I never had the chance to catch The Good Thief while it was it playing in theaters, and after watching it on DVD I came away quite divided. This is one of those movies that really frustrates because you can tell it had the potential to be a truly top-notch film - and it certainly has some great moments - but didn't come together the way it should have. This is partly due to the script and partly due to Neil Jordan's inconsistent direction.


The film follows Nick Nolte as an American gambler and heroine addict living in Nice, who decides he's going to rob the famous Riviera casino in Monte Carlo. The story mostly deals with him and his team trying to plan the heist while avoiding the local police, who suspect he's up to something, but also involves a young Russian woman he takes under his wing. Why he does this isn't entirely clear, although I guess we're supposed to think he's a good guy beneath the hard facade. Nolte is quite good in the role when you can actually understand him, and the film and the characters are vague and mysterious and never really tie together the way you might expect, if at all.

Sadly, much of The Good Thief is...well...corny. The music selections are too dramatic and overdone, and many of the situations are incoherent - possibly the result of over-editing during post-production. It's a tough piece of work to grasp because the truth is it's really not very good, but has so many strong ideas at its core that you can still sit through it without being bored. Like I said, frustrating.

Posted August 26, 2003 | link | 0 comments

This past weekend at the movies has got to be one of the most pathetic and dull in quite some time, and the lethargic numbers at the box office are evidence. I've been meaning to go see Open Range but haven't had the chance due to familial obligations, but for viewers who already saw it or have no interest, there wasn't much else out there unless you're dying to see S.W.A.T. or Freddy vs. Jason, or if you live in select cities there was the well-received Thirteen.

For those of you stuck in the wide release markets (which is most of you) the only other new offerings were My Boss's Daughter - a complete dud starring Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid that sat on a shelf for nearly two years - and The Medallion - what appears to be a mediocre Jackie Chan flick out of Hong Kong. Has anyone else noticed that the only decent Jackie Chan movies are the ones that co-star another male actor (Rush Hour 1 & 2 with Chris Tucker, Shanghai Noon & Knights with Owen Wilson) and not an actress (The Tuxedo with Jennifer Love Hewitt)? Oh, I almost forgot - Marci X starring Lisa Kudrow and Damon Wayans was another new release over the weekend, which apparently was also forgotten by Paramount's marketing department. What a disaster.

I would talk more about the numbers, but I don't think anyone really cares about Freddy vs. Jason staying on top for the second weekend in a row (myself included). This is definitely what you'd call the late summer malaise, which is either the result of audiences getting burnt out and needing a break, or simply that studios always decide not to release anything worthwhile this time of year. Maybe they're distracted by the Toronto Film Festival, or perhaps they just assume the kids will be too busy getting back into the swing of things at school. I honestly have no interest in anything until the weekend of September 12th, when suddenly audiences will have to choose from Cold Creek Manor, Cabin Fever, Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Matchstick Men.

Posted | link | 0 comments

I'm a strong believer that the overwhelming majority of DVD extras are a complete waste, as only the audio commentary tracks and deleted scenes add any real value. Chicago - last year's best picture winner - hit shelves last week, and makes for a great example of why watching a deleted scene can really teach aspiring filmmakers how sometimes making a cut is the best decision, even if that means losing a scene you adore.

The deleted scene in question (the only one included on the Chicago DVD) is the performance of the song "Class" - a duet by Catherine Zeta-Jones and Queen Latifah. It's a pretty good song, with the same ironic cynicism as the others, but I'm not so sure how some people would have reacted to Zeta-Jones singing about how "every girl is a twat." That said, the song was obviously removed for other reasons. In his voice-over commentary explaining the scene's removal, director Rob Marshall demonstrates that he understands precisely why his film was so popular in a culture that, until recently, shunned musicals.

You see, "Class" would have taken place in the middle of the trial scene, in which Big Mama and Velma Kelly are listening in over the radio. By including a song in which Roxy (Renee Zellweger) was in no way present to imagine it, therefore breaking the fantasy pattern that the rest of the film abides by, the whole thing would be contradictory and out of place. You can tell by listening to him talk about it that Marshall was really torn between leaving the song in and taking it out, but wisely understood that when a film sets its own rules, it should never dare to break them.

What's also revealing about the decision to leave this song on the cutting room floor is how it reflects modern audiences' tastes. Myself, I was never a fan of musicals other than Singin' in the Rain, and I think the main reason is that I always hated having the story interrupted for the sake of singing. I know many other people who feel the same way. "Class" would have been guilty of this, and I have to believe its inclusion would have damaged the film's chances with The Academy. What's really interesting is, with all of these other musicals in the pipe-line, do the people making them realize this possible distinction? I hope so, or the revival of the musical could come to an end as quickly as it began.

Posted August 25, 2003 | link | 0 comments

The New York Times and Kevin Smith butted heads last week, as the Times not only misquoted the writer/director saying he wasn't pleased with the chemistry of his leading stars, but also decided to tell the entire world that Jennifer Lopez actually dies in the first half-hour of his upcoming film, Jersey Girl. In response, Smith rips the article apart piece by piece on his web site, and rightly so. He does acknowledge the nice upside to this incident, saying, "Now, in the post-"Gigli" climate, marketing the flick as a Ben and Jen movie is the last thing Miramax wants to do - which is cool by me, as I always felt the movie should be sold as what it is: a father/daughter relationship film. That's largely what the flick's about, so why not sell it honestly?" A good question, indeed.


On the other hand, Smith also explains his frustration with how the marketing was forced to shift out of necessity not because it's the right thing to do. "It's just a shame that that particular marketing decision was arrived at under the current circumstances. Because now, thanks to the voracious press machine, the news of Jen's character's death early in the film has become common knowledge." There's certainly no arguing with this - what a shame. Think about what a great surprise the death would have been to audiences expecting to see an entire movie featuring both Affleck and Lopez, only to have one of the duo knocked off.

This whole incident kind of reminds me of the 1996 thriller Executive Decision, in which Steven Seagal dies in the first twenty minutes even though he was at the center of the film's marketing campaign. It turns out Roger Ebert spoiled that surprise in his review (to the dismay of many readers), but not having heard of the surprise death in advance, it was a really great and unexpected moment for me. Sadly, it seems that just about everyone who sits down to watch Jersey Girl will be anticipating Lopez's exit and the surprise-factor will be lost. This is yet another example of the media wrecking a film for the public, or at least not making it any better. Perhaps instead of always digging into pointless crap and spoiling movies, the NY Times should spend more time reporting how many U.S. soldiers are being killed in Iraq every day.

Posted August 20, 2003 | link | 0 comments

This is going to be the first installment of what will become a regular part of this column. I'll review one-sheet posters for upcoming movies and basically tell you why I like or dislike them, as well as how I think they'll effect the film's overall marketing campaign. For the first time around, I have plenty of commercial artwork to choose from...

The big poster release this week was another teaser one-sheet for Quentin Tarrantino's Kill Bill movies. Nevermind my reservations about one film being split into two separate films, it really is an inventive and eye-grabbing poster. I can't help but smile at the tagline of "Here comes the Bride" - referring to Uma Thurman's character who goes by "The Bride" after almost being killed on her wedding day. The mixture of the wedding-gown sleeve and a samurai sword is very clever, and seems quite appropriate for a Tarrantino film (very offbeat and different, as usual).

Another upcoming film featuring an American actor wielding a samurai sword is the Tom Cruise flick The Last Samurai, due to hit theaters in December. The one poster released so far is an obvious teaser, and it's particularly striking because it only makes use of Tom Cruise's name, blatantly leaving out his face and only showing us his back. I always like it when the marketing for a film featuring a big star chooses to promote the film itself and not the actor. Surely I'm not the only one who is sick and tired of posters where an actor or actress' face is plastered across the entire thing with room for little else. The later posters will probably include Mr. Cruise's face, but what we have to look at for now is very stylish and definitely makes me want to see more. Mission accomplished.

A good example of what I was just talking about is the poster for Out of Time, which stars Denzel Washington as a small town Florida cop who gets into some trouble after getting mixed up with the wrong woman. But forget the fact that Washington's mug takes up most of the poster - the thing is just plain ugly and awful in every way imaginable. Does anyone else think this makes the film look more like a low-grade B-movie than a major release from a Hollywood studio? Yuck... give me a few pictures and five minutes with Adobe Photoshop and I can come up with a more appealing design.

Easily one of the most beautiful posters to come out in a long time is the one-sheet for Kevin Costner's return to the western, Open Range. The story is supposed to be pretty basic and so is the poster. In the end, it's good because it tells us all we need to know: this is a western about revenge, filmed in an old-fashioned manner. I really love the distant figures approaching beneath that beautiful sepia-toned sky, as well as the pose of Costner in the process of reloading his weapon. A classic design for a throwback film.

Another great teaser poster is for The Missing, starring Cate Blanchett and Tommy Lee Jones. This is the project Ron Howard and Brian Grazer decided to pursue after pulling out of The Alamo, and although I've heard almost nothing about it whatsoever, the cast combined with this poster have me interested already. Not only is the combination of thick woods and fog a great way to establish a sense of mystery and possibly fear, it makes for a great background to set behind a partially vanished title. All I can say is, let's hope the actual film lives up to the poster.

The same praise I gave to the one-sheet for The Missing can also be applied to the one-sheet for Cold Creek Manner, starring Dennis Quaid and Sharon Stone. The film is scheduled to be released in September - not too far away - and although I still haven't heard much about it other than the very basic premise, this poster does a wonderful job of establishing the tone of the film, assuming of course that it's dark and mysterious and dramatic. By placing our point of view down low by the grass with the mansion in the distance, you can't help but feel isolated.

Finally, we have this week's rip-off poster courtesy of the folks marketing The Human Stain, starring Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman. When I first saw Kidman highlighted in blue wearing a black garment with what appears to be the intent of sliding it off, I was instantly reminded of the poster for another one of her films, To Die For. Granted, her hair is different and she doesn't have the same scowl on her face, but aside from Anthony Hopkins on the left it definitely looks similar. I'm not saying this was in any way intentional - it's a fairly basic layout that gets used all too often - but the fact that Kidman was presented the same way twice is amusing. Even if it was original I'm still not a fan of this design, which makes the film come off as a dull drama more than anything else.

Posted August 19, 2003 | link | 0 comments

I've always been a huge fan and promoter of the DVD format. I bought my first player long before the majority of consumers, back in December of 1997 when no one else I knew had one yet. Those of us who've been buying DVDs for over six years now have clearly seen changes in the market, for better and for worse, but there are still several annoying trends and/or issues which I have decided to put under the collective name of my DVD Pet Peeves.

Forced Previews - First Universal did it by forcing viewers to sit through their flashy collection of images from some of their movies, and now other studios/distributors have hopped on board by inserting previews. The worst part? The fast-forward function has been disabled during these advertisements, so we have no choice but to sit there and wait. As if watching commercials on a DVD you already purchased isn't annoying enough on its own.

Auto-Play From Menu - So it's family movie night and as usual it's going to take a few minutes before everyone can sit down at once in the living room. You decide to get ahead of the game by loading the DVD in the player and adjusting your home stereo or surround sound options to the correct settings. Then you walk out of the room to get a beverage or retrieve another wandering family member. What happens upon your return? The DVD option menu has disappeared and the movie is already playing!


Slow & Revealing Menus - You put the DVD in the player and just want to get to the main menu, either to watch the film or the DVD extras. But no... first you have to wait for the snazzy little menu intro to take place, with 3-D animations and all of that other crap that DVD producers think is just so cool. Even worse is when they decide to show you half of the movie in the process, sometimes revealing clips from scenes that not even a spoiler-heavy trailer would dare give away. And don't even get me started on overly-loud music.

Non-standard DVD Cases - Most DVD cases are the same. They have a thin layer of plastic holding the cover and back art, and both sides of the plastic case meet so they snap together nicely. Warner Brothers, on the other hand, insists on being different. Their DVD cases have that little plastic edge that swings around the corner of the cardboard front, which is nice so long as you don't have it sitting on a shelf next to any other DVDs, making it tough to pull out when it snags the movie next to it. New Line Cinema used to be guilty of this as well, but recently released About Schmidt in a regular case, so hopefully this means only the WB will be pissing me off in the future. As for those big, fold-out special edition DVD cases (like Fight Club, Magnolia and Die Another Day) - they're all right, I guess, but I'm a much bigger fan of the regular case that is capable of holding 2 discs just the same (like Minority Report and Cast Away).

Multiple Releases - Hands down the most widely celebrated pet peeve amongst consumers, I think everyone has had enough of multi-DVD releases. The option between full screen and wide-screen is great and I have no problem with it, but releasing a movie on DVD only to follow it up with a special edition DVD five months later is pretty damn annoying. A good example is the original American Pie, which has now been released in a regular edition, un-rated edition, and a special "beneath the crust" edition with additional goodies.

Hard to See Menus - This happens far more often than it ever should, but a lot of DVDs have confusing menus for the simple fact that you can't tell which option is highlighted. Instead of making that subtle change from white to off-white or red to red-orange, put a big friggin' arrow next to the damn thing so we can tell where we are.

Posted August 18, 2003 | link | 0 comments

In a move that didn't surprise anyone, the committee that oversees The Independent Spirit Awards announced that they would be changing the date for their annual awards presentation. Naturally, the ceremony will now be on February 28th, one day before the new date for the Academy Awards, which will be one month earlier than in the past. The Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards had already announced their new, earlier dates, so the fact that everyone else is doing the same seems like an obvious conclusion.

When the Academy announced it would be conducting their ceremony a month in advance, I was glad to hear it because it makes sense to have it closer to the end of the preceding year. It may also force studios to start releasing more of their Oscar-caliber films in November and December to wider audiences rather than waiting until mid-February. You have to figure the entire release system will shift by at least two or three weeks if studios want to generate any awards buzz as they have in years past. On the other hand, why is it that every other awards ceremony in town insists on being first?

I understand The Golden Globes - there's some history there, comparing the films and actors they award against the Academy's choices, but why not have at least one decent awards ceremony after the Oscars? The Academy always leaves some people dissatisfied, and I'm sure many would like to see a film that was ignored at the big show get some last minute dues elsewhere before we start concentrating on the next year.

Posted August 14, 2003 | link | 0 comments

With mixed reviews and really not a whole lot of momentum going for it, S.W.A.T. still found a way to pull in an impressive 37 million in its opening weekend. And even though the film "only" cost 70 million to produce, people are already calling it a hit. This is significant because it shows the widening disparity between what is perceived about a film's performance at the box office and what the actual numbers have to say when all is said and done.

Most box office analysts will lead you to believe this summer has been all about the opening weekend, and they'll probably refer to the record-breaking number of films to open over 30 million in only a few months as sufficient evidence. Sorry, but this simply isn't true. If anything, I'd say this summer has been a solid lesson in good old fashioned box office longevity and word of mouth. When determining if a film is going to be a hit or miss, the true test has been the second, third, and particularly the fourth weekend. Everyone is so busy watching how the new films open from week to week they forget to look at what really matters.

Take for example the two Jerry Bruckheimer releases, Pirates of the Caribbean and Bad Boys II. If you ignore the fact that Pirates opened on a Wednesday, both films made about 46 million in their opening weekends. A great start, no question; and of course they were both concluded to be instant hits. But how do things look almost one month after the release of Bad Boys II? Very different. This past weekend (August 8 - 10) Pirates, which was released two and a half weeks earlier, made 13 million while Boys only pulled in 6 million. By the time both films leave theaters, in all likelihood one will have made more than twice as much as the other. In fact, if Michael Bay's relentless action flick continues to slide the way it has over the past two weeks, it'll still be in the red until you factor in DVD sales and rentals. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted August 13, 2003 | link | 0 comments

The so-called "big news" last week in popular culture was Britney Spears posing topless for British Elle magazine. I know talking about a pop music princess seems a bit off track for this column since it's hard to think of her as a real actress (even though she does have a few films in the pipeline, including the Nascar drama Rubbing Paint), but I can't help but laugh at this photo shoot. Not the pictures, mind you, but the intentions behind them.

Remember way back in the days when Britney was portraying herself as a virginal good girl waiting for the right man, and although she was sexy on stage she was supposed to be innocent in her everyday life? You know, like a year and a half ago when she was still trying to play this angle and no one besides her promoters were actually buying it. She recently admitted her whole virgin charade was exactly that for nearly two years, not to mention an off-hand admission of experimental drug use. Talk about a quick image transformation, apparently following in the over-sexed footsteps of her rival, Christina Aguilera.

What's particularly amusing about Spears posing topless, even if it isn't very revealing compared to what you can see every month in Maxim or any other number of men's or women's magazines, is that last year's Crossroads gave her the perfect opportunity to show a little skin, yet she declined to do so. This was also around the same time that her hype level took a sharp dip, and you have to believe if she had tried this image makeover back then it probably would have been more successful and her film almost certainly would have made more money (especially in DVD sales). Now it seems as if she's trying to keep up with the times instead of being the trend-setter.

Posted August 12, 2003 | link | 0 comments

The somewhat muddled critical reaction to American Wedding has me flustered, especially considering how many critics found a way to give a pass to schlop like Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. When I started this column I made a promise to myself to never compromise my instinctual reaction to a film merely to appear professional or high-brow, and it is in this spirit that I must inform you that I laughed harder during American Wedding than I have during any other movie in quite some time.


The original American Pie established this sort of gross-out, sexually obsessed humor, but was applauded by audiences and critics alike because it also had a lot of heart and contained a good message about there being more to life and relationships than simply getting laid. While the sequel was a completely useless dud of a movie that I could have gone without, this third installment is more like the first one, except in many ways it has matured as now Jim and his "band geek" girlfriend are getting married. Of course, the film is also very immature in a way that will have many moviegoers rolling in the aisles, offering one hilarious setup after the next.

Where the film benefits most is the fact that it doesn't try to include all of the same cast; you could watch American Wedding without having seen the other two and still enjoy it as much as everyone else, aside from missing a few jokes. In the end, it really worked for me because despite being contrived and slightly unrealistic now and then, the screenplay by Adam Herz is actually pretty sharp. On several occasions a character gets into a bit of trouble, and as more and more elements are introduced into each scene, the entire situation culminates into something much funnier than we ever anticipated.

So why would critics embrace the first film and not this one? Maybe because it's a little more goofy, not quite as sweet, and occasionally repetitive, but in my opinion there are more than enough big laughs to make up for its flaws. Overall, I'd say American Wedding is the most pleasant surprise of the summer, outside of Pirates of the Caribbean, that is.

Posted August 11, 2003 | link | 0 comments

The Coen Brothers have one of the best track records in all of Hollywood - from Blood Simple to The Big Lebowski to The Man Who Wasn't There - but they still haven't delivered a big box office hit. Even Fargo, which was nominated for best picture and several other awards, only pulled in around 25 million. With so much talent in their writing and behind the camera, it seems like only a matter of time before they connect with a wider audience. This brings us to Intolerable Cruelty, starring George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones, set to hit theaters in October.


I've seen the trailer a few times now and with each viewing I only want to see it more. George Clooney - who turned in a wonderful comedic performance in the Coen's O Brother, Where Art Thou? - plays a divorce attorney who manages to conquer a gold-digger in court, nevermind that his client committed adultery. The gold-digger is played by an absolutely stunning Catherine Zeta-Jones (no warm-blooded male could possibly miss how good she looks in this film), and the two of them basically exchange a lot of witty banter in the process of falling in love.

The story comes off as a clever, tongue-in-cheek battle of the sexes, and as long as it receives a wide release, I'd expect it to shatter the Coen's previous opening weekend record (otherwise The Ladykillers starring Tom Hanks should do the trick). If Intolerable Cruelty does perform as well as I think it can, this would also put an end to the Best Supporting Actress jinx, as Catherine Zeta-Jones recently took home the award for Chicago but doesn't appear to be slowing down whatsoever.

Posted August 9, 2003 | link | 0 comments

Not long ago Tower Records announced that with the slumping sales in the music industry, they've been relying more and more on DVD sales and the format now accounts for a shocking 25 percent of the company's profits. I don't think the lack of music sales comes as much of a surprise to anyone, but the fact that this many people are actually going to Tower to buy their DVDs is truly stunning to me. I've almost never purchased a DVD from a retail store for the obvious reason that they cost a hell of a lot more, even if you do pay Amazon.com (or other online retailers) for shipping - and that's more of an exception than the rule.

Granted, online DVD prices have been gradually climbing over the past two years and many new titles are priced around $19 instead of what used to be $15 or $16, but a lot of the physical outlets are still selling these things for $25 or more. If you're one of the people who constantly pays these outrageous prices, I highly suggest you visit web sites like www.dvdpricesearch.com.

I've been busy moving into my new place this week so I'm going to cut the column short, but be sure to check back next Tuesday and please feel free to e-mail me your reactions or anything else on your mind.

Posted August 6, 2003 | link | 0 comments

Aside from the media trashing its stars, the more interesting story about Gigli is how poorly it performed in its opening weekend, even with the barrage of negativity and bad reviews. When was the last time a film came out in a wide release featuring two huge names and didn't break 4 million after three days? Even if you account for inflation and going back to the days when an opening of 15 million was impressive, I can't think of any film that quite matches up. To make things worse, it also came in behind Finding Nemo, which if you remember was released back in May!

You see, I'm a bit flustered because I was planning to write a piece about the old adage of "any news is good news" to explain why Gigli still managed to make over 10 million for the weekend, but the reality didn't even come close. I was going to applaud the folks who marketed the film for not trying to hide it from critics and simply rely on the drawing power of its stars, but in hindsight I suppose one could argue they made the wrong move. Whether or not this will lead to more poor quality films from being screened in advance is an interesting proposition.

Enough about Gigli. Aside from American Wedding stealing the top spot with 33.4 million, the big winner was without a doubt Seabiscuit, which held up extremely well in its second weekend with a take of about 17.6 million. The horse racing drama now looks to be in position for a run at 100 million, although next weekend will be crucial. As for the other films at the top, Spy Kids 3-D held up slightly better than expected with 19.5 million, while Pirates of the Caribbean continues to attract an audience with another 18.8 million - all but assuring a sequel. Bad Boys II landed in the fifth spot with 12.7 million and appears to be falling fast, while Tomb Raider II held up nicely with 11.4 million after a hugely disappointing first weekend.

Posted August 5, 2003 | link | 0 comments

Everyone else is talking about the tidal wave of negativity surrounding Martin Brest's Gigli, so I figured I might as well chime in with a few comments of my own. Have I seen the movie? No. Am I going to? No, but I may check it out on video just because it's supposed to be so phenominally bad. I'm sure many others will take the same approach, as a bad movie can really only be fun when viewed at home, although some of the reviews are saying the thing is so dull it's not even good for a decent laugh.

While it's clear that Gigli provides little insight of its own creation, what the coverage surrounding the film over the past week or so has revealed is how similar the entertainment media is to a large group of high school students. Do you remember back in high school when a guy from one clique starting dating a girl from another clique and then everyone started trashing them behind their backs and eventually to their faces? Well, if it hasn't already happened to them before, I'm sure Jen and Ben can now relate.


Making a bad movie is one thing - and I don't need to see the film to be sure of that being the case - but I think the press may have stepped over the line in trashing a Hollywood couple simply because there was nothing much else to write about for a few days. Yes, they're both rich and attractive and perhaps come off as too arrogant or self-congratulatory for their own good at times (I still cringe whenever I think of J.Lo's music video for "Jenny From the Block"), but to be honest I'm far more repulsed by the way they're being ripped apart for something as frivolous as a shitty flick. In the end, most of the hatred towards the film should be cast upon Martin Brest (who also gave us the long-winded Meet Joe Black), not the actors he directed.

On the other end of the spectrum are the critics that decided to go against the grain, perhaps to counteract those who have been overly harsh towards Gigli and its stars. The most notable was Roger Ebert, who somehow found a way in his heart to give the film 2 1/2 stars, which means he liked it more than both Erin Brockovich and Fight Club. I know he works harder than just about any other person in the business and reviews an unbelievable amount of movies every year, but clearly he needs to step back and get some overall perspective. I haven't seen the film so it'd be unfair of me to suggest it's inconceivable to find something of value in Gigli, although I will say he seems to be handing out a lot of free passes lately. To his credit, Ebert does back up his grade by acknowledging that tucked within all of the bad parts there are a few solid moments that make it worth watching. In his opinion, anyway.

Posted August 4, 2003 | link | 0 comments

Back when it was first announced that they were doing a remake of the cult horror classic The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and it was going to be produced by Michael Bay, I was dead against it. If you ask me, the only trend more annoying than the recent assault of Hollywood sequels is the absolute barrage of remakes over the past few years. My opinion didn't improve much when Jessica Biel (Summer Catch) was cast as one of the teenagers who stumbles upon a chainsaw-wielding psychopath, although I must admit she seems ideal for this type of movie (very attractive and not too worried about trying to be a "serious" actress just yet).


So just when I was getting ready to bury this pathetic mess of a remake, I saw the trailer...and it actually looks kind of fun in a popcorn and thrills sort of way. Okay, so I'm sure it'll have more style than substance (unlike the original, which had a real psychological edge to it despite all the blood and guts and meat hooks), but it looks great and if rookie director Marcus Nispel can make it scary enough, he might have a hit on his hands. Who knows, this could mark the return of the un-ironic teenage horror film; then again, it's only a trailer and the actual thing could be another Wrong Turn or Urban Legends 2.

Posted August 2, 2003 | link | 0 comments

Although I was surprised to see Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over take the top spot in its opening weekend, I was more surprised by it pulling in over 33 million in the process. In 2001 the original Spy Kids opened to the tune of 26.5 million (but had long legs) and the following year the sequel opened to a significantly less 16.7 million. One would expect the third film to open somewhere between the first two, factoring in this summer's inflated openings and shortened life-spans, but the truth is I hadn't accounted for how few kiddie films there have been since Finding Nemo. Even so, no matter how you look at it, Spy Kids 3-D crossing the 30-million mark is impressive.

Even more impressive is how well Pirates of the Caribbean continues to hold up, once again maintaining the second spot with a solid 23.1 million. At 176 million already, this film is well on its way to breaking 200 million, largely thanks to positive word-of-mouth. Bad Boys II is dropping fast but still came in third with about 22 million, just edging out Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.

The weekend's other new wide release, Seabiscuit, came in fifth; and although normally this would be seen as a huge disappointment, it was also the fifth film to cross the 20 million dollar hurdle (a box office record) with 20.8 million. For the type of film it is, this is a pretty decent start in my eyes, assuming it holds up well in the coming weeks. Seabiscuit could leave theaters with over 100 million when all is said and done, or it could disappear quickly and end up with around 60 million. I suspect the former is more likely than the latter, especially considering it's the only real "adult" movie out there at the moment.

Posted August 1, 2003 | link | 0 comments