While doing press for his excellent new film MATCHSTICK MEN, Ridley Scott made a comment in an interview with The Boston Globe that really made me appreciate the man as a filmmaker. "Sex is boring unless you're doing it, unless the passion is valid. They really did it well in The English Patient - that scene where they can't help themselves: the English are celebrating Christmas outside while they're inside. You never see sex with A-list directors because it's never justified."

Scott contradicts himself by pointing out a good example of justified movie sex, although I think when he says "never" he really means rarely. I wouldn't go so far as to say that showing sex is never appropriate, but nine times out of ten it's boring and pointless and the film would be better off if the sex were merely implied and not shown in detail. Off the top of my head, I can only think of a few examples where showing the act was essential to the plot (BASIC INSTINCT, BODY HEAT, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH), and many more where it was completely frivolous. I'm not talking about movies like WILD THINGS or 9 1/2 WEEKS, where the steamy love-making matches the genre and tone of each film and is therefore entirely justified.


Recent examples include the bordering-on-pornography ORIGINAL SIN, in which Angelina Jolie and Antonio Banderas do so much hip thrusting it's laughable, while the explicit scene with Billy Bob Thornton and Halle Berry going at it doggy-style in MONSTER'S BALL was merely to show us more of Berry's anatomy than to advance the story. Sure, you could argue it was an emotional climax for both characters -- and it was -- but did we really need two whole minutes of film to convey that point? UNFAITHFUL featured Diane Lane being serviced over and over again in a variety of ways, which is understandable seeing as the film is about infidelity, but some of the scenes went further than they needed to -- not that I'm complaining as a warm-blooded male (and perhaps that was the point).

I have no problem with nudity and I realize in some cases it can give a movie a substantial boost financially, what's disappointing is how the line between graphic sex and what is perceived as "sexy" continues to be blurred. Apparently romance has been put on the back-burner for a quick fuck. The irony is, the sexiest love scenes in recent memory have utilized the typical fade to black that used to be industry standard, only showing enough to imply sex and then leaving the rest to our imaginations. How about Jennifer Lopez and George Clooney in OUT OF SIGHT? They both strip down and tease the audience with a little skin, hop into bed together, and the scene ends with a classy fade out as soon as the passion steps up a notch. I think Stanley Kubrick made it pretty clear with EYES WIDE SHUT that lots of nudity and sex don't make a film sexy.


How the real-life fellatio in Vincent Gallo's THE BROWN BUNNY will fit into this picture is yet to be determined. I wasn't at Cannes nor Toronto so I haven't had the chance to see the much-talked-about moment, although my initial reaction is to suspect Gallo thought it would be nice to get a blowjob and somehow convinced his friend Chloë Sevigny to do it for "art's sake."

On the other hand, maybe there's something to that, considering two of the actresses in the films I've mentioned were nominated for Best Actress (Halle Berry and Diane Lane) and one of them even took home the award. Tasteful and genuinely romantic as it was, Gwyneth Paltrow didn't win an Oscar until she bared a little skin in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. Eva Mendes may not have won any awards, but after baring it all in TRAINING DAY her career suddenly took off (she appears in four different films this year alone). The same goes for Naomi Watts in MULHOLLAND DRIVE. It seems time and time again women are being rewarded for removing their clothes on screen, so perhaps this plays a role in the increasing frequency of graphic sex and nudity. Just ask Meg Ryan, who we'll see plenty of in the upcoming IN THE CUT by director Jane Campion.

Posted September 30, 2003 | link | 0 comments

I've decided it's about time I did a rundown of the top fifteen films I'm most anxious to see this upcoming movie season, which includes any film that technically qualifies as a 2003 release even if many of us won't have the opportunity to see some of them until after the new year. Please remember that all release dates are subject to change and may be on a limited basis at first.

15. RETURN OF THE KING (December 17). Those of you that have read my reviews or spoken to me in person know that I was not really a fan of the first two installments of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think the first two films clearly suffered from the lack of a real ending, compromising a great deal of suspense in the overall story. That said, Return of the King will have an actual conclusion, which should make this film superior to its predecessors assuming that it doesn't trip up on too many special effects along the way. To be honest, I'm also anticipating the release of this film simply so I don't have to read or hear about how much everyone else is dying to see it. With all due respect to Peter Jackson's skills as a director, let's be done with this trilogy and move on to something else.


14. SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE (December 12). In one of the greatest casting choices in the history of film (I mean it), Jack Nicholson plays an older man who only dates younger women, particularly those young enough to be his daughter. Those who have seen Jack in real life by the side of Gen X actresses such as Lara Flynn Boyle don't need me to explain how brilliant it is to have Nicholson in this role. The premise is clever in that he falls in love with the mother (Diane Keaton) of his girlfriend (Amanda Peet), who is actually (gasp!) the same age as him or was at least born before he graduated from high school. Sure, it's a Nancy Meyer's movie (her last was What Women Want) and probably won't be something to rave about, but it should be a worthwhile diversion.

13. KILL BILL VOLUME 1 (October 10). I've already expressed my concern about the film being divided into two separate movies, but there's no denying this is a must see, even if it does mean the end of Tarantino's streak of great movies (the only good buzz is from Ain't It Cool News, which is hardly reliable). I'm more than a little disappointed to hear that Volume 1 is more action and less of the Tarantino dialogue we've become accustomed to, and I suspect Volume 2 will be the better film. Still, I'm definitely interested to find out what the reality is after all of this talk and anticipation.

12. THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (October 17). At one time I was dead against remaking this cult classic, but after seeing one of the best teaser trailers to come out in years, I now have every intention to see this film and I'm actually looking forward to it. If it can deliver the goods in the suspense department (which I'm hearing is the case), expect this massacre to be a large draw and surprise a lot of box office analysts. Could this be the return of the serious horror film?


11. PAYCHECK (December 25). John Woo hasn't made a decent film since Face/Off, so there's not much reason to expect much out of him these days, except for the fact that his latest film is based on a short story by Phillip K. Dick (just like Minority Report). Woo is all about style and flair and usually has problems with storytelling, so with Dick's excellent plotting abilities as a base, the combination should prove to be effective. Ben Affleck -- in desperate need of a hit -- stars as an engineer who has been working on a top secret project for two years, only to wake up one morning to discover that his employer has erased parts of his memory concerning his work. Sounds interesting, to say the least. The film also stars Uma Thurman and Aaron Eckhart, which is a good sign.

10. MYSTIC RIVER (October 8). I'm divided when it comes to the trailer for this film; I love the tone and gloomy atmosphere of the whole thing, but it also appears to show us a lot of revealing moments without really laying out the plot other than a teenage girl being murdered. Normally I'd see this as a bad sign, but with the always competent Clint Eastwood behind the camera, not to mention an excellent cast composed of Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, and Marcia Gay Harden, I'm betting this is going to be a solid drama or thriller (it appears to be a bit of both). Besides, I like the three guys back in the old neighborhood vibe.

9. MASTER & COMMANDER (November 14). Don't let the fact that this film was pushed back from a summer release date to the fall fool you into thinking it has problems; if anything, I'd say the move to a pre-Thanksgiving date is a vote of confidence for this Russell Crowe-starring epic. With Peter Weir (The Truman Show, Dead Poets Society) behind the camera, I'm betting this film based on a series of popular novels will be worth the price of admission...and maybe more. Another thing to consider: when was the last time Russell Crowe made a bad movie?


8. THE ALAMO (December 25). The Christmas Day release date is a statement of quality in itself, and even though much of the pre-production talk was merely about making an entertaining action/drama that the whole family could enjoy, word is the folks at Disney feel they might have something more than that on their hands. Director John Lee Hancock proved to be quite capable with last year's The Rookie, teaming up once again with Dennis Quaid in the lead role. The entire concept of defending what's yours no matter what the cost could connect with audiences.

7. STUCK ON YOU (December 12). Could this be the return of the Farrelly Brothers that we've all been waiting for? After striking critical and box office gold with There's Something About Mary, the gross-out humor duo have disappointed in their attempts to capture the same magic once again, but with Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear playing conjoined twins, I suspect Stuck on You will get them back on track. If the trailer is any indication, this should be the funniest film of the year and may prove to be big at the box office going up against so many dramas.

6. THE LAST SAMURAI (December 5). Director Edward Zwick and Tom Cruise tell the story of modernization in Japan in the late 1870's, told through the eyes of an American sent over to teach them to abandon the ways of the samurai and adopt more modern techniques of warfare. After being captured by a group of samurai, he begins to adopt their ways in both battle and honor. Expect plenty of action, great costumes, and surely a number of well-choreographed fight sequences. From what I've seen, what I like about The Last Samurai most of all is the noticeable lack of special effects and what appears to be good-old-fashioned character development and storytelling. A novel concept, indeed.


5. 21 GRAMS (November 21). Coming out of the Toronto International Film Festival, some folks (such as Jeffrey Wells) are raving about Alejandro González Iñarritu's follow-up to Amores Perros, while others seem to have mixed emotions but definitely consider it to be a movie worth talking about. The film tells three interconnected stories related to tragic car accident, involving a single mother (Naomi Watts), a dying math professor (Sean Penn) and an ex-convict (Benicio Del Toro). Supposedly the film is brutally harsh and uncompromised and has been casually compared to Traffic (grainy cinematography with a lot of short scenes), which is the kind of stuff I tend to enjoy, but I'm wondering how well it will attract moviegoers in the middle of the holiday season.

4. HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG (December 26). Many of you probably haven't even heard of this film yet, although the novel by Andre Dubus III was a selection in Oprah's book club. Jennifer Connelly stars as an alcoholic abruptly left by her husband, and in the process manages to have her home off the coast of California seized and put up for auction. Ben Kingsley plays an exiled Iranian air force colonel who buys the home, entering himself into a battle that goes further than either of them anticipated. The early buzz on this film is encouraging (some are suggesting it could be this year's big sleeper), but then again this will be Vadim Perelman's debut as a director. Only time will tell.

3. BIG FISH (December 10). I have slight reservations about Tim Burton as a director, sometimes seeing his work as nothing more than the total sum of its parts. Of course, at one time Steven Spielberg was in line to direct this film, which gives the project a boost of confidence in my mind, not to mention a story that seems to be a perfect match for Burton's offbeat style. The vastly under-appreciated Billy Crudup (Almost Famous) plays William Bloom - a man trying to learn more about his father's past as a traveling salesman, piecing together the facts from a series of bizarre stories he's been told over the years. Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney, Helena Bonham-Carter, Steve Buscemi, Alison Lohman, Jessica Lange and Danny DeVito round out an impressive cast.


2. COLD MOUNTAIN (December 25). Anthony Minghella's The Talented Mr. Ripley was an underrated gem if you ask me, so I'm betting Cold Mountain will attract some of the attention that film should have earned. The a-list cast doesn't hurt either, featuring Jude Law as a Civil War soldier trying to make his way back home to his wife, played by Nicole Kidman. Based on Minghella's past efforts, I think it's safe to assume Cold Mountain is going to look beautiful and have a great sense of atmosphere, but the fact that it's based on an award-winning novel by Charles Frazier doesn't hurt either.

1. THE MISSING (November 26). Based on the novel "The Last Ride" by Thomas Eidson, this is the project Ron Howard decided to take on after electing to not direct The Alamo. Also a western, The Missing is set in 1886 and tells the story of a father (Tommy Lee Jones) who returns home after abandoning his family, only to discover his wife has passed and his daughter Maggie (Cate Blanchett) wants nothing to do with him. However, when Maggie's daughter Lily (Thirteen's Evan Rachel Wood) is kidnapped by a group of ex-Army outlaws, the two set out to find her. So far The Missing has been more-or-less under the radar, but you can expect that to change quickly. With an excellent cast and what sounds like an interesting and compelling story, Ron Howard could be on stage collecting another award sooner than anyone expected. I haven't even seen a trailer yet (just a few pictures and a wonderful poster) but my gut tells me to keep an eye on this one.

Posted September 25, 2003 | link | 0 comments

In honor of the 25th Anniversary of the theatrical release of Animal House, the folks at Universal have released a special edition DVD (technically it's the "Double Secret Probation Edition" -- an inside reference to the Delta house's standing with the Dean of Faber College). Animal House is one of those movies I've always heard about and even seen clips of now and then, but I've never had the chance to sit down and actually watch the whole thing. I know the film is a cult classic (sort of) and loved by many, but the truth is I was far from impressed.

Granted, much of Animal House's attitude and some of its jokes have been repeated to death in the last quarter century, so anything that once seemed ground-breaking would obviously no longer have the same luster. Still though, I wanted more. More attitude, more craziness, more... I don't know. A movie with such a strong reputation should definitely have a lot of big laughs no matter what year it is, rather than the occasional smile and little else.

This isn't to say the film doesn't have its bright spots, even if they aren't all that hilarious. When one of the guys goes to great lengths to get himself and his three buddies dates from a nearby women's college, there's no denying it's a classic moment. The same goes for the wonderfully over-the-top speech "Otter" delivers in defense of his fraternity, essentially saying that taking away their status within the Greek system is the equivalent of being anti-American. This scene is perhaps even more enjoyable given the current political climate in our country (just ask the Dixie Chicks).

Watching Animal House did make me appreciate the modern movie in one sense, or at least how much the potential for the modern movie has risen (especially comedies). It may be easy to feel pessimistic towards the Hollywood studio system (and it's getting easier every year), yet I strongly believe that today's lasting films are far superior to those made prior to 1985. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here -- Chinatown (1974) is easily one of my top three favorite films of all time -- but on a more general level I think the movies that have a real impact on popular culture have improved significantly. Compare Animal House to There's Something About Mary and you'll see what I mean.

Posted September 17, 2003 | link | 0 comments

The weekend box office results were hardly amazing after the big numbers posted almost every week all summer long, but the numbers did have a lot of meaning behind them. Make no mistake, Once Upon a Time in Mexico opening to the tune of 24 million and taking the top spot is more of a boost to Johnny Depp's career than the outstanding numbers Pirates of the Caribbean has produced (the film is well on its way to breaking 300 million domestic). Yes, Mexico certainly benefits from being a sequel to Desperado, which has a distinct cult following, as well as people who vaguely remember that guitar full of guns being "pretty cool" and that Salma Hayek is sexy, but the film's ad campaign was centered around Depp. Look at the poster if you think I'm wrong.

The actor mentioned in recent weeks he was surprised how much screen-time he actually had in Mexico considering he was only on the set for nine days, and it appears director Robert Rodriguez' decision to put him in so much of the film was a smart idea. 24 million may not be the kind of opening that blows people away these days, but it's still roughly 10 million more than Matchstick Men was able to earn with Nicolas Cage and plenty of good reviews (Ebert gave it four stars).

Depp has always made it clear in interviews and based on his career decisions that he doesn't really care about being a big star with box office credibility. Ironically, this attitude is a huge part of his fast-spreading appeal to audiences both young and old. Is there any doubt that his widely respected performance in Pirates has been the key to the film's Nemo-like longevity in theaters this summer? I doubt many will argue against this stance, and I think it's safe to say the opening of Once Upon a Time in Mexico has solidified his status as a legitimate box office draw -- whether he wants to be or not. Sometimes I hate seeing this happen to a good, independent-minded actor because it means he or she will get nothing but shitty screenplays thrown in his or her face, but with Depp, the odds of him not tossing the garbage in the trash where it belongs seems far less likely.

Posted September 16, 2003 | link | 0 comments

It's official: Nicolas Cage is acting again. After winning a best actor trophy for his heart-wrenching performance in Leaving Las Vegas, more than a few people criticized him for chasing dollar signs instead of quality scripts. Well, if last year's Adaptation (and the resulting Oscar nomination) marked his return to the quality over bucks club, Matchstick Men confirms it was no accident. Not only does Cage deliver a terrific performance in a role that could very easily have been taken too far, the film is without a doubt one of the finest released so far this year.


With Ridley Scott behind the camera I expected Matchstick Men to be good, just not this good. It won't revolutionize filmmaking as we know it, nor will it clean up when it comes time to hand out awards, but it clearly wasn't designed to in the first place. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it make a few top ten lists at the end of the year, possibly my own.

There's so much to like about Matchstick Men I hardly know where to start. First, the look and tone of the film established by Ridley Scott is absolutely perfect. It looks slick without being too pretty for its own good, which allows us to take the serious moments seriously while at the same time being able to break out in laughter when Cage's character freaks. Mostly, though, it's the cast that makes this film such a gem. Cage delivers all of his character's tics and other oddities in a way that is hilarious, but he does so without compromising who his character is and the troubles he has to deal with. His partner in crime is played by the extremely charismatic Sam Rockwell, who you will probably remember from Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. The guy eats up every precious minute of screen-time he has, and is well on his way to becoming a big star. Alison Lohman (White Oleander) rounds out the cast as Cage's 14-year-old daughter whom he's never met until now, and despite being 23 during filming, she's completely convincing as a young teenager. Put simply, all three actors are top-notch, and the combination is a pleasure to witness.

Matchstick Men ultimately works because of a solid screenplay by Ted & Nicholas Griffin, based on a book by Eric Garcia, which also happens to feature some clever cons. I was worried it would turn into a "con-man meets previously unknown daughter, learns to change bad ways" type of story; fortunately, the actual film is far from being conventional, and even includes a couple of great twists that I honestly didn't see coming. If this film is any indication of the quality to come this fall, you can expect to see me in a lot of movie theaters.

Posted September 15, 2003 | link | 0 comments

I was saddened by the news that John Ritter died unexpectedly on September 11th after collapsing on the set of his show 8 Simple Rules, reportedly due to an unseen flaw in his heart. He always came off as a real likeable guy and in my mind was a great comedian going back to the days of Three's Company, which will always be a classic television show to me because I grew up watching it. There's even a soft spot in my heart for Stay Tuned.

I suppose what strikes me as particularly sad in this case is that after appearing in countless supporting roles for the past five to ten years (in films such as Sling Blade, Panic and Bride of Chucky), his career had just experienced a resurgence. 8 Simple Rules may not have been up there with C.S.I. in the ratings, but it consistently had strong numbers and I suspect would have been around for at least four or five more seasons. He also has a role in the upcoming Bad Santa starring Billy Bob Thornton. Ritter was only a week away from his 55th birthday and leaves behind a wife and four kids.

Posted September 12, 2003 | link | 0 comments

There are few things I hate more than seeing a movie turned into a television show, especially a movie that I regard as one of my all-time favorites. They did it first by trying to turn Curtis Hanson's brilliant L.A. Confidential into an hour-long show for HBO, which probably wouldn't have been entirely bad, but now they've taken the Jennifer Lopez character from Out of Sight and put her on network television.

As I sit here in my office writing this week's column, there's a poster for Steven Soderbergh's 1998 crime-caper plastered on the wall. Based on this information, one could correctly surmise that Out of Sight is a film I really enjoy quite a bit and have seen nearly a dozen times. I don't know what it is, but there's something about it that just works for me when it comes to the combination of George Clooney as a suave bank robber and Lopez as an FBI agent with a contradictory taste in men. Add in a little chemistry, some Elmore Leonard dialogue, a great soundtrack, and the screen presence of Don Cheadle, and to me this is what the movies are all about.

The film also marks the beginning of Clooney and Soderbergh working together - a ray of hope against the big studios and the boring by-the-numbers shit they continue to produce. The duo has since formed Section 8 films, which in its first year brought us both Insomnia and Far From Heaven and continues to favor the director's vision over test-screening results. I attribute this entire relationship and all that comes from it to one little gem of a film.

Anyway, back to my point, why the hell do they have to go and ruin it by making it into some T.V. show? If you want to do a show about a tough female cop, by all means go for it, but there's no need to drag a good movie into the mix. Who knows, from what I hear the show starring Spy Kid's Carla Gugino may actually be worth watching. I don't care - it still pisses me off. The one thing I will say on its behalf is that it features the vastly under-used Robert Forster, whose career failed to take off like it should have after his Oscar-nominated performance in Jackie Brown.

Posted September 10, 2003 | link | 0 comments

The film Ripley's Game made its American debut on the Independent Film Channel on September 4th and will be repeated in the coming weeks. It was actually filmed a few years ago and went through countless delays during and after post-production, until it finally received a release throughout most of Europe - garnering a nice collection of positive reviews. None of them were glowing, mind you, but most of the reviews were appreciatively respectful. None-the-less, the folks at Fine Line decided it wasn't worth releasing in the United States, which I'm sad to report was probably a financially sound decision.


Ripley's Game is based on the second of the Ripley novels by Patricia Highsmith. Her first novel, The Talented Mr. Ripley, was made into a wonderful and highly underrated film by Anthony Minghella in 1999, which featured excellent performances from Matt Damon, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow. It was also beautifully shot and rich with texture and atmosphere. And this is really one of the biggest problem's with Ripley's Game - it tries to exist under the shadow of a very good, very recent movie featuring the same character. In my mind, Damon was so compelling and intriguing as Tom Ripley that no actor - even John Malkovich - can fully assume the role.

This isn't to say this film doesn't have its merits; in fact, it's far better than many of the movies that made it into theaters this summer. The story isn't nearly as good as its predecessor, but there are particular scenes that make it worth watching - notably a scene in which Ripley's pawn (the man he manipulates as the basis for the entire story) attempts to kill a well-protected man on a train. As fun and unexpected as this moment is, it was also the point at which I realized what probably doomed the film from ever having a chance to make it into theaters state-side: it looks as though it was filmed in the late 1970s. I don't know if it was the cinematography, the film stock, or simply the locations used, but it just doesn't look like modern day. Normally this wouldn't be such a problem, but when you contrast the film's appearance with the constant use of small, thin cell phones, the whole thing seems slightly off and kind of surreal.

Posted September 9, 2003 | link | 0 comments

I realize I'm a few weeks behind, but Open Range is probably the most interesting film to be released in theaters in the past month or two. You have to appreciate any film that purposely slows things down a bit and tries to carry itself in an old-fashioned manner, coming on the heels of a blow 'em up sequel summer. It also aspires for greatness, sometimes succeeding in doing so while in other moments undermining what makes the majority of the film a treat.

Without question, this is Kevin Costner's best work in years. Even better is the always excellent Robert Duvall, who plays the older, wiser partner and friend of Costner. A large portion of the film involves the two of them merely talking - from discussions about being the last of the free grazers to opening up to one another about their elusive pasts - both of which played a role in their cowboy/drifter style of living.


What makes Open Range truly worth watching, and not nearly as slow as you might expect, is how authentic it feels. It's mostly driven by the two lead characters and the decisions they must make after one of their team is assaulted in a small town, culminating in a big showdown, and the steps along the way seem very realistic and non-cinematic (in a good way). Robert Duvall's character brings the story down to earth whenever it wanders, such as a scene in which he delivers a very movie-like speech about a man having a right to protect his property and his life, only to follow it up by asking his friend what he thought about his speech.

Best of all is the amazing gun fight that we all know is coming but are surprised by its intensity none-the-less. It feels so realistic from beginning to end and goes down the way I would picture a shoot-out in real life. There are pauses in the action and the bullets have real consequences. It also benefits from having a strong sense of geography, as we get a sense of where the key players are in relation to their enemies.

Unfortunately, the film falters towards the end, tying up a few too many subplots and saying a lot of things that would've been better left unsaid (yet still understood). Costner's character suffers from an unpleasant past, but unlike in Unforgiven where the past is only vaguely referred to, here it's laid out on the table. At the end of the day, I'd say Open Range is worth seeing despite the late contrivances and will be appreciated by those who found themselves praying for more mature films all summer long. So far the film has made over 50 million and should definitely put Kevin Costner back on the map as both an actor and a director.

Posted September 8, 2003 | link | 0 comments

The teaser poster for Stuck On You is a great example (in my mind) of what a teaser poster is supposed to be. It only conveys the point of the film in a very vague but funny manner, making good use of a common image and transforming it. Too many teaser posters these days are too much like final release posters (the ones we're supposed to see in the weeks prior to a film's release). I've been disappointed with the way the Farrelly Brothers have followed up their comedic gem There's Something About Mary, but I have a good feeling about them working with both Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear, as well as what they can do with the premise of conjoined twins.

Posted September 3, 2003 | link | 0 comments

After the astounding success of this year's biggest film to date, Finding Nemo, Pixar is looking to renegotiate their contract with Disney. In the past, Disney simply promoted and released the films created by Pixar and in turn took half of the profits. Mind you, they did a heck of job marketing these films, from Toy Story to Monsters, Inc., but if I were one of the head honchos at Pixar I would say forget working with a distributor and release the films in-house.

Forbes.com ran an article recently about the situation and reported that after polling an audience around the time Monsters, Inc. was released, a larger portion of the crowds were attracted to the Pixar name than that of Disney. To counter this point, Clay Timon, chairman of brand consultant Landor Associates, reports that "Disney has world wide brand almost in a league of its own" and that Pixar is almost unknown abroad. Is this true? Possibly, I wouldn't know, but there's one very important element being overlooked in this whole discussion: the look.

Even if audiences abroad don't know the Pixar brand, there's really no question that they recognize the visual appearance of a Pixar film, which is quite unique and hard to miss. Pixar has managed to hit one out of the park every time they come to the plate, and going out on their own really doesn't seem as risky as it would for most other production companies. That said, the smart play would be to consider releasing future films on their own here in the U.S. and allow Disney to take control of the overseas distribution. Would Disney ever accept such an arrangement? I have no idea, but my gut tells me they need Pixar as much as Pixar needs them. I'm guessing the two companies will stay together (with a larger cut of the profits going to Pixar), both sides figuring if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Posted September 2, 2003 | link | 0 comments

Everywhere I turn I can't help but run into another story about Mel Gibson's controversial new movie, The Passion. If you haven't heard already, it's more-or-less about the last twelve hours in the life of Jesus Christ, as told from the traditional bible-thumping Catholic point of view. Certain religious groups and journalists have had the opportunity to read the screenplay and/or view select clips of the film, and the general agreement is that the story essentially blames the Jews for everything.

In response, there has been more than a little discussion and controversy surrounding the release and the possible effects it could have on the general public. Officials of the Anti-Defamation League were finally allowed to see the film in its entirety and left the theater expressing concern "that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate."

My response to this whole fiasco is: who the hell cares? If people are so pathetic that they're going to hit the streets looking to harass Jewish people for "what they did to JC" a few thousand years ago, chances are they'd be busy at home beating their wives or raping small children anyway. The truth is Americans aren't nearly as religious as they tend to believe they are, and I seriously doubt any film is going to raise feelings of anti-Semitism that weren't already there. Besides, from what I understand, most of the idiots who hate people of Jewish descent don't feel that way because of Jesus.

As for how The Passion will reflect on Gibson, I seriously doubt this will help his career and it may actually hurt his image in the long run. Sometimes knowing too much about an actor can have a negative effect regarding whether or not the audience believes it when he plays a particular role, and Gibson will probably solidify himself as a religious zealot when all is said and done. I always had suspicions that he insisted on emphasizing the faith angle in the movie Signs, which if you remember mercilessly shoved the "having faith" theme down our throats.

Posted | link | 0 comments

Before XXX was revealed as a piece of dreck, A Man Apart flopped big time, and 2 Fast 2 Furious was a success without him, Vin Diesel appeared to be in line as the next big action hero, filling the void left behind by the aging Arnold and Sly Stallone. I thought it was possible, and I enjoyed Diesel's work as an actor in Saving Private Ryan and the under-appreciated Boiler Room, but the tide may be turning in a new direction: The Rock.

I've seen the trailer for The Rock's new film The Rundown a few times now, and although it doesn't look like it's going to be another True Lies or even Total Recall as far as quality is concerned, I'm starting to believe The Rock is a genuine candidate to become the next bonafide action star. I can't put my finger on it, but I now perceive something in him that I didn't quite catch in The Mummy Returns (and I didn't bother to watch The Scorpion King).


He's obviously got the same type of build that made us believe Schwarzenegger could do just about whatever he wanted physically, and a big flashy smile to boot, yet to date he has failed to bring his real-life charisma to the screen. If you've ever seen him on Leno or in other interviews, the guy seems to have a great personality, and I suspect as soon as he can bring it out in a performance he'll be on his way. Is The Rundown going to be the first film in which he accomplishes this feat? Maybe, maybe not, but he definitely appears to be making progress.

Assuming The Rock can in fact transfer his personality to the screen under the influence of a good director, I see two necessary steps for him to reach his potential. First, I think his wrestling moniker might be a problem when it comes to reaching a wide, International audience, which is ironic considering he is widely known and recognized as "The Rock." I simply can't picture my mother going to see a movie starring "The Rock." His real name - Dwayne Johnson - may not sound like the stuff of Hollywood headlines, but enough exposure and a decent film or two and any name can work its way into the realms of household familiarity. The other issue, and this is a much more difficult task, is before long he's going to have to star in a top-notch action movie - something that appeals to all age ranges. In other words, he needs to find his James Cameron.

Posted September 1, 2003 | link | 0 comments