Weekend of March 30th-1st, 2007

Well, this week we have half the releases of last week. Two of which I'll surely see, but whether I see them in theaters or not is up in the air (and looking doubtful).

To me, the obvious box office winner will be Blades of Glory, but this also looks to me like the most annoying film Will Ferrell has made at least since Kicking & Screaming. Oh and when, when, when will Jon Heder's 15 minutes be up? I still haven't seen a single film with him that I've enjoyed (and no, I did not like Napoleon Dynamite, the half-assed Wes Anderson ripoff).

The most interesting film of the weekend though has to be The Lookout. The feature debut of screenwriter Scott Frank and the continuation of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's career-revival since "3rd Rock" ended. Frank is most notable for adapting Elmore Leonard novels Out of Sight for Steven Soderbergh and Get Shorty for Barry Sonnenfeld. We'll see if he can create his own crime dialogue without relying on the master of the genre. Strong word of mouth thus far has me intrigued...

Scarred for Life

I thought it would be a great idea to continue our 'Ask Critic' corner that pengin had started. This week in Entertainment Weekly the question posed was... "Has there been a movie role so heinous that the actor would be paying for it for years to come?" I believe it was Lisa Schwartzbaum who replied by giving Faye Dunaway and her infamous Mommie Dearest role as the definitive answer.

Having not seen that movie, I can't say it to be true or not (I thought the movie was supposedly a camp classic, but perhaps not). Either way, I was eager to hear what you guys may think of it as well as any other crimes against acting you may recall. Obviously there is terrible acting in nearly every flick, but was there a role that a renowned actor just completely missed the mark on and they have yet to be washed of their sins? One example I can think of is Sean Connery and the horrendous League of Extrodinary Gentlemen, a movie so bad both its lead and its director have yet to return to film-making. I even heard a rumor that Connery was thinking of returning to Bond in order to jump-start his career.

The Ultimate Victory?

This past weekend Adam Sandler's most recent foray into drama - Reign Over Me - opened to the underwhelming box office take of $8 million, finishing behind two films that scored in the single digits on Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer (Premonition and The Hills Have Eyes 2). The movie's box office receipts were also about $32 million shy of his last craptacular hit Click and $39 million behind 2005's The Longest Yard. To put in perspective, the results of Reign are actually below the opening of, yep, Spanglish.

Which begs the question... do audiences really want to see comedic actors stretch into dramatic roles?

It's not a recent phenomenon (although it has picked up considerably in recent years) but there seems to be a need for actors who establish themselves out of the gate in comedies to be taken seriously down the road. Obviously the biggest example of the past decade has been Jim Carrey, but comedians including Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Owen Wilson, Jack Black, Will Smith, Jamie Foxx and Will Ferrell continue to pursue dramatic roles on top of rehashing their natural funny bone time and time again to audiences.

Some (Foxx, Smith, Wilson) seem to thrive in the dramatic setting, following Robin Williams, Bill Murray and Tom Hanks in the past with seemless transitions between genres. Others (Black, Stiller) go back to pandering to the big-money world of the standard comedy feature.

As film fans, I expect that everyone on this site is in favor of these actors stretching their abilities, showing a different side to fans and creating something more meaningful and lasting than your everyday Night at the Museum or Norbit. But on a whole, the box office does not reflect this feeling. Audiences seem to prefer actors who stay within their comfort zone. There's a reason Will Smith's biggest box office flop coincided with his most challenging film to date, Ali (also the actor's first Academy Award nomination), when given the choice the audience is going to settle for the empty-headed comedy. And when a comedian they know they like is involved, it only increases the incentive.

Wild Hogs, Norbit and Epic Movie thank you for your patronage.

In the past, actors like John Wayne and Cary Grant created a persona and they played that persona in practically every role from the time it became popular until they were done in Hollywood. Is that what audiences are asking for today? If Sandler had played Charlie Fineman as an aging frat boy living in New York to his own whims and dropped all of those unnecessary 9/11 overtones and plot points, does Reign Over Me make $35 million this weekend?

I dunno, as a huge fan of The Truman Show and Punch-Drunk Love and The Royal Tenenbaums and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Broken Flowers and Dead Poet's Society and Good Will Hunting and Ali and Little Miss Sunshine and Lost in Translation and Rushmore and The Pursuit of Happyness and Collateral, ad infinum... doesn't this bother you?

And on the flip side, which has more of a chance for being remembered and revisited 20-30 years from now, Punch-Drunk Love or Big Daddy? Reign Over Me or Mr. Deeds? And because of that, can we take comfort in winning the war while so often losing the battle?

Weekend of March 23rd-25th, 2007

Very simple question tonight. Here's a list of the movies opening wide this week. Which do you want to see and why? Try to make a case for them - why or why not - and note the one (if there is one) that you'll rush out to see.

For such a busy weekend, there really only appears to be one film opening I'm looking forward to seeing, but I'll post that over the jump in the comments section after I hear from some other contributors.

Start the debate.

Damn the Critics!

Two in one day! I didn't even do this good on my own Myspace page. Not emo enough I guess. Anywho, this one's just a simple question really, with a Harry Knowles-style intro just to take up space. I finally got around to reading last week's EW today. One of my favorite little pieces in the mag has always been the "Ask a Critic" column in the Movie Review section. Last week's posed a question that Mr. Owen Gleiberman decided to handle. The question: Has an extended or Director's Cut of a film ever changed your opinion of the original?

I'll sum up Mr. Gleiberman's answer for those who don't get the magazine. No. Never. His reasoning? Because the extended/added scenes only end up taking away from what was there before. This is of course a simple paraphrase, but I believe that to be a fairly accurate portrayal of his argument. And this is what I have a problem with...

Now to be completely fair to Mr. Gleiberman, I agree... for the most part. Was it really that necessary for Oliver Stone to release 2 extended/Director's Cuts of Alexander, when the first one was plenty bad enough? Do we really need an extra 40 seconds of Saw 2? No. Never. But to rule out all director's cuts as nothing more than vanity projects or excuses to sell more DVDs? Not at all fair. So, my question to you is this, first answer the aforementioned question proposed to Mr. Gleiberman, and what films do you think benefited most or least from an extended or Director's Cut?

For the record, my vote for most improved would be either Brazil or Blade Runner. For the most unnecessary, Apocalypse Now Redux.

Taking a Ride on the Shortbus... Helmets are Required

Alrighty... first blog-a-ma-jig. This'll be a shorty. Mostly because I know for a fact that at least half of the other contributors (TK) haven't seen Shortbus, so not much discussion will be able to take place. Basically, this is for me to pimp the hell outta this film.

As some may know, I am completely in love with John Cameron Mitchell. His first film Hedwig and the Angry Inch is my favorite musical ever, and easily in my top-20 if not top-10 films of all-time. Ever since seeing that film (I think it was 2002 or 2003), I had been hearing about JCM's next project, dubbed simply "The Untitled Sex Film Project," which - as per its name - was going to be about sex. More importantly and controversially, it was to feature real people having real sex right there on the screen. Sweetness.

Now, this is hardly the first time this has been done in. Europe has been producing 'artsy' sex-filled films for years, and just a year prior the film 9 Songs was released in the US. It too featured real sex... and got awful reviews. Some may remember a certain scene in Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny as well, which (after heavy cuts) actually garnered good reviews.

So more to the point, can John Cameron Mitchell - the same John Cameron Mitchell who so solidly knocked me on my ass with his debut - deliver a film filled with money shots, crotch shots and all sorts of other sex-filled shots while still getting a message across?

Some may say that I am suffering from a horrible disease known as 'fanboy-ism,' which is defined by the blinding of one's senses and the blocking-out of what one knows to be true to protect a director/actor/series/etc. that he loves dearly. And I will admit this film, probably more-so than just about any film ever made, is not for everyone. Hell, it is not for most. That said... it sure as hell was for me.

From the opening scenes, which are of course overcome with sex, the film had me. Not because I was watching real people have sex - hell, if I click on the other tab in this window right now I can see that. No, the sex, while frequent and raw and graphic, is not hot. Oddly enough, it's just what Mitchell promised it would be... real. The way the scenes are shot, it made me feel as if I was hiding in my neighbor's closet while they were goin' at it. They're private and intimate, but also not. And while sometimes loving, sometimes they're so lacking in love that it's uncomfortable. Which brings me to the most spectacular aspect of this film...

What's it all about? How does sex convey so much meaningful, especially in a world where you can literally see anything you can think of just by going online? Where porn is a multi-billion dollar industry? How can you make a film like Shortbus and not just come off as, well, limp? It's not at all easy to describe, and I'm not going to bother. This is a film that will mean many different things to different folks. To some, it will be an awful experience that they will never want to go on again. To others, it will be amazing. And yet to others (like myself) they will find themselves watching it 3 times in a row.

To me, the film is about loneliness. It's about love. It's about being lost and scared and fearful that no one will be there to help you. Every character in the film is alone in some way, some much worse than others. There's a scene fairly early in the film, the first scene inside Shortbus itself, where an old man is talking to a young man. If you've scene that trailer, then you know the old guy I'm speaking of. He steals the trailer and, at least for me, the movie with just a few sentences. Dammit... when I decided this was the film that I wanted to write about first, I had it so clearly stated, all I wanted to say, but this is one of those movies that just can't be neatly summed up. So here's my best shot... I can't recommend it enough. It's beautiful. It's sad. It's happy, sort of. It's meaningful. It's funny. It's just damn important.

Sex can be art. It doesn't have to be porn, and it doesn't necessarily have to be sexy, as weird as that may be. It can simply be real and in this state, it can show us just as much about a character as any other act or speech. I think John Cameron Mitchell is easily the ballsiest writer/director working today. I think that many will not agree that this is a wonderful film, but I ask that you simply give it a shot. For TK, dude, just go buy it. It comes with Ted's money-back guarantee. If you don't think it deserves to be in your collection, then I will pay you back for it and still let you keep it. For any others reading this, it's worth at least a rental fee. So many films today are sterile and just don't have a purpose (look at just about every film to come out so far this year), that it's truly refreshing to see someone make something with meaning, with heart, and with more than just a little bit of balls.

Are You Not Entertained?

In our culture where fast food rules and reality TV frequently wins the hour, why should we be surprised that a movie like 300 would be a 'surprise.' Audiences like to know exactly what they're getting into. The trailer promises Matrix-like action, buff bods, ample breast, and a whole lot of spilt blood. When a ticket costs upwards of 10 dollars plus your dates' ticket and of course your popcorn/soda, you are looking at 30 bucks for a night out - one you can't simply gamble with. That I think is the key to a lot of 300's success... you get exactly what you want, no questions asked.

Everyone I have talked to have loved it. The only people who don't are a handful of the critics. They say it is sterile, a videogame.

I say who says that is a bad thing? The movie clearly has one agenda on its mind... to entertain, not to comment on the Iraq War, not the tell a historically accurate battle and not to show deep character depth. It sets out to do one thing and that is to give the audience an escape from their lives and be immersed in the world Zach Snyder and Frank Miller have created. To cheer with every bombastic speech and to gasp at every blood soaked gouging. In its own way it becomes pop art or a visual opera. Why is a videogame considered bad? Videogames are art. They force you to participate and create a unique experience you can't find anywhere else. I say 300 does that.

Why can't my favorite movie of the year also be the best of the year? 300 gave me the most exciting experience at a theater ever... well, aside from any Star Wars. I drove with some buddies to NYC to see it at an IMAX. The audience was respectful. The picture crisp. The sound immense. Ive never been so throughly thrilled with what I was watching. This is what makes cinema the greatest medium. Once it was over, I was entertained. I think King Leonidas will go down as one of cinemas greatest heroes and by the end of it all I wanted to do was pick up a shield and spear, and watch it again. With 300, Zodiac and Black Snake Moan, March has quickly shown it can house some of the best movies of the year. 2007 looks to be quite a great year at the movies.

No Accounting for Ta$te

After multiple delays in 2006, David Fincher's Zodiac was finally released into theaters a couple weekends ago only to be roundly trounced by a film about four middle-aged bikers facing a midlife crisis.

Ah, the taste of the masses.

Still, Zodiac is truly the first great film of 2007 despite not exactly setting the world ablaze with its box office figures. And as irritating as it is to see a true work of art get run down by an obvious paycheck comedy, Zodiac's 14 million dollar take was in keeping with Fincher's other three dark-minded dramas The Game, Fight Club and Se7en whose box office take fluctuated from $11 to $19 mil. So, it's not exactly surprising - even if it is dispiriting - to think we'll almost inevitably end up with a Wild Hogs 2 a couple summers from now.

But settling in on Zodiac, this is a return to the previous mastery of the genre that Fincher has exhibited (after taking a break to film the solid-but-unspectacular Panic Room). A lot has been written about Fincher's idea to present an All the President's Men-like feature focusing on the police procedural side of a serial killer investigation, but this is Presidents crossed with Se7en, keeping the off-kilter and often distrubing aura that seems to permeate Fincher's work.

Starting off typically for a serial killer picture could be Fincher's greatest - and sickest - joke yet. We sit and watch as Fincher sets us up to expect the standard seek and capture film we're used to: the first scene being the standard murder to draw you in, the second introducing you to his would-be captors.

But as the running time of the picture and the years of the film roll on, it becomes increasingly obvious even if you don't know the story that "hey, he's really gonna get away with this." And as the time ticks away Fincher's protagonists only get more desperate, some falling to their vices, others giving up completely and in the end leaving us with only our cartoonist lead (Jake Gyllenhaal) as the viewer's hope.

Gyllenhaal's Graysmith has been overwhelmingly considered the weak link of the film, but to me he fits perfectly. He's not the rock star that Robert Downey Jr. is, nor is he the quirky cop that Ruffalo portrays so well but he does play the everyman. He plays us. And it's his character that lures the viewer into the role of the protagonist. As the movie goes on, we become Robert Graysmith. We become more obsessed with having to know who the Zodiac was. We can't walk out of the theater without knowing.

That Zodiac might arguably be only Fincher's 3rd best film (behind Fight Club and Se7en) is just another reason to celebrate, because with a film as magnificent as Zodiac, Fincher proves himself again as a top-tier filmmaker we'll have for years to come.

Introductory

Hey Hey,

I'm posting on behalf of myself and my film addicted counterpart Tyler Kennedy introducing and welcoming you to The Film Script, a movie site dedicated simply to our film discussions and all film discussion. The site has been created for the benefit of debate between ourselves... and our reader(s)? Feel free to chime in with any thoughts, on any subject, at any time. If it peaks our interest, we'll eventually get around to discussing it as well. And while this is a genuinely movie-oriented blog, we apologize for any TV or news discussion that filters in. Force of habit.

Really, we're just a couple guys with an unquenchable thirst for cinema and we hope you feel like joining in. Also, in the coming weeks we hope to be adding to our rotation of contributors as well, but that remains up in the air. For now, it's just us and the films.

Your co-host,
-Brian Mulligan