy is a perfect centerpiece and beating heart for Oz, because she plays it with a stunning conviction, and sparkling sincerity that sets off perfectly the glorious ”Smith‘s Premium Ham” clowning and vaudeville of her three fellow travelers — and also because, at least on our second time through, we know that this is Dorothy’s dream, brought on by the cyclone and a head-bonk, and that Oz is her creation — her fairy-tale Kansas — which is why it’s both her paradise and her nightmare.

The Wizard of Oz was directed by two big studio movie masters: Victor Fleming (the Oz scenes) and the uncredited King Vidor (the Kansas prelude and coda). Their styles are not really similar — Vidor was more of a populist poet, Fleming more of a robust yarn-spinner — yet here, they fuse perfectly. Every single scene jells and works like a charm in both the movie’s Kansas and Oz, and the only times I‘ve ever gotten restive during the dozens of times I’ve seen this film, is, occasionally, during The Cowardly Lion’s florid aria, ‘F I Were King” — and I can always forgive that for every other moment of Lahr’s blow-away performance. Fleming and Vidor guided him, and all the others, and all of the movie, flawlessly.

If you’ve been reading Mike Sragow’s Victor Fleming: An American Movie Master recently — and you should– you’ve probably already bought Sragow’s main thesis that the attractively macho, underrated Fleming, one of the directorial kings of MGM in the ’30s and ’40s, is a critically neglected movie genius, and that the director who made both most of The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind, released the same year — not to mention The Virginian, Red Dust, Bombshell, Treasure Island, Captains Courageous, Test Pilot, and A Guy Named Joe deserves more than passing mention in any Hollywood pantheon. (My one quarrel with Sragow’s excellent book is that he aims too many potshots and brickbats at Fleming’s best friend and fellow movie ace, Howard Hawks. Some residue of the old Kael-Sarris wars?)

Fleming and Vidor together presided over one of the most charmed and charming movie ensembles ever — transforming Noel Langley’s, Florence Ryerson’s and Edgar Allan Woolf‘s marvelously playful and witty script and Arlen and Harburg‘s fantastic songs — along with that peerless cast — into the stuff of movie magic — a show that never loses its power to grip us and tickle us and make s laugh and cry — the greatest kids (plus adults) movie this side of the rainbow. I loved it when I was 10, watching it with my childhood family. I loved it last night, watching it in my incredibly brave 94-year-old Mother Edna’s hospital room with her, on a computer on her food table. I love The Wizard of Oz still, and I’m not alone.

Extras: Commentary by Oz-Garland scholar John Fricke; TV Specials The Wonderful Wizard of Oz: The Making of a Movie Classic (Jack Haley, Jr.) and Memories of Oz; Featurettes; video storybook; profiles; sing-along feature; outtakes; deleted scenes; Harold Arlen’s home movies; ztills and trailer galleries; recording sessions; radio shows.

______________________________________________________________

PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW

Monsters Vs. Aliens (Three Stars)
U.S.; Rob Letterman, Conrad Vernon, 2009 (Paramount)

Monsters Vs. Aliens seemed a little better to me while I was watching it than it does in retrospect. But it’s still a pretty nifty show: a fast-paced parody horror sci-fi comedy extravaganza with an all-star cast and lots of gaudy 3D effects. If you see it in 3D (and you should), it looks great — the kind of movie where the ingenious technology takes on an added measure of delight because its handled so skillfully and playfully.

Monsters is also a love letter to some of the most entertainingly cheesy horror movies of the ‘50s and early ‘60s, with specific references to The Attacking 50-Foot Woman (who becomes voice actress Reese Witherspoon’s Ginormica/Susan Murphy), The Fly (who becomes Hugh Laurie‘s fiendishly laughing Dr. Cockroach), The Blob (who becomes Seth Rogen in the role he was born to play, laid-back, Jell-O-bodied, ultra-blobby B. O. B.), Mothra/Godzilla (who becomes Insectosaurus, a behemoth who never speaks, but whose silence, according to a hot Hollywood rumor, was dubbed by either Joaquin Phoenix, or by Ben Stiller imitating Joaquin Phoenix, or by the late Marcel Marceau) and, I guess, The Gill Man/Creature from the Black Lagoon or maybe Eeegah! (who become Will Arnett as The Missing Link).

A formidable lineup indeed — though sadly, there was apparently nothing here for Phil Tucker‘s immortal crybaby Robot Monster, which, considering the modest expenditure on R. M.’s costume (a gorilla suit and a fish bowl, as I remember), seems a shame on all concerned. How soon we forget! But there are good enough jokes about s.f. icons Steven Spielberg (“Close Encounters With an E. T.”), George Lucas (it takes place in Modesto) and Stanley Kubrick (Kiefer Sutherland as Gen. W. R. Monger apes George C. Scott’s sublime Gen. Buck Turgidson, and there’s a Strangelovian war room for President Stephen Colbert).

The plot is wickedly ingenious and ingeniously…wicked. Susan, a Modesto TV gal about to be married to her preposterously vain news anchor fiancée Derek (Paul Rudd) — who owes his career to the new masturbation fantasy strategy of selecting TV news anchors (and movie critics) — is plunged into a meteorite shower, swollen to near 50 foot proportions, dumped by disgraceful Derek, and then hurled by Gen Monger into the secret subterranean whoozits which is home to the rest of the Monster Mob,

The fearsome fivesome’s life-or-death mission: to battle and destroy the unstoppable extraterrestrial invasion of a gigantic robot and his maniacal employer, four-eyed Gallaxhar (played to nasty perfection by Rainn Wilson). Gallaxhar, like Chuck Jones’ Marvin the Martian in the Duck Dodgers cartoons, is loaded with gadgets and doesn’t go down easy. The robot utterly ignores Pres. Colbert’s touching grand gesture of intergalactic peace and love, a spirited rendition of the Close Encounters theme, segueing right into the equally throbbing theme from Beverly Hills Cop. Perhaps the next number in this thrilling Colbertian medley was “Can’t Stop the Music.” But we’ll never know; the robot rudely marched off to tear down the Golden Gate Bridge, without even a nod to Ray Harryhausen.

If you have blood in your veins and popcorn in your mitts, how could you not enjoy something like that? Especially when the filmmakers — directors Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon and writers Maya Forbes and Wallace Wolodarsky — immediately flex their 3D muscles by hurling meteors at us and bopping a paddleball, “House of Wax”-style right in our faces? How could you not be utterly entranced by a 50 foot tall cartoon Reese Witherspoon, in 3D yet? And how refreshing it is to see a current movie where Paul Rudd doesn’t get the girl — or the guy.

The technical ingenuity of the better contemporary cartoon features is now such a constant that its easy to ignore it and complain about something else, like the script or the 3D glasses. But Monsters vs. Aliens keeps projecting right off the screen, in ways you can’t ignore, especially when Ginormica is around.

Kids be damned. I had a good time at M.V.A. and sometimes you’re lucky to get even that. Meanwhile, we can confidently await the inevitable sequel, this time in 4D, “Destroy all Monsters! Destroy all Aliens!“ — where Colbert and fish bowl-headed Robot Monster sing “Sometimes When We Touch (The Honesty’s Too Much)” to a rampaging octopoid-android and The House Republican Glee Club does a frenzied can can cameo to “No, No, Nanette,” Anne Coulter does a Gypsy Rose Lee strip to her original song, “Destroy All Liberals,” while the MSNBC Hardball-ettes answer smartly with Chris Matthews’ “Barack Around the Clock.“

I don’t see how it can miss — especially if they have a paddleball scene.

______________________________________________________________

PICK OF THE WEEK: BLU-RAY

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (20th Anniversary edition) (Three and a Half Stars)
U. S.; John McNaughton, 1986-90 (MPI Home Video)

A low-budget blood-and-guts dark side classic: McNaughton’s bone-chilling look at blue collar American pathology and murder, starring Michael Rooker as the cold-blooded Henry.

______________________________________________________________

PICK OF THE WEEK: BOX SETS

The Complete Monterey Pop Festival (3 discs) (Blu-Ray) (Four Stars)
U.S.; D. A. Pennebaker & Various Other Directors, 1967-1997 (Criterion)

Rock and roll will never die. Neither will the ‘60s. Here’s the proof: all thee D. A. Pennebaker and Co. docs on the Monterey Pop festival, plus all the outtakes. Jimi, Janis, and Otis live! Did you ever doubt it?

Includes: Monterey Pop (D. A, Pennebaker, Albert Maysles, Richard Leacock, others, 1967) Four Stars. With Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, The Who, Simon & Garfunkel, Ravi Shankar, The Mamas and the Papas, Otis Redding. Jimi at Monterey (U. S.; Pennebaker, Chris Hegedus, 1986) Four Stars. With Jimi Hendrix. Shake! Otis at Monterey”\ (Pennebaker, 1989). The Outtakes (Pennebaker, 1997). Many extras.

______________________________________________________________

OTHER CURRENT OR RECENT DVD RELEASES

Away We Go (Two and a Half Stars)
U. S.; Sam Mendes, 2009 (Focus)

Away We Go is the sort of smart, nicely made, and personally-felt movie I should have gone for in a big way: a realistic contemporary comedy written by novelists/ husband-wife screenwriting team Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida, and directed by the estimable Sam Mendes, about an offbeat but sweet unmarried couple, amiable doofussy Burt and earthy Verona, played by John Krasinski of The Office and Saturday Night Live’s Maya Rudolph).

As these two wander around the country in search of at least a temporary home, we see them gently coping with impending parenthood and a group of sometimes alarmingly atypical relatives and friends, some of whom want their bods.

Away We Go is well-directed, well-acted, and well-written (in a way). And it has a number of beguilingly candid, well-observed scenes between Burt and Verona, that put to shame the notions of romantic love and parenting floated our way often in the average Hollywood domestic romance/comedy.

But….

Actually, “Average” is the last word you’d conjure up in connection with Away We Go — which becomes a sophisticated road movie with blackouts, as the odd-duck couple travel from friend to relative to place to city, from Colorado to Phoenix, Tucson to Madison, Montreal to Miami –in search of not only a haven, but some kind of contentment or a clue to their up-in-the-air future.

Along the way, they interact with Burt’s laughing, irresponsible parents, Jerry and Gloria (those admirable comedians Jeff Daniels and Catherine O’Hara), robust flirt Lily (played by Allison Janney in a piece of “over-acting” I liked), Carmen Ejogo as Verona‘s savvy sister Grace, Maggie Gyllenhaal suckling her kids as Burt’s old school pal Ellen (aka LN), Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey as the welcoming but troubled Tom and Munch, and Paul Schneider as a dumped hubby in Miami.

All this may be a bad ad for the joys of marriage. But it’s a quality job, paved with good intentions. Yet, despite my appreciation for the talent involved here, I didn’t much like Away We Go.

Why? Actually, it’s a type of ‘70s movie toward which I developed a mild resistance (after having a schoolboy crush on some examples): the “You and Me Against the World, Babe” romantic comedy. Here’s how this kind of movie works: We meet a funny, attractive often quirky couple — usually on their first encounter, though sometimes, as with Away We Go,”\ after they‘ve hooked up — and discover their superiority in brains, mores, cuteness, and so on, to almost every other character in the movie, who basically become comic butts. The model twosome weathers storms and wins out. Curtain.

There‘s often a self-congratulating smugness to all this — and though I‘m aware you could apply the same general outline to many of the great screwball comedies that are among the gems of the old studio system, what makes the “You and Me Against the World, Babe” sub-genre different, is its pretension to realism. We know that a screwball comedy is a concoction and a confection, and that the authors and actors are charmingly stacking the deck for our delight.

But the “Babe” comedies of the ’60s, ‘70s and later, like (good examples) The Graduate, Morgan! or even some Woody Allen, were allegedly a window on reality, as Away We Go obviously purports to be. Indeed, many of “Away’s” best moments are its little humane observations, like Verona‘s quiet clinch with Grace. And its most annoying are screwball-influenced antic japes like the scene allegedly set on Madison with Maggie Gyllenhall as a creepy academic sex fiend. (I knew Madison, I worked in Madison, Madison is a friend of mine — and this is no Madison.)

Krasinski and Rudolph have provided a lot of bright moments on TV, and they charge us up here too, as this funky, tender couple. But I‘m also suspicious of movies that suggest, however tongue-in-cheek that you should be in love with someone because everybody else available is a drag, a dog or a goofball. That strikes me as both elitist and a recipe for disaster, romantic, connubial and otherwise — which may be why these moves began to annoy me as views of the world — even though I still love the hilarious mad artifice of straight-up screwball comedies.

Actually, in my experience, you fall in love with somebody, because they enhance or heighten your appreciation of life, and open your sympathies toward other people, not vice versa. But that‘s another story. And another movie — clearly not the one Eggers and Vida made here.

Mendes is a very imaginative director who obviously has a somewhat dyspeptic view of American suburban life, which he also trashes in both American Beauty and Revolutionary Road. (Road is a “You and Me Against the World” romantic non-comedy that goes sour.) He’s very good with actors, and the performance level here is high. This should have been a very good movie — and maybe it would have been if the writers weren’t so locked into a sarcasm that seems to me unsimple payback. Unless you’re Bonnie and Clyde (a movie couple I adored, by the way) Mendes‘ “You and Me Better Than the World, Babe” strikes me as a dead-end road away from perdition.

____________________________

Shrink (One and a Half Stars)
U. S.; Jonas Pate, 2009 (Lionsgate)

Kevin Spacey (see above) plays an emotionally ragged, scruffy and mega-tormented Beverly Hills psychiatrist named Henry Carter, a role that seems almost too right for him. But the movie isn’t right, even though Robin Williams shows up as one of Henry’s A-list clients, a sexaholic star actor named Jack. (Coppola allusion or Nicholson allusion?) Good as Spacey and Williams always are, maybe this would have been better with Spacey, in his goombah mode, playing jack and Williams doing one of his imporov shprtizes, inserted throughout the movie at odd intervals. (This is a movie with a lot of odd intervals.)
But then again, why stick Kingsley — or Spacey or Williams — in another sub-par, sub-bad and sub-beautiful “Inside Hollywood” flick, whatever Short Cuts or Crash ensemble pretensions it might have?

Carter’s client list also includes Dallas Roberts as a wired-up agent, Saffron Burrows as a mellowing bombshell, and assorted other Hollywood stereotypes, some of whom look as if they couldn’t get past the Brett Easton Ellis club bouncer, and none of whom have been handed any surprises by screenwriter Thomas Moffett. There‘s even a scene by the Hollywood sign, which deserves better.

____________________________

The Girlfriend Experience (Two Stars)
U. S.; Steven Soderbergh, 2009 (Magnolia)

Steven Soderbergh flirts with hard core with this somewhat chic-pretentious look at an intellectual hooker (played by porn star Sasha Grey) who takes her job to a new level, playing “girlfriend” as well as “whore.” A James Toback sort of movie, without much juice. It’s no Oceans 12.

____________________________

Objectified (Two and a Half Stars)
U. S.; Gary Hustwit, 2009

Gary Hustwit (Helvetica) interviews modern designers from all over the world, and unearths a multiplicity of approaches, theories and philosophies about the way things should look and be in the twenty-first century. Some of the interviewees struck me as maddeningly pretentious and full of it; others were more human, eloquent and persuasive. The images are beautiful throughout — both the shots of the design experts in their environments and (some of). their works. The subjects include: Paula Antonelli, Dieter Rams, Chris Bangle, Fiona Ruby and Naoto Fukasawa. (In English, French, Dutch and Japanese, with English subtitles.)

____________________________

Midsomer Murders, Vol. 13 (Four discs) (Three Stars)
U.K.: Various directors, 2008 (Acorn Media)

Midsomer Murders, now in its thirteenth volume, is still one of the best of the breed of English TV village murder mysteries. Based on the Caroline Graham mysteries, starring John Nettles as Detective Chief Inspector Tom Barnaby, they’re modern stories that which preserve some of the feel of the classic Agatha Christies, while, as before, getting in lots of contemporary culture, character, sexuality, perversity and social comment. With Jane Wymark, Jason Hughes and Laura Howard.

- Michael Wilmington
September 29, 2009

The Princess and the Frog: Kiss the Frog

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Trailer: A Nightmare on Elm Street

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Saw VI Motion Poster

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Indie returns this weekend

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Big band
Apparat Organ Quartet


The second photo is Apparat Organ Quartet.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Observe and Report

Monday, September 28th, 2009

2009 turned out to be the year of the ‘shopping mall security person’ comedy, and it shows you how fast trends turn over these days that there were only three months between the theatrical release dates separating the point where the genre was established, with Paul Blart: Mall Cop, a Sony Pictures Home Entertainment release, and was then undercut in cynicism, withObserve and Report, a Warner Home Video release.

Paul Blart is far and away the better of the two films. In fact, it is highly entertaining and had a brilliant marketing plan that never even slightly gave away the major plot twist that takes up the film’s entire second half. As the trailers and commercials implied, the first half is a slapstick comedy about an overweight and seemingly hapless shopping mall security guard, played by Kevin James, whose romantic life is as bleak as his career prospects. The hero accidentally gets drunk one night and pretty much obliterates what was left of his reputation, and at that point you start to wonder how in the world the 91-minute film ever became a blockbuster hit. It is best not to share what happens next, because the surprise is part of the excitement, but the film, like the hero, does get its act together and delivers enough satisfaction to deserve every penny it earned.

From the title, which is part of a motto displayed prominently in Paul Blart, to innumerable other details,Observe and Report almost seems as if it had been made to deliberately upend the other film’s presumptions. Seth Rogen is yet another overweight and sincere but inept shopping mall security guard, with the same romantic and career problems that James’ character had. Rogen’s character, however, also has a taste for bloodlust, and tends to go overboard in executing his duties. There is a good deal of slapstick in the film, but where the humor in Paul Blart was broad and benign, the humor in Observe and Report is dry and perverse. Ray Liotta gives a marvelous performance as an actual cop whose patience is stretched to its limits by the hero’s misguided intentions. Running 87 minutes, there are a pair of nominal crimes in the film that give the narrative its structure, but they are treated secondarily and are less important than the efforts Rogen’s character makes to prove his legitimacy. If watched first in what ought to be a tempting double bill, the film will seem to set things up for the other movie effectively and, thanks to Liotta, provide a reasonable amount of satisfaction, but seen after the other movie, it will be an anti-climactic letdown, in which its nastier attributes will become all the more magnified.

The picture on Paul Blart is in letterboxed format only, with an aspect ratio of about 1.85:1 and an accommodation for enhanced 16:9 playback. The color transfer looks fine and the 5.1-channel Dolby Digital sound is adequate. There is an alternate French track in 5.1 Dolby, optional English and French subtitles, 12 minutes of deleted scenes that would have slowed the film considerably, and 50 minutes of production featurettes that do a good job of emphasizing the many skateboard and BMX bike stunts in the film. There is also a commentary track with James and producer Todd Garner, who provide a relaxed but reasonably informative description of the shoot (such as how convenient it was to be working in a real mall with a real food court) and how the humor and the story were developed and adjusted as they went along.

The picture on Observe and Report is available in both letterboxed format, with an aspect ratio of about 2.35:1 and an accommodation for enhanced 16:9 playback, and full screen format, which takes a little bit of picture information off of the sides and adds a little to the bottom of the screen. Again, the color transfer looks fine and the 5.1-channel Dolby Digital sound is passable. There are alternate French and Spanish tracks in 5.1 Dolby and optional English, French and Spanish subtitles, but no other features. The Blu-ray, on the other hand, comes with a jovial commentary track featuring Rogen, co-star Anna Farris and director Jody Hill, who also appear in a picture-within-a-picture at the bottom of the screen. There also 27 minutes of deleted scenes, an 8-minute segment of Rogen and Farris improvising a scene, 12 minutes of bloopers, and 10 minutes of bland promotional featurettes. A second platter is included that contains a copy of the film that can be downloaded onto handheld viewing devices.

by Douglas Pratt

Douglas Pratt’s DVD-Laser Disc Newsletter is published monthly.
For a free sample, call (516)594-9304 or go to his website at www.DVDLaser.com

Why the Hate for Megan Fox (and Diablo Cody)?

Monday, September 28th, 2009

Why all the hate for Megan Fox?  Where does it come from?

With the arrival of the inane and mediocre Jennifer’s Body in theaters, I’ve been seeing and hearing a lot of vitriol spewed about the film’s star Megan Fox as well as the film’s screenwriter Diablo Cody.  I have no problem if folks can be civil and discuss their reasons why Fox and Cody are not necessarily the best in their fields – I’m certainly not a fan of either – but I can’t really fathom the reasons why some people feel that these two women are blights on humanity.

Perhaps they’re overexposed, but people are rarely overexposed to the entire public, merely overexposed to people who insist on watching their every appearance.

I certainly have actors or filmmakers whose movies are not necessarily first on my “want-to-see” list, but I’m never actively hoping for them or their movies to fail; in fact, as someone who loves cinema, I’m hoping for Oscar-worthy performances and films every time out.  So it’s really beyond me how people can root for a movie to be bad just to help back-up their feelings.

Regarding Megan Fox specifically, I am definitely no fan of the films she’s been in or the performances she’s given in those films nor do I think she’s any more or less aesthetically impressive than most working actresses (maybe Linda Hunt).  My feelings about her are based entirely on the performances she’s given in the four films she’s been in and if she happens to give a daring turn in a great movie, I will have no qualms about giving her credit for it.  But when I glance at her IMDb page and I see a subject on the message board that says, “Good for nothing b!tch,” I have to wonder how people can let themselves get so worked up about her or any other famous person.

It seems unbelievably simple to me: if you don’t like someone, then don’t watch their movies or their television appearances promoting their films. Sure, you might see them on the cover of salacious magazines while you’re buying your groceries and in that sense, it can feel like you’re seeing certain celebrities everywhere; but, while not everyone is attracted to Megan Fox, I can certainly think of faces I’d less like to see as I’m waiting on the checkout line.  She’s certainly no more overexposed than our own president.

I think the anonymity of the internet makes it easier for people to openly vent their hate for someone like Megan Fox.  I’m definitely not one of those fuddy-duddies who believes that the internet is the cause of all the world’s problems; I just think the internet is a great place for those problems to multiply or worsen.  You might know a few different people who dislikeMegan Fox, but now they can all band together on the internet message boards. To say you “mildly dislike” someone just doesn’t seem all that controversial on the internet so people turn to hatred or say truly putrid things that I wouldn’t care to repeat, and that they likely never would say to that person if they were face to face with them.

I think the other aspect of the hatred comes from feelings of inadequacy and jealousy.  Certainly, this is the case with Diablo Cody.  I didn’t like Juno or Jennifer’s Body, I’m not a fan of her writing style because I find the dialogue way too affected and the storylines in both of her films to be a bit trite.  Do I hate her?  Jesus Christ, no way, I don’t even know her!  Am I jealous of the success she’s having?  You betcha.

But I think a lot of people who fume about Diablo Cody’s success somehow think that she’s stealing a spot away from them; that, in some way, because Diablo Cody is a working writer that it must mean there is one less writing position open in Hollywood.  Well guess what?  She’s not taking your spot because that’s not the way it works, this isn’t a giant Wal-Mart where they hire screenwriters based on positions they need to fill.  Diablo Cody created that job for herself by writing a script that people wanted to make into a film.  Dislike the films she’s made all you want – I certainly do – but don’t hate the woman just because she was savvy enough to make it.

But the issue at hand is that when Jennifer’s Body opened below expectations at the box office, some people were cheering as if a righteous thing was done and it proved that Megan Fox can’t open a film and that Diablo Cody was a one-hit wonder, blah blah blah.  Well you know what I think?  The flop of Jennifer’s Body is a terrible thing for Hollywood. Yes, I know, it was a mediocre film and now the studios will stop making mediocre films for all-time, right?

Well, here’s the thing: the two terrible people that you hate so much are going to keep working. Megan Fox will be in the next Transformers film and she will continue to make films after that.  Diablo Cody announced just recently that she’ll be adapting the Sweet Valley High books into films, so I don’t think she’s really out of work.  The only people that are going to suffer are the people who really wanted to see more films made by women and for women.

This was a film with two female leads, a female screenwriter and a female director.  Like it or not, there should definitely be more films made where this is the case. Karyn Kusama is certainly as talented as the average male filmmaker, yet she will most likely find it harder to get her next film financed after this film’s failure and that’s a shame. I don’t necessarily think she’s the next Kubrick, but she’s certainly got ability behind the camera and I think her filmGirlfight is still pretty damn good.

But more than that, this was an attempt to make a genre (horror) appealing to women that don’t necessarily have genre films made for them.  Rather, the “womens’” film has become its own genre and it is usually a romantic comedy where women work glamorous jobs and dress in designer clothes.  So any attempt to broaden the appeal of another genre or to have a horror film that is focused almost entirely on young women is something that I can admire.  And when the film flopped, as much as I didn’t care for it, all the hatred in the world for the star or the screenwriter would not make me feel good about what it portends for the future.

- Noah Forrest
September 28, 2009
Noah Forrest is a 26-year-old aspiring writer/filmmaker in New York City.

The opinions expressed in these columns are the writers and do not neccessarily reflect the opinions of Movie City News or any of its editors or other contributors.